In view of the foregoing I am of the opinion that a commercial necessity exists which warrants the establishment of San Juan as a port for the shipment of merchandise under immediate transportation, without appraisement and for the receipt of merchandise under such form of entry, and I, therefore, recommend that the bill submitted be enacted into law

Respectfully

L. S. ROWE,
Acting Secretary.

O

2d Session.

No. 510.

CHANGES IN THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA.

APRIL 24, 1918.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WHALEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 2180.]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 2180) to approve mutual cessions of territory by the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota and the consequent changes in the boundary line between said States, reports the same back to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

Island No. 72, containing 48.70 acres, lies opposite the city of Winona, Minn., and is separated therefrom by the main channel of the Mississippi River, the center of this channel constituting the present boundary line between the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. This island is a part of the State of Wisconsin, but is owned by residents of Winona, one of whom, Mr. John A. Latsch, donated to the city of Winona some 10 years ago a portion of this island for use as a public bathhouse and bathing beach. A public wagon and foot-passenger bridge connects the city with this island, making it accessible to the citizens for park and bathing purposes. A broad channel of the Mississippi runs between the island and the Wisconsin shore, and it is desired that the boundary line proposed for approval by the terms of this bill be located in this channel. The following letter, written by Edward Lees, Esq., former city attorney of Winona, sets forth the reason for the cession of this island to the State of Minnesota:

Hon. JOHN J. ESCH,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

WINONA, MINN., May 16, 1917.

DEAR SIR: Atthe suggestion of Mr. McConnell, of La Crosse, and Mr. John A. Latsch, of Winona, I am writing you with reference to H. R. 4021, the bill you introduced on May 2, providing for mutual cessions of territory by the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

I inclose herewith for your information a blue print showing island No. 72 in red. This is the territory proposed to be ceded to Minnesota. On this island, facing the Wisconsin shore and between the railroad bridge and the wagon bridge shown upon

it, is located the public bathhouse and bathing beach which was donated by Mr. Latsch to the city of Winona some 10 years ago. A great many thousands of people visit the place during the bathing season. The great majority of them are orderly and well behaved, but every now and then an intoxicated or quarrelsome individual makes trouble and the State of Minnesota and the police force of the city of Winona have no jurisdiction because the island is part of the territory of the State of Wisconsin and is within the limits of the town of Buffalo. The only peace officer is a town constable, miles away, and the result has been that at times there have been unfortunate occurrences which would never have taken place if the city could have maintained a special police officer on the island during the summer season.

From the standpoint of the people of Wisconsin, nothing is lost by ceding the island to Minnesota except a very small sum received from taxation of island, which is poor, swampy, and treeless, except for the improvements made at the bathing beach. Many of the young people in the town of Buffalo patronize the bathing beach, and they would be benefited by police supervision of the island in the same way as the young people from Winona who go there.

It is highly desirable, therefore, that the bill should pass, and the people interested will appreciate your efforts in its behalf. With kind personal regards, I am,

Yours, very truly,

EDWARD LEES.

Barrons Island is located opposite the city of La Crosse, Wis., but is a part of the State of Minnesota. A public wagon and foot passenger bridge connects this island with the city of La Crosse. Some years ago this island was dedicated, by A. W. Pettibone, a philanthropic citizen of that city, for the use of the city for park purposes. Many thousands of dollars have been expended upon the island for sea walls, bath houses, play grounds, ornamental bridges, lagoons, and other improvements. The island is visited by thousands of people each season. At present no police protection can be afforded on the part of the city of La Crosse; in fact, the only law officer available for the protection of visitors to the park and for the property located therein is the constable of the town of La Crescent, Houston County, Minn. A broad channel runs between this island and the Minnesota shore, through which the new boundary line. between the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota is to run, should this bill be passed.

By chapter 116 of the session laws of 1917, approved March 26, 1917, the legislature of the State of Minnesota ceded Baron Island to the State of Wisconsin and this cession was assented to and accepted by the State of Wisconsin by act of its legislature known as chapter 64 of the session laws of 1917, approved April 9, 1917, an authenticated copy of which act has been duly filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota and by the written acceptance of the Governor of the State of Wisconsin filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota on April 17, 1917.

By act of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin, known as chapter 64 of the Session Laws of 1917, approved April 9, 1917, and assented to and accepted by the State of Minnesota by act of its legislature above mentioned, and an authenticated copy of which has been duly filed in the office of the secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin, and by the written acceptance of the governor of the State of Minnesota filed in the office of the secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin on April 24, 1917, Wisconsin ceded island No. 72 to the State of Minnesota. The pending bill describes the location. of the proposed new boundary lines between these States resulting from the reciprocal cessions of these two islands.

In view of the acts of the legislatures of these two States and their acceptance by their respective governors, we see no reason why this bill approving these cessions and consequent changes of boundary should not be approved by Congress.

There are numerous precedents for such action and a list prepared by the Librarian of Congress is herewith submitted:

ACTS OF CONGRESS GIVING CONSENT TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN STATES.

Resolution of May 12, 1820 (3 Stat., 609). Kentucky and Tennessee, February 2, 1820. Boundary line.

Act of June 28, 1834 (4 Stat., 708). New York and New Jersey, September 16, 1833. Boundary line, execution of process, etc.

Act of January 3, 1855 (10 Stat., 602). Massachusetts and New York, May 14 and July 21, 1853. Cession of district of Boston Corner by Massachusetts to New York. Act of February 9, 1859 (11 Stat., 382). Massachusetts and Rhode Island. AttorneyGeneral directed to assent to agreement between states in adjustment of boundary dispute before Supreme Court.

Joint Resolution of February 21, 1861 (12 Stat., 250). Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Joint action for removal of raft from Red River (past or prospective agreements).

Joint Resolution of March 10, 1866 (14 Stat., 350). Virginia and West Virginia. Cession of Berkeley and Jefferson Counties to West Virginia.

Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 481). Virginia and Maryland, January 16, 1877. Boundary line.

Act of April 7, 1880 (21 Stat., 72). New York and Vermont, November 27, 1876 and March 20, 1879. Boundary line.

Act of February 26, 1881 (21 Stat., 351). 1879. Boundary line.

Act of October 12, 1888 (25 Stat., 553). 1887. Boundary line.

Act of August 19, 1890 (26 Stat., 329). 1886. Boundary line.

Act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat., 214). 1897. Boundary line.

New York and Connecticut, December 8,

Connecticut and Rhode Island, May 25,

New York and Pennsylvania, March 26, South Dakota and Nebraska, June 3 and 7,

Joint resolution of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat., 1465). Tennessee and Virginia, January 28, and February 9, 1901. Boundary line.

Act of March 1, 1905 (32 Stat., 820). South Dakota and Nebraska. Boundary line. Act of January 24, 1907 (34 Stat., 858). New Jersey and Delaware, March 21, 1905. Jurisdiction over Delaware River, process, etc.

Joint resolution of January 26, 1909 (35 Stat., 1160). Mississippi and Louisiana. Boundary line and criminal jurisdiction (prospective agreement).

Joint resolution of January 26, 1909 (35 Stat., 1161). Mississippi and Arkansas. Boundary line and criminal jurisdiction (prospective agreement).

Joint resolution of February 4, 1909 (35 Stat., 1163). Tennessee and Arkansas. Boundary line and criminal jurisdiction (prospective agreement).

Joint resolution of June 7, 1910 (36 Stat., 881). Missouri and Kansas. Boundary line and criminal jurisdiction (prospective agreement).

Joint resolution of June 10, 1910 (36 Stat., 881). Oregon and Washington. Boundary line (prospective agreement).

Joint resolution of June 22, 1910 (36 Stat., 882). Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Criminal jurisdiction on Lake Michigan (prospective agreement).

Act of October 3, 1914 (38 Stat., 727). Massachusetts and Connecticut, March 19, 1908 and June 6, 1913. Boundary line. [McClenon, May 18, 1916.]