Mr. RICH. Let him make that as part of the record. The CHAIRMAN. Does the State pay for the rights-of-way? Mr. JACOBS. In the State of Louisiana, under the constitution of 1921, the rights-of-way are to be paid for at not to exceed the assessed valuation of that year. The ruling of the supreme court was that the payments were to be made by the levee boards. Yesterday it was referred to in the fifth district, I believe, by one of the witnesses, that they were not responsible for the lands between the borrow pit and the river. I do no believe the witness intended to make that statement because he knew better, but the reason it was on his mind was because of a ruling of the district attorney, who is legal adviser of that levee board. That district, the same as all others in Louisiana, is required to pay, under the State law, for all land thrown out, as well as the base of the levee.

Mr. DEAR. Yes, all land destroyed.

(Thereupon, the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business, after which the following occurred:)

The CHAIRMAN. We have one or two others here who desire to make statements on a matter we were considering before. Mr. Morgan, we will hear you now. Will you give your name, occupation, and address?

STATEMENT OF LOUIS L. MORGAN, COVINGTON, LA.

Mr. MORGAN. Louis L. Morgan, Covington, La. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do not know whether I have anything important to add to the record but if you will bear with me I assure you that I will be very brief.

From your years of defeat and hope and struggle with this great problem of national concern, I understand that you have evolved a definite, comprehensive, and effective program of flood control, a program that you gentlemen have reason to believe will give substantial protection and security to those who have had occasion in the past at times to thank the stars and the moon and the sun for their providential escape from devastating floods. I want to say to you gentlemen here that the Louisiana Highway Commission is in thorough accord with your wonderful program. The Louisiana Highway Commission whole-heartedly applauds your foresighted and commendable statesmanship in fostering these great plans, and we cheerfully rejoice with those whose protection your great program assures. But, may I be permitted to respectfully observe that the Louisiana Highway Commission has constructed, and has been efficiently maintaining for a number of years improved roads along and contiguous to the Mississippi River and its tributaries.

Now, in furtherance of your program, you have encountered the inescapable necessity from time to time of changing your levee lines, and in changing these levee lines you have destroyed important highways in the State of Louisiana, highways that are used as the instrumentalities over which goods, wares, and merchandise, and things of every conceivable make, type, and kind are transported from city to city, and from State to State, every hour of every 24 hours of every day. The Louisiana Highway Commission realizing the importance of these arteries of commerce to the traveling public and to those

135035-35- -14 ·

engaged in domestic and interstate commerce and realizing that even a mere temporary suspension of the use and availability of these arteries of commerce would result in turmoil, loss, damages, stagnanation, and confusion and State-wide complaint, the commission immediately allocated and constructed the highways thus destroyed, and in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of these important highways at times it strained the commission's finances to the cracking point. It did more than that. It gravely imperiled at times its own credit in order to restore, relocate, and reconstruct these roads. Now, if the commission had not promptly reconstructed these arteries of communication, damages wide, severe and expensive would have resulted from their destruction, and I believe everyone of the same and possessing the discernment of a good man can appreciate that fact. Mr. Chairman, I say, therefore, that I have an abiding conviction that every member of the Congress whose highways are affected by levee changes or flood-control works should feel it his bounden duty to endeavor to write into this bill a mandate providing for the reimbursement of the highway destroyed, because the interests of their constituents and the Highway Commissions affected by flood-control works are bound together, by the mighty force of a common cause viz; The continued maintenance of improved roads along and contiguous to the Mississippi.

Now, the question of flood control, as I understand it, is a national responsibility, and since it is a national problem, does it not logically follow that an injury inflicted in the prosecution of a national undertaking becomes ipso facto a national liability?

Now, I do not think, as a matter of fact, that there should be any diversity of opinion upon that point and surely no subtle evasions should be invoked to that end. To thrust upon the highway commission or any agency of a State the responsibility for the reconstruction of roads destroyed by and at the instance of the Federal Government, without it providing for reasonable and timely indemnification, is a procedure that cannot be justified upon any theory or conception of right.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morgan, I should like to ask you a question right there. Of course, I cannot get to the point of where you are appealing to have that written into this bill on account of its being a national responsibility, unless it is covered by property taken or damaged on account of it being exposed to the flood waters of the Mississippi River, as provided in this bill.

Mr. MORGAN. If it is not wide enough, its scope should be widened to take care of the commission claims.

The CHAIRMAN. You base that on the fact that this should be assumed as a national responsibility?

Mr. MORGAN. It is a national responsibility; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you had a highway which was exposed to flood waters of the Mississippi, by your set-back or changes in levees, just like the farmers' property that would come under this, if it is involved as being a right-of-way for a levee foundation on the main stem of the Mississippi River, of course it could not, because when this is assumed as a natural responsibility, as far as the act goes, it goes largely beyond that and says this is one exception, and State and local governments, which means a State or a highway commission shall furnish rights-of-way for levee foundations without

cost to the United States. That is what the law says. If this is a levee right-of-way for a levee foundation or a levee, of course it would not be embraced within the responsibility of the Government, because Congress passed the act just that way and allotted funds, and your State and your highway commission and your local interests in cooperation with them did that. If it is part of a levee foundation right-of-way, I can't see why it might not be separate legislation repealing such portions of the act. If the purpose is to qualify an obligation of the National Government in carrying it out, that is a different proposition.

Mr. MORGAN. That is all right, Mr. Chairman, but we contend that ought to be taken care of, and the scope of it ought to be extended for that very purpose. I say it is a national responsibility, and I do not think the General Government has any more or greater right to enter upon property owned and controlled by a State agency and destroy it than we have to enter upon private property in that way. The CHAIRMAN. It is not a national responsibility to do this if it is a levee right-of-way under that act; is it?

Mr. MORGAN. It is at least a moral responsibility devolving upon the Government. The Government has no right to enter upon property owned by a State agency and destroy it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us get back to the legal proposition of it. You entered upon this and did this when the Government called upon you to furnish a right-of-way. The Government did not do it.

Mr. MORGAN. No. As a matter of fact, in the prosecution of your work you entered upon and emasculated and destroyed costly public highways.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right, but it is what you did in the securing of these rights of way. I am now talking about what is embraced within this act, speaking of this act. But, you cannot blame Congress and the Government for that.

Mr. MORGAN. I am not blaming or finding fault with anyone.
The CHAIRMAN. You said we had done this to you.

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If it is a right-of-way or a levee foundation, Congress provided in the act that that should be paid for by the State or local interests. Now, if you complied with that law and did that, then I cannot just get to the point where you say we have caused you this trouble.

Mr. MORGAN. We were not consulted in the matter at all. In other words, under your direction the local levee boards have destroyed these roads.

The CHAIRMAN. That might have been.

Mr. MORGAN. But you destroyed existing improvements.

The CHAIRMAN. Who destroyed them?

Mr. MORGAN. The local levee boards acting under the direction and supervision of the General Government.

The CHAIRMAN. But it was their choice that they did that.

Mr. MORGAN. They did so, yes; but the point I am making is that you have no more right to destroy our property than a State agency has to destroy private possessions.

The CHAIRMAN. But here is the point I am directing your attention to: You, of course, prepared legislation to take care of that, but to come in and say that is on the same basis as lands involved in

setting levee lines back, and that your damage is caused by securing a right-of-way, then I do not agree with you. It has happened in Mississippi and in Arkansas that in compliance with the act, which we accepted and you accepted and your State highway commission accepted and your levee boards accepted, where we went and acquired the rights-of-way, we were doing what we agreed to do under the law. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid you are laboring under a misconception. As a matter of fact, we had roads, efficient and improved highways in existence and the local levee boards, acting under the authority and direction of the General Government, moved in and wiped them out.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, then; did they do that as a right-of-way for a levee? Did they take part of your road as a right-of-way for a levee?

Mr. MORGAN. That is begging the question. You wiped our roads out, and you had no more right, I say, to wipe our roads out than we have to enter upon the sacred domain of private property and destroy it without providing compensation therefor.

The CHAIRMAN. The only complaint you have is against the State authorities and not against us in Congress because the act said the State was to furnish the right-of-way. If it took a man's home or his house, or anything else, it is all the same as a legal proposition.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. In other words, you say the highway stands in no different relationship than a man who owns a house that is on the land.

The CHAIRMAN. The State could go in and buy land there, but I do not want to have our committee criticized or to have Congress criticized for something we did not do.

Mr. Morgan. I think it is the duty of the General Government to reimburse the commission for all damages thus inflicted.

The CHAIRMAN. That would have to come under an entirely different piece of legislation and not in this bill.

Mr. DEAR. Wouldn't it involve payment for rights-of-way that have been furnished by every individidual that has furnished rightsof-way for levees? The Government goes in there and takes a piece of property and with it perhaps, a man's home.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. DEAR. Then they take a highway, and there is no difference in the status of the two pieces of property.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have to pass a law to reimburse the State levee boards, every one of them, for what they have paid for a right-of-way under the Flood Control Act.

Mr. MORGAN. I am not here advocating the cause of the local levee boards. In other words, my contention is that you, the General Government, has no right to go upon and destroy our property. You have no God-given right to deliberately misuse or arbitrarily exercise your superior powers in this manner.

The CHAIRMAN. No; we have not done that.

Mr. MORGAN. As a matter of fact, the construction of flood-control projects, flood regulations, and flood-prevention works are Federal problems. When you moved in and destroyed our roads, I take

1

it every principle of justice required the General Government to provide for the payment of the damages wrought.

Mr. DEAR. My point is this: How can we segregate and pay for roads and not pay the old farmer that loses his barn or his home? If it is going to apply to one, it must apply to all.

Mr. MORGAN. I am in thorough accord with that.

Mr. DEAR. I am not disagreeing with you.

Mr. MORGAN. We are in thorough accord. The purpose of this bill, as I understand it, is for reimbursement of damages inflicted in connection with flood-control works.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, it does not say so. It says for compensation of damages to those lands which were protected before the act went into effect, and which have been exposed to flood waters on account of being thrown on the river because of relocations and changes in levee lines.

Mr. MORGAN. Is it not for the reimbursement of damages inflicted? The CHAIRMAN. If we had a road in the same situation as this, of course that would be different, but it does not apply in any way to rights-of-way for levee foundations anywhere.

Mr. MORGAN. Different levee boards of the Southern States

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You might go and make your complaint to your levee boards. They are the ones who went in and took your rights-of-way.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, you know that would be a vain and futile gesture. They are not in a position to pay. If it is a national responsibility the National Government should pay for it.

The CHAIRMAN. The national responsibility is defined in the Flood Control Act.

Mr. MORGAN. We are looking for and believe we are entitled to reimbursement.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you cannot say that the Government forced this right-of-way proposition on anybody, because it provided in the law that the work would be done and the local agencies should furnish those rights-of-way on the banks.

Mr. MORGAN. They moved in and destroyed these roads under your direction.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I suggest that the gentleman be permitted to furnish a written statement on this, setting forth his views fully.

Mr. MORGAN. Would you permit me to file a brief on this point, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you may extend your statement in the record or make any further statement you desire to make.

FURTHER REMARKS BY MR. MORGAN

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, the relocations and reconstruction of roads destroyed by levee changes made conformably to instructions emanating from the United States engineers cost the commission $1,544,000, as you will observe from the detailed statement filed herein with your committee.

The injuries of which the commission complains in other words, were superinduced by the United States engineers; therefore, the