Legislative reports, hearings, documents (misc.)

it IR
RVERS AND pAg
'RIVERS AND _______~
' I

HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
UNITED STATES SENATE

SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

H. R. 11781
S AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR,,
AND PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN PUBLICC WORKS 0
RIVERS AND HARBORS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE ES

PART 1

lMAY 2, 5, 6, S, 9, A D 13, 1930

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1930

I -

i ,

1=

I

C3
0 &~
S -5 u -c .-

4-P CO)~
CC -c: :r
s s i cC t ;

c01 Ez a
ai. 58 y
U = O f1

c0 c c S^ s
. i I
u T;,- 5 a 3
-J -J- =

= 3= 'o g 5
01- 2 p'

S1i L. J

I I

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HIRAM W. JOHNSON, Cihlroria, C.ha'rmtri

\WEL EY L falling rjr.
CHARLES L IMcN.ArrY', Orc-.j
PORT-tR H. DALE, V\rai...tt.
ARTtiRR R Oi:ULDt, Iane.
GEOCRLD P NYE. Ncrth Dal;:od.
ARTHUR H VANDENBERG, M".-:n.i~
CHARLES S. DENEEN, Elihr....
ROC,:,'E C. PATTER3'iN, lN.iijur,.
ROBERT B HC'S-LL, N, br-lK.
HENRY J. ILLEN, K a:;i.

DuNC_.N t. FLETCHER. Fl.rlJi.
JOSEPH E RANSDELL, Loin..s.i3.
NMRRiS -HEPPARD, T-le..
F M.I IIM ONS. N:orrb Cjir ,lin
BHBERT D. STEPRENS. ML.;L Ippi.
W ILLIA M i H.xRRI;, ,O,,rqa.
REOY.~. i C':PELAND, N,:w Yjrk
HARRY B HAtE;, rInL,.Lji
WILLIAM E BROCK, Tvrai.:mc-.

I. A OONNOR, C: i.

CONTENTS : ..z. .2 2
________ Vt / '/ ,

. Stai tlerit of-
Mal. :;Gen. LanIing H. B'each retiredd, f.ormer]-rl Chief ,-if Euglneer-,
Unrited States Army--- --........... -- --......... -- . ..- .
The,..idore Brent, presidetit RedvI-od Stenam-Ilip Line New Orleans,
-------------------------------------------------
La .................................. . .. .. .. ........ ..
--Mhii. Gen. Ltie Brownh. Chief o:f Ern;ineeres, War Derart menrt. -----
George C. ('all, president Call Bond & Mortgrtge C-:, So:.Si, Citi,
--- -- ----------------------------------------------
Ion- a -. ....... .... ... ... .. .. . .. .. .. ...... ..
Hun. Ed. H. Campl.ell, Reprenentat le iIn Congr:ss- fr--ni the State oi
l .... ... .... .. ........ - - - - - - - - - - -
.J B. Chtmi:bri r., cLharmar, navlga t;i:-i :mim sei A A rrovo CI .:,-
raid', rn vlgationr d;itrict of Camier:on, ard WiLlua C- ,OLntiei, T-ex.,
Harlina-ien Tex -.... -. -... .............r.... .............
C. E. Clilde, man-ager tranri-po:rtatio ii: Iireaul of the O)niabha Chlnit-cr
':. Commr eree, Omaha, Nebr ................- ......_.. _.... .
Brig. G(en Herl-,rt DeatiL Le, meni.er B:oard .:if Enel-eer: for Ril\er-
anid Harbor- W ar Department... .--- ----......-- ... .--..... 22

p. Ni' \--rk ---- -----------------------------------------
Ho:n. S. 11,llac>e Dernmfsey. Relreser~nttiav,: ii Co,,,j1Prer;- from the State
of N _v. Y:rk .. ............. . ........ .. ..... .. .. .
Hou. Herbert J Drane, Repre:',nt.itve in C'olngres. froir the Siate
of F lorida --....................... .. ... . ........ ..

Te . .-------------.- -... -- ---- - ---- ----...
V1. S ( .;imrau Sis.u:' City, I'owa.......... -... ..............
H. -n Harry B Hav.e-, Sei-alr r fr..n thei State of [li,-.-..r -- -......
.._ ;e. B H ill-, of Hill-, Y.:.urnga ur; & L,:e, coj'u.ltiiig eh ilrIeers,
r-pre-, r, ting rt _r og d-..:.'ntr,:] I.ioard o f Florni'J -.a. 1: -:o ai .:, F a. -.....-

A. Kel.r.-----------_---------------------
..i. -. A ,i. K r i t i.i':|-e I'- p
Ho.'. XW nm. F. Kmi z,-, m:t\-r :i.t of Miie .'..i, Mirni. - -.
;,Geor C. L m ri:ert, ,:i.-uirur.j ,.,i the UI|:pr:-i M[i'--].ip.pi i a id St. (Cr: i'.

L,.i -, i : ..... . ... ... -.. ....... ... . ...
[tier Iraei ..-nititC. .nmii.-L.on AI Nhnri..tzSt. StPail.d iIn ---

Hr:n. Win. H MI Ma,-ter. Senratr from 1 L:i S it .:-:f South Dak..ta-..
'Geor-- .J M iller, -,e,. -ti --e ei.ret ar;, M -.:.1ur i R er N.i, ig.,tion

H.:rmnLii Mi ieli..r, trair'.: dire.:i..r St Pi .m.! ; 1.i1,,it .,.f Co.niJ. meric,
St Pail. M - - .... ..... ........ .. ... ..........
C' A Nei .-r on, ref.reietiiat 1e Miii--i-;pp] \"aili-y A. X -o .i- ton.. .....
Hofi W I. Nroi i_, Repre'ent:i.i i] (-'iigre-. t'r..,m th_ SttIp of
inr e ,,t :! . . . . .. 1,'.. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

..-FHo.I. .Rutth Bryan Orien, Repr e-entriti .-n C'oungr.- firoiii the St:te
SFlorid ........------------ --------------------.. .... .........
Jithn Pet, r Mirinea :poli:, M-ntii .....---- ... ...---------. --. .-
Re-,r A.-nViuril J.--s-eiph Ml :'I. R-ee-.- Unit.:d St-ite- N ivy, memn :.:rt-
.:f th. g:n.r:il I, :ia dii, W a.shi.gtoi, D C'- .
A Re,.r.old es t, i t '- i.. 'ret-try Diloil.jue C-amiiii-,er of Comini er'o,
port -:'f D inimniie, I,,v;i --. ......... .. .. ..............
Ho- iv-ri S l t,.. i- hi.irm:,in r OLee..1.> e l lpood-,.on trol .Jitrr:t, W te:-t
\\.t-i Pail- Be-ach, FI --- - ---. .........- -
Hon, Thoin,,m D. Schlill, Senat.or from thei Stiate of Minreio-.t- .. .
Hon Hi-irn Shi.tej d, Senuitor trom the St ie i-Of MiJife-ot i .-. .. ,- -
Hou. (Cl .i-ide A. Su-q i, ,i], Sc-Itto, from the Si'te of ViiglTLi - - - -
/H':,u. Pl.1!P D. ST-l.l R-i epte iei nlti'e in Coigrpi- fromt ii State. of
Cu fornii ----- -- -............. --- --- ... -- ... ..... .
\ Ho-n Park Tr: imrelU, Senator from the. State of Florida-..........
Fraui. B. Town-enil. Mirin.eaip lii M inn ---...... ..... .......... .
R. P. \iarnerr,. ice pr':sidint NMii':s--ip i VMaley A-',O-ijtion for the
UTpper MiXissiippi Diriion, St. Pa.ul, Minn .---------------------.
--Hon Thoras J. JWaih, Senator from the State of Moutania ---.--
A. .C. Wiprud, colinseil Upper Misissippi Barge Line Co .....-----.
In

Pw

169

122
t1

22S

230

173

218

, 57

77

200
203

167
2"-'
225

1~~3 ----
153
1[6

110

100
224

212

130
230

210

195
136
236

138

191
97
2117

233
180
113

139
147
211

RIVERS AND HARBORS

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1930

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 o'clock a. m. in the
committee room, Capitol, Senator Hiram W. Jo n presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson (chairman), Jones, McNary, Nye,
Vandenberg, Deneen, Allen, Ransdell, Sheppard, Simmons, Harris,
and Copeland.
The CHAIRMAN. We have met this morning for the purpose of con-
sidering the rivers and harbors bill, H. R. 11781, that is now before us,
and it was the determination of the committee at a previous gathering
that we would first consider the controverted items relating to the
Great Lakes waterways. In pursuance to the request of the com-
mittee, Generals Brown and Deakyne were asked to be here, and they
very kindly come.
(The committee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of
H. R. 11781, which is here printed in full, as follows':)
[H. R. 11781, Seventy-first Congress, second session]
AN ACT Authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the following works of improvement are
hereby adopted and authorized, to be prosecuted under the direction of the Sec-
retary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, in accordance with the
plans recommended in the reports hereinafter designated.
Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 158, Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Lynn Harbor, Massachusetts: The Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to
dredge a channel twenty-two feet deep and three hundred feet wide from deep
water west of Bass Point, Nahant, to a turning basin five hnudred and fifty feet
wide at the head of the harbor, and to straighten the curve in the approach to
the turning basis: Provided, That before prosecuting this work, local interests
shall give assurances satisfactory to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of
War that they will dredge and maintain a suitable channel of twenty-two-foot
depth, extending a distance of four thousand eight hundred feet westerly from
the inner end of the Federal improvement. The amount hereby authorized to
be expended upon the said project shall not exceed the sum of $615,500.
Salem Harbor, Ma'..,liouetf, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document N irnmlw'r,-ii 112, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject
to the c,:onditiojnr s~, forth in sAid document.
Dorn. iPt,:-r Bay : i~.l N,.:lbse-t. River, Massachusetts, in accordance with the
report submitted in House Document Numbered 147, Seventieth Congress, first
session, and subject to: th :- ,iondtiurs set forth in said document.
Nantucklet S:ound, MNachi-:,i-tfs, irn na.:..rdance with the report submitted in
House Docu elit Nunjmibred 1S2, Sevenitietl Congress, first session.
" New Bedford Harbor, Mae chu-tt.i, in accordance with the report of the
Chief of Engiric i-r s i ieibnitted in Hrouee Document Numbered 348, Seventy-first

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Congress, second session, except that tle depth to be obtained in the entrance
channel shail be twenty-eigit feet and the midth shall be three hijndred and
fifty feet. There is hereby authorized to ,be e:xppeded on this pr.:.je':-t the 5sum
of $400,000.
New Haven Hartb:r, Connecticjut, in aci',ordance with the report submitted in
House Document Nunl:ered 6S6, Sixt, -ninth Congre??, second session.
Bridgeport Harbor, ConnerticLit, in aco:iduance v-ith the report submitted in
House Docu:cment Numbered 2S1, Scvtc-rtv-tirt Con'gre--i, second session, and
subicet to the c:nditi:ion: e-t forth in said dow'uinent.
Housatonic River. Connecticut, in accordanr-' with the report submitted in
House Document Numnbered- 449. Se-entieth Congress, second session, and
su'ieet to the conditi,:on- set forth in jaid idocillieit.
Tli.ame_ Ri. er, Cnn:ctic it, i air-.:-rda,.c, v. itih the report submitted in Rivers
and IHar-:oIrs Comnnittee D.:cjUmernt Numib.ered 14, Seventy-first Congress,
second session.
Polt Chester Harbor, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in
Rivers and Harbors Coniiiiitte, Documi nt Niiml:-,e 1 23, ',:., .ntietli Congress
second se-,-ior, and i.ubje,-t t.: the condition.: set forth in said document.
East Raoclk ay (Debs) Inlet, Ne-n Y.: .r-: ir acco:,rdance with the report sub-
mitted :ri Hoi.:E Document Numbered 19, Seventy-first Congress, first session,
and subject to the c(o:jdit ii.l -et i,:rth in said document. Pr,;'.id.d, That no ex-
pense shall be incur,.-d I:.3 thi- Uiittd States for the oC:ljuri'i of any lands
relquiire]l for th,? pi:-'oe of ft1i: ii.rovement.
Hlidel..-n Ri-cer (Ch3n.irl, Nev Y,-.rk, in accordance with the report submitted
in IHo-ise D',,,"ient NuniiI!-r'.J 450, Seventieth Congress, second session: Pro-
I.i,'d, That the p:'oi.' -,,n attachl-,l to the recommendation in said document
thait i :, -iorl: sill 1..- unl.':,-rfitaen on this project until the city of New York
shall have removed the extensions beyond the pierhead line of Piers 54, 59, and
60 is hereby waived.
Manhasset Bay, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 452, Seventieth Congress, second
session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
New York Harbqr, New York, Anchorage Channel, in accordance with the
report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 18,
Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Port Jefferson Harbor, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 305, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject
to the conditions set forth in said document.
Hay (West )Harbor, New York in accordance with the report submitted in
Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 28, Seventy-first Congress,
Hni.'~on Ri-,:r, New Yol:., in in:.::.r.l,,.I: iill the report submitted in House
Document Numb,'rrd 210, S.'.--ritietr Coir,:-s-, first session.
Oreat Latcr-Hud.:.,n Ri.ver W\Yaji.tr.. Th:- Secretary of War is hereby
anot h:or ied, em-,:.- r:d, and directed to accept from the State of New York the
State-owned waterways known as the Erie Canal and the Oswego Canal and there-
after maintain and operate them as navigable waterways of the United States,
at ai estimated annual cost of $2,500,000: Provided, That such transfer shall be
nimad- v without cost to the United States and shall include'all land, ;., z.: rent f. and
comnipt,-ted or uncompleted structures and appurtenances of the said waterways.
Ranrtin Bay and Raritan River, New Jersey, in accordance with the report
s.ihnitte, I in House Document Numbered 127, Seventieth Congress, first :e--ior
RHsrt.in River, New Jersea in 5ac.oi r-::lr!u i t thi report submitted in Ho:.,ie
Document Numbered 454, ,-'enitieth ,Conr..-_:, :eo,nd session.
Raritan River, New Jersey, in a:.:ordair,:e n;ith ti.e report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 31, Sevent:.-firt Coir, ,:s.s,
sec..nd r-i-:;,:n. and subject to the conditions set forth in said d.-c .iumn-it
P.:.-a,: River, New Jersey, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 156, Seventy-first C...r r .: .-, ..:.-ond session.
\VJhill-,illo, Canal and South River, N.,: .J:s.i -, ii. ac-i-:cordlanie with the
r,-i,:rt il:niittel in House Document Numbered 109, .,:-v,:rti--irst Coiipreis.
tirst -e'si..a.n, an.: subject to the conditions set forth in said do-irr:,r:-t
Ml i r ,f.urin River and Inlet, New Jersey, in accordance with tit report, sub-
initld it, Huu-e Doi.ierneri t Nribh r:d 4 2, S-..' nt eth C'orre.', --r iJ e:-o,,r,
and -util t.. tle coriJiion ,s -et forth i -n ,. document: P,*,'.l.., That tie
Sei rei. ry of W ar i, lie ret-. a,,th.i -..r ie f:, 3ii i:n credit to lo,, A irntirests foi -'Ji:chr
iunds ai: mav I.,,. e been contributed by them for the resumiption t r.-...rk on the

RIVERS AND: HARBORS 3

existing proj!ict for this wv:terway, in sr: far as such funds have been expended
on work nA ich is also in accordanrce with the project herePb adopted.
Delaware River, Ietwner, Philadeilphia, Penrnsyvania, and Trenton, New
Jersey, in accordance with the report sulbmritted in Rivers and Harbors Com-
w- niittee Djoument Numbered 3, Seventy-first Congress, first session, and subject
to the ,:,nditionu set forth in said document.
Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, in accordance
With the report submitted in House Document Niimh-er.-d 304, & .'entJy-irst
Congress, second session.
Delaware River at Camden, New Jersey, in accordance with the report sub-
mitted in House Dociument Niumbered 111, Seventieth Congress, first session,
and subject. to the c,,ndition6 iet forth in said document.
Haror of Refuge, Delanware Bay, Delaware, in accordance with the report
submitted in Rivers and Har:bo:r C,-.ummrittee Document Numbered 15, Seventieth
Congress, first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said d:cuminent.
Big Timber Creek, New Jersey, in accordance with the report submitted in
HoU.j;, D:c:nimenrt N.inlmered 217, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subj:iect
to the ir:nditi.-ri -et forth in :aii document: Provided, That no 4-xpenee shall be
incirr.ed by thle United State. for the acquiring of any lands required for the
purpose of tthi impro,.etinentt
\nlimainit.on Hart..or. De.iaar-.,r in accordance with the report submitted in
Riv-ers :ai,-l Harr-i C.r '.,mm.ittee Document Numbered 20, Seventy-first Congress,
second session.
Little Ma.i:1ipoug.- River, Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted
in House ),Do e .imunt Numbered 260, Seventy-first Congress, second session.
W i c:oic River, Maryland: The existing project is hereby modified so as to
provide for a channel twelve feet deep and one hundred feet wide below the
Main Street Bridge, Salisbury, at an estimated cost of $66,710, and for dredging
the shoals at a cost not to exceed the sum of $8,290: Provided, That the work
herein authorized shall not be commenced until local inter( -t 4.hll have f,.irris.hed,
without cost to the United States, suitable areas for the ri.lp:-a of tite rma trial
to be dredged: Provided further, That the amount hereby authorized to be
expended upon the said project shall not exceed the sum of $75,000.
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland, in accordance with the reports
i ib, ni.tted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 11, Se ventieth
Co,, .i 'i-., ri, r t session, and House Document Numbered 29, Seventy-first Congress,
first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in the aforesaid Document
Numbered 11.
Herring Bay and Rockhole Creek, Maryland, in accordance with the recom-
mendation of the district and division engineers in the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 34, Seventy-first Congress,
second session: Provided, That the cost to the United States for prosecuting the
project hereby adopted shall not exceed the sum of $6,300.
Waterway connecting T. icoer Sound with Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, in
accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered 313,
Seventy-first Congress, second session, and subject to the condition set forth
in said document.
Choptank River, Maryland, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 188, Seventieth Congress, first session.
Elk River, Maryland, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 216, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject to the
conditions set forth in said document.
Smith Creek-, NMar ylind, in :tc,:.rlrl:inee with the report submitted in House
Document Ntumbered 177, Se'entietl Contrt-is, first session, ahd subject to the
conditions -et fourth in said do:uti ,:ht.
Occohajiu ...ek Cr,:ek, Vireihi, in accordance with the r,:eport s, l:.',itted in
.House Do,:.,juient N ant.erud li.5, Se'. erty-first Congress, second seisio:u.
a Nniii n C'ree, Virgini, :, ia ii :oridal'ne with the report -i mwitted in House
Document Numbered 165, .Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Ho.rui Harbor, Virginia, in .,icord.arce with the report submitted in House
SDon:irnent Numbered 124, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject to the
conditions set forth in said document.
1\ Mnroe Bay and Creek, Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted
in House Documint.t Nuithered 172, S-eventitth Congress, first seEsicon.
"' Cockrell. Cr:ek, Virairnia, in aci:.ldaince nith the report submitted in House
Document Numbtered 107, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject to the
conditions s:et forth in said document

4 RIVERS AND HARBORS

Carters Creek, Virginia, in accordance with the report. isbmitted in House
Document Numbered 51S, Seventieth Congress, second session, and subject to
the condition set forth in said document.
Nansemond River. Virginia: The existing projiet is hereby modified in accord-
ance with the report submitted in House Document numbered 184, Seventieth
Congress, first session, and subjectto the conditions s-t forth in said document,.
Scotts Creek, Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 189, Seventieth Congres, first session, and subject to
the conditions set forth in said document.
Inland Waterway from Norfolk, Virginia, to Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina,
in accordance with report submitted in Senate Document Numbered 23, Seventy-
first Congress, first session, for a tidal guard lock in the Albemarle and Chesapeake
Canal at or near Great Bridge, Virginia, at a limit of cost, however, of not to
exceed $500,000, conditioned upon contributions from local or other irnttrest. in
the amount of $100,000.
James River, Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 314, Seventy-first Congress, second session, aund subject
to the conditions set forth in said document: Provided, That no expense shall be
incurred by the United States for the acquiring of any lands required for the
purpose of this improvement: Provided further, That the channel from the mouth
to Hopewell shall be improved to a width of 250 feet, and the channel from
Hopewell to Richmond shall be improved to a width of 150 feet. The amount
hereby authorized to be expended upon the said project shall not exceed the sum
of $3,555,000.
Norfolk Harbor, Virginia: The existing project is hereby modified in accord-
ance with the reports submitted in House Documents Numbered 143 and 265
Seventieth Congress, first session.
Norfolk Harbor, Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 37, Seventy-first Congress, first session, and subject to the
condition set forth in said document.
Willoughby Channel, Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered' 507, Seventieth Congress, second session.
Edenton Harbor, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 772, Sixty-nintf Congress, second session.
Roanoke' River, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 211, Seventieth Congress, first session.
Mackay Creek, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 775, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session.
Cashie River, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 779, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, and sub-
ject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Knobbs Creek, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 102, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject
to the conditions set forth in said document: Provided, That no expense shall be
incurred by the United States for the acquiring of any lands required for the pur-
pose of this improvement.
Harbor at Beaufort, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted
in House Document Numbered 776, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, and
subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Belhaven Harbor, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted
in House Document Numbered 778, Si'dt-\ iinth Congress, second -i-.sioun, and
subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina, in accordance with the report sub-
mitted in House Document Numbered 105, Seventieth Congress, first session,
and subject to the conditions set forth in' said document.
Silver Lake Harbor, North Carolina, in accordance with the report submitted
in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 3, Seventieth Congress,.
first session, and subject only to the condition that local interests shall furnish all
necessary rights of way and areas for the disposal of dredged material.
Pamlico and Tar Rivers, North Carolin,, ii, .r.l.rdi ., w*;tli the report sub-
mitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee I,-i.u.r.: r Nuiirb-t-r.-d 11, S-'.-it t y-first
Congress, first session and subject to the condition set forth in said d. ienmutft
Far Creek, North Carolina, in accordance v. ith t I: r,.rr.,ot if.ubi~ttl-d in House
Document Numbered 112, Seventy-first C'orngress, tirt sesionj, aid subject to
the ,onditionl se'l forth in said d.o. uilntit.
Wacr-cmav, River, So,,uth Car.i,hn.a, in a,.,trdarn,,.., with the, report submittedd in
,House Document Numbered 82 Se'.entitil Congress first session.

RIVEilt AND HARBORS

That section bethwen Cape Fear River and Winyah Bay of the intracoastal
waterway from Cape Fear River, North Carolina to Saint Johni. Riker, Floiida,
in accordance with the report slubnitf.ed in House Document Nunibered 4!,
Seventy-first Congress, first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in
^ said document: Provided, That no etxpcnse shall be incurred b% the United States
for the acquiring .of any lands required for the purpose of this improvement.
S Shipyard River, South Carolina. in accordarn:e with the report submitted in
i Rivers and Harbors Comnjittee DociIcment Numbered 13, Seventy-first Congress,
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
S %o a jlu Hart:.or. Georgia, in accordance with the report'submitted in Senate
Document Numbered 39, Seventy-first Congress, first session: Provided, That
the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to reimburse local interests for such
work as they may have done upon this project subsequent to June 1, 1929, in so
far as the same shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and found to have
been done in accordance with the project modification hereby adopted: Provided
further, That such payments shall not exceed the sum of $80,000.
Savanna: RI;.c r below Augusta, Georgia, in accordance with the report sub-
mitted in House Document Numbered 101, Seventieth Congress, first session,
and subject to the conditions set forth in said document: Provided. That no ex-
pense shall be incurred by the United States for the acquiring of any lands
required for the purpose of this improvement.
Channel connecting Baileys Cit .ard Dover Creek, Georgia, in accordance with
the report submitted in Senate )Durimunt Nilml:l.-i:d 43, Seventy-first Congress,
second session, and subject to it lIrnii oi,:. io :l f,! thi i t said document: Provided,
That n ,:. .- .:p..n-i shall be incurred I.-. thl Unitedl States, for the acquiring of any
la ndl relu I .-.i for tle purpose of this improvement.
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: The improvement of Back River in accordance
with the report submitted in Senate Document Numbered 57, Seventy-first
Congress, second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: The existing project is hereby modified so as to
provide for a channel thirty feet deep and five hundred feet wide over the bar,
and a channel twenty-seven feet deep and four hundred feet wide at Brunswick
Point. The sum of $394,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
pr.::-e:-tio: of the work herein adopted.
Saint Johns River, Florida, from Palatka to Lake Harney, in accordance with
the report submitted in House Document Numbered 691, Sixty-ninth Congress,
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document: Provided,
That no expense shall be incurred by the United States for the acquiring of any
lanlds rei.dpir:-. for the purpose of this improvement.
Saint Johns River, Florida, from Jacksonville to the ocean, in accordance
with the report submitted in House Document Numbered 483, Seventieth Con-
gress, second session.
Hollywood Harbor (Port Everglades), Florida: The maintenance of this har-
bor is hereby authorized in accordance with the recommendations of the district
and division engineers in the report submitted in.House Document Numbered
357, Seventy-first Congress, second sessl..i,
Miami Harbor, Florida: Enlarging the turning basin in'accordance with the
plans submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 15,
Seventy-first Congress, second session. The amount authorized to be expended
on the project hereby adopted shall not exceed the sum of $200,000.
Miami River, Florida: The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to improve
the Miami River with a view to securing a channel one hundred and fifty feet
wide ind fifteen feet deep for a distance from the mouth of three miles, thence
.rne i.!un._lred and twenty-five feet wide and fifteen feet deep to a point four and
o:rim--.ihthl miles from the mouth, thence ninety feet wide and fifteen feet deep
to a point five and one-half miles from'the mouth; each section to have suitable
side .srinp,- and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the pro:seuAti:,n
Sof this ; :.rk the sum of $800,000: Provided, That no expense shall be incurred
by the United States for acquiring any lands needed for the purpose of this im-
Sprovenient Provided further, That local interests shall provide all needed spoil-
dispoajl ar.-cas
S Calo-.'alar cln, River and Lake Okeechobee drainage areas, Florida, in accord-
ance with the report submiitted in Snatf.- DocumV-nt Numbered 115, Seventy-first
.) Cmonres, second session, and subieet to the co.-idit...ii set forth in said document,
except that the lc\ ce proposed along Liakle (keechohi'.e shall be constructed to an
elevation of thirty-one feet instead of thirty-four feet above sea level and shall
be so. built f1 to: be capal.le of being raised an a:ddilti.ial three feet, and that the

6 RIVERS AND H._IBORS

United States shall perform !he work of constructing all levees: Provided, That
the State of Florida or other l.cnl inft.re.st shall contribute $4,546,000 toward
Sthe cost of the above improv.ererits, in lieu .:o the contributions called for in the
aforesaid document: And provided further, That no expense shall be incurred by
the United States for the acquirement of any lands necessary for the purpose of,"
this improvement.
Tampa Harbor, Florida: The improvement of the Egmont Bar Channel and
the Sparkman Bay Channel recommended in th.: rep-p:rt, submitted in Houiw D:.cii-
ment Numbered 100, Seventieth Congress, first session, is hereby authorized:
Provided, That the expenditures for the work hereby authorized shall not exceed
the sum of $239,200.
Charlotte Harbor, Florida, in accordance with the report seihulit icd in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 1, Seventieth Congress, first ses-
sion. and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Saint P,:-tersurg Harb,_.r, Florida, in accordance with the report submitted in
Senate Document Ni iit:bred 229, Seventieth Congress, second session.
Saint Marks River, Florida, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 453, Seventieth Congress, second session.
East Pass Channel from .the Gulf of Mexico into Choctawhatehee Bay,
Florida, in accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered
209, Seventieth Congress, first session.
Intracoastal waterway from Pensacola Bay, Florida, to Mobile Bay, Alabama,
in accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered 42,
Seventy-first Congressi first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in
said document: Provided, That no expense shall be incurred for any lands re-
quired for the purpose of this improvement. The sum of $100,000 is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the prosecution of this project.
Mobile Harbor, Alabama in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 26, Seventy-first Congress,
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Channel between Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound, Alabama, in accordance
with the report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Num-
bered 4, Seventy-first Congress, first session.
Intracoastal waterway from Mobile Bay, Alabama, to New Orleans, Louisiana,
in accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered 341,
Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 692, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session.
Biloxi Harbor, Mississippi, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 754, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, and subject to
the conditions set forth in said document.
Chefuncte River and Bogue Falia, Louisiana: The existing project is hereby
modified in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Com-
mittee Document Numbered 2, Seventieth Congress, first session.
Port Aransas, Texas, in accordance with the report submitted in House Docu-
ment Numbered 214, Seventieth Congress, first session, and subject to the con-
dition set forth in said document.
Freeport Harbor, Texas: The existing project is hereby modified in accordance
with the report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Num-
bered 18, Seventieth Congress, first session.
Channel from Galveston Harbor to Texas City, Texas, in accordance with the
report submitted in House Document Numbered 107, Seventy-first Congress
first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Houston Ship Channel, Texas, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 13, Seventy-first Congress, first session, and subject
to the conditions set forth in said document: Provided, That no expense shall be
incurred by the United States for the acquiring of any lands required for the pur-\
pose of this improvement. -I
Channel from Aransas Pass to Corpus Christi, Texas, in accordance wtih he'
report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 9,'
Seventy-first Congress, first session, and subject to the conditions set froth ins
said document.
Brazos Island Harbor, Texas, in accordance with the report submitted in
Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 16, Seventy-first Congress, f-.
second session, and subject to i he conditi :,n set, forth in said document: P oirded,
That no expense.shall be incurred for the acquiring of any lands required d to bee
donated to the United States for the purp:,~ of this improvement or f:r other

RIVERS AND HARBORS ,

purposes: Provided further, That the channel from the inner side of the pass to
Long Island and thence to the turning basin near Brownsville shall be situated
entirely within what is known as the Brownswille navigation district and shall
. take the most direct practicable route toward Brownsville: And provided further,
That if both the Brownsville and Point Isabel channels and turning basins are
constructed the total amount to be contributed in cash by local interests shall be
S in the sum of $2,425,000, thus avoiding duplication of the expense of constructing
the channel from the inner side of the Pass to Long Island, estimated at $200,000:
And provided also, That the width of any or all inner channels may be widened
provided such proposed widening meets the approval of the Chief of Engineers
and all expenses incident thereto is paid by local interests.
SMississippi River, between GC ft6i:.r and the northern boundary of the city of
Saint Louis, in accordance v.ith the report submitted in Rivers and Harbors
Committee Document Numbered 12, Seventieth Congress, first session.
Illlinois and Mississippi Canal, Illinois, in accordance with the report submitted
in House Document Numbered 108, Seventieth Congress, first session. The pay-
ment of $8,450.75 to the Mud Creek special drainage district for work accom-
plished by the said district in reducing the maintenance cost on this canal to
the United States is hereby authorized.
Mill Creek and South Slough, Illinois, in accordance with the report submitted
in Rivers and Harbor Committee Document Numbered 19, Seventy-first Congress,
second session.
The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to expend from funds appropriated
and available for maintenance and improvement of existing river and harbor
works the sum of $25,235 as a contribution toward the relocation and reconstruc-
tion of the highway bridge across the Illinois and Mississippi Canal at Wyanet,
Bureau County, Illinois, known as bridge numbered 10: Provided, That the
highway authorities of Bureau County, Illinois, furnish assurances satisfactory
to the Secretary of War that they will reconstruct and maintain said bridge
without further cost to the United States.
Mississippi River between Missouri River and Minneapolis: The existing
project is hereby modified in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers and
Harbors Committee Document Numbered 8, Seventieth Congress, first session:
Provided, That the sills in the new lock shall be placed at least nine feet below low
water of 1864.
Mississippi River between mouth of Wisconsin River and Minneapolis, Min-
nesota, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Com-
mittee Document Numbered 24, Seventieth Congress, second session.
Mississippi River, between mouth of Missouri River and Minneapolis, Min-
nesota: The report submitted by the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 290, Seventy-first Congress, second session, is hereby adopted. The
following work, to be prosecuted in accordance with the plan for a comprehensive
project to procure a channel of nine-foot depth is hereby adopted: Additional
lock at Twin City Dam, additional lock at Keokuk, dredging in Twin City pool,
and dredging at head of pool numbered 2. For the prosecution of the work
hereby there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $3,058,000.
Missouri River between Kansas City, Missouri, and Sioux City, Iowa: The
Secretary of War is hereby authorized to expend in the prosecution of the existing
project, and within a period of three years after the date of the passage of this
act, an amount not exceeding $15,000,000.
The project for the permanent improvement of the main stream of the Tennessee
River for a navigable depth of nine feet in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 328 of the Seventy-first
Congress, second session, is hereby authorized for the first eighty-three miles
upstream from Paducah, together with detailed surveys and investigations for
low dams for navigation only covering that portion of the Tennessee River below
the Hales Bar Dam: Provided, That the total expenditures under this authorization
shall not exceed $3,500,000: Provided further, That the Chief of Engineers is
'-yeby directed to ascertain and report to Congress on the first day of the first
S regular session of the Seventy-second Congress, advising the prospective coopera-
tion offered by responsible interests, under the Federal Water Power Act, in the
program of construction recommended by the Chief of Engineers, providing for
the nine-foot project by means of high dams.
Cumberland River above Nashville, Tennessee, in accordance with the report
submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numberes 26, Seventieth
Congress, second session.

8 RIVERS AND HARBORS

Monongalbela River, Penrjnsylvrania, in accordance with the report submitted
in Rivers and Harbors Conimmittee Document Numbered 22, Seventieth Congress,
second session.
Youghiogheny River, Perinnlvania, up to West Newton, in accordance with
the report of the Board of Engineers f'.e r Rivers and Harbors submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 9, Sixty-first Congress, second
session: Provided, That t he Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to revise the
plans to meet any changes in conditions: Provided further, That the expenditures
on this project shall not exceed the amount estimated in the aforesaid report as
the cost of the work therein recommended.
Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 356, Seventy-first Congress, second session, and
isbject to the conditions set forth in said document.
I.lnta.vhn River, West Virginia, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 190, Seventieth Congress, first session, and with a
view to providing a channel nine feet in depth and two hundred feet in width:
Provided, That the dredging in the section of the river covered by this report
shall be prosecuted with a view to securing a depth of nine feet.
Ohio River, in accordance with the report submitted in House Document
Numjlt'.eled 4n9. Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, and subject to the conditions
.set forth in Esid document: Provided, That no expense shall be incurred by the
United States for the acquiring of any lands required for the purpose of this
improvement.
Tradewater River, Kentucky, in accordance with the report submitted in
Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 5, Seventieth Congress,
first session.
Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky, in accordance with the report submitted
in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 2, Seventy-first Con-
gress, first session: Provided, That under the provisions of the. Federal water
power act, and before work is started on this project, a high dam with locks may
be substituted near or below the site of Dam Numbered 4, and built by private
interests, municipalities, or the State: Provided, further, That in the event a high
dam is constructed, the United States shall contribute to the cost of the substi-
tuted structure an amount equal to the estimated cost of the works of navigation
for which substitution is made.
Green and Barren Rivers and Bear Creek, Kentucky, in accordance with the
report submitted in House Document Numbered 685, Sixty-ninth Congress,
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin, in accordance with the
report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 32,
Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Ashland Harbor, Wisconsin, in accordance with the report submitted in
Senate Document Numbered 133, Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, in accordance with
the report submitted in House Document Numbered 171, Seventieth Congress,
first session.
Waukegin Harbor, Illinjis, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 27, Seventy-first Congress,
second session, and subject to the condition set forth in said document.
Indiana Harbor, Indiana, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 21, Seventy-first Congress,
se.iiund sesi;or., and subject to the condition set forth in said document: Provided,
That the channel in the Calumet River branch of the Indiana Ship Canal may
be extended for a distance of five hundred and fifty feet south of the north line
of One hundred forty-first Street.
Illinois River, Illinois, in accordance with the report of Major General Lytle
Brown, Chief of Engineers, submitted in Senate Document Numbered 126,
Seventy-first Congress, second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in
his report in said document, except that the State of Illinois' plans of improve-
ment are not adopted as to the volume or so as to require the volume of water
contemplated in said plans, but the said project shall be so constructed as to
require the smallest flow of water with which said project can be practically
accomplished, in the development of a commercially useful waterway: Provided,
That nothing in thi. act shall be construed as authorizing any diversion of water .
from Le:k,- MNichig.i. but the whole,question of diversion from Lake Michigan
shall remain and be unaffected hereby, as if this act had not passed: Provided

RIVERS AND HARBORS

further, That there is hereby authorized to be a piprop ii ited for this project a sum
not to exceed $7,500,000.
Grand Haven Harbor and Grand River, TMichicgiu. The modification :of the
existing projects recommended in the report submitted in Senate D,:oennent
-. Numbered 88, Seventy-first Congress, second session, are hereby adopted and
authorized, subject to the condition set forth in said document.
Alanitee Harbor, Michigan, in accordance with the report submitted in
Senate Document Numbered 131, Seventy-first Congress, second session, and
subject to the condition set forth in said document.
Holland Harbor and Black Lake, Michigan, in accordance with the report
submitted in House Document Numbered 588, Sixty-ninth Congress, second
session.
Saginaw River, Michigan, .in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 30, Seventy-first Congress, second
session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Black River, Michigan, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 162, Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Great Lakes connecting channels: The existing projects are hereby modified so
as to provide a channel suitable for vessels of 24-foot draft when the ruling lake
is at its datum plane, and including the construction of compensation works, as
set forth in paragraphs 30, 31, 48, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, and 77 of the report of the
special board of engineers dated February 14, 1928, and submitted in House
Document Numbered 253, Seventieth Congress, first session. The amount
hereby authorized to be expended upon said channels is $29,266,000.
Monroe Harbor, Michigan, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers,
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 22, Seventy-first Congress,
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document: Pro-
vided, That no expense shall be incurred by the United States for the acquiring
of any lands required for the purpose of this improvement. The Secretary of
War and the Chief of Engineers are hereby authorized to maintain to a depth of
eighteen feet and a bottom width of eighty feet the existing channel in Lake
Erie at Monroe Harbor, Michigan, and up Raisin River, Michigan, to the vicinity
of the existing docks of the Newton Steel Company.
Lorain Harbor, Ohio, in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document Numbered 587, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, and subject
to the conditions set forth in said document: Provided, That no expense shall be
incurred by the United States for the acquiring of any lands required for the
purpose of this improvement.
Fairport Harbor, Ohio: The paragraph in section 1 of the River and Harbor
Act approved January 21, 1927, relating to Fairport Harbor, Ohio, is hereby
amended to read as follows: "Fairport Harbor, Ohio: The extension of the east
breakwater recommended in the report submitted in Rivers and Harbors Com-
mittee Docum'ent Numbered 13, Seventieth Congress, first session, is hereby
authorized at a limit of cost to the United States of $715,000: Provided, That
local interests shall dredge at their own expense the channel of approach to their
terminal."
Buffalo Harbor, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 1, Seventy-first Congress, first
session.
Niagara River, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 289, Seventy-first Cbngress,
second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Great Sodus Bay Harbor, New York, in accordance with the report submitted
in Rivers and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 17, Seventieth Congress.
first session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document.
Oswego Harbor, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in Rivers
and Harbors Committee Document Numbered 24, Seventy-first Congress, second
session, and subject to the condition set forth in said document.
Saint Lawrence River between Ogdensburg, 'New York, and Lake Ontario,
in aic.:.rdian,:e ath the report submitted in House Document Numbered 316,
S Severntieti C..-ngr:e-, first session, except that the depth to be obtained shall be
twenty-seven feet.
Waddington Harbor, New York, in accordance with the report submitted in
House Document Numbered 322, Seventieth Congress, first session: Provided,
That the aimoiiUnt hereby authorized.to be expended by the United States upon
the eaiiJ proj .,: t hall not exceed the sum of $20,000.

10 RIVERS AND HARBORS

San Diego Harbor, California, in acc':rdance with the report submitted in
Senate Document Numbtered S1, Sevetity-fir-i Congress, ,iii:Ccod session, and
subject to the condition ret. forth in said document: Pt',..':.dri, Thatt the entrance
channel shall be drc-dge'd to a vidth o:f six hundred feet, aid the dredging along
the south bank of the main lharnitl 1:.,eteen Beaicn Four and Bea.i:-o.r Ten is
hereby eliminated from the project herein ad:pited.i: Pr:.r:- .it. f'ithir. That the
condition retii: ing a io:atl c.ontribiition '4f 'lOi)i)i shall apply onlv io the National
City-ChuiJa Viota Chanii nel.
L.- Angec-l and Long Beach Harbor.., Califior'it:. T". mrndiic:alions of the
ei'Xltii lpr.,ect recol~rtmend',- i t the reports i:umilted in Seniate Documient
Nunijreid 1:31.1, Se'erity-fir-t Congie,-, e-'-cod ;:-jiii, .ind Ri'er: and H.iaror
(-'ommitt.e' Do.:.iumen Nurmjberd .33, iSevnty-irh:t ('niire -s:..i'd s,-e-ion, are
herehi, il:ptl a pt i and aitrize, ii:l..it.:I. t the.: c:.. dito .:.r set forth in said
doc"iument -.
M...'ter.rcy Harbor, Caiifiornia, iti a.:e.r:l.I.:e witi the report submitted in
River: and Harb'.ors. C(,mmint i-,e uDoc iient Numilrere.i 12, Se 'ienty-fir't Congr,.i:,
first -c- si: n, and -iil.i.ct t t the ronditi.: :,..4 rorth ii id document: Provided,
That no: ie:,:er.,- s-lll 1,i ilc.irrre. I y3 the Uni;te.1 State- for any lands reqiiiie.
for tlie piirrp:-i of thiS uuprovement.
San' Fra! :n:.. H.:,) Harkb..'r, Catif...riria ian a..,r.:.rida ne ;vilh the report submitted in
Hi.ui(- D,::oiiiaent Numhbererd I'6, Seventieth l '..ngres-, first :esiion.
Ri:hur,-ii l Harl.b.or, Ca'ililri]u. The existing liitiet i- heeby nmi.dited in
aceordaii.e i iti tihe rep.:rt irl.rnitted in Rivers -ind Harbors, (C'..mniittee Docu-
inr-it Nunmber-d 10, Seo,.-vntieth Congress, first session, and subject to the con-
ditioni eel forrh in said il.',riuent.
Stiietin Bav, Callhf:rni., ii as...,,rdance with the report submitted in Rivers and
Har.,or:. Conimiruitt.: Dr.cam,. t Numbered 23, Seventy-first Congress, second
sessCio,,i and s 'i 'ject.l to tile co(idittioi -,t forth in said document.
Red iwood Cre:- lk, Calliforni, ii accordance with the report submitted in House
Doci imenut Nionih.:-rEd 1-12, Sc.eitii,-th Co:iiL,- e.. first session, and subjectt t1:1 the
conditions set firth iin tII, di.iliient.
Petal iun. C('li.el, lif':ina. in a, .'rlaiin ,wit1h tle r.i..rf i..ibriilteiI in House
Dl ciiiein,-t N ijji. ered 1 Sr3. 5 lu' ciinti li (aCoii r-;-, fit .t e_-.':in, anid .iibiect to the
conditions set forth in said docuum,-Lt Pr, ;.... That ni.u expt,:rse .hall be in-
curred hb the' United States for the.: at:jlill'inig of ani lan.i' required for the pur-
rpoe of thi impro-venent
Middle River urid Erupire- Cut, California in a .c.. rdail:ni:e with the report sub-
mittted in, H:'use Docunment Numbered 481, Seventieth Congress. second session.
Humboldt Haribor and Ba.-, California, in a,:o:rd.n%:e- with the report sub-
nitted in House Documeint Numbered 755 Si,:t. -ninth Conire-s, second session,
and ub]ject to tlie c.:lnditioiis set forth in :ji d.;.:.iisent.
Coos Bay, Oreg:rn, in acc:rdanc:e with the report s:ublnitted in House Docu-
ment Numbered 110, Si-ventieth Congress, first session.
Skipanon Channeil. Oregeci, in accordance with the report :uolmiiiiiel in Hl:uei
Document Niml.ered 275, S.: elntl:th C,':'nrir.:, first session, and subject to the
c:oidition. set F.:,rth in ..iid docrumeit- Pr,...J,, That no expense shall be in-
.curred by tli- United States.for the acquiring of any lands required for the pur-
pose of this improvement.
Umpqua River and entrance, Oregon, in accordance with the report nI b mn i t f.J
in House Document Niimlnbrrd 317, Seventieth C:,onzr:-ss, first session.
Coqaille River, bar, and cntraiice, Oreaon, in accordance with the report sub-
miitted in House Doculrent Niinitb,'rId IS6 Seventieth Congress, first session,
and subject to the- con:diit:n set f. rth i11 aid document.
Columbia and Loner Widanjmette PRier0- bel.-ow Portland, Oregon, and the sea,
in accordance with the report s.n.lmitted in House Document Numbered 195,
Seventieth Con'rese, firs- se,: on, aS mIodiele I)y tile tricommerndati. on submitted
in Riv;er. arn.. Harbor, Coinumittee Doiiriierit Nimilered ,, S.veity-first Con'gress,
first session, and subject to the coui.lditi:on it f.:.rth in the -aid c,:'mmittee doc:u-.
ment: Prii;.1..,l. Tihat the channni he'reiii auth.:.rize-d iltall I: c *.lr..dged to a vi-ldth
of four liindredl feet.
(ol-lumbia. Rive.r between the mouth of Willamette River and Vancoier,
Wa'hingt...n: The e':i-ting p:rojict.t is hb:-r.T.v nmodjfied so as to provide that tie
l,alance of the furndc to he contributed rby the port of Vancouver shall be made
a\ailabli. at the> rat: of at:bout .$10,000 per year until the work is. completed.
Skniamokiawa Slt.i.igh, Washirnton, in accordance with the report submitted in
House DocLument Nurmhered 502, Seventieth Conrgre-ss, -ec:ond -si~sion, and
subject to the condition:,s s-t forth in said d.ciument.

RIVERS AND HABiB:IRS 11

Olympia Harb:.or, Washington, int accordance v.ith ti:a report submitted in
Rivers arid Harb.-ors D:c'inmrent NumbnAred 5, Sev-,enty-firt Congress., dirt ie.'sion.
Tao'iai Hartb:r, \Waihnigiton, in ja:-,:o:rdan,:l e nith the report eshnmittced in
,Riers and Harbor: (C-mnjjittee Do:-j:ueent Numbr-e.red 25, Seventy-first Co:j-
gr. sr -, second ise- ion, I nd -.ib1i.i:t t,:, e I rjondiliou iiet forth in said 'locumiebt.
Grays Harbo.r, inner portion, and Chelai'a Ri\ ei, Waii. tngton, in a.'cordatirie
-withi the rer,,rt siib'mjitted in House Document Nmirnered .315, S -evntieth
C'oerir, -, fir'.t ze; zionl-, .,id il -]e..t to thle .,:> diti.. et. forth it1 *-1,d docum ent.
BeliiitL.hair, Ha l.I:.r, D.i pIinigt,: !ii i' :'I.r.l;a. e ith the ,re!:,o:rt su wilmitted in
H.in.e.- DoIu:.'I-i Lit Noi .-leri-ed 1 57. Se-etii eth .'C ncr--c, firt -- :-:ion, and suijl.t
to the ,:,nditionr: et f:rti-, in .imdo d,, m.rent
Seattle Harbor, V" trhhi'gt.:.', in a:tI,:.rdau i:e with tii rep-.:rt .ilnijtted in
. HouiJ Docuoiii t Nunmit.-er .l -t., -.le-ientvi -irl C,:,i-ri -.-_. e::nid .:::i:n, in
-uil:.ie,:t t.:, 1 .- ..:.r..,litl.:.ln, .et forth ll,_ :.. i ,,:., m ent.
Qi.utla:'v ite Ri'-.r, \\.- -_ir.nti..r, in .-:.Cor.dl -latne -.;it the report i ll-Iinit i n.IB 1n
Hori-.e D.',ntiri-nt No.irl:nred 125, evct- -fit -i,:,l gr- i n i, firr t '. .: Iion, and su.-
ie>:t to thit i onrditi.:ui- wet forth in _, i. d': :i.irneut. Pr.',i,.1, Thatl ro ex:--ri-
shiall tIe .. ,:, u rrd l. r. the U itei ft.t if.:,r the ac:q.,irin ,f rn-, R nis. requir dJ
for the purp::'-e of thik ii t..u.tl' -meni-t.
Port .Ale>tnder, ai-:k ir a::...r.iani:-e ,4t- i thi rep.t:rt ,il:trtt',d in Houe-
Do-curni-r. t Nu- iLe'red lOi,, S'- uln ie-t. C':tigre ;, is t i -_1 'se i,'n
Klte-hiikan H.,rlIor, Ala.-ka, [i a':.':':rdirce r 'vith ihe report fii ul.mitt -.ld in Houiu e
D. : bcuei-rit Ninit-,ered 11.3, S.I -i t-i.th (C'ri re-: firt s :-i.:1''n.
H.:, in luij Harl:o.:r, Ha'.-: ii, inI atce.'rdajn,':e writh th.e re:iort i-unmilled iam Hou-e
Do,, umeint Nurul:t.ired 7'53, Sixity-mo.th (Co,,ncr :itionD.t E-S-i,_on: Pr,: ..1..,d, That
nc. limit of tuliPe tball I:e 7et -ithi .i:ii-; 'l the lri: h retl: a do':jpted shall be

Connlne it'-liit Ri,-r, al..:.' e -Hartford, C.:- nne,-tie it: There- s ah u h ril r ed to Le
exi.,erIded ulpon i. e project icrpoted b th- Chief .:.f Ei-ineer- utider date of
April 24, 1 .30, ,nd pr.ute-d in R-i'.:r- and Harl:.or: Conmmiiter D:(t.mu] -rt Num-
betred 36, Sexc-rnt-firt C-',n'gr.er -, -e,-c':,d Set-ior, -ubject t tt-the >'.:.ntdition scet
forth in -:iid reprt, the Iun of $1It,000,000 t and -ub[iet to the further co nditions
that the BuiLle', or Men'morio!, Bridge aer-:,:- the C.onn.'-,i 'ut River a Hartford
shall not be disturbed, aid' that [the I.- aund dain dii-sriid ;n the report as to:, be
built near the c-ity o:f Hartford -hall n...t be concitricted m,:, near -.aid city Ias to
in anya way disturl: I Wt. improvt-erents or otherwise interfere lith the s:,id city.

PRELIMINARY EXAMiNAITIONS AND T'iRVIr.
SEc. 2. The Seeretar oif War is herey authorized and directed to c a'se
preliminary exat iiatiAs ind iii e, a Io Ile made at the f.-,io-wina-ninmed locali-
ties, the eo:-st there of to be paid from appiropriiation heretoft: ore or hereafter made
for such piurpoes': Pr,.ot d-1, That Dno p1iliminary etaminiration, Esur\ve, project,
or estimate for ni-w works :-ther than those de-ignated in this or -ome prior ac-t or
joint resolution shall be made: Pr.,..':,. f,,rtihr, That after the regular .:r formal
reports made as reiquirld hby lan aon any exa.-mination, urj-vey, project, or weor.:
hinder way ;- r pr.:'-pi:ed are -iibmittic-: nIo iuppl-enr-ntal or additional report or
estimate haull Ibe made niles authorized bi-y la.v: A,,d i.pr.',i',i' further, That the
Go'.'err nent .hall n:It be deew ed to hie. en tered uponr any pri:'ject for the
impro. -ement 'o:f any n-teri.-i, :,r hart,:'r menti'nted in this act until the project
for the propoc'ed --orl: ishall h\e leen ad':pted b.,y law:
Portland Haribor, Maine, aloni the waterfro.:nt :of South P.:rtlland.
Boothbaiiv Harbor, Mai:ne.
Ogunq,.lii Harbor andi PerLr:c Cove, M..re.
l union Ri,--r, Maine.
Cad-nrj Harbor, Maine.
Corea Harbor, NMlsind.
Atkins Bav, M:ane.
Monheicinu Harbor, Mlaine
Wohoua Bay and Ple.s--ant Ri',--r. AddiJ...-i, \WaXhinegton County, Main,?.
York Hartor, MNinn-
Mo ussami River at Kennebin:p.:.rt, MNLine-
Vicinity oIf RoyP River, Mail'-.
Criehaven Harbt:r, Maine.
Newagen Harbor, S.,.uthpurt, NMaine.
Channel bc-tween I.le-au-Haut aud KimJbalts Island Maisn-.

12 RIVERS AND HARBORS

Coast of New Hampshire between Rye Beach and Fox Head Point, with a
view to the establishment of a harbor of refuge.
Rye Harbor, New Hampshire.
Gloucester Harbor and Annisquam River, Massachusetts.
Weymouth Back River, Massachusetts.
Mystic River, Massachusetts, from the Felsway Parkway Bridge at Welling-
ton and East Somer ille to the Cradock Bridge Dam at Medford Center.
Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts.
Marion Harbor, Ma.saschusetts.
Boston Hart.'or, Massachusetts.
Weymouth Fore River, Masiachusetts, from Hingham Bay to the Weymouth
Fore River Bridge.
Edgartownr Harbor. Massachusetts.
Woods Hole Channel, lMrssachusetts.
Nantucket Harbor. IMa~s.ihusetis.
Entrance to Oreat Salt Pond, Block Island, Rhode Island.
Old Warwick Cove, town of Warwick, Kent. County. Rhode Island.
Pawtucket River, Rlodo Island.
The East Harbor at Bluoc: Isiand, Rhode Island.
Yantic River, Co, inecticnt
Cliritoi Harbl..r, Conrnectic:ut.
New London Harl..r, Connecticut.
Branford Harbtor, Connecticut
Connecticut River below Hartford, Connecticut.
Cornne:ticit River, between Hartford, Connecticut, and Springfield and Hol-
yoke, NMaseachu'ett:.
New Haven Harbor, C:onnecticut.
At. pnd near City Island, New Yo:rk City, New York, with a view of construct-
ing a breakvkat.r.
East Chester Creek, New York.
Huntington Harbor, New York
Hudson River Chrannel, Nevn York and New Jersey, with a view to securing a
depth of forty feet for its full width from Fifty-ninth Street to Upper New York
Bay
Sparlill Creek, New York.
New York Harbor. New York: The Brooklyn water front.south from a point
opposite the lowrr end of Governors I[land to a point near the beginning of the
shore road improvement with a view to securing wider channels.
New York Harbor, New York: The Upper Bay, the Narrows, the Lower Bay
and Red Hook Flats, with a view to providing additional anchorage areas, the
relocation or existing anchorage areas, the construction of a breakwater off
Staten Islaud in the Lower Bay, the construction of a channel connectiug the area
inclosed by said breakr.ater with the Ambrose Channel, and additional dredging
where needed in the interest of navigation.
Elizabeth River, New Jersey.
Newark Bay, New Jersey, with a view to providing anchorage grounds in the
vicinity of the Port Newark Terminal.
East Branch of tShrewn bury River, New Jersey, from Highlands to Long
Branch.
Rahway River, New Jeisey.
Cut-off channel of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, to connect the Raritan River
channel with the southerly end of the channel in Arthur Kid.
New York a nd New Jeri-. channels. from deep water in the vicinity of Sandy
Hook, New Jersey, through Lower New York Bay, Raritan Bay. Arthur Kill,
Staten Island Sound, and 1Kill van Kull, to deep water in Upper New York Bay,
including the channel north of Shooters Island, with a view to securing channels
of sfliciient de,-th and width and adequate anchorage areas for vessels using such
channels.
Compton Creek, New Jersey.
East branch of Sh.rerwsbury River, New Jersey.
Shark River, New Jersey.
great t Eeg Harbor Riv'er at Mays Landing, New Jersey.
Bidwells Creek, Cape May County, New Jersey.
Darby River, Pennsr% lvania.
Delaware River at New Castle, Delaware, with a view to removing existing ice
breakers.
Parish Creek, Anne Arundel County Maryland.

RIVEnR .AND H.RLBORS

Knapps Narrows, Tall,ot County. Maryland.
Walnut Harbor, Talbot County, Maryland.
Broad Creek, Maryland, from .Annamesex River to Poeomoke Sound, Somer-
set County, Maryland
Area at the nmoith of P.comoke River, Worcester Counl Maryland, known as
S*The Muds."
Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and
S Maryland. The Delaware City branch, with a view t:o ecuring a depth of twelve
feet.
Back River, Bear Creek, Corti; Creek, and Colgate Creek, Maryland.
Channel from Rhodes Point to Tylertou, Smiths Island, Maryland.
Honga River and Tar Bay Barren Island Gapi., NMaryland.
Waterway acrom- Kent Iblaud, Quieej Anne: County, Mlar land, connecting
Chesapeake Bayv with Eastern B:iy in lihe vicinity of Nlattapex.
Channel of the Upper Thbr.:iighl'are lying hb-tv.eei_ the .teiambloat wharf on
Deal Island, Majryland, an]ld Mkaynte Point in the T-jgier di.trirt.
Corsiea River, Queen Annes County, Marylanjd.
Neale~ Creek, Charles County. Maryland.
The Southern Bra:inch ..f the Elizal.. th River, N..rfolk Hiarbor, Virginia
Paradise' Creek, Pr:rlilmouti I, Virginia.
Lafayette Ri\er, Virgihia.
Black-vater C(reek, Virginia
Totuskey Cr,-ek, Rvictnond County, Virginia.
Windmill Point Crc-k, Lancaster County, Virginia.
Mosquito Creek, Lautvister County, Virginia.
TUrbannn Creek, Middlesex County, Virginia.
Hampton Creek, Virgii'ia.
Deep Creek, Warwick County, Virginia.
Channels leading from Hog Island, N:.rthaniiptoi, County, \irginia, to the
Great Machipotugo Tulet.
('ape Charles Harl:,or, Nortlhanipton County, \irginia..
Chaunn. from Phot, .u, V\-lriias, to deep water in Hamlptoi Roiads
Dickers.r.n: Ba\, I1..uti- ,r 'Cou nty, Virginia.
Chincol eagnu Ba), Cta C-nel, iand Ia ilet, and adjacent waters, Accomae County,
Vireinia, with a view to the establishment of a harbor of refuge.
The locks at Lake Drummond, Norfolk County, Virginia, with a view to their
renewal.
Waterway from Norfolk; Virginia, to the sounds of North Carolina, including
the Dismal Swamp Canal.
Mill Creek, at Pioll.kivilh:, North Carolina.
Alligantor Creek, North Carolina, and channel connecting said creek with the
inlaud waterway
Robtinson ChianJnl, leading from Pamlico Sound to Hatteras, North Carolina.
Ne.ise River, N.l,rth Carolina, from the wharves at New Bern to Goldsboro,
Norlh Carolina, vr iti a view to providing a depth of eight feet vnth suitable
width.
Ch rinel fro:m Co:re Sound to Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina, by ray of Wain-
wright. Channel, or ...tlir inside passage.
Channel fro:n Bertuf..rt, Inlet, North Carolina, via the inland waterway and
Neuse River to New Bern, with a view to securing a depth of twenty feet with
suitable width.
Inland waterrway from Beaufort to .Jak:l: onr\ille, North Carolina, leading from
Craigs Point and via Salliers Bay. Howard Bay, aid New River.
Channel from Pamlico Sound near the mouth of Neuse River. to Beaufort,
North Carolina, via Swan Point, Cedar Inland Bay, T!iorougthaire Cut, Thor-
oughlare Bay, Core Sound, touching at Atlantic Wharves, and through the
straits and Taylors Creek Cut with a view to securing a depth of -even feet with
suitable width
Shallowbag Bay, ,North Carolina.
Section of ani. canal from Fairfield, North Carolina, to the intersection of
said canal with the inland waterway between Alligator and Pungo Rivers, with
I' a \iew to its acqui-itlon :,b the Uniteil States.
Northeast River, N:rlth Carolina.
Waterwau c:oiineting C,.-'r Siour.l and Beraufort Harbor, North Carolina.
Chaunel in Pamlico S,..d, No'rlh Carolina, to Stumpy Point.
111747-3(1-PT 1--2

14 RIVERS AND HARBORS

Waterway connecting Snan Quarter Bay with Deep Bay. No:rth Carolina,
including the Snan Quarter Canal, with a view to the acquilition of said canal
by the United States either through donation -ir piirchase
Couibalhet ard Big Salkehatchie Ri\,-r., Soith Canolina.
South Edi-to River, South Carolina. .
Cooper Riher. South Carolina; fr.:.'n the lm.: ll f (Goo,-ce Creek to, Quirl. y
Creek; also v.ith a iew to eliminating. the I.nd r .',ia it thlie,- mile- trel)r. the iunc-
tii:,n of the e.ct and west branches ,'f said _ri.er. t U
Upper Sarmpt River. S:uth Carolina:, and .;.atr-.inr, fron the Upper Slampit
Ri'ei to: a point opposite ~~niull..ln Cre,:: :.rn the- No!thi Sa.nee Ri\er.
F-'ort Royal Hartrr, Beiuf':ort Ri\er, a rn.l adjai'.-ent natr:rs, in channel tletw er
tl.L Ma:rine Barra:cs, Parri- I-land, South Ca:ro:hai,, 'ariT the oce-an.
.erenmy Creek, South Carolinr, fror U Mlrrison': Laiidi .g to': Graliani'-: factory-.
A hbl a p ,, -v la C r e.e k J ,:,l- ,h I E ,la n d S ., _, t h C i l.:.li hl *
Jame Ilmairl Creek, Ci.'hail;r ton Cuaunty, Soutr Cart'liia.
Fenwik'-i CL.t at Aelshpo,, River to Co':.-aw Ri'er, South Car.:.lina.
\Vater;i!wa from Ashep:,o River, S,:outh Carolinla, to. Cos-,:s:iw River, by "a\ of
Ferni\ j>l' C .it
Jern, Crek. Sth r'e. St ar.ot 'l.i. wit-h a iew to providing an approach to
MI Clti-laa ville.
Russ-ell Crek, Soutl C(ar-..ina
savannah Harbor, ;e.:rgia, trom an-d across the bar to the extreme vweitern
limits; i af id harhbr, i. ith a '. ien t.., '':-ririg such increase in depth and nridtl
and Siuch .other [I pr..'.emeL_.nt as mua be fo:unid necessary, including an adequate
Sturniuig l.:'nil in the upper -tretches :of -id lharl'or.
Darien, Geori'a, ith 3a ien of giving i ,h.tnnel or roJte to:' the e: either by
DoL'.v S'ound, Saipo Sound, or Alta5jaiala Sound, and Brrnsrv.ick Harbor, trind
with the fiirther vie. t.i- impro'.iag D.inr- H rlarb fo..r lihht-di.ilt 'ltlppr.ing through
the Altam:inha Ri\er v\s.tem n ad by tvhe inland wnaterway.
Richardson C-reek, -Geirgi, and i ir-lrle Iting streaui, to atnd b, y-nd the home
-of the National Older of Railrad .Condiuctors ,:n )Oatland I-land, for light-draft.
boats, and with a i'.ie to, a ? :nrrnectio:n wiith the intrarco-astal w-aterway.
Inland '.aterr'-ay at Thu.ndr.rb'lht, (Ge-'rgil, ritl a vier-v t.. eittablishing an
anchorage ba-in 'or hj rrbor for imnall l?:'ati and for iupro 'lig iite r: e to: meet the
demand of present aid prospective commerce, aril alo the river and sound
conneotinp the inland waterway at yor near Thunilerlbolt, G-orgiL., w-ith the river
or sound adjacent to the Oglethc'rple Hotel on 'Wilmingtoin island, Georgia, with
the ie"n iof establishing n j\liation for small boats to a point opposite and at said
hotel l.
Sapelo: River, Georgia, both the south and north prongs or channels, to the
head -of navigation thereon, and to a point at and b,:yond Baiidens Bluff on the
south channel of said river, with the view of connecting up with the inland
wvaternay.
South Ne wporrt River, Georgia.
The Altamala Rie r -systern, ol the Oemnitee River to Macon, Georgia, and
the Oconee River to Mihlledgr- ille, Geortmia, w.iti the iew to connecting said system
with the inland waterrnay for barge and small boa-t navigation.
The Ogeechee River, Georgia, to a point opposite or near Midville, Georgia,
with a ievw t:o liproi'.ing sname for barges and small boats and to connect the
same with the inland water.va- y on the .:oast of Georgia.
Wateriay coioneoting the Ocmulig>e? arid Flint Ri\er-, (Georgia.
The Satills River, (eor-ia, to:. the Cihaiton County line, with the view of
secijrin additional depth, W dth. and -.suh o:thbr improvements as may be found
advisable in the initere-t of navigation and: commerce and to connect with the
inland waterwray.
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia, to include Turtle River from Southern Docks to
Crispin Island, with a view of iecriring such depth, width, and other improve-
ments ai may bI: fo:uiud necessary or advisable in the interest of Uan igation and
commerce, ai d .iith a view of consolidating all projects related to or forming a
part of -aid harbor
Inland waterwavy [rom Savannah, Georgia, to: Brunsnvick, by way of Harris
Neck Landing. i<
Savannah River at Augiuta, Georgia, with a view of extending the present
.evetment work tio the top of the levee aid prevent erosion interfering with the
Ij vigation of the improvi',.l channel. r-

HRIERS A\ND HARBORS

W \Viterwav for barge trail saer.,-; souilh:ri Georgia and northern Florids to
connect the Atlani.: Intrar, : ata i Waterway with the propoE-id G(ulf Irntrac:-astal
Waterway by, the most practi:abl, route.
.Wnterra. a roii n. rthL rn Florii, to: cionntiect the I tlab Ii Ittraco,.-stal iat-r-
--. v l w ith the ipropo d (Guf Intra,:.i-,c.ital Water:a:y I..y th. e m ru._t pra.ititcab:. rou:te.
W ]tt-r, fi tiu P,:na :l B. , Flo rid.,, i. the Ca,-los.ahatIL e, River rand for a
4. :ro.-F[ori:I waterway to connect with the Flociida East Coa.t Catiil.
Miami River, Florida.
SWaterway from Miami, Florida. ,to Ki.-y \\-i, a th .1 viev. t.., c:otrj:.tuiig an
e'..i-,; .::; the ;ntracoastal ..-rttnv.j.ay 'r.,.ll I. : W,:r, ilkl to: MN it.nj
Ti-. S-tinit .Jolitu River, Florid.,, in th-:- gtint-r i '. Anit.y ,:.t DE im,: P.,iut I, d New
Berlin, e-it i iw to .' rtininL tlh i :ii,-'? of th- roionr, .' the i pl.and, and
-ith -1 iew to de-vising re:ul i'dt-.5 to re:r.,;it tht: -:.ilj, a d, to ptroi :.t the upl _jid
against any further rece-tio.u .:f thie --lI:re line
Lake Worth Inlet, Florida. : :.
Inland waterway from a point at or near Stuart, Florida, t e th Gulf o:f IMe:ic.:.
by \wa. of the Saint Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloo:jahatchee
River 1 .
Ilnlaid v.atr.rs. a. frol.n M;-iini, Florida, to the Gulf of Me!.;, :t or onear Po:in-
ciana, by, waiy c:,if tih MiA ini River, thence westerly along the Tamiaini Triil,
and it enc.e .oi.t h eetrly along the State highway. :
C'lhanilr in Hor.,-elhoe Cove, Dixie County, Florida, from tlhe iailand to
the Gulf of Mexico.
S: Lake Worth Inlet, Florida.
Saint Petersburg Harbor, Florida.
;Pensacola Harbor, Florida. :
Channel leading to the town of Santa Rosa, Florida, from deep waler in
Choctawhatchee Bay.
Inland waterway from Port Everglades at Bay Mabel, Florida, via Clewiston,
to the headwaters of the Caloosahatchee River in Lake H icpchee, by way of the
New River, the North New River Canal, and LaLe O)keecbhobee, \iti a view to
its improvement by the Federal Government for the purpos.i of navigation
together with its incidental effect on flood control.
Channel in San Carlos Bay, Florida, from Punta Rassa to deep water in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Ponce de Leon Inlet at the mouth of Halifax and Indian Rivers near New
Smyrna, Florida.
Withlacoochee River, Florida.
Peace River, Florida.
Pithlachascotee River, Florida, from New Port Richey to the Gulf of IMexic.I
Barron River, at Everglades, Collier County, Florida, and channel across
Chokoloskee Bay to the Gulf of Mexico.
.Clearwater Harbor, Florida, including Big Pass and Little Pass.
Anclote River, Florida, from the county bridge at Tarpon Springs to the Gulf
of Mexico.
Channel in Little Sarasota Bay, Florida, between Sarasota and Venice, and
channel through (-'ae s5 P:. .
SF lint River, Georgia, to Albany, Georgia, or. as much farther up as navigation
maybe found practicable on said river.
The Chattahoochee River, Georgia, and connecting wvatr~i a'j, witl such
land cuts and locks as may be necessary to a point opposite or near Atlants,
Georgia, with a view of establishing navigation for barges ani saUll boats there
and to connect the t i i&ne witi the inland waterway.
G.ulfiort Hilrbor, Mississippi.
Ptl ri Ri\er, l\is;si:t'ippi, 1l.:-.: w Jackson.
Back BaY, Mis-isippi
T.-nibibiee R;\er, MiI-sis~ippFi.
Wnliei'vy iroIm th-e li,-adl aters. of Bay John, Alabama, to the Gulf of lMexio.
NMolile Ri et, \labaima, Ith a view to removing o..It.rn:tioris.
Bavou Coden, Ala:.nia.
S Bay-Lou Plaquemine Brule, Louisiana.
[t Bavou Bienvenue, Louisiana.
Ba'i.:'i Sennc-ette, .Jeffer-son Parish, Louisiana.
Bs:iou La Lo:tlre, Lou:ljiajua
Bao,,u -Yclsky, Louisiatna.
Ba;'o i Terre ani Boe.f, anid Delacroix Island, Louisiana.
Grand Ba\ou Pals4, Louisia-ra.

16 RIVERS AND HARBORS

Waterway from the Intracoai.tal Waterway to Lake Chi-n. Louisiana, follow-
ing the composite stream which traverses section, 48, township 17 soi.ih, range
19 east, parish of Lafoirche.
Watervray from the New Orleans Industrial Canal, LouisiLujj, to Mississippi
Sound throuJgh Latke Borgne, and partly by way of BaN,.,i Bie,,.enu .i
Lake Charles Deep Water Chanrie, L, .uisiaji, with a view to maintain in
said channel to its enlarged dimensions.
Waterway from the Mississippi River to the Intracoastal Waterway by way
of Bayou Manchac, Amite River, Lake Maurepas, Pass Manchac, Lake Mau-
repas, and the Rigolets, Louisiana.
Bayou Grand Caillou, Louisiana.
Bayou Petit Anrise, Bayou Tigre, and Bayou Carlin, Louisiana.
Bayou Lafourche, Louisiana.
Waterway from Bayou Teche at New Iberia, Louisiana, to the Intracoastal
Waterway, by way :,f the Iberia Commercial Canal and Bayou Carlin.
Bayou LaCarpe, between Bayou Grand Cailloii and the Intracoastal Waterway.
Vermilion Riter, Louisiana.
Bayo.j C':oidrie, Bayou Courtableau, Bay',..u Boeuf, and Bayou Teche, Lou-
isiana.
Brazos River, Texas, from a point above Rosenberg to its mouth, with a view
to controlling the flood waters of said river by a diversion channel or other
methods.
Galveston Harbor and Channel, Texas; also including therein the San Jacinto
Reservation, with a view to the placing or disposal of dredged or other material
in such manner as to improve the said reservation.
.Greens Bayou, Texas, from the North Shore Railroad bridge to the Houston
ship channel.
Sanr Bernard River, Texas.
Anahuac, Channel, Texas.
Turtle Bayou, Texas.
Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.
Clear Creek and Clear Lake, Texas, for a greater depth and enlargement of the
waterway facilities.
West Galveston Bay, and adjacent waters, Texas, with a view to determining
whether the construction of channels through Redfish Reef has caused an in-
crease in the salt-water content in Trinity River, or other waterways, to the in-
jury of rice growing and other interests in Chambers and Liberty Counties,
Texas, and report as to what works, if any, are necessary to remedy such con-
.litijui:.
Dickmson Bayou, Texas.
0 ffal ts Bayou, Texas.
Trinity River, Texas.
Waterway from Harli ren, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico, by way of Arroyo
Colorado, Laguna Madre, and cut across Padre Island or such other route as
may be deemed advisable.
Channel from Port O'Connor, Texas, to the Intracoastal Waterway.
Channel from Port Lavaca, Texas, to the Intracoastal Waterway.
Channel from Palacios, Texas, and the Texas National Guard Camp through
Tres Palacios and Matagorda Bays to a connection with the Intracoastal Water-
way.
Wolf River and Noncannah River, Tennessee.
Mississippi River in the vicinity of Hamilton, Illinois.
Rock River, Illinois, from the water-power dam at Rockford to the dam at the
head of the feeder of i lie Illinois and Mie.-issippi Canal at or near Sterling, thence
by way of the canal : i.:d.-r to tih- Illinois and Mississippi Canal, with a view to,
securing a navigable channel nine feet in depth and of suitable width.
Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Illinois and Mississippi Canal, Illinois, from the Illinois River at Bureau
Junction to the Mississippi River at Rock Island, with a view to securing a navi-
gable channel nine feet in depth and of suitable width by dredging and enlarging
the locks; also with a view to devising a plan which will reduce the number of
locks in this waterway.
Rock River, I -linoi Lud Wisconsin, from Janesville to the water-power dam at
Rockford, with a view to securing a navigable channel nine feet in depth and of
suitable width. t
Waterway from Conona, Illinois, in a northwesterly direct ion to hie MisAissippL
River at Moline pool.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Black River, Wisconsin.
St. Croix River, Wisconsin and Minnesota, from Stillwater to its mouth.
Minnesota River, Minnesota.
Survey of Lake City Harbor, Minnesota.
,.. Mississippi River in the vicinity of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Mi;issipp i Ri. er, from Brainerd to Minneapolis, lionesota.
S Big Blur Ri.,-r, Missouri, from its confluence with the Missouri River to
Fifteenth Street, Kansas City.
Nlis:souri River, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Yauktoul South Dakota, with
a view to securing a channel nine feet in depth and of suitable width.
Missouri River, from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth of the Yellowstone River,
North Dakota.
Kansas (Kaw) River, Kansas and Missouri.
Flint River, Alabama and Tennessee.
Hatchie River, Tennessee.
Youghiogheny River, Pennsylvania, from West Newton to Connellsville.
Beaver River, Pennsylvania, Shenango River, Pennsylvania, and Mahoning
River, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Little Kanawha River, West Virginia.
Big Sandy River and Tug and Levisa Forks, West Virginia and Kentucky,
with a view to completing the slackwater projects on these rivers.
Kentucky River, Kentucky.
Nolin River, Kentucky,
Miami River, Ohio.
Hocking River, Ohio.
Ohio River, at and in the vicinity of New Richmond, Ohio.
Baudette Harbor, Minnesota.
Agate Bay Harbor (Two Harbors), Minnesota.
Harbor at Grand Marais, MinnesQta.
Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Siskiwit River, Wisconsin.
Ashland Harbor, Wisconsin.
Bayfield Harbor, Wisconsin.
Harbor of Refuge, -Marquette Bay, Michigan.
Harbor at Marquette, Michigan.
Keweenaw Waterway, Michigan.
South shore of Lake Superior, in the vicinity of Keweenaw Point, Michigan,
with a view to providing a harbor of refuge.
Escanaba Harbor, Michigan.
Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin,
Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin.
Two Rivers Harbor, Wisconsin.
Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Green Bay Harbor, Wisconsin, with a view to widening the outer channel to
a minimum of five hundred feet; also to removing shoals in the Fox River at
the outlet of East River, and providing a turning basin in this locality.
Port Washington Harbor, Wisconsin.
Waterway connecting Lake Michigan with the Mississippi River by way of
-Green Bay Harbor, Fox River and connecting waters, the Portage Canal, and the
Wisconsin River, Wisconsin, with a view to providing a nine-foot barge'canal.
Calumet River, Little Calumet River, Lake Calumet, and the Sag Channel,
Illinois, with a view to providing a connection with, and terminal transfer harbors
for the waterway from Chicago to the Mississippi River.
Chicago Harbor, Illinois.
Calumet Harbor and River, Illinois and Indiana.
Indiana Harbor and Canal, Indiana.
Gary Harbor and Canal, Indiana.
Buffington Harbor, Indiana.
Burns Ditch Harbor, Indiana.
Michigan City Harbor, Indiana.
Leland Harbor, Michigan.
S Harbors at Glen Arbor and Glen Haven, Michigan.
Petoskey Harbor, Michigan.
Cheboygan River, Michigan.
Charlevoix Harbor, Michigan.
Manistee Harbor, Michigan.
Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, with a view to constructing suitable break-
waters.

RInEh. bAND HARBORS

Sairt Mliar\ Falli Canal. Michigan, with aview to the enlargement:of the
Weitzel Lock.
Huiron Rl\er, Mlichigan. :';
Harbor at Ila-,>kiu:nc Island, lichigan.
Tawas River, 1Michiean.
Calcite Harbor, NMcii igin.
Rouge River, Michigan.
Toledo Harbor, Ohio.
Harlor at Saint Tgnsce, Mictdrarn.
Port Austin Harbor, Ilic, igan
Lake Sairt C'air anri C'lintonr River, Michigan.
Old Channel of the River Rouge, Michigan.
Black River, Alcona County, Michigan.
Au Gres River, Michigan.
Au Sable Ri-er, Michigan.
WVaterivay con nr:-tirg LaLes Erie and Michigan with the Ohio River by way of
the Maumee River, frro, Toledo, Ohio, to Fort Wayne, Indiana; the Wabash
River from the Ohio River to the vicinity of Fort Wayne; the Saint Joseph River
From at or near its source to Lake Michigan; waterways connecting the Maumee
River with the Wabash River and Saint Josephl River; and the Saint M rry-
River, Ohio and Indiana, ivth a view to the development of a water supply
sufficient to operate the above-outlihed waterway.
Maumee River, from Toledo, Ohio, to Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Huron Harbor, Ohio.
Lorain Harbor, Ohio.
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio;
Fairport Harbor, Ohio.
Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio.
Conneaut Harbor, Ohio.
Harbor at Erie, Pennsylvania.
Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania, with a view to the construction of additional riprap
work to prevent a further breach in the neck of the peninsula.
Buffalo Harbor, Buffalo River, and Buffalo Ship Canal, New York.
Black Rock Channel and Tonawanda Harbor, New York.
Olcott Harbor, New York.
Wilson Harbor, New York.
Pultneyville Harbor, New York.
Rochester (Charlotte) Harbor, New York.
Great Sodus Bay Harbor, New York.
Oswego Harbor, New York.
Ogdensburg Harbor, New York.
San Diego Harbor, California.
Trinidad Bay, Humboldt County, California.
Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, California.
Bodega Bay, Sonoma County, California.
Los Angeles Harbor, California.
Alamitos Bay, California.
Albany Harbor, California,
Berkeley Harbor, California.
Emeryville Harbor, California.
Lower San Francisco Bay and Guadalupe River, California.
Latham Slough and Middle Ri;er, Calir...rnia.
Mormon Channel section of the Sun J-aquin River and Stockton Channel
project, California.
Point Arena Harbor, California.
Willamette River, Oregon, between Oregon City and Portland, including the
locks at Oregon City.
Columbia River, Oregon and Washington, for the protection of banks and
dikes to prevent the shoaling of the navigation channel by erosion.
Coos Bay Oregon: Inner harbor, from the entrance to Smith's mill.
Rogue River, Oregon, upstream fron Gold Beach.
Smith River, Oregon.
Silrtz River, Oregon, bar and entrance.
Nehalem River, Oregon, bar and entrance.
Beaver Slough, Oregon, from Westport Slough to Wallace Slough.
Youngs Bay and Youngs River, Oregon.

:: t' : ,',^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

RIVERS AND HARBOIRS

CharIjel frt:o Terniiral Numbered 4, Willamette River, Oregon, via Columbia
Slough, to Ieeuton.
Channel from C'olnimbia River, via Columbia Slough, Oregon, to Ienton,
Thence up C'olinlij Slo.ugh to Blue Lake, thence to Columbia River.
S Col mbia River at Saint Helens, Oregon.
Bellinrgh.am Harbor, Was ihiio..u; iii:lidiun the Nooksack River, v.-th a vievw
St-i deternuirirng the effec-t of the silt I-arri: by this stream on shoaling in Belliig-
ham Harl:,:r; asio with a view to the construction of a breakwater.
Cowlitz River, Washington, from the mouth to Ostrander:
Bakers Bay, Columbia River, Washington.
*Port'Ludlow, Washington, and vicinity.
Nefh Bay, Washington, with a view to the construction of a harbor of refuge.
Anacortes Harbor and Cap Sante Waterway, Washington.
Port Gamble Harbor, Washington.
Shilshole Breakwater, Shilshole Bay, Seattle, Wa ihi r'ton.
SColumbia River between the mouth of the Wiliajrne tt- Ri er and a point one-
mile above the city of Vancouver, Washington.
East waterway, Seattle Harbor, Washington.
Tacoma Harbor, Washington, including the several waterways at thei head of
Commencement Bay.
Grays Harbor, Washington.
Snake River, Idaho, from Pittsburg Landing to Johnsons Bar.
Egegik River, Alaska.
Kake Harbor, Alaska.
SStikine River, Alaska.
Petersburg Harbor, Alaska.
Kehku Straits, Alaska.
Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.
Tanana River, Alaska, at or near its confluence with the Yukon River.
Wirani,-ll Harbor, Alaska.
Isthmus south of Wedge Cape, Nagai Island, Alaska, with a view to dredging
a channel from East Nagai Strait to West Nagai Strait.
Kalihi Harbor and Keehi Lagoon, Island of Oahu, Hawaii, with a view to
providing a second entrance into Honolulu Harbor, and Pearl Harbor from the
Kalihi area.
The coast of the island of Hawaii, with particular reference to Horiua u.p
Kailua, Kawaa, and Punaluu, with a view to the establishment of one or mjore afe
and adequate harbors.
Hana Harbor, island of Maui, Hawaii.
Lahaina Harbor, island of Maui, Hawaii.
Kaunakakai Harbor, island of Molokai, Hawaii.
Kaumalapau Harbor, island of Lanai, Hawaii.
Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii.
Hilo Harbor, Hawaii.
.Port Allen, Kauai, Hawaii.
Survey for an interoceanic canal in Nicaragua.
The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, under t.le direct tion .:,f the
Secretary of War, is authorized and directed to cause in.t-tigations and itoldies
to be made in cooperation with the appropriate agencies o:.f val :is States ..,n the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts and on the Great Lakes, aud the Territries,
with a view to devising effective means of preventing erosion of the shores of
coastal and lake waters by waves and currents; and any e.-:pe-ise-s incident and
necessary thereto may be paid from funds appropriated for e',ami nrtilh,n, Survey s
and Contingencies for Rivers and Harbors: Provided, That the War Depirt uenut
may release to the appropriate State agencies information obtained by these in
vestigations and studies prior to the formal transmission uf reports to Congres-s:
Provided further, That no money shall be expended under an.th,.rity of this iectiojn
in any State which does not provide for cooperation v ith the agei-nt of the
United States and contribute to the project such funds and/or services as the-
Secretary of War may deem appropriate and require; that there shall be organized,
under the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, by detail from time to time
from the Corps of Erg;ineers and from the engineers of State agencies charged
with beach erosion and store protection, a board of seven memrbers, of n hom four
Shall be officers of the Corps of Eorineers and three shall be selected with regard
to their special fitness by the Chief of Engineers from among the State agencies
cooperating with the -War Department. The board will fjrni-h such technical
assistance as may be directed lby the Chief of Engineers in the conduct'of such

20 RIVERS AND HARBORS

studies as may be undertaken and will review the. report; of the investi-ations
made. In the conrisideration of such studies as may be referred to the board by
the Chief f Engineere, the board shall, when it considers it necessary and with
the sanction of the Chief of Engineers, make, as a board or through its members,
personal examinations of localities under investigation: Provided further, That '
the salary of the civilian members shall be paid by their respective States, but the
tra e I in g a nd ot her necessary expenses connected with their duties on the board
shall be paid in accordance with the law and regulations governing the payment
of such expenses to civilian employees of the Engineer Department.
SEC. 3. That the paragraph in section 1 of the river and harbor act approved
July 25, 1912, authorizing the removal of temporary obstructions from tribu-
taries of waterways under Federal improvement (37 Stat. L. 222), is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"The Chief of Engineers, in his discretion, and after approval by the Secre-
tary of War, is hereby authorized to make preliminary examinations and minor
surveys preliminary thereto and to remove snags and other temporary or.readily
removable obstructions from tributaries of waterways already under Federal
improvement or in general use by navigation, to be paid from funds allotted
to the adjoining waterways: Provided, That the cost of such work in any single
year shall not exceed $1,0n00 per- trib' tur.."
SEC.. Bass River, .Il: _.a:i.'iliett-. Ihat ti~ proi,-:.ill.z of river and harbor'
acts heretofore passed 'pr.:.\;]:iig f'.r thie pr,.-ei.utjt.ii of work upon the harbor
at the mouth of Bass River, Massachusetts, are hereby repealed.
Waterway connecting Gravesend Bay with Jamaica Bay, New York: That
the provision in the river and harbor act approved January 22, 1927, adopting
the project for the improvement of a waterway connecting Gravesend Bay with
Jamaica Bay in the State of New York, in accordance with the report submitted
in House Document Numbered 111, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, is hereby
repealed.
SEC. 5. That the dock owned by H. H. Davis in Friday Harbor Cove, San
Juan County, Washington, and the dock owned by the Friday Harbor Packing
Company in the same cove be, and the same are hereby, legalized to the same
extent and with like effect as to all existing or future laws and regulations of
the United States as if the permits required by the existing laws of the United
States in such cases, made and provided had been regularly obtained prior to
the erection of said docks: Provided, That any changes in said docks which the
Secretary of War may deem necessary and may order in the interest of naviga-
tion shall be promptly made by the owner thereof, it being understood that the
Government assumes no expense, either of construction or of maintenance, of
any kind whatsoever in connection with these docks or either of them. The
right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.
That the consent of Congress is granted to the State of Oregon, acting through
its highway department, and to the Stock Slough drainage district, organized
under the laws of the State of Oregon, to construct, maintain, and operate, at a
point suitable to the interests of navigation, a dam and dike for preventing the
flow of tidai waters into Stock Slough, Coos Bay, Coos County, Oregon. Work
shall not be commenced on such dam and dike until the plans therefore, including
plans for all accessory works, are submitted to and aplproqie 1,. the Chief of
Engineers and the Secretary of War, who may impose sc,-h r,.-,niltionu and stipu-
lations as they deem necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
The authority granted by this act shall terminate if the actual construction of
the dam and dike hereby authorized is not commenced within one year and com-
pleted within three years from the date of the passage of this act. The right to
alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.
That the consent of Congress is granted to the State of Oregon, acting through
its highway department, and to the Larson Slough drainage district, organized
under the laws of the State of Oregon, to construct, maintain, and operate, at a
point suitable to the interests of navigation, a dam and dike for preventing the
flow of tidal waters into Larson Slough, Coos Bay, Coos County, Oregon. Work
shall not be commenced on such dam and dike until the plans therefore, including
plans for all accessory works, are submitted to and approved by the Chief of
Erni neers a, nd the Secretary of War, who may impose such conditions and stipu-
lation-: a they deem necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
The authority granted by this act shall terminate if the actual construction of
the dam and dike hereby authorized is not commenced within one year and com-
pleted within three years from the date of the passage of this act. The right
to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expre;.ly r,~eerved.

RIVERS AND HARBORS 21

That the consent of Congress is granted t.:, thel State of Oreg:o, acting thr u..gh
its highway department; to the Coeledc Drainag.,: Distrirt, orgaeized under the
iarns of the Stale of Or,-gr-n, aud to the Br-, ,r Slough drjinagc Jdis i;t, organized d
under the ia\%e of tie State of Oregon, to :.on iis:truct, m.inlairi, and r-.perat-, at a
point suitable to the interests of navigation, .1 d:mn and dike for preveritiig the
flow of ti~ll n, atern into Beaver Slough, Coquille River, Coos County, Oregon.
Work -h.iil nut I'. commenced on such dam and dike until the plans therefore,
including plans for all accessory works, are submitted to and approved by the
Chief of: Ernrineerc and the Secretary of War, who may impose such (~'ndition
and .tiplilatiicn- a- they deem necessary to protect the interests of the United
States. The authority gIra ii.J- by this act shall terminate if the actual con-
struction of the dan. aiid dike hereby authorized is not commenced within one
year and completed within three years from the date of the passage of this act.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.
That the consent of Congress is granted to the State of Oregon, acting through
its highway department, and to the Haynes Slough drainage district, oi c.aiz- d
under the laws of the State of Oregon, to construct, maintain, and operate, at a
point suitable to the interests of navigation, a dam and dike for preventing the
flow of tidal waters into Haynes Slough, Coos Bay, Coos County, Oregon.
Work shall not be commenced on such dam and dike until the plans therefore,
including plans for all accessory works, are submitted to and approved by the
i Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, who may impose such conditions
Sard stipulations as they deem necessary to protect the interests of the United
States. The authority granted by this Act shall terminate if the actual con-
struction of the dam and dike hereby authorized is not commenced within one
Year and completed within three years from the date of the passage of this act.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.
SEc. 6. That hereafter direct allotments from appropriations for maintenance
and improvement of existing river and harbor works or other available appropria-
t ion may be made by the Secretary of War for the collection and removal of drift
i i New York Harbor and its tributary waters, and this work hereafter shall'be
carried as a separate and distinct project.
The Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to engage under agreement, when
deemed necessary, expert assistance in the various arts and sciences, including
e exert stenographic assistance for reporting the proceedings of public hearings
Shield in connection with preliminary examinations, surveys, or improvements of
rivers and harbors, upon terms and rates of compensation for services and inci-
denital expenses in excess of the maximum of the salaries authorized by the
classification act of March. 4, 1923, as amended by the act of May 28, 1928;
and. all agreements heretofore entered into for such purposes are hereby validated
to the amount of the current rates charged for such services.
The Chief of Engineers is hereby authorized to have printed a further edition
i-f the report entitled "Transportation in the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys,"
pri pared by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in cooperation with
tljh United States Shipping Board under authority of section 500 of the trans-
portation act approved February 28, 1920 (to be brought down as nearly as pos-
.cit.le to date), to be paid for from appropriations made by Congress for the
improvement of rivers and harbors; and the cost of printing such other reports
and data as are prepared in compliance with that law (not exceeding $35,000 in
anii. one year) may be paid from similar appropriations.
J. Actual expenses hereafter incurred by civilian employees on river and harbor
o works for travel when making permanent change of station under competent orders,
u.ay, on approval of the Chief of Engineers, be paid or reimbursed from funds
pertaining to river and harbor works.
The Comptroller General of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized
anud directed to allow credit, in the amounts stated, in the disbursing accounts of
the following-named officers of the Corps of Engineers, to wit: Major J. A.
O'Connor, $11.29; Major H. M. Trippe, $15; Lieutenant Colonel George R.
Spalding, $100; which amounts now stand as disallowances on the books of the
General Accounting Office.
SEC. 7. That the Secretary of War may, in his discretion, cancel the bond
executed November 22, 1927, by the Brazos River Harbor navigation district, of
Braz,_ria County, Texas, as principal and the National Surety Company as surety,
to iniiire the payment of the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be.re-
'-1 quired for carrying out the project for the improvement" of Freepo)rt Harbor,
Texa-, and release. the said pri ipl id ..urety from any ol.ligatiou tlhereurde-r.
SEc S. That the ,pr,-. ir ic.r :t scctio'ns. 10 and 20 of the act .,' 1 March 3, 1599,
entitled "An act iiiakirig appr:opriatioiii for tie construction, repair, andpreserva-

RIVERS AND HARBORS

lion of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," .are
hereby m nide appli':ahle to the navigable waters of the Virgin Islands.
SEc. 9. The Se.cretary of War is authorized to transfer to the permanent
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce, for lighthouse purposes, a parcel of
land of approximately eight and three one-hundredths acres, located near ,
Hobucken, North Carolina, and being a portion of land acquired for improvement
*of inland waterway from Norfolk, Virginia, to Beaufort, North Carolina.
That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to quit-claim without charge
to the city of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, all the right, title, and interest of-the United
States in an island located in Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, which lies northerly
and easterly of fractional lot 1, section 19, township 18 north, range 17 east, for
park purposes, provided he is convinced that the city has the right under the
laws of the State of Wisconsin to occupy and use the island for such purposes.
SEc. 10. That the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to have prepared
and transmitted to Congress at the earliest practical date after March 4, 1931, a
compilation of preliminary examinations, surveys, and appropriations for works
of river and harbor improvement similar in general form and subject matter to
that which was prepared in accordance with the act of March 4, 1913, and
printed in House Document Numbered 1491, Sixty-third Congress, third session:
Provided, That the report to be prepared in accordance with this provision shall
be'a revised edition of the report printed in the document above mentioned,
extended to the end of the Seventy-first Congress.
SSEC. 11. Louisiana and Texas Intracoastal Waterway: Whenever the Secretary
-of War shall approve plans for a bridge authorized by law to be built across said
waterway he may, in his discretion, and subject to such terms as in his judgment
-are equitable, expedient, and just to the public, grant to the person or corporation,
municipal, or private, building and owning such bridge, a right of way across the
lands owned in fee simple by the United States on either side of and adjacent to
the said waterway; also the privilege of occupying so much of said lands as may
!be necessary for the piers, abutments, and other portions of the bridge structure
:and approaches.
SEc. 12. Subject to the' provisions of section 10 of the river and harbor act
approved March 3, 1899, authority is hereby granted to dredge, without cost to
the United States, in the navigable waters of the United States included within
-the State of Maryland and outside the limits of projects for improvement of
navigation facilities approved by. Congress, regardless of rights accruing to the
United States as riparian owner under the laws of the State of Maryland: Pro-
vided, That in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such dredging will improve
facilities for navigation.
The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to proceed on the two items in
'question, which are to be found upon page 5 of the bill, lines 12 to 21,
and page 31 of the bill lines 20 to 24. Now in what method do you
wish to proceed? I ask that particularly of the Senator from Midh-
igan and the Senator from New York, because they have different
views in relation to these matters. In what way would you prefer
to proceed?
Senator VANDENBERG. I would be very glad to hear General
Deakyne on the general proposition. I do not know what the
:Senator from New York has in mind, but would be glad to hear his
wishes.
Senator COPELAND. That is entirely satisfactory to me.

;STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. HERBERT DEAKYNE, MEMBER
BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS, WAR
DEPARTMENT

The CHAIRMAN. General Deakyne, would you' do us the kindness,
please, to 'give the committee such information as you deem appro-
priate in relation to the item that is to be found on page 5, entitled
"Great Lakes-Hudson River Waterway"?
The Secretary of War is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to accept
from the State of New York the State-owned waterways known as the Erie

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Ca'i:, il and the Oswego Canal and thereafter:maintain and operate them as
irna igable waterways of the United States, at an estimated.annual cost of $2,500,-
0)0 Pr,,irided, That such transfer shall be made without cost to the United
Stati anrd shall include all land, easements, and completed or uncompleted
,"- strut ture and appurtenances of the said waterways.
General DEAKYNE. This item is the result of investigation called
for by resolution of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the
Hoii, of Representatives. In accordance' with that resolution a
l, aird was appointed, consisting of officers not on duty in Washington,
nlit connected with the Rivers and Harbors Board, to report on the
question of deepening waters of the Erie and Oswego Canals, in the
State of New York. The resolution called for a report on the deep-
ening of those canals to 14 feet.
Th.:,e -niin.s were built by the State of New York, and they are
really iian :it,'rowth of the Erie Canal, which is over a hundred years
,'ld. Tihe State of Ni-\ York modernized that canal some years ago
troii it- lorineir depth of probably 8 feet to 12 feet. The State of
New Y-.I k hais spent something like $146,000,000 on that work. The
bh:,rdi trh.lt wi-a appointed especially to investigate this subjectmnade
si-,r'. c.-tiimate:- of the cost, discussed the commerce and the condi-
til-nli -At thi- n.It diill-ic[ien benefits in sight to warrant the United States in making
*.<'-l:iienIitiie- to deepen that canal to 14 feet.
SenaetD.ir (:'I-'ELAND. In November, December, or January, probably.
Setn-iiitr Mc I:NARY. General, what is the present depth of the canal?
GeiiE.irail )I:.KYNE. The present depth of the canal is about ten

Snat,_t..rl McNARY. The engineers reported adversely?
(ieinrdail )DLAKYNE. The engineers reported adversely on the deep-
*i. inii t[1.1 14 t'flt.
Sinit:it,. NINARY. What is the estimated cost?
Genirlni DLAKYNE. Somewhere around $90,000,000, as I recollect.
SnPiiot.:r (:'o'ELAND. To make that 14 feet?
c:;e-r'iirIl DE.AKYNE. To make it 14 feet; yes, sir.
Sc!!eati-'r ANDENBERG. General, I do not want to interrupt your
.st:tltt-ment, .but in order to complete the historical facts, that report is
p~ri..ded, is it not, by a number of other reports back through the
tii: ,f sl -ine%\hat adverse character?
Gen((-Irai- DLA.KYNE. There have been many reports made for the
past on, \-iar, on the idea of the connection between the Lakes and the
H1,,.l,-,tn River.
: S~ rn:i ar V.ANDENBERG. And they all have been adverse, have they

(IGenri.!al DLEAKYNE. I think so. I know the recent reports have
b',e aiivi.li-. in the last few years.
Senator SHEPPARD. General, this last report, you say, was made
by the Board of Engineers?
General DEAKYNE. This report I speak of was made by a special
board. of three officers appointed to consider this particular question.
Senator SHEPPARD. A board of three engineer officers?
(Gieneral DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Ser nator SHEPPARD. Connected with the Rivers and Harbors Board?
General DEAKYNE. Not connected with the Rivers and Harbors
Bai rd.

RIr'lERH AND HARBORS

Senator SHEPPARD. Who are they?
General DEAKYNr L. They were Colonel Hoffman, who was stationed
in New York City, Lieutenant Colonel Ward, staitionie' in New York
City, and Major Reybold, stationed in Buffalo. .
Sena tor SHEPPARD. They were in the engineer service?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; all engineer officers.
Senator SHEPPARD. All district engineers?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SHEPPARD. Did the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har-
bors then pass on the matter?
General DEAKYNE. Yes; that report came before the Rivers and
Harbors Board in the regular course of business, and was passed upon
by the board.
Senator SHEPPARD. What was the date of the last action you men-
tioned?
General DEAKYNE. The special board report, as I recollect, was
dated last November, and the report by the Board of Engineers on
Rivers and Harbors wasdated about a month ago, I think, the early
part of April.
Senator COPELAND. You are making reference to a 14-foot channel;
are you, General?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; so far.
Senator JONES. What was the recommendation of the Board of
Engineers on Rivers and Harbors?
General DEAKYNE. The recommendation of the Board of Engineers
on Rivers and Harbors was that no work of deepening the canal be
undertaken at this time, but that the Secretary of War be authorized
and empowered to accept from the State of New York, if it sees fit
to offer the canal-to accept the canal from the State of New York
and to maintain, and operate.
Senator JONES. The provision in the bill here is in accordance with
their recommendation?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. I think we ale getting mixed. That was
not the recommendation in the report of which the general speaks,
of the board in New York.
Senator JONES. That was the report of the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors:
Senator VANDENBERG. Finally, after other surveys?
Senator JONES. Yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. Suppose we let the general make his statement
about the final action of the Board of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, General.
General DEAKYNE. That report made in New York came in and
was studied by the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors, and
we got some further information as to the possibility of deepening to
13 feet instead of 14 feet. We sent that report back to the special
board and asked it to consider 13 feet and make a report on that,
and asked it to give some estimates. It gave us some estimates on
13 feet. We took those up and studied them over-I might say that ?
we heard arguments on this thing. We had Mr. Dempsey, the chair-
man of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House, before '-,-
us a number of times to discuss the matter; and we debated whether it
would be wise to recommend the deepening of this canal to 13 feet.

BI Er:S AND HARBORS 25

The questions at issue were the present condition of the canal, the
present commerce on the canal, the effort? of the State of New York
to maintain and improve the canal, the adequacy of the canal to
Handle the present commerce, the necessity of improvement, the
advantage that would result -from improvement-all those thing
Studied at a good deal of length; and the board understood that it
would take a long time for the necessary -teps .t he taken in the State
of New York to transfer this canal to the United States; that it would
require two acts of the legislature and one vote of the people to turn
the canal over to the United States; that that might take some years.
And the board felt that it was not necessary to recommend that this
time that anything be spent on the canal, except to operate it in case
the State turned it over to us; that it was time enough then to con-
sider whether the canal should be deepened, whether the bridges
should be raised and any other changes of that kind made; that after
the canal had been turned over to us or it was so far along that we
knew we were going to get it, the question of deepening it, enlarging
it, widening it, and changing the bridges could be studied then in the
light of the situation as it then existed.
Therefore, the board recommended only that the United States
take the canal if the State was willing to give it to the United States.
Senator VANDENBERG. General, let us try to keep this thing in a
chronological order. You were referring to the further review that
was asked on the 13-foot basis. Now, is it correct that your board
reported on February 6, 1930, "That even the moderate improve-
ment now proposed should not be undertaken"? There is nothing
in the report of February 6 about taking over the canal for future
study, is there?
General DEAKYNE. I do not identify that report of February 6.
Senator VANDENBERG. This is Colonel Hoffman's report to your
board.
General DEAKYNE. I think you are correct on that; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, the idea of taking over the
canal for future study had not yet put in its appearance even on
February 6?
General DEAKYNE. I think I can explain that question. The first
study was with a view to deepening the canal. Of course, the com-
merce on the canal could not be interrupted while the deepening was
going on. That is an important commerce and must go on, and if we
undertook to deepen the canal we would have to make provision so
that the commerce could continue while -the work was being executed.
It seemed to us that it would be a difficult thing for the United States
to go in and deepen that. canal while the State of New York was
operating it; that you would have two different organizations trying
to work together, and they might work together part of the time and
part of the time they might not. It did not seem like a good arrange-
ment for the United States to go in and spend millions of dollars in
deepening this canal and widening it or raising the bridges, doing
work of that kind on it while commerce was passing through under
the operation of the canal by the State of New York.
That. led to the conclusion that if the United States was going to do
anything wit.hthis canal it should own the canal; that the first thing
would be that the canal ought to be turned over to the United States.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Then if the United States saw tit to do anything to it. it. would be able
to have full control and be able to deepen the canal, to widen it, to
raise the bridges and at the same time, under its own control, to keep
the existing connmmerce moving. .
Senator VANDENBERG. But there is no suggestion of that sort until
your final report in April, is there?
General DEAKYNE. I think you are correct on that.; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. The point I am trying to get. at is that all of
these reports are adverse until your final report in April-April 3.
I think it is; and that is the first. time in all this series of reports where
you even suggest. taking over the canal as being advantageous, is it
not.?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. What happened, if anything, to up set all
of these previous reports and suddenly to produce a favorable report
on the general project?
General DEAKYNE Well, it was a result, of this study, with a view
to deepening it, and t.he element. that came in as to who was going to
operate it. while it was being deepened, and that induced the board
to conclude that. the first thing was to have the canal turned over to
the United States.
Senator VANDENBERG. Did you appear as a witness before the
House committee on March 24?
General DEAKYNE. I judge so. I have no recollection--
Senator VANDENBERG. Did you say anything at that time about
taking over the canal?
General DEAKYNE. I do not recollect saying anything about that.
Senator VANDENBLRG. On IMurch 24. 1930, in other words, you were
still insisting that the canal should not be developed by the United
States?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. I was arguing against the idea that
the canal as it now stands is not in condition to handle the commerce
moving over it.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you were mailing no suggestions on
March 24 respecting Federal acquisition or development?
General DEA.KYNE. No.
Senator VANDENBERG. In fact, you were still resistiun it?
General DEAKYNE. I was answering questions; yes, Cir I was not
making any recommendations or volunteering anything.
Senator VANDENBIURG. Between March 24, when you were still
taking that position, and April 3, when the engineers reversed the
entire engineering recommendation, occurred this famous interview,
which the newspapers have had considerable to say about, in nhich
the distinguished gentlemen from New York, Mr bDempsey, and the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hull, .a(led upon you and
discussed the matt.er. Is there any record of that meeting-I mean
was there a stenographic record made of that. meeting?
Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, I submit this has nothing to do
with t.he matter.
Senator VANDENBERG. I think it has a great deal to do with the
mat t.er.
Senator COPELAND. In reference to how much it cost to deepen the -"
canal to 12 or 13 feet-

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator VANDENBERG. You may find that out. when you want. it..
I want. to find out what happened to change the engineering recom-
mendations.
The CHAIRMAN. Let. me say that we should restrain ourselves.
It is rather an unnatural thing for me to suggest, but to my mind if the
query is asked for the purpose of indicating that. there was a view
otherwise at the particular time on the part of t.h general than that
expressed in the bill, I rather think it is pertinent, Senator C'opeland.
Senator COPELAND. I am willing to have a reversal.
Senator VANDENBERG. I want. to know specifically whether it. is
true, as reported in the Buffalo News of March 22, that Mr. Dempsey
and Mr. Hull told you that they were going to have the Erie Canal
in this bill regardless of the reports of the engineers, and that you
had better "play ball" with them.
General DEAKYNE. There is a record ot their appearance before
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. I think that is the
correct date; I do not. know the date. They came before the board
and talked to us for perhaps an hour, and they made very earnest.
speeches to us about the two waterways-the Illinois and this one;
and they were quite anxious to have the board see the thing from their
point of view. It seemed to me that we were getting to a point where
they were making vehement arguments to induce the board to make
the report that they wanted. The board did not see it that. way,
and we were simply getting to an impasse where nothing would
result., so I said after they had argued for perhaps an hour-a full
stenographic record was kept of it-"We are not getting anywhere.
Let us call the hearing closed, and send the stenographer out and let
us sit down around the table and see if we can not talk this thing
out," which we did. And then Mr. -Hull said, "I guess I will go on.
You will not want me in this New York matter." I said, "You
better st.ay."
So MIr. Hull and Mr. Dempsey staid there, and we sat around the
table and we talked for perhaps another hour in a sensible way.
There are 7 members of the board; there is I civilian engineer,
secretary of the board: that made 8, and these 2 Members of
Congress made 10 of us; and we sat there and talked this thing over
and tried to exchange ideas on a sensible basis, t.o see if we could not
come to some conclusion.
Senator VANDENBERG. By "sensible basis" what. do you mean-
practical basis?
General DEAKYNE. I mean that 10 men sitting around the table,
all trying to solve t.he same problem, could do better by interchanging
their ideas than we could all nine of us sitting there and having one
man stand up and address us by the hour.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, was this an engineering decision or
political decision?
General DEAKYNE. It. was an engineering decision, as far as we
were concerned.
Senator VANDENBnRG. Is this a correct quotation of Mr. Hull:
We are goieg to h iave the Illiinois River ir.:.ject in the next bill. I :corne from
, lieadqiiarter-, and it n ll be de:mons trjted to you .ih:;rt.ly that it canr not te and
wn.,t't be held up. You ought to see the importancer- of tlli from a. political stand-
point. We do not want to force your hand, (-Geeral, but you niust realize the
Ilnbois River improvement is going in the be regardless of what you think
about it.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Now, while that. refers to another project, what I am trying to
bring out and discover is whether or not. that is the type of argument
that was offered to you to procure a reversal of the board's attitude.
General DEAKYNE. I think that. is substantially correct.; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. Then, the net result is that. it. was a political
decision rather than an engineering decision?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; not so far as the Board of Engineers
was concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. I wanted, for the sake ot the record, to ask what is
the opinion of yourself and the opinion of the board as to the particular
project?
General DEAKYNE. The board recommends that the United States
take this canal if the State of New York will give it to the United
States.
The CHAIRMAN. Why?
General DEAKYNE. Because it is a link in the whole system of
waterways of the United States. The Hudson River is being im-
proved to Albany. The Great Lakes are improved. The Welland
Canal will be opened this year going around Niagara Falls at a still
greater depth than ever before. There will probably be an increase
in commerce as the result of these things, and this canal across New
York, operated by the State, is an anomaly in these days, and it
seems the natural thing to take it over. The United States has
taken over a number of canals. It has taken over the Cape Cod
Canal, which was built by private parties across Cape Cod. It. has
taken over the Chesapeake and Delaware C'anal, between Delaware
Bay and Chesapeake Bay, built, over a hundred years ago and operated
for a long time by private parties.
Senator COPELAND. General, would it be fair to say that when we
took over the Cape Cod Canal it. cost the country about. $23,000,000.
General DEAKYNE. I think about $11,000,000 is correct, we paid
for it..
The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right, General.
Senator SHEPPARD. What, does the Cape Cod Canal carry in the
way of commerce?
General DEAKYNE. I can not tell you offhand. Its commerce has
increased since the Government took it over..
Senator SIMMONS. General, has not the Government. taken over
all of the old canals along the line of the inland waterways from Boston
down to Beaufort., N. C.?
General DEAKYNE. I was coming to this, Senator Simmons. The
Albermarle and Chesapeake and the Dismal Swamp Canals were
taken over by the United States. We have just recently taken over
the Florida East C('nist Canal. So it is nothing new for the United
States to be taking over these \-vrio-us canals that fit into the water-
way system of canals.
Senator COPELAND. Even though it costs a lot of money to do it?
General DEAKYNE. Even though it costs a lot of money to do it,
and some of them the Government has paid something for.
Senator COPELAND. I wanted that to show in the record, that we
paid even a lot of money to get to keep that canal and get the neces-
sary channels. '
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.

RIVERS AND HARBORS 29

Senator DENEEN. I would like to have the general give the dates
when those canals were taken over,-the amount, the extent, and what
they cost the Government.
Senator ALLEN. And the amount of traffic, they now carry?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN., I would -utvgcSt that if you do not have that data
S at hand, that you will send it to us for insertion in the record.
Thte data referred to was subsequently furnished by General
Deakyne, and is as follows:)
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF EN,3iNF-.-Fr,
T.,.1 ti.:, .lMaiy 3, 1930.
Memorandum for the chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate.
In compliance with request made yesterday at the hearing, there is sent here-
with a statement showing canals constructed by private or State interests and
acquired by I hf Federal Government. In some cases, it has been impracticable
to ascertain the cost of original construction.
HERBERT DEAKYNE,
Brigadier General, Acting Chief of Engineers.

Private canals which have been acquired by the United States

Commerce
Aa..,.,,nrt ,..1 Cost of con- (tons) cal-
Nameof canal tl U "',,1. D, ,r~ ,,'S'tatl struction endaryear
States 1928

Cape Cod Canal, Mass .-------------- $11,500,000 Mar. 31,1928 $13,000,000 :,4 .,7:5
Inland Waterway from Delaware River to
Chesapeake Bay, Del., and Md---------- 2,514,289 August, 1919 2,250, 000 700,413
A lt. n. ril n.ij Chesapeake Canal..........----- 500,000 Apr. 30,1913 1, 750,000 1709,640
D"m il- E.- nu Canal ----- ------------- 500,000 Mar. 30,1929
F I,rri..i Ea.' Coast Canal2 ..---....-------- -----------. Dec. 11,1929 3,500,000 145,629
Harvey Canal, No. 1, La --. --------.- 425, 000 Mar. 10,1924 139,165
Harvey Canal, No. 2, La -...-------- --- 90, 000 Mar. 10,1924 J---- ,
Company Canal, La .---------- ------ 84,000 June 17,1925 ..... ------------
Hanson Canal, La -------------------------- 65,000 Oct. 16,1923 3,140
Port Arthur Canal, Tex ..........---------------------- Dec. 13,1906 1,023,982 8,182,967
Galveston Harbor-Texas City Channel, Tex.---------- 1899 146,000 3,751,012
Galveston and Brazos River Canal, Tex -.. 30,000 1903 1, 766
Louisville and Portland Canal, Ohio River.... 2,610,922 June 11, 1874 .. . 3 20,938,267
Keweenaw Waterway, Mich .-- --------- 350,000 1891 ---------- 1,278,148
Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Ship Canal,
Wis ------------- ------- --------- 81,833 Apr. 25,1893 ...------- 572,777
St. Marys River Canal, Mich .------ -----. .1880 1,000,000 86,992,997
Williamette Falls Canal, Oreg..........-------. 375,000 Apr. 26,1915- ..----- 211,532

ICommerce on Inland Waterway between Norfolk, Va., and Beaufort Inlet, N. C., of which these canals
are a part.
2 Transferred to the United States in connection with the project for Intracoastal waterway from Jack-
sonville to Miami, Fla.
'.Represents commerce of Ohio River.
Separate statistics for the company canal are not available, it being a part of the Louisiana-Texas Intra-
coastal Waterway.

General, recurring to the questions asked by Senator YValnenbcrg:
Was there a change of attitude and a change of mind upon your part
and that of the Board of Engineers in respect to the advisability of
taking over thi- canal?
General DEAKYNE. N-, sir; our change of mind-and I do not think
there was any change of mind-we had not gone into. this question of
' taking over the canal at first, because the question was deepening it,
and we were debating as to how we\ would, go about spending Govern-
ment money on something which did not belong to us, and we
wondered whether that was possible, and it seemed to be a legal
111747--30-PT 1- 3

RIVERS AND HARBORS

question which we did not seem to be called upon to settle; and I
always had the view that, if Congress said to us to go up there and
spend $10,000,00, $20,000,000 or $50,000,000 we would go and
make the attempt, until somebody stopped us. But. we concluded
that. the sensible and logical thiing to do was that the Government.
should own the canal before we spent the money on it..
The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you the report. adversely had
been made or report made of adverse character during the past 20
years were upon that theory?
General DEAKYNE. No sir; they were not the same character of
report-. The adverse reports were on a ship canal, deep canal, from
the Lakes to the Hudson River.
The CHAIRMAN The estimated annual cost of this project is
$2,500,000; that is the amount included in the bill. What would you
sa is the ultimate ct to the Gtovetnment oft the tGrn ntf h making over of this
particular waterway?
General DEAKTNE. We assume that there will be no expense to
the Government for the acquisition of the canal, that it will be given
to the United States free of cost; that this bill obligates the United
States to maintain and operate it at a cost of $2,500,000, and nothing
more.
Senator ALLEN. Upon what basis did you make your estimate of
two and a half million dollars annual cost, in view of the fact that
the deficit. cost now is $11,000,000?
Senator COPELAND. Of the present canal?
Senator ALLEN. The present'New York canal system.
General DEAKYNE. Our estimate of that cost was based on a
record of about 10 year's operation by the State of New York, which
has cost about $25,i000,000, or at the rate of $2,500,000 a year.
Senator ALLEN. Last year you decreased the traffic on the canal
200,000 tons and increased the cost up to $11,000,000.
Senator COPELAND. Cost of operation?
Senator ALLEN. Cost of operation.
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; I do not think so.
Senator RANSDELL. General, may I ask a question?
Senator McNARY. What was that statement you made, Senator
Allen?
Senator ALLEN. The statement is here, cost of administering the
canal is around $11,000,000. It may be a curbstone opinion, but
it comes from the Real Estate Board of New York.
General DEAKYNE. Our records obtained from the officials of
the Statd of New York showed that in 10 years past on operation
and maintenance they had spent about $25,000,000.
Senator VANDENBERG. The deficit for 25 years is $216,000,000, is
it not?
General DEAKYNE. I suppose that includes the original cost.
Senator VANDENBERG. No; that is without any capital charges
whatever; those are the figures from Colonel Green of New York
State.
General DEAKYNE. I do not understand that the State spent on
operations of that canal $216,1000,000 in 25 years.
Senator COPELAND. That includes deepening?
General DEAKYNE. I suppose so.

RIVERS AND BARBO(RS

Senator McNAN RY. If the State of New York would convey the
title to the Governmuent, is it your policy, that is, the policy of the
board, to continue the operation and absorb the annual cost, or go
forward, improve, deepen, and make it a real barge canal?
General DEAKYNE. The policy of the board would be to operate it
and nothing nmoe until Congress said so.
Senator IMcNARY. You do not contemplate, if title was acquired
by the Federal Government to deepen it to 13 feet or 14 feet, or make
any change in the physical condition of the canal at all?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir.
Senator McNARY. If that is true, what is the advantage? If it is
left in its present physical condition for the Government to operate,
over and above the cost of operations of the' State of New York?
General DEAKYNE. It becomes a part of the Government system
of waterways, and I think I ought to say, however, that the board
felt there would be a move made to. deepen it when it is acquired.
Senator McNARY. Then, you had the larger project in mind?
General DEAKYNE. That I think should be studied, and I think
that is what we looked forward to, although we do not know when
it will come and to what degree, and when that comes the Government
should own the canal.
Senator McNARY. May I finish in just a moment, Senator? I
assume you did contemplate something of that kind. I think it is a
common sense view that something of that kind should be contem-
plated.
Senator McNARY. If you would then deepen it to 14 feet, it would
permit barge transportation to the Great Lakes from the Hudson
River?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNARY. What size of barges, do you know-the capacity?
General DEAKYNE. We assume that that deepening it would ac-
commodate barges drawing 12 feet; that is, the locks are 12 feet deep,
and a barge going into the locks can go very slowly and practically
take advantage of the full depth; it can practically scrape the bottom
of the locks as it goes in full depth, but in navigating at greater speed
all through the canal they ought to have some water under the keel,
2 feet or a foot and a half in the general length of the canal. So that
with the present locks of 12 feet and the canal deepened to 14 feet
they could use barges drawing approximately 12 feet.
Senator McNARY. With capacity of about 3,000 tons?
General DEAKYNE. At least 2,000 tons; yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. And under the present arrangement iJ is only
about twelve hundred tons?
General DEAKYNE. Yes.
Senator COPELAND. Let me ask you this question: Reference has
been made to adverse reports by the various boards. Is it not true
that those reports have related to various proposals to make this a
deep waterway for the carriage of large ships?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. And now, if the Government were to acquire
this property, as I understand it, it would be your effort to get a
' uniform depth of 13 or 14 feet eventually?
General DEAKYNE. Probably so.

RIVERS AND HARBOCS

Senator COPELAND. I take it you have not in mind anything like
a ship canal such as talked about, where the L'.tinlhan or somewhat
smaller boat.nt might be taken through?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir; we have no plan of that kind at this &
time.
Senator McNARY. Would this development in any way impinge
Upon or retard development of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence
Canal?
General DEAKYNE. I do not think so. I think the two waterways
could exist side by side and each have its own function.
Senator hMicN.Ar- And not be a duplication of service?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; it would not be a duplication of service.
Senator Mr'.NA.v. One would be competitive of the other?
General DEAKYNE. I assume the St. Lawrence Canal is tihe chief
waterway for ocean-going vessels, and this canal across New York
under any present idea is not such a canal.
Senator McNARY. In your opinion the two could run side by side
and neither would be competitive with the other.
General DEAKYNE. Not exactly; that is, they would not handle the
same class of ships. They might compete for business, if one could
handle it in barges and if the other could handle it in ships, but they
would not be the same character of waterway.
Senator McNAr, Would there be business for the second, if one
were completed?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, there is business for both.
Senator ALLEN. Let me ask the general if he believes New York has
abandoned the idea she has had since this canalization scheme began
to deepen the Oswego Canal and make it the link of a deep waterway
to the sea, calling it the all-American route?
General DEAKYNE. You mean the State of New York?
Senator ALLEN. Yes, sir. Do you think these gentlemen who now
ask us to accept this as a gift have abandoned their idea ultimately
to deepen it and make it the deep-water route?
General DEAKYNE. I do not know what their plans are.
Senator ALLEN. Going back for just a moment--
Senator COPELAND. Do you not-think New York has done well for
the Nation in the past hundred years?
Senator ALLEN. Yes; and the Nation has done well for New York
during the same period.
When I said that the cost had been in the neighborhood of
$11,000,000 a year, I was quoting from an extract from the special
report of Colonel Green to the Governor of New York for the cost
for the year 1925. I have not the official report, but here is some-
thing that seems typical. That year the cost of maintenance and
operation was 8'2,9'I 1,;4 1; the capital charge $6,000,000; claims paid,
and so on. But the whole amount is $10,573,000, and Colonel Green
was protesting against it as a waste in view of the fact that this canal
system capable of carrying 20,000,000 tons was carrying a decreasing
tonnage each year; and the last year it was down to 2,800,000 tons.
So, in view of the fact that even on your basis of calculation the cost
mut be at least 8.5,000.:000 a year, I wanted to ask if you could tell us
definitely what you had in vyrur mind when.you said $'2,5100,000? i
General DEAKYNE. But 2.5, 00.,000 coimpaled with yi:ou $2,90i(),0(O00
you have read from your paper.

RIVERS AND EHA.BBOR,.

Senator ALLEN. That is maintenance and operation? j,,.
General DEAKYNE. Yes,-sir. ,
Senator ALLEN. You think there would be no penianent better-
ments?
Geerital. DEAKYNE. No, sir; not unless they are authorized by
S Congress.
- Senator ALLEN. Titen, even though it is authorized by Congress,
do you think it is a good investment to accept, even as a gift, a canal
that is carrying only 2,800,000 tons a year, and that is costing New
York $10,000,000 a year to operate?
Senator COPELAND. Now, wait just a moment, Mi. Chairman.
Let us have the premise right.
The CHAIRMAN. May I make just one sui-e-. tion that will not
occupy more than a minute? Will one of you gentlemen, the Senator
from Kansas, the Senator from New York, or the Senator from
Michigan, state for the record succinctly just exactly the point that
is at issue and the point of dispute, and to that then we may direct
ourselves? Will one of you do that?
Senator COPELAND. Let us have the general do that. He has the
figures.
The CHAIRMAN. No, I think these gentlemen with their views
would better do it. I would appreciate it very much.
Senator COPELAND. The statement I make is that the total cost
of operation and maintenance for 10 years has been $25,000,000, that
is, $2,500,000 a year. That is the reason why I protest against the
Senator from Kansas speaking of the operating cost of $10,000,000.
Senator VANDENBERG. The statement I made, Mr. Chairman, is-
The CHAIRMAN. What I want is not as to the details but as to the
real fundamental proposition on which you differ and concerning
which this committee must ultimately decide.
Senator VANDENBERG. From my viewpoint, first, my position is
that even if this canal has no relationship to the St. Lawrence water-
way, that it would be a project of waste for the Government to take
over a "white elephant" of these proportions, and I think it can be
clearly demonstrated that it is a "white elephant"; second, that
the fundamental purpose in easing this project into the bill is this
quiet, subtle fashion-
The CHAIRMAN. Not now. [Laughter.!
Senator VANDENBERG (continuing). It is fundamentally, for the
purpose effectuating the opposition to the St. Lawrence waterway of
that portion of the State of New York which always has and still
does insist that the deep waterway when built shall go down through
the State of New York.
The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly what I wished to get for the
record. Is that your conception of it, Senator Allen, of the point of
dispute fundamentally here?
Senator ALLEN. Fundamentally, I would say that that is back of
this thing, and I will be very glad, so far as my appearan-ce in inter-
fering to transmit all of my vocalization and thought to the energies
of the Senator from Michigan.
Senator VANDENBERG. I refuse to accept the proxy in vocalization.
-. The CHAIRMAN. I beg pardon for interrupting the question you
were asking, but I did want to get into the record the exact contro-

34 RIVERS AND HARBORS

versy that uow exists before this committee. That was the whole
purpose of uy query and my interrupting you.
Senator R.ANSDELL. Mr. Chairman, may I interlard a query, to
help place the engineers, if I understand the situation, correctly -
before the committee? I do not understand this proposition very
clearly, General. The point came up that the engineers had made
sev-eral reports differing from the one they now make. I want to
ask you if it is not a fact that the proposition of taking over this.canal
by donation from the State of New York is not. something entirely
new, very recently presented and on which there never has been any
kind of adverse report before.
General DEAKYNE. It is largely so, Senator; in our previous reports
on a deep waterway from the Great Lakes, a wat irway tfor -hips, we
would have followed the line of the New York canals in places, but
not tevtery where, it would have been partly a new line, where we
would not have had to use the existing canals of the State (of New
York. So that this proposition of taking over bodily the whole
system from Buffalo and Oswego.
Senator RANSDELL. Especially, if you had it given to you without
any cost whatever.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator RANSDELL. This new proposition has never been proposed
until recently; am I correct in that?
General DEAKYNE. I would say that it is, in this shape; it is new.
Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I can not allow that to stand
in that fashion, because it is perfectly ridiculous from my-point of view.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. If you, will permit me to ask a few
questions, then I think it is your right to cross-examine as you see fit.
The first objection that is presented here, as I have understood it,
as it has been succinctly. stated by the Senator from Michigan, that
the Government is taking over a "white elephant," what have you to
say in regard to that, General?
General DEAKYNE. I think there is a wrong impression, very wide-
spread, about these New York canals: That they are a failure, that
the commerce is decreasing, that they are worthless and wasteful, and
all that. Very many people have had that impression.
Senator ALLEN. Do you question the official record that the com-
merce is decreasing?
Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, I submit that we ought to hear
the witness.
The CHAIRMAN. Sir?
Senator COPELAND. Let us hear the witness.
The CHAIRMAN. What we are endeavoring to do is to get the wit-
ness on record upon the two main points.
Senator COPELAND. I think you are right.
The CHAIRMAN. The two main points that have been presented;
and then, in orderly fashion, that these gentlemen who have views
in accordance with the suggestions ought to have the opportunity to
cross-examine to the fullest length.
Senator COPELAND. That is right.
Senator JONES. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question? General,
who proposed this transfer from-the State of New York? Did it -"
originate with the engineers or originate with the Stat.e of New
York?

Rm ERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. I do not know of any offer of the State of New
York to transfer this canal.
Senator JONES. How did the engineers come to take the proposition
*"- up, then?
GeneralDEAKYNE. We felt if the United States was going to do
S anything on the canal it should own it, and our recommendation was
simply to empower the Secretary of War to take it if the State wished
to give it.
Senator JONES. Who proposed the United States doing anything
on it before it got title to it?
General DEAKYNE. The resolution that came to us for report was
to report, on the question of deepening it.
Senator JONES. From the House committee?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; and we contemplated the possibility
of the Congress passing an act to spend a good many million dollars
in deepening the New York canals, ahd we would go up there and say,
"Can we come in and deepen this canal?" And if they would let us
come in we would go up there and deepen the canal until somebody
stopped us because we. did not attempt to settle the legal question.
Senator JONES. What I was wondering was how this proposition
came up, and who made any proposition about New York turning it
over to the United States if the State of New York did not do it.
I could not see why the engineers did propose that though I know you
have to respond to resolutions passed by the House and Senate, or
either one.
Senator COPELAND. General, in response to the chairman, you were
saying there was a popular idea that this was a "white elephant."
Will you continue your statement regarding that.
General DEAKYNE. As to the alleged decrease in commerce last
year, we are informed that was entirely accounted for by a change
in the wheat movement; that over a period of years the commerce
has increased materially on the canal, that the canal is handling
about 3,000,000 tons of commerce a year, and that is certainly not an
insignificant amount of commerce; that the canal has the capacity to
handle at least twice that amount of commerce.
Senator COPELAND. Is a good deal of that interstate commerce?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; that the State of New York has spent
and is spending a great deal of money in keeping the canal open,
operating it and doing everything that is necessary, and improving
conditions in the canal, dredging out shoal places, anticipating shoal-
ing in certain sections where it is likely to occur rapidly; that the
canal is a really useful artery of commerce. Those are our con-
clusions.
Senator COPELAND. It could be made more so by a certain treat-
ment. of the canal.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Now, General, I understand we have two sub-
jects at issue in connection w-ith water transportation: One is inter-
state and the other is international. The international is ocean-going
transportation, and the interstate is largely confined to what. we might
call barge transportation, is it not?
"-' General DEAKYNE. Pretty largely; yes, sir.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator SIMMONS. We have been spending a great. deal of money
developing our inland waterways to a depth of 12 to 14 feet, have we
not?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir-9 feet on the Mississippi River.
Senator SIMMONS. That is to accommodate the interstate water
transportation?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. By the use of barges; a very economic method of
water transportation. I understand you to say that by taking over
this canal that we will practically link the inland water system of the
west, the Gulf coast, we will say, the east and the Atlantic coast?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. You can visualize this thing as a
circle starting up at the northern end of the Atlantic coast and going
down to Florida and across to New Orleans and up the Migsi-.sippi
into the Great Lakes, and through the Great Lakes to the New York
canals, and then through them to the Hudson River, and down the
Hudson River to New York. You can visualize that as a complete
circle.
Senator SIMMONS. And this would be the great utility as linking
together the eastern and the western system of inland waterways?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; it is already serving that purpose.
Senator SIMMONs. We have a New England waterway now from
Boston nearly completed to Wilmington, N. C., and going on very
rapidly further southward, and that would be linked up with the
western water system by this route?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator RANSDELL. With the system of barges and on up the
Mississippi to Chicago. Could that go on the Mississippi to the
Erie Canal without, unloading or breaking the bulk?
General DEAKYNE. That is already done.
Senator RANSDELL. The navigation on the Great Lakes would not
be too dangerous for that kind of barges?
General DEAKYNE. As a rule they do have some storms on the
Lakes, but I suppose by picking their time that most of the time
they could go.
Senator RANSDELL. So they could go all the way from New Orleans
to New York without breaking bulk, and vice versa?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Do you consider it of great advantage and
importance to the Government that this system of inland waterways
should be linked t.ovether and coordinated?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; I think that is the logical way to
develop it.
Senator SIMMONS. Do you think it is already sufficiently linked
together?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir; it is not.
Senator SIMMONS. Do you think the taking over of this inland
waterway at New York there would materially assist in bringing
about. speedily that condition?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. Will you just develop that thought, Gen- *
eral? : .
General DEAKYNE. It puts under the control of the United States
another section of this large system.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, what good is the control if you do
not. spend money on it?
General DEAKYNE. I assume that probably money is going to be
Spent on it in the future.
SSenator VANDENBERG. On the 13-foot project?
General DEAKYNE. The board indicated that under the best infor-
mation before it, it probably would be 14 feet.
Senator VANDENBERG. A project which you within the last, three
or four months have definitely turned down as an engineering
proposition?
General DEAKYNE. We turned it, down as at present i econmmcend(ed;
yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. Let us have the record straight. It was not
turned down as an engineering proposition.
Senator VANDENBERG. What was it turned down as? I thought
that was the kind of a problem it was.
Senator COPELAND. The matter of expending what amount of
money?
Senator VANDENBERG. On the 27th of March you made the state-
ment, General, that this opinion that the Erie Canal is an unprofitable
operation is based on a wrong impression. I wonder if you are
familiar with the statement of Colonel Green, who is the superin-
tendent of what in New York?
Senator COPELAND. Highways.
Senator VANDENBERG. He is in charge of the canals?
Senator COPELAND. Yes.
Senator VANDENBERG. From those figures it is evident that it
would have been cheaper for the State if all the freight carried on the
canal had been put on railroad cars and the State had paid the freight
bills. Now, if we have any wrong impressions we have pretty good
authority, have we not?
General DEAKYNE. That is based on a1llo\inng interest on all the
money New York State has spent on the canal, I take it. Tihey
ha4e spent $146,000,000, which will run up into several million
dollars interest, and if you add to that the operating cost it makes a
pretty formidable figure.
Senator VANDENBERG. And that formidable amount of money,
under present proposed authorization, would be transferred to the
Federal Government during all this transitory period, when the
transfer is being perfected? In other words, we would hold the bag
until you get a chance to develop it?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir; we do not piipose to pay interest on
the expenditures of the State .of New York.
Senator VANDENBERG. But of course you would have to absorb
the deficit?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; I do not take it that we would assume
any obligations whatever that the State of New York has in regard
to this canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. I understand that. I am talking about the
cost of operation from year to year.
General DEA KYNE. Yes, sir; we would operate it. from year to year.
Senator VANDENBERG. General, is it, not a fact. that the St. Law-
rence and the Erie projects have to be studied together in order. to ge
a rational answer to either one of them?

RItERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. I think that is a good idea. :
Senator VANDENBERG. Is it. not a fact that the engineers have
always studied them together?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; it is not. I was on a board that,
reported on the New York canals. We were not authorized to study
the St. Lawrence; we did not make any report on the St. Lawrence.
Senator VANDENBERG. Did not General .Tadwin always say that
the Erie project should not be taken up unless and until the St.
Lawrence plans failed?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; I think that is correct.
Senator VANDENBERG. Is that your attitude?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; so far as the ship canal from the
Great Lakes to the Hudson River is concerned; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. You re-ponded to the Senator from New
York a moment ago that your reports on the 13-foot and 14-foot
channel were different from your present reports because those
related to a ship canal, whereas now you are discussing the barge
canal. Your 13 and 14 foot reports had nothing to do with a ship
canal, did they?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. Those were barge reports also.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. How much would it. cost to use these
canals as a basis for making the all-American route to the sea?
General DEAKYNE. The ship canal?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes.
General DEAKYNE. My recollection the figure was--
Senator VANDENBERG. It was $631,000,000, was it not?
General DEAKYNE. NO; I think around half a billion dollars, or
something like that.
Senator VANDENBERG. How is it possible now to determine what
ought to be done with the Erie Canal until we determine what can be
done with the St. Lawrence?
General DEAKYNE. The Erie Canal is operating and carrying
commerce right now, and it could carry more commerce of the same
kind. I do not think that the opening of the St. Lawrence Canal
will stop the commerce on the Erie Canal. That is barge commerce
of considerable amount and considerable value.
Senator COPELAND. It is domestic commerce largely?
General DEAKYNE. Some of it is domestic.
Senator ALLEN. May I ask a question?
Senator VANDENBERG. Sure.
Senator ALLEN. Are you familiar with the relative tonnage on the
St. Lawrence canals and on the New York barge canals?
General DEAKYNE. Only in a rough way. My general recollection
is that the St. Lawrence Canal carries somewhat more than the barge
canal.
Senator ALLEN. It carries about three times the amount. Do you
think that the condition of competition would leave the New York
barge canal, even under the control of the United States, in an ad van-
tageous position, remembering what you have just. said about. a har-
monious system of canals, about 9-foot, barges and the possibility of ,
them coming through the Lakes? Then, of course, they would have
to come through the Welland Canal, would they not.?

RIVERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator ALLEN. Would New York have any advantages in the
Welland Canal? That. is all Canadian?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; but it is open to everybody.
Senator ALLEN. But the competition that would arise there con-
Stinually, because Canada will go ahead if we do not, and complete its
route to the sea. So that we are competing with them all the while.
Do you think we would be in condition to make successful competition?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; I think the New York canals have a
function and can carry commerce to advantage. I think they are
doing it now.
Senator ALLEN. What do you ay as to the probable reason why
they have not. carried a tucces ful amount of tonnage during their
modern history, since they have spent all this money? They have
spent $600,000,000 on this canal, you know.
General DEAKYNE. I had not heard that figure.
Senator COPELAND. How much?
Senator ALLEN. $600,000,000.
Senator COPELAND. Your figures are somewhat exorbitant.
Senator ALLEN. All right. The head of the New York Real
Estate Association, which claims the privilege of paying taxes on
more than half of the real estate in New York, says:
The barge canal cost the taxpayers of New York State over $600,000,000 and
is operated at a loss of $11,000,000 a year.
Senator COPELAND. That includes interest, of course?
Senator ALLEN. The interest has all to be paid.
Senator COPELAND. We are giving that to you so you will have
your share of that.
Senator ALLEN. What I am trying to get at is this: You answered
a question a while ago that you thought 9-foot barges might go into
the locks without danger?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator ALLEN. And that that would be necessary to make this a
harmonious canal system?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator ALLEN. If 9-foot barges can navigate the locks, why not
let them navigate the New York canals and not go to the added
expense of increasing to 14 feet?
General DEAKYNE. The barges in use around New York. Harbor
are about 12-feet draft, and to accommodate them you would have
to have deeper water in the New York canals than they have now.
Senator ALLEN. If you put deeper waters in the New York Canal,
raising the barges, then is it true you would have to change the
bridges?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; you would have to change the bridges.
Senator ALLEN. You would either have to change the bridges or
the barges, would you not?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator ALLEN. In either event, if you change the bridges, it
.would mean $21 1,0000,000 more?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; it would be more like $2,000,000 to
' change the bridges.
Senator COPELAND. That is in the proportion.

RIVEHS AND) HARBORS

Senator ALLEN. No, hardly. We have done better than that.
We have some engiinering estimates from the engineers of New York
on that subject, if I can find them.
Senator COPELAND. Guess at them; that is what you have been ,.
doing so, far.
Sent or ALLEN. No, hardly, Senator. I do not like to guess when
the difference is between 8200.000,1000 and $2,000,000.
Senatir COPELAND. It is quite a difference.
Senator ALLEN. You say, General Deauyne, that the cost of
changing the bridges for the entire canal system would not be over
$2,000,000?
General DEAKYNE. My recollection is that it is some figure like
that. I do not carry all those figures in mind, but there is a scheme,
of course, of making very elabiirate elman es in the bridges to accom-
modate barges with high inuts whi'h w.:ould run up into costs of
hundreds of millions of dollars, and to carry the New York Central
you might have to tunnel.
Senator ALLEN. The cost of the change in the bridges I was referring
to. The changes recommended, I think, to make this canal deeper
and render it a sea-ship-carrying canal; I think that probably that
is true.
General DELKV NE. Yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. You concede that?
Senator ALLEN. I concede that is a figure we will be dealing with
some time in the future if you allow New York to give us these canals.
. The CHAIRMAN. While discussing the matter, General, let me ask
you one question concerning the second objection which was presented
by Senator Vandenberg, the gist of which I understand to be that the
reason for putting this particular item in the rivers and harbors bill
is to preclude the ultimate construction of the St. Lawrence water-
way. Is that accurately enough stated, Senator Vandenberg?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes.
General DEAKYNE. I do not feel that I can answer that. I feel that
in frankness I ought to say I think Congress will be faced with the
issue of deciding whether to build a waterway here or on the St.
Lawrence. But we are not attempting to settle that now.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that only one will likely be built by
the Government under the circumstances if this item shall prevail?
General DEAKYNE. I think it would be sensible that the Govern-
ment should build only one ship canal from the Lakes to the sea.
I certainly would not recommend building two at once.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the natural consequence be, if this item
were retained in the bill, that it would be the ship canal to the sea?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That would not necessarily follow?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir.
The CHAIRNMAN. Nor likely follow?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; could not follow until Congress had
taken other action.
The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you there. But was the pur-
pose in your mind and in the mind of the board in the ultimate recom-
mendation of this item that it would perform the particular function -'
of providing a ship canal?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.

RIFS AND HARBORS

The C-HATF n.N. And it alone?
General DEA.KYNE. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Would it be your view, if this item were included,
- that Congress should proceed-I am speaking now as if the matter
were entirely in your charge and you were to advise Congress in
respect to it-that Congress should proceed with the St. Lawrence.
waterway as well?
General DEAKYNE. I think Congress should proceed; those matters
go beyond engineering; they get into the realm of international
relations, which we do not attempt to touch.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
General DEAKYNE. But I do not see any reason why negotiations
should not proceed with Canada with respect to development of the
St. Lawrence.
Senator VANDENBERG. Then Governor Roosevelt of New York is
wrong when he construes this present effort as being in the direction
of providing a deep waterway from the Great Lakes to the sea by way
of the Hudson River, as he stated in his message to the New York
Legislature?
General DEAKYNE. I think it is very clear that this does not pro-
vide it and does not open the way for it unless Congress acts on it in
the future, and while I said you must face the issue some day probably,
yet it should be decided on its merits when it comes up.
Senator VANDENBERG. But, General, if the Government finds
itself saddled with the Erie Canal, and, let us assume for the sake of
argument at least that it finds itself facing a progressive deficit of
large proportions as a result, does it not inevitably become easier to
argue at that point that we should save ourselves in relation to the
Erie Canal by using it as an ultimate ship canal instead of starting
a new project by the St. Lawrence?
General DEAKYNE. There will be an argument there, but it will
have to be met on a basis of an analysis of the situation, the cost and
the benefit of the use.
Senator VANDENBERG. So far as the present project is concerned,
the-and I will just s'um this up, Mr. Chairman, and then I am
through, so far as I am concerned-your report recommends literally
nothing except the transfer of the property, if New York is willing
to transfer it?
General DEAKYNE. That and its operation; yes.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you said in that connection it will
probably be several years before that transfer can be effected?
SGeneral DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. Why would it not be more sensible, if we
are looking out primarily for the interests of the United States
instead of--
Senator COPELAND. Just a minute, Senator. This did not originate
with the State of New York.
Senator VANDENBERG. I think it did, Senator. We will develop
that later.
Senator COPELAND. Go ahead.
S Senator VANDENBERG. Would it not be more sensible to authorize
a study of the possible dual relationships that could exist between
the Erie Canal development and the St. Lawrence, so that when New
York indicates it is ready to transfer the canal to us we will have the

RIVERS AND HARBORS

inforrmiation upon which to pass upon a definitive project instead of
legislating in the dark? Why would not that be more sensible?
General DEAKYNE. I think we have had a good deal of study al-
ready on both ot these (questions;.
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes; but all the study heretofore in con-
nection with the Erie is represented in adverse reports?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. As regards the deep-sea canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. No; as regards the 13-foot or 14-foot barge
canal; and within the last three months there have been made adverse
reports on both of them.
Senator SIMMONS. General, all of the canal work we are doing now
is upon the basis of 12 feet, is it not?
General DEAKYNE. A great deal of it, Senator; yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. And that is the depth of the Erie Canal?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. That has nothing to do with the ocean trans-
portation except incidentally, has it?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. It is domestic traffic?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Purely and simply?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Suppose the United States shall proceed to
expend a very large sum of money to complete this inland waterway
system. Would you say that that would have anything to do with the
question of whether the United States would also spend the amount
of money that was necessary in order to develop to the highest degree,
if we thought it advisable, our ocean transportation and our seagoing
commerce?
General DEAKYNE. It would have just this relation to it, that the
canal-
Senator SIMMONS. Let me finish a little bit further.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. They are not in this country and they are not in
other countries being cut-great ship canals, some of them 50 or 60
miles into the interior-to reach certain great centers of commerce?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Will we not probably in this country reach that
stage after a while?
General DEAKYNE. We are developing this intracoastal canal along
the Atlantic coast.
Senator SIMMONS. And we will cut in the future, as other countries
have cut and are cutting these great ship canals?
General DEAKYNE. Quite possible.
Senator SIMMONS. To reach outstanding centers of commerce in
the United States?
General DEAKYNE. It seems possible; yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Why do you think in that condition of things
that the fact that the Government completes its interstate system of
barge transportation that it will interfere at all with the operations ,
of the Government in connection with whatever facilities were
needed in order to meet the requirements and condition of ocean trans-
poirtatio:n?

RIDERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. I was going t., say that the canal system had
just this relation to ocean commerce, that these canals serve as
branches, you might say, to bring commerce into the great ports
" where it is shipped across the ocean, if it is destined to go there.
But I do not see that the development of the canal system should
interfere at all, of course, with the development. of the deep-sea traffic.
Senator SIMMONS. If New York were 200 miles into the interior,
with its present great commerce, we would build a ship canal to
reach New York, would we not, in all probability, would we not?
General DEAKYNE. I judge so. We are building a 27-foot channel
to Albany now.
Senator ALLEN. General, do you think it is practicable, then, to
make a ship canal of the Oswezo branch?
General DEAKYNE. It is perfectly szI from an engineering point
of view.
Senator ALLEN. To run in competition with the St. Lawrence?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; we can build it. It is simply a ques-
tion of money.
Senator VANDENBERG. Can you operate it profitably? That is the
question.
General DEAKYNE. We have not been able to see it, so far.
Senator ALLEN. Of course not.
Senator SIMMONS. Is there really any competition in the broad
sense of that term between our inland waterway system and our
ocean transportation system? In fact, does not the completion of
this inland water system, providing for cheap transportation, really
aid our ocean transportation?
General DEAKYNE. Oh, yes, sir. I think one feeds the other. I
think there is no question on that.
Senator SIMMONS. I do not see any competition between them. I
think the inland water system aids the other..
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. The Mississippi feeds commerce
down to New Orelans, where it is put on ships to go abroad.
Senator RANSDELL. General, when the 9-foot project is carried out
through the Mississippi Valley, extending on to the Mi.ssouri River,
and probably up the Mississippi River to Minneapolis and St. Paul,
and it is now completed up to Pittsburgh, and, of course, extended on
up to Chicago. Later on in all probability there will be such an
immense development of commerce in that valley seeking .outlet to
the Atlantic seaboard that there will be a real need for the State of
New York to keep open its canal and if the Government owned the
Erie Canal to keep a part of its barge-not the ship canal-but barge
canal, such as it has been already; and, as Senator Simmons has
brought out, there would be a very large commerce in barges going
all the way from Florida on up to New York and through this canal,
and from New England through it, as you describe, a great circle
passing all the way around the United States in barges?
General DEAKYNE.' I think the canal in New York has a function
in that system; yes, sir.
Senator RANSDELL. And a very important function.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator RANSDELL. Do you or not believe it is possible so to im-
prove barges that it will be entirely practical for them to operate on
the Great Lakes, I mean, small barges, say not over 9 feet. I asked

DRIVERS AND H.ABOiRS

you that once before. If you would kindly enlarge on it, I would
like you to do it. My idea is that improvements in vwater-going
barges may be such as to permit such barges to operate on the Great
Lakes successfully.
General DEAKYNE. I think they could operate there. I would say
there is some trouble once in awhile. There are storms, but they j
could operate.
Senator RANSDELL. So,have our great ocean vessels trouble occa-
sionally from s-torms on the ocean?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, we would be justified in
taking it over on the basis of a dream?
Senator R ANSDELL. I do not consider it a dream. I consider it the
greatest pos-sible constructive agency in America, as it was when the
Erie Canal was first put into commerce in 1826 under the leadership
of De Witt Clinton, and I consider this very necessary. Now, I con-
sider the 'commerce of this country is growing by leaps and bounds,
and I do not think the President ever said a wiser thing than when he
urged us to develop a wonderful system of inland waterways; and
they will all be tied in together. Do not misunderstand me; I am
on record again and again as advocating a waterway through the
St. Lawrence.
Senator HARRIS. IS the commerce in the canal decreasing?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir. Over a period it has been increasing.
It decreased in 1929; that is att trib ited to the movement of the wheat
crop that year. But over a period of years it has been increasing.
Senator HARRIS. I'just wanted to know if it were operated to the
fullest capacity would it have a deficit or be a paying proposition.
General DEAKYNE. I think it could pay. It could handle more
commerce than it does now.
Senator ALLEN. What is its full capacity?
General DEAKYNE. Around 7,000,000 tons a year.
Senator ALLEN. Of both canals?
General DEAKYNE. Oh, no; the New York canal. You mean-
Senator ALLEN. The Erie and Oswego; is it not something like
20,0i)00,0100 tons a year?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir. I do not think it would handle as
much as that the way it is now. You would have to erlarge it.
Senator COPELAND. General, did you make any figures as to the
back haul or possibilities of traffic in reference to studies of canals?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; that question has been studied. The
back haul divides itself into parts: Through haul and local haul.
Considering both, there is a large back haul from the canal; consider-
ing the through traffic, the back haul is comparatively small. The
preponderance of through traffic is eastward. The movement of
grain is a large factor.
Senator COPELAND. In connection with the movement of grain,
we have a crop of about-800,000,000, have we not, Senator Nye?
Senator NYE. Approximately.
Senator COPELAND. And 200,000,000 goes abroad and 6001,000,000
is distributed domestically. Of course, the Erie Canal would be use-
ful and is useful in brinzilg dome-tic wheat of (he Northwest into the
eastern market, and with a little greater depth there would be even
more eastern movement of wheat to New York?

RIVERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. General, in my State we have built a great high-
way, starting in the mountain region and running down to the sea-
coast, with a length of over 500 miles. That highway would not be
worth anything scarcely in the absence of lateral roads running into
it all the way along its reaches.
General DEAKYNE. I suppose not.
Senator SIMMONS. And that is the same idea I have about our for-
eign commerce-our ocean-borne commerce. I think the system of
inland waterways are highways that assemble commerce not only for
domestic utilization but for supplying our foreign trade, whatever
it may be.
Now, I want to say to Senator Vandenberg that I have no hostility
toward his scheme. I think the Government of the United States is
able to do both. I have not investigated his plan, and I am not
prepared to express any opinion, but from what I know about it in a
general way I should say I was as much in favor of that as I am this
scheme, and I do not think New York is the only State interested in
this matter. I think my State is interested, and I think every State
lying along the inland waterway from Maine down to Miami, Fla.,
is interested. All of them are interested in it; and I think all of those
living along the Mississippi River are interested, and all of them who
live along these lakes are interested in it. I do not think it is of
interest to New York alone. It may be just at this time we do not
particularly need this. I do not know how that is, but I believe the
time is going to come when we will need it, and if the State of New
York wants to give it to us I think we better accept it.
Senator McNARY. General, I would like to have you testify a
little bit further. I want to ask you concerning the probable policy
of the Board of Engineers if this item remains in the bill. I am
conscious of the fact that the Board of Engineers is very persuasive
when it comes to the determination of whether we should go, forward
with the development or not. If this provision should remain in the
bill, what would be your first step with respect to getting title to this
property from New York?
General DEAKYNE. I should think the first step would be an
inquiry by the Secretary of War or the Governor of New York as to
whether the canal can be given to the United States.
Senator COPELAND. May I answer that?
Senator McNARY. No-; I do not want any argument. I want to
ask the witness some questions. I do not want to be rude about the
matter.
Senator COPELAND. Haven't you been?
Senator McNARY. There has been sufficient provocation to be.
If the State of New York has not yet made a proposition to the
Government, do you anticipate any difficulty in persuading the
State to convey title to the Government?
General DEAKYNE. I do not understand it is any function of ours
to persuade the State to do anything.
Senator McNARY. No; I understand that. If we should appro-
priate this money or make it available, what would be the proper
step next to be taken by the State of New York and its engineers,
111747-30--PT 1--4

- RIVERS AND HARBORS

and what. success would you have in having the State of New York
t.o comply with this provision?
General DEAKYNE. I think the first thing would be a letter of
inquiry asking whether the State is prepared to take the steps to
turn the canal over.
Senator MCNABY. That leads to this question: Has the Secretary
of War conferred with the board with regard to getting the title to
-this canal?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.
Senator MCNARY. How did that come about? I think that is
rather important. How did negotiations that brought about this
provision get into the bill?
General DEAKYNE. They came about, as I think I explained a
while ago--
j Senator MCNARY. Not fully.
mRGeneral DEAKYNE (continuing). As a result of a study by the
board of the question of deepening the canal and how it would be
possible to deepen it if we did not own it, and whether it would lead
to conflict of authority. On that we thought it would.
Senator McN.aRy. The idea originated with the members of the
board?
General DEAKYNE. I think I ought to tell you that it was talked
of by other people than the members of the board.
Senator McNARY. Than the members?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNARY. Then the matter was brought to the engineers
by others who were interested in this provision?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNARY. Now, you say-and I would like to have the
record show-there is a difference of opinion and a very wide differ-
ence between the first cost and sustaining operations of the canal.
This provision requires two and a half million dollars to be appro-
priated by the Government. Senator Allen has repeatedly said that
the loss is $11,000,000 a year. Is there some way we can determine
the actual losses?
General DEAKYNE. Yes; undoubtedly.
Senator MCNARY. Can you furnish that information to the com-
mittee, if you have not it now in your possession?
General DEAKYNE. I shall make an attempt to furnish it. It is
purely a question of interest on the first cost of the canal.
Senator ALLEN. I will say, Senator, if you will pardon me, that
my estimates included interest on the investment.
Senator MCNARY. If the State of New York is losing money on
the operation, do you believe the Government could more efficiently
operate the canal than the State of New York.
General DEAKYNE. Possibly. I think the State of New York is
doing it pretty well. I think the Government might do it more
efficiently. But we will not have to pay this interest if we get the
canal for nothing; that is the advantage the United States will have.
Senator McNARY. Are you prepared to make an estimate of the
savings which might be made over the now annual cost?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator McNARY. Have you considered the proposition that there
would be additional commerce carried over this canal under Govern-
ment operation?
General DEAKYNE. There would probably be a slight increase;
I would not look for much more increase under Government operation
than State operation.
Senator McNARY. Has the Government considered the length
of time that the Government would be getting title to this property?
General DEAKYNE. We have thought it might take as much as
five years; it might take somewhat less. But it would probably take
some considerable time.
Senator McNARY. Probably the moving thought that brought you
to this conclusion was the ultimate development of the barze cranun?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNARY. And as to the success of that project you had
no doubt?
General DEAKYNE. That is correct.
Senator MCNARY. And by deepening to 13 or 14 feet, commerce
which would be available would be sufficiently abundant to justify
the expenditure of the money by the Government, in your opinion?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNARY. Have the engineers studied that phase of the
question very carefully?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNARY. And have come to the conclusion that that is
the practical thing to do if you once get the title to the canal?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; so far as we can see now into the
future.
Senator McNARY. And that would probably be the recommenda-
tion of the Board of Engineers to Congress if this provision is made
in the bill?
General DEAKYNE. Unless conditions change.
Senator VANDENBERG. May I pursue one of Senator McNary's
questions a little further? Suppose the Secretary of War did inquire
of the State of New York whether it is willing to present these canals
to the Government. Suppose the Governor of New York says to the
Secretary of War, "Yes, we are perfectly willing to give you these
canals, if that contemplates a deep waterway from the Great Lakes
to the sea by way of the Hudson River," that being the language in
his special message. How could the Secretary of War answer that?
.General DEAKYNE. I do not think he would have any authority
to say that the United States obligates itself to make deep water
to the sea.
Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, the transfer of that would
have to be made blindly in so far as one or the other of us was con-
cerned. Those people in New York who would consider that they
were liiyin the foundation for the all-American route would just
have to take it for granted that they had succeeded in that enterprise,
and we would just have to take it for granted that they had not suc-
ceeded in that enterprise. That is the situation that you recommend
to us?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I must confess I have wholly
misunderstood this thing. I thought that the State of New York

RIVERS AND HARBORS

had given in some way or other reasonable assurances that they would'
donate this canal if we would take it over. I think we ought, to know
something about that. Probably if we offered to take it over before
she offered to give it to us, she might say, "Yes, we will let you have.
it, but. you must pay a certain consideration for it."
Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted-
Senator SIMMONS. It seems to me if no assurances have been given
that that is just put in this bill as sort of tender on the part of the
Government, that we ought to stop and ascertain whether there is;
any real foundation for believing that New York would do what is;
anticipated.
Senator COPELAND. May I answer that, Mr. Chairman?
Senator SIMMONS (continuing). Upon which our action is predi-
cated.
Senator COPELAND. Under the law of our State in this matter,. it is
necessary for the legislature at two sessions to approve the transfer
to the Federal Government; and then after that it must be sub-
mitted to the people. The legislature this year has already passed
the appropriate resolutions tendering this property to the Federal
Government. The next step will be at the legislature next year,
which meets the 1st'of January, 1931. At that time they will, I
assume, repeat the resolution whi,-h was passed by this legislature.
Then it must be submitted to the people at the next general election,
which would be in 1932, would it not, Senator?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes.
Senator COPELAND. And then it would be November, 1932; and'
then if that is favorably acted upon by the people, the authorities of'
the State would be authorized by the act of the people to give a deed'
to the property by the Federal Government. So that the earliest
date it could be done would be in the winter of 1932..
Senator VANDENBERG. May I ask you a question of information?
Senator COPELAND. Yes.
Senator VANDENBERG. You refer to the action of the State legis-
lature.
Senator COPELAND. I do; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. That action refers in time to- the tender of
the Erie Canal to the "Federal Government for its use and purpose in-
the construction of a national waterway route to connect the Great
Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean?" What interpretation are the voters
of New York to put upon the woiirds "national waterway route"?
Senator COPELAND. Exactly what the language says.
Senator VANDENBERG. What does it say, barge, canal or ship
canal?
Senator COPELAND. Barge canal. The Senator from Michigan
need not be scared.
Senator VANDENBERG. I am concerned about getting- straight our
information-he is excited over the proposition that the transfer of
this property to the Federal Government will defeat the Senator's-
pet project. Is not that your hope?
Senator COPELAND. No, I have no hope.
Senator VANDENBERG.; Have you not always been opposed to the
St. Lawrence waterway?
Senator COPELAND. I am opposed to it, absolutely.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you are opposed to it now.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator COPELAND. I have never made any argument for the
waterway across New York, except if the. canal is going to be built it
might better be built there.
S Senator VANDENBERG. Precisely.
Senator COPELAND. In my judgment, there will not be a deep water-
way built to the sea in the life of any one in this room. This project
has nothing to do with it-this canal across our State. Its increasing
use is interstate use. There is no reason why the State of New York
should continue that project, all in order to accommodate the other
:States of the Union, any more than the canals down the east coast
-of our country should be operated by the States purely, when the
use is interstate use. I do not think the Senator need have any
anxiety about the future. That is a great project; at the same time,
it must be fought out. I have abundant reasons for opposing the
.St. Lawrence route, because of the conscientious belief that the five-
month's route would cost us six or seven hundred million dollars and
is a project this country is not going to enter upon lightly. But this,
as I say, relates simply to another link in our inland waterway system.
Senator SIMMONS. I think that is clear from the language, if that
is the language from the act. Would not the Senator from New York
:give us the original act?
Senator COPELAND. I will be glad to get it for you and put it in
the record.
.Senator ALLEN. You made an address at the last meeting of the
Rivers and Harbors in Washington in December, in which you
-definitely indorsed this idea of the ship canal.
Senator COPELAND. No; the Senator is wrong. I definitely opposed
the St. Lawrence Canal, but said if a canal is going to be built,
because of the shorter distance I think it is going to serve our country,
.certainly the United States will never build a canal that has its outlet
in the ocean 700 miles north and a thousand miles east. If it were to
be used exclusively for the exportation of wheat, I have always said,
"'Yes; certainly that is good." But if it is to serve our country and
we are going to build a canal it should be a canal in our country.
The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest that the argument be left ulti-
mately to the Senate?
Senator COPELAND. I submit this to the Chair. I have not argued
.any more than the opponents.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not criticizing anybody, but I am suggesting
that in the interest of saving the time of the engineers and of the
,committee generally.
May I ask you this, General: Contemplating as you do, the deep-
ening of this canal, in order that it may perform the function you
have heard described by Senator Simmons, how much will the amount
be required from the National Government to do that?
General DEAKYNE. It will mean up around $50,000,000 to deepen
to 14 feet and do the other things-change the bridges and widen the
canal.
The CHAIRMAN. The deepening it to 14 feet, making it perform
the function of a real ship canal, would cost, in your opinion ultimately
about $50,000,000?
S General DEAKYNE. Not a ship canal, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, a barge canal?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; that is correct.

50 nRI'EVns AN. HARBORS

Senator McNARY. Is that on the basis of 13 or 14 feet.?
General DEAKYNE. Fourteen.
Senator JONES. I understood you to say $90,:000t,000I awhile ago,
General.
General DEAKYNE. You will see what I had in mind, and that was
more extensive alteration of bridges and more widening.
Senator JONES. A while ago you said $90,000,000; that is what I
understood.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it now, the general says that for
the alteration of the bridges, doing everything that is essential with
respect to them, for the improvements that are essential in reference
to the widening of the canal, the deepening of the canal to 14 feet,
the total absoute outlay that will be required of the Government will
be approximately $50,000,000.
General DEAKYNE. We indicate in our report that that was the
figure that should be contemplated. That $50,000,000 would make
it about usable with the present locks. The $90.cuo,000, I think,
Senator Jones, included changing the locks to 14 feet. There was a
difference.
Senator JONES. You made that statement a while ago.
General DEAKYNE.. I remember making it. There is a difference
in the two schemes: One is leaving the locks as they are. Then by
deepening the other parts 14-feet, widening some, changing bridges,
but not changing as much as you might change them during develop-
ment, the minimum figure contemplated is about $50,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. My query was: Do everything that may be es-
sential-to make it an appropriate barge canal that would function in
that particular. Now, approximately $50,000,000 would be required?
General DEAKYNE. That is an advance estimate. We expect if
that is contemplated we would be called upon to make the report
some years from now, when that comes up.
Senator SIMMONS. As I understood, in that first statement you
made a clear distinction between the depth of the water in the locks
and outside of the locks?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. You said they had to have a margin of probably
one and a half or 2 feet?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMuMNiNS. But in the lock you said the 12 feet would be
all a boat drawing 12 feet would require?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I am taking all of that into consideration that
would be essential, and I am correct in thinking it would be
$50,000,000.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. One other thing, and then I am done with the
examination. Thdre is a deficit of about $11,000,000 per annum now
that the State of New York has in the operation of this canal, as I
understand it.
Senator COPELAND. Including interest.
The CHAIRMAN. I am coming to that in just a second.
General DEAKYNE. I assume that is correct, .-
The CHAIRMAN. How much of that $11,000,000 constitutes interest,
approximately?

RI VERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. I suppose about eight and a half million
dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. So that the loss to the State of New York at the
Present time would be something in the neighborhood of $3,000,000'
per annum.
General DEAKYNE. It would be two and a half million dollars for
Operation and maintenance.
Senator ALLEN. To be exact, Mr. Chairman, it is two million
eight hundred and some odd thousand.
General DEAKYNE. That is for one year. The average was
$2,500,000.
Senator VANDENBERG. I want to pursue another phase for just a
moment. General, has the board made any study of the terminal
equipment that the State of New York owns in connection with the
canal?
General DEAKYNE. Not especially. We have information-we
sent a man over the canal to look at it, and all that.
Senator VANDENBERG. You never made a study of it?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. The following language appeared in the
first tentative report of the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the
House, but disappears in the final report-that is describing what
the State of New York is to turn over. [Reading:}
Together with any plant, machinery or .equipment necessary, convenient, or
incident to the construction, maintenance, or operation of the same that may
have been procured in connection therewith, and any rights to-the collection
of tolls or the development of waterpower on said waterways which the State-
may possess or claim.
That language now has disappeared from the bill. Do you know
why?
General DEAKYNE. I can only throw a little light on it. I think
there are better sources of information than myself as to that.
Senator VANDENBERG. I think that is true.
The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean disappeared from the bill?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes, I mean disappeared from the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. From the bill?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. What bill do you mean?
Senator'VANDENBERG. I mean this Rivers and Harbors Bill we are
now considering.
The CHAIRMAN. In the original draft?
Senator VANDENBERG. I mean in the original action of the Rivers
and Harbors Committee, if I am correctly informed, the language
now quoted was inserted and since has disappeared.
Senator SIMMONS. Please quote it again, Senator. I did not
catch it at first.
Senator VANDENBERG (reading):
Together with any plant, machinery or equipment necessary, convenient or
incident to the construction, maintenance or operation, of the same that may
)A have been procured in connection therewith, and any rights to the collection bf
tolls or the development of waterpower on said waterways which the State may
possess or claim.
S Do you have any personal information about that?

RIVERS AND HARBORS

General DLAKYNE. I know it was stated to us that the State never
collected any tolls and never claimed the right; in fact, I think there
is a provision forbidding the collection of tolls on the canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. If we proceed
Senator COPELAND. It is in the Constitution?
General DEAKYNE. It is in the Constitution.
Senator VANDENBERG. If we proceed with the Felderal operation of
this canal, as I understand it, the State of New York will still own the
terminals, warehouses, and elevators that have been constructed
incidentally?
General DEAKYNE. I assume so; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. What do we do-pay the State of New
York for the use of those terminals?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir; we do not use them.
Senator VANDENBERG. What do we do-build new terminals?'
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir; we do not build terminals at all.
Senator VANDENBERG. We have nothing to do with terminals?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. What becomes of this property? Is it a
dead loss to the State of New York?
General DEAKYNE. I assume the State would either operate or
sell it.
Senator VANDENBERG. How could the State operate it except in
conjunction with the canal?
General DEAKYNE. The dealing of the State would be with the
shippers, not with the United States.
Senator VANDENBERG. I understand.
General DEAKYNE. If they choose to retain this property and let
shippers use it on the payment of a fee or whatever arrangement they
make, it does not interfere with anything as to the United States
at all.
Senator VANDENBERG. Do you suppose that is what is meant by
eliminating the language in respect of tolls, that it might have been
feared that would interfere with the State of New York charging the
commerce for terminal facilities, et cetera?
General DEAKYNE. I think it was more a question of elevators and
property of that kind which the United States does not want to
take over.
SSenator VANDENBERG. Do you not think, then, before the Board
of Engineers makes with finality a survey of this gigantic thing,
which in its essence is as big as the Panama Canal, there ought to
be made an intensive survey of all incidental equipment and facili-
ties related thereto?
General DEAKYNE. I think that could be made when the nego-
tiations get down to details. I think that would be the time for it.
I do not think there is any reason to make all that detailed study now.
Senator VANDENBERG. Except you may find after having made
negotiations that you ought to have some of these terminals. In
other words, is not the present action utterly premature and based
upon utterly inadequate survey of the whole project.?
General DEAKYNE. I take it that the present, action contemplated
is the first step, simply to.get the property from the State.
Senator VANDENBERG: Only part of the property, hbeause we
have now deleted part of the property.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

General DEAKYNE. We did not think we wanted to take over the
grain elevators.
Senator VANDENBERG. I am not sure you should. You do not
'. know whether you need some of these terminals or not? You have
never inquired into that, have you?
J General DEAKYNE. We would need landing places for our own
plant. We would need necessary machinery to operate the locks,
the dwelling houses for the lock tenders. Those are the ordinary
things we have in connection with any canal.
Senator SIMMONS. Is it not against the policy of the Government
to own terminals on our waterways?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Have we not for years here, in passing legisla-
tion, been very particular to require the State should provide terminal
facilities?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. And it has been thought the best policy that the
terminals should be in private ownership instead of Government
ownership?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. We have tried to keep away from that, I think.
Senator VANDENBERG. YOU succeeded in this instance.
Senator SIMMONS. I think we were carrying out the policy upon
which we have been operating ever since I have been a member of
this committee, which has been a very long time, Senator Vandenberg.
Senator RANSDELL (reading):
and shall include all lands, easements, and completed or uncompleted structures
and appurtenances of the said waterways.
What does that mean? What property do we get?
General DEAKYNE. We get the land on which the canal lies; we
get any easements if they do not have title, and have easements to
go over property; we get that. We get the machinery for operating
the locks, any power houses they may have for operating the locks,
any machine shops they might have for the repair of machinery,
dwelling houses for lock tenders and offices around the locks, and the
necessary lands on which those structures would stand. I would
take it that that would be a matter for detailed negotiation between
the State authorities and the United States.
Senator VXNDENBERG. Should it not also be a matter of detailed
survey, so we could know what the basis of our negotiations ought
to be?
General DEAKYNE. I do not think it is necessary at this stage.
Senator COPELAND. While the general on is the stand, may I ask
him about the item on page 31. As to the St. Lawrence River be-
tween Ogdensburg, New York, and Lake Ontario-what is contem-
plated?
General DEAKYNE. That is the channel from Lake Ontario to
Ogdensburg in the St. Lawrence River.
-Senator C'OPELAND. How much money is involved in that?
General DEAKYNE. I have not that clearly in mind. It seems to
-,. me it is a million dollars.
Senator McNARY. It is a millioli and a half and over.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator COPELAND. Would that be a part of the work necessary
to complete the St. Lawrence Canal? Let us assume at some time in
the future the St. Lawrence ship canal is to be built: Would this work
,on the St. Lawrence from Ogdensburg to Lake Ontario be a part of .-"
the work which would have to be done ultimately in connection with
that work?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; I should say so.
Senator COPELAND. And this item contemplates the improvement
of the St. Lawrence Canal and would be a contribution toward the
ultimate completion of a ship canal, if that were determined upon?
So that the inclusion of the New York project is not interfered with
if this item is adopted also-with the improvement of the St. Lawrence
waterways?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator ALLEN. General, do you recommend that this be done?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir.
Senator ALLEN. This was put in, then, for some other purpose.
As a matter of fact, I dare say you are familiar, General, with the
fact that the Canadian Government is already working upon this
section of the river?
General DEAKYNE." Yes, sir.
.Senator ALLEN. With the consent of our Government?
'General DEAKYNE. I understand so.
'Senator ALLEN. So that this in the bill would operate as an inter-
Terence with what is already going on?
General DEAKYNE. I do not know how much it will interfere. I
am not familiar with just what the Canadians are doing.
Senator ALLEN. The Canadian Government, I might say for the
benefit of the committee, asked some weeks ago for permission to
begin, at their own cost, this section of the river, looking forward to
the completion of the ship canal; and this goes from the foot of Lake
*Ontario to Prescott, by way of Ogdensburg, and it being practicable
to cross the river and use.the American side they required the c:,onen t
*of the American Government, which the State Department has given
to them, and they are now setting that work on foot; and this came
in at this time merely for the purpose of saying that this bill also in-
cludes the St. Lawrence, although it is intended to be political,
might work some real delay to a very worthy enterprise now going oni?
Senator COPELAND. Is the Senator aware that this is an adminis-
tration item?
Senator ALLEN. This may be an administration item, but it is not
,an administration item in this bill.
Senator COPELAND. It came from the White House, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the Senator speaking facetiously?
Senator COPELAND. No; speaking advisedly.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions to be propounded
:to General Deakyne?
Senator SHEPPARD. General, has there been any recent estimate as
to saving in freight. rates, both on commodities carried by water and
,commodities carried by rail by way of this waterway, through the
LGreat Lakes and the Erie Canal, from Albany to New York?
General DEAKYNE. There are figures on that, I can not quote
them from memory, but I take it they would not be materially

RIVER&AlTD HARBORS

changed whether the canal is operated by the United States or by the
State of New York.
Senator SHEPPARD. And that saving is a very large one; is it not?
S General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; it is a material saving.
Senator SHEPPARD. I would like to have those figures inserted when
you report to us what the cost of this barge canal has been.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; we will be glad to do that.
(The data subsequently furnished by General Deakyne is as fol-
lows:)
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, May 3, 1930.
Son. HIRAM W. JOHNSON,
Committee on Commerce, United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR SENATOR: The.following information regarding the present and
prospective saving in transportation costs applicable to the Erie and Oswego
Canals is furnished in accordance with your request.
Since there are no established canal rates, actual charges varying with condi-
tions, an estimate of the savings accruing from the use of the canals mentioned
must be based upon a comparison of the actual cost of transportation by water
and tli.- ,-.i i-".-,Bndiih rail rates. It has been calculated that the transportation
-cost p.-r toi of fi: ;iglt by water from New York to Buffalo averages 80 cents less
than the cost by rail between these two points. Between New York and O-rwago
the difference in cost is somewhat greater in favor of the water route The
difference between rail and water transportation costs applying to local traffic on
the New York Barge Canal has not been calculated, but it is estimated to be at
least 50 cents per'ton in favor of the water route.
In 1929 there was a total traffic on the Erie and Oswego Canals of about
2,500,000 tons, including 1,700,000 tons of through traffic and 800,000 tons of
local traffic. The total estimated saving in transportation costs, using the figures
given in the preceding paragraph, are therefore:
1,700,000, at 80 cents-------------------------------------$1, 360, 000
800,000, at 50 cents-------------------------------------- 400, 000
Total.-------- ------------------------------- 1, 760. 000
Based upon the rate of increase during the past 10 years, it is estimated that
the canal tonnage will increase at the rate of about 500,000 tons per annum for a
few years, and thereafter at a somewhat greater rate. Should this estimate
prove to be correct, the future tonnage will be about as follows:

Local ton- Through Total
nage tonnage

Tons
1932 ... .... .. ..........-------------------------- 1,150,000 2,850,000 4,000,000
1935 --------------------..................................------------------------... 1,300,000 4,200,000 5,500,000
1938 ---------..-.----------------------------- 1,500,000 6,000,000 7,500,000

Using the unit saving of 80 cents for through traffic and 50 cents for local
traffic, as stated in paragraph 2 above, the estimated savings in transportation
costs due to use of the canal route are as follows for the years indicated:
1932 ------------------------------------------- $2, 855, 000
1935 .-----.--------------------------------------- 4, 010, 000
1938 -- ------------ ------------------------- 5, 550, 000
Very truly yours,
HERBERT DEAKYNE,
Brigadier General,
Assistant Chief of Engineers.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

:Senator "VANDENBERG. Of course the board had all those figures
before it when they reported adversely heretofore?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions to be asked of the
General?
Senator VANDENBERG. I shall want to ask him some questions:
later, assuming we are confined in this meeting to the Erie Canal.
The CHA HIRMAN I assumed it was to be devoted to controversial
matters, and that is the reason I was taking them up first.
What is the pleasure of the committee? General Brown has very
kindly come to use, in response to my request. Do you wish to pro-
ceed di.ring the noon hour, or do you wish to proceed at a future time?
Senator VANDENBERG. I think we will have to proceed at a future
time, in view of the fact that it is now 12 o'clock and there are im-
portant matters on the floor of the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. I would prefer that myself. There is an important
matter pending at the present time in which I feel quite deeply
interested.
Senator SHEPPARD. I would like the committee to pass on the ques-
tion of whether we are going to have hearings on any other items than
those in controversy now.
The CHAIRMAN. I am glad the Senator has raised that question.
Various Senators have called upon me in relation to matters that they
desired their constituents to be heard upon, first as to the upper reaches.
of the Mississippi River, next as to the upper reaches of the Missouri
River; next Senators from Florida as to rivers in that State; next, the
Senator from Virginia as to the James River, and so on.
Senator RANSDELL. I think it is a very important piece of legisla-
tion, and that we should proceed to hold hearings.
(Thereupon informal discussion occurred.)
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will now adjourn to meet
next Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, the committee adjourned to meet
Monday, May 5, 1930, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

SERIVERS AND HARBORS

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1930
UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
Senator Hiram W. Johnson presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson (chairman), Vandenberg, Deneen,
Howell, Allen, Ransdell, Simmons, and Copeland.
The CHAIRMAN. The time being limited in the matter of disposition
of this bill, if you have no objection, we will call the committee to
order and commence, and we will continue in that fashion no matter
how many may be present at the time that is set. Is that agreeable
to you?
Senator COPELAND. Wholly.
Senator VANDENBERG. It is entirely satisfactory to me.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. This committee will come to order,
then. Senator Vandenberg expressed a desire to propound some
additional questions to you, General Deakyne.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. HERBERT DEAKYNE-Resumed
Senator VANDENBERG. I am anxious to straighten out the record,
General, in respect to costs.
When the chairman of the committee on Friday was endeavoring
to get a specific estimate of the cost of 14-foot channel in the Erie
and Oswego Canals, you repeatedly put the figure at $50,000,000.
Were you not mistaken about that?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir. There are two figures given with
respect to a 14-foot channel. One figure I stated was around
$90,000,000. On looking that up, I find it is between $82,000,000
and $83,000,000, and the other figure I gave was $50,000,000. The
difference is that they involve different degrees of completeness of
treatment. The $82,000,000 involves making the canal wider than
the $50,000,000 figure contemplates, and deepening the locks, which
carries with it the modification of the lock gates and the machinery,
and raising the bridges. The $50,000,000 was reported by the
board as what would probably be needed in the next 10 or 15 years
to make the canal suitable for handling the commerce to be expected
within that time, and does not involve so much widening as the
$82,000,000 estimate, does not involve deepening the locks and there-
fore does not involve changing the lock gates or machinery for
operating the locks.
Senator VANDENBERG. In your engineering report to the Seventy-
- first Congress-I am referring to Document No. 29-did not the

HIV'ERS AND H.ARBORS

special board of engineers say that a successful 14-foot liannel
would cost $82,000,000?
General DEAKYNE. I think probably so; I do not remember the
word "successful." I know their ultimate estimate was $82,000,000.
Senator VANDENBERG. The $82,000,000 estimate includes the
elevation of bridges?
General DEAKYNE. Yes.
Senator VANDENBERG. That includes the elevation of something
like 220 fixed bridges from Albany to Tonawanda, and 86 fixed
bridges from Albany to Oswego?
General DEAKYNE. I can not tell the number. I know it involves
raising all the bridges necessary to make the canal serviceable.
Senator VANDENBERG. That is the $82,000,000 figure.
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. Now, what does that $82,000,000 figure:
include in respect to locks, of which I understand there are 42?
General DEAKYNE. It includes deepening the locks which are now
12 to 14 feet.
Senator VANDENBERG. That includes deepening the locks from 12'
to 14 feet?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; and connected with that it involves.
changing the lock gates; either we shall have to build up the present
gates or put in new gates and different machinery for operating the
gates, because they will be larger and heavier.
Senator VANDENBERG. One other thing I wanted to straighten out
in the record. You referred also to an annual allowance for main-
tenance of $2,500,000, although, of course, this is substantially lower
than any figure New York has ever been able to reach.
Senator COPELAND. Pardon me, is it?
Senator VANDENBERG. There is no argument about that, I guess.
Senator COPELAND. Did not the general state that the total for
10 years was $25,000,000?
General DEAKYNE. Yes; that is correct.
Senator VANDENBERG. The lowest single annual figure I have been
able to find, from your own State reports, is $2,800,000, exclusive of all
capital account whatever.
Proceeding with the question, that is based on operation at present
depth, is it not?
General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir.
Senator COPELAND. Senator, just a moment on that. Did you
have some official figures showing that the cost for 10 years would
be $25,000,000?
General DEAKYNE. Yes; we have those figures somewhere.
Senator COPELAND. I think it would be well to have those figures
in the record.
(The statement referred to was subsequently furnished by General
Deakyne, and is as follows:)
WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, May 7, 1930.
Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON,
Committee on Commerce, united States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
Mr DEAR SENATOR: With respect to the cost of administration, operation, and
maintenance of the Erie and Oswego Canals, the following information is fur-
nished.

RIVERS AND BARBORS

Exp:-nditur,.js by the State of New York for the 10 years from 1919 to 1925,
both incluiv-e, were determined by a Atudy .f the State, records and by consulta-
tion with State officials having charge of the operation aod nmainrternaice of the
canals. For the 6-year period from 1919 to 1924, inclusive, the available records
showed the aggregate expenditures on all State canals, but did no:t show the
sep.iarte exprnd-tureE for the various sections. It was. therefore, rjecei.ar.y to
arrive at the. expenditures chargeable to the Erie and (.Oswego Caniiu b, taking
a proportionate part of the aggregate expenditures based upon the rel.tie
lengths of the varioue ectirins anrd the number of locks on each. For thi- puer:iod
the e-'penditure charjrea.I.l to tih. Erie and Oswego Canals was determined to be
approxinj.tel-v $1-1.0,0000.
For the period froLm 1925 to 1928 the expenditures were shown separately.
The record for ?iI-: 10 years r1919 to 1928, inclusive, is as follows:
1919-1924 ---------------------------------$14, 400, 000
1925---------------------------------------------- 2, 386, 000
1926 ----- --------------------------------- 2, 637, 000
1927 ---- -------------------------- 2, 904, 000
1928 --------------------------------------- 2, 815, 000
Total_-----_ -----------------------_ 25, 142, 000
Yearly average ------------------------------- 2, 514, 200
Very truly yours,
HERBERT DEAKYNE,
Brigadier General, .1 : .,, ,ii ( f of Engineers.
Senator VANDENBERG. And at the same time the record should
show that your own statement since 1905 shows expenditures of
$216,000,000, without capital account.
Senator COPELAND. That included the enlargement of the canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. It included current improvements.
Senator COPELAND. That is, during that period, you understand.
The canal was converted from the old Erie Canal to what we call the
Barge Canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. General, according to your reports the
annual maintenance cost for a 13-foot channel would increase the
operating cost $1,351,000 a year, and for a 14-foot channel would
increase the operating cost $4,814,000 a year. Are tho.e figures
approximately correct?
General DEAKYNE. I do not think so. I do not recall them now,
but I do not think there is any such difference as that.
General BROWN. Including carrying charge.
General DEAKYNE. Including carrying charge on what we would
spend on deepening, probably that is so-$26,000,000 to deepen to
13 feet, and the carrying charge would be over a million dollars.
That added to the operation and maintenance charge and some
little additional maintenance cost on a deeper canal might give you
a figure of $3,800,000.
Senator VANDENBERG. The $2,500,000 figure would be wholly
fictitious, would it not, if we are to proceed with any deepening what-
ever?
General DEAKYNE. It will be changed if we spend any money in
deepening.
Senator VANDENBERG. Just one thing more. I understand there
are now pending against the State 751 claims for damages, water
rights, and privileges, appropriation of land, et cetera, which aggre-
)-.gates $23,000,000. Do you know about that?
General DEAKYNE. No, sir; I do not.

RIVERS AlD HARBORS

Senator VANDENBERG. You have never surveyed that phase of the
matter?
Senator COPELAND. Pardon me. I did not get that question.
What was it, Senator?
Senator VANDENBERG. I understand there are pending 751 claims
for damages, aggregating $23,000,000, on account of water right, and
so forth.
Senator COPELAND. Would you assume that those would be taken
ovrr by the State?
Senator VANDENBERG. That is what I am about to inquire-
whether or not there has been any attention paid to what would
happen to those damage claims in the event the canal were taken
over?
General DEAKYNE. There is nothing in our recommendation con-
templating the assumption of those claims by the United States.
Senator VANDENBERG. Assuming that we could free ourselves of
these existing claims, would it not also be necessary to protect our-
selves against any future claims that might arise out of the previous
situation; in other words, if there is this amount of damage litigation
already in existence, is it not a very serious factor to be surveyed
in connection with our possible Federal ownership of the structure?
General DEAKYNE. We expected to get whatever New York claims
in the way of rights on the canal. Just what these rights are I do
not know. But whatever New York has, we expected to get.
Senator VANDENBERG. How could you take the rights without also
assuming whatever liabilities are attached to the rights?
General DEAKYNE. I assume if anybody had a claim against the
United States he could pursue it, of course.
Senator COPELAND. I think it would be conceded, Senator, that
the State would give a guaranteed title to the structure.
Senator VANDENBERG. Not only cover existing claims but any
'claims which might subsequently arise out of the transfer?
Senator COPELAND. I should think so; for instance, at Schenectady
there was quite a development of a harbor. I do not know whether
the claims have all been settled or not, but I would assume they would
be taken care of by the State.
Senator VANDENBERG. The engineers have never considered that
phase of the problem at all?
General DEAKYNE. NO, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. That is all I wanted to ask him.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions to be propounded
to General Deakyne?
(After a pause.)
The CHAIRMAN. If not, General Brown, we would be delighted to
hear from you, if you will permit us, concerning the two objections
that are presented to the particular bill we are considering. The
first is that the United States takes over a "white elephant" that is of
little consequence to the State of New York and will be of less value
to the Federal Government; and the second is that it is prelude to the
abandonment of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence ship canal, and neces-
sarily will result in that abandonment if the Erie project is taken over
:as provided by the bill. Would you address yourself, please, to those --.
two objections and state your views regarding them.

RIVERS AND HARBORS 61

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. LYTLE BROWN, CHIEF OF ENGI-
NEERS, WAR DEPARTMENT
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. First, do I state clearly the objections made,
Senator Vandenberg?
S Senator VANDENBERG. You approximate them for the first.
Senator COPELAND. They are broad enough.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, I wish you would address yourself to
those objections.
Senator VANDENBERG. My first objection is that the canal is sup-
posed to be of some advantage to the State of New York; I changed
the word "advantage" to "disadvantage."
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will consider the interpolation of
Senator Vandenberg; and if you will go on, then, General Brown.
General BROWN. I do not understand the Senator's remark.
The CHAIRMAN. I did not either, but I was perfectly willing to
accept the explanation. [Laughter.]
Senator VANDENBERG. The remark can not be laughed out of the
record. The Senator's question proceeded on the theory that there
were certain advantages inuring to the State of New York through
the operation of these canals, and I changed the word "advantage"
to "disadvantage."
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. We will-at any rate, we will be
pleased to have you give us your view of the particular item which
has been under discussion, General Brown.
General BROWN. Yes, sir. In considering the report as submitted
to me by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, I did not
enter into the details of the matter at all. I had in mind that if
there was any place in our country where an efficient waterway
should be a success and useful to the public this would be the place,
for the following reasons: At one end of this waterway is the port of
New York, with a traffic of over a hundred million tons per annum;
at the other end is the city of Chicago, the second city in population
and wealth, perhaps, in the United States, and in between there is
an industrial area that is perhaps unsurpassed or will be unsurpassed
in the world.
There is a traffic at present on the Great Lakes waterway of
150,000,000 tons per annum, or thereabouts, and it to my mind is
the most important route of inland water traffic that we have. This
canal connects the two important areas, and there should be on gen-
eral consideration every reason to believe that it would meet with a
large traffic. At present the link between Albany, N. Y., and the
Lakes is now in the hands of the State of New York. It does not
have the tonnage that might be expected, but it has a very consider-
able tonnage-well, about 3,000,000 tons; and, according to my view,
it will certainly increase in the future. I think the Hudson River as
far up as Albany is going to increase in importance, and there cer-
tainly will be a demand continuously for the betterment of the route
< between Albany and the Lakes.
I do not regard the report of the special board on this matter as a
very thorough report. It was made in rather a hurry, and so was the
report of the Board on Rivers and Harbors made in somewhat of a
111747-30-PT 1--5

RB'ERS AND HARBORS

hurry. For that reason I do not give so very much weight to the
detailed figures that they have in those two reports.
Senator VANDENBERG. The last report was made in a hurry, too,
was it not, General?
General BROWN. Yes, sir. The report of the Board of Rivers and
Harbors was made in a hurry. I do not believe that we are going to
thoroughly solve this matter of what should be done to improve this
waterway until we take charge of it and operate it ourselves for awhile
and be responsible for it. I do not mean at all to say that the State
of New York is not operating it efficiently, but I believe that we can
operate it with a good deal more reliability and thoroughness if we
operate it ourselves awhile and are charged with a responsibility of so
doing. I believe that we can operate it more efficiently than the
State of New York, on the ground that we are operating a very large
and extensive waterway now, and those who operate the larger con-
cern are likely to be in a position to operate better than those who
operate smaller ones.
There is one point I wish to touch on, Mr. Chairman, about this
hearing that happened the last time I was here with reference to the
Board of Rivers and Harbors, which touched this question somewhat.
It might have been understood that the Board of Rivers and Harbors
was unduly influenced when it made its report. I would like to inform
the committee that the Board of Rivers and Harbors created about
1902 mainly through the instrumentality of Mr. Burton, of Ohio, with
a view of its not being improperly influenced. So far as its conduct
has been since I have been there, for a short time, there has been
nothing done by any one in authority over that board to even suggest
to it what its report should be or wht its recommendations should be.
I have staid away from it myself, and I received no instructions from
my superiors as to what that board should do. The board is open to
anybody else that wants to go and talk to it. It has been under much
pressure in every recommendation it has made this year, from many
people who have been before it urging that this or that be done.
There is one incident in the last hearing that I noticed. The
question was asked as to how this idea of the United States taking
over this waterway ever came about. The special board was not
instructed to investigate that and did not investigate it. This took
place: One day General Deakyne came to me-he is chairman of the
board-and said, "There is strong pressure being brought there to
do work on the Erie Canal," and I told General Deakyne at that
time that there would be no work done on the Erie Canal by the
Federal Government, in so far as I was concerned, unless the canal
were taken over from the State of New York by the Federal Gov-
.ernment in its entirety. General Deakyne went away, and when the
report came to me that was the main feature in the report. I ap-
proved it and am the only individual who is now individually re-
sponsible for that report.
I would say that I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of
the Board for Rivers and Harbors, and especially in the chairman of
that board, General Deakyne. I have known them all for many
years, know their integrity, and, in fact, instructed some of them as
cadets at West Point; and I do not believe that individually or col- -
lectively they could be unduly influenced by any.man.

62

RIVERS AND HARBORS

The CHAIRMAN. Would the taking over of this canal preclude con-
struction subsequently of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway?
General BROWN. Mr. Chairman, that is the second thought.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I was waiting for you to reach it.
General BROWN. I was just going to take it up. That was not
considered by myself at all at the time that I made the report. I have
felt that we had nothing to do with the St. Lawrence waterway at
this time; and it was in a state that required us to keep our hands off
of it.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, by reason of the international negotiations?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. But, as a matter of fact, or as a matter of opinion
on your part, will you state whether or not the taking away of the
Erie Canal in the fashion that it is proposed by the bill would pre-
clude the subsequent construction of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
waterway?
General BROWN. No, sir. As a matter of my own personal opinion
I think that if one of them is completed and thereby the importance
of the lake region is increased, which it will be, that there is bound to
follow-
Senator VANDENBERG (interposing). You contemplate the devel-
opment of two ship canals to the sea from the lakes?
General BROWN. No, sir; I am not contemplating that. I do not
know what will come out of it.
Senator VANDENBERG. If the Erie Canal were developed as a ship
canal, do you say that would not retard the prospectus of the St.
Lawrence waterway?
General BROWN. I do not believe it would.
Senator VANDENBERG. Then you do contemplate the possibility
of two ship canals?
General BROWN. Oh, yes; it is to be contemplated, but I am not
contemplating it myself at this time.
Senator VANDENBERG. You do contemplate it, or there is a conflict
between the two plans.
General BROWN. The thing that was contemplated in the report
was to take this canal over and to take it over in good faith, maintain
it and improve it to the fullest extent that the economic possibilities
would permit, and that at the present in .my opinion is to improve
it as a barge canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. On a bssis of what depth?
General BROWN. I do not know, Senator, what depth we would
work on, but I would say 13-feet was not sufficient.
Senator VANDENBERG. Is 14 feet sufficient?
General BROWN. Fourteen feet would probably be the first step.
Senator VANDENBERG. The first step?
General BROWN. Yes.
Senator VANDENBERG. What would be the second step?
General BROWN. I do not know.
SSenator VANDENBERG. As a matter of fact, then, the whole program
is nebulus and lacks any detail whatsoever, and it is your theory that
it ought to lack detail until we are in ownership and actually operate
~ it?

RIVERS AND HARBORS

General BROWN. My theory is that we should take the canal over
now and study it and improve it as we see fit, doing at all times our
best in the matter.
Senator VANDENBERG. Do you have to take it over in order to.'-
study it?
General BROWN. I think in order to study it properly it would be
necessary to take it over.
Senator VANDENBERG. You have frequently made the statement
that all these previous reports were made in a hurry. Is it wise,
rational legislation to proceed with a project which in its ramifications
is as big as the Panama Canal, in a hurry?
General BROWN. No, sir. I do not think that the general picture
is one that requires the additional study that the subsequent act of
improving it will require. I think there is ample ground right now to
take it over; there has been sufficient study made to do that.
Senator VANDENBERG. That study demonstrating what, as the
basis for taking it over? Where do you get, in other words, out of the
study you have already made the reasons for proceeding hopefully?
General BROWN. I have stated the general situation up there as
I view it, and that is the basis for my statement that we can proceed
hopefully in the matter to take the canal over.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are familiar with. the reports Colonel
Green has made with respect to the canal?
General BROWN. No, sir; I am not. I do not know Colonel
Green. I never saw him.
Senator VANDENBERG. Colonel Green is the officer of the State of
New York in charge of the canal and his report certainly invites the
interpretation that it is a "white elephant."
General BROWN. I am not familiar with his report, Senator.
Senator VANDENBERG. Would it not be advisable that we famil-
iarize ourselves with all the available information before we proceed
on an adventure of this character?
General BROWN. No; we have enough information at hand.
Senator VANDENBERG. You have enough information without
knowing anything about what the experience of the State of New
York has been by way of failure to develop traffic on the canals?
General BROWN. I think we want to make it a matter of our own
experience.
Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, the economic history of
the canal is of no importance to you?
General BROWN. Yes; if we can-the economic facts are important
to us.
Senator VANDENBERG. Those facts are contained in the annual
reports of Colonel Green, who is operator of the canal, and yet you
have not read them?
General BROWN. No, sir; I have not read them.
Senator VANDENBERG. Do you not care about them?
General BROWN. Oh, yes; I would care something about them, if I
were entering into the details and would then take them into con-
sideration. I think the officers who took it over to operate it would
study them very carefully.
Senator VANDENBERG. Then you would not think it a wise process -
to order a complete survey not made in hurry, with a view to the

RIVERS AND HARBORS

determination of precisely what this project ought to, be as a -spple-
ment to the St. Lawrence waterway?
General BROWN. No., sir- :-.. :: :
Senator VANDENBERG. You would not think it worth while to ask
for that complete survey ahead of this decision?
General BROWN. No, sir.
.. Senator VANDENBERG. I have nothing further I wish to ask the
General. We are in fundamental disagreement.
S The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions desired to be pro-
'pounded to General Brown?
SSenator RANSDELL. General, as I understood your testimony in
substance it would be that with the development of this barge canal
as contemplated in this amendment, there then would be sufficient
increase of commerce over the canal and sufficient increase of business
in the general region of the Great Lakes to warrant subsequently the
ocean canal through the St. Lawrence? If I understood you correctly
you said that; and that you certainly contemplate operating the
Erie Canal as a barge canal at present?
SGeneral BROWN.. That is the present idea; yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. That is the present idea. What is the future
idea?
General BROWN. I do not know. We would have to develop it.
Senator SIMMONS. Do you mean to say, General--
Senator RANSDELL. Have you any objection to me putting my
question?
Senator SIMMONS. I did not notice that you had not finished,
Senator.
Senator RANSDELL. I had not quite completed my thought. Your
testimony was based on the thought that for the present this Erie
Canal would be operated as a barge canal.
General BROWN. Correct; yes, sir.
Senator RANSDELL. And there would be a very great develop-
ment of commerce in this Erie Canal and in the Great Lakes region?
General BROWN. I think it would develop in time to its full carry-
ing capacity.
Senator RANSDELL. And so far as the lights are before you now,
you see no reason why the Government should not acquire this canal
and later on go ahead with the St. Lawrence Canal-as you stated
you have not the data before you about that; but you did not see
any conflict between the two, as far as you can see now?
General BROWN. No, sir; I do not see any conflict between the two.
Senator RANSDELL. Now, Senator Simmons, I have finished.
Senator SIMMONS. I simply wanted to ask the general if it is not
S a fact that all of the canals that we are digging now in any part of
the country are intended for barge transportation?
General BnOWN. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. And none of them have yet been very profitable
investments to the Government, have they, up to the present time?
General BROWN. Well, I think the Ohio River is a canalized
stream; it is not a canal, but is a canalized stream. It is pretty
profitable; and the Monongehela has been pretty profitable.
-, Senator SIMMONS. That is a river. I was not speaking of rivers
that have been deepened; I was talking about canals.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Gernral BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. But, if we, following the idea of the Senator
from Michigan a little while ago, were to be guided in our action with
reference to the improvement of our waterways by the question of -
whether they were going toat once yield revenue to the Government,
we would have to abandon pretty nearly all of the waterway improve-
ment we have done in the United States, would we not?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; I suppose we would.
Senator VANDENBERG. Of course, that does not state my position.
I would like for the record to show that.
General BROWN. I did not understand you.
Senator VANDENBERG. I was commenting on the Senator's question.
Senator SIMMONS. The general understands my question was
directed toward your position, whatever it may be. Maybe I did
not quite understand you, but as I understood it the Senator was
asking a question about whether it would be a proper expenditure of
public money and would yield returns to acquire the Erie Canal by
way of gift or otherwise, and I was asking if, as a matter of fact, our
investment in our waterways up to this time had not yielded the'
Government any great return; if we were not working toward the
future results rather than measuring our actions by present results
and past results, looking at it from a financial standpoint.
General BROWN. I would not like to take the stand, sir, that they
have not given returns. The work on the Great Lakes has always
given returns.
Senator SIMMONS. General, I recognize that. But I said as a whole
taking our whole operations in the development and improvement
of our waterways, if up to this time they had eventuated in any
very profitable investment for the Government, and if in fact we
were not working to the future return rather than to the present.
General BROWN. No, sir; I do not agree with you.
Senator SIMMONS. You think they have?
General BROWN. They have.
Senator SIMMONS. Taking them as a whole?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Both the canals and the waterways?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Well, I am very glad to hear you say that.
General BROWN. Taking them as a whole.
Senator VANDENBERG. General, have we ever before adopted an
utterly indefinite project without any details of it whatsoever?
General BROWN. Senator, that is one of the things we regret most
to have to do at any time, and that is to adopt an indefinite project.
We like to place it out in all its details before Congress.
Senator VANDENBERG. Do you do that sometimes?
General BROWN. Sometimes we do do it.
Senator VANDENBERG. When, for instance, have we ever done it
before?
General BROWN. Well, in a great many instances-a great many
instances. None of them that I know of when they were first adopted
have been studied and planned out.
Senator COPELAND. Did you not as to Cape Cod? ,-4
Senator RANSDELL. And as to the Missouri River?

RIVERS AND HARBORS 67

General BROWN. I expect we did, but we want to plan them out in
detail, so anyone who runs may read, and to lay them before the
Congress and let the people who are interested come up and criticize.
SWe would do that every time if we could. But this is a different case
that you are talking about. That is up there just as it stands. We
have not adopted a project on it at all. The project is going to be
adopted if we take it over, and everybody will have a good shot at it
when it is adopted.
Senator VANDEBNERG. Exactly, after you once get it taken over?
General BROWN. Yes.
Senator VANDENBERG. Then you come back to Congress with your
specific project?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. And Congress is confronted with this
alternative, it either goes ahead with your $50,000,000, $80,000,000,
or $600,000,000, else it continues to operate as the State of New York
now operates it, on a "white elephant" basis; that is the alternative
that you contemplate presenting to Congress?
General BROWN. No, sir; it is not a "white elephant" now, in my
opinion.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, eliminate the phrase, because I am
anxious to get the specific point before you. The alternative that
ultimately confronts Congress, after we once take the project over, is
to go ahead as the engineers may recommend subsequently, or to
maintain the status quo, on a basis of progressive drain upon the
Treasury of the United States?
General BROWN. No; I do not agree to that.
Senator VANDENBERG. We cease to be free agents.
General BROWN. I do not agree to that statement of the case.
Here is the way I would state the case: If we take that canal over
from the State of New York without paying anything for it, and it
cost $146,000,000, it must be something of an asset if it cost that
much money located where it is. We would be in honor bound to
maintain it, and that is what we would expect to do. We would not
be in honor bound, according to the recommendation in these papers,
to do anything more than to maintain it. But we would be obliged
to maintain it.
Senator VANDENBERG. But you do not know now whether that
would be the preferable alternative or whether it would develop that
we had better expand the canal. You withhold that decision until
later?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, your theory is that we
should commit ourselves to the responsibility without knowing
where the responsibility leads?
General BROWN. No.
Senator VANDENBERG. And then let the canal to take care of itself?
General BRowN. No, sir. We commit ourselves only to what we
know, and we know that the canal is going to cost possibly, not cer-
tainly, $2,500,000 a year to maintain it. I think that is reasonable.
Senator VANDENBERG. Very reasonable.
General BROWN. I think that is reasonable. I believe that figure
is either correct at that amount, or that it will cost us less.
Senator VANDENBERG. What do you base that on?

RIVERS AND HARBORS

General BROWN. I base it on experience.
Senator VANDENBERG. Erie Canal experience?
General BROWN. No, sir; much more unfavorable experience.
Senator ALLEN. That is, General, you believe that you can save y
$300,000 a year under our Federal operation when compared with the
operation of the State of New York?
General BROWN. I would not commit myself to that, Senator.
Senator ALLEN. Well, that is what the figures show, General, that
it is now costing, from the lowest item of cost here, for direct opera-
tions, two million eight hundred and some odd thousand dollars.
The average amount in the last few years is two million nine hundred
thousand and something. How would we go getting it down to
$2,500,000?
General BROWN. I do not know that your figures are correct. I am
going by the board's figures; those are the only figures I can take;
I am not going behind that report.
Senator ALLEN. I do not ask you to go behind that report. I
thought we were in agreement upon it.
General BROWN. No, sir; we are not in agreement upon that.
Senator ALLEN. The maintenance and operation for 1925 was
$2,981,841; that is.the official report, and it is referred in the governor's
message of 1926 and by Superintendent Green. Then there is another
year in which it came down to $2,800,000. But in no official report
I have found has it come below $2,800,000. Have you found a report
in which it has come below that?
General BROWN. No, sir; I have not attempted to do that. This
board did this work, and they submit a figure of $2,500,000.
Senator ALLEN. And that is the estimate of what they might be
able to do it for.
General BROWN. No, sir; that is the estimate of what it cost New
York.
Senator ALLEN. Well, these are the official figures. It seems to
me, General Brown, that because of the difference of opinion as to
facts which are on record here that you have not gone as thoroughly
into that as it should have been gone into before making a formal
report.
General BROWN. Well, sir, we have not gone into the details, and
I do not believe we are in position to go into that thoroughly, because,
in the first place, we have not had the time, and secondly, we do want
to get into position to go into that.
Senator ALLEN. Would you develop for a moment the specification
upon which you base your proposition that if we take over this system
of canals, that New York has now expended $600,000,000 on, con-
cerning which it now has a deficit of at least $2,800,000 a year, now
carrying less than 3,000,000 tons, that suddenly under our operation
of the canal it would begin to carry a large tonnage? Will you give
us your philosophy that gives us that hope?
Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the
premise is hardly correct; Of course, when you figure those costs
you refer to improvements that were made?
Senator ALLEN. Oh, no; I am taking the exact operating costs.
But what I wanted was a statement from General Brown on this .-
matter as to how the Government of the United States in the opera-
tion of these canals, which have shown a deficit under the operation

RIVERS AND HARBORS 69

of the State of New York, will bring that operation into a condition
of success.
General BROWN. I get your question now. The trouble about
- answering the question is I do not agree with your preliminary
statement.
Senator ALLEN. All right. Let us see, is it your opinion then that
the present' operation of the canal is successful?
General BROWN. I have not investigated it, Senator; I can not
say.
Senator ALLEN. Would you contend then that the system of
canals-no discussion of the total costs and interest and upkeep and
original capital investment of $600,000,000-with a carrying capacity
in the neighborhood of 20,000,000 tons, now carrying 2,800,000
tons-
General BROWN. You said "carrying 20,000,000 tons"; that is not
correct.
Senator ALLEN. That is what New York has been kidding herself
into believing. But, at any rate, they have been carrying 2,800,000
tons. They carried that last year. We agree on that, do we not?
General BROWN. There was a slump in last year's tonnage.
Senator ALLEN. Before that it was 3,000,000 tons, the year before?
General BROWN. Yes.
Senator ALLEN. And there have been other periods when it was
less and other periods when it was more. Now, what is the philosophy
that makes you hopeful if we take this system of canals over that
transportation will blossom and we will be carrying a capacity load?
General BROWN. I am not saying that transportation will "blos-
som" or flourish, or anything like that. I say that under the condi-
tions existing, with the demand for transportation there, as I believe it
is-and I believe it is going to increase tremendously in the future-
Senator ALLEN. What new element brings that prospect to you?
General BROWN. Why do I think that?
Senator ALLEN. What two elements existing wholly in our operation
brings that prospect to your mind?
Senator COPELAND. I think it would be a good idea, Mr. Chairman,
to let the witness answer one question before he gets another one.
Senator ALLEN. I thought he had finished. Excuse me.
General BROWN. Yes; I am getting along all right.
Senator COPELAND. I think you are.
General BROWN. I will tell you, Senator, what my view is about
the future. I think the region south of the Great Lakes, north of
the Ohio River, reaching from Buffalo to Duluth, is destined to be
an industrial region unsurpassed in the world anywhere and popu-
lation will probably be denser in that area than anywhere else in the
world, for the following reasons: On one side of it are the coal resources
of the United States; on the other side of it are the iron-ore resources
of the United States and adjacent to it is the food-producing section
of the United States. I have the greatest possible faith in the devel-
S opment of that region. I think nobody can see the end of it at the
present time.
Senator ALLEN. If I get you, General, your belief is founded upon
the natural development of the country rather than upon any new
capacity that would be introduced into the operation of the canal?

70 RIVERS AND HARBORS

General BROWN. Yes, sir. With those things in mind I do not
bother whether it is 2,800,000 tons or 3,000,000 tons.
Senator ALLEN. This is a dream of the promoter rather than the
fixed idea of the engineer? '
General BROWN. No, sir; it is not a dream of the promoter. It is
based on that fact that wherever we have done work in waterways
that have been a success we have been so conservative that we have
had to do it over again in a very short time at extra expense to the
Government, and that is nowhere more exemplified than at Sault Ste.
Marie. You go there and look at those locks, which became inade-
quate in a short time.
Senator ALLEN. It does not have anything to do with a deep water-
way, but you do not give any particular significance, General, to the
failure of New York in operating this barge-canal system?
General BROWN. I have a very slight idea, Senator, as to why the
State of New York failed. One reason why it failed is because the
Federal Government did not take it over in the first place.
Senator ALLEN. Do you think we should have built that system of
canals?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; we should have built those canals. If
we had built those canals and had the strong arm of the Federal
Government in there you would not have had 260 bridges, more or
less, choking the canal traffic, which is the principal question we are
striving against right now. And if we made any mistake about the
Erie Canal the mistake has been we did not take it over before now.
Senator ALLEN. General, there have been seven engineering reports
on this subject reversed by the last report. Have you been a part
of any of those former reports?
General BROWN. No, sir; I have not. I know there have been
many reports. One of the best reports ever made by engineers was
made on the ship canal from the Lakes to the Hudson in 1900. I
know that; I read that when I was a young man; I have not read it
since.
Senator ALLEN. Do you think there is any significance in the fact
that to-day, while the carrying of the barge canal system in New York
is down to less than 3,000,000 tons and the caryring of the St. Lawrence
River of the products of the same territory is up to nearly 9,000,000
tons this year-is there any significance in those figures as touching
the future prospects of competition-we are going now to establish
two new systems, competing. The New York Barge Canal now
carries less than 3,000,000 tons; the St. Lawrence River Canals carry
in round number 9,000,000 tons a year. If we build this canal system
and Canada goes ahead and completes her deep-water system to the
sea, in what position are we in as to our capacity to compete?
General BROWN. Sir, I do not like to touch anything about the
St. Lawrence waterway now.
Senator ALLEN. Then, I will withdraw the question.
General BROWN. I do not want to say anything about it.
Senator ALLEN. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
Senator VANDENBERG. You disagree, General, with General Jad-
win's report that the St. Lawrence deep-water prospects should be
completely developed before we undertake to study the Erie Canal
at all?

RIVERS AND HARBORS 71

General BROWN. Absolutely.
Senator VANDENBERG. You disagree with General Jadwin com-
pletely on that?
*, General,BRowN; Completely.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you disagree with all these previous
engineering reports?
General BROWN. No, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. You mean you are not familiar with all the
previous engineering reports?
General BROWN. I am not familiar with them.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are not familiar with the previous
engineering reports?
General BROWN. I disagree with that statement you have just
made.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are not familiar with all the previous
engineering reports that have been made as shown by the records of
the Rivers and Harbors Board?
General BROWN. No, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are not familiar with the reports made
in the State of New York by the operators of the canal?
General BROWN. No, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. And on the basis of this lack of information
you are willing to recommend that the Federal Government embark
upon this speculative enterprise, because of a firm hope and confidence
in respect to the future?
General BROWN. I am not basing my recommendations on a lack
of information.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, perhaps, I should not have stated the
question in that form, although it occurs to me that this lack of
information is part of the equipment with which you testified.
General BROWN. No, sir.
Senator COPELAND. General, have you read carefully the state-
ment of the Senator from Michigan? If not, you are not fully in-
formed.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, the Senator from Michigan is basing
what he says upon the reports of the engineers, and the Senator from
New York can dismiss those previous reports in any facile way he
pleases.
The CHAIRMAN. How many reports have there been?
SenatorVANDENBERG. On March 30, 1926, the engineers con-
demned the Erie project at 20 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the latter part of that?
Senator VANDENBERG. At 20 feet. I will show you how serially
they have been refusing requests.
The CHAIRMAN. By "serially" you mean the refusal on the part
of the Board of Engineers to accept?
Senator VANDENBERG. On May 26, 1926, the House committee
asked for a review. On December 6, 1926, the engineers gave them
^ a review, and again declined to yield.
On July 13, 1929, the House committee asked for another review of
the project at 14 feet. On November 1, 1929, the engineers gave them
a review and declined to yield.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

On December 15, 1929, the House committee chairman asked for
another review of the project at 13 feet. On February 6, 1930, the
engineers, having given another review, again declined to yield.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by "declined to yield"?
Senator VANDENBERG. I mean, reported specifically that the
project should not be undertaken as they incorporated.
Senator ALLEN. In all those cases you say "declined to yield,"
you mean they made unfavorable reports?
Senator VANDENBERG. In all those cases they reported adversely
and declined to yield to the obvious purpose on the part of the House
committee to commit them to some sort of Erie project.
On March 24, 1930, within the last two months, General Deakyne
appeared before the House committee and was cross-examined, and
again he insisted that the Erie.project should not be undertaken at
the present time on any basis, even 13 feet. Three days later occurred
the conference or interview, in which the gentleman from Illinois
and the gentleman from New York waited upon General Deakyne.
One week later appeared the first favorable report on the entire
project.
The CHAIRMAN. General, are you familiar with any of those re-
ports?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; I am familiar with the ones considered
by this board when they reported to me, as they turned their report
in to me-the one made by what they called the special board
consisting of the district engineer at New York, Colonel Hoffman;
another district engineer at New York, Lieutenant Colonel Ward;
and another district engineer at Buffalo, Major Reybold.
I know the situation there about that report, and I know what that
was; I read it very carefully.
The CHAIRMAN. During the time these reports were made, were
you in position where you supervised them or had anything to do
with them?
General BROWN. No, sir. The reports that are made by one of
these boards out there, the special board, comes into my office and is
immediately referred to the Board for Rivers and Harbors. I do not
see anything of it at all until it comes to me with their recommenda-
tion and this report attached to it.
The CHAIRMAN. If the report be either of one sort or the other,
then do you examine it?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; the officially digested report is submitted
to me by the people in my office.
The CHAIRMAN. Has that been the fact in regard to these reports
the Senator from Michigan has referred to?
General BROWN. No; not all of them. They are supposed to be
superseded by this last one.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that the only one which you are familiar with?
General BROWN. That is the only one with which I am fully
familiar.
The CHAIRMAN. If his statement is accurate as to the previous re- J'
ports, you disagree with him; is that correct?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; I do not know enough about what the
Senator is talking about when he states that we refuse, and so forth.
The CHAIRMAN. General, I am not familiar with the details.
General BROWN. I say, I do not agree with him.

RIVERS AND -H.x1PiB-ln

Senator VANDENBERG. I am talking about the reports from your
own office. These are not any fabricated facts of mine.
General BROWN. Then, I do not understand that. But I do not
have time to read all the reports in my office.
Senator VANDENBERG. You mentioned Colonel Hoffman. Did
.. you say you were familial with the report of Colonel Hoffman of
February 6, 1930, which is within the last three months?
General BROWN. You mean referred back to him?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes, sir.
General BROWN. Yes, sir; I read that over.
Senator VANDENBERG. That is the report in which he says "Even
the modern improvement now proposed should not be undertaken."
You are familiar with that?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; I remember that he made some state-
ment of that kind.
Senator VANDENBERG. You disagree with Colonel Hoffman?
General BROWN. No; I do not agree with Colonel Hoffman. He
is reporting on one thing and I am reporting on another.
Senator VANDENBERG. Colonel Hoffman is reporting that the canal
is not worth any Federal interest at the present time whatsoever,
even at 13 feet.
General BROWN. I disagree with him absolutely.
Senator VANDENBERG. You disagree with him?
General.BRowN. Yes, sir; wholly and completely.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator, what I was seeking to get with respect to
the previous reports that had been made-
Senator COPELAND. Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, was that report
contemplating that the Federal Government would go in and improve
the property which would still be owned by the State of New York?
Senator VANDENBERG. I do not so understand. I do not know
how the Federal Government could enter and improve anything-
Senator COPELAND. That has been considered in the past.
Senator VANDENBERG. I do. not so understand.
Senator COPELAND. And that the Government has declined to do
that-to make an improvement while it was State property.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions to be asked the
General?
Senator SIMMONS. I do not know as I want to ask you a question
directly. I have an idea that the Government can not at this time
spend money in a wise way more advantageously than in the develop-
ment of our general waterways system, especially our canals. I
think probably in the past much money has been spent in the im-
provement of rivers which has not resulted in very much benefit.
The money we have spent in canals, I think, has been splendidly
spent, and I imagine that in time, in the future we will find that all our
investments in waterways have been valuable. But I think now we
have reached a time when we have got to go into the development of
our waterway system in a big way. We have got separate canals, some
Sin the West and some in the South and some in the East, probably.
All of those canals ought, in my judgment, as far as possible be linked
together and made a part of a great national system. Now, I want to
*- ask you if the acquisition by the Government of the Erie Canal would
not bring about a coordination of our canal system which would be,

RIVERS AND HARBORS

when the whole system is completed, of inestimable advantage to
this country?
General BROWN. I think so, Senator. I think that is the way to
proceed on the subject.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes, sir; one further question. I want to
ask the general if he is familiar with the terminal equipment which
the State of New York has erected in connection with this canal?
General BROWN. No, sir; I do not know about it.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are not familiar with the fact that
Colonel Green, whom I again refer to as the New York operator of
these canals, has reported upon the efforts of the State of New York
to develop traffic in the canal in various ways?
General BROWN. No, sir; I am not familiar with Colonel Green's
report.
Senator VANDENBERG. If Colonel Green said that spending money
for terminals and grain elevators in the hope that increased tonnage
will follow, has thus far been unsuccessful, you have no comment
to offer by way of rebuttal?
General BROWN. No, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, you take no cognizance
whatsoever of any phase of New York's experience over the past 25
years in the effort to draw additional traffic in for these canals?
General BROWN. I do not. I have not done so, Senator.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you do not consider they are entitled
to any credence whatever?
General BROWN. No; I would not say that sort of thing; I would
say that when I got in a position to examine them on the ground,
as I am trying to get, then I will give them an examination to see
whether or not they are correct.
Senator VANDENBERG. You think you would have to get into the
canals in order to discover what the New York reports confess in
respect to the failure to obtain an increase?
General BROWN. If we are in charge of it we can see better.
Senator ALLEN. General, your courage in this respect is due pretty
largely to the fact that you have not studied any of the difficulties
which New York has encountered in its canal system?
General BROWN. I do not understand you.
Senator ALLEN. Your courage in respect to this seems to be based
pretty largely upon the fact that you have given no consideration
whatsoever to the difficulty which New York has had with this
enterprise.
General BROWN. No, sir; my courage is not based on that at all;
my courage is based on another thing altogether, and that is when I
see a thing which looks correct and generally all right, and has got all
the earmarks of being all right, I am not afraid about any details of
the matter.
Senator ALLEN. If you were going into a campaign as a military
man, you would approach it from another angle, would you not?
You would want to know what the previous attacks had been along
that line?

RIVERS AND HARBORS 75

General BROWN. Yes, sir; if I was going along into a campaign, I
would want to know the major item that affects the major decision.
Senator ALLEN. You would also want to know-
General BROWN. Wait, now; I am not through.
Senator ALLEN. Pardon me.
General BROWN. And when I knew I would not let anything stand
in the way.
Senator ALLEN. Those questions that arose from that of a definite
engineering character, involving an expenditure of $600,000,000 and
an effort of more than a dozen years to make a new expression work,
you would regard those as significant, would you not?
General BROWN. Yes, sir. If the State of New York has been
trying to make the canal a paying proposition on the ground that
they have spent so much money on it and have to pay the interest
on that money, if they are willing to give it to us and let us make a
new start, without being handicapped with all those expenditures and
carrying charges, I do not care so much about that.
Senator ALLEN. You can not ignore a great fact like $600,000,000?
General BROWN. No; if I was responsible for it, having spent it, I
could not ignore it. But I had nothing to do with the spending of
that $600,000,000; somebody else has done that all the way from
De Witt Clinton down to the present time.
Senator SIMMONS. General Brown, the fact that a canal when
operated as a separate unit does not prove profitable does not mean
when it is operated as a part of a big system might not prove very
profitable, does it?
General BROWN. Senator, I would like to say something on that
score. Most of our projects should be turned into Congress and stand
on their own legs by themselves, and we know full well if they can
stand on their own legs by themselves that if they are connected with
any system they will be much stronger.
Senator SIMMONS. In establishing a nation-wide system of canals
like we are talking about, one starting on the Pacific coming down to
the Atlantic, which when operated as units have not been profitable,
but when operated as a whole would be very beneficial and helpful?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. Now, when we decided upon that policy of
building an intercoastal waterway from Boston southward to Texas,
we found a great many privately owned canals along the line of that
route. Most of them were operated at a loss; the Cape Cod Canal,
for instance, was operated at a loss; the one up here in Delaware was
operated at a loss; the one from Norfolk up to the North Carolina
Sound was operated at a loss. The Government has bought them
all, notwithstanding in private ownership they had been unprofitable,
and made them a part of this great system of inland waterways from
Boston down south. Now, it was very advantageous to the Govern-
ment to acquire those properties, notwithstanding they had not
proved beneficial when privately owned. So, that canal operated by
New York as a separate unit may not have proved profitable, but I
Understand that you are going to connect that with this system of
inland waterways from Boston and New York to the South, and you
Share going to connect them with the Great Lakes and make that a link
in a great system; is that the idea?
General BROWN. Yes, sir.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator SIMMONS. Is that the idea?
General BROWN. Yes, sir; that is the idea. If you will look over
the railroad map of the United States--
Senator SIMMONS. And therefore the idea is that, notwithstanding
that many of these units may have been operated when in private
ownership or State ownership at disadvantage and loss, operated as a
part of a great governmental system, it will accomplish the great
governmental purpose.
General BROWN. Yes, sir.
Senator VANDENBERG. Now, that is a very pretty picture, General.
Would you just for a single moment become specific to the extent
of indicating what thing is to happen as a result of this interconnection
to the increase of traffic?
General BROWN. Increase in industry, increase in population, care-
ful stul.l to see what is required to benefit this canal and make the
improvements, and make the system economically profitable.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are not doing anything by way of
developing industry or by way of developing the canal's utility except
as you expand the canal, are you? The mere fact of transferred
ownership does not do anything for industry or by way of developing
the canal's utility toward increased traffic, does it?
General BROWN. No, sir. I do not think this canal is going to
increase any vast betterment. I think it is going to help it. I think
the development is going to come anyhow. I think the development
can not be stopped by anybody. It is going to happen.
Senator, if you will allow me to assume something that would
clear up the matter in a way: Suppose I assume that the Great Lakes
trunk line is going to be the St. Lawrence waterway. Is anybody
coming along and tell me I can not build a branch line to it?
Senator VANDENBERG. Now, you are talking about building a
branch line.
General BROWN. Establishing a branch line, maybe, or taking over
a branch line that is defunct.
Senator VANDENBERG. I want to know why the mere transfer to
you of this defunct branch line is going to make it a useful enterprise.
General BROWN. Suppose you should have the St. Lawrence
waterway completed: Suppose you add anything to the importance
of the Lake region which we are all trying to do. There will be a
demand-an increased demand-go through there. I believe it is
coming; I believe there will be an increased demand to build that
waterway. I thoroughly believe it, and therefore am in favor of
doing it.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you think that a study across the years
to come would show you how the Erie Canal could be developed in
this useful fashion?
General BROWN. Yes, sir. I think that if we take it over, which
we are recommending to do and doing it honestly, agreeing to maintain
it. We are not going to take a valuable thing over with no promises
whatever, agreeing to maintain it. I think we ought to do it, and
we are studying hard all the time with a view of improving it and
making it better, and we will get there.
Senator VANDENBERG. And you want your study to follow the -
transfer instead of the study preceding the transfer?

RIVERS AND HARBORS 77

General BRowN. I want to get it in my hands so I can examine it
critically.
Senator VANDENBERG. Is that ordinarily the engineering procedure
, to get the facts afterwards?
General BROWN. Oh, no. We are not getting the facts; the facts
on which our recommendation for action is based we have already
got.
Senator VANDENBERG. Those facts include serious adverse reports
by your own department?
General BROWN. No; that is not true. The facts are what they
are. As to adverse finding of the officers in my department, they
can stand on them for what they areworth. But I can take them as
I see fit.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dempsey, of the House committee, has asked
that he might be accorded the privilege of about 20 minutes in behalf
of this particular item. If there is no objection and no further ques-
tions to be asked the General, we will accord Mr. Dempsey the right
of such presentation as he desires. If you will proceed, Mr. Dempsey!

STATEMENT OF HON. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Representative DEMPSEY. The first natural question, it seems to me
with regard to this project is this: Who are supporting it and who are
opposing it?- We first go away out into the country, into the wheat
district, and we find that the Missouri River Association appeared
through its secretary and advocated the taking over of this canal on
this basis: That we raised 800,000,000 bushels of wheat in this coun-
try, in 1928, and that is a fair average; that we export 200,000,000
bushels, and that we consume a large part, over 80 per cent, of the
remaining 600,000,000 in the territory that will be served by this
canal. In other words, he said all that wheat was sold east of the east
Indiana line and north of the Ohio and north of the Potomac and in
the territory served by the Erie Canal; and he said for that reason the
Missouri River Association, with the great farming country which it
embraces, was very earnestly in favor of this project.
Next we come-
Senator VANDENBERG. May I interrupt as you proceed?
Representative DEMPSEY. Yes; interrupt me at any point you
want.
Senator VANDENBERG. How much wheat or wheat flour is now
carried on the Erie Canal?
Representative DEMPSEY. The wheat and wheat flour is carried
there in very large quantities-in 1928 there was carried 1,200,000
tons of grain-but the Senator knows perfectly that we are not talk-
ing about the Erie Canal as of to-day. It is carried at 6 cents a
bushel-it is carried at $2 a ton, which is at a very low rate. But he
knows with the improvement we will carry it so as to beat any trans-
portation facility to the eastward.
SSenator VANDENBERG. I am not purely in your statement of fact.
Representative DEMPSEY. That is statement of fact.
S Senator VANDENBERG. YOU say that large quantities of wheat
and wheat flour are now carried on the canal.
111747--30-PT 1- 6

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Representative DEMPSEY. I can not give you exact figures, but I
can say there are 3,000,000 tons of traffic carried, and that is an in-
crease of 117 per cent in the last two years.
Senator VANDENBERG. I understand there was not a barrel of
flour moved over the canal in the years 1924, 1925, 1926, or 1927.
Representative DEMPSEY. You are talking about flour; I am talk-
ing about flour and wheat.
Senator VANDENBERG. I am talking about flour. I asked you
about flour.
Representative DEMPSEY. You asked about wheat. I can not tell
you about flour.
Senator VANDENBERG. How much wheat did you carry?
Representative DEMPSEY. There were 1,200,000 carried in 1928.
Senator VANDENBERG. All right.
Representative DEMPSEY. And I do say that a man who makes
such a statement as Mr. Miller, the secretary of the Missouri asso-
ciation, does-that is his business and nothing else-is in at least as
advantageous a position as any of us, either the committee here in
the Senate or in the House, to vouchsafe an opinion as to what the
canal would carry in the future for the benefit of the Missouri River
States.
Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Dempsey, is that wheat or flour, one or the
other?
Representative DEMPSEY. Yes.
Senator SIMMONS. It had to go to these eastern cities, did it not?
Representative DEMPSEY. Yes.
Senator SIMMONS. If it did not go by water, it went by rail; and
if it went by rail it had to pay a higher than the water rate?
Representative DEMPSEY. Considerably higher than the water rate;
for instance, in talking about the worth of the Erie Canal, a great
business body met in New York within the last two weeks, and they
said that the savings of the Erie Canal-that the savings which had
been made possible by the fact that rail rates were lower than if the
canal were not there-were $54,000,000 a year. That is the statement
of a responsible body; that without its carrying a ton of freight, just
by the difference in freight rates, made necessary because the canal
was there, the saving which accrues by reason of the existence of the
Erie Canal, is $52,000,000 yearly.
Senator SIMMONS. Just one question. Suppose it went by water
now, what Would be the size of the boat as it left the Missouri River?
Representative DEMPSEY. To-day?
Senator SIMMONS. Yes; what would it be, a barge or what?
Representative DEMPSEY. It would be a barge, and of course it
would have to be 9-foot barge, and it would carry probably 1,200 tons,
and with the increased capacity to 13 feet 6 inches it would carry
3,000 tons.
Senator SIMMONS. If it went over. water until it reached the Erie
Canal and when it got to the Erie Canal it had to pay the rates
charged by the State of New York?
Representative DEMPSEY. That is right.
Senator SIMMONS. What you want is the right to load your wheat
in a barge at the Missouri River and deliver it in New York by the
same line?
Representative DEMPSEY. Yes.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator SIMMONS. And by a standard rate of freight?
Representative DEMPSEY. That is exactly it, by a through bill of
,ading.
Senator VANDENBERG. Before you leave this point, I want to read
you what Colonel Green of your own State has said:
S That it .has not been proved to my satisfaction that depressed rail rates
saved $50,000,000 annually.
Are you familiar with that?
Representative DEMPSEY. I did not say that everyone in the State
of New York agreed with that conclusion, but I did say that a
responsible body which has investigated the subject made that state-
ment, and I did not say that they had taken the proof to Colonel
Green. That may not have been done. I suppose they are per-
fectly willing to prove it to Colonel Green at any time he wants to
come to them.
Now, let us come to the second supporter of this project. It is the
Mississippi Valley Association. I think every man here knows what
it is, and I am going to send each member of this committee a copy
of the April bulletin of the Mississippi Valley Association containing
two long articles advocating this improvement, the taking over of
these canals.
The next is the Lake Carriers' Association, carrying freight from
Duluth down through Ohio and Michigan to the seaboard, and they
have written a long and very earnest letter, and I am going to put
that in the files, supporting this movement.
Senator VANDENBERG. They have always opposed the St. Lawrence
waterway, have they not?
Representative DEMPSEY. I do not know as to that. I do not see
any reason why they should. There is no reason why they should.
Nor can I see that there is the slightest connection between their
action at the present time and their action, if they have taken action,
with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway, which I do not know.
Let us take the next body. The next body is the Merchant Marine
Association, which at their last annual conference here last week
adopted unanimously a resolution indorsing this project.
Let us take the next one. We come now to the Michigan Manu-
facturer and Financial Record, issued in Detroit on the 26th day of
April, and their leading editorial is headed "A Mistaken Friendship";
and in it they advocate in the strongest terms possible.this project,
and say it is "a mistaken friendship" and a great mistake to oppose
the taking over of these canals.
Next we come to an article from the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Herald,
of Tuesday, April 8, 1930, a paper, as I understand it, of which the
Senator from Michigan was formerly a part owner, which advocates
this canal if it is not proposed to block or hinder the St. Lawrence
Canal-that all in all it is a strong article and apparently it is a
leading editorial, and I am filing all these for the record-advocating
the adoption of this project.
b Senator VANDENBERG. That is pretty big talk.
Representative DEMPSEY. Oh, no; let us submit it to the com-
mittee and let them be judge. I say it is a strong article in favor of
Sthe project.
Senator VANDENBERG. I say it is not.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Representative DEMPSEY. And I submit it to the judgment of the
committee for them to determine.
The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Let me suggest that the reporter
insert the various exhibits submitted by Congressman Dempsey
immediately after the conclusion of his statement.
Representative DEMPSEY. I am now furnishing for the reporter the
article from the Michigan Manufacturer and Financial Record, and
I am furnishing also the article in the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Herald.
I will later furnish the others: The statement of Mr. Miller, secretary
of the Missouri River Association, the articles in the Mississippi
Association's bulletin, and the letter from the Lake Carriers' Associa-
tion, as well as the resolution of the merchant marine annual
conference-all of them to-day or to-morrow.
I just start out with those as preliminary to show what the situa-
tion is.
Now, what, if any, is the opposition to this measure? It is an
apprehension that it would interfere with some other waterway.
Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Dempsey, pardon me just a moment,
if you please. I do not think that the presumption should be per-
mitted to stand that these Michigan exhibits are precisely what he
has indicated them to be.
Representative DEMPSEY. They stand for themselves, Senator.
I am not asking the committee to take my characterization.
Senator VANDENBERG. Just a minute. You have given a charac-
terization.
Representative DEMPSEY. It is my honest characterization, and I
believe that the committee will agree unanimously, with the possible
exception of the Senator from Michigan, with me in my interpretation.
Senator VANDENBERG. I want to read just one sentence.
Representative DEMPSEY. That would not be fair, would it, Sena-
tor, to read one sentence only?
Senator VANDENBERG. You have undertaken to say what it means.
I read the following sentence:
We fear that the Senator's opposition will be ineffective, because the senatorial
old boys who are interested in the purchase of the New York canal by the Federal
Government are rather smart folks who may tell the junior Senator that he can't
have any money for Monroe Harbor, or the Detroit River, or Saginaw River, or
Ludington and Muskegon Harbors, or the development of the Grand River as a
waterway if he gets too fussy about the purchase of the old Erie Canal.
[Laughter.]
Senator COPELAND. What does he say about sulphur on the
Mississippi and the opposition of the Senator from Michigan to the
completion of the canal?
Senator VANDENBERG. I understand that, and I intend to be the
same.
Representative DEMPSEY. Let us come to what the real opposition
is to this project. It consists of an apprehension, apparently that
these canals may interfere with some other waterway, and therefore
the adoption of a necessary link in our complete waterway system is
opposed. These opponents say, "We not only want this other
project"-and nobody is saying to them that they shall not have it;
the thing is not even under consideration. There is no such thing
stated or in the air. But they say, "Because we want some other

RIVERS AND HARBORS 81

project which we can not attain to-day, we are going to oppose a
project which should be adopted to-day."
I say that is a mistaken policy. I say you can apply that anywhere
- you want to in the country, and it should not have the sanction of
either legislative body-that the project should be adopted if adopted
on its merits, and should not be opposed because of some fear or
%apprehension with regard to another project.
Let us consider a few things about the Erie Canal.
Senator VANDENBERG. Pardon me, before you leave your last
premise: Is it not a fact, however, that the Erie Canal project has
the objection that the all-American route to the sea has always been
in direct competition with the St. Lawrence project?
Representative DEMPSEY. Well, I would say this, in answer to the
Senator, that that is partly true and partly is not true.
Senator VANDENBERG. It all has been true as far as your prior
position is concerned, is it not?
Representative DEMPSEY. I am going to give you the details as
to that. The Senator has called attention to the fact that there
have been several adverse reports as to the all-American route as
compared to the St. Lawrence route, which is true; and then the
natural and logical sequence follows. Apparently there is nothing
.going to be done with the deep-water route; if anything is to be
done, it is to be done with the St. Lawrence. But we have these
canals, which are the best canals on the face of the globe, cost more
money and have more important terminals, are of vaster importance
to the commerce of the country than any other canals in the country.
New York does not make a business of improving canals any more
than any other State. If you get a State appropriation for an im-
provement it is once in a long period of years, and then you squeeze
and wring out by hard effort enough to maintain the canal from year
to year.
We are supposed to have 12 navigable feet in the canals, while the
total depth is 10 feet 6 inches, leaving the navigable depth about 9
feet. With an increased depth so that we have a navigable depth
-of 12 feet we can increase the load of the barges from 1,200 tons to
2,500 or 3,000 tons, and there will be a corresponding increase in the
rate on Mississippi and Missouri Belt wheat, which is the important
commodity in the interior of the country. We can load automobiles
in Detroit and carry them in full vessel loads to New York, New
England, and the South at a cheaper rate than you can any other
way to-day.
Senator VANDENBERG. Let us get the basic question.
Representative DEMPSEY. What is the basic question?
Senator VANDENBERG. The basic question is whether there is any
-competition between the St. Lawrence route and the all-American
route, using the Erie Canal as a basis.
Representative DEMPSEY. Well, I should say that the two routes
are for quite distinct purposes. Our domestic trade is 85 per cent of
Sour total commerce. The St. Lawrence route is so situated as not to
:serve our domestic commerce until you get really west of Buffalo.
All of our vast territory from Buffalo east is cut off. So it does not
Share in the domestic commerce. It is fitted to serve our foreign
commerce, and particularly our grain trade. The Erie Canal, on the
contrary, as is found by this much maligned but very excellent report,

82 RIVERS AND HARBORS

serves 60,000,000 of our people; that is, one-half of them. And it
serves them with all kinds of products. It will bring with 3,000-ton
coast vessels the lumber of the Pacific coast, right in the original
vessel, from Oregon and Washington around up as far as Chicago.
/before they meet the rail rate. They will deliver it at Chicago
cheaperr than the railUate.
The president of the chamber of commerce of the city of Detroit
came to me in Washington, and he came for this purpose-he told
me that he was a lumber dealer-this was two or three years ago-
and he said:
If you will improve the Erie'Canal and give it a reasonable depth, I can sell
lumber just as cheap in Detroit as it can be sold in New York or anywhere
around New York.
So we have the Erie Canal bringing-jumber, as our supply of lum-
ber must come to-day from the Pacific coast. They reached the pfek
of the cut in the South in 1913; it has been going down ever since.
They have scarcel Aiough lumber for their domestic supplies.
Their cities are growing; their demand is growing. So we must get
our lumber from the Pa,-iF:fc. coast, and they have an inexhaqgtible
supply. The riil ir;-i: is p lr:hibiive, and we must bring.it -around
through the E:ii_ Canal in these 3,000-ton coastwi~-.essels, and
deliver it to all lakejrts, including JQetroit, and right on up to
Grand RP 'pib!
The next thing it is going to bring is -ii:lphur, another basic com-
modity, which we must have in every industry in the State of
Michigan, including your great automobile industry; and we are
bringing it ll to-day through the barge canal, not by rail from
Texas.
The next basic commodity is 9i, and we are going to bring that
from CtlILf:i rnia and TeKxs around through the caal.
Senator VANDENBERG. I do not want to interrupt your recital, Mr.
Dempsey, but I would like to get back to the starting point, the
basic question.
Representative DEMPSEY. I am answering the question now.
Senator VANDENBERG. Are you in favor of building the St. Law-
rence waterway?
Representative DEMPSEY. That is a different question. Let me
answer your first question.
Senator VANDENBERG. All right; if you are still answering it, go
ahead.
Representative DEMPSEY. I am. Your first question was this:
Are they in competition and in what respects are they in competition,
and'I say that all of these things: Lumber, sugar, sulphur, oil, and
ore will be brought roughh the canal and will notgo through the St.
Lawrene because of the fact that it is 2 000 miles out of the way. I
am not saying that in opposition to the St~.Ei.n reiie waterway at all,
but simply to aui.- yourguestion. I will say the St. Lawrence will
afford shipjtransportation for grainbabroad, but it will ng afford ship
trai.nspurttuioni eils ialrd for 600,0.0,000 out of 800,000,000 bushels of '
grain, and that 600,000,000 bushels-as against 200,000,000 that
goes abroad-use the Erie.~Qnal.
Senator VANDENBERG. The Boston Chamber of Commerce dis-
agrees with you.

I /, < \ "" ;* "* t ' ''

RIVERS AND HARBORS 83

Representative DEMPSEY. Oh, no; they do not disagree with me at
all.
Senator VANDENBERG. You say the Boston Chamber of Commerce
Favors the Erie .-oute for the purpose of getting grain into New
England?
Representative DEMPSEY. I say that the Boston Chamber of Com-
merce was formerly sold on the idea of developing Jower on the St.
Lawreuce until the last correspondence between Mr. Kellogg and
Mr. Massey was made public in which Mr. Massey said that the
adopted policy of Canada was not to-permit the exportation of a
single.lgrsepower to the United.States, and I say that your Boston
Chamber of Commerce has changedits.idea since then.
Senator VANDENBERG. Since when?
Representative DEMPSEY. It was not interested in the St. Lawrence
when it found it could not gt power.
Senator VANDENBERG. Since when?
Representative DEMPSEY. ForeTars.
Senator VANDENBERG. Within the last thre6_yeeks they have had\
a letter from the president of the Boston Chamber of Commerce
specificallydjinying the statement yojLare irow i-\ making.
Representative DEMPSEY. Senator Ransdell and I had the pleasure
of debatingspthere before the chambgerof commerce, and I think
we both understand what the situation is. I understand they are
interested i power and nojtin transportation, so far as the St. Law-
rence is concerned.
Senator VANDENBERG. Let us get back to the basic question, any-
way.
Representative DEMPSEY. The basic question is this: I say for all
of these multipliedomestic I p i ir.'-, the Eri,..( anal will be invaluable
in the immediate -resent and of incrIc.lini. value, as General Brown
has so wonderfully pointed out, as time goes on.
Senator VANDENBERG. You say there is nQ.Qgmpetition between
the two?
Representative DEMPSEY. I say there is no competition between
the two for domestiaa..ommerce, and that domestic commerce will
more than abundantlyaustain the takingover of these_cnals. I say
that the only possiblecmmpetition is foreign.cmmerce, and in that
there iscgmnpetition; and if you have a deeper waterway, why, of]
course, it will take. the deep-aterway _art of the ciwi(nnerce
Let me say this Senator: You seem to have it firmly in your mind
that twodeep y! letl r a- are impossible. I do not say whether they
are or are not, but I will say that I talked with President Cqolidge,
whom we all look up to as a man of remarkableaility, and he told me
that with the wonderfuljdevelopment and growthof commerce and
population and of wealth in the territory to be served, he believed
that in the eid two .iep t n t-rwvtiy would.f jecessjtyome in.that.
terrtory.
Senator VANDENBERG. He is more Optilllitic than Gener,&Brown.
> Representative DEMPSEY. I am simply telling you that that is what
he said to me. I do not know whether he is correct or not. I can
notagrjee in your ou-view.
The extent to which I am going at the present time, and as far as
I am going, is this, and I think all we have in contemplation is this:
That these barpe.anals are of .such greatWeice in supplying the

RIVERS AND HARBORS

missing link between the greatest_.cq merce in the world, a commerce
of 150,0 000(1 00 tons a year ago on the Great Lakes, and the commerce
of 100,QQ,000 tons at New York alone, without going any further
south or north at all-these-anals are so valuable that there can not A
be any question as to the necessity of taking-them over. As to that
there can no be any reas;.nable dipuit.
Let me clear up a few things as to whi,-li Senati o Allen has a riis-
apprehension.
Senator VANDENBERG. Before you do that, will you please answer
my -traight.-oiit question? Heretofore you have always opposed the
St. Lawrence.wterway. Do you now favorr it?
Representative DEMPSEY. The Senator has inaccuratelXgtated my
position.
Senator VANDENBERG. State it for yourself.
Representative DEMPSEY. 'I have notheretofore always opposed the
St. Lawrence waterway. I had until a couple of years ago advocated
the all-A.miei';-in deeper-waterway, but for the last two years I have
iabaiindoined t.h.at position and taken the position that instead of that
we should have these improved.harge canal cponections now, because
I believe that that is practical for the present; that should be done
nqw. It is not a question of the distant.future; it is not a question
whether a deeper waterway is justified. We know that these :i-n drni
barge c-iials are badly needed nAw and will serve at once, and in
order ti-, sh,-l the Senator that I will just call attention to what I
think are misapprehensions on the part of Senator Allen.
Senator VANDENBERG. I do not want to interrupt you, but I do
want to persist on this fundamental proposition, and let us see if we
can not clear it up.
Do I understand you nowaJvor the construction of the St. Law-
rence watil t a.y as the adoptedroute to the qcean?
Representative DEMPSEY. I do not understand, if the Senator will
permit me to answer him, that a project for the adoption of the St.
Lawrence waterway is now before the committee. If it were, I
would be prepared to take a position and take it at once. What is
before the committee is, whether we shall-adopt the bargeenals
across the-State of New-York; and I want to say to the Senator that
I have no hiddenaeatives, that I have noaoncealed motives; that I am
advocating simply and solely the ild.p-tion of twabar e anals, with
probably, as General Brown stated, a navigable depth of 14 feet and
suitable bridge clearances that is af I ami advocating; that I am
neither uppj1.in .: not -Lppi!l. tinTg the St. Lawrence route; that I think
there is i.i i:urijo.tiin betweenuthe two; that I do not think it concerns
the St. Lawrence in the slightest, degree; but, on the contrary, I
fully agrge with Genera"Brown on the subject. I thoroughly and
honestly believe that with this tremendous.development, which he has
so wonderfully pictured, with adeque transportation across the
State of New Y,.rk.: at cheap and economic rates, which will follow
the adoption of this project, that you will have sach a dem,.ns.trati,.i
of the usefulness, the economy of water transportation, and of its j
aid in developing and building up industry, that any deep waterway
will have such support as it can not possibly secure to-day.
Senator VANDENBERG. Let me see if we understand each other. -A
Representative DEMPSEY. I think we do.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator VANDENBERG. I do not, I will have to confess, up to date.
[Laughter.]
Do I understand you to say that you have ulr'indo:ine the expecta-
tion of developing the Eri,_ and Oswego Canals into an all-American
ship canal to the sea?
S Representative DEMPSEY. I will say frankly, Senator, that I see
no peSent prospect of the development of either one for deeper water-
way purposes; that is, ship.channels.
Now, I do not want to get into a discussion of what I mean by
"deeper.j.aterways"; in other words, I want to be absolutelyjhonest
and frank. Some man might say that 14 feet navigable depth was a
deeper waterway.
I say that what I am advocating, and I believe that all that the
Congress of the United States wants at the present time or so far as
we can see for the future, is the development of these two.-canals as
bargE..eaunai in a thoroughly .niiiJl.'ii way, with a navigable depth
probably of l_,eet, changing the locks and giving adequate and
suitable bridge clearances.
Senator VANDENBERG. That is as far as you go in your present
prospectus?
Representative DEMPSEY. It is as far as I can peer into the future.
I am not a prophet or seer. I can not say what the future may
develop, but there is nobody to-day trying to get deepwater. There
is no.gch inmov:-enet. We are trying to-day to get this impove-
ment in thli:-,_ cari- so as to iiim-'.ri.e thl.lin and to give us cheap
irae~l.lu d-,i.-'n for all of these commodities which I have mentioned.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, if there is nothing in your mind of
h-_tijility between the St. Lawwence and this aji e~project, just what
did you have in mind when you stated in the Biill'.I.j News of April
17, 1930; that is, within thre.weeks?
Representative DEMPSEY. That is true.
Senator VANDENBERG (reading):
The Erie Canal will prove so valuable when improved that there will be go
necesy for any deepawater connecting the Great Itkes with thAsea.
Representative DEMPSEY. Well, I meant jut that. I meant that
for the present, with the present traffic that probably these two barge
canals would be able to handle it both economically and practically.
I believe that in entering upon the adoption of this project we
would mark an era in waterway progress; with that and with the
Illinois Vjver we are connecting al of the wt-.o ?ra i.- s.?yt- 'ini of the
United States.
They are the two things which both parties have advocated in
their platforms. They are the two things which every ~resident
has recommended in every annuaL essage, and we are seeing the
realization of them in a practical way.
Senator VANDENBERG. Let us see if we can clear up the general
issue; let us not argue for the moment whether or not the barge canal
is useful or not. Let us see if we can not find by commouxonsent that
There is uo : competition between this p.irdin-.zp.roject and the proposed
St. I u'i r i'.l7. ::, i,:' : t .
Representative DEMPSEY. I can not see--
Senator VANDENBERG. If that is so, why is it that you gave your
interview in the Buffalo News, which I still do not understand, but

86 RIVrEH AND HARBORS

also why is it, that the resolution of your cornlittee in the Seventy-
first Congress, which produced this ultimate resurvey, asked the board
as follows. "to investigate and report upon the cost and advisability
of converting present charge i,.ual into a s anal?"
Representative DEMPSEY. Let me see the resolution. I do not
recollect.
Senator VANDENBERG. I have not the original here, I am sorry to
say.
Representative DEMPSEY. You see, a quotation from a resolution-
one sentence may mean something. I do not think that does convey
the full meaning.
Senator VANDENBERG. At any rate, there is nothing in your mind
relating to a ship canal to be built out of these barge canals.
Representative DEMPSEY. I will state to you, Senator, frankly,
I have no hidden, sinister or secret purpose of making the adoption
of this project the basis of a ship channel; that I believe and am ad-
vised by the experts, shippers and others, that we will get better re-
sults, more economical results, more practical results, and we will
S get results now, which is the important thing, by the development of
(practical.,Jo.ern barge.cg als.
Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Dempsey, do you think the people in
New York have in mind that you are merely proposing now a barge
canal development and not proposing your original all-Aujnei i-an dSep
ship..aaal to the Wy? What do you think the people of New Yo:rk
think at the present time?
Representative DEMPSEY. Let me answer the Senator: Why can
not this committee-I am not on the committee, and I am not doing
it. But why can not this committee-
Senator VANDENBERG. You are pretty near on it. [Laughter:]
Representative DEMPSEY. I feel extremely friendly, and I hope
they feel as friendly toward me, as I am sure you do.
Senator VANDENBERG. I also do. [Laughter.]
Representative DEMPSEY. Let me answer that fully. I am not sug-
gesting it. It is not for me; I am not on the committee. But why can
not this committee say-if they wish to assist in clearing up any
doubt-that this project is adopted with a view to making these two
cainal-. midern, up to~ ate, serviggable, practical, economical bage
cnAls, and not for any other purpose?
There is your statement.
Senator VANDENBERG. If that were done, Mr. Dempsey-
Representative DEMPSEY. Let me just follow that with this-
Senator VANDENBERG. All right.
Representative DEMPSEY. Now, your question is what the people
of the State of New York believe. The State of New York would
not be misled, then. There is your statement.
Senator VANDENBERG. "Misled" now?
Representative DEMPSEY. Your project would state just what the
purpose is. Any man who can read can see exactly what is done,
what the Congress of the United States said as to the adoption of the
project.
Senator VANDENBERG. You read from my home newspaper. Let
me read from yours.
Representative DEMPSEY. You will find it is about along the same
lines as yours, Senator.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Senator VANDENBERG. I think I do not find any such thing. Here
is the editorial of the Buffalo News, April 14:
The people of New York are very much in the dark as to the real object of the)
Proposal.
I can not blame them for that.
Representative DEMPSEY. You are proceeding to enlighten them.
Senator VANDENBERG (reading):
The delivery of the canals to the Federal Government would be justified only
on the terms that the Federal Government purposes to develop Lem as anjl-J
AmericaQi.jte for deep tshs.
That does not look much like withdrawing positionn between the
American~aoute and the St. Lawrence.
Representative DEM'PE- i I will say to you, frankly Senator, that
if I know anything about the attitude of the Buffalo News it is not
represented by that editorial. The attitude of the Buffalo News has
been just to the conjtary for weeks and daily, as I understand it,
and I do not think there is any doubt of it, and I think, Senator,
regardless of that editorial, you will agree with me that the Buffalo
Nevi. is not adxv, ,-alin. a d.-1.1jc,. \ut\a-rwnv or ship channel on the
American side.
Senator VANDENBERG. Let us take the chief spokesman, New
York' pvernor. Did not the Governor of New York, however,
to the State Legislature within the last few weeks specifically identify
this pending prospectus as being the ftnrt of the all-_,'ierian route
to the sea? "
Representative DEMPSEY. Why can you not answer by saying what
I have suggested?
Senator VANDENBERG. That is not what I am asking. I am asking
you if that is not what the governor has said.
Representative DEMPSEY. ,Regardless of what the governor said
you can state that by takingger this p~ject your intent is to take it
over for barge canal purposes.
Senator VANVERBEG. In other words, you think the Governor of
New York needs adlitionu}m information as to what this project
involves?
Representative DEMPSEY. I have very great respect for him, and
I do not want to say anything disrespectful of our governor.
Senator VANDENBERG. Who is Edward C. Carrington?
Representative DEMPSEY. He is a man whom I understand owns two
steamers running from New York to Albany, and I think he was once
a candidate for United States Senator in the adjoining State of
Maryland.
Senator VANDENBERG. He is chairman also of the Great Lakes-
Hudson Waterways Association, is he not?
Representative DEMPSEY. I do not know that.
Senator VANDENBERG. You are probably familiar with the rather
truculenttelegram which he sent me under date of April 15?
SRepresentative DEMPSEY. I have heard of that telegram, but I
Shave never seen it, and I do not assume responsibility for it.
Senator VANDENBERG. I am trying to find out what the State of
SNew York thinks is going on.
Representative DEMPSEY. Let us give them notice.

RIVERS AND .HABBORS

Senator VANDENBERG. I am about to give them notice. Colonel
Carrington, of the Great Lakes-Hudson Waterways Association,
says [reading]:
Any further fatuitous attempt in this latter direction-any further develop-
ment of the St. La n~ije wnat.avay should be abandoned. As every well informed
person knows, the American people will never isuoli.it, to tlie demands already
submitted by Canadians.
The 1hawk and Hudson-Valleys furnish alternative routes to tl: sea.
As far as Colonel Carrington, the chairman of this Great Lakes-
Hudson Waterways Association, is concerned there is c,-rtainily om-
petition between the all-American and St. Lawrence routes.
Representative DEMPSEY. Thit. would certainly seem to indicate,
that in rather precise and clear language.
Thd CHAIRMAN. May I ask a question there? I am not greatly
interested in what Colonel Carrington says and various other gentle-
men, but there was a name mentioned that seems suggestive. What
is the view of the President of the United States concerning a water
way? Can you tell me?
Representative DEMPSEY. I can not. I would not want to quote)
the President.
The CHAIRMAN. Could you, Senator Vandenberg?
Senator VANDENBERG. I would not undertake to do so.
Senator COPELAND. The chairman should be able to do that.
[Laughter.]
Representative DEMPSEY. May I proceed?
The CHAIRMAN. It is suggested to me that I put the query to
Senator Allen. Will you give us some information on this point? I
ask you that, quite seriously, because, of course his attitude in respect
to this matter would mean much to the bill. Can you state the atti-
tude of the President?
Senator ALLEN. I am not able to state his attitude, but I will see
if it is possible to get his attitude before the committee.
Representative DEMPSEY. Senator Allen, I simply want to clear up
something you have misunderstood.
Senator SIMMONS. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Dempsey. I
have not read this bill very carefully, but do we not propose to take
it over as a barge canal?
Representative DEMPSEY. We propose to take it over as a barge
canal and improve it as a barge canal; that is the report.
Senator SIMMONS. We have got to get the consent of New York
before we take it over?.
Representative DEMPSEY. Yes, sir.
Senator SIMMONS. And if the State of New York is opposed to the
barge canal, it will not give its consent?
Representative DEMPSEY. Exactly.
Senator SIMMONS. And, therefore, I do not see why we should
bother ourselves about that question.
Senator VANDENBERG. Just a minute. That is not a fair state-
ment, and I do not think it ought to stand. Neither this committee
nor the State of New York know what is proposed as the result of
the language in this bill, and nobody can tell. It depends entirely
upon anything that may happen in the future.
Representative DEMPSEY. The reports show that very clearly,
Senator.

RIVERS AND HARBORS 89

Senator SIMMONS. If it be true that the report is so inmbiguous
that the State of New York can pot ascertain whether it means one
thing or another thing, then if the State of New York gives its per-
Smission to the transfer of the property to the Government, it will
prescribe the conditions upon which it will give it.
Representative DEMPSEY. Senator, may I call attention to this?
Senator Allen stated that the St. Lawrence Canal is carrying 9,000,000
tons and the New York canals only 3,000,000 tons. He asked what
the inference was which was to be drawn from those figures. It is
very well drawn in the report. The report says this, that the St.
Lawrence canals reached their capacity in 1927, and that the excess,
the surplus traltii-, which they estimate at a steady increase of 500,000
tons a year, must go to thi- Erie Canal, because there is nowhere else
for it to be carried. That is an inference from those figures, and the
inference which is very clearly and well drawn from the report.
I see it is 12 o'clock, and I am very greatly obliged for the courtesy
of the committee in hearing me.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded all you wanted to say,
Congressman?
Representative DEMPSEY. Probably Congressman Hull at the end
might want 5 or 10 minutes.
Senator VANDENBERG. I want to ask you one further question
for the record. I would like to ask how much consideration this bill
had in the whole House or committees.
Representative DEMPSEY. I do not believe you want to say that.
I heard you remark the other day that this item had no consideration
on its merits in the House. I do not believe you want that remark to
-stand.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, I do.
Representative DEMPSEY. It does not seem to me possible, because
that is indicting a fellow legislative branch.
Senator VANDENBERG. I am indicting the system.
Representative DEMPSEY. This bill had fair, open consideration,
-and this project was carried by a vote of very nearly 3 to 1, and
it had the support of the Mi-nouri Valley and the Mississippi Valley
just as much as it had the support of the East. It does not carry
doubtful projects.
Senator VANDENBERG. Did not Colonel Mapes complain on the
floor of the House in the course of debate that the bill was only re-
ported by the committee and made available the morning upon which
,two hours of debate were allowed in the House?
Representative DEMPSEY. I do not think Congressman Mapes
complained of anything. My understanding is that the Michigan
delegation were not unfriendly really to this item.
Senator VANDENBERG. What do you mean by "really"?
Representative DEMPSEY. I mean just what I say, "really," and
I think any inquiry of this committee will develop that fact, that if
you poll them you will find that while they may have been forced
into an attitude of hostility, not knowing the attitude of these great
Michigan newspapers to which I have called attention, inadvertently
:and hastily-I think that even under those circumstances the Michi-
-gan delegation, if you poll them, you find they are not at all unfriendly
;to this project.

I1l\ I.IS AN Il HAP.BOPIS

Senator V.NDENBERG. To the Erie Canal?
Representative DEMPSEY. I do not believe so, and I do not believe
,here is a man on the delegation, not one, who believes that it is in
conflict with the St. Lawrence route.
Senator VANDENBERG. I suggest you bring their statements to the
committee.
Represe-ut.ative DEMPSEY. I can not bring their statements to this
committee, but that is 'certainly what my understanding is, and it is.
not based on rumor or hearsay.
Senator VANDENBERG. Neither is mine.
Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this committee
ought to inquire into the way this was handled in the House.
Senator VANDENBERG. It will prove to be quite important before
we get through.
Senator HOWELL. I want to ask Colonel Dempsey a question or'
two.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Senator HOWELL. I understand you to say that the canal was to be
so made that 3,000-ton cargo barges could be carried by the canal
unbroken around from Oregon?
Representative -DEMPSEY. Yes, Senator. I will just call your
ittentiion to a telegram I have here, which shows that to-day with
14-foot depth on the St. Lawrence Canal they are constructing five
barges, each of which will carry 113,000 bushels of wheat, which is
3,490 tons. These barges, with 14-foot draft, Senator, will bring
around cargoes of practically 3,500 tons, which is a large cargo.
Senator HOWELL. You mean to say that these barges will carry
the products from the Pacific coast through the canal?
Representative DEMPSEY. Yes.
Senator HOWELL. On to New York and send them through the
Barge Canal into the Lakes, without breaking cargo?
Representative DEMPSEY. Without breaking bulk.
Senator HOWELL. You spoke about what the acquisition of this
canal by the Government would do for the Missouri Valley. Do I
under-t and you to intimate that the traffic coming down the Missouri
River would reach Ne\i York via this canal?
Representative DEMPSEY. Let me tell you, Senator, I am not sure
as to the route. All I say is that George Miller, secretary of the
Missouri River Association-and I will put his testimony in the
record-says he has made a most careful investigation, and that he
is satisfied that flour and grain-the grain raised there and the flour
made from it-will be carried down and distributed by this canal,
and that, it is invaluable to the Missouri Valley for that reason.
Senator HOWELL. Does he understand that this bill does not
authorize this project from Kansas City to Sioux City?
Representative DEMPSEY. I think he understood the whole thing.
Senator HOWELL. Do you think it is fair to the western country
there to refuse now to authorize the project from Kansas City to
Sioux City, and yet you pilopl e tikling over these barge canals?
Representative DEMPSEY Seii tor,.I will tell you what we did with
regard to that, frankly. We called in the Missouri Representatives
and talked it over with them, and that provision which is in the bill
was agreed upon.

RIDERS AND HARBORS

Representative HULL. He got authorization.
Senator HOWELL. Had full authorization? But we do not, know
whether it was authorization of the limitation of appropriation to
$12,000,000. Have you taken off that limitation? Then you have
no objection to removing the limitation and the committee in the
S Hous!e will support the removal of all limitation of the project from
Kansas City to Sioux City? I want to ask that question; is that true?'
Representative DEMPSEY. I will tell you frankly that we regarded
the authorization to expend $15,000,000 the next three years-
$5,000,000 a year-as being as advantageous as any provision
could be.
Senator HOWELL. In other words, then, there is not complete
authorization for that.
Representative DEMPSEY. There is complete authorization for the
channel.
Senator HOWELL. I beg pardon. The appropriation is limited to,
$12,000,000.
Representative DEMPSEY. That was a limitation simply of appro-
priation to $15,000,000-not $12,000,000.
Senator HOWELL. I understand, but that was a limitation on the
project, and we have always understood it was a limitation on the
project, and the promise that has been made to that western country
has been that all limitations on appropriations should be removed,.
and now you put a limitation on of $15,000,000.
I want to say that any such treatment of the western country. is.
absolutely unjustified, in view of what they have been assured time
and time again in the last three years.
(The statements and data submitted by Mr. Dempsey are as.
follows:)
[From Grand Rapids (Mich.), Herald, Tuesday, April 8, 19301
WATERWAYS AND SCHEMES
The Rivers and Harbors committee of the House has given its approval, to
two waterway programs of major importance to the Great Lakes region and the
whole Middle West. By an unanimous vote it has indorsed a scheme for further
development of the Lakes-to-Gulf canal link; and, by a division of 19 to 2, the
committee has recommended that the Federal Government use the Erie and.
Oswego Canals for a water outlet from the Lakes to the Atlantic. Whether the
committee's recommendations will be approved in the House and Senate de-
pends to a large extent upon what form these plans take when finally presented.
Army engineers say that the hook-up between Lake Michigan and the.
Gulf of Mexico can be successful operated for navigation with a water diversion
of approximately 1,000 cubic feet per second or less. There can be no quarrel
with that recommendation. The only danger is that an attempt will be made in
the House to increase the diversion. The Chicago drainage district has attempted
to use this Gulf waterway scheme as a blind for an increased flow. The Lake
States unanimously will approve an honest Gulf waterway which will link them
with salt water via the Mississippi. Although the advantages of such a route
are not comparable with an outlet to the Atlantic, they are important. But, if
an effort is made to use the Mississippi project as a smoke screen for continued
excessive diversion of Lake Michigan water, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the other
interested States will fight it in Congress. As for the scheme to con-
nect the Great Lakes with the Atlantic across New York State, that has two
possible uses. First, it may be considered as a warning to Canada that unless
it gets busy by way of cooperating in the St. Lawrence deep waterway project,
this country will take the alternative course of a canal route across New York
s State. Second, it probably would, if completed, have some utility in rd-.i :ng-
transportation rates between the Great Lakes region and the Atlantic. The
New York State route has no such potentialities as the St. Lawrence plan. It

92 Rr'ERS .AND HARBORS

has no waterpower opportunities which can be used to reduce the expense tohe
Government. It is criss-crossed with bridges which would hat e t. ble rebuiilt at
great expense or abal.idoed. To date, all that the successes in House
committee for the Gu;lt ia!d Ne-a York waterways represent are r i tores for Con-
gressmrar Hull .of Tlliulr.,; and Chairman Dempsey of New York. Hull wants the >
C;ulf-MllN-sssip1.i scheme. Dempsey not only wants to defeat the St. Lawrence
waterway, which would divert traffic from New York City, but he wants to un-
load on the Federal Government a pair of white elephants, the Oswego and Erie
Canals, which are a burden upon the New York State treasury. This
is a proper time at which to inaugurate such important waterway projects as the
Gulf and Atlantic outlets for the Great Lakes. President Hoover is waterway-
minded. The country looks to Washington to lead the way in hiring labor.
If the programs offered honestly propose to free landlocked navigable waters of
the interior, they should have clear sailing in both House and Senate; but, if
Messrs. Dempsey and Hull are grinding axes for selfish-local advantage, they
have a fight on their hands.

[From Mchigan Manufacturer and Financial Record, Detroit, Saturday, April 26, 1930]
A MISTAKEN FRIENDSHIP
In one of those impressive announcements that come out of Washington regu-
larly about what our statesmen are going to do there appeared last week in one
of the Detroit papers the statement that the junior Senator from Michigan is
going to make short work in the Senate of the provision in the rivers and harbors
bill for the Federal acquisition of the New York State Barge Canal. We fear
that the Senator's opposition will be ineffective, because the senatorial old boys
who are interested in the purchase of the New York canal by the Federal Govern-
ment are rather smart folks who may tell the junior Senator that he can't have
any money for Monroe harbor, or the Detroit river, or Saginaw river, or Luding-
ton and Muskegon harbors or the development of the Grand.River as a waterway
if he gets too fussy about the purchase of the Old Erie Canal.
Again, we do not think the interests of the St. Lawrence waterway will be
conserved one little bit by opposition to the development of the New York Barge
Canal. The interests that want marine access to the sea from the Midlands of
North America are vastly bigger than even their protagonists conceive; and the
two waterways will be none too great to carry their commerce when they are
fitted for carrying it. Each of the waterways serves a distinct purpose. The
population of interior New York which the barge canal reaches consumes more
motor cars, heavy chemicals, food products, and other merchandise originating
in Michigan than many a single one of the foreign countries which the St. Law-
rence waterway is designed to reach; and already the barge canal is serving indus-
try in Michigan in a way that it will take 10 years, at least, for the St. Lawrence
waterway to do. We wish the brilliant Senator could take a look at the small
mountain of crude sulphur from the Louisiana mines which is (ci:!tauiti, kept
replenished by shiploads which come through the barge canal weekly during the
summer and which constitute the basis of the continued activity of a laboratory
which feeds its sulphuric and hydrochloric acid products to our manufacturing
plants to go into motor sheet pickle. Or that he could see the variety of other
products that come and go daily in the season of navigation from the Ecorse port
on the Detroit river.
The barge canal is already of real use to Detroit and Michigan. To delay its
imnpr,.ove'n.t s. economically a wrong thing. It will not help the St. Lawrence
project to do that. The St. Lawrence project has its own economics, which will
prevail for its completion and its own peculiar usefulness. Meantime, it can't
be helped much by making faces at its partial rivals.

LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION,
Cleveland, Ohio, April 21, 1980.
Hon. FRANCIS D. CULKIN,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: The present rivers and harbors bill comes up for passage Friday, ..
the 25th instant. It contains an authorization for deepening the channels of the
Great Lakes to 24 feet, at a cost of approximately $30,000,000, besides many other

l:IVEl;5 AND HAARBORS

improvements to the Great Lakes' harbors and connecting channels. It is one of
the most important bills to the Great Lakes in their history.
One provision in the bill would authorize the United States to take over the
Buffalo and Oswego branches of :the New York Barge Canal, if officially offered
.- by the State of New York, with the ultimate object of deepening to 13 feet.
Some opposition to the passage of the bill has been threatened because of this
provision on the ground that such action might delay the adoption of the St.
S Lawrence waterway project.
It is believed the two projects are essentially different and are not at all in
conflict. The New York canals are designed simply for barge traffic while the
St. Lawrence is to be a d...: !, '.:, erway for lake and ocean vessels.
It is understood the Mi.d.l..I West, which has supported the St. Lawrence
through its two great waterway associations, the Mississippi Valley Association
and Missouri River Association, has supported and is advocating the taking over
Sof the two New York canals on the ground that they will afford cheap transporta-
tion of its commodities for their part of the United States.
Additionally these canals, if somewhat depend to permit larger barge loads,
should be able to bring in lumber and oil from the Pacific coast, oil, sulphur and
sugar from the Gulf coast, and transport other commodities at a saving over the
present rates which must prevail with the insufficient depth now available.
The present rivers and harbors bill will prove an incalculable benefit to the
country as a whole, and particularly to the Great Lakes region, and it should not
be endangered or even delayed by fanciful or factious opposition to any one item.
Yours very truly,
J. S. ASHLEY, President.

[From Waterway Bulletin, April, 1930]
REPORT RECOMMENDS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER TWO NEW YORK
CANALS
Maj. Gen. Lytle Brown, Chief of Engineers, has submitted a report to Congress
recommending that the Secretary of War be authorized and empowered to accept
from the State of New York the State-owned waterways known as the Erie and
Oswego Canals comprising a major part of the New York State canal system.
Some idea of the size and extent of these properties offered to the Federal
Government may be gained from the following figures: The two canals on which
the report is made have a total mileage of 363 miles, with 43 locks and dams of
modern construction throughout. New York State has spent a total of $230,-
881,000 on its system of canals, of which $176,000,000 is chargeable to actual
construction up to June 30, 1928. Of this latter amount $121,000,000 is charge-
able to the two canals in question. (From the engineers' report.)
The canal now has a 12-foot project depth, but in a few places is only 9% feet
deep. It is proposed to complete the 12-foot project and to provide adequate
bridge clearances in flood sections.
The engineers' report finds:
"The demand for an improved Erie Canal is quite logical. Along with a marked
increase in water-borne commerce on the Great Lakes there has been a progres-
sive upbuilding of the canal tonnage moving between the Lakes and tidewater.
Transportation companies operating on the canal have been con-
fronted with difficulties that can in considerable measure be removed by advance
maintenance where shoaling is apt to occur and by a moderate raising of some of
the bridges in those sections subject to high flood. *"
The Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey, chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Com-
S mittee of the House of Representatives, speaking before the House, pointed out
that between 1920 and 1928 the traffic on this part of the New York Barge Canal
system has increased 117 per cent. He then asked, "What would the increase
be with a navigable depth of 12 feet, adequate bridge clearances, and with the
tonnage carried only in vessels with the largest capacity for the channel depth?"
"The most efficient boats to-day," continued Chairman Dempsey, "have a
Carrying capacity of 2,000 tons, which is cut down to 1,200 tons through the
insufficient depth and the want of clearances. With a 12-foot channel depth and
with sufficient clearances, these vessels would carry their full capacity of 2,000
tons-an increase of 70 per cent.
111747--30--PT 1- 7

94 RIVERS AND HARBORS

"With a modern fleet carrying the present tonnage of 3,000,000 tons we would
save 40 per cent of the present cost of transportation; and as the prevailing rate of
6% cents on grain is practically the equivalent of $1 per ton, the present cost of
transporting the existing tonnage would be $3,000,000 and the saving of 40 per
cent would amount to $1,200,000.
"The New York State authorities estimate the practical capacity of,the Erie
Canal with a 12-foot draft as 12,000,000 to 16,000,000 tons per year, while the
report estimates it at 9,375,000 tons.
"On the basis of 9,375,000 tons per year the savings with a 12-foot navigable
depth and adequate clearances would be $3,750,000 per year, while on the basis
of 12,000,000 tons it would be $4,800,000 per year."
The engineers' report to Congress recommends that the transfer from the State
be made without cost to the United States and that it shall include all land,
easements, and completed or uncompleted structures and appurtenances of the
waterways, including machinery and equipment convenient or incident to their
construction, operation, and maintenance. As the engineers point out:
"Water-borne commerce between the Great Lakes region and the Atlantic
seaboard consists largely of the movement of grain and raw materials that enter
directly into the agricultural and industrial activities of the country. Improve-
ments contemplated are in the main required for through commerce, and the
benefits may therefore be considered national. Any contribution by the Federal
Government to obtain such facilities could well be made without any further
requirement of local cooperation than has already been made by the State of New
York through its large expenditures on the existing canal."
As a part of an all-American inland waterway system, the New York canals
are of great interest to the Mississippi Valley. The proposal is to maintain and
develop a barge canal operation and should in no way conflict with the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence ship canal project.

[From Waterway Bulletin, April, 1930;
NEW YORK STATE BARGE CANAL PAYS ITS WAY
Now and again, when a railroad official feels called upon to "view with alarm"
the New York State Barge Canal as a "horrible example" of waterway improve-
ment, it becomes necessary to reply to such a statement. We quote herewith
from a report of the Barge Canal Survey Commission, created by the State
Legislature in 1925, to make a study and survey of the operation and facilities of
the canal system of New York State:
"From testimony given by traffic men, it would appear that during 1925 the
barge canal saved the people of this State approximately $52,000,000; $2,000,000
of this is estimated as being the direct saving on tonnage floated at the lesser
water rates; the $50,000,000 is accredited to freight carried by rail which due to
canal competition is apparently handled in New York State at lower rates than
in States which lack water competition."
We next quote from the annual report of J. M. Davis, president of the Lack-
awanna & Western Railroad, to the stockholders:
"The average annual cost of the canal to the taxpayers is about $10,000,000.
In 1928 it handled 3,089,998 tons of freight. The average cost of floating this
freight, irrespective of the length of haul, was, therefore, approximately $3.25
per ton. Any railroad operating between Buffalo and New York could have
accommodated this added tonnage by the addition of the necessary trains daily
during the seven or eight months that navigation is possible on the canal. And,
had the regular rail rate been paid for transporting it and the canal abandoned,
the taxpayers would have been money ahead."
Mr. Davis does not undertake to estimate what the rail rate would be if the
canal were not there, or what the rates would be if the canal were abandoned.
Superintendent Green, of the New York State Public Works, is authority for
the statement that the New York Barge Canal would cost the taxpayers no more
if it were operated to its full capacity of 20,000,000 tons per year, in which event >_
the per ton cost would be about 52.8 cents and the canal would return a large
direct profit to the taxpayers.

RIVERS AND HARBORS

Meanwhile, the tonnage on the canal has increased from 1,159,270 tons in 1918
to 3,089,998 tons in 1928, or 149 per cent in 11 seasons. This is an average annual
increase of. over 13Y per cent. Any railroad with such a volume increase per
year would be considered eminently successful. Why consider the New'York
-. State Barge Canal a failure?

S[From the Congressional Record]
Mr. DEMPSEY. Not yet. It comes in to-morrow.
Gentlemen, I am going to read the testimony of Mr. Miller, the secretary of
the Missouri Waterway Association, before the board of engineers, on the bene-
fits of the barge canal. I would like to have you all hear this, as it is from the
secretary of the Missouri Waterway Association on the advantages of the barge
canal to the grain growers of the Middle West.
"Mr. MILLER. General Deakyne and members of the board, I am glad to
indorse what Congressman Hull has said relating to the interest of our section
of the country in this development and may I add just a word to show where we
are interested? In our study of the Missouri River, in the matter of the survey
for a 9-foot channel, we found that 80 per cent of all of our farm products used
in domestic commerce, domestic trade, was located in the territory lying east of
the IncJiana-Illinois line, north of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers-a little better
than you stated. Congressman Dempsey, just a little farther-and I state that
to show the more direct connection between this canal and our trade. We found
in that investigation that some 3,000,000 barrels of flour moved from our terri-
tory through the ports of Chicago and Milwaukee by way of the Great Lakes,
out through the ports into the State of New York and into New England, at a
saving, routed that way-at a saving of 3 and 4 cents a hundred. Now, it fol-
lows that if this canal could offer any greater saving than that, and that was out
from the Great Lakes-Erie ports by rail-if this canal can show any greater
saving than that there would be a larger amount of our flour that would move
through this route, and I recall an incident apropos of this in a book called
"Old Tow Paths," in which it cites the incident of an Ohio miller, many, many
years ago, milling his flour and getting for it a very, very small price. The
Ohio Canal was completed which enabled him to ship his flour through the
canal to the Lakes and then through the Erie Canal into New York and New
England and he got four times as much for his flour, after that canal was opened,
than he got before.
"Congressman DEMPSEY. Four times the profit?
"Mr. MILLER. No; four times the price he got for the local trade he was
serving with this connection. The influence of this has extended far over the
country. There is not a grade of commodity that has not felt its influence; and,
while there is not as great a difference in the price as this, the influence is still
there, and very, very extensive to-day; and we, on our part, will be glad to see
this improvement made for we have a real, direct interest in it."

UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD,
Washington, May 6, 1930.
Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN DEMPSEY: In response to your telephone request, the
following is the resolution which was offered at the Third National Conference on
the Merchant Marine, held in the Chamber of Commerce Building, April 24,
1930:
"Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move that this conference go on record as
indorsing the Erie Canal project contained in the rivers and harbors bill (H. R.
11781) which comes before Congress to-morrow and which provides for the
deepening of the Erie Canal to 13 or 14 feet and for increasing the clearance of
M the bridges.
"(The motion was duly seconded and agreed to.)"
As you probably understand, this resolution was adopted by the conference as
a whole and by the record of the proceedings of the conference the resolutions
which were offered and passed by the conference do not bind the Shipping Board.
Very truly yours,
T. V. O'CONNOR, Chairman.

96 RIVERS AND HARBORS

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, it will be necessary, unfortunately,
for us to take our adjournment. We will meet at 10 o'clock to-
morrow morning; and we take up first to-morrow morning, because
of the parties being on the way, the upper Mississippi. We are -
going to devote no more than the morning to it, and I would appre-
ciate it immensely if Generals Brown and Deakyne would be with us '
to aid us concerning the matters that may then be presented. *
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m. the committee adjourned to meet
to-morrow, Tuesday, May 6, 1930, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

	Rivers and Harbors
	Florida Everglades (report)
	Everglades Drainage District Biennial...
	Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee...
	Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee...
	Flood control in Florida and...
	Senate bill #332, public #520
	Report to Board of Supervisors...
	Everglades Drainage District biennial...
	Letter from the Secretary...
	Caloosahatchee River North New...
	Policy: A report to the Board of...
	Conference on Florida Everglades...
	Unidentified notes
	Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee...
	Everglades of Florida

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
191	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file