Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

of War. I do not wish to be diverted. I recognize the serious situation in Chicago.

Mr. KUNZ. Well, your argument is entirely on the question of sanitation. Chicago is spending a great deal of money on that matter, of course, but by taking care of the sanitation of the cities, they are willing to build this canal to give navigation.

Mr. BURTON. Do you believe they would build the canal to aid navigation, if it were not for sanitation? Do you believe they would have any great cordiality about it, if it were not for that? Why, for a long time the argument, and the sole argument, was that the diversion of water there was for sanitation, but now they are turning about face and saying it is for navigation.

Mr. KUNZ. Do you suppose the city of Chicago would build a canal of the enormous size and width that that canal is, simply for sanitary purposes?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, yes

Mr. KUNZ. Why, they could build a large sewer

Mr. BURTON. On the proposition of developing water power, if you will look at the discussion that was had in the House in 1905 on that subject of water power, you will see that that was very thoroughly threshed out.

Mr. HULL. Can I ask you a question? Do you think the State of Illinois would appropriate $20,000,000 to dig a canal 65 miles long

Mr. BURTON. That is an entirely different proposition

Mr. HULL. Wait a minute. Do you think they would build a $20,000,000 canal for sanitary purposes, the State of Illinois-do you think they would do that?

Mr. BURTON. Probably not, but I have no doubt—

Mr. HULL (interposing). Why do you accuse us, then, of building this for sanitary purposes? I am not interested in sanitary purposes.

Mr. BURTON. I refer with confidence to the record of the earlier appeals made to the Secretary of War in regard to that diversion of water, which stressed and stressed with practical exclusiveness the sanitary question.

Mr. HULL. The treaty bears on that; your treaty gives them that 10,000 cubic feet for sanitary purposes; but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about getting water for navigation purposes. I live at Peoria, and I am interested in that question.

Mr. BURTON. Do you not think the city of Chicago had a great deal of influence in putting through that appropriation of $20,000,000?

Mr. HULL. Not a bit; it was the fellows of the State that did it. Mr. BURTON. How did Chicago vote for it?

Mr. HULL. They probably gave it a regular vote, but is was the farmers and the people in the State that voted those bonds to the extent of $20,000,000, and for what purpose? To build a waterway, and for no other purpose; and why have I got a bill here to build a waterway? Is it for sewage purposes? I have a bill to build a waterway down to the Mississippi River to relieve the farmers of the burden they are bearing now in the way of freight

charges. You can not accuse everybody of being in the sewage business.

Mr. SOSNOWSKI. You were going to bring up the cost of this diversion of water, Senator, when you were interrupted by Mr. Kunz.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you not prefer to sit down, Senator Burton.

Mr. BURTON. No; although I thank you for the suggestion.

Mr. KUNZ. Just one moment; in 1889 the Legislature of Illinois, of which I had the honor of being a member, voted for the drainage canal bill. It was then introduced for a waterway; and that has been the impression of the State of Illinois, but we thought we would take advantage of the waterway by using that temporarily for sanitary purposes.

Mr. BURTON. What do you say to this? That all the early reports of the engineers said that practically all that was necessary was 1.000 second-feet; was all that was necessary for sanitation. Why has application been made now for 10,000 cubic second-feet?

Mr. KUNZ. Of course, that was suggested afterwards; but the whole question, when this canal was built, it was built for navigation purposes the depth of it, the width of it, and the questions at that time. in the legislature all had to do with navigation that would permit ocean vessels to navigate that canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we must have better order in the room. We up here can not hear what is going on at all.

Mr. BURTON. On this Canadian phase of the question, of course, we are all for our own United States in any question arising between us and a foreign country; but we had better just see about this. The treaty made in 1909 is subject to revocation on 12 months' notice. Canada has unlimited opportunity to withdraw from the waters of the Lakes. For instance, there is a canal called the Trent Canal, constructed from Georgian Bay over the watershed to Lake Ontario. It went into operation last winter. The height from Georgian Bay or Lake Huron to the slope in between is 262 feet. The fall on the other side is 597 feet. The centrifugal and other pumps have been brought into use recently with great effectiveness. A few years ago we did not think any fields could be irrigated unless gravity carried the water to it. We are getting away from that. Now, for purposes of power, having those 597 feet against 362 feet up, they could withdraw an unlimited quantity of water from Georgian Bay or Lake Huron, lowering the level of that lake.

Now, I call your attention to a more serious situation. There was a long negotiation between the United States and Canada, or Great Britain, in regard to the withdrawals of Niagara. It was finally fixed at 36,000 on the Canadian side and 20,000 on the American side. Great Britain could revoke that treaty and Canada could make Niagara Falls dry and we could not say—that is, if we have this diversion at Chicago-we could not say them nay.

Now, one thing in regard to what Mr. Kunz has said. When Governor Dunn was governor of Illinois, he made an application to Secretary Baker, in which he did not ask any diversion from the waters of Lake Michigan. That is a sufficient answer to you, and the permit did not give him the right to withdraw from Lake Mich.igan any water.

Now, I have been over a great deal of ground. I am satisfied that there is much more that should be said about it. I can see what an agitation there will be in the Great Lakes region immediately if any such provision as this is put in this bill. It is new to them. They had not expected it. There have been bills pending, offered by the honorable gentleman, Mr. Hull, and others but no action has been taken on them. What I would advise first of all is to postpone action on this until we have more adequate engineering information and until the great tribunal, the last resort, the Supreme Court of the United States, has cleared this situation.

Mr. HULL. Is not that what you have been doing for 25 yearspostponing it?

Mr. BURTON. Let me say something about

Mr. HULL (interrupting). Is not that the truth? Is it not true that you have been trying to postpone it for 25 years?

Mr. BURTON. No; we have not done a thing on postponing it. The fact is that for a long while you did not have the real courage to bring this matter up

Mr. HULL. I have the courage

Mr. BURTON. I know you have plenty, in all things.

Mr. KUNZ. Is not the question before the Supreme Court not a question of navigation but sanitation?

Mr. BURTON. No.

Mr. KUNZ. More for sanitary purposes?

Mr. BURTON. Is it on the general subject of diversion and all these questions are involved.

Mr. KUNZ. If Congress takes this up and gives us navigation, then the matter will be in a different light.

Mr. BURTON. Let us see where this is. On March 23, 1908, the Attorney General caused to be filed in the Northern District of Illinois, a bill of complaint, No. 29,019. That complaint was heard before Judge Landis who postponed the decision of it for years, did not finally render his decision until he went out to give his exclusive attention to the splendid sport of baseball. It was not decided until 1920. So where was the delay?

Mr. HULL. That is on sanitation. I am not talking about sanitation but on waterways.

Mr. BURTON. Oh, that is on the general question; let us understand that.

Mr. KUNZ. May I ask another question?

Mr. BURTON. Let me proceed for three minutes without interruption. The whole question was involved. The basis of the action was a permit that had been granted, and that permission was for 4,167 cubic feet. The diversion was exceeding that, by very much. The United States by the Attorney General sought to bring the drainage board to time, to cut that down to the 4,167 cubic feet per second. Of course, there were other questions involved besides sanitationnavigation, the relation between two watersheds-but that suit-and you talk so much about delay-was held in the courts at Chicago for 12 years. There is where the delay was, and then there was another five years between the time when it was taken up and decided by the Supreme Court; and it was not decided by the Supreme Court until March, 1925.

[ocr errors]

Now, I can appreciate the agitation that this is going to cause in the lake region. I have not any more partiality to this particular section than any other, except that it is my home. I have seen Cleveland grow from a city of 150,000 to a community of a million people. The population was only 150,000 when I went there. That whole lake region has gone forward in the same way. Do you recognize

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Because of the wonderful low cost of water transportation.

Mr. BURTON. In the world.

Mr. HULL. May I interrupt you?

Mr. BURTON. No. Just a minute. Now, do you realize that of the five largest cities in the United States-New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Cleveland-three of those are situated on the Great Lakes, and besides there are many other large cities on the lakes, such as Milwaukee, Buffalo, and Duluth?

It is a great seat of the supplies for our own people and which we export to the world. There is the iron ore at one end of this system and the coal and coke at the other. There is the grain in hundreds of millions of bushels that flows down these lakes to feed the people of the East and to be shipped abroad.

Now, I beg of you, gentlemen, take into account our situation. Do not before the court decides, do not before you have adequate information threaten the efficiency of this wonderful system of navigation. We are aroused about it, and I verily believe that so great a complaint would be made if this were included in your bill, so great a protest would be made, and so large a number would come here that the passage of any bill at this session would be a very serious matter.

There is another point. Is not this so important a question that it ought to be considered separately and apart from the rest of the bill? You have diverse projects, I don't know what they are, that are certainly worthy of consideration, I take it. They are on the regular line of river and harbor projects. The reports have been in, not for

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I will say to you frankly, Senator, so far as you suggested in the early part of your remarks that some trade was on between New York and Chicago, so far as the allAmerican waterway is concerned, if anything was to be done in this Congress, I would be willing in behalf of the all-American route to go it alone with that and take any chance with the membership of the House of Representatives, representing as they do the people of the country, as to whether they wanted to appropriate the money for a survey of an all-American route.

Mr. BURTON. You are fair about it. Are they equally fair at the other end of the Lake system, at Chicago?

Mr. MICHAELSON. Yes, they are equally as fair, and our proposition will stand on its own merits.

Mr. BURTON. I don't say

Mr. HULL. Let me ask you a question

Mr. MICHAELSON (interposing). You charge us with unfair

ness

Mr. HULL. When you say that, it is Cleveland that is fighting it— that is what you say you are taking a partial view of the whole

thing, from the fact you live in Cleveland, and Cleveland does not want any other waterway than what they have got. Why aren't you fair to the West? The farmer is suffering more than all the other people put together. Cleveland is getting the benefit of what? Of the iron ore. To manufacture stuff to sell to those farmers of the West, and putting a price on them that is ruining them and driving them to distraction.

Now, the real truth of the matter is that this country is as much entitled to some consideration in the West as on the Great Lakes, and as much as Cleveland is. You have put in millions of dollars in the improvement of those harbors, money taken out of the Federal Treasury, and we have never complained. Now, let us be fair with each other. I think I am fair. I am for a waterway in the Mississippi River and in the Illinois River; and I am for connecting the Great Lakes with the Bay of Galveston and with Pittsburgh, and with Kansas City and Omaha. Why do you want to destroy that great country out there that is making the whole United States what it is?

Mr. BURTON. I want to answer you. I can not allow that statement to pass unanswered. For 10 years I was chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and the accusations of partiality to my own locality was never raised during those 10 years. Once the chamber of commerce came down from Cleveland and said they had seen every other member of the committee and they were all willing to put on an extra $2,000,000 for Cleveland if I, the chairman, was ready to do it. I told them, no; I sent them home disappointed. I told them, "I can not use my position for partiality to my own locality."

In all those years there never was an accusation of that kind made. A proposition was made on the floor of the House by a Member from Baltimore to add $2,000,000 to that appropriation for Cleveland, and I remember Mr. Bankhead, who was then a Member of the House of Representatives, and afterwards a Senator from Alabama, whispered to me that that $2,000,000 would go through unless I opposed it, and I arose on the floor of the House and then and there said that I was against it, that I opposed it being put on. There is nobody out in the West there that says I discriminate against them.

Why, bless you, the appropriations for the Great Lakes, in comparison with the commerce and the results involved, have been infinitely smaller than for any other portion of the country, with this enormous volume of 125,000,000 of tonnage. Take that. Pile on it the commerce of the lakes, and compare it with the other portions of the country, harbors and rivers, or anything; and that appropriation, which every student of the subject must justify, will say it is the fairest, the one to which there is no answer.

And so I must answer the accusation made against me. It is not Cleveland that is interested in this matter. I think you will find your neighboring city of Milwaukee

Mr. HULL. We expect Milwaukee to be against everything.

Mr. BURTON. Well, Milwaukee is a pretty fine city, and I think you will find Toledo, Duluth, and Buffalo

A VOICE. And Detroit.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »