Lapas attēli

Mr. BURTON (continuing). And Detroit, perhaps more than all of them.

Mr. MOONEY. I think I should answer Mr. Hull, since his accusation was made against Cleveland and I am a citizen of Cleveland. I just want to say to him that the only project, perhaps, in this entire session of this committee that I have opposed is this diversion of water from Lake Michigan, and that is for the reason it is harming the transportation on the lakes, not because I do not want Chicago to have it and I resent the charge that Cleveland alone is opposed to it.

Mr. BURTON. An appeal has been made for the West. Just think, as I have said already, thirty-six million dollars was saved to the farmers of the Northwest and Canada-I must include Canadain one year by the fact that their grain could be carried on the Lakes. Now,

do you want to put that transportation into difficulty ? Mr. HULL. Let me tell you something

Mr. BURTON (continuing). Do you want to put it down so that not so much can be hauled, and at a greater cost?

Mr. HULL. I would like to answer it this way. If you give us this waterway and you are saving thirty-six million dollars now to the farmers, we will save them fifty times that, with this Mississippi Waterway completed.

Mr. BURTON. I would like to agree very much with my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Hull, but I have had experience.

Mr. HULL. I am not a spring chicken

Mr. BURTON. For 13 or 14 years I listened to these glowing accounts of what would be done with the opening of waterways. It was said that the farmers of the country would be so benefited that they would be placed in clover, that millions of tons would be carried on this or that waterway; and I am frank to say, Mr. Hull, your anticipation seems to be about the most groundless of any I ever heard in all those years.

Mr. MORGAN. May I ask a question? If I understand the Senator, his conclusion on this matter is that if the committee considers the matter of the Illinois River transportation, he proposes that it should be done through separate legislation.

Mr. BURTON. I favor, first, postponement until the Supreme Court decides it, until we have more adequate information. If the committee does not see its way clear to do that, support this proposition, let it be considered separately. I do not think it ought to be engrafted upon a rivers and harbors bill in which there are many projects of a very different standing.

Mr. KUNZ. It has been before the committee that before the drainage canal was finished there was a commission appointed by the British Government, in conjunction, I think, with our Government, to make an investigation and report, and the report of the engineers of both of those Governments was that it would require a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet

Mr. BURTON. I am not dwelling upon-
Mr. Kunz. But let me get through.
Mr. BURTON. Certainly.

Mr. Kunz. When the treaty was signed no provision was made in that treaty for 10,000 cubic feet. Yet, Mr. Root, who was Secretary of State at that time, agreed, as did the British Government, that the diversion of 10,000 cubic-second feet at Chicago for the drainage canal would be taken out of the Lakes. Now, in all the agreements and understandings that have been had, the diversion that was given to Canada was 36,000 cubic feet and 28,000 cubic feet given to this country

Mr. BURTON. No; 20,000.

Mr. Kunz (continuing). They have figured on the 10,000 cubic feet to be diverted from the lake into the drainage canal, in all those agreements and understandings; is not that true?

Mr. Burton. There are two or three propositions there. In the first place, what I am arguing for here is the navigation problem on the Great Lakes. I have referred to the trouble that Canada could make for us and there is a certain amount of comity that is due in all our dealings with them, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. We are at all times in constant relation with Canada.

Mr. BURTON. And we have to be careful, yes; but I put that aside. What I am dwelling on here is the interest of the navigation of the Great Lakes, the interests of that great region. Now, I doubt whether Secretary Root was very much posted on that matter. I know something about it myself because I was here at the time that treaty was made. There were three questions discussed in fixing that difference of thirty-six thousand and twenty thousand. First, there was an American company in Canada that was diverting water for power on the Canadian side, and that power was being sent to Buffalo and other points on the American side. That was No. 1. In the second place --and this is a pretty strong argument—there was consideration of the fact that the flow of the water was far greater on the Canadian side at Niagara Falls—and I think I may say with confidence, because I had conversations with Ambassador Bryce and others in regard to it, although I did not have anything to do with the final framing of the treaty—that was a fact which was considered—but no conclusion was drawn nor did it reach the status of a real argument about the diversion at Chicago. That treaty has been interpreted in different ways and what does it mean? Does it mean that Canada has a right to object to the diversion at Chicago ? She is claiming it.

Mr. Kunz. Another thing, as stated yesterday by a witness, that the State of Illinois issued bonds and spent a good deal of money in building this canal under instructions from the Government.

Mr. BURTON. Which canal do you mean? Mr. Kunz. The drainage canal. Mr. HULL. What we call the Illinois waterway. Mr. BURTON. That is, you mean between Lockport and the Illinois River ?

Mr. Kunz. Yes. Now, when you were chairman of the committee I believe Mr. Lorimer was a member of the committee ?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, he was a member of the committee for quite a while.

Mr. KUNZ. And he was very much interested in some waterway from Chicago to the Gulf; you remember that?

Mr. BURTON. Oh, well, that is a question that I do not think arises at this time. He argued in favor of this waterway in 1905 and was defeated about three to one.


Mr. Kunz. The only question is to show the intent at that time.

Mr. BURTON. The water was flowing through the drainage canal at that time, 4,167 cubic feet a second, and the original requests for permits were not for abstractions from the Lake, they were for abstractions from the river.

Mr. KUNZ. I understand that was the city of Chicago; but we are now trying to legislate in the interests of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. No; in the interests of the United States.
Mr. KUNZ. The United States, yes.

Mr. BURTON. I would like it if we could get together 10 years from now to see if Mr. Hull's glowing anticipations are fulfilled. I would be glad if they were, but I have been disappointed about waterway projects a multitude of times, and I have been compelled to recognize the very wide gulf between anticipation and realization.

The CHAIRMAN. But, of course, we have to remember that we are disappointed the other way, too.' Take the Panama Canal, for instance, and the Isthmian Canal Commission employed the very man who is regarded as the very best traffic expert in the United States to examine what the probable traffic would be in the future. He estimated the traffic for 1924 to be 11,375,000 tons. We had 28,300,000 tons.

Mr. BURTON. There was one reason for that—the unexpected development of oil in California.

The CHAIRMAN. No; take your oil out and you still have nearly twice the anticipated traffic. The oil was 9,000,000 tons.

Mr BURTON. Are you sure of those figures? Of course you can not compare deep with shallow-water navigation.

The CHAIRMAN. I am absolutely sure of my figures. Now, you should not deduct the oil at all, because this country is a new country. You are going to have discoveries in the future just as you have in the past discovered new and unexpected sources of wealth and traffic from time to time. Let me point to this. We did not know until a few years ago that we had any water power on the Tennessee and its tributaries in a commercial sense, at all, aside from Muscle Shoals. This committee gave a survey down there and we discovered, to our perfect amazement that we had three million horsepower. It is estimated higher than that now; it is one of the greatest horsepowers in the world. So you may discover oil in one place, and you may discover unexpected water power in another place, and you may discover sulphur in another place, and gypsum in another place, and so on all over the country. We have only scratched the surface. Wherever you go you will find new, unexpected, vast sources of wealth, and you should anticipate that in any estimate you give. And so, while they could not anticipate oil in particular, they did have the right in making their figures to anticipate that there would be some great freight that they could not see and could not estimate, but which in a new country would be certain to come.

Mr. BURTON. Let me suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the logical order is not to build your transportation lines or open your waterways in hope that some sulphur or oil or something else will be developed; but to wait until they are discovered.

Now, about the Tennessee River, I must give you some information that you have not. The Rivers and Harbors Committee, long

to you,

before the agitation in regard to Muscle Shoals, recognized the amount of water power in that river and its tributaries, the little Tennessee and the whole list. In the early part of the century, the bill was passed to put a dam at a place called the Suck, about eight miles below Chattanooga, and it was recognized that there was water power in other places.

The CHAIRMAN. What I said was that we did not know that there was power there in a commercial sense; that is, that could be developed in sufficient quantities and at low enough price to make it commercially valuable. That is the testimony of the engineers before us—that they did not know that; that they had never found the quantity or the aggregate amount in any sufficient or aggregate amount at that time to justify any such wonderful things as was discovered.

Mr. BURTON. I will tell you what the facts are about that. We recognized that there was an enormous water power on the Tennessee River, but a difficulty was the lack of uniformity in the flow, and there was consideration given to the development of reservoirs and tributary streams, such as the Tallapoosa. It will be interesting

if you are interested in Muscle Shoals, to know that: With every dam that is built the uniformity of flow of the Tennessee River will be increased.

The CHAIRMAN. And the power is going to come.

Mr. BURTON. And, of course, the amount of power that is going to be developed

The CHAIRMAN. And it is going to be converted from secondary power into primary power.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. At Muscle Shoals you must take that into account, Mr. McDuffie, that when you have that dam there and other dams above it, and in the tributary streams, that great defect, if I may call it such, in the development of the water power in the Tennessee River will be cured and the amount of primary power will be very much increased.

General Bixby. Mr. Chairman-
Mr. McDUFFIE. I want to ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman McDuffie.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I was not present, unfortunately, when you came in, Senator. I am one member of the committee who appreciates the great amount of study you have given to this great problem, and while we may differ with you, we have great respect for your views because of the long service which you have rendered along this line.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I did not exactly understand what your attitude in full, as a whole, is with reference to this particular navigation project. Of course, we are dealing primarily with navigation.

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. McDUFFIE. You understand the engineers have said that they can develop a navigable waterway from the Great Lakes down to

Mr. BURTON (interposing). Grafton, or the mouth of the Illinois River.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Yes. Nine feet depth by 200 feet in width, with any amount of water from 2,000 cubic feet. per second, and up to 10,000 cubic feet per second. They recommend to this committee that the committee do not endeavor to fix the amount of water to be diverted through that channel, leaving that to the Secretary of War to adjust it as the occasions may demand. Suppose the committee should decide to authorize a permanent diversion of, say, 7,500 cubic feet, which is at least 800 cubic feet less than is now being diverted.

Mr. Burton. Eight thousand five hundred are being diverted now.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Suppose this committee would want to fix an amount less than is now being diverted for the purposes of navigation alone, giving assurance thereby that hereafter there would not be more than seventy-five hundred cubic feet diverted at Chicago; do you think that that would in any way settle this great controversy ?

Mr. BURTON. I do not think it would settle it, but I should be entirely opposed to it. That is, in view of the enormous disparity between the traffic on the Lakes and—because you can never expect to have in that waterway more than a small fraction of the traffic on the Lakes in making any provision the amount diverted from the Lakes should be kept down to the minimum. I do not really see, however, how you can with the present reports before you fix any amount, and that is the reason why you ought not to act.

Mr. McDUFFIE. You mean as a policy, we should not act?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, until the Supreme Court decides what the legal rights are.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Would it not put it squarely before the Supreme Court, if we did act?

Mr. BURTON. It is as squarely before the Supreme Court now as it ever will be.

Mr. McDUFFIE. It is?

Mr. BURTON. Yes. I am not so familiar with proceedings in the Supreme Court, but, first, there is the contention of Michigan that there is no right whatever to divert from one waterway to another.

The CHAIRMAN. Which is purely a question of law. Mr. BURTOX. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And on which you do not need any evidence. Mr. BURTON. That will probably be decided before next winter. The argument is set for the 4th of October.

Mr. McDUFFIE. It has been decided by the engineers that a channel could be established there for about a million and a half dollars; but you are opposed to this, in the first place, as a waterway.

Mr. BURTON. Oh, no.
Mr. McDUFFIE. You are opposed to any navigation scheme.
Mr. BURTON. Oh, no.

Mr. McDUFFIE. You do not think the country is justified in taking from the public treasury money enough to make this a waterway.

Mr. Burrox. Oh, I am not opposed to this as a waterway but what I want to impress upon the committee is that they ought not to indulge in any vagaries. Don't listen to any moonshine about its importance, and its importance is out of proportion with the importance of the lakes, and you ought to reduce your allowance of the water that is to be permanently diverted to a minimum, and you ought, further, to know just where you are before you fix any amount, in order to be sure of your grounds. I am frank to say

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »