« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Mr. BURTON. That was announced almost 20 years ago; but I do not think, except during the war, that it has ever been done.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been made prominent recently by reason of the fact that the Aluminum Company has established a plant on the Saginac River, and Hugh Cooper, a well-known engineer, at a hearing in Albany, N. Y., made the statement that within
three years they will have there a city of 60,000 people, modern in every respect, with all improvements. A representative of Canada said to me recently: “There is justification for our policy; we announced to the world that industries must come to us to develop, that we are not going to send our power to them to develop them.” That is what he said to me.
Mr. NEWTON. I understand, you have a report in your office to the effect that the Canadian interests have acquired American power plants on the Canadian side.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't know.
Mr. CHALMERS. The question of the amount of power has come up and I would like to say for the record that the fall from Lake Ontario is 224 feet. The fall from Lake Ontario to the International Dam or boundary line, is 93 feet, that leaves 131 feet fall from the dam or international boundary line to Montreal. The development at the international line is 1,500,000 horsepower approximately.
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. CHALMERS. And the international board of engineers that made a report to the international commission reported approximately 4,500,000 horsepower between Lake Ontario and Montreal, or about 3,000,000 horsepower all in Canada. The million and a half on the boundary line would be half American and half Canadian, so that the Canadian portion of the St. Lawrence waterway power would be approximately 3,750,000 horsepower, while the American portion would be approximately 750,000 horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. Since that report was made, Mr. Cooper, who is regarded as the most eminent engineer in the world on these questions, has made very complete and careful studies.
Mr. CHALMERS. I have read his studies.
The CHAIRMAN. And I have heard him speak and seen him exhibit his maps showing the studies, and he says Canada will have five and a quarter million altogether, as against our seven hundred and fifty thousand horsepower.
Mr. CHALMERS. But that is prohibitive in cost. He proposes a great number of dams that will cost millions of dollars.
Mr. Hull. This discussion now is going to come up on Mr. Dempsey's waterway and I have some other witnesses here. It seems to me we are going into another subject_unless the Senator wants to keep on the Illinois River. It is a good way from the Illinois River to Canada.
Mr. BURTON. Yes. There have been some collateral questions brought in here, of course; but the most important point on the St. Lawrence waterway is that the fall there is so much greater that an equal diversion of water would create so much more power than if diverted at Chicago. So, if you view it from the economic standpoint, it is desirable to divert it at the lower end rather than at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Senator, that the chief source of interest in the St. Lawrence is the very mistaken view entertained, much to my surprise, by men like you who have made a profound study of the subject, that we have something like an even share of that power, and it is simply a question of negotiation, while the facts indisputably are that we only have a seventh; I think when they learn the real facts in spite of any false statements that may be made, that their interest will disappear.
(Adjourned until 2.15 p. m.)
The hearing was resumed at 2.15 p. m., at the expiration of the The CHAIRMAN. Have we anything else on the Illinois River?
Mr. Sosnowski. Congressman McLaughlin of Michigan is here and wants to be heard.
Mr. HULL. I would like to have Mr. Rainey go on first, because we have had him here three times.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will take Congressman Rainey.
Mr. Hull. I have just one more, and it will only take him 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. If he is not a Member we will put on the Members first.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY T. RAINEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I promise to get through very quickly with my discussion. I am already indebted to the committee for more time than I ought to have had in the hearings which were held here a year ago.
I listened with surprise and astonishment to the speech of Senator Burton. It was a remarkable speech to make at this time. I remember that for 10 years in the House of Representatives, during the entire period of time he was chairman of this committee, voted for every one of his bills, and I joined in the applause which greeted his waterways speeches. His speech to-day sets back the clock of time in this country 50 years. It is a speech against waterways and against waterway improvement. If his position is correct, the position that he took this morning, and is the policy to be adopted by the Congress, he could have rendered a tremendous service to his country 20 years ago if he had killed every waterway bill and every waterway development suggested in any part of this country, but during his chairmanship of this committee we proceeded with the improvement of all these rivers and harbors and especially with the improvement of our western rivers.
In the future, in the next generation, when some biographer details the great services rendered by Senator Burton to his country during his long period of service, his biographer will carefully avoid mentioning this speech to-day as carefully as Lincoln's biographers avoid his Mexican War speech. That Mexican War speech has never been mentioned except as a sort of a joke, but during the war, the recent World War, the enemies of our country took advantage of the phrases
used by Lincoln in his Mexican War speech. Lincoln's greatness does not depend upon that speech. If it did, Lincoln would not be the premier statesman of this country that he is, and the speech of Senator Burton will be a joke in the next generation. He does not know what has happened in this country since his chairmanship of this committee ended, and that is the kindest thing I can say about this speech.
I recall now, as I stand here, that Benjamin Franklin once issued this sort of a pronunciamento. He said:
The time has come when we must abandon the use of rifles and guns in war and return again to the days of bows and arrows. A rifle shot or a cannon shot does not terrify the enemy like a flight of arrows through the trees, and we made a mistake in the abandonment of the use of arrows and of spears and those primitive weapons in war, and we ought to return to them now.
Does Benjamin Franklin's greatness depend upon that kind of a speech? Yet that is no more ridiculous, as we look at it now, than Senator Burton's speech.
Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if he thinks he is being fair to Senator Burton? Was not his statement this morning that he would like to see this particular improvement?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and he went on to say that he was against any effective improvement that gives us any dependable waterway in the West.
Mr. MOONEY. If it depends on water from the Lakes?
Mr. Rainey. Yes; and he referred approvingly to the remarks made by America's greatest humorist, Mark Twain, who was connected with the river, and who admits in one of his publications, when he was navigating the river on one occasion, he ran up the river 20 miles when he thought he was going down the river, and he quotes approvingly Mark Twain's possibly humorous statement with reference to navigation possibilities on the river. His speech will rank up with the declaration of Webster in the Senate of the United States, when Webster said “What do we want with the great West, with its endless mountains, its deserts, and its swampy rivers ?" He said “What we want to do is to develop this country between the mountains and the sea and not to attempt to spread over the West."
Does anybody attempt to stand by that declaration now? Yet Webster was one of our greatest statesmen. We do not call attention to that speech in order to prove it, however, and neither will the generations to come call attention to Senator Burton's reactionary waterways speech here this morning as an indication that he is entitled to any position at all as a statesman in this country. I hope it won't be done because I have had until now a profound admiration for Senator Burton, and I have followed him and his leadership, but we have reached, as far as I am concerned, the parting of the ways, and I do not regret it either, in these waterway matters.
Ågain he says "We talk about carrying the farmers' produce on our rivers." In the old days we talked about it and the report of his commission in 1910 discussed that possibility and said it could not be done. I am familiar with the report of Senator Burton's waterway commission in 1910, and I know the personnel of that commission was all that could be desired, but it is as much out of date now with the present development of transportation on these
rivers as Webster's utterance 100 years ago, and Senator Burton does not seem to know it. He does not know that the world has been progressing since he quit progressing. His speech holds no hope absolutely for the future.
If that kind of a speech obtains any following in this country, we might just as well suspend the operations of this committee, we might just as well send these distinguished Army engineers of ours back to troops again, and we might just as well save this money, we might just as well turn the transportation of this country over to the railroads of the country, the Van Swearengins and the rest of them who propose mergers which destroy the rights of minority stockholders; and the speech that Senator Burton made this morning, his surprising speech, will be commented upon with a great deal of pleasure in those railroad centers of this country who opposed waterway development and favoring now the grouping of all the railroads of this country into just a few great groups, leaving the great roads the profitable freights and destroying the short line railroads in this country, and that is what is going on at the present time.
I am sorry the Senator made that kind of a speech. He said that in Illinois when we discussed the question of the Illinois waterway, it was water power proposition. Now, I know something about that. Senator Lorimer and myself and Martin B. Madden of Chicago made that campaign in Illinois for the Illinois waterway under which we amended our constitution and are now expending $20,000,000, and we discussed the waterway and its possibilities in Illinois. Talk about that being carried only by the vote of Chicago; that proposition carried Illinois by a majority of 750,000 votes, the largest majority any proposition of public policy ever received in the State of Illinois in all the years of its history! What power? Why, of course there will be an incidental development of water power. Should Chicago within the limits of the sanitary district abandon the opportunity to develop the water power that is generated by this waterway when it is built ? Should the State of Illinois abandon the incidental water power it can develop along the Illinois waterway? Of course not. That would be an unpardonable economic waste, and no man on this committee would stand for such a proposition as that. And yet, he presents that as an argument against the lakes to the gulf waterway, because he said one State and one city are going to benefit to a negligible extent by the water power that is developed, and he stands by the proposition that develops 9,000,000 horsepower of energy along the St. Lawrence River, far from any point where it can be protected by our guns, a proposition that will build up an industrial city of 60,000 in the forests of Canada.
I am in favor of waterways. I want just as many waterways built from these interior seas of ours to the ocean highways of the world as can possibly be built. But I am old fashioned enough and American enough to insist that the waterways that we ought to develop first of all, before expending hundreds of millions of dollars in alien territory, ought to be all-American waterways connecting these lakes with the sea. The New York waterway proposition, for which the chairman of this committee stands, our own waterway for which the great West stands! He says the hopes of the farmers are not realized in the development which is going on in waterways. Why, since Senator Burton had his commission make its report in 1910, we proceeded to realize and understand the method of navigating our inland waterways. We found out how to do it during the dark days of the War and we are doing it now with barges, carrying the produce of the middle western part of this country down to New Orleans and then loading it on ocean-going vessels and sending it all over the world. The farmer is not benefited by it? There sits a man right there (Mr. Goltra), whose barges carried last year down the Mississippi River in one tow 400,000 bushels of wheat, and every bushel went abroad-enough wheat to supply. Great Britain, France, and Germany with bread for one week of time, taken down in that one tow. Last Decemberearly in December and late in October—Mr. Goltra's barge line also carried down the Mississippi River 700,000 bushels of corn, assembled at that time of the year when the farmers were harvesting their corn throughout the corn belt of this country, at that time of the year when corn is declining always in price.
You must remember—you do know, of course; you do not have to remember—that we produce a crop of wheat somewhere in the world every month in the year, and the mere influx of one wheat producing country with its wheat on the market does not affect the market as much as the immediate unloading upon the market of all the corn in the world, and we produce in the United States in the corn belt, which is extremely limited and which is along these waterways that we want to improve, 90 per cent of all the corn that is produced in all the world, and it is produced at once.
In this country we harvest wheat and the northward march of the self-binder extends for six weeks' time, from Texas until it ends in the great Northwest. The harvesting of corn commences in November and December, and it is all unloaded on the markets in a short period of time; and it is during that period of time that corn falls in price on our western farms. During that period of time, no matter what the price of corn may be now, the assembling of those 700,000 more bushels of corn in Missouri and Iowa and Illinois that went down the river, at a time when it always falls, that fact raised at 3 cents in the corn belts of the United States.
Talk about the rivers holding no promise for the United States ! Why, yesterday the barges of Mr. Goltra reached the city of Pittsburgh, and they are loading there now the largest shipment of structural iron and steel ever made at one time in the history of the world, 44,000 tons, and as his barges and the great steamer which propelled them reached the city of Pittsburgh yesterday, if Senator Burton had been there he would have heard bells ringing all over that city, the blowing of whistles in the harbor, and all over the city he would have seen streams of the citizens of Pittsburgh coming down to witness this new river development, this transportation of this immense amount of structural iron and steel down the river to Louisiana: that is its destination all of it.
Senator Burton does not know what is going on, that is what is the matter with the Senator, in the matter of river development. This is not a water-power committee, and I am not discussing water power, but we are about to build up an industrial city there in