« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Canada of 60,000 where this water power is, and we do not know how much of this is owned by one American company. We have done enough for that American company in protecting its projects heretofore; they get all their bauxite out of which they make aluminum from Central America, and the proposition is very simple; it is an all water route that they are looking for. Our barges bring this bauxite up the Mississippi River and unload it at East St. Louis and then they carry it all to Niagara Falls by the railroads and convert it into aluminum.
This bauxite now can be carried all the way by water to the site of this industrial city, and we are going to give up that business in order to turn it over to an alien country. How much of the water power Mr. Mellon's company owns I do not know; some day some investigation may disclose it, before we expend these hundreds of millions of dollars in developing an industry in an alien country where we can not protect our investment with our guns or with our Army.
The canals at the Soo are so arranged that we have canals on our side of that great waterway and yet the first canal was built in 1790 and built by the Hudson Bay Co. on the Canadian side, but we realized through all these decades that have passed the importance of having our own locks on our own side of the river there, and so we have built them on our own side, and under the boundary water treaty we can use the Canadian locks free of toll and they can use ours free of toll, but in the event of any disagreement which may lead to a military clash between the two countries we will be in position to defend our own investments and keep our own commerce going. We won't be able to do it if we expend this great amount of money on the St. Lawrence River. It is my idea that we can take that up when we find out we have more money than we know what to do with and after we have developed our own all-American waterways within our own territory.
Joe Leiter, who is one of our greatest captains of industry, told me not long ago that as soon as this waterway was opened and he had a clear waterway to Chicago to transport coal from Franklin County, Ill., right along the river somewhere here (indicating on map), 400 miles up to Chicago, that the coal would move that way. The Franklin County mines produce just as good coal as Chicago gets now in West Virginia or Pennsylvania, and they are 12 or 15 miles from this river and he told me it cost him more to transport that coal 15 miles from his mines down to the Mississippi by rail than it would cost to transport that coal all the way 400 miles to the city of Chicago by water.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is your consumption of coal in Chicago?
Mr. RAINEY. About 30,000,000 tons. The Chicago district consumes almost as much coal as the Pittsburgh district, and at the present time we are compelled to get it all from West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Illinois Central Railroad refuses to make a rate to Chicago from these coal mines, and it will cost Mr. Leiter more to transport coal from his Franklin County mines to Chicago over the Illinois Central road than it now costs to transport coal the 700 miles from West Virginia and Pennsylvania to Chicago.
Talk about waterways not being needed when those propositions are presented to us! And Joe Leiter is one of our greatest captains of industry, and he knows what he is talking about in the matter of coal and supplying the great city of Chicago.
Talk about farmers and their difficulties! One thing which will help solve the difficulties of our farmers is cheap transportation to the seaboard, and this is getting more and more important.
Two weeks ago the New York Journal of Commerce, in a column article, described the conditions on the B. & O. and Pennsylvania docks in the city of New York. There were 400 carloads of farm machinery there destined for Russia and Turkey and 200 carloads more in transit, and I took the matter up—I could not believe it, and I took the article up with the chief of our bureau of foreign and domestic commerce and asked that it be verified, and he sent me back a letter, which I have, in which he stated that the statement in the paper was not at all surprising and that it was undoubtedly true.
Last year we sent abroad $79,000,000 worth of farm implements, and we sent them abroad and sold them in Russia and in Turkey at cheaper prices than our farmers can buy them at. I am prepared to show that hand hoes which go abroad and hand rakes are valued at 40 cents apiece—try to buy them here at that price if you can. Mowers which go abroad are sold in Russia for $27 apiece, and they cost $70 to $80 here. Our self binders that go abroad are sold in Russia to-day for $168—try to buy one of them for less than $240 or $250 and see whether you can do it or not.
This is not the result of tariff. There is not any tariff on any of these things, except cream separators. What is the explanation of it? The American farmers have quit buying and are patching up their old machinery and the reports show it, and those factories with their large investments are dumping their farm machinery in Russia and Turkey, where the farmers do not pay any taxes, where they have just killed the overlords and taken away all of their lands on which they do not pay any taxes. So we are dumping our farm machinery over there, and with cheaper farm machinery on land that is not taxed, they propose to compete with us. Don't we need some cheaper way of getting to world markets with our produce, unless farming conditions are going to be more deplorable than they have ever been?
They opened three weeks ago a new irrigation project on the upper Nile, a great body of land containing 300,000 acres, for the raising of cotton. They claim that they can raise more cotton on this new reclaimed area than some of our Southern States can raise. In India they are irrigating lands more than we ever dreamed of doing it in this country, to produce with the cheapest labor in the world in competition with us, and our missionaries are telling them how to do it with our machinery.
We have to get some way of meeting this competition and selling our surplus in the markets of the world, and the way to do it is to get it there as cheaply as we can, and the way to do that is to develop these waterways that reach up to the producing sections of this country and to the farmers of this country and to give them that advantage.
I have not the figures for the Government lines, the Warrior River lines, but the amount that has been carried down on the Goltra barges is inconsiderable, I imagine, as compared with the amounts taken down by the barges which are operated by the Government, but it is all being carried down there with a saving, in freight of from 5 to 7 cents a bushel and that is largely a part of our profits.
Here sits Mr. Goltra, who operates under a lease barges and steamers leased from this Government. He is so well satisfied with the future of the rivers, if we maintain efficient channels and dependable rivers, and he has enough confidence in this country and in this committee to believe that they will do it, that he has elected to close his option and to purchase from the Government, no matter how much it will cost, those barges and those steamers which he is now operating. Mr. Goltra is one of our most important business men and has imperiled his entire fortune in that enterprise. I had rather have his judgment than the judgment of a hundred Senator Burtons as to the possibilities of our rivers, because he has got his money invested in it and he knows, and he can see the future which these developments will make possible.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Don't you think the fact that the Carnegie Steel Co. and the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co., of Pittsburgh, have invested some fifteen or twenty millions in river equipment for use on the Ohio River, is an evidence of their faith in the proposition?
Mr. RAINEY. Absolutely good evidence of their faith in the proposition.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Those are prominent business men.
Mr. RAINEY. And I do not care how many men, who have rendered good service for their country heretofore, say that the rivers have failed
Mr. NEWTON (interposing). Will the gentleman yield there?
Mr. Rainey (continuing). That is a complete argument to any argument Senator Burton or any of them may make.
Mr. NEWTON. Do you think that a railroad would make rates of 50 or 55 per cent of the average rail rate to haul freight up and down that river if they did not think it was profitable?
Mr. RAINEY. Not at all, and heretofore the argument has been that the rivers could not compete with the railroads. Your mail has been full—mine has of letters in which it is stated that the rivers can not compete with the railroads. You have all received those communications, and so have I, and I say that is a complete answer.
Now I want to go to the Illinois River proposition, which I regard as the key to the whole situation, and clearing away all the brush wood I want to read what I consider to be the vital part of this report, and I am reading from page 15 at the bottom, and when you go into executive session this is the section you will probably consider, and here is what the engineers say with reference to the development of the Illinois River:
The Illinois can be given a 9-foot channel by several methods, as shown above; two of these are of special merit.
Now, this is the engineers' report: The Illinois can be given a 9-foot channel by several methods, as shown above; two of these are of special merit, being applicable for any annual average diversion as low as 2,000 feet per second and equally applicable for a diversion as high as 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Here are the two: The two methods are (1) removal of all dams, and (2) partial canalization by removal of the two State dams and a retention of the two Federal dams, together with in each case dredging and supplementary work.
If you do anything on this subject, and I hope you will and I believe you will, you will finally in your last analysis conclude to do one of those two things, because that is as far as the engineers have gone in recommending anything, and I hope it will be the first proposition, you will adopt, and that we will take out all the locks in the Illinois River. Here is one of them at Kampsville
Mr. Hull (interposing). Before you go any further, I want you to explain to these gentlemen that that is all in your district and you know all about it.
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir; this is all in my district. Now, before going on, I want to say this, that I am more responsible than any other man in the United States for the fact of those two lower locks, the La Grange and Kampsville locks, are in the river to-day. I have gone up and down the river counseling patience on the part of people who live there, telling them that the time will come when they are going to get legislation that will take those locks out, and to wait, and I have had them wait year after year. They have been exceedingly patient and law-abiding or they would have blown those locks out of there long ago, because they are a tremendous nuisance. I ride up and down the river on boats, and it seems to me that practically half the time they go right over the locks.
Mr. Sosnowski. To maintain that channel with 10,000 cubic feet, is it necessary to take out those two locks?
Mr. RAINEY. That is what I am going to talk about now.
Mr. SOSNOWSKI. But you can maintain the channel without the 10,000 cubic feet, can't you?
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, yes, you can do it with 10,000 or 2,000.
Mr. Rainey. Yes, but it will be a river that is not navigable for barges of the kind now in use.
Mr. Sosnowski. On page 771 of the hearings before the Rivers and Harbors Committee of 1923 and 1924, Mr. Mansfield has asked you this question:
Mr. MANSFIELD. But that is contingent on the diversion of about 10,000 cubic feet per second
Mr. RAINEY. Oh, no, not at all. You can maintain a 9-foot channel there with a much less flow than 10,000 second-feet.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And without the locks?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes, that is true. That is correct, too. You can do it without the locks, and I want it done without the locks for the reasons which I am going to present and which I think will appeal
Here are the Kampsville Locks 20 miles above the mouth of the river. Here are the LaGrange Locks 40 miles from the Kampsville Locks. Here is the State lock 60 miles from the LaGrange Lockthe Copperas Creek Lock and here is the Henry Lock, 50 miles above the Copperas Creek Lock. Now, we are building locks along the Illinois waterway here, 600 feet long and 110 feet wide, the same kind of locks they are building on the Ohio River. The development
of this river is proceeding under a project adopted by the engineers 40 years ago. The recognition by the engineers of the Illinois Waterway and their approval of a waterway with dams 610 feet long in effect abandons the policy of 40 years ago—of these small locks and these dams in the Illinois River
Mr. Hull (interposing). When did they put in those two Government locks? It has been some years ago.
Mr. Rainey. It was away back in the eighties. I do not remember the exact year, but I think it was about 1885 or 1886. I remember when they adopted the 7-foot project in the Illinois River.
Mr. SOSNOWSKI. 1889.
Mr. RAINEY. What is the use of 600 feet up here and 300 feet here [indicating on map]? These locks have miter sills probably only 7 feet down. I travel up and down this river and sometimes I feel very much like going back in my cabin and locking the doors when I hear the profanity of the captains and pilots of those boats when the river is so low that they can not get over the top of these dams, and have got to delay there for 15 or 20 minutes, or 30 minutes, to open those lock gates to get through. They are a hindrance even to the navigation we now have on the river. `In tủe old days, when we did not have this diversion, they furnished an excellent fishing place below the locks, but now we haven't any fish and even this reason for the locks has disappeared.
How are you going to operate a barge of the type we use through a 300-feet lock? The dimensions of the Galtra barges are 300 feet long and 48 feet wide, and there is a usable length of only 300 feet in these old locks. How are you going to get a tow of barges 300 feet long through, I would like to know, and 48 feet wide? You would have to pull them through by ropes and probably take a day to do it.
I remember that the very first lock they built in the United States was built on the Connecticut River at Holyoke, where the rapids are. They did not know how to build locks then as we build them now, so they built an inclined plane and let the water run over it, and when the boats reached that part of the river they pulled them up with a windlass. If you leave these two little locks in, with the development that is now going on in our river transportation, you will have the same proposition that they had on the Connecticut River over 100 years ago. You might just as well have an inclined plane as to have the kind of locks now in this river.
Mr. MANSFIELD. They were built for the packet boats and not for barges of the present day?
Mr. RAINEY. They were built for the old packet boats, and the packet boats still are compelled to use them, although they do not want to. They want them taken out of the river. Senator Burton says that we can not ever develop our rivers because we do not have a river population devoted to that kind of service, and that they do have it on the rivers of Europe. I know a prominent steamboat family on the Mississippi River operating boats on the upper river, the second generation of that family are now operating those boats, struggling along with inadequate facilities.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What about the Leyhe family?
Mr. RAINEY. The Leyhe family, who live in Alton and St. Louis and operate the Eagle boats, to my knowledge the third generation of that family, is now engaged in the steamboat business.