Mr. MOONEY. The Senator referred to labor rather than to ownership.

Mr. RAINEY. All right. You go right here to this little canal, which was planned originally by George Washington, and which was the first canal we started to build and which connects Georgetown with the summit of the mountains over here, the most interesting and picturesque waterway in the United States, which has now passed under the control absolutely of the railroads.

Mr. NEWTON. And they let the water out of it.

Mr. RAINEY. They let the water out in the winter time and put it back in the summer and still operate it with mules. You go up there and talk to these lock tenders, as I have, who live in these picturesque little houses, and they will tell you that their grandfathers lived in those houses, and that they inherited the business in which they are now engaged. Talk to the captains who bring those boats down and whose children drive the mules on the banks as I have, and they will tell you that their grandfathers were engaged in that business and that is the reason they are engaged in it.

Mr. NEWTON. Is there any doubt at all, if you put the rivers sc that commerce can go profitably on them, that there will be all the labor you need to operate the boats?

Mr. RAINEY. Not the slightest. We do not have the slightest difficulty in getting labor in this country for good wages, and in order to pay good wages we must have boats that carry freight in appreciable quantities, and in order to do that we must have rivers on which they can operate.

Mr. SEGER. What, if anything, will take the place of those dams which you propose to take out?

Mr. RAINEY. Why, nothing. We do not want anything. We want them out in the interest of navigating that river and we want them out in the interest of the land owners who own the land on either side.

I am representing the only section of Illinois which has ever been injured by this flow from the lakes. We have developed there in the State of Illinois along this waterway 200,000 acres of reclaimed farms. There are 28,000 square miles in the watershed of the Illinois River. There are 400,000 acres along the Illinois River which lie below its maximum floods, and we have developed 200,000 acres of that and can develop another 100,000 acres, but these locks hold this water up against our levees. They increase the pumping expense of operation. We have got to pump the water over them as you pump the water over the dikes of Holland, and these locks increase that pumping expense, and to-day along that river pumps are operating at an expense of $300 a day, getting the water out to the river and out of the main and lateral ditches, in order that they can go ahead and plow their ground, and a large part of that expense is due to the fact that we have got to pump against the head of water in the river held against the levees by these dams.

Mr. MOONEY. What are the dimensions of these two locks?
Mr. RAINEY. They have a usable length of 300 feet.

Mr. MOONEY. And what width?

Mr. RAINEY. Seventy-eight feet.

Mr. MOONEY. Have you noticed on page 1170 of the report of the Army Engineers the following:

The project includes building of locks 10 to 15, inclusive, single locks 56 by 182 feet, with 7 feet depth on sills, and fixed concerte dams, which are still adequate for the present traffic.

That is on the Monongahela River.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes. And let me tell you about the Monongahela River. At the present time one of these steamers built by the Government, which Mr. Galtra is operating, is trying to get through those very little locks that the engineers in this report say are adequate, and the locks are 2 feet too narrow to get that ship through and they have got to employ a little steamer to pull the barges through onto the other side, and then pull them back at tremendous expense. That is the Monongahela River, and if the engineers say that a lock 56 feet wide and 300 feet long is sufficient in the Monongahela River, this experiment of sending those barges and steamers up there within the last three or four days has absolutely disproved that statement. That steamer can not get through those locks, and that is a complete answer, I do not care how much they may say that they are sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you say the dimensions were? Mr. MOONEY. Fifty-six by one hundred eighty-two feet. Mr. MANSFIELD. The coal barges you use up there are a very different type of barge from those used on the Mississippi River? Mr. RAINEY. Yes; and those barges would go right there for that coal if they could, but this first trip that they have made there has demonstrated the inadequacy of those locks, and I do not care what any engineer says to the contrary.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the most wonderful commerce on any river, I guess, in the world.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir; because they have the tonnage there and it comes in the shape of coal.

The CHAIRMAN. They have got as high as 25,000,000 tons in a

year.

Mr. MOONEY. And with the locks slightly more than one-half as large as these.

Mr. RAINEY. But you open up this river and make it possible to bring coal in large units from this part of Illinois up to Chicago, and you will find that we will bring almost as much coal up there as they will bring down through this Monongahela River. In my district at Havana they are building little barges to utilize the river in bringing the grain down the river. The old days of large traffic on the rivers are being renewed, but in a small way, nothing like what it ought to be and what would be with a dependable river.

Mr. MCDUFFIE. How far are those coal fields from this stream? Mr. RAINEY. I think they are 15 miles.

Mr. McDUFFIE. What about your freight rates to get into your barges? There is the great trouble about river transportation, where you have a water and a rail haul, the rail haul usually takes more than its share.

Mr. HULL. You know the Big Muddy River goes to these Franklin County coal mines, and you deepen that and the coal will go right into the barges.

Mr. McDUFFIE. You will not have to use the rail line at all, but you can use both of the streams?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McDUFFIE. How much is that going to cost?

Mr. RAINEY. You have that before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Mississippi from Grafton down is only 6 or 7 feet?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes; only 6 or 7 feet, and yet the proposition of Senator Burton, who wants to keep up the level of the Lakes, means that that is going to be reduced and to be below what it now is, if you shut off this water from the Lakes. His position is absolutely academic, if we are to accept the judgment of all these distinguished engineers is is absolutely academic, they can get all the harbor depths they want by building these wiers at the lake outlets.

Mr. NEWTON. Senator Burton was talking about the great roar that the people around the Lakes were going to make if they did not shut. this water off at Chicago and turn it back.

Mr. RAINEY. He only hears roars from the Lakes. The people who are interested in food production and in the development of the great interior part of this country are going to roar, too. I do not want to injure the Lakes, none of you do and you are not going to do it either; but this present flow from Chicago at the present rate is going to last for five years. Before the expiration of that time Chicago will have been able to demonstrate whether they are going to have any difficulty with the harbor depths on the Great Lakes, and she is going to do it at her own expense, at an expense of from $500,000 to $1,000,000, or something like that, a trifling expense, and Senator Burton refused to admit this afternoon that he would be for this waterway and the diversion that would make it possible. He refused to admit that even if Chicago was able to maintain harbor depths on the lakes. He says "It is an impossible supposition, and therefore I won't answer."

the re

The CHAIRMAN. We are particularly interested, Congressman, to know what you say about this bill which we have before us, commendation of the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. I know you are.

The CHAIRMAN. And on that other question-I am not speaking for anybody else but so far as I am personally concerned I do not believe that anybody should be permitted to do the work of the United States. I think, if regulating works should be placed in the Great Lakes, they should be placed there by the Government. This Government is perfectly able to do it and should do it, and I have advocated for some time that they should do it. I do not think any burden should be placed on any municipality to compel it to pay one cent to do this work.

Mr. RAINEY. I do not think so, if they are willing to undertake it. Mr. MANSFIELD. But if the municipality has acted wrongfully in reducing those levels, shouldn't they be compelled to do it?

The CHAIRMAN. This Government is perfectly able to do any work that it ought to do, and it ought to do it, in my judgment.

Mr. RAINEY. I do not care who does it. I want the lake levels/ maintained, and as to the ethical question as to whether it ought to be done by one city or another, or the entire people of the United States, I do not care, so far as I am concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. They are entirely separate questions.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, they are.

The CHAIRMAN. Ábsolutely.

Mr. RAINEY. The Chairman is right about that. In the 1922 flood the report of the engineers shows that this diversion from Chicago raised the flood level 6 inches at Beardstown, and that flood broke all the levees 18 of our levees and the report of the district engineer there shows that it caused a damage in the levee districts alone of $2,000,000, and that does not estimate the loss in the cities. The city of Beardstown, one of the most beautiful cities of Illinois, a city of 7,000 people, was completely deluged, and the people went about in boats for over a week of time.

Mr. MCDUFFIE. May I interrupt you just there?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Will a constant flow of 10,000 cubic feet have a tendency to obviate that overflow or that flood tide which you speak of?

Mr. RAINEY. I think so-with the dams out and with the erosions that a more rapid flow and a larger flow will make in the river, but that is a question for the engineers, it seems to me.

Mr. McDUFFIE. In other words, you think that you would open up the river by taking out the dams and thereby increase the current, and therefore the river will not rise to its higher flood tide in the event of your having a rainy season?

Mr. RAINEY. That is what I think.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I was wondering. As far as your problem of flood control is concerned, it looks to me like the smaller amount of water you have the less trouble you would have with flood control.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir. In other words, if we did not have any water we would not have any trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. Another objection that is raised is that if you remove your dams you get a current.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes. It is slack water navigation now, and silt settles in the bed of the river and fills it back for a great distance above these dams. With the dams out we would have a current perceptibly larger. The amount has been given; it is considerably larger.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is 211⁄2 miles an hour against either a mile or a mile and a half.

Mr. RAINEY. I think that is correct.

Mr. McDUFFIE. How much would the taking out of those dams lower that river? What is the fall between Beardstown, the lock at Henry, and the mouth? What is the fall?

The CHAIRMAN. Somewhere between 30 and 33 feet.

Mr. HULL. The fall of the river, Congressman McDuffie, is 33 feet from Utica to Grafton.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I was just wondering if 10,000 cubic feet with an open waterway would give you a navigable channel of 9 feet?

Mr. RAINEY. Oh, yes; it would. A much less flow than that would

do it. It is an engineering question.

Mr. HULL. Putnam, the district engineer, says that you can do it with 7,500 feet, but he said 8,500 to 10,000 would be better. That is his report.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, it can be done; with the present flow the 9-foot channel can be established for considerably less than $1,000,000. Mr. HULL. About $800,000.

Mr. RAINEY. Anyway, it is less than a million, and with these two dams in it would cost about three times as much.

The CHAIRMAN. It would cost $1,350,000. Do you understand what the present report is?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. The present report is this, that we make some changes in the two Federal dams and remove two State dams, and do certain dredging?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that we do not adopt any stated amount of water, but it will take down whatever water is discharged through the sanitary canal.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say as to the adoption of that report?

Mr. RAINEY. I would greatly regret the adoption of the report which would leave those two dams down at Kampsville and LaGrange.

Mr. NEWTON. That is the Government dams?

Mr. RAINEY. That is the Government dams.

Mr. NEWTON. The State dams would come out anyway.

Mr. HULL. Aren't the two State dams in much better condition than the two Government dams?

Mr. RAINEY. I do not know. I do not know so much about the State dams, but the proposition for you to consider-there are two propositions

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have, as I understand it, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, just this before us: Shall we adopt the report, which as I understand it means this, the removal of the two State dams, certain alterations in the two Federal dams, certain dredging, all of which, with the 8,250 feet which is now being received will produce a 9-foot channel, adopting no policy and expressly leaving the policy as to what water shall come down there permanently unsettled?

Mr. RAINEY. Under this report which I read a while ago, you will get a 9-foot channel for less than a million dollars with every one of them out.

The CHAIRMAN. But what do you say as to the other proposition? Mr. RAINEY. I hope that won't be adopted by this committee. Down there in my district we have been waiting for years to get these dams out.

Mr. NEWTON. What do you mean by "the other"? I do not get that.

Mr. RAINEY. Leaving the two Government dams in.

Mr. NEWTON. Then your idea would be-we have two alternatives in the chief's report on page 5 of the report, where he says:

The board especially favors two methods (1) partial canalization by partial removal of the two State dams and retention of the two Federal locks and dams.

That is one.