easy; it is simple. Lake levels of Superior have been maintained by just the proposition that we propose. They have not let the water down from Lake Superior, and, of course, to some extent that has lowered the levels of the lakes below. That lake has been

kept higher for power purposes. The Secretary said the other day that power would be created as the result of this flow to the waterway. True, it would to some extent. And that a greater amount of power could be created if the water was prevented from going in the other direction. That is probably true also. But the economic question involved, as stated by the Secretary, is one about which there might be a good deal of dispute.

In the first place, we must admit that the transportation of commodities through the waterways in question here would not in itself offset the economic disadvantages if the premises from which the Secretary argued were correct, that he referred to; but if you take into consideration the advantages that will accrue to the shipping public, particularly to the agricultural shipping public, the reduced rates which they would be able to obtain as a result of the creation of this waterway, adequately supplied with water, they would more than offset any of the economical disadvantages that the Secretary called the committee's attention to the other day. And let us look at this thing in its larger aspects, now merely from the standpoint of how much power you can create here, or how much power you can create there, but how much comfort you can give the people who really need the comfort now.

To whom am I referring? I am referring to the man who stands behind the plow, from daybreak sometimes until sunset, who has no chance to collect any dividends on account of the earnings of any water-power company, but who must eke out every dollar that comes into his possession by the hardest kind of toil. Let us look at this from the standpoint of the American people, the men that toil. And see how much advantage we could give them. We have no desire to do any injustice to any interests. We represent, as nearly as we know how, all of the American people, in all their phases, and we want simply to harmonize the benefits that are likely to accrue as the result of this large investment out of the pockets of the American people, out of the pockets of those who will not themselves perhaps enjoy any of the advantages-because I do not presume to say that you can make any facility that will carry the same amount of advantage to every citizen in the country, because the conditions are not such as to make that possible.

For example, we have another problem. I do not like to bring it in here, but nature has so constituted our situation as to make Lake Michigan our only water supply, and while we are talking about navigation we must remember that you can not have any navigation if you have not any people, and we can not use a water supply that has been contaminated; and sometimes, if you do not have a large flow, you have typhoid fever. That is a serious menace. That should not be overlooked. A few extra dollars of earnings by some water-power company ought not to have any place in that picture.

Now, we are ready to meet the cost of restoring to the extent that it can be restored the water levels of the Lakes. We have already

put up a million dollars in the Treasury of the United States as a guaranty that we are ready to meet that situation. We are not asking the Government for money. All the money that could be expended out of the Federal Treasury in connection with this improvement is a mere bagatelle; it would not be a million dollars; it would not be $2,000,000 anyway. We will make our check for that, if it is necessary to meet that situation, and make the improvement for the Government, if it gets hard up. And what we want to do is to meet this situation in the broadest national spirit. It may be said of those who are interested in navigation that these artificial facilities that we seek the authority to employ to keep up the lake levels might be a menace to navigation. Absolutely not at all. Navigation can not be impeded by any such process, and it can not be possible that anybody can be convinced if they will only look the facts in the face, that the water that has been taken from the lake to the Chicago Drainage Canal, which is a part of the great ship canal to the sea, built at the expense of our own people, will injure navigation.

We can not guarantee that the rainfall will be such as to fill the lake up next year, and neither can anybody else; and irrespective of what may be done in this case there is no evidence anywhere, and it is not susceptible of proof, that you can restore the lake levels without artificial barriers, without you guarantee that God will send the rainfall that will meet the situation; and I have not seen anybody yet big enough for that. They can all talk about it, but they have not been able to show us how to do it. They may try to use artificial means to disturb the elements and bring the rain down, but it won't be enough to meet this.

Now, what we are here to talk about-I think I have said enough on that I think that in the expenditure of the public money that we want to meet, whatever the situation is that may arise in the broadest spirit of American cooperation. We do not want to discriminate against any section or any interests, and we do not want to spend any money for any purpose unless that purpose is justified. But we do, in my judgment, want to supply every ligitimate facility that the situation of the country demands, and in supplying that facility we must so supply it that it can be utilized by other similar facilities that have been utilized on other waterways, if the commerce of the section through which we are proposing to cut this waterway demands that their facilities be employed in that section.

If you can not do it that way, you ought not to do it at all; it would not be justified, it would be discriminatory, it would subject you to criticism, and properly subject you to criticism. The criticism would not be complimentary, and I would not like to have anything uncomplimentary said about so distinguished a body of men as the gentlemen sitting around this table, who have been so nice to me in letting me make this statement. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seger has some twenty-one people here from New Jersey who would like to be heard, and they have to leave before 5 o'clock. I think we should give them an opportunity to be heard. I say this preliminary to any questions to be asked Mr. Madden, because I want to impress the committee that we have been all over this ground, not once, but five hundred times, and we had a hearing that lasted two months, and when we get into execu

tive session we are going to discuss all of these points, and I do not believe anybody is going to change Mr. Madden's views by questioning him. We are very glad, indeed, to have heard him and we have his statement in the record; and I understand that Congressman Hull has one other witness who had not completed his testimony.

Mr. HULL. And has to leave on account of sickness.

Mr. MADDEN. I am sorry I took so much of your time.

The CHAIRMAN. We have been glad to hear you. I say all this to impress on the committee that we must be as expeditious as possible, because we have to take this matter of Congressman Seger's up, and we ought to take it up before lunch and give these witnesses a hearing as promptly as possible.

Mr. SOSNOWSKY. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for whom I have the highest regard, whether it would be wise for this committee at this time to recommend any improvement in the Illinois River, while several suits are pending in the Supreme Court?

Mr. MADDEN. Well, I take it for granted that the Congress is the only body in the United States that has the power to fix a policy in which you make a declaration for this improvement; that is, fixing the policy. I do not think the Supreme Court has any right to fix the policy of the Government. They may interpret the propriety of the policy, but they have no right to fix it. And if the Supreme Court has any question, for example, if there is any question before the court

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear the next witness, if there are no further questions.

Mr. MOONEY. I would like to ask two or three questions. Yesterday General Taylor said that the city of Chicago was proceeding very earnestly and very expeditiously with the building of disposal plants.

Mr. MADDEN. I am glad you asked about that, because I would like to say something about it.

Mr. MOONEY. You are in sympathy with the problem?

Mr. MADDEN. Indeed I am. I was one of those who urged it very strongly.

Mr. MOONEY. And your chief interest in this bill now is for navigation, because you hold that Chicago will directly handle its sewage as other cities do?

Mr. MADDEN. I want to preface my answer to that question this way. In the first place, when the Supreme Court decided that Chicago ought to change its course, and left it with the Secretary of War to say what quantity should be taken from the lake, I was perfectly happy to join with the Secretary of War and the other Government authorities to fix as stringent conditions as they might want to impose on the authority to use the water, and agreed to everything they did impose. Now, the first year of the imposition of that has resulted in the expenditure of $19,000,000 by the city for the employment of remedies to dispose of the sewage. It will take 20 years to do the work that is required to be done, and you can not do it in less time than that because you can not raise the money by taxation in less time than that. But to the extent that the power of taxation exists, either by the issuing of bonds or otherwise, the com

munity will employ every means to reach the conclusions that were imposed by the War Department.

Mr. MOONEY. Well, then, of course

Mr. MADDEN. But even when that is over, I want to say you still have to have the water for navigation.

Mr. MOONEY. I was just coming to that

Mr. MADDEN. And I am answering in advance, because I thought I knew what your next question would be.

Mr. MOONEY. The point I want to get is that you want to use the smallest possible amount of water that will accomplish your purpose? Mr. MADDEN. Yes; and I consider that 10,000 cubic second-feet is the smallest amount.

Mr. MOONEY. But you want to use the smallest amount possible? Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

Mr. MOONEY. General Taylor testified that it could be done with 2,000 cubic second-feet.

Mr. MADDEN. General Taylor and I do not agree on that.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be found in the report.

Mr. MOONEY. You referred to Mr. Hering in connection with the International Waterways Commission; was that the same Mr. Hering that was the engineer of the Sanitary District of Chicago? Mr. MADDEN. No; I would not be sure. I just made that statement from the record. That was a quotation.

Mr. MOONEY. I just wanted to know if you knew that the expert of the sanitary district had made the statement that the difference between handling it with one quantity of water or a greater quantity of water was merely a question of money?

Mr. MADDEN. I will just say that so far as the names are concerned I simply quoted the record.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I was very much impressed with the very strong statements that Mr. Madden has made. I thought you were going to take the position that navigation was of primary concern so far as this committee was concerned in dealing with this proposition. Mr. MADDEN. Yes; didn't I?

Mr. McDUFFIE. I thought you did, but the latter part of your statement seems to indicate that regardless of what the engineers have to say about the amount of water necessary to maintain a 9foot channel, that there ought to be 10,000 feet taken. Now, that necessarily means that you want the amount over and above that for necessary sewerage purposes, that is practically a summary of your statement.

Mr. MADDEN. Well, I do not admit that exactly. I would say that there is, of course, more or less sanitation connected with it; you can not get away from that, and do justice to your own conscience; but I do say, and let me answer this please

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you realize this; that we have no jurisdiction over sanitation

Mr. McDUFFIE. I understand that

Mr. MADDEN. Let me answer the question. I think that the navigation itself, as I said before, will be inadequate if you do not take out the locks in the Illinois River; that if you do not do that, it won't be a waterway in the sense it should be, and if you can not do that without continuing the flow. That is the navigation side of it.

Mr. MCDUFFIE. In other words you think if you do take out these locks and you say that it is necessary

Mr. MADDEN. It is.

Mr. McDUFFIE. In order to have the proper sort of a stream there. Mr. MADDEN. Yes; it is.

Mr. McDUFFIE. If you do take out these locks it is going to necessitate the flow of 10,000 cubic feet.

Mr. MADDEN. That is my judgment.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Just one more question. You said something about the economic situation of power. I wanted to find out who proposes a development of power on this stream; is it the State or private enterprise or the city of Chicago?

Mr. MADDEN. No; the city has not anything to do with it. I don't know who has, but if there is anybody, I suppose it would be the State.

A VOICE. The sanitary district.

Mr. MADDEN. That would just be within their own territory.
Mr. McDUFFIE. Yes.

Mr. MOONEY. If I may impose once more, I would like to ask this: In your statement you said that with these Government locks, the boats that go from Pittsburgh to New Orleans could not go back to Chicago.

Mr. MADDEN. That is it.

Mr. MOONEY. I think you meant to say that their loads would have to be broken up.

Mr. MADDEN. I meant to say exactly that, that you can not send through a lock that is only 300 feet long and 75 feet wide a boat that is built to go through a lock 600 feet long and 110 feet wide.

The CHAIRMAN. It means breaking the tows up. Where you send larger tows through the State locks, you have to break those up into the smaller Federal locks.

Mr. MOONEY. I did not think you meant that.

Mr. MADDEN. Of course, I don't know how you are going to do it. We are not providing the transportation, we are just providing the water for the transportation, and we do not know what the owners of transportation facilities are going to do.

Mr. KUNZ. Your judgment on the amount of water is predicated on the report of the engineers, is it not?

Mr. MADDEN. I think you will have some trouble in finding out what the report of the engineers is.

Mr. KUNZ. You read General Taylor's report. He said it would require 10,000 cubic feet, and then again he says it does not require that much.

Mr. MADDEN. If you take his extreme report, it says 10,000 cubic feet. If you take it the other way, it might be less than that. But I base my statement on the needs of the navigation facilities that will be necessary to meet future demands.

Mr. McDUFFIE. Then you think that this committee, if it does anything at all, ought to designate the amount of the flow of water through the canal at Chicago in addition to adopting the engineer's report that we ought to go further and say that no more than 10,000 cubic second-feet shall flow down this stream?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes.