Mr. OHLSON. It is practically the same, although there will be some advantage in the selection of the Passage Canal Bay. At Seward, when the wind blows at right angles to the present dock, it is necessary to have the ships cast loose because the swell created by the winds knocks the steamers against the docks, and would cause serious damage if the steamers were not then cast loose. DISTANCE FROM SEATTLE TO SEWARD AND PASSAGE CANAL SAME Senator ADAMS. What is the difference in distance, as between the two ports, in going north from Seattle? Mr. OHLSON. From Seattle to Seward or from Seattle to Passage Canal the distance is practically the same. Senator ADAMS. There is no difference there? Mr. OHLSON. No difference; but it will save 52 miles of railroad, because Passage Canal is located farther north. COST OF NEW RAILROAD Senator ADAMS. How much would it cost to build this? CONDITION OF PRESENT RAILROAD Senator BYRNES. What is the condition of the railroad down to Seward, which it is proposed to abandon? Mr. OHLSON. Considerable rehabilitation will be required within the next 2 or 3 years, and it is estimated that the rehabilitation cost will be between $1,400,000 and $1,450,000. Senator OVERTON. Will that make it as good a road as a new road? Mr. OHLSON. No, sir. We will always face hazards in operations; because the line between Seward and mile 66 is built mostly in the bottom of rather narrow canyons, and it crosses two divides with elevations of 700 feet and 1,063 feet, respectively. The maximum gradient of both divides north- and south-bound is 2.20 percent compensated, and there is a considerable amount of curvatures amounting to a total of 6.004 degrees. On completion of the Passage Canal line the line between Seward and mile 66 would be abandoned and structures and other material salvaged for use on repair and upkeep of the railroad. It is estimated that the salvaged material would have a value of $337,450 and the cost of salvaging would amount to $18,000. TWO TUNNELS TO BE BUILT Senator ADAMS. How many divides will the new line cross? Mr. OHLSON. There will be two low divides and there will only be about 3 miles with six-tenths of 1 percent grade. Senator ADAMS. Will there be any tunnels? Mr. OHLSON. There will be two tunnels. Senator BYRNES. On the new route? Mr. OHLSON. On the new route there will be two tunnels-one of 13,070 feet and the other of 4,690 feet. LENGTH OF NEW ROAD Senator BYRNES. And the total length of the new tracks would be how much? Mr. OHLSON. Fourteen miles, sir. The trouble on the present Seward end, gentlemen, is that during the fall there are heavy downpours of rain which erode hundreds of thousands of yards of detritus from the mountainsides and glaciers, resulting in serious wash-outs of railroad bridges and roadbed in numerous places, and the building up of the ground adjacent to the railroad grade, which has to be raised every few years; and the railroad will face this situation forever if the line is not abandoned. Senator ADAMS. This line will be protected against that type of washouts? Mr. OHLSON. Yes, sir. POPULATION OF SEWARD Senator OVERTON. What is the population of Seward? Mr. OHLSON. The 1940 census showed a population of 949 persons. Senator ADAMS. The new road will practically mean the abandonment almost to death of Seward, will it not? Mr. OHLSON. About 400 railroad men and their families will be moved over to Passage Canal. In addition, there are about 110 native children in a charitable institution called the Jess Lee Home. I do not believe more than approximately 200 persons will be adversely affected at Seward. Senator ADAMS. All right. I think we have that viewpoint, unless you have something else to add. Mr. OHLSON. Yes, sir. With reference to the contents of a memorandum written by B. C. Johnson appearing in the Congressional Record of March 19, 1914, he states as follows: The danger which now exists to interruption of traffic through the possible failure or destruction of the timber structures on the line above-mentioned can be readily and cheaply obviated by making fills of earth and rock at these points and thus eliminating the timber trestle and bridges. The cost of making all the necessary fills to replace the present structures of wood would not exceed $400,000. The railroad between Seward and Mile 64 is located on hard, solid ground or on rock and, therefore, there is no danger that this particular portion of the railroad is any more liable to destruction through sabotage or otherwise than would be the proposed new line if built to Passage Canal. It is further asserted that since the railroad between Seward and Mile 64 crosses two low passes in the hills, it is unduly expensive to operate because additional power is sometimes needed to haul trains through these passes. It should be noted, however, that the steepest grade on the present line between Seward and Mile 64 is 2.4 percent compensated. On the grades complained of, that at Mile 12 could be practically eliminated by the construction of a tunnel if the cost thereof were deemed justified. The traffic over both summits can easily be taken care of at slight expense by having an extra locomotive stationed in that area and supplied by only one crew. As compared with the interest on the money necessary to be borrowed to build the proposed new line to Passage Canal, the cost of maintaining one locomotive and one train crew on this part of the line is entirely negligible. In comment I will say that the cost of rehabilitating the Seward end will be not less than $1,339,000, and while this figure is considerably lower than the propposed line at a cost of $5,300,000, the rehabilitation work as suggested by Mr. Johnson on the Seward end will eliminate only a very small number of steel or wooden bridges and certain trestle of which there are 67, with a total length of approximately 11,000 feet. As there is water running under these structures, they cannot be filled in with either dirt or rock. It is, of course, true that during the dry season no water is running under very few of these structures, but they must be maintained in order to take care of the flow of water during rainy seasons and frequent cloudbursts. Reference his remark about the elimination of the grade at mile 12 by the construction of a tunnel to eliminate engine helper service over the mountain grade at this point. This tunnel would necessarily have to be about 112 miles in length and would cost approximately $800,000. And even though eliminating the grade at this point through the construction of tunnel, it would not eliminate engine helper service entirely as there is another mountain grade between mile 40 and mile 50 where engine helper service would be required. Therefore, if one mountain grade was eliminated, the cost of helper service would amount to approximately $36,000 annually and this expense would be doubled if serving the two mountains. Mr. Johnson's remark that tunnels must be driven in close proximity to enormous glaciers. In comment I will say that there are no glaciers in close proximity that will interfere with the tunnels in any way, and we do not anticipate that it will be necessary to heat these tunnels as there is no evidence of any seepage in any of these ridges through which the tunnels will run. Mr. Johnson's remark that he was told "that when Colonel Ohlson went into Portage Bay in a Coast Guard cutter they could not get in there and they had to return without seeing it. They had to make a second trip on account of the storm." The truth is that, while a light snow was falling at the time, it did not prevent the Coast Guard cutter from entering the bay, but as there is shallow water at the head of the bay the cutter anchored about 1 mile from the shore line and placed myself and the general road master of The Alaska Railroad in a powerboat and put us ashore without any difficulty whatsoever. Upon my resquest this powerboat returned for us in 3 hours and the entire trip was made without any intereference whatsoever from the elements. Mr. Johnson's remarks concerning the cost of construction of the Passage Canal route in which he places himself on record that this cost will run between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000. I feel certain that the estimates of $5,300,000 prepared by our engineering forces and carefully checked by a construction engineer here in Washington last year who had access to Government agencies' cost figures on labor, construction material and supplies are accurate and dependable. Reference Delegate Dimond's remark "about attempts of sabotage in one or both of tunnels on the Passage Canal route," I wish to state that there will be armed guards placed at each end of these tunnels during periods of emergency. There will be two tunnels on the proposed lines and there are eight tunnels on the Seward end. Reference Mr. Dimond's statement "that the estimate by the Alaskan Engineering Commission for the construction of The Alaska Railroad was $35,000,000. It has actually cost $73,000,000. These figures are misleading because the $73,000,000 covers many items not included in the original estimates for the construction of the railroad. To June 30, 1940, the appropriations for The Alaska Railroad plus value of equipment transferred from other Government agencies, less credits on account of deposits in the Treasury to "Miscellaneous Receipts" and amount impounded under the provisions of the Economy Act, amounted to $73,811,857.72. This amount was to cover cost of construction of the railroad, purchase of material, supplies and equipment for operation, operating deficit, acquisition of the Alaska Northern Railroad and the Tanana Valley Railroad, purchase and operation of river-boat line, development of coal mines and investigation of the mineral resources of the territory served, development of town sites, construction, and operation of hotels, operation of ocean vessels, construction, and operation of telephone and telegraph lines, power plants, hospital and other miscellaneous activities. As of June 30, 1940, the investment in road and equipment and miscellaneous physical property amounted to $57,371,928.24. Since the railroad was put on an operating basis in 1923, up to June 30, 1940, there has been sustained an operating loss of $11,571,947.40 and prior to that time and from miscellaneous operations there has been a loss of $3,669,083.74, making a total loss of $15,241,031.14. In conclusion please permit me to say that if this project is authorized that Congress will have made a very splendid investment. Senator ADAMS. How long have you been with the railroad? PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. DIMOND, RELOCATION OF PART OF ALASKA RAILROAD Senator ADAMS. Mr. Dimond, do you wish to be heard now? Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Chairman, there are two men here from Seward who would like to be heard upon this matter. Senator ADAMS. You do not care to be heard? Mr. DIMOND. I should like to be heard but I prefer to have them go on first. Senator ADAMS. We are very much limited in time. Mr. DIMOND. I appreciate that. Therefore I prefer to have you hear first these men who are here from Seward. Senator ADAMS. All right. Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Johnson, who is here, has given this matter some study. Senator ADAMS. We want to hear whichever one can give us the most information. We are interested in hearing the other side of this matter. We have a brief here that Mr. Johnson has submitted. Mr. DIMOND. We should like to have that brief go in the record. (The brief is as follows:) BRIEF SUBMITTED BY MR. BROOKS COVINGTON JOHNSON, CIVIL ENGINEER, INTRODUCTION-FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1941 By a vote of 327 to 0 the House approved and sent to the Senate the aboveentitled bill which has been referred to the Senate Committee on Deficiencies Appropriation. Title I, War Department Military Activities, item 7 (outlying defense bases) contains the provision for change of Seward terminus of the Alaskan Railroad to a point on Passage Bay approving an appropriation in the amount of $5,300,000. It is apparent after reading the following that this appropriation does not cover the purpose it was requested to perform. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. General Marshall, Chief of Staff, in a statement March 5, 1941, claims construction of proposed railroad from Portage Bay will prevent sabotage on line now operating from Seward to Anchorage known as the Alaskan Railroad (pp. 8 and 9, hearings before subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives (77th Cong.), on the fifth supplemental national-defense appropriation bill for 1941). II. Otto F. Ohlson, general manager of the Alaskan Railroad, has approved the construction of the proposed railroad from Portage Bay (pp. 231 to 246, hearings above) for the following reasons: (a) By construction of 14 miles of railroad the distance from tidewater to Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, lessens chance of sabotage. (b) Freight rates for Government to be decreased when new line is in operation by $260,000 annually (p. 235). (c) Total cost not to exceed $5,300,000 exclusive of new townsite, the cost of which is not estimated (pp. 239 and 240). III. Hon. Anthony Dimond, Delegate in Congress from Alaska, on March 5, 1941, opposes construction of proposed 14 miles of road with reservations for the following reasons (pp. 307-308 and 309, fifth supplemental national-defense appropriation bill for 1941). (a) Construction of new road would abandon 64 miles of present railroad between Seward and mile 64 and destroy the town of Seward with a loss to Government and private citizens of property valued at approximately $2,000,000. (b) By advancing $1,300,000 to repair present railroad and fill in trestles no additional new road is feasible so far as sabotage is concerned (p. 307). (c) By construction of 36 miles of highway from a point 66 miles north of Seward at Turnagain Arm into Anchorage an additional facility for national defense is ready in case of abandonment of present railroad and sabotage of one of two tunnels of proposed road at a total cost of $1,500,000 (p. 308). IV. Mr. Brooks Covington Johnson, a civil engineer and graduate from Purdue University, representing the city of Seward, Alaska, through the courtesy of Hon. Anthony Dimond had placed in the Appendix of the Congressional Record on March 19, 1941, page A-1319, a statement wherein he opposed the passage of appropriation of $5,300,000 for construction of the proposed road for the following reasons: (a) National defense would be better promoted by expending $1,400,000 to rehabilitate the present railroad than expending $5,300,000 for proposed line, which in reality will cost between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000, by the construction of two tunnels of a total distance of 18,000 feet or 3 miles long. (P. A-1319, Congressional Record, March 19, 1941.) (b) One thousand five hundred citizens of Seward and towns within 50 miles of Seward will be entirely destitute, and no advantage could be gained from either a national-defense standpoint as the tunnels if bombed would be blocked and tie up the entire line from Portage Bay to Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska. (c) These statements have also been substantiated by the mayor, city council, chamber of commerce, and leading businessmen of Seward, Alaska. ARGUMENT In General Marshall's statement, Part I of Statement of Facts, in answer to Congressman Woodrum as to any other method to avoid sabotage, stated, "I do not know of any other method we could take to avoid the hazards of the present situation. The details can be covered more specifically by General Moore and |