DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


 45. Bunker versus cargo oil.-With the shorter' voyages through the canal
between originating Gulf ports and discharging Atlantic ports, tankers will require
less fuel oil and the revenue cargo will be increased. The benefits per annum
have been evaluated at $71,000.
 II. CAReO INVaSTMENTr ACTOBe
 46. Cargoes in transit between ports are in an unproductive status but repre-
sent in the aggregate enormous capital sums on which interest and insurance
charges must be paid. The cargoes themselves suffer depreciation in quality
which is in effect a loss of capital. Through the reduction in time of transit to
be effected by the proposed ship canal, savings in in.erst payments and insur-
ance premiums should be secured. Merchandise may leave selling markets
later or arrive in buying markets earlier; capital will therefore turn more rapidly,
of for the same aggregate "returns" less capital will be required, Since the value
of Gulf cargoes was approximately $2,000,000,000, and since the average saving
in time of transit via the canal would have been at least 1 day, the savings in
interest charges at a simple 6-percent rate would have been $333,000.
 47. The insurance on cargo computed at the minimum quoted rate on a mileage
basis would have been not less than $286,000. This amount is placed to the credit
of the project on our estimate of savings. On the basis of gross premiums actually
paid for marine insurance in 1929, amounting to not less than $80,000,000 on all
the commerce of the United States, this trifling figure of $286,000 must be far
below the isvings thatshould justly be credited to the canal.'
 48. One other cargo factor enters, namely, the loss of gasoline by reason of
evaporation in transit. Through a shortemng of the voyage and by reason of
the lower temperatures attaching to a voyage through the canal the evaporation
losses now attending the traffic through the straits would be reduced by $202,000.
 III. MAINTENANCE CHARGE~
 49. Our initial researches pointed to a marked reduction in the rate of corrosion
 on tankers and other vessels by reason of the reduction in time during which
 they would be subject to the warmer waters of the Gulf and Gulf Stream, and
 also by reason of travel through the less corrosive fresh waters of the canal-
 assuming a lock canal. This same line of reason would apply to the growth of
 barnacles and sea-moss on the hulls of vessels. These growths are destructive
 of travel speed, necessitate frequent drydocking and consequent expense. The
 pertinent data and deductions were predicated on observed effects on the vessels
 using the Columbia and St. Lawrence Rivers to the ports of Portland and Mon-
 treal, the Mississippi River to New Orleans, and the effect of the fresh waters
 of lake Washington at Seattle.
 50. Upon completion of the commodity study on petroleum, in which these
 effects were discussed, it was submitted to persons engaged in the operation of
 tankers, who advise us that the factors bearing on corrosion of oil tankers have
 not been definitely determined, that the effect of 1 day per voyage in the fresh
 waters of the canal in elimination of growths on the hulls of vessels is somewhat
 uncertain, and that, in consequence, our estimated savings in maintenance factors
 (Exhibit 601) cannot now be thoroughly substantiated. As set up, these esti-
 mates amount to $2,080,000 and are admittedly an approximation. They may
 be discounted without seriously impairing our estimates of the annual savings
 or benefits to be derived from the construction of the waterway.
 51. A summary statement of savings that could have been affected by the
 proposed ship canal on the actual Gulf water-borne commerce that passed through
 the Straits of Florida during the calendar year 1929 is presented in the following:
 TABLa IV
 I. Savings in operating factors:
 (a) Saving in operating costs of vessels..----. $5, 615, 700
 (b) Saving in fixed charges on vessels.------- 6,419, 400
 ---- 12, 035, 100
 (c) Reduction in number of reserve vessels --- 920,000
 (d) Reduction in tanker tonnage devoted to un-
 productive weight; i. e., the carriage of
 fuel for the vessel; this results in larger
 productive cargoes and less voyages---.. 71,000
 991, 000

 Total----....----....................-..-----....-........... 13, 026, 100


. 21