DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


providing for the transit of ocean-going vessels as well as barges when sur-
veyed and approved, to a connection with the Atlantic Ocean and the intra-
coastal canal of the Atlantic deeper waterways.


DOCUMENT NO. 42 (FILES OF MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION),
 DECEMBER 13, 1933

COMMxicATION FROM THE MISSISIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION TO THE
 PRESIDENT

 Under date of December 13, 1933, the. Mississippi Valley Associa-
tion addressed the following telegram to the President:
 [Telegram]
 ST. Louis, Mo., December 13, 1933.
Hon. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVILT,
 The White House, Washington, D. C.
 We earnestly petition you to include in the present program of public works
the project for a barge and ship canal connecting the Gulf of Mexico and the
intracoastal canal with the Atlantic Ocean and Atlantic coast waterways now
pending before the Board of Public Works. At a recent meeting of our asso-
ciation 437 registered delegates from 26 States unanimously endorsed a Gulf-
Atlantic waterway as economically justified and a necessary part of our
national inland and coastwise waterways system.
 MIssmisIPP VALLTa AssoCIATIoN.


 DOCUMENT NO. 43 (FILES OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS), DECEMBER 30,
 1933

 REPORT OF SPECIAL BOARo OF SURVEY, ARMY ENGINEERS, UNDER DATE
 OF DECEMBER 30, 1933

 The special board of survey of the Army engineers, having made
 a preliminary report under date of June 3, 1933 (Doc. 30), completed
 its work and made its final report under date of December 30, 1933.
 The prescribed routine for such reports made in response to an act
 of Congress, requires that they be submitted to the Chief of Engi-
 neers. The Chief of Engineers then submits them to the Board
 of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, which reviews them. Public
 hearings, pro and con, are held when in the judgment of the Board
 the importance of the project and extent of controversy, if any, is
 sufficient to warrant this. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and
 Harbors then makes its report to the Chief of Engineers, who may
 approve it, or disapprove it. It is then transmitted by the Chief
 of Engineers, with his approval or disapproval, together with such
 other comments and recommendations as he may see fit to make, to
 the Secretary of War for transmittal by him to the Speaker of the
 House of Representatives, and by him to the House. Thence it
 goes to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House and if
 approved by that committee, the project covered by the report ulti-
 mately appears in some authorization bill.
 It will be recalled that between the time when Congress instructed
 the Secretary of War (the River and Harbor Acts of 1927 and 1930)