100 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

ment The outgoing tanker movement practically takes up the full capacity
of the ship. The Importance in effecting a saving on the tanker movement is
apparent; because in the first place the tanker cargoes are nearly all petro-
leum products on which the cost of transportation bears a heavy ratio to their
value; and, secondly, because a ship must make a round trip to effect the
movement of a single cargo.
 The Department apparently judged that the considerations voiced
by the ship operators as set forth above are not controlling, since the
general conclusions of the report as stated on page 2 thereof include
the following:
 A ship canal across the Florida Peninsula, along designated route 13-B,
may be considered practical from a navigation standpoint. Most of the potential
transits reported would have been actually made * *
and so forth.
 It should be noted that the shipping industry took up a "trading
position" on the canal from the beginning. Shipowners, especially
the Standard Oil and other large petroleum producing and trans-
porting companies, appear to have opposed the project persistently.
(See speech in the United States Senate by Senator Fletcher, of
Florida (Congressional Record, 74th Cong., 2d sess., May 30, 1936);
see Doc. No. 142.)
 For further description of the attitude of shipowners and oper-
 ators to the canal, reference may be had to Document No. 23 The
 Gulf-Atlantic Ship Canal, the Relation of Vessel Savings to Tolls,
 by Henry H. Buckman, in the files of the Chief of Engineers.


 DOCUMENT NO. 45 (FILES OF THE P. W. A.), MARCH 2, 1934

 PETITION TO THE PEsIDENT BY THE SENATORS or ALL GULr STATE
 FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OP REVIEW TO REVIEW TH
 REPORTs OF THE PUBLIC WOxs ADMINISTRATION AND THE SPECIAL
 BOARD or SURvE, UNDER DATE or MARCH 2, 1934

 The report of the Engineer's Division of the Public Works Ad-
 ministration (Doc. No. 39) was made under date of October
 19, 1933, and the report of the special board of survey of the Army
 engineers (Doc. No. 43) was made under date of December
 30, 1933. These two reports, while more or less in agreement
 as to the benefits which would result from the canal, showed a very
 considerable divergence in estimates of costs.
 On March 2, 1934, the following communication was addressed
 to the President:
 UNITED STAT S SENATE,
 March 2, 1984.
 Hon. FnuAKLin D. ROOSEVELT,
 The President,
 The Whte, House, Washington, D. 0.
 MY DEAa Mn. PEEsnBIT: In the matter of the Gulf-Atlantic ship canal, it
 appears that the engineers of the Administration of Public Works and the
 board of survey of the Corpe of Engineers which has been examining this
 project are in agreement on the fundamental propositions that the canal would
 be productive of great and widespread benefits to the commerce of the Nation;
 that it is feasible and practicable; and that the so-called St Johns-Withlacoo-
 chee route is the best location for the waterway. However, on the basis of
 the same physical data, they diverge widely as to the cost of construction,