114 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 The question which the board of review was required by the Presi-
dent to answer was what proportion of the savings of the 17.7 cents
per ton would the ships pay as a cash toll, and would this amount
be sufficient to pay all maintenance and operating charges of the
canal; pay interest on the cost; and repay the cost within a reason-
able time. The board of review had already determined and re-
ported that the 17.7-cent savings per ton of cargo which they found
would be caused by the canal was amply sufficient to justify the cost
of its construction as a river and harbor project. If the ships would
yield all of this saving as a cash toll, then there would be no question
that the project could be financed by a bond issue. Dr. Emory John-
son, former special commissioner for the Panama Canal, in his letter
to General Summerall under date of September 15, 1933 (Doc. 37),
gave it as his opinion that shipping would undoubtedly do just this.
The examining engineers of the Public Works Administration (see
Doc. 39), reported that the ships would pay at least 80 percent of
their savings as tolls. A difference of opinion on this point can be
pivotal, so far as the self-liquidating features of the project are con-
cerned. If the board of review had agreed with either Dr. Johnson
or the engineers of the Public Works Administration it would have
found the project self-liquidating. As a matter of fact, it assumed
that shipping would not pay as a cash toll more than 45 percent
of its savings resulting from use of the canal. This 45 percent is
equivalent to 8 cents per ton. Upon this basis and on this assump-
tion the board reported to the President under the above date that
the canal could not probably be financed as a self-liquidating project
by tolls collected from shipping.
 This supplementary report of the board of review did not affect,
 amend, or modify in any way its report of June 28, 1934, recommend-
 ing the canal as a justified river and harbor project. So far as the
 board of review is concerned, the effect of its two reports was to
 place the canal in the position of every other approved river and har-
 bor project, i. e., non-self-liquidating, but yielding such benefits in
 the public interest as to justify its cost of construction, maintenance,
 and operation.

 DOCUMENT NO. 54 (FILES OF SHIP CANAL AUTHORITY OF STATE OF
 FLORIDA), SEPTEMBER 17, 1934

 COMMUNICATION FROM SENATOR HARRISON TO THE PRESIDENT

 On September 17, 1934, Senator Harrison addressed the following
 communication to the President:
 UNrrIT STATrS SENATE
 CoMrrTEE ON FINANCE,
 September 17, 1934.
 Hon. FRA.wg.I D. RoosEvLT.
 Hyde Park, N. Y.
 DEAR Mn PREeIDENT: I have just read the communication signed by several
 of our southern Senators, including Senators Fletcher and Trammell, with
 reference to the proposed trans-Florida ship canal.
 From what I know about this proposition I feel sure it would be of great
 benefit to commerce and would give employment to many. I hope that you can
 conclude from the finding of the special board of review appointed by you that
 the project should be promptly initiated.