DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


DOCUMENT NO. 65 (HOUSE DOCUMENT FILES, H. 2785, 74TH CONG,
 1ST SESS.), JANUARY 3, 1935
 INTRODUCTION OF A BIL TO CONSTRUCT THE FLORIDA CANAL, BY
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN
 On January 3, 1935, Representative Green, of Florida introduced
 into the House of Representatives a bill to provide'for the construc-
 tion of a ship canal across northern Florida, connecting the waters of
 the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
 This bill provided for the creation of a special commission, under
 the President, to construct the canal. It also provided for the ap-
 propriation of certain funds with which to begin the work, and
 authorized the issuance of 21/4-percent bonds by the Federal Treas-
 ury to defray the cost of completion.


 DOCUMENT NO. 66 (FILES OF PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION),
 JANUARY 29, 1935
 SECOND SUMMARY REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS
 UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 29, 1935
 Reference should be had to Document No. 39, First Summary Re-
 port of Administration of Public Works. That report was upon an
 application by the Ship Canal Authority of the State of Florida for
 a loan to construct a lock canal, as a self-liquidating project, at a
 cost estimated by the engineers of the Public Works Administration
 to be $115,000,000. That application was approved and the loan
 recommended y the appropriate officials of the Public Works Ad-
 ministration, but not by the Administrator.
 The files of the Public Works Administration show that under
date of January 29, 1935, the board of review having reported that
a sea-level canal at a cost of $142,700 000 would not be self-liquidat-
ing on the assumption that ships would not yield as a cash toll more
than 45 percent of their savings resulting from the canal (i. e., 8
cents per ton), the sea-level canal as a self-liquidating project was
disapproved by the director of the engineering division, Clarence
McDonough; the Deputy Administrator Maj. Phillip B. Fleming;
and the Administrator, Hon. Harold L. Ickes.
 Examination of the first summary report and the second summary
report of the Public Works Administration (Docs. 39 and 66 re-
pectively) shows clearly that the examining divisions of the Public
Works Administration examined and approved the canal and recom-
mended to the Administrator its financing as a self-liquidating proj-
ect, but there is no record of approval by the Administrator. Ex-
amination of these two reports also shows that disapproving action
of the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, and the Director
of the Enneering Division (in the second summary report of Jan.
29, 1935, Doe. 66), was at variance with an4 not based upon exami-
nations of the project by the examining agencies of the Public Works
Administration, but was explicitly founded upon the reports of the
President's board of review (made and reported subsequent to the


125