174 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 Mr. Pmsaox. The width varies, depending on the cuts The higher above
 sea level, the wider it will have to be because of the deeper cut.
 Mr. SrTlS. Large ships would pas through it?
 Mr. Pm iN. It would take ships of 80-foot draft.
 Mr. Sim.a It is contemplated that they could take any of the ocean-going
 merchant ships navigating those waters, or that such ships would pass through
 the canal in order to take the short cut?
 Mr. PelrsoN. Yes; I think so. A number of shipowners say that they will
 not use it because it will slow down the ships going through, and that there
 will be additional hazards.
 Mr. Simm. What do you mean by additional hazards?
 Mr. Pm lsoN. Taking a ship through a canal is a hazard which you do not
 have on the open seas.
 Mr. Swirm Even in going through a large canal?
 Mr. Pmmowm. Yes; any canal.
 Mr. Simm. Would the hazard in passing through this canal be greater than
 passing through the Panama Canal?
 Mr. PmaeoN. I could not say, because I do not know as to that. It will have
 a rock bottom, and the sides in many portions will be rock.
 Mr. SNiBm Do the people of Florida as a whole want this canal completed?
 Mr. Ptrmaon. Those in the canal area and those north of it, as well as some
 south of the canal, favor it, while some south of the canal are up in arms
 against it There are some that fear because of the effect it will have on the
 water supply. Others feel that it will be a waste of money.
 Mr. Siwrm Taking all of those things into consideration, in your judgment,
 would this canal be a good thing?
 Mr. Pmmasow. I am against it. I feel at the present time that it is a waste
 of money. I feel that the feasibility of this canal is something that Congress
 should determine in an orderly way, after receiving testimony from the Army
 engineers. I think that Congress should go Into it in an orderly way. In
 other words, I believe that it is a project of too great magnitude to be handled
 piecemeal as a public-works matter.
 Mr. Pows. In other words, if Congress approves the canal, you will have
 no objection to it, nor will a majority of the citizens of the State of Florida. Is
 that the answer?
 Mr. PEmsON. I would reserve the right to oppose the bill, because, on the
 basis of the studies that have been made, and the reports of the Army engi-
 neers, I believe that the project is economically unsound. If t is handled in
 an orderly way, and Congress approves it, after hearing all the facts, there will
 be nothing left for this committee to do but to provide for it. I do not believe
 that it would be fair to this committee nor fair to the advocates of the canal,
 to say, "We will give $1,000,000 this year, or $8000,000 or $10,000,0000" and
 leave it in the status of a Public Works project entirely. I do not think it
 would be fair to place this sort of an item in your bill, not knowing how much
 smaller waterways will suffer on account of it. In the meantime, they may
 start a great big gash in the middle of the State, and finally abandon it. I
 feel that it should be handled in an orderly and legal way.
 I thank you for the opportunity to appear.


 DOCUMENT NO. 102 (FILES OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS), JANUARY
 23, 1936
COMMUNICATION FROM SENATOR FLITCHRE TO CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

 Under date of January 23, 1986, Senator Fletcher addressed the
following letter to Gen. Edward M. Markham, Chief of Engineers:
 UNrID STATEs SENAT,
 CoMMIrrTT ON BANKING AND CUmBBNNT,
 January 23, 1936.
Maj. Gen. EDWARD M. MAB KAM,
 Chief of Engineers, War Department,
 Wacshngton, D. C.
 Mr Dn a GEBNIAL MABHAM : In further reference to Senate Resolution 210,
regarding the Florida canal, and the information given by you in this matter