DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 177

 The chronological history of the application referred to in the
above communication of the Assistant Administrator is incomplete
in that it omits mention of the most important fact that subsequent
to the date of the application (Aug. 14, 1933, see Doc. No. 35), and
prior to the constitution by the President of the board of review
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Assistant Administrator's com-
munication, a period of approximately 9 months, the Division of
Engineering of the Public Works Administration made an intensive
examination and study of the project and made a report thereon,
approving the same, and recommending the loan applied for under
date of October 19, 1933. (See Doc. No. 39.)
 The President did not constitute the above-mentioned board of
 review until after the report of the Engineering Division of the
 Public Works Administration under date of October 19, 1933, and
 the report of the Army engineers board of survey under date of
 December 30, 1933, had been made. It was to review and reconcile,
 if possible, these two reports that the President constituted the
 special board of review.

 DOCUMENT NO. 104 (FILES OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS), JANUARY 28,
 1936

 COMMUNICATION FRBO CHIn or ENGINEER TO SENATOR FL~TCHER

 Under date of January 28, 1936 the Chief of Engineers, Gen.
 Edward M. Markham, addressed the following communication to
 Senator Fletcher:
 WAn DEPArTMENT,
 OFFICE or THE CHIEF or ENOINIS,
 Washington, January 28, 1936.
 Hon. DusoAn U. FLtmroHu
 United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
 MY D&as SaAToa: In your letter of January 23, 1986, you referred to Senate
 Resolution No. 210, with respect to the Atlantic-Gulf waterway, and asked to
 be furnished with certain specific information.
 I take pleasure in furnishing this information herewith:
 1. You state that paragraph 1 of the resolution proposes an inquiry into:
 "The nature and extent of expenditures to be made from emergency relief
 funds, and subsequent expenditures for construction and maintenance to be
 made from regular funds", and ask whether or not in my opinion there has been
 sufficient competent survey, examination, and study of this project to determine
 its construction and maintenance cost with the same degree of accuracy as in
 the case of other river and harbor improvements in general heretofore approved
 and constructed. The investigations undertaken by this Department with re-
 spect to the Atlantic-Gulf waterway have been as exhaustive and detailed as
 those normally undertaken in connection with the preliminary examinations
 and surveys of river and harbor projects. This Department has realized from
 the inception of this examination that the magnitude of the project required a
 comprehensive study and its investigations, undertaken over a period of 6
 years, were conducted in scope and detail sufficient to establish construction
 costs with reasonable accuracy. The estimated cost of maintenance which must
 be based in large part on the experience gained from the maintenance of the
 many river and harbor projects throughout the country would also appear to
 be dependable.
 2. You refer to paragraph 2 of the resolution which proposes an Inquiry
 into: "The sufficiency of plans and information to determine whether the canal
 should be a sea-level or a lock canal, and whether It should be 30 or 35 feet
 in depth", and ask if I believe that there has been gathered a sufficiency of
 such plans and information to determine whether the canal should be sea-