180 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLOIDA CANAL

the Administrator delivered copies of the same to Mr. Buckman for
Senator Fletcher, together with the following memorandum:
 FtmaN la or Amawmmaow or PoIwo Wms,
 WMMhngto, D. O., ebrwar 8, 19W8.
 Complying with Senator Fletcher's request, I herewith transmit to Major
 Buckman exhibits connected with the Florida canal, docket no. 139, and corre-
 spondence previously referred to Senator Vandenberg, with the addition of a
 photostatted copy of an intradivision report. The latter document does not
 represent the oicial findings of the Public Works Administration, not having
 been approved by the Director of the Engineering Division.
 LaNA B. GBAHAM,
 Executive Assistant, for the Administrator.
 The above memorandum is in error, in that it states that the "intra-
 division report" referred to in the memorandum was not approved by
 the Director of the Engineering Division. The so-called "intra-
 division report" was in fact a report by the Engineering Division and
 was duly approved by the Director and became the authoritative opin-
 ion of that Division.

 DOCUMENT NO. 107 (FILES OF BOARD OF REVIEW), FEBRUARY 10,
 1936
 CoMMUNICATION Faox SENATro FL mETC TO ILr. COL. B. B. SoEm-
 VELL, RECORDER, BOARD or REVIEW

 Under date of February 10 1936, Senator Fletcher addressed the
following communication to Colonel Somervell, who had served as
recorder of the President's board of review:
 PFUma Yr 10, 1936
Lt CoL Bmmro B. Soxm Vu.,
 Member and Recorder, Board of Review, War Department,
 Woshington, D. C.
 Mr Dala C aowm SoxmamLL: I have before me copy of the report of the board
of review for the Florida Canal under date of June 28, 1984. My understanding
of this report is that the board recommended to the President a sea-level canal
of 80-foot depth, and found that the cost of such a canal will be approximately
$148,000,000 exclusive of land and interest during construction, and that the
board found, further, that the project is justified by the criteria ordinarily
applied to river and harbor projects at a cost of $180000,000 or more. I have
also before me a supplementary report of this board which is responsive to a
directive from the President that the project be examined with a view to its self-
liquidating possibilities, and finding adversely on this aspect. I understand,
further, that this latter finding has no reference to the board's first finding that
the canal is Justified on the total benefits, when judged by the criteria ordinarily
applied to river and harbor projects.
 I am advised that you served as a member of this board and were its recorder.
As a member of the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, which
is examining Senate Resolution 210, providing for an inquiry into certain matters
relating to this project, I shall appreciate your advising me as to whether my
understanding of these reports as set forth above is a correct interpretation of
the action of the board.
 Sincerely yours,
 DuncAN U. FLroua.