196 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

the operation of boats in a ship canal, and concluded the time saving
was 21 and some fraction hours.
 Senator VANDENBERG. I am inclined to disagree with that.
 General MAEKHAM. Yes.
 Senator VANDENBERG. The next shipper relied upon is C. D.
 Mallory & Co., Inc., 11 Broadway, New York, dated December 80,
 1935, and signed by C. D. Mallory, president, which I assume makes
 it conclusive so far as their attitude is concerned, and one of the
 sentences is:
 We are of opinion that proposed canal does not offer sufficient saving to
 warrant serious consideration.
 Then again:
 Referring to your recent visit and discussion of a canal across the State of
 Florida: On further consideration, we are inclined to hold to our previously ex-
 pressed view that the proposed canal does not offer sufficient saving to warrant
 the expense involved.
 The next of the nine relied upon is the Brooks-Scanlon Corpora-
 tion, of Foley, Fla., under date of January 2, 1936. They state:
 Replying to yours of December 27, we have discontinued our water transporta-
 tion and have sold most of our vessels, therefore we hardly would be interested
 in the operation of boats through the cross-State Florida canaL
 The next one relied upon is the Sinclair Navigation Co., 630 Fifth
 Avenue, New York. The letter is signed by J. G. Johnson, vice
 president, who refers me to a letter of May 15, 1933, written to
 Major Dunn, of the Corps of Engineers on the same subject, from
 which I quote the pertinent portion:
 As to the necessity for or desirability of this project in the interest of navi-
 gation and marine commerce, the estimated savings in our opinion would not
 permit of the canal being operated on a toll basis as a self-liquidating project.
 If the canal were constructed by the War Department as a regular river and
 harbor project, and operated toll-free, there would be a saving to marine
 commerce.
 However, Inasmuch as there are at present waterways inadequate for the in-
 crease in size of vessels, would recommend expenditures for improvement of
 same in lieu of construction of proposed trans-Florida canal.
 The next relied upon of the nine for economic justification is the
Hartwelson Steamship Co., 10 Post Office Square, Boston, Mass.,
signed by E. J. Flood,I guess, marine superintendent, dated January
3, 1936:
 For several years now, we have been operating from Hampton Roads, Va., to
New England coal ports with our steamers, and do not anticipate that there will
be any change in our present route in the near future.
 Accordingly, we feel that any comment that we make in connection with this
proposed canal would have little value from a practical standpoint.
 That is one of the nine relied upon.
 Another is the Newtex Steamship Corporation of 17 Battery Place,
New York. These are the nine I am taking from General Pillsbury's
letter. This is signed by D. A. Moloney, president:
 The cutting of the canal would, of course, shorten the distance between ports
in the Gulf and the Atlantic seaboard, but in my opinion the saving would not
be so great as to make the canal route more desirable unless it was operated
free of tolls.
 In view of the heavy expenditure, I think the question of this canal should
be given a great deal more consideration and discussion than it has been given
so far.