DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 219

waterway is neither necessary nor desirable. Even if the canal were open to
free transportation, without tolls or any other charges, it is very doubtful there
would be any advantage in our using it This being the consensus of opinion of
our practical people, who have had years of experience, I will answer your
question by saying we do not feel that the expenditure of such a large amount
as $140,000,000 to 200,000,000 is warranted.
 The Standard-Vacuum Transportation Co., letter signed by W. E.
Simpson, reading as follows:
 This-
referring to the canal-
has been made a matter of full discussion by our organization and the consensus
of opinion is that this waterway, so far as our fleet is concerned, is neither
necessary nor desirable.
 The Cities Service Transportation Co., letter signed by C. Story,
general manager, dated December 28, 1935:
 We have given this matter considerable attention and do not feel that the
 canal will serve a useful purpose, except possibly locally, and if it is con-
 structed it is not our intention to send any of our large tankers through it, even
 though there are no tolls. In our opinion the canal is too long for practical
 navigation. While there is a saving of time, the additional expense for pilot-
 age, and the possibility of damage to our ships going through this long canal
 will not compensate for the time saved.
 I have discussed this matter with the heads of other shipping companies and
 have not found one who is favorable to this project
 The American Sugar Transit Corporation, signed by the presi-
 dent--I cannot read his signature-dated December 30, 1935:
 Frankly, we believe that the expenditure of between $140,000,000 and $200,-
 000,000 is entirely unwarranted by the navigation savings.
 I may say parenthetically that these companies are listed to me by
 the Board of Rivers and Harbors Engineers.
 The Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, marine department, writing
 under date of December 31, 1935, signed by Robert L. Hague, general
 manager:
 It is our opinion that this project is ill-advised and is not in conformity with
 the mature consideration of practical shipping people. In our judgment the
 expenditure of $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 on this project is not justified by
 economic considerations, nor by present or potential traffic, which could
 profitably make use of the canal
 The American-West African Line, signed by Charles Barthold,
 vice president, dated January 2, 1936:
 If the cost of the canal is expected to run from $140,000,000 to $200,00,000
 it would be our opinion that the benefits to be derived by ocean-going shipping
 would not be sufficient to warrant such an enormous expenditure.
 A. H. Bull & Co., New York, a letter dated January 2, 1936, signed
 by Ernest M. Bull, president:
 The saving of time in ordinary weather cannot be very great, and any one or
 two adverse conditions, as indicated, might easily mean there would be no
 economy in the use of the canaL
 The Texas Co., dated January 13, 1936, signed by the manager of
 the marine department:
 We have had some considerable correspondence in reference to this subject in
 the past, and our opinion at that time was that while we feel that such a canal
 is entirely practical, insofar as our own activities are concerned, our calculations
 82710--86--15