234 DOCUMEmTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 Mr. BucxMx. No. There are two reports, Senator Vandenberg;
one under date of June 28, 1984.
 Senator VANDENBERO. es. That is the one I have in my hand.
 Mr. BuczxA. That is not discussing a toll canal at all. It has no
 reference to tolls.
 Now, the report of September 15 was from an entirely separate
 aspect of the case, and was pursuant to a directive instructing them
 to examine the toll-bearing possibilities of the project.
 Senator VANDn nOe. Have you a copy of that report
 Mr. BUcxxIA. Yes; I have it here.
 Senator VANDENB1EG. May I see it?
 Mr. BUCKMxA. There are both reports, Senator.
 Senator V mANDzNBo. Thank you.
 Senator Fiha a. You were reading the letter just now
 Senator VANDENBEG. I am sorry to interrupt you.
 Mr. BucxxMA. Shall I continue with that
 Senator FLzmnta. Yes, sir; go ahead.
 Mr. BCKMAxN (continuing):
 I have also before me a supplementary report of this board, which is respon-
 sive 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 nding 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 re-
 corder. As a member of the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Com-
 merce, 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. F nIBaTBL
 I now read Colonel Somervell's reply under date of February 12,
 1936:
 MY Dran SmNATOB: I have your letter of February 10, 1936, in which you
 state that it is your understanding that the Board of Review appointed by the
 President to consider the Atlantic-Gulf ship canal found that the canal would
 be justified by the criteria ordinarily applied to river and harbor projects at a
 cost of $160,000,000. You also state that it is your understanding that the
 second report of the Board had no reference to the Board's first finding in this
 record.
 You undoubtedly have reference to the following statement in the first report
 of the Board:
 "This Board was not instructed to estimate the benefits accruing from the
 construction and operation of this canal. However, if it be assumed that the
 economic study made by the special board of Army engineers for a lock canal
 Is sound and considering the lower maintenance and operating costs of a sea-
 level canal, the cost of a canal which would be justified at 4-percent interest
 would be:
 "Sea-level canal: 30-foot depth, $160,000,000."
 The second report of the board had to do with an investigation of tolls and
 had no reference to justification on the basis of total benefits.
 Sincerely yours,
 BrmHON SouavaE.,
 Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Bngineers, Recorder.
 Senator FIZTCHER. I think that covers the point you had ?
 Senator VANDENBERG. Yes; let me go back to this report of
 September 15, to which you referred, from which I quote: