DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


 Senator VANDENBERG. Does that refer to me? I did not know
there was anything insidious about it. If there is anything insidious
about it I think the draft of $200,000,000 out of the United States
Treasury without the slightest evidence shown in the way of facts
to substantiate it, should come in the ordinary and traditional way.
And if we are going to discuss insidiousness, let us discuss that.
 The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Buckman.
 Mr. BucKMAN. In addition to these, approval of the project has
been formally expressed by 70 members of the United States Senate
and the Governors of 36 States, representing all of the major political
parties.
 Senator VANDENBEBG. When was that done and how? Do you
mean were the messages of felicitation that were sent down when
the thing was started?
 Mr. BUCxKAN. Those were the messages which were sent when
the work started. Are you familiar with them?
 Senator VANDENBERG. I am very familiar with them; I am familiar
with them and I know exactly how they were obtained.
 Senator FL-rCHEB. They were obtained all right.
 Senator VANDENBERG. Oh, yes. I am afraid if you had to send
me word at that time I would have sent you a message of felicitation,
because everybody loves you.
 Mr. BUCKMAN. Evidence has been presented to the committee in
the form of letters from ship-operating concerns which indicate a
lack of interest in or hostility to the project on the part of those par-
ticular companies. It seems appropriate to call the attention of the
committee to certain considerations which necessarily govern the
evaluation of this kind of testimony.
 Long-established and universally accepted custom has determined
that the highest authority on questions of hazards to inland naviga-
tion, and the safe dimensions and conditions for harbors and inland
waterways, is the Corps of Engineers; and the highest authority for
sailing routes and for questions of time and distance is the Bureau of
Navigation. When these two agencies unite in determining that a
given route for navigation will be adequate and safe, and will require
certain times and distances to be covered, it may be reasonably con-
cluded that these determinations are correct. In the case of the
present project, the Army engineers and the Bureau of Navigation
have determined that it will be adequate and safe for navigation, and
that it will effect certain savings of time and distance. These savings
in time and distance may be, and have been, translated, with reason-
able accuracy, into dollars and cents. When a ship operator states
that he will not avail himself of these savings, he may be presumed,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be telling the truth.
But when he denies the time and distance savings determined by these
agencies, it is fair to assume that he is in error. Since the immemo-
rial tendency of trade and navigation has been to take advantage of
every factor which might increase profit, it would appear that when a
ship operator states that he will not avail himself of such factors, they
are probably overbalanced by other factors, not necessarily apparent,
which apply to the interests of that particular operator. For these
reasons, expressions, either favorable or adverse to a project of this
kind, from ship-operating concerns, can only be taken as a guide to the


249