DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


unusual importance that may be in your possession, and stating briefly the man-
ner in which it would affect your individual interests, assuming that the con-
struction of the canal would be handled by the War Department as a regular
river and harbor project, approved by Congress, and operated (a) toll tree after
completion and (b) on a toll basis, as a self-liquidating project.
 It appears entirely probable that, knowing whatever benefits it
 might admit could be used against itself, should it wish to contest the
 tolerate established on the canal, every company so addressed would
 tend to minimize those benefits which may be translated into dollars
 and cents.
 However, there are in the record, in addition to the letters from ship
 operators mentioned as being uninterested in or hostile to the project,
 certain other letters which are interested in and favorable to the
 project. I quote from a number of such, as follows:
 In order to shorten the time, Mr. Chairman, I have the letters in full
 here if you wish to examine them, but I only quote a brief paragraph
 from each one, and for the information of you or Senator Vandenberg
 the letters are here for your examination.
 The CHAa xAN. That is all right.
 Senator VANDENBEmG. That is quite all Tight.
 Mr. BUCKMAN. From the Mystic Steamship Co., Boston, Mass.,
 under date of May 22, 1933, signed by F. B. Craven, manager, marine
 department:
 We are inclined to believe in a general way that the proposition would be quite
 interesting to us and should appreciate an opportunity at a later date to more
 fully express our reactions. We assume at that time that you will be in a posi-
 tion to give us a more detailed picture of all characteristics of the canal and
 particulars relating thereto.
 From the Sinclair Navigation Co., 45 Nassau Street, New York City,
 under date of May 15, 1933, signed by J. G. Johnson, vice president:
 Reviewing our company operations and allowing 36 hours for one transit of
 canal, the estimated time saved via canal as compared to present route would be
 approximately 3,000 hours per annum for all vessels. On present freight rates
 this would represent to our company a saving of about $74,000 per year.
 This is based on about 130 trips equal to 260 transit.
 As to the necessity for or desirability of this project in the interest of naviga-
 tion and marine commerce, the estimated savings, in our opinion, would not per-
 mit 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 har-
 bor project, and operated toll free, there would be a saving to marine commerce.
 Senator VANDENBEmG. Then read the next paragraph.
 Mr. BUCKMAN. Go ahead and read it, will you, Senator ?
 Senator VANDENBERG (reading):
 However, inasmuch as there are at present waterways inadequate for the
 increase in size of the vessels would recommend expenditure for improvement of
 same in lieu of the construction of the proposed Florida canal.
 Did you give the date of that letter?
 The CHAIRMAN. The 26th of May.
 Mr. BUCKMAN. May the 15th. I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman;
it is May 15 1933.
 Senator VANDENBERG. What conclusion am I to draw from the fact
that on December 30, 1935, which is far more imminent, this same
company says:
 In our opinion the navigation savings would not warrant an expenditure of
between $140,000,000 and $200,000,000 for this project.


253