DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 285

 General MABKHAM. It would.
 Senator FLrCHEaB. And now there is a little confusion about a report from
 the board of review arising from the questions by Senator Carey to General
 Pillsbury yesterday, and his answer, not intended of course, but Senator Carey
 asked about this first report of June 28, 1934, of the board of review to the
 President.
 You referred to that report and afterwards the inquiry got off into a second
 report which really had no connection with the report; is that not true?
 General MABKHAM. That is quite right.
 Senator FLrcHHE. Now, Senator Carey, do you not think that that first
 report should be put into the record?
 Senator CAmmr. If it is not too long.
 Senator FLTCHEB. Then, Senator Carey asks for it if it is not too long.
 Senator COPELAND. We will include it.
 Senator CARYr. I would like to find out about the two reports.
 General MABKHAM. That is the one of June 28.
 Senator FL rCHEa. The other is in September, I think, and has nothing to
 do with this.
 Senator CAnEr. Made by the same board?
 General PILLSBURy. Yes.
 General MAnKHAM. Yes, sir; the same board.
 Senator FLTCHEa. They are based on different inquiries. One report is based
 on a special inquiry as to the self-liquidating feature of the canal
 General MAKBHAM. That is quite right.
 Senator FLEToHEB. And it is not being treated on the basis of a self-liquidat-
 ing project, but on the basis of a rivers and harbors improvement.
 General MABKHAx. It is based upon, as I understand, the expert statement
 of Professor Johnson, who was the economist for the Panama Canal, that the
 possibility of collecting tolls could not probably be expected to exceed 8 cents
 a ton.
 That is the basis of the second report.
 Senator CAiaY. This is to be a free canal?
 Senator FLurCHEB. Yes; we are putting this report of June 28 in the record.
 I do not think we need the other. I have no objection to It, but I do not think
 we need it because it does not have anything to do with it.
 Senator COPELAND. That is, you want the one report and the other you con-
sider unnecessary; is that it?
 Senator FLzrcHE. I think so.
 Senator COPWLAND. Very well, we will take one report for the record, the
one referred to.
 (The report referred to is as follows:)

REPORT OF BOABD OF REVIEW TO THE PBESIDENT-ATLANTIO-GULF SHIP CANAL
 ATLANTic-GuLF SHIP CANAL BOABD OF REVIEW,
 Washington, D. C., June 28, 1984.
The PESImDENT,
 The White House.
 DEAR Ma. PRESIDENT: The board of review appointed pursuant to your
instructions by the Secretary of War and the Public Works Administrator sub-
mits the following report upon the costs of construction of the proposed Atlantic-
Gulf ship canal across Florida.
 This board concurs with the War Department's special board in preference
for canal route 13-B, which passes through Jacksonville, Palatka, and Dunnel-
lon, and recommends for your consideration a 0-foot sea-level canal at a cost of
$143,000,000, exclusive of interest during the period of construction. This
board further recommends the deepening of this canal to 35 feet when traffic
may justify.
 The previous reports by the Army special board and the Public Works Ad-
ministration were for lock canal, which was selected on account of certain
ground-water conditions. The board of review, after further investigation, is
of the opinion that these conditions are not controlling, and for the following
additional reasons prefers the sea-level canal:
 (1) Because of slightly lower first cost and much lower operating and main-
tenance cost.
 (2) Because it has greater ship capacity.