DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


319


unanimously testified that in their judgment the canal lacked any economic
justification whatever, and that they did not expect to use it if, as, and when
it were completed and opened.
 Mr. Noaus. Mr. President-
 The PRESIDING Ormcrm. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator
from Nebraska?
 Mr. VANDENBERG. I do.
 Mr. NoRus. The Senator has told us the answers of the nine. What about
the remainder?
 Mr. VANDENBmEG. I am coming to the remainder, because the answers of the
remainder are even more significant. The nine testified one way at one time
and another way at another time, so perhaps that partially invalidates their
credibility. Therefore I am even more interested, as the Senator's question
indicates he might be, in some of the other answers; but I wish to finish first
with the nine. I submit that it does not lie in the mouths of the proponents
of the canal to question the credibility of the nine, because the nine were
their witnesses, and I was merely cross-examining.
 Now, let us see what some of them say. I am not going to burden the Senate
with this material in great detail, but I wish to have Senators understand
what the practical ship operator thinks about taking $200,000,000 out of the
Treasury of the United States to dig this ditch.
 Here is a letter from the Gulf Refining Co., New York City, signed by James
Kennedy:
 "We have on different occasions made careful surveys of the practical and
economical features of such a waterway; but it is our confusion, from either
standpoint"-
 That is, practical or economical-
"it is our conclusion, from either standpoint, that even if it were completed, it
probably never would be used by our sea-going vessels."
 Senators cannot laugh that off.
 Now, let us try one or two others.
 Here is a letter from the Pennsylvania Shipping Co., Charles Kurz, president,
writing under date of January 6, 1936:
 "Accordingly, and further because of the risk of collision and grounding that
would be taken in navigating the canal, it is our present opinion that we would
not avail of the canal excepting in case of some emergency."
 Let us see what C. D. Mallory & Co., of New York, one of the largest ship-
operating outfits, says under date of December 30, 1935:
 "We are of the opinion that the proposed canal does not offer sufficient saving
to warrant serious consideration."
 Then the letter goes on to say that they have been down to Florida and
looked the thing over, just to see whether or not they might have made a mis-
take; and their ultimate conclusion is:
 "Referring to your recent visit and discussion of a canal across the State of
Florida: On further consideration we are inclined to hold to our previously
expressed view that the proposed canal does not offer sufficient saving to war-
rant the expense involved."
 I have here a letter from the Brooks-Scanlan Corporation, J. S. Holey, presi-
dent, under date of January 2, 1936, from which I read one sentence:
 "We have prepared no data on the saving, but it is our belief that it would
be useful and timesaving for vessels from the Gulf to the Atlantic. We have
sold most of our vessels; therefore we hardly would be interested in the
operation of boats through the canal."
 That is rather conclusive as to whether or not some of these hypothetical
calculations would ultimately justify themselves.
 What does the Sinclair Navigation Co. say under date of December 30, 1935?
I read:
 "In our opinion, the navigation savings would not warrant an expenditure of
between $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 for this project"
 So it goes, Mr. President, so far as these particular nine are concerned. Now
 I wish to come to the remainder of the traffic.
 Mr. Nosans. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the nine, let me ask,
Were there any of the nine who were favorable?
 Mr. VANDENBEBG. No, Mr. President. The nearest of the nine rendering an
 opinion which might be construed as favorable was the final one I read, which
 stated that they were out of the business and therefore would not use the canal
 anyway, but perhaps, if it were built, theoretically it would be a good thing.
 I say to the Senator categorically that the nine said "No."