320 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 This would hardly be considered conclusive, because, after all, nine lines do
 not tell the whole story of the available shipping operations in that area. So
 let us go to another classification which comes straight down to the core of
 the whole contemplation. The Department of Commerce survey shows that
 even in its theoretical calculations, out of the reported navigation savings of
 $6,137,00, nearly four and a half million dollars of the hypothetical savings
 will accrue to oil tankers-O4,100,000 to American tankers and $400,000 to for-
 eign tankers. In other words, the oil trade is the chief reliance in building even
 a hypothetical pretense of economic justification.
 Remember the figures, remember I am relying upon the Department of Com-
 merce survey, and remember that it suggests that nearly two-thirds of the
 trame must be from oil tankers in order to arrive at even the hypothetical
 advantage which is claimed in behalf of the undertaking.
 Mr. KiNo. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. VANDmmWO. I yield.
 Mr. KINo. May I inquire whether the Department of Commerce, before it even
 ventured that hypothetical opinion, made a survey through competent engineers
 as to the cost and as to the feasibility of the proposed waterway? My informa-
 tion is that there is a great deal of doubt as to its feasibility, as to the character
 of the soil, so as to make possible or feasible a project of this character, and I
 was wondering whether the Department of Commerce relied upon engineers.
 Did they avail themselves of the engineering staff of the War Department, which
 deals with these important problems, or did they have an engineering staff of
 their own?
 Mr. VA&mwsmBo.,Mr. President, it is my recollection that the Department of
 Commerce was dealing solely with the economic phase and did not invade the
 other fields; but others did, and I shall have something further to say of those
 aspects a little later.
 Let us remember about the oil tankers and the fact that oil tankers would
 have to be depended on for two-thirds of the hypothetical traffic in order even to
 make a pretense of justifying this undertaking. Would the oil tankers use the
 canal? That is a fair question, and certainly it goes squarely to the heart of the
 problem.
 I have already told the Senate what the Sinclair Navigation Co. and the Gulf
 Refining Co. say. They say "No." I will now read what is said by some of the
 other operators of oil tankers not involved in the misunderstanding regarding
 the nine to which I have heretofore referred.
 I read now from a letter written by the Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 26 Broadway,
 New York City, January 3, 1936:
 "I have questioned our operating division, as well as the masters on our ships,
 and the unanimous opinion is that, as far as we are concerned, this proposed
 waterway is neither necessary nor desirable. Even if the canal were open to
 free transportation, without tolls or any other charges, it is very doubtful there
 would be any advantage in our using it. This being the consensus of opinion
 of our practical people"-
 Mr. President, I hope that the opinion of practical people is not entirely ruled
 out of consideration in these days. It is the opinion of their "practical people
 who have had years of experience that the expenditure of such a large amount
 is not warranted."
 Let us look at what is said by one or two others of these operators in the
 tanker trade, which is the major reliance, I remind the Senate again, of the
 hypothetical Justification of this amazing expenditure of public money. I now
 quote the Cities Service Transportation Co., 60 Wall Tower, New York, December
 28,1935, a letter signed by C. Story, general manager:
 "We have given this matter considerable attention, and do not feel that the
 canal will serve a useful purpose except, possibly, locally, and It it is constructed
 it is not our intention to send any of our large tankers through it, even though
 there are no tolls. In our opinion, the canal is too long for practical navigation."
 Mr. President, some of the little red marks on the map, which is to be relied
on as exhibit A in the argument to justify this assault upon the Treasury, repre-
sent the ships of the Cities Service Transportation Co., which says over its
own signature that it does not propose to send its ships through the canal at all.
 Let us see about some more of these operators of tankers. I read from
the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, December 31, 1935:
 "It is our opinion that this project is ill advised and is not in conformity
with the mature consideration of practical shipping people. In our judgment,
the expenditure of $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 on this project is not justified