DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 323 "is a Democratic newspaper, and it is supporting generally the policies of the New Deal." I do not know what that has to do with this contemplation, except that perhaps Mr. Shutts is apologizing in advance for not being able to come along with this particular policy of the New DeaL Continuing the reading: "It has, however, consistently opposed the creation of the Florida cross-State canal. It has used every good argument at its command. As owner and publisher of the Herald, I have been accused of ulterior motives", says Mr. Shutts. "The Miami Daily News"-that is the other great Miami daily news- paper-"the Herald's competitor, is owned by ex-Governor James M. Cox, of Ohio, onetime candidate for President on the Democratic ticket. Perhaps he would not be accused of ulterior motives. "Enclosed I hand you clipping of an article which appeared in the March 11 issue of Governor Cox's paper." It is worthy of and entitled to Senators' prayerful consideration. I am going back to the enclosure in a minute. First, I wish to finish Frank Shutts' letter. This is not my testimony. This is not any external testimony. The one who is speaking is one of the leading citizens of southern Florida from any possible aspect from which one wishes to measure it. "In my judgment, if the Florida cross-State canal is completed within 10 years, probably within your time and mine, the greater part of south Florida may be another great American desert, open only to the winds, a magnificent territory as it now exists-then lost to the world." That sounds like a very extravagant statement. Perhaps it is. In the past 6 weeks, since it has become known that I was interesting myself in the pur- suit of facts in connection with this canal, I desire to say to the Senate that I have received literally thousands of letters from all over central and southern Florida voicing this precise fear. The letters are written obviously in the greatest of good faith and in the most earnest contemplation of what the writers believe to be an irreparable hazard confronting the underground water supply of the State of Florida. What is the enclosure from Governor Cox's paper to which Mr. Shutts refers tn the letter I have just read? The article from Governor Cox's paper says: "Florida canal imperils water, scientist finds." The next headline: "Dr. Henry Sharp, Columbia geologist, points out seepage danger." I read only this one paragraph from the article: "NEw YoaK, March 11.-Florida's water supply will be jeopardized by con- struction of the proposed Atlantic-Gulf ship canal, Dr. Henry S. Sharp, geolo- gist of Columbia University, asserts in the current issue of the Independent Journal, university publication. "Dr. Sharp, after a study of the project, prompted by his interest in geo- morphology or geologic changes, believes 'all geologists unite in predicting that the canal will cause some damage to the water supply, while a considerable number believe that it will prove to be a textbook example of the large-scale destruction of water resources by artificial interference with underground flow.' " That may or may not be true. I am no geologist. I do not presume to say what value should be attached to the testimony. But it is one more of those things, Mr. President, which indicate the iniquity of the process we pursue when we try to solve a problem of this nature on the floor of the Senate, in- stead of by the traditional routine which brings us conclusive expert recom- mendation to which we can turn and upon which we can rely. Mr. Nonals. Mr. President- The PBPrsI N OFrlcE. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. VANDENBEBG. I yield. Mr. NonBIs. Admitting entirely the force of the argument made by this geologist, still the Senator ought to read, if the editorial will bear out such construction, enough of the editorial from Governor Cox's paper to justify the comment made by the editor and publisher of the other paper. Governor Cox would not be at all blameable so far as the Senator has offered evidence yet, because there is no editorial comment or opinion, but it is a matter of news entirely, under a New York date line. I simply suggest in passing that if the editorial bears out the statement made about the proposal in the other news- paper it ought to be read to the Senate.