332 DOCUVxM TAzY HBSTOBY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 the special board of rivers and harbors, although they both estimated the direct
 benefits to shipping at somewhat above $8,000,00 per year.
 Every Senator from the Gulf States joined in asking the President to appoint
 a board of review in order to consider and, if possible, reconcile the cost esti-
 mates of the different engineers and make Its own study and investigation.
 The President did appoint such a board. He called on the Secretary of War
 to name two engineers for that board of review. The Secretary of War named
 Colonel Hannum and Major Somervell, of the Corps of Engineers, both experi-
 enced, capable, high-class engineers of high standing. He called on the Secre-
 tary of the Interior to name two engineers, and he named Mr. McDonough,
 chief engineer of the P. W. A. and his assistant, Mr. Fowler. These four
 were directed to select a fifth as chairman. They selected Mr. Douglas, of
 New York, a civil engineer of international reputation, who had had charge of
 the Cape Cod Canal, of the Detroit tunnel, and other great' enterprises in this
 country and some abroad. He stands among those at the top in his profession.
 No one questions his ability, his high character, his genius, his training, his
 experience, or his capacity.
 This board of five members, as fine and splendid engineers as can be found
 In this or any other country, was selected by the President to examine into all
 the details of this entire proposed project, and to examine also all the data and
 material which had been gathered by the Army engineers' special board of
 survey, and all the data and material which had been gathered by the P. W. A.
 engineers, and then to make their own investigation and study. I submit that
 no board of engineers ever exceeded in ability and in training and in experience
 this special board of review.
 The board set to work on this problem. They did go into all the material
 which had been gathered by the special board on survey of the Army engineers,
 they did go Ito all the material which had been gathered by the P. W. A.
 engineers, and they did make their own examination and their own study of
 this matter. Every factor entering into it was considered, and after exhaustive
 study this board reported and recommended to the President a sea-level canal
 instead of a lock canal. Making it a sea-level canal, of course, would bring
 down the cost. Such locks as are proposed cost millions of dollars; after they
 are put in they have to be maintained, and the cost of operating the locks is
 considerable. The new plan would save all that The board favored a sea-level
 canal It would save in the cost and it would result in a more useful canal,
 because it would save the delay incident to ships passing through locks in the
 canal, and it would save a very considerable amount in annual maintenance.
 This board not merely submitted its report to the President but it made
 recommendations. I will read from the report of the hearings before the Senate
 Committee on Appropriations at page 175. This board of review, as fine and
 capable a body of engineers and experts as was ever established or set up
 in any country, made recommendations to the President.
 We hear talk about this project not having been properly examined or studied,
 and its consideration being buried by the President, the intimation being not
 only that the President had no authority but that he did not properly exercise
 what authority he had, indicating to the public that the President has wasted
 $5,400,000 of public funds on this project without proper investigation and
 study.
 The mere fact that a committee of Congress has not given consideration to
 the report is not important. Under the law the report was to be made to the
 President, not to Congress. The application was pending before the President
 under the act of 1985. The report had to be made to him. It was not made
 to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors or to Congress; it was made
 to the President He was charged with the responsibility of determining the
 merits of this proposed project and whether he would allocate money to its
 development.
 I read from page 175 of the hearings before the Senate Committee on Appro-
 priations as to what the board recommended:
 "This board * recommends for your consideration a 30-foot sea-level
canal at a cost of $143,000,000, exclusive of interest during the period of con-
struction. This board further recommends the deepening of this canal to 85
feet when traffic may justify it."
 They favored the sea-level canal "because of slightly lower first cost and
much lower operating and maintenance cost; because it has greater ship
capacity; because of the lesser difficulties in construction."
 Mr. CAur. Mr. President-