336 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 consider those questions. They estimated that the benefits to commerce alone
 annually arising from the use of the canal will be approximately $8,300,000; and
 the engineers approving river and harbor projects usually consider all the ele-
 ments of cost, such as the interest, maintenance, actual outlay for construction,
 and every other element entering into the cost. They total the figures, and if
 the annual benefits amount to 3 percent of the cost plus operation and mainte-
 nance they recommend the project And their figures show that this project
 much more than meets these requirements for justification.
 Now I desire to call attention to some testimony on that subject of the bene-
 fits of the canaL The board of review was instructed to study and examine
 the report of the special board of survey of the Army engineers and the report
 of the P. W. A. engineers, and to make such further examination and study as
 it might deem appropriate.
 On June 28, 1934, the board made a report to the President, recommending
 the construction of a sea-level canal, and estimated its cost at $142,700,000,
 exclusive of land or right-of-way and interest during construction.
 The board of review further recommended the deepening of the canal to 35
 feet when the traffic will justify it
 It further found that, based upon the economic survey of the special board
 of survey of the Corps of Engineers, such a sea-level canal would be eco-
 nomically justified on even a 4-percent basis up to a cost of $160,000,000. That
 is what this competent board found; and there is no higher or better evidence
 that could be produced to the President and no more authoritative statement
 could be made than was furnished him in this connection.
 Mr. Couzmm Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. FLtn ma. I yield.
 Mr. Couaas. What is the attitude of the people of Florida toward this
 enterprise?
 Mr. FIBrnEB. There are some people in Florida who are opposed to the
 canal. Some propaganda has been spread abroad; some publications have been
 printed with reference to the objections which they make. I will indicate, I
 think, in a way, what the sentiment is. The State was required to furnish the
 right-of-way. The canal is to run through six counties. The six counties under-
 took to furnish the right-of-way by issuing bonds They provided for the issu-
 ance of a million five hundred thousand dollars of bonds.
 The law requires that freeholders must vote on the question of issuing bonds
 and that a majority of them must participate in the election. This question
 was presented to the people there and the bonds were voted by a vote of 27 to 1.
 Ninety percent of the freeholders registered and went to the polls to vote upon
 that question. Ninety-seven percent of them voted for the bond issue. I think
 that indicates somewhat how the people stand on the question of the canal.
 About 3 percent of them were against the bond issue.
 Mr. CouzENs. I assume it is safe to conclude that those voters were closer to
 the canal than ether people in the State and more interested in it because their
 land was going to be cut through?
 Mr. PtErvm. I think perhaps that is true. Those bonds were issued, let me
 say to the Senator, and the proceeds are being used to secure the right-of-way.
 Mr. Nomazs. What proportion of the right-of-way has been purchased?
 Mr. FLTzrc;rH I cannot say exactly as to that, but quite a large portion of
 the right-of-way has been acquired. There are some condemnation proceedings
 now pending, which are necessary because the authorities cannot reach an
 agreement with the landowners.
 There are other people-and I think I can give some reasons for their atti-
 tude-who are against the canal. As a general proposition, the Senator knows
 that the railroads are not favorable to waterway improvements. I state that
 as a general proposition, and the record here shows it to be so in this case.
 The railroads opposed this canal before the special board of survey. That
 is the record. I am not stating this case except by the record. The representa-
 tives of the railroads appeared there and opposed this canal. They do not like
 the idea of readjustment of freight rates. Perhaps there may be other reasons
 why they do not favor the canal, but there will be some effect on freight rates
 undoubtedly. The tendency will be to reduce freight rates. That is not quite
 agreeable to the railroads. Perhaps they do not like the idea of having to build
 a bridge or two here and there. I do not know what their argument is, but, as
 a general proposition, they are against waterway improvements; and that
opposition has spread over the State. They have had their representatives