DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 339

rates this would represent to our company a saving of about $74,000 per year.
This is based on about 130 trips equal to 260 transits."
 The only reliable testimony submitted on the question of the time required
for making a transit of the canal comes from the Army engineers and the
Bureau of Navigation, which are qualified and equipped to make such calcula-
tions. The Bureau gives us the time of transit as 24 hours from the lightship
on the Atlantic at one entrance of the canal to the lightship on the Gulf of
Mexico at the other entrance of the canal. These ship people are figuring on
36 hours. I presume, perhaps, they had in view a lock canal; but even with
that they show a benefit of $74,000 per year. They say further-I quote from
the same letter:
 "As to the necessity for, or desirability of, this project in the interest of
navigation and marine commerce, the estimated savings, in our opinion, would
not permit of the canal being operated on a toll basis as a self-liquidating
project. If the canal were constructed by the War Department as a regular
river and harbor project, and operated toll free, there would be a saving t<
marine commerce."
 That, of course, is natural
 Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 The PRESIDING OFFICE (Mr. Benson in the chair). Does the Senator from
Florida yield to the Senator from Colorado?
 Mr. FLwvrHIa I yield to the Senator.
 Mr. COSTIGAN. What the Senator from Florida is saying is of such general
 interest that I should like, at this moment, to suggest the absence of a quorum.
 The PaBssmmro OmICER. The clerk will call the roll.
 The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their
 names:
 Adams, Austin, Bachman, Bailey, Barkley, Benson, Bilbo, Black, Bone, Borah,
 Brown, Bulkley, Bulow, Burke, Byrd, Byrnes, Capper, Caraway, Carey, Clark,
 Connally, Copeland, Costigan, Couzens, Davis, Donahey, Duffy, Fletcher, Frazier,
 George, Gerry, Gibson, Glass, Gore, Guffey, Hale, Harrison, Hatch. Hayden,
 Holt, Johnson, Keyes, King, La Follette, Lewis, Logan, Lonergan, Long, Mc-
 Adoo, McGill, McKellar, McNary, Maloney, Metcalf, Minton, Moore, Murphy,
 Murray, Neely, Norbeck, Norris, Overton, Pittman, Pope, Radcliffe, Reynolds,
 Robinson, Russell, Schwellenbach, Sheppard, Shipstead, Smith, Steiwer, Thomas
 of Oklahoma, Thomas of Utah, Townsend, Tydings, Vandenberg, Van Nuys,
 Wagner, Walsh, Wheeler, and White.
 The PBMIDINn Onrcmn. Eighty-three Senators having answered to their
 names, a quorum is present.
 (At this point Mr. Fletcher yielded to Mr. Reynolds, who spoke on the sub-
 ject of the deportation of aliens. Mr. Reynold's speech appears elsewhere in
 today's Record.)
 Mr. FLerCHER. Mr. President, I hope to conclude my remarks in a very short
 time. Many hours could be spent going into details in connection with this
 project, but if what I have said has not been convincing, nothing I might say
 further would be.
 There is one point which the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Vandenberg] men-
 tioned on yesterday which occurs to me now. His argument was that the cost
 of the project would probably run up to $200,000,000, or some other indefinite
 sum, and that the regular business operations in connection with an enterprise
 like this would be interfered with by reason of employing relief labor.
 The testimony of General Markham was that he expected to complete the
 project within the estimates furnished, notwithstanding some increases in con-
 nection with some requirements of the W. P. A. The estimates made by the
 engineers and by the board of review were to the effect that the total cost of the
 canal would be $143,000,000. There is no foundation for any argument to the
 effect that it would exceed that figure. If there were an increase in the cost of,
 say, 25 percent by reason of employment of labor on the relief rolls, that would
 not extend over the whole period of 5 or 6 years.
 Senators might apply that to 1 year if they wish, and suppose we say that by
 reason of conditions now imposed or by reason of restrictions which are sug-
 gested, that the cost would be 25 percent higher for the next year than it would
 be if the engineers had a free hand to let contracts and attend to this work just
 as they would in connection with an ordinary proposition; that would mean an
 increase of $3,000,000; it would not mean an increase of 25 percent of the total
 cost, but an increase in cost of 1 year's work, the total of which is estimated to
 me $12,000,000. I merely mention that.