DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 341

barge canal Until the growth of ocean shipping into and out of the Gulf of
Mexico increased to a point which appeared to justify the cost of a ship canal,
such surveys and discussions were limited to a waterway of the barge-canal
type because of the smaller dimensions of a barge canal and other engineering
considerations. The possible location covered a much wider area than is the
case with a ship canal, and the earlier surveys made by the Corps of Engineers
included the examination of routes whose eastern termini ranged from the east-
central coast of Florida to points on the coast of Georgia. The results of these
surveys indicated that several routes were feasible for a barge canal, but in no
case has the potential barge traffic been sufficient to warrant the cost of a canal
which would transit only barges. Some time prior to 1925 the development of
ocean-going traffic through the Straits of Florida had reached a point to where
the apparent savings to shipping and ocean-borne commerce indicated the justi-
fication of the more expensive ship canal, which would also serve for barge
traffic. However, engineering considerations governing the construction of a
waterway of ship-canal dimensions confined the location of the project to the
Peninsula of Florida and eliminated the possibility of a route through both
Georgia and Florida.
 "Under the River and Harbor Acts of 1927 and 1930 the Corps of Engineers
initiated and completed examinations and physical surveys of this project. The
surveys were conducted by a special board of Army engineer officers detailed to
that work by the Chief of Engineers.
 "In 1932 there was organized in New Orleans a National Gulf-Atlantic Ship
 Canal Association, the stated purpose of which was to procure construction by
 the Federal Government of this project in order that the resulting benefits
 might accrue to industry, agriculture, and commerce of the Nation.
 "The above-named association, a corporation not for profit, made a pro-forma
 application to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for a loan for the con-
 struction of the canal as a self-liquidating project. This pro-forma application
 proposed that the loan be made to such appropriate public corporation or agency
 as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation might direct.
 "By an act of the Legislature of the State of Florida, approved May 12, 1933,
 there was created the Ship Canal Authority of the State of Florida with powers
 and duties appropriate to cooperation with the Federal Government In the con-
 struction of such a waterway. This authority then became the applicant for
 the loan before the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, replacing the national
 association.
 "In June 1933 the special board of survey of the Corps of Engineers made a
 preliminary report to the Chief of Engineers. At this date the board had
 completed the gathering of the greater part of its physical data upon which the
 cost of the project might be developed.
 "No action on the application was taken by the Reconstruction Finance
 Corporation; and in or about August 1933, the application, together with all
 other applications of this class, was transferred by Executive order to the
 Public Works Administration.
 "The engineering division of the Public.Works Administration made a thor-
 ough examination of the project, assuming the basic physical data obtained by
 the Special Board of Survey of the Corps of Engineers, but developing its own
 plans, specifications, and unit construction costs, and supplementing by its own
 examination the economic survey which was being carried out by the special
 board. Under date of October 19, 1933, a report on the project was made by
 the Public Works Administration engineers. This report found that the esti-
 mated cost of a lock canal, according to the plans of the Public Works Admin-
 istration engineers, would be $115,000,000, and that the direct benefits resulting
 from a canal would be upward of $8,524,000 per year; that in addition to the
 direct benefits there would be additional benefits of $2,004,000 per year; and
 that the cash tolls which might reasonably be expected to be collected would be
 $6,500,000 per year. The conclusions reached in that report are quoted as
 follows:
 "'It is concluded that the project covered herein constitutes a public necessity
 and is of real social value. The project will afford much employment to many
 classes of skilled and unskilled labor; that the design is in accord with sound
 engineering practice, and that the project is economically sound. It is recom-
 mended that the loan with or without the grant be made.'
 "On December 30, 1933, the special board of survey of the Corps of Engineers
 completed its work and made its final report. The examination made by the
 special board included an exhaustive economic survey made by the Department