342 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 of Commerce at the request of the Chief of Engineers. That report was based
 upon examination of the project as a river and harbor project, without refer-
 ence to its self-liquidating possibilities. Its findings with regard to traffic
 which might be served by the canal and the general benefits to commerce were
 in substantial agreement with the findings of the engineers of the Public
 Works Administration; but, owing to different design and specifications and
 unit costs, the lock canal covered by that report showed an estimated cost at
 considerable variance with the costs developed by the engineers of the Public
 Works Administration.
 "In the first part of 1984, in response to a request made by all the Senators
 of the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, the
 President constituted and appointed a board of review, which consisted of two
 Army engineers designated by the Secretary of War, two engineers designated
 by the Administrator of Public Works, and one engineer from civil life desig-
 nated by the other four. The personnel of this board was as follows:
 "For the War Department: Lt. Col. Warren T. Hannum, Corps of Engineers;
 Maj. Brehon B. Somervell, Corps of Engineers.
 "For the Public Works Administration: Clarence McDonough, chief engineer;
 Frederick Fowler, consulting engineer.
 "Fifth member of the board and chairman: Walter J. Douglas, of New York
 City.
 "This board of review was instructed to study and examine the reports of
 the special board of survey and the Public Works Administration, and to make
 such further examination and study as it might deem appropriate.
 "On June 28, 1934, this 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 for right-of-way and interest during construction. The board
 further recommended the deepening of the canal to 35 feet when the traffic
 shall justify it. The board 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 economically justified, on a 4-percent basis, up to a cost of
 $160,000,000.
 "Subsequent to this report, the President directed the board of review to
 make an examination of the project with a view to determining whether it
 could be constructed as a self-liquidating project upon the basis of tolls which
 might be collected from shipping.
 "Under date of September 15, 1934, the board reported adversely on this
 aspect of the project.
 "On January 29, 1935, acting upon a memorandum of the chief engineer of
 the Public Works Administration, citing the recommendation for a sea-level
 canal made by the board of review and the estimated cost of $142,700,000, the
 Administrator of Public Works disapproved the application for a loan to the
 ship canal authority of the State of Florida for a lock canal. This disapproval
 was without reference to the economic justification of the project as determined
 by the criteria ordinarily applied to river and harbor projects, and without
 reference to the recommendation of the board of review and its findings that
 a 30-foot sea-level canal is economically justified up to a cost of $160,000,000,
 that recommendation remaining as the final and approving official finding with
 reference to the canal as a river and harbor project.
 "I quote from a letter under date of February 12, 19886, from Senator Fletcher
 to Lt. CoL Brehon Somervell, member and recorder of the board of review,
 and Colonel Somervell's reply under date of February 12, 1936:

 FEBBaAEY 10, 1986.
 Lt. Col. Banmox B. SoEaInmV ,
 Member and Recorder, Board of Review,
 War Department, Washington, D. C.
 MY DEAB COLONEL SOMEBVrLL: I have before me copy of the report of the
 board of review for the Florida canal under date of June 28, 1934. My under-
 standing of this report is that the board recommended to the President a sea-
 level canal of 30-foot depth, and found that the cost of such a canal will be
 approximately $143,000,000, exclusive of land and interest during construction,
 and that the board found further that the project is justified by the criteria
 ordinarily applied to river and harbor projects at a cost of $160,000,000 or more.
 I have also before me a supplementary report of this board which is responsive
 to a directive from the President that the project be examined with a view to its
 self-liquidating possibilities and finding adversely on this aspect. I understand
further that this latter finding has no reference to the board's first finding that