DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 349

interlocking directorates and ownerships in other business which do not show
on the surface and can only be determined after an elaborate analysis of the
holdings of these companies.
 "(2) Those operators who hold mail-subsidy contracts from the United States
Government. While the rate of pay by the Government varies, nevertheless the
general principle is to subsidize the American-flag vessel so that it may com-
pete with the cheaper-operated foreign vessel in the same trade. Today's sub-
sidy to the mail vessels in the Gulf trade is approximately $2.50 per outbound
mile. Further, the contract stipulates that the vessel is paid on the shortest
available route. Therefore it is obvious that by construction of the Florida
canal the route would be shortened and the pay to these ships would be re-
duced by $2.50 per mile for each outbound mile so shortened. In the case of
some operators this item becomes considerable because of the many ships oper-
ated by them. However, it must be remembered that the reduction of this
mail pay by shortening the route is a direct saving to the United States, and
the canal should be credited with this saving. At the same time, no injustice
will be done to the ship operators, providing the original theory of determining
the mail pay on a mileage basis is correct, because the reduced pay for reduced
mileage will still leave the American and foreign ship on the same parity.
However, it may be that the mail ship prefers to collect from the Government
and run the extra mileage at Government expense.
 "(3) Those operators whose business it is to charter their ships: These com-
panies operate mainly in the tanker trade and own no product to carry in their
own bottoms. They are, therefore, dependent upon a shortage of vessels to
create a demand for their ships. They therefore cannot view any facility which
tends to bring the Atlantic seaboard and the Gulf coast closer together as a
benefit to their business.
 "Further than this, there is an almost universal feeling among operators in
the Gulf-Atlantic run that they are in a trading position. In other words, if the
canal is constructed, they desire to have accrue to them the largest possible share
of the benefits. This thought may be reflected in three ways: First, by a desire
that the canal be toll-free, in order that the entire savings will accrue to them;
second, by a desire not to see the principle of tolls established for the use of any
waterway within the United States; third, by a desire that if tolls are charged
they be as low as possible, in order that their share of the increased savings
will be a maximum. Again, some operators feel that competition will force most
of the savings to be passed on to the producers and consumers of the Nation.
While this is really an argument in favor of the canal, it nevertheless results in
a trading attitude on the part of the operators.
 "This becomes increasingly clear when the exact wording of the original ques,
tionnaire sent out by the War Department is considered. I quote from that
letter to all shipping concerns, under date of May 9, 1933:
 "'It will be appreciated if you will review the data presented herewith and
express your views as to the necessity for or desirability of this project in the
interests of navigation and marine commerce, presenting any information of
unusual importance that may be in your possession and stating briefly the man-
ner in which it would affect your individual interests, assuming that the con-
struction of the canal would be handled by the War Department as a regular
river and harbor project, approved by Congress, and operated (a) toll-free after
completion, and (b) on a toll basis, as a self-liquidating project'
 "It appears entirely probable that, knowing whatever benefits it might admit
could be used against itself, should it wish to contest the toll rate established on
the canal, every company so addressed would tend to minimize. those benefits
which may be translated into dollars and cents.
 "However, there are in the record, in addition to the letters from ship opera-
tors mentioned as being uninterested in or hostile to the project, certain other
letters which are interested in and favorable to the project. I quote from a
number of such, as follows, from the Mystic Steamship Co., Boston, Mass., under
date of May 22 1933, signed by F. B. Craven, manager, marine department:
 'We are inclined to believe in a general way that the proposition would be
quite interesting to us and should appreciate an opportunity at a later date to
more fully express our reactions. We assume at that time that you will be in
a position to give us a more detailed picture of all characteristics of the canal'
and particulars relating thereto.'
 "From the Sinclair Navigation Co., 45 Nassau Street New- York. City, under.
 date of May 15, 1933, signed by J. G. Johnson, vice president::