356 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLOBIDA CANAL

 first time to appropriate money for carrying them forward, which, of course,
 could be done later in the session in a deficiency measure."
 I am simply pointing out the status of the minor projects, and I am urging
 that their status should in no sense affect the major decision which the Senate
 now must make.
 Referring finally to the major decision, I feel compelled to present one or
 two very brief exhibits, and then I am done.
 Some question was raised yesterday respecting the editorial attitude of the
 Miami Daily News, which is owned by ex-Governor Cox, of Ohio. It was sug-
 gested that, If the Miami Daily News had taken a position upon the proposition,
 its position would have been announced by editorial comment I send to the
 desk a brief excerpt from an editorial of the Miami Dally News of March 11,
 1985, which I ask to have read by the clerk.
 The PaImmnw Omen. Without objection, the clerk will read as requested.
 The legislative clerk read as follows:

 [From the Miami Dally News of Mar. 11, 1985]
 "There are reports, and more reports, on this huge enterprise, no two of which
 agree, and there remain many serious questions to be answered. The findings
 of Dr. Henry S. Sharp, geologist of Columbia University, appearing in the News'
 columns today, renew the challenge to Congress to answer these questions before
 authorizing construction or appropriating another dollar for the canal. Dr.
 Sharp asserts that it will jeopardize Florida's water supply over a wide area, "a
 matter of considerable economic importance." It is the consensus of all geolo-
 gists that there will be some damage, he reports, 'while a considerable number
 believe that it will prove to be a textbook example of large-scale destruction of
 water resources by artificial interference with underground flow.' Such a state-
 ment from a scientist who has no sectional or partisan interest in the matter,
 renewing the warning given earlier by Florida's State geologist, must be defi-
 nitely proved false or the canal project must be abandoned. Promoters have yet
 to produce sufcient evidence to prove that the canal would pay for itself If built.
 The majority of Gulf-Atlantle shipping lines seem uninterested in it. But this
 Nation could, if necessary, withstand the loss of $150,000,000 in the construction
 of the waterway. It would be extreme folly, indeed, at a time when economy is
 sorely needed. But $150,000,000 would be a relatively small amount compared to
 the damage If Florida's water resources were ruined, with all the agriculture
 dependent upon them. That is a disaster neither Florida nor the Nation can
 risk. So long as this threat remains the canal must not be built."
 Mr. VAN~Wm s. Mr. President, I have just been handed a telegram from Mr.
 W. Keith Phillips, president of the Miami Chamber of Commerce. I read only
 the latter portion of the telegram, because the first portion deals with personal
 matters.
 The president of the Miami Chamber of Commerce states the following:
 "The people most affected by this canal are thousands of small farmers, truck
 gardeners, and citrus growers scattered over the southern two-thirds of this
 State, who are unorganized and unable to make a proper defense of their rights.
 We beg of you to stand by us in this hour of need, and if possible, defeat this
 dangerous project. There is no demand for this canal from the shipping inter-
 ests, and personal contact with numerous shipping men convinces me that the
 canal will not be used, and that negotiating it during the winter will be very
 difficult on account of fogs and in the fall of the year on account of high cross
 winds."
 Just one other telegram, from Mr. E. C. Ralph, who I understand is president
 of the First National Bank of Miami, and I understand is one of the leading
 businessmen of the South. His message to me this morning is as follows:
 "I think I speak the prevailing sentiment of this entire south Florida area
 when I say that, in our judgment, the cross-State canal, if completed, will be a
 calamity. Many reasons have been advanced why it should not be perpetrated,
 all of which you know; but it should be suggested to the Senate that there are
 more people living and more active business south of the proposed canal than
 north of it, and that the southern portion is almost unanimously opposed to it.
 If this project were left for decision to the people of Florida, I think it would be
 overwhelmingly defeated."
 Mr. President, everything that has been said respecting the merits of the
 matter suffies, so far as I am concerned, to leave the decision to the conscience
 of the Senate. I simply remind the Senate, in conclusion, that it is now being
asked to approve an enormous appropriation which has been rejected by