380 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 the committee, and received legislative action by Congress, it was not in order
 and would be irregular for Congress to make any appropriation for them.
 "It was a technical point which had back of it those who were criticizing
 the administration at every opportunity and who lost no chance to fasten on
 the President and the administration any charge that authority had been
 exceeded or abused and public funds wasted.
 "It was, I believe, a Republican move, a covert attack on the administration,
 which subsequent references herein will bear out. The effort was to have
 Congress emphasize and support the charges they were making by refusing
 this appropriation.
 "Disclaims of any political purpose, of course, were made and the objection
 was shrewdly handled by appealing to Congress to pursue undiminished its pre-
 rogative and by asserting that the President had the funds and ought to go on
 with the projects with the money in hand and not ask Congress for specific
 appropriations in addition to what had been given him.
 "Their objection really reached back to the act of 1935-the vesting in the
 President of extensive authority and the power to dispose of a large sum. But,
 of course, the act of 1935 is the law. It is idle to combat its wisdom now. It
 passed the Senate by a vote of 66 to 13 It gave the President the authority to
 do precisely what he did. The opponents finally conceded that. Under the act
 the projects were authorized legally and were eligible to receive appropriations
 by Congress. They had not been adopted by legislative acts of Congress, spe-
 cifically and directly, but Congress had authorized the President to adopt the
 projects.
 "The House subcommittee, full Committee on Appropriations, and the House
 Itself adopted the view advanced by the Republican members and did not include
 any of these five projects in the appropriation bill.
 "When the bill came to the Senate I offered an amendment adding $29,000.000
 to take care of these projects as included in the Budget and recommended to
 Congress. The same objection was urged as had been raised in the House. With
 clearness and force and at considerable length a leading Republican argued
 repeatedly the protest and points against the amendment. The attack finally
 centered largely on the ship canal, opponents of the canal furnishing material
 and arguments in support of the attack.
 "I offered the amendment before the Subcommittee on Appropriations. It was
 defeated by one vote. In the meantime the Senators from Maine preferred that
 the Passamaquoddy project in their State be left out, and I modified the amend-
 ment so as to add $20,000,000 to the bill, thus taking care of the four other proj-
 ects-including $12,000,000 for the canal That was defeated by one vote. I
 then offered the amendment before the full committee and there it was defeated
 by one vote.
 "The singular thing I call attention to is that every Republican member of the
 subcommittee and every Republican member of the full committee voted against
 this amendment. Some of such members had never attended a meeting of the
 subcommittee or of the full committee and heard nothing of the discussions and
 were in absolute ignorance of the merits of the proposal. However, they left
 their proxies with opponents of the amendment and were so voted. These Repub-
 lican members were unanimous in their opposition to the amendment that would
 have carried out the Budget estimates, and the recommendations of the Secre-
 tary of War and Chief of Engineers. Thus the amendment was defeated in the
 full committee.
 "I gave notice I would offer it in the Senate when the bill was considered there.
 I did so. It was impossible to interest Members of the Senate who apparently
 had made up their minds, without a clear understanding of what was involved
 and, not to my surprise, but in strict accordance with what I felt was going on
 and in line with the political purpose to make the fight on this appropriation as
 a policy that might serve to strengthen the attack on the administration, every
 Republican in the Senate except those noble, independent souls, Johnson and
 Norris, voted against the amendment
 "Is it not remarkable that the Republican Party should be so united against
this proposal to carry out the administration's recommendation? One must
be decidedly naive and childlike not to recognize the political significance of
their votes. Many of them did not follow the discussions-they voted as a
party, speaking generally. A few Individuals, no doubt, felt there was merit
in the opposition-particularly influenced by propaganda, telegrams, and letters
from the State voicing opposition to the canal. In some instances this local