DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 389

 As to effect on water of Florida General Markham states in a letter to me as
follows:
 WAR DEPARTMENT,
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
 Washington, July 10, 1935.
Hon. W. J. Scas,
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
 MY DEAR MR. StAas: The National Emergency Council has furnished this
Department copies of your letter of June 29 to the President, and its enclosure,
letter of Hon. S. H. Christian, of Ocala, Fla., of June 28, relative to the proposed
cross-Florida canal.
 A special board of review appointed by the President, consisting of two officers
of the Corps of Engineeers, two engineers of the Administration of Public
Works, and a consulting engineer of New York City, concluded that a sea-level
canal was more advantageous than a lock canal; and after securing the advice
of ground water experts having a knowledge of the geological and artesian
water supply of Florida, found that the possible damage to agriculture from
such a canal would be negligible and limited to a narrow strip adjacent to the
canal, and that the damage to water supply would be small, consisting only of
lowering the levels of nearby wells.
 These reports are now being reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors precedent to the submission of the reports to Congress with the
recommendations of the Department.
 Very truly yours,
 E. M. MARKHAM,
 Major General, Chief of Engineers.

 USE OF BELIEF WORKERS ON THE CANAL

 There are now 6,000 people employed on the canal, 90 percent of whom were
taken from the relief rolls. They allowed contractors 10 percent not on relief
rolls, because the contractors had,to take with them certain men who had been
with them for years. The men are doing real work, and you are getting dollar
for dollar for the work. If $12,000,000 is appropriated, the result will be that
10,000 more people in Florida will come off the relief rolls and begin digging the
canaL
 Now, when the President made his estimate to this committee, Mr. Chairman,
he asked for $1,500,000,000, and he asked for $12,000,000 in addition thereto for
the Florida cross-State canal. Therefore, these 6,000 men already put to work,
and the 10,000 to whom work will be given, were not taken into consideration,
and the bill should be increased by an amount sufficient to take care of those
people if the appropriation for the canal is not secured. I do not know of any
way of absorbing those people in any other employment. Frankly, I have urged
the canal, not only from an economic standpoint, and as something worth while,
a great national project, but from the relief standpoint. It will be a project
that will stand as a monument to the President and to Congress when this
canal shall have been completed.
 Now, I cannot speak for the members of the committee or for my colleagues,
 but I can say that some of my colleagues have told me, on the floor of the House
 and over in the Office Building that it was just a matter of difference of opinion.
 They felt that the President should go on with the canal without asking Con-
 gress anything about it. The President thought he should ask Congress'
 endorsement before going too far with it. Personally, it is immaterial to me
 which way you proceed, so long as we get the canaL
 ADVANTAGES TO SHIPPING AND BUSINESS THROUGH USE OF CANAL

 Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let us consider some of the opposition to the
 canaL First, I will call your attention to this phase of it: It has been stated,
 and I think it can be proven, that the mail-contract rates will be materially
 reduced if the canal is completed. For the boats carrying the mail the canal
 will take off about 400 miles of the distance. That much will be cut off the
 distance by going through the canal; and as you know, they are paid by the
 mile. Of course, that may be a selfish way to look at it; and if I were a mail
 contractor, receiving several hundred thousand dollars a year for carrying the
 mail, and there was a chance of cutting off $75,000 or more because of the
 construction of the canal, no doubt I would oppose it.