DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 435

developed power in this vicinity, in connection with their excellent harbor
facilities, will bring manufactures from other parts of the country to Eastport
and its vicinity is the expectation of those who favor the project. The work
that has already been done has been of infinite value to the community and
to the State at large.
 That the present project by Itself is a low-cost power unit, I do not claim.
That by itself, unless one credits to relief a considerable part of the cost of
the installation, it is warranted economically, I do not claim; but as an initial
step toward the starting of a much larger and much more beneficial private
project I believe it is most certainly warranted.
 I have favored the Passamaquoddy project from its inception. I favor it
now, and I wish to have an opportunity to cast my vote in its favor. Unfor-
tunately, under the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, the
project is linked up with another project in which I do not believe, and against
which I have cast my vote in the Senate. It has been estimated that this
second project, the Florida ship canal, will cost the Government upward of
$150,000,000. It has been suggested to me by friends of Passamaquoddy that
in order to insure the legislation for its continuance I should change about on
the ship canal and also vote for its continuance.
 Mr. President, I cannot reconcile myself to any such change of front. I will
have no part in saddling on our Government an ultimate expenditure of more
than $150,000,000 for a project in which I do not believe in order to save the
Maine project, dearly as I should like to see the latter put through. If the
two projects are coupled together, therefore, I must vote against the
amendment.
 Mr. President, I ask that a separate vote may be had on the two questions
 at issue. Under rule XVIII I believe I am entitled to such division. I ask
 that the amendment be divided.
 The PBszam Ne OFIca (Mr. Johnson in the chair). The Senator from Maine
 asks for a division of the amendment. In the opinion of the Chair, he is en-
 titled to a division.
 Mr. RoBINsoN. Mr. President, inasmuch as the vote is not to be had now, I
 suggest that we meet that question when we reach it. Consideration of that
 question may properly be deferred until we are ready to vote.
 Mr. HAIL Under rule XVIII, I have a right to a division, have I not?
 Mr. ROBINSON. It is merely suggested that we can determine that question
 when we are a little nearer ready to vote. There is no use going into it this
 evening.
 Mr. HAL. Is it not the ordinary procedure to determine the question when the
 request is made?
 The PRESIDING OmFIB. The Parliamentarian advises the Chair that under
 rule XVIII it is the right of the Senator from Maine to have a division! of the
 question. No action need be taken by the Senate upon it.
 Mr. ROBINSON. The question will arise again when we reach the point of vot-
 ing. The Senator need not raise the question now, unless the Senate is ready
 to vote.
 Mr. McNABY. Mr. President, unquestionably rule XVIII accords the Senator
 the right to demand a division of the question. The demand can be made at
 any time before the vote. The Senator from Maine desires to raise it at this
 time. I think the proper attitude on the part of the Chair is to declare
 that there shall be a division of the question.
 The PRESIDING Omcr The opinion of the Chair is that no action need be
 taken at the present time. The Senator from Maine has a right to a division
 of the question.
 Mr. FLETCHmE Mr. President, the amendment is before the Senate and will
 be voted upon in due course. Any Senator has a right to raise the question
 suggested by the Senator from Maine, but not beforehand and not until a vote
 is reached. We have not reached the point of agreeing or disagreeing to the
 amendment. When action is to be taken upon the amendment, then the re-
 quest of the Senator will be in order. I do not see any need of raising the
 question at this time.
 Mr. McNABY. It is plainly the right of the Senator from Maine, under rule
 XVIII, to demand a division of the question. It becomes pertinent at this time
 because, as the Senator stated, he favors the Passamaquoddy project and is
 opposed to the Florida Canal project. Consequently, there is no need of
 doubling the argument when he wants to state clearly his position with re-
 spect to one of the projects on the motion. I think it would be proper for