DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 439

chief and his assistant; and they selected a fourth, Mr. Douglas, of New York,
an engineer of international reputation.
 "(4) A special board of geologists and engineers appointed by direction of
the Chief of Engineers.
 "An examination and study of the possible effects of a sea-level canal on the
underground water supply of Florida.
 Those reports are all on file, and all the special board will have to do is to
examine those data and pass judgment upon them.
 "2. The coordinated findings of the above-named agencies are substantially as
 follows:
 "(a) A sea-level canal is preferable and will have no adverse effect on the
 agriculture or underground water supply of Florida.
 "(b) The cost of the project is estimated to be $142,700,000, exclusive of land
 and interest during construction. Land is being furnished by the State of
 Florida.
 "(c) The canal is economically justified as a river and harbor project, on a
 4-percent basis, at a cost upward of $160,000,000."
 The report of the board of review recommended to the President undertaking
 this project, and estimated that its cost at $100,000,000 would be economically
 justified. The amendment provides for a limit of cost of $150,000,000.
 "3. The type, plans, and cost estimate have been approved by the Chief of
 Engineers.
 "4. The project was recommended to the President by the board of review.
 "5. The project was duly authorized by the President pursuant to the provi-
 sions of the Emergency Appropriation Act of 1935, and work is now in progress
 under the direction of the Chief of Engineers."
 So the objection that the time is too short to enable a board thoroughly to
 examine the subject and report to the President upon it is not well founded,
 because the data are already at hand, and all that it will be necessary for the
 board to do is to examine the various reports and files which have been accumu-
 lated during past years. I think they can do that within the time limited in
 the amendment; and it is important to do it as quickly as possible in order that
 there may not be an absolute disorganization of the forces now engaged in the
 work, and a laying-off of thousands of persons, and placing them on relief rolls.
 OPPOSITION BY SHIP-OPEATING CONCERNS

 The opponents of the administration have made much of what they claim to
 be the opposition of ship-operating concerns. It is undoubtedly a fact that many
 ship-operating concerns have expressed themselves as strongly opposed to the
 project, while others have attempted to discourage it. Among those which the
 record shows to be most strongly opposed is the Standard Shipping Co., a sub-
 sidiary of the Standard Oil Co.
 I call to the attention of the Senate the real significance of this opposition.
 The question at issue is not whether the Government will build this canal for
 the benefit of certain ship-operating concerns but whether, when built, it will
 benefit the general public to an extent commensurable with its cost. That is the
 real question; and all attempts to divert the argument by citing opposition of
 ship operators are beside the point.
 Ship operators realize that in the long run substantially all of the savings in
 the operation of ships made possible by the canal will have to be passed on to the
 general public in the form of lowered freight rates. They also realize that the
 canal will greatly stimulate shipping into and out of the Gulf of Mexico and they
 fear that this will mean new competition.
 The Corps of Engineers, the Department of Commerce, and the Public Works
 Administration have all found that the construction and operation of the canal
 will result in general public benefits to the greater part of the United States.
 These benefits are much more than sufficient to Justify the cost.
 The Corps of Engineers, which is the highest authority on the safety and
 practicability for navigation of improved waterways, has stated that the canal
 is safe and feasible for ships to use.
 The Bureau of Navigation, which is the highest authority on questions of time
 and distance on given courses for ships, has stated that ships using the canal will
 definitely make certain savings in time and distance.
 In view of these facts, it is impossible to conclude that ships will not use the
 canal when it is opened. Whether some ship-operating concerns wish to see the
 canal built is not the question we are discussing here; and all evidence of this