DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 449

Jacksonville southwest, and finally running out into the Gulf of Mexico. The
canal has to be dug 25 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico itself in order to reach
navigable water.
 The proposed canal has been romantically discussed for 50 to 100 years,
but it never remotely occurred to anybody to actually undertake it and to
put any money into it until the present delightful dispensation of easy money
came upon the land. Even in the presence of this delightful dispensation it
was not too easy for the Florida Canal to reach the Treasury because Secretary
Ickes has a rather realistic viewpoint in respect to some of his responsibilities.
 When the Florida project applied for a P. W. A. loan on August 14, 1933,
 the P. W. A. Administrator appointed several boards to inquire into it. I shall
 be very brief in this summary because I went over it in detail 2 months ago;
 but I do not want Senators to forget what it is upon which they are asked
 to vote.
 Secretary Ickes' first board reported on costs, and it did report that a sea-
 level canal would cost $142,000,000 without interest and $160,000,000 with
 interest.
 Let me digress just a moment. Senators will notice the clever language
 in the amendment which is now pending. In that portion of the amendment
 which pretends to offer a little protection by way of an upper limit on the
 cost of producing this atrocity, it is said:
 "Provided, That the total estimated capital cost"-note the word "capital"-
 "capital cost of such canal shall not exceed $150,000,000."
 Do Senators see what the use of the word "capital" means? It means that
 interest during construction is to be eliminated from the cost limitation,
 although, of course, unfortunately, it cannot be so conveniently eliminated when
 the draft is drawn on the Treasury. According to the original report, to which
 the Senator from Florida [Mr. Fletcher] has repeatedly referred, the real cost
 of the canal at that time, with a legitimate accounting for interest during
 construction, was $160,000,000. Thanks to the clever language of the pending
 amendment, interest during construction is eliminated without any particular
 notice to us except as we happen to understand what is meant in projects of
 this character by the adjective "capital" in front of the noun "cost."
 The Secretary appointed another board. That board reported on the financial
 aspects of the Florida scheme and reported on September 13, 1934, saying: "It
 8-cent tolls were charged on the canal, the canal would pay for its maintenance
 and operation and repay cost of construction, without interest, in 80 years."
 That is a fine business proposition I The Government could get its money
 back without interest in 80 years-maybe-but could not even do that unless
 it charged 8-cent tolls, and there are not going to be any tolls charged at all
 on this canaL
 Mr. FtzroHER Mr. President-
 The PB EsmNo OmFa. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator
 from Florida?
 Mr. VANDNaaeo. I am glad to yield.
 Mr. FLtronHa The proposal at that time was to make it a toll canal and the
 idea was to obtain a loan for building it.
 Mr. VAimmnaD. That is correct.
 Mr. FhlrOHE. The 8-cent tolls may not be compared to the charge on the
 Panama Canal. The Panama Canal toll amounts to $1 per ton. If we should
 increase the rate of toll on the Florida Canal we would get more revenue. Eight
 cents a ton is a nominal sum and is not a reasonable charge.
 Mr. VANDENm m. The Senator is entirely correct, but I fail to understand
 what bearing it has upon the point I was making. I was not discussing whether
 or not the 8-cent charge was appropriate. I was simply discussing the fact
 that Secretary Ickes' board found that even with the revenue which would
 accrue to the Government from a toll of at least 8 cents, still the project could
 not be justified on a business basis.
 The matter went through the works of the P. W. A. and on December 21,
 1934, the P. W. A. Acting Administrator, whose name, I believe, was Fleming,
 recommended that the Florida Canal project be disapproved for a loan as "not
 self-liquidating." In other words, it was not a sound business proposition.
 That puts it in a nutshell.
 January 29, 1935, the project was formally disapproved by the Secretary of
 the Interior acting as Public Works Administrator.