DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


471


appropriation bills, will be found to continue the building of this canal, and this
will impose upon future Congresses a burden of well over $100,000,000 in the
completion of the project.
 I do not believe that it is a wise policy to start a project as a relief project
unless you have allocated sufficient money at the time you start it to finish it.
I do not believe that it is wise to start a project as a relief project to be con-
tinued eventually in the regular appropriation bills when the problem of relief
is over. It seems to me a thoroughly bad policy and a thoroughly bad prece-
dent to establish.
 Mr. DONDEiuo Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
 Mr. BACON. Yes.
 Mr. DoNmD I have made an investigation of the Florida ship canal, and
 I find that in 109 years there never has been a favorable report filed on this
 canal-not on this route primarily, because other routes have been proposed, but
 I cannot find a single favorable report upon it, and I do not think there is any.
 Mr. BACON. Who is going to benefit by this canal? Apparently commercial
 shipping, according to the proponents of the canal; but the testimony before
 our committee was to the effect that two-thirds of that commercial shipping
 which will benefit by it are the oil tankers of the large oil companies. Are
 we going to expend $142,000,000 for the ostensible purpose of benefiting the
 tankers of the large oil companies? They form two-thirds of all the traffic
 that goes around Florida today. Yet, if it is for the benefit of the freighters,
 tankers, and commercial liners, they do not want or request it. Let me read
 to you what the Department of Commerce has stated:
 "The consensus of opinion of that part of the shipping industry with which
 contact has been established in the preparation of this study appears to be that
 the probable cost of building the projected waterway is not justified through
 any benefits which might thereby accrue to the cargo or the vessel The sig-
 nificance of this is that it rests primarily upon the considered opinion of the
 principal and naturally most interested group, namely, the tanker trade."
 It would thus appear that this canal will be little used and is not needed.
 There is no economic justification for the expenditure of $142000,000.
 Mr. OLrvR. What is the gentleman reading from?
 Mr. BACoN. A report from the Department of Commerce, which appears in
 the Record of May 30, 1936, at page 858.
 The SPaKmm. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
 Mr. BJOHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ala-
 bama [Mr. Oliver]. [Applause.]
 [Mr. Oliver addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in
 the Appendix.]
 Mr. BUOCHAAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to my col-
 league from Florida [Mr. Sears].
 Mr. Suais. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in
 the Record and to include a few letters and the last memorandum written by
 Senator Fletcher on the Florida ship canal.
 The SPEraK pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
 There was no objection.
 The memorandum referred to follows.
 "Memorandum written with a pencil by the late Senator Duncan U. Fletcher
 "OPProSrrzN To ATLANTIO-GuLF SIP CANAL Acaoss FLORIDA

 "The Emergency Appropriation Act of 1985 gave the President full authority
 to select, initiate, and approve projects to be undertaken by the Government
 and to allot funds for prosecuting work thereon. The President was vested
 with complete discretion in the matter and $4,800,000,000 was placed in his
 hands for the purpose of discharging that trust.
 "On August 30, 1935, the President issued an Executive order to the Secretary
 of the Treasury to set aside $5,000,000 for the Atlantic-Gulf ship canal, describ-
 ing it, generally, as the project which the board of review, composed of two
 Army engineers from the Corps of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, two Pub-
 lic Works Administration engineers (the chief and his assistant), and a chair-
 man selected by the four, a distinguished engineer from New York, recom-
 mended to him.
 "Upon recommendation by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War,
 the Director of the Budget approved and placed in the Budget an item of