DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


487


 Third. That the existing available traffic which can be reasonably expected
to actually use the canal is upward of 11,000 ships per year.
 Fourth. That the canal will so shorten time and distance between the ports
of the Atlantic seaboard and the ports of the Gulf of Mexico as to effect a direct
saving to shipping of more than $8,000,000 per year.
 Fifth. That the cost of the canal will not exceed $142,700,000, exclusive of
land for right-of-way, which has been furnished by the State of Florida.
 Now, these are fairly simple facts and figures, and I think we are at liberty
to use them as a guide, at least for temporary procedure. I am satisfied we
are warranted in accepting them when we consider the source from which they
originate.
 Even a casual inspection of the relation of the cost of this project to its
direct benefits will show that it is apparently not only justified but justified to
an unusual degree. There are few river and harbor projects which can show
so high a ratio of benefit to cost And it should be borne in mind that the
benefits set forth above do not include the benefits accruing to commerce in
general by virtue of lowered freight rates, stimulation of trade, freedom from
hazards, and so forth. If these general but nevertheless real benefits are added,
the project stands as probably the most amply Justified of its kind.
 I think these figures of the Army engineers are entirely sufficient, but we are
 not lacking in corroborating evidence. I'he Public Works Administration,
 through its engineering department, made an independent examination of this
 project and found somewhat higher benefits and somewhat lower cost.
 I therefore call to your attention the undeniable fact that we have here ample
 warrant for concluding that the presumptive evidence in favor of this project is
 entirely sufficient as a basis for the action we are considering at this time. I
 now invite your attention to the opposition to this project. I feel that no
 description would be sufficiently frank and complete without careful scrutiny
 of the claims which have been made by those who oppose the project. I repeat
 that this is not the appropriate time to reach a final decision in this matter, for
 the very essence of the pending amendment is further examination before final
 decision, but I think it will be helpful if we consider the more outstanding
 phases of the opposition at this time. There are those both within and without
 the State of Florida who oppose the canal. With the exception of certain
 interests, whose opposition I am satisfied is inspired by a desire to prevent the
 economies which the canal would bring into being, I believe this opposition to
 be honest and sincere. But, no matter how honest and sincere it may be, it
 must first be shown that it is inspired by motives which can be taken into
 account by Congress in judging the matter affecting the welfare of the general
 public. A certain city may be jealous of the advancement of another city and
 therefore be honestly opposed to the project, but such supposition cannot prop-
 erly be considered here. A certain section of the State may fear that, no matter
 how much the country at large may profit, it will not proportionately profit
 by the project. While such opposition may well be considered, it must be
 carefully weighed against the general welfare. A number of people may fear
 that the cutting of the canal would endanger their interests because it may
 adversely affect their water supply. Such opposition is worthy of most serious
 consideration; but when all is said and done, neither the proponents nor the
 opponents in such cases can be permitted to be the final judges. In matters of
 this kind the law provides for orderly examination and dispassionate and impar-
 tial judgment by competent agencies set up for this purpose. Individual opinion,
 no matter how firmly held, cannot expect to override such judgment. Both
 opponents and proponents must submit their case to the established tribunal,
 namely, the technical departments of the Government, and finally to Congress
 itself, and must abide by the decisions reached in that way.
 Now, let us look at the record of this opposition. It is of record that the
 project is opposed by certain railroads and certain large corporate interests.
 These opponents have, of course, a perfect right to voice their opposition, but
 it is for Congress to weigh the value of such in coming to a decision Certain
 communities and certain individuals in the State of Florida are of record as
 opposing the project, and they most certainly are entirely within their rights
 in raising such opposition. However, although the opposition appears to come
 from numerous quarters, the grounds set forth for the opposition are few.
 These are:
 First. That when the canal is built ships will not use it.
 Second. That it will not effect the savings in time and distance and freedom
 from hazard which the proponents claim.