488 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 Third. That even if the ships do use it, the project will cost more than it is
 worth.
 Fourth. That it will adversely affect agriculture in a part of the State of
 Florida because it will diminish the underground water supply.
 I think these four headings comprise all points which have been raised by
 opposition from any source. It seems somewhat strange to me, however, that
 a railroad which does not touch within a hundred miles of the territory whose
 agriculture it is claimed will be affected should give as its ground for opposition
 its concern for such agriculture. It seems strange to me that communities
 which can have only the remotest connection with the hazards of navigation
 should base their opposition to the canal upon their claim that ships cannot
 navigate it without hazard. It seems equally strange that individuals far
 removed by physical distance and business interests from any direct connection
 with the canal should oppose it on the ground that the upkeep of a certain
 part of the channel would be greater than estimated by the Army engineers. I
 do not find anywhere In the record that any community has objected to the
 canal because it would prefer that relief expenditures remain closer at home.
 Nor do I fnd anywhere In the record that one city objects to the canal because
 It might enhance the development of another city. Nor do I find that any
 railroad or other transportation agency has objected on the grounds that the
 canal would result in cheapened water transportation which, no matter how
 much it might benefit the general public, might adversely affect their individual
 positions. These do not appear in the record, but I invite your attention to the
 bare possibility of their existence.
 Now, let us return to the four grounds for objection I mentioned a few
 minutes ago.
 As to the claim that when the canal is built ships will not use it, I think you
 will grant that if the ships can save time and money by using the canal they
 will use it. Whether they want the status quo to be upset and for that reason
 do not want the canal to be built is quite another question. We are not con-
 sidering this project solely for the benefit of shipowners but for the people of
 this country as a whole. If the shipowners say that even though they were to
 save time and money by using the canal they would not do so, I for one do not
 believe them.
 Now, as to the next point; that is, that it will not effect the savings in time
 and distance and freedom from hazards which the proponents claim, I submit
 that the highest authority in the land on the requisite dimensions and charac-
 teristics of improved waterways are the Army engineers; and the highest
 authority for the courses which ships will sail and the times and distances in-
 volved is the Bureau of Navigation. Both of these authorities have pronounced
 that the canal will result in the time and distance savings indicated, and I think
 we are warranted in accepting this verdict.
 As to the third point; that is, that even if the ships do use it the project
will cost more than it is worth, this is a matter which should not have to be
argued because it is subject to computation and survey by competent authorities.
The Army engineers say that it will not cost more than $142,700,000 and that its
benefits wil be upward of $8,000,000 a year. There are few, if any, river and
harbor projects in the United States which can make such a showing, and
unless we are to assume that the Army engineers are absolutely wrong in this
case and that the Public Works engineers are wrong, and that the engineers of
the board of review are wrong, I think we must accept these figures.
 Now, as to the last one, namely, that it will adversely affect agriculture in
a part of the State of Florida because it will diminish the underground water
supply, this is a purely technical question, and competent authorities of the
Government to which Congress has referred such questions advise that there
will be no such deleterious effect, and I think we are warranted in assuming
that they are correct If we assume that they are wrong, to whom are we to
turn for a decision on this highly technical matter? As a matter of fact, this
question has been examined by the Corps of Engineers, by the engineers of the
special board of review, and by a special commission set up by the Chief of
Bnglners, and, after exhaustive study, their reports may be summed up in
the following extract from a letter to Senator Fletcher from the Acting Chief
of Engineers under date of December 28, 1985:
 "The finding of the board at this time definitely indicate that no serious
adverse effects on the underground water supply need be anticipated from the
construction of a sea-level canal."