and would move via the circuitous and more expensive route through the seaway rather than to, and through, eastern ports of the United States. This estimate appears to be fundamentally unsound. In this connection it is to be noted that the distance from Venezuela to Baltimore, Md., is 2,206 miles, and to Montreal, 3,339 miles, or 1,133 miles greater. Because of the size of the ore vessels transfer would be necessary to lake vessels at Montreal. Costs have been estimated indicating that it would be more economical not only to bring ore to Baltimore and other eastern United States ports than to use the seaway, which is navigable for only approximately 7 months of the year, but such lesser cost would be incurred in the movement of ore through eastern United States ports to interior points such as Pittsburgh, Pa. The Secretary's estimates as to petroleum tonnage admittedly lack support as to the origin or direction of the traffic, fail to take into account the new oil fields being developed in Canada, and assume such wide variations in volume of traffic as to render the figures a wholly unreliable base for the tremendous expenditures sought to be justified. The remaining estimates as to general cargo and other traffic are highly speculative and appear to be overoptimistic. Also the estimates of the Secretary apparently fail to recognize the physical limitations in the movement of traffice through the Welland Canal locks. It seems difficult to believe that practical men, on further reflection, would be willing to authorize expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars in Government money on the unreliable and exaggerated traffic figures brought forward by the proponents of the St. Lawrence seaway project. Neither the Secretary of Commerce nor anyone else has satisfactorily shown that the proposed development of the Labrador iron ore is dependent upon the seaway or would not take place if that project should not be authorized. In fact the record shows that this development is going forward irrespective of the construction of the seaway. Again as to the claimed dire need of certain steel plants for the Labrador ore, the evidence before this committee is far from convincing that ore deposits in the Lake Superior area are inadequate, or that Labrador ore would move via the seaway in anything like the quantities estimated in replacement of economically available and transportable ores from the Lake Superior areas. Estimates as to other traffic overlook the circuitous routes which would be involved in handling it via the St. Lawrence seaway and fail to take into account the limiting factors as to closed navigation during a large portion of the year, the restriction of drafts in respect to oceangoing vessels, reductions in speed, delays in passing through locks and difficulties in coping with fogs, ice conditions, and bad weather. While it is believed that there is insufficient and inadequate basis for concluding that this project would be self-liquidating, it would, in all probability, divert to a great extent grain and other traffic which is now moving through the port of Albany to the serious and unjust injury of this port and those dependent upon it. The Secretary of Commerce, it is to be remembered, referred to the contention of port interests on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, saying "There is no question but that a considerable amount of traffic now moving to and from the Middle West via these ports will be diverted to the seaway." The national transportation policy enacted in the Interstate Commerce Act is directed in part against the wasteful and unnecessary duplication of existing transportation facilities. The Interstate Commerce Commission's jurisdiction does not extend to such projects as the one here involved, but it is noteworthy that that Commission was called upon in February 1939, to report concerning the proposed Lake Erie-Ohio River canal and Congress declined to approve that project on the basis of the report made (235 I. C. C. 753). There it was pointed out that large tonnages of existing railroad and motor carriers would be diverted if the proposed waterway were constructed, that they had ample capacity to carry the traffic, and that "the public has a vital interest in the protection of the revenues of an agency of transportation whose services are available the year around and to large and small shippers on equal terms." Here there appears to be no real need for the St. Lawrence seaway, the construction of which would result in injury to the port of Albany and the carriers serving it, including those on the New York State Barge Canal system. Such injury should not be permitted in the absence of a dispassionate, careful investigation and analysis such as that made by the Commission in respect to the proposed Lake Erie-Ohio River Canal. The result of such analyses and study, it is believed, would require disapproval of the project here in question. CONTENTIONS THAT THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PROJECT IS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ARE BELIEVED TO BE UNSOUND The Albany Port District Commission wishes to be understood as thoroughly desirous of aiding the Government in its efforts to provide adequate national defense. However, it believes that with the tremendous expenditures required for this purpose there should be realistic regard for actual needs and care taken to avoid being carried away by empty patriotic phrases and unsound expressions of needs. It has not been claimed here that the seaway project could be considered in the category of guns, tanks, ships, aircraft, and other items which are necessarily procured with Department of Defense funds. At most it could be assigned to the indefinite position of a "support activity." While the proponents have stressed the need of the seaway as an instrumentality in making Labrador iron ore available in connection with national-defense efforts, a serious flaw in their contention is that Lake Superior ore is actually available and that the Labrador ore admittedly will be developed and shipped to plants in this country irrespective of the construction of the seaway project. Such project is clearly, therefore, not a necessity. Moreover, there is some evidence to the effect that such ore may be transported by railroad with considerable economy in supplying south-bound loads in cars hauling coal north-bound and ordinarily returning empty. Moreover, the national defense theory of the proponents was considerably undermined by frank admissions made during the House hearings in 1951. For example, Mr. John D. Small, Chairman of the Munitions Board, who was designated by the Secretary of Defense to explain the Department's views as to the seaway project, said, among other thing, "Question has been raised as to the vulnerability of the major installations of the project to determined air attack. That vulnerability is recognized." He further said, "It is also recognized that the seaway is admittedly susceptible to serious traffic interruptions by enemy action, particularly sabotage." It requires no expert to visualize the devastating effects on the proposed seaway of a few well-placed bombs. Prior to World War II, the proponents of the seaway emphasized the need of this project because of the claimed inadequacy of railroads and port terminals in time of war. The experience in the last war, however, has demonstrated the fallacy of this contention. Moreover, it is shown that at such time the critical shortage is in oceangoing vessels, and it seems highly doubtful that it would be in the public interest to run the risk of having such vessels bottled up in the seaway or of reducing their availability by long inland voyages at slow speeds and by the handling of traffic which could be moved by smaller vessels or by other forms of transportation. The lessons of the last war show that from the national defense standpoint railroads are far less vulnerable to attack than canal and dam systems. As to the suggestion that ships might be built in the lakes region in time of war, this fails to consider the long period during which navigation is closed, the danger that through enemy action the seaway would be put out of use, and the significant fact that the larger vessels could be built with better results nearer to the ocean. When carefully analyzed and tested, the St. Lawrence seaway project, it is believed, cannot be justified as a necessary additional transportation agency or as an instrumentality of national defense. The Albany Port District Commission is firmly of the view that this project as it relates to the construction of a seaway has not been shown to be in the public interest, that it would be unnecessarily injurious to existing transportation facilities and the port of Albany, and that it should be disapproved. I am also authorized to state on behalf of the New York State Waterways Association that it joins with the Albany Port District Commission in opposing the seaway project. This association is a nonprofit corporation, the members of which include port authorities, trade associations, civic and commercial organizations, business firms, shippers, and owners and operators of barges interested in the transportation of freight on the New York State canal system and the Hudson River. Its specific aims and purposes are to promote and protect the harbors, rivers, and other waterways of the State of New York, and the development of traffic on these arteries of transportation. Its views coincide with those of the Albany Port District Commission, as stated herein. NEW YORK STATE WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION Mr. CURRY. I am also authorized to appear on behalf of the New York State Waterways Association, which joins with the Albany Port District Commission in opposing the seaway project. This association is a nonprofit corporation, the members of which include port authorities, trade associations, civic and commercial organizations, business firms, shippers and owners and operators of barges interested in the transportation of freight on the New York State canal system and the Hudson River. The specific aims and purposes are to promote and protect the harbors, rivers, and other waterways of the State of New York and the development of traffic on these arteries of transportation. Its views coincide with those of the Albany Port District Commission as stated in this statement. In brief, the view of the Albany Port District Commission is that the facts do not justify this additional agency that is proposed here, and second, that national defense does not justify it. The CHAIRMAN. Well, what about the power project; are you interested in that? Mr. CURRY. I am not authorized to take any position on the power project. ALBANY RIVER AND CANAL COMMERCE The CHAIRMAN. Is there much seaborne commerce in Albany? It is mostly river boats, isn't it? Mr. CURRY. It is more river and canal. You see, Albany is the closest port to the Great Lakes of any of the North Atlantic ports, and it is 196 miles from Oswego on the canal, and about 360 miles to Buffalo, and a good deal of grain comes down the canal, down the lakes and down the canal to Albany. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean it comes over the Erie Canal? The CHAIRMAN. What is the draft of that canal now? What is the depth? Mr. CURRY. It has varying depths, but the draft is less than 14 feet. It is about 9, mostly by barge. The CHAIRMAN. All right; thank you. You are excused. Mr. William L. Cleary. Where is Mr. Cleary? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Everett T. Winter, Mississippi Valley Association. STATEMENT OF EVERETT T. WINTER, VICE PRESIDENT, Mr. WINTER. My name is Everett T. Winter. I am vice president of the Mississippi Valley Association, a voluntary nonprofit organization with members in 23 States in the Midwest and the South. The association headquarters are in St. Louis, Mo. My home is in Omaha, Nebr. With the limited time, Mr. Chairman, I think I can best utilize this time by filing this statement and giving back to the committee about 212 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will be printed in the record. 96175-52-51 STATEMENT OF EVERETT T. WINTER, VICE PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION My name is Everett T. Winter. I am vice president of the Mississippi Valley Association, a voluntary, nonprofit organization, with members in 23 States in the Midwest and the South. The association headquarters are in St. Louis, Mo. The thirty-third annual meeting of the association was held in St. Louis February 11-12, 1952. Present at that meeting were almost 900 registered delegates from the territory between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains and the Canadian border and the Gulf of Mexico. These delegates, who are among the leading citizens of the various communities, represent, we believe, an excellent cross section of informed public opinion in these various localities. They represent practically every business, industry, and profession in the great Middle West area of the United States. The following resolution was first passed by our water-resources and floodcontrol committee. It was then considered, debated, and passed by our resolutions committee, and then was debated and passed by the convention at large by an almost unanimous vote. This is the resolution: "GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY "We reiterate our disapproval of the construction of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway. "(1) An impartial and strictly factual survey of the economic possibilities as they would affect the existing commerce and transportation of the United States has never been made. We consider the study made and the report issued several years ago by the Department of Commerce inadequate and inaccurate. It was a promotional document rather than a factual survey. "(2) The imposition of tolls on one section of the proposed waterway and not on the remainder of the Great Lakes system would be highly impractical. There is danger that it would ultimately lead to the establishment of a system of tolls on all navigable waterways of the country, which would seriously limit their use and greatly retard their future development. "(3) The seaway, if built as a 27-foot channel, would accommodate less than 5 percent of American-flag ships. It would thus enable foreign vessels, constructed and operated on a low-cost basis, to raid American industry and shipping to the detriment of the commerce and economy of the Nation." Undoubtedly this resolution was the most talked of resolution of the several adopted by our 1952 convention. We, personally, talked with a large number of delegates present at the convention and we were much impressed by the questions in their minds pertaining to this all-important proposal. Our people are concerned about why we should build a seaway that can be efficiently used by an almost negligible percent of our merchant ships which are engaged in coastwise and foreign trade. Practically all of the ships of our American merchant fleet would have to operated light-loaded to use this proposed 27-foot channel. To assume that a ship that had been built for ocean service can operate on the Great Lakes regularly at a profit under such conditions is contrary to well-proven lake and ocean commercial transportation experience. We have subsidized our merchant marine so that it may be able to compete with cheap foreign labor, low construction costs and foreign ship subsidies, and also be the "fourth arm" of our national defense. Now it is proposed that we spend hundreds of millions of our dollars to create a channel that can be used by only a small part of this merchant marine but can be used profitably by many of its competitors. This does not make sense, and we wonder if lake-ocean transportation is the major purpose back of this project. Our membership was also much concerned about one of the far-reaching precedents that would be established in this proposed legislation. Why is the State of New York promised not only a low price on St. Lawrence hydroelectric power for years to come, but also a gift of the hydroelectric equipment? Is this not something new and dangerous that would be added to Federal policy? If hydroelectric power is the real purpose of the so-called St. Lawrence seaway project, may I quote another resolution that was passed by unanimous vote at our recent convention? It reads as follows: "NIAGARA RIVER DEVELOPMENT "We strongly urge congressional approval of bills S. 2021, H. R. 3146, authorizing the continued development of hydroelectric power on the Niagara River under the private-enterprise system. We recommend this bill for the following reasons: "(1) The Niagara project is a pure power project. Since there are no governmental functions involved, such as flood control, navigation, or irrigation, it is obvious that this project should be constructed and operated by electric companies which are in the business of supplying electricity to the general public in this area and have been generating power at Niagara Falls since the year of 1895. "(2) Immediate construction of this project is necessary as part of the normal power expansion of the electric companies to insure a continued industrial and rural development of this area with abundant quantities of low-cost power. "(3) Construction by private enterprise will save the Nation's taxpayers an initial 350 million of tax dollars by use of private capital for construction and, in addition, will pay annually approximately $23,000,000 in local, State, and Federal taxes. "(4) Under electric company development, power produced at Niagara Falls will be shared by all customers alike on a cost-of-service basis under regulation by Federal and State commissions." The Mississippi Valley Association has a long and distinguished record in support of the national development and production of our land and water resources. It has never opposed a project in any part of this country which it believed was of benefit to the area to be served and to the Nation. For 33 years we have supported projects recommended by the Corps of Engineers on the basis of our belief in the accuracy and competency of their economic studies and their careful analysis of the relation of costs to benefits in every instance. We are distressed to see at this time their all-out endorsement of a project that has not had the benefit of such searching analysis and study as they have previously given to all other projects which have had their approval. In our judgment it would be unwise, impractical, and inexpedient to undertake the construction of such a gigantic project largely outside the borders of the United States even if it had been proven economically justified during an emergency period such as now confronts us and during the time when there are so many needed river and harbor and flood-control projects within the borders of our country. Mr. Chairman, we hope that the committee will disapprove the proposed agreement. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morrison of the South Carolina State Ports Authority. STATEMENT OF EMMETT L. MORRISON, WASHINGTON REPRESENT ATIVE, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Emmett L. Morrison. I appear as representative of the South Carolina State Ports Authority. This authority embraces all the ports in South Carolina. The South Carolina State Ports Authority is opposed to the proposed St. Lawrence waterway because we see no reason why the people of our State should be taxed for an enterprise the principal purpose of which would be to divert traffic from the ports of our State for the development and improvement of which hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent and around which are involved hundreds of millions of dollars of other investments. NATIONAL INTERESTS We are prepared always to subordinate our selfish interests to those of the Nation as a whole, but without burdening the committee with argument, we are convinced that in this instance the national interest |