Kingman, at that time in charge of the improvement of the Tennessee River, stationed at Chattanooga.

The CHAIRMAN. On what date?

Captain JOHNSTON. Major Kingman's report is dated March 25, 1901.

The only obstruction to navigation, therefore, is found in these shoal places where, at low water, the depth is insufficient. The bottom of the river is generally composed of loose rock, gravel, and clay, though occasionally it is formed of solid rock in place. The banks are unusually firm and stable; they are covered with large trees, growing nearly down to the low-water level, clearly demonstrating their stable character and the fact that the high-water periods are infrequent and of short duration.

A comparison of the results of the present survey with the former examinations and reconnoissances indicates that there has been no change perceptible in the obstacles to navigation. The same shoals exist, with the same depth of water upon them, and this is what would be inferred from the character of the bottom and banks of the river. There is little or no bar-making material traveling downward in the river bed; there are no caving banks, and consequently no changes in the shape of the channel.

*

*

*

I am of the opinion that the river is worthy of such an improvement at such a cost

That is, a lock-and-dam improvement

provided it were necessary; but, owing to the abundant discharge of the river, and the very moderate fall, and the comparatively insignificant character of the obstructions, a sufficient depth and a sufficiently moderate current for all purposes of navigation can certainly be secured by an improvement by regulation at a very much less cost than by a slack-water improvement.

Now, in the case of the Tennessee River, it is found in the section under consideration that there is little or no moving material in the bed of the stream. It is also found that the bed of the stream is so hard and of such a firm characer that there is little or no danger that it will be cut out by the moderate increase of current which it may be necessary to bring about in order to secure a sufficient depth of water on the bars.

Mr. LAMB. Mr. Chairman, is all this matter germane to this discussion? I submit it to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. It strikes me that it is germane. It tends to show the character of these bars, and whether or not they are formed by drifting material or are of a permanent character.

Mr. STANLEY. I should think it was germane, in justice to the Engineering Corps, if they have been unjustly criticised before the committee.

Mr. LAMB. That is another question.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, Captain Johnston is reading these reports to rebut the statement made by Professor Glenn last year that the Engineer Corps was engaged in an endless task of digging out.

Captain JOHNSTON. A "hopeless task;" that we had "thrown up our hands." That is practically what he told the committee.

Mr. STANLEY. Not only Professor Glenn, but a great many other people have indulged in a great deal of gratuitous criticism of the methods of the Engineering Corps in improving streams, which I thought was absolutely unnecessary and unwarranted.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the germaneness of this matter may be shown by just one question which I wish to ask. That is whether you know that the conditions described in the last report you have read,

and all the preceding reports, are practically the same as those that prevail now?

Mr. LEVER. I was just about to ask that question myself, Mr. Chairman.

Captain JOHNSTON. By the act of March 3, 1909, Congress ordered a survey of the Tennessee River with a view to its comprehensive improvement. That report has not been made as yet by Major Harts, although I understand it is nearly completed; and the report will undoubtedly show present conditions. But I have not available here absolute facts to show that the same conditions exist. In fact, the same conditions do not exist, because in the last nine years we have done a considerable amount of rock removal and other work on this part of the river, which has greatly improved the conditions. The CHAIRMAN. The point of my question is this: I assume that from the fact that one of these reports that you quote goes back as far as 1830 and the latest one is dated as far back as 1901 it might be argued that since that time the watershed of the river had been deforested to such an extent that a very different condition now exists, and that detritus may be washing down now which was not encountered when those reports were written. Have you any information on that subject?

Mr. LEVER. I should like to ask the question, Mr. Chairman, if you please, whether or not Captain Johnston has any report as to the condition of the watershed of this river now as compared with the condition as it existed when this report was made? If he has any such knowledge, then of course this matter is all germane.

Captain JOHNSTON. I might say that I have not made a business of hunting up these propositions. The reports which I have here I have simply picked up. I spent all yesterday morning here, and yesterday afternoon except for an hour, doing other things; so practically all this data has been collected in a very short time. I found this report of 1901 yesterday afternoon and I did not look any further. But our annual report every year gives in brief terms the general status of the proposition. There is one little quotation here that may be of interest. This is in the upper section of the Ten

nessee.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that report?

Captain JOHNSTON. July, 1909. This is from the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1909:

Operations in recent years have been mainly concentrated at the formidable series of obstructions extending from Caney Creek shoals (about 98 miles above Chattanooga) downstream for a distance of about 8 miles.

This is between Knoxville and Chattanooga.

The projected works in that vicinity are well advanced toward completion, and a marked increase in channel depths has been obtained.

I read these extracts merely to reenforce the statement I want to make, that a great deal of the money spent on the upper pert of the Tennessee River has gone for rock removal and removal of bowlders and hard material; also in the construction of wing dams, which concentrate the flow of water over these hard shoals, thereby deepening it, and not in dredging, which caused the engineers to throw up their hands in disgust, which is practically what Professor Glenn stated.

Mr. STANLEY. Therefore very little dredging-in fact, almost none has to be done again on account of the rapid filling up of the channel, as is the case on the Mississippi?

Captain JOHNSTON. I will simply refer the committee to Colonel Kingman's statement as made in his report, which is, as I recall it (I read it a few minutes ago), that the amount of detritus in the Tennessee is very small. I have with me no other data on the subject that I can put my hands on.

Mr. LEVER. As a matter of fact, Captain Johnston, the Engineer Corps does not deal with the watershed conditions of the rivers at all, does it? It does not know anything about it, does it? Is that true? Captain JOHNSTON. Well, I suppose that is a matter of opinion. Mr. LEVER. No; it is a matter of fact.

I's

Mr. Cocks. Why, they deal with the result.

Mr. LEVER. That is it exactly.

Captain JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, to continue from Professor Glenn's testimony:

I have here a table, which I will not read, giving the streams in the South that are navigable, the length of navigation in each one, and the total expenditures of the United States Government in 1790 to 1907, inclusive. On that Tennessee River over $8,000,000 have been spent. Under present conditions there is no chance to permanently improve that navigable channel, because of the incessant inrush of the sand and gravel. If the material is checked before it ever starts, up in the mountains, and kept there by keeping forests on those steep slopes that ought never to be cleared, then the necessity for this constant dredging would be greatly decreased or perhaps obviated entirely. Merely as a business proposition, is it better to bale out sand forever from the stream and take no means for preventing it from getting in there, or is it better to go to the root of the trouble and hold the sand where it was made on those steep mountain slopes, and keep it from ever getting down into navigable streams? I have not time to speak further.

Here is a tabulated statement relating to internal waterways improved by the United States Government, prepared for the National Waterways Commission, composed (as you know, of course), of Senators and Representatives in Congress. This gives, among other data, the details of expenditures on all the inland waterways of the United States. The amount expended on the Tennessee River includes $638,557 on the upper section above Chattanooga, which was expended in what we call the open-channel work, some dredging, the construction of dikes over these rocky bars, and a considerable amount of rock removal. In the middle section of the Tennessee River, between Chattanooga and Riverton, there has been expended $7,173,174. In this section for open-channel work the amount expended has been only $718,000. For canal construction on this middle section there has been expended $5,288,000. For the operation of the Muscle Shoals Canal (one of the two canals constructed on that section) there has been expended $1,119,804. For the Hale's Bar lock and dam (a short distance below Chattanooga, still under construction) there has been expended by the Government $47,370, and a considerably larger amount has been expended by private interests. The Muscle Shoals Canal was constructed by the Government at a cost, as I said, of about $5,300,000. The river at that section was originally, I think, at low water, about 1 foot in depth, the water flowing over rocky obstructions, absolutely impassable at low water. Farther down the river, just above Riverton, the department has nearly completed the Colbert Shoals Canal, a lateral canal around.

the Colbert and Bee Tree shoals. For about six months in the year the river there was absolutely impassable for navigation by reason of rocky reefs and rapids.

From the above figures it can be seen that the total amount spent on the whole Tennessee River, from the beginning up to last year, for what we call open-channel work-for dredging and for dikes to contract the flow and thereby increase the depth over these rocky bars, rock removal, etc.-has been about $1,700.000; and the results have undoubtedly been good. There is no question about that. And this $1,700,000 should be contrasted with Professor Glenn's inference of over $8,000,000 having been wasted.

Mr. LAMB. That would be fine for the Rivers and Harbors Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is exceedingly pertinent to this inquiry. The statement was made here that it had cost $8,000,000 to dig out of the Tennessee River the detritus that had washed down from the slopes. It is certainly a matter of extreme importance to find out whether that $8,000,000 was spent for digging out material which was washed in on account of the denudation of the slopes, or whether the greater part of it was spent in the construction of canals and locks and dams, which would have had to be constructed whether there was any wash from the slopes or not.

Mr. STANLEY. A great many of us are favorable to this conservation project. We realize, however, that nothing has been done to hurt it as much as effusions like that of Professor Glenn, who goes out of his way to criticise the expenditures of the Government for river and harbor improvements. As between the two, there are a great many of us who believe that the river and harbor improvement is the more necessary. And I think, as a friend of the project, that there has not been anything done to hurt it with the public and with the committee as much as statements of the character of those that are now being refuted and answered. For this reason I do not think I have heard anything since I have been in the committee more pertinent to the question. It is better for us to know the truth.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Captain JOHNSTON. On page 748 of the hearings of this committee on January 30, 1908, is given some of the testimony by Professor Swain. I understand he is a professor of civil engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I have some figures here which have been prepared by the Department of Agriculture with reference to the sums which have been expended by the Government on streams draining the White Mountain Reservation as it is proposed, and the sums which have been expended by the Government for the improvement of navigation, which I should like to submit to the committee. These figures give the number of miles of navigable water in these streams and the appropriations by the Government from 1790 to 1907, which amount to $2,577,000, a total cost of improvement per mile of about $17,000. The striking figure is the average tonnage on the river in 1905 for each dollar spent by the Government for improvement, which is just about half a ton.

On page 802 is this table which Mr. Swain stated was prepared by the Agricultural Department. The table includes the Kennebec River, the Androscoggin, the Saco, the Merrimac, and the ConnectiIt charges against the tonnage for the year 1905 (one year) the total cost of improvements from 1790 to 1907-undoubtedly an unjust reflection on the Congress of the United States. If you

cut.

want to get at the cost per ton of commerce you should take the commerce back to 1790; or, failing in that for lack of records, you should take only the cost back to the date when the records of commerce commence. I do not think there is any question about that. Moreover, this table includes the Saco River, Maine. I have not had time or inclination to look into the case particularly.

The Saco is given here as having 5 miles of navigable water. I have looked into it enough to know that the range of tide is about 9 feet, and that most of the money spent on that river has been spent for a breakwater and jetty at the mouth, to prevent the washing of sand down the coast and the formation of a bar at the mouth of the Saco River.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the formation of the bar by sand being washed in from the coast, and not being washed down the river?

Captain JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; due to littoral drift, wave action, etc. What this has to do with the question of forestation I do not know; but I do not submit that proposition. I simply invite attention to the fact that it was submitted by Professor Swayne as part of his evidence.

With regard to the Tennessee River, if we can come back to that for just a second, I forgot to mention one thing. However, I think I have said enough about the Tennessee. I just wanted to find a statement in here in which Major Kingman compared the estimated cost of the proper improvement of the Tennessee with that of most of the rivers of Europe, and showed that its proper improvement will cost very much less per mile than some of the principal rivers of Europe. I read that last evening; but unless the committee desires it, I will not take the time to find it again in this document.

Mr. STANLEY. In this report on the Ohio River by Colonel Rossell, what position does he take with reference to the effect of deforestation upon the accumulation of silt?

Captain JOHNSTON. Perhaps you would like to have me read just about a page and a half of his conclusions?

Mr. STANLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly what we want.

Captain JOHNSTON. I had not read it until the last three or four days; but I read it through, I think, two or three days ago. If you ask what position he took, I will say it impressed me as being a judicial position. He was not arguing for or against the matter, but seemed to have made a very thorough investigation, as the members of the committee will no doubt agree when they look over the report. I should like to read just this one paragraph as bearing on some questions which the committee asked Professor Moore:

Danger lines are arbitrary stages, and the percentage of floods depends in part upon whether a high or low danger line is assumed. This is specially pertinent to Marietta, Ohio, where daily river stages were formerly reported to the Weather Bureau office, the danger line being given in the old reports as 25 feet. Such a stage has been assumed as a danger line in the computations of flood data at Marietta, but it is, however, entirely too low, and it would be proper to consider 35 feet as the danger line.

*

*

*

*

*

Low water: Following is a consolidated table of extreme low-water records for given periods, and appended at the end of this paper are tables exhibiting changes in stream flow in detail. The low water at Pittsburg has not been given, as this has been affected by Davis Island Dam.