Imágenes de páginas

In the Illinois River from Grafton to Utica the Federal Government has a project of 7 feet not yet completed. Then we have a reach of 65 miles of river undeveloped and not navigable except for small craft. Paralleling that we have the old Illinois and Michigan Canal of a capacity of about 125 tons burden. Then we have the sanitary canal with a depth of 21 feet.

Now that is just as ridiculous as it would be to start out from Chicago to go to New Orleans with five or six different gauge railroads. Our boating between Chicago and New Orleans must be limited to 125 tons burden of the Illinois and Michigan Canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Now just let us start down. You say it is a thousand miles from the Gulf up to St. Louis?

Mr. BARNES. No; it is about a thousand miles from the Gulf up to Cairo.

The CHAIRMAN. From the Gulf to Cairo?
Mr. BARNES. Yes; not quite that distance.
The CHAIRMAN. Your 9-foot project, you say, reaches to St. Louis ?
Mr. BARNES. No; only to Cairo.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it is 8 feet, you say, from there?
Mr. BARNES. To St. Louis.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is that?
Mr. BARNES. It is 183 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. That makes 1,200 miles ?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you say from the mouth of the Missouri to the Illinois River the project is 6 feet?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. With 34 feet obtained !
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is that?
Mr. BARNES. It is 36 miles.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Barnes, of course, in order to makejust in harmony with your remark about the different gauge railroads—in order to make a 9-foot waterway on the Illinois available you would have to have a new project adopted on the Mississippi from the mouth of the Illinois down to the mouth of the Missouri and from there to Cairo, would you not?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And not only have your project adopted, but you would have to have the improvement made ?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that would be 36 miles in the first stretch and 183 miles in the second stretch!

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I get it. Go ahead.

Mr. BARNES. And we have a survey made giving an estimate of the amount of money required to complete that work.

Mr. Hull. On a 9-foot depth basis?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. In those two stretches?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What would it cost on the first stretch?

Mr. BARNES. I refer you to Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session. These documents were published pursuant to our request for a survey giving the cost of a 9-foot waterway from Chicago to the Gulf.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Have you anything more to say, Mr. Barnes !

Mr. BARNES. That is the situation, I say, in regard to navigation ? Mr. MANSFIELD. One question, Mr. Chairman, right along there. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MANSFIELD. What did you say the depth of the Illinois River project is!

Mr. BARNES. Seven feet.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is deeper then than the Mississippi below it?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
Mr. HULL. That is the lower part of the Illinois River?
Mr. BARNEs. The project extends to La Salle, 223 miles.
Mr. HULL. From Grafton north?

Mr. BARNES. It is from Grafton north, from Grafton to La Salle, 223 miles.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that partly artificial, that 7-foot channel?
Mr. BARNES. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That is natural?

Mr. BARNES. That is natural, except they have built four locks, two by the Federal Government and two by the State of Illinois.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean artificial in the sense of being created, but is it an improved waterway

Mr. BARNES. It is an improved natural stream. Mr. HULL. That part of that stream it is your idea to make 9 feet? Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir. Mr. HULL. Two hundred feet wide? Mr. BARNES. Yes. The improvement under the control of the Federal Government on the līlinois River is about 223 miles. Mr. DEAL. That is now 7 feet?

Mr. BARNES. No; it is not 7 feet, but there is a 7-foot project in existence that has not been completed.

Mr. Hull. Have they done anything on the 7 feet? Mr. BARNES. Yes; but not completed. They are building a dredge to continue dredging work on that improvement. I think the last Congress gave us something under $200,000, as I recall it.

Mr. DEAL. And you think that ought to be a depth of 9 feet?

Mr. BARNES. I think by all means that ought to be a depth of 9 feet.

Mr. HULL. It must be.

Mr. BARNEB. Yes, sir. And the locks now in existence there should be removed. Those locks are only 75 feet wide and 350 feet in length. The CHAIRMAN. I did not catch that, Mr. Barnes.

Let be get that.

Mr. BARNES. I say, I believe the locks now in existence on the Illinois River should all be removed, two that were built by the Government and two that were built by the State of Illinois. Those locks are only 75 feet wide and 350 feet long. If they are to remain that would mean that all cargoes betwen Chicago and Cairo or Chicago and St. Louis and Chicago and New Orleans will have to break bulk at those structures.

Mr. DEAL. What tonnage can you take through those locks?

Mr. BARNES. We can take through those locks, roughly, about 2,000 tons. The locks that we are building

Mr. DEAL. That is 2,000 tons displacement or 2,000 tons dead weight?

Mr. BARNES. Two thousand tons of freight.
Mr. DEAL. That is to a vessel?
Mr. BARNES. No; that is to a fleet.
Mr. DEAL. Well, how much to a vessel?

Mr. Barnes. It would depend on how many vesels you put in, but the lock's capacity is sufficient to accommodate a fleet of boats that will have a tonnage of 2,000 tons.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the tonnage of these barges that are operated in the Mississippi River barge system?

Mr. BARNES. Well, they have several different sizes and their tonnage is dependent upon the depth that is available to them. I should imagine about 2,000 tons.

We are recommending for the development of the Illinois River fleets of boats 170 feet long. When our canal is completed and this project which we are asking for is completed vessels originating, say, at Louisville or Cincinnati in the Ohio Valley, with some of that coal from West Virginia or Kentucky, may navigate the Ohio River and Ohio River locks, come up the Mississippi River and the Illinois River to Chicago, without breaking bulk. Those locks are I all standard; the depth of the Ohio River improvement is the same as we are asking for 9 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. Are their locks the kind of locks you are constructing?

Mr. BARNEs. They are the same size, 110 feet wide and 600 usable feet long.

Mr. Hull. In other words, the Illinois waterway is trying to make theirs conform to the Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers.

Mr. BARNES. Exactly.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Standardized.
Mr. HULL. Standardized.

Mr. BARNES. Standardize the whole thing. The lock built in the Mississippi River at Keokuk is 110 feet wide. It is only 400 feet long, but it is built in such a position that it can easily be tengthened to any length to make it standard with the other locks.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Is the cost of building these larger locks included in the documents you refer to!

Mr. Barnes. If we are given the amount of water we ask for these locks are a menace to navigation. We do not want them at all. We can get along with open-river navigation.

Mr. MANSFIELD. But is the cost of replacing those locks with standard locks included in those figures!

Mr. BARNEs. We do not want to replace them; we want to take them out.

Mr. MANSFIELD. You do not want any locks at all?

The CHAIRMAX. Your idea of dispensing with locks is on the theory that you are going to get 10,000 cubic feet from Lake Michi

Mr. BARNES. Not exactly that. The estimate we have made, or that the Federal Government engineers have made, is based on the

gan, is it not ?

10,000 feet. There is also an estimate made for 4.167 second-feet and the removal of the locks or the building of larger locks, so that we have estimates made for any project that Congress may adopt.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but you could only remove the locks and have open-river navigation on the basis of 10,000 cubic feet.

Mr. BARNES. No; that is not right. We can remove the locks and have open-river navigation with 4,167 second-feet, but we must have much more money for excavation.

Mr. SwEer. Mr. Barnes, the approved plan by the Government is of 8 feet depth?

Mr. BARNES. No; 7.

Mr. Sweet. Mr. Dempsey, I understood you to say the approved plan of the engineers was 8 feet.

Mr. Hull. It is 7 and 8 and 9. They have made three plans.

The CHAIRMAN. The approved plan is 8 feet, but he is talking on the 9-foot basis.

Mr. Sweet. That 8-foot plan recommends 1,000 cubic feet, does it not?

Mr. BARNES. No; no Government engineer has ever considered anything as low as that.

Mr. SWEET. Wait just a minute. Let us get that clear, because yesterday the chairman stated the Government's approved proposition for an 8-foot channel calls for 1,000 second-feet. I would like to have that cleared up.

Mr. BARNES. I will clear that up in just a minute. If you will be referred to page 17, Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, paragraph 57, you will see the engineers say this:

For a 9-foot channel with an increment of 1,167 second-feet the cost either with dams retained or removed appears almost prohibitive, and the propability that Congress will limit the increment to 4,167 second-feet is, in my opinion, so remote that this hypothesis may be left out of consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. “In my opinion.” That is simply the report of the district engineer.

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir; and approved by the Chief of Engineers. The CHAIRMAN. No; find me the approval of that by the Chief of Engineers. Mr. BARNES. On pages 1 and 2 is the approval of the engineers. The CHAIRMAN. He doesn't. Mr. BARNES. Can you show where he disapproves it? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; here is what he says: It is the opinion of the board that the most advisable depth for this waterway is 8 feet, and it recommends the improvement on that basis in accordance with the above estimates, provided the State of Illinois will convey to the United States such rights and title to the locks and dams as Henry and Copperas Creek as may be considered necessary to permit their removal, which is deemed advisable in connection with the enlarged project proposed. After due consideration of the information presented, I concur in the views and recommendations of the board.

Now let us see if we can find anything in the board of engineers. What you urge is an expression of opinion by the district engineer as to what Congress is going to do, and I do not consider it, particularly valuable.

Mr. BARNES. It is the opinion of a man who was sent there by the Chief of Engineers to make a personal investigation of it, an officer of the Federal Government.

The CHAIRMAN. But it is not the business of any engineer to formulate an opinion as to what Congress is probably going to do.

Mr. BARNES. I do not know as it is his business, but he actually did it.

Mr. HULL. While they are looking that up, I will ask a question, Mr. Barnes. In your opinion what ought to be done is to deepen this canal and get enough water in it to remove all of those obsolete locks?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. Another thing I want to ask you is if these locks are removed will it not in a great measure recede the water from the overflow that we are having the trouble with down the river ?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, it will. At Beardstown it lowers the river about 2 feet.

Mr. HULL. In other words, it would have an advantage in lowering the river so we would not have the overflow.

Mr. BARNES. Exactly.

Mr. SWEET. Otherwise you would have to set your dam at the lower end of the flow to set the water back.

Mr. BARNES. If you limit the water from Lake Michigan. I do not think that Congress or the War Department has ever in any of its reports of recent date considered a flow as low as 1000 second-feet. Chicago, before the construction of the Sanitary canal, discharged practically 1,000 feet into the river from Lake Michigan, and the projects that the Federal Government has set forth are based on flows of from 4,167 upwards. You will find in the reports of the Federal engineers, especially after the completion of the Sanitary canal, that they recognize the necessity and the advisability of 10,000 feet of water for canal, and for sanitary purposes, and if this flow is to be limited to 4167 feet, or to 1000 feet, a much larger appropriation must be asked from Congress. If it is reduced to as much as 1,000 feet those locks must be kept and larger locks built to make them standard with the Ohio River and the Illinois River, and the appropriation we would have to ask for must be at least $30,000,000.

Mr. SWEET. As against how much? Mr. BARNES. As against $3,000,000 that we are now asking for. Mr. SWEET. Ten times greater. Mr. BARNES. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is, you say that the difference between a 10,000 cubic foot flow and a 1,000 cubic foot flow is a difference in the cost of construction amounting to $27,000,000?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us go a little further. Suppose the appropriation is made of $30,000,000; you would have then when you had expended it a 9-foot waterway, the same as you would have if you expended the $30,000,000 and had your 10,000 cubic foot flow.

Mr. BARNES. No, sir; that is not so.
The CHAIRMAN. Just point out the difference.

Mr. BARNES. The difference is that you would have to stop the navigation four times on the Illinois River.

The CHAIRMAN. Stop it?

« AnteriorContinuar »