Mr. HULL. And its usage?

Mr. BARNES. I do.

Mr. HULL. Now, I want to ask you

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think perhaps that would be a matter for the committee to decide rather than the witness. I do not think his testimony will be strengthened any by his own opinion of his qualifications. I think he has made a good witness, but I do not think his testifying that he has will help it.

Mr. HULL Will you give me a chance, Mr. Chairman? I want to ask him another question.

You have read the bill that I have prepared?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. The State has taken it under consideration, have they not?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. They are satisfied with it?

Mr. BARNES. With a few minor changes; yes,sir.

Mr. HULL. In other words, this bill provides for the additional levees to be built and paid for by the sanitary district along the river?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. And the treatment plants to be built?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. And, take it as a whole, if that could be completed with these other changes it would give us practically a perfect canal? Mr. BARNES. Yes; and that is the message that the governor wanted me to bring here.

Mr. HULL. To bring here to this committee?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir; that we are in favor of this bill and want to see it passed.

Mr. HULL. That is all I have to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you. Now, the evidence on the part of the proponents is closed.

A VOICE. I would like to have Mr. Barnes give the committee information with reference to the water power along the sanitary canal and also upon the proposed Illinois waterway.

Mr. BARNES. That is a point I should have brought out, as to the value of this 10,000 feet of water over the 4,167 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. For water power purposes?

Mr. BARNES. For all purposes, water power and navigation, and sanitation, etc. I have submitted a report here in this volume that I am going to submit to you, showing the value of this water for navigation and power to the State, the Federal Government. It is worth about $30,000,000.

I want to say also that this water is worth for power purposes fully three times what the same power is worth at Niagara Falls; this is, we are using this power for domestic purposes and it is worth fully three times as much as that water in Niagara Falls used for chemical purposes.

Mr. MORGAN. May I inquire of the witness-I did not understand your connection with the Panama Canal. Was that in the construction of the canal?

Mr. BARNES. No; I was in charge of the designing force that got out the preliminary designs for the locks, regulating works, etc.

Mr. MORGAN. For the construction?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir. Before construction began I resigned and went on to the New York State Canal System.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask the reporter to read that part of his auswer about the relative value of water in Illinois and at Niagara Falls.

(The reporter read the answer of Mr. Barnes, as follows:)

I want to say also that this water is worth for power purposes fully three times what the same power is worth at Niagara Falls; that is, we are using this power for domestic purposes, and it is worth fully three times as much as that water in Niagara Falls used for chemical purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the 25,000 horsepower produc d at Lockport is, you think, worth more than the 500,000 horsepower which would be produced at the Niagara escarpment and in the stretches of the St. Lawrence River, taking into account only that part in the St. Lawrence to which the United States is entitled and of which it would be the owner?

Mr. BARNES. In the first place, there is more than 25,000 horsepower available for the 10,000 feet flow.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we are simply taking the testimony of Mr. Randolph.

Mr. BARNES. Well, Mr. Randolph is testifying on the power developed at Lockport and owned by the Sanitary Canal; but what I am concerned with is the power developed by the State of Illinois and used by the State.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is there additional power to that developed at Lockport?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Mr. BARNES. At the four locks we will build below Lockport.

The CHAIRMAN. That you will build?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir; when our project is completed.

The CHAIRMAN. And what is your total fall for those four locks? Mr. BARNES. Well, roughly, 100 feet.

Mr. F. H. MACY of New York. Are there any private powers on this line?

Mr. BARNES. I testified to-day that there was a small private power in use now at Marseilles, using only a small portion of the present flow.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you estimate that the 8,500 and the 10,000 separately would produce beyond Lockport?

Mr. BARNES. I have estimated that the amount of power that we can develop-what I mean by "we" is the State-to be about 55,000 horsepower. We are going to put in a development of something like

The CHAIRMAN (Interposing). Wait a minute-stop right there. Fifty-five thousand plus 25,000 would be 80,000, and you think that 80,000

Mr. BARNES (interposing). You have not got it all yet.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; give us the rest then. Where is the other?

Mr. BARNES. There are about-something like 8,000 as I recall it, now developed by private interests at Marseilles.

The CHAIRMAN. Then call it 90,000.

Mr. BARNES. I am not through. Wait till I get through with it. Our development will call for an installation of approximately 90,000 horsepower.

The CHAIRMAN. Ninety thousand plus 25,000 would be 115,000, and your testimony is then, that in your opinion that 115,000 horsepower is more valuable than 500,000 horsepower which should be developed on the Niagara escarpment and for the United States on the St. Lawrence?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, under present conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. That answers that. That is all I want.

Mr. BARNES. No; I am not through.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all I have asked. I suppose I have the right to stop when I have finished with my question.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, some of the rest of us would like to know what the gentleman has to say. I am interested in knowing it. The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. DEAL. I am interested in knowing the total amount of horsepower that will be developed, and I would like for him to bring out this point: You say that as to the difference between 115,000 horsepower and that that would be developed at Niagara by diverting probably 1,500 cubic feet. Of course, they are using some power in the drainage canal now; that is, they are diverting 8,500 cubic feet of water now.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. DEAL. You are not going to take that away from them. Now, he wants

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Wait a minute. I do not think we have reached any conclusion on that at all.

Mr. DEAL. Well, you are not going to take away from them below 4,167, say?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not say that.

Mr. DEAL. Then you mean to say you are going to take it all away from them?

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe.

Mr. DEAL. If you take it all away from them, then, of course, you get 500,000 horsepower at Niagara, perhaps.

The CHAIRMAN. Not at Niagara, but at Niagara and the St. Law

rence.

Mr. DEAL. At Niagara and the St. Lawrence. But if you do not take it away from them, then we will assume that they are going to have some water diverted for sewage dilution. Now then, what would be the horsepower that you would get at Niagara, say, if you give them half?

The CHAIRMAN. It is just a matter of dividing the figures on both sides by two.

Mr. DEAL. You would get 250.000? Is that the idea?

The CHAIRMAN. As against half of 115, which would be 57). Mr. HULL. You would not get any more than you have got now, because they are taking this 8.500 feet now.

That is what I am

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any more questions, Mr. Deal? Mr. DEAL. I want him to express himself. getting at.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thought he had covered it fully.

Mr. DEAL. Well, he said he had not. I understood him to say he had not, and that is what I wanted him to do.

Mr. BARNES. I still say that I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the reason that I made the suggestion is that practically all of the members of the committee have been urging adjournment here for about half or three-quarters of an hour on the ground that they thought this witness had completed his testimony. It was not my original suggestion that we stop, but each one of them has been asking for adjournment.

Mr. DEAL. Well, it will not take him over a minute or two, I guess. Mr. BARNES. This is the proposition: The power on the St. Lawrence River is not developed, will not be developed for a long period of time. When it is developed there is only a market for it to large corporations, such as the Aluminum Co. of America and other trusts that use it for private purposes, and they can only pay a very small amount for this power. Moreover, in New York, there are hundreds of thousands of horsepower yet undeveloped and waiting for a market; in the West we have no such advantages. The water power is very scarce in the Illinois River. We can use this power for domestic purposes, and its value is at least three times the value per horsepower that it would be anywhere along the St. Lawrence River, where there is now no market.

Mr. MACY, of New York. May we ask just one or two questions here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MACY, of New York. On this question of value, I just want to ask two questions. I want to ask Mr. Barnes what power is sold for at Keokuk, Iowa, if he knows, per horsepower?

Mr. BARNES. I do not know definitely.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it sold for?

Mr. MACY, of New York. About $30 a horsepower.

A VOICE. And it is delivered in St. Louis for less than that. Mr. MACY, of New York. And Niagara is cheaper power and developed on a cheaper basis and they get $24 for it right at the station. Now, what is it worth in Chicago? How much does the sanitary district deliver its power for in Chicago?

Mr. BARNES. I do not know, but they do not get any profit on the power at all; it is used by their own corporations.

The CHAIRMAN. They sell about $100,000 worth.

Mr. HULL. Right there-if this is developed by the State, the power all goes to the State and the sanitary district, and it is not to be sold for profit?

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. Now, let me ask you: The Niagara power plants, or any of those plants up there, are selling power for a profit; is that true?

Mr. BARNES. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. You said, Mr. Barnes, that there was not a demand for all the power created at Niagara Falls?

Mr. BARNES. No; I did not say that.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say, with reference to that, that I happen to know that there is an excess demand for power, and that the

power companies on both sides are not able to furnish the customers, who are ready and willing and anxious to get power.

Mr. BARNES. I do not know anything about the situation down there: I only know about Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a very acute demand for power from Niagara, and there would be a very acute demand the instant it could be produced from all the power from the St. Lawrence. New York City alone would take it all.

Mr. KINDRED. May I ask the witness this question: Is not the witness speculating a great deal on assumed bases of certain conditions as to the value of power in Niagara and as to the value of power in other points, and we have not got any such evidence as to those things that he is assuming?

The CHAIRMAN. That is true.

Now, gentlemen, we have a rather embarrassing situation here. The hearings on this matter were set down for the first three days of this week. I suppose it was thought-unfortunately I was away through illness; I would not have believed for one minute that we could anything like cover this subject in three days; on the other hand, I would have thought that it was wise to give only a limited time to these hearings and then to adjourn, because it will give the opponents of the measure an opportunity to examine the hearings and to prepare for their side of the case.

Another bill has had hearings set for to-morrow. We realize, the members of the committee all realize fully, that a good many people are here who want to be heard on this subject now, and that it will be a very considerable inconvenience to them to go away and come again, but on the other hand the same condition confronts us as to the next bill; witnesses are here on that bill. I think we will have to have hearings for those who advocate that bill and then give them an opportunity to adjourn and give those opposed time to prepare for their side of it. But the question now is, what are we going to do? We want to do about all we can to accommodate you, but we can not do two things at the same time; we can only have one hearing.

Mr. Newton is here, and he might tell us about how many witnesses he has.

Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. We have enough, I think, to take up our time of three days. We expect to finish in three days. Our witnesses are coming from a considerable distance.

Mr. BRUCE. The proposition now is this, that if the committee can not give us the time to-morrow and Friday, both during the morning and evening, because we figure that we will need about 10 hours, that in that event we will ask the committee to postpone the hearing of the opposition for two weeks, and in the interim supply us with the testimony that has so far been submitted. That seems to meet with the approval of the opponents.

The CHAIRMAN. We will resume, then, at 10 o'clock a. m. on Tuesday, the 15th of April.

(Whereupon, at 4.45 o'clock p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, April 15, 1924.

(Subsequently, it was arranged to continue the hearing Thursday, March 20, 1924, at 10 o'clock.)

91739-24-PT 1—11