Mr. JARMAN. I will analyze the bill. Mr. PEAVEY. If you will pardon me a question or two before you go into the analysis of the bill? Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. PEAVEY. Here are two or three factors that I have been trying to straighten out in my mind. I have not yet, although I have asked two or three questions along this line, found out whether it is by Illinois State law or by what manner or method or means it is possible for a municipal corporation to make the expenditures that have been made in the furtherance of the sanitary district's project, such as buying propaganda and hiring lawyers and that sort of thing. In my State we have laws which prohibit any municipality from making any such expenditures, and I want to ask you by what authority are these expenditures made on the part of the Sanitary District of Chicago? Mr. JARMAN. In a general way it is considered by the sanitary district and by Chicago as a necessary expense to carry on the matter of sanitary district operation. Mr. PEAVEY. And does the State law of Illinois permit the Sanitary District of Chicago to go out and buy newspaper space all throughout the State? Mr. JARMAN. I suppose so. They do it all the time. I have got a copy here of a whole page in my county paper, a town of 2,000 inhabitants. Mr. PEAVEY. Yes, sir; I have got several of them myself. Another thing I would like to ask, I think it is in the record, that' it shows conclusively that the sanitary district made a profit of a million dollars on the operation of this plant last year, and do so annually. Is it a part of a fixed procedure in your idea and estimation upon the part of the sanitary district to expend ten or twenty of fifty or whatever it may be of thousands of dollars in propaganda and organization in order to save themselves from an expense that might run into millions, at the expense of the people of the State of Illinois and those on the Great Lakes above? Mr. O'CONNOR. I think if this is an illegal expenditure any inhabitant could enjoin the sanitary district. The CHAIRMAN. It could not be an illegal expenditure in our State. It would be a perfectly legal expenditure. Mr. JARMAN. If it was for the interest, as they consider it, of the sanitary district as a municipal corporation. Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of relieving the minds of my good colleagues and probably the minds of others of something that has mystified me, do the power plants along the river absolutely depend upon the maintenance of the locks that have been referred to? Mr. JARMAN. Oh, yes. Mr. O'CONNOR. Absolutely? Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. O'CONNOR. As I understand, the flow of 4,167 feet would permit the removal of the locks. Is that contention also made? Mr. JARMAN. Oh, no; I do not think so, right at that point. That would not affect the valley. The CHAIRMAN. I think I can straighten you out. Mr. O'CONNOR. I would be very glad if you would. The CHAIRMAN. Over that part of the channel which is being constructed by the State there is no contention as to locks. The engineer, Mr. Barnes, says they are going to construct certain locks, I have forgotten how many-how many, Mr. Hull? Mr. HULL. Five locks. The CHAIRMAN. It is only from that point down, where the Government begins its work. Mr. O'CONNOR. The reference is constantly made to the ability to remove the locks after a flow of 4,167 feet has been obtained. The CHAIRMAN. But not in the part constructed by the State at all. Mr. HULL. I know just what you want to know. Below Utica we have four old locks now-at Henry and Copperas Creeks, constructed by the State, and at Lagrange and Kampsville, by the United States. If we put in a flow enough, we can take these old locks out. Mr. O'CONNOR. Would there be locks at any other places? Mr. HULL. There would have to be locks that the State of Illinois is spending this $20,000,000 at the upper end, between Lockport and Utica, because that is an artificial channel, bringing the water into the Illinois River. Mr. O'CONNOR. Is that the place where there is a drop of 136 feet? Mr. HULL. Yes; but these locks down below we ought to take out and make the channel straight through. The CHAIRMAN. That is the contention. Whether we should take them out or not is a very much mooted question. Mr. O'CONNOR. Regardless of the flow, it would be necessary to maintain the locks at the place where the artificial connection is made? The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt about that at all. That is not in dispute. Mr. JARMAN. The water drops 34 feet at the end of the Chicago Canal. From the end of the Chicago Canal to Utica, there is a drop of 102 feet, so it is quite a run. So that at the beginning at Lockport they have to have a lock, and along the 63.5 miles from the end of the channel down to Utica, the beginning of the Federal Government project, it is so steep that they have to make locks there, and along that line the project is to erect hydroelectric plants by the States and by private individuals, with whom the States may deal. So that the proposition involved, as was said yesterday by Mr. Barnes, a possibility of developing, I think he said. 500,000 horsepower by the hydroelectric power. Mr. MANSFIELD. And the State would dispose of that power as it saw proper? Mr. JARMAN. As it saw, proper. It was a large amount of power-I do not want to be taken as having said it was 500,000. Mr. VELDE. He said 115,000. Mr. JARMAN. All right. At Lockport the sanitary district has 136,000 of hydroelectric horsepower now, with propositions to develop that further, and it was stated by Mr. Barnes yesterday that that improvement, in dollars and cents, that is supposed to be made there in hydroelectric power and navigation, and so forth, was worth to the sanitary district, to the people of the State, and the Nation, $30,000,000, and his figures show in his report, which is not material, an expenditure of $28,000,000. Mr. BARNES. That does not include the sanitary district. Mr. JARMAN. NO. If you add the sanitary district in dollars and cents it would be that much more, but when you are figuring that, you are figuring this situation, that because you are creating a project here which will take care of the health and create the wealth of the sanitary district and the State, you are destroying the health and the wealth of the people along the Illinois Valley. So the equation is simply a matter of dollars and cents on one side and health and destruction on the other side. I am going to analyze for the moment this bill of Mr. Hull's. In the first place, as to the provision of this bill with reference to the pollution of the Illinois River, this part of the bill is the same as introduced by Mr. Madden, which perhaps is not before the committee. Mr. HULL. This bill was introduced before Mr. Madden introduced the bill. Mr. JARMAN. I see; but it is the same proposition. Mr. HULL. I do not want you to say I copied Mr. Madden's bill. Mr. JARMAN. He copied yours, perhaps. Mr. HULL. I did not say that. Mr. JARMAN. It is the exact language. Mr. HULL. Well, then, he copied mine. Mr. JARMAN. The plan contemplated by this bill, as I construe it, is for taking care of the sewage of Chicago, except the sewage of 3,000,000 population. It does not take care of all the sewage of the people of Chicago, but there has never been a time in the history of that bill, during the 20 years from 1925 until 1945, where the sewage of the sanitary district to the amount of a population of 3,000,000 people, does not come down that canal. Mr. HULL. I will answer that question for you, if you will let me. Mr. JARMAN. Yes. Mr. HULL. I have taken into consideration, by a thorough study and by my attorney, who is probably the best posted man on the Illinois River Mr. JARMAN (interposing). And he is the attorney for the sanitary district. Mr. HULL. Yes; but I do not want you to cast any reflection on Mr. Quinn, because he is my attorney. Mr. JARMAN. I am not casting any reflection on him. Mr. HULL. You are when you say that. Mr. JARMAN. He is one of the best attorneys in the State of Illinois. Mr. HULL. And he is my attorney. Mr. JARMAN. Yes; he is your attorney, and he is attorney also for the sanitary district. Mr. HULL. Not in this bill. Keep that in your mind. Mr. JARMAN. A man can not separate himself. Mr. HULL. He did. Mr. JARMAN. He can not serve God and mammon. Mr. PEAVEY. We had up yesterday the question of the tax rate of the city of Chicago. Has that been settled? The CHAIRMAN. The mayor of Milwaukee said that he had a pamphlet which gave that information in full, and he would file it with the stenographer. He probably will not file it until he returns. I understand that he went back to Milwaukee last night. Mr. PEAVEY. You do not know, do you, Mr. Jarman? Mr. JARMAN. No, I do not. Of course, that develops a large subject, about the tax rate up there. It has been said here that the city of Chicago is limited in its tax rate by the statute. It is not limited by the constitution. The history of that is that in the constitutional convention in the State of Illinois, in 1920 to 1922, it was sought by the sanitary district to get a limitation in the constitution on the taxing power. They introduced a proposition like that, which was supported by the Chicago sanitary district people. The down State opposed it and it failed to get into the constitution. I was a member of that body. The down State opposed it because it would prevent Chicago from raising sufficient money to care for this situation, and we did not want to put them in that position, you know, and it was refused. Of course, the taxation problem is a matter we have with the legislature. They can get any tax rate that they want from the legislature, there is no question about that. You don't think that, do you? Mr. HULL. I am not a lawyer, but I think yes. Here is what I want to ask you: I have taken all the money that they can raise into consideration, according to the constitution. Mr. JARMAN. Wait a minute. Mr. HULL. You wait a minute. Mr. JARMAN. Wait a minute. Mr. HULL. I am not a lawyer, and I may be wrong about this. Mr. HULL. I think so, without a doubt. Mr. JARMAN. I am in very much doubt about that. I know the constitution pretty well. I dealt with it for two years. My impression is that the constitution says that the limitation of the bonding power of cities, counties, townships, etc., shall be 5 per cent of the assessed value. I do not use the words "municipal corporation" and if I did use the words "municipal corporation" it would not apply to this, because this sanitary district is a quasi-municipal corporation and I do not believe it would be limited by the constitution. But that is neither here nor there. Mr. HULL. Do you mean to say that they can raise more money than this $100,000,000? Mr. JARMAN. Yes. Mr. HULL. You do? Mr. JARMAN. Yes. Mr. HULL. How? Mr. JARMAN. By taxation. Mr. HULL. Providing the legislature would permit it? Mr. JARMAN. Chicago or the sanitary district has 40.7 per cent of the legislature. Mr. HULL. That is not the question. I am trying to get at something that I had to find out in order to form this bill on. I took up the matter of the limit that they could raise. It was $100,000,000, and I put that in form, so as to make them spend $100,000,000 on treatment plants. That is the way my bill was formed, so as to take every cent we could, and to force them to build the treatment plants. That is what is in the bill. Mr. JARMAN. But you never have a sufficient amount of purification plants to take care of all the sewage of Chicago. Mr. HULL. I will admit that. Mr. JARMAN. You will never have a purification plant sufficient to take care of the amount of sewage equal to 3,000,000 people. Mr. HULL. Just for argument's sake, I will admit it, but if I have taken all of the money they have got, what can you do? Mr. JARMAN. It is not a question of money. Mr. HULL. We are both of us in the same boat, but what can they do? Mr. O'CONNOR. Haven't you made a case for the diversion of water in stating that the purification plants will never be able to take care of this? Mr. JARMAN. I did not say that for myself. I was quoting Mr. Hull's bill. Mr. O'CONNOR. I thought you made that as your own statement. Mr. HULL. You just got through making it. Mr. JARMAN. I am discussing your bill, and that is all I am discussing, and it is very clear, as I have stated heretofore, that they ought to be made to take care of all of the sewage of Chicago in the course of years, and that no more diversion should be anticipated than what is necessary. Mr. HULL. I agree with you, and my bill does not prevent that. Mr. JARMAN. It does not require it. Mr. HULL. That may be true. You can always bring it in. My bill provides that every dime they can raise, according to what I say is the constitution, is to be put in treatment plants, and I have provided in the law, just as they can raise the money, that they must pay it in, and I do not see how you object to it. Mr. JARMAN. Because it always permits the sewage of 3,000,000 people to go down the Illinois Valley. Mr. HULL. If you spend all the money, all you can do is to raise more money to finish it. I am taking what they can raise. Mr. JARMAN. You have no right, if you can not raise the money, to protect Chicago's health by putting sewage down on our back. Mr. HULL. That is exactly what I am up against and what you are up against. If I can take out the 10,000 cubic feet to-day I will be very glad to, but if I do take it out it will injure you and me and everyone along that valley. We could not exist with that 10,000 cubic feet or 8,500 cubic feet taken out for two days, and that is the reason I am keeping it in, to protect the people along the valley, and in particular, Chicago, as much as I am after my own interest. Mr. JARMAN. And I am not taking out a gallon of that water so long as it is neccesary to come down there to protect Chicago, if they go to work and construct their purification plants. Mr. HULL. That is what my bill provides for, and I do not see why you object to it. Mr. JARMAN. Not at all. Mr. HULL. I do not understand why you can not read it. |
