« AnteriorContinuar »
channel, and the question is whether it shall be adopted, and that is all there is before the committee on that question of the channel. You have another interest; you have your sanitary district.
Mr. QUINN. I am not talking about that at all. I want to keep to the question of depth of channel and these reports separate. I understand that there are reports on the 9-foot channel. I will send for the document.
The CHAIRMAN. If that is so, I will be glad to hear it.
Mr. QUINN. And on the 14-foot-channel, and on nearly every depth of channel conceivable from Chicago to the Mississippi River.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you are entirely mistaken.
Mr. Quinn. All right. I will call your attention to House Document No. 2, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, addressed to yourself, and No. 7, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session.
The CHAIRMAN. What is it? Mr. KINDRED. What is the report? Mr. Quinn. A letter of the Chief of Engineers, addressed to Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey, with report of the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that the report in favor of the 8-foot channel?
Mr. QUINN. And this second document is No. 7, referring to an 8-foot channel, which gives estimates of a 9-foot channel. Also House Document No. 1374, Sixth-first Congress, third session, and House Document No. 50, Sixty-first Congress, first session, in which is developed the 9-foot project.
Mr. SWEET. Do those reports recommend anything but 8 feet?
The CHAIRMAN. All I stated at the outset of the hearing was this, that it had been the uniform, unvarying custom of the committee for 20 years and more to deal with projects only after there had been first a survey and that survey had gone the course through the local engineer, district engineer, board of engineers, and chief of engineers, and was then submitted to us with their recommendation, and that the only recommendation we had was for an 8-foot channel. Now, I do not think it so material from the standpoint of the merits whether it is an 8-foot or 9-foot channel. I am talking purely about the technical situation and how the committee is bound. We might be very glad, every member of the committee, to consider a 9-foot channel or more, but we are not in position to do it because we have not a favorable report on anything except an 8-foot channel. It is purely the technical situation.
Mr. Quinn. I appreciate that. If you are not going to consider anything but what has been reported or recommended by some board, then those gentlemen who base their statistics on this matter are not in position to do anything at all, because they have not considered their propositions on the basis of any certain depth of channel and have not so analyzed them.
The CHAIRMAN. That was purely a suggestion. What we all want to do is to get what is helpful, and I am not going to attempt to limit you. I simply made the suggestion that testimony along that line would probably be more helpful then any other matters.
Mr. HAYNES. Mr. Chairman, my statement is directed toward the commercial and transportation phases, and the direct statement will only take a few minutes. We feel in Illinois, and we hope that this committee will not confine themselves to the technical flow of water. The subject is far bigger than that.
Mr. O'CONNOR. It occurs to me that the gentlemen are very much interested in your statement and would hear better if you moved to the other side of the table.
Mr. HAYNES. Yes. I would like, Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, to give at the outset the interests that I am appearing for. First, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, comprising approximately 118 commercial organizations of that State; second, the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, embracing practically all of the manufactures of Illinois; the Chicago Shippers' Conference Association, the Peoria Association of Commerce, the Joliet Association of Commerce, the Bloomington Association of Commerce. the East St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, the Cairo Association of Commerce, the Kankakee Chamber of Commerce, the La Salle Chamber of Commerce, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, the Pekin Association of Commerce, the Champaign Chamber of Commerce, the Decatur Association of Commerce, the Moline Business Men's Association, the Quincy Chamber of Commerce. the Morris Chamber of Commerce, the Sterling Association of Commerce, the Jerseyville Chamber of Commerce, the White Hall Chamber of Commerce, the Chicago Heights Chamber of Commerce, the Rockford Chamber of Commerce, and the Lockport Merchants' Association.
The statement presented by the traffic committee of the Mississippi Valley Association is heartily concurred in by commercial interests of Illinois, but we wish to point out in more detail further reasons showing the commercial necessity for this development as relating particularly to the territory served by the Illinois Waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River.
Experience has shown that our American transcontinental commerce has been completely revolutionized through the building of the Panama Canal. This great project has had a tremendous affect upon industrial enterprise in the great State of Illinois and in adjoining territory in that many products manufactured and produced in this State and the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and Indiana have been restricted in distribution through failure to meet competition of centers on and adjacent to the Atlantic coast where cheaper transportation is available through the canal.
It is possible to ship many articles from these Middle Western States by rail to Atlantic seaboard and thence by water through the canal to Pacific coast markets more cheaply than by rail direct or by rail to St. Louis then to New Orleans and then by vessel through the canal.
We have seen instances where electric motors from Beloit Wis., plumbers' goods from Sheboygan, Wis., corn sirup, glucose, etc., from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, farm implements from Waterloo, Iowa. pianos from Rockford. Ini., and a multitude of articles from various Illinois points, were moving eastward to Atlantic seaboard to be reshipped by vessel to Pacific coast markets because transportation costs were much less than the all-rail routes.
In many instances it is impossible to meet the competition of eastern manufacturers and producers, and in those cases business is entirely lost to the Central and Middle Western States only because they do not enjoy cheaper transportation routes such as the Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway should provide. Business is forced to relocate, and as specific cases I refer you to Crane & Co., Butler Bros., the Sefton Manufacturing Co., and various others, which I would be very glad to go into in more detail, if the committee so desires.
Illinois and her sister States should be given an equal opportunity to distribute their products in the domestic markets, and in foreign fields through an equalization of freight rates which would be provided by the development of cheaper transportation facilities, the solution of this problem being an adequate waterway system such as is being considered by your honorable committee. The CHAIRMAN. What do you say is an adequate waterway?
Mr. HAYNES. I am not qualified to speak on that except I did hear Mr. Theodore Brent, manager of the barge line, state that in his opinion 9 feet would be necessary.
A more compelling reason why the Lakes-to-the-Gulf waterway project should receive the support of the people of the great Mississippi Valley is because their business activities are becoming more and more circumscribed by various elements, including a keener competition by industries more favorably situated to water transportation and by the administration of the fourth section of the interstate commerce act. By way of illustration, we can take the steel industry of Chicago and show that it is steadily losing its markets in the South, Southwest, and the Pacific Coast States due to the ability of eastern mills to lay their products down in some of these markets at from $1 to $7 per ton less than the Chicago mills.
The Pittsburgh steel mills are making intensive use of water transportation through the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, which enables them to lay their products down at New Orleans at a transportation cost of about $6 per ton, while the all-rail transportation cost is $10.30 per ton, and because of these conditions we say that Chicago mills and other industrial enterprises should be given an equal opportunity to secure its share of the business in these important markets.
The same can be said of many other lines of industry-canned goods from Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin, which compete with New England products; machinery from Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc., against Atlantic seaboard territory, and so on.
The CHAIRMAX. Of course, nothing from Lowa would go toward Chicago and go down the Illinois River; it would go down the Mississippi if it came by water route direct.
Mr. HAYNES. Yes; bit it would go from Iowa by that channel to Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. You are talking about Chicago consumption?
Mr. Harnes. No. Chicago, if domestic consumption, and through Chicago to export markets through Montreal. I will touch on that later.
Mr. MANSFIELD. You said the steel rate from Pittsburgh to New Orleans was $6 per ton by the barge line and $10.30 per ton by all rail.
Mr. HAYNES. Yes. Machinery from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Pacific. coast
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). From what point to what point are those rates given?
Mr. HAYNES. The ones I just referred to, from Pittsburgh to New Orleans.
The CHAIRMAN. That is one rate. Is that the double rate?
Mr. Haynes. The $6 rate from Pittsburgh to New Orleans is all water. The $10.30 rate is from Pittsburgh to New Orleans, all rail. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that it is an enormous volume of tonnage moving that way to-day.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we have had testimony in another matter on that question.
Mr. Haynes. Machinery from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Pacific coast--and I will say that the Pacific coast includes all of the port cities from Vancouver to Los Angeles-by rail takes a rate of $2.28 a hundred weight, while the Atlantic seaboard can obtain rates ranging from 90 cents to $1.25 via the Panama Canal.
Mr. SWEET. How is that relevant in this matter? From Iowa, machinery does not go into Chicago to be reshipped.
The CHAIRMAX. No. Generally speaking, I take it the committee is thoroughly convinced that water transportation is, perhaps, 20 per cent cheaper than transportation by rail, and yet with the Erie Canal, 12 feet deep, through the State of New York, and a free canal, we do not seem to be able to get the transportation away from the railroads.
Mr. WILLIAM E. Hull. These gentlemen are trying to show you what can be done by a water route. You can not have a water route without having this continuous water flow from Chicago down to the Mississippi.
Mr. SWEET. In other words, you want to feed the Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. There will be another bill connected with this bill, the Newton bill, that you will hear the last of this week, that takes care of the upper Mississippi, the lower Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio, but this particular bill takes care of the Illinois River. It makes all of them come in together, so that you would have to have this channel with water enough to make the barge line run, whether it is the Illinois or Mississippi; they all come in in a general bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The argument is that it does not affect the waterway. Your real consideration for argument is that water transportation is cheaper than rail, and that you must have a flow through the Illinois River to maintain navigation for the Iowa points.
Mr. Guy L. Shaw. In speaking of shipping from Iowa, have you taken into consideration the Hennepin Canal in the Illinois, which is already in existence?
Mr. HAYNES. That is correct.
Mr. Shaw. I do not mean to say it would take the balance of the Illinois water.
Mr. HAYNES. That is correct.
Mr. Shaw. But the idea is to bring the Hennepin Canal in there and shorten the distance from Iowa points.
Mr. Haynes. In answering Mr. Sweet direct, what I am saying from Iowa points does not relate to the interchange through Chicago by any means. Cedar Rapids in this gets an interchange at Peoria at a tremendous saving, leaving the existing industries at Cedar Rapids able to compete in a better measure.
Mr. SWEET. In order to maintain the Mississippi navigation you have got to feed the water down this way.
Mr. Haynes. You can not separate the two. Cedar Rapids can at present ship this machinery to Baltimore all rail and thence steamer through the Panama Canal at a rate of $1.96 to $2.15 a hundredweight, much cheaper that they can go direct by rail.
There are large movements of freight from Middle Western States to the Atlantic seaboard for reshipment by vessel through the Panama Canal, and we consider that such instances result in the economic waste of transportation and facilities. It takes many western line cars into a very congested territory from which insufficient return loadings are available, thus necessitating the return of many cars empty after long delays, sometimes extending beyond months and yet we wonder why shippers can not get cars at times.
We desire to impress upon the committee that the manufacturer in the Middle West, who is forced by high all-rail rates to the Pacific coast to ship his product to the Atlantic seaboard and thence by water, is at a disadvantage against a similar manufacturer located on the Atlantic seaboard by just the amount of his rail rate from the West to the Atlantic seaboard, which condition would be: obviated if an all-water route were available for the western shipper.
In discussing the waterway project now before us with the vice president of a large western road some six or eight months ago a member of our committee was surprised to learn that he favored it. Upon asking his reason, he stated that he believed the waterway would increase the business of his line because it would bring tonnage to his rails and that the car supply would be greatly increased due to the release of equipment upon his own rails on such tonnage delivered to the waterway.
In the general presentation of the Mississippi traffic committee by Mr. Rippin, it is recited that many shippers testified as to the practical need and use which could be made of the 9-foot channel from Great Lakes to the Gulf at hearings before the Senate Special Waterways Committee (S. 4428). We would like to furnish the committee with a list of the shippers among those whose testimony is included in the record of hearings before the McCormick special committee and is available to your committee, as follows:
C. T. Bradford, manager traffic department, International Harvester (0., Chicago; Frank T. Bentley, traffic manager, Illinois Steel Co., Chicago; C. L. Lingo, traffic manager, Inland Steel Co., Chicago; R. C. Ross, traffic manager, Jos. T. Ryerson & Son, Chicago; H. D. Pixley, traffic manager, Carson Pirie Scott & Co., Chicago; Gordon L. Pirie, Carson Pirie Scott & Co., Chicago; J. J. Wait, chairman freight traffic committee, Chicago Association of Commerce; T. H. Eddy, Marshal Field & Co., Chicago; Ezra J. Warner, president, Sprague Warner & Co., Chicago; Joy Morton, Morton Salt Co., Chicago; G. L. Sweeney, chairman special committee of Peoria Association of Commerce; William F. Gilman, president Peoria Grain & Barging Co., Peoria ; J. Wachenheimer, president the Commercial National Bank, Peoria; C. C. Block, Block & Kubi Co., Peoria ; S. H. Altorfer, president Altorfer Bros. Co., Peoria; Geo. Ainsworth, secretary Peoria Malleable Castings Co., Peoria ; J. R. Blackhall, president Joliet Association of Commerce; Fred A. Mudge,