Mr. McDUFFIE. I was not here when the former hearings were held on this subject. I would like to inquire of the attorney general if this matter is in the Supreme Court of the United States now? Mr. DOUGHERTY. I think it began in about 1906.

Mr. HULL. About that time.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The War Department was compelled, in order to get a compliance with its own permit, given in 1899, which the Secretary of War said was of doubtful legality and would be left to Congress. By 1906 the War Department found it necessary to bring an action to enforce its own order in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. In order to make clear to Congressman McDuffie, because he does not know the facts, the permit was for 4,167 feet, and the injunction sought was to restrain the use of water in excess of that limitation.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. To hold it to that amount.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I see.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Proofs were taken for many years. There is a record of 10 volumes, and it makes a row of books that long [indicating about 3 feet], and then I have been told that it was held before Judge Landis, and before the judge went to play ball he had held that case under advisement for six years, and then made a verbal statement before he left the bench that his decision would have to be against the sanitary district. Immediately when he left the bench the case was proceeded with before Judge Carpenter, who is another judge in that circuit, and in June of last year Judge Carpenter found his decision against the sanitary district, and then the sanitary district appealed to the Supreme Court, and it has been advanced for argument to November 11, which will be much earlier than it would come up if it kept its regular order.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, may I interpose?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. BARRETT. It is perfectly clear, however, that the question of the right of the State of Illinois or the right of the sanitary district is not an issue in that case.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I have not stated that it was.

Mr. BARRETT. I merely wanted to make that clear.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That is correct.

Mr. HULL. You just now mentioned that when the Secretary of War granted this permit-I do not remember whether you said 4,167 feet or not?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The first permit, I think, was 5,000 feet, and it had various modifications.

Mr. HULL. Well, whatever it was, you stated that he said he would have to send it to Congress. Does not that contradict what you have said?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That is the Secretary of War's opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. That would not affect the legal question at all, except in so far as the opinion of the Secretary of War might have some weight, and that would depend entirely upon whether he was a layman or a lawyer. It would depend upon the extent of his standing and learning in the law.

Mr. O'CONNOR. It is not the Secretary of War that forms a legal opinion.

Mr. HULL. There must have been in his mind a reasonable suggestion that Congress had the right.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Very likely. Many people maintain that. I may be wrong in this position.

Mr. HULL. I was just trying to bring that question up, because it is rather a contradiction of what you have said.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. It is an opinion to the contrary.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I would like to examine that brief. It seems to be a very splendid brief.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will have that transcribed and put into the hearings, Mr. Stenographer.

Mr. HULL. I noticed in your statement you spoke about these different harbors. You said 4.6 and 4.8 and so on. Does that mean 4 inches and so many hundredths of an inch?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That means 4.8 inches.

Mr. HULL. That is, considering that if they were taking 10,000 cubic feet out, it would reduce the harbor

Mr. DOUGHERTY (interposing). Six and nine-tenths.

Mr. HULL. I noticed quite a few of them were 4.8.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. That is down to Lake Erie.

The CHAIRMAN. Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River.

Mr. HULL. I will take it on the basis of 6. Say it is reduced 6 inches, we will take that for an illustration; that is on a basis of 10,000 cubic feet, and that would reduce it 6 inches?

The CHAIRMAN. Six and nine-tenths.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Those are the figures of the War Department. Mr. HULL. They haye been taking out, so the claim is here the statement is made here that it is 7,500 and some of you claim up to 12,000 cubic feet per second. On the basis that you say that it reduces 6 inches on 10,000 cubic feet, it must be reduced that now, isn't it? Because you have been taking out 10,000, according to your statement.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I have not made that statement.

Mr. HULL. Somebody made it.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The statement was made four weeks ago that it was 10,000.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there has been any statement that it was 10,000.

Mr. HULL. There will probably be claims of 14,000 before you get through, but I am trying to work out something in my mind now. Mr. DOUGHERTY. All right, sir.

Mr. HULL. I have always contended that this reduction in the harbors was infinitesimal, for this reason: You say now that it is reduced, that this 10,000 feet will reduce it, but we have had the 10,000, we will say, for 10 years, so we would have been reduced now, wouldn't we?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. We are.

Mr. HULL. Has it interferred with navigation?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes.

Mr. HULL. To what extent?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The gentlemen representing the lake carriers are here and they can explain that better than I can.

Mr. HULL. I understand.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me state that the attorney general is on the law of the question.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I am not an engineer.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he can aid us any on the question of navigation or engineering.

Mr. HULL. I withdraw the question.

The CHAIRMAN. I am perfectly willing to have you proceed if you want to; but it seems to me that the engineering questions and the navigation questions ought to be left to those who are familiar with them.

Mr. HULL. The question came up from the fact that he had made the statement.

Mr. BEHAN. May I ask a question of Mr. Dougherty?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.:

: Mr. BEHAN. The principle of law which you have announced would apply to diversions for power purposes?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes, sir: if the water is not returned.

Mr. BEHAN. Has the State of Michigan, to your knowledge, made any protest at any time against the diversion of water for power purposes by Canada or by the State of New York?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. They do not divert water from us.

Mr. BEHAN. They have reduced the lake levels, have they not?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. I do not know.

Mr. BEHAN. That is all.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The engineers can tell you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to impose any limitations on the questions, but it seems to me that we will get further along if we ask lawyers about law and engineers and navigators about navigating questions. We won't make much progress by asking these gentlemen who really are not familiar with it at all as to the effect upon navigation.

Mr. Bruce, who is your next?

Mr. BRUCE. I would like to read into the minutes the fact that Mr. Dougherty not only represents the State of Michigan

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think General Dougherty ought to state that himself. General, state whom you represent.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. The State of Michigan.

Mr. BRUCE. And Wisconsin?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you appear for any other State, General? I think you stated that before.

Mr. DOUGHERTY. When I was down here last month I think I was the only attorney general from the Lake States, and I was asked by the officers of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to represent them. Mr. Ekern is here for Wisconsin to-day, and some of the other States are represented.

The CHAIRMAN. The attorney general of Wisconsin?

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes; he is here.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Does that answer your purpose?
Mr. BRUCE. Yes. I wanted to get that into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is in the record already; but it is better to have the general state it, because he knows whether he represents them or not.

Mr. BRUCE. The city of Buffalo is represented by a large delegation, and I would prefer to call upon Mr. Cornelius.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me make one suggestion: I was requested by Congressman Shreve to permit the representatives of Erie, Pa., to be heard this morning. If they are here we will hear them. If they are not here, of course we can not oblige them. [After a pause.] Mr. Cornelius, of Buffalo.

STATEMENT OF MR. ADAM E. CORNELIUS, BUFFALO, N. Y.

Mr. CORNELIUS. My name is Adam E. Cornelius, and I am chairman of the rivers and harbors committee of Buffalo, and I am here as chairman of the Buffalo delegation. Our mayor came in this morning, Mayor Schwab, and I would like to introduce him for one minute before I proceed with my statement.

Mr. SCHWAB. Gentlemen, I assure you that I deem this an honor and pleasure to appear before you to represent the city of Buffalo and its people, better known as the Queen City of the Lakes, and I want to briefly state that we have spent millions of dollars to bring about the conditions that exist in Buffalo to-day as to our harbor and the freight facilities, and I believe we carry more freight than any other city on the Great Lakes. We ask you, gentlemen, in all fairness, and we also ask our friends from Chicago, whom we love as our neighbors, to at least let the city of Buffalo prevail and let them go on as they have done, because it means more to us than any city on the Lakes. It means much to the entire population of the city of Buffalo. We depend a great deal on the commerce of the Lakes, and we have spent millions of dollars dredging our harbor to the depth required to-day, and by taking away 10 or 12 more inches you can readily see what we are up against. We have much rock to contend with; and if the thousands of tons of freight that we have are taken away from our port, it means the labor and the employment to everybody in the city of Buffalo, and the gentleman who will follow me will outline briefly our position, and I just want briefly to voice my opposition to this bill, and I hope you gentlemen will at least let the queen rest and get along as she did before.

Mr. CORNELIUS (resuming). I just want to read a resolution which was adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of Buffalo, and I believe after they adopted this they also sent a telegram. You, as chairman, probably received the telegram.

The CHAIRMAN. The telegram has been received and filed.

Mr. CORNELIUS. We are opposed to the passage of this bill. Our delegation consists of six or eight men. They are not all going. to talk, and, in fact, we are not going to take up much of your time, but the fact that we are not making long speeches we do not want you to take as an indication that we are not interested in this proposition, because we are. Here is the resolution:

Whereas there has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Hull, of Illinois, a bill (H. R. 5475) relating to improvement of the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, which would empower the Chicago Sanitary District to withdraw 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal

Mr. HULL. I think you said that in my bill I recommended 10,000 cubic feet. Would you mind reading that part of it again?

Mr. CORNELIUS (reading):

Which would empower the Chicago Sanitary District to withdraw 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal.

Mr. HULL. Could I correct you in that? That is not in the bill, It says that they might have the right not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet. It does not authorize 10,000; it is not to exceed that.

Mr. CORNELIUS. In reality that is what you are allowing for.
Mr. HULL. That is not what the bill says.

Mr. CORNELIUS (continuing):

Whereas present diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Chicago Sanitary District has lowered lake levels an average of 51⁄2 inches, which would be greatly increased by a withdrawal of 10,000 cubic feet per second; and

Whereas the port of Buffalo, the second port in amount of tonnage handled on the Great Lakes, already has felt the effect of lowered lake levels in decreased capacity of boats entering her harbor, resulting in great financial loss not only to the navigation interests but to the industries of the city and the Niagara frontier industrial district; and

Whereas capacity of boats entering Buffalo Harbor will be diminished, great damage done to docks depending upon wood piling for support, and large expenditures necessitated for increased dredging; and

Whereas increased withdrawal of water from the Lakes will diminish greatly the value and use of Buffalo's harbor and navigable channels for navigation and industrial purposes and will deprive the Niagara frontier industrial district of the rightful heritage of cheap water transportaton: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, Representing in its membership the principal industrial, mercantile, and navigation interests of the city of Buffalo, that it is unreservedly opposed to the passage of House bill 5475 or any similar bill providing for water withdrawal through the Chicago drainage canal.

The Chamber of Commerce of Tonawanda sent this letter to me, which I received upon my arrival here from New York last night: Have just learned that you will attend the hearing to be held on Tuesday next on the Hull bill, having to do with the diversion of water from Lake Michigan.

As it is impossible for us to send a representative to the hearing, we are taking the liberty to request that you act as our attorney in this matter.

Mr. George Lehmann, of the Buffalo chamber, informs me that you will attend the hearing in opposition to this bill and it is the desire of our organization that you cast a vote for us opposing the measure,

Thanking you in advance for imposing on your good nature and for any service you may be able to render, we are, very truly yours,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF TONAWANDA,
H. A. CHAPIN, Secretary.

I might just say in respect to the Tonawanda Chamber of Commerce that Tonawanda may seem insignificant to you men; nevertheless, Tonawanda is coming to the front as a commercial center, shipping by water. The American Radiator Co. has purchased the furnaces of the Tonawanda Iron & Steel Co. and expects to develop that, with an expenditure of something like ten or twenty million dollars, and probably in the course of a year they will be shipping all of the freight by water. It was the largest lumber port. Of course, that has stopped a bit, and we do not speak of that commerce in large terms to-day. The city of Buffalo, of course, is interested in navigation on the Lakes by virtue of the fact that we are the second largest port on the Lakes.