Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-06-25

vides for the canalixation OF the Ohio
river. to be prosecuted 1t . rate which
will insure its completion within twelve
years; the Improvement Of the Mississippi
river between Cairo and the Gulf Of
years: of the Mississippi river between
the mouth Of the Missouri and the mouth
Of the Ohio river. to be completed within
tws1ys years; eS of the Mississippi rive.
mouth of the Missouri river. to
be completed within twelve years;
| of the Hudson river for the purpose OF
facilitating the use Of the barge canal
In the vicinity Of Troy. N. Y; Of the
sea, with view to its completion with
In four years: of 85-foot channel in
| the Delaware river from Philadelphia
to the sea: Of a 35-foot channel to Nor
folk. Va; Of 27-foot channel to Mo-
bile. Ala. of a 3O-foot channel to jack
sonville. Fla; Of 30-foot channel to
Oakland, Cal.
1T also provides for greatly enlarged
harbor facilities at certain important
lake ports. including Ashtabuia and
Lorain. and enlarged facilities for the
important commerce of the Detroit
river. InLeed, 1t may be said that q
great majority of the projects named in
the bill are merftori0us and that money
expended in their completion will not
be wasted.
Defects Of Measure.
1.-The chief defect in the bill is the barge
number of projects appropriated for. and
the uneconomical method of carrying on
these projects by the appropriation of
sums small in comparison to the amounts
required to effect completion.
1.-THE figures convincingly establish the
fact that this bill makes inadequate pro.
the bill, $50. COO, 600 Is not unduly large.
but the policy Of small appropriations
with a great many different enterprises,
without provision for their completion, IL
unwise.
ut tends to waste. because thus con-
structed the projects are likely to cost
more than If they were left to contractors
who were authorized to complete the
whole work within a reasonably short
time. The appropriation of a small sum
those who are to adopt the project. and
who do not, therefore, give to their de-
cision the care that they. would give II
the appropriation or contract involved the
full amount needed for completion.
Moreover, the appropriation Of COM
paratively small sum for a doubtful en-
terprise is thereafter used by its advo-
Gates to force further provisions Tor IT
investment made is a conclusive recogni-
ton of the wisdom of the project, and IT'S
continuance becomes q necessity to save
the money already spent.
Evil of "Piecemeal" Policy.
This has been called a 'piecemeal'
policy. 1t is proposed to remedy this de-
feet by an annual rivers and harbors
bill, but that hardly avoids the objections
above cited, for such yearly appropria-
tons are apt to be affected by the state
of the treasury and political exigency.
IF enterprises are to- be useful as en-
couraging means Of TRANSFORMATION,
they ought to be finished within a
reasonable time. The delays in COM
pleting them postpone their usefulness
and increase their cost.
The proper policy. 1T seems to me.
is to determine from the many projects
proposed and recommended what are
the most important, and then to pro-
coed to complete them with due dis
patch. and then to take up. up others and
There has been frequent discussion OF
late years as to the proper course to be
pursued in the development of our inland
waterways. and think the general SEN
timent has been that we should have a
comprehensive system agreed upon by
come competent body of experts. who
should pass upon the relative merits Of
the various projects and recommend the
order in which they should be begun and
completed.
Engineers Power Inadequate.
Under the present system every prof.
ect is submitted to army engineers. who
pass upon the question whether 1t ought
to be adopted: = but they have no power
to pass upon the relative Importance Of
the many different projects they approve
or to suggest the most economical and
businesslike order for their completion
s,'Gen. Marshall. while chief engineer. at
my request furnished mo a memorandum
Senate, In which he analysed the criti-
cisms made In the discussion of it In
Congress. He considers the bill to be
quite as good as any Of Its predecessors.
but points out the defects ! have men
toned above and also suggests that the
old projects provided for in the bill in
clude some which were never recommend
ed by the engineers and some which.
though once recommended, would not be
now recommended because of a change
of condition.
Congress should refer the old projects
to boards of army engineers for further
consideration and recommendation. This
would enable us to know what Of the old
shalfs plain intimati0n is that a number
of old projects call for action Of this kind.
Likely to Veto Next Time.
II have given to the consideration of
this bill the full ten days since it's sub
mission to me. and some time before
that The objections are to the system,
for 1t may be conceded that the trainers
of the bill have made as good a bin as
they could under the 'piece-mear policy.
Il once reached the conclusion that 1t
was my duty to interpose veto in order,
If possible. to secure q change In the
method of framing these bills. Suisse
quent consideration has altered my view
as to my duty.
1T Is now three years since q river and
harbor bill was passed. The projects un-
der way are In urgent need of further
appropriation for maintenance and con-
tinuance, and there is great and justified
pressure for many Of the new projects
provided for by the bill. It has been
made clear to me that the failure of the
bill. thus late in the session. would seri.
| ously embarass the constructing engi-
neers.
ct do not think, therefore, the defects
of the bill which l have pointed out
will justify the postpOnement Of all this
important work. But I do think that
in the preparation Of the proposed flu
ture yearly bills Congress should adopt
the reforms above suggested, and that
a failure to do so would Justify
Withholding executive approval, even
though a rivers and harbors bill fail.
WILLIAM H. TAFT.
"The White House.
T,Sao 101nv