New-York tribune., 1910-06-26
TAFT SIGNS HARBOR BILL
But Intimates He Will Never Ap-
prove Another Like 1t.
POINTS OUT MANY DEFECTS
Says Definite Plan, Approved by
Army Engineers, Must Re-
place Piecemeal Policy.

| WASHINGTON June S.-President Taft this
afternoon sent to the Senate message
saying that he had signed the river ano
| harbor BILL but intimating he would never
approve another of its kind. He says IL
effect that he signed the bin IN order no'
TO postpone important work. but that here
after there must be definite plan. ap-
proved by the army engineers.
After announcing that he had approved
the bill the President said While 1 have
signed the bill, venture TO submit MEM
orandum of explanation and comment
The text of his message follows:
The bill is an important one and contains
many excellent features. 1t provides for
prosecuted at a rate which will insure its
completion within twelve years; the i'm
provement of the Mississippi River be-
tween Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico. to be
sisSippi River between the mouth of the
Missouri and the mouth of the Ohio River.
Mississippi River between Minneapolis and
the mouth of the Missouri River, to be COM
pleted 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 Savannah River from
augusta to the sea, with a view TO its COM
pieuon within four years: Of g. thirty five
foot channel in the Delaware River from
Philadelphia to the sea; of thirty-five-
loot channel to Norfolk, Va; of twenty
seVen,foot channel to Mobile: OF thirty
foot channel 20 Jacksonville, Fla, and Of a
thirty-foot channel to Oakland, Cal. 1t
also provides for greatly enlarged harbor
including Ashtabula and Lorain, and en-
larged facilities for the important COM
merce of the Detroit River. Indeed, it may
De said that great majority Of the projects
named In the bill are meritorious and that
money expended in the completion will not
be wasted.
The Bills Chief Defect.
The chief defect in the bill is the large
number of projects appropriated for, and
,he uneconomical method of carrying on
small in comparison to the amounts re-
qulTed TO effect completion.
Inc ngures convincingly establish the fact
that this bill makes Inadequate provision
for too many projects. The total of the
olii-s2, goo 0o0-is not unduly large but the
poucy OF small appropriations with a great
vision for their completion is unwise. 1t
tends to waste because thus constructed
me projects are likely to cost more than If
they We're left to contractors who were
authorlzed TO complete the whole work
within a reasonably short time. The ap-
proprlaton Of a small sum lessons the
sense OF responsibility of those who are to
ADOPT the project: and who do not. there
fore, give to their decision the care that
.ney would give II the appropriation or con-
tract involved the full amount needed for
coinpletlon Moreover, the appropriation OF
comparatively small sum for a doubtful
eatsrprlse is thereafter used by its advo-
cafes 10 force further provision for il from
congress on the ground that the investment
made Is a conclusive recognition of the wis
comes a necessity to save the rooneI, al
ready spent. This has been called a piece
neal policy. 1t is proposed to remedy this
defect by an annual river and herhoT biII
but that hardly avoids the objections above
clted. for such yearly appropriations are
likely to be affected by the state Of the
l redSury and political exigency.
The Proper Policy.
II enterprises are to be useful as encour-
aging means of transportation thew onebt
% % De nnished within a reasonable time
The delays in completing them postnnne
,heir usefulness and increase their cost
he proper policy. it seems to me is 70
leIerInine from the many projects pro-
posed ana recommended what are the most
important and then to proceed to comn1ete
hem with due dispatch, and then to take
lp others and do the same thing with them. |
There has been frequent discussioD Of |
ate years as to the proper course to he
pursued in the development of our inland
waterways. and l think the general senti- |
nent has been that we should have a com
'rehenslVe system, agreed upon by some |
competent body of experts, who should pass
lpon the relative merits of the various |
projects and recommend the order in which
hey should be begun and completed
Under the present system every project I
s submitted to army engineers, who pass
dopted, but have no power to pass upon
he relative Importance of the many differ
mt projects they approve or to suggest the
most economical and buSineSsIike order
or their completion.
General Marshall. while chief engineer. at
ny request furnished me a memorandum
n respect TO the bill, then pending in the
senate, in which he analyzed the criticisms
made in the discussion of it in Congress- |
lie considers the bill to be quite as good
s any of its predecessors. but points out
he defects 1 have mentioned above and
lso suggests that the old projects pro-
ided for in the bill include some which
rere never recommended by the engineers
nd some which, though once recommend !
d, would not now be recommended because
f change of condition.
Congress should refer the old projects to
cards OF army engineers for further con-
liberation and recommendation. This would
nabie us to know what of the old works
ught to be abandoned. General MarshalPs
lain intimation is that number of old
rejects call for action OF this kind.
I have given to the consideration of this