The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1912-04-12

II.
say that in none of the bills to which
i have referred have the amounts ap-
propriated for such projects been
large, but in each case the commerce
to be benefited has amply justified the
expenditure. There are purely intra-
state rivers-indeed, streams wholly
within a single county-which accom-
modate commerce originating on or
near their banks and which is carried
on their waters to railroad terminals
or to the ocean and thence to other
states. and even to far-distant lands.
These are as much interstate streams
and are as much entitled, under the
commerce clause of the constitution,
to federal aid and care as though they
traversed half a dozen or dozen
states. Then, too, in point of CONNER
ciaI Importance they compare favora-
bly, with many of these longer and
more pretentious streams. Some OF
them, considering the relative cost OF
Improvement, are even of more import
ance, carrying-in proportion TO the
money expended or them-many times
the commerce borne on the larger and
longer streams.
There is yet another criticism, not
so often used nowadays, still occa-
sionaIly suggested, that the states rep
resented on the committee are better
treated than those not so represented;
that the former get the larger amounts
of appropriations recommended by the
committee The latter statement is
perhaps true, but if so it is because
their commercial Importance justifies
~ H., faxo er;r IVA
are nineteen states directly represent
ed on this committee. These consti-
tute littel more than one third of
the states of the Union, but they have
at least three-fourths of our coast
line, more than three-fourths of the
harbors and mileage of the navigable
rivers, as also 80 per cent of the water
borne commerce of the country. So
that, if they receive more they are en-
titled to more, and deserve all the at
tention given them.
The measure contains 261 items of
appropriation. Of these, 102 are for
the continuation of work on existing
projects. fifty-four for new projects,
and 105 for maintenance. For the 102
existing projects the bill carries $780,
$4,000; for the new, $4,477, 070.50, and
for maintenance, only $1,197,450. I say
only $1.197,450. because, in my judg
ment, this is small sum for that pur-
pose, and makes very creditable
showing. Indeed, it speaks eloquently
for the skill and ability of the engi-
neers under whose direction the riv-
ers and harbors of this country have
been improved at an expenditure up
n ont of &607
00O,0 The engineering skill which
during more than three-quarters of
century could expend that large sum
of money on the Improvement of the
waterways of this country and at the
same time do their work so efficiently
that only a little more than a million
dollars is necessary in the present bill
to maintain all their work makes in
deed a creditable showing. Indeed, it
evidences the fact that they have done
their work wisely and we'll. Cap
plause).
In addition to the projects before
Congress at the time this bill was pre-
pared, and for which provision has
not been made therein, there were
something like 100 surveys still be-
fore the engineers upon which reports
had not been made Some of these may
have come in since the introduction of
this measure, and sooner or later all
of them will be in Congress, either
with or without favorable recommen-
dation. To those favorably reported
to Congress we, of course, would give
due consideration and adopt or reject
them according to their individual
merits, but in order to give a project
a status before the rivers and harbors
committee it is necessary for it to
come there with a favorable recon-
mendation from the engineer. This is
a rule of the committee, not formally
adopted to be sure, but one sanctioned
by time and by the practice of the
committee for several years. That pol
icy has met with some criticism by
few, and doubtless will be criticised
again, but 1 think a moments rehec-
ton will show its wisdom.
The engineers who pass upon these
projects go into and investigate the
localities where a work is proposed,
not only with a view of determining
its advisability but for the purpose of
making estimates as to the cost of
the project. While they are on the
ground they must necessarily familiar
ize themselves with conditions there.
including the commercial advantages
likely to accrue from the adoption and
the completion of the project, and
hence become we'll qualified to pass
upon the advisability of doing given
piece of work.
Mr. Carrot: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from Florida yield?
The Chairman: Does the gentleman
yield to the gentleman from Tennes-
lsee?
Mr. Sparkman: Would the gentleman
mind waiting for while? I would
prefer to finish my statement. then 7
will be glad to yield.
Mr. Garrett: Very we'll
Mr.. Sparkman: Then, again. Mr.
Chairman, if we were once to aban-
don this rule, which I admit is an ar
bitrary one-if we once got away
from it, l fear that the criticism to
which l referred moment ago-that
the river and harbor bill is a pork
barrel measure-could be made with
some show of justice, as we would