The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1912-04-05


harbor bills has been that small
streams and Insignificant harbors are
cared for and money unwfse1y spent
thereon In the first place, want to
say that in none OF tho bills to which
/ 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 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
cial 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. OOIue On the larger ana
longer streams.
There is yet another criticism, not
SO often used nowadays, still occa-
sionally 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 justif1es
| the consideration given them. There
are nineteen states directly represent
| ed on this committee. These consti-
[ tute a 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, IL 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-feur for new projects,
and 7105 for maintenance. For the 102
/ existing projects the bill carries $780,
5sS.000; for the new. $4.477,07o.50. and
for maintenance, only s1,f97.45O. say
only s1,1s7.450, because, in my judg-
ment, this is a small sum for that pur-
pose. and makes a very creditable
| showing. Indeed, it speaks eloauently
| 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
ta M of
100000. The engineering skill which
during more than three-quarters Of a
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 little more than q million
Idollars Is necessary in the present bill
ito maintain all their work makes in
ldeed a creditable showing. Indeed, 1t
levidenees the fact that they have done
their work wisely and well. Cap
lplause).
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 40 surveys still be-
fore the engineers upon which reports
i had not been made. Some of these may
Ehave come in since the introduction OF
fthis measure, and sooner or later all
of them will be In Congress, either
with or without favorable recommen-
tdation. TO those favorably reported
Ito Congress we, of course, would give
tdue consideration and adopt or rejec,
them according to their individual
merits, but in order to give project
a status before the rivers and harbors
n q = r.
! come there with a favorable recon-
mendation from the engineer. This Fl
a rule of the committee, not formally
adopted to be sure, but one sanctioned
| by time and by the practice of tht
teommittee for several years. That pol.
Eicy has met with some criticism by Z
flew. and doubtless will be criticised
fagain, hut I think moments ref1ec
itien will show It's wisdom.
; The engineers who pass upon thes
: projects go into and Investigate tn
; localities where work is proposed
not only with view OF determinfn,
: its advisability but for the purpose o
) making estimates as to the cost o
, the project, While they are on tn
] ground they must necessarily familiar
2 ize themselves with conditions there
: including the commercial advantage
] likely to accrue from the adoption an
5 the completion of the project, an
: hence become well qualified to pas
. lupon the ACCESSIBILITY of doing give,
piece of work.
1 Mr.. Garret: Mr.. Chairman. will tn
e gentleman from Florida yield?
t The Chairman: Does the gent1ema,
:. yield to the gentleman from TeHnes
see.
Mr.. Sparkman: Would the gent1ema,
S mind waiting for while? I woul
:, prefer TO finish my statement, then
: Twin be glad to yield.
: Mr.. Garrett: Very we'll
g Mr.. Sparkman: Then, again, NJ
e chairman, il we were once to aban
: don this rule, which I admit is an al
y lbitFary one-if we once got ava
: from it, I fear that the criticism I
: which I referred moment ago-tha
d the river and harbor bin Is a pork
= barrel measure-could be made wit
s some show of justice. as we woul
Il then likely be overwhelmed with a
Il kinds of projects. and without SOM
y safe rule to guide us might be the viz
e tim of combinations, which would de
n stroy or make difficult this class
e Legislation. So it seems to me thu
IL for the present at least we must at
); here to that rule. Whether we ca
y get away from 1t in the futur
,e whether we can devise some other
l. before our committee in the prepar;
es ton of river and harbor bills, remain
1T | to be seen.