The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1914-10-02
.sNAToR FLETCHER, ON THE
~, AWAHA RIVER PROJECT

okl AWAHA RIVER PROJECT
senator Fletcher made most ad-
.,,rable speech before his colleagues
:. The senate on the Oklawaha river
uroject, in which he showed conclus-
;vely that the project is a most wor-
.hv one and deserves national recog-
milton.
whv is it sneered att Why is it
called pork barrel affair? Why, it
cronped out Immediately after this
absolutely worthy project was turned
down Dy the senate by an editorial
appearing in the World. That edito-
rial said the East River presented an
aemergency." That New York City
must lombard congress for an imme
date appropriation running up per-
hans into the millions for it's imme
date rescue.
New York, Brooklyn, Boston, etc..
want all the contents in the pork
barrel" and do not want any other
section, however meritorious, to get
so much as smell.
The millions upon top of millions
given for the improvement of the
harborors of these cities are perfectly
all right for the meritorious projects
of other sections are all wrong.
We need broader, a more tolerant,
a less sectional craftsmanship.
We take pleasure in laying SEN
ator Fletcher's speech on the subject
of the Ocklawaha project before our
readers as it puts to rest any insinu-
alton that it's purposes were not
laudable and praiseworthy.
Senator Fletcher said:
The ockIaWaha River.
In some quarters the statement has
been given out that the basis for the
Improvement of the Oklawaha river
as contemplated in the report of the
engineers and by this bill is land
speculation, to serve some private in
terest. There is absolutely no foun-
dation whatever for that statement or
insinuation. There is no warrant for
1t either in fact or in the report of
the engineers. On the contrary, all
Of the records of matters covered by
the Investigation and the reports
show conclusively that it is a naviga-
ton proposition pure and simple. The
engineers were requested to consider,
when they visited the locality, the
question of devising a plan which
would drain and make available for
cultivation large areas of land in ad-
dition to giving navigation facilities.
The report of the engineers Oh. Doc.
514, SD Cong, I'd sess., p. 81 shows
as follows:
This phase of the subject was in
vestigated and the conclusion was ar
rived at that additional cost of any
plan which would coordinate land
drainage and reclamation with a navi-
CATION project was greater than war
ranted by the amount of land which
would be beneficially affected. Should
the owners of the land to be bene-
lifted, however, be wiling to contri-
butte any additional sum that pro-
lect providing for the reclamation
and drainage of the land would cost
over the project which provides for
navigation alone, such project should
preferably be adopted
Upon conditions therein named.
That question is entirely outside and
independent of the project provided
Tor in the bill, as it came from the
mouse and is retained here. Drain.
age is not involved in this appropria-
uon, which is based upon the report
OF the chief engineers and the board
OF engineers for rivers and harbors.
This report says (secs. 4 and 81:
These reports have been referred,
as by law to the board of engineers
lot rivers and harbors, and attention
Is invited to its accompanying re-
port dated December 8, 1913. In con-
Aection with it's consideration of the
subject, the board visited the locality
On April Is, 1913, held a public hear
aug near Leesburg, and made per-