Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-02
The St. Lawrence Project.

So little has been said in opposition
and so much In support Of the pro-
posed Great Lakes-St. Lawrence deep
waterway that the report Of the Insti-
tute of Economics Of the Brookings
Institution. attacking the project as I'M
feasible and economically unsound, is
sure to cause many an echo in the next
few years. For both of the principals,
taking the opposite sides in what now
seems to be debate. speak with author
ity. On the one side is the Brookings
Institution, endowed by Robert B.
Brookings, the Carnegie and Rookie
Teller Foundations and devoted to what
may be taken for granted as strictly
impartial economic research in Govern
ment. On the other side is President
Hoover, who for many years has har-
bored the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
project as pet scheme, and the Army
engineers and members Of the Presi-
dents Commission upon the st. Law
renee Waterway. who have endorsed
and recommended it.
The Brookings Institution. in a
lengthy book of 700 pages written by
Harold G. Moulton, its president,
reaches the conclusion that the prof.
ect, viewed from all angles and from
tte standpoint of the shipper, the ship
owner, the taxpayer and the public, is
not economically desirable or feasible"
Such a conclusion is in marked COM
trast to the findings of the Presidents
Commission upon the st. Lawrence
Waterway, OF which Herbert Hoover
served as president. In discussing those
findings, Mr.. Hoover declared in 1927
that 'in accord with the compelling
Interpretation of the facts, our Ameri-
can commission has recommended that
its construction be undertaken. 1t
would remove great barrier to world
transportation. It is urgent to the
prosperity Of the Midwest. 1t will con-
tribute to relief of many of its post
war difficulties. 1t will contribute a
wealth of hydroelectric power. 1t is
q task worthy OF the strength and pur-
pose Of the two sister nations who have
in two centuries already overcome
countless obstacles in implanting the
most hopeful civilization of history"
The Brookings Institution report
finds the cost of the project would
reach about one billion dollars, but as
Secretary Of Commerce Mr.. Hoover cal
culated that the divided cost, between
the United States and Canada, would
be between one and two hundred mil
lions, after deductions for portions of
the work taken over by power develop
ment, and that in time the money in
volved in the original investment might
be recovered through sale Of electric
power; the Brookings Institution finds
that electric power could not be sold at
price that would make its generation
profitable, and that exploitation OF the
st. Lawrence for power purposes IS
planned is premature. But Mr.. Hoover
said that sale Of this power would pay
for more than half the cost Of the
waterway. The Brookings Institution
declares the waterway would be used,
IF at ALL" only by tramp and coastwise
vessels and possibly by vessels engaged
In second-class liner service to Europe.
But Mr.. Hoover believed the plan would
admit to the Lakes SO per cent Of all
ocean going vessels which touch North
American ports and great cities like.
Fort William. Duluth, Chicago, Detroit,
Cleveland, Buffalo and Toronto may
take their place and part as the sea-
board of the world"
There are many other differences Of
opinion. The source Of the dissent
makes it important. So marked is it
that advocates of the Great Lakes to
the Sea project, and they can be count
ed by the millions, should take notice Of
it and reply. The Brookings Institution
has directly challenged project that
has been called greater in scope and po-
tentialities than the Panama Canal and
such direct challenge should not go
unanswered or unexplained.
--t-s~b--s--