Evening star., 1941-07-08
Representative Ellis
Backs and Van zandt
Opposes 5eaway
Lawmakers AnuIyze
St. Lawrence Project in
Star Forum Broadcast


(Continued From Page B-l0)
resources for the benefit of all the
people. The T. V. A. has brought
great benefits to our neighboring
States. I have introduced in Con-
gress bill which would create SIM
liar benefits for Arkansas and other
Southwestern States by the devel-
opment of the Arkansas, st. Fran
els. Red and White Rivers. On such
projects depend not only our ability
10 survive in a world at war, but
our future as a vital and dynamic
democracy.
Even when the present conflict is
ended, the war of production Will
not be over. Either we will find our
selves confronted with the Competi-
ton of A slave economy dominated
by victorious Germany. or We will
face the supreme challenge of a
devastated world looking largely to
us for economic salvation and the
re-estabhShment of democratic prin-
cipleS everywhere. Not only the
standard of living of our own people,
but the reorganization Of world
trade will depend upon our ability
to mobilize our resources IN the
critical days of postwar era.
The St. Lawrence project offers
10 the people of this country and to
your Representatives in Congress a
test of our ability to take the long
view in point of time and the wide
view in terms of the total national
interest. Favorable action will offer
convincing evidence to our friends
and to our enemies that the United
States will neither be Stifled in her
all-out defense effort nor diverted
from her determination to make
democracy work for the maximum
benefit of all of the people.
Van Zandt'S Address.
The text of Representative Van
2andt's address follows:
The privilege of participating in
the discussion this evening is made
possible by the kind invitation of
the Washington Evening Star. to
whom I am very grateful for this
opportunity TO speak on a subject of
vital interest to the American peo-
ple-the St. Lawrence SeaWay and
power project.
My selection as speaker on this
program was not alone motivated by
the fact l am opposed to the ST.
Lawrence project, but because 1
represent thousands of coal miners
and railroaders in the great State Of
PENNSYLVANIA whose Jobs will be
seriously menaced by the proposed
interna tiOnal ditch The people
whom I represent are not selfish;
hence I am not going to spend the
time allotted to me in describing
the devastating effect that the ST.
Lawrence project will have on the
State of PENNSYLVANIA. Instead it is
my purpose to dwell briefly on the
effect that the proposed St. Law
renee project will have on the eco
nonic life of the entire United
States.
MY colleague and good friend, the
Hon. CLYDE T. Ellis of Arkansas who
Is presenting the affirma tive side of
the question, has given you a COM
prehenSive analysis of the St. Law
renee project: hence it would be
repetition on my part to cover the
same ground.
In the interest of clarity of
thought. let us remember that the
proposed ST. Lawrence project is
divided into two component parts
first. as a seaVay which contem-
plates the establishment of a 81
foot channel from the mouth of the
st. Lawrence River to Duluth, Mimi,
distance of 1877 miles. While
utilization of existing facilities will
lessen the construction work in
some Of the area, the greatest and
most costly portion of the work re-
mains to be done. This will neces-
state the construction of a series
Of channels, canals and large dams:
Viewed From Two Aspects.
The second part of the st. Law
renee project involves the conStruc-
ton Of a large hydroelectric power
dam at Messina, N. Y. This dam is
calculated to produce 5 900 900 horse
power Of electric current annually,
100000 horsepower to go to Canada
and 100000 horsepower to New
York State alone. no other State
being a beneficiary of this hydro
electric power dam. The cost of the
dam will be paid by the Federal
Government and will be approxi-
mately s93,000,000. The power pro-
iect when completed will be turned
over to the State of New York who
will operate it, and over a period
of so years pay back to the Govern
ment from the revenue obtained the
original cost of construction.
When you view the project in
two parts, namely as a seaWay and
power project, the natural question
arlses-What Is the total cost? ?
Those in favor of such a project
are ultraconservatives in arriving
at cost figure, while those opposed
to the project are unable to ac-
eept the modest cost claims of the
advocates of the st. Lawrence prof.
ect. On the other hand, leading
and reliable industrial engineers in
Canada and the United States place
the cost in excess of $1,000 900 900,
some contending that $3.50. 900, 900
Is a sensible and sane estimate.
That these industrial engineers
are proceeding on a sound basis is
very evident when we recall the
estimates that were given for the
construction of the Panama Canal.
The original estimate of $3.50 .OOO.-
600 was absurd when the final cost
was revealed as $375, 100000. Then,
too, the Suez Canal was estimated
at $30,000,000, but when completed
the total cost was $80,0OOOOO.
1t must also be borne in mind
that production costs are now at
the highest ebb, and since this is
period of war emergency further
increases are very likely.
Destined to Cost Billions.
Aside from the great cost of this