In the first place, there is water in the Fox River, to a limited extent. Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that there is not enough water at all times in the Illinois River for a 9-foot channel. Yet it is a fact that that water, plus what will be used for domestie purposes in the city of Chicago, will be enough water, beyond any question, and on the report of the engineers, to furnish a 9-foot channel.

Now, let us remember this: This question of what water is necessary is a technical question and Congress has its advisers, and its advisers are engineers; and we have found them in all cases in the past to be both of the highest ability and utmost reliability in character.

Now, we have not any way to question their report. And they say, first, that this improvement which we are making will be more useful in future development of the Illinois River as the diversion is decreased; and that you can continue decreasing it until you have only 1,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan-and you will have more than that for domestic purposes in Chicago.

So you do not contemplate a diversion in the diversion sense at all; but you contemplate only that which you know is inevitable and which is sure to occur, and you are making an improvement which will be useful to the extent that it goes; and all that you have to do in the future if you reduce the diversion is simply deepen the channel and confine it; to have a narrower and deeper channel. Mr. MADDEN. We have the Kankakee River and the Fox River, which have 2,000 second-feet flow; and it all went into the Illinois. River when we had the improvement made, and we put the locks and dams in before we got any diversion, and it is there now.

Mr. DEMPSEY. In other words, you not only have the flow in the Illinois River, but you have the tributaries flowing into it and enlarging it as it proceeds downstream.

Mr. BURTON. Is there not an engineer's report that estimates that flow at only 700 cubic feet per second?

Mr. DEMPSEY. My recollection is that it is about that; but I think it is a trifle larger than that. And suppose it was only 700 cubic feet per second, Senator Burton; and suppose we reduce the channel, as the engineers say we can to an average of 1,000 cubic secondfeet: Do you think there is anybody on the Great Lakes who would object to that?

Mr. BURTON. I say this

Mr. DEMPSEY (interposing). We are not talking, Senator, for the purpose of a law suit now. In conducting a law suit, you have got to take a technical position; but in a broad, general way, there is not anybody who will question that.

Mr. BURTON. I question whether there will be any such traffic developed there as claimed. But there is an insistent demand for it; and I favor there being a diversion there sufficient to maintain the project as it was originally mapped out, 1,000 feet, or 1,650 feet under emergency circumstances and low water.

But there is more in this question than that. This law suit in the United States Supreme Court raises the question whether there is any right whatever to divert water from one watershed to another.

Mr. DEMPSEY. That is true.

Mr. BURTON. Now, until that is decided, how can we proceed on this?

Now, let me argue this a little further: You say this is not on the same footing as the Cape Cod Canal. Well, why not, when it gives a much stronger sanction than was given in the case of the Cape Cod Canal? Because in this case Congress passes on the project. It is legislation. It is not simply a project of the engineers' office. Now, listen to what the engineers say-and your project is based on the report of the engineers. Now, what do they say?

Mr. DEMPSEY. Well, it is based on the report, subject to the proviso, and that proviso is that "the whole question of diversion for sanitary, navigation, or other purposes shall remain and be unaffected hereby, and as if this act had not been passed."

Mr. BURTON. The trouble with that is that you virtually say, "You shall do a certain thing," and then you add a restriction saying you will not do it.

Mr. DEMPSEY. No.

Mr. BURTON. It is absolutely contradictory.

Mr. DEMPSEY. No; I do not think so, Senator. What we say is that 8,250 feet of water is coming down there to-day. Now, we are going to utilize what is coming down. With that quantity of water we only need to excavate to a certain depth; and we are going to excavate to that depth, and use what is coming down now. Then, as the quantity is decreased, as it will be from time to time, all we will have to do is--we will utilize the locks and dams as they are, and we will simply deepen the channel and confine it, making it narrower and deeper; and as we do that, we will reduce the diversion to 7,000 feet, 6,000 feet, 5,000 feet, or 4,000 feet a second, or whatever is sent down that stream.

Mind you, there is no other place to send this water than right down the Illinois River. It has to come down that way, and we are only saying that we will go on and give them a 9-foot channel, which they ought to have; and we will use the water as it comes down, in varying quantities, in decreasing quantity from time to

time.

I want to say just one word before I close my part of the argument: The argument has been made here that part of the Mississippi River is not improved and will not be improved for some time, and that, therefore, this is premature.

Now, I do not agree with that at all, and I will show you why: One of the basic necessities of life is heat and fuel. And down in southern Illinois they have a splendid coal field, where coal can be purchased at a minimum price, and that coal can be brought to Chicago, from the time this improvement is completed, at the lowest price possible, about 30,000,000 tons a year; that is what that city

consumes.

And just to illustrate to you what that means, let us go down to the Monongahela River; and we find there that it costs 15 cents a ton to transport coal, where it costs $1.25 to transport it by rail.

Mr. BURTON. Well, you are overlooking a great difference between this river and the Monongahela River. The Monongahela River is in a way the greatest transportation system by river and the most

successful there is in the country; and that is because the steel and iron mills are right on the banks of the river.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the use of this coal for domestic and manufacturing purposes.

Mr. BURTON. Now, the mines to which you refer are not right on the banks of the Illinois River.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes; but we have tributary streams to that that will be improved, leading right to this river.

Mr. BURTON. Muddy Creek, and streams of that kind.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes; but Mr. Joseph Leiter, who owns a great many of those mines, says there is not any question but what he can utilize this river just as soon as it is improved, and that he is ready to use it.

Mr. BURTON. Then when you go to the other end, the Chicago end, conditions are absolutely different from what they are on the Monongahela River.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I do not think so, for general use of the coal

Mr. BURTON (interposing). The furnaces, etc., are not on the river. And when you handle coal a couple of times, you absolutely render useless transportation by water. That is a proposition that a great many people overlook.

Let us take an illustration: If you were to join the river rate on coal from the Pittsburgh region to Cincinnati and add to it the rail rate from Cincinnati to Indianapolis, it would be less than the through rail rate, very substantially. But the transfer charges would absolutely confiscate and wipe out that difference; and there is not any coal carried that way-

Mr. DEMPSEY (interposing). I think that is largely true, because you have not had your Ohio River improved long enough.

Mr. BURTON. Well, there is a great deal of coal on the Monongahela River.

Mr. DEMPSEY. But you have not got your terminal facilities down on the Ohio River. You gentlemen are very remiss about that. We have spent a hundred million dollars on the Ohio River for you; and you have not created your terminal facilities.

Now, those that have investigated the question at Chicago say that we can, and that we can save a very enormous amount in transportation by the Illinois River up to Chicago; and they say it will reduce the cost of living in Chicago. That it will make their supply of coal more certain. That they do have congestion by rail, and that they can not always get the coal when they need it; and they say in this way they could get all they need at the time they need it at a reduced price.

Mr. MICHENER. Would it not be the part of wisdom not to encourage the building of these terminals and spending large sums of money on them until they know just what water they will get out of Lake Michigan?

Mr. DEMPSEY. I do not think so, and I will tell you why I do not think so: Because this report says that you can have a perfectly good 9-foot channel-and that is all we contemplate-in the Illinois River with 1,000 feet per second; and it is certain that we are going to have 700 feet from the Illinois itself, and it is certain that we will only need 300 additional, and we will get 1,200 or 1,500 from the water used for domestic purposes by Chicago.

So we are not holding out any illusory hopes-we are not holding out any false or specious promises. We are holding out what is certain to be. We are holding out the promise of a good and usable and practicable 9-foot channel; and holding it out not on the basis of the present 8,250 cubic feet per second, but on the basis of 1,000 feet, with 1,650 feet instantaneous diversion; and we are justified in doing that; and we are sure that will come for all time.

Mr. BURTON. Then, why not insert that in the bill?

Mr. DEMPSEY. Insert what?

Mr. BURTON. Insert that it shall be reduced down to this amount of 1,000 second-feet, or 1,650 second-feet in case of low water? Why not insert that, so we will know where we are going?

Mr. DEMPSEY. The answer to that is this—and it is very obvious and very clear: I live on the Great Lakes, as you do. I will be glad to see such a provision inserted. But we have a lawsuit, you and I, with these Chicago people. I am taking in the committee the position of a man who is an umpire. I stood up just as hard against Chicago and in favor of the Great Lakes as you have stood up; and I made a fight in the same vigorous way that you have fought, to have a provision that I considered fair inserted. But I could not go to the extent of asking them to insert in this bill a provision that they shall lose their lawsuit, or that we shall legislate them out of any chance of winning it--and I could not say to them, "You have lost your lawsuit, and you are not entitled to any diversion." They would say to me, We have our right to our day in court; and we have a right to defend our contention that we are entitled to a certain diversion. You do not want us to stipulate now that we shall not have even our day in court; but you are legislating us out of it, in advance of the hearing."

66

That would not be fair, and no sensible or sane man would ask them to do that.

Mr. BURTON. Well, they have had their day in court. And why do they not wait until this question is decided as it will be decided inside of a year at the most-and depend on their rights in court? But instead of doing that, they are just going ahead and providing for an improvement, when the question of the right to make that improvement at all is pending in the Supreme Court.

Mr. DEMPSEY. No; not that question at all.

Mr. BURTON. Why not give them their day in court and make them wait for that?

Mr. DEMPSEY. We are going to. This improvement is not predicated on anything that is in court, because they will always have enough water for a 9-foot channel; and second, we say in this bill that the whole question which can be raised by litigation shall wait until the courts determine it; that it shall remain and be unaffected by this act as if it had never been passed.

Mr. BURTON. You say so; but you put another provision in there that qualifies that restriction.

Mr. DEMPSEY. No.

Mr. BURTON. Now, your project is based on this report. Let me read you what this report says

Mr DEMPSEY. With the proviso.

Mr. BURTON (reading):

The board therefore recommends modification of the existing project for the Illinois River to provide a channel with least dimensions of 9 feet in depth and 200 feet in width from the mouth to Utica, by dredging and by the partial removal of the two State dams and the retention and minor alteration of the two Federal locks and dams, at an estimated cost under present conditions of diversion of $1,350,000.

Now, that is what you commit yourselves to.

And over here there is a very elaborate estimate of the cost, on page 3, of the improvement as apposite to different diversions.

Now, the money that you are providing, $1,350,000 or $1,320,000; it is stated differently in different places, and I do not know which is correct is based on the diversion of 8,250 feet per second.

Now, in this estimate, the amount that would be required for the 1,000 feet per second that you speak of is $5,135,000.

So that you are making provision on the basis of 8,250 feet per second; that is your whole project; that is the substance of it.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Now, in reply to what the Senator says, I would like to have the committee hear this. He says that this if of doubtful meaning, because we provide for the costs at different depths. I say that it is perfectly plain and in entire accordance with my argument. We are going to use more money as we have less water; and we are going to use the added sums of money just as stated in this paper (indicating). As we have at present 8,250 second-feet, we will only use $1,350,000. But when we get down and only have 1,000 cubic feet a second average, with 1,650 feet instantaneous diversion, then we will use $5,000,000; and as we keep getting less water, we will have to have more channel; and we will keep increasing the cost in accordance with that table.

And it was right and proper for the engineers to so state. They are recommending an improvement which they say is going to change. And they are giving us, not alone the present expense, but the future expense. And, of course, it was the proper thing for them to say, "While you are only spending $1,350,000 to-day, as the water lessens in volume, you are going to spend additional amounts each time that we deepen that channel, and the additional amounts which you are going to spend are the following:

Mr. BURTON. Now, I ask again, if that is true, why do you not provide for it in your bill?

Mr. DEMPSEY. We do. That is the only purpose of those tables; that is the only purpose they serve. There would not be any sense in their being in there except for that. And that shows conclusively, from the start, that they are going to change this improvement from time to time as the channel deepens and the volume of water is lessened.

Mr. BURTON. As a matter of fact, do you believe that if 8,250 cubic feet go through there, with the enormous pressure that would be brought to bear on Congress for it, you would be able to secure a diminuation of the amount going through there? Now, as a practical phase of the question, I ask you that.

Now, you and I have both listened and you were talking about what they said at Chicago. Now, I listened for 10 years to those arguments; and I finally concluded that the hearings were useless,