Mobile, Ala
New Orleans, La.
Mobile, Ala

Knoxville, Tenn

.do
Beardstown, Ill.

do.

Alcoa, Tenn.

-do.
Springfield, III.

do.

Total.

See footnotes at end of table, p. 404.

Salt P-P (continued).

Jefferson, La

5

1, 108

$3.37 $6.00

$3, 733. 96

$6, 648.00

$0.73

do.
Jefferson Island, La.

.do.

(*)
6, 473. 80

$808. 84

10

1, 116

.66

736. 56

do

10

1, 108

.66

731. 28

9

2, 233

6, 426. 40

(a) 12, 951. 40

(a) 9, 418.00

.66

1, 473. 78

3

1,385

.66

914. 10

9

803

.66

4, 518.00

1(a) 4, 210.80

529. 98

8

726

Demopolis, Ala.

3. 74

2,715.24

9

693

. 66

457. 38

12

831

4, 158.00

(a)
7, 146. 60

(a)
11, 197. 20

1. 52

1, 263. 12

8

1, 302

Union Stock Yards,
Chicago, Ill.

.do
Cincinnati, Ohio..

do
do
do
do.
.do.
..do.

-do.
Clarksville, Tenn.

do.
Columbus, Miss.

-do
Henderson, Ky.

do
Knoxville, Tenn..

do.
do.

do.
Louisville, Ky

do
do

do
Peoria, III

do
East St. Louis, Ill.

do
St. Louis, Mo.

do
do
do
do.

do
Evansville, Ind.

do
Mi nneapolis,
Minn.

do. Dubuque, Iowa.

4. 10 (a)
2. 98 5. 80
3. 64 (a)
2. 98 5. 80
3. 64(a)
2. 98 5. 80
3. 64 (*)
2. 98 6. 80
3. 64
2. 44 6. 00
3. 10
1. 36 5. 80
5. 10
2. 32

6.00
2. 98
2. 49 8. 60
4. 01 (a)
2. 49 8. 60
4.01 (a)
2. 72

6.00
3. 38
2. 72 6. 00
3. 38 (a)
3.05 6.80
3. 65 (8)
2. 63

5. 20
3.09 (a)
2. 63

6. 40
3.09 ( )
2. 63

6. 40
3. 09 (a)
2. 63

6. 40
3. 09 (a)
2. 34 6.00
3. 06
3. 99 8. 40

4, 542. 80
3, 325. 68
4, 062. 24

3, 301.84
$

4,033. 12

6, 654. 34 de 8, 128. 12

4, 127. 30 (5,041. 40

1, 959.32
2, 489. 30

987. 36
3, 702. 60
1, 607. 76
2, 065. 14
2, 069. 19
3, 332. 31
3, 241.98
5, 221.02
6, 780. 96
8, 426. 34
2, 260.32
2, 808. 78
2, 510. 15
3, 003. 95
3, 642. 55
4, 279. 65
1, 822. 59
2, 141.37
1, 822. 59
2, 141.37
3, 642. 55
4, 279, 65
1,815. 84
2, 374. 56
4, 444.86

1.52

do.
.do.
.do.
do
do
do
do.
do.
do.
.do.
do
do.
.do
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do
do
do.
do.
do.
.do
do.
do.
do

do.
New Iberia, La
..do
do

1, 979.04

11

2, 493

.66

14, 958.00

(a)
4, 986.00

1,645.38

548. 46

5, 596. 40

(8)
7, 202.00

493. 30

1,385

. 46

637.10

693

. 46

318. 78

7

693

4,435. 20

(*)
4,435. 20

(a)
8, 864.00

.46

318, 78

1

1,385

. 46

637. 10

do.
do.
do.
do

do.
Jefferson Island,
La.

do.
do.

Sec footnotes at end of table, p. 404.

Jefferson Island,

11

2, 216

..59

1, 307. 44

12

1, 108

.66
2. 61

731. 28
1, 952.28

8

748

do.
Chattanooga,
Tenn.

do.
Metropolis, III

.do.
Cincinnatti, Ohio

.do
Knoxville, Tenn.

do.
Evansville, Ind.

do
do

do
Chicago, Illi

do
Pekin, mi

do
Moline, ni.

7

834

. 46

383. 64
497. 14

1

7. 42

67

Philadelphia,
Tenn.

do
Rosiclare, 1.

do.
Springfield, Ohio.

do
Tazwell, Tenn.

do
Terre Haute, Ind..

do.
Wanwattosa, Wis.

do.
Plymouth, Wis.

do.
Bloomington, Ill.

do
Genso, III

do
Gillmore, I

do
Johnson City,
Tenn.

do
Pontatoc, Miss

do.
Sweet water, Tenn

8. 14
4.07 5.60
4. 66
5.37 P 7.80
6.03
6. 19 P 8.80
7.71
5. 33 D 6.40
5. 79
7. 13 7. 60
7. 79
6. 48 P7.80
7. 27
5. 02 P6.80
5. 61
6.16 17. 40
6. 84
5.04 P6.00
5. 64
7.19 P9. 20

6, 316.64
9, 019. 12 P 12, 409. 60
10,326. 56
5, 919. 96 D 8, 642. 40
6, 081. 24
4, 430. 12 D 6, 582. 40
5, 707. 08
4, 445. 22 D 5, 337.60
1,828. 86
5, 290. 46 p 5, 787.60
5, 780. 18
4, 490. 64 p 5, 405. 40
5,038, 11
3, 825, 24 D 5, 181. 60
4, 272. 82
5, 137. 44 p 6, 171.,60

704. 36
5, 584. 32 D 6, 648.00
6, 249, 12
5, 974. 89 р D 7,645. 20

do
Morgan City, La.

do
Weeks, La

7

6. 93

. 79

547.47

10

7. 62

59

446. 98

11

8. 34

do

.68

566. 92

10

11.08

Peoria, Ill.

do
Knoxville, Tenn.

.60
2. 01

664. 80
1, 670. 31

10

8. 31

31, 494

30, 642. 33

a Rate by the alternate the water route. D Calculated cost by the proposed project.

66

Mr. Prince. This exhibit, which is marked "Exhibit 5,” is presented for the purpose of dealing with the commodity of salt.

If you will, please, look at the first item on the movement of salt, which is from Avery Island, La., to Cincinnati, Ohio. It has “Brighton, Ohio” right above it. You will see that in the case of this movement, which actually went all rail at $6,80 per ton--that is the figure shown in column 23—there was available at that time an existing water route, by the Mississippi, undoubtedly, with a rate of $3.65 per ton, and this movement actually went by rail at $6.80, although it could have moved by the Mississippi at $3.65.

They say that by this new route it could move to destination at a rate of $2.98, or at a differential of 67 cents more than that presently available. As you will see, there was available a differential of $3.15 by an existing water route at the time this movement went by rail, and still it moved by rail.

Senator OVERTON. $2.98 is the calculated rate for this product? Mr. PRINCE. That is correct.

Senator OVERTON. What is the actual rate via water from Avery Island to Cincinnati?

Mr. PRINCE. $3.65. That is the figure just below the figure $2.98 in column 22. In each case in column 22 this is the calculated rate.

Senator OVERTON. Do you know how they figure the cheaper water rate on this new project?

Mr. PRINCE. I think undoubtedly they are figuring it by reason of the slack water. They figure it will be cheaper. It is longer, because it has to come from Louisiana, around by Mobile and up. I do not know whether it is actually longer or not. It looks longer, to me. The distance could not account for it. I assume it is the slack water.

Senator OVERTON. Don't you think that is true?

Mr. PRINCE. I think if it is a question of someone operating his own barges it would be cheaper to operate by the slack water than by the Mississippi. I do not question that.

Representative RANKIN. You have 262 miles downstream after you get to the Tennessee.

Mr. PRINCE. That is correct.

The data from the middle of page 5 to the top of page 7 you will note is designated “P-P,” which stands for port to port. That shows the movement of traffic which it is assumed would move via the proposed project in an all-water movement. This is followed by data indicated by the letters "B-R,” which stands for barge-rail movements and includes that traffic which it is assumed would move first by water over the proposed project and then by rail to final destination.

From this underlying data which is taken from the records of the Board of Engineers, which they very kindly made available to us, we prepared another exhibit which I have marked "Exhibit 6.” This is based on the data in exhibit No. 5.