Page images
PDF
EPUB

port to Columbia direct is $3.10, or 11.6 cents less than the proponent's estimate. We do not believe the proponent or anyone else is so naive as to believe there will be a movement of cotton via barģe under such a set-up. The result of the comparison, Shreveport to Columbia, S. C., reflects any situation with rsepect to other points in the South from Shreveport, Alexandria, and Natchitoches.

(The tables are as follows:)

[blocks in formation]

1 Results after correction of rates and eliminating gasoline tonnage from Shreveport to points north and east of Helena, Ark. Other eliminations should also be made.

TABLE 2.—Comparison of forecasted tonnage and savings on the Red River with

forecasted tonnage and savings on the Arkansas and Trinity Rivers. Also the forecasted tonnage and actual movement on the Missouri River, upper Mississippi and the Illinois Rivers

[blocks in formation]

Forecasted

Projects

Year

Water
mileage

Average
savings

Actual movement in 1940, tons

Tons

Savings

per ton

$2.85
2. 17
1.99

Red River
Arkansas River
Trinity River.
Missouri River (Kansas City to mouth).
Upper Mississippi River
Illinois River-

1945
1945
1941
1928
1930
1933

205
411
374
377
853
321

1,119, 200 $3,195, 200
9,015, 000 19, 606, 000
2,316, 621 4,600,000
3,729, 437
9,000,000
8,330, 000

537, 845 3, 495, 000 3, 745, 000

NOTE.-In the case of the Missouri River the forecasted tonnage was made by the U.S. Department of Commerce and covered only tonnage available for Federal Barge Lines. The actual tonnage shown includes all commercial tonnage except sand and gravel and materials for river maintenance and improvements amounting to approximately 216,000 tons. Actual tonnages shown for the year 1940 are as reported by the U.S. Chief of Engineers.

[graphic]

Table 3.-Statement showing comparison of estimated barge-lot tonnage shown in the Red River survey with the actual movement of the same

commodities via the American Barge Line, the Mississippi Valley Barge Line, and the Federal Barge Line for the years 1939-41

1 Includes rye.
? Includes feed.
3 Includes fuel, road oil.

TABLE 3.-Statement showing comparison of estimated barge-lot tonnage shown in the Red River survey with the actual movement of the same

American Barge Line

Mississippi Valley Barge Line

RAOA No.

Federal Barge Line

Commodity

Red River (estimated tonnage, table 9)

1939

1940

1941

1939

1940

1941

1939

1940

1941

40, 883

58, 064

503

2, 551

620 640 650 671 680

Manufocturers and miscellaneous-Con.

Beverages, liquors
Fertilizers
Newsprint paper.
Cotton bagging
Canned fruits and vegetables
Wrapping paper and bags
Asbestos shingles
Sash, doors
Soap.
Glass bottles

9,000
66, 000
1, 900

700
6, 100
2, 400
17,000

600
15, 700
7, 300

305

16 721

49, 721

66
13, 747

7, 563
53, 579
10, 100
3, 898

89, 440
15, 124
16. 917
?-20, 186
-71, 615

895
6,090

135

694

77, 899 93, 152

6, 843 • 14, 568 55, 418 1, 409 3, 402

984 6, 167 41, 646 5, 005 6, 329

49 37

510
4,042
56, 542
8, 055
8,816

17
29, 950
20, 849

92, 097 114, 879

2,118
7, 932
72, 963

1, 332
4, 634

85 21, 428 13, 653

696 697 698 700

3,038

24, 003 16, 568

16, 643 41, 955

17, 239 10, 607

18, 417 9, 750

Total

commodities via the American Barge Line, the Mississippi Valley Barge Line, and the Federal Barge Line for the years 1939-41-Continued

974, 200

439, 185

620, 815

457, 507

274,043

238, 355

335, 916

1, 175, 486

1,310, 946

1,077, 865

Covers bagging and bags, burlap and jute.
Total movement via American Barge Lines, Mississippi Valley Barge Line, and Federal Barge Line: 1939, 1,888,714; 1940, 2,170,116; 1941, 1,871,288.

Authority: American Barge Line exhibit No. 1345 in I. C.C. Docket 26712; Mississippi Valley Barge Line exhibit No. 1422 in I. C. C. Docket 26712; Federal Barge Line exhibit
No. 1355 in I. C. C. Docket 26712.

Senator OVERTON. What organization did you say you particularly represented?

Mr. RÓBERTS. I get my pay check from the Texas. Louisiana Freight Bureau at Dallas, Tex. That is composed of the 28 principal railroads in Texas and Louisiana.

Senator OVERTON. Is that an organization that is now under investigation by the Department of Justice for violation of tbe antitrust laws?

Mr. ROBERTS. We are one of the bureaus; yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON, Very well. That represents your analysis. You don't know anything about the benefits from the reclamation of lands?

Mr. ROBERTS. We are not in opposition in any way to a proposition to reclaim lands and control floods. That is as much to the interest of the railroads as it is any other group of citizens in that vicinity.

Senator OVERTON. So you have made no study of that feature of this project?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.
Senator OVERTON. Or of anything else outside of the rates?
Mr. ROBERTS. Navigation.
Senator OVERTON. Navigation is right.

Mr. ROBERTS. We have no objection to that if it is economically justified. We don't think this one is and we think a study of our presentation might serve to have some effect on the committee.

Senator OVERTON. Who represented the Association of American Railways when you were considering the rivers and harbors bill during 1944 that was approved March 22, 1945, do you know?

Mr. ROBERTS. No. I expect it was someone at the Washington office.

Senator OVERTON. Mr. Fort.
Mr. ROBERTS. No doubt.

Senator OVERTON. He appeared here with an argument similar to yours. He appeared in opposition to several projects. It is my recollection-the members of this committee can confirm that recollection—he stated that he was going to appear in opposition to all rivers and harbors, that is, they were opposed to them whether they appeared or not, they were in opposition to all of them.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I can't say as much for our own group of workers down our way.

We have active files now, sir, on 34 projects, and we are only in opposition to four of them.

Senator OVERTON. I may be mistaken but the record of the hearings will show.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the great difference between our viewpoints, sir-we will take the Board of Engineers or the proponents of any project--we are very realistic at getting facts. Two and two is four with us.

Senator OVERTON. And not so with the Board?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we don't reach up in the air and get figures and say they represent actual facts.

Senator OVERTON. The Board reaches up in the air?

Mr. ROBERTS. In my opinion, it does, sir. When people take 1 day's billing out of each month, and that may be the only shipment that moves during the year and multiply that by some fictitious figure and say there is going to be that much tonnage available to the proposed canal, it is reaching up in the air. Private enterprise

a

[ocr errors]

could not survive under such a system. It is like taking your street number and dividing it by your telephone number and getting your age.

Senator OVERTON. Do you take the position that navigation projects are helpful or injurious to railroads?

Mr. ROBERTS. It all depends on where they are located. We don't think there is a river or stream in Texas, and very few of them in Louisiana that can be made to pay, because all of the so-called savings-or, rather, the cost of the transportation, I should say, is not in evidence there.

In other words, we take the position, and it is based on facts, based on the record, that waterway transportation is one of the highest forms of transportation we have got in this country, and there are few people who benefit by it, and the subsidy is paid for by the dear public.

Senator OVERTON. Well, you take, for instance, one project with which I am familiar, it is not confined to Louisiana, but it goes through Texas, Louisiana, and other States, the Gulf 'Intercoastal Canal project. Isn't that a paying project?

Mr. ROBERTS. In my opinion, it is.
Senator OVERTON. That is one.

Mr. ROBERTS. However, we have in several instances interposed objections, sir.

Senator OvFRTON. Take the deepening of the Lake Charles Channel from Lake Charles to the Gulf, hasn't that been a paying proposition?

Mr. ROBERTS. We did not oppose that.
Senator OVERTON. But you say that none in Louisiana is paying?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am talking about inland waterways. When you opened Lake Charles you opened it to the boats of the seven seas.

Senator OVERTON. And so do you with this project. You take shipments that originate in Shreveport and on down through Alexandria—that whole Red River Valley-you are opening that area' to the boats of the seven seas.

Of course, they are transported by barge-the freight is from those ports they are sent by ocean steamers.

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator, if this committee, or the Federal Government, or the Board of Engineers can create a deep-water port at Shreveport as a result of this proceeding, deep enough to accommodate foreign vessels from all the countries of the world

Senator OVERTON. You mean oceangoing vessels?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oceangoing vessels.
Senator OVERTON. Of course, we don't. That is not proposed.

Mr. ROBERIS. That is what you did at Lake Charles. That is what you did at Houston and other points.

Senator OVERTON. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERTS. We had no objections, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Well, you take the Vermillion project that has just been completed in Louisiana. Do you mean to say that is not a meritorious project?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am not familiar with it. I did not object to it, I know.

Senator OVERTON. I suppose the engineers can mention quite a few other projects in Louisiana.

Mr. ROBERTS. We are not fighting deep waterways, oceangoing waterways.

« PreviousContinue »