It is more to the point for me to give you the history and background of this project, leaving to others better qualified by training and experience to present facts and figures to convince you the project is economically unsound, and that the huge expenditure is wholly unwarranted and unnecessary.

For the past 71 years these streams have been studied periodically by the Federal Government for the purpose of determining the feasibility of making them navigable. During that period 24 reports have been prepared by Government engineers. In every instance until the present one, those engineers have found these streams unworthy of improvement for navigation on a scale here proposed.

Mr. DONDERO. Is this the twenty-fourth report?

Mr. LAWSON. Yes, Mr. Congressman. As late as 1933 the Army district engineer for this area reported to the Board as follows, and we quote:

The physical characteristics of the river and its forks are unfavorable to the development of a modern waterway, and it is not believed that the improvement as proposed would attract sufficient traffic to justify its very high cost.

The report was approved by the Board of Engineers.

Mr. PETERSON. Who was the engineer there?

Mr. LAWSON. I do not have his name here. I understand it was Major Hermann.

Mr. RANKIN. He was not the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. LAWSON. The Army Board of Engineers approved his decision. Mr. ANGELL. What date was that?

Mr. LAWSON. 1933.

Mr. RANKIN. What day and month?
Mr. LAWSON. I do not have that.

Before referring further to the evidence which we expect to produce at this hearing, there is one aspect of the Board's report and the evidence adduced yesterday upon which I should like to comment briefly. The report does not give an accurate picture of the nature and extent of the opposition to this project. The Board dismissed the opposition with this summary statement:

Opposition to the improvement was expressed by the railroads operating in the area and by representatives of some labor organizations—

and they did not mention what organizations they were, Actually, there is widespread opposition to this project. Among the organizations and governmental bodies which rested their opposition with the Board were the following: The United Mine Workers of America, the various railroad brotherhoods-representing employees of all railroads in the United States-the Big Sandy Elkhorn Coal Operators Association, Kentucky-whose members produce in excess of 80 percent of the productive capacity of all existing coal mines in the Elkhorn field of eastern Kentucky-Coal Trade Association of Indiana; Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau; Harlan County Coal Operators Association, Kentucky; Hazard Coal Operators Association, Kentucky; Southern Appalachian Coal Operators Association, Kentucky and Tennessee; Western Kentucky Coal Operators Association, Kentucky; City Council of Columbus, Ohio; City Council of Portsmouth, Ohio; City Council of Ironton, Ohio.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Why would the City Council of Columbus, Ohio, pass a resolution?

Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Congressman, the city of Columbus has a representative here, and he will speak for himself, but of course Columbus naturally is a railroad city, and I assume that the council has sound reasons for objecting.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. How far is it from the railroads there? Mr. LAWSON. Approximately 200 miles, I assume.

Mr. RANKIN. It is a litle strange to me that a city council so far from this proposition would manifest that interest in it unless there is some kind of pressure or propaganda brought to bear upon it.

Mr. DONDERO. That is no more strange than the people coming here from Iowa for it.

Mr. RANKIN. I did not understand that.

Mr. DONDERO. There were many people from away up in Minnesota.

Mr. PITTENGER. Nobody said anything about Minnesota except me. I did admit that if this colonel came up there, that it might come to Minneapolis and St. Paul and might do a lot of good. I did not know, I was just trying to find out.

Mr. RANKIN. Three Communists on the city council have in New York City got through a resolution asking that I be removed from Congress.

Mr. LAWSON. If permissible, I will refer that question to Mr. Stuart Saunders.

STATEMENT OF STUART SAUNDERS

Mr. SAUNDERS. I would like to say that the interests of the city of Columbus and the interests of the city of Ironton and Portsmouth are: All of those cities have large railroad employment, for instance, in the city of Portsmouth, Ohio, and the Norfolk & Western alone has approximately 3,000 to 4,000 employees. Through the city of Columbus, Ohio, last year on the Norfolk & Western Railroad alone there moved 375,000 cars of coal.

Now, if this coal is diverted from the railroads to the canals, that would not move through Columbus, Ohio. There will be fewer trains operating through that city, there will be fewer railroad employees, there will be reduced purchasing power, and the taxes of the railroads will be reduced.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you think that is sufficient reason for putting these people on relief out in this coal area?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Rankin, we would like to deal with that question a little later, we will show you, we believe, sir, that there is no foundation in fact for that statement.

hear ours.

Mr. RANKIN. I am going by the testimony here.
Mr. SAUNDERS. We would like to have you
Mr. RANKIN. They live here and you do not.
Mr. SAUNDERS. We have people who live there.

Mr. RANKIN. You are opposed to it because it would provide competition for the railroads?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Whenever people who are

Mr. RANKIN. You have to strip your gloves off when you come here representing special interests who are fighting this from a selfish standpoint.

Mr. DONDERO. I hope the gentleman from Mississippi will take out from the record any statement about selfish interest. There is no more selfish interest here than those who propose it.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I wish the committee would proceed in order. The proponents and opponents have every right to be heard. Mr. PITTENGER. We are going to give everybody a chance to be heard.

Mr. RANKIN. I want to say this to you: When anybody comes before this committee, we have a right to ask what their interests are in the proposition, and what inspires that attitude, and I do not care whether the other members of the committee like it or not. I know what the procedure is, and I propose to ask every witness who comes here what his interest in this poposition is.

Mr. DONDERO. I propose to defend every person who comes here in an effort to maintain himself.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Now let us proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. BROOKS LAWSON, OF WILLIAMSON, W. Va.— Resumed

Mr. LAWSON. As I stated a moment ago, persons representing those various governmental interests and organizations will appear here in person.

Now, I want to bring the subject a little bit closer home, and file resolutions passed by city councils, organizations, and associations in the directly affected area.

The City Council of Williamson, W. Va., a resolution of opposition. I live there and I know something about the sentiment of the people.

Here is the City Council of Huntington, W. Va.

The City Council of Ashland, Ky., in Boyd County, a few miles below the mouth of the Big Sandy.

This is a resolution of opposition of the City Council of Ceredo, almost at the mouth of the proposed canal, in Wayne County, W. Va. The City Council of Kenova, a companion or adjoining city of Ceredo in Wayne County, at almost the mouth of the proposed canal.

Mr. PITTENGER. You have about 62 of those, have you not?

Mr. LAWSON. I only have 32, and I probably could have gotten 62. Mr. PITTENGER. I am not going to sit here and listen to all of those read.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I think that it might be worth something to the committee if you would take a pointer and point out generally where each of these towns is located, as you read this, and I am interested to see if your opposition is widespread, or if it is in one certain area, or just where it is.

Mr. PITTENGER. They have them all along the river there; he has not missed any.

Mr. LAWSON. We have already presented the city of Williamson, and the city of Huntington, W. Va.; Ashland, Ky.; Ceredo, W. Va.; Kenova, W. Va.; county of Grundy, Va.; Russell, Ky.

Then Allen, Ky.; county court of Wayne County, W. Va.; county court of Mingo County, W. Va. They are the only two counties

of West Virginia directly affected and these counties lay adjacent to the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy.

The fiscal court of Martin County, Ky.; the fiscal court of Lawrence County, Ky.; Williamson Chamber of Commerce, Kenova Chamber of Commerce, Roanoke Chamber of Commerce; and I will write the rest of them out without calling them off and you can make a record of them.

(They are as follows:)

CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON, W. VA.

Whereas the United States district and division engineers have recommended to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors the canalization of the Big Sandy River, including its Tug and Levisa Forks, at an initial cost of $65,000,000, and an annual maintenance cost in excess of $600,000, all of which would be paid from the public funds derived from the taxpayers, including the Chesapeake & Ohio and Norkfolk & Western Railway Cos., with which the waterway thus created at public expense would directly compete, to be used as a free waterway for the handling of coal and other commodities which are now being adequately handled by the railway companies above-mentioned; and

Whereas this canal will yield nothing to the local, State, or Federal Governments by way of taxation, and would divert business from the taxpaying railroads now serving the territory proposed to be served by this canal and would result in the use of public funds to establish direct competition with these railroads which have for more than three-quarters of a century contributed a large part in the development of southern West Virginia and its business; and Whereas in view of the staggering public debt of the United States, the expenditures of the sums of money required to be expended to provide these facilities is entirely unjustified, particularly when the cost of the annual maintenance of this canal will greatly exceed any revenues which could possibly accrue to the United States therefrom; and

Whereas the operation of the canal in direct competition with the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., which has a line on the west side of the Big Sandy River, and the Norfolk & Western Railway Co., which bas a line on the east side of the Big Sandy River, both of which parallel the river and adequately serve the territory east and west thereof, will result in a diversion of business from these carriers, a reduction of revenue and employment to both of them, particularly to the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., which has many thousands of employees between Huntington, W. Va., and Russell, Ky., where its largest yards and repair shops are maintained, is obviously contrary to the public interests and particularly contrary to the interests of the above-named rail carriers and their employees: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Council of the City of Huntington, Cabell, and Wayne Counties, W. Va., declare themselves unqualifiedly opposed (1) to the canalization of the Big Sandy River and the Tug and Levisa Forks thereof as contrary to the public interests, and particularly to the interests of this community; (2) to employing public funds to construct and maintain the public transportation facility in direct competition with existing and adequate transportation facilities; (3) to an unjustified increase in the national debt and public expenditures for the creation and maintenance of additional and unnecessary competitive transportation facilities; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and to the West Virginia Senators and Representatives, and that the West Virginia Šenators and Representatives be asked to oppose this project.

I, George R. Heffley, clerk of the city of Huntington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Huntington at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September 1945.

[SEAL]

GEO. R. HEFFLEY,
City Clerk.

CITY COUNCIL OF ASHLAND, KY.

Be it resolved by the General Council of the City of Ashland, Ky.: SECTION 1: That the General Council of the City of Ashland, Ky., does by this resolution express its opposition to the proposed canalization of the Big Sandy River.

SEC. 2: That it is the opinion of the General Council of the City of Ashland that the canalization of the Big Sandy River, as proposed, would be detrimental to the interests of established industries in this community and in the Big Sandy Valley.

SEC. 3: That the city clerk be, and he is hereby, directed to forward copies of this resolution to Members of Congress and of the United States Senate from Kentucky.

[SEAL]

W. M. HANKES,

City Clerk.

CITY COUNCIL OF CEREDO, W. VA.

RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States engineers have made. a survey and favorable recommendation for the canalization of the Big Sandy River; and

Whereas they report that this project will cost the taxpayers an amount in excess of $68,000,000; and

Whereas it is our belief that such a project would be. of limited value to the territory to be served; namely, Big Sandy River, including the Levisa and Tug Forks; and

Whereas this territory is adequately served by two transportation systems, the Chesapeake & Ohio and Norfolk & Western Railways, in addition to good highways; and

Whereas if such project is carried to its completion, it would no doubt reduce the amount of taxable property in these districts thereby working a hardship on the county, districts, municipalities, and school functions, without in any way replacing property values to offset this loss; and

Whereas if this project is carried to its completion, it will adversely affect residents and railroad employees in Ceredo and vicinity; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Common Council of the Town of Ceredo do now go on, record in opposition to the development of this project by the Federal Government; and be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be spread upon the minutes of the common council and a certified copy be sent to the Chief of Engineers, United States War Department, Washington, D. C., and a copy to each member of the United States Senate and House of Representatives from West Virginia.

I, J. G. Windsor, recorder, town of Ceredo, W. Va., do hereby certify that is a true and exact copy of resolution adopted by the Common Council of the Town of Ceredo, September 21, 1945.

J. G. WINDSOR, Recorder, Town of Ceredo.

ORDERS, MARTIN FISCAL COURT

Term, special, 26th day of September 1945

Whereas the United States district and division engineers have recommended to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors the canalization of the Big Sandy River, including the Tug and Levisa Forks, at an estimated cost of $65,000,000 and at an estimated outlay of $600,000 for the maintenance of the proposed canal per year, all of which would be taken from the tax funds and paid for directly by the taxpayers, which include the Chesapeake & Ohio and Norfolk & Western Railway Cos., said waterway being in direct competition to said companies; and

Whereas it appears that the railway companies have adequate lines and equipment to carry all of the coal and other freight that is now or will be produced in this section, and this without the expenditure of this vast amount of the public funds; and