the Ohio River, and that about 29 cents a ton would be the saving that could be effected, in which event you will increase in the neighborhood of $100,000,000 the amount of public money on which you will have to pay interest for many years to come, because you and I will never live to see the time when this public debt will be paid off, and it will incur an operating deficit that will probably exceed $2,000,000 a year.

So I say I cannot see from any standpoint the alleged benefit to the public. They won't get it. A few operators will get it and the competitive situation will take care of the rest. It will not benefit the majority of the miners. It will injure the railroad. It will put Government competition in there with the railroads, with the taxpayers' money. You will reduce the revenue that we would otherwise collect in taxes from those railroads.

So, from any standpoint, I say I do not think you would be justified in approving this project, and I hope you will not do so.

Now I will ask permission to insert in the record at this point a letter from my distinguished colleague, Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, representing the Third District of Virginia, which was written to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, expressing his opposition to the project. He had hoped to personally present this to you, but he had to leave to speak on the pending resolution concerning the sale of Government war property.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. It will be received. (The letter referred to follows:)

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

BOARD OF ENGINEERS, RIVERS AND HARBORS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., November 7, 1945.

War Department, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: I understand that the United States district engineer at Huntington, W. Va., and the division engineer at Columbus, Ohio, have recommended the canalization of the Big Sandy River and the Tug and Levisa Forks thereof. I am advised that the initial capital cost of this project, including interest during construction, will amount to nearly $69,000,000.

From the information that I have it does not appear that this project is justified at any time, certainly not in view of the present fiscal condition of the Government with a deficit of about $300,000,000,000. The deficit of our Government has been steadily increasing for the last 15 years, and it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to undertake this project just now.

Very respectfully,

J. VAUGHAN GARY.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Robertson, I commend you for your frankness in your opposition to any of these projects in view of the present size of the national debt, but I wonder if you feel the same way toward the British loan?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, I can only answer for myself there. I feel that we cannot afford not to make the British loan, and I feel that if we let Great Britain go down it will entail consequences for us too horrible to contemplate. Great Britain is our only bulwark in Europe against communism, and the British Empire with the 18 nations that compose the sterling-payment area control 50 percent of the world's trade; and I tell you, sir, that in the years to come, after we get over this reconversion problem, get over the hump of meeting our immediate needs that have accumulated for 5 years, we will be in desperate need for export markets for about 15 percent of our automobile production,

for about 60 percent of our cotton production, for about 20 percent of our wheat, for about 40 percent of our tobacco, for about 20 percent of our apples, and those export markets will mean employment for us of about 3,000,000 people, and it will mean the difference between the perpetuation of a free economy under the private-enterprise system in this country and the regimented economy that will necessarily result from having more workers than you have got jobs for, and more production than you can consume at home.

I don't want to take up your time, but I could speak here for an hour on the British loan, but that is really not involved, so I don't want to prejudice this case with my views on the British loan.

Mr. RANKIN. So far as the internal improvements are concerned, I think the greatest thing we can do for our own country is to make it strong at home, and for that reason I have always supported internal improvements. I say that without expressing any views on the British loan, but I am just wondering if the gentleman would apply the same argument to the loan that is going to be asked by Italy, to the loan that is going to be asked by France, to the loan that is going to be asked by Russia, to the loan that is going to be asked by Yugoslavia and other countries.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I think the $1,500,000,000 that we proposed to expend in this country over a period of years for public roads will pay dividends because it will develop our transportation system and our farm-to-market roads. I have supported a number of public works that I thought were sound, were needed, and would pay dividends, but this public work is not, in my opinion, needed, and will not pay any dividends.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I would like to make this observation, following up your very interesting and able statement as to the absolute essentiality of our foreign commerce in the postwar period.

I heartily agree with you that the economy of this country is going to be largely dependent upon our foreign commerce. If we do not go into the markets of the world and establish our commerce and trade, it appears to me that we cannot hope to keep up our economy at home. That is why I am so sold on the proposition of properly developing our harbors and our rivers. If we do not have the proper harbor facilities in this country and the proper waterway facilities so that the vessels can come here and get our commerce and take it to the various parts of the world, I don't see how we can hope to build a foreign-economy commerce to the extent that we should build it up. It may be that this particular waterway development is a rather controversial one, but I am afraid that Congress as a whole fails to realize the tremendous importance of the harbor development and the waterways development of this country in the future economy of our Nation and our future status and standing among the nations of the world.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Of course, as my distinguished colleague knows, I come from a mountain area, like the witness who appeared before you yesterday from Kentucky, boasting of their replacement rate. We have the Blue Ridge on one side and the rugged peaks of the Alleghenies on the other, where, like the area in Kentucky from which my friend comes, the men are men and the women are glad of it. [Laughter.]

We have no great streams to be navigated, but I want to remind you of the fact that I voted for your $550,000,000 improvement bill

last year, and I don't think you have gone into the expenditure of that yet.

I did back off from the billion-dollar flood-control bill because I thought that at the time that was going a little too far, and I think that from now on we have got to rely not on some general theory that this is in the general line of internal improvements, but each one must stand on its own merits.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I agree with you, but when I see the Norfolk & Western trains every time I come and go from Georgia to Washington, and see trainload after trainload going, I presume, to Norfolk, it impresses upon me the absolute necessity of having proper harbor facilities in Norfolk and various other points, to receive these vessels capable of taking these products into the four corners of the earth.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I can assure you of my general interest in the Norfolk harbor, and maybe some day I will have a personal interest. I do not represent Norfolk now, but some day I might, and I would be very glad to see that Norfolk Harbor is given every consideration, and as I say, I voted for your general bill last year but this is a specific problem which I do not think can be justified.

Mr. RANKIN. Let me say to the Chairman that I take the position that prosperity begins at home, and I don't care what arrangements you make for international trade, until you make our own people prosperous at home, enable them to make a living we will not have anything to ship abroad. [Applause.]

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Mr. Robertson, I will state that you, as usual, have made a very clear and forceful and interesting statement, and we thank you for it.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy in allowing me to come here and make my statement and get away promptly, in view of my other engagements.

Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I should like to introduce Mr. T. C. Townsend, former tax commissioner of the State of West Virginia and presently general counsel for the United Mine Workers of America.

STATEMENT OF T. C. TOWNSEND, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CHARLESTON, W VA.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is T. C. Townsend. My residence is Charleston, W. Va. My offices are in the Kanawha Valley Building.

I appear here today in opposition to the building of the Big Sandy Canal. I appear in my own right as an individual and as a citizen of that State. I appear here as a taxpayer. I think I pay a reasonable amount of both State and Federal taxes.

I appear here also as a representative of the International Union of the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 17, one of the districts affected by this proposed project, also for District 29, the largest producer of any district of the mine workers' organization of bituminous coal, and also to an extent for District 30 in the State of Kentucky.

Just why the Government of the United States should spend $80,000,000 of the taxpayers' money to canalize the Big Sandy Valley

is something that I have been altogether unable to comprehend. The truth of the matter is that this project is not here before this committee today because it has been suggested or even proposed by the citizenship of this community, I mean the large majority of the citizenship of the communities that will be affected by the building of it. Where does it come from? Let me see if I can not clarify in the minds of this committee what motivates the attempt to build this canal.

This project, according to the information that I can get, was proposed by the Big Sandy River Valley Association. As I understand it, that association is represented by Mr. M. L. Garvey. Is that correct?

Mr. LAWSON. That is correct.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Now, why did he propose it? I am going to tell you why he proposed this canal, based upon his own statements, and then allow you, as you must and as it is your duty to do, to then reach the conclusion whether or not it is a public improvement that is proposed in good faith.

I hold in my hand a photostatic copy of a letter. Mr. Garvey, I understand, appeared here yesterday, and I will undertake to say to you that he did not tell you anything about this letter. This letter is dated at Washington, D. C., October 3, 1945, is written on the stationery of M. L. Garvey, and addressed to:

Mr. WILLIAM BLIZZARD,

% United Mine Workers of America,

Charleston, W. Va.

DEAR BILL: I was very much disappointed to see your article in the United Mine Workers Journal with reference to the canalization of the Big Sandy River. It is needless to say I do not agree with your statement.

Mr. Blizzard had made a statement in opposition to the building of this canal. [Reading:]

Bill, you're off the beam. We have tried repeatedly to get the same freight rate to the river from the N., & W. officials that the C. & O. has given to its shippers. If the N. & W. had given its shipper the same consideration that the C. & O. has given its shippers it would be unnecessary to have the Big Sandy canalized. Of course, you know that the C. & O. did not give the rates now in effect to its shippers until after the Kanawha was canalized.

That statement I don't think is altogether correct. [Reading:]

I attach hereto a statement I made before the United States Board of Engineers which I wish you would read carefully. I will be glad to hear from you after you have read same. I do not think there is anything in this statement that can be refuted. It is my candid opinion that you and other United Mine Workers officials should cooperate with operators on the N. & W. to the end that we have the same rates to the river that the C. & O. operators have. are not asking for anything more.

Mark this statement

We

We are not asking for anything more. If we are to retain our business and operate on our mines particularly as soon as we return to normal conditions, we must get relief.

That is signed by M. L. Garvey.

That letter, gentleman, places this question just exactly where it belongs. It is nothing more, it is nothing less than an effort by two or three outstanding coal producers in southern West Virginia to get a freight rate from their mines to the Kanawha River through the building of a canal which does not cost them one dollar but costs

the taxpayers of this country in the neighborhood of $100,000,000. That is this proposition and that is what Mr. Garvey says it is. In other words, if the Norfolk & Western Railway, he says, would give him the same rate for his coal that the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway that goes into, not the same territory that the Norfolk & Western does, but adjoining territory on the same water-if he could get the same rates that the C. & O. gives he would not have started this project at all and it would never have been heard of. He started it for the twenty-fourth time after the engineers of the Federal Government had turned it down 23 times. To me it seems to be an impossible proposition.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I understand that the people in that area do want lower freight rates so they can operate their mines during normal times.

Mr. TOWNSEND. I can't see why they should require the building of a canal that cost $100,000,000 to get it. They can go to the Interstate Commerce Commission, the tribunal that fixes freight rates, and so far as I know Mr. Garvey and the interests he represents have never asked the Norfolk & Western for a decreased freight rate, and have never filed a proceeding against them in any respect.

Mr. RANKIN. Of course, Mr. Garvey did not start this argument, so far as my recollection goes, because my first introduction to it was. by John Langley. And I would like to speak with reverence of John Langley, because I think he was one of the worst mistreated men in the history of America. [Applause.]

Mr. TOWNSEND. If the Congressman please, I concur with you in that statement.

Mr. RANKIN. I say that advisedly. Although he was a Republican and I am a Democrat, and in those days his party was in the majority and there were many things on which we did not agree, but my introduction to John Langley was hearing him speak on this proposition 25 years ago, and so far as the freight-rate proposition is concerned, the man that wrote that letter made this investigation, but nobody doubts but that the real issue is the transportation rates. Now we were called upon to build those locks and dams in the Ohio River from Cairo, Ill., to Pittsburgh, Pa. For what purpose? To give them transportation up and down that river in order that they might enjoy cheaper freight rates. I was in Congress at that time, and my recollection is that I supported Mr. Burton, who was chairman of this committee, on that project. I would have much preferred that he build high dams and develop the water power, but that was not done. The main argument here, the main fight as I see it-and I am speaking from a disinterested standpoint, because while we might expect to get some of this coal if it is shipped down the river, for a small area to go to the Interstate Commerce Commission to get relief against all the railroads who will barge in which their legal talent opposing them, they might as well appeal to King Tut to revise the laws of ancient Egypt. [Applause.]

Mr. TOWNSEND. I don't know of anybody that has tried to do it. Mr. RANKIN. You never would get relief from the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that is what these people want.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Then why don't you abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission?