EXHIBIT NO. B.-Distribution by destination groups of coal loaded on Kanawha River, and coal transshipped at Huntington for river movement, in tons, year 1944 Total loaded on Kanawha River__ Total discharged at Kanawha River points.. Difference (total beyond Kanawha River). Kanawha River coal discharged at various points west of Point Kanawha River coal discharged at various points east of Point Total beyond Kanawha River.......... Transshipped at Huntington for river movement _ _ Huntington coal discharged at various points west of Huntington: 4, 011, 945 1, 789, 940 2, 222, 005 905, 661 754 1, 172, 991 112, 739 882 14, 681 2, 207, 708 14, 297 2, 222, 005 4, 045, 102 377, 024 3, 868 3, 315, 421 114, 422 3, 158 Total Huntington coal discharged at various points east of Huntington_ Total discharged east and west of Huntington.-.-. 3, 813, 893 231, 209 4, 045, 102 Authority: U. S. War Department district engineer, Huntington, W. Va. EXHIBIT NO. C.-Classification by destination areas of high volatile coal shown on Table E, Appendix C, of Big Sandy report Statement comparing total freight traffic, railroads and waterways, 1941–1943 Authorities: War Department, Office of Chief of Engineers, Commercial Statistics; Interstate Commerce Commission Freight Commodity Statistics. 87050-46- -22 EXHIBIT NO. E.-Statement demonstrating the importance of bituminous coal to class I railroads of United States, eastern district, Pocahontas region and southern region, also to fourteen selected railroads 1 Includes duplications, i. e., tons transported by more than 1 railroad. EXHIBIT NO. F.-Comparison of production of coal in Floyd, Johnson, and Pike Counties, Ky., with production in Boone, Clay, Kanawha, and Logan Counties, W. Va. (comprising substantially all of the Kanawha District) and with production in the United States-1937 through 1943 Authority: Bureau of Mines of U. S. Department of Interior annual reports. EXHIBIT NO. G.--Comparison of coal production Eastern Kentucky, Thacker and Kenova Districts on Ĉ. & O. Ry and Ñ. & W. Ry with Kanawha District production on C. & O. Ry, and United States production-1930 to 1944, inclusive EXHIBIT NO. H.-Distribution of north- and west-bound movement of coal from C. & O. Ry. and N. & W. Ry. east Kentucky districts, also ex-river coal from Cincinnati, Ohio, as shown in reports of Ohio Bureau of Coal statistics for year 1944 EXHIBIT NO. H.-Distribution of north- and west-bound movement of coal from C. & O. Ry. and N. & W. Ry. east Kentucky districts, also ex-river coal from Cincinnati, Ohio, as shown in reports of Ohio Bureau of Coal statistics for year 1944-Continued [Net tons] Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I desire to file in the record and request that it be made a part thereof, a communication from Senator H. M. Kilgore of West Virginia, wherein he most vigorously opposed this project. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Without objection it will be filed. STATEMENT OF SENATOR H. M. KILGORE ON THE TUG FORK CANAL PROJECT The imperative demand for essential public works such as highways, airports, buildings, is so great on the Federal Government today that it would be folly to divert one cent of Federal revenue to projects which are not essential in the highest degree. For that reason we must look with extreme caution on the proposal to canalize Tug Fork of Big Sandy River. I have received many letters and messages from residents of the Tug Fork area with reference to this project. Most of them have expressed opposition to it. Those who have said they favored it have not produced a single real argument as to why it is essential. |