of branch lines. I cannot give you the exact figures, but they have abandoned thousands of miles of branch lines, and it is these inroads that make that necessary; and the sections served by those roads protest against the abandonment, but if you do not leave them enough traffic to haul, there is nothing left to do and they are a drag on the whole system. I might give you must as a general figure the round mileage. In the United States in 1920 there were 252,845 miles of railroad, and in 1930 that figure had dwindled to 233,670 miles, or approximately 20,000 miles of railroad which had to be abandoned. Now in regard to these projects, there is another subject which we do not want to get into here, and that is the competition of trucks which has caused the abandonment of much railroad mileage.

Mr. DONDERO. Have you any more recent figures than 1930? Mr. PRINCE. Mr. Dondero, I did not happen to have these, except that they were just furnished me.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you any data on short-line shippers on water routes?

Mr. PRINCE. Those are feeder lines and they are all subject to this competition.

Mr. RANKIN. They were not through lines. No through lines were abandoned as a result of water routes.

Mr. PRINCE. We would not be permitted to abandon a through line. We have got to maintain the service. That is exactly the point. We are required to maintain that service. The public needs it and the public demands it, but you take away all traffic and take away all revenue and you are imposing a burden on the rest of the traffic which must use the rails.

Mr. RANKIN. You get advantages in rates and the railroads get more traffic than ever. That has been the history of the traffic. Mr. PRINCE. If there are no more questions, we have our last witness.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. We thank you, Mr. Roby, for your statement, and the exhibits you have submitted will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The exhibits are as follows:)

APPENDIX 1

Comparison of prospective tonnage and savings by use of Tombigbee-Tennessee Canal as estimated by the Army Board of Engineers in 1939 (H. Doc. 269, 76th Cong., ·1st sess.) and as estimated by the same body in 1946 (H. Doc. 486, 79th Cong., 2d sess.)

Comparison of prospective tonnage and savings by use of Tombigbee-Tennessee Canal as estimated by the Army Board of Engineers in 1939 (H. Doc. 269, 76th Cong., 1st sess.) and as estimated by the same body in 1946 (H. Doc. 486, 79th Cong., 2d sess.)—Continued

Comparison of prospective tonnage and savings by use of Tombigbee-Tennessee Canal as estimated by the Army Board of Engineers in 1939 (H. Doc. 269, 76th Cong., 1st sess.) and as estimated by the same body in 1946 (H. Doc. 486, 79th Cong., 2d sess.)—Continued

Authorities: 1939 estimate, pp. 54 and 55 of H. Doc. 269 (76th Cong., 1st sess.); 1946 estimate, p. 38 of H. Doc. 486 (79th Cong., 2d sess.).

RECAPITULATION

[Amount of increase claimed in 1946 report as compared with tonnage in 1939 report]

APPENDIX 2

Statement showing mileages via proposed water route, present water route, and direct rail route between Chattanooga, Tenn., Knoxville, Tenn., Decatur, Ala., and Sheffield, Ala., on the one hand, and from Baton Rouge, La., Helena, Ark., Memphis, Tenn., Natchez, Miss., and Vicksburg, Miss., on the other; showing also percent rail distance is of shorter water route-present or proposed

Statement showing distances via proposed water route, present water route, and direct rail route between Morgan City, New Orleans, and Mobile, on the one hand, and points in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, on the other; showing also percent rail distance is of shorter water route-present or proposed

APPENDIX 4

in all 4 sections of the waterway.

1 Total tonnage for the Mississippi is not shown since it would contain duplications, as for example, some tonnage moving the entire length of the waterway would be reported