JAMES RIVER, VA.

COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 16, 1914.

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, we will be glad to hear you now. Mr. MONTAGUE. Mr. Chairman, we desire to expedite this hearing as much as possible. We have here four gentlemen who appear in favor of the improvement of the James River. Mr. R. A. Dunlop, secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, of Richmond, Va., is very familiar with this particular project and I will ask you to hear him

now.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, before you proceed, Mr. Dunlop, that this is a project we have had under consideration and for which we have been appropriating money for many years. The complaint, I believe, is that we have not been proceeding as rapidly as we might. We would be glad to hear from you as to the necessity of more rapid

progress.

STATEMENT OF MR. R. A. DUNLOP, SECRETARY OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, OF RICHMOND, VA.

Mr. DUNLOP. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it seems that there are two Richmonds in the field to-day, one on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic coast. I hope that what has been said about the Pacific Richmond will not render you less inclined to hear about the Atlantic Richmond.

When I was last here it was about the close of the session and your honored chairman suggested that I limit my remarks, and when I asked him how much time I could have, he said, "How much do you want?" I said 10 minutes. So, having limited myself at that time, I was afraid to trust myself to limit myself this time. I was afraid I might be like the lawyer who had the reputation of making long harangues. At one time when he was addressing the court he said, "May it please your honor, I hope I am not trespassing upon your time." To which the court replied, "The learned counsel does not seem to observe the distinction between trespassing upon time and bordering on eternity." Now, I will not do anything of that sort. I have reduced my ideas to a great degree to writing. While they may not be particularly interesting, still they are true, and I think they ought to appeal to the sense of justice of this committee, and I am going to read them and comment upon them as briefly as possible, and then ask for your most favorable consideration of the project in behalf of which I appear here to-day,

Mr. EDWARDS. This is the improvement of the Richmond Harbor on the James River of which you speak?

Mr. DUNLOP. The improvement of the James River from what we call the lockgates, a basin at the head of tidewater, to the sea. In other words, from the head of tidewater to the sea, because we are on tidewater.

Mr. BURGESS. How far is that?

Mr. MONTAGUE. One hundred and three miles and a fraction, from Richmond to Hampton Roads.

Mr. DUNLOP (reading):

At the last Congress I had the privilege to appear before your honorable body, accompanied solely by the Congressman from our district. The short notice received of the only hearing which you were able, under the stress of circumstances, to accord the Richmond chamber rendered it impossible, at that time, to secure the attendance of our committee on the James River improvement.

Upon the present occasion I am more fortunate, in being accompanied by not only our Congressman, Hon. Andrew Jackson Montague, but also by a few gentlemen, Mr. George Bryan, a highly esteemed member of the chamber's committee on the improvement of James River; Mr. James F. Ryland, representing large manufacturing interests in Richmond; and Mr. E. S. Goodman, traffic manager of our chamber; who are deeply interested and in touch with that project. A much larger delegation would have appeared before you, but an appointment with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Agriculture, in the interest of having Richmond selected as the location for one of the regional banks, commanded the attendance of a number of other prominent citizens of Richmond, not only members of our chamber of commerce, but prominent officials of the city.

I regret that the duty is again imposed upon me to be the principal speaker in advocating the claims of James River. I scarcely know what to add to the remarks made upon my previous appearance, except to express my profound regret that they seem to have had no effect in increasing the present proposed appropriation for its improvement. I may to an extent repeat myself, but as there are some new members of the River and Harbor Committee, and what was said on that occasion has perhaps been forgotten, I trust that it may be permissible.

To be a little personal, I wish to say that I am an enthusiast upon the question of river and harbor improvements and the policy of fostering and promoting water transportation. Commerce was literally rocked in the cradle of the deep, and in its native element I believe it is most untrammeled, and will reach its highest state of efficiency and usefulness. From the earliest time of my business career I have been profoundly disappointed with the policy of the Government with reference to its work upon rivers and harbors. I might almost say I have seen my fondest hopes decay. But when the River and Harbor Congress was organized to hold up the hands of your committee those hopes were revived, and I thought the cardinal declaration of the organization, that it stood for "a policy and not a project" was most eminently wise, and the only governing principle which rendered such an organization possible. My disappointment, however, was great again when the river and harbor bills carried substantially liberal appropriations, but the recommendations of the engineers for the improvement of James River became smaller and we have had to be contented, as it were, with the crumbs which fell from the master's table.

About 13 years ago I had the honor to prepare a document relating to the improvement of James River, Va., and to show how it had been neglected, I inserted the following table:

1 Tide rises at Richmond, 34 feet; Savannah, 6 feet; Charleston, 5% feet.

Commenting further upon the inadequate appropriations made for the improvement of James River, I quote the following language from the document referred to:

"The late Maj. Thomas Turtle, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, when forwarding, in 1882, the results of the survey and the able report made by Mr. C. P. E.

Burgwyn, the local engineer in charge at that time of the improvement of James River, in reference to the proposed enlarged scheme of improvement specified certain work, estimated to cost $300,000, as required at the outset, and stated in his report that "This sum would be actually necessary for a proper beginning and is independent of any work in pursuance of the previous project of 184 feet at high water above Quarry Wharf. Yet in that year, 1882, only $75,000 was appropriated; the next year no appropriation was made, and on July 5, 1884, when the 22 foot project was adopted only $75,000 was appropriated. During the 30 years over which this work of improving James River by the General Government has practically extended, counting the years when no appropriations were made, the total sum of all appropriations makes an average of only $64,833.33 per annum. Prior to the adoption of the 22-foot scheme, when working for a depth of 18 feet, $52,857.14 per annum was the average appropriation; and since the adoption of the 22-foot scheme the average has been only $73,906.25 per annum. On the latter scale of appropriations, which is the highest, it would take over 43 years to complete the improvement under the present project.'

This was the history of the James River improvement with respect to appropriations until about 1900, notwithstanding the fact that when the 22-foot scheme was indorsed by the engineers it was thought that, with liberal appropriations, it could be completed within a reasonable number of years. It is not materially changed to-day. Bear in mind, gentlemen, that some years prior to 1884 Congress had been petitioned to have an exhaustive survey to ascertain the feasibility and importance of the present scheme of improvement of James River, and after that survey had been made by the local engineer and approved by his superiors it was finally adopted by Congress in 1884. Upon the faith of the commitments of the General Government the city of Richmond has always liberally supplemented governmental appropriations, as will be seen from the following statement:

The Government has expended to June 30, 1913, $2,258, 181.09, or only 42 per cent of the estimated cost of the improvement, viz, $5,374,943.15. The city of Richmond has expended in the interest of the improvement and its harbor $1,056,583.67, or 46 78/100 per cent of the amount expended by the Government.

Is there any other port of which the same can be said?

I was asked on the occasion of my last appearance before this committee, by your honored chairman, what these expenditures by Richmond consisted of. I told him frankly I could not name all of the items of disbursement, extending over the long period of this improvement, but I quoted from that worthy Virginia gentlemen, who has gone to his reward, the late Chief Engineer, Col. William P. Craighill, the following statement:

It has already been noted that the city of Richmond has freely supplemented the appropriations of the United States in carrying on the operations for the improvement of the navigation of the river on which her welfare as a seat of commerce so much depends.

"It also ought to be stated that the money of the city, while disbursed under the supervision of her own engineer, has always been spent in accordance with the views of the engineers of the United States charged with the improvement, and everything that could be reasonably expected has been done by the authorities of the city to make the joint operations successful and economical. She has already received a very proper one, it may be remarked, inasmuch as the improvement of a great river like the James is at the same time an object of national and local interest.

Now, the situation to-day, so far as the adequacy of appropriations for this project is concerned, appears, as stated, in no respect improved, for at the average rate of appropriations for 43 years, counting from June 30, 1870, up to June 30, 1913, viz, $52,515.83 per annum, it would take over 57 years to complete the improvement; or at the rate of last year's appropriation viz, $75,000 per annum, it would take over 40 years to complete the improvement. This is certainly not in accord with the declared policy of the Government to "help those who help themselves," nor does it seem good business on the part of the Government. No private enterprise under efficient management would be so conducted.

We were told some years ago that the policy of the Government was first to improve the seaports, and after that the rivers, but not only have the original and enlarged projects of improvement, for instance, at Charleston and Savannah-alluded to as the nearest southern ports of importance-been practically completed; but notably the largest seaports have had such preference shown to them that commerce and transportation lines have been converged to those ports, traffic is handled over longer rail routes, business is often congested and subjected to higher port charges, and the water-borne commerce of minor ports has in many instances been almost destroyed, which is not to the true interest of either the producer, the shipper, or the consumer.