Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator HOLLAND. I thank you, sir.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. Who is the next witness?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. R. A. Morris, Sr., Kenova, W. Va.

STATEMENT OF R. A. MORRIS, Sr., KENova, w. va.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I can say much different from what has been offered by many of the opposition to the Big Sandy canalization.

I am 70 years old. I live in Kenova, in Wayne County, W. Va. I was born in the central part of the State and spent a good deal of my time in the Kanawha Valley. I have been interested in the timber business and, therefore, had a good deal to do with the streams, such as the Gauley, Kanawha, Elk, Big Sandy, and the Guyandot Valley. I have had a lot of experience in the lumber business, from which I make my living.

I do not believe there is a man within the sound of my voice in this room or on the Big Sandy River that would invest one penny as a business proposition in the canalization of the Big Sandy River. I have no particular interest in this, except I am growing old. I am looking forward to the good of the community where I reside, as well as the rest of the United States. This country is in a terrible condition financially, and I believe today if you would allocate the indebtedness of the United States Government, allocate the debt separately back to the States in proportion to the amount that they have received as a donation from the Government, I think they would become more tax conscious and be against any further expenditure of Government funds, especially propositions of this kind.

Now, I cannot say anything more than has been said. Mr. Campbell is an attorney in Huntington, and he has given an outline. He is a good businessman, and I think he knows what he is talking about. Also there was evidence from the United Mine Workers, stating as to what effect it would have upon the working people.

Now, there is no use for me to enter into a discussion, to tell you gentlemen what the United States Senate ought to do. When you have read this evidence, I am quite sure that you will form the right conclusion. With that, I would like to introduce my statement, as I see the conditions in the Big Sandy Valley.

Senator HOLLAND. It will be received.

(Mr. Morris' prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF R. A. MORRIS, SR.

Mr. Chairman, my name is R. A. Morris, of Kenova, W. Va., which is located at the point where the Big Sandy empties into the Ohio River. I have been ving in the Big Sandy Valley for 50 years. At the present time I am vice sident of the First National Bank of Kenova, and vice president of the Kenova Handwood Flooring Co. I am familiar with business conditions in the valley, and have a definite interest in its development. I am not employed by any Tailroad.

i have always been opposed to this Big Sandy Canal project. In my opinion, there is no economic justification for it. The valley is well served by two strong and progressive railroads. In the final analysis, this project is nothing more than a WPA proposal, and I respectfully suggest that this is not the time for Congress to spend taxpayers' money on such a scheme. We people of the Big andy Valley don't need this project. We have done well without it, and I believe we will continue to do so.

During my lifetime I have seen coal production in this valley jump from practically nothing to more than 25,000,000 tons a year. Gentlemen, that did not just happen. It could not have happened without the railroads. The development of our coal resources has never been handicapped by lack of transportation facilities, and they are not handicapped now.

I hope very much, therefore, that you will see fit to vote down this uneconomic project.

Senator HOLLAND. Are there any questions?

Senator WITHERS. No.

Senator HOLLAND. Who is your next witness?

Mr. JOHNSON. W. L. Young, assistant chief engineer, Norfolk & Western Railroad.

STATEMENT OF W. L. YOUNG, ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER, NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILROAD

Mr. YOUNG. My name is W. L. Young, and I am assistant chief engineer on the Norfolk & Western Railroad. I would like to present to you a booklet containing some photographs taken along the Levisa, Tug, and Big Sandy from Catlettsburg and Sprigg, W. Va.

At a previous hearing some doubt was cast as to whether or not these pictures were taken along the canal route. They were all taken under my direction, I can identify each by its exact location, and I want to say they are all along the river.

Senator HOLLAND. They will be received.

Mr. SAUNDERS. We have one for each member of the committee. Shall I leave them with the clerk?

Senator HOLLAND. Yes. They will not be printed, but they will be available to the committee members.

(The pictures referred to above may be found on file with the committee.)

Senator WITHERS. How long did it take to take those pictures? Mr. YOUNG. We took some of these pictures in the fall of 1945 and the balance of them in the spring of 1946.

Senator WITHERS. How much time did you spend on them?

Mr. YOUNG. About 2 days. One day in the fall of 1945 and 1 day

Senator WITHERS. You took them from the air?

Mr. YOUNG. No. These pictures were all taken from the banks of the stream.

Senator WITHERS. You took them within 2 days?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Senator WITHERS. In the fall of the year?

Mr. YOUNG. One day in the fall of the year and 1 day in the spring of the year.

Senator HOLLAND. Is the purpose to show the condition of the river? Mr. YOUNG. The purpose is to show the conditions that exist along this river which you propose to canalize.

Senator HOLLAND. With reference to its size?

Mr. YOUNG. Its size, banks, and crookedness.
Senator HOLLAND. Tortuous channel?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Were these pictures taken in time of extreme low water?

Mr. YOUNG. The pictures that were taken in the fall of 1945, the river was at a low stage. The ones that were taken, about half were

taken in 1946, I would say, the river was about normal in the spring of 1946 when the photographs were taken.

Senator HOLLAND. Have you gentlemen on the other side had a chance to see those pictures?

Mr. JOHNSON. He has introduced them several times.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Also in 1946. They have seen them before. Senator HOLLAND. The pictures will be filed with the committee, and then if there are any questions to address to this witness, based on these pictures, you will be given ample opportunity to ask them. I suggest you look through them now and see if you have any questions. Senator WITHERS. I do not think so. We have some pictures here, too.

Senator HOLLAND. That is all.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Saunders would like to make a brief statement. STATEMENT OF S. T. SAUNDERS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILROAD CO.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, General Pick made this statement in response to a question from Senator Robertson:

That project

referring to the Big Sandy project—

has been studied and studied quite a bit. We do not think the present estimate on the project is up to date. We do not think it is sound. We think that probably the actual cost of the work would exceed the estimated cost as shown in the report

now.

It was not developed this morning from Colonel Moore as to whether he agrees with this statement of General Pick. I would like for the record to show whether he agrees with that statement.

Colonel MOORE. I do, sir.

Mr. SAUNDERS. We want it to be clear, because his testimony was not clear this morning. That is all I have.

One other thing. I would like to point out this to you, Senator. There is a great deal which has been said about the savings running from $2 to $2.50 on freight rates. They overlook one thing, and Ĭ think it is highly significant.

This whole project is based on what is called the feeder value theory of savings. You cannot limit the savings to the canal itself.

For instance, the Board of Engineers in their report in 1945 found that the actual savings on this canal for the 8,300,000 tons of expected traffic was 33 cents a ton. Now, 8,300,000 tons of coal at a savings of 33 cents a ton showed a deficit for the project of $1,700,000 a year, a little over that.

In other words, an economic ratio of 1 to 0.5. For every dollar your spend you get back 58 cents.

So what did they do? They said: "We will have to use the feeder value theory of savings." So they not only take credit for the savings. which accrue on this canal, but they take credit for the savings which accrue on the Ohio River and on the other waterways to destination.

In other words, they claim credit for this canal, in order to get These savings, for waterways that are already in existence. When they talked today about a $2 saving to St. Louis, Minneapolis, or Chicago, they were taking credit for savings that do not accrue on

this canal, but for savings that accrue on the Ohio River and the Mississippi River. If they will stick to the savings that accrue on this canal, you can never find economic justification for this project. You have got to resort to the so-called feeder value theory of savings in order to justify this project economically.

And there is no reason in this world for Congress to spend $160,000,000 when you can put this coal on the Norfolk & Western Railroad and C. & O., haul it to Kenova, only about 75 miles away by rail, and put it on the river there, and there are river facilities there now for it, and you can get all these savings they talk about on the Ohio River right now by hauling by rail to the Ohio River, and you cannot consider, we submit, those so-called savings on the Ohio River and the Mississippi River. They just should not be considered.

Another thing I want to point out. They speak as though the railroads are more inflexible then waterways. They say that the waterway will open up this territory and the railroads will not. The waterway cannot run anywhere but in the two valleys. They are stuck there. They are rigid.

But the railroads can cross these rivers. They have done it now. They continue to do it. We build worlds of bridges across this river, and as one of the witnesses pointed out here, we have spent over $25,000,000-the Norfolk & Western and C. & O., in building branch lines into this territory within the last 5 years-and we will continue to do so. The railroads are flexible, the canal is inflexible. That is all I have.

Senator HOLLAND. Any questions?

Senator WITHERS. I do not think so.

Mr. JOHNSON. The next is Mr. John T. Corbett, assistant grand chief engineer, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. CORBETT, ASSISTANT GRAND CHIEF ENGINEER, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

Mr. CORBETT. I will file the statement, if I may. It is substantially the statement I made before the House committee.

Senator HOLLAND. It will be received.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Corbett, in full, is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. CORBETT

My name is John T. Corbett. I hold the offices of assistant grand chief engineer and of national legislative representative in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. The headquarters of the brotherhood is at Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. A. Johnston is the chief executive officer of the brotherhood with the title of grand chief engineer. The local office is at 10 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D. C.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is the oldest of the railroad labor organizations and is one of the oldest of the present American labor organizations, It represents the locomotive engineers on nearly all of the railroads of the United States and Canada and has more than 80,000 members.

I appear in opposition to the proposed construction of the Big Sandy waterway project.

During the long years of service of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers it has opposed communism and socialism. Its officers and members subscribe to the belief that our American so-called capitalistic system, providing for opportunities for the individual to invest in business under the protection of the Govers ment, provides the best of living conditions for the average worker, provides the greatest of incentives for the worker to develop his abilities, and the greatest of

markets for the families of wage earners whose abilities have been developed and who show a willingness to assume additional responsibilities.

There appears no difference between an artificial waterway constructed in Russia and an artificial waterway constructed in the United States of America, except that the former is constructed as a competitor of another Government agency, while the latter is constructed as a competitor of a privately owned and operated transportation agency.

There recently appeared in the Congressional Record the statement that there has been authority provided by the Congress for more than $3,000,000,000 of waterway projects. If and when appropriations are provided for the construction of these projects the railroads of the Nation and the employees of those railroads must contribute a large amount of funds, as taxes, in order to pay the costs of projects which are being proposed as competitors of the railroads of the Nation. We challenge any and all to show any other activities of the Government which may compare with such a proposed procedure.

On September 18, 1940, which is a rather recent date, the Congress passed the following national transportation policy which became a part of the Interstate Commerce Act:

"It is hereby declared to be the national transportation policy of the Congress to provide for fair and impartial regulation of all modes of transportation subject to the provisions of this act, so administered as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each; to promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in transportation and among the several carriers; to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for transportation services, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices; to cooperate with the several States and the duly authorized officials thereof; and to encourage fair wages and equitable working conditions-all to the end of developing, coordinating, and preserving a national transportation system by water, highway, and rail, as well as other means, adequate to meet the needs of the commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense. All of the provisions of this act shall be administered and enforced with a view to carrying out the above declaration of policy."

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers must protest the proposed violation of this declared policy as proposed in the so-called Big Sandy project.

This appears as a proposal to pump water uphill in order to float coal barges downhill.

The

We know of no studies which might have been made to determine the actual costs, per ton-mile, of such a transportation agency; but we may assume that, if approved and constructed, it must be recognized as a precedent which would provide opportunities of experimenting, at Government costs, of course, for attempts to float barges over the different mountain ranges of the Nation. idea borders upon the ridiculous, and we protest any and all such proposals. We consider it an injustice to the railroads, to those who have invested fun ds in those railroads, and to the employees of those railroads who have invest ed their lives in the service of the railroads of the Nation, to propose such ridiculous ly socialistic projects.

There never has been such a proposal against the interests of any other business, against any other industry, or against any other groups of employees. We protest against the proposal being provided any favorable consideration.

The territory in which this project is proposed has been serviced for many years by the Norfolk & Western Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad. It has the best of hard-surfaced highways and some facilities for carriers by air, the last two being provided governmental subsidies.

We must consider it as a proposal to force a governmental injustice upon the railroads serving the territory, and the employees of those railroads, to extend further governmental subsidies to another purely artificial waterway project at a time when the indebtedness of the Nation is the highest ever recorded by any nation in the history of the world. This Government has no cash funds available. Under such conditions, it must borrow funds for this proposed project and must continue to provide additional funds, again to be borrowed, for the interest on the funds borrowed, on these funds-if the project is approved, and to pay interest charges on interest charges-for some many generations. We protest the proposal.

It

This project was refused the favorable consideration of Congress but a few years ago. It should have had no possible hope for any different treatment. should have no different treatment now.

« PreviousContinue »