The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has not protested the authority extended by the Government for the improvement of harbors or natural waterways. Its officers and members do protest giving any favorable consideration to proposed projects such as the Big Sandy and we respectfully request that this committee shall give the proposed project no favorable consideration.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you have anything in addition?

Mr. CORBETT. Yes; I would like to make one reference to unemployment remarks that were made here, I think, this afternoon. The subsidies made by the United States Government on transpor tation agencies in competition with the railroads over the 20-year period between 1920 and 1940-and I mention those 2 years as normal years during a period when the population of the country increased from 103,000,000 to 131,000,000, when railroads should have been enjoying the benefit of that increased population, the subsidies I have referred to made a decrease from 2,076,000 employees in 1920 to 1,046,000 employees in 1940, a difference of 1,030,000 employees. These are from the figures of the Interstate Commerce Commission. During that period those same subsidies resulted in the demands that railroads be abandoned at the rate of approximately 100 miles a month. The 240 months of that period saw 19,000 miles of railroad abandoned.

Now, do not let anybody kid you about the small amount of unemployment or anything of that kind when 1,030,000 railroad employees have been put out on the streets as a result of your subsidies. We respectfully beg of you not to give any favorable consideration to this project.

Senator HOLLAND. Any questions?

Senator WITHERS. No.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Next is Mr. J. Brooks Lawson from Williamson, W. Va.

STATEMENT OF J. BROOKS LAWSON, WILLIAMSON, W. VA.

Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, to save time, I should like to file my statement in opposition and request that it be made a part of the record.

Senator HOLLAND. It will be filed.

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

STATEMENT OF J. BROOKS LAWSON

Mr. Chairman, my name is J. Brooks Lawson, of Williamson, W. Va., which is located on the Tug Fork of Big Sandy River, and in the heart of what is known as the billion-dollar coal field. I have been living on Tug River for 20 years and an engaged in the practice of law. For 4 years I have opposed the Big Sandy Canal project, and I am impelled by facts and circumstances to continue to do so.

It is claimed that the Big Sandy field is the only important coal-producing area in the United States which does not have water transportation. That is not true. The adjoining Hazard and Harlan Fields in Kentucky do not have water trans portation; the great coal fields in the southwestern part of Virginia have no water transportation, and there are vast areas of coal lands in the States of Ohio and Indiana, western Kentucky, central and northern West Virginia, and central Pennsylvania which have no water transportation; and, finally, the great bus of the Big Sandy area itself would be unable to economically use this canal.

It is contended that, if these rivers are canalized, 8,300,000 tons of coal will be shipped annually. The great Kanawha River is canalized. It is a broad and comparatively straight river, with few crooks and bends. In the Kanawha fed there are 53 coal operations; however, only six have river tipples. Coal in the

Kanawha field is of substantially the same quality and character as that found in the Big Sandy area; however, since 1942 the annual tonnage moved outbound over into the Ohio River has been less than 3,000,000 tons; therefore, if the broad and Straight Kanawha has been unable to develop more than 3,000,000 tons annually, how can this crooked, restricted, pump-operated canal develop as much?

During the past 74 years these streams have been studied and explored periodically by the Federal Government to determine the feasibility of making them navigable. During that period 24 reports have been prepared by Government engineers, and 23 times those engineers found these streams unworthy of improvement for navigation on a scale now proposed. In 1933 the Army district engineer for this area reported to the Board of Army Engineers as follows, and we quote: "The physical characteristics of the river and its forks are unfavorable to the development of a modern waterway, and it is not believed that the improvement as proposed would attract sufficient traffic to justify its very high cost." The report was approved by the Board of Army Engineers.

The coal operators in the Big Sandy area must agree with the 1933 report of the Army engineers, as the preponderant majority of them are opposed to the canal and have no thought of using it. For example, the Big Sandy Elkhorn Coal Operators Association, whose members produce in excess of 80 percent of the productive capacity of all existing coal mines in the Elkhorn field of eastern Kentucky, is opposed to this project, and the great majority of coal producers in the Williamson field, on Tug Fork, are opposed to it, and those who have mines adjacent to the proposed canal openly state that they could not and would not use it.

Furthermore, this project was recommended by the Board of Army Engineers upon the condition that "local interests agree to establish, operate, and maintain adequate terminal and transfer facilities." Not a single coal producer has entered into a binding agreement whereby he solemnly and legally binds himself to establish, operate, and maintain terminal and transfer facilities. True, in the valley, many people are for the canal. Ask them why they are for it, and the standard answer is: "The Government is going to spend the money somewhere, and why not have our share?" Then again and again we bear: I want a yacht or a boat, and I want to go fishing."

The Government is being high-pressured into spending anywhere from 83 to 122 million dollars, which it does not have, on these crooked, shallow, and twisting rivers; and this, despite the fact the project from every factual point of view appears to be economically unsound and not feasible or practicable.

In 1945-46 we considered, debated, and fought this proposition, pro and con, all the way from the courthouse in Williamson on Tug Fork to the Halls of Congress here in Washington. In the lower House, it was defeated on a roll-call Tote of 205 to 144, which vote was nonpartisan, and the project lost by 61 votes. sequently, the fight was resumed before the Commerce Committee of the Shate to restore the project to the River and Harbor bill. However, the same was defeated by a vote of 14 to 3, and recently, after full hearings, the project was disapproved by the Public Works Committee of the House.

We should not advocate, approve, or expect the expenditure of Federal funds nless the same is necessary, essential, and economically justified, and certainly the action of the Seventy-ninth Congress with respect to this proposition should at least have a persuasive influence at this time.

In accordance with the foregoing, I trust you will disapprove this fantastic and unsound project.

Mr. LAWSON. Also at the hearings before the Public Works Committee, Harry Schwachter of Williamson, W. Va., and Henry Nickels of Williamson, W. Va., filed statements. I believe they did. However, if they did not, I want to leave statements with you for them. Each of them requests that they be included.

Senator HOLLAND. They will be received and included in the record the event they were not included in the hearings before the House stbeommittee.

The statements of Mr. Schwachter and Mr. Nickels, in full, are 25 follows:)

STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY NICKELS

I am Henry Nickels, of Williamson, W. Va., which is in the heart of the Big dy Valley. I have lived in Williamson for approximately 12 years, and am president of the Scott Nickels Bus Co.

As a citizen and businessman of the Big Sandy Valley, I have come here today to urge your committee not to approve the Big Sandy Canal project. We people who live on these streams know that there is no need for the canal and that, even if there were, there is not enough water in the streams to make them navigable. We business people also believe that construction of this canal would hurt rather than help business conditions in the valley. I strongly urge your committee, therefore, to turn down this unneeded project.

May I add that I am not employed by or connected with the railroads.

STATEMENT OF HARRY SCHWACHTER

I am Harry Schwachter, of Williamson, W. Va., which is the largest town in the Big Sandy Valley. I am engaged in the mercantile and real-estate business there, and have lived in Williamson for 40 years.

The coal deposits in the Big Sandy Valley have been developed by the Norfolk & Western and Chesapeake & Ohio Railroads. They have spent millions of dollars building lines all through the valley, and we business people in the valley have prospered from this development. We are now prospering from that development. During the 40 years that I have lived in the valley, I have seen it develop from almost a wilderness to a point where there is hardly a valley left that has not been mined out or is now being mined. In practically every instance, the railroads have built lines into these valleys, some of them for many miles, to reach coal deposits.

I do not believe that there will be as much purchasing power in the valley if the canal is built, because there will be less employment for railroad workers and coal miners. In short, we people who are engaged in general business will be hurt rather than helped.

For these reasons, gentlemen of the committee, we hope that you will not authorize the construction of the Big Sandy Canal project.

I have no connection with any railroad.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much. Who is the next witness? Mr. JOHNSON. I have a few things.

STATEMENT OF W. D. JOHNSON, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to file the statement of Harry See, national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Mr. See appeared in the House hearings, and I think this statement here is substantially what you will find in the printed hearings of the House Committee.

Senator HOLLAND. It will be received.

(The statement of Mr. See, in full, is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HARRY SEE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harry See and I am national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, with offices at 130 Third Street SE., Washington, D. C. The headquarters of the brotherhood are located in the Standard Building, Cleveland, Ohio. The brotherhood has approximately 200,000 members in all States of the Union, whose work in the vital transportation industry carries them to all parts of this country. No single group of people are more intimately associated with the welfare of all segments of our population. And no other group is more concerned with our naturs! resources and what is done to make them better serve all of us.

We have examined with care the Army engineers' proposal to canalize the Riz Sandy River. This is no new project. It has been before many previous Congresses, and after due deliberation has always been turned down by them. ifact, the Army engineers have made a study of such a proposal for more ths: half a century. They have made official reports no less than 24 times, and in 23 of these reports they have emphatically turned down the proposal to make a cana.

way on the Big Sandy. And whenever the Army engineers turn down the prospect of spending $160,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, which is what the canal is estimated to cost in today's dollar, then you and I know full well that they have not had even the thinnest defense of the proposal to go on in presenting it to the Congress.

What then prompts this sudden change on the part of the Engineers Corps, which makes them on the twenty-fourth report come before you endorsing and urging the Big Sandy Canal? The whole answer to this vital question is unknown to me. But I suggest that it may be found in the circumstances surrounding the time and authorship of this proposal.

There is no such insistence on the part of Members of Congress, nor of residents and business interests in the area, as in 1945 when the then chairman of the Military Affairs Committee, in whose district most of the construction work would be done and the vast sums of public moneys spent, secured a favorable report from the Engineers Corps upon which he based his ardent championship of the Big Sandy Canal.

The political and economic conditions have changed materially since 1945, and the pressure for passage of this project is not longer so personal or so insistent as it then was.

The territory proposed to be served by this canal is now adequately served by two large interstate carrier railroads: The Norfolk & Western Railway parallels the Big Sandy River and the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy far above the proposed canal; the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway parallels the Big Sandy on the opposite bank and the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy far above the proposed canal. have heard no complaints about these carriers not furnishing adequate service to transport any of the commodities to or from this territory

We

Judged strictly on its merits, this proposal is an attempt to duplicate already existing adequate modern transportation facilities. As such, it must be proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the public interest in adequate, modern, fast, and cheap transportation cannot be secured except through the building of this canal. So far as the Army engineers' reports show, this canal will not accomplish any one of these purposes. Seldom has a project been proposed by them to the Congress which is so indefensible.

Take the matter of carrying charges versus revenues, for example. While the canal is supposed to make savings possible on the coal hauled, it does so only by taxing the public as much or more to carry that coal as the savings amount to. This is not practicing economy in transportation.

Only by resorting to complex and much-disputed theories of computing savings, such as the "feeder value theory," where this section of the canal was given a savings credit for haulage on other parts of the route over which the coal would travel, could the engineers build up sufficient paper "savings" to even come before you to justify in any way this proposal as a transportation project in the public interest

We of the railroad brotherhood are much concerned that this Nation have the most adequate transportation system possible. We are the men who are forced to work the trains, in good and bad weather, under all kinds of conditions, in war and in peace. We want the utmost traffic possible to move over the rails on which we ride and work. That is our self-interest. But no one who has any familiarity with our brotherhood, who has knowledge of our program, who knows how our people at the local level, on up through the States to the National Government but will bear witness that we have been straightforward in our support of all progressive measures calculated to benefit the public. At times we have done this at substantial personal inconvenience and loss. But we have maintained that what is good for the public is in the end good for the railroad workers.

If this proposal to establish a canal on the Big Sandy could offer any appreciable public good, we would be here before you pleading for it. But here is a selfish measure, designed to make vast sums of public money available as a subsidy benefiting a few large coal companies or their consignees.

Place against that the loss of steady jobs to some 2,500 railroad employees whose homes are in the area, the loss of their pay rolls to the communities in which they live, the loss of railroad activity of many kinds which feed work and profits out through the towns and country served by the railroads, and you can see quite plainly that this move will cause incalculable harm to many people in many walks of life. Furthermore, it is in reality a move backward to a slower, older, less useful and in this instance, much more costly method of transporting goods. Now let me call your attention to certain specific points which need, and I have no doubt will receive, the committee's earnest consideration. What, for

04522-49-pt. 1—20

example, makes this canal so feasible and desirable now as compared with the Army engineers' own report that "the physical characteristics of the river and its forks are unfavorable to the development of a modern waterway, and it is not believed that the improvement as proposed would attract sufficient traffic to justify its very high cost."

That is the official view of the Army engineers reported to the Seventy-fourth Congress. And, so far as I am aware, no evidence has ever been submitted, beyond uncorroborated views of corps members that in any way disproves this finding of fact.

Consider the value of expending such vast sums of public money to obtain a method of transportation which forever requires recurring expenditures for dredging, channel straightening, and general maintenance, as well as carrying charges that no forseeable freight can ever repay without continuing raids on the Public Treasury.

Consider this further in the light of an old-fashioned method of transportation which is dependent so much on the vagaries of climate. For this canal cannot be used for more than 8 months of the year, and in some years of heavy freezing probably for less than that. Consider too that the railroads run all the time, providing dependable transportation. Is it sound public policy to subject them to fair weather competition of Government-subsidized barge lines, expecting them to adjust their business and employment to the loss of freight during each canal season, and still maintain cheap rates and improved service?

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this is no make-work proposal to provide jobs for the unemployed in a depressed industrial part of the United States. This canal would cut across one of the big coal-producing areas of the Nation. When the whole country is in good economic condition, this particular section of it is likewise well off. When general industrial depression occurs, then this section of the Nation experiences it also. But it is not a depressed area. Nor are its coal-mining operations in any way depressed at any time in comparison with other parts of the Nation because of lack of water transportation. Official records of the Bureau of Mines will support that generalization.

As we face the uncertainties of the years immediately ahead, when no one can foretell with any accuracy how serious may be the adjustment of our economy to more normal peacetime conditions, and when such heavy burdens are upon all of us to maintain economic stability at home and promote economic peace and prosperity abroad, this is no time to undertake questionable expenditures calculated at best to provide unfair and unwarranted subsidies to small segments of industry who do not need and who are not entitled to such gifts.

Nor is this the time to unsettle the transportation labor of the Nation or any part of it, to make workers jobless, and to destroy their means of livelihood. Most certainly, this is not the time to divert the attention of the Congress for long with a reconsideration of the discredited Big Sandy Canal proposal, which has been turned down so consistently by the Army engineers in their numerous previous reports. But in our judgment, this is the time to again refuse passage of this proposal as was done as recently as 1946 when by a vote of 205 to 144 the House of Representatives deleted the project from the harbors bill.

STATEMENT OF W. D. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA

My name is W. D. Johnson. I am a vice president and national legislative representative of the Order of Railway Conductors of America. I reside in Washington, D. C., and maintain an office at 10 Independence Avenue. The general headquarters of the Order of Railway Conductors is located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

I am authorized to represent the Railway Labor Executives' Association and submit this statement in opposition to the construction of the Big Sandy Canal project.

The Railway Labor Executives' Association consists of the following 20 standard railway-labor organizations:

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen

Order of Railway Conductors of America

Switchmen's Union of North America

Order of Railroad Telegraphers

American Train Dispatchers' Association

International Association of Machinists

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America