International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America National Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots of America National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association International Longshoremen's Association Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to also file my statement as vice president and national legislative representative of the Order of Railway Conductors and also representing the Railway Labor Executives Association, which comprises 20 standard railway-labor organizations and representing approximately 1,200,000 railroad workers in all classes of service. Senator HOLLAND. I note that it shows in the printed recrod a statement from yourself, Captain Johnson, and also by Mr. Harry See for the BRT. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Senator HOLLAND. Are the statements that you speak of the same statements? Mr. JOHNSON. They are practically the same. Senator HOLLAND. They will be received but not printed unless they are found to be different. (The statement submitted by Mr. Johnson, in full, is as follows:) These 20 organizations represent approximately 1,300,000 railway employees in all classes of service, which is approximately 85 percent of the total number of railway employees on the class I railroads in the United States as reported by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the year 1948. All of these employees are taxpayers in some form. We are not opposing the construction of the Big Sandy Canal project merely from the standpoint of railroad employees, several thousand of whom, however, will be adversely affected in the event this water project is constructed. In addition to our interest as railroad employees, we are deeply concerned as taxpayers, both State and Federal. We are, therefore, at a loss to understand why the Federal Government should be called upon by a few individuals representing a few industries to appropriate in excess of $161,000,000 of Federal funds to be used to subsidize the construction of a water transportation system which would require annual carrying charges aggregating over $8,000,000 and which will be nonproductive from the standpoint of taxes, either State or Federal, and when completed will operate in direct competition with two well-established rail transportation systems, viz, Norfolk & Western and Chesapeake & Ohio Railroads, both of which are heavy taxpayers, State and Federal. The Norfolk & Western and Chesapeake & Ohio Railroads have, according to the records, furnished prompt and adequate rail transportation service at all times in the territory that would be served by the proposed Big Sandy Canal for all commodities tendered them for shipment, both in-bound and out-bound. We are confident that none of the proponents of this canal project would attempt to raise the question that the transportation facilities of these two railroads are not adequate to meet future transportation needs regardless of how great the demand may become. We, therefore, fail to see where the public will benefit in any way through the construction of this canal. There is no disposition on the part of railroad employees to retard progress in the transportation field when it can be shown that progress can be made through the construction of certain transportation facilities. However, in our study of the Big Sandy Canal project, we are unable to find anything that would reflect transportation progress as a result of its construction. On the contrary, if the claims of the proponents are correct, we find that its construction will result in taking from the railroads, the Norfolk & Western and the Chesapeake & Ohio in particular, approximately 8,300,000 tons of coal annually. In other words, the proponents of this project are requesting the Federal Government to construct a water transportation project at an initial cost in excess of $161,000,000 to the taxpayers, with additional annual maintenance cost to the taxpayers of approvi mately $8,000,000, merely for the sake of invading the transportation jurisdiction of the Norfolk & Western and Chesapeake & Ohio Railroads to the extent of 8,300,000 tons of coal annually, with the ultimate result that these two railroads will suffer heavy losses in revenue and several thousand railroad employees will lose their jobs. Naturally, we are wondering just who will benefit financially if this canal is constructed. In our study of the information that has been furnished us, we have failed to find statistics that would indicate that the construction of this canal would result in the development of new tonnage sufficient to make it self-supporting. If such a claim is being made by the proponents, then they should be willing to construct the project and maintain same at their own expense. They could then enjoy all of the net income derived from the transportation of coal and other commodities. If the proponents will agree to construct the canal and maintain same at their own expense, we feel confident all opposition will be withdrawn. Such action on the part of the proponents will place them in a position to take their rightful place in the competitive field of transportation. They would then become taxpayers the same as the Norfolk & Western, Chesapeake & Ohio, and other railroads. Their employees would also be taxpayers the same as railroad employees. We feel safe in saying without fear of successful contradiction that the construction of the Big Sandy Canal will not result in an increase in the tonnage output of coal in the States of West Virginia and Kentucky above the maximum that has already been obtained. All of the coal output has been and will continue to be transported to destination without delay by the Norfolk & Western, Chesapeake & Ohio, and other railroads. If this canal is constructed the loss in railroad employment will not be confined strictly to the Norfolk & Western and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroads, but will also affect the employment conditions on other railroads to which the Norfolk & Western and Chesapeake & Ohio deliver shipments of coal to be transported to points beyond their lines. This heavy loss in railroad employment would naturally result in a reduction in the number of employees in outside industries in the territory involved. In the face of these facts, we again ask the question, Just who will benefit financially through the construction of this canal? We feel safe in saying that a vast majority of the railroad employees that would be adversely affected through the construction of this canal own their own homes in the various terminals of the railroads that would be involved. The loss of their jobs would force them to go elsewhere and seek employment and in all probability they would suffer a financial loss in the disposition of their homes. It is bad enough for one to lose his employment, but to be taxed in order to make the loss of employment possible, as we find in the proposal now before your committee, creates a situation that cannot in our judgment be justified. The records show that our present national debt is approximately $252,000,000,000. This certainly is a large sum of money and must be paid when due in order to maintain the soundness of our financial structure. Our only source of income is through taxation. Therefore, the first thought of this committee should be not to approve nonessential projects such as the Big Sandy Canal. The construction of this canal will in no way improve the transportation facilities in the territory involved, but, on the contrary, will adversely affect the present estab lished transportation systems with the ultimate result that additional Federal funds will be wasted and our tax income reduced. The railroads are recognized as the second arm of our national defense. I, therefore, feel confident that no one will challenge the statement that the railroads played a very important and effective part in World Wars I and II and had rail transportation failed in either one of these wars, the victory would have been lost The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and other high-ranking officials wrote many letters to the managements of the railroads commending them and their employees for the prompt and efficient service they rendered at a time when the future of our great country was largely dependent upon rail transportation. They insisted that the contents of their letters be passed on to the employees. Naturally, all of us are hoping and praying that there will be no more wars However, we have no guaranty that there will be no more. It is, therefore, of great importance that we keep the railroad industry intact and ready to function effectively in an emergency such as prevailed in World Wars I and II. This can be done only by allowing the railroads to continue to handle the various commodities made available for shipment, which they are now fully equipped to handle promptly and efficiently. However, if Federal funds are appropriated for the construction of nonessential transportation systems, such as the Big Sandy Canal project, which can only survive through the transfer of approximately 8,000,000 tons of coal from the Chesapeake & Ohio and the Norfolk & Western Railroads, it will be only a question of time until these railroads will be forced to abandon a portion, if not all, of their line of road in the territory involved. The same condition will prevail in other sections of the country where water transportation projects are constructed at the expense of the taxpayers, which will in no way create new tonnage sufficient to support the operation, so we again ask the question, who will profit through the construction of the Big Sandy Canal project. In order to eliminate the possibility of a waste of additional Federal funds on a water project that will in no way prove to be for the public's interest and will result in the forcing of several thousand railway employees out of employment, who are now happily situated in their homes and who are taxpayers, both State and Federal, we most earnestly urge and respectfully request this committee to di-approve the construction of the Big Sandy Canal project. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all right. Then you will also find in there some questions and answers that were propounded during the hear ings. I want to say, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that we are not opposing this project merely from the standpoint of the effect it may have on the railroads, but we are also opposing it as taxpayers, and I think you can check the records, and you will fail to find where the railroad brotherhoods have actively opposed any project that denotes progress, but we are opposed to projects of this kind, which no one has been able to show will be self-supporting. Senator WITHERS. What about these other projects. They are all in this omnibus bill. Do you oppose any of the others? Mr. JOHNSON. We actively opposed the St. Lawrence seaway project and this one here. Senator WITHERS. It is not in there. Mr. JOHNSON. You did have something on the Tombigbee. We did oppose that. Every time it has come up, just like we have been opposing this project for the last 20 years to my own certain knowledge. Senator WITHERS. Do you oppose the Monongahela development? Mr. JOHNSON. I was not here at that time. That has been a good many years ago. We did actively oppose the Ohio-Lake Erie Canal project, and I spent 3 days in Pittsburgh in hearings over there in opposition to that, and we also appeared before the Board of Army Engineers here in Washington on several occasions. Senator WITHERS. What was the last one you opposed which you named? Mr. JOHNSON. Ohio River-Lake Erie Canal project. Senator WITHERS. You opposed that? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. That is another one of these projects for the benefit of one or two big coal companies. Senator WITHERS. Where does that canal go? Mr. JOHNSON. It is the Ohio River connecting with the Lake Erie Canal. I want to say one thing more, Mr. Chairman, if I may. We talked about transportation facilities. I do not think you can find in the record anywhere anything that will indicate that the railroads in any part of the country have failed to provide adequate rail transportation from any industry to main-line connections, when it is shown that the construction of additional tracks can be justified through production of that particular industry. That is their business. That is what they want to do, and they have always done it, and they will do it in this particular territory down there, if and when the time comes they need more rail transportation. Senator HOLLAND. Do you have any further witnesses? Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir, and I want to thank you for your courtesy. Senator HOLLAND. Do you have anything further? Senator WITHERS. No. Senator HOLLAND. I appreciate the cooperation we have had on both sides and wish we could decide in favor of both of you, and we will do the best we can. Additional statements on the project will be included in the record at this point. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, COAL TRADE ASSOCIATION OF INDIANA, Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Hon. SHERIDAN DOWNEY, Chairman, Subcommittee of Public Works Committee, DEAR SENATORS: We are advised that you have scheduled a hearing before your committee on July 15 on the proposed canalization of the Big Sandy River and Tug and Levisa Forks, Ky., W. Va., and Va. Due to other commitments it will not be possible for us to be present at the hearing to present the views of the coal-mining companies of Indiana which are members of the Coal Trade Association of Indiana, and we therefore like to file with your committee this letter expressing the opposition of the Indiana coal industry to this project. When this subject was considered by the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives we filed objections to it in a letter dated April 25, 1949, addressed to the Hon. W. M. Whittington, chairman of the committee. We would like to present to your committee the same objections presented to the House committee, as our position has not changed since that date. The Coal Trade Association of Indiana is a voluntary organization composed of cool-mining companies which own and operate bituminous coal mines in the State of Indiana. The members of the association mine in excess of 90 percent of the bituminous coal produced at rail mines in the State of Indiana. The Indiana coal industry would be adversely affected and irreparably injured if the proposed Big Sandy River and its Tug and Levisa Forks waterway is constructed. The Indiana coal operators are opposed to the project because of the economic harm that would result to the State of Indiana, which would be brought about because of the large tonnage which it is stated will originate on or adjacent to the proposed waterway and will move principally to Midwestern States, which States are now markets for coal produced and shipped by the Indiana coal operators. The Indiana coal operators sell their coals principally in the States of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, and to these markets is shipped more than 90 percent of the commercial coal produced in Indiana. In the year 1948 there were approximately 60 bituminous coal mines operating in the State of Indiana which produced approximately 23,000,000 tons of coal, these mines all being located on railroads and shipping their coal via those railroads. The Indiana coal-mining industry employed approximately 10,000 persons in the year 1948 and all of these employees were necessary to mine the 23,000,000 tons produced. The Indiana coal which would be displaced by coal moving via the proposed waterway from mines adjacent to the Big Sandy and its tributaries would result in a lower production of coal in Indiana and such decline in production would necessarily result in the employment of fewer men in the Indiana mines. It is, therefore, obvious that any possible economic benefits that might result from this proposed waterway would be offset by the resultant hardships placed upon the Indiana coal industry and its employees. The project is economically unsound and the taxpayers of this country, and those taxpayers include the peop's of Indiana, both employees and employers, should not be called upon to spend many millions of dollars on a project which is economically unsound. Respectfully yours, HAROLD V. SCOTT, Traffic Manager. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, ST. PAUL, MINN., July 11, 1949. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Representing the commercial coal dock companies operating at Duluth, Minn., and Superior and Ashland, Wis., I opposed the canalization of the Big Sandy and Tug and Levisa Forks Rivers before the Committee on Public Works of the House. I understand that committee has excluded the Big Sandy River project from the omnibus rivers and harbors bill which I recommended. We are informed that the Senate Committee on Public Works will be asked to include this project in the rivers and harbors bill which you have under consideration. Our position has not changed. We are still opposed to this project. As a practical matter we can see no compensating advantage accruing to the public from this large expenditure of money. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, J. A. MAHER, Manager, Maher Coal Bureau. TERRE HAUTE, IND., July 11, 1949. Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building: The Indiana coal-mining companies, members of Coal Trade Association of Indiana which companies mine in excess of 90 percent of the total coal produced in the State of Indiana, wish to register opposition to the proposed canalization of the Big Sandy River in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, which is scheduled for hearing before your committee on July 15 because the Indiana coal industry would be adversely affected and because of the economic harm that would result to the State of Indiana. Letter giving detailed reasons for opposition being forwarded air mail to you today. Would greatly appreciate our objection being made part of record at hearing July 15. HAROLD V. SCOTT, Traffic Manager, Coal Trade Association of Indiana. ILLINOIS COAL TRAFFIC BUREAU, Chicago, Ill., July 13, 1949. Re Proposed canalization of Big Sandy River and Tug and Levisa Forks, Ky., W. Va., and Va. The Honorable DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: On May 9, 1949, a public hearing was held before the House of Representatives Public Works Committee, at Washington, on the proposal to include the Big Sandy canalization project in the omnibus rivers and harbors bill then under consideration. We appeared at such hearing and presented testimony and arguments in opposition to the project on behalf of the Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau; Central Illinois District Coal Traffic Bureau; Belleville Fuels, Inc.; Fifth and Ninth Districts Coal Traffic Bureau; Northern Illinois Coal Trade Association; and Middle States Fuels, Inc., which are associations of companies who own and operate the bitumiDous coal mines in the State of Illinois. We understand that in the light of the evidence received by the House Public Works Committee, it excluded the Big Sandy River project from the omnibus rivers and harbors bill. I now understand that the proponents of this project are endeavoring to have the Senate Committee on Public Works incorporate it in the rivers and harbors bill which that committee has under consideration and that a subcommittee of the Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on this matter in Washington, on July 15, 1949. |