DEAR SIR: It having come to the notice of the undersigned that you have expressed an interest in the pending proposition for the improvement of the Mississippi River from the Northern Pacific bridge in Minneapolis, Minn., to the north city limits of that city, you are hereby informed that the report thereon, requested by resolution of the Committee on Commerce of the United States, adopted June 6, 1935, has been made, and in unfavorable to the improvement. The principal grounds upon which the adverse conclusions are based are that the present terminal is capable of enlargement to handle traffic greatly in excess of the present movement and extension of the project should await definite demonstration, through more complete use of existing terminal space at Minneapolis and St. Paul, of the need of the proposed improvement sufficient to warrant the United States undertaking the extension.

You are further notified that all interested parties have the privilege of an appeal from this conclusion to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, a permanent body sitting at Washington, D. C., to which all examination and survey reports of this character are referred. Parties desiring to do so may be heard on appeal by the board, either orally or in writing. Written communications should be addressed to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Munitions Building, Washington, D. C., and should be mailed in time to be in the possession of the said board within 4 weeks from the date of this communication. If, however, you have important data to communicate to the board, which cannot be collected and put in shape for proper presentation within 4 weeks, the board should be informed of this fact without delay and request made for an extension of the limiting date for submitting information. If oral hearings are desired, dates for the same may be arranged for by correspondence with the Board.

Any further information needed may be obtained by application to the District Engineer, United States Engineer Office, 615 Commerce Building, St. Paul, Minn., or to this office, but attention is invited to the following regulation as to the manner in which such information may be furnished.

"Where interested parties desire data necessary for the preparation of their appeal to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, they will be afforded full opportunity to examine the copies of the reports of the district and division engineers in their respective offices, subject to the understanding that no part of the contents of these reports will be published in the newspapers or otherwise until the reports have been submitted to Congress. Copies of the reports will not be furnished or loaned for use outside of the office: but interested parties will be permitted to make such notes of the contents as they desire."

You are requested to communicate the foregoing to any persons known by you to be interested in the improvement and who, not being known to this office, do not receive a copy of this communication.

Respectfully,

J. N. HODGES,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
Division Engineer.

Mr. JAMES. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that this project was authorized; the extension to this project was authorized in the present session of Congress; the extension was authorized

Senator COPELAND. Just a moment, Mr. James. Captain, do you know, what action, if any, was taken on this report, after the report was filed with the Chief of the Army Engineers?

Captain MARSHALL. I have a copy here, showing the action taken by the Board of Engineers

Senator COPELAND. That was concurred in by the Chief of Engineers?

Captain MARSHALL. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. What do they say?

Captain MARSHALL. This is dated February 8, 1938, and states:

The Board concludes that the plan presented above will provide adequately for the development of terminals in the city of Minneapolis with the least interference with land traffic and existing developments in the area. The Board in conformity with the provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved August 26, 1937, therefore approves the plan for the extension of the 9-foot channel on the Mississippi River above St. Anthony Falls by dredging a channel, generally 150 feet wide at the bridge and other structures, for the construction of two single locks, having chambers 56 feet wide by 400 feet long, and lifts of approximately

24 feet and 50 feet, substantially in accordance with plans accompanying this report at an estimated cost to the United States of $7,779,000 for new work, with $55,000 for maintenance; provided local interests give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will bear the cost of necessary bridge modification and adjusting of utility structures at an estimated cost of $1,774,000, and furnish free of cost to the United States all land needed for the improvements, and suitable operations for new work and subsequent maintenance as required.

Senator COPELAND. At a total cost of how much?

Captain MARSHALL. $7,779,000 for new work, and $55,000 annually for maintenance.

Senator COPELAND. Now, was the report of Colonel Hodges before the Board of Engineers at the time this conclusion was reached? Captain MARSHALL. Yes. The plan that they passed on is his plan.

Senator COPELAND. Then they disagree with the division engineer, do they? You shake your head?

Mr. JAMES. I think so.

Senator COPELAND. I understood Colonel Hodges' report was adverse to it. As I understand, he said there was no economic justification for it.

Mr. JAMES. That is correct. You will note he said the principal grounds upon which the adverse conclusions are based are that the present terminal is capable of enlargement to handle traffic; in other words, it was not necessary in the public interest at this time, and after Congress had approved the project, in view of the fact that Congress has approved the project, perhaps would alter the conclu

sions

Senator SHIPSTEAD (interposing). Approved it subject to the approval of the Board of Engineers.

Senator COPELAND. I want the record to be clear on this point. Colonel Hodges made a report on February 20, 1936, apparently to the effect that this project was not economically justified; is that right?

Captain MARSHALL. Yes.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. At that time.

Mr. JAMES. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. As of that date. Now, that report, following the regular routine, went to the Board of Army Engineers, and the Army engineers with that report before it took the action which you have given us here today; is that correct?

Captain MARSHALL. Yes. It should be understood that the action taken by the Board of Engineers, which approved the plan for the improvement of the river channel, is merely the approval of a plan previously worked out.

Senator COPELAND. That is to say, it does not necessarily mean the Board of Army Engineers had any definite idea in the back of their heads that this was regarded as an economic justification referred to by Colonel Hodges; is that correct?

Captain MARSHALL. I think it is correct to say that.

Senator COPELAND. But in the meantime the Congress had authorized the project, and it was upon that assumption, which Colonel Hodges states in his report, that the Board made its report?

Captain MARSHALL. The Board's report is in the nature of an approval of a plan for deepening the channel.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. I do not want to interrupt your orderly presentation, Mr. James, but I do want to get this clear.

Mr. JAMES. That will not bother me in the least, Senator. Senator SHIPSTEAD. What they mean is that when this is authorized that it is to include the original authorization, because it was anticipated that the municipal docks were at that time taking care of the traffic, and would be sufficient until this project is developed. Then, it was delayed for another reason. When this was authorized in 1930, it was realized that this would cost a great deal to change the bridges, and there would have to be spent a great deal of money, and therefore the Chief Engineer at that time said in substance:

What is the use of going ahead and deepening the channel at this point until we know whether it is needed and before we are assured that we are going to have enough money to complete the channel, because this would be an expensive improvement unless there is some assurance made that there will be an appropriation made sufficient to give us this channel outlet.

Now, we have felt that as soon as this channel could be developed, business that is anticipated to come in here and use the channel would more than justify its being extended, because there are a great many concerns throughout the country who want to build terminal facilities there, and we feel that it will not hurt the railroads, but will increase the amount of traffic the railroads will be called upon to handle. Many corporations want to get facilities there, and are not willing to come in unless this project is completed to justify their building terminal facilities.

Senator COPELAND. Senator, when was the last authorization made by Congress; what was the date of that?

Senator SHIPSTEAD. You mean for this project?

Senator COPELAND. Yes.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Last session.

Senator COPELAND. That was the last session of Congress?

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. It was voted at the last session to extend the channel how far?

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Well, it is in the papers that were filed, I think about 21⁄2 miles.

Mr. JAMES. Twenty-five thousand feet; that would be a little less than 5 miles.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. About 5 miles.

Mr. JAMES. Yes; 5,280 feet to the mile; a little under 5 miles. Senator SHIPSTEAD. I do not wish to take more time of the committee at this time on that.

Mr. JAMES. I want to say in further answer to the question Senator OVERTON (interposing). May I ask a question before we leave that?

Senator COPELAND. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. It has been the policy of Congress not to authorize a project unless the Board of Engineers had favorably reported, from the Chief of Army Engineers, or from the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. I assume there has been some report presented to the Congress by engineers favoring this project before it was agreed to.

Senator COPELAND. What I want to know is this: Was the report of the Army engineers before you when the Congress authorized this extension?

Captain MARSHALL. There was a report from the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers before the Congress when that was authorized. The House document that presented it was numbered 137 Seventy-second Congress, first session, and that report was before the Congress when the authorization was made.

Senator COPELAND. Was that the report you read from; the report you read from after authorization?

Captain MARSHALL. That is right; that was in February of this

year.

Senator COPELAND. All right; go ahead, Mr. James.

Mr. JAMES. Well, as I understand, if you will pardon me for referring to what has been said concerning the engineers' report, and the interpretation of whether the engineers considered this economically sound, of course that is a question of fact as to whether there are ample facilities there, and I will not take the time of the committee in discussing that. It is a question of fact, whether or not it was recommended, or whether you could expand the municipal docks to meet present demands. But on the question of whether you should expend approximately $8,000,000, my information is, and it is supported by the statement of Colonel Hodges, that there are ample facilities there to meet present demands.

The picture which I am handing to you, the photograph, shows the present municipal docks. This picture shows the present facilities, and the railroads leading to them. Some criticism was made about the fact that the grade on the railroad, I think, is 41⁄2 percent, but I am sure that railroad can be reduced to at least a 2-percent grade.

This photograph shows the coal facilities, and the docks, down in here; that shows the coal; this shows the type of the docks used for package freight, and there is considerable area along the Mississippi River that could be acquired for that purpose south of those present facilities.

Now, in this connection, as I say, that is a question of fact that ought not be based upon a difference of opinion that might exist between myself and the Senator, because it is not evidence.

Now, just take the attitude of the Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association on this project. The Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association, the Taxpayers' Association-and I take it that is the association that represents the people who have to pay the bill for the $700,000 that would be imposed-and the Minneapolis Traffic Association has given very careful consideration to this project, and a resolution was adopted by those three organizations on August 21, 1937, and in those resolutions they state that they were favorable to this project provided that the city of Minneapolis would not have to expend a dollar; provided that the railroads would not have to spend a dollar-well, let me correct that, provided that the city of Minneapolis would not have to expend in excess of $20,000. In other words, if the Government saw fit to expend the money, they were willing for them to expend it provided the Government would pay the entire bill; they were willing to approve it if the Government would spend the entire amount, pay the entire cost of the improvements, with no assessment upon the railroads, and the city having to pay only $20,000 for the project.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. What was the date of that resolution?

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Can you furnish it?

Mr. JAMES. Yes. For the Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association, H. M. Higgins and George Kingsley signed; the representatives of the Taxpayers Association were C. N. Chadbourn, Albert Crosby, and A. C. Dannenbaum; and for the Minneapolis Traffic Association, E. J. Grimes, and A. B. Ayers.

(The paper referred to is printed in the record as follows:)

To-Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association.

Taxpayers Association.

Minneapolis Traffic Association.

The joint committee representing the Minneapolis Civic and Commerce Association, the Taxpayers Association, and the Minneapolis Traffic Association, appointed for the purpose of studying and making recommendations on the extension of the 9-foot channel of the Mississippi River to the north city limits of Minneapolis, respectfully submits the following report:

In considering this project your committee has arrived at the following conclusions with respect to the various factors involved:

1. NINE-FOOT CHANNEL

With the dams already constructed and those to be completed, from appropriations already made, in accordance with the plans of the Army Engineers, it is reasonable to expect the completion of the 9-foot channel on the Upper Mississippi River for navigation by the spring of 1939 at a total cost to the Government of about $148,000,000.

2. ESTIMATED VOLUME OF TONNAGE

It is absolutely impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the tonnage that will be developed for river transportation. This cannot be fairly judged by the tonnage developed to date because there has only been a 6-foot channel available and that not dependable at all times.

3. PRESENT MINNEAPOLIS TERMINAL AT WASHINGTON AVENUE BRIDGE

The present municipal terminal at the Washington Avenue Bridge consisting of docks and warehouse and comprising about 16 acres is designed primarily for handling package and miscellaneous freight. It is capable of handling at least twice or three times the tonnage developed so far. In our opinion there would be no need for the city of Minneapolis to develop further municipal facilities for handling package freight as the present facilities should be adequate for some time to come. There are limited facilities here for handling and storing of coal.

There is practically no land available, near the municipal wharf or at any other point in Minneapolis below the terminus of the 9-foot channel at the Northern Pacific bridge for industrial expansion and the development of locations for industries interested in handling mass or bulk commodities by water transportation These commodities would involve such materials as coal, oil, building materials, brick, cement, steel, road-building materials, and all similar products that move in bulk.

4. NEED FOR ADEQUATE HARBOR FACILITIES

It is apparent that Minneapolis cannot obtain the full benefit of the 9-foot channel unless it is extended above the St. Anthony Falls, making available to the city adequate harbor facilities. Without this extension of the 9-foot channel Minneapolis will be at a decided disadvantage in competing with and will lose industrial development to other communities along the river, where natural terminal facilities are available.

Furthermore, the development of the potential traffic on the entire Upper Mississippi River waterway system might be seriously handicapped if Minneapolis, the largest city above St. Louis, is not provided with adequate harbor facilities so as to fully utilize the river transportation.