THE WAY TO THE SEA
"The Tragedy of Transportation"
Address by Hon. Henry J. Allen
Before Illinois Manufacturers Asso¬
ciation, Chicago, May 23, 1922
Being Part of Debate With Gov. Miller of New York
On the Proposed St. Lawrence Improvement
Forty-three million people live in the territory served by the
Great Lakes. Half of them are farmers.
Agricultural prosperity, which is the fundamental basis of all
prosperity, is measured by the difference between farming cost and
the price of farm products.
It is generally a thin margin. For the five-year period ending
with 1917, the average profit on corn was 11c, on wheat 7c in states
like Minnesota, Iowa, Dakota and Montana. Similar figures are
doubtless correct for the other agricultural states. Nothing has
struck the farm profits a blow so paralyzing as the increased cost
of transportation. The farmer in central Iowa, shipping oats to
the Atlantic seaboard, gets paid for one bushel in three. The cost
of transportation takes the other two bushels. The farm price is
the market price with transportation deducted and the export
market, where the surplus is sold, sets the price for the whole crop.
Wheat in Kansas and Nebraska is further from the New York
market than wheat on the Argentine farm. You can move Argen-
Published by Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Tidewater Association
tine wheat by its short rail haul to the port, ship it to New York, carry it inland
to a mill and ship it back to New York as flour before the transportation charge
equals the freight on wheat from the west to the Atlantic seaboard. Wheat from
Nebraska, in export movement, goes to the nearest lake port, by water to the
foot of Lake Erie, thence to New York for shipment abroad. At the foot of Lake
Erie it is as near to Northern Europe as it will be when it gets to New York.
The cost of transfer at Buffalo and the rail or canal freight to New York and the
handling in the New York harbor are all lost motion.
During the last season the rail rate on export, Buffalo to New York, was
9-6/10 cents a bushel, the standard canal rate 9c a bushel. The prevailing rate,
Buffalo to Montreal, was 7c. When the lakes are open to ocean going commerce
and the lost motion is eliminated, the saving in freight will add from 5 to 7c on
the market value of every bushel of grain produced in the midwestern fields.
Widen the farmer's margin by that legitimate saving and you multiply his pro¬
ductivity, increase the prosperity of this region; you work a revolution in pro¬
duction and population. You increase the buying power not only of the farm
family, but the prosperity and buying power of the village family and of the city
trade.
These figures are not imaginative any more than our past difficulties with
transportation have been imaginative. With a deep water highway already half
way to the sea and the completion of the other half of the journey dependent
only upon the canalization of 33 miles of the St. Lawrence River, surely we should
not be called visionary and fanatical people for desiring to remove this obstacle
of 33 miles in order to gain 2,000 miles of ready access to the markets of the
world in ships loaded at inland ports.
The Tale of Production
A project as great as this, appealing to 43 million people, who have developed
their great region under transportational difficulties, is too big a thing to be
called sectional. It is national in the highest sense. Before the contemplation
of it, petty objections and selfish fears, however humanly natural they may be,
cannot be seriously considered. This project relates to the development of an
empire. It is the most potential American consideration that has challenged the
courage and the genius of this continent for fifty years. While we speak of it
in terms of wheat and corn and livestock and manufactured commodities, we
know that the motive which inspiies this great middle western section is the right
it gives us to grow, the freedom it bestows upon us to develop the potentialities
of our region.
The eighteen states which are asking for this improvement constitute the
surplus food producing area of the United States. Together they produce prac¬
tically 70% of all the wheat grown in the United States; 66% of the corn; 80% of
the oats; 77% of the barley; 83% of the rye. These figures are from the year
book of the Department of Agriculture fcr 1920.
It is from this great production that the surplus grain products go out for
export and it is the price of the surplus that fixes the market price of the entire
crop. Twenty-seven per cent of the wheat crop of the United States is exported.
No one has attempted to deny the estimates of Julius Barnes that the ability
to send our grain products in ocean vessels from the Lake ports would mean an
increased profit of at least 5c a bushel to the grain producers of the middle west.
To this profit, which, in the aggregate, amounts to a colossal sum, would be added
the saving on the livestock and other products of the middle west. The most
startling truth in reference to this great project is that the value it would add
to the grain alone of the farmers of the middle west would amount to more than
enough every year to pay the entire cost of the project.
One who is not familiar with the transportation problems of the middle west
cannot realize the difficulties under which this section of the count, y rests when
meeting the problems of its export market. While the Mississippi valley section
of the United States is the most fertile producing region of the world, it must
send its products on a longer rail radius than any other section which contributes
to the world's supply of food stuffs.
Using Kansas, which produces over 17% of the wheat grown in the United
States, as a basis, the distance to the Gulf of Mexico, our nearest port is, 750
miles from the heart of the grain growing region. To the Atlantic seaboard it
is 1,400 miles. To Chicago it would be less than 600 miles. At the present
freight rates, it costs over 36c a bushel to get this wheat to New York. This is
an amount equal to over 40% of the price received for a bushel of wheat at the
home elevator. It costs us 23c to get this bushel of wheat to Chicago. It costs
us 29-4/10 cents to get it to Galveston. With the improvement of the St.
Lawrence River so that ships could load at Chicago, the water rate to Liverpool
would at least be no greater than the same from Galveston. On that basis, the
Kansas farmers would receive a benefit of at least 5c a bushel on their grain. It
would mean to them and to the other wheat producers of the eighteen states an
added profit under all conditions of $290,000,000 a year. It would enable the
farmers of the middle west, who now struggle with the longest rail haul in the
world, to meet in better fashion competition from the great producing areas of
Australia and Argentine and Russia, where the maximum rail haul is 250 miles.
In addition to the value of this enterprise to the grain producing farmer,
there is a value growing constantly in importance to the livestock interests and
the other food producing concerns of this area.
Here are some figures that illustrate the reach of this project. The possi¬
bilities they visualize ought to inspire every man of every region in America with
a desire that the mighty force now unutilized should be made obedient to the
uses of those who produce as well as those who consume.
I have selected a list of commodities exported during the year 1921 that
could have moved by way of the Great Lakes. These figures show the number
of tons, rate and freight charges accruing from Chicago to New York, or the
Atlantic seaboard. The export figures were taken from the December issue of
the Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce issued by the United States De¬
partment of Commerce. They relate to 12,994,250 tons, mostly of grain and
food products. The railroad freight charges necessary to carry these exports
from Chicago to New York were $73,563,275.50. The freight rate on the 12,-
944,250 tons has averaged $5.68 per ton. The rate to Montreal by way of water
would not be over $1 per ton. The saving represented to the shippers of these
commodities would amount to $60,579,090 in that part of the haul performed
in the St. Lawrence waterway.
We have not included any exports to Canada, Mexico, Cuba, South America,
Porto Rico, etc. The list represents fairly the movement that could have been
made from Chicago through the Great Lakes of export products from the middle
west.
As an indication of the relative cost of water and rail haul, the provisions
rate from Chicago to New York by rail is 63c per 100 pounds, a distance less
than a thousand miles. The rate on provisions by steamer from New York to
Hamburg, a distance of more than 3,000 miles, is 35c per 100 pounds.
Railway Inadequacy
Some one has recently sent me a remarkable address delivered in the United
States Senate by Senator Calder, of New York. The senator sets out as the
latest objections three main contentions against the St. Lawrence project.
1st. That the inadequacy of railroad transportation has been over¬
stated for the purpose of emphasizing a fictitious need for this waterway.
2nd. That the middle west would prefer its route through the New York
port "if equal facilities for transportation" were given.
3rd. That we should never build any canal or transportation project
that is not wholly within the confines of the United States.
He tells us that it is dangerous to go into partnership with Canada in this
project and solemnly reminds us that in time of trouble "whoever controls the
mouth of the river controls the river."
Senator Calder's contention that the shortages of railway facilities have
been over-stated and that the tragedy of transportation in the middle west did
not rise out of lack of railroad equipment exhibits a startling shortage of infor¬
mation upon this subject. Senator Calder evidently belongs to a school of
opinion which constantly wonders what will happen to the railroads if this coun¬
try ever makes sensible use of its exceptional water opportunities in the inland
and in the St. Lawrence. He ignores the testimony of the best railroad minds
in America.
Mr. McRea, the vice president of the great Pennsylvania System, tells us
that the buiden upon railroad transportation doubles every ten years. This
has been the history of America. The records of official healings in Washington
are full of the testimony as to the shortage of railway equipment and one rail¬
road manager has given as his belief that the expenditure necessary to bring
the railroads of this country up to the possibility of caring properly for the
present traffic is expressed not in millions, but in billions.
Walker D. Hines, former director general of railways, says "The railroad
situation is more difficult to appraise today than ever before in history. The
roads have had no opportunity to build up their reserves. They entered the
period of readjustment quite unprepared. It will be a long road to recovery."
They all agree that if the increase in the United States in the next ten years
equals the increase of the last ten, the railroads will be utterly unable to cope
with the situation.
In Kansas the lack of box cars has been so grave during the moments of our
peak loads that at times twenty million bushels of wheat have been piled upon
the ground waiting for transportation facilities. Conference after conference
upon the box car situation always disclosed the fact that the box cars were tied
up at the ports waiting for ships or for storage facilities and while the wheat of
the middle west thus waited for transpoitation Europe bought her grain from the
surplus products of the other countries that had water transportation. When
our transportation finally arrived, the market had broken and there was no
longer any temptation to move the wheat.
Every transportation expert in this country who has spoken upon the sub¬
ject is not worried through fear that the use of water transportation will put
the railroads out of business. They all realize that this added facility of trans¬
portation will help the railroads to keep pace with the growing demands and
needs.
C. H. Markham, president of the Illinois Central Railroad, says:
"There is no comparison between the cost of moving the tonnage on the
Great Lakes and on any other waterway. Competition with other nations
in the world trade is going to make it necessary for the people of this nation
to take advantage of every opportunity to increased efficiency in all things
affecting producing and manufactuxing cost. Since transportation lies at
the very foundation of commerce, what we ought to do is to make use of
whatever instrumentalities of transportation are the most efficient and
economical."
A recent expression from the literature of the New York Central railroad
said:
"Railroads today are the bottle neck of the industrial world. Once they
were beyond the demands upon them. Now industry is retarded because
they cannot meet the demands."
Six years ago James J. Hill said that it would require a billion dollars a
year of expenditure for additions to keep the American railroads abreast of their
demands.
Senator Calder's second contention that the middle west would prefer to
send its products through the New York port if "equal facilities" were given is
somewhat futile. There is no possibility of equal facilities for export when you
compare the New York route with the St. Lawrence. When a western cargo
reaches Buffalo it is nearer to Liverpool than when it gets to New York. How
can one talk of equal facilities when the New York haul requires us to go 496
miles out of the way, through a barge canal, including two loadings, two unload-
ings and other terminal charges, as compared with a direct route in an ocean
ship without transfer or incidental burden?
Senator Calder's third contention that it would be dangerous to invest in
a waterway not wholly within the confines of the United States is not up to the
American standard of common sense. When he tells us that in time of trouble
"whoever controls the mouth of the river controls the river," he is in sad ignor¬
ance of the i ules of modern trouble. In these times whoever controls the largest
armament controls the mouth of the river and everything else. Nothing is more
boyish than this species of objection to the St. Lawrence waterway.
Our St. Lawrence Rights
It is not against American traditions, as Senator Calder states it is, for us
to build waterways through foreign territory. The Panama canal is builded
through a territory that is leased to us in a treaty signed and ratified in 1903
between the Panama Provisional Government and the United States. Under
this treaty we paid $10,000,000 cash and after a period of ten years we have
paid $250,000 a year. The treaty with Panama is not a whit more binding than
that we have with Canada and nobody is asking us to pay anything to Canada
for any of her rights in the St. Lawrence River any more than the United States
is asking Canada to pay us for the use of our rights in that river.
Those who would have us refrain from participation in the blessings of this
great stream are in effect repudiating the rights for which Adams anil Clay
contended and which were confirmed to us by the treaty of'71 under Grant and
Hamilton Fish. This treaty says:
"The navigation of the river St. Lawrence ascending and descending, from
the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boun¬
dary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall forever
remain free and open fcr the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the
United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain, o." of
the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navi¬
gation."
I am glad that neither the United States nor Canada, who have had per¬
petual peace along 4,000 miles of their border for over a century, have very many
people who give serious consideration to the prospect of war between the United
States and Canada, and even those who should draw upon their imaginations
to produce this scare-crow will not be able to conceive of Canada in time of war
making any use of the St. Lawrence River, whose head waters are in the United
States and a part of whose flow is in our country, which the United States did
not desire her to make. A river here and there was an important thing in the
revolution, when George Washington rowed our intrepid soldiers across the
Delaware, but in modern days nations do not depend on rivers as natural defenses.
The argument upon this phase of the situation is really not worth the time
it takes to utter it. It has been our wont for years to cooperate with Canada in
improvements along the boundaries. The works at the Soo were put in side by
side by the United States and Canada in perfect harmony. When the United
States wanted a better channel across St. Clair Flats and found the Canadian
side of the stream was more convenient, the improvement was made on the
Canadian side and no question ever arose as to the propriety of constructing
public works by the United States in Canadian territory.
In Europe the crossing of natural roads by political barriers has been the
cause of countless wars, yet even in the rnidst of hostilities European govern¬
ments have found it possible to create international highways along the river
course so deeply seated is the desire and the right of the way to the sea. The
Rhine and the Danube are the great historical examples. In the recent inter¬
national settlements the right of every people to have access to the sea was one
of the enormous perplexities. To meet that right such peculiar provisions as
those relating to Danzig were introduced into the treaty.
It is a piece of America's good fortune that Manitoba is under the same
government as Quebec; that Minnesota is under the same government as New
York. The Dominion and the Union represent all the units of the two govern¬
ments and the international embarrassments which Europe has been called upon
to overcome do not exist with us.
However, I did not come here to debate this subject with Senator Calder.
The Road to Agreement
Governor Miller and I have been debating this project both by long dis¬
tance and by personal contact for some time and I believe we are making prog¬
ress. When he opened the attack upon the St. Lawrence project in his Buffalo
speech he was inclined to regard the middle west as ungrateful to New York
and as having no basis for its interest in this great project except that of imagi¬
nation pure and simple. My rejoinder at that time contained the reflection that
New York was provincial; that her objections to the waterway were selfish and
that such arguments as she produced were captious and insincere.
At the debate before the Rivers and Harbors Congress in Washington we
arrived at a concurrence that both sides in this controversy might be perfectly
sincere; that the importance of the project itself entitled it to the gravest con¬
sideration as a national issue and Governor Miller, in the closing moments of
his debate, made the generous statement that we were very close together; that
he was perfectly willing that the project should go forward in spite of any selfish
objections from New York, if assurance could be provided that the project is
feasible. He stated at that time that Congress should appropriate at least
$2,000,000 to provide a thorough investigation by impartial experts. He said:
"Let these experts be selected by official sources and after all the facts have
been developed if these facts indicate that this project is feasible, I pledge
my support to it no matter what it costs."
Almost immediately Governor Miller was brought to the realization that
his generous attitude had not met the approval of his New York associates.
Congressman Ten Eyck, of New York, at once served notice that no tone of
conciliation should be adopted in this discussion; that New York was opposed
to this project no matter whether it were feasible or not.
However, accepting as serious and important Governor Miller's pledge in
the Washington debate, the most material phase of tonight's discussion, it strikes
me, is that which relates to the character of the investigation already made to
secure a scientific and impartial judgment upon the project. Governor Miller
in his Washington address demanded that the investigation should be from
"official" sources and not by chambers of commerce and business associations
from the middle west. He ignored the fact that the report to Congress upon
which the President based his judgment when he advised Congress to proceed
with the project was an official report.
I think he also ignored the fact that so far as sectional considerations are
concerned no advantage was given to the middle west in the selection of the
official sources who would control this investigation. The chairman of the
commission is former Senator Gardner of Maine. The other members are
former-Senator Smith of Arizona, and former-Senator Clark of Wyoming, neither
from the Great Lakes region. The speaker of the House who referred the report
to the international and foreign commerce committee and who will rule on all
parliamentary points touching the discussion of this report in the future is from
Massachusetts. The chairman of the committee in the House which conti ois
this report is Mr. Winslow, of Massachusetts. The president of the United
States Senate who has power to refer the report in that body is from Massachu¬
setts. The chairman of the committee on foreign relations to which the report
goes is from Massachusetts. The Secretary of War, who appointed the Ameri¬
can engineers to assist the commission, is from Massachusetts. The Secretary
of State, who will negotiate any and all understandings with Canada, is from
New York.
The west gets out of this project only navigation, while the east gets navi¬
gation plus power.
Impartial and Official
The instructions given by Congress to the members of the international
commission reveal the thoroughness of the investigation they were commanded
to make. These questions were to be the basis of their investigation.
1. What further improvement in the St. Lawrence River, between Montreal and Lake
Ontario, is necessary to make the same navigable for deep-draft vessels of either the
lake or ocean-going type; what draft of water is recommended: and what is the esti¬
mated cost?
In answering this question the commission is requested to consider:
(a) Navigation interests alone, whether by the construction of locks and dams
in the river; by side canals with the necessary locks, or by a combination
of the two.
(b) The combination of navigation and power interests to obtain the greatest
beneficial use of the waters of the river.
2. Which of the schemes submitted by the government or other engineers is preferred»
and why?
3. Under what general method of procedure and in what general order shall the various
physical and administrative features of the improvement be carried out?
4. Upon what basis shall the capital cost of the completed improvement be apportioned
to each country?
5. Upon what basis shall the costs of operation and maintenance be apportioned to
each country?
6. What method of control is recommended for the operation of the improved waterway
to secure its mcst beneficial use?
7. Will regulating Lake Ontario increase the low-water flow in the St. Lawrence Ship
Channel below Montreal? And if so, to what extent and at what additional cost?
8. To what extent will the improvement develop the resources, commerce, and industry
of each country?
9 What traffic, both incoming and outgoing, in kind and quantity, is likely to be car¬
ried upon the proposed route both at its inception and in the future, consideration to
be given not only to present conditions, but to probable changes therein resulting
from the development of industrial activities due to availability of large quantities
of hydraulic power?
It was provided that each government should:
"From its official engineering personnel appoint an engineer with full authority to
confer with a similar officer of the other government for the purpose:
1st, of acquiring each in his own country such data as may be found necessary
to supplement the existing data and surveys, and
2nd, of preparing complete outline, plans for and estimates of the cost of the
proposed improvement, including the value of all property, easements,
damages and rights connected therewith.
It was provided that these plans and estimates were to be submitted to the
commission as soon as practicable and a leeway of a year was given, which was
later increased in order that the work might be more thoroughly accomplished.
The final report of the international commission, which I hold here, contains
the instructions which the international commission gave to its engineers. They
completely covered the nine questions set forth in the reference of the govern¬
ments to this task. -Reduced to the simplest terms, the international commis¬
sion said:
"the reference requires the commission to recommend to the two govern¬
ments a plan that will secure from the waters of the upper St. Lawrence
their maximum efficiency in navigation and power. At the outset it is clear
that this is a problem of exceptional magnitude and intricacy and one in¬
volving national and international interests of very great importance. If
the improvement is carried out it must necessarily involve very consider¬
able expenditures by the governments of the United States and Canada,
and at a time when the people of these two countries have to bear their
share of the gigantic financial burden imposed by the greatest war in history.
The commission is therefore conscious of a very heavy responsi¬
bility. Its conclusions and recommendations must be based upon
a thorough knowledge of all the factors entering into the problem,
economic as well as engineering. With that knowledge before it, it
must first determine whether or not the project as a whole is prac¬
ticable; and if so, in what way it can be carried out so as to secure
the maximum benefits to the people of the two countries."
On January 16th, 1922, the international commission submitted its report
to the two governments. In transferring the American copy to Congress, Presi¬
dent Harding gave his full indorsement to the project. The report is the unani¬
mous conclusion of an impartial tribunal composed of an equal number of mem¬
bers from each nation. It is submitted in full compliance with the instructions
given it, after more than a year's investigation. Hearings were held from Boston
to the Pacific coast. The commission found conclusively:
"That there is nothing in the evidence to warrant the belief that ocean going
vessels of suitable draft could not safely navigate the waters in question as
well as the entire waterway from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the head of
the Lakes, or that such vessels would hesitate to do so if cargoes were avail¬
able.
That of the various alternative routes that have been mentioned none
other offers advantages comparable with those of the natural route by way
of the St. Lawrence.
That, without considering what new traffic might develop, there exists
today a volume of outbound and inbound trade, to and from this tributary
area and both coasts, which might reasonably be expected to seek this
route, sufficient to justify the expense.
That the existing means of transportation are altogether inadequate,
that the railroads—not true of Canada—have not kept pace with the needs
of the country.
That with all allowance for extraordinary conditions the congestion at
critical points and the pressure of the peak load are a permanent problem,
and the fundamental difficulty is the phenomenal growth of population and
industry in the middle west.
That the solution of the problem lies in the utilization of every prac¬
ticable means of communication, and particularly of the wonderful natural
waterway extending from the Atlantic into the heart of the continent.
That the great west, with its limitless resources, its raw materials within
easy reach, its facilities for industrial expansion, can hardly fail to become
an even greater factor in the world's markets than it is today, if given a
practicable and efficient water route to the sea."
This report is full of the testimony of exporters and importers in the great
centers of our commerce in both countries. It contains the testimony of prac¬
tical navigators, of ship captains, of ship owners and of ship builders and the
report is attended by a most careful and thorough resume of the engineering
features of the project indorsed not only by Colonel Wooten, the engineer chosen
by our national government, and Mr. Bowden, chosen by the Canadian govern¬
ment, but supplemental reports fiom great American and Canadian engineers
whose aid and counsel was enlisted in the project.
Governor Miller stated at Washington that in his office at home he had a
stack of this evidence which was over seven feet high, but that he had never
read it. Governor Miller has been a great judge in his own state. The judiciary
is that branch of government which represents more nearly than any other the
exact balance of right and wrong and surely Judge Miller on the bench never
ignored upon the vital subject at issue a seven foot stack of evidence. He in¬
dicates that the evidence from the middle west is prejudiced. It is possible for
that reason he did not read it, but made his conclusions upon this subject from
the only evidence which he knew of that was net prejudiced—that of the New
York Chamber of Commerce and the other organizations from his home state.
He asks for a re-hearing for the purpose, apparently, of obtaining a delay until
he can get some evidence more agreeable to his view point. He is using upon us
the method net of the impartial judge, but of the trained lawyer representing a
client. The advantage of the position taken by this international commission
over that assumed by Governor Miller at this moment, it seems to me, is that
the commissioners read all the evidence which he has ignored.
Mode of Procedure
As a matter of fact, the method which the federal government has adopted
for arriving at an impartial intelligence upon this subject is moie cautious and
thorough than the preliminary course the government pursued in undertaking
the Panama canal. In the beginning of that great project, the Spooner bill was
passed, authorizing President Roosevelt to acquire the property rights of the
French company for a sum not to exceed $40,000,000 and to secure treaty con¬
trol of needed territory for operation. The bill also provided for the prosecu¬
tion of the work by the Isthmian Canal Commission of seven members appointed
by the President.
After the revolt of Panama from Columbia, it was necessary for a new
treaty. In 1904 the commission was reorganized with Theodore Shonts as
chairman and the work went forward without delay.
There was dissent in connection with the Panama canal project; dissent as to
whether it should be lock or sea-level; dissent upon other features of the great
project. There is no dissent in the report of this commission. They have de¬
clared it to be feasible. The able engineers who have investigated it have staked
their reputation upon it and the report is that the value of the project justifies
the United States in entering into international relations to go forward with the
work. The next step by Congress would be the authorization of the project,
the direction of engineers and the commission to make working plans to be sub¬
mitted foi the approval of The Congress and the President and to outline such
international obligations as are necessary for the task and to provide such plans
for financing as seem wise in the judgment of Congress. At this hour the only
contention, apparently, between Governor Miller and myself is that he desires
another commission to be appointed by the United States and I presume he
would also require the same action on the part of Canada. He insists that this
new commission shall spend another year or more doing exactly the same work
that the present commission has done. He admitted at Washington that he had
not studied the testimony of the old commission. Is there any guarantee that
he would study the testimony of the new one?
In obedience to the direction of Congress that a plan be suggested by the
international commission as to financing, the commission, as one of the possi¬
bilities, called attention to the fact that in the 33 miles of canalization in the
St. I.awrence River within the international boundary it was possible to create
a unit of hydro-electric power which would supply to the United States its share
of the energy of 1,400,000 hydro-electric horse power. It was pointed out that
the $272,000,000 of expense which the creation of a canal of 30 feet draft and the
attendant hydro-electric horse power would entail could be met by the market¬
ing of this power in the gieat manufacturing districts to which it would be reason¬
ably adjacent. The saving of coal by the use of this power would alone amount
to 600,000 tons per month, and the production of this added energy for the use
of this great industrial district would be a blessing for the eastern section of
the country in a measure as important as the blessings of transportation bestowed
upon the middle west by the project.
Progress in Transmission
The use of water power has seen a more intelligent development in the
United States than the use of water for navigation, and yet the sensational de¬
velopment of intelligence upon this subiect has come to us since the discussion
of the Niagara Falls project, which was not put under way until 1889.
Many men possessing scientific ability questioned the possibility of that
great development. In the region of Buffalo and Niagara Falls good steaming
coal was produced at less than $1.50 a ton and the subject of fuel had not then
as now become a grave one. The first students of the Niagara Falls power de¬
velopment dealt with it as a project that depended for its success upon the local
territory of Niagara Falls. As late as 1880 Mr. George Westinghousp advised
that power could not be transmitted from Niagara to Buffalo by electricity, but
only by compressed air. Finally it was developed that the Niagara power could
be transmitted electrically even as far away as Albany, 330 miles, capable of
delivering a steady load of 24 hours a day at $22.14 per kilowatt which was
cheaper than the possibility of coal. Then the daring dreamers in this enter¬
prise, comprising such intellects as Francis L. Stetson, J. Pierpont Morgan, John
Jacob Astor, William K. Vanderbilt and Darius Ogden Mills thought of sending
it 450 miles to New York and 500 miles to Chicago. Men maiveled at their
imagination.
The water power statistics of the United States census of 1880 revealed the
fact that there were in operation 1,225,379 horse power from water wheels. The
Niagara unit established 450,000, representing more than a third of all the water
power in the United States in 1880.
When the possibility of transmitting this energy into hydro-electric current
came up for consideration, practical men demanded, as Governor Miller is now
demanding to know, where in the world this amount of energy could be mar¬
keted. At that hour, Buffalo, occupying then as now a great position in the
industrial world, was using only 27,000 electrical horse power. It was then poss¬
ible to find closer competition between the steam power and electric power than
now. Coal was mined at a much lower price and the rates of transportation
upon it were almost negligible when compared with present rates.
Attention was called at that hour to the fact that Lowell, Lawrence and
Holyoke had, through the possession of one-fifth the horse power being devel¬
oped by the works of Niagara Falls grown to a population of 150,000 people in
forty-five years and it was regarded as the most fortunate circumstance in the
growth of these cities that their water power had created a manufacturing center
sufficient to keep so many inhabitants in employment. It was reasoned that
Niagara Falls, more reasonably situated as regarded freight rates, would become
within a few years a city of a million inhabitants. Niagara was to become the
most wonderful manufacturing center in the world. The thought of manufac¬
turing the energy there and sending it to other points was expressed, but its
feasibility doubted. The full use of the Niagara power would have to wait until
local institutions had multiplied sufficiently to consume the energy. The men
who thought of creating all this power against a possible consumption in the
future were called "visionary and fanatical."
In 1895 the total energy consumed in the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Erie,
Ashtabula, Syracuse, Utica, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Akron, Schenectady, San¬
dusky, Albany and New York was 238,000 horse power. In the year 1922 we
find at the Falls alone a total of 800,000 horse power, and the Niagara Falls Com¬
pany has started the development of an additional 200,000 horse power.
At present there is being carried on by the United States Geological Survey
an investigation known as the Super Power Survey. It is under the charge of
an able engineer, William Spencer Murray. Congress has appropriated $125,000
to help cover the work of preliminary investigation. The leading engineering
societies and private enterprises have given it backing and the question is not
as to whether the contemplated supei power zone will be created. It is only as
to how soon it will be created. The broad purpose of the scheme is to bring
into being a vast inter-connected system of power transmission, covering a
region reaching north from the District of Columbia to the southern parts of
Vermont and New Hampshire and extending inland from the seacoast for dis¬
tances ranging from 100 to 150 miles. Within the area embraced by this con¬
templated zone is burned approximately a third of all the coal consumed by the
country at large. For power purposes alone this means an expenditure of fully
74,000,000 tons every twelve months. The aim is to reduce this and to lessen
proportionately the transportational task of the railroads.
To achieve this it will be necessary to electrify 6,000 miles, or a fifth of the
mileage of the trunk line railroads within the boundaries of the super-power
zone where the density of traffic warrants the abandonment of steam traction.
It means increased capacity on oui trunk lines—that is, ability to haul more and
to handle it quicker than heretofore.
In the accomplishment of this project will be the opportunity to develop
every possible water power site in that section and to market at a proper carry¬
ing charge all of the hydro-electric energy that may be produced.
Industrially a nation is no stronger than the measure of motive force that
it can furnish continually to its manifold productive activities. Only four years
ago a commission of British experts reported to Parliament that the United
States was superior industrially because the American workmen had behind
them fifty per cent more power than their British fellows. It is astonishing in¬
deed to hear any man who has had opportunity to take survey of the vast need
of power in this country express concern over the possibility of marketing the
hydro-electric energy that will come from the completion of the St. Lawrence
project.
One has only to note the plans of the Southern California Edison to realize
that the grasp of this possibility has spread to a point where it is fairly thrilling.
At present the Colorado River program calls for the development of 2,500,000
horse power of electrical energy from the waters of the Colorado River, making
it available in California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Southern and
Central California. The ultimate cost of the Colorado River project will be
$800,000,000.
Private capital is doing this in the far west where there are few folk and
great distances. Private capital is doing this out there while peerless New York
is worrying over the possibility of using 1,500,000 horse power created at an
expense of $270,000,000 which provides navigation in addition to the horse
power. Based on the Edison investment of California, we would be justified in
spending $480,000,000 for the horse power alone.
Whether the sale of this water power shall create a sinking fund to pay for
the entire project in installments stretching over a period of many years or
whether the cost of the project shall be divided between those who profit from
water power and water navigation is for Congress to determine. It is no part
of the program of the eighteen states that desire the navigation to contend that
the cost of the project shall be borne wholly by the water power. The middle
west will be satisfied to take the project upon whatever terms Congress requires
that we should take it. We have paid our portion for years of the generous
gifts which Congress has made to the seaports and the rivers; we have given
great subsidies in lands and money to railroads; being satisfied with the broad
service of these utilities to the communities which they serve. If Congress
should desire to meet the navigation cost of this project as she has met the
costs of other water projects in this country, the middle west will feel merely
that it has become a belated beneficiary of federal attention. On t}ie other
hand, if those who fight this project insist that the eighteen states shall meet
the cost of the navigation feature, then these eighteen states will gladly meet
that cost.
If the entire cost were to be borne by the tolls on navigation, the middle
west would be for it. If the entire cost were to be paid from the national treas¬
ury, we would be for it. If the entire cost were to be met by the power sale, we
would be for it. We are for the project because of its great necessity to the
country and we are only asking that Congress shall proceed along the line of the
progress already mapped out, keeping in mind the needs and the obligations of
all the great sections which the project will serve.
Local Nature of the Opposition
When Governor Miller stated in the Washington debate:
"If there is any reasonable assurance that the Atlantic Ocean can be
extended 2,000 miles into the interior of this country, then the state of New
York will heartily support the project,"
the New York press reports that upon this expression by Governor Miller there
was loud applause and cheering. In reading over the other expressions from
New York touching this proposition, I find a total lack of applause or cheering.
It seems to be an organized opposition and I find nothing in it to substantiate
the hope that Governor Miller's generous sentiment is shared by the New York
organizations that aie studying this project.
The state legislature of New York in 1920, when the discussion of this
project aiose, instantly adopted a resolution containing the following declaration:
"The St. Lawrence route would divert commerce of the Great Lakes from
its natural course, cause great confusion to established business and
result in irreparable injury to the state of New York, its ports and business
interests."
The Chamber of Commerce of New York on November 3rd, 1921, declared
the project to be:
"An extremely dangerous movement and one that has grown to very great
proportions in the west."
It added: "This chamber must oppose the project."
The Union League Club of New York a month later, in discussing the
project under the report of a committee on political reform, said:
"Nor is this plan a distant possibility. On the contrary, the danger is im¬
pending. The plan will not only cost New York the loss of a great part
of its commerce, but compel its citizens to pay a large tax."
It has been a favorite contention that New York would pay 30% of the taxes.
I dissent. New York does not pay 30% of the taxes of this country. New
York City is at the seat of customs and catches them coming and going and in
addition to this great revenue she collects there have moved from Kansas, Iowa,
Illinois, Nebraska, Missouri and all these other eighteen midwestern states some
able men who still retain their productive operations in these states, but they
pay their taxes upon those fortunes in their New York offices. I am not seeking
to reflect upon New York, wonderful Empire State, but her ten million people
are not more productive or more important than the ten million people of any
other section of the country.
The Merchants' Association of New York City, through its president Wil¬
liam Fellowes Morgan, January 2nd, 1922, declares:
"In any event, the construction of the canal could not fail to injure the
Erie canal system and the port of New York."
Two weeks after this the State Waterways Commission spoke through
John G. Dunlop, its chairman, who declared:
"It is a project which practically means death to New York's business.
It would divert the trade of the middle west to a foreign port and prac¬
tically destroy the harbor of New York."
Outside of New York City, the community that has distinguished itself in
opposition to the St. Lawrence project is Buffalo. The commercial associations
of the city have declared against it with great fervor. The newspapers have
fought it. None of the public officials have opposed it without using the thought
that the project would kill something in which New York and Buffalo are in¬
terested. The language they use is all of the devastating character which has
to do with casualties and fatalities.
Says their congressman:
"We must fight tooth and nail this movement to take the Empire State off
the highway of international commerce."
Says Congressman Mead:
"I have fought this bill, which would result in the death of Buffalo as a
lake port."
Says the Buffalo Inquirer:
"To construct the St. Lawrence route would prove a body blow to the en¬
tire Niagara frontier."
Says the Buffalo Express, in quoting Congressman Dempsey:
"It would rob us of all the benefits of commerce by which the state of New
York has grown to be the Empire State of the Union."
Said Senator Hill, of Buffalo:
"The St. Lawrence scheme ought to be defeated in order that the commerce
of Buffalo may be preserved."
Says the Buffalo Commercial:
"Buffalo will lose its importance and prestige. Longshoremen and shovel-
ers who vote the Democratic ticket will vote themselves out of a job."
Says the Buffalo Evening News:
"Buffalo will cease to be a grain port."
Said Senator Gibbs:
"The improvement will close the barge canal."
The up-state papers of New York manifest the same insular spirit.
The Yonkers Statesman says:
"It would take freight from our canal system."
Senator Wadsworth, in a newspaper interview, says:
"It threatens the success of the barge canal."
The Troy Times says:
"The scheme is diametrically opposed to New York's interest."
The Syracuse Journal says:
"New York is menaced as the greatest American port."
The Rotary Club of Buffalo takes the position that the whole project rises
out of the jealousy of the other sections of the country touching the growing
commerce of the port of Buffalo, and says:
"Never has Buffalo been threatened by such a menace as this proposal to
build a ship canal along the St. Lawrence."
The club appointed a commission of twenty-nine members to head off the
project.
Senator Hill, of Buffalo, says:
"These westerners, long jealous of Buffalo's prosperity, now have given
their aid to a project by which they hope to make Detroit, Cleveland, Chi
cago and other lake ports commercial rivals of Buffalo."
He accuses the international commission as having filled itself with the
"visions and dreams they have heard in the Rockies and in the middle west
where there is more theory than practicability."
The Buffalo Express marvels that:
"The westerners are so hard to persuade."
It is really a comfort to turn from these gruesome prophecies to a more
hopeful view. For instance, New England, which was invited to consider all
these killings and ruinous influences of the St. Lawrence project, has responded
in a way to make every American proud of the breadth of vision and the genuine
unselfishness of New England. In a recent report, the Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, having made a careful survey of the entire project, adopted the
following report:
"Your committee, appointed to consider and report upon the feasibility and desir¬
ability of the St. Lawrence project, begs lea\e herewith to submit its unanimous
report.
Our conclusions, reasons for which will be set forth in this statement, are:
(a) that the project is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
(b) that it can be constructed at a reasonable cost considering the magnitude
of the work involved.
(c) that it will furnish direct and usable water route between the ports of the
Great Lakes and both foreign and domestic ocean ports
(d) that in the very near future this nation will require every possible means of
transportation and that accordingly the St. Lawrence project • will be of
great assistance in reducing otherwise necessary expenditures for additions
to our rail facilities and greatly lessen the inevitable transportation crisis
which will arise with a restoration of normal business and the natural growth
of the country.
(e) that it will give to New York and New England a very large, reliable, and
cheap source of hydro-electric energy.
(f) that the project is desirable for the country as a whole, and beneficial to
New England.
"We express the hope that public sentiment in New England will view this matter
in the broad spirit of national interest."
A broad-minded business man of New York, Mr. George E. Roberts, vice-
president of the City National Bank, has risen above the provincialism of the
New York attack to say:
"The time has come to utilize such resources as water power, which are in¬
exhaustible economically, for these are benefits to future generations, in
conserving the coal deposits. The St. Lawrence project deserves better
than to be made a subject of irritation and antagonism between New York
and the west. If it is worth while to the west, it is certainly worth while
to this state. That the work would be done in friendly co-operation with
our Canadian neighbors sharing in the expense and benefits, is surely nothing
to count against it. New York is so related to the United States and for
that matter to the whole North American continent that anything which
enlarges the productive capacity and adds to the prosperity of the interior
inevitably benefits the city. It is humiliating to have persons claiming to
represent New York protesting that this will injure the city. They show
that they do not understand the true relations between New York and the
west.
*********
When men like Julius Barnes, late federal grain administrator and one of
the best informed men in the country upon grain problems, says that the
St. Lawrence route would add five cents per bushel to farm value of all
grains grown in the territory now tributary to the lake ports, New York
could not afford to be in the position of opposing it for purely selfish reasons."
William L. Saunders, of New York, an engineer with wide experience, past
president of the American Manufacturers Export Association, who has taken a
professional part in the canal projects both of this and European countries, says:
"A project like this which will make seaports along thousands-of miles of
American territory and which at the same time will furnish to New England
and the other eastern states cheap power, is surely worthy of our earnest
consideration and interest. I venture the statement that there never has
been proposed a project so simple in its execution, so sound in its economic
possibilities and so far-reaching in its consequences as this one."