tion of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," are hereby made applicable to the navigable waters of the Virgin Islands. SEC. 9. The Secretary of War is authorized to transfer to the permanent jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce, for lighthouse purposes, a parcel of land of approximately eight and three one-hundredths acres, located near Hobucken, North Carolina, and being a portion of land acquired for improvement of inland waterway from Norfolk, Virginia, to Beaufort, North Carolina. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to quit-claim without charge to the city of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, all the right, title, and interest of the United States in an island located in Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, which lies northerly and easterly of fractional lot 1, section 19, township 18 north, range 17 east, for park purposes, provided he is convinced that the city has the right under the laws of the State of Wisconsin to occupy and use the island for such purposes. SEC. 10. That the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to have prepared and transmitted to Congress at the earliest practical date after March 4, 1931, a compilation of preliminary examinations, surveys, and appropriations for works of river and harbor improvement similar in general form and subject matter to that which was prepared in accordance with the act of March 4, 1913, and printed in House Document Numbered 1491, Sixty-third Congress, third session: Provided, That the report to be prepared in accordance with this provision shall be a revised edition of the report printed in the document above mentioned, extended to the end of the Seventy-first Congress. SEC. 11. Louisiana and Texas Intracoastal Waterway: Whenever the Secretary of War shall approve plans for a bridge authorized by law to be built across said waterway he may, in his discretion, and subject to such terms as in his judgment are equitable, expedient, and just to the public, grant to the person or corporation, municipal, or private, building and owning such bridge, a right of way across the lands owned in fee simple by the United States on either side of and adjacent to the said waterway; also the privilege of occupying so much of said lands as may be necessary for the piers, abutments, and other portions of the bridge structure and approaches. SEC. 12. Subject to the provisions of section 10 of the river and harbor act approved March 3, 1899, authority is hereby granted to dredge, without cost to the United States, in the navigable waters of the United States included within the State of Maryland and outside the limits of projects for improvement of navigation facilities approved by Congress, regardless of rights accruing to the United States as riparian owner under the laws of the State of Maryland: Provided, That in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such dredging will improve facilities for navigation. The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to proceed on the two items in question, which are to be found upon page 5 of the bill, lines 12 to 21, and page 31 of the bill lines 20 to 24. Now in what method do you wish to proceed? I ask that particularly of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from New York, because they have different views in relation to these matters. In what way would you prefer to proceed? Senator VANDENBERG. I would be very glad to hear General Deakyne on the general proposition. I do not know what the Senator from New York has in mind, but would be glad to hear his wishes. Senator COPELAND. That is entirely satisfactory to me. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. HERBERT The CHAIRMAN. General Deakyne, would you do us the kindness, please, to give the committee such information as you deem appropriate in relation to the item that is to be found on page 5, entitled "Great Lakes-Hudson River Waterway"? The Secretary of War is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to accept from the State of New York the State-owned waterways known as the Erie Canal and the Oswego Canal and thereafter maintain and operate them as navigable waterways of the United States, at an estimated annual cost of $2,500,000: Provided, That such transfer shall be made without cost to the United States and shall include all land, easements, and completed or uncompleted structures and appurtenances of the said waterways. General DEAKYNE. This item is the result of investigation called for by resolution of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives. In accordance with that resolution a board was appointed, consisting of officers not on duty in Washington, not connected with the Rivers and Harbors Board, to report on the question of deepening waters of the Erie and Oswego Canals, in the State of New York. The resolution called for a report on the deepening of those canals to 14 feet. Those canals were built by the State of New York, and they are really an outgrowth of the Erie Canal, which is over a hundred years old. The State of New York modernized that canal some years ago from its former depth of probably 8 feet to 12 feet. The State of New York has spent something like $146,000,000 on that work. The board that was appointed especially to investigate this subject made some estimates of the cost, discussed the commerce and the condition of the canal, and finally reported that in its opinion there were not sufficient benefits in sight to warrant the United States in making expenditures to deepen that canal to 14 feet. Senator COPELAND. In November, December, or January, probably. Senator MCNARY. General, what is the present depth of the canal? General DEAKYNE. The present depth of the canal is about ten and a half feet. Senator MCNARY. The engineers reported adversely? General DEAKYNE. The engineers reported adversely on the deepening to 14 feet. Senator NCNARY. What is the estimated cost? General DEAKYNE. Somewhere around $90,000,000, as I recollect. Senator COPELAND. To make that 14 feet? General DEAKYNE. To make it 14 feet; yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. General, I do not want to interrupt your statement, but in order to complete the historical facts, that report is preceded, is it not, by a number of other reports back through the years of somewhat adverse character? General DEAKYNE. There have been many reports made for the past 30 years on the idea of the connection between the Lakes and the Hudson River. Senator VANDENBERG. And they all have been adverse, have they not? General DEAKYNE. I think so. I know the recent reports have been adverse in the last few years. Senator SHEPPARD. General, this last report, you say, was made by the Board of Engineers? General DEAKYNE. This report I speak of was made by a special board of three officers appointed to consider this particular question. Senator SHEPPARD. A board of three engineer officers? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. Senator SHEPPARD. Connected with the Rivers and Harbors Board? General DEAKYNE. Not connected with the Rivers and Harbors Board. Senator SHEPPARD. Who are they? General DEAKYNE. They were Colonel Hoffman, who was stationed in New York City, Lieutenant Colonel Ward, stationed in New York City, and Major Reybold, stationed in Buffalo. Senator SHEPPARD. They were in the engineer service? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; all engineer officers. Senator SHEPPARD. All district engineers? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. Senator SHEPPARD. Did the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors then pass on the matter? General DEAKYNE. Yes; that report came before the Rivers and Harbors Board in the regular course of business, and was passed upon by the board. Senator SHEPPARD. What was the date of the last action you mentioned? General DEAKYNE. The special board report, as I recollect, was dated last November, and the report by the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors was dated about a month ago, I think, the early part of April. Senator COPELAND. You are making reference to a 14-foot channel, are you, General? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir; so far. Senator JONES. What was the recommendation of the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors? General DEAKYNE. The recommendation of the Board of Engineers. on Rivers and Harbors was that no work of deepening the canal be undertaken at this time, but that the Secretary of War be authorized and empowered to accept from the State of New York, if it sees fit to offer the canal-to accept the canal from the State of New York and to maintain and operate. Senator JONES. The provision in the bill here is in accordance with their recommendation? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. I think we are getting mixed. That was not the recommendation in the report of which the general speaks, of the board in New York. Senator JONES. That was the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Senator VANDENBERG. Finally, after other surveys? Senator JONES. Yes, sir. Senator COPELAND. Suppose we let the general make his statement about the final action of the Board of Engineers. The CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, General. General DEAKYNE. That report made in New York came in and was studied by the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Harbors, and we got some further information as to the possibility of deepening to 13 feet instead of 14 feet. We sent that report back to the special board and asked it to consider 13 feet and make a report on that, and asked it to give some estimates. It gave us some estimates on 13 feet. We took those up and studied them over-I might say that we heard arguments on this thing. We had Mr. Dempsey, the chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House, before us a number of times to discuss the matter; and we debated whether it would be wise to recommend the deepening of this canal to 13 feet. The questions at issue were the present condition of the canal, the present commerce on the canal, the efforts of the State of New York to maintain and improve the canal, the adequacy of the canal to handle the present commerce, the necessity of improvement, the advantage that would result from improvement-all those theing studied at a good deal of length; and the board understood that it would take a long time for the necessary steps to be taken in the State of New York to transfer this canal to the United States; that it would require two acts of the legislature and one vote of the people to turn the canal over to the United States; that that might take some years. And the board felt that it was not necessary to recommend that this time that anything be spent on the canal, except to operate it in case the State turned it over to us; that it was time enough then to consider whether the canal should be deepened, whether the bridges should be raised and any other changes of that kind made; that after the canal had been turned over to us or it was so far along that we knew we were going to get it, the question of deepening it, enlarging it, widening it, and changing the bridges could be studied then in the light of the situation as it then existed. Therefore, the board recommended only that the United States take the canal if the State was willing to give it to the United States. Senator VANDENBERG. General, let us try to keep this thing in a chronological order. You were referring to the further review that was asked on the 13-foot basis. Now, is it correct that your board reported on February 6, 1930, "That even the moderate improvement now proposed should not be undertaken"? There is nothing in the report of February 6 about taking over the canal for future study, is there? General DEAKYNE. I do not identify that report of February 6. Senator VANDENBERG. This is Colonel Hoffman's report to your board. General DEAKYNE. I think you are correct on that; yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, the idea of taking over the canal for future study had not yet put in its appearance even on February 6? General DEAKYNE. I think I can explain that question. The first study was with a view to deepening the canal. Of course, the commerce on the canal could not be interrupted while the deepening was going on. That is an important commerce and must go on, and if we undertook to deepen the canal we would have to make provision so that the commerce could continue while the work was being executed. It seemed to us that it would be a difficult thing for the United States to go in and deepen that canal while the State of New York was operating it; that you would have two different organizations trying to work together, and they might work together part of the time and part of the time they might not. It did not seem like a good arrangement for the United States to go in and spend millions of dollars in deepening this canal and widening it or raising the bridges, doing work of that kind on it while commerce was passing through under the operation of the canal by the State of New York. That led to the conclusion that if the United States was going to do anything with this canal it should own the canal; that the first thing would be that the canal ought to be turned over to the United States. Then if the United States saw fit to do anything to it it would be able to have full control and be able to deepen the canal, to widen it, to raise the bridges and at the same time, under its own control, to keep the existing commerce moving. Senator VANDENBERG. But there is no suggestion of that sort until your final report in April, is there? General DEAKYNE. I think you are correct on that; yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. The point I am trying to get at is that all of these reports are adverse until your final report in April-April 3, I think it is; and that is the first time in all this series of reports where you even suggest taking over the canal as being advantageous, is it not? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. What happened, if anything, to up set all of these previous reports and suddenly to produce a favorable report on the general project? General DEAKYNE. Well, it was a result of this study, with a view to deepening it and the element that came in as to who was going to operate it while it was being deepened, and that induced the board to conclude that the first thing was to have the canal turned over to the United States. Senator VANDENBERG. Did you appear as a witness before the House committee on March 24? General DEAKYNE. I judge so. I have no recollection Senator VANDENBERG. Did you say anything at that time about taking over the canal? General DEAKYNE. I do not recollect saying anything about that. Senator VANDENBERG. On March 24, 1930, in other wrds, you were still insisting that the canal should not be developed by the United States? General DEAKYNE. Yes, sir. I was arguing against the idea that the canal as it now stands is not in condition to handle the commerce moving over it. Senator VANDENBERG. And you were making no suggestions on March 24 respecting Federal acquisition or development? General DEAKYNE. No. Senator VANDENBERG. In fact, you were still resisting it? General DEAKYNE. I was answering questions; yes, sir. I was not making any recommendations or volunteering anything. Senator VANDENBURG. Between March 24, when you were still taking that position, and April 3, when the engineers reversed the entire engineering recommendation, occurred this famous interview, which the newspapers have had considerable to say about, in which the distinguished gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dempsey, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hull, called upon you and discussed the matter. Is there any record of that meeting-I mean was there a stenographic record made of that meeting? Senator COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, I submit this has nothing to do with the matter. Senator VANDENBERG. I think it has a great deal to do with the matter. Senator COPELAND. In reference to how much it cost to deepen the canal to 12 or 13 feet |