That bill, with all of its restrictions and limitations applied to the millions of tons of coal, that is barged around our rivers, almost entirely within the confines of Allegheny County, would increase the transportation costs and be of no particular benefit to anyone.

One of Pittsburgh's greatest problems just now, and the same is perhaps true in other great cities, is to keep the industries that they have. I am not trying to boast, but we do have an industrial community of great size and significance, and it didn't just happen to be located at the head-waters of the Ohio. The industries came there and will remain in Pittsburgh so as to be at the water's edge. They will go away as soon as they lose the advantage that comes through facilities of transportation provided by our rivers. There may be some places where the regulation of river traffic would be practical, but there is no place for additional Federal regulation of the Pittsburgh local traffic that I am speaking about.

There must be some regulation of all forms of transportation made to meet their situation and we find that the War Department, the Federal Government, is doing a pretty good job at the present time regulating the transportation on our rivers. We find that they carefully regulate all operating conditions that stand for safety and, in fact, regulate practically everything about the transportation of freight except the cost to the shipper. We have not found any particular need for having the transportation cost subject to such severe regulation as is proposed in this bill.

Wharfingers: The city of Pittsburgh does not own or operate terminal facilities of any kind at the present time. All wharfingers' business is done by private companies and generally by those owning the moving equipment on the rivers. There is comparatively limited volume of traffic moving from rail to river or vice versa. The millions of tons of river traffic moving around Pittsburgh is to a great extent intermill or intercity. It must move on the rivers. The steel plants and others have set up loading and unloading machinery at great cost to fit their particular need for river transportation. It is not traffic that was taken off the railroads. Now, why just to make regulation a pretty picture and to embrace everything should the river barges and boats be federally regulated to any greater extent than at present under the War Department?

The city of Pittsburgh must protect the interests of all its people, its large and small industries as well. The detail of this proposed bill which sets up the different types of carriers' service, the private, contract, and the common carrier, when applied to the transportation of the property in and around Pittsburgh, is harmful. Large interests, of course, own their own river equipment and transport their own products. Smaller companies do not. The severe regulation and limitation of the contract carrier would not provide a similar service for the company that does not own its own transportation facilities. Contract carriers must secure permits, which is subject to extensive hearings and subject to the attack of other kinds of carriers, the private and common carriers, and, to our way of thinking, it appears that many of Pittsburgh's industries would be discriminated against because of not owning their own transportation facilities. The tendency would be to drive other industries into the purchase of transportation equipment. It would have been a practical move if we could have had a part of the hearings before this committee set down in the heart of the

141408-35-PT 1-19

industrial center of Pittsburgh and had an opportunity of taking you gentlemen on a barge or a tow-boat in and around the Pittsburgh rivers to see how well the millions of tons of freight are transported to and fro between short-haul points, to the satisfaction of all the interested citizens and industries.

These industries receive great volumes of ore via rail and water. Vessels transporting the ore across the Great Lakes return with coal for the people of the Northwest. The close limitation and regulation of that interchanging service on the Great Lakes, whereby transportation costs would be increased, means a serious threat to the maintenance of our steel industries in the Pittsburgh district.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to ask one question. One of the steel companies has its own railroad up to Lake Erie, has it not?

Mr. DONLEY. I understand what is known as the Steel Corporation have their own railroad.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Where does that tap Lake Erie-Ashtabula?
Mr. DONLEY. Conneaut, I think.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Jones & Laughlin plant at Aliquippa-how far is that below Pittsburgh?

Mr. DONLEY. About 25 miles.

Mr. MANSFIELD. And how far above Pittsburgh do they get their coal, the major portion of it, up there on the Monongahela? Mr. DONLEY. I am just afraid to guess at that, Judge.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Forty or fifty miles?

Mr. DONLEY. I would think it would be within that range, maybe a little bit farther.

Mr. MANSFIELD. They are the largest shippers of coal of any one concern there, in that territory, are they not? They use about 10,000 tons a day.

Mr. DONLEY. I would say they would probably be the largest consumers on the river, although I have heard that is, the largest consumers of coal that is moved on the river-but I would want to qualify that, I think, with the fact that the Steel Corporation itself moves very large quantities of coal on the river.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CROSBY. Are you familiar with the proposed canal up the Beaver River and the Mahoning Valley?

Mr. DONLEY. I have made quite a study of that, sir, and it takes. us into quite a different field from what I have been discussing.

Mr. CROSBY. Would you say that that would be of particular advantage to Pittsburgh?

Mr. DONLEY. If the canal is built all the way from Beaver River to Lake Erie and not made a service sub-end of the canal, I presume the majority of the citizens of Pittsburgh would be in favor of it. But I am not speaking for them in that respect, sir. They are definitely opposed to the building of a sub-end canal from Beaver River to Struthers, as is proposed.

Mr. CROSBY. Would not large railroad properties be destroyed up in that valley if this canal were built?

Mr. DONLEY. I do not think they would be destroyed. There is no question but what there would be some expense to the railroads in the building of the canal. But to offset that, there comes always

additional revenue to all forms of transportation because of the definite industrial development, and that is particularly true, if you will pardon me, in the Pittsburgh district. We go up the Monongahela River, which is a canalized waterway of the regulation of 9 feet, and on both sides we find two and four tracks of rails paralleling the river almost as far as you have water transportation on the river. So Pittsburgh has grown up, and particularly the city, and the officers of the city are definitely in favor of the further development of all of our transportation facilities.

Mr. CROSBY. Do I understand that this would permit the sailing of more vessels from Lake ports directly into Pittsburgh?

Mr. DONLEY. The original survey made by the United States Engineers, the War Department, would permit boats to go all the way from the river to the Great Lakes. But it is my understanding that the canal that is now proposed to be built from Beaver River to Struthers is on an entirely different engineers' survey than the original all-the-way canal as it was proposed, being built particularly for the Youngstown steel industry.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If you will permit me right there, a word of explanation, the proposed connection between the Ohio River and Lake Erie was not for a ship channel, but for a 12-foot channel for barge craft. The Lake steamers, 600-feet long, could not possibly move through that canal unless it was an enormously large ship canal. It has been unfavorably reported upon for the present. But it did not contemplate a ship canal; only a barge canal.

Mr. CROSBY. What is being done on the survey of the all-Pennsylvania route up to Erie from Pittsburgh?

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is still in the hands of the engineers; I do not know.

Mr. DONLEY. And I might add that Oil City is very definitely promoting it.

Mr. CROSBY. How far up the Allegheny River do you have slack water, East Brady at least?

Mr. DONLEY. I think it is East Brady for certain sized boats.
Mr. CROSBY. It is a 9-foot channel?

Mr. DONLEY. A 9-foot channel would hardly take us beyond the Pittsburgh district.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The one up there is about 6 and 7 feet?

Mr. DONLEY. Six and seven feet; yes. They are now building some additional dams on the Allegheny River.

The CHAIRMAN. If that is all, we are very much obliged to

Mr. Donley.

you,

Mr. DONLEY. Thank you, gentlemen., May I put in this resolution to which I referred at the opening of my remarks?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

BILL NO. 3250

Whereas there have been presented in the United States House of Representatives and in the United States Senate two identical bills, known as "H. R. 5379" and "S. 1632", which bills the city of Pittsburgh is opposed to inasmuch as these bills propose to amend the Interstate Commerce Act and place with the Interstate Commerce Commission the authority to authorize and regulate all interstate transportation on the inland waterways of the country; and

Whereas the inland waterways are open to all who desire to use them for transportation purposes and there has been no general demand for any form of govern

mental regulation, nor will there be a general demand, because nothing approaching a monopolistic nature is likely to function in connection with transportation on our inland waterways; and

Whereas industries have been located in the Pittsburgh district because of the availability of low-cost water transportation and if this advantage is eliminated it will place these industries in an unfair competitive position and be detrimental to the interests of the huge population centered in the Pittsburgh district and western Pennsylvania, and the country generally will be affected if burdensome regulations are established and low water-transportation rates are "stabilized" by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the interest of the railroads, as there will be an inevitable increase in all transportation rates and this will be contrary to public interest; and

Whereas the proposed legislation will undoubtedly affect the financial interest of the water carriers adversely under the guise of uniform regulation of water and rail carriers. It should be borne in mind that during the years in which the rivers moved the greatest amount of tonnage, the rail carriers were equally properous and the rivers caused no financial difficulties of the carriers. The percentage of the river tonnage as compared with the rail tonnage has remained constant and it is quite apparent therefore, that the situation now faced by the carriers is due to other conditions than the loss of tonnage to the river carriers: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the city of Pittsburgh is opposed to the passage of H. R. 5379 and S. 1632, and that a copy of these resolutions be sent to the President, Senators, and Representatives in the National Congress from the State of Pennsylvania and to members of the committees having the bill in charge and that Mr. Charles Donley, of Pittsburgh, be authorized to represent the city of Pittsburgh and to appear before the committee of Congress for the purpose of emphasizing its importance on behalf of the people of the city of Pittsburgh, Pa.

In council May 6, 1935; rule suspended, read three times, and finally passed.

Attest:

Approved:
Attest:

ROBT. GARLAND,
President of Council.

ROBT. CLARK,

Clerk of Council.

MAYOR'S OFFICE,
May 7, 1935.

WM. N. MCNAIR, Mayor.

J. EDW. GARLITZ, Mayor's Assistant Secretary.

Recorded in resolution book, vol. 8, page 537, 7th day of May 1935.

PITTSBURGH, May 7, 1935.

I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of resolution no. 65, series 1935, as the same appears of record in the office of the city clerk.

[SEAL]

E. W. LINDSAY,
Assistant City Clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Weaver. Mr. Weaver, we shall be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. WEAVER, FALL CITY, NEBR., PRESIDENT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Weaver.

Mr. WEAVER. My name is Arthur J. Weaver, Fall City, Nebr. I have served as Governor of Nebraska and was president of the constitutional convention that wrote the present State constitution which was approved by the people on all proposals submitted, by an average vote of 3 to 1.

For 10 years, since its organization, I have been president of the Missouri River Navigation Association, and also a director of the Mississippi Valley Association for that time.

I have followed such men as Cleveland Newton, who was in Congress when we inaugurated this fight for what we considered equality along the rivers 10 years ago.

I have followed such men as Judge Mansfield, who I think is one of the ablest waterway advocates in the United States, and who made a speech on the Missouri River when this fight was started.

The CHAIRMAN. We will assume you are entirely qualified, Mr. Weaver.

Mr. WEAVER. We have a peculiar situation in our country. Like many other sections of the Middle West, the Panama Canal has marooned us. Out in the Missouri Valley we have the longest haul and the highest freight rate of any great agricultural country on earth. We have got only 12 canning factories left out of 68 in Iowa and Nebraska. We have lost many industries.

This organization, of which I am president, came about because the Kansas City business leaders 10 years ago made an industrial survey and found out that they were losing factories; that they were not getting their share of new industries; that old concerns like the Peet Soap Co., and the H. D. Lee Mercantile Co., that had grown up as infant concerns in that city and had attained almost a Nation-wide trade, had been compelled, because of the effect of the Panama Canal, to put branches down on the Atlantic seacoast in order to compete with Atlantic seacoast manufacturers for Pacific coast business.

We have only 26 people to the square mile in the Missouri River Valley. East of the Mississippi River they have over 100, and further east, 200.

We have a country that produces a surplus. The western and northwestern part of the United States produces a surplus of 400,000,000 bushels of grain and we want to be able to put industry by the side of our agriculture. We cannot do it under present conditions. Farming has been in a bad shape ever since the Panama Canal came into operation. Our country needs industry by the side of its agriculture.

I checked up 2 years ago on what it cost to ship a bushel of corn from Omaha, the interior of Nebraska, to the Pacific coast, by rail. It cost 34 cents at that time to ship it to Los Angeles and San Francisco; 33 cents to Portland and Seattle, and just across the State of Iowa, 300 miles from Omaha, where the upper Mississippi River channel is coming into use, over at Habana and Peoria, on the Illinois River, it cost just half that, 161⁄2 cents to 184 cents a bushel. That is the reason we are for this waterways development. We are not for waterways development with an idea that it is going to injure the railroads. We recognize the importance of railroads and other forms of transportation. We want the Government to protect them all, as it can, in their different fields.

I was interested in what the gentleman from Pittsburgh said a few moments ago. I had a reason to check, for my own information, 2 years ago, what waterways had meant to Pittsburgh and what they had meant to the railroads. After the Government improved the Monongahela River and the upper Ohio, so as to bring cheap coal into Pittsburgh; and after the Government had built the Soo locks in the St. Marys River so as to bring the cheap iron ore to meet the cheap coal, waterways traffic from the Pittsburgh steel district, from 1900 to 1925, increased 32,000,000 tons; railroad traffic increased