The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

"~ MARINE REVIEW. RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. MR. BURTON DISCUSSES MOST EXHAUSTIVELY THE ETHICS OF THE MEASURE--A VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND LUCID EXPLANATION. Probably the most comprehensive and most lucid explanation of the river and harbor bill is that contained in the speech of Mr. T. E. Burton, chairman of the committee on rivers and harbors, delivered before the house of representatives. Mr. Burton maintains that the bill conters inestimable benefits upon our common country and upon all its people-- a point of view with which we have always had the keenest sympathy. Much of a statistical nature is omitted from the transcript herein given ol his remarks. Speaking of the misapprehensions regarding the bill, he says: 'The first misapprehension relates to the actual amount appropriated for the ensuing fiscal year. It has been frequently stated that this bill carries a total of sixty millions and over, to be used during the coming year. Such is not the case. The amount included in it to be expended in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, is a trifle over $24,000,0UU. In ad- dition to that amount there are authorizations for $36,700,000. But it is no more fair to count these authorizations as a part of the appropriation in this bill than it would be to include in the annual appropriations for the army the wages of enlisted men, who enlist under provisions in that bill, for the succeeding years after the pending year for which the bill pro- vides. It would be equally unfair to count in the postotfice appropriation bill the increased appropriations made necessary in the future by the ex- tension of the rural free delivery service. Indeed, there is a reason which makes these authorizations less deserving of opposition by those who fear large expenses in the future, in that they are nearly all for the furtherance of commerce in places where it already exists and urgently demands larger facilities, or for the completion of projects which are already under way and upon which partial appropriations have been made for many years. "Our experience with reference to past authorizations proves that many years will elapse before the full amount authorized herein will be expended. The act of 1890 contained authorizations for $15,622,980. Of that amount, after the lapse of nearly twelve years, there still remains $769,915. The act of 1892 authorized the expenditure of $31,760,521. Of that amount $308,000 remains unappropriated. The act of 1896 contained authorizations for the expenditure of $59,616,404. Of that amount $12,- 186,801, or more than 20 per cent., after a lapse of six years, remains unappropriated, and the estimates for the ensuing year under authoriza- tions made in that act are only a trifle over $3,200,000. The act of 1899 contained authorizations for $21,666,324. After more than three years very nearly one-half of that amount, or $10,774,000, remains unexpended and unappropriated. It is probable that of the $36,700,000 authorized under this act not more than $13,000,000. will have to be appropriated: for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1904, perhaps $10,000,000 for. the following year, and $7,000,000 for the succeeding year. Any estimate must be based largely upon conjecture. The amount to be appropriated will depend upon the rapidity with which plans are matured, contracts made, and the work performed. : "There is another point pertaining to the amount actually appro- priated, namely, that of this $24,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, not more than $18,000,000 or $19,000,000 will, in the natural course of events, be expended during the ensuing fiscal year. That is due partly to the usual delays in taking up and completing work and partly to the fact that this is a biennial bill, and provisions for maintenance include two years. It is quite likely that of the $24,000,000 appropriated by this act not more than $15,000,000 will actually be expended between now and June 30, 1903. So much for the first misapprehension in regard to this bill. The second is that this bill carries much larger amounts than previous bills. Such is not the case. With some considerable care I have prepared a statement of appropriations for rivers and harbors for the fiscal years from 1879 to 1902. From this it appears that the largest river and harbor bill passed up to date was that in the year 1890, for the ensuing fiscal year, the total amount of which was $25,186,295, or more than $1,000,000 more than the amount included in this bill. The amount appropriated in the act of 1888 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, was $22,397,616, or within $1,600,000 of the amount provided in this bill. But a fairer test is obtained from the appropriations for two years, as this is a biennial bill, Computed in this manner, there was appropriated for the years 1900 and 1901 something over $41,000,000. The total amount for rivers and harbors carried by the sundry civil bill for 1902, by this bill, which is for the year 1903, and the probable amount for sundry civil appropriations for continu- ing contracts in the ensuing year will aggregate $37,000,000 only for the years 1902 and 1903, or $4,000,000 less than for the preceding two years There is also the misapprehension that the authorizations when combined with the appropriations are greater than in any preceding year. In 1896, when expenditure exceeded revenue, and the country was in a dis- tressed condition and ill able to bear the burdens of increased taxation, a bill was passed by this house and by the senate, and became a law, appro- priating: and authorizing $72,000,000, or nearly $12,000,000 more than the appropriations and authorizations in this bill. There is another misappre- hension to which, in the third place, I wish to call attention. I refer to the prevalent idea that appropriations for rivers and harbors are increas- ing more rapidly than other appropriations of the government. The facts are exactly the contrary. The amount appropriated in 1879 for rivers and harbors was $8,201,700. The average amount for 1901 and 1902 was $11,- 616,115, or an increase of 42 per cent. over 1879; or, if we take the average of the two successive years having the greatest appropriation, those in the sundry civil bill included, 1900 and 1901, the increase is from $8,201,700 to $20,697,822, or 152 per cent. Now, let us take up for comparison, first the postoffice, which is most in touch with the business development of the country and which can most naturally be compared with river and harbor appropriations. The amount appropriated for the fiscal year 1879 was $33,256,373; for 1902, $123,782,688, or an increase of 272 per cent. as compared with 152 per cent. increase in river and harbor appropriations Te comparison with the two years of maximum expenditure in the latter. aM ior Fas hee ere the navy. That increased from $14,152,603 in 1879 to re: 91 for the fiscal year ending 1902, or an increase of 451 pe Us'next take up the army. The increase 'that is frofi $25:59% 486 for eal 02, or an.increase of 352 per ' the syear2?879 to"$115,784049 for the i is ok LOPEtro . er 19 cent. The latgest 'increase in any of the appropriation bills is that for fortifications. The amount.carried in the bill for 1879 was $275,000. In the bill for 1902 there is an appropriation of $7,364,011, or an increase of 2,577 per cent., as compared with the year 1879. ok "We have, according to statements which I am presenting to you, an increase of 42 per cent. under the most favorable comparison for rivers and harbors and 152 per cent. for the least favorable, against 272 per cent. for the postoffice, 352 per cent. for the army, 401 per cent. for the navy, 1,709 per cent. for agriculture, and 2,577 per cent. for fortifications. The total amount appropriated in the last four years for river and harbor im- provements was about $63,000,000; for the navy--one branch merely of the military service--the total appropriations were $247,000,000, nearly four times as great; and yet there are many persons in the country who criticize this bill because of its extravagance, who uttered no sound against the appropriation of four times as much for merely one branch of our military establishment.. LITTLE BEING SPENT ON MINOR STREAMS, "I desire to take up also a criticism familiar to some of you, that river and harbor bills, not only this bill, but other bills in past years, have carried an inordinate amount for the improvement of insignificant streams and creeks in the country. This criticism has gained very general cred- ence. There is not a socialist, not a superficial critic of government appropriations, but he is prone to compare this bill in its appropriations for minor streams with those for the great commercial ports, and rivers of the country, and say that the latter are neglected, while the former absorb the appropriations in the bill. Now, let us see how much truth there is in this. I think it will be conceded by all that when a waterway has a tonnage of over 100,000 per annum it is worthy of attention and of the fostering care of the government. I think it will be again conceded that when the value of commerce on a waterway exceeds $1,000,000 per annum it is taken out of the category of streams which are insignificant. The total number of streams having a tonnage of less than 50,000 tons is thirty-five. The aggregate amount to be expended for them is $214,100 for the next two years. The total tonnage of these streams is 619,105. The number having a tonnage of between 50,000 and 100,000 is twenty- four, for which there is included in this bill $202,900. According to the latest statistics, the volume of commerce upon them in one year was 1,671,263 tons. So it seems that appropriations aggregating $417,000 for two years, or $208,500 per annum, will provide for an annual traffic amounting to 2,290,368 tons, at a cost to the government of between 9 and 10 cents a ton. "The interstate commerce commission has prepared, at my request, a statement of the tonnage on certain of the minor railroads of the country. I selected at random sixteen railways, the shortest of which has a mileage » of 11.78 miles and the longest of 253.7 miles, and found that of these eight had a tonnage of less than 100,000 per annum, varying from 3,310 tons on one railway having a length of 44 miles to 59,146 tons on one having a mileage of 86 miles, and if we select the one having the largest tonnage on a short mileage, 98,000 tons on a railroad having a mileage of 11.78 © miles. Yet it will appear that each one of.these railroads is capitalized for a very considerable sum. The following isa list of them: ; MILEAGE AND TONNAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 80, 1901. Miles Tons Tons carried Name of Road. operated. carried. - ' 1 mile. Clarendon' & Pittstord!: 7, 24 ee LEO 98,586 443,637 Buffalo, Attica & Aréade': 7)... °°: 28 31,620 342,492 Oucen Annes 3200.2 2 he ee 67 29,831 825,231 Dayton, Lebanon & Western .... 23 62,120 836,300 Birmingham @& Atlantic ......... 42.46 62,005 1,165,884 Nashville & Knoxville .... 2.7: 86.80 59,146 1,951,818 Leavenworth & Topeka.......... 56.12 12,027 321,852 - Wiarida Wiiana (oe. 44 : 3 BOLO 46,721 Ota 4k ae eee oe - 358,645. 5,933,935 "Thus it appears on examination that this criticism that ponds and creeks are absorbing a great share of the amount in these river and harbor bills is absolutely without foundation. The total amount included in the river and harbor bill of last winter for the streams of New England, ex- cluding rivers of the first class, such as the Penobscot, Kennebec, Merri- mac, Connecticut, and others, like the Mystic and' Providence, which are merely inlets from the sea and used for harbor and anchorage, was $120,- 500, yet the total amount of freight carried upon these streams annually is not less than 2,000,000 tons. ol "The large expenditures upon rivers which are now being pressed -- upon congress are rather for streams having a great volume of water. In sections of these rivers excellent navigation is available by nature, but in order to make them navigable throughout their full length divers improve- ments are required. In some the channels shift, because they flow through an alluvial soil; in others there are rocks and other obstructions which require removal; in others there are rapids, above and below which are excellent reaches of navigable water. In almost all there appear alternate shoals and pools, the presence of which is to be observed in all rivers which have any considerable descent in their course. Numerous rivers are now under consideration which have been surveyed and in which an estimate of the cost has been rendered.' For the improvement of large rivers in the country estimates approximating $150,000,000 have been made by the engineers of the war department, a large share of which would be for locks and dams. One of the questions to be decided is whether these rivers should be improved on so extensive a scale. The improvement of the harbors of the country is largely made necessary by the adoption of deeper draught boats. Of late in the construction of ocean-going freight: carriers the truss model has been adopted for hulls, and boats drawing 40 ft. are in sight if channels are available. Not only is there a demand for deeper draught boats, but traffic has increased enormously, and there is every indication of a continued increase. ore : PUSHING THE BIG IMPROVEMENTS. ' "Of the $60,000,000 included in this. bill nearly $50,000,000 is for great projects. The committee thought best, as far as possible, to push the great improvements of the country, which are essential to the develop- ment of its commerce, to completion,, Even where there are. two projects of equal, merit, it, hag:seemed best. in-many. instances .to, selee} one. and finish it, rather ,fhan to go on with piecemeal appropriations fortwo, three, or more years. i [May 15° lt That is the most business-like policy, and it is ohe ss: