THE USE OF WATERWAYS
A WAR NECESSITY
“Transportation is important in time of peace; it is absolutely vital
in time of war. Indeed, Secretary Baker says, and truly, “This is a war
of transportation." Because our railroads are overfaxed, it may depend
upon our waterways whether our flag shall float in victory or go down
in disaster and defeat. It follows, therefore, that everyone who pro-
motes the improvement, maintenance, and utilization of our waterways
is helping to win the war, while one who takes the other course is
imperiling the safety of the Nation and the future of civilization.”
ADDRESS
OF
HON, JOSEPH E. RANSDELL
of Louisiana
in the
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
SEPTEMBER 29, 1917
sº
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1917
16.200–17958




THE USE OF WATERWAYS A WAR NECESSITY.
A D D R E SS
HON. Jos EPH E. RAN SD ELL,
o F L O U 1 s I A N A, • .
IN THE SENATE of THE UNITED STATES,
September 29, 1917.
Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President, when the rivers and harbors.
bill was under consideration the Senator from Iowa [Mr. KEN-
Yon] occupied the time of the Senate for some days in opposi-
tion thereto. His views did not prevail, as the bill was passed
by a large majority.
- It is interesting to note, in passing, the steadily decreasing
effect of his opposition. In 1914 the bill was defeated, a lump-
sum appropriation of $20,000,000 being substituted therefor.
The same thing happened in 1915, but the lump sum was in-
creased to $25,000,000. In 1916 a bill was passed in regular
form, but by the close vote of 35 to 32, while the bill of 1917
passed the Senate by the decisive vote of 50 to 11.
In spite of this overwhelming defeat at the hands of his col-
leagues the Senator from Iowa is continuing his fight against
the improvement of the waterways of the United States through
the columns of the newspapers. I hold in my hand a copy of the
magazine section of the New York Times of Sunday, September
2, 1917, in which there appears an article under the heading
“Lean days for the ‘pork barrel.’” This article, which is
published in the form of an interview with the Senator from
Iowa, contains a number of statements which are so totally
at variance with the facts that it can not be allowed to pass
without reply. -
One of the most extraordinary and inexcusable misstatements
in the article refers to the Santee, Wateree, and Congaree Rivers
in South Carolina, and this is made not only Once but twice over.
In one place he says, “The first appropriation for improving this
system of rivers dates back, it will be noted, to 1881. Since that
time over $1,000,000 has been expended on these streams, and
this year of the war $670,044 was asked and obtained.” Turning
to paragraph 6 on page 5 of the official print of the river
and harbor act approved August 8, 1917, we find it reads as
follows:
Santee, Wateree, and Congaree Rivers, S. C. : For maintenance, in-
cluding the Estherville-Minim Creek Canal and the Congaree River as
far up as the Gervais Street Bridge, Columbia, and for improvement of
the Congaree River in accordance with the report submitted in House
Document No. 702, Sixty-third Congress, second session, $80,000.
A big difference between $80,000 and $670,000.
2 16290–17958
3
§
&i
Of course, Mr. President, no one would ever believe for an in-
stant that the Senator from Iowa would knowingly and inten-
tionally make a statement that is untrue. But the Senator
ShOuld remember that statements which are mistakenly untrue
are just as misleading and do just as much damage as those
that are intentionally untrue, and should take the time needed
to make sure of the facts before he reaches and announces his
conclusions. Unfortunately, the distinguished Senator from
Iowa, with all his ability and industry, sometimes fails to follow
this course. -
However, the mistake in stating the amount of the appropria-
tion is of less importance than the fact that, at a time when the
railroads are severely taxed to handle existing traffic and when
it is entirely probable that increased demands will arise for
freight-carrying facilities, due to the necessity of moving greater
crops and of supplying the numerous cantonments, it is proposed
deliberately to reduce appropriations for our waterways and
that the appropriation for the Santee and Congaree happens to
be one of those Specifically criticized. The Santee and the
Congaree are essentially a single stream about 200 miles in
length. Columbia, S. C., the capital and Second city of the
State and a manufacturing Center of Some consequence, is at
the upper end, and the Ocean port of Georgetown, S. C., is at
the mouth, with intracoastal connection with Charleston. CO-
lumbia is the site of Camp Jackson, an Army cantonment where
approximately 40,000 men will be concentrated.
At present the use of the water route, ocean and river com-
bined, results in rates 15 to 30 per cent lower than the rail
rates, evidently a considerable advantage for Columbia and its
tributary country, but due to the existence of some obstructive
sand bars, navigation is interfered with at low stages of the
river and as a consequence the dependability of the boat Service
is impaired for a short period of time each year. This is a
Serious detriment to the Community Concerned, as it naturally
diminishes the use of the river. With part of the recent appro-
priation of $80,000 it is proposed to alleviate these conditions
and this will lend encouragement to the people of Columbia who
are planning to improve the river Service by the Construction of
new barges and towboats, leading in turn to a larger use of the
river for the ordinary commercial purposes. -
In addition there will for some time to come be a large in-
crease in the quantity of freight coming to Columbia, due to the
requirements of Camp Jackson, and to supply this camp the
river route should prove of great value. Independent testimony
as to its value is given by Gen. Leonard Wood, who, as long ago
as the beginning of August, reported to the War Department that .
the service given by the railroads in the Southeastern (Mili-
tary) Department was very slow, and l'ecommended the use Of
water routes for supplying the camps and cantonments then
about to be established. He noticed particularly the Santee-
Congaree route to Columbia and advocated its use. * *
How much traffic the establishment of Camp Jackson will add
to the water route is, Of Course, uncertain ; but on every toll
carried by water the United States will save in freight between
$1 and $2, and it is safe to assert that no very great length of
time will be required to show a considerable profit on the
amount this year invested in the waterway. -
16290–17958
4
. In further illustration of the economic value of waterways I
desire, Mr. President, to include in my remarks a brief table
prepared by Capt. A. A. Poland, who is now in the Quartermas-
ter's Department, United States Army, and who was for some
years traffic manager of the Kansas City Missouri River Navi-
gation Co. This table shows, in a most striking manner, the
effect of water competition on railway rates. It is worthy of
careful study, but I will only call attention to the comparison
of fourth-class rates between Cincinnati and Evansville, which
is on the Ohio River, and Gallatin, Tenn., a point in the interior.
Where there is water competition the rate is 17.9'. cents and
where there is none the rate is 52 cents. - .
I ask permission to insert as a part of my remarks the table
which I have prepared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PoſNDExTER in the chair).
Without objection, it is so ordered. -
The table referred to is as follows:
Effect of water competitios os Bailway Rates.
All-rail class rates between river points compared toith att-rail class rates
from river points to interior points. , e -
(Compiled by Capt. A. A. Poland, Quartermaster's Department, United
States Army, formerly traffic manager Kansas City Missouri River
Navigation Co.)

Rate per 100 pounds, in cents.
Dis- .
*Class|classiclassholas|class|class
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
From Cincinnati, Ohio, to- Miles. .
Evansville, Índ. (on ohio River).]"zºo"; 42 35.7 | 26.3 || 17.9 || 15.8 12.6
Gallatin, Tenn. (inland).---....... 273 || 7 67 57 52 45 41
Difference.......................!------ 36 81.8 80.7 34.1 29.2 28.4
St. Louis, Mo. (on Mississippi River)...] 339 |43.1 || 36.2 ſ 23.8 ſ 15.4T15.8 ſ 12.6
Englewood, Tenn. (inland). . . . . . . 343 86 75 64 55 |46 37
Difference-----------------------|------ 42.9 || 38.8 || 37.2 36.6 || 30.2 24.4
Louisville, Ky. (on Ohio River)... 114 || 23.3 || 23.1 : 17.9 || 12.6 9.5 8.4
Richmond, Ky. (inland).......... E19 45 40 34 30 25 22
Difference-----------------------|------ 18, 7 || 16.9 | 16. 1 || 17. 4 ; 16.5 13.6
Paducah, Ky. (on Ohio River)....] 339 48.3 || 41.5 32 22.6 20 16.8
Chattanooga, Tenn. (inland). ----. 338 || 76 65 57 47 40 30
Difference.......................l...... 27.7 23.5 25 24.4 20 13.2
Cairo, Ill. (on Ohio River)------...} 382 || 46.2 || 39.4 || 29.9 20.5 17.9 || 14.7
Dalton, Ga-----------------------. 378 |103 89 79 67 56 45
Difference...............--------|-----. 56.8 || 49.6 || 49. 1 || 46.5 38.1 30.3
From Louisville, Ky., to- -
Portsmouth, Ohio (on Ohio River) 240 || 44.1 | 37.8 28.4 20 16.8 13.7
Paris, Tenn....................... 247 70 62 56 45 37 31
Difference...... .* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.9 24.2 27.6 25 20.2 17.3
Brookport, Ill. (on Ohio River)...] 230 || 45.2 39.4 29.9 || 20.5 17.9 14.7
Columbia, Temn................... 232 | 72 58 49 45 38 35
Diſſorence............ tº º tº tº C tº e º 'º e s , º, s = e º ºs 26.8 18.6 || 19. 1 || 24.5 20, 1 || 20.3
16200–17958
gº - *)
EFFECT OF WATER COM I’ETITION ON IRAILWAY RATES.–Continued.
All-rail class rates between river points compared with all-rail class rates
from river points to interior points—Continued.

**
Rate per 100 pounds, in cents.
JNis- * * * ~ * **** *
* Class|class|class|class|class|class
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
From Louisville, Ky., to— . . . . . ...
Memphis, Tenn. (on Mississippi |Miles.
River)-------------------------- 380 65 50 45 35 30 |..... º
Brookland, Ark................... 384 92 77 60 48 35 |..... sº
Difference.......................]...... 27 27 15 13 5 |..... tº
St. Louis, Mo. (on Mississippi
River-----------------.......... 274 || 43.1 36.2 26.8 || 18.4 15.8 12.6
Rnoxville, Tenn.......... . . . . . . . . 286 76 65 57 47 40 33
Difference.......................!. • - - - - 32.9 || 28.8 || 30.2 || 28.6 || 24.2 20.4
From Memphis, Tenn., to--. . . .
Helena, Ark. (on Mississippi tºº
River).......................... 66 || 45 40 32 25 20 17
Jonesboro, Ark.................... 64 || 52 44 37 29 23 24
Difference.......................l...... 7 || 4 || 5 || 4 || 3 7
Greenville, Miss. (on Mississippi
º, Mººn.” & e º º ºs*| 1st as 50 |45 || 35 | 30 || 25
Maumelo, Ark.................... 150 | 70 60 52 || 38 || 30 32
Difference.......................l...... 5 || 10 7 | 3 | 0 7
Vicksburg, Miss. (on Mississippi
iver * Mis. tº e º ºs e º e º e º g tº*| 20 50 |40 | 35 | 2 ||25 | 10
Danville, Ark..................... 220 79 69 58 43 34 37
Difference............................. 29 29 23 16 | 11 18
Natchez, Miss. (on Mississippi gº
River). ......................... 207 55 45 4) 30 25 22
Texarkana, Ark.-Tex............. 290 |117 101 || 88 75 | 60 62
Difference.......................!------ 62 |56 |4s |45 || 35 | 40
Baton Rouge, La. (on Mississippi - -
Rºº..…”"| 355 65 50 |45 |35 | 3 || 2:
McAlester, Okla.................. 367 |110 90 7 5S 45 47
Difference.......................'...... 45 |40 30 || 23 | 15 22
New Orleans, La. (on Mississippi
iver). ſ * * * * * * * * * g s*| 395 65 50 |45 35 | 30 || 25
Big Sandy, Tex................... 396 |137 |115 96 | 89 70 72
Difference.......................'...... | 72 |05 || 51 54 40 || 47
From St. Louis, Mo., to—
Keokuk, Iowa (on Mississippi
River).......................... 171 38.9 32.6 24.2 17
Salisbury, Mo..................... 169 || 53 40 30 24 19
Diſſerence............................. 14. 1 | 7. 4 || 5.8 6.7 5.3 7. 9
)-------------------------- 240 || 36.3 28.5 22.4 17.6 14.2 13.5
Moulton, Iowa.................... 244 52.5 || 41 29. 5 22.5 || 17.2 20
Difference.......... © e º e º 'º e º e º 'º e º e º ºs e < * | 16.2 | 12.5 || 7.1 || 4.9 || 3 | 6.5
| |
16290–17958
6
EFFECT OF WATER COMPETITION on RAILwAY RATEs—continued.
All-rail class rates between river points compared with all-rail class rates
from river points to interior points—Continued.

W
º
Rate per 100 pounds, in cents.
Dis-
* class|class|class|class|class|class
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
From St. Louis, Mo., to- • * - .
Clinton, Iowa (on Mississippi |Miles.
River)------------------........ 268 39 31 24 19, 4 || 15.5 14.9
Albia, Iowa....................... 271 54 43 32 24 19 21
Dinetence.......................l...... | 15 || 12 8 4.6 || 3.5 6.1
, Dubuque, Iowa (on Mississippi º
River)----...................... 329 || 42.7 || 34.5 26.9 21.5 || 17.2 | 16.5
Grinnell, Iowa..................... 327 61 48 37 26 20. 5 || 24.5
Difference............................. | 18.3 | 18.5 10.1 4.5| 3.3
Memphis, Tenn. (on Mississi – - • ‘
. #. • * * * * * * * * * t * * * > tº e º 'º º º ºpp. 305 || 65 50 45 35 30 25
Higginson, Ark------------------. 304 96 || 82 64 49 37 39
Difference.......................l...... 31 32 19 14 7 14
New Orleans, La. (on Mississippi
River)..... ºpp. # 90 || 75 || 65 50 | 40 35
Fort Worth, Tex.................. 720 ||147 |125 104 || 96 || 75 79
Difference..............................] 57 || 50 || 39 || 46 || 35 44
Kansas City, Mo. (on Missouri -
River)-------------------------- 278 || 60 45 35 27 22 24.5
Bradford, Ark.----------......... 282 94 78 62 48 37 39
Difference......................l...... 34 33 27 21 15 14.5
Sioux City, Iowa (on Missouri
iver)-------------------------- 508 || 80 || 65 45 || 32 || 27 | 32
Wellston, Okla................... 507 |130 109 || 97 82 | 63 65
Difference----------------------|--.... 50 44 52 50 36 33
Qmaha, Nobr. (on Missouri River). 414 || 60 45 35 27 22 24.5
iaioviiie, Kºk........ 413 |116 100 79 || 64 47 50
- Difference---------------------------. 56 55 44 37 25 25.5
From Pittsburgh, Pa., to- .
Evansville, Ind. (on Ohio River)...] 581 || 53.6 || 46.7 || 35.7 25.2 21.5 17.9
Scandlyn, Tenn................... 582 (128 110 87 74 62 50
Difference----------------------|--.... 74. 4 63. 3 || 51.3 || 48.8 40.5 ! 32.1
Cairo, Ill. (on Ohio River)........ 693 || 62.5 || 55.1 || 42 30.5 25.7 21.5
Dalton, Ga----------------------- 689 |126 116 95 73 60 53
Difference...........-----------|-----. 63. 5 60, 9 || 53 42. 5 || 34.3 || 31.5
St. Louis, Mo. (on Mississippi
Ver)--------------------. * * * * * * 613 || 59.3 || 51.5 || 39.4 || 27.3 23.6 | 19.4
Nashville, Tenn................... 611 | 83 72 58 44 36 30
Difference.----------------------|...... 23.7 20.5 | 18.6 | 16. 7 || 12.4 || 10.6
Davenport, Iowa (on Mississippi
Wer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 649 || 62.3 || 54 41.4 28.8 || 25.1 | 20.9
Chattanooga, Tenn......... © - e º ºs e e 649 |111 95 79 62 53 41
Difference.............. e - © - e º ºs e s e < * * * * 48. 7 || 41 37.6 || 33.2 || 27.9 20.1
16290–17958
7
EFI’ECT OF WATER COM I’ETITION ON 1: A 1 LW.A Y R.ATES----continued.
All-rant class rates between river points compared with all-rail class rates
from river points to interior points——Continued.

Rate per 100 pounds, in cents.
JYis- -- - - - - = - ~~~~-º-º-º-- * -> *-* * * ... -- - - - - ---s-s--- - - -a-. º.º. → ; * * = -
*|Class|class|class|class|class|class
1. 2. 3. 4. º 6.
From Pittsburgh, Pa., to—Continued.
Memphis, Tenn. (on Mississippi Miles.
River). ------------------------- 805 || 91 70 59 46 39 33
Atlanta, Ga----------------------- 798 |126 (115 95 73 60 52
Difference.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 |40 |36 || 2 |21 || 19
I3aton Rouge, La. (on Mississippi : —— --- - - - **-* * *
ver). - :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1, 171 .1.16 95 79 61 49 43
Daytona, Fla.... -----............|1, 177 157 |138 |125 |111 93 7
Difference............................. | 41 43 46 || 50 || 44 33
Vicksburg, Miss. (on Mississippi mº - **-*-* * o
River). - .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,025 º 95 || 79 || 61 || 49 || 43
Hattiesburg, Miss................. 1,030 "149 |128 112 92 75. 5 || 61
Difference..................-----|-----. |33 ||33 ||33 ||31 ||25.5 18
New Orleans, La. (on Mississippi * ~ *-ºº-º-º-º- * *-* , -ms-sº º
River)-------------------------. 1, 199 |116 95 79 61 49 43
Sumpter Junction, Fla.....------- 1, 193 |163 |142 |132 |115 96 79
Difference.----------------------|------ 47 47 | 53 54 || 47 || 36
Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President, it is very evident that the
rail rates are made with the purpose of underbidding the water-
Ways On Such traffic as might seek to use them. While certain
rail rates are kept abnormally low and the railroads thus re-
tain a large part of the traffic to whiclı they apply, this is an
undesirable and unfair arrangement, compensated, as is well
known and as is shown in part by the table, by means of much
higher rates to interior points. &
At a time when transportation difficulties are great and are
increasing, the statesmanlike policy would loo not to restrict or
diminish the usefulness Or our waterways, but to devise methods
for promoting their greater use. Capital is proverbially timid
and naturally hesitates to engage in new or doubtful enter-
prises. Transportation on our inland waterways, if properly
organized, financed, and equipped, can undoubtedly be con-
ducted at less Cost than on the railways, but adequate organiza-
tion, capital, equipment, and management will be forthcoming
only if the waterways are kept in good condition, assurances
as to the permanence of such policy given the interested pub-
lic, and, as now seems to be necessary, assistance of some prac-
tical kind given in the establishment of experimental lines for
the purpose of demonstrating the most efficient way to use these
waterways. -
Some further adjustment of the railroad rate situation may
also be necessary so as to permit the water carriers to use the
railroads to advantage in through business to inland points.
At present the rail carriers deny to the river lines the same
division of rates that they give to their rail connections, whereas,
to overcome the inertia and the (lisinclination of the business
16290–179.58
8
Community to engage in a new departure, the water carrier
should not only get from its rail connections the same propor-
tionate rates as are given on through rail business between
identical termini, but an arrangement should be made under
which the water carrier might, by accepting less money for its
own service, establish lower joint through rates and thereby
attract business to a relatively untried and in some respects
less favorably situated route. -
In place of repeating the trite and untrue charge that the
river and harbor bill is a “pork barrel,” the Senator would do
well to try to build up the confidence of the business community
to an extent Sufficient to induce them to invest Capital in and
to use river transportation. He might try to ascertain the reasons
why these great national highways are not more extensively
used and, by devising practical plans for overcoming these
objections, Save the country each year considerably more than
the almount of the appropriation he now decries. -
In Criticizing the grouping system, which was introduced by
former Senator Burton and which has been used for a number
Of years, but which is used more extensively than ever before
in the river and harbor bill recently enacted, Senator KENYON
SayS:
The plan is to group a number of related projects under a º ap-
propriation, so that it can not be told how much of the money will go
to any particular project. That is left to the engineers.
Again, in speaking of the appropriation for the Santee,
Wateree, and Congaree Rivers, he says that this is— - *
said to be all intended for the Congaree, but there was no way to know
that for certain.
This statement also is very far from the truth. The engineers
submit detailed estimates for all projects for which appropria-
tions are specifically desired. These estimates were printed h
a committee report, which was available not only to every
Senator but to the general public. If the Senator did not have
the time or did not care to take the trouble to look the matter
up in this report, he could have been informed upon applica-
tion to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and, in fact,
was informed during the consideration of the bill as to the
exact amounts designated for a number of projects in the bill.
It often happens that because of favorable conditions the
entire appropriation made for some projects is not needed dur-
'ing the course of the year, while because of emergencies which
may arise a larger amount than estimated is needed for certain
other projects.
The grouping system gives to the engineers a limited discre-
tion to meet emergencies which may arise, and it seems a little
odd to have a criticism of this limited discretion from a Senator
who four times has tried, and twice has succeeded, to substi-
tute lump-sum appropriations for bills in the regular form, under
which the amount received by any one or all of the hundreds of
waterways and harbors under their charge is left Solely to the
discretion of the engineers. The only logical conclusion that
can be reached from the course followed by the Senator from
Iowa is that in his opinion the exercise of unlimited discretion
by the Army engineers in the distribution of appropriations for
waterways and harbors is highly commendable, While a limited
discretion is thoroughly objectionable.
16290–17958
9
In another place in the article referred to the Senator says:
I think the whole trouble we have fº into in this country about
river and harbor bills is the question of locality, of something for the
benefit of a particular locality instead of a benefit to the entire Nation.
This is the trouble with our country anyhow. We think along local
lines. -
During his extended remarks, when the rivers and harbors
bill was under consideration, the Senator from Iowa made
specific criticisms of 28 projects. In the statement which I
hold, and which I ask permission to insert in the RECORD as a
portion of my remarks without reading it in full, I have given
the names of all these waterways, With the tonnage and the value
of the commerce carried thereon in the calendar year 1915,
and the appropriations for the fiscal year 1918 contained in the
rivers and harbors act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
Ordered.
The table referred to is as follows:
Items directly criticized by the Senator from Iowa.

ion for
Name of project. . fiscal year
. Net tons. Value. 1918.
‘Big Sandy River------------------------------ 152, 159 || $1,520, 50.1 !............
S River--------------------------- 8,488. 389,478 $3,500
Qontentmea Creek -------------...------------ 9,607 146,975 1,000
Smiths Creek--------------------------------. 5,896 145,928 [............
Fishing Creek----------------------...-------- 2,450 34,926 -...........
Pamlico and Tar Rivers----------------------- 286,716 || 3,937, 502 4,500
Northeast River------------------------------ 68, 116 3. p 3, 000
Black River................................... 18,746 399, 143 2,000
Cape Fear River (above Wilmington)......... 100,030 1,675,002 ............
Little Pedee River.......--------------------. 1,442 72,703 ------------
Santee River.--------------------------------- 25,376 770,902
Wateree River.-------------------------......!---...------|------------ 80,000
Congaree River.....--------------------------. 4, 324 656, 560
Altamaha River. ----------------------------- 76,763 967,205
iver--------------------------------- 41,925 484,091 40,000
Ocmulgee River.... --------------------------- 33,645 I, 127.556
Kissimmee River............................. 73,565 1, 164,015 4,000
Caloosahatchee River . . . . . . . . . . ............... 69,340 | 1,980, 014 ............
Orange River.... --------..................... 3, 490 ,300 ---------...
Crystal River................................. 2, 141 81,430 |............
Angiºte River.......---------------------...-- 11,269 990, 729 3,000
Withlacoochee River.......................... 20,789 195, 186 |............
Escambia and Conecuh Rivers................ 85,000 850,000 2,500
Pearl River................................... 30,650 155,018 - - - - - - - -....
Red River (below Fulton)..... ... º. ºº e º ſº tº º gº tº gº tº e º 'º e 27,325 | 1,895,867 55,000
Ouachita River------------------------------- 97,451 2, 108, 146 10,000
Arkansas River.------------------------------ 39,966 800, 868 35,000
St. Francis River-------...-...--------------. 146,442 462, 500 3,500
Total.----------------------------------- 1,441, 111 # 24, 419, 567 251,000
Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President, it will be noted that every
one of the 28, without a single exception, is located in the
South. The Senator gave a special criticism to the Pamlico
and Tar Rivers, which really constitute one stream with differ-
ent names in different parts. There were carried on this river
in 1915, 286,716 tons of freight, and if he had gone carefully
through the Report of the Chief of Engineers he would have
16290–17958
10 *
found nearly 200 waterways and harbors located in the Nortla—
192 to be exact—which carried a smaller Commerce than that
of the Pamlico. I hope the Senator will not be offended if I
COmmend to him the cultivation of a national instead of a sec-
tional point of view.
It will also be noted that every one of the waterways which
he specifically criticized is a river, although some of them are
called Creeks. He said many things, and bitter things, about
rivers, but not a word against harbors. Apparently, he is suf-
fering from what might be called fluvial hydropllobia. Harbors
are railway terminals. They serve railways, while rivers com-
pete, or may compete, with railways. Is it possible that this
fact has any connection with the severe criticism of rivers and
the entire lack of condemnation of harbors which characterized
the relmarks Of the Senator from Iowa?
The Senator is reported in the article as saying that, in his
Opinion, “the appropriation Carried in the measure was about
$10,000,000 less than it would have been but for the war, but
that another $10,000,000 could have been lopped off without in-
jury to any of the legitimate projects mentioned in the bill.” .
In the course of the hours and days spent by the Senator from
Iowa in criticizing the bill while it was under consideration he
specifically mentioned the above-named 28 items, the aggregate
appropriation for which was only $251,000. An additional
$10,000,000 taken from the bill would have cut out the cntire
appropriation for all waterways and harbors carrying less than
1,000,000 tons of freight each and half of that for the waterways
which carried between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 tons each, the
aggregate tonnage on these waterways being 92,910,883. Either
this would have been the case, or there would have been n cut
in the appropriations for the waterways carrying from 5,000,000
tons each to over 50,000,000 tons each, and I suppose even the
Senator from Iowa will concede that waterways handling Sucli
amounts of traffic are “legitimate.” . .
The Senator from Iowa devoted Considerable attention to the
Pamlico River, and showed that in this, as in a number of other
instances, he had failed to give sufficient study to the reports
of the Chief of Engineers to gain an accurate knowledge of the
facts. Speaking of this river, he said:
There has apparently been considerable , commerce, a complete com-
merce of 177,000 tons downstream and about 100,000 upstream, but
when analyzed you discover that about 120,000 tons of that is tim-
ber. * * * imber and logs and matters of that kind can be floated
downstream without all these tremendous appropriations.
In this case the “tremendous appropriation ” amounts to just
$4,500 for the maintenance of a waterway which in 1915 carried
286,716 tons of commerce valued at $3,937,502. That is at tho
rate of 13 cents for each ton and eleven one-hundredths of a cent
for each dollar ! A continuance of Such Wanton extravagance as
that, Mr. President, will bring us to the verge of national bank-
ruptcy
The Senator understated the Commerce carried and inter-
changed the tonnage handled upstream and downstream, re-
spectively. He stated that about 120,000 tons were timber, but
if he had really read the engineer's report, instead of merely
glancing at it and jumping at conclusions, he Would have found
that most of this was handled in boats and barges, which were
162(\0–17958 -
11
larger or, at any rate, had a greater draft than the boats in
which the rest of the commerce was carried, anºl that 128,500
tons of lumber, timber, and shingles were carried upstream. If
the distinguished Senator from Iowa can make timber float up-
stream on a river, whether improved or unimproved, he can win
both fame and fortune if he will tell the lumbermen of the
United States how it can be done.
He Jays' great stress on the fact timat the depth of the river
at the extreme upper limit of navigation and at the time of
low Water is only 20 inches. He ignores the fact that the
minimum low-water depth in the principal part of the river is
10 feet—which is just 4 feet greater than the minimum depth
planned for the upper Mississippi—and the further fact that
during several months in the year the available navigable
depth in many of the rivers and harbors of the North is noth-
ing at all, because they are frozen up. Ice in the North and
low water in the South during a portion of the year do not,
however, prevent the development of an important commerce.
No doubt the Senator is busy; we all are; but if he will take
the time to look over the reports of the engineers he will find
that, since its improvement was begun in 1876, the Pamlico
River has carried about $800 worth of commerce for each dol-
lar spent on its improvement. It seems to me that a return
of 800 for 1 is a matter for congratulation rather than for
criticism. - +
At another place in the article he says: - *
We have spent in this country about $900,000,000 on rivers and
harbors. Of this amount it is a perfectly safe estimate that half of it
has been Squandered. .
Here again his statement is very wide of the truth. The
fact has already been noted that his criticism has been entirely
directed against rivers, from which it is natural to conclude
that he considers the money appropriated for the improvement
of harbors has been wisely expended. A tabulation made from
the reports of the Chief of Engineers shows that; in round num-
bers, $500,000,000 has been expended on harbors and $400,-
000,000 on rivers. In making this tabulation Some waterways
which are called rivers, and even some called creeks, have been
included with the harbors because they belong there, as, for
instance, the Penobscot from Bangor to the sea, the Delaware
below Philadelphia, the Mississippi below New Orleans, the
Columbia below Portland, and East Chester, Westchester, and
Newtown Creeks, which are parts of New York Harbor. On
the other hand, so important a stream as the Hudson above
New York City has been included with the rivers.
His statement is untrue, therefore, even if every dollar that
has been spent on the rivers of the country has been squam-
dered. But I do not believe that any Sane and fair-minded
man would attempt to claim that this is the case. We have
spent over $13,000,000 on the Monongahela, but it is handling
Some 13,000,000 tons of traffic in a year, and if the carrying of
coal on this river were stopped much of the bottom would drop
out of the iron and steel industry of Pittsburgh. That money
Was certainly not wasted, nor was that spent on many other
rivers which carry a commerce important at any time, but
trebly important in these days of war when the railroads are
OVertaxed.
16290–17958
12
It is undoubtedly true that some of our rivers carry less
commerce than formerly, but it is also true that for more than
50 years the railways in their competition with waterways
were free to use any methods that the acutest intellect could
devise and the nost liardened conscience could execute; all (l
everyone who lias given the subject attention knows that they
improved their opportunities in this direction to the very limit.
It is my profound conviction that the railroads were short-
sighted and that they really were working against their own
interests. But be that as it may, many millions of dollars
were appropriated for rivers during years when they were
carrying a vast commerce, when, indeed, they furnished the
only lines of communication except the dim trails of the Wilder-
ness, and the money spent on rivers at such times and under
such conditions was certainly not squandered.
In the past, as I llave already said, Mr. President, the railroads
lave used cutthroat methods of competition against waterways,
which I emphatically disapprove. But having said that, I want
also to Say illat the patriotic and eſticient service which the
railroads have rendered since our entrance into .the world war
deserves and should receive the unstinted pl’sise of every loyal
citizen of the United States. And to-day, Mr. President, wo
are confronted by an extraordinary and surprising spectacle.
On the one hand we sec the leading railway men of the Country
urging that the waterways be used, because there is more traffic
to be moved than the railroads can possibly landle, and on the
Other we see the Senator from Iowa trying his best to cut down
almost to the vanishing point the appropriations required to keep
the waterways in condition to be used. I thoroughly agree with
One criticism I have heard him make, and that is as to the sys-
tem of dribbing appropriations for waterways, but from the time
he became a Member of the Senate he has used his most earnest
efforts not to increase the appropriations but to decrease the
dribble to a drip. -
At still another place in the article Senator KENYON Says:
The people are really to blame, and their viewpoint as to what con-
stitutes a statesman must change before any decided change takes place
in the sº upon which “pork,” is founded. So long as their ideal of
an efficient representative at Washington is the man who is able to
get an º to “improve '’ their Podunk Creek or to put up
some public building far larger or more expensive than the community
needs—so long as they meet such a returning statesman with a band
and point to him with pride, saying, “See what he got for us"—just so
long will “ pork ’’ continue to thrive.
This is pretty broad, Mr. President, but in his remarks on the
river and harbor bill he put it still more broadly. As reported
in the IRECORD for August 3, page 6315, he made the following
Statement :
We might as well be perfectly frank about these little streams. Every-
body knows it. It is not for commerce, but to help elect men to Congress.
What is the use of going around the corner about that proposition ? A
man goes homo with an aſ propriation for Contentnea Creek or Podunk
Creek, or a public building, and he is tendered a great banquet, and
leading orators pronounce him the greatest statesman we have had in
modern times.
These statements, Mr. President, constitute an aspersion upon
the intelligence and an indictment of the integrity of the Army
engineers, of the Members of Congress in both Houses, and of
the people of the United States. As to the Army engineers, with-
16290–179.58
13
out whose sanction, made after thorough surveys and investiga-
tions, no waterway project has legislative status, I commend to
the Senator's attention the statement made by a gentleman of
his own political faith, the distinguished leader of the minority
in the House of Representatives, Mr. MANN, who is one of the
ablest, sincerest, and most industrious men in Congress, and one
who always makes sure of his facts. He says:
Whatever men may think about the merits of particular propositions
in a bill. there is no Iegislation which comes before Congress which is
so critically scanned by experts as are the river and harbor bills before
they reach the IIouse. *, *, * ... There are more processes involved, and
far more expert men, wholly disinterested, unbiased, uncontrolled by
politics, in reference to a river and harbor item than for any other legis-
lation provided by any legislative assembly in the world. (See CoN-
GREssióNAL REcofid, Jan. 22, 1917, pp. 1976, 1977.) -
Fifty Members of the Senate and 204 Members of the House
voted for the river and harbor bill. If the Senator means to
charge that all of these Senators and Representatives are guilty
of voting money out of the Treasury of the United States, riot
for commerce, but to aid in reelecting themselves to Congress,
then the Congress of the United States is composed of dishonest
men, for while such action may not technically violate any stat-
ute of the United States, I can see no difference morally between
a Senator or a Member of Congress who votes money out of the
Treasury for improper purposes in order to promote his own
political fortunes and one, in Congress or out of it, who would put
his hands into the pocket or the strong box of another man and
extract money therefrom. -
It is not my intention, Mr. President, to occupy the time of the
Senate much further. I ask permission to insert as a portion
of my remarks, without reading, an article entitled “The Water-
ways of the United States,” prepared by Mr. S. A. Thompson,
secretary and treasurer of the Naional Rivers and Harbors
Congress. This consists of three tables, with explanatory notes,
compiled from the reports of the Chief of Engineers, and the
recently enacted river and harbor bill, in which will be found
a great deal of valuable information. - £
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, permission
is granted.
[The article referred to will be found in the appendix to Mr.
RANSDELL’s remarks.]
Mr. RANSDELL. Table I gives, in a few lines, important
facts concerning the 535 waterways and harbors included in
the report of the Chief of Engineers for 1916, divided into
classes according to the tonnage carried, with the tonnage and
value of COmmerce carried by each class and the totalS for all
the classes. From this it appears that there were 229 water-
ways carrying less than 50,000 tons each, the aggregate tonnage
for this class being 3,900,689, valued at $142,732,347. There
were 5 waterways which carried over 50,000,000 tons each, the
aggregate tonnage being 368,431,468, valued at $13,459,281,805.
For all the waterways reported upon by the Chief of Engineers
the freight carried during the calendar year 1915 was 936,123,661
tons, valued at $32,947,954,545. *
An explanatory note makes it plain that this is not, and does.
not claim to be, a statement of the separate tons of freight
Carried. It is the sum of the tonnage carried on all the water-
Ways and harbors of the United States, and therefore contains
16290–17958
14
a considerable number of duplications. The most extreme in-
stance of this kind occurs in relation to the traffic between
Lake Superior and Lake Erie. Iron Ore, for instance, is in-
cluded no less than five times—first, when it is loaded at Du-
luth, Superior, or Marquette; then as it passes successively
through the “Soo " Canal, the St. Clair Flats Canal, and the
Detroit River; and finally When it is unloaded at Cleveland,
Conneaut, or Ashtabula.
Practically all the tonnage reported 'On the Great Lakes is
recorded twice, once when it is loaded at one port and again
when it is unloaded at another. But the total Commerce of the
ports on the Lakes can not be slown unless both receipts and
shipments are included and the standard depth in the channels
and harbors of the Lakes must be continuously maintained or
they can not be safely used by the splendid fleet of steamships
which have made the commerce of tho Lakes one of the modern
Wonders of the world.
If there are duplications on the one hand, on the other the
unavoidable Omissions are many in number and important in
amount, because the machinery for gathering statistics of water-
borne commerce in the United States is very far from being what
- it ought to be. For instance, the commerce, foreign and do-
mestic, handled at the great port of Boston undoubtedly amount-
ed to tens of millions of tons in Volume and to hundreds of
millions of dollars in value, but the only figures the Engineers
were able to secure were those showing the value of the foreign
Commerce of the port. The Mystic and Malden Rivers, in
Massachusetts, carried some 3,800,000 tons of freight, but for
more than half of this the value could not be ascertained, and
in scores of other instances the Engineers state that the com-
mercial statistics reported by them are incomplete.
In the official report on “Transportation by Water,” pub-
lished by the Census Bureau for 1906, attention is called to the
fact there were a very large number of small boats regularly
employed and carrying in the aggregate a large and increasing
traffic for which no statistics were gathered. Every one in the
least familiar with the facts knows that the number of motor
boats now in use is enormously greater than in 1906. I llave
been told that there are more than 1,000 on one waterway in
my own State of Louisiana—the Bayou Terrebonne. Besides
those who carry freight as a business there are large numbers of
farmers who use motor boats to Carry their produce to market
and bring home their supplies. In short, Mr. President, the
water roads are being used in the same ways as the wagon roads;
every one knows that the traffic in both cases is very large, but
it is a practical innpossibility to get a statement of the amount.
It will be seen, therefore, that the duplications in these tables
are largely, if not entirely, offset by the unavoidable omissions,
making the totals approximately Correct.
It is entirely natural, I Suppose, that our attention should be
attracted to the traffic handled in the great ports and on the
great waterways of the country, but we must not overlook the
fact that the smaller waterways and harbors, which are Scattered
all over our vast territory, and which, therefore, contribute to
the development and prosperity of every part of the United
States, carry a traffic which in the aggregate is enormous both
16:290–179.58
15
in volume and in value. It is shown by the tables, which I have
asked permission to insert in the RECORD, that there are 289
waterways and harbors which, in 1915, carried less than 100 000
tons each, and that the total amount of freight was 8,316,820
tons, valued at $252,968,679. What these figures really mean
will be more clearly understood when I say that they are prac-
tically equal to the combined tonnage handled by Portland, Me.,
New Bedford and Fall River, Mass., and New London and New
Haven, Conn., and to the aggregate value of the connmerce of the
six lake cities of Ashland, Marqugtte, Milwaukee, Toledo, San-
dusky, and Conneaut.
There were 90 waterways and harbors, having a combined
commerce of 129,482,329 tons, valued at $4,006,237,975, which
were included in the report of the Chief of Engineers but which
were not included, either directly or indirectly, in the rivers and
harbors act approved on August 8. Table II, therefore, shows
the same facts contained in Table I regarding the 445 waterways
which are mentioned in the rivers and harbors act, and in addi-
tion shows the really ridiculously small amount of the appro-
priations made in that act in proportion to the tonnage and the
value of the commerce carried. For instance, the appropriati
for the Waterways carrying less than 50,000 tons amounted º
Only thirty-two and seventy-six one-hundredths cents for eac
ton of freight handled and to eighty-seven one-hundredths of a
cent for each dollar of value. For the five waterways which
-carried over 50,000,000 tons of freight each the appropriation
amounted to only six-tenths of a cent for each ton of freight
and to One One-hundredth of a cent for each dollar of value.
And for the entire 445 waterways mentioned in the rivers and
harbors act the appropriation amounted, on the average, to only
three and twenty-six hundredths cents for each ton of freight
and to nine one-hundredths of a cent for each dollar of value.
A statement supplemental to Table II shows that if we ignore
the known omissions in the statistics reported by the engineers
and cut the totals absolutely in half in order to give full recog-
nition to all possible duplications the $27,826,150 appropriated
by the rivers and harbors act amounts to Only Six and eighty-one
one-hundredths cents for each ton of traffic and to nineteen one-
hundredths of a cent for each dollar of value of the commerce
Carried on the Waterways and harbors of the United States in
the calendar year 1915.
And this, Mr. President, is the bill which the Senator from
Iowa Spent days in denouncing, which the senior Senator from
Utah called “rotten,” the junior Senator from the same State
declared involved “temerity and indecency " on the part of
those who asked for Such appropriations, and which the senior
Senator from Idaho declared “could not be characterized in
parliamentary language l’”
Table III, while much longer than the other two, requires no
extended Comment. It is the foundation on which the other two
are based. It gives the name and location of all the waterways
and harbors included in the report of the Chief of Engineers for
1916, the amount and value of the commerce carried by each in
the calendar year 1915, and the amounts appropriated, either
for single projects or for groups of projects, in the 1917 rivers
and harbors act. The grouping used in that act is shown by
16290–17958
16
brackets and the projects which were omitted from the act or for
which no specific appropriations were made, although they were
included in a 'group, are indicated by asterisks.
So far as I know, Mr. President, no similar compilation of
ſacts relating to the waterways and harbors of the United States
has ever been made, and I regard it as of the greatest value, be-
cause it shows the magnitude of our water-borne commerce and
how insignificant in comparison are the appropriations carried
ill the annual rivers and harbors bills. Transportation is in-
portant in time of peace; it is absolutely vital in time of war.
Indeed, Secretary Baker says, and truly, “This is a war of trans-
portation.” Because our railroads are overtaxed, it may depend
upon our waterways whether our flag shall float in victory or go
down in disaster and defeat. It follows, therefore, that every
One who promotes the improvement, maintenance, and utilization
of our waterways is helping to win the war, while one who takes
the other course is imperiling the safety of the Nation and the
futuro of Civilization. -
APPENDIx.
O. WATERw AYS AND HARdors OF THE UNITED STATES.
N.N.AGE AND v ALUE OF COMMERCE CAItitled IN THE CALENDAR YEAlt 1915,
As REPORTED I; Y THE ARMY ENGINEERS, COMPARED WITH THE AIPPRO-
l'IRIATIONS CONTAINED IN THE RIVERS ANI). HAIRISORS ACT OF 1917.
| Compiled by S. A. Thompson, secretary and treasurer National Rivers
- and IIarbors Congress, Washington, D. C.] .
- 4 - 4.- : - g A * - - . M *
Once in 10 years the Census Bureau, publishes, a.special report on
“Transportation by water " , in the United Stătes, the one last issued
bearing date of 1908 and giving data for 1906. The Census Bureau
is now engaged in securing the data for a report covering the year
1916, which will be issued some time in 1918.
In December of each year a report is issued by the Chief g? Engineers,
which gives in great detail the operations of the Corps of Engineers for
the fiscal year ending on the preceding 30th of June, and including
statements showing the tonnage and value of the commerce handled oil
each of the waterways and harbors of the United States during the pre- .
ceding calendar year. The latest published report of the Chief of Engi-
neers was issued in December, 1916, and the commercial Statistics given
therein refer to the calendar year 1915. - g
In the reports of the Chief of Engineers, and during the consideration
of rivers and harbors bills in Congress as well, the hundreds of water-
ways in the United States are reported on or discussed separately, but
no summing up is made which gives the main facts concerning all the
waterways. There are few things outside the realm of mathematics as
to which there is not room for an honest difference of opinion, but
criticism, to be intelligent and constructive, must be based upon a
knowledge of all the facts. Much of the indiscriminate and destruc-
tive criticism which has been uttered against rivers and harbors bills
has been due to a failure to realize the magnitude of the interests in-
volved and the insignificance of the appropriations made in proportion
to the volume and value of the traffic carried. These facts are clearly
shown in the following tables. e
In Table I the 535 waterways and harbors included in the latest
report of the Chief of Engineers have been divided into nine classes
according to the tonnage carried, the number of waterways in each
class is stated and the volume and value of the commerce carried is given
for each class separately and for all the classes combined.
1G290–17958
17
TABLE I-Waterways and harbors included in the Report of the ºt Of
Engineers for 1916, classified according to tonnagá carried, with $on-
#. and valuc of commierce carried by cach class and totals for all
(*! (18808.
CAI. ENDAR YEAR 1915.


Number Freight carried by each class.
in Classification.
class. Tons.l Value.
Waterways carrying (tons):*
229 Less than 50,000. -------- - - - - - - - - - - - 3,900,689 $142,732,347
60 50,000 to 100,000.---------..... ------| 4,416, 131 110,236,332
117 iod,000 to sº,000.................... 28,093, 170 594,778,450
39 fºod to 1,000,000.................. 26,630,356 799,537, 182
54 iº,000 to 5,060,000................ 121,388,087 4,370,659,484
16 5,000,000 to 10,000,000............... 115,176,269 3,805,165,962
12 10,000,000 to 25,000,000.............. 173, 114,093 7,690,902,260
3 25,000,000 to 50,000,000.............. 94,973,398 1,974,660,723
5 Over 50,000,000.... ................. 368,431,468 13,459,281,805
535 Total.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936,123,661 32,947,954,545

1 Oſ 2,000 pounds.
There were 90 waterways and harbors having a combined commerce
of 129,482,329 tons valued at $4,006,237,975, which were included in
the report of the Chief of lºngineers, but which were not included,
either directly or indirectly, in the 1917 rivers and harbors act. Table
II gives ither same facts with reference, to the 445 waterways, and har-
bors for which provision was māde, either directly or indirectly, in the
rivers and harbors act, and in addition shows, for each class with
averages for all the classes, the number of tons and the value of the
commerce carried for each dollar of the appropriation made, and also
the amount appropriated for each ton of freight and dollar of value
of the commerce carried.
16290–17958—2
TABLE II.--Waterways and harbors of the United States mentioned in the rivers and harbors act of 1917, showing tonna
different classes in the calendar year 1915, with totals; the appropriations for each class, and total; the number of tons, a
dollar appropriated, with aver
c and value of commerce carried by the
their valuc, carried by each class for each
ages; and the number of cents appropriated for each ton of traffic and each dollar of value carried by the different classes, with
averages, calendar year 1915. - - .
Each dollar appro- Amount appropri-
º priated represents— ated equals-
Number totaliºlatl valusoriºlent ###,
O e º Otal Irelgnt, U19 Of Irel 1OnS T1V6IS -
Water- Freight carried, net tons. net tons. jº" | .
ways e act of 1917 For each | For each
e e Tons. Value. ton of | dollar of
freight. value.
- - Cent8 ©
197 || Less than 50,000............. • * * * * e s e º e s e s - e. e. e. e s is e s - 3,381,119 $126,342,349 $1,107,800 3.05 $114.04 32.76 0.87
53 || 50,000 to 100,000..................................... 3,908,952 101,972,581 390, 10.01 261.33 9.98 .37
92 || 100,000 to 500,000.............................. e e s • * * 21,250, 501 508,859,965 4,079,600 5.20 124.73 23.90 .80
33 500,000 to 1,000,000.................................. 22,658,074 770,676, 524 2,066,000 10.96 373. 02 9. 11 .26
35 | iſoº),000 to 5,000,000.......I.I.I.I. tº e e e º 'º - e º e º e sº e º 'º' 83,424,474 3,213,711,389 5,324,200 15. 66 603. 6.38 . 16
15 || 5,000,000 to 10,000,000..................... e = e º ºs e s = e e 109,420, 167 3,658,079, 102 7,967, 150 13.73 459. 14 7.28 .21
9 || 10,000,000 to 25,000,000.............................. 127,482, 115 5,617,460,862 1,219,000 || 104.57 || 4,608. 57 .95 .02
2 || 25,000,000 to 50,000,000.................... & e º e s tº e º 'º e 66,684,462 1,485,331,993 1,915,000 34.47 775.63 2.87 . 12
5 || Over 50,000,000...................... tº e º e e º e º e s = e s e e 368,431,468 13,459,281,805 2,245,500 164. 07 5,993.89 .60 .01
445 Total.------------------------- e e º e º e º sº e º e º e º 'º' 806,641,332 28,941,716,570 26,314,450 || 136. 12 || 1 1,099.84 13.26 1.09
*Average.
&

19
It should be clearly understood that the totals of tonnagg_stated, in
these tables is not, and doc's not claim to be, a statement of the separate
tons of freight händled. They represent the sum of the tonnagg re-
ported by the crgineers on the different waterways and harbors of the
United $tates, and, because of the conditions, under which they are
gathered, they involve both duplications and omissions.
The most extreme instance of duplication occurs in relation to the
traffic between Lake Superior and Lake Erie. Iron ore, for instance, is
included no loss than five times. First, when it is loaded, at Duluth,
Superior, or Marquette: then as it passes successively through the
“Soo " Canal, the St. Clair flats Canal, and the Detroit Rivºl: ;, and
finally when 'it is unloaded at Cleveland, Conneaut, or . Ashtabula:
Practically all the tonnage reported on the Great Lakes, is recorded
twice—onco when it is loaded at one port, and again when it is unloaded
at another. But the total commerce of the ports, on the Great Lakes
can not be shown unless the receipts and the shipments are both in-
cluded, and the standard depth in the channels and harbors of the
Lakes must be continuously maintained or they can not be safely used .
iy the great steamships in which the commerce of the Lakes is carried.
If there are duplications on the one hand, on the other the unavoid-
able omissions are many in number and important in amount, because
the machinery for gathering statistics of water-borne commerce in the
United States is very far from heing what it ought to be. For instance,
the commerce, forcign and domestic, handled at the great port of Boston
undoubtedly amounted to tens of milions of tons in volume and to hun-
dreds of millions of dollars in value ; but the only figures the ongineers
were able to secure were those showing the value of the forcign com-
morce of the port. The Mystic and Malden Rivers, in Massachusetts,
carried some 3,800,000 tons of freight, but for more than half of this
the value could not be ascertained, and in scores of other instances the
§. state that the commercial statistics reported by them are in-
Complete.
In the official report on Transportation by Water, published by the
Census Bureau for the year 1906, it is said : * -
“The limitation of the census to vessels of 5 tons or over results in
the exclusion of a large number of steam, gasoline, and electric launches
©ngaged in the regular freight and passenger traffic on the lakes, bays,
and rivers of the country. The number of these small vessels has in:
greased very rapidly during recent years, and their aggregate annual
business has now assumed considerable proportions.”
Every one in the least familiar with the facts knows that the number
of motor boats now in use is vastly greator than it was in 1906. Not
9nly are they regularly used in carrying freight and passengers for hire,
but there are many farmers who use motorijoats to carry their produce
to market and bring back their supplies. ... The traffic on the waterways
of the country, like the traffic on its highways, is known to every one
to be enormous in volume ; but it is a practical impossibility to secure
exact statistics as to the tonnage. It will be scen, therefore, that the
duplications in these tables are largely, if not entirely, offset by the
omissions so that the totals are approximately correct.
If, however, the omissions contained in the statistics reported by the
ºngineers are ignored entirely and the totals given are ºut square in
two in, Qrder to give full recognition to all possible duplications, the
$27,826,150 appropriated by the rivers and harbors act of 1917 amounts
to º 6.81 cents for each ton of traffic and to less than one-fifth of a
cent (nineteen one-hundredths) for each dollar of value of the com-
merce carried on the waterways and harbors of the United States in the
calendar year 1915.
The sum of the appropriations for the different classes of waterways
included in Table III is $26,314,456, while the total of the appropria-
tions contained in the rivers and harbors act is $27,826,150. The fol.
lowing statement shows the purposes for which the difference of
$1,511,700 was appropriated.
4 dolitional appropriations in 1917 rivers and harbors act.
Projects for which no commerce was reported (S new,
4 Old ---------------------- $1, §: 70
{
{}
Examinations, surveys, and contingencies-III-IIIII.III.III 225,000
Waterways Commission-li- gº sº * * - - - - * * * * * * * * 100, 000
Removing water hyacinths.--III-III-IIIT III IIITIIIIIII :30, 000
§overnment, iron pier at Lewes, Dell'IIIIII III IIIIIII IIII 68,000
Expenses of purchase or condemnation of Capo Cod and
Chesapeake and Delaware Canals—ll-ll-lº - T. T. 10, 000
Total.------------------------------------------ 1, 511, 700
Table_III, while much longer than the other two, requires little Com-
ment. In it will be found the name and the geographical location of
1628) () - 1795S **
20
every waterway and harbor mentioned either. In , the report of the
Chief of Engineers or the rivers and harbors act, with the amount and
value of the commerce carried thereon in the calendar year 1915. The
grouping of projects in the rivers and harbors act is shown by brackets
and the asterisks indicate projects for which no appropriation was
made.
TABLE: III.-Name and location of the waterways and harbors of the
United States, volume and value of commerce handled
in 1915, com-
pared with appropriations in the rivers and harbors act of 1917.

Name and location of im-
Commerce for 1915.
Appropriation in
ºp
rivers and
provement. Freight, net Estimated bors bill.
tons. value. -
MAINE.
*St. Croix River.............. 146,754 $1,872,889
*Bar Harbor.................. ,455 1,440,965
*Bass Harbor-----------------|----------------|-------.........
*Deer Island Thoroughfare....]................]................
*Penobscot River. . . . . . . . . . . . . 432,436 4,984,022
*Rockland Harbor............ 552,132 13,842,067
*Thomaston bor---------- 13,188 250,000 " . - -
*Kennebec River............- 275,950 3,515,500 *
Portland Harbor - s e º 'º e º 'º' º e º º 'º º 2, 990, 076 145, 884, 161 Completing im-
ºvement, $300,
*Saco River................... 65,708 325,000
Total.------------------- 4,515,699 172,114,604
MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
*Isles of Shoals Harbor........ 2,225 56,175
NEW HAMPSHIRE,
*Portsmouth Harbor.......... 490,447 2,475,675
MASSAcHUserrs. -
*Newburyport Harbor........ 174,887 962,480
*Merrimack River............ 89,529 y
*Sandy Bay Harbor of Refuge................................
*Gloucester Harbor........ • * * 275,757 3,340,334
*Beverly Harbor.............. 473,455 3,439,674
*Salem Harbor................ 97,378 281,030
#. jºiá; nitivers.... 385,761 1,539, 199
ySt1C and Maiden Itivers. ... 3,784,789 19,960,089 e
*Dorchester Bay and Neponset 'íš. iſitºi, Fºº, ºintenance,
River. $24,000.
*Weymouth Fore River....... 148, 149 976,695
*Weymouth Back River...... y 4,616,218
*Plymouth Harbor........... 37, 103 214,992
*Provincetown Harbor........]............................... *
*Boston Harbor...............[................ 2289, 927,436
*Chelsea Creek. ............... 385,982 ,267,
*Fort Point Channel.......... 1,356,087 19,574,769
*Pollock Rip Shoals...........]............................. e -
*Hyannis Harbor............. 3,891 86,783
*Nantucket Harbor........... 45,836 1,968,137
*Woods Hole Channel......... 59,925 3,714,068
*Woods Hole Harbor......... 18,265 596,956
*Woods Hole Strait........... 41,660 3, 117, 112
*New jord and Fairhaven 1,626,226 ,408,202
àII)OTS. * * . .
*Taunton River............... 107,968 454,011
*Fall River Harbor........... ,393,654 57,838,257
Total.. * * * * * * > e º e º e º e º e * 18,393,875 462,924,553
*Value of 1,909,025 tons not obtainable.
3 Forei
Commerce only; domestic arrivals and clearances 21,230, gross tomage
25,771,018. Average receipts of coal, º:7500000net tons.
* Includes 7,500,
16290–17958
tons of Coal for Boston
arbor.
21
TAIRLE III.-Name and location of thc watericays and harbors of the
United States, etc.—Continued.

Commerce for 1915.
N - ilm- Appropriation in
Samºorin - * -- ~ 4. 1917 rivers and
Freight, net Iºstimatcd harloors bill.
tons. valuc.
RHODE ISLAND.
*Pawtucket River............ 458,362 $5,677,875
†. R §: and Harbor. 3, § #: * #. §
€ rt 8T r • * * * * * * * * * * * * p & y
*Point Judith Harbor of Refuge!............. ---|- - - - - - - …
*Entrance to Point Judith Pondſ. -----...--------|----. . . . . . . . . . . .
*Block Island Harbor of Refuge 5,976 238,986
*Great Salt Pond............. 9,6 , 656
Total * * * * - - - - - - tº s º ºs e º 'º e e 4,436,738 302,931, 787
Rlſo DE ISI.AND AND CONNEC-
TICUT.
Pawcatuck River. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,073 494, 752
* * * - =========--------|For maintenance,
CONNECTICUT. N: 'i.ondon H
*Sionington Harbor of Refuge.................!................ ºr, *:::::::::::: -
ğ. . * * * * * * * * * * * * = e s = e 49,888 144,412 improvement,
Nºbor.......... ;#| ||}}}}}}| *.
Connecticut River....I.I.I.I. tº 33.35.&#| For improvement
and maintenance,
*Puck Island Harbor of Refugel................................ * $70,100.
*Branford Harbor............ 2,227 145, 503
New Haven Harbor......... gº tº 1,732,356 99,561.037
*Milford Harbor...I.I.I.I.I.I.I. ’’I3.31. * 33,335
Housatonic River............. 131,583 1,549,335 -
§§ # º • * * * * * c e s is e e 1, 135,623 71,061,781 Fº 1 plaintenance,
§ºſitiº ºft| *::::: *
Stamford Harbor.............. 356.738 17,843,810
*Southport Harbor............ * 20 1,
Greenwich Harbor............ 96,632 2,656,780
*Yºgi: Harbor and Sauga- 6,033 25,857
VCr.
Total.................... 5,681,885 393,525,032
V ERMONT.
*Burlington Harbor........... 23.284 2.219,900 ||
*St. Albans Harbor........... '44 f 33,000
Total.......------------- 23,728 225,000 ||Fºintenance,
- - - --> -t º' s" TM U" Narrows of Lakc
NEW YORK AND VERMONT. Champlain, for
Narrows of Lake Champlain... 437,791 5,425, 524 } §º. vement,
Fº 'Henry i.
w • --- - - - - - - __|| bor, completing
NEW YORK. improvement,
*Plattsburg Harbor........... 6.808 971,250 || $71,500.
Port Henry Harbor...........}........... :.........: -
º: Chester Harbor......... 206,556 9,976,999
kE jºi IIarbor......... 57,583 1,132,866 ||EastChester Creek,
East %i. º: * * * * * * * * * * * * 104,518 2,042,530 iſ completing in-
twº. č. * * * * * * * * * * * "; § ! £; pro v c m ent,
*Bronx River ...... ........... l 1,164,000 1. 1,733,725 y
1 Included in totals for New Y
16:290––17958
ork Bay and l Iarbor.
22
TABLE III.-Name and location of the waterways and harbors of the
United States, etc.—Continued.

Commerce for 1915.
Name and location of im- Aº Pºiº ań
provement. Fre; net Fººted harbors bill.
OnS. Vºl.IU19.
NEW YORK–continued.
:...i #. º e º e s tº e s tº e º e 3. ; *; ; ;
Rondout Harbor............. • *, * v- 9 For tenan
I'eekskill Harbor.............. 53, 3,777,619 §§."Iºl ce,
*Tarrytown Harbor........... 102,251 1,637,341
*Wappinger Creek. ........... 43,315 5,259,423
*I’ort Jeffcrson Harbor. . . . . . . . 20,746 1,132,325
*Mattituck IIarbor............ 1,312 4, 8
*Huntington Harbor.......... 42,863 260,722
*Hempstead Harbor. ......... 3,644,716 1,687,441
*Great South Bay............. 18,434 32,
*Browns Creek................ 8,998 97,375
*Hudson River................ 3,211,739 59, 197,000
*Lock at Troy................. 332,213 5,691, 100
Total ------------------- 18,418,683 || 1 97,683,290 *
NEW YORK BAY AND HARBOR. Now York Harbor: .
Ambrose, Main Ship, and 217,885,893 |* 2,216,337,518 For maintenance
Gedney Channel [), - of entrance chan-
v Ú S.
hº ; and Red Hook 10,416, 118 520,805,900 |) nels : º
a Dºnel S. provemen O
Coney Island Channel......... 750,867 7,049,795 º $% r bay,
Hudson River Channel........] 63,458,291 6,410,144,119 || For improvement,
East River and Hell Gate..... 74, 178,177 || 4, 192,206,408 Fº §§§"
© g
*Wallabout Channel.......... 1,245,689 15,660,163 | "...” ”
*Gowanus Creek Channel..... 658,000 354,000.
*Harlem River............... º 15,096, 169 1,538, 506, 583
*Newtown Creek............. tº 5,756, 102 147,086.860
*Flushing Bay................ 677,460 1,006, 295
*Jamaica Bay. • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 750, 867 7, 049, 795
*Sheepshead Bay............. 11,654 82,756
*Staten Island Sound . . . . . . . . . 28,288,936 489,328,730 -
Channel between Staten Is- {................l.............. ...; New project,
land and Hoffman and ,000.
Swinburne Islands.
Total................... ** 220,699,023 || 415,548,626,371
NEW JERSEY. -
*Newark Bay and Passaic
River----------------------- 4,240,297 97,098,474
*Hackensack River........... 795,563 2,731,544
Woodbridge Creek............ 67,610 305,740 ||
Raritan Bay.................. 10,137,890 137,298,379
Keyport Harbos.............. 59,790 ,855,0
§º:::::::::::: tº 1.1#. go.1#.
In Hºlwer--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - *. g
# º: • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ‘ī; '; ..., ||F§s ºntenance,
WI128106 iver...... ----- • • e w 027 2 wwwe
*. Harbor and Compton 20, 598 23,560
68k.
*Cheesequake Creek........... 23,402 158,437
Shrewsbury River............ 141,012 3,993,348 -
1. Not including New jºk Bay and Harbor or Lake Ontario harbors.
* Foreign commerce only.
y .
*Includes East Chester and Westchester Creeks and Bronx River, which are also
within the city limits of New York, but are separately grouped in the rivers ºn.
harbors bill.
* These figures represent, not the º tons of freight handled in New York
Harbor and their value,
different channels. From the
but the tota
of the tonnage and value reported for the
he best information obtainable it ap p r
that the total
traffic amounted to about 115,000,000 tons, with a value of $8, ,000,000.
16290–17958
23
TABLE III.-Name and location of thc acatcrucays and harbors of the
United States, etc.—Continued.

***
Namc and location of im-
Commerce ſor 1915.
Appropriation in
§§ º and
provement. Freight, net | Estimated harbors bill.
tonS. value.
NEW JERSEY-continuod.
\§ River.................. *i; **; -
000 burv Creek.............. é 38, º
*Mantua Creek..............-- 145,353 1,731,320 *... ºntenance.
Raccoon Creek........ e e º e º e s & 89,6; 844,290 Maurice River
Oldmans Creek-----...-------- 60,438 .423, S75 for i vement
*Salem River..... ------------- 73,980 1.Nº || "..."?'." tº:
Alloway Creek---------------- 19,343 §§§ { ..."º."
Cohansov River--------------. 63,802 §5, §§ nance, #20,000.
Maurice River.---------------- 195,160 1,519,598
. jºinist:::::::::::: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Absecon Inlet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 237 3.025. 105 || 1s sº
*Absecon Creek...............* 3.6% 'iº ||Fºntenance,
Tuckerton Creek.............. 21,997 56; Iſ ‘35,000.
*Toms River........ tº e º ºs e º ºs º a gº 4,997 30,750
Total.................... 17,672,351 330,083,126
NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYL- • * *-*... • *-* - sº e- - -ºs.
VANIA,
Delaware River:
At Trenton::::::::::::-----|--..............!..........------
Trcnton to Philadelphia .. 1,782,422 16, 196,779 || For maintenance,
NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, y
AND DELAWARE,
Delaware River:
Philadelphia to the sea.... 26, 189,790 1,116,529,839 For , improvement
- and tenance,
$1,870,000.
Total, Delaware River.. 27,972,212 1,132,720,618
PENNSYLVANIA. e
*Marcus Hook, ice harbor.... 7,400 2,110,000
Schuylkill River. .............................}................ New project,
$300,000.
1) ELAWARE. *-****** {
Harbor of refuge, Delaware
*y----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilmington Harbor........... 389,713 93,095,494 *% ºntenance.
Government iron pier, near 3. .
WeS. . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For maintenance
and repair,
*Appoquinimink River....... 129,775 11,422,425 y
Murderkill River.............. 32,945 1,012,955
Mispillion River............... 31,778 1,014,346
*Sm River.--------------. 18,580 470,418 ||For maintenance,
*Leipsic River................ 12,462 248, 3.
*Little River.................. 5,889 107,047
*St. Jones River............... 7,063 171,480
Broadkill River............... 5,879 91,915
Waterway between Rehoboth 13,655 ,239 || For improvement
Bay and Delaware Bay.
* Total......... tº tº tº º tº e º ºs e º e
16290––170.58
547,739
1 For 1914.
98,537,339
and maintenance,
3.
TABLE III.-Name and , location of the waterways and harbors of the
24
United States, etc.—Continued.

16290–17958
- Commerce for 1915.
Name and location of im- Aºpºlº
provement. Freight, net || Estimated harbors bill.
tonS. value.
DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND
VIRGINIA.
Waterway from Delaware Bay 10,601 $247,568 For maintenance,
to Chincoteague Bay. $1,000.
MARYLAND.
*Susquehanna River.......... 200,990 1,944,605
Bºmore Harbor and Chan- 15,762,942 452,040,202 || For ama.
IlêIS. 3Dl
ment, $354,000.
*Rockhall Harbor............. 18,096 514,630 ||
Queenstown Harbor.......... 18,670 323,907
Claiborne Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 1,592,780
*Tilghman Island Harbor..... 19,546 499,820
*Cambridge Harbor........... 87,384 1,631,616
*Crisfield Harbor.............. S357,335 5,197,650
*Elk and Little Elk RiverS. - . 44,933 168,376
*Choster River................ 40,932 ,960
Corsica River................. 44,300 642,600
*Choptank River............. 49,586 2,540,465
*Tuckahoe River............. 2,208 171,
*Warwick River.............. 8,541 383,670
*La Trappe River.------------ 6,949 340,750
*Tred Avon River............ 25,872 936,
*Wicomico River............. 96,253 2,717,635
#...º.º............. §| 1:
OCOIIl Oke bël VCT - - - - - - - - - - - - - e e
*Slaughtor Creek.............. 32,800 i. iść º, maintenanco,
Tyaskin Creek---------------- 6,334 194,440 J)
*Broad Creek. ................ 13,503 314,300
*Twitch Cove and Big Thor-
oughfare River............ -- 5,237 181,065
Lower Thoroughfare, Deal .
Island. --------------------- 13,580 218,430
Total. ------------------ 16,927,567 476,303,436
DELAWARE AND MARYLAND. J -
*Nanticoke River............. 38,341 1,287,525
*NW. Fork Nanticoke River.. 13,268 299,605
DELAWARE.
*Broad Creek River........... 37,141 312,845 ||
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
*Anacostia River.............. 27,787 19,430,232 f
Potomac River, at Washing- 741,170 10,138,231
ington.
MARYLAND.
Potomac River, at Lower
Cedar Point.---------------. 2,698 141,400 || For ºntenance.
VIRGINLA. pvurve
*PotomacKiver, at Alexandria. y 3,121,869
*Occoquan Creek.............. 57,739 259,351
*Aquia Creek. ................ 1,4 79,020
*Upper Machodoc Creek...... 11,528 215,655
*Nomini Creek................ 18,928 451,831 ||
25
1 Included in North Carolina totals below.
16290–17958 .
TABLE III.-Name and location of the waterways and harbors of the
Unºted States, etc.—Continued.
Commerce for 1915.
Name and location of im- * #Pºlº ai
& vement. e
pro Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
tonS. value.
VIRGINIA—continued.
Norfolk Harbor and channels.. 21,712,166 || $2,042,335,814 }*g improvement
Channel to Newport News- 7,337,332 | "333,333,305 tº: 9
#:#. River. -- - - - - - - *; # 6, §§
taponi River.------------- 9 * * g
fºr............. 47,004 ###|Fºntenance
*Urbana Creek- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16, 527 339, 861 y *
*Milford Haven Harbor------- 7,933 402,210 |
For maintenance,
James River. ----------------- 526,468 51,899,841 26,000.
Nansemond River.----------- 50,351 570,738 (Continuing im-
*Pagan River:---------------- 49, 194 12,089,700 rovement of
Appomattox River------------ 46,600 3,318,908 ames River,
*Thimble Shoals Channel. . . . . 4,333,494 264,197,082 g
*Cape Charles § Harbor. . . . 3,093,388 203,418,929
*Waterway on the coast of 32,262 63,96
Virginia.
*Onancock River.------------. 21,046 1,640, 525
*Blackwater River.-- - - - ------- ,622 337,
Total.------------------- 37,792, 164 || 3,031, 190,298
For maintenance,
NORTH CAROLINA. ,500.
*Meherrin River.............. 123,836 1,354,428
Roanoke River................ 188,295 12,226,858
VIRGINIA AND NORTH CARO-
LINA. .* -
Watcrway, Norfolk to Beau- 158,644 4,316,776 For improvement
fort Inlet. $100,000.
*Waterway, Norfolk to North 413,679 10,310,650 &
Carolina Sounds.
NORTH CAROLINA.
Manteo Bay------------------ 12, 110 557,551 ||
Scuppernong River........... 9,448 389,478
Pamlico and Tar Rivers...... 286,716 3,937, 502
*South River................. 34,643 219,932
†. #. * * * * e º e º 'º e = e s e º sº º gº º ; § 6 399, 143
CºllSC Rºl V6T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 429, 5 , 240, 511
Trent River.------------------ 183, 611 ###|}ºisºn”
*Fishing Creek................ 2,450 34,926 2 www. sº
Contentnca Creek -----------. 9,607 146,975
*Swift Creek------------------ 15, 572 111,826
*Smith's Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,896 145,928
*Waterway from Swan Quar- 12,726 473, 181
ter Bºy to Deep Bay. d
ookout. IIarbor of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Refuge. tº -
Waterway from Pamlico 140,093 2,162,199 |
Sound to Beaufort Inlet.
Beaufort Harbor.............. 169,712 2,948,604
r #. City #: Core #. ; ;
aterway connec Ore y y e
• Sound and Beaufort Harbor. F§s fºntenance,
Beaufort Inlet................. 119,585 1,112,937 psevve
Inland waterway from Beau-
fort to Jacksonville, N. C.:
*Beaufort to Swansboro.... 40,320 563,133
*Swansboro to New River.. 13,013 190,155
*Swansboro to Jacksonville. 30,613 216,543

a
26
Unit ca. States, etc.—Continued.
TABLE III.--Nunc and location of the watcruca us and harbors of the
Name and location of im-
provement.
NORTH CAROLINA--continucd.
Northeast River. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black River...................
Cape Fear River:
*Above Wilmington........
At and below Wilmington.
*Shallotte River..............
Total
* * * * * * * * * * e º º is sº tº e º ºs
SOUTII CAROLINA.
Charleston Harbor and chan-
mels,including Ashkey River.
Winyah Bay..................
*Waccamaw River............
*Little Podec River...........
Great Podoc River............
*Santoc River and Estherville-
Minim Creek Canal.
*Inland waterway from
Charleston to Alligator Creek.
SOUTII CAROLINA, GEORGIA,
AND FLORIDA. -
Waterway from Beaufort, S.C.
to St. Johns River, Fla:
Bcauſort to Savannah.....
Savannah to Fernandina..
*Fernandina to St. Johns
River.
Total
GEORGIA.
Savannah Harbor.............
Savannah River:
*Above Augusta..........
Below Augusta...........
Brunswick Harbor............
Altamaha River..............
Oconee River.................
Ocmulgee River.........------
*Sapelo Harbor-------........
Darien Harbor..... * e º e º e º ºs e º s
*Cowhead River..............
Satilla River..................
*Club and Plantation Creeks..
Fancy Bluff Creek............
* * * * * * * * * * tº e s tº e º e s tº
e s e º e º e º 'º g º £ tº a tº tº e º e
GEORGIA AND FLORIDA.
St. Marys River...............
Commorce for 1915.
1 Includes two North Carolina items above.
1 (52*)()—- 174);S
-----_| Appropriation in
g 1917 rivers and
Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
{ OnS. value.
For maintenance,
68, 116 $1.263,962 2 wºrve
22,534 312,255 || Cape Fear. River
- below Wilming-
100,030 1,675,002 ton, completing
709,570 46,638,404 improvement,
- $35,000.
6,290 308,762
12,578,927 178,270,026
For maintenance,
2,314,250 222,881,814 $50,000.
- For §ovement,
$70,000.
183,746 4.900,821
3,648 1,203,579 || For, maintenance,
1,442 72,703 $70,000. §
15,758 446,956
25,376 770,902 || Congaroo River, for
maintenance and
s sº e e º ºs e e º e º a tº e º ºr as s = e s e e s sº e s = n e º e improvement,
,324 3. $80,000.
10,818 425,307
2,639,362 231,358,633
62,496 %%% Ilfor improv -
157,932 §§§ ||*ºnº
58,187 233,290 iſ ºnce ºoºo.
278,615 5,976,610
2,890,130 420,08,304 ſºis.”
Savannah Harbor
8,643 77,182 9
52,874 4.1%;| ºvement,
500,911 44,675,521 || For maintenance,
$33,250.
76,763 967,205 || For maintenance
41,925 484,09 and improve-
,645 1,127.556 || ment, $40,000.
7,660 58,955
80,373 908,782
483 34,360
67,398 723,447
30,067 315,256 ge te
2,513 84,882 ||For, maintenance,
$12,500.
3,793,385 473,692,676
| i
100,894 1,139,717

|
27
TABLE III.-Name and location of the watcrºca
United States, etc.—Continued.
ye and harbors of the

Commerce for 1915.
Name and location of im- *ºn ań
provement. Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
- tons. value.
Florida;
*Fernandina Harbor.......... 161,143 $2,732, 197
St. Johns River: . . - r
Jacksonville to the ocean.. 2,313,446 61,022,944
::::::::::::::::::::::: *##| *ś
*Jacksonville to Palatka... & y §
*Palatka to Lake Harney. iši,437 Šč;|Fºntenance,
*Lake Crescent and “Dumns - y
Creek------------ ----------- 19,310 260,682 -
Oklawaha River...... Nº º e º e º ºs '• ‘e 29,393 234,786. for * ,
- | For maintenance
Indian River:------ tº ºs e º e º ºs e s e e 36,966 1,974,239 || $6,000. 9
*St. Lucie Inlet--------------------------------............... Miami ... Harbor,
Miami Harbor......... - - - - - - - - 388,812 4,746,689. completing im-
*Kcy West Harbor............ . 1,069,177 27,308, 195 prove ment,
Kissimmee River.............. 73,565 1,164,015 y
Caloosahatchee River......... 69,340 1,980,014
*Orange River..... ........... 3,490 43,300
§: º: -ti---------- *; ; ,729
r S 'av wer- •te's • * -- • -tº e º 'º º l 81 430 - - .
#; River...I.I.I. 20, 789 155, 185 fºil ºntenance.
*Suwaned River.............. 7,685 139, 525 pvvv, *
*Charlotte Harber............. 347,368 2,149,358
*Sarasota Bay................. 8,554 585,
*Clearwater Harbor and Boca
Ceiga Bay------------------- 3, 2 166,444
Tampa Bay------............. 1,829,540 44,319,230 || For maintenance,
Hillsboro Bay................. 1,251,027 34,699,112 &
St. Petersburg Harbor........ 16,486 £79, G23 |}Hillsboro Bay; for
*Hillsboro River.............. ,077 6,756,533 || improve ment,
Manatee River................ 41,829 1,277,059 y
*Carrabelle Bar and Barbor.... 14,851 .940,015 ) -
Apalachicola Bay............. 22,947 1,462,948
*St. Josephs Bay.......... * = • - 3,438 48,051
St. Andrew's Bay.-----------. ge 130,479 3,355,902
A. Cola River.... -------. #. # 7, ; ;
pola River.---------------- , U80 &
Channel from Apalachicola ’775 ##||Fº: ºntenance,
River to St. Andrews Bay. * : Apatachicola and
- ;--;
Total.------------------- 111,151,821 287,317,400 || #Pºº.
... GEORGIA. . . ment, $18,000.
*Flint River........---------. 23,603 1,696,848
GEORGIA AND ALABAMA.
*Chattahoochee River.... ----. 70,105 7,869,299
Florida. - 3 3 '' .
Holmes River................. 214,477 - ? 787,508
*Blackwater River........ • * > * *131, 118 $2,048,353 . . . . . .
*Narrowsin Santa Rosa Sound. 9 32,461, 173 . . . . .
*Pensacola Harbor tº gº tº gº tº º ge e s is e s e 2 871, 166 2 23, 095, 884 For maintenance,
FLORIDA AND ALABAMA. g • * sº,500; º'
Choctawhatchee River........ 30,466 1,019,627
Escambia and Conecuh Rivers. 85,000 850,000
1 Includes 4 Florida items below.
*Included in Florida total above.
16290–17958
28
TABLE III.-Namc and location of thc cat crucays and harbors of the
United States, cte.—Continued.
Name and location of im-
provement.
ALABAMA.
Mobile Harbor.................
*Mobile Bar...................
Channel connecting , Mobile
Bay and *:::::3% Sound.
*Black Warrior and Tombig-
bee Tivers.
Alabama River................
ALABAMA AND GEORGIA.
*Coosa River..................
AI.ABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.
Tombigbee River:
From mouth to Demopo-
lis.
Demopolis to Walkers
Bri ge.
MISSISSIPPI.
Pascagoula Harbor and chan-
nCls.
*Leaf River......... - - - - - - - - - -
*Chickasahay River...........
Pascagoula River.............
*Wolf and Jordan Rivers......
Gulfport Harbor and Ship
Island Pass.
Yazoo River..................
Tallahatchic and Coldwater
Rivers.
Big Sunflower River..........
*Tchula Lake.................
*Steele and Washington Ba-
yous and Lake Washington.
*Bear Creek...................
Total..........--------.
I.OUISIANA.
Passes at the mouth of the
Mississippi River.
*Bayou La Fourche...........
Bayou Terrebonne
Bayou Grosstete..............
Bayou Plaquemine, Grand
iver, and Pigeon Bayous.
*Plaquemine Lock............
Bayou Teche.................
*Keystone Lock, Bayou
16290–17958
Commerce for 1915.
Appropriation in
1917 rivers and
Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
tonS. value.
* --, Iſ Ror maintenance
1,579. 804 $46,440,771 y
’873,236 3,154,764 | #, sº
82,744 £98,947 Fº: maintenance,
466,812 4,004,241 }vvve
76, 117 3,831,064
& im-
3,152,063 ITs, poºr ſº
or maintenance,
y
49,074 1,955,737
250,092 3,060,052 For maintenance,
34,233 401,752 | For 'maintenance,
3.
102,851 910,570 || For improvement
and in a in te -
- - nance, $113,000.
114,600 401,200
1,800 168,500
123,690 601,050
§§ º: For , maintenance,
85, 162 706,775 3.
54,512 573,917
490,079 5,470,303 || For improvement
all mainte-
nance, $80,000.
84,858 3, 183,603
59,439 2,311,489
57,410 1,094,683 ||For maintenance,
744 35,902 || $20,000.
2,286 42,781
2,850 24,628
1,317,587 17,346,054
——
6.536, 132 308,825,630 || For improvement
| and maintenance,
f $1,825,000.
242, 167 4,079, 114
158,841 3,578, 182
142,344 650, 808
738, 142 8,085,899 ||For maintenance,
99,746 2,424,441 y
510,695 6,091,468
5, 106 59,401


29
TABLE III.-Name and location of the waterways and harbore of the
United States, etc.—Continued.

Name and location of im-
Commerce for 1915.
Appropriation in
1917 rivors and
provement. Freight, net || Estimated harbors bill.
tons. value. -
LOUISLANA–Continued. p g
Waterway from the Missis- Fº maintenance,
#. iver to the Sabine Completing Mer-
Franklin-Mermentau sec- 4,485 s275,004 || jºš
tion. - (provided iócal
Mºntau calasieu SeC- I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - interests COL-
Calcasieu-Sabine section... 14,308 ol.12 || ºn *
*Schooner Bayou Lock........ 1, 145 148,015 || *
Lake Pontchartrain........... 491, 364 5, 172,532 ||
*Pass Manchac................ 7,268 ,912 ||For maintenance,
Chefuncte River and Bogue. 283,298 1,470,795 $4,000.
Falia. |Lake Pontchar-
Tickſaw River and tributa- 42,684 438,689 train, complet-
rics. ing improvement,
A. River and Bayou Man- 84,201 1,367,075 || $32,000.
CI13C. d
Atchafalaya River............ 558,510 4,254,050 | For, maintenance,
‘Aſhaalays Bay Ship Chan- 39,561 563, 104
nel. ... . . . . .
Bayou Vermilion............. 21, 208 268,954 ||
Mermentau River and tribu- ,935 916,645 º
taries. |For improvement
*Bayou des Cannes........... 7,216 65, 164 and maintenance,
IBayou Plaquemine Brule..... 6,916 69, 753 $51,000.
*Bayou Queue Tortue........ 5,259 78, 854
Calcasieu River and Pass...... 695,431 3,687,473
*Johnsons Bayou..... --------- 2,269 111, 192
- For maintenance,
Total.------------------- 1 10,785,454 1415,687,656 $110,000. .
y - - - - ||Sabiné Pass and
texas Port Arthur Ca-
Sabine Pass.................-- 26,001,885 | * 100,524,639 nal, for improve-
I ort rthtºr Canal............ 24;533,864 a 77,765,725 ment, $300,000.
Sabine-Néches Canal.......... 3543; i37 a 4,723,692
*Sabine River................. 2541,260 2 3,876,957
*Neches River.....a.......... 2295, 985 2 1,843,407
LOUISIANA.
*Boeuſ River.................. * 5,390 3571,036
*Tensas River and Bayou Ma- *2,802 s 71,699
COCl.
*Bayous D’Arbonne and Cor- * 25,031 *830,555 i
ncy. { • ,
ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA. Fº .*.
Red River, below Fulton... . . . 427,325 41,895,867
Ouachita and IBlack Rivers... 497,451 42,108,146
*Bayou Bartholomew. . . . . . . . . * 1,150 42,675
º ARKANSAs. . -
*Saline River................. 42,550 418,750 ||
ARKANSAS AND TEXAs. . . . .
*Red River above Fulton..... 1,264 4,280 . . ."
“sulphur River tº e º ºs e º ge --------|----------------|----- ----------- For maintenance,
LOUISíANA AND TEXAS. $5,000: .*
Cypress Bayou and Waterway 11,444 641,361
from Jefferson, Tex., to
Shreveport. e
1Includes three Louisiana items below.
*Included in Texas total below.
16290–17958
4.For fiscal year
8 Included in Louisiana total above.
30
TABLE III.--Nain c and location of the § and harbors of the
United States, cte.-Continued.

Commerce for 1915.
Name and location of im- |-- - - - ---------- - - - - Aºpº ań
provement. Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
tons. value.
The XAS.
Galveston Harbor............. 6,231,575 $575,170,302
§§§.i........... *; º; Fºntenance,
fort politar Channel.......I. ##| ###| *.
Houston Ship Channel........ 1,656,347 31,406,916
Anahuac Channel............. 21, 198 510,082 ||
Double bayou................ 5,853 316,792
*Mouth of Trinity River...... 5,337 171,263
Turtle Bayou................. 15,791 338,819 º
gº * * * - e. e. e º as sº e e e s a* * * * º, § *::::::: - Fº 3 ºntenance.
88ſ & Teek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 #33,300.
*Dickinson Bayou............ i.33i £7.
Chocolato Bayou..............!--..............l................
§º ºn & © e º e º e º ºs e º e º º º 5,730 219,789
ySler Creek - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -], e
Port Aransas.................. 120,389 3,053,072 | For improvement
;ºntenance.
100,000.
Inland Watcrway from Gal-
veston to Corpuis Christi:
West Galveston to Brazos ................ * @ s e e s e e s = e e º e º 'º' º
Rivor. -
Bº: River to Matagorda 9,064 1,054,150
ay.
**. gavallo to Aransas 3,032 181,350 ||For maintenance,
Ҽupe Rivertovic. 63,110 36,010 || $90,000.
*. Pass to Corpus 26,803 2,479,358
IſlSUI.
*Channel from l’ass Cavalloto '................!..... •º e < * * * * * * •
r: #. 149.335 P: wº 466 || For maintenance
"rceport Harbor.............. * * o, tºo, $36,000; for im:
§ ;Obºc m ent,
150,000.
*Brazºs River.---------------|---.........----|--..............
*Trinity River................ 6,816 130,483
Total................... 126,171,860 | 1 1,370,691,866
ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.
Arkansas River............... 39,966 800,868 *śs gºintenants,
ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI. , vvv -
Black River................... 128, 467, 199
Current River................. 6,371 31,855
ARRANSAS. For #ntenans,
; : ww.
White River.................. 165,230 838,414
*Lock jºi White River 8,232 39,688
St. , Francis and L’Anguille 146,442 462,500
Rivers and Blackfish Bayou.
*Cache River............ ..... 36,423 78,903
1 Includes 5 Texas items above.
16290–1795S
31
TABLE III.-Name and location of the waterways and harbors of the
United States, etc.—Continued.
. Commerce for 1915. A iati in
Name and . of im- Frºm t Estimated º and
roVement. Inet Sºlnº,
p . tons. value. harbors bill
INTERSTATE RIVERs.
Mississippi River:
*Reservoirs at headwaters-----------------|---------------. For maintenance,
Mississippi, and Leech 238,000 $916,000 5 vºwwe
Rivers, Minn. - - Improvoment of
Brainerd to Grand Rapids, 366,700 1,473,000 Mississippi, and
Minn. Leech Rivers,
Minneapolis to . Missouri 11,883,668 52,785, 118 For 'maintenance
lver t and improve-
e t ment, $1,200,000.
Missouri River to Ohio
*:::: ht traffi 258, 501 14,013,520 hr
Telght trallic......... - 2
Ferry traſſic........... 4,107,967 § ||*.*.
Sand barged.......... 592,7: •ºv, it, sº
Government materials 128, 119 212,615 y pºweve
*Cairo to Memphis. . . . . . . . 2, 193,026 | Not reported. | Note.—Appropria-
*Memphis to Vicksburg...} 2, 198,814 |... --do.-------- tions for the
*Vicksburg to New Orleans 2,712,022 |..... do--------- lower *::FE:
t . are now made
the Sundry civil
bill.
Missouri River: - g
Fort Benton to Sioux City. 17,976 642,090 For maintenance,
$50,000.
Sioux City to Kansas City. 101,822 55,774 || For maintenance,
Kansas City to the mouth. 216,490 7,516,373 || For 'improvement
# . . . . and maintenance
$1,000,000.
Ohio River: * - . . . . - - -
Thrºugh locks and open 7,346,358 50, win For improvement,
Ferry traſſic............... 1;926,826 137,604,744 ~~~~ -
kinnesota. : -
*Minnesota River.............l................................
Warroad Harbor and River... 12,290 373,120
Zippel Bay, Lake of the Woods 775 1,
MINNESOTA AND NORTH
DAKOTA. -
*Red River of the Northgº tº º tº gº tº * 125 10,000 º maintenance
MINNESOTA AND SOUTH $3,000. -
DAKOTA,
*Lake Traverse............... 10,000 307,423
MINNEsota AND wisconsin.
*St. Croix River............... 7,172 141,000 ||
ILLINOIS. - *
*Galena River................ 6,762 33,810 , ſº
*Illinois and Mississippi Canal. 32,276 96,828
MISSOURI.
Osage River................... For improvement
22,083 330,999
Gasconade River.............. 22,637 340,876 | § maintenance,

1Includes 628,075 tons Government materials.
16290–17958
32
TABLI: III.-Namc and location of thc catcrucuyá and harbors of the
United States, cte.—Continued. -

Name and location of im-
Commerce for 1915.
_j Appropriation in
1917 rivers arid
provement. Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
- tonS. value.
- - - -s...…. -- ~-º-º-º-º-º-º- «-º-º-º-º-º- * ~ * * * *- - -º - *** * * * * * * * |
KANSAS. i
Kansas River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … New project. For
improvenment.
$10,000, provided
| local interests
| c on t r i bu to
$70,000.
PENNSYLV AN! A. :
*Allegheny River: | . &
Above Natrona. . . . . . . . . . . 278,870 $227,434
13c'ow Natrona... . . . . . . . . . 1,899,654 5,066,148
*Youghiogheny River......... 174,001 206, 758
Pittsburgh Harbor............ 12,622,955 28, 180, 463 For maintenance,
PENNsylvania AND west sºvvv,
virginia.
+Monongahela River.......... 11, S15,085 28,978; 879.
west virgisia.
*Little Kanawha River....... 86, 169 3,276,670.
*Kanawha River.............. 1,351,002 3,706,509.
. . . onio • ' ' ' , • * > . . .” - - - - -
*Muskingum River. - - - - - - - - --> 114,632 1,053, 615
INDIANA,
*Wabash River............. “… tº 452 17,518"|
WEST VIRGINIA AND -
RENTUCKY.
*Big Sandy River, including 152,139 1,520, 50l. i.
Tugandilevisa Forks, 3 ***, 3
KENTUCKY.
*Kentucky River............. ,766 2,634,328
*Green and Barren Rivers.... 189,972 2 ºf
*Rough River................. 12,504 139,254
TENNESSEE.
*French Broad and Little 8,866 322,686
Pigeon Rivers.
*Clinch River................. 5,291 53,910
TENNISSEE AND KENTUCKY,
Cumberland River: - &
Above Nashville......... tº 266,639 4,317,061 Fº: maintenance,
yvvve
Below Nashville. ......... 126,949. 2,172,058 For gºvement,
3. te
TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, AND
KENTUCKY.
Tennesseo River:
Above Chattanooga....... 402,622 3,403,995
*Hales Bar Lock.......... 15,685 866,046 &
Hales Bar to Browns IS- 171,328 9,311,081 ||For , maintenance
and. and improve-
*Browns Island to Florence 7,982 686,096 || ment, $401,000.
*Colbert Shoals Canal. . . . . 32,271 352,150
Below Riverton........... 471, 5,624,908 |
1(;290- . 1 70:58
33
TABLE III.--Navac and location of the waterways and harbors of the
United States, ct c.—Continued.

as mºsº
Name and location of im-
provement.
THE GREAT LAKES,
Take Superior:
*Grand Marais Harbor,
Minn.
Agate Bay Harbor, Minn..
Duluth-Superior Harbor,
Minn. and Wis.
*Port Wing Harbor, Wis.
Ashland Harloor, Wis . . . . .
Ontonagon Harbor, Mich.
Keeweenaw Waterway,
Mich.
*Harbor of Reſure, Mar-
uette Bay, Mich.
*Marquette IIarbor, Mich.
Harbor of Refuge, Grand
Marais, Mich.
cago, Duluth, and Buffalo:
*St. Marys "River..........
St. Clair Flats Canal......
*Detroit River. . . . . . . . . . . .
I.ake Michigan:
*Manistique Harbor, Mich.
*Menominee Harbor and
River, Mich. and Wis.
*Oconto Harbor, Wis......
*Green Ray Harbor, Wis..
*Pepere Harbor, Wis......
Sturgeon Ray and I ake
Michigan Ship Canal.
*Algoma Harbor, Wis.....
*Kewaunee Harbor, Wis..
Two Rivers Harbor, Wis..
Manitowoc Harbor, Wis...
Sheboygan Harbor, Wis...
*Port Washington Harbor,
Wis.
Milwaukee Harbor, Wis...
*Racine Harbor, Wis......
Kenosha Harbor, Wis.....
*Waukegan Harbor, Wis..
*Fox River, Wis
Chicago Harbor and River,
Illinois River, Ill..........
Calumet Harbor, Ill., and
ſºme River, Ill. and
In
Indiana H arbor, Ind
'Mºsan City Harbor,
Il(1.
St. Joseph Harbor and
River, Mich.
South Haven Harbor, Mich.
*Saugatuck Harbor and
Kalamazoo River, Mich.
Holland Harbor, Mich
Grand Haven Harbor,
Mich.
16290–17958——3
Commerce for 1915.
—º
Freight, net Estimated
tons. value.
4,298 $227,949
9,963, 107 22,516,664
40,494,672 368,802,154
1,432 78,041
º *::::::::
4 395,748
2,462,329 110,414, i25
2,419,666 5,620,005
1,470,233 5,047, 197
710 115,700
63,356,154 528,596,456
71,290,304 || 882,263,141
76,990,239 953,139,159
82,514,457 | 1,021,528,978
293,513 3,713,788
417,217 8,385,773
3,400 169,330
$21,106 8,381,041
4,938 154,536
539,695 11,956,223
; #
196,915 * * * 5
47'897 198596
1,586,858 58,357,331
665,502 9,592,218
19,560 349,
8,119,875 150,348,921
247,441 7,000,79
,268 7.33%;
229,316 4,477,635
149,872 815,659
3,259,170 241,530,500
239,677 3,702,832
6,968,660 135,960,965
2,001,374 14,191,028
15,370 223,548
104,192 4,975,736
27,435 1,818,645
31,491 j72,03.
30,426 4,264,538
C(3,220 49,489,697
Appropriation in
1917 rivers and
harbors bill.
-** --- ~ ********* *** - -
For maintenance,
$175,000.
|Ashland ... Harbor,
completing im-
rove m 6 n t,
10,000.
For maintenance,
$185,000
Fº: maintenance,
2, 100.
•y
d
w
For maintenance,
$115
Indiana Harbor,
' completing im:
§ o v c me nºt
95,200.
For maintchance,
$112,050. Manis-
tee Harbor, Con-
tinuing improve-
ment, $28,700.
34
TABLE III.-Name and location of the waterways and harbors of the
United States, etc.—Continued. -

16290–17958
t Commerce for 1915.
:Name and location of im- * ań
provement. - G . . " * . . " - e
... * Freight, net Estimated harbors bill.
tonS. value.
THE GREAT LAKES-contd.
Lake Michigan–Continued. , , ; ;
*Grand River, Mich: ...... 55, 143 $117,034 || ' '...”
Muskegon Harbor, Mich... 115,035 8,244,279. ºt. “
White Lake Harbor, Mich. 10,071 ,941 '', " . .
Ludington Harbor, Mich. . 1,781,329 57,159,037 ||For maintenance,
Manistee Harbor, Mich. . . . 90,842 1,884, 157 12,050. Manis.
*Portage Lake harbor of 2,041 265,175 |} teeffarbor, COn-
Refuge. • ' ' || tinuing improvo-
*Arcadia Harbor, Mich.... 10,983 163,239 || ment, ºz8,700.
Frankfort Harbor, Mich... 718,899 21,806,293 tº 3.
Charlevoix Harbor, Mich.. 172,052 1,574,763 :
*Petoskey Harbor, Mich. 1,291 92,921 || || "
*Pentwater Harbor, Mich. 6,061 184,294 º,
Total.------------------- 29,766,554 830,004,346 º i . {
Lake Huron: º
*Mackinac Harbor, Mich.. 17,217 1,482,605 ||
.#. Harbor, Mich. 139,268 1,368,913
.*Rogers City Harbor, Mich. 9,415 334,450
Alpena Harbor, Mich..... 1,166,770 3,121,282 e
*Saginaw River, Mich..... 155,965 1,867,927 ||For, maintenance,
Harbor Beach, Harbor of 18,645 9,908 || $13,500. Harbor
Refuge, Mich. * Beach #:
*Black River at Port Hu- 126,890 796,846 || ſor improvemen
ron, Mich. - 90,000. ... Rouge
Clinton River, Mich...... te 14,352 31,777 || River, for im-
Fouge River Mich. ------- 1,651,823 3,759,224 $º.ºnent,
Total.--------------- 3,300,345 13,122,932
Lake Erie:
*Monroe Harbor, Mich..... 8,480 110,000
Toledo Harbor, Ohio...... 7,416,834 33,958,807 ||For maintenance,
Port Clinton Harbor, Ohio. y 162,795 $132,000.
Sandusky Harbor. Öhio... • 3,234,895 12,733,219 || Lorain Harbor,
Huron Harbor, Ohio...... 1,406,005 4,089, 1 completing im-
Vermilion Harbor. Öhio. 982 78,576 | p r ovement,
Lorain Harbor 0- - - - - - 7,010,460 20,695,954 || $79,650.
Cleveland Harbor, Qhio... 12,631,442 134, 343.35i Cleveland Harbor,
Fairport Harbor, Ohio.... 3,309,485 26,118,618 improvement of
Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio.. 14,521,729 45,119,231 Cuyahoga River,
*Conneaut Harbor, Ohio.. 11,790,980 40,404,994 || $5,000,
*Eric Harbor, Pa... . . . . . . . 3,296,655 67,875,943
*Dunkirk Harbor. N. Y. . . 1,414 7,930
*Buffalo Harbor, N. Y. ... 18,720,724 505,954,936
*Black Rock Canal, N. Y. 1,715,333 6,414,379
*Tonawanda Harbor, N.Y. 391,091 5,018,439
*Niagara River, N. Y..... 70,938 212,818
Total........-----------. 85,536,456 903,900, 159
Lake Ontario:
*Oldott Harbor, N. Y..................... 20, l
*Charlotte Harbor, N.Y.. 1,073,992 3,065,832
*Pultncyville Harbor, N.Y.................................
Gºodus Bay Harbor, 51,958 151,618
... ... •. For maintenance,
Ligºsolus Bay Harbor, 130,708 632,670 |} $33,500.
*Oswego Harbor. N. Y.... 753942 4,251,055
*Ca Y Vincent Harbor, 4,338 277,200
*Ogdensburg Harbor, N.Y. 1,049,820 47,164,941
Total.------------...... ſº 3,064,758 55,563,316
35
|
3 9015
O
TABLE III.—Name and location of the waterica ys and harbors of the
United States, cte.—Continued.
Commerce for 1915.
-> Appropriation in
Name and location of im- § ? -
- e e 1917 rivers and
provement. Freight, net Estimated -
p tons. value. harbots bill.
CALIFORNIA. . . . . .
San Diego Harbor............. 550,848 $55,302,880 | For maintenance,
$20,000. For im-
- . . tº "“”
Los Angeles Harbor........... 1,948,034 88,651,408 || For maintenance,
$25,000. . For im,
. . . . . . tº mºnt.
*San Luis obispo Harbor..... 1,815,233 12, 150,432 pvvve
. . . - - For maintenance,
... • 287,500. Oak-
land Harbor,
; continuing im-
*San Francisco Harbor. . . . . . . . 9,917,595 831, 164,646 roy em ent,
*Redwood Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,827 1,998,459 92,000. Ri ch-
Oakland Harbor.............. 2,876,412 411,634,249 m on d Harb of
Richmond Harbor............l............. ...!................ (new project), for
San l’ablo Bay................ 4,293,517 103,795,779 improvement,
Mare Island Strait.............l................!--------. . . . . . . . ſ $100,000. Hum-
*Suisun Channel.............. 55,699 751,819 boldt Harbor
*Petaluma Creek.............. 895,311 17,571,314 and . Bay, con-
*Napa River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 180 3,991,929 tinuing improve-
*Monterey IIarbor...... . . . . . . 519,379 2,944,278 ment, $190,500.
Humboldt Harbor and Bay... 599,255 26,572,238 San Pablo Bay
and Mare Island
Strait, ſor im-
rove ment,
30,000.
sººnto and Feather 766,935 38,027,703
VerS.
*San Joaquin River, includ- 831,234 36,358,240 ||For, maintenance,
Stockton and Mormon Chan- $31,000.
INCIS.
Mokelumne River..... . . . . . . . . 88,624 4,033,698
Total.................... 25,290,083 || $1,634,949,072
OREGON.
*Coquille River............... 144,916 3,329,770
Coos Bay and Harbor......... 448, 447 7,507,564 ||For maintenance,
Coos River.................... 89, 121 2,485,573 || $34,000.
Siuslaw River................. 6,757 442,060 |}Coos Bay Bar, con-
Yaquina River................ 8,452 88, 256 tinuing improve-
Tillamook Bay and Bar....... 9,710 1,371,000 || ment $70,000.
*Nehalem River.............. 23,643 J.
Total.-----------------. 18,572,759 1 141,038,854
OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND
IDAHO,
Snake River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,817 1,347,937
OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
Columbia River: For maintenance,
Above Celilo Falls........'................!---------------- J
*Dalles-Celilo Canal (open- 8,394 809,088
ed May 5, 1915). º
*Cascades Canai.......... º 42,477 4,886,035
*Vancouver to mouth of 304,448 10,082, 525
Willamette River. e º
Below Portland, includ- 27,208,455 2 112,950, 103 || Continuing im -
ing lower Willamette - rovement and
River. or maintenance,
*At the mouth............ 2,543,521 86,053,771 J $310,000.
i Includes Columbia and Willamette Rivers below Portland and 4 Oregon items
CIOW.
2Included in totals for Oregon given above.
16290–17958
750
UNIVERSITY OF MICH
M
O
|
ill
08

36
TABLE III.- . Yamc and location of the calertrays and harbors of the
United States, etc.—Continued.
Name and location of im-
*-*. -- *-*-****** -º-º- * * ... • ºr - - - ... • *-* *
provement.
OREGON.
Willamette River:
Above Portland
At Willamette Falls. . . . . .
Lock in Yamhill River
'latskanie River
*Willapa River and Harbor...
Bar........ -
Grays
arbor and .
*Chehalisand Hoquiam Rivers.
WASHINGTON.
Cowlitz River................. }
Izewis River.................. !
Grays River.................. -
Tuget Sound and its tributary
Waters.
*Olympia Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . .
*Tacoma Harbor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
Seattle Harbor and Lake
Washington Ship Canal.
*Snohomish River............
*Skagit River.................
*Swinomish Slough........... r
*Bellingham Harbor..........
Waterway from Port Town-
send Bay to Oak Bay.
*Columbia Rivor between W6-
matchee and Kettle Falls.
Total
* * * * * g º e º 'º me s e e º º ºs e e
ALASKA.
l
& e ºs e º e º e < * * :
Commerce for 1915.
Appropriation in
1917 rivers and
Apoon mouth of Yukon River : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nome Harbor... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.
£ionolulu Harbor............. -
Rahului
Hilo Harbor. . . . . . . • - - - - - - - - - - -
. . Itawaii.
IPORTO RICO.
San Juan Harbor..............
! Included in totals for Oregon given above.
2 Covers only those tributaries for which no separate reports are made.
* Fiscal year.
1 (524)0–170.58,
O
|
Freight, net Estimated
i tons. value. harbon bill.
ſ
1560,560 $8,828,079 ) For maintenance,
! 162,569 1 3,306,902 || $48,300.
1 639 1 20,627 || Willamette River,
1399,035 at the Falls, for
-- ... -- improvement,
! $80,000.
| Lewis River, in-
t 194,325 1,374,124 || cluding North
22,525 1.554,924 and East Forks,
| 59,618 663,993 for improvement,
! $13,500.
For maintenance,
370,415 2, 117,857 7,500.
502,410 5,907,545 |} Grays Harbor, for
768,341 2,970,564 improvement,
*S5,000.
h : 55,057 2513,161 l) -
271,406 2,832, .
1,587,847 94,251,610 || 15 is ºf ſynºn ºn riv
3. f6i5ii 268,614,390 H º maintenance,
ke' washington
898,141 4:3,3}*ś.
412,534 4,881,962 improvement
32,925 ſº I gº"
531,971 , 9, 162,243 : --~~~
65,273 510,906
&
9,934,299 400,406,202
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Completing in-
p r O V C In C. In t,
5,000,
tº s is e º e e s e s s is e s e a & e º s tº e º º e º e º º & 9 º' Completing im-
. pro v c m ent,
i $105,000,
For maintenance,
1,680, 256 ####|####, Harbor
254,975 18,311,484 || “. improvement,
428,417 29, 194,040 y
| $50,000.
ºs Iszººlºº
g $150,000
| ſº
541,422 45,782,661 For maintenance,

y gº
For improvement,
$400,000.
NOTE.-Of the to-
i tal cost of im-
rovement the
overnment of
Porto Rico is to
pay $600,000 in
annual
ments of $50,000.