across the harbor from Baltimore, where we have been trying to get the channel deepened in Curtis Bay to 35 feet. I think there is some $3,000,000 worth of buildings which have been constructed at Curtis Bay within the last three months, and they are contiguous to Baltimore. The B. & O. Railroad is erecting another pier at Curtis Bay costing over a million dollars; the Western Maryland Railroad is constructing elevators and piers right on the water front costing around $2,000,000; and the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. is constructing a pier and a new elevator. All of this work is being done on the water front. A large part of it is to manufacture chemicals, acids, fertilizers, and heavy and bulky products which naturally ought to be carried by water, because it makes it very expensive to carry them by rail. And millions of tons of coal come right down to the water front and ought to be shipped to the various sections.

Mr. TREADWAY. Have you municipal wharves?

Mr. LINTHICUM. Yes; we spent, I think, some $6,000,000 after the fire in the purchase of docks and piers and in construction work and have $5,000,000 more available. We are now dredging deeper channels into the piers along the water front. Before the fire we were somewhat hampered as to wharf facilities. After the fire we took advantage of that condition, purchased and reconstructed them, so that we now have our own municipal wharves.

The CHAIRMAN. How much frontage have you there?

Mr. LINTHICUM. We have something like 18 miles of water front. The CHAIRMAN. I mean municipally owned.

Mr. LINTHICUM. The city owns 13 piers, with a wharf frontage of about 5 miles. With other privately owned docks and piers, Baltimore has 18 miles of water front suitable for docking purposes, including 63 miles in the main inner harbor, 3 miles on the middle branch within technical city limits, and at least 8 miles more adjacent to the city limits. It has 160 wharves in the main harbor, with 145,700 feet-say, 273 miles of frontage of wharf room. Adding this amount of wharf frontage to the other water front of the Patapsco River and its tributaries, the total is 120 miles of water front, developed and undeveloped.

I would like to say in conclusion that the mayor of our city, the Hon. James H. Preston, expected to be here but he has been detained. He is one of the vice presidents of this association; he is deeply interested in this project; he is a live wire, and he would, I am sure, have liked very much to have been here to-day in order to lay the matter before the committee.

Mr. TREADWAY. As to that municipal wharfage, what is its relative position as regards convenience in comparison with the railroad wharfage, and so on? Is it as convenient?

Mr. LINTHICUM. Oh, very.

Mr. TREADWAY. You said it was about 5 miles out of 18. Is it as well located as the other 11?

Mr. LINTHICUM. It is the best part of it. I want to say in addition, that we are just completing a railroad known as the Key Highway Railroad, which connects the docks and piers along the water front so that the railroad facilities and the dock facilities

Mr. EDWARDS. That is, the city is constructing it?

Mr. LINTHICUM. The city is constructing it and owns it.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, Mayor Ainslie, of Virginia, said to me a moment ago something which I think ought to go in the record in response to an inquiry made by Mr. Humphreys of Mississippi, that in Virginia alone they have 6,000,000 acres of arable land awaiting farmers, land that has not been touched; that is to say, that has not been occupied up to the present time for farming purposes.1

The CHAIRMAN. Is that 6,000,000 within the Dismal Swamp section?

Mr. MOORE. I think that if you would consult the members of the Virginia delegation they would deny that most indignantly. They claim that the land of the Albemarle pippin is not to be beaten by any other soil on the face of the earth, and they bring agricultural reports to prove it.

Mr. BOOHER. I would like to ask whether there is any "pork" in this?

Mr. MOORE. There is no pork. I have been one of the defenders of the committee, and I am inclined to think that if the pork-barrel experts would get the finest toothed comb to be found anywhere and become beach combers along the entire Atlantic they could not find an ounce of pork in the whole project.

Mr. BOOHER. I only know that it has gotten to be the habit of the papers, especially in your city, to denounce every appropriation that is made for the Southwest or West as "pork." Now, I want to be right sure, before I pledge myself to vote for our proposition, that there is no pork in it.

Mr. MOORE. I think, Judge, that you can be entirely satisfied as to that, and that the charge which you read in the papers is a reflex from the New York journals, where they seem to know more about it than they do elsewhere. I understand you are going to have a member from New York shortly, and I think that if you will take up the matter with him you will be able to settle it.

Mr. TREADWAY. Would it not be illuminating, in connection with what Judge Booher has just said, to have Mr. Moore's definition of "pork" go in the record, so as to see what his idea is.

Mr. MOORE. Well, I think I tried to define that last year. As I understand it, pork is not what you get but what the other fellow gets. Mr. HUMPHREYS of Mississippi. Have you been as scrupulously accurate in all of your other statements as you are in this last one? Mr. MOORE. There have been days when I made contrasts that were entirely favorable to my own position, but I have not been repeating them very much this year. We have been doing the best we could to inform the country properly, and, really, I have looked over the country very much as a member of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, which I am not, and I have come to the conclusion that a distribution of population would not be so bad, and that if a community is to be improved, where there are no improvements, by appropriations that are helpful commercially, and that tend to give employment to the people, perhaps there is no waste, and while a good deal has been said by members, not from the North, but some of them from the very extreme South, with regard to rivers and harbors appropriations recently, it seems to me that the statement made by one of the most vociferous of the filibusterers should be given some con

See Appendix for letter of Mayor Ainslie.

sideration, that the money spent in his vicinity was actually spent amongst the people and that some of the stores got some of it. I would much rather have the money spent amongst the people and spent here in the stores of the United States than to have most of it spent abroad on enterprises that I do not think help the United States very much, and if it will keep the money in circulation here it perhaps is not so bad after all.

The only thing is as between ourselves in the States. We ought to deal fairly with each other and somewhere in proportion to our importance commercially and industrially. Perhaps much of the objection to rivers and harbors appropriations arises from the fact that a great deal of money has to be spent or is spent in sections where the population and the commerce do not seem to warrant so large an expenditure when other sections of the country, which are actually in need and where commerce is waiting, are denied consideration.

Now, I observed, if the committee will permit me a minute, that there were some criticisms of a project in which Judge Booher very rightfully has an earnest interest, and that while everything was going along smoothly with respect to that project and coming along rather freely, there was no cry of "pork." But somebody began to talk about it. It was not from our headquarters at all, and it was not from me. However, even the distinguished Speaker of the House began to say that it was not very fair to talk that way. I commented upon that statement. I was mighty glad to hear it, because if our distinguished Speaker, whom we all love, should find that his toes were trodden upon in a project in which he was interested, he could better understand why some of the rest of us, who have borne the weight upon our toes for, lo, these many years, should also feel a little anxious sometimes to be considered. And it is simply the old story of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We can all get along better by cooperating rather than by interfering one with another. I have come to the conclusion myself, and I think every Member of Congress, after he has been here a few years, will come to the same conclusion, that we can get along a great deal better by cooperation than we can by assault, but each Member will defend his own, and if he is constantly rejected he may fight. That is human nature. Now, I hope there will be no fight on the part of our friends in other sections of the country.

Mr. BOOHER. On yesterday we had a distinguished Senator before us, and he made this statement, and I have been wondering since whether there was not a great deal of truth in it. He said that when river and harbor appropriations were made east of the Alleghenies it was patriotic, that there had never been any charge of "pork" in any one of them, but that when appropriations were made for the West and Southwest then the papers east of the Alleghenies, the great papers, denounced them at once as pork.

Mr. MOORE. Well, if a distinguished Senator made that statement he appropriated the language of the distinguished Speaker of the House. He originated that idea and was the first to give thought to it. It was Speaker Clark who made that statement.

Mr. BоOHER. I have been informed that it was the Speaker instead of the Senator. I was mistaken.

19408-15-2

Mr. MOORE. That statement was originally made by the Speaker, but I think the statement is not fair, because if the gentleman will bear with me a moment I will say that the agitation against recent rivers and harbors appropriations emanates from the city of Chicago, from one great paper in that city.

Mr. BOOHER. I thought it emanated chiefly from Senator Burton, of Ohio.

Mr. MOORE. That is partly true; and, although a member of the same party with the Senator, I have not hesitated to express freely my thoughts on that subject, because the distinguished Senator from Ohio, able as he is in rivers and harbors matters, can not altogether free himself from the instruction and teaching he gave to very many Members of the House, especially the younger Members, with respect to procedure on rivers and harbors matters. Therefore, if the Senator from Ohio has changed front on these questions, it is not reasonable to expect that all those, or many of those, who received their instruction at his feet should also go with him on so sudden and quick a change of front.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say for Senator Burton-while not defending his course by any means in respect to the two bills that we sent to the Senate that I think you will find very little of the word "pork" in any of his remarks. I think he pretty generally assumed that in framing the bill the members of the committee were honest. Mr. MOORE. None of his earlier speeches contain any reference to it. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he used that word in any of his speeches.

Mr. MOORE. I think he did not. As to projects of the old era as against the new, I think any careful investigator will find just as much of what is called "pork" in the old era as in the new, although there may be an enlargement of the projects and an increase in the appropriations. I sometimes think that we ought not to be held up on a great national project like the opening up of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which would establish connections between the North and South for trade purposes, by continuing appropriations for projects that have no such significance to the country at large; and by reason of the demands for national defense. I believe in and earnestly urge the passage of a rivers and harbors bill this year, notwithstanding the fact that the economists are talking against it and the administration economists are talking against it. I believe that a rivers and harbors bill should be passed to help along, continue, and maintain the old projects, which must go to waste otherwise, and that such a bill should provide for new projects, so that we could do our business in the matter of rivers and harbors in this country just as it is done for the Army and the Navy. It is just as important to keep up these great public works as it is to keep the floor of your house swept and to brush away the débris after meetings in this room every day.

Mr. EDWARDS. The President on Tuesday, referring to his policy of transportation, mentioned the utilization of the railroads in the question of transportation, but he never once referred to the utilization of our waterways in that connection, or to our rivers. How do you account for his overlooking this important factor in the question of transportation?

Mr. MOORE. I would be very glad to speak of that and hope what I say will not be regarded as political at all, because it is not. I believe in the improvement of the rivers and harbors as a policy as firmly as any man in the United States; at the beginning, perhaps, I did not so firmly believe, but I have come now to believe that we have got to keep our commerce and our trade and our industries employed in this country, and we have got to give them every vent for their activities. And when the railroads are congested at New York and cars are piled up on the tracks not only with grain but with munitions of war, and the presidents of the railroads are raising their hands to heaven and calling for relief, I do not think we ought to stop in the expenditure of money for the improvement of our intracoastal commerce. If we keep it up, then the big fellows are always going to be the big fellows and the little fellow never gets a chance. The monopolist, the man who has a large capital, can always delay and stop business when he wants to, and unless you open up these waterways, and make up your minds as a committee that you are going to have your say in the legislation of this country and have consideration given to you along with the other great committees that necessarily have to operate, you are going to thwart the tax-earning powers of the people who have got to pay for war. You have got to pay for this preparedness; you have got to pay hundreds of millions that you did not pay before for Army and Navy purposes. Where are you going to raise it if it does not come in at the customhouses, which it is not doing very fast now? Why, it has got to come from the people of this country. Yet the moment a man who owns timber down in North Carolina says he wants to send his lumber to a market and goes to the railroads with it, he is met with the statement that they can not carry his freight because they are overloaded with more important stuff. And the farmer out West is feeling it now; his grain is stopped and he can not ship it.

I used some figures before the Rivers and Harbors Congress, at which I hope you will look. They were handed to me hurriedly just as I was about to commence my speech, but we have passed through the "Soo" Canal more grain in one month than all of the Atlantic coast ports have sent to Europe during 11 months of European war demands. And while this congestion is going on and everything here is being taxed in spite of it, you are asked to sit here and permit the closing up of our rivers and harbors, sit here supinely-I will not say supinely to this committee-but you are expected to sit here and submit to the closing up of our rivers which benefit the United States because our railroad transportation facilities are overdone, due to the shipment of munitions of war. We have no war here, and I want to have a little more proof that there is going to be war. I want the people—even in the event of preparedness, which I am willing to go along on-to have the right to continue to earn a living and to be able to pay these taxes which are to be imposed upon them for purposes of war.

The CHAIRMAN. We had better confine ourselves to rivers and harbors.

Mr. MOORE. Well, Mr. Edwards asked me that question and that is the reason I made these statements. Now, Mayor Donnelly, of Trenton, N. J., will tell you, I hope, of the progress that has been made in