created by Congress. In 1912 permission was given to increase the board to nine members, a majority of whom had to be of rank not less than lieutenant colonel. However, the number was only increased to seven, and the following year an amendment limited membership to that figure." The duty of reviewing all plans for proposed works, together with some less important duties assigned by the Chief of Engineers, has made the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors play a more important part in the work than did the various boards that preceded it. Under the various acts since 1902 the board up to June 30, 1922, had reported adversely upon about 70 per cent of the surveys authorized by Congress." During that same period the board had recommended projects estimated to cost $403,798,126.31. Of these Congress had adopted projects whose estimated cost was $318,649,255.51. As the above figures indicate, the amount of river and harbor work has continued to increase rapidly since 1902. From an expenditure during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1903, of about eighteen million dollars the annual expenditure increased until the fiscal year 1914 when over forty-nine million was spent. Naturally, during the war less work was done, the expenditure for the fiscal year 1918 being nearly thirty million dollars. The work was resumed on a large scale after the war and the annual report of the Chief of Engineers for 1921 shows an expenditure of over fifty-seven million dollars, the largest amount that has ever been spent in one year. Another indication of the great size the work has attained are the figures, in the annual report for 1922, showing 192 harbors, 294 rivers, and eighty-three canals and other waterways under improvement at the beginning of the fiscal year. An important change took place during those years in the method of doing the work authorized. The decision of whether the construction should be done by contract or otherwise had very generally been left to the Secretary of War or the Chief of Engineers. But, whereas previously almost all the work had been done by contract, it has now become usual to do a large part of the construction with hired labor and government plant. This is 48 49 '37 Stat. L., 826. 'Hearing before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations in charge of War Department appropriation bill for 1923, Part 2, p. 256. particularly true of the maintenance work on existing river and harbor improvements, most of which is handled in this way, while the majority of the new work is still done under contract. This method of employing day labor not through a contractor but directly by the responsible executive officers, and of using machinery built or purchased by the government is the result of long experience with the difficulties of the contract method and of the happy experience in constructing the Panama Canal. This change has been reflected in the river and harbor acts of recent years. In most instances when an initial appropriation for a project is made, authority is given to the Secretary of War to contract for the entire construction to be paid by future appropriations. Congress still authorizes the Secretary of War to do any of the work by contract, if he decides that method is the most economical and advantageous for the government. But Congress no longer presupposes that the work will be done by contract and has even shown the contrary tendency. The first indication of the change was a provision, repeated in several of the acts, to the effect that any works of improvement that had been authorized to be prosecuted under contract could be carried on in other ways if the Secretary of War should so decide. Another and more significant change was that which first appeared in 1916 prohibiting the use of any of the funds appropriated in the bill to pay for any work done by private contract if the contract price was more than 25 per cent greater than the estimated cost of doing the work by govrenment plant. This restriction was repeated in 1917 and extended in 1919 to all funds "herein or hereafter appropriated for works of river and harbor improvement." " 50 The increased participation of the government in actual construction naturally caused a great increase in the amount of government-owned equipment. This was obtained both by purchase and by construction. Practically every river and harbor bill since 1902, except those where a lump sum was given to the Secretary of War for allotment, has authorized the construction of several dredges. In 1919 the work of designing floating plant for use on river and harbor improvements was assigned to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. In 1911 a statement of floating plant, an amplification of a list of sea-going dredges given for several years previous, was included in the annual report. A similar statement has been included each year since then except for 1921 and 1922." Foreign-built dredges are forbidden to engage in dredging in the United States unless they are documented as vessels of the United States." One of the most important developments of these years was the inauguration of the practice of sometimes requiring the coöperation of local interests in making an improvement. On numerous occasions Congress had authorized the Secretary of War to accept proffered contributions for particular works. Ultimately a general authority to receive such contributions and to return any excess was given." Examples of such voluntary aid became greatly outnumbered by instances where the contribution was made necessary if the work was to be undertaken. After 1910 very many items appeared in each river and harbor act bearing a proviso reading "that no part of the appropriation herein made shall be available for expenditure until the Secretary of War shall be satisfied that local interests have made provision for furnishing the sum of . . . for said improvement. ." In 1920 Congress required that every report submitted thereafter should contain a statement of the benefit that would accrue to localities affected by the proposed improvement, with recommendations as to what local coöperation should be required, if any, on account of such special or local benefit." The increased participation of local interests in the works is shown by the fact that the annual report of the Chief of Engineers for 1906 mentions only two contributions amounting to about thirty-six thousand dollars, while that of 1922 reports over three million two hundred thousand dollars contributed by states, municipalities, and private parties for improvements at seventeen localities. Another form of local coöperation other than money contributions can now be required. They may have to provide adequate water terminal facilities before an improvement of their river or harbor is begun. The question of terminal facilities occupied the 1 For a list of dredges used in 1922, see Appendix 6. attention of Congress some time before this policy was adopted. In 1909 Congress requested that each report resulting from an exmination or survey should contain, in addition to other information, data regarding the establishment of terminal and transfer facilities and the development and utilization of water power for industrial purposes. This was repeated in 1910 and 1912 when a special investigation was ordered of all water terminal and transfer facilities contiguous to any harbor, river, or other waters under improvement by the United States. The inclusion of such information in each annual report was required by the act of 1918. The following year Congress announced its policy which necessitated local coöperation in some cases. The law said It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress that water terminals are essential at all cities and towns located upon harbor or navigable waterways and that at least one public terminal should exist, constructed, owned, and regulated by the municipality, or other public agency of the State and open to the use of all on equal terms, and with the view of carrying out this policy to the fullest possible extent the Secretary of War is hereby vested with the discretion to withhold, unless the public interests would seriously suffer by delay, monies appropriated in this Act for new projects adopted herein, or for the further improvement of existing projects if, in his opinion, no water terminals exist adequate for the traffic and open to all on equal terms, or unless satisfactory assurances are received that local or other interests will provide such adequate terminal or terminals. The Secretary of War, through the Chief of Engineers, shall give full publicity, as far as may be practicable, to this provision.“ The duty of passing upon the plans of local authorities for terminal improvements in order to determine their adequacy was assigned to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. In the fall of 1919 the board was assigned some of the duties of the Port Facilities Commission of the Shipping Board." These included: 1. The compilation of data pertaining to facilities at domestic ports. The Port Facilities Commission was created during the war to shorten the length of time spent by vessels in port and to end port congestion. 2. The preparation of charts showing data relative to the dimensions and other features of vessels. 3. The study of the movement of freight to and from ports. 4. The study of the most suitable and economical terminals for inland waterways. 5. The study of the most approved methods of handling cargo economically. 6. The advising and assisting of local port authorities in the layout and equipment of terminal facilities. Closely related to these are the duties assigned to the Secretary of War, and by him to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, by the Transportation Act of 1920." These involve (1) The investigation of water terminals and (2) the compilation, publication, and distribution of useful statistics, data, and information concerning transportation on inland waterways. Similar duties were given to the Secretary of War in coöperation with the Shipping Board by the Merchant Marine Act of the same year.** The information submitted each year in the annual report has continued with very little change in form since 1902. It is given for each improvement under the following headings: I. Location and description. 2. Original condition. 3. Previous projects. 4. Existing project. 5. Operations and results during fiscal year. 6. Condition at end of fiscal year. 7. Local coöperation. 8. Terminal facilities. 9. Effect of improvement. 10. Proposed operations. II. Recommended modification of project. 12. References to published articles not previously reported. 13. Commercial statistics. 14. Financial summary. In 1910 the Corps of Engineers was ordered by Congress to adopt a uniform system for the classification of statistics. The annual reports of the Chief of Engineers since that date show little |