I should like to call the attention of the committee very briefly, especially the new members of the committee, to what has been said. by those who have examined the river for the Government. Of all the examinations that have been made, the last one is the most unfavorable, except possibly the examination made by Maj. Allen, and Maj. Allen's objection to the river and its feasibility was based solely upon the volume of commerce, which, in his judgment, that territory would afford. The first examination of this river was made in 1852 by H. C. Whiting, acting for the Government. In his report he said:

The Trinity River is the deepest and the least obstructed river in Texas. Now, I do not mean to be put in the position of knocking anybody else's project, but in my judgment there can be no question as to the absolute correctness of that statement. As I said a moment ago, it is unlike any other river that I know anything about. It takes two things, as I understand it, to make a river. You have got to have volume of water and channel, and wherever it is short of water it is long on channel. And there is this true about it, and I would like to direct the attention of the committee to this fact: It is not the size of the river which produces commerce. The water that is in the river does not produce anything to haul on the river. It is that vast territory that lies on both sides of this river, just as that vast territory that lies on both sides of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, which produces the commerce. Now, if this river is feasible for the purposes of navigation, this committee ought to look at the project not from the standpoint of the size of the river, if you get by the question of feasibility, but from the standpoint of the territory to be served.

Mr. FREAR. That is the argument made by all the advocates of the different streams.

Mr. SUMNERS. It is absolutely sound, too. I did not know anything about anybody else's argument.

Mr. FREAR. The records show it.

Mr. SUMNERS. That is where we make a mistake. We new Members believe we have originated only to find we have been preceded. Mr. FREAR. The new Members sometimes can suggest those things. The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Sumners, while perhaps not advancing any new argument, is presenting the matter in entirely a new way. His remarks are very interesting.

Mr. FREAR. I just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is advocated for practically every proposition that we have got in the engineers' reports, the future development of the territory, and it is along the same lines you have suggested.

The CHAIRMAN. That is too apt to be the case, and ought to be so, as the possibilities for future development ought to be considered. Mr. SUMNERS. At the time Mr. Whiting made this report he stated that three steamboats were then returning from a point which must have been above the city of Dallas. He reported that navigation was feasible about 600 miles above the mouth of the river during high water, and that the period of high water each year is for about 6 months, and that the river had been known to remain at this stage for 18 consecutive months.

Mr. FREAR. That was in 1852?

Mr. SUMNERS. In 1852.

Mr. BOONER. How long did you say the high water lasted?

Mr. SUMNERS. This is Mr. Whiting's report.

Mr. BOCHER. Just repeat it again; I did not get it.

Mr. SUMNERS. He said:

The period of high water each year is for about six months, and that the river had been known to remain at this stage for 18 consecutive months.

Mr. BOOHER. How far could it be navigated during those six months?

Mr. SUMNERS. It was navigated up around Dallas: a little above Dallas.

Mr. BооHER. Six hundred miles, about?

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes. That is what he said. He said at the time he made this report there were three boats operating on the river, and they were running about 600 miles above the mouth of the river.

Mr. Allen made a report. That report was made in 1891. Mr. Allen, in his report, stated that the Trinity was one of the State's most important avenues of commerce until the railroads were built. Mr. FREAR. Have you the documents there?

Mr. SUMNERS. No, sir; I am sorry I do not have them.
Mr. FREAR. Pardon me for interrupting you.

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes; that is all right. Col. Allen, in his report, stated that "the Trinity was one of the State's most important avenues of commerce until the railroads were built." And that is the fact, gentlemen. I have a list here of the boats that plied on the Trinity River regularly until the railroads were built. The next report is by Col. Riché in 1899. It was Col. Riché who recommended the construction of 37 locks between Dallas and the Gulf, which he estimated would cost $4,000,000, a little above $4,000,000. Col. Riché estimated that a 6-foot navigation would cost $550,000 more. report, transferred to the Chief of Engineers through Col. Henry M. Roberts, which officer added his recommendation on January 31, 1900, that the Government provide 6-foot navigation from Dallas to the mouth of the river. On January 9, 1901, Mr. Burton, chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, in reference to this project, said:

We have not included in the bill any new projects for locks and dams, except the Trinity River in the State of Texas, where we have appropriated or authorized $750,000, part for general improvements and part for the construction of locks and dams

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?

Mr. SUMNERS. In 1901.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Was that before the project

Mr. SUMNERS (interposing). When he was chairman of this committee, and the committee came in to make its report, either on the floor of the House or in the committee, I am not sure which, Mr. Burton made this statement with regard to the Trinity River project. That was on January 9, 1901, that Mr. Burton, chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, said, with reference to this project, and I think it rather significant:

We have not included in the bill (speaking with reference to the rivers and harbors bill) any new projects for the locks and dams, except the Trinity River, in the State of Texas, where we have appropriated or authorized $750,000, part

for dam improvement and part for the construction of locks and dams. I am frank to say to the committee that on first examining this project I did not think favorably of it, but I gave it a good deal of consideration.

And that is true, gentlemen, of everybody who investigates the Trinity River project, for the very reasons that I stated to the committee awhile ago. It is not like any other stream that I know anything about. It does not make a good appearance. It is a deep gash, cut through gumbo soil, and many a place where that river is 20 to 30 feet deep there is nothing there to indicate it, and as the water goes down it does not expose a lot of sandbars and obstructions, but just a gradually reduces toward the very center of the channel. When people come to examine the Trinity River project, examine its banks and discover the minimum of percolation which is possible through such soil; when they come to examine its banks and see their relative narrowness in proportion to the cubic content of the stream they are then impressed, and especially when they look about over the country and see the wonderful fertility of the adjacent territory they are impressed with that stream as a stream feasible for locking and damming and making into a canal with a minimum expenditure of money. That territory especially needs this, because the railroads of the State run east and west. There are 2,000,000 acres of timber waiting for development up and down the stream.

But I want to continue my quotation from Senator Burton:

The committee called before them the engineers having the improvement in charge, and it seemed to us that an expenditure of this amount was justified. The river is easily capable of improvement.

That is an absolute fact, gentlemen. There is not a river in the world that presents less difficulties in its improvements than this river does. In its fall from Dallas to the gulf, of about 600 miles, there is almost entire uniformity in the fall. It is somewhat less than a foot per mile. Continuing the quotation:

It has stable banks (you do not go along there and see any sluffing of the banks, they terrace right back up), and the construction of locks and dams is a comparatively easy problem. There is a great amount of traffic in prospect, both from the source to the mouth and from the mouth toward the source. In this particular it differs from many other rivers where the bulk of the traffic must necessarily be one way. Great quantities of cotton and grain will be carried toward the mouth, and from the mouth toward the source timber and building material for the large expanse of prairie tributary to Dallas toward the north.

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. I understand Senator Burton has changed his opinion in reference to all that you have been reading from his statement?

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FREAR. It is considered that Senator Burton is a waterway expert-that is, he knows considerable about the waterways in this country-or do you concede that?

Mr. SUMNERS. I do not concede it. I do not know anything about it at all. I yield to the judgment of this committee as to that.

Mr. FREAR. I presume that you understand he has traveled extensively in foreign countries, as well as in this, for the purpose of making investigations of waterways?

Mr. SUMNERS. Presumably.

Mr. FREAR. He has changed his mind and given his reason for it and expressed it frankly?

Mr. SUMNERS. I understand he has.

Mr. FREAR. So that you are quoting simply the judgment he expressed 15 years ago?

Mr. SUMNERS. I quote that not essentially for the purpose of showing Senator Burton's opinion as an expert, but to direct the attention of the committee to the facts which Senator Burton discovered in his examination of the Trinity.

Mr. FREAR. I think Senator Burton has conceded all that.

Mr. SUMNERS. Whatever may have been his change of opinion, I take it he has not changed his opinion in reference to the facts stated, namely, the stability of the banks of the river, the volume of commerce which would be expected to be moved on it, the feasibility of it in so far as the difficulties are involved in the construction of locks, dams, etc. I tried to make it very clear to the committee that Senator Burton has changed his opinion with reference to the matter, so I understand.

Mr. FREAR. Yes; I was going to say in addition to that

Mr. SUMNERS (interposing). But he could not change the facts. The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure that Senator Burton has changed his opinion, because, while I did not keep up with the Senator's discussion on the last rivers and harbors bill, I was told by some one he had expressed the opinion that the first section of the work ought to be carried on to completion. My information, however, may not be correct.

Mr. SWITZER. This opinion was given after a careful examination, anyhow?

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes; and those are the facts. Those are absolutely the facts.

Mr. FREAR. I was going to say that is 15 years ago, prior to the time when you in Texas had any river commission to exercise rights up and down the river, and all those questions at that time intervened and formed part of the judgment of the men who engaged in this transportation question.

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes.

Mr. FREAR. That was a time, too, when it was Mr. Burton's duty to look very carefully into these matters before adopting a project which he claims to have done.

Mr. SUMNERS. He was speaking under the restraint of responsibility when he spoke here, of course.

Mr. FREAR. But when he sees his mistake, as he believes, and changes his opinion he is to be given full credit for that?

The CHAIRMAN. He was not a critic of the rivers and harbors bill. He was then supporting it, as I understand.

Mr. EDWARDS. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. Do any railroads parallel this river now?

Mr. SUMNERS. No railroads parallel the river in the sense that they are very close to the river, are there, Judge Hardy?

Mr. HARDY. From 15 to 20 miles away.

Mr. EDWARDS. What evidence, if any, have you that the railroads started this propaganda against this improvement to the river? Mr. SUMNERS. I have no evidence.

Mr. FREAR. Have you heard in any way? If so, from whom? Mr. SUMNERS. I have heard. I do not remember from whom. As I tell you, I want to make myself very clear. I do not know of any

thing with reference to the railroads having started a propaganda in opposition to the improvement of the river. I do not know it. I have heard it a number of times.

Mr. SWITZER. Have you ever asserted such a thing?

Mr. SUMNERS. No, sir.

Mr. FREAR. The same question was asked by the same gentleman on the Muscle Shoals, and I wanted to find out who knows anything about the railroad propaganda.

Mr. SUMNERS. I do not know. I do not know what their activities have been.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sumners, I did not catch your answer there. You say there are railroads, or is there a railroad paralleling the river?

Mr. SUMNERS. I asked Judge Hardy the question. He said none within 20 miles of the river. It is a territory practically without transportation facilities, except for those small parts of territory adjacent to the railroad where it crosses the river.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that was what Mr. Edwards wanted to find out, whether there were any railroads on either side of the river.

Mr. SUMNERS. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. With reference to parallels, of course, as it leaves Dallas the railroad is a little closer to the Trinity, but the farther south it goes the farther away from the river, and when you get 20 miles from Dallas you are 20 miles from the Trinity, and from there on still farther, so I do not consider the territory of the Trinity occupied by the railroad at all.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. If I may inject a remark, I have listened very carefully, but, as I understand, Mr. Sumners has made no sort of attack or charge against the railroads or against a railroad propaganda.

Mr. FREAR. The gentleman has not. I want to indorse what the gentleman from Mississippi says.

Mr. SUMNERS. I am here for the purpose of trying to take care of the Trinity River, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. SUMNERS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that when you come before a party of men, each one of whom is experienced in matters of this sort-I am a member of a committee myself-and you just sort of tolerate a fellow until he gets through and if he is a colleague you do not have anything against, and I do not imagine you have anything against me, it is all right. I am desperately in earnest about this matter, because I know that if any of these inland waterways ought to be improved the Trinity River is one of them. Mr. TREADWAY. You say if any of them should be improved? Mr. SUMNERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TREADWAY. Do you take the attitude that there is any question as to whether they should or should not be improved?

Mr. SUMNERS. There is no question in my mind, but I do not know the attitude of this committee, and you know there is a great propaganda in the United States against the improvement, except maybe of one or two rivers.

Mr. TREADWAY. From your own viewpoint then you would withdraw the inference that there might be any question?