Mr. GALLAGHER. The city of Chicago has spent a great many millions of dollars on this garbage matter, and they are now spending a lot of money on it. They have looked all over this country in an effort to find some definite plan by which to dispose of garbage, but they have not found anything satisfactory up to date. This is possibly an experiment they are starting up there.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything more to say?

Mr. ULLMAN. I would like to answer that gentleman's question. According to the experts, the process adopted by the city of New York is not an experiment, but it is a process that has been adopted in various other cities, and it is in full operation to-day in a number of cities.

Mr. SMALL. As everyone knows, Manhattan Island has a more dense population than Staten Island, and if the operation of such a plant on Manhattan Island would not be a nuisance or injurious to health there would be no substantial reason why it should not be located there.

Mr. ULLMAN. None whatever.

Mr. SMALL. Then what are the substantial reasons against its construction on Staten Island?

Mr. ULLMAN. The transportation of the garbage through those waterways. There is no objection to the plant itself, so far as that is concerned, but this is in the interest of navigation solely.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is the city of New York putting up this plant? Mr. ULLMAN. No, sir; it is being done by private contractors. Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the city is making a contract with them, so that the city is a party to this scheme of interfering with commerce? Mr. ULLMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEDY. It seems to me that the city of New York would be too much interested in the promotion of its commerce to enter into a contract that would have the effect of interfering with it.

Mr. ULLMAN. They are inconsistent in their policies. According to this proposition, they are interfering with their own interests; but what principles underlie that deduction I can not say. The city of New York claims, and rightfully claims, large appropriations from this committee. They need them, and they need all that they can get. When we are here trying to uphold the policy or judgment of this committee in making appropriations for New York waterways and the development and maintenance of her commerce I think the city of New York ought to cooperate in a more successful way, especially the present administration.

Now, if there is any question that any gentleman would like to ask me, I will be glad to answer it.

Mr. BOOHER. In the operation of all the reduction plants that I have ever seen there has been a great deal of refuse matter left for use in the manufacture of fertilizers. Now, is it the purpose to dump the refuse from this plant into the Fresh Kills River there?

Mr. ULLMAN. I do not know what their intention is. With reference to their contract. I have not gone into the details of it.

Mr. BOOHER. I want to find out if anybody knows what they will do with it.

Mr. ULLMAN. I do not know what they will do with it. The contract states that so far as the city of New York is concerned that is

the final disposition of it. That is all that the city of New York seems to be interested in.

Mr. LEWIS. I am tempted, Mr. Chairman, to answer some of those questions. This is a reduction plant, and the material is converted into grease and certain solid tankage. That solid tankage is in the nature of a dry meal that is one of the ingredients used in making fertilizer.

Mr. BOOHER. Then, there is nothing left over?

Mr. LEWIS. No; sir.

Mr. ULLMAN. It seems to be harmless all around, according to the statement of the attorney for the company.

Mr. FREAR. If I understand your argument, it is to the effect that these barges, used for the transportation of this garbage, will interfere with navigation at this point, and that at present 9 barges are to be used?

Mr. ULLMAN. If you will allow me to put it in my own way, I would say that even one barge, under the circumstances, would interfere with navigation.

Mr. FREAR. That is, you contend that if one barge is used for that purpose it would interfere with navigation, and that, therefore, this bill, which would affect every city in the country using waterways for this purpose, should be passed. You claim that one barge used for this purpose is an interference with commerce, and if one barge is used for this purpose, then, you contend that this bill ought to pass?

Mr. ULLMAN. Yes, sir; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you let him state just how it will interfere with navigation?

Mr. ULLMAN. I think that the borough president of our borough could go more into the details of that than I could at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. You have expressed the opinion that it would interfere with navigation, and we would like to know upon what you base that opinion.

Mr. ULLMAN. I have referred to our interest in navigation, and I would refer to the ferry traffic over Staten Island Sound, and I would refer to the water-borne commerce through that channel. Now, you have these barges, one, two, three, or nine barges, if you please. These tows will be coming across from the city of New York at right angles to four ferries that are now in operation across Staten Island Sound carrying 3,000,000 people annually. The channels are narrow, and the ferries make frequent trips between the Staten Island shore and the New York shore. These barges coming down Kill Van Kull and Staten Island Sound, hauled as they are in long tows, together with the tugboat at the end of the line, are a menace to the traveling public.

The CHAIRMAN. What relation do these nine barges sustain to all of the traffic that goes in there during 24 hours?

Mr. ULLMAN. I had taken the figures as 9 barges down, which would be 18 barges in 24 hours.

The CHAIRMAN. What relation would they bear to the balance of the commerce there?

Mr. FREAR. As to sailing craft, and so on.

The CHAIRMAN. Or any kind of craft that goes in there. It would be quite small, would it not?

Mr. ULLMAN. Quite so; yes.

Mr. HULBERT. What is the character of most of the vessels that ply up and down the Kill van Kull? Are they ocean-going vessels or are they inland-water vessels?

Mr. ULLMAN. There are various kinds of water craft; there are a great many tows, tugboats, and ocean-going steamers, particularly within the last three years. They operate in the Kill van Kull and Staten Island Sound."

Mr. HULBERT. Is not coal one of the principal products carried through the Kill van Kull?

Mr. ULLMAN. Yes; coal, raw materials, machinery, crude oil, fertilizer, and so on.

Mr. HULBERT. And carried principally on barges or large oceangoing vessels?

Mr. ULLMAN.. Principally on barges.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I came here at the request of Mr. Riordan. He wrote me at Chicago to come here, as he thought I might be of some assistance. But, in view of the statement the gentleman has made about transportation there. I would like to ask you what you would say with reference to this telegram, addressed to the chairman of the committee:

The New York Boat Owners' Association, representing more than 150 of the leading companies engaged in marine transportation in the port of New York, owning and controlling over 2,000 commercial vessels, respectfully protest against the passage of H. R. 16893. Letter of protest following.

The letter is here, also. This is signed by the New York Boat Owners' Association, Ernest Stavey, secretary.

Mr. ULLMAN. Yes, sir: I know the gentleman.

Mr. GALLAGHER. What would you say in reference to a telegram like that?

Mr. ULLMAN. I can not read into the record a thing that is not there, but I imagine the boat owners' association and other associations in New York City, knowing the congested condition of the Staten Island Sound and Kill van Kull, and having in mind that at some future time it will be a one-way waterway, are afraid that if the restrictions are made so drastic they might be required to use their own motive power on these other boats. That is the reason I say that

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). This is no restriction; it is simply an exclusion of certain kinds of craft, or craft loaded with certain kinds of freight.

Mr. ULLMAN. Yes: I understand that.

The CHAIRMAN. As I have said, I intend to put all of these communications in the record. (See Appendix A.)

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have about concluded what I had to say on this subject, and I would like to introduce Congressman John H. Capstick.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CAPSTICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Mr. CAPSTICK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have the honor to represent the fifth congressional district of New Jersey. In that district lies the city of Elizabeth, one of the most

important manufacturing cities in the State of New Jersey. Its port inlet is on this river. I have taken the opportunity from time to time to go

Mr. SMALL (interposing). What river do you mean?

Mr. CAPSTICK. The Kill Van Kull River. I have taken occasion at different times to go to the river and examine and view the conditions there. The river there is very narrow, and the general sentiment that exists in our community is a protest against the use of this river for the purposes for which the gentlemen of New York City desire to use it. The Chamber of Commerce of the city of Elizabeth has been very active in establishing and settling manufacturing plants along the river here. It was actually a surprise to me to see the immense amount of manufacturing industry that has been located along the river within the confines of the city of Elizabeth. I trust, gentlemen, that if this bill is not altogether satisfactory that it can be so amended as to exclude the carting of this matter through that kill so as to interfere with navigation and thus harm the city of Elizabeth. I noticed large iron and steel boats there taking on goods for export, and the manufacturing plants there are desirous that nothing shall obstruct the navigation of the river and thus injure their industries.

Gentlemen, I thank you.

Mr. HULBERT. Are Chrome and Carteret in your congressional district?

Mr. CAPSTICK. No.

Mr. HULBERT. Have you visited at Chrome or Carteret?

Mr. CAPSTICK. No.

Mr. HULBERT. Do you know whether the Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce had anything to do with the location of those plants at Chrome and Carteret?

Mr. CAPSTICK. The secretary of the chamber of commerce is here and he will answer that question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Judging by the statement this gentleman made a while ago, it looks to me as though this material is raw material for this plant. They turn out ingredients that go into fertilizer and they turn out grease which is made into soap, and it looks to me as though that is commerce.

Mr. CAPSTICK. I am not questioning that fact.

Mr. KENNEDY. But you were talking about an obstruction.

Mr. CAPSTICK. The obstruction will be that these barges will be in the river there and will not allow the vessels to pass at those points; they will practically have control of the river. They will be in there every day.

Mr. KENNEDY. But it looks to me as though it is commerce.

Mr. CAPSTICK. And the river is not large enough to take care of all that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then, why not widen it and thus not interfere with commerce?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Is not that a question of regulation?

Mr. CAPSTICK. I do not know, but I think your committee will be able to take care of that better than I can take care of it, and I hope you will regulate it.

Mr. HULBERT. Have you any statistics as to the number of vessels that pass through the Kill Van Kull in 24 hours?

Mr. CAPSTICK. No. The secretary of the chamber of commerce will be more likely to have that information for you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think nine barges would materially restrict navigation?

Mr. CAPSTICK. Yes. They are right in and out during all the time, and they will certainly interfere with navigation for the industrial businesses that are now there.

The CHAIRMAN. Nine barges loaded with anything would interfere to some extent, to be sure, but should not ordinarily do so to any great extent.

Mr. CAPSTICK. They are continuously there, as I understand it. The CHAIRMAN. The nine barges are coming in and loading and unloading, and I presume it takes some little time to do that. I do not know how they get rid of material carried, but I suppose they have some way of dumping it immediately so as not to take up much time.

Mr. CAPSTICK. Well, nine barges of swill and refuse from the city of New York will require some time to take care of at that place, and the barges that are not being unloaded are bound to wait out at that place so they can be taken in afterwards.

Mr. SMALL. Is not your proposition really this: That this is an unnecessary burden on commerce and navigation?

Mr. CAPSTICK. That is it, exactly; it is unnecessary to do it at that point and thus obstruct the regular navigation.

Mr. SMALL. That the garbage from Manhattan Island and Brooklyn could be disposed of in other ways and without utilizing this point on Staten Island Sound, and thus burdening navigation and commerce on this narrow waterway?

Mr. CAPSTICK. Yes, sir: that is it, exactly.

Mr. ULLMAN. I want to introduce Hon. Calvin D. Van Name, president of the Borough of Richmond. Mr. Van Name, together with President Marks, voted against the proposition in the board of estimate and apportionment of New York City.

STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN D. VAN NAME, PRESIDENT OF THE BOROUGH OF RICHMOND.

Mr. VAN NAME. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. in the few minutes that I have been here I have jotted down some words that would overcome this objection that is made to the bill. namely, that as now drawn it might interfere with the towing of garbage from the city of Chicago, we will say, from the harbor of Boston, or some other places. It only takes a few words to change that. These streams are interstate streams. All of the streams that you have heard about are between the States of New Jersey and New York, New Jersey on one side and New York on the other side. You could use the words "interstate streams." You could use the words "streams, bays, and kills lying between two States," and then the objection raised on behalf of Chicago, Boston, and other places instantly disappears.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is there an objection?

Mr. VAN NAME. Because you are using the word "streams." You could provide that the Secretary of War shall protect streams that are interstate streams or streams that lie between two States.