2. The engineers have not agreed concerning the works along this stretch of river. They have been at "loggerheads." Furthermore they could not spend the annual appropriation of $650,000. At the end of the fiscal year in 1905 it was reported that there was a balance on hand of $915,000.
3. The proposition of a deep waterway (14 feet) from Chicago to New Orleans via this stretch of river affected the appropriation. If this 14-foot waterway is attempted it seems to be the feeling that the depth in some portions, if not all, of this stretch of river between St. Louis and Cairo would have to be obtained by a lateral canal. It was not prudent to allot money for permanent improvements as long as a change of policy was imminent. It is claimed that the reduction of the appropriation is not hostile to this portion of the river nor to the proposed 14-foot waterway. It is a temporary halting of work in order to await the development of other projects and to give the engineers time to study the problems further in the hope of a closer approach to unity of recommendation.
The third section of the River and Harbor Bill pertaining to the Mississippi River had reference to very extensive improvements of the river and had for its main clause the consideration of a 14-foot waterway from St. Louis to the Gulf. The realization of such a waterway with the completion of the project, already instituted, of a 14foot waterway from Chicago to St. Louis will give a deep waterway from the sea to the Great Lakes. There is little opposition to such an undertaking. It is generally admitted that a highway of this nature would prove of great value to the country as a whole. The immediate need of this waterway arises from the fact that the products of the valley have outstripped the carrying capacity of the railroads. It has been admitted by railroad men that there is no promise of greater transportation facilities, and that the construction of new lines, of new cars and engines, can not keep pace with the increasing output of mills, plains, forests and mines. The only relief to this congestion seems to lie in the Mississippi River. The regulation of this stream up to the present day has not been of such a nature as to greatly benefit the producers and give them a highway for their output.
While it is generally conceded that all this is true, the proposition for the regulation of the river has been accompanied by plans of so visionary a nature that many people have withdrawn for a season their support or have cast their lines in opposition. This section of the River and Harbor Bill carried with it no feature to which objection should be taken. It plans for a thorough inspection of the problem of a deep waterway by a competent committee. This committee is directed to report to congress on the feasibility of such a waterway. Its duty is one of investigation, not of operation. We may expect a careful consideration of all the problems pertaining to a deep waterway and such recommendations as they see fit to make. There is in the specifica-
