Corps of Engineers, United States Army, for the improvement of the Inland Waterway from the Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake & Delaware Canal) as outlined in the public notice of November 10, 1950.

We fully concur and agree with the Board of Engineers that the more extensive project outlined in the public notice of July 3, 1952, is thoroughly justified and necessary to the continued growth of commerce in this area.

Our endorsement of this project is based on the following:

BALTIMORE VESSEL TRAFFIC

The canal is of vital importance to the shipping of the port of Baltimore, and its utilization by vessels calling here to load or discharge cargoes in all branches of the port's waterborne trade is constantly increasing.

During the calendar year 1953, 4,820 large oceangoing vessels arrived here in all categories of waterborne commerce. Of this total, 1,772 ships, exclusive of small motor tankers, barges, other inland waterway craft, excursion boats, and Government vessels, utilized the canal routing. These represented approximately 36.8 percent of all ship entrances at the port. In 1951, the last comparable year (the waterway was closed to all deep-draft shipping for 3 months of 1952 as a result of an accident) the 1,634 vessel arrivals via the canal were 36.4 percent of the total inward movements at the port. The 897 vessels transiting the waterway to Baltimore in the first 5 months of the current year represented 42.8 percent of total arrivals, or an increase of 6.4 percent over the preceding year. In 1940, the first full year of operation at the 27-foot project depth, the 534 ocean vessel arrivals in Baltimore by way of the canal represented but 15.9 percent of all shipping calling at the port in that year. Similar traffic in the following year was reported at 24.5 percent.

Total movements of all types of vessels to and from the port via the canal in 1953 aggregated 4,057 of which 2,098 were westbound and 1,959 eastbound. It should be borne in mind that the present dimensions were planned for an annual transit of but 2,000 vessels.

The proposed changes in the recommended depth of the waterway from 32 feet to 35 feet and widening from 400 to 450 feet at the bottom is timely and should materially benefit shipping generally along the Atlantic seaboard.

A substantial increase in the number of vessels using the canal should result from the increased depth, while the additional width now proposed will provide a highly important and much needed margin of safety for large ships navigating the waterway. The latter work will also ease the danger of accidents and collisions such as the mishap between the Barbara Lykes and the motor tanker F. L. Hayes which resulted in the burning and sinking of the latter vessel and the closing of the canal to all large vessels for more than 3 months during 1952. This accident is estimated to have cost the port some $10 million through the necessity of having to route vessels to and from Baltimore via Cape Henry, and through loss of business in general to the port.

It is the conservative opinion of local ship operators and port officials that the maximum use of the waterway at its present 27-foot depth has been attained long since. Practically all vessels operating in the general cargo trade to and from Baltimore and other ports on the Chesapeake Bay are now utilizing the canal to the fullest extent whenever it is practicable to do so. Such vessels are normally only partially loaded and are therefore able to navigate the present channel. Ships arriving here in ballast from other North Atlantic ports to load full cargoes of coal or grain, and those clearing the port in ballast for a northern destination ordinarily use the canal route.

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL TRAFFIC

Although general cargo shipping comprises the major portion of vessel traffic at the port, bulk cargo movements in and out of Baltimore contribute substantially to the overall maritime activity. Hundreds of vessels are annually engaged in the bulk cargo trade of the port with foreign and domestic localities transporting full shiploads of such commodities as ores, petroleum, coal, grain, scrap metals, fertilizer materials, and similar products.

Movements of a vast number of these vessels to and from Baltimore are at present restricted to the longer and more costly Cape Henry route because of their drafts, although many are bound to or from points where considerable savings in time and operating costs could be effected by use of the canal.

It is conservatively estimated that a 35-foot depth in the waterway would permit upward of 500 additional vessel transits annually. This is based on a partial survey of shipping at Baltimore during 1951 which showed a total of 177 vessel arrivals with full cargoes of ores from ports in Norway and Sweden alone. Drafts of these ships ranged from 25 feet 3 inches to 30 feet 6 inches, and all of them definitely could have used the canal had sufficient channel depth been available.

A 35-foot waterway would have permitted additional transits in 1951 of 211 vessels laden with coal destined for ports in New England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, and Norway. These ships left the port of Baltimore drawing from 25 feet 1 inch to 31 feet of water.

During the year there were also 86 arrivals of vessels at Baltimore transporting ores from India, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Yugoslavia, and other ports on the Mediterranean and 68 clearances of ships with coal for destinations in that area whose drafts exceeded 25 feet. The exact number that would have utilized a 35foot canal is difficult to determine, although it is believed a good percentage would have found it advantageous. Our inability to be more specific in this connection stems from the fact that two diverse shipping lanes are available for vessels bound to and from the Mediterranean. The Baltimore Hydrographic Office advises that one of these tracks, recommended for slow power vessels such as Liberties and other ships of this class in order to avoid strong northern currents, follows a southerly course to a point off Cape Hatteras and then swings north. This track, of course, would favor the Cape Henry routing to Baltimore. The other lane, suggested for use by full power ships, and also available to those of slow power, follows the great circle to a point 40° north and 50° west, and is favorable to the canal.

While the above covers a large segment of bulk cargo shipping at Baltimore in 1951, it is known that a large number of other vessels, all potential users of the canal, called at the port with full loads of such commodities as pig iron, potash, petroleum, scrap metals, cork, etc., and that a sizable amount of grain was shipped from Baltimore in full cargo lots.

On such vessels departing from the port of Baltimore, having a draft of more than 25 feet, and bound for the British Isles, Scandinavia, or north continental European ports, a saving in mileage of 286 miles would be effected, by a canal transit rather than a Cape Henry exit. Figured at 15 knots, such a steaming time would consume 20 hours, or approximately 1 day. Depending upon the age and type of vessel involved, the saving to shipowner or charterer would be as high as $2,500 per vessel clearance, to say nothing about lower transit inventory costs to the shipper or foreign receiver. Savings on inbound vessels would be similarly considerable.

LARGER VESSELS PLANNED

Development of new iron ore fields in Labrador will serve to supply additional traffic in the future, as Baltimore is expected to share heavily in the movement of metallic ores from that area. Major steel companies interested in these new fields are currently planning the construction of large ore carriers to supplement existing oceangoing bottoms to handle the movement of ore from the mines to Baltimore and other ports. It is stated that some of these ships will be 800 feet in length with a beam of 116 feet and loaded draft of 39% feet. They will be capable of transporting up to 60,000 tons of ore.

The port of Baltimore, offering the largest and most modern ore unloading facilities of any port in the country, handles well over half of all imported metallic ore coming into the United States. If these new ore vessels are to utilize Baltimore's excellent facilities without making the costly round-the-capes trip to the port, the recommended Chesapeake & Delaware Canal improvements must be carried out.

COMMERCIAL COAL FOR NEW ENGLAND

Major railroads serving Baltimore and tapping some of the richest coal fields in the United States, as well as commercial coal firms, have long advocated improvements to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal such as have been recommended.

The improved canal would permit the movement of full shiploads of coal from the rail terminals at Baltimore to the New England area. Use of the longer Cape Henry route would put these rail carriers and coal firms in a poor competitive position.

NATIONAL DEFENSE

The Chesapeake & Delaware Canal as improved by the Board's recommendation would provide an inland sheltered waterway for the movement of large vessels from Philadelphia to Cape Henry. This would thus connect two of the United States Navy's most important shipyards (at Philadelphia, Pa., and l'ortsmouth, Va.) with a protected water course with sufficient water to accommodate almost any class of military vessel.

With the completion of the new bridge across the Chesapeake Bay about 20 miles south of Baltimore, the principal 39-foot channel from this port to the capes is placed in a vulnerable position. Destruction of the bridge through military action, by sabotage or by accident would result in closing Baltimore, the second foreign trade tonnage port of the country to all ships drawing more than 27 feet of water, virtually closing the port to its most important commercial and defense potential, importation of metallic ores.

Completion of the improvements to the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal as recommended by the Board would provide an alternate routing for vessels, the draft of which could be accommodated by a 35-foot canal.

In view of the importance of an improved Chesapeake and Delaware Canal as recommended by the Board to the commercial and shipping interests of Baltimore and the Nation as a whole, to the national economy and defense, and to the Military Establishments, this association strongly endorses the recommended project.

Respectfully submitted.

STACEY BENDER, Jr., Director, Erport and Import Bureau.

Vessels transiting the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to and from Baltimore, calendar year 1953

It will be noted that Baltimore ship traffic via the canal in 1953, as covered in the above table, totals 4,057 transits. This compares with 2,613 similar movements in 1952, although it should be noted that the waterway was closed to all deep-draft vessel traffic for 3 months of the year due to an accident, 3,391 in 1951 and 3,513 in 1959.

This is undeniable proof that the canal is a very vital facility and is being utilized to an ever-increasing extent by both American and foreign-ship operators. The current figures assume even greater significance when it is remembered that the benefits evaluated at the time the 27-foot depth and 250-foot width were recommended were based on an estimated 2,000 transits annually.

Mr. BENDER. I am director of the export and import bureau of the Baltimore Association of Commerce, which has been active in the promotion of the commerce of the port of Baltimore for over 35 years. Personally I have been affiliated in foreign commerce in all my business career, which has been for 22 years-primarily in the port of New York with the steamship fraternity.

I do not hold myself up as an expert by any means as a steamship operating man. However, one of the primary considerations over and above the statement that I have filed with you, gentlemen, is the fact that steamship lines require a minimum cargo offering in order to come into an ocean port. Charges for the steamship call being what they are, the expenses of calling at any port are a very great expense. Baltimore has certain expenses that it must get in the way of cargo offerings in order to offset those expenses.

The steamship fraternity recognized that if cargo is not offered they will not call at a port. The delays attendant on transiting of the canal, as the colonel pointed out a moment ago, and the layover time of the ship, are an important expense. When you figure that a ship costs upward of $100 an hour in some instances-and certain ships are quite a bit less than that, but the average ship will cost the owners or charterers anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 a day. Each hour, therefore, should be valued according to the cargo that the ship will earn at the port.

The distance in transit through the capes of 286 miles from Philadelphia, and various other mileages to northern ports, is important. The 286 miles savings for a 15-knot ship would constitute 20 hours in exit or inbound through the capes, and it would save quite a bi going through the canal. Such a deepwater canal would enable steamship operators to call at the port of Baltimore for quite a bit less cargo than is currently operative thruogh the capes for entry and exit. By that I mean when a ship draws more than 25 feet the ship must perforce go through the capes. Baltimore's iron ore import is the most important commerce at the port. We handled in 1935 104-million tons of iron ore out of a total commerce of approximately 20 million tons. So iron ore, therefore, can be very well portrayed as Baltimore's lifeblood. Quite a bit of the iron ore that is coming into the port now comes from Norway and Sweden. Fully loaded ships from those points could transit the canal at quite a savings, and carry iron ore to Baltimore at quite a bit less than heretofore by reason of their enforced entry and exit through the capes, rather than the utilization of the canal.

The same thing would hold true on the export of bulk grain and coal to the same area; the Scandinavian and north continental European ports. It would enable us to lay our cargo down at the foreign point quite a bit more reasonably by reason of the lower costs and the resultant lower charter rates to the ports in that area than heretofore.

I have quite a bit more information that I could enlarge upon. I think it is pretty much contained in the statement that I did present. However, the savings to commerce and the ability to make Baltimore a deepwater port in every respect is highly important here, and it is the real issue at stake. It would enable us to facilitate dealings in foreign commerce to an extent not heretofore possible because of the long capes exit and entry.

One point I want to make very clear, because it is highly important, is that when the canal was closed for 3 months in 1953 due to a marine accident caused by the narrowness of the canal at that time—and it is still very narrow-the port of Baltimore suffered reduced cargo offerings during that period to an extent whereby the port slowed down and employment was very reduced. Such a thing, if it were

39263-54-vol. 1-56

due to enemy action or some other source-for example, if the Bay Bridge were bombed, or perhaps fell, the port would be virtually closed to deepwater shipping. Iron ore would be barred from the port by reason of the closing of the canal to deepwater ships, and the canal would have to handle ships with light drafts. Therefore, it would be very uneconomical for an operator to come to the port should the bay be closed by reason of the fact that he would have to limit his load of iron ore to Baltimore. They would not use Baltimore in such a case.

The C. and D. Canal, while it would be affording us two deepwater exits to the sea, would at best be a partial answer to the sustaining of Baltimore in world trade as a deepwater port. Some people might say two deepwater exits to the sea would be a luxury indeed for a major seaport. Here, for example, it is, we feel, definitely required to sustain the port for the iron ore industry and the grain and coal. Baltimore is a bulk port. A bulk port cannot continue to function as Baltimore has by reason of the lowered freight rates and lower mileage to the inland East and Middle West. A bulk port cannot function without fully loaded ships utilizing the port at all times.

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal deepened to 35 feet and widened to 450 feet would be a definite step toward furthering the increase of the commerce of the port and give steamship operators themselves quite a savings by reason of absolutely eliminating delay time due to the waiting for exit or entrance to the canal and eliminating for sure the long bay transit.

I believe that is all of my statement.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Bender.

Mr. Fallon, have you any questions?

Mr. FALLON. I think Mr. Bender explained to my satisfaction the position of the Baltimore Chamber of Commerce. I think it is a very good statement; and also he has filed for the record, which the members may have a chance to read, copies of a prepared statement. I think due to the time element we should get through as quickly as possible.

Mr. BENDER. I have concluded my statement.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Bender has to my satisfaction explained the Baltimore Association of Commerce's position.

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you, Mr. Bender. You certainly made an excellent statement.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I notice Congressman Miller, in whose district this canal lies entirely, just came into the room. I am sure Congressman Miller would like to file something for the record or make a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD T. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND-Resumed

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Fallon and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to say a word. I am not an engineer and remarks I might make in that field would not enlighten you very much. However, as a person coming from that locality I can assure you that this is a matter of importance and concern not only to the great cities on the Delaware Bay and the Chesapeake Bay, but it is also a matter of local interest along the course of the canal. It is generally conceded