people who understood the oil game were certain that there was something there, and they kept at it for 10 or 15 years until they finally discovered it. Mr. HENRY. Will you let me interrupt you there a moment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HENRY. In regard to the oil-field development there; they have struck a great oil field, and there is a probability that it will be the greatest in the State. That is right within easy reach of the river.

Gen. NEWCOMER. That has been within the last four or five months? Mr. HENRY. Yes. They are putting in a refinery plant and investing millions of dollars in these fields. They are pretty close to the river. Mr. WEBER. Are there any especially low rate by virtue of being on a waterway? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think not.

towns on the lower river now that have an

Mr. WEBER. As compared with the other sections?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think not. I do not think they have any special rateany of them. Richmond and those towns are located a few miles up the river, and the traffic at the present time is carried by the railroads running east and west.

Mr. WEBER. Do you have any recognized water rate at all?
Mr. MANSFIELD. No.

Gen. NEWCOMER. Does not that indicate that the extension of equal facilities no greater facilities-upstream, probably would not result in any recognition of water competition?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I think this, that with barges on the river there would be an immense traffic north and south. As Mr. Driscoll said a while ago, that is the natural trend of the freight in that country, and the reason they go east and west on the lower Brazos at this time is because the railroads run in that direction. No railroads run north and south on the lower Brazos.

Mr. HARDY. I do not know whether it would answer the question asked by Gen. Newcomer, but the bayou from Houston to Galveston has shown a very decided effect on railroad rates there. The rates from Houston to Galveston are very low.

Mr. WEBER. That is a recognized competing waterway that is in practical use. Mr. HENRY. I do not like to trespass on your time, but in this statement by Mr. Foster he gives a number of instances where the freight rate has been lowered from that part of the river and sets them out in his argument. I do not know whether those rates still obtain, but they were made by the railroad to meet water competition with the permission of our State railroad commission. For whatever they are worth, they are in there. I have not looked into that particular point myself.

Mr. CONNALLY. I think that is all we care to submit, gentlemen. I thank you.

О

66th CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. NO. 303. 1st Session.

PENTWATER HARBOR, MICH.

LETTER

FROM

THE SECRETARY OF WAR,

TRANSMITTING

WITH A LETTER FROM THE ACTING CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORT ON PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF PENTWATER HARBOR, MICH.

NOVEMBER 19, 1919.-Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and ordered to be printed, with illustration.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 17, 1919.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a letter from the Acting Chief of Engineers, United States Army, of 13th instant, together with report of Col. Edward H. Schulz, Engineers, dated May 29, 1919, with map, on a preliminary examination of Pentwater Harbor, Mich., authorized by the river and harbor act approved August 8, 1917. Very respectfully,

P. C. MARCH,
General, Chief of Staff,
Acting Secretary of War.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, November 13, 1919.

From: The Acting Chief of Engineers.
To: The Secretary of War.

Subject: Preliminary examination of Pentwater Harbor, Mich.

1. There is submitted herewith, for transmission to Congress, report dated May 29, 1919, with map, by Col. Edward H. Schulz, Engineers, on preliminary examination of Pentwater Harbor, Mich., authorized by the river and harbor act approved August 8, 1917.

2. Pentwater Harbor is situated at the mouth of Pentwater River on the east shore of Lake Michigan about 145 miles by water from

HD-66-1-vol 32-23

Chicago and 91 miles from Milwaukee. Near its outlet Pentwater River expands into Pentwater Lake, a navigable body of water about 2.5 miles long. The existing project provides for a channel 150 feet wide and 16 feet deep at low water protected by piers from Lake Michigan to Pentwater Lake. The project has been completed with the exception of an extension of 200 feet to the south pier. The total expenditures by the United States at this locality up to May 1, 1919, amounted to $346,503.30, of which $179,899.10 was for new work and $166,604.20 for maintenance. The improvement of Pentwater Harbor was first undertaken by the United States in 1867, and for a period of about 25 years thereafter there was a commerce of considerable importance, due to the lumber operations then in progress. As in the case of other neighboring ports improved primarily to facilitate the shipment of lumber, the commerce began to decrease with the exhaustion of marketable timber in the vicinity, and while this period has been followed by one of agricultural development, including especially fruit growing, the tonnage afforded by existing industries is very small. Between 1890-1894 the average annual commerce was about 87,000 tons, mostly lumber, while between 1915-1917 the average was 2,933 tons, of which about 50 per cent was fruit and agricultural products. Several examinations of this harbor have been made in recent years, and in each case the recommendations were unfavorable for the further continuance of the project. With an annual expense for maintenance amounting to from $2 to $5 per ton of freight handled, it seems clear that the further improvement of the harbor is not warranted. The district engineer states that there is no probability of any large commerce at Pentwater even if the harbor were enlarged and the project depth maintained. He expresses the opinion that there is not sufficient present or prospective commerce to justify further maintenance at Federal expense, and he recommends that the project be abandoned. The division engineer concurs in this recommendation.

3. This report has been referred, as required by law, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its report herewith, dated November 4, 1919, concurring in the unfavorable views of the district and division engineers.

4. After due consideration of the above-mentioned reports, I concur in the views of the district engineer, the division engineer, and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and therefore report that the further improvement by the United States of Pentwater Harbor, Mich., is not deemed advisable, and legislation authorizing the abandonment of the project is recommended.

FREDERIC V. ABBOT, Colonel, Corps of Engineers.

REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS.

[Third indorsement.]

BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS,
November 4, 1919.

To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY:

1. The following is in review of the district engineer's report authorized by the river and harbor act of August 8, 1917, on preliminary examination of Pentwater Harbor, Mich.