OPPOSES PROJECT OF ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

"There are six main reasons why I do not approve of the plan for improving the St. Lawrence waterway," said Congressman S. W. Dempsey of New York, chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors in the House of Representatives, during an interview with a CRIMSON reporter yesterday.

"In the first place the United States needs all the money it can afford to spend on waterways for its own rivers and harbors. It has no money to spend on foreign waterways. Secondly, the waterways of the United States can handle its fright more economically and more expeditiously than can the St. Lawrence river.

"Another reason why I object to the proposed scheme is that the St. Lawrence route, even when improved, would not be feasible for ocean-going ships. The channels proposed by the Joint Commission are not of a depth to accommodate vessels of a draft which can be navigated economically. Specially strengthened ships must be constructed to navigate the St. Lawrence in safety. The damages from Icebergs, tides, and fogs are so great and losses so frequent that the Maritime Insurance rate is heavy enough to be a serious handicap. Moreover the delays in the restricted channels of the river would make navigation by ocean-going vessels and impossibility.

Water Power Dependent on Navigation

"In the fourth place the development of water power is not inseparably connected with the development of navigation on the St. Lawrence. The power can and should be developed now. The navigation will not come for years in the most hopeful aspect. The power can be developed more economically by private capital than by taxes levied on the people. The finances of Canada and the United States are in such condition that a government development of power could not come for many years. As the private capital is ready to develop the power offered by the St. Lawrence, why should New England wait for it until the governments of the two countries are in a financial position to develop it? Developing this power will necessitate doing much of the work which must be done if the river is to be made navigable. Why, then, not go ahead with our utilization of the opportunities for power; and in doing so, cover three-quarters of the expense which will be necessitated by the joint navigation and power plant?

"My fifth objection is allied to the fourth. Why should the power users of New England be addled with the cost of navigation improvements? They should bear only the reasonable expense of developing the power.

"Finally, above all in importance to its citizens is the development, growth, and prosperity of the whole of the United States through improving and using its own waterways instead of those of a foreign country. This from the broad point of view is to the interest of the north west. It is this that they should bear in mind when considering the proposed improvements of the St. Lawrence waterway."