that an attempt has been made to determine the total 
costs of operation on the river, including the invest- 
ment in barges, tow boats and other equipment, and 
the cost of their repair, depreciation and operation. 
Neither do the engineers take into consideration the 
large investments necessary for the construction of 
river terminals, which are not provided by the gov- 
ernment, but which the various municipalities desir- 
ing to avail themselves of the supposed benefits of 
river navigation are required to provide and maintain 
at their own cost. The public utilities and other, 
large private interests which the reports apparently 
assume would be the chief beneficiaries of river navi- 
gation, would be required to spend large sums neces- 
sary for floating equipment and terminal facilities. 
Neither do the government engineers take into con- 
sideration the huge annual interest charges on the 
enormous investments, past and prospective, which 
are involved in this and other similar waterway 
projects. 
Inasmuch as Congress committed itself to the 
project of the 9-foot channel for the upper Missis- 
sippi River on the basis of an estimated cost of 
ninety-eight million dollars, and with an entirely 
inadequate showing of economic return, it is perhavs 
not surprising that the several later reports of the 
government engineers contained in document 137, 
entirely ignore the questions of volume of traffic and 
economy, notwithstanding the statements in previous 
reports that further investigations of traffic and the 
economic aspects of the project would be covered by 
subsequent reports. 
Not an Unemployment Relief Project 
It is certain that this waterway cannot be justified 
on the score that it would at this time furnish a de- 
sired degree of unemployment relief. Its construc- 
tion on a large scale could not be begun shortly; the 
work would extend over a period of several years, 
reaching far beyond the time when it is reasonable 
to expect that the unemployment situation will be 
relieved. It is generally conceded that public work 
of this character does not, for equal expenditures, 
employ nearly as much labor as improvements of 
other kinds, less scattered, both in time and location. 
Further, a large proportion of the cost of this water- 
way will be for lands and property damages, and to 
that extent will in nowise contribute to unemploy- 
ment relief. Neither can the project be properly con- 
sidered as self-liquidating, which, it is commonly 
accepted, is the only kind justified at this time, much 
less is it to be classed with "such public works as can 
[20 1