SECTION III.-COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS RELATION TO NAVAL BASES AT ALAMEDA OR HUNTERS POINT THE RELATION OF COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TO THE PROPOSED NAVAL BASE SITES.

The following statement is made concerning the commerce of the United States and its relation to the port of San Francisco:

1. Distance from the shaded territory via El Paso gateway is the same to proposed Hunters Point naval base and the proposed Alameda naval base. Southeastern territory, such as Alabama, Birmingham-the great steel manufacturing and coal and iron center and points reached via the sunset route of the Southern Pacific is less in distance via El Paso than any other gateway.

2. Distance from light territory and upper part of shaded territory via Ogden gateway to Hunters Point all rail via Dumbarton cut-off and Niles is but 14.4 miles greater than to Alameda (except local territory immediately tributary to Hunters Point and Alameda).

3. Hunters Point and Alameda ocean commerce is via San Francisco wharves. Practically all ocean commerce of the bay region is over the San Francisco wharves. Hunters Point is directly connected with these wharves. Alameda is not, and its ocean commerce has to be transshipped.

4. Freight rates between the points in the above-described territories in the United States and Hunters Point or Alameda are the same regardless of distances. Therefore transportation costs to an industry or to a naval base at Hunters Point are not affected because of the 14 miles differential in favor of Alameda from the territory depicted on the map.

5. Costs on ocean commerce to an industry or the naval base located at Alameda are and will be more than to Hunters Point, for the reason that such commerce of Alameda is and has to be transshipped at San Francisco.

SECTION IV. DETAILING FACTS IN COMPARING HUNTERS POINT, ALAMEDA, AND MARE ISLAND COMPARISON OF HUNTERS POINT, ALAMEDA, AND MARE ISLAND SITES.

Map VII, showing the proposed Hunters Point naval base site and the proposed Alameda naval base site, was prepared to show the detail of the two locations. Attention is directed especially to the following:

1. Hunters Point is located directly on deep water-30, 40, and 50 feet in depth. All three transcontinental railroads traverse this territory and rail connection with the Hunters Point site can be readily and easily made. In addition, connection can be easily made with the State Belt Railroad, which runs around the water front, and thus join the Presidio Army base with a naval base located at Hunters Point, which will unite both branches of the service such coordination increasing efficiency and economy in operation and increasing effectiveness in time of war.

It has also been stated that the peculiar arrangement of the coast range of mountains on the San Francisco peninsula affords a protection to Hunters Point that would not maintain at the Alameda location.

2. Alameda is an island, reached only via bridges and no transcontinental railroad traverses it. Rail services necessary to a naval base at Alameda would have to be via these bridges across the Oakland estuary, where traffic is heavy, causing congestion which will increase with every development. Alameda has no main line train service.

The island of Alameda is not directly on deep water and dredging would be necessary to create and maintain sufficient depth of water, as the east side of the bay continually accumulates silt, owing to the peculiar currents of San Francisco Bay, Even with the naval base at Alameda it would be necessary for the ships of the Navy to find anchorage in the deep-water channel of the bay, and owing to the ferry and steamer routes, which must be kept clear, they would be compelled to anchor off Hunters Point.

3. Mare Island is located approximately 25 miles up the bay. Economically it is out of position as compared with either Hunters Point or Alameda, and this economic condition would affect the cost of construction and the operating cost. In time of war the naval base should be in immediate vicinity of the Golden Gate for the reason that San Francisco would, due to location, be the first point of attack in the bay region.

SECTION V.-LETTER FROM PRESIDENT OF CIVIC LEAGUE OF IMPROVEMENT CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS, EXCERPT FROM REPORT OF DR. B. M. RASTALL, AND COPY OF RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF SAN FRANCISCO ORGANIZATIONS, AND EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE NAVAL COMMISSION AT CITY HALL SUBSTANTIATING CERTAIN PARTS OF THIS REPORT.

NOVEMBER 13, 1920.

BOARD OF Governors oF THE CIVIC LEAGUE OF IMPROVEMENT CLUBS AND Asso

CIATIONS.

GENTLEMEN: Your attention is called to the fact that some conscientious San. Franciscans have criticized the campaign of the Civic League of Improvement Clubs and Associations for the purpose of bringing out and developing the advantages of Hunters Point as a site for the naval base. The point made by these critics is that disclosing the facts at this time gives our competitors an advantage. In other words, it will cause an anticlimax.

It has been pointed out to them that our endeavor is to aid the congressional naval committee by presenting all the facts as we see them, and by doing this to cause our competitors for the naval site to also present every fact possible in order that the congressional committee may have before it all of the facts for consideration to facilitate the proper determination. We do not wish to take advantage of any technicality in the presentation of the matter.

Also it has been pointed out that the citizenry of San Francisco and the entire State are entitled to all of the facts, for the reason that in the final analysis they, after all, must judge from the facts.

Also every occasion has been taken to call attention to the fact that the Civic League of Improvement Clubs and Associations is a rock-ribbed San Francisco organization, and that it is the desire of its executive committee that the congressional Naval Committee and the people of California have this knowledge to enable them to consider zealousness along with the facts presented by this organization.

The naval base is an industry which will invest in its site approximately $50,000,000 of the people's money and will employ from five to eight thousand people, and, all things being equal, the fact that San Francisco's portion of the taxes necessary to the naval base investment far exceeds that of any of its competitors will undoubtedly receive the consideration of the Naval Committee.

This for your information should it be necessary to call a special meeting of the board of governors during the time the Naval Committee is in San Francisco. Yours, very truly,

P. R. THOMPSON,

President Civic League of Improvement Clubs and Associations.

CIVIC LEAGUE OF IMPROVEMENT CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS

OF SAN FRANCISCO,
San Francisco, November 17, 1920.

This is to certify that the board of governors, on Tuesday, November 9, and the delegates on Thursday, November 11, at their regular monthly meetings, ratified all the actions of the executive committee in the matter of Hunters Point as the site for the naval base on the Pacific coast.

CIVIC LEAGUE OF IMPREVEMENT CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS. By GEO. W. GERHARD, Secretary.

Attention is called to the report, on file at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, of Dr. B. M. Rastall, industrial engineer, of the Harlem Board of Trade, who made an industrial survey of San Francisco for the chamber of commerce in 1916. He has recently again been employed by the chamber of commerce. Below is an excerpt from the 1916 report to substantiate several points made in our report.

"This city has one of the most remarkable physical layouts for intensive development of a modern industrial section, but so far has been entirely lacking in the particular local adjustments and facilities requisite to such growth. The result is that this territory in the presence of unequaled opportunities lies practically vacant.

* *

*

"The southern portion of San Francisco has the only natural deep water frontage now available on the bay, making possible the construction of pier systems with the necessary depth for large seagoing vessels at moderate cost and in conjuction with industrial tracts. Direct connections with a complete system of all main radiating railroads, an absolute fundamental to intensive manufacturing location, are immediately available to all the western_transcontinental lines in this area. In fact, the principal terminals of the Western Pacific, Santa Fe, and Southern Pacific lines are already within this area. Close contact with the business and mercantile centers

of this city, together with direct radial trucking routes, can be comparatively easily secured. Immediately back of the area also are hilly sections, ideal for the construction of workmen's residential areas.

MEMORANDUM,

The "particular local adjustments" mentioned in the above report of Dr. Rastall in 1916 have been the object of the effort of various organizations to accomplish, and the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce has solved one of the particular adjustments, which is the extension of the switching limits to include South San Francisco; and when the Civic League succeeds in obtaining the necessary legislation to complete the leveling of Hunters Point, the other particular local adjustments will take place and with the location of the naval base at Hunters Point the development of the entire territory, as evidently foreseen by Dr. Rastall in 1916, will be rapid until it has reached its fullest development.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT MEETING OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF SAN FRANCISCO ORGANIZA TIONS HELD NOVEMBER 12, 1920.

Whereas it has been called to the attention of this organization that the Senate and House Naval Committee, charged with the duty of recommending to Congress a naval site on San Francisco Bay, will arrive in San Francisco on Monday, November 15; and

Whereas the commercial development committee's report, pointing out in detail that Hunters Point is the logical site for the naval base from an economic standpoint, has been adopted: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Central Bureau of San Francisco Organizations cooperate to the fullest extent with the city and county officials for the purpose of presenting all the facts concerning the Hunters Point site.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF SAN FRANCISCO ORGANIZATIONS.

Rotary Club.

United Commercial Travelers of America, Golden Gate Council No. 80.
Van Ness Avenue Improvement Club.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF SAN FRANCISCO ORGANIZATIONS.

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted at th meeting of the Central Bureau of San Francisco Organizations, held Friday, Novembe

12, 1920.

R. L. WEBB,

Executive Secretary, Central Bureau of San Francisco Organizations.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY NAVAL BASE SITES.

NOVEMBER 17, 1920.

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS

ON PACIFIC COAST NAVAL BASES,

SITE AT ALAMEDA, CALIF.

Oakland, Calif.

A hearing before the Special Joint Committee of Congress on Pacific Coast Naval Bases was held at the chambers of the city council of the city of Oakland, State of California, in the city hall, Oakland, Calif., November 17, 1920, commencing at 3 o'clock p. m. There were present the following members of the committee: Senators L. Heisler Ball, Henry W. Keyes, and Thomas J. Walsh; Representatives Fred A. Britten, Frederick C. Hicks, A. E. B. Stephens, L. P. Padgett, and Daniel J. Riordan, together with W. M. Coffin, secretary of the committee.

There were also present naval officers Rear Admiral C. W. Parks, chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks; Admiral R. E. Coontz, chief of naval operations; Rear Admiral W. L. Capps, of the Navy Department; Lieut. Commander H. W. Hill, aide to Admiral Coontz. There were also present Senator James D. Phelan and Representative J. Arthur Elston.

There were also present, representative of the interests of the Alameda site, Mayor John L. Davie, of Oakland; Councilmen W. H. Edwards, F. F. Morse, and W. J. Baccus, of Oakland; K. C. Heck, city engineer of Oakland; Mayor Frank Otis, of Alameda; City Manager Charles E. Hewes, of Alameda; Councilmen Alfred Latham, C. C. Adams, E. J. Probst, of Alameda; C. E. Hickok, city engineer of Alameda; Mayor Louis Bartlett, of Berkeley; and the following from Oakland: Walter D. Cole, president of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce; H. C. Capwell, chairman of the harbor committee of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce; Joseph E. Caine, managing director, Oakland Chamber of Commerce; Joseph H. King, former president of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce; J. R. Knowland, proprietor of the Oakland Tribune.

There were also present: L. H. Newbert, manager of Alameda County district Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; R. A. Gentis, superintending engineer, electrical department, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; George E. Wilhelm, general manager of East Bay Water Co.

The hearing was presided over by Senator Ball, chairman of the joint committee, and the following proceedings were had:

Senator BALL. The meeting will be in order. You may proceed, Mavor Davie.

Mayor DAVIE. Members of the national committee and the advisory naval board, as mayor of the city of Oakland, I extend to the members

24676-20-5

63

of the national committee a most cordial welcome, and I know the people of Oakland are ready, as they always are, to do their part when it comes to visiting committees to our port.

While Oakland is the only city around the bay that has not a naval site to offer to this commission, we are naturally prejudiced in favor of our own side of the bay, and we certainly hope that the committee will be able to help this side of the bay to a base that will take care of the entire fleet of the United States. From the addresses to which we listened at the luncheon to-day, from Senators and from Congressmen, about the Navy, it is certainly most marvelous We can hardly comprehend what it means to the Bay of San Francisco. While we, as officials and laymen, are of course not prepared to pass opinion upon the qualities of any of the bases around the bay, that being left entirely to the commission, we are content to leave it with them, feeling certain that they will do what they think is best, and we shall certainly abide by their decision.

Senator Ball, in his talk at the luncheon to-day said, "We are not here to make speeches. We are here to do business." Realizing that, I shall say nothing more, but will take great pleasure in introducing his honor Mayor Frank Otis, of Alameda, who will take charge of this meeting from now on, so far as the interests of the site at Alameda are concerned. Gentlemen, Mayor Otis.

Mayor FRANK OTIS. Mr. Mayor, members of the congressional committee, United States naval officers, and gentlemen, I desire to supplement, on behalf of the city of Alameda, the cordial words of greeting of his honor the mayor of Oakland, and to add the greeting of the city of Alameda to that of Oakland. I hope and trust that not only will your short sojourn in the San Francisco Bay region be pleasant, but that you will obtain all the data needed to solve the important problem which you have under consideration.

În January, 1917, nearly four years ago, before our Republic had entered the World War, a commission authorized by the Congress and appointed by the President, made a preliminary report on a naval base site on San Francisco Bay. This commission was composed of men eminently fitted for the task assigned to them—namely, five United States naval officers, headed by Rear Admiral James T. Helm. The commission's final report was completed in the last month of the same year, and was ready for the Congress in the early part of the succeeding year. The report embraced over 1,000 printed pages, and discussed the subject in a systematic manner and with painstaking thoroughness. The selection of the Alameda site was recommended.

Subsequently a second commission of three United States naval officers, headed by Rear Admiral J. S. McKean, made an additional investigation, the Secretary of the Navy accompanying the commission in its local inspection. The report of this commission sustained the findings of the Helm Commission, but recommended that borings be taken to determine the existence of suitable foundations.

I may say, parenthetically, that there has never been a doubt in the minds of those conversant with the subject as to what these borings would show, for wherever such borings have been made in the vicinity of the site the foundation, at a short depth, was shown to be clay, gravel, and hardpan.

Thereupon it was determined by the council of the city of Alameda after consulting with the Oakland Chamber of Commerce,