uncleared land on the other. We can get the amounts of land very easily.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I know what he wants, and I understand that the statements of Mr. Allen and of Mr. Offenheiser will give both the acreage and the valuation.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ransdell, do you wish to make a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, A FORMER SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, LAKE PROVIDENCE, LA.

Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like to say a few words. Perhaps they are not necessary, but I feel such a deep interest in this subject that I wish to add my voice to that of others.

You have been told a great deal about the Wilson Point-Bunches Bend cut-off or set-back levee. I would like to relate an experience that I had some 38 years ago. Lt. H. C. Newcomer was then the officer in charge of the Vicksburg district, and he sought to do, under authority of the Mississippi River Commission, exactly what has been done for the Wilson Point-Bunches Bend short levee in the last 3 or 4 years; he recommended that 21 plantations be thrown out and a short line of levee be run from near Lake Providence to Bunches Bend, some 31⁄2 to 4 miles in length.

The people of Lake Providence were very much upset about the proposed action, and asked the Mississippi River Commission to allow them to be heard in opposition. General Catchings was at that time a member of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House and was present at the hearing. We appeared before the Mississippi River Commission and made a desperate fight against Lieutenant Newcomer's recommendation. I had the honor of making my first appearance on the stage at that time as a flood-control advocate. Judge Wm. G. Wyly and a number of other distinguished people made strong pleas, and we defeated Lieutenant Newcomer's proposition. Those plantations were then among the best in the parish of East Carroll, but since have depreciated somewhat in value on account of seepage.

Mr. Chairman, it is a serious thing to throw out to the waters of the Mississippi River 21 plantations aggregating 9,600 acres of land, and that is what was done by this Bunches Bend setback. I shall not go into detail in describing it, because you have heard all about it.

Some pitiful stories have been told in connection with the VidalElkridge set-back, throwing out 19,500 acres. You have heard how one gentleman was so distressed by having all his property taken away that he committed suicide. You were told by Mr. Schneider about a gentleman near Duckport, and his great distress, with his wife in tears and he almost crushed, because they were taking his home away from him, and there have been many such instances in connection with these set-back levees.

It would not be seeming for me, sirs, to criticize the action of the United States Engineers in making these set-back levees. I believe those gentlemen did the very best that they could. I believe they were actuated by the best motives. They were given a difficult task. They are military people. They are the honor men of West Point Military Academy. They are soldiers, and when told to get results,

they look rather to the end than to the means of accomplishing it. When instructed to protect the situation at Wilson Point-Bienches Bend, for instance, they saw that by running a set-back levee 3/21⁄2 miles long it would cost a great deal less than to raise and enlarge the 15 miles of front-line levees, and they knew it would cost the Federal Government or the local authorities a great deal less to maintain 31⁄2 miles of levee than 15 miles.

They knew of the trouble and danger of high-water fights in general; they knew how expensive and difficult had been the high-water fights at Wilson Point, that thousands and thousands of dollars had been spent there to hold the floods, so they said, "We are going to cut across this point and save, in round numbers, one million dollars by so doing."

From an engineering standpoint, that was all right. It is proper to recognize the broad principle of the greater good to the greater number. That theory should prevail in democratic countries-the greater good of the greater number. The engineers thought that if they could save a million dollars in that locality; and a very large sum, which, according to Mr. Schneider, is over $9,000,000 within the course of the next 30 years at the Vidal-Elkridge levee; and a considerable saving at every one of these set-backs, they were justified in so doing. They are engineers, not economists. They desired results, and did not consider how much the individual was going to suffer in obtaining them.

Fortunately, Congress is not obliged to carry out that idea. Congress can well say, "We recognize the wisdom and necessity of taking care of the big majority of the people even if the individual must suffer, but in the enunciation and application of that principle, it has always been recognized that the individual sufferer must be fully compensated."

When railroads, or other public improvements, are laid out, and they go through some man's house, or across his most valuable property, the courts do not hesitate, under the principle of conserving the public welfare, to condemn the property, but requires that the owner be paid a fair price for it; and we contend, in accord with this same principle of equity, and common fairness between man and man that the property destroyed by the set-back must be paid for by the Government at its just value.

Mr. Chairman, I do not need to remind the members of this committee that in the great Flood Control Act of May 1928, the principle was clearly laid down and established that, as the local communities had expended $292,000,000 in fighting the floods of the Mississippi, prior to that year, it was the duty of the Federal Government to protect the valley from floods thereafter.

That provision in section 2 of the Act which two of you gentlemen helped to write, and in which I assisted, makes it the duty of the Federal Government to pay for flood control on the Mississippi thereafter, with the exception of the rights-of-way on which the levees are built.

Now, sirs, applying that principle, that the Federal Government must pay for flood-control works subsequent to 1928, there can be no doubt that it is bound, in law-not only in equity, and justice, but in law-under the terms of section 2 of that Flood-Control Act, to pay what is right, just, and fair for all of these lands taken by the set-back

levees, as is set forth in the Chairman's bill. I do not think there is any doubt about it, and I appeal to your, sirs, to accord that justice to these people who have suffered so much.

What is going to happen to them if they are not paid? I have lived on that river since September 1882-52 years and 6 monthsand practically everything I own is in that country. I have been fighting floods since my young manhood. I know the situation there, and do not hesitate to say that the lands thrown out by the set-back levees are worthless, except for raising trees. If the front levees are cut and the water allowed to flow in freely, in a few years, maybe 20, 30, or 40, there will be a nice growth of cottonwood trees, which will eventually be worth a fair price, but otherwise the loss will be total.

Is our great government going to condemn these people to suffer absolute loss of their property-the property on which most of them were living and making their homes? Is it going to prevent them from getting anything whatsoever for 20 or 30 years? That would be a terrible hardship, and extremely unjust. I would not regard property lying between those set-back levees and the front as having any value except for trees. It is not suitable for grazing, because of the briars and underbrush that grow so rapidly, and there is no possibility of draining the lands. How can my friends, Mr. Bland, and Dr. Wolfe, drain their lands? It is impossible. It can not be done. No use can be made of them. These lands have been condemned for the public good, and the public should pay for them.

Now, gentlemen, just a word or two more. It has been 7 years since these lands were taken, because as soon as it was decided to build the set-back levees, the lands were practically taken. The owners could not do anything with them. They might be farmed for a year or so, until the work of levee building began, but they have to all intents and purposes been taken for several years.

Mr. Chairman, you have been trying for several years to secure payment for these properties, and I beg you, sir, with all of the force there is in me, to report this bill at once, and to push it through immediately. These people have been deprived of their property for so long, that many will die before relief is granted if you do not act quickly.

I wish to suggest one other thing. Your bill speaks of giving prices in payment for the lands that are found to be reasonable. I beg you gentlemen to go further than that language, "found to be reasonable." Who is going to decide what is reasonable? The Chief of Engineers, the owners of the property, and the levee boards. We all know pretty well what human nature is. There are thousands of acres of this land. Mr. Adams just old you that he found some 56,000 in Louisiana, and I guess it belongs to hundreds of different owners. When you get down to details on many of these properties, how will you get people to agree on a reasonable value, and, when they do disagree, what is the result?

Courts were established to settle controversies, differences of opinion, and if Congress does not fix a definite, specific sum, in my judgment, the matter will be carried into the courts, and it will be years and years before this matter is finally closed.

I do not see how you are going to determine this thing except in one way, and that is to say that the price to be paid for these lands is to be so many times the assessed value of the property before the

taking actually occurred, 1, 2, or 3 years before, and at a time when there was no suspicion, when the property was not affected by the threat that these levees were going to be built, and in that way, you can determine definitely.

Suppose that you say it will be two and a half times the assessment; then a man will know what he is to get. Suppose that you say that it is to be twice the assessed value; he will know what he is to get. Suppose you say that it will be one and a half times the assessed value, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will never get that low, but suppose that you put it in at one and a half times the assessed value, there will be an end to the controversy. This thing has gone on for some years already, and we must bring it to a close.

When you say take this measure to the House, members will ask, "What is it going to cost?"

You have in your record the assessed value of these properties in Louisiana, and I assume that you have it for Arkansas, but you certainly have it for the State of Louisiana, for it was presented today, and I hope that you will get it for Mississippi. I also hope that the Representatives from Arkansas will get that in the record for Arkansas.

My long experience in Congress teaches me that Congress does not like to buy a pig in a sack, any more than an individual does. Congress likes to know what things are going to cost. If you think the owners should be paid twice the assessment, or two and a half times the assessment, or one and a half times the assessment, and someone should question you on the floor as to what is the assessed value, how many acres there are, and what they are valued at, you can tell him and you will know what it is. It will not be an indefinite sum such as "a reasonable value", and when the bill is carried to the other branch of Congress, the Senate, which must also give its consent, it can be told the facts definitely, specifically, and favorable results will come quickly.

I beg of you gentlemen to consider that and to consider it carefully. Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the Louisiana yardstick?

Mr. RANSDELL. For what?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. For that very thing.

Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. Whittington, the constitution of 1921 fixed a yardstick for the lands that were taken for the levees at once the assessment, or at the assessed value.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. For the previous year?

Mr. RANSDELL. For the previous year, and, as nearly as I can come at it, in Louisiana the assessed value is something like 40 percent of the real value, but I do not think that that yardstick can fairly be applied to a case of this kind. That is what our levee boards have to pay when they condemn the rights-of-way and the borrow pits for the building of the levees. That is the Louisiana yardstick.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Has there been any decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana as to whether, under the constitution of 1921, Louisiana is required to pay more than for the levee foundations and the borrow pits?

Mr. RANSDELL. I could not answer that question. I wonder if Mr. Adams can answer it?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.

Mr. RANSDELL. It is a long time since I practiced law.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that the court held in one case that they did not have to pay for anything except for the lands taken and destroyed.

Mr. RANSDELL. I think that there was a case of that kind.

Mr. ADAMS. Yes. That was in 1934.

The CHAIRMAN. And in another case, I think in the Federal court, the decision was practically along the same line, where it was held that the servitude for the right-of-way was limited to the lands actually taken and used for that purpose.

Mr. RANSDELL. But, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Whittington, I am glad you asked that question, because I want to say that it would not be fair to hold us to a measure or a yardstick like that, because even if that yardstick applied to lands in this set-back, bear in mind, sirs, that the State of Louisiana was acting for itself, and never would it do a thing like these set-back levees far from the river; it would set the levees back a few yards.

Let me tell you what occurred below Lake Providence in 1882, when I went to live at the home of my brother-in-law, Capt. Tom Montgomery, who lived there in a fine ante-bellum mansion. The levee was in his front yard, and they told me that the house was built by Mr. William Deeson in the early forties and at that time it was a mile and a half back from the river. They said that his neighbors laughed at the old man, and asked, "Why in the name of common sense do you build your house so far back from the river; you cannot see the boats go by."

"Well," he said, "I can see their smoke, and that is all that I want to see, and my children will see this house cave in the water."

Gentlemen, I have seen that house moved back twice, but they did not move it several miles back; they moved it, as I recall, a few hundred yards each time, probably a quarter of a mile each time, so that it was moved in all about half a mile.

Now, the general principle was—and, of course, there were exceptions to all rules-that when a levee had to be moved back under the Louisiana system, it was moved a short distance, and the loop would be drawn around, and the safety would apply; and bear in mind that in the Flood Control Act of 1928, although a very liberal provision for revetments was made-$80,000,000, according to my recollection-how many revetments have you heard of being built since 1928? The engineers seem to have forgotten all about revetments. Now they build a set-back levee; they do not hold the existing line of levee. That is what they have done, built a set-back levee, in innumerable cases. Why? Mr. Adams and Mr. Jacobs both testified before your Committee in 1924, and they said that it was a question of dollars and cents. It is a question of which is the most economical. Will it cost less to protect the old levee, or will it cost less to build a setback levee? At Wilson Point it is 15 miles around by the old levee line and only 3.50 by the new levee.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I understand that, but my whole thought is what would be, your recommendation as to the yardstick, whether it would be one or one and a half or two, three, or five times the assessment of the previous year?

Mr. RANSDELL. I think that it should be from two to two and onehalf times, at least, and I am willing to go on record for that, but not less than two; and, Mr. Whittington, in that connection I want to

ARIES

5-6004