Senator BINGHAM. I am sorry if I have misundertsood, and I would like to have you correct me if I have done so. I understood that the bill now before us did propose that that bridge should be maintained and operated in accordance with the provisions of the bridge act of March 23, 1906.

Senator MCNARY. But I am talking about the one that is now the law.

Senator BINGHAM. This is the proposal that you are speaking of now?

Senator McNARY. That is the one before us, yes; but there is a law which was passed last year covering this same bridge, which has never been repealed and which it is attempted to repeal now. That is the thing we passed on a few days ago, that when such improvements are proposed, when the construction of a bridge is proposed, it should be submitted to the commissions of the two States affected. That carries out the policy that was adopted by the committee some weeks ago, which they now seek to have repealed by coming in under the proposition that this is an exceptional and unique and extraordinary case; one which involves the elements of an emergency.

Adverting to that statement as to what the legislature of Oregon did, it is my humble opinion that the Oregon legislature could not legislate in a field which was delegated to the highway commission by Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. I quite agree with the Senator on that.

Senator McNARY. And the act of the Oregon legislature in my judgment is null and void; and to-day the proper course and policy in my judgment is to forget what Oregon legislature has said, and try to get the highway commissions of Oregon and Washington together, sitting in on this proposition with the Army engineers, and I believe then this problem will be solved without legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. But if the Oregon legislature puts all bridge plans through the port of Portland commission, then where is the State of Washington left?

Senator MONARY. Again, I repeat, without expressing my judgment as to the legal phase, assuming that act is not such as could be sustained in the courts, I still think that as a practical proposition if these people would go before the State highway commissions of Oregon and Washington, they would all get together and this whole proposition could be worked out without further legislation or effort by Congress.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. But if the port of Portland asks for a bridge so high there that you have to reach it by ladders instead of approaches, asks for a bridge that no one could finance, neither the States nor the counties? The necessity for this bridge is based on the development of the whole resources for 10 or 20 miles on both sides, every dollar of which was valued when appeals were made to Congress for the $25,000,000 for Columbia River improvement. All was based on the prospective trade that would be developed in all that country.

Senator COUZENS. May I interject there, that this proposed bridge must be of equal value to the people in both States? Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Of course, Senator.

Senator COUZENS. In other words, it is not for the benefit exclusively, as I understand it, of Washington; and so far as I am able to speak I would oppose any intervention on the part of the Federal Government, and would leave it wholly to the States to agree among themselves, as long as they have a concurrent interest. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to see this thing passed over, and see the States try to thrash it out, and then come back to us afterwards.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. But the questions of navigation, interstate commerce, river and ocean navigation, and also land commerce, come in, and those things all have to be considered. Congress has placed the final control of the navigation of this section of the river in itself-it has that right under interstate commerce-and it must be the deciding factor. The States probably can not agree for years to come.

Senator COUZENS. I understand, but this is of public interest to both States. If both States can not agree that it is of public interest to both of them, why should Congress interfere to protect a private bridge which is not of interest to both States?

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Did we not have the same question between Pennsylvania and New Jersey on the Camden bridge, coming to us at the last minute, Pennsylvania desiring a free bridge and New Jersey not being permitted under its laws to bond itself without an appeal to the people? That resulted in the same proposition. After two years or more the State of Pennsylvania had to cancel its bridge legislation in order to permit the two States to lay tolls.

Senator MCNARY. Mr. Warren, have you about finished?

Mr. WARREN. I will not make any further statement, if there is nothing else you care to ask, so far as I am concerned.

Senator McNARY. Thank you, Mr. Warren. Now, Mr. Shull, will you make your statement?

STATEMENT OF FRANK L. SHULL

Mr. SHULL. My name is Frank L. Shull. I am an exporter in Portland, have been there for a great many years, and I am representing the Chamber of Commerce of Portland, Oreg.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that I can very consistently follow your suggestion and make this statement brief. This subject has been very well covered by Mr. Warren, and I understand you do not want to enter into the matters of bridge clearances, heights, and all that sort of thing.

Briefly, then, about all I have to say is this, that the subject before us, as I understand it, as you want to consider it, is the one question as to whether an individual-in this case a corportation— shall be permitted to build, according to its specifications as they may be submitted to the War Department, a link in the immense highway system of the northwest.

The State of Oregon has spent upward of $75,000,000 on this highway system. The State of Washington, I presume, has spent as much or more. So it seems to us that it is a vital question; that in fact it is a unique condition.

I understood from the testimony of General Taylor yesterday that they have many bridges to consider; that in most cases they only

have to give a superficial consideration to them; that they do not require, here in his office in Washington, much thought or attention. This particular case, it seems to me, comes under those that are unusual, for the very reason that it is a part of an immense highway system. For that reason it seems to me, representing the Chamber of Commerce of Portland and the people of that section, that it is vital that the highway systems of the two States have something to say about what this bridge shall be, so I agree with the statement made by the Chairman, I understand, as it is reported here in the Congressional Record of March 4, in this one paragraph, which if you will permit, I shall read. [Reading:]

In cases where the right is sought by private capital to construct a toll bridge over a proposed or main highway, we believe that such permit should be denied unless the highway commission or commissions of the State or States affected approve the application, for such permit; and, in general, it is not our intention to report favorably a bridge bill containing permission to construct a bridge over a navigable stream unless we have first satisfied ourselves of the approval of the highway commission of the State or States concerned.

Senator BINGHAM. May I interrupt at this point? You have just quoted me. That which you have just stated is correct and is the unanimous opinion of the full committee as well as of the subcommittee.

There is, however, a distinction which I would like very much to have you explain, and that is between the highway departments of the States or State involved, giving their approval at this time to the Congress granting a franchise over a navigable stream connecting two great highway systems from the point of view of the highways, and giving to the highway commissions any of the duties of the War Department or the Chief of Engineers so far as navigation is concerned. In other words, superficially it would appear to me that the bill as passed last year at the instance of Senator McNary which eventually gives to the highway commissions the approval of the plan of the bridge and its vertical and horizontal clearances, introduced an entirely new element, and one not contemplated by the passage of the resolution or the policy of the committee.

Senator McNARY. But is not the language of the amendment I inserted

Senator BINGHAM. No; I was not quoting the language. I said "eventually."

Senator MCNARY. The language I used in the bill is practically the same language as the committee used in their resolution a week ago last Thursday.

Senator BINGHAM. May I explain, at that point?

Senator McNARY. Yes.

Senator BINGHAM. We have received, in accordance with our policy of asking for information of this kind, a telegram from this Oregon State Highway Commission, dated February 27, 1926, which closes with these words:

Oregon State law provides port of Portland must approve vertical and horizontal clearances of structures over Columbia River between Portland and the sea. In view of the fact that the highway commission was quoting that to us, it seems to me, perhaps unjustifiably, that the highway commission was bringing into the matter an entirely new state of circumstances, namely the vertical and horizontal clearances of the

structures, which really the highway commission has nothing to do with.

Senator DILL. And which the committee did not intend, when it made this regulation, to permit the highway commission to have control of.

But the Legislature of the State of Oregon so bound them up that they were compelled to do this.

Senator BINGHAM. Now, proceed.

Mr. SHULL. I have almost finished. I want to say this, that we are willing to stand on this policy, as I understand it, expressed by your committee, that before granting an enabling act—if that is the right term of it--for the erection of the bridge to a private corporation or individual, the application must have the approval of the State highway commissions of the two States. That which I have just read, I understand to be the policy. That, of course, does eliminate the port of Portland, and I think it is a very wise policy, in that the highway commission of the States are deeply interested in it just the same as the shipping people up the river.

Senator MCNARY. You are, then, willing to comply with the present enabling act and leave the matter to the decision of the State highway commissions of Oregon and Washington and the War Department?

Mr. SHULL. Yes.

Senator MCNARY. Without the interference of the port of Portland or the port dock commission or any other body?

Mr. WARREN. Senator, I can not go that far. I will accept the Senator's suggestion so far as the port is concerned, and it will be agreeable to the port if you put in the the Bureau of Navigation and the Secretary of Commerce to protect the port's interests in that matter. We will accept that.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. It might be well to mention in connection with the new proposal that General Taylor yesterday, finding that the House committee was inclined to carry provisions that would oblige the engineers to see that the bridge should provide for the carriage of heavy tonnage, stated that that would require much more complete plans to be submitted, which would require much more work of investigation, and the plans would have to be complete, whereas now there is merely an outline showing the type and general design.

He also explained that system of examination through the local or district engineer's office, the division engineer, and the Chief of Engineers. In other words, they have a whole progressive course of steps for handling these matters by which these cases are handled. In an emergency the whole system is used. He told us that in the New Orleans case he even went to the point of appointing three engineers of capacity to handle that. I would not object to authorizing a proper personnel, but I think it would be well to provide how the work should be divided in reaching a decision.

Senator MCNARY. Then I understand that the Congressman would not object to an amendment requiring the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau of Navigation?

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. I would not object, providing that they might have the same facilities for knowing the whole situation.

Senator MCNARY. The Congressman realizes that the Bureau of Navigation has now agencies in every part of the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Yes. Now, I can not conceive that the people of Washington in that part of the State are directly interested of or the whole State-can want a bridge there at all that will interfere with navigation. I would not appear here if I thought it. But I can see where conditions can be made so unrreasonable, that with the limited population there it would prevent a bridge for 50 years.

Senator BINGHAM. It would appear to the chair, in listening to the argument of Mr. Warren, that the fears in his mind and in the minds of those people he represented, are very similar to the fear that exists in the State of Connecticut--if I may be permitted to refer to the State which I partially represent-a fear of bureaucracy, and of giving to a bureau chief too much power; a very reasonable fear at times. It might be met in a case of this kind, I think, involving great possibilities of harm, by introducing that department of the Government which is primarily concerned with the promotion of commerce, and I would hope that the parties concerned would accept such an amendment.

Mr. SHULL. One other thing. In the hearing yesterday at which General Taylor testified he said in substance this, that they considered the plans as submitted to them-these are not his words but this is the thought-and that they did not attempt to originate plans or decide upon locations. By reference to his testimony you can verify that. The selection of the type of bridge would be a subject which the highway commission would be deeply interested in.

I asked General Taylor this, also, if in his opinion it would not be much better that these matters should be thrashed out before the plans reached his department, that the people locally interested for and against any proposition for a bridge should consider it and if possible agree before it reaches his department, and he said by all means they would like that. Now it seems to me as to this plan which is suggested, that before consideration shall be given to a proposition to build a bridge by private initiative, the highway commissions, the people who are specially interested, should give consideration to it first, with this in mind, bringing before the War Department plans that are agreeable. I think that is all I wanted to say.

Senator McNARY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown represents Vancouver, Wash., and he would like to speak for about five minutes before the committee.

Senator BINGHAM. We will hear Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF FRED R. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. My name is Fred R. Brown, of Vancouver, Wash.; I am manager of the port of Vancouver, and I am speaking for the port and for the Chamber of Commerce of Vancouver and for the people of the city.

In connection with this bridge matter the interests of Vancouver are relatively the same as the interests of Portland. Vancouver is located, it is true, in the State of Washington, but we are only 5 miles from Portland. We are on deep water navigation on the Co