with a view to determining whether the conditions precedent to the prosecution of the project by the Government, recommended therein, should be modified, waived, or adhered to under existing conditions.

2. This matter has been investigated at the time of two inspection visits in May and September, 1921, to Crescent City and Grants Pass, and also considered with representatives of these localities at a number of conferences held in San Francisco.

3. The locality has been described in previous reports. It may be stated briefly that Crescent City is located on the northern coast of California, 70 miles north of Humbolt Bay, and 17 miles south of the California-Oregon boundary. It has about 1,500 inhabitants. The harbor is partially protected by Battery Point, a headland projecting into the ocean to the west and south of the city, and by reefs extending south of the point. The harbor thus has natural protection from the east, north, and northwest, but is exposed to southerly storms.

4. Previous reports have been made in 1867, 1877, 1878, 1892, 1895, 1912, and 1915. These reports were unfavorable, except the last, which recommended a breakwater extending south from Battery Point for a distance of 3,000 feet, at an estimated cost of $490,000. The report recommended that $100,000 be paid by local interests, and $390,000 by the United States, and that before work was begun by the United States assurances should be given, satisfactory to the Secretary of War, that a railroad would be completed between Grants Pass and Crescent City within a reasonable time. The report of 1915 contains a map of the locality.

5. No appropriation has been made by the United States, but the local interests raised a fund of $200,000 and on July 18, 1918, Congress authorized the work to proceed with these funds without compliance with the railroad condition. Accordingly, a contract was made March 11, 1920, for breakwater construction, and work has been carried on during the working seasons of 1920 and 1921. At present the breakwater has been extended to a length of 1,145 feet. The funds available are expected to suffice for the extension of the breakwater to a length of 1,400 feet.

6. The commerce of Crescent City for the calendar year 1920 amounted to 42.871 tons, valued at $1,518,320. The items were 33.014 tons of lumber shipped; 2.015 tons of butter, cheese, and general merchandise shipped; and 7,842 tons of general merchandise received. As this is a new improvement, no statistics have been collected for previous years, but the report made in 1912 gave the commerce for 1910 as 66.000 tons. The commercial conditions of the locality do not change materially except for the fluctuation of the lumber business and the increase in the dairy business.

7. Navigation is possible at Crescent City at all times of the year, but the summer is the most favorable season. During the winter the harbor is exposed to storms from the south and southwest, and vessels have to lie outside awaiting the passage of the stormy weather before they can enter the harbor. Delays from these causes sometimes amount to from one to three weeks. The vessels that trade regularly at Crescent City consist of steam schooners that carry lumber to San Francisco and small gasoline boats running to Eureka, Calif.

8. The business of the harbor is handled on a wharf about 1,700 feet long, extending to a depth of 13 feet at mean lower low water. This. wharf belongs to the Crescent City Wharf & Dock Co. Vessels can

lie at the wharf in good weather, but in rough weather they must be moored to keep them away from the wharf. In severe storms from the south they have to leave the harbor and go out to sea. The wharf has rail connection with the lumber mill. The wharf is located east of the breakwater and will be protected when the breakwater is completed.

9. There are no questions of water power, irrigation, or related subjects to be considered in connection with this work.

10. Communications relative to the harbor have been received from Hon. Clarence F. Lea, Member of Congress; Mr. W. J. Hotchkiss, of San Francisco; Judge John L. Childs, of Crescent City; Mr. George W. Howe, of Crescent City; Mr. Samuel Morris, of Los Angeles; the Del Norte County Harbor Commissioners, of Crescent City; the Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast, of San Francisco; the Klamath River Packers' Association, of Requa, Calif.; and the Grants Pass Chamber of Commerce, of Grants Pass, Oreg. The principal points emphasized in these communications are the following:

(1) There is a large amount of timber land tributary to Crescent City Harbor.

(2) The United States owns a great part of this timberland and would be the largest beneficiary of the harbor improvement.

(3) Del Norte County has raised $200,000 instead of $100,000 named as the amount of local cooperation in the survey report.

(4) The clause requiring the construction of a railroad from Crescent City to Grants Pass as a condition precedent to carrying out the improvement was first suggested in connection with a larger project for Crescent City involving a much greater expenditure than is required by the present project.

(5) The construction of a modern highway between Crescent City and Grants Pass is assured.

(6) Crescent City would be valuable as a harbor of refuge.

(7) Great delay and loss would be occasioned by the cessation of work and the removal of the plant when the present funds are exhausted.

(8) In spite of the fact that the estimates for this work were made previous to the recent war, the work can be completed within these estimates.

(9) The territory tributary to Crescent City has large undeveloped mineral resources.

(10) If the harbor work is completed the construction of a railroad will probably follow.

(11) The territory in the vicinity of Grants Pass has the highest freight rates in the United States.

(12) The fruit industry in the Rogue River Valley is reaching large proportions.

(13) The freight on pears from Grants Pass to New York is $2.08 per 100 pounds, as against a probable charge of $1 by way of Crescent City and the Panama Canal.

(14) Grants Pass has made a start by expending $250,000 in building a railroad which now extends 15 miles toward Crescent City.

(15) Grants Pass shipped in 1920, 677 carloads of freight and received 457 carloads, with a freight rate from Grants Pass to San Francisco of $44.40 per ton of first-class commodities as against an estimated rate of $18 from Grants Pass to Crescent City and $6.80

from Crescent City to San Francisco, or $24.80 from Grants Pass to San Francisco if the Crescent City harbor work were completed.

11. The contribution of $200,000 toward the work by local interests is a large amount considering the small population of the city and county interested, but it is not a large percentage of the value of the natural resources of the tributary country. The greatest resource is timber and the other principal industries are fruit raising, dairying, cattle raising, and mining.

12. The prospects for railroad construction can not be considered very bright at this time. The war, the general cessation of railroad building in the United States, the present financial difficulties of the railroads, and the general business depression have all been unfavorable to construction of new railroad lines. At the same time there appears to be economic justification for the railroad when the timber, mineral deposits, fruit, and agricultural products are considered. It seems reasonable to expect that a railroad will be built in the course of time, but there is no prospect sufficiently definite to comply with the law. In addition to the 15 miles of railroad constructed from Grants Pass in the direction of Crescent City there are now two logging railroads built from Crescent City into the timberlands, 6 and 9 miles long, one of which might be utilized as a part of the line to Grants Pass. The distance between Crescent City and Grants Pass by wagon road is approximately 100 miles. The length of railroad. required will naturally depend on the location selected, but it may be assumed that it will be somewhere near 100 miles.

13. The States of California and Oregon propose to build a modern highway between Crescent City and Grants Pass. The statements of the highway commissions of the two States are attached to the letter of Judge Childs. The prospect is that the highway will be completed within the next three or four years. This highway will greatly facilitate the transportation of passengers, mail, and express matter from Crescent City to Grants Pass and other places in Oregon. The claim is made that the highway will largely take the place of the proposed railroad, and that the prospect of highway construction is sufficient ground for waiving the proviso in the adopted project making the improvement contingent upon railroad construction. This is the fundamental question involved in the present inquiry. There is no doubt that the handling of freight by motor truck has undergone great development in recent years. The motor truck is competing successfully with the railroad in cases of short haul where a movement from warehouse to railroad at one end and from railroad to retailer or consumer at the other end is necessary. But the success of the truck under such conditions is not a guaranty that it will be successful in hauling fruit and other produce 100 miles or more from the Rogue River Valley to Crescent City, or in hauling lumber and mineral products from the forests and mines of northern California to Crescent City. The operation of trucks under such conditions involves many questions, such as those of return cargo; of limitation of wheel loads to prevent destruction of highways; of upkeep, depreciation, and renewal; of adaptability to different kinds of freight; of regularity of schedule; and of refrigeration. All these questions introduce so many uncertainties as to make it impossible to predict the successful use of the truck

as a substitute for the railroad on long hauls of heavy freight, such as lumber, which is the largest element to be expected in any increase of business at Crescent City.

14. It does not appear probable that a large development of commerce will take place at Crescent City without railroad connection between the harbor and the resources of the tributary region. For this reason I report that, in my opinion, the conditions precedent to the prosecution of the project by the Government as given in the reports contained in House Document No. 434, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, should be adhered to under existing conditions. HERBERT DEAKYNE, Colonel, Corps of Engineers.

Col. HERBERT DEAKYNE,

CRESCENT CITY, CALIF., February 12, 1921.

United States Engineer Office,

San Francisco, Calif.

MY DEAR COL. DEAKYNE: When you were in Crescent City some time since I was away from home and did not have the honor or pleasure of meeting you. However, I am greatly interested in the improvement of the Crescent City Harbor and it is that matter to which I call your attention by this letter.

I am in receipt of a letter from Hon. Clarence F. Lea, the Congressman from the first district of California, inclosing a copy of a letter he wrote to you on the 4th instant.

In addition to the arguments used by him in favor of an appropriation for our project I wish to state that Crescent City Harbor will do a much greater business when our highways are completed from Grants Pass, Oreg., and from Eureka to Crescent City.

The costs of these highways have been provided for and the work is now being prosecuted on the highway leading from Crescent City to Eureka. In fact, all of the heavy grading has either been done or contracts have been let for its completion. There is no reason why the State highway from Crescent City to Eureka should not be constructed during this summer and next.

The highway survey from Crescent City to the Oregon line, toward Grants Pass, has been partially made and a corps of engineers are to return to the work as soon as spring opens.

The sum of $400,000 has been provided by bond issue for that portion of the highway leading from Crescent City toward Grants Pass to the Oregon line, and the Oregon commission have the funds with which to complete the highway from the Oregon line to the city of Grants Pass.

To substantiate the above statement I am herewith inclosing a copy of a resolution passed by the Oregon Highway Commission. and a letter written to me by the California Highway Commission concerning their intention in regard to this road.

With a commercial highway between Crescent City and Grants Pass a large amount of business can be done in the way of freight, to pass through Crescent City Harbor on its way to the marts of the world, as autotrucks all over the country are competing for freight,

more or less, with the railroads where commercial highways have been constructed.

And I can see no reason why a heavy freight business can not be done from Rogue River Valley, in Oregon, through Crescent City Harbor, when our harbor has been completed sufficiently to allow boats of considerable draft to safely lay in time of storm.

I wish to emphasize the statement of Congressman Lea to the effect that we have raised for harbor improvement twice the amount required by Congress in its bill making an appropriation in the sum of $390,000 for improvement of this harbor.

At that time Congress was willing for us to have $390,000 of Government money for this project and now we are asking but $290,000, as we have raised $100,000 more than Congress asked us to raise.

If the railroad clause referred to by Congressman Lea in his letter to you, dated February 4, could be eliminated and the Crescent City project be allowed an appropriation of $290,000, this amount of money would go far toward giving protection to our shipping industry.

I think the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors should take into consideration the fact that our little community has done, up to date, its full share, and that if we are willing to risk $200,000 in the project that the Government can well afford to invest $290,000 in it.

Further, I wish to emphasize paragraph 6 of Congressman Lea's letter to you, which states that notwithstanding the increased prices it has been demonstrated that the work can be completed within the original estimates.

You will remember that the survey of the Crescent City Harbor was made and the engineer's report filed some time before the World War. The cost of doing such work, owing to the greatly advanced price of labor, machinery, etc., has been at least doubled. Wages, I think, last year were three times as much as they were prior to the war, yet, owing to the fact that we have large quantities of rock within a very short distance of the proposed improvement, we can do the work of improving the harbor at a cost perhaps below the original engineer's estimate.

As you are undoubtedly advised, the proposed sea wall for Crescent City Harbor rests on the solid rock foundation and will have none of the disadvantages of other coast places where sea walls rest upon a sandy bottom. The terrible storms of this winter have not affected materially the work that has already been done. I firmly believe that after the sea wall has been constructed that little money will have to be expended in the protection of the same.

Geographically, Crescent City is within 25 miles of the center of the United States on the Pacific coast. All of the traffic between San Francisco and Portland, Puget Sound, and to the north pass by our door, and if we can get our harbor improvement so as to give the ship in distress some protection in times of severe storms, the harbor here would be a harbor of refuge at a point where it would be often used by the commerce of the coast. Ex-Congressman Kent once said that there was no other place in the United States of America where a little Government money would be of so much practical advantage as at Crescent City. If we get our harbor improved there can be no doubt of the completion of the railroad between Grants Pass and