« PreviousContinue »
wide there would be dumped in the reclamation project, and, as the Helm report points out with regard to the reclamation, every particle of dredging expense can be charged to the account of the reclamation of the land and is not to be reckoned in itself as an additional expense. And if you dredge this channel for the purpose of making
. this base, you will at the same time confer a lasting and an inestimable benefit upon the entire peninsula of San Francisco of untold advantage, commercially, to its water-front development. Some day or other the United States Government must, at its own expense, in pursuance of its jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the Union, open up that channel for commercial purposes. If it is done now, it will be done for all time, because the strong current flowing through that channel will act as a scouring agent to keep it open. The only reason it is shallower here in this stretch of 6 miles than up above or down below is simply because it is a hard formation—which
а is not an objection, even if it makes a little harder cut, a little more expense in dredging, but an advantage. And the bottom conditions here are very satisfactory for a naval base, for when you once dredge out the channel it will stay dredged out by the action of the tide.
Mr. Hicks. Will the gentleman permit a question there? Mr. DWYER. Yes. Mr. Hicks. Are there any commercial interests further to the south of the proposed site which at the present time demand the digging of a channel 40 feet deep?
Mr. DWYER. No.
Mr. FREE. May I answer that question? There is a project on hand from Santa Clara Valley to ask for steamer service from the lower end of the bay for commercial purposes. Santa Clara Valley alone produces some 200,000 tons of canned and dried fruits, and there will be presented to Congress,a request to dredge that channel for commercial purposes to give an outlet to the valleys below that have no chance, no water chance at the present time, because of the lack of depth in that particular place.
Mr. PADGETT. To the depth of 40 feet ?
Mr. Hicks. You did not answer as to whether it would be required to a depth of 40 feet. They have got a depth there up to 25 feet.
Mr. PADGETT. Twenty-one.
Mr. DWYER. Ocean vessels require a maximum of 40 feet, and that figure, 40 feet, runs through all calculations, because that is the depth of the entrance to the Golden Gate, and we want in our harbor to provide for deep-water vessels, where there is the natural deep water, and the deep water channel in San Francisco Bay is on the San Francisco side, the peninsula side.
Mr. PADGETT. May I ask you a question with reference to the dredging of the 6-mile shallows?
Mr. DWYER. Yes.
Mr. PADGETT. What would be the expense, the cost of depositing that after carrying it 6 miles in pipes, on the 3,200 acres ?
Mr. DWYER. That is a question that I will ask Mr. Lasher to answer, if he will.
Mr. LASHER. It will cost from 3 to 5 cents a yard more to carry it that far.
Mr. PADGETT. How is the friction going through a pipe 6 miles long?
Mr. LASHER. We would have to put in booster stations, included in that cost.
Mr. DWYER. So much, gentlemen, for the essential general features, outside of the physical features, in the respect noted. One of the most important of these general features is the matter of rail transportation. I do not refer now to mere communication with suburbs, and so on, for the purpose of accommodating the workers. I refer to the fact which is used for the basis of both the Helm report and the McKean report, and it is stated to be a distinguishing feature, by reason of which preference is given to the Alameda site over the San Francisco site, and I hope to be able to show, from facts in your own mind, developed by your hearings this week, in addition to a fact that must be admitted—I desire to say, and must say, in order to get an entrance into your minds and get a hearing for San Mateo, and I am justified in saying, and I say it with the utmost respect for both the Helm commission and the McKean commission, that their finding in the regard that the Alameda site is superior to the San Francisco side of the bay, in so far as concerns transcontinental rail transportation deliveries is wholly mistaken-a very serious statement to make, but I state it on the responsibility of the facts that I will now lay before you and on my own responsibility from my own investigation, and you are the judges of whether or not the showing is good.
Of course, it is to be assumed that a congressional delegation will be very largely influenced, and should be influenced, by the report of Government commissions appointed for that purpose. But if it be shown, even at this date, that the principal element of discrimination made in favor of the Alameda site and against the San Francisco side of the bay is mistaken, it is a reason for pause and further investigation. And the delays that were asked with regard to the borings and the final investigation need not take more than a couple of weeks with the Government experts. It would not delay the project in any degree; it will be ready for your final report; it will be ready for the action of Congress. But that these are mistaken conclusions and findings of the report with regard to transportation I claim to be able to show in the short time that is at my disposal, with your patient consideration.
Mr. THOMPSON. Would you yield a moment? I have the time cards of the Southern Pacific Co. here, time card No. 4 of the western division of August 4, 1919.
Mr. NOLAN. We will give you a few minutes later on, Mr. Thompson
Mr. DWYER. Those certainly ought to be filed as exhibits in the case, Mr. Thompson. I am very much obliged for the reenforcement in that regard.
Mr. THOMPSON. I shall ask leave to file them with the commis
Mr. DWYER. I am trying to avoid, in the time at my command, which is limited, any reference to details that can be easily supplied by filed documents and keep to general considerations, upon which I will be glad to be examined with regard to the sufficiency and the accuracy of the general statement.
Now, gentlemen, in order to show that I am speaking by the card with respect to what I have said in regard to transportation in these reports, I want to read from the published report of the McKean
Commission this particular finding, as printed in the showing made at Oakland day before yesterday:
The board is also impressed with the much more favorable location of this site the Alameda site--for the delivery and storage of fuel, both coal and oil, and of all ships' stores and industrial supplies delivered by rail. This feature makes this site by far the most desirable one on which to locate the complete fleet supply base, so essential to support the activities of the fleet in the Pacific, as well as for transshipment to Pearl Harbor, Guam, and the Philippines for the fleet when operating therefrom.
The Helm report likewise points out, after saying that the two sites, Hunters Point and Alameda, are quite evenly balanced, that they give preference to Alameda for three reasons, as I read it, only: One is freedom from cost for the land; the second is with regard to this same question of transcontinental rail transportation, assumed as ending over on the other side of the bay, a baseless assumption as I shall show; and the third is possible fuel oil supply by pipe lines.
Now, gentlemen, if I show you, very briefly, from indisputable facts within your own knowledge, from the hearings held this week, that that finding as to rail transportation deliveries is totally contradicted by the facts and your own knowledge, surely there is not much left of the findings against the San Francisco side of the Bay. Now,
let us see.
With regard to price of transportation, not a word is stated, but inferentially a hasty reading might assume that there is
a differential against the San Francisco side. And even as late as day before yesterday the principal proponent on behalf of the Alameda site asserted a differential with regard to local switching rates in favor of Alameda and against South San Francisco, and it may have escaped your notice that, in using the word “San Francisco” the name "South San Francisco" was coupled with it, and the alleged high-switching rate with regard to South San Francisco was referred to, and it was not stated at that time that South San Francisco is in San Mateo County. South San Francisco is about half way between Hunters Point and San Mateo. And you remember that they sent for a gentleman named Lawrence, and when he was brought into the room the alleged differential absolutely disappeared on his own statement. Mr. Thompson has already made clear in this chamber that there is no differential. There had been one until three months ago, and the injustice of the differential was so apparent that it was wiped out by the action of our State railroad commission. And, without going further into that subject, I say that, while San Mateo has been too unimportant up to this time to warrant any talk about switching and industry switching, that for the same good public reasons that South San Francisco and Alameda and San Francisco are now all on a parity with regard to switching rates, so San Mateo can be brought very soon and very easily on the same parity if it be necessary.
Senator Ball. I think the committee thoroughly understands that.
Mr. DWYER. With regard to switching rates, then, we are on a parity. Now, with regard to the assumed fact, and a fact that is important, that the transcontinental lines end in Alameda County, on the eastern side of the Bay of San Francisco. That seems to be practically assumed by the Helm report and by the McKean report, but the terminals of the transcontinental lines do not end on the eastern side of the bay. Dumbarton Bridge, 10 miles below the San Mateo site, must be reckoned on.
Mr. BRITTEN. I think the committee is very well satisfied that there are no material advantages in power cost, water costs, production, terminals, switching, transcontinental lines, whether they end in Oakland or here, as between these different sites, and I really think we are all pretty well satisfied that neither side of the bay has any material advantage there.
Mr. DWYER. I am very glad, indeed, Mr. Britten, to have that statement made. It will abbreviate my explanation. But I would also like a statement from you, if it is consistent, that that statement on your part wipes out the principal foundation of the finding of the McKean report and the Helm report on rail transportation deliveries.
Mr. BRITTEN. We are not wiping out any foundation from any of the reports. I am merely telling you what I think is clearly in the minds of all of the committee.
Senator Ball. I will say to you, as chairman of the committee, that we would like you to present, of course, as briefly yet as fully as possible, the advantages of your site. But as to the reasoning and the causes why it is better than other sites, I would present merely the fact.
Mr. DWYER. With respect to transcontinental lines, there is one that comes up the peninsula, that comes out of Arizona through southern California, and from New Orleans, as you know, and a great many of the products from the East that come to the naval base will come over that line. That fact has not been mentioned at all, nor the fact that in winter that is the preferred route. All products of northern Mexico and Texas and the South and much of the stuff that may come from Chicago can be easily and cheaply and just as quickly routed over the transcontinental line that comes in along the coast and reaches San Mateo sooner than it reaches Alameda or San Francisco. So much for transportation.
Now, with regard to the other factors with which we have to deal. We have come to the point now that the facilities are the same, the prices the same, and the other factors with regard to delivery that have not been adverted to and that are very plain and require but a sentence or two to explain are that San Francisco is the financial center, the wholesale center, and the distribution center, and those factors show that when it comes to the assurance of delivery in quantity, quickness of delivery in quantity, that the San Francisco side of the bay is in a superior position, for deliveries in wholesale quantities and quickly are surer on the San Francisco side of the bay than on the other side of the bay, in many respects. And whatever advantage San Francisco holds as the wholesale and financial and distributing center, San Mateo, as a part of San Francisco, holds the same.
Now, gentlemen, I come to another distinguishing characteristic of this site, and that is its isolation, and I do not express my opinion but I submit it to your consideration, and particularly to the maritime men of the Navy, as to whether or not it is accurate to say that the comparative isolation of the proposed Navy base site is an element to be considered. You may express it briefly, thus: You want a site that is so near and yet so far; you want a site that is near enough to the center of activity to enjoy all the advantages that come from proximity to the source of supply, and at the same time you want it far enough from the center of activity to be free
from the disadvantages that come from the congestion of the center of activity. And in this regard, this site is preeminent. If the navy yard were located at this site, you would have practically an exclusive use of the waters immediately in front of and adjacent to it, for a large area and a long distance. All the Navy vessels, while lying and needing to lie in front of the navy yard or near the yard, could be accommodated in waters of which you would have a practical monopoly, an exclusive use, because of the absence, and the absence for all the years that we can see in any measurable time in the future, of commercial vessels from those waters. You would have, in addition, the proximity of a large anchorage area here, [indicating). That anchorage would be just as useful here as it would be in the given proximity to any of the other sites.
That fact of isolation is a distinguishing characteristic of this site as compared with the other two. Of course, it is no more isolated, probably, but it is about equally so, than Mare Island from ferry travel. Up past Mare Island you have ferryboats going up the Sacramento River, practically ferryboats—and up the San Joaquin River. Down here at San Mateo there is no ferry travel at all, never will be, and there never will be any reason for it, because land communication is too easy and too quick and too cheap to justify ferry traffic. So you are free from ferryboats and commercial development, and the Navy will have a monopoly of this anchorage ground
you will have perfect accessibility and ease of getting into your docks and up to your wharves and repair shops and all that. This element I will leave to you gentlemen, because it is quite comprehensive, and can be estimated by a man of general harbor knowledge.
And I want to say this, not for the purpose of depreciating Alameda at all, but to bring out the truth, and a point which I claim is one of the distinguishing, permanent characteristics of the San Mateo site, that the Alameda site as shown to you and as explained to you and as appears here, and as you saw when you went over there on your yacht, is immediately alongside of the ferry fairway. Of course, it is not across the fairway, would not be allowed to be placed across the ferry fairway. All these so-called forbidden anchorages in the bay are fixed by United States authority. The bay is full of forbidden anchorages off here [pointing], and they are only allowed here (pointing]. They are forbidden to anchor in ferry routes because it would be unsafe for passenger traffic, and most of the anchorage ground is south of this ferry fairway. That traffic occurs on both sides of the bay, because it is really one community in that respect. It is apparent that vessels will be crowded more and more down this way [pointing], and it is to be assumed that not only San Francisco will grow but the other side of the bay will grow, and that probably the congested district will grow more congested and that the parts where anchorage is permitted will be crowded farther and farther down the bay, in a southerly direction, and for that reason there will have to be bigger areas dredged out and bigger accommodations afforded.
Now I may say, gentlemen, and I say it with the utmost deference to Alameda, without the intention to detract in the slightest degree from any
of their real merits, and I ask to be corrected if I do not state it with entire accuracy and temperateness—that the speech of the principal proponent of the Alameda site the day before yesterday