ability of building a canal at Nicaragua, we ought to give careful consideration to the third set of locks at Panama. They can be completed within 6 years. There is a very acute national-defense problem present there right now, because we have already constructed ships, such as the Lexington and Saratoga, which can barely squeeze through the present locks today. When I was down there last summer, they showed me where the Lexington, on top of the Gatun lock, had caused considerable damage. So that the Navy Department and the War Department are unanimous as to the immediate necessity for constructing the third set of locks at Panama. I call your attention to the testimony of Commander Lowe, the representative of the Navy Department, before the House committtee, in which he said:

The additional facilities, including protection, can be provided under those plans at something less than one-third of the cost of the Nicaragua Canal. That is a very considerable item. But what is even more important, from the viewpoint of the Navy, it can be done in about 6 years, as against 12 or 15 years for the Nicaragua route. It is very important that an additional safe passage be provided as early as possible; it is equally important that the larger locks be provided, and quickly.

The beams of our older battleships that have been modernized approach very closely the width of the present canal locks. They make a very tight fit. Our ships now building will make an even tighter fit. The question of wider locks is now a pressing consideration, and the trend of construction in both naval and merchant ships is toward larger and larger vessels. At the end of 6 years, unless this trend is halted or reversed, the present locks will be too small to take the ships that are being completed at that time, unless, of course, we accept ships that are inferior in size and protection to foreign ships which they may be called upon to engage in battle.

This statement is based upon the needs of national defense and upon no other consideration.

It seems to me, if you are going to construct a canal for national defense, you cannot escape the logic of the department in that respect. Senator MCKELLAR. I do not agree with that logic. I have not the slightest idea that this country will be engaged in war in the next 6 or 8 years. It is just inconceivable to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Then there might be no necessity to build either

one.

Senator MCKELLAR. I am not foolish enough to believe we will never have a war. But when a war comes, I think every intelligent man in this country knows that this country would be infinitely better protected by having a second canal rather than one in Central America. It seems to me that it would be a very dangerous condition, as long as we allow it to exist, that we have only one canal between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. The only thing for us to do, as it seems to me, is that we should at the earliest possible moment go to work to build an adequate canal, which will be adequate for any ship, which would cost very little more than it costs to build them now, to go through this canal at Nicaragua.

There is another thing. We have three steps to take in the Panama Canal. We have got to go up three times. Injury to either of those or all of them would take probably a year to mend.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one step on the Atlantic side and two on the Pacific side.

Senator McKELLAR. There are three of them.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one on the Atlantic side at Miraflores.

Senator MCKELLAR. Five locks are more than two. There would be only two at Nicaragua. Three and two are five. Every time you add an additional lock you have an additional danger from an enemy who knows his business, and I guess any possible enemy of this country would know their business if they undertook to go to war with us. My judgment is that, in the matter of national defense, it would be infinitely better for us to have this second canal built, that we know will be a defense to our country.

That is about what I wanted to say to this committee. Of course, if we should get into a war right now, it would be better to have wider locks. How long would it take?

The CHAIRMAN. Six years.

Senator MCKELLAR. I certainly hope we will not be in this controversy for 6 years. Of course, we do not know, but we ought to prepare ourselves with a real defense. That is what I have to say. If there are any questions, I shall be glad to answer them the best

I can.

Senator HAYDEN. The only question I have in mind is something which would apply more to the Nicaragua Canal. We have an army now. I have served for a good many years on the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations that handles the War Department bill. Continually we were told that an adequate garrison must be maintained in Hawaii. If you go to Hawaii you will see a selfcontained garrison with adequate defenses which could stand a long siege if communications should be cut off.

The CHAIRMAN. They would not be defenseless, no matter what happened.

Senator HAYDEN. No. Under the circumstances, the fighting force should not be reduced. Panama is about an equal distance from the American coast line, and again there we have a self-contained force. I first saw the Canal when it was under construction. During the war they cut down jungles and used old dredge barges to bring in large numbers of cattle from Columbia, which were kept there so as to be able to stand a siege. That is what they looked forward to. If anything happened to the Navy they could still hold the Canal. The best defense is the right number of trained men.

Senator MCKELLAR. In my judgment, the first thing that would be done would be the Canal Zone would be cleaned up, and it would remain in that condition so that it would be healthy for the workers to live there. We could put a tremendous lot of American workers at work on that Canal.

The CHAIRMAN. As far as that is concerned, our experience in Panama shows that a great part of the heavy lifting has to be done by the native laborers. Our people will not go down there and do that type of work.

Senator MCKELLAR. I think we can get plenty of people in the southern part of our Nation to go down there and do that work. It would be very much nearer.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the hearing was closed and the committee adjourned.)

X