Images (3)
Document
| id |
id
12010226
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 3St.L.
January 4, 1956
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY -- GREAT LAKES
CHANNELS AND HARBORS
D.
J
Throughout the discussions of the Wiley bill prior to the expression
of Administration favor, the President again and again emphasized
the criticism he had received from various sources to the effect that
the cost of the Seaway would be only a beginning and that the eventual
cost of all the channel and harbor improvements would run over
$2 billion. Implicit in his comments was disapproval of taking on
such a heavy obligation.
Following an NSC action in April 1953 (favoring Seaway construction
in principle but reserving opinion on extent of commitment), a Cabinet
subcommittee was constituted to shape up Administration policy.
That Committee reported at Cabinet on May 8 and recommended Ad-
ministration participation in the project up to the Lake Erie terminus
of the Welland Canal. The recommendation carried several provisos
including one that the project must be self-liquidating as anticipated
in the Wiley bill. Secretary Weeks pointed out in summarizing the
report that the Administration would have to undertake deepening of
the St. Clair channel and the Straits of Mackinac at a cost of
$100 million. He believed that the dredging of harbors in the Great
Lakes areas would eventually have to be done. Despite these conse-
quences Secretary Weeks was ready to give Commerce approval to
the limited project (end of Welland Canal) 'but recognizing within
several years the Administration will be pressed for more'. The
President did not comment on aspects beyond the Welland Canal.
At the Cabinet meeting of July 16, 1954, Mr. Anderson reported on
progress of the Seaway. He stressed a point at issue which might
depend on additional funds from the United States. The President
interjected that he would shudder at the prospect of going back to
Congress for more money after what the opposition had said about
additional costs once the project was started. Director Hughes noted
that many projects were being worked up by states and cities in the
Great Lakes area. The President commented that they could take care