the settlement. If we will refer to the early American State papers we will see that those grants were confirmed by the Government of the United States shortly after the treaty of cession.

In 1794 we had a 3-foot levee in the city of New Orleans. In 1850 we had a 5-foot levee. In 1927 we had an 18-foot levee. I am not speaking of grades, of Cairo datum, which would make that 25, but I am using comparable figures, starting from the early levee of 1794.

In 1850 or 1852 we had 1,400 miles of levee in the State of Louisiana. It is stated that the States of Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas (what are called the affected areas of the lower valley) previous to 1882 had contributed $125,000,000 toward levee construction and subsequent to that date $170,000,000. We must always remember that some of those figures take us back to the days of slave labor, and I venture to say, if we could translate that labor into money, that we would find that the expenditures previous to 1882 had largely exceeded $125,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Were any of those moneys contributed by the State as a whole?

Mr. DUFOUR. Of course, it is difficult, when you go so far back, to say whether these moneys were contributed by the State as a whole. The State has undoubtedly contributed some, but the expenditures for levee purposes have been largely by the local communities and the local levee districts.

Senator RANSDELL. In recent years, though, the State of Louisiana as a whole has contributed. Explain that, please.

Mr. DUFOUR. In recent years the State of Louisiana as a whole has made contributions, but the greater contribution has been from the local levee districts.

The CHAIRMAN. How has the State made the contributions? Has it levied a special tax or just made appropriations?

Mr. DUFOUR. There has been a general levee tax, which is comparatively small, used, I should say, to a rather considerable extent for engineering services and general matters of that kind. The greater part of the money has been derived from local contributions. I am sure that both Senators Ransdell and Broussard, who have fought the river thoughout their entire lives, would be able to give more definite information on that point.

The purpose of these observations is to show, first, that flood control and levee protection do not constitute any "reclamation scheme." As I have said, we have an old civilization. We have been on those lands for 150 to 200 years. We have expended enormous sums of money in their protection, and it can hardly be said that flood control involves any reclamation scheme, particularly in the modern acceptation of that term.

The CHAIRMAN. It means keeping the water off the land.
Mr. DUFOUR. I think it is protection and not reclamation.

The CHAIRMAN. I say, it means keeping the water off the land. Mr. DUFOUR. Yes; we want to keep the water off the land that has been in cultivation and use for generations.

The CHAIRMAN. Out West we want to put it on.

Mr. DUFOUR. That is just the point. In the lower valley we feel that we have been what might be called the "victims of man's in

humanity to man." Our burden has been constantly increased in the past 100 years. That is demonstrated by the fact that it has been necessary to raise the levee at New Orleans from 3 feet, as it was in 1794, to 18 feet, as it was in 1927. Every farm that has been drained, every acre of land that has been reclaimed, every road that has been built, every improvement that has been installed in that great valley between the Alleghenies and the Rockies has added to our burden. It has come to that pass where we are practically overwhelmed. The capacity of the local communities has been so taxed that we are unable to carry on.

If we came here purely as supplicants, painting a picture of our dire necessities, we feel that we would be entitled to tender consideration. If we came here and showed, as the facts do, that this recurring calamity is a great drain on the Nation's productivity and a great drain on the Nation's resources, we feel that, as a matter of business expediency, the National Government should undertake to solve this problem and put an end to economic waste.

The National Government, in the exercise of the commerce power, has undertaken to promote the interests of the citizens and the welfare of the Nation in the establishment of a Mississippi River barge line. That barge line is established under the commerce powers of the United States. The commerce powers of the United States are not to be exercised only to keep the river open and navigable. Free navigation is obviously one of the primary purposes of the exercise of the commerce power, but the power is also exercised to promote commerce. Accordingly, the Government maintains and operates craft on the Mississippi River in the interest of the people as a whole and in the primary interest of farmers and merchants in order to lower freight rates and develop commerce.

You can not promote and develop commerce in that way unless you maintain the instrumentalities of commerce along the banks. It. does no good to have a great river with barge lines and other craft moving over it at national expense if on the shores of that river you do not have the necessary instrumentalities of commerce to handle the commerce which so moves. The maintenance of the banks, the maintenance of the instrumentalities of commerce along the banks, the maintenance of wharves and elevators, and all the other instrumentalities of commerce with which you are familiar, is as essential as a safe channel or barges or boats to navigate the river.

So, as a matter of national expediency, if we are going to maintain and develop that commerce, and if we are going to have seaports where the commerce of that great valley can be transshipped to the marts of the world, it is as essential that the banks of that river be maintained and protected as that the channel itself should be maintained.

It has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that Congress, having the authority under the commerce clause to control the river and its navigation and to promote the commerce of the United States, has the power, which it has exercised through the creation and activities of the Mississippi River Commission, to maintain levees and other flood-protection works along the banks of that river.

The Government controls the river. Its dominion is absolute. Its dominion along the banks to a great extent is, if not absolute, certainly paramount. Nobody can build any structure in that river without the consent of the Government of the United States. Nobody can build a wharf or other works except under such conditions as the Government of the United States may lay down.

In our distress last summer, we determined that it was necessary to assure the protection of the city of New Orleans to cut the levee at Caernarvon. That levee was built by the local people at local expense; yet we had no right to touch that levee. We had to go to the agencies of the Federal Government, the Secretary of War and the Mississippi River Commission, and ask their permission to cut a levee which had been built at our expense.

What does that mean? It means that the Government of the United States has the control over that river and its protective works. If it has the right of control, it obviously has the duty of control. When you speak of control, you use a word which implies exclusiveness. There can be no divided control. We may continue with the haphazard policy of local contribution, but, nevertheless, the control vests in the Federal Government.

There are no constitutional questions involved; they have been settled by a long line of authorities. The Government of the United States is interested in keeping open the channels of commerce and it is under constitutional duty, so to speak, to do so. Navigation is one of the channels of commerce, but other great channels of commerce are found in the trunk line railroads and paved roads that run along the banks of this river throughout its course; in telegraph and telephone lines.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest, unless some member of the committee wants you to go into these legal propositions, that you get down to the proposition involved in the flood control.

Mr. DUFOUR. You mean local contributions?

The CHAIRMAN. Right down to what you are really directly interested in.

Mr. DUFOUR. I assume that there is a general if not a universal sentiment that this is a national problem, that it must be met by the Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by that not only that the National Government should control it but also that it should pay every cent of money necessary?

Mr. DUFOUR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you mean when you say it is a national problem?

Mr. DUOUR. It is a national problem and should be solved at national expense.

The CHAIRMAN. You probably will find considerable difference of opinion in the country as to the correctness of that term; but you want to discuss it from that point of view?

Mr. DUFOUR. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you base that upon the power of the National Government to deal with navigation?

Mr. DUFOUR. Navigation; but more particularly upon the commerce clause of the Constitution, commerce between the States and foreign countries. Navigation is one, and probably a major, element.

Senator JOHNSON. I might agree with you that so far as any question of navigation is concerned the paramount power rests in the National Government to deal with that. I think there can be no question as to the legal aspects of that. There is another question that has been interesting me of late with reference to rivers, and that is as to the power, pure and simple, of flood control. Do you doubt the power of the National Government on rivers to erect such works as may be essential for flood control, eliminating now entirely the question of navigability?

Mr. DUFOUR. You have the navigation element; that is, to keep open and maintain proper channels, maintained within proper banks, served by adequate and efficient instrumentalities of commerce, etc. Then you have the general commerce power. You have commerce over trunk-line railroads and the highways. You have the post offices and the post roads, all of which the Federal Government is obviously not only interested in, but owes a duty to keep open, protect, and promote. You also have the question of national defense. Í think it is quite a proper exercise of constitutional power when you bear in mind the expressions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Gettysburg Monument case, for the Federal Government, as a matter of national defense, to prevent these devastating floods. Suppose this flood had taken place during the World War, when foodstuffs and other necessities of war were being raised and carried through that valley, when men were being mobilized, and the other necessities and exigencies of war were being met. Would it not have been a great catastrophe if this country, in the throes of war, had been compelled to face that disaster at home and suffer its activities to be restrained if not seriously impaired.

Senator JOHNSON. I quite agree with you; but there is a sharp difference of opinion among some Senators, and that has made itself manifest in the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation. What I want to get from you is, if you believe it to be so, the statement that, first, the United States Government, upon the theory of improving navigation, may construct such works in the river or about it as it sees fit; and secondly, as a matter of pure flood control, in order to protect and preserve the property of the United States, the United States Government has a like power. Do you agree with

that?

Mr. DUFOUR. I agree with that, and I say also to protect the property of its citizens engaged in operations that it is peculiarly within the province of the Federal Government to protect, promote, and preserve, namely, interstate and foreign commerce. Senator JOHNSON. Reclamation?

Mr. DUFOUR. Navigation, railways, reclamation, if you please, the post office and post roads, and the national defense. I think we can find a group of constitutional powers which would justify the National Government in assuming this control. Accepting, as we must, Congress's power under the Constitution, the means by which the end is to be accomplished obviously rests solely in the discretion of the Congress. That is a fundamental laid down by Chief Jus

tice Marshall in the famous case of McCulloch v. Maryland. Concede the power, then Congress has the right to adopt such means as it may see fit.

Senator RANSDELL. What about the duty of Congress, if the right be recognized which you have spoken of?

Mr. DUFOUR. That is the point that I was addressing myself to, when the chairman said he thought the members of the committee had their views on that subject.

Senator RANSDELL. I would like to have an explanation of the duty of Congress to do what you have established it has a right to do.

Mr. DUFOUR. A right always carries with it a correlative duty. One in exercise of a right, obviously, has a correlative duty.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had in mind more the discussion of the right. I do not think there was any difference of opinion with reference to that. The Chair was not suggesting that you stop what you are discussing now.

Mr. DUFOUR. I say that it is the duty of the Federal Government to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. You include the post roads, and yet Congress does not do all that improvement. Congress requires contributions from the States.

Mr. DUFOUR. I understand that.

Senator RANSDELL. But it protects those roads from a foreign enemy, and this is as effective in that direction as a foreign army invading that valley. That is what I think Mr. Dufour is leading up to.

Mr. DUFOUR. This river is the Government's river. As the Government exercises control over that river for the good that is in it, it should exercise control for the harm there is in it.

Senator JOHNSON. It can do that without consultation with or without consent of any State?

Mr. DUFOUR. Absolutely. Conceding that Congress has the power, the consent of any State is absolutely unnecessary.

Senator JOHNSON. I quite agree with you, and I wanted to get your views with reference to it.

Mr. DUFOUR. Now we have come down to the question of local contributions. We have been grappling with floods for nearly a century. I have before me the message of President Arthur in 1882. The CHAIRMAN. We all know that you have been doing that.

Mr. DUFOUR. Where President Arthur speaks of it as being a national duty for the National Government, in the interest of the farmers of the Northwest and all of the people in the Mississippi Valley, to undertake at once the protection of this great valley against floods. We have the expressions of his successors from that time to the same effect, and I believe we have reached that point where it may confidently be said that there is a general if not a universal sentiment in the Nation that the Federal Government should undertake the control of the flood waters of the Mississippi. The question is, should the Nation do that at its sole cost? My purpose in stressing that ours is not a reclamation project and that these cultivated lands and settled communities have been there for a great many years is to differentiate this from a money-making scheme. It is not a case where some people or some set of citizens