Col. GOETHALS. You are assuming conditions under which the fleet could be used to aid in preventing the landing of troops from transports. Mr. ROBERTS. I wanted to lead up to that question. If we controlled one end of the canal, we could certainly put through that canal all of the torpedo craft we had available, including submarines and destroyers Mr. HOBSON (interposing). They could not operate if the enemy's flotilla of torpedo craft was making a screen around the canal. Mr. ROBERTS. My question was if, in the event of a war with a European or Asiatic power, the use of a number of these small torpedo craft could be used to advantage in preventing the landing of troops at that canal. Col. GOETHALS. Such craft would, of course, assist materially in the defense. Mr. ROBERTS. Taking up the torpedo feature of it, if we should provide a sufficient number of those small torpedo craft, submarines and destroyers, for that canal, they could run through the canal, unless the enemy should control both ends. These small crafts could run through the canal and be available at either end, and by that means we could hold the enemy a good many miles away from either entrance of the canal so that they could not land troops. Mr. HOBSON. I will ask the direct question-can you defend the canal against land operations, with the enemy in control of the high seas, by torpedo craft? Col. GOETHALS. Not by torpedo craft; no, sir. Mr. GREGG. With what force could you do it? Col. GOETHALS. With the land force. Mr. GREGG. With the force allowed for the coast defenses? Col. GOETHALS. No, sir; with 25,000 men I believe we could hold the canal against a siege. Mr. ROBERTS. As I understand you, you claim that with torpedo craft there, you could hold the enemy's fleet a good distance off from either end of the canal? Col. GOETHALS. He would have to destroy the torpedo craft before he would make any attempts to land troops from his transports. The CHAIRMAN. With all these various suppositions that have been going on, you have not yet worked out the proposition that you expect to lose the canal after you finish it. Col. GOETHALS. I have never believed in that; no, sir. Mr. HOBSON. I want to ask you whether you think you could hold it with 8,000 men? Col. GOETHALS. No, sir; not against an army sent over in transports. I would always favor a strong defense of the canal, and I think it is one place for which we should provide a strong defense, and I would allow the home soldiers to take care of the country here, in order that we might have the trained men sent to the canal. Mr. ROBERTS. In that 3,000 men, do you include the men in the Coast Artillery, or do you mean Infantry alone? Col. GOETHALS. As I understand it, the proposition is to allow 8,000 men all told. Mr. ROBERTS. Including the marines? Col. GOETHALS. No, sir; the Army. Mr. ROBERTS. Does that include the Coast Artillery forces? Col. GOETHALS. Yes, sir; Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery, Field and Coast. Mr. ROBERTS. What proportion of that 8,000 men would be necessary to man the batteries you contemplate having there? Col. GOETHALS. I believe they figure on about 1,200 men for the batteries. Mr. ROBERTS. That number would fully man all the batteries? Mr. ROBERTS. That would leave you a mobile army of something over 6,000 men? Col. GOETHALS. Yes, sir. Mr. BATES. You assume that in case of trouble with any nation, great or small, the objective point of attack and the point they would first desire to reach would be the canal? Col. GOETHALS. No, sir; I did not assume that. If we were engaged in a European war, for instance, and our fleet should be concentrated on the Atlantic side, the enemy's attack would be made along the coast here, and the first thing would be a sea fight. Under those circumstances, the canal would not enter as a condition at all. The CHAIRMAN. They would not approach our seacoast defenses? Col. GOETHALS. No, sir; they would not approach our seacoast defenses. I do not see where the canal would be an objective in case of war with Germany, France, or Italy, for instance. Mr. BATES. Our fleet could go from one coast to the other? Col. GOETHALS. That is a question that will be determined here in Washington. All I am interested in is the defense of the canal, and under no circumstances must that canal be allowed to fall at the beginning of war. Mr. BATES. If we were involved in a European war, and the opposing power should destroy our fleet, then the country would be at its mercy and the canal would go with the country. Col. GOETHALS. In that event, there would be more to be gained by concentration here than there would be 2,000 miles away from here. Mr. ROBERTS. Under the conditions named by Mr. Bates, if we were without a fleet, and our whole country was at the mercy of the enemy, we would have to make the best terms possible with the victor, and necessarily, whatever he wanted with regard to the canal we would have to yield. Col. GOETHALS. Yes. Mr. ROBERTS. But there might be conditions when the canal would be the first object of attack? Col. GOETHALS. Yes. Mr. GREGG. Would it not be better to neutralize this canal? Col. GOETHALS. No, sir. Mr. GREGG. You are a strict advocate of military defense? Col. GOETHALS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Besides, after a war is started, little attention is paid to treaty obligations. Col. GOETHALS. That is true, and, furthermore, the defense of the canal is necessary to enforce our treaty obligations. The CHAIRMAN. Before concluding the hearing, Col. Goethals, I will ask you how long you think it will take to complete the construction of the barracks there? Col. GOETHALS. We ought to complete them within a year after the plans are prepared. We could start on all of the buildings at once. The CHAIRMAN. You have all of the material, facilities, etc., already there? Col. GOETHALS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Could you give us some estimate of the percentage of economy or saving that would be effected by doing it now with the organization that you have and with the material on hand and with your cement contracts? How would that cost compare with what it would be if that organization went to pieces and you had to start under a new organization later? Col. GOETHALS. Taking the cement proposition itself, which is a very important part of it, the most advantageous contract we could get after our old contract expires would be at an advance of 30 per cent. The other elements would vary from about 15 per cent to 25 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. What about the labor situation? Col. GOETHALS. We have ample labor now and will have for the next six or eight months. After that we will be sending labor off, unless we have additional work to do. The CHAIRMAN. So that we could reasonably expect Col. GOETHALS (interposing). A saving of from 20 per cent to 25 per cent on the total cost. Mr. ROBERTS. With the force you have there now under employment you could construct these barracks more quickly than if you were compelled to reorganize your force and bring new workmen there? Col. GOETHALS. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. So that the element of time would be quite important? Col. GOETHALS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Col. Goethals, what are the maximum and minimum depths of Gatun Lake? Col. GOETHALS. The maximum depth of Gatun Lake would be 100 feet and the minimum depth would be 45 feet. The maximum depth would be in the old bed of the Chagres River near the dam. Thereupon, at 12.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned. [No. 14.] SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 22, 1913. The subcommittee met 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon Lemuel P. Padgett (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The other day Mr. McKenzie called to see me, and he submitted some statements to me, and also a letter, which I submitted to the committee and which I shall put in the record, and we have invited Mr. McKenzie to come before us, and I believe he has with him Mr. McDonald. We also notified Lieut. Commander David F. Boyd, of the Navy, who had charge of the coal matter in Alaska, and we have these gentlemen with us this morning. Mr. McKenzie, we will be glad to hear any statement that you have to make with reference to this coal proposition. STATEMENT OF DONALD A. M’KENZIE. Mr. MCKENZIE. Mr. Chairman, I suppose it may seem a little strange that Alaska should come here before Congress to protest against an appropriation of money for Alaska. Now, ordinarily, we would not, of course, do any such thing as that. But this is rather a peculiar condition that exists up there. Congress last year appropriated $75,000 to test, as I understand it, the Alaska coal on our warships and war vessels. The CHAIRMAN. And make surveys of the land to ascertain the situation there? Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes. I did not know that they were expected to-I do not know what was understood by that. Mr. ROBERTS. To ascertain the extent of the fields and the quantity of coal in the different fields, as well as to get out samples of coal for test. Mr. MCKENZIE. Well, so far as that proposition is concerned, that has been already covered by Dr. Brooks and his assistants for years as thoroughly as it is possible to do by the Geological Survey. that part of it was probably unnecessary. So Now, as we understand it, there have been 855 tons of that coal mined and put in sight, which is now at the mouth of one of the tunnels on one of the Cunningham claims. According to a letter received by Judge Wickersham, our Delegate, from the Secretary of the Navy, the Government has now expended $65,000, to procure that amount of coal. It will cost, as I understand it, a large sum of money to get the coal from the mouth of the mine down to Bering Lake. I presume that is where they |