Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-01-06
CONTINUOUS CANAL.


Tins rs the original plan of Improvement con-
templa;ed for the James River; it is still that
favored by the associate engineer; lis reasons
OF preference are. its simplicity, its adaptation
10 The capacity of every man in he community,
and that "every man is his own carrier. if he
chooses to be sou
This last is certainly not considerations
which can think calculated to have much nfa-
enee IN so important a matter; for, how many
individuals choose to be their own carriers? verv
few dare say; and they will he still fewer, i:
transp rtatcn is considerably reduced in price by
superior improvements; nor would farmers desire
1t, II they had pleasant conveyance which
could take them with their produce 10 Rich
mond, ut they chose to sell it or accompanB
it ihcmsclvcsl aGd bring them back the nrzl,
If not the same day, for price much under any
other mode oftravelling.
TIA canal, however, should be decided upon.
do not readily perceive what great advan' ge
there would be in GRE of dimensions larger than
the present one, 40 feet wide and 81 feet deep
Judge Wright ass gins a reason for the ca
nal he recommends, so feet wide and 5 feet
deep, that "a boat loaded and moving at the rate
of mills an hour, the power to move her will
De nearly 20 per cent. less in the large than the
smaller canal, Zone of the size of the New York
canal, 40 feet wide and 4 feet decp.")
This rule is too indefinite to be applied; he
does n designate the size of the boats for
which he gives the rule. (for, he certainly cannot
uicai lHc Uo'itS mentioned GijcEWaTGS 80 1eet
long, III feet wide and feet water, since such
boats would drag on the bottom of the New
York canal This gain of 90 per cent in the
power. which he obtains for certain boat, by
charging the canal, can likewise be obtained by
reducing the size Of the boar, in proportion TO
that of smaller canai; and, as do not think
5oas so large as he proposes very necessary, so
do l deem less SIZE for canal good; very
large boats may cost little less in lraDsporia
ton, while moving, but they make it up by The
difficulty Of completing n load, and the time lost
in obtaining it. The adopting cf so large a ca
nal would cruise an enlargement of the canal
near Richmond, which Judge Wright is inclined
to the opinion could be done, without very
great expense
The books OF the James River Company will
shew to the contrary; there our experience
rcidiiveIn the enlargement OF the eli canal TO Its
present SIZE, will warn us that similar under
taking, upon the present one, would cost nearly
as much as maklp& new canal For, almost
every work must be subvertcd and built over
again. How: for instance, could that gentlemen
give the additional depth over the cast iron Gull
veris, whose tops touch the bottom of the canal,
OF the large aqueducts, the crown of the arch
OF which reaches also to the bottom; or, how
could he give this same depth to the LOCKS, with
out demoli>hiDg hem?
AS to the cost Of the canal ND TO Lvnchbure
my own estimate for canal 30 feet wide by 81
feet deep was SI7,700 per mile, including con-
tngencics these dimensions were fixed by
law.
This size is, however gather too small;
width of 40 feet would | think be preferable,
its cost might be S22 600. My own estimate OF
n canal 80 feet by S, as proposed by the assoc-
ute engineer, would be $4,000 The opinion
oi this gentleman is. that such a canal can be
built along The valley Of James river, under good
mana cement, for 8 ur $50 ,OCO per mile, provi-
dad water Gomez can be- procured at or near
the Blue Ridge. Although several prudent
conditions are attached to this cs innate, such
u.s. that the canal must be made under good
management, the width is TO be reduced at lIra-
w Bluffs d elsewhere, so ~ TO allow barely two
boats to pass each other; hydraUick lime must
come from the Blue Ridge, &C. Still, | lnss,
that TO less price than that have stated will
make canal so wide and deep as recommend
ed.
The first place, if the conditioned measures,
by which This geutcm1n Contemplutes keeping
the cost within his own estimate, were rcsnTted
to, to any adequate extent, we should not have
the excellent canal VIC are proml ed; and in the
next, some # them will not amount 10 much;
the reduction Of width, :or instance, Cannot be
very material, as will show.
Experience, since canals have been known,
has taught that the banks should have slope Of
to down to BERN or Offset at the waters
edge, but that under water J to is quite suffi-
Gent. Here, however, the slope Of two TO one
is proposed to be carried even under water 10
The evident Disadvantage o: the water wav
Then of course. boats drawing feet water,
could not, without injury to the banks, come
nearer TO the waters edge than feet on each