Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-02-27

,hot thew were not needed by the public
convenience; and that the State has no
right to tax its people to carry the property
of any portion Of them.
1t is argued that the canals have added to
the value of property in the canal counties,
60 as to bring large increase to the basis oil
taxation; therefore the State is under obli-
cations to hold on to the canals, even at a
constant loss To which we say, it is very
singular that because the State has doubled
the value of their property at cost of not
less than $3O,0OO,OOO in debt, interest and
general taxes, it gives them a vested rightto
call on the State at large for 100000 or
$3.50, year, to supply them with fsciH-
ties for transportation.
BY their own argument the State has done
munihcently by them. 1t has doubled the
value of their property. Certainly that ought
TO suffice. The rule to which they appeal
ITO him that hath shall be given"-is not the
principle on which republican government
should be carried on. If the products of their
extra valuable property will not sustain the
canals, it is because they have been supplied
with other facilities. The State can point to
its debt and its enormous taxation for interest
and deficiencies, as evidence of its generosity
to the canal counties.
1t is argued thot there is danger that the
canals will pass into the control of railroad
companies, and that no legislative restric-
tious can prevent; to which we say that the
railroad companies have not been able to
combine their roads; therefore, what pros
pect is there of any of them controlling the
canals, to their injury? Besides, if the
canals can be made profitable by company,
it would be more likely to secure the con-
troll of railroads, than the railroad compa-
MES would of the canals.
1t is generally admitted, by those who
oppose the sale, that the canals may be made
profitable in private hands. If SO, they will
be too valuable to be secured by the rail-
roads; but will be much more likely TO
secure the railroads. If the canals can be
made profitable to their owners that is the
best possible guaranty that they will be
maintained and improved, and all the mod
ern improvements in canal navigation intro.
duced. If they can not be made profitable
by personal interest and energy, it will be
| positive evidence that they are not needed
| for business purposes, that they can be aban
doned without loss to the public, and ough
to be abandoned.
1t is argued that companies will run thei
own boats, and thus take the transportation
business entirely into their hands; to whicl
we say, this is just what is needed to carr.
on the business successfully. With two par
ties now to make the price of transportation
on the canals-one the State, with its toll
fixed and arbitrary, and the other the boat
owner-it is impossible to meet the competi
ton of active agents at various points, will
the control of the entire railroad tariff. Al
large lots of freight are taken from the canal
by this inability of divided control to com
pete with the entire control of the business
This has already driven large portion {
the boats from the canals. No new one
have been built for several years; and thi
change in the manner of doing the bushes
is absolutely necessary to save the cana
from total abandonment, restore them to e
fcieney, and introduce such improvement
in the more of navigating them as the pr,
) gress of the age has developed.
But it is seriously alleged against a sa
or lease, that there are parties an xious to b
for the canals, aud actually urging the
measures, in order to have an opportunity
, do so. Then it seems TO us that this is ju
, the time to dispose of them. Why wait Il
they are so poor that Ro one will take the
I as gift; which time is regularly approach
! ing? In private business, the time WHIT
buyers are most anxious to purchase, is he
to be the most favorable time to sell.
a know of nothing to make a different rule
> a State business operation. And to tho
!, who make this profound argument, we W
, disclose a profound secret-if there we
+ none anxious to bid, the canals could not
: disposed Of at all.
We argue in favor of a sale. The san
, arguments apply to lease which seems
e be the project most favored by the Leg
lsture. There are many other things to
= said in favor of putting the canals in
a private hands, and on previous occasions
,s have given some attention TO them; but
m this time the arguments which are urg
at against sale seem to us the strongest
-o favor of it; and they occupy all the spa
v we can give to this subject at present.