East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1865-02-15

misunderstanding the pu, port Of the
address and the object of the delega-
ton in presenting it, strenuously OPP
posed it. He thought the Saginaw
Valley was rich enough to rely upon
its own resources for its proposed inn
provements without calling upon the
people of Detroit for assistance. He
thought the statements of the memo
rial showed state of things discredi-
table to the memorialists at least
The expense of the proposed work
was put at $4,000. In the same
breath the memorial states that the
expense of lightorage, etc, for the last
year was 100000. The people of
Saginaw could remove their own OBJ
structions and make $3.50, 900 by it in
a year. He thought it rather "brassy"
to goabroad for assistance. He showed
another way in which this improve
ment could be made, and that was by
imposing direct tax for tho purpose
upon salt and lumber. He was par
ticularly severe, if not a little dis
courteous, toward the delegation.
Mr.. Hosmer moved that the dele
CATION have permission TO occupy the
floor in explanation of their memorial.
Carried.
Mr.. Swinscoe replied that the gen.
tleman evidently misunderstood the
object of their mission. 1t was not
to ask pecuniary assistance of the
Board, but simply their endorsement
of the proposed improvement, and
their assistance in bringing it before
the Convention of Vessel Owners, now
in session in this city. In answer to
some of the gentleman's arguments
he stated that the 100000 paid for
lighterage ETC., owing to distractions,
was not paid by the people Of Sag
ihaw, but by the shipholders and nom
resident owners of the prnparty chip
ped. A large proportit II Of the prop
erty of the Saginaw Valley is owned
by non-residents. The salt and lum-
Der are manufactured and placed upon
the dock, and there the manufacturers
interest ceases. The nonresident
owner comes and takes it away, and
it manifestly becomes his interest to
get it away as heaply as possible
Vessel owners should therefore CO.
operate in this improvement. The
people of Bay City are willing to do
all they can, but they are unable to do
this proposed work alone, nor should
they, since it is to be of general bene-
fit. There is q great rivalry between
the towns on the Saginaw River
Saginaw City and East Saginaw have
enough to do in removing the obstruc-
tions in their own vicinity. They have
undertaken the work of dredging the
river. Bay City claims that she will
have done her share toward river i'm
provements, and benefited the up river
towns az well us herself, if she shall
succeed in removing the bar at the
mouth of the river.
Mr.. Hotchkiss spoke somewhat at
length, explaining the nature of the
improvements and illustrating bymaps
and drawings the course of the river,
the location Of the bars and the extent
of the proposed work. He showed it
TO be greatly TO the interest of non
resident property holders to aid in the
improvement, and trusted that the
Board would endorse the enterprise
and encourage it by granting the re-
quest of the memorial.
On motion of III. J. Buckley, Esq,
the following were appointed COM
mittee to bring the matter before tho
Convention of Vessel Owners: Messrs.
f. &. Merrick, Edward Kanter and
Il. w. Hudson
The Board then adjourned.