New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-08-06
THE STATE AND CANALS

IT may be our misfortune not to know how
TO "put this and that t0gether;" and then IL
may be that others, who bring the objection
against US, are themselves victims OF the very
infrmity with which they reproach us. IL they
would quote what we actually say, instead OF
attributing to us such views as better suit their
purpose, their readers would enjoy faclllues
for forming an intelligent judgment which are
now denied them. We quote (verbat'm), as
fair specimen of what seems to us reckless ana
limping logic, the following article from me
Buffalo Commercial Advertisers
THE ERIE CANAL AND NETWORK CITY.
Mr. Greeley's Political Economy may be very
good he has TO sacrifice maintaining his
positions For example, In recent paper ne
70 contr4yer the % that the proynee
OF Government is limited to the protecton OF ne anu
property and does not extend 10 the s9casa Inn
internal Improvement, such as railroads ar Greeiey
disputes this. and fores his position Dy anegiDg INC
great benefit that the Erie CanS mas nat be com
mercsl metropolis and to outstrp fhiaoeipha'
All these assertions must DO nuts" to the friends of
the Erie Canal. We have, tune and again,
demonstrated behalf of the Canal the very sesame
facts which Mr. Greeley advances In behalf OF his
notions OF Political Economy but we do not
that THE TRIBUNE much as admitted their truth
before much less put them forward as articles OF LIE
TRIBUNE creed 1t has always been mystery 10 us tnae
the metropolitan journals-especially IHE IklBuhE-
should he SO indifferent the fate OF our Canal system
or 40 hostile to It's interest In view OF the SELF
evident advantage which the City had always derived
from it's operation We have repeatedly exposed the
faacy Of THE TRBUNEs arguments In favor OF seng
our Canals, and find our IDEAS on that sunyect
very cleyery epitomized in The O'ne'nHa" 6aSee Us
TuH Tribune has been demanding Ia unreasonable
should sell the Canals 10 order TO ei d the e'
e1isbs that the Canals the hands Of railroad com
bl1s'ion % no Other apeao S T h bst could De made
BY circle which s'pd all the means Of t'nsporon 81 mat great
ysT greater ibAn Ssior, the built The policy Of selling
,Ss Canal. va. sTsT W., P,.g into ''' AA'd tue
The GaEe it should be observed, takes issue with Mr
showing the inconsistency Of the writer Political
Economy, who urged this great sacrifice OF the
who now INSTANCES the success OF the policy or
Canal undertakings by the state TO establish one Oh ms
in the discussion than TO place on record The
TRBUNEs late acceptance OF our hPeteen
the Kre Canal and EewYork City namely, mat the the
wonderful growth and prosperity OF the metropolis
Comments by The Tribune.
TIE TRIBUNE's positions fairly stated, are
rs follows: I. The construction of the Erie
and Champlain Canals by the State of New
York was the result of wise, far-seeing states
manship, which honOrs the leaders who pro-
iected it and the majority who sustained them;
Q The time has now come when the State
sbould, under proper conditions. sell out its
Canal property, and wholly retire from the
transportation business. Now, either or both
of these positions may be unsound; but why
they should be deemed Inconsistent we cannot
divine.
Suppose an association Of enterprising cap
italists had stood ready, at the outset, to con-
struct and operate our Canals at their Own cost
and risk, STIMULATING only that the State should
concede them the right to collect reasonable
tolls on the products transported thereon
What proportion. think you, of our people
would have voted to have the State construct
and operate them nsteadf We presume less
than a tenth.
But the cost and risk involved were so great
that no company could he induced to under
take the venture 30 the State had to do it or
leave it undone. Hence we hold that the State
was eminently wise and right in doing as she
did. But, if individuals had stood ready to act
in her stead, not only would she have declined
TO incur the hazards and evils of such
DETECTION from her usual sphere, but we should
have heartily concurred in her refusal
The Pacific Railroads aptly illustrate the
matter under discussion. We have cOncurred,
not without hesitation, in the policy of sub
sidzing those National highways to certain
extent. We did so, because, in the absence of
subsidies, many years must have elapsed before
a railroad across the Great American Desert
would have been constructed. But, the mo-
ment it became morally certain that the work
would be vigorously prosecuted even in the
absence of subsidies we said, "No more sub
"sidies! Fulfill our outstanding engagements;
"but let no dollar more be paid or guaranteed
"for the construction of Pacific Railroads, at
"least till it shall have been decided that they
"cannOt BIO built without Perhaps this is in
consistent with our former support of subsidies,
but we really cannot see it. Can The Com
mercial