The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-08
THE sHIp ISLAND CANAL.

ner as to enable vessels trading to New Or
leans to escape the tedious and tortuous
navigation of 100 miles from the bar to the
city, to avoid the delays and losses incident
to detention on the bar, and to get rid of the
onerous and paralyzing charges which our
commerce now endures by way of excessive
pilotage, towage, wharfage and insurance,
would seem to be so desirable in itself as to
be question only of practicability and ex-
pense. The bare statement of these objects,
assuming that they can be accomplished, is
sufficient to commend any plan which pur-
poses to achieve them, unless there are
obstacles of character sufficiently
serious to counterbalance these advan-
tages. 1t is astonishing, therefore, that the
Picayune, which devotes marvellous amount
of time and space to the support of projects
ticability, should suddenly become extremely
timorous in regard to an enterprise which, at
least primd fdcie, is the most important and
the most desirable Of all the plans that have
ever been presented for the development of
the commerce of New Orleans. 1t is still
more surprising that the Picayune should be
guilty of a misrepresentation SO fragrant as
that involved in its assertion that the work in
question 'has, as one of its main objects, the
diversion of trade and shipping from our
port" Whether the claim be well founded,
or ill-founded, the claim of the Ship Island
canal is that it win bring trade and shipping
to our port. Whether or not it will have this
effect is legitimate subject for discussion
but it is not legitimate, and it is not fair to
say that the project has for one of its
main objects, that which is exactly
the reverse of its main object. The Plea
yune's inference that the opening ola shorter
route to the sea, in the rear of the city, would
cut off New Orleans by enabling vessels to
pass directly from the river to the Gulf, may
be true, or it may not but if it is intended as
an argument against the canal, it is a .fortiori
an argument against the Mississippi river it
self The Picayunes statement that our peo-
pie are asked to pay the expense of this work
is equally inaccurate although it could
scarcely be deemed impertinent to ask for
public aid for project which purposes to dou-
BILE the port facilities of New Orleans, to af-
ford harborage in the rear equal to that in
front, to shorten the distance between tide
water and the city by SIS miles, and to reduce
the expenses of a ship trading to New Or
leans-a ship say of 1000 tons-from
S2500 to 5000. Whether or not the
project, as presented, asks public
aid, does not effect its character as COM
mercial enterprise, or as work of internalim-
provement; but, in fact, the company do not
ask the city of New Orleans to expend dol
lar in aid OF the undertaking. Let the work
be " Gigantic and expensive" if the Picayune
will; yet why should we object to sanctioning
it if it costs us nothing? The "heavy tax"
referred to by the Picayune, as one of the
burdens to be imposed on the city of New
Orleans by this project, is probably the
drainage tax already imposed by law, and
which bill now before the Legislature pro-
poses to transfer to the Canal Company under
certain conditions. We have not, heretofore,
discussed tho project with reference to this fea-
ture, because we did not see that the question
of constructing a ship canal is logically con-
nected with the question of drainage. Whether
or not the proposed canal will be effective
for drainage purposes is point to be treated
entirely Independently of the commercial
merits of the enterprise. But it is clear that
if the Canal Company do the work of draining
the rear of the city, it is not unreasonable to
pay them for doing it. 1t must be understood
that the drainage in question is not urban
drainage, but swamp land drainage; and this
drainage is now supposed to be accomplished
by means of tax assessed, and applied by a
board of drainage commissioners. The pro-
position simply is to transfer the duties of
that board to the Canal Company, and to
transfer the drainage fund at the same time.
In this there is no additional expense to the
city, and the question simply is one of expe-
diency and probabilities, to be settled by a
rational investigation of the merits of the two
systems-the one now existing, and the one
proposed by the company. To show that the
proposition is not of that character ascribed
to it by the Picayune, we simply give the
following figures: The estimated expense of
surveying and locating the first section, of
obtaining the right of way, and of excavating
5 miles, o feet deep and rs feet wide, say
amount to be received from the drainage
fund on the completion of this portion of the
work is 100000; leaving an excess OF ex-
penditures, 81 ,122, goo. 1t is not likely that
the company would expend over a million of
dollars for the purpose of getting possession
of about a third of that amount. We may
state, too, that the total amount of estimated
expenditure necessary to be incurred in order
to entitle the company to the whole of the
drainage fund, amounting to s599, 056 6s, is
So, $50, 619 &c, leaving an excess of expendi-
lures of s2961, 500 So. As we have already
stated, this question has no necessary con-
nection with that of constructing a ship
canal; but it certainly has none of the mon
strous features attributed to it by the Plea
yune. We shall examine this branch of the
subject further, in order that we may be ena-
bled to present it in q still clearer light