The New Orleans crescent., 1869-02-09
THE SHIP BLAND CANAL.

The project Of constructing ship canal Il
connect the Mississippi river with the deer
waters of the Gulf, thereby accomplishing
purpose which is essential to the commercial
prosperity of New Orleans, has been supported
by the CRESCENT precisely on the same grounds
that other works OF internal improvement
have always been recommended to the pub-
Lie. From the clamorous Opposition which
has been made to the measure, however, il
would seem tha. its projectors contemplate
doing something which is to be a detriment
rather than an advantage to the city. Every
sort Of epithet has been hurled at its origin
ators and supporters; their motives have been
impugned; they have been denounced as
swindlers and thieves, and have been ac-
cused of an attempt to pIunder the public
Tor their own benefit. For all this vitu-
peraton we care nothing. We want to see
the canal built, and we are sure that when it
is built the public will be slow to believe that
1t ever had opponents. As to State aid to
works of internal improvement the CRESCENT
does not believe that in general the people
ought to be taxed for such purposes.
But those who persistently demand subsi-
dies for every kind of enterprise, and for
every project that bears the name of internal
improvement, are very unreasonable and yery
illogical to oppose work which is, demon
strably, the most important and the most ad-
vantageous of all that are proposed for the
development OF the commercial resources of
New Orleans. This point has been carefully
kept out Of sight by those who have de-
nounced the Ship Island Company for
applying for State aid to consummate
their enterprise. They have not ventured
TO enter on the discussion of the main
point-whether or not the canal, If con-
structed, would be beneficial to New Orleans
In commercial point of view. As they
choose to evade this question, we choose to
assume that the proposed canal is an actual
necessity to the commercial future of New
Orleans. One of our contemporaries de-
clares that, if built, it would ruin the |
existing canals opening into Lake Pontchar-
train, and that hence, we presume, it ought |
not to be built II the meaning is that it
would ruin those canals by attracting the traf-
no which they now accommodate, the arpu-
ment proves too much, for it shows that the
new line of communication with the sea is
more eligible than the old ones. If the mean
ng is that it will ruin them actually. and ma.
erially, the proposition is simply erroneous.
{ would have no such effect indeed it would
ather benefit than injure them, by opening a
lew channel of discharge for the waters of
ne lake when backed up into the canals by
torms, since the level of the Rigolets into
7hich the Ship Canal opens during such
torms is from two to four feet lower than the
'vel Of Lake Pontchartrain. But the great
utcry is raised because the company asks the
legislature for the use of the draining fund. {
case the canal do the work of drainage.
ow suppose that the company had simply I
'ked State aid to the extent of two million
'iiars, for an enterprise of demonstrable ad. 5
'ntage, importance and necessity? This is s
'ecisely what other corporations have done I
e jackson Railroad Company, the Opelousas
abroad Company. the Vicksburg and Shreye-
rt hailroad Company and others, without .
pJectng themselves to denunciation and 7
ntumely as swindlers and sharpers. Those u
mpanies gave stock in consideration of c.
ate bonds; the Ship Island Canal Company a
opposes to do the work of drainage in con. IL
eration of the aid which the DRAINAGE ia
,d-we omit the 100000 acres of State re
d-would give them. 1t seems to us that n
true points at issue, then, are Will this it
erprise be, as claimed, advantageous TO is
commerce of New Orleans? and will the o'
ai be efficient as a means of drainage 10
ese points may be discussed without in u
wing any imputation on the good faith of tn
persons who take the affirmative of the az
positions. The first point is virtually con. hi
ed by the opponents of the measure. The be
ond certainly admits of debate. But il is tn
lsputable that the existing draining sys- in'
is not effective; it is equally sure that Sol
10 otner system must ultimately be pr
pied; and il is inst as certo;,, ar. Ur
reasonably believe that the system pre-
ed by the proposed canal-that is to saw. mic
mage into the Rigolets by means of a COZ
t dlscharging channel running nearly rer
llei to the river-is the best system, with Do
necessarily being sharper or a swindler. rite
Sc who indulge in such epithets towards POI
opponents display a temper which can VIII
,ely fail to suggest the existence of infiu. and
analogous to those which they charge to
the objects of their vituperation. also
--- pro-