The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1873-02-06
THE CANAL QUESTION.
Arguments Against the Pro-
posed Scheme of Re-Opening
the p. s. o. Canal.
Err FOR THE OHIO CANAL.

the Cleveland Daily Herald of Thurs
day last:
.'wATER FOR THE OHIO CANAL.
EDS. HERALD I'm your issue of
January 27 you seem to take sides,
under the above caption, in a contro-
versy now being urged before the Cen
eral Assembly.
Had the article appeared in the form
of q communication it would merit
little notice, but in the form of an ed
storial its very importance derive d
from that fact calls for a few words
of defense and explanation from one
who never before troubled you with
correspondence.
And now let me premise, that the
Herald has always obtained our ap-
proval for its fair and manly course
in regard to the various questions of
the day, and particularly in its defense
of legal rights, even in the face of an
apparent popular opinion hence we
can hardly believe that you would
knowingly lend your countenance to
any illegal measure or one calculated
to invade the private rights of one
person for the benefit of another.
Further, let me say, that / have not
one cent of interest in this matter !;
bHI being as well posted in regard
to this matter as any one living, can
not sit quietly by and see powerful
daily lend its unequivocal assistance
to scheme which l know is wrong.
T have characterized the present
matter as controversy and 1 speak
advisedly.
Won h0v0 III
ATTEMPTS have been made to con-
fuse the minds of our legislators by
claiming the matter to be merely a
strife between Akron and Cuyahoga
Falls for mill privileges. In such a
quarrel we have no interest, but the
question is not of this character"
We speak by the card when we say
it is erdctLY of this character.
Look at the evidence:
+ In the winter of 1869 this ques-
ton came before the General Assem-
bly, on a bill identical with the one
now pending. s,
Who urged that bill ? A glance at
your old files win show you that Mr..
Philo Chamberlain was. the prime mo-
yer in the open work, that he urged
the matter and reported resolution
in favor of the movement to your
Board of Trade.
Has he no interest in supplying the
Akron mills with water3 Who urg-
ed the matter for months before the
General Assembly? Mr.. Alexander
Cummins and General George w. Nc
Neil of Akron, men whose money is
made out of the water of the Pennsyl-
vania Canal. Why were not some
interests represented at Columbus but
men whose money was invested in
the Akron mills? We're they the on
ly ones who cared for the transporta-
tion facilities of the Ohio Canal ?"
1t is no significant fact that after a
patient hearing of both sides before
the Committee of the House on Pub
lie works, at that time, all of the COM
mittee agreed to indefinitely postpone
the bill except the chairman, Mr..
Ball, who was one of the lessees OF
Public Works.
Again: DIR. Sisler, who represented
Summit County in 1869, advocated
the bill, and thereby killed his pros
poets for nomination and ever since
this question has governed our elec-
tions, and person who advocates gal
vanizing the old Ohio & Pennsylva-
mia Canal into life cannot represent
Summit or Portage County in the
General Assembly.
Hence, when Mr.. Chamberlain at
tempted to carry the same measure
through the Assembly in 1901, he
got no comfort, and his conception
fell still-born.
Again: Who advocates the present
measure
The same parties?. 1 may add that
the expenses of Messrs. Mcneil 4
Cummins were paid by the. owners OF
the mills in Akron. M
Now it is very true that there are
large petitions presented to the Gen.
eral Assembly in favor of this act
but in many instances these are made
up in counties where the Inhabitants
know as little of the true question as
do the Chinese. whereas, the remon-
| strances from Summit and Portage
counties are from parties cognizant OF
| the facts, except on the borders, and
there perhaps a few have signed petit
tions as in Richfield, without know
ing anything of the matter.
In conclusion, let me say that down
here where the facts are known, there
is no attempt to conceal the real object
| of the bill.
Again you say: 'The Ohio Canal
is short of water. 1t must have an in.
creased supply or its transportation
facilities, already greatly diminished,
will be still further lessened. The
needed supply can be furnished by
the Ohio - Pennsylvania Canal, the
water of which is now wasted in the
Cuyahoga River, by the cutting of the
banks at Cuyahoga Falls"
Two facts are assumed ir the above
1st. That the 2. Sc y. Canal will fur
nish this. supply, and
I'd. That large quantities of water
which ought to flow through that Ca
nal are now being scdsted in the Guy
| ahoga River through a break in the
canal bank at Cuyahoga Falls.
+ TO the frst-I need hardly advert
to the fact so often stated, that the
lack of water at the Summit level can.
not be, helped by this action, as the
water of the o. 81 p. Canal is twenty
| feet lower than that level, and does
not in fact reach the Ohio Canal un-
til it is 160 feet lower-at which point
it receives all the water il needs fol
supplying waste by evaporation, sc.
from the Little Cuyahogs..
Now to bring boat from that leve
toward Cleveland, draws of necessity
from the Summit Level enough anc
only enough to bring it down to the
long level below, where the Littl,
ECuyahoga comes in; and to help thi,
difficulty the o. s. p. Canal must bt
reconstructed SO its waters may flow
into that level, an expensive jeb no
contemplated OF intended by the mo
/ vers of this bill. eal
AS to the second, may only say
that no waters have been in the ole
canal for years; and as to the waters
being aoasted, any >one who has visited
Cuyahoga Falls knows that the water
is all needed tor the mills at that plac,
and that during the dry seasons W,
are often obliged to run on half tim,
or less for want of that water.
| Now, let no one answer that the,
intend to reconstruct the reservoir
again and save only waste water il