Northern tribune. [volume] (Cheboygan, Mich.) 1875-1885, 1880-10-16
The Sault Canal Transfer
From the Post and Tribune.

The Sault Canal Transfer
From the Post and Tribune -ii
There are some points connected will
the recent comments. of the Marquett,
Mining Journal on the decision of tn,
board of control, to delay the transfer O
the Sault canal to the United States
which need further attention to preven
public misunderstanding of the matter
1t will be remembered that the Jour
nal has already admitted that in origin
ally putting the responsibility for th,
delay upon the governor it made mis-
take, and that it has thus confessed II
least one blunder.
The notification from the general gov
ernment, as already stated i'm the Pos
and Tribune, came i'm the middle of thu
navigation season. This is admitted by
the Mining Journal, which, however
denies that this is valid reason for &
failure to make the transfer at thai
time. But the fact is that the bust
ness of the canal is like that of any
other concern, and that it is pOol
policy to make change as important as
the complete transfer of the property
and its management during the most
busy season of the year. The fitting
time for this is manifestly at the close
OF business year, when the accounts
are adjusted and when the use of the
property by those most interested is
temporarily suspended. 1t may be added
that the vessel owners themselves were
in many cases, strongly averse to any
change during the busy season.
The article in the Journal carries the
idea that the contract for the stone must
have been made after the United States
had agreed to accept the canal. Such is
not the case; that contract was made
several months before action by congress.
The Journal further says that, at any
rate, the board can not be excused from
the performance of its plain duty. on
the plea that it has become involved i'm
a foolish complication. The board, i'm
making the contract for the stone, in
vOlved itself in no foolish complication
and it was to avoid any such cOmplica-
tion that it desired that some definite
understanding might be had in regard
to the disposition to be made of the
stone before cOnsumating the transfer.
In regard to the personal property of
the canal, the mining Journal says: "It
is not likely that the general govern
would insist upon the transfer of any
property not authorized by the Joint res
OlutiOn of 1862" The question is not.
what the general government would in
sist upon, but whether the board was au-
thOrized by the act of the state to trans
fer the personal property in question,
and thus make it without any further
action of the legislature the property of
the United Strtes. After mature con-
sideratiOn of this matter the board came
to the conclusion that it was doubtful
whether they had the had the right, un-
der the joint resolution, to release such
property to the United States, and there
fore felt as though it would be better
that the whole matter should 90 to the
legislature.
The Journal says the state has no
right to impose any condition regarding
tolls, etc., on the general government in
making the transfer. But if the state
is the owner of the canal, as the general
government in the act agreeing to ac-
cept it admits, certainly it, before trans
ferrlng its property, can contract for
and make certain conditions (as to
whether it should be free or not, etc.
as any other absolute owner of property
might do in disposing of it, providing
the provisions were legitimate.
The whOla tenor of the article i'm the
Mining Journal is to the effect that the
general government has from the first
and at all times been ready to make
lavish appropriations for the cOnstruc-
tiOn and improvement of, the canal-in
other words, that this this has been an
and favOrite scheme of the gov
eminent; that the state on the contrary
is now and has been disposed to keep
the canal as source of gain and for sell
fish motives. The whole history of this
work cOntradicts this. Years ago the
state first projected this canal, and even
went so far as to contract for its con-
When the contractors went
upon the ground the United States, by
the use of its military power, forced
them away; and the state was for years
clamOring at the doors of Congress for
aid for the construction of the work be-
fore it was given. Finally after long
struggle, an appropriation of lands was
made, and the canal constructed,
the AGENCY of the state, by a
careful use of this appropriation. Sub
sequently, when it became injured,
when there were good reasons for ap-
that IL would speedily be-
come unfit for use, an effort was again
made to obtain an appropriation from
the United States for its repairing. This
failed, and then it was that the state
came forward, issued its bonds, raised
money upon them, and made the neces-
sary Improvements. The statement
that these bonds formed mortgage on
the canal is sheer absurdity. The state
owned the canal and simply applied the
revenues derived from it to the payment
of the bonrs. 1t was ready i'm 1869 to
transfer the canal, on the assumption
by the general government of the in
1ebtedneSS, and it does not now propose
to place any hindrance in the way of a
final transfer. The authorities of the
United States themselves have imtimat-
ed that it might be best that the trans
fer be made through the direct action
Of the legislature rather than of the
board of control. n
The Mining Journal may be interest
ed in learning that when the question
)f the re-enactment of the joint resolu-
lion of 1859 was pending in the last
the entire delegation from
the upper peninsula as we'll as the rep
of the Lake Superior vessel
interests, made the most earnest and ae-
i've opposition to any transfer. The
failure of the proposition to re-enact the
resolution of SO was caused by this Op-
position, and the defeat of this measure
came from the very men most interest
I'd, and of whose cause the Journal pre-
tandc IN ho tho oho m, vaiop