New-York tribune., 1890-01-11
iuPROTING THE HTDSON RITER


Senator George B. sloan contributes to THE
Troy Times" an interesting and pubIic-sp spirited
article in relation to the Hudson River con
sidcrcd As route of travel. 1t was written
for two purposes. In the first place he de-
sired to impress upon the people of the state
the fact that thus far the Federal Government
has done comparatively little to improve the
navigation of the Rhine Of America. In the
second place, he hoped to induce them to make
an effort, through their representatives At
Washington, to have the Federal neglect OF
the Hudson in the past made good by liberal
appropriations in the near future In the course
of five years from 1878 the enormous sum OF
S1O.712255 20 was spent upon the Mississippi
Rivcr-an average of S2.142.451 1G Il year.
During the same period S1.445.5O0 was grant
cd to the Missouri and S1451.562 81 to the
Ohio. Now these figures certainly are Sug-
ge>tive when contIa>tcd with those represent
ing the expenditures in the interest Of the
Hudson from 1878 TO 1882. The Hudson re-
coiyed only S145.000-S29, 600 a year. or
course. if the commerce OF the Hudson was
small. il would be easier 70 account for the in
significance of these appropriations. But Sen
ator sloan feels warranted in making the as
scrtion that the commerce of the Hudson is
greater than that OF the three other rivers in
question.
How is this inequality 70 he accounted for
The Senator thinks that the fact that the liud-
son flows through the territory of only single
State. while the other rivers flow through
number of States. is partial explanation. ON
this point he says:
te cDuditipNe that
there would uc difficulty in rcroncng the division of
cost among two or more state, in question Of TIA,
character. while n the case Of single state there
could bc no conflict uni"ss among IL, own people. IN
the latter instance Affirmative action could Doe urged
mon state authoritlcs. ou the ground tnt the nj
vanta,c- would ho cuioycd hy tlo-c vino were asked
to bear the burden. There could joe no opportunity
for splitting ~ 10 whether state wa, under
taking too much ur too Atu".
We can under tard tuo that thc aversion Of states
10 assuming the vc-'t of large cNpcad.turc- is in-
creased ly the fact that tr tan must ic direct whereas
expenditure, made ly TIE 1ii"l >iAic' are '''F'u
mainly from dutic, ou imports. and -.n'" duties "n
imports are paid mpcg,,ptIlt no oue feels uIc bur
den.
The other explanation OF the inequality
which Senator sloan considers Is more prac-
tcally important, sine" II raises, or at least
tend, 10 raise the ycNcd qu' S'ion oi Federal
aid for oar canal system The llud>on II has
been argued is 70 bc looked upon a> a necessary
part OF that system. so that to ask the Federal
Government 20 improve the Hudson is 20 pre-
pare the way for a,.n- il 70 improve the
canals Whatever force there may have boon
i'm this consideration in the past was lost, IN
the opinion Of the senator when toll, were
taken off the canal, and they became frc" 10
all comcrs. But THIS opinion of his viii b"
cha lcugcd. IL proposition viii ic REGARDED
in some quaIt1>-IIrlal' newspapers ar" al
ready thu, regarding ia, an entering "cd%o
IN the interest OF Federal ad for Oh" canals.
Many of tle most >a-IcioU, and influential
friend, Of the canals rs 'h' senator is we'll
aware. are firmly opposed q, calling upon the
ni'cd state, for money a. improve and main
tain any oi Ncw-No.h'> great public works.
II Federal aid ior tAr llad-'u could Doe pre-
>ontcd a> q di>tuc' proposition ON tn" g'I"r-
standing that II meant just tla' and nothing
more, it might command the general support.