Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-04-23
MR. WHITE ONCE MORE.


EprroR GRASp RAPIDS HERALp-A
Member 81 juggles with the ques-
tions asked that his replies arc not quite
clear Ia me. certainly expressed no
doubt a. 10 the details Of Col. Ludlows
report" although doubts may reason
ably arise by reading the report
though" a. requested. Here 10 Col
.udlow's opinion of the incipient plan:
Grand Rapids has apparently gauged
her navigation requirements by tho am-
pie measure IT her own development
and commercial standing. and insisted
that the river should he made 10 fulfill
them. La the course OF such a pro
Jet a. this there are more obstacles
than the inadequate capacity Of Grand
river"
The following il his conclusion from
the data furnished. ]. O., Secretary Van
Asmus' statement: There is no doubt
ae to the commercial value Of an eight.
or even six foot navigation. where the
business actual and potential 10 such a.
tn warrant it," This is q sound and
common sense opinion.
Member says: I'VE will be on
par with other large cities on Lake
Michigan" Will Member" state
into a contract to establish line Of
communication through this channel.
ghen completed, at rates placing Grand
Rapids on par with other large cities
on Lake Michigan! And il not. Why
not! And what additional rates they
demand for delay and expense attend
ing passing up and down q tenfoot
channel fifty feet in width; also what
suarantys Of tonnage and dispatch
would lie required before such contract
could be made; also what portion of her
manufactured products "she will ssud
20 the world unhampered in cargoes
sufficient to warrant decp-water boats
running. and to what part Of the world
unhampered" these cargoes will be con-
signed! lie says: I'VE will do with
ten feet Of water just what other cities
do with from four and half TO seven
feet" What il the object OF the add
tional depth. which is the main expense,
ia order TO do what others do with less
water! And just there lies the weakness
OF the whole deep water scheme. The
proposed expenditure of vast sum to
accomplish results that can be better
obtained at slight. comparative cost.
A Member" lucidly sums up: "lf
therefore. five. six and seven feet will
float vessels carrying heavy cargoes. will
not ten feet be considerably better than
nothingy" give up the implied con-
undrum. but suggest this amendment to
the last clause: Will not ten feet he
entirely unnecessary? As per Colonel
Ludlow's report. THE ruling draught
for deep water lake navigation in fifteen
TO seventeen feet and tendency 10 craft
drawing more" The assertion. and il is
simply unsupported assertion. That the
vast benefit to the city and its interest
/ conceded by ALL" is unwarranted by
facts.
l am most happy to answer the qnes-
ton Member propounds: why
mills were operated at Grand Hrven il
water communication il Of 70 doubtful a
benefit" There is evident misappre-
hension on his part as To any
opinion on that point. l do not
dispute the benefit al water com
munication. but conditions must alb
solute!y be taken into consideration. not
ignored. Enthusiasm cannot enforce
success where unfavorable conditions
! forbid. Mills were established at Grand
Haven and maintained for many years.
because the conditions Of a concentra-
ton of material made possible a very
large accumulation 81 staple product. OF
sufficient quantities To warrant steady
frcightagc, for large carriers with a
minimum loss of time In loading and
| discharge 81 cargo. consigned Ia markets
/ at lake ports where such product was
always in demand. Boats arrived in the
morning. loaded and cleared that night.
arrived at destination and unloaded
next day. clearing at night again with
almost unvarying regularity. Dispatch
wac. and il. the essence ~ profit in lake
navigation In the time Grand Rapids
and the world unhampered" lines boat
had laboriously ascendcd Grand river.
collected and slowed "her miscellaneous
cargo" tper Secretary Van Asmus'
data and been deliberately towed
I down the deep water channel
! 10 Lake Michigan. her com.
petitors running la other large cities
( on Lake Michigan" would have com
Z pleted three round trips. and IN order
+ o. lie on a par, Grand Rapids would
necessarily pay three times the freight
rates Has Grand Rapids any product
: that will load lake barge ~ size 10
warrant running. consigned 90 any lake
3 port. once "A MONTH I doubt H. That
IL Why the sand Hill City" was favored
( The item in the Muskegun Chrcnicle
puts in nutshell the opinion ~ a 10
cality where the practically - navigs
tinn - no problem: That slJotgo
( Drand Rapids proposes "a raise for
dredging t,rand River will 10 drop in
the bucket The stream can bs made
navigahgc for fat bottom river steamers
with profit. but Tor deep dfsught LAKE
yesseis. only At iass- That covers the
whole question.
4 campaign - education has feen
suggested BY ali means lot :, begin.
and insugurs,e u in the committee vho
have the Incoming - the deep water
project in charge There - no danger
: trey will become too veil informed ss -
CONDITIONS. neces<ifscs. 80 Possibilities
THoxss -. WHIrE