The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1896-06-20
Opposed to a Central Canal.

In The News Tribune of "Wednesday
we find the following excellent article
by }. II. Darling an engineer of promi-
nence, which sets forth our views of
the case in a more scientific way than
we could ourselves hence we gladly
reproduce it. 1t seems strange that two
such eminent cO-workers as Mai Sears
and Mr.. Darling are, should differ so
widely upon this subject. But Superior
people Ell !orse Mr.. Darling's version of
the proposition instead of Maj Sears.
To the Editor of The News Tribune:
The central canal project is so import
ant matter as certainly to merit the
fullest discussion, and it is surprising
more have not spoken concerning it
through the daily papers. | will here
state some reasons why it seems to the
writer that Il central canal would not be
the best thing.
]. To make asingle opening opposite
the Gate, and close the two present
ones, would reduce the two extremities
of Superior bay to stagnant ponds,
which would freeze early in winter. the
ice would become thick, and remain
frozen late in the spring, thus curtailing
the season OF navigation as regards
those portions of the bay, and which at
least Is none to long.
,. The stagnant waters at the two
extremities of the bay would be apt to
breed disease, by holding accumula-
tons of sewage and floating refuse of
all descriptions, and be a nuisance to
the smell and sight. The recent
typhoid experience should be warm
ing against any further unsanitary on
ditions. The Duluth people do not
want Chicago river in front of the
central portion of the city nor does Old
Superior.
But it is suggested that the present
openings be allowed to re main wholly
or partially open, to allow of a circula-
ton OF currents. This of course would
not be az bad as closing them entirely,
but would it be sufficient? 4 central
canal would divert the whole St. Louis
river flow that way, as it is bound to !
take the shortest course to the lake |
that being the line of least resistance
and of greatest slope. 1t is this current
that is most effective in cleaning out the |
ice from this end of Superior bay i'll the
spring. While deprived of the St |
Louis river current there would remain |
those currents at the Duluth canal and |
Superior entry due to the rise and fall |
ebb of frequent recurrence, as is we'll
be diminished IN f6fce ana duratIon by
a central canal, the more SO if the latter
be wide and deep; and would be further
diminished If the two present canals be
partially closed. So that with q central
canal il would seem important to keep
the present entrances fully open to OBJ
tain the needed circulation. Better
force all currents to pass through the
present entrances as Is now the case,
and keep the entire bay pure and
wholesome and as free from ice as
possible.
3. Two entrances are needed, one at
either end Of Superior Bay, in approx
mately the present positions of the en-
frances, in order to properly accOmmo-
date the business at the head of the
lakes. Superior bay and AllOueZ bay
together are about nine miles long at
right angles to the general course yes
sells take in going down the lake. As far
as concerns Duluth and West Superior
it would not make so much difference
as to directneSS and convenience.
whether passing through the Duluth
canal or through central canal OppO-
site the Gate, as there are but one and
a half or two miles between these local
tiles; but for old Superior and AllOueZ
] III
! the front, commercially speaking, the
situation would be otherwise. These
! last named business localities would
| doubtless consider it a hardship, and
| Justly so, to be compelled to 90 four or
/ five miles out of their way to get into
! the lake.
! Two entrances being required for
| facilitating commerce, for sanitary
/ reasons, and to prevent excessive freeZ-
| ing of Superior bay; and there being
now two such entrances, these, 1t seems
! to me, should he maintained, and be
maintained at government expense,
which has made them, in great part,
what they are, and not allowed to par
! italy close up and go to pieces, but
/ kept in good condition. Then with two
such entrances, why have third
| The utilization of Minnesota Point is
necessarily a factor in this discussion
and MAJ. Sears idea to open up the
! Point to business purposes by giving
| access from the two eXtremities Is one
possible solution of difficult problem
and in my mind is the strongest point
in favor of a central canal. 1t is ques-
tionable, however, whether Duluth
would not be the loser in practically
throwing four miles OF the Point TO the
! Wisconsin side for the purpose OF gain
lIIS dtttES ~ ii Olllpll VI VIC piiit 'hC
and three quarters miles long: when the
entire Point belongs to Duluth, and
there might later be found means of
access by bridge from Rice's point or
otherwise, which would render the
whole of it available. Then there is the
plan, suggested some years ago, of max
ing a park of Minnesota Point. by ard
for the use of both cities, Duluth and
Superior, and keeping railroads away
from it.
The development of Minnesota Point
is a problem requiring much careful
consideration; and now an occasion is
presented for giving it special attention.
At present 1t seems very doubtful
whether the cutting of a central canal
and the bridging of the existing .e n
frances is the proper thing to do with
reference TO Minnesota Point itself.