New-York tribune., 1903-03-02
SHIP CANAL.
Tie1cs of Gustav ScbsCab Who
Fauors 1000 Ton Barge Plan.
To the Editor of The Tribune.


yesterday. in which you refer to the elaborate
comparison contained in Engineering News"
Of the one Thousand ton barge canal and the
twenty-cne foot ship canal scheme, as referred
to in the report Of the board Of engineers on
deep waterways between the Great Lakes and
the Atlantic tidewaters.
In your comparison Of the relative value Of
the two plans you draw attention to the fact,
as presented by competent Judges, that the
lake steamer could not afford to carry freight
from Buffalo to New-York at as low rate as
the ordinary canal barge, such as is contem-
plated for the traffic the one thousand ton
barge canal It is incontestably true that the
lake steamer could not compete in canal trafac
with the cheap canal barge, as the cost OF con-
struction, as well the cost Of maintenance
Of the lake steamer is far in excess Of that OF
the canal barge, or feet Of barges.
But there is another potent reason why the
twenty-one foot canal designed as waterway
for lake steamers from the Western lake cities
to New-York would, in the opinion OF those VINO
have carefully examined this question, not fulfil
its purpose At the present day the lake
steamer laden with grain from the upper lake
ports, on reaching Buffalo, discharges her cargo
ALONGSIDE and into shore elevator, whence the
grain is transferred to canal boats that proceed
to New-York and deliver their cargo alonssloe
and into the ocean steamer through floating e4e-
yators Should the lake steamer take the place
of the canal barge and bring the grain through
to New-York, she could not transship ner grain
directly into an ocean steamer, she could not
go alongside the ocean steamer. owing TO the
conditions in this harbor and for other rea-
sons. hut there would necessarily be an inter-
mediate transfer from the lake steamer into
barge or boat, whence the grain would be con-
veyed to the ocean steamer, being pumped l"'0
her hold through g floating elevator 1heRe
would therefore, be no gain WnareVer III
through shipment from the western lake Por's
to New-York, but, on the contrary as transfer
charges on grain in New-York are consloeFanlS
hisher than in Buffalo, there would De an IN
creased expense, raising the cost OF IhS 't0
portation charge the grain
Andrew Carnegie has made the 1oho"lns
s+a+enoent IN this connection: 1T would never
nav 70 run big ships from Buffalo to New-Xork
through any canal not even ship canal. II is
much cheaper to transfer from q ten thouSaNu
ton lake vessel to one thousand ton Darse' a."
send It through the canal at low speeo' " O0
unloaded alongside into oceangoing shlpS' '"a.
to send ocean or lake vessels through the cal-oi
You refer in your interesting eoltorial 10 tne
ability of the lake steamers TO ensase IA va
tor coastU,ise traffic during the period OF closed
canal navigation. ANY one famlilar Win 'n0
construction Of lake and ocean steamers 1e-
.oec+;yeIv would not consider such winter use
- Io,,s steamers in ocean coastwise trafnc prec-
+;cahIe and the underwriters would certainly
NOT take any risks on such steamers. 1ue 144-
surance companies declare that the lake ste"
ers Of the present day are toIaHy uliAit M
oooon NAVIGATION of any kind during the winter
season To secure the ability OF the buccaneers
to navigate the ocean. even In coasr"lse Sei
vice as we'll as the lakes. they Woulo require
- ha ~ much heavier construction and of diff
lIy enhancing
COST NAV say here that those familiar with
oooan sbinnns entirely disagree with the views
uo+.d 4, the deep waterways commissions s re-
port on this subject.
IIo1aver there are other and far stronger
reasons why this twenty-one 1oot snip o@"0-
proposition should not receive the counIeliance
of the people of the State OF NeW-xoFA' Alie
,o,s+r,ctior Of such a canal, 1t Is universally
assumed would be a subject TO De uhoer'dAeH
bv the national government ana this "ouio
necessarily involve the abandonment or IAe
transfer of the Erie Canal to the United states
Government.
~, +ti. suh4ect 7 cannot do better than quote
.ro1, +bo remarks made by Hon. Abram s.
Hewitt at the meeting Of the Chamber OF Com
,oerce of the State of New-York, March "a
1903 IN opposition to a resolution which was
introduced in the chamber permitting the otaCe
of New-York to sell, lease, or otherwise as
nosa of the canals to the United States. Mr.
Hewitt m this occasion uttered the following
solemn and emphatic warning:
.cvrhen we transfer the Erie Canal to the Gus
tody of the United States, 1t passes out OF the
control of it's friends into the hands possibly
of it's enemies, and certainly into the hanos OF
its rivals Nothing that may be done IN tne
way Of construction Of new routes to the GuN
or to the Atlantic, by the government OF the
rrnI4.5 States mr. bv other States or by private
en+ornrises can, by any possibility. interfere
NTH the ability of the State Of New-York to
take care of itself by the enlargement or the
canal II necessary to the 1,500-ton barge ca
nacity That is our privilege; that Is our rlght''
that is our duty. When you turn this right ana
privilege and duty over to Congress, IN Wnat
shape will it be found? The appropriation Tor
the r-~intenance of the canal must be mace IN
the River and Harbor BILL If, by any pos
sfbilitv the bill should fail for & single year.
there would be no money to maintain the canal
as free highway. And more than
that If the proposition Is made for Congress
to spend the money to enlarge the canal or for
its annual maintenance. you ask the gentlemen
who by your own confession, are Fronting by
the present condition Of the canal its insufn-
ciencv tn do the work-you ask them to vote
the money of the United States to build up the
mort Of New-York and to help the merchants
and shipping of New-York; and how much
svrnpathy are you going to get from these
rival cities on the Gulf and on the Atlantic
shore? Do you suppose they are going
IN snend the money Of the United States to
enable New-York to do the work cheaper than
they can? . The result would be that
the canal would not be maintained even II II
were once constructed. which 1 am sure IfoHl
my knowledge of national affairs will never be
afr