New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-02
BARGE CANAL SCHEME.
Reasons for Opposing 1t Set Forth
by John I. Plat.

a a
al Rochester. in response TO fcah from One
Rochester Chamber OF Commerce. which was large
~ attended by influential men. impCllec 10 come
together by a regard for the welfare OF The state
Of Now-York. and because they believed that me
incurrin= OF an Indebtedness Of over a hundred
millions for the construction OF barge canal
would impose burden upon all the interests Of the
State far in excess Of any possible benent Il@l
could be 1c-ived from it. Their motives have beeh
grossly nisrcnrcsented and. 50 Tar as aheaiS'
there has been a systematic effort 10 keep 'HSA
REPRESENTATIVES, from obtaining a hearing IN me
CITY which is most interested because ii will have
10 pay nearly % per cent OF the cost therefore
wish. at she outset to express my IhahKs 10 me
Tribune for giving the opportunity 10 ADDRESS
its readers on The subject.
IIebert chairman OF the Canal Assoclauoh O.
Greater New-York the following letter;
state Executive Committee in oP f 5ss sacr 70 e
Henry W. Hebert. chairman Canal Association %
Dear Sir: The question OF the barge canal is ga
business question purely having 10 90 W. 5,,-sS
investment Of money II that Investment li 80
IN adequate return; ii VII benefit the Ssle 49,, az
sg os o. : WI ORR a. inir 10 The state and city
New York Just every other investment ma ,
question IS NOT a question Of partisansrp or OF
sentiment or Of ethics i Is purely "a ogs se yo
think that il will pay. and therefore VII se St
81 VIII pay. and therefore viii injure the city
% New-York. and the state as wei. 1900, ,,,o
IN other cities the Charnbers OF commerce 9Es
arranged for discussion Of the question IN when
interior Of lie state your ASSOCIATION or the canal
Improvement Association Of Buffalo has invited
canal DO not know what particular organEation
6iscussion which is evidently The only fair way TO
educate nc ppblie on The subject -. . 1900,
sentative who shall meet in public discussion.
ssforS TIE NeTia FrGones aNSnssnge, or ne
certainly ought TO be an impartial and fair body.
should know ali the facts and arguments on both
sides and decide without bias or prejudice. Re
spectfully yours JOHN l. PLATT, Secretary.
NOT A GOOD BUSINESS PROPOSITION.
The above sets forth the ground Of our oppo-
rition. We believe Il can be demonstrated that
the barge canal viii not return either to the State
the city. the money that IS invested IN it. Ny
HILBERT has chosen 20 reply 70 my invitation.
Hnd n is not the first that he has ignored
when. at his request. the Produce Exchange ap-
pointed committee on the subject I sent 10 him.
and TO most Of the members Of that committee, a
similar letter, asking the opportunity for a fair
and Impartial discussion To that I received two
replies courteOusly calling me liar, another from
one OF the most prominent members stating that
he had declined to act on the committee because
ne agreed with IN opposing the barge canal
scheme, but otherwise there notice taken
Of the matter. What was thus refused 1 propose
10 undertake briefly in The Tribune though the
subject is large that It only be fairly dis
posed OF in a series OF articles or treatise that
viii far exceed the space allowed me.
The whole question depends upon the relative
cheapness % transportation. The argument OF
every advocate of the barge canal is based upon
The claim that water transportation IS inherently
cheaper than railway transportation" But we
observe that il is always water transportation"
- which they speak not canal transportation. and
our reply is that while water transportation is
cheaper on the lakes or The high seas. there
is no canal that can transport merchandise as
caeapy the American Ions distance railway
freight train.
Ise as at the outset inquire into the reasons
for this difference comparison Of the argu-
merits furnishes the key at once. The difference
is summed Up in another question. What consri-
tutes cost OF canal transportation? When the tolls
were removed from the canals OF this State the
proposition was presented TO the people and argued
hv its promoters. and carried at the polls as q
proposition TO establish free waterways" Free
canals was the slogan Of the day. That word
free" had an aliuring sound. It captured the
popular fancy and won the popular approval
The fact that the burden thus taken of the canal
traffic must be assumed by the people in general
was carefully kept in the background The fact
that canals free 10 the traffic which 10 use
then meant canals 10 be paid for by the property
and the business enterprise Of the state at large
which were not to them allowed place
in the discussion. And the view then taken was
80 assiduously inculcated. has been steadily
maintained. and insisted on, that it appears
10 have taken such full possession Of the canal
advocates that they never any occasion or under
any circumstances recognize the vast sums which
have ever since been taken out OF the pockets OF
+he taxpayers and paid out Of the treasury Of the
state for the support Of the canals any part OF
the cost Of transportation
You may search their written arguments and
their speeches, and viii never ind any allu-
sion 10 the cost OF the canal itself Of its main
fensnce as having any relation 10 the question be
fore Us. Having declared the canals be free. 90
they complacenty assume that they maintain
themselves or that the money that poured into
them by millions comes without labor sacrifice
privation. the dew from heaven or as the rain
that falls upon the just and upon the unjust
We hold. on the other hand that what IS paid
Tor construction OF artificial waterway, for its
repair its management, its maintenance and its
superintendent is part OF the Of its business
We assert that TO ignore and disregard it. the
canal men do. is absurd and misleading as
81 would be 10 disregard in the accounts Of a
manufacturing industry the cost Of its plant and
the maintenance Of its machinery.
COST OF TRANSPORTATION.
The question. then. is whether. when the state
paid s22ss.osz O. as it did in 1862 10 enable the
canal bostnen to transport 3.27s,6l0 tons. # was
mart OF the cost OF canal transportation not? II
It was not then the claims made by the advocates
Of this new canal stand. Canal transportation is
CHEAP. and il can very readily be made st cheaper
by the same process, by letting the State pay
more and the traffic less. Indeed. I see rea-
son why il may not be made 10 disappear entirely
by letting the State pay II al! Then the canals,
according 70 the idea OF their advocates, would be
free" IN the fullest sense free, for instance, as
ere the paupers in the aimshouses, who eat and
5rirl, and enjoy LIE in their way and contribute
nothing 70 their own support II this which the
state pays is part Of the cost Of canal trans
ucrtation. then we have 40 case All the claims
az The canal advocates must be conceded. The
benefits follow from the construction OF the new
and greater canals proved.
F1t II what the state pays for the canals is part