New-York tribune., 1905-01-11
HALTING CANAL IMPROVEMENT.

The opponents OF canal improvement have
made an unexpected move. Their continuing
hostility to the 1.000-ton barge project was
not doubted, and there had been various signs
of a concerted purpose their part TO interpOse
such obstacles as they might find suited to
their use. The controversy over itemtzed and
lump sum bids easily commanded their sup
port and observers at the capital were looking
for q determined effort to repeal the act of
1908 1t had not been supposed, however, that
its adversaries were preparing TO attack 1t on
constitutional grounds. When the bin was be-
fore the legislature two years ago it was Vigor-
ously opposed in both houses and at commit
tee hearings, but in reports of the debate we
find no reference TO the constitution, and we
have no recollection of its being brought into
the campaign discussion which followed. Mr..
John l. Platt of Poughkeepsie, who has al
ways been a conspicuous enemy of the improve
ment scheme and who is probably proud to be
hailed as the leader of the present crusade, did
! not once mention the constitution in long
letter which The Tribune printed over his
name Just before the election Of 1903, but eX-
plicitly declared that the question on which
the people were about to vote was purely a
business question, TO be settled by facts and
figures"
1t is of course conceivable that the opponents
of the 1,OOO-ton barge canal have all the while
1
lied as a last resort but we hardly think that
such is the case The probability seems to be
that they have only recently resolved to ap-
peal TO the constitution and that they do not
really expect to find the court on their side.
But the step they are taking will answer their
purpose very well if it results in casting doubt
on the validity of the act under which the
State authorities are proceeding, discredits the
! enterprise financially and causes an indefinite
] Of +I1o
no doubt that lawyers of high repute think
there is a tenable basis for litigation, and 1t is
officially admitted that some delay is inevtta-
BILE From their point of view, therefore, the
representatives Of the anti-canal interests have
reason to congratulate themselves upon the
immediate effects Of their latest man9uvre.
These persistent foes of canal extension, who
had a perfect right TO oppose the undertaking
in every legitimate way while the question was
before the legislature and the people, and who
may now feel that they are abundantly just-
fed in keeping up the struggle, have not chosen
to reveal the point at which they ostensibly con-
| slider the Improvement act to be vulnerable.
Perhaps the most plausible of various conject-
ures IS that they mean to dispute the cOnstltu-
tionality of that part Of the act providing for
the sale of lands which are now occupied by
/ the canals but which would be of no further
use for canal purposes when the routes had
| II is not easy TO believe however. that the
| section of the constitution fOrbidding the leg
isIature to sell, lease or otherwise dispose OF
the Erie. Oswego and Champlain canals could
| be construed 10 mean that the State must for
ever retain possession of useless property IN
| such cases.
| The validity of the act seems even less ques-
| tionabIe on other grounds. 1t was passed In
the Senate by a vote OF 33 to ii and in the
/ Assembly by vote of 81 to 80. 1t was legally
| submitted 10 the people at the next election
and they approved it on remarkably full vote
by a majority of more than 245,000. 1t provides
| I'm the regular manner for the contraction of
debt, and imposes a tax to pay the interest as
| IL falls due and discharge the principal within
eighteen years. So far as the record shows,
every constitutional requirement was accurately
! fulfilled. and the conspicuous supporters OF the
/ project are confident that it cannot be success
! fully attacked Nevertheless, as we have SAID,
its opponents have seemingly gained the delay
| which they have been assiduously seeking ana
the practical result of their labors may requite
| them for all the trouble they have taken. But
there is no reason to doubt that the vote OF
/ 1908 was fair expression of the popular WILL
and that the prospect of a long delay in carry
ing II into effect will displease majority OF
/ citizens.