Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-09-20

provide eight feet: of water to Kan
sas City and six feet to Sioux City
Let us assume that $50,OO0,000 will be
needed from there on as an argu'
ment. There are in North Dakota
alone :13,5O0,O00 acres of land in the
ten counties Immediately adjacent to
! the river. Last year only II per cent
; of this vast area was in cultivation
and yet its agricultural production
was 930,791 tons; and its annual pro-
duction 303,5G4 head. If the1 7 1888 900
bushels of grain had all been shipped
| by water at a saving of but. 5 cents
per bushel. 1894 400 could have been
saved to the farmers of this region.
Or, taking the argument earlier pre-
sented of saving one mill per ton per
, mile in transportation either through
rail rate regulation or water rate
saving, and you have $l.00 per thous-
and miles, or S930,791 saved on the
adequate improvement of the river
would furnish favorable transportation
and encourage further development of
this vast area, it is safe to say that
we could count on II per cent more
being used, and this would mean a
Isaying of 100000 annually, which
at 2 per cent would be the interest
on $100,000,0OO. If we add the re-
turns capable Of being saved from
Montana and South Dakota to this,
it easily runs it up to $4,000 900, so
that $50,000,ooO if expended at once
by the national government would
yield s6,OO0,0oO annually in the saw
ing of transportation charges on grain
alone.
Now, l have not mentioned the one
thing that is causing the government
to spend 100000 in canalizing> the
Ohio river, and that is the coal fields
of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and
Ohio. In that coal area are 1880
square miles of coal estimated at 49,
Gal million tons, and it Is being
shipped out by the Ohio river, to
which it is adjacent, for 76-1OO mills
per ton per mile, or $l.52 to carry it
1000 miles by water to the Gulf.
Here along the Missouri, in Montana
and the Dakotas, is coal field with
an area of $1,000 square miles, and
an estimated tonnage of $4,000 mil
lion, or twice as great as the West
Virginia and Pennsylvania field. II
that coal can be shipped out of the
Ohio river for 76 cents per ton per
1000 miles, does it not seem that this
great coal deposit of the northwest
could also be served by cheap water
transportation?
But even the making of a cheap
water route for this great coal region
so that it too may serve the people
is not all that this $50,000,000 spent
on the Missouri would do as meas
ure of economy. Nowhere in the
country are the people so at the
mercy of the railroads as out in this
region, and nowhere are such rate
taxes imposed. Now, l have no fight
to make against the railroads. They
and their promoters have done mag
nificent work in building this country
and no man has done more for the
opening up of this section perhaps
than James J. Hill. Railroad builders
are not philanthropists, and build
roads to make money for themselves
and their stockholders, and so in max
ing a rate they take all the COM
modify will stand as their share; so
out here in Dakota you pay 16 mills
per ton per mile and in Montana 10
mills per ton per mile to have your
freight hauled, while along the Ohio,
and other water routes
where competition is possible the
shipper pays but S mills per ton per
mile.
Now, my friends, have pointed out
the arguments you can make use OF to
urge that your great river be put back
on the map. What you must do is to
educate yourselves to your advantages
and then help the national rivers and
harbors congress educate the whole
nation concerning the wisdom and
economy of this great waterway I'M
dertaking.
Surely, if congress would inform
<~<~<<<~~~>~>s<@ =