New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-07-28
o the Editor of The Tribune.

TO the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: A correspondent signing himself
NAVAL Reservist," in letter entitled
"Access to the Great Lakes" in your is
sue of July Is, states it is impossible for
government vessels to reach the Great
Lakes from the Atlantic seaboard, ex-
cept by way of the St. Lawrence River
and Canadian waters, as, it is alleged,
the New York State Barge Canal,
which is the natural avenue of &C
cess to the Great Lakes, permits yes
sells to pass through the canal which
draw only nine feet or less and have
a freeboard room under bridges of
fifteen feet or less.
All ,hough not officially connected
with the New York State Barge Canal,
l am somewhat familiar with its his
tory and with it's general features, and
beg to reply to two points in your
correspondents commu. ication:
1. The Barge Canal and it's tribu-
taries, including the Champlain Canal,
the Oswego Canal and the Seneca River
Canal, are designed through to permit
a draft of twelve (not nine) feet over
the inter stills Of all locks, as we'll as
in the main prism cf the canal, its lcl-
minals and slips.
2. 1t is unfortunate that the free
board or headroom clearance under
bridges is not greater than it is. The
following historical facts, kcwever, will
explain this: When at the end of
the last century. the shallow depth nd
the small size of the locks rendered
the old Erie Canal virtually obsolete
as commercial waterway the State
of New York, fully approaching that
this was a national rather than a state
water route, underworld to induce Con-
gress to take it over as national
waterway and construct canal of
either as ship canal or as barge
canal
Congress went only SO far, however,
as to authorize and appropriate 100000
for a deep waterway survey from the
Hudson River to the Great Lakes. This
survey was conducted by General
Francis V. Greene, Corps of Engi-
neers, U. S. A., and occupied about a.
year in the making of the survey and
the preparation Of the report.
Attaching less Importance to the
naval aspect of the canal than perhaps
would now be considered justified, and
considering it primarily as CONNER
cial waterway, General Greene's re-
port did not favor ship canal, but
rather a barge canal of substantially
the dimensions which were subsequent
" adopted for the present barge canal.
Congress, however, did not even author
ize the construction, as national
waterway, of the barge canal, which
General Greene had recommended.
The Federal government having thus
ignored the national character of this
waterway and having refused to
authorize and appropriate funds for
its construction, the State of New
York, with farsighted patriotism and
liberality, stepped into the breach and
authorized by referendum of the voters
of the state the expenditure Of S101,-
100000 for the barge canal in ques-
ton, substantially along the lines
laid down by the Federal survey and
report OF General Greene. Suisse
ouentlv for the nprrosa of add;,r~ ~ -
Seneca River Canal, which General
Greene's report and the first appropria-
ton did not include, as we'll as for
terminals and other accessories, the
original appropriation OF SOL, 100000
has been increased to nearly $780,
100000.
This. canal, now known as the New
York Barge Canal, 1t should be clearly