1833.] 



REVIEWS. 



187 



at New Baltimore by two locks combined, each 10 feet lift, 300 feet 

 long, and 50 feet wide. 



With reference to the expenditure of water, the loss by evaporation 

 {.■i assumed at J4 inch per day, (it is said to range during the dry 

 season from | to ^^ of an inch per day) which, over a length of 123.2' 

 miles of 190 feet wide, would give a loss ot 940 cubic feet per minute. 



The estimate for the loss by filtration, has been based on that of the 

 old Erie Canal. (34 feet wide at bottom, 4 feet depth of water, and side 

 slopes, each 8.944 feet long,) which, after investigation, is assumed at 

 50 cubic feet per mile per minute, giving for the Ship Canal a loss of 

 5,087 cubic feet per minute for the 12^-2 miles. 



For the lockage, ] 0,000 tons per day is the freight assumed to be 

 passed, requiring 5,887 cubic feet per minute. 



These items, together with leakage at waste weirs and locks, give a 

 total consumption of 16)000 cubic feet per minute. 



To supply this seems to be the most complicated point of the 

 scheme, and the more especially, because it is proposed to elevate the 

 Ship Canal so that its surface of water will be 20 feet above the surface 

 of the river at extreme low water mark. This will make it necessary 

 (in pumping) to elevate the water on an average of say 18 feet. 



This recommendation is made with a view of avoiding the expense 

 of excavating below the level of the water in the river, and to the pro- 

 tection of the works against the influence of freshets, so destructive to 

 property in the locality. 



It seems that in some freshets the rise of water in the river in front 

 of Alba.iy has been as much as 18 feet above low water mark ; and it 

 is contended that if the river levels were adopted, the banks would be 

 subject to overflow, the canal be liable to filling up, and endless ex- 

 pense result in keeping the bottom di'edged out. In consequence of 

 this periodical rising of the waters, many important branches of 

 manufactures fur which the position of Albany would aff'ord great in- 

 ducements, cannot now be advantageously established there ; for no 

 business, subjected to active competition, will bear either land carriage 

 to any point in the vicinity abjve these influences, or the elevation of 

 the factories, and the consequent expense of lifting and lowering the 

 raw material and manufactured article through the necessary space. 



It is argued therefore that in addition to the other advantages, the 

 high water level of the Canal Basiu will yield an opportunity for the 

 pursuit of many manufactures before prohibited. 



Two modes of water supply are suggested, — one of elevating the 

 water from the river by steam power, the other by building rescrvoiis 

 on streams in prcximity with the Canal, and thus saving during floods 

 and the suspension of navigation, a sufficient amount of water for ser- 

 vice during navigation. 



The natural flow of the sti'eams during the dry season is estimated 

 at 2,000 cubic feet per minute, leaving 14,000 cubic feet per minute to 

 be provided for two months, — 12,000 during two months, — and 5,000 

 during two months, — the diff'erence being due to the increased yield 

 of the rivers duiiug those periods of the season. 



The estimated annual cost of this supply (including interest oncost 

 of Engines and Pumps— $90,000) is $42,GO0. 



The second plan would involve the construction of six reservoirs on 

 the Norm ansk ill river, the estimate tor which is $428,000; and the 

 annual expense of working (inclusive of interest) $35,967, shewing an 

 excess of the cost of steam of $6,633 over reservoir supply. The Engi- 

 neers have prudently refrained from recommending either system as 

 superior.satisfyiug themselves by the adoption of the highest estimate. 



The total cost of the Canal, including supply of water, land damages, 

 and Engineering, is estimated at $2,450,000, which at 7 per cent, and 

 adding annual cun-eut expenses of working and repairs, would repre- 

 sent an annual cost of $246,500, or the amount which should be 

 derived from the Canal to make the investment remunerative. 



The estimate of revenue is based — 1st. on the rental or sale of the 

 land (we fear a very ||questionable source) to the amount of 



$12,000 per annum, leaving $134,000 to be derived from 

 tolls. The present rate of tolls on the New York State Canals 

 is four mills per 1000 pounds per mile : this on the ship canal 

 would amount to 10 4-lOths cents per ton. Assuming 10 cents per ton 

 as the toll to be levied, an annual aggregate trade of 1,345,000 tons 

 would be necessary to make the investment pay as above. This is 

 less than half the tonnage of last year moving between the Erie and Cham- 

 plain Canals and tide water and as the continual growth of the trade 

 may seem to be relied on, instead of 2,3.j millions of tons as in 1852, 

 the progressive increase would yield in 1856 4 millions, and in 1860, 

 6 millions of tons. 



Relying on the advantages of making Albany the shipping port, 

 whereby the cost of carriage (as in small bottoms) would ba reduced, 

 and that of transliipment with its dejireciating results avoided, — and 

 arguing that in consequence of their form ocean sailing vessels may be 

 towed at a cheaper rate (proportionably to their tonnage) than canal 

 boats, the projectors of this Canal depend, fairly enough, upon secur- 

 ing the larger share of the trade. 



We are not inclined to an adverse judgment upon a scheme so enter- 

 prising, propounded in a report so skillfully and judiciously drawn as 

 is this — but the course of trade does not always yield to the Engineer, 

 charm he never so wisely — there are other influences beyond his con- 

 troul (as the combination of established interests and capital) which 

 may off'er insuperable difficulties to the diversion of so large an item in 

 ocean traffic and tlie profits connected with the carrying trade, as that ■ 

 for which Albany would now compete with New York. 



It may be said, with much plausibility and some truth, that with 

 this canal ocean vessels may freight as well at Albany as at the mouth 

 of the river, but is there no risk of loss of time and demurrage? 



A vessel entering inwards at New York, brings a general cargo to 

 be distributed through the length and breadth of the Union, — unloads, 

 ships her outward freight, and is off again. 



Run her up to Albany to ship hei outward freight, — and if thereby 

 she loses one trip in the year, she forfeits more than the profits made 

 out of the river transit. We write ditfidently, for we are not entirely 

 at home on matters sti'ictly commercial; yet what is it that justifies 

 the authors of this Report in saying that " the Hudson is the natural 

 channel of the ti'ade of Canada West," but that they mistake the 

 course of trade for the path of nature t It is certainly no want of facile 

 communication with the ocean which forces the trade of Canada West 

 to the Hudson and New York, but precisely those attractive influences 

 of capital and combination which, as they overcome in a great degree 

 the advantages of our noble St. Lawrence and scarcely less noble 

 canals, may hereafter offer an obstacle to the use of that at Albany, 

 implying as it does the withdrawal of a profitable trade from New York. 



We deny that the Hudson is the natural outlet for our trade ; and as 

 large sums of money have been expended in the improvement of the 

 St. Lawrence, we may be pardoned for hoping that it may soon cease 

 to be the artificial one ; and that when Albany shall have intercepted 

 New York for the ocean freights from the westwai'd, our canals shall 

 have claimed their own in the same service. Happily there promises 

 to be enough for us all; and, therefore, eschewing any sectional 

 jealousies, but without making any effort at generosity, we wish this 

 scheme, so ably propounded, the highest success which its promoters 

 anticipate. Or.e matter, however, in connection with its construction, 

 would seem to demand comment before we close. Wc perceive that 

 the lockage is confined to two locks at the north and south ends, aH ol 

 equal lifts, namel}', 10 feet. We are not aware of the fall of the Hud- 

 son River between Albany and New Baltimore, but its velocity would 

 lead us to conjecture that it must be considerable, and that provision 

 must necessarily be made for it. It is apparent that unless the river 

 line at both places be coincident, or the fall of the canal be made equal 

 to the fall of the river, (neither of which is probable) the lift of the 

 locks at New Baltimore should be greater than those at Albany, or 

 interraediae lockage be inserted. 



