i^T'RY HOJA 
NEW YORK, AUGUST 29, 1903 
$1 PER YEAR 
THE FARMER AND THE CANAL. 
WHY HE SHOULD OPPOSE THE APPROPRIATION. 
The Case Against It Clearly Stated. 
As is well known by this time, the great majority of 
New York farmers are opposed to the plan of spending 
$101,000,000 of the State’s money for the enlargement of 
the Erie Canal. The R. N.-Y. has been asked to state 
the farmer’s position on this question. I have therefore 
obtained the following interview with Hon. James Wood, 
who was elected president of the association recently 
formed at Rochester for the purpose of organizing to 
defeat the appropriation. h. w. c. 
You ask me to state why the farmers of the State 
of New York are opposed to the 1,000-ton barge canal 
scheme. I will give a few of the reasons. 
1. We oppose it because of the immensity of the 
proposition. No one can comprehend it. Psycholo¬ 
gists tell us that no mind can grasp a million. We 
talk about It, and we know how the figures look, but 
we don’t know what it is. And this is a hundred or 
two hundred times this great unknown. No such sum 
has ever been expended upon any public work. Let 
me illustrate it. If the 
cost is limited to $101,- 
000 ,000, and is paid in 18 
years, the amount with 
interest will be over 
$132,000,000. But its ad¬ 
vocates propose to have 
the time of payment ex¬ 
tended to 50 years. In 
that event the amount 
will be over $196,000,000. 
The cost of all the public 
school buildings in the 
State, and of the land 
upon which they stand, 
is reported by the State 
Superintendent of Pub¬ 
lic Instruction at a little 
over $92,000,000. The 
value of all the land and 
buildings owned by all 
the colleges and univer¬ 
sities of the State is re- 
ported by the Chief 
Statistician at Washing¬ 
ton at $22,734,087. The 
value of all the scientific 
apparatus of those insti¬ 
tutions is $2,360,560. The 
endowments of all our 
universities and colleges 
is $27,392,237. These all 
amount to $144,486,784, 
so that the cost of the canal would be over $50,000,000 
more than the entire educational plant of the State. 
This alone should kill the scheme. 
2. But no one can tell what the actual cost will be. 
It will not be less than the amount estimated; it may 
be double that amount. All past experience points to 
this. We do not want to take such a leap in the dark. 
3. We oppose it because of the corruption and 
demoralization the expenditure by officials of this vast 
sum will cause. The State has had sad experience 
with canal rings—a great school for public plunder, 
whose scholars become past masters in the arts of 
political bribery, of business demoralization, of rob¬ 
bing the State treasury and of lowering the standard 
of public morals. 
4. We oppose it because it would tax our people for 
the benefit of others. The scheme is based upon the 
idea of through freight in great bulk. The parties 
chiefly benefited would be the western producers and 
the European consumers. If it be true, as claimed, 
that the cost of transportation would be lessened, then 
the western producer would get more for his products 
and the European consumer would buy his food for 
less money. The people of the State cannot be 
benefited by floating these cargoes through our terri¬ 
tory. The present percentage of local traffic is largely 
owing to the transportation of quarried stone and 
like heavy or bulky commodities. These do not re¬ 
quire any enlargement of the present canal. 
5. We oppose it because we want cheap transpor¬ 
tation and canal transportation is not cheap. Herein 
the advocates of this scheme are guilty of stating and 
reiterating gross falsehoods. In their figuring they 
leave out one or both of two important items. The 
one is the interest on the canal investment, and the 
other is what the State pays for the maintenance and 
operation of the canals. These are as much a part of 
the cost of the business as is the grain fed to the mule 
that draws the boats. In 1901 the cost of transporting 
the freight carried on the canals of the State was 7.11 
mills per ton per mile. In 1902 it was 6.5 mills, the 
lowest ever known. The reports of the New York 
Central & Hudson River Railroad show that its ex¬ 
penditure for carrying freight was 4.1 mills per ton 
per mile, and for all its branches where the entire 
amount was local freight, 5.9 mills. The figures show 
that on its great through trains the cost was not more 
than one-half the cost by canal. It is no wonder that 
the president of that road offered to carry the canal 
tonnage free of charge for the interest at three per 
cent on the cost of the enlarged canal. 
6 . We oppose it because the canals do not regulate 
railroad freights. The claim to the contrary con¬ 
stantly put forth is false. On January 1, 1903, the New 
York Central Railroad made the following rates on 
grain from Buffalo to New York, including the ele¬ 
vator charges at both cities: Wheat and fiaxseed, five 
cents per bushel; corn and rye, 4% cents; barley, 4% 
cents; oats, four cents. These rates were not changed 
when the canal season opened. In some years there 
has been an advance of rates in December, but this 
has not been because the canal was closed, but be¬ 
cause of the fact that the corn crop is only then com¬ 
ing forward, and the demand of this increase affected 
rates. The New York Produce Exchange reports that 
in August of last year 343,000 bushels of corn were 
received in New York; in September 471,150 bushels 
were received, while in December 1,075,800 bushels 
were received. This fact and many others show 
abundant reason. 
7. We oppose it because it would establish and fos¬ 
ter another trust. One great difficulty in the present 
canal transportation comes from an insufficient num¬ 
ber of boats. As the boats are idle about half the 
year the investment in them is not remunerative. The 
present boats are chiefiy owned by their captains and 
his associates, and cost from $2,000 to $2,500. The 
estimated cost of a 1,000-ton barge varies from $18,000 
to $20,000. The captains cannot furnish any such 
capital. Of necessity they must be built and owned 
by capitalists, who will have the power to hold them 
up at any time and dictate their own terms. Then 
the State will be helpless, or State ownership with all 
its attendant evils must follow. 
8 . We oppose it be¬ 
cause of the absurdity of 
the claims made by its 
advocates. Among these 
is the promise of great 
and innumerable manu- 
facturing industries 
along its route. This is 
imaginary. Why has not 
the present canal estab¬ 
lished manufactories? At 
one time it was as great, 
relatively, as the new 
canal would be. There 
are no such manufactor¬ 
ies established by or de¬ 
pendent upon it. The 
fact is that factories are 
located along railway 
lines, where they can re- 
c e i V e and ship their 
freights all the year. 
9. We oppose it be¬ 
cause of the deception 
employed by its advo¬ 
cates. They pretend to 
state the whole case 
when they describe the 
construct ion of the 
canal. Not a word is said 
about the expense of 
deepening the Hudson 
River for a long distance 
below Albany, where its depth is but eight feet, and 
the proposed barges will draw 10 feet, and the annual 
cost of removing the great deposits left by freshets is 
never mentioned. There is deception, too, about their 
barges, they call them 1,000-ton barges, but their 
measurements show that they can carry only 790 tons. 
But the scheme is for two vessels to go together—one 
towing the other. The tug can carry but 475 tons, so 
that the average will be but 632^ tons. Yet they 
complacently figure on a thousand-ton cargo! 
10. We oppose it because it will not materially bene¬ 
fit New York City. How is that city benefited by having 
a cargo fioated down the Hudson River, towed along¬ 
side a foreign steamer, transferred by steam to her 
hold and taken to Europe? How does New York make 
anything by the operation? The statistics of her ex¬ 
ports are increased, but of what benefit is that to her? 
The fact is, there is a lot of humbug given out about 
the falling off of New York’s commerce. It has 
changed in character, but not in value. Expensive ar¬ 
ticles are increasing, while some bulky and less valu- 
