Deeper Waterways.
The enlargement of the St. Lawrence and Erie canals cannot fail to prove advantageous to the inland shipping trade; but, so far from solving the question of “cheapest transportation,” it seems rather to have accentuated the demand for greater facilities of a like kind. The cry for “deeper waterways” has been in the air for many years, but never has it been louder than just now. The first enlargement of the St. Mary’s Falls Canal in 1881, and the subsequent deepening of the channels connecting the Upper Lakes had the effect, almost immediately, of doubling the tonnage of vessels plying the lakes and of producing a corresponding reduction in the rates of freight. The increase of the commerce of the lakes, incredible to those who are not engaged in it, and what appears to be its limitless future, have been keenly discussed in conventions as well as on the floors of Parliament and Congress for a number of years past, but it was only in 1894 that the movement assumed an organized form.
At a meeting held in Toronto in September, 1894, there was formed “The International Deep Waterways Association,” the declared object of which was “to promote the union of the lakes and the high seas by waterways of the greatest practicable capacity and usefulness; and recognizing the supreme utility of such waterways’ development.” At that meeting it was resolved: “That the depth of all channels through the lakes and their seaboard connections be not less than twenty-one feet, and that all permanent structures be designed on a basis not less than twenty-six feet, in order that the greater depth may be quickly and cheaply obtained whenever demanded by the future necessities of commerce.”
On the 8th of February, 1895, it was resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, “That the President is authorized to appoint three persons who shall have power to meet and confer with any similar committee which may be appointed by the Government of Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, and who shall make inquiry and report whether it is feasible to build such canals as shall enable vessels engaged in ocean commerce to pass to and fro between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, where such canals can be most conveniently located, and the probable cost of the same, with estimates in detail; and if any part of the same should be built on the territory of Canada, what regulations or treaty arrangements will be necessary between the United States and Great Britain to preserve the free use of such canals to the people of this country at all times.”
By an order of Council dated at Ottawa, 14th December, 1895, Messrs. O. A. Howland, M.P.P., of Toronto, Thomas C. Keefer, C.E., and Thomas Munro, C.E., of Ottawa, were appointed Commissioners on behalf of the Canadian Government to meet and confer with the Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States on this important subject.
Several meetings of this International Waterways Commission have been held, a good deal of money has been spent in preliminary surveys, and reports favourable to the proposal, embodying much exceedingly interesting information as to the amount and rapid growth of the commerce of the lakes, have been submitted to the respective Governments. The American Commissioners favour the construction of a series of ship canals connecting Lake Erie with the seaboard, suggesting that the minimum depth of navigable water should be 28 feet, with canal locks 560 feet long and 64 feet wide. They present a choice of routes: (1) “The natural route” via the St. Lawrence to Montreal, and via Lake Champlain to the Hudson River. (2) Via Lake Ontario to Oswego and thence through the Mohawk Valley to Troy on the Hudson. The latter would be entirely through United States territory; the former would necessarily be of an international character, and preferable, provided that satisfactory treaty arrangements could be effected for the settlement of any differences that might arise between the two Governments interested. In either case the construction of a ship canal at Niagara Falls on the American side of the river is judged to be necessary. The international route would involve a ship canal from some point below Ogdensburg to near the boundary line on Lake St. Francis, and thence through Canadian territory to Lake Champlain.
The Canadian Commissioners in general terms endorse the international proposal as the one “which would give an opportunity of doing what our canals were intended to do, but have failed to do, that is, to obtain the maximum amount of the western trade for the St. Lawrence route.” It is agreed that the class of vessels adapted to the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, limited to a draft of fourteen feet, can never compete successfully with the large United States vessels plying on the Upper Lakes; and the fact that these large United States vessels are unable to leave the Upper Lakes, “seems to embrace the whole ‘Deep Waterways’ question in a nutshell.”[60]
Regarding Montreal as a seaport and the natural outlet for the commerce of the West, it is conceded that its harbour accommodation must be largely increased, that it should be furnished with the best known appliances for the storage and shipment of grain, and that the navigable channel to Quebec be deepened to at least thirty feet and the Welland Canal to at least twenty feet.
The project of enlarged ship canals to connect the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean is a magnificent one. Its advantages have been skilfully set forth. There are no insurmountable engineering difficulties in the way of its accomplishment, but it is still in nubibus. Apart from the complications necessarily attending an international work of this magnitude, it is not likely that it will be entered upon until the results to commerce of the enlargement of existing canals in both countries have been fairly tested.
In estimating the comparative merits of Montreal and New York, or any other American port on the North Atlantic coast, it may be assumed that the average summer rate of freight upon a bushel of wheat by either route from the head of the Upper Lakes to Liverpool is almost identical.[61] But it must be borne in mind that grain shipped via Buffalo, whether by rail or canal, may be stored at the American seaboard, to be shipped at any time during the winter that may be desirable, thus placing the Montreal route at a disadvantage. The rates of marine insurance are also said to be in favour of New York. Another argument in favour of the route to New York via Buffalo is that the Erie Canal is open for navigation from three to four weeks later in the autumn than the St. Lawrence canals, a fact of great importance to the Western farmer who wishes to dispose of as much of his crop as possible before the close of navigation.