RAILWAYS Al WATERWAYS
A LECTURE DELIVERED BEFORE THE LITERARY AND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF QUEBEC,
ON
MARCH 19th, 1889,
BY
*9os» Slit:II 1\. Esq., M.P.P.,
President of the Quebec Board of Trade,
QUEBEC :
A. COTÉ & CO'S GENERAL PRINTING OFFICE.
1886.
RAILWAYS AID WATERWAYS
A LECTURE DELIVERED BEFORE THE LITERARY AND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF QUEBEC,
ON
MARCH 1 l» t h , 1880,
BY
.Jos. SIIF.HYY. Esq., Iff.P.P.,
President of the Oueltcc Board of Trade,
QUEBEC :
A. COTÉ & CO'S GENERAL PRINTING OFFICE.
1886.
RAILWAYS AND WATERWAYS.
LECTURE BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH SHEHYN BEFORE
THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
" As already mentioned in the columns of the Chronicle,
it was a very large and very influential audience that
assembled 011 Friday in the Morrin College, under the
presidency of Mr. Greo. Stewart, Jr., F.R.CrS, to hear the
concluding lecture of the Literary and Historical Society's
course for the present season. The lecture was 011 ' Rail¬
ways and Waterways,' and was delivered by Mr. Joseph
Shehyn, M.P.P., President of the Quebec Board of Trade.
Mr. Shehyn has devoted very much time and study to the
consideration of this important subject, upon which he
has been considered for some time past,—and very properly
so,—as an undoubted authority. Needless to say that he
pursued the same line of argument throughout the lecture
as in his voluminous addresses on the subjeet before the
Board of Trade, showing that the freightage of American
and Canadian canals is sensibly decreasing, inconsequence
of the competition of railways with the system of natural
and artificial waterways."—Quebec Morning Chronicle,
March 19 ill, 1886
After some introductory remarks on the natural reluct¬
ance he felt, in treating a subject which at best was always
a dry one, better appreciated in pamphlet-form, by those
who took an interest in such matters, than in the shape of
4
a lecture at the close of a most attractive and entertaining
course, Mr. Shehyn briefly dwelt on its paramount import¬
ance nevertheless in this progressive age, when one and all
are intimately bound up in the commercial and industrial
prosperity of our common country, and went on to say :—
PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE AGE
Science in its application to trade and commerce of late
years, has advanced with gigantic strides. Any one casting
a retrospective glance at what trade and commerce were
fifty years ago, as compared to what they are now, must be
struck with wonder at what has been accomplished during
that comparatively short period. We are living in a
progressive age, and the manifest spirit, that prevails
throughout the world, is to extend to their ulmost limits the
material resources which man has any expectation of being
able to turn to some account. Hence the immense progress
that has been made in the development and extension of
the world's commercial interests. But the efforts of
mankind to utilize, as far as possible, what a kind Provi¬
dence has placed within its reach, have been largely
aided by the study and researches of our scientific men,
whose pursuits in life have for object the diffusion and
extension of scientific knowledge. It is due to their per¬
sistent efforts that we owe our present knowledge of what
physical force can do when scientifically applied. It is
due to our men of study, if we are in possession of so much
mechanical science whose influence and power are still but
imperfectly' known to us all. But if we look back on the
last fifty years of our existence, and take this period
as an index, we must be convinced that it is beyond our
present vision to form an estimate of what the future has
5
in store for the next generation. We can, however, all
judge for ourselves what science has accomplished for us,
in placing at our disposal a mechanical force which has
almost revolutionized the trade relations of the world.
Without such a motive power, the best efforts of man
would have remained .sterile ; never could the products of
the world have reached our doors with that mathematical
precision and despatch that signalize our present commer¬
cial relations. Without the mechanical appliances which
have so powerfully contributed to the advancement and
rapid development of all branches of industry, we would
never have been able, unaided by such an auxiliary
force, to extend, beyond a limited circle, the sphere of
our operations. Indeed, what has science not accomplihed ?
Without it, where would be our present oflicieney in the
art of manufacturing ? Without the scientific application
of mechanical force, how could we ever have succeeded in
creating a revolution in ocean navigation ? without it,
where would be that mighty agent of distribution, I mean
the iron horse, which has on land created the same revo¬
lution as steam applied as a propelling power to ocean na¬
vigation ? Without it, where would be our telegraphic
system, extending its ramifications not only over our land
but likewise reaching the most distant continents, and our
telephonic system which is yet only in its infancy, and
whose future is full of promise ? Who knows what elec¬
tricity has in store for us ? As a motive force it may at an
early day supersede for industrial purposes our present
mechanical appliances. It is to these combined forces that
we owe the material progress of our age ; it is due to
these mighty agencies if we are now in daily communica¬
tion with the most distant lands and if the dithcultiss, the
G
uncertainties and the dangers of ocean navigation have
been overcome ; it is due to these agencies if we are to-day
so intimately bound up by a community of interests. After
this rapid sketch of the progressiveness of the age and the
cause tnat have so much contributed to the diffusion of
the world's wealth, I now turn to my subject proper, viz :
the influence of railways on continental traffic and their
bearing upon the natural and artificial watercourses of
the United Stated States and the Dominion of Canada, in¬
cluding the question of canal enlargement for the purpose
of attracting the western trade to the St. Lawrence route.
PAST USEFULNESS OF WATERWAYS
Before the days of railways, our waterways were the
principal channels for the exchange of trafic, as well as for
reaching the seaboard. Both from public and business men,
they consequently received much attention with a view to
their improvement, not only to afford additional facilities
to a constantly growing domestic trade, but also under the
then unquestionably correct conclusion that, with the re¬
moval of impediments to uninterrupted navigation, the
great western traffic would ultimately find its way to the
sea, through the great channel which Nature had mapped
out for it in the River St. Lawrence. But this, as already
said, was before the railway age, when 110 one dreamt of
the important role the iron horse was destined to play,
when all settlements were confined to the lakes and rivers,
which then offered the best available means of summer
communication between one locality and another, as well
as to transport our surplus production to the sea-board in
exchange for the wares of other countries, when the best
lands of the interior were either utterly locked up or com-
paratively of little value, on account of their inaccessibility
and. distance from the distributing centres.
RAILWAYS INAUGURATE A NEW ERA.
Railways have changed all this. By their means, every
part of a country is rendered accessible, no matter what
may be its distance from a waterway or the seaboard.
They have, indeed, become the great factors in the distri¬
bution of a nation's products, bringing closer together the
producer and consumer and superseding to a very large
extent all lake and river navigation. Of late years, lines
of railway have been carried to the most remote parts of
our own continent and have thus thrown open to trade
and traffic areas of arable lands, which were previously
considered inaccessible by the ordinary modes of commu¬
nication. Railways have, in fact, become the great vehicles
of transport in this hemisphere, as well as in all other
civilized communities. Since their introduction in this
country, there is no longer the same necessity for depen¬
dence upon water for communication with the markets and
centres of distribution, and the result is visible in the pro¬
gress of settlement even in the most distant parts of the
interior and in the facility with which their products
attain the sea-board in quest of a foreign market. In reality,
railways have grown steadily in importance and have not
only become the vehicles of local distribution, but are
rapidly constituting themselves the great arteries of con¬
veyance to the sea. As such, they are actually becoming
not only serious competitors for the carrying trade, but are
gradually driving out the competition of the water routes
8
EFFECTS OF RAILWAY COMPETITION.
Look at what the Grand Trunk has done ! The Ontario
Navigation Company, at one time a successful line, became
paralyzed as soon as it had to compete with the Grand
Trunk, and we know for a fact that, ever since its amalga¬
mation with the Richelieu Company, the latter's stock has
been quoted much below par. For years past, all the
sailing craft on the lakes have barely managed to eke out
an existence. In fact, all such investments, once regarded
as very remunerative, are no longer reckoned profitable,
the truth being that it is not wholly to want of water that
we must ascribe the non-increase of the carrying trade
which was altogether done formerly over the watercourses
running parallel with the Grand Trunk, but rather to the
latter's gradual monopoly of the business. Now, what has
happened on our own waters ? At one time, our Gulf
Ports' Steamship Company had established a line between
Quebec, Montreal and the Lower Provinces. They
were gradually building up an important trade with our
maritime neighbors and from year to year extending their
operations. No doubt, in a very short time, the exchange
of traffic with the Lower Provinces would have assumed
very considerable proportions. But no sooner was the
Intercolonial opened to the public than the Steamship
Company had to retire from the field and to send their
vessels to New York to find employment for them between
that port and Bermuda, retaining only one on the Canadian
route, where but shortly before they had seven or eight.
No one will for a moment pretend that it was owing to
insufficiency of water from the west down to the Lower
Provinces that this line had to reduce the number of its
9
ships. Another effect of the Intercolonial was te drive out
of the field all our coasters, which the Gulf Ports steamers
had already begun to run off the track and which were
finally killed out altogether by the insuperable competition
of the railway. We know that, since we have had the
competition of the North Shore Railway, the Richelieu
Company could scarcely have held its ground and that,
only for a traffic arrangement with the Grand Trunk, which
till lately controlled both sides of the river, the Richelieu
Company would find it hard to keep its own. The traffic
on the Grand Trunk and North Shore Railway from the
west to Quebec is very large, so much so, that at certain
seasons its volume has been more than the Grand Trunk
could handle, through lack of proper terminal facilities at
Levis as well as on this side of the river. The large freights
carried by these lines are, of course, at the expense of the
water route, as our trade here has not increased in propor¬
tion. In fact, the number of barges which used to ply
between Montreal and Quebec with grain and flour have
been forced off the route, the Quebec as well as the
country merchants now getting their supplies in carloads
direct from Toronto and Chicago.
PAST PROGRESS AN INDEX OF THE FUTURE.
Indeed, railways are steadily doing on land what steam
has done on the ocean. It is not so many years since the
entire carrying trade was done by sailing vessels. When
steamers began to cross the ocean, many thought they
would never be able to compete successfully with sail, in
the transportation of merchandize, seeing that they were
at the outset run at great expense and could be only
utilized for mails, passengers, and, perhaps, a few fine goods ;
10
the greater portion of their available space being taken up
with coals, of which so much was consumed in a voyage
as to preclude the possibility of profitable freight competi¬
tion with sailling vessels. Bat what a change has since
taken place ! From craft of 1,000 tons and less, they now
run up to 8,000 tons, with greater carrying capacity,
improved machinery and largely reduced consumption
of coal. In fact, the cost of running a large steamer has
been cut down to a minimum —so much so that to run a
5,000 ton craft does not proportionally cost as much as a
1,000 ton steamer did formerly ; and no one can foresee
what further improvements may take place. As it is, sail¬
ing vessels have almost wholly disappeared and the few
left are only used for coal and square timber freights. This
is what has been done in our own age by steam on the sea.
Now, what have railways done in Great Britain ? They
have superseded the canal system, which is now no longer
utilized but for the carriage of pig iron, timber and coals,
the great bulk of the inland traffic being done by rail.
Neither has the coasting trade increased since railways
have come into operation. Nowadays, no one dreams of
sending London goods by water to Liverpool. On the con¬
trary, forwarders and shippers send them by rail to the
latter port, where they are transferred to the Atlantic
steamers, which in their turn convey them to their final
destinations. In fact, no one will pretend that the great
bulk of the goods destined for foreign markets are now
despatched to the sea-board by canals or coasting vessels.
They are sent by rail. The slow process of canals would
not be tolerated and would not pay. Moreover, vessels
could not be induced to wait for cargoes upon such condi-
tians. The truth is that canals in England are no longer
11
used but for the convenience of inland localities and the
transportation of the very lowest class of products.
DISASTROUS RESULTS OF RAILWAY COMPETITION UPON
AMERICAN CANALS.
Now, let us return to our own continent and examine
for a moment what has occurred, for instance in the State
of New York. A glance at the map of that State will show
a complete network of railways converging towards New
York, Boston and other United States ports, such as Balti¬
more, Philadelphia, Portland and even New Orleans These
railways connect with all the producing parts of the Union
and extend in all directions warranted by the exigencies of
traffic. There is so much competition between the various
trunk lines, all striving for the through traffic and putting
forth their utmost efforts to bring grain and other products
to their own seaboards, that the State of New York has
been obliged to actually abolish the tolls on the Erie Canal,
in order to retain a certain amount of business for that
channel. Railways are, in point of fact, exercising the
same influence on the carrying trade there, as is noticeable
within our own territory. The Erie Canal can no longer
bid for the bulk of the carrying trade with such arteries as
the New York Central and the Erie roads, and, for con¬
vincing proof on this head, it is only necessary to refer to
the report for 1882 of General Seymour, the State Engineer.
According to this reliable authority, the enlargement of
the Canal in 1862, the reduction of the tolls, and finally
their total abolition on westward with their reduction to
a minimum, on eastward bound freight, have utterly failed,
not only to withstand the competition of the railways for
the traffic between the western lakes and tide-water, but
12
even to pay the expenses of superintendence and repairs.
"While conclusively showing that this adverse result has
been produced by unforeseen, but natural and now perfectly
intelligible causes, such as the enormously increased mileage
of railways in the state, the greatly enlarged traffic faci¬
lities of the New York Central and Erie roads, which prac¬
tically increase their tonnage capacity to a maximum and
reduce the cost of transportation to a minimum, the pro¬
gressive improvement of railway plant and the construc¬
tion of numerous other great trunk lines and laterals through
other states from the interior to the seaboard, tapping even
the most remote producing centres of the West, and all
offering an active competition to the canal and railroad lines
through the state of New York, the State Engineer goes on,
fortified by figures, facts and arguments, to make out so
strong a case against the canals that no one can read it
without feeling that it is not only unanswerable, but that
these artificial waterways have lost their usefulness, save
for mere purposes of local convenience. As he points out,
they are doomed as much because of their inherent dis¬
abilities as of the ruinous competition given them by the
railways. For instance, they can be navigated for only
about seven months in the year ; the time of their opening
and closing is always very uncertain ; their navigation is
constantly subject to detentions occasioned by the want of
an adequate supply of water, together with breakages and
other unavoidable accidents ; and the time required for
boats to pass between the lake and tide water is about five
times that required by railroads ; while, on the other hand,
freight may be shipped by railroad every day in the year
and delivered at its destination with the utmost regularity,
and at prices generally but very little, if any greater, and
13
in many cases much less, than those charged upon the
canals. All considered, he concludes that the Erie Canals
can never become self-sustaining, and at the same time
compete successfully with rival lines of railway and other
through channels of communication, for the great bulk of
the carrying trade between the west and the Atlantic sea¬
board ; that, inasmuch as the annual tonnage has not
materially increased since the completion of the present
enlargement, there appears to be no encouragement for
advocating a further enlargement at the enormous expense
which it would entail upon the State ; unless it be to add
one foot to the depth of the water on the levels between
locks, which would undoubtedly be of great advantage to
navigation ; and that the only way to perpetuate the use¬
fulness of the State canals, even to a limited extent, is to
make improvements in the prism and structures, to increase
their facilities for obtaining an adequate supply of water
at all times during the season of navigation so as to obviate
all danger from breakages and other causes, to constantly
keep them in good working order so as to prevent .their
rapid désintégration and decay, and, last but not least, to
abolish canal tolls altogether, so as to give a perfectly free
channel of communication between the Western lakes and
the port of New-York. In support, the figures quoted
by the State Engineer are eminently suggestive. For
instance, while the tonnage on the old canals increased
from 1,178,296 tons, in 1837, to 5,598,785 in 1862 ; and
the tolls, during the same period of twenty-five years,
from $1,292,623 to $5,188,943, the tonnage on the enlarged
canals has not materially increased since their completion
and the inauguration of the railway era but has slightly
fluctuated between 5,557,692, in 1863, and 5,468,311 in 1882,
14
the average being 5,599,743 ; and the tolls, during the
same period of twenty years, have rapidly diminished,
from $4,645,207 to $685,518.
ABOLITION OF CANAL TOLLS NO REMEDY.
In his financial report for the same year (1882) another
high authority, the Auditor of the Canal Department of
the State of New York, lays it down as indubitable :
1° that the remission of tolls, as an independent measure,
will not increase the tonnage ; 2° that their will be no
increase in the business of the canals and it is doubtful
whether the present tonnage can be maintained, unless
something be done to facilitate the movement of boats
through the locks and to quicken speed ; and 3° that the
reduction in tolls and transportation rates has heretofore
proved ineffectual in causing an increased movement by
canal, and it is therefore evident that other causes than
tolls have prevented the canals from obtaining a fair pro¬
portion of the yearly increase in the tonnage moved.
His figures are also exceedingly instructive. He says
that in 1872 the freight transported by the canals
amounted to 6,673,307 tons, the largest movement recorded.
In the same year the total movement by the canals and the
two trunk railways of the State aggregated 16,631,609 tons,
the canals' proportion of the whole being 40 per cent, with
tolls at the rate of 3 cents per bushel of wheat from Buffalo
to tide-water. In 1881, the canals transported only 5,179,-
192 tons out of a total movement of 27,857,394 tons by the
canals and two trunk roads, the canals' proportion of
the whole being only eighteen per cent, when the total
movement by the three routes was sixty-eight per cent
larger than 1872, and the tolls had been reduced nearly
15
seventy per cent. Had the canals kept pace with the rail¬
ways they would have moved, in 1881, 15.215,283 tons, or
nearly three times the tonnage actually transported
through them. And he adds that the grain trade is actually
leaving the canals ' that although it is comparatively only
a few years since they almost monopolized the transporta¬
tion of grain through the State, much the largest portion
of the grain now delivered at the port of New York is
conveyed by rail, and that if nothing more is done to keep
pace with the progress and changing methods of the age,
and to popularize the canals than remitting the low toll
which has been imposed for the past few years, it is quite
clear, if the past is any index for the future, that the time
will soon arrive when the business they will command
will be no compensation for the cost of maintaining them.
The decline in canal and the increase in railway traffic
through New York State are made more striking by
statistics covering the period from 1868 to 1882, prepared
at the demand of Sir Hector Langevin by the Secretary of
the Montreal Board of Trade, Mr. ¥m. Patterson, and
appearing in the report of the Dominion Minister of Public
"Works, for the fiscal year ending on the 30th June, 1882.
According to these statistics, the total tonnage carried by
the-New York State canals rose from 6,442,225, in 1868, to
6,673,370 in 1873, and thenceforward annually declined
until it fell to 5,179,192 in 1881. On the other hand, the
tonnage carried by the N. Y. Central and H. R. road rose
from 2,562,862, in 1868, to 11,591,192 in 1881, that by the
Erie and Western, from 3,908,243, in 1868, to 11,086,823 in
1881, and that by the Pennsylvania Railway, from 4,722,-
015, in 1868, to 19,000,000 in 1881. These figures speak
for themselves and show clearly enough the important role
16
played by United States railways in the movement of the
traffic of that country.
CANALS MUST GO
Again, in his annual report for 1883, the New York
State Engineer and Surveyor, declared that the experiment'
of endeavoring to increase the tonnage of the canals by the
abolition of tolls had thus for proved an entire failure. He
therefore advised that the State should either reimpose suf¬
ficient tolls to keep these artificial waterways in repair,
lease them on the best terms allowable to responsible parties,
who would agree to operete and keep them in repair, or
sell them outright for what they would being to the
highest bidder. He rather favored the latter alternative
as the wisest of the three to relieve the people from the
burthen of any further taxation in the connection, adding
at same time with emphasis :
" Canals, as successful and necessary means of transport,
have outlived their usefulness ; and as between railways
and canals, when considered with reference to their relative
merits as affording a means for rapid and economical trans¬
port, it must be regarded as a foregone and inerdtable
conclusion that the canals must go. The estimated cost of
putting the canals in thorough repair is $3,852,687."
CONDEMNED BY SCIENCE.
But since the foregoing reports and statistics were com¬
piled, still more valuable testimony, adverse to canals, has
come to hand, in the official report of a discussion before
the American Society of Civil Engineers on the relative
merits of canals and railways by E. L. Corthell, M. Am.
Soc. C. E., which took place at the convention of the Society,
17
held on .Tune 25th, 1883. In this report, which contains
very precious and suggestive information on the subject
now treated, I find it stated that the gradual abandon¬
ment of the canals and the rapid and general introduction
of railroads during the last forty years are facts so patent
that no proofs are necessary, but that the reasons for this
change are not so well known : There is a vast difference,
it is claimed, between transportation on the open sea
and in the restricted channels of barge and ship-canals,
practical results obtained in operating the latter showing
that in their restricted channels, where there is no indefinite
supply of water all around the vessel as at sea the rush into
the hollow at the wake, the opposing force, that the boat
herself, creates by her movement through the water, is so
great that her speed will be the difference between her
own proper one and that of the opposing current, no matter
what traction power may be used, steam or animal, and
that a serious resistance, as well as danger to the canal
banks is developed, if the attempt is made to urge the
boat in a contracted channel, like one of these artificial
water ways, beyond a speed of from two to three miles per
hour. For instance, in a canal near Preston in England,
about 30 miles long, the result of turning the traffic in one
direction for one day, was to pile up the water at one end
18 inches and to shallow it 18 inches at the other.
Consequently, it is held to be, a physical impossibility to
move vessels in these confined waters at a higher rate of
speed than 5 miles an hour, while in most of them it is
restricted to 4£, 3£, 3, 2§, 2£ and even 2 miles an hour,
freight steamers on the Erie only making 40 miles in 24
hours. Then, as to the cost of operating canals, it is
2
18
conclusively shown that when maintenance and interest on
first cost are included, they cannot possibly compete with
railroads and, in support of this contention, the highest
engineering authorities such as Robert Stevenson, Mr
Beardmore, Mr Bidder, Sir Robert Rawlinson and Sir John
Hawkshaw are quoted. With regard to the state of affairs
on this continent, the Américain Society of Civil Engineers,
from whose proceedings I have just quoted, pronounced
no uncertain verdict, as I find it added :—
" In this country the steadily decreasing cost of rail
" transportation and the increasing capacity for business
" have increased the volume of freight over three of the
" main trunk lines, viz : Pennsylvania., New York Central,
" and Erie, from 10,476,857 tons in 1868 to 46,177,223 tons in
" 1883. In remarkable contrast the New York State canals
" have, in the same period, decreased in volume of freight
" from 6,442,225 to 5,664,056 tons.
" The mileage of through freight boats on the Erie canal
" decreased from about 12,000,000 in 1850 to 6,660,000 in
'• 1881.
" The history of rates on this canal shows that there was
'• no reduction until it was compelled by the reduction on
" the railroads.
" The canals have been kept alive by the money of the
" State. It is now proposed to galvanize them into new
" life by the application of $3,000,000 to their beds, banks
'' and dilapidated structures. Even this can result in only
" a spasmodic revival of activity and nothing but bountiful
" subsidies and generous gifts to the despondent owners of
" the rotten boats will keep the mules on the tow-path
" another five years.
19
" It is a significant fact that in Canada also, which has
" spent its millions on a complete system of barge and ship
" canals, the merchants are demanding an abolition of all
" tolls. What more positive proof that the canals do not
" pay as an investment ?
" The last report on transportation issued by the U. S.
" Census Bureau states that about 2,000 miles of canals
" (nearly one-half of all that have been constructed) have
" been abandoned. The original cost of these abandoned
" canals was nearly $50,000,000. Railroads now occupy
" the beds and banks of many of them. *******
" The speed of the steam canal boat, running time is live
" miles per hour on the Hudson River, and 2 1 mills on
" the Erie canal, while the average running time of the
" railroads between the west and New York is at least 15
" miles per hour. The basis of comparison, actual cost of
" hauling, as above made, is the only proper one, since the
" Erie canal is owned by the State and maintained and
" controlled by it at no cost of interest, or tolls, or other
" expenses to the boats. Without bringing forward further
" proof, the reasons are evident for the decay of the canals
" and the rapid growth of railroads as being better adapted
" to the needs of internal commerce by affording prompt-
" ness, convenience and economy."
DELUSIVE HOPES
After having fully demonstrated in a general way the
ascendency of Railways as public carriers on this continent
and their bearing upon the natural and artificial waterways
in the United States, it is now time to revert to our own
inland navigation, and examine carefully what is the
influence that Railways have exercised over it, including
the question of Canal enlargement as a means of attracting
20
a larger share of the western traffic, via the St. Lawrence.
For more than a quarter of a century, those interested in
the routes have been deluded with the vain hope that
at an early date, after certain ameliorations would have
been completed, our magnificent inland water courses
would finally become the great channel, over which the
immense traffic from the west would find its way to tidal
water. They firmly believed that through the superior
advantages which we could offer over rival routes, our
American neighbours would be compelled to utilize
our great river and the water stretches extending from
Lake Superior to the Atlantic Ocean. But as years rolled
on, notwithstanding the superiority of our inland naviga¬
tion, the long expected traffic never came and what seemed
to be on the eve of attainment receded from us as we
advanced. Even the very volume of business which
seemed to be our own, commenced to shrink away. The
non-realization of the hopes which we had founded upon
the decided attractiveness of our favorite routes, was attri¬
buted for a long time to a want of proper developpment in
our Canal system, which, it was pretended, had not kept
pace with the revolution that had taken place, in the
size and carrying capacity of the craft employed in lake
navigation. They really believed that if the Canals
were made more adaptable to that kind of navigation,
now monopolized by the larger craft, they would finally
attract the trade through our water-ways. The advo¬
cates of canals, instead of being discouraged, continued to
be as fervent as ever in their anticipations of future success,
if they could only obtain a little more water in them. Not
in the least daunted by the failure of their pet dreams of
the past, they still continued to believe, as they do yet,
21
that under certain conditions, these water-ways must
ultimately recover their former usefulness and become
serious competitors to Railways. The vested property in
inland navigation both here and in the United States is
very large, and must be represented by a strong and in¬
fluential element. These interested parties cannot and will
not easily make up their minds, to accept the changes that
are being affected by Railway absorption. It will be diffi¬
cult if not impossible, to even bring them readily to recog¬
nize that Railways are fast becoming the principal public
carriers not only on this continent but all over the world.
It is not an easy matter to get people to consent willingly
to accept a depreciation in the value of their property and
to give up an occupation in which they are well trained.
Hence it is not surprising, if, in the face of what is evident
and patent to every body, they should be constantly on the
warpath, and insisting upon government coming to their
assistence, always of course under the plea, that the public
interest demands the sacrifice. In the United States, they
commenced their warfare by attacking the toilage system,
and now that they have found out that this reduction has
not had the desired effect, they want the American govern¬
ment to spend millions more, upon an enterprise that, com¬
mercially speaking, has seen its best days.^ Here, finding
that the \rolume of traffic on our water-ways is diminishing,
they cry out for the abolition of tolls and a further expen¬
diture for the enlargement of our canals, and this in
spite of palpable evidence that both Lake and River naviga¬
tion, even when there is plenty of water, cannot compete
successfully with Railways. It is of course not surprising,
that such an immense vested interest, "as that bound
up with the fate of inland navigation, should exert a strong
22
influence over those who have the direction of our affairs ;
neither is it astonishing that governments are often obliged
to yield to the pressure that is exercised. It therefere should
not excite any wonder if, through their clamours, they
succeed in obtaining a large expenditure of public money,
in an enterprise in which they would not risk their own ;
under the circumstances it is natural enough that we should
notice from time to time the desperate efforts made by all
these combined interests to obtain a further expenditure of
public money, always under the pretext of the public good.
Since the present session has opened, we have all witnessed
the number of deputations that have been sent toOtta wa from
all quarters, to influence the government in countenancing
all sorts of schemes including the spending of millions. We
see that the Free Navigation League has not remained be¬
hind, but by a combination of various local interests, it has
succeeded in mustering a deputation which, when in pre¬
sence of the government at Ottawa, bewildered the poor
ministers with the multiplicity of their demands, such as
abolition ofTolls, deepening the Canals, transfer of the Lake
St. Peter's debt, deepening of the river Don at Toronto, the
Trent Valley Canal, &c. Although fully aware that rail¬
ways are monopolizing the carrying trade, these people
will not yield to the clearest evidence, but seem to grow
more desperate as theirfuture grows more and more gloomy.
To further these wild schemes, they will spare no efforts,
resistance only makes them more furious. To avert the
ruin of their interests, they would not hesitate even
to go the length of plunging the country into bankruptcy,
and all, as far as the public is concerned, for an object
which every year is becoming more and more problematic
as to its final issue. They want millions and millions to
23
be spent in waterways and think the whole country should
support their suicidal and preposterous demands. But 110
sooner do the Eastern people demand the expenditure of
public money for any useful object whatever, than these
very men at once turn round and accuse them of clamoring
for G-overnmeut favors, while they themselves are ever¬
lastingly knocking at ministerial doors for publis as¬
sistance.
THE CANADIAN CANALS.
Now, though the same difficulties have to be overcome
here as in the case of the American canals, the advocates of
our water routes are using the same arguments, and to
make those routes available in their opinion for traffic,
they want, besides the complete abolition of tolls, the canals
to be enlarged and deepened so as to permit of large vessels
coming down to tide-water without breaking bulk. It is
needless to go into details touching the length, size and
depth of water of each of the canals known as the St Law¬
rence Canals. It suffices to name them : briefly, the Domi¬
nion canals, constructed between Montreal and Lake Erie,
are the Lachine, Beauharnois, Cornwall, Farran's Point,
Rapide Plat, Galops and "Wellaud. Their aggregate length
is 70£ miles : total lockage (height directly overcome by
locks) 533£ feet ; number of locks 53. Communication
between Lakes Huron and Superior is secured by means of
the Sault Ste. Marie Canal situated on the United States
side of the channel. This canal is a little over a mile in
length and has one lock 515 feet long, 80 feet wide, with
16 feet of water on the sills, and a lift of about 18 feet.
The difference in level between Lake Superior and the
point on the St. Lawrence near Three Rivers, where tidal
24
influence ceases, is about 600 feet and the total distance
from Montreal to Duluth by the canals and unobstructed
navigation is about 1289J miles. It may be well here to
mention that this all water route via the Welland Canal is
338 miles longer from Montreal than the rail and water
route via Midland City, according to the showing of the
Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade in his report for
1882 ; that another projected line of rail and water com¬
munication via the C. P. R. to Algoma Mills on Lake Huron
and thence by first class, full powered swift propellers to
Port Arthur on Lake Superior, to connect again with the
great Canadian transcontinental line is now an accomplished
fact, and that there is to be still another very important
line of inland communication in the near future, as ere
long, the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Rail¬
ways and their combinations will converge at and cross
the Ste. Marie River by a bridge at the Sault, thence con¬
necting with the Northern Pacific Railway, and afford¬
ing it and its connections in the North-Western States, a
short route to the sea-board. Now these are all so many
more factors to operate against the waterways and diminish
the volume and the remunerativeness of their traffic.
A FALLACIOUS DEDUCTION.
But the canalmen pretend that they would have a chance
of securing the through traffic if our canals were made
uniform as to length of lockage, depth, &c., and generally
improved so as to allow vessels of from 60,000 to 80,000
bushels capacity, such as are now in use on the great lakes,
coming through to Montreal. This argument is altogether
fallacious. It is not borne out by facts, as lake navigation,
where there is plenty of water, has not for twenty years
25
increased its tonnage. Proofs of this fact might be mul¬
tiplied indefinitely, but it is sufficient for present purposes,
to quote from the address of Mr. E. S. Helstrom, at the
inauguration of the Buffalo Merchants' Exchange, on the
1st January, 1884. After reviewing the immense progress
of Buffalo's trade, Mr. H. said : " Statistics would seem to
" indicate that the lake tonnage had barely held its own
" since 1860 : at that time the number of entries in and out
" were 11,500, with a tonnage of 4,110,000. In 1883, the
" number of entries were 6,790, with a tonnage of 4,500,000
" tons. The vessels having been greatly increased in size
" accounts for the decrease in the number of entries, while
" the tonnage shows about the same. Judging from this,
" it is apparent that our increased prosperity does not come
" from that source." "We must keep in view that Buffalo
is the great terminal point of lake navigation and the head
of the railway system, the one converging to New York by
way of the Erie canal and the other by rail to the same
point. The opinion of the Buffalo Exchange as to the
importance of lake navigation, which is done by large
propellors and barges, the largest afloat, with an immense
carrying capacity,—80,000 bushels,—and the freight from
Chicago to Buffalo reduced to a minimum, as low as two
cents per bushel being charged, ought to convince the
most sceptical that there must be something more than
want of water that deters traffic from the waterways.
Neither is it through want of carrying capacity that the
lake traffic has not increased, as the following, from the
report for 1887 of Mr. A. Richmond, President of the
Buffalo Board of Trade, will indicate : " A very impor-
" tant saving in the cost of freight has been made
" by increasing the size of the various crafts employed.
20
" No longer ago than 1842, ordinary lake vessels carried
" only about 5,000 bushels each ; in 1848, a capacity
" of 12,000 bushels was attained ; in 1850, it was
" about 15,000 ; in 1857, it was 25,000 bushels ; in 1863, it
" was 30,000 bushels ; and now 80,000 bushels are carried,—
" the same class vessels being sixteen times the capacity of
" those used thirty-five years ago. In 1850, the largest
" propeller on our lakes had a capacity of about 600 tons.
" In 1853, it had increased to about 800 tons. The size bas
■' been enlarged from year to year, until at the present
" time there are propellers on the lakes that carry from
" 2000 to 2500 tons. By the use of improved machinery
" and steam tugs, there is no difficulty in managing large
" vessels and propellers. It is found that, by the use of
" modern appliances, they can be handled quite as safely, it
" not more so, than smaller vessels in earlier times. " Such
was the degree of improvement already attained by Lake
craft as far back as seven yars ago, as given then officially
by the President of the Buffalo Board of Trade ; yet, in the
face of the fact that this improvement has not tended to an
increase of the American lake or canal traffic, we are asked
to believe that it would improve the situation, as regards
success in our competition for the western traffic with the
Americans, and be to the public interest generally, if our
system of canal navigation were considerably modified, at
an enormous outlay to be borne by the ratepayers at large
and without any direct return in the shape of interest upon
the capital invested, without mentioning the further
admission that our water route can only be effectually
utilized on the condition of a complete exemption from
tolls as in the case of the Erie canal.
27
THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THE QUESTION.
Up to 30th June, 1885, our canals had cost us $47,341,-
291.86, for construction and enlargement. The cost alone
of the Welland to 1884, with its construction account in¬
complete, was $21,292,558.33. The "Welland Canal account
stands as follows since 1881 :—Excess of expenditure (for
ordinary repairs and maintenance), over revenues—inl882,
$63,035.00,—in 1883, $16,406—in 1884, $36,962—1885 will
make a worse showing. St-Lawrence Canals: excess of
expenditure over revenue—in 1882, $20,036.00, in 1883,
$29,513, in 1884, $42,470. The total expenditures in all
the Canals and total revenues show the following results :
in 1882, excess of expenditure over revenues $116,450.00,
—in 1883, $82,292.00,—in 1884, $153,070, with a worse
showing for 1885. In addition to these losses, there was
spent upon them from 1882 to 1885 inclusive, the further
enormous sum of $6,717,193.00 for construction account.
The annual interest upon the cost at 5 o/o per annum is
equivalent to $2,350,000 ; if tolls are remitted it will exceed
2^ millions a year spent by the country on these canals ;
and if they are to be depened to 14 feet as seems to be de¬
sired, it will add a large amount per annum for interest
to the burthens of the country.
The lesson to be drawn from these figures is that the
tolls levied are insufficient to cover our annual canal ex¬
penditure for repairs and maintenance, not to speak at all
of construction account and interest on the outlay, that
notwithstanding all that has been spent upon our canals,
we have not yet a depth, even in the Welland, of more than
12 feet at certain seasons, and that notwithstanding the
enormous amounts we continue to expend annually upon
28
their improvement, while operating them at a loss, we
cannot still see the end. Our enormous expenditure is
simply like a drop of water in the ocean. Meanwhile the
water route advocates constantly cry out for more. It will
cost millions more to give our canal system a uniform
depth of 14 feet throughout, and this solely to obtain a pro¬
blematic result, judging from past experience in the progress
made in Lake and Canal Navigation since railways have
pushed themselves to the front.
USELESSNESS OF SUCH VAST EXPENDITURE.
But is there any real necessity for lauching into all this
vast expenditure for the improvement of our water routes ?
This is the question I now propose to consider. The various
improvements I have specified would absorb an enormous
sum. But, in addition to the absorption of this capital,
which would largely increase our annual expenditure, we
would also have to provide for the annual cost of manage¬
ment and repairs, seeing that upon the abolition of the
tolls in order to compete with the Erie Canal, we would
derive no revenue from our canals. At present, ordinary
repairs and superintendence cost the country upwards of
$400,000 per annum, and naturally, with the extension of
the works, we would have to prepare for a corresponding
increase of this figure—for an augmentation, which would
bring these $400,000 up to much larger figure. The
advocates of the water routes are fond of referring to the
example of the Erie Canal ; and they claim a similarity of
privileges in order to be able to compete successfully with
it. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated already, that
for years a gradual reduction of tolls and charges on the
29
Erie Canal has taken place, to such an extent, in fact,
that during the fiscal year ended in 1882, only $650,000
were collected from all sources, and that, notwithstanding
such reductions, there has been no increase of traffic for a
period of twenty years. This sum of $650,000 only repre¬
sents a small fraction of a percentage on the outlay. It is
therefore clear that the total abolition of tolls on the Erie
was adopted for the purpose of increasing a business which
is actually seeking other outlets. The outcry against our
own canal charges is not serious, as the amount collected
is only a trifle. Consequently, the failure of our water
routes to attract a larger traffic cannot be attributed to
that cause, and surely no one can be in favor of such
routes, when they cannot even pay their own ordinary
running expenses. It must strike every intelligent mind
that, if the traffic on the Erie Canal had been a good one
or at least had been increasing from year to year, a demand
for the abolition of the tolls would never have been heard
or thought of. It is also obvious that the abolition policy
adopted by the State of New York has not improved the
Erie's traffic, and yet, in face of this fact, a similar policy is
demanded with regard to our own canals, under the pretext
that they have to contend with the Erie Canal. It seems
needless to say that this argument cannot hold. Virtually,
we have derived no revenue worth mentioning from our
canals, and no reasonable man will pretend that the trifling
five-eights of a cent per bushel collected from tolls is such
an obstacle as would militate against an increase of traffic
over our water routes. The utter falacy of such a notion is
dispelled by Mr. Miall, Commissioner of Inland Revenue,
in his official rapports for 1883-1884, where he says:
30
" In 1859 the average annual movement by Railways
and Canals, respectively, in the state of New York stood
1 thus :
Moved one mile by Railways 313 millions of tons
Canals 546
" In 1880 the movement by Railways had increased to
4,246 millions of tons, while that of Canals increased only
to 1,224 millions. It must be noted further that this
immense relative gain in land carriage has occurred in
O o
spite of the fact that in 1880 the cost of carriage per ton
per mile by Rail, was nearlj double that by Canal, viz :
" Eight mills and four fractions per ton per mile by
Railroad against 4 mills and 9 fractions per ton per mile,
including, tolls by Canals The movement has been one
ever in the same direction. Each period of 5 years shows
a relative gain by the land carriers without any appparent
' heed to cost per ton. It is plain some other considerations
' than that of carriers charges have governed this movement.
' The explanation seems to be : that time is money. The
' closing of our waterways follows so closely upon the
' harvest that but a small proportion of the crops can be
' moved by water within the year in which it is harvested,
' and the loss by storing until inland navigation reopens,
' attended, as it is, by all kinds of risk as to variation of
' prices, is a greater evil than the present sacrifice of a few
' cents per bushel.
" It has already been shown that the cost of Canal freights,
' including tolls, to the state, were only 4 ro mills per ton
' per mile in 1880 against land charges 8 A mills. The
' freeing of the Canals will reduce that charge to 4 mills,
' if the public rather than the carriers get the benefit of
' the reduction. There does not appear to be any proba-
' bility of a vastly increased volume of traffic resulting
' from this contemplated change. The saving will be
° 1
oi
" about one cent a bushel ; the saving by Canadian route
" by abolition of tolls would be 5/8 of a cent per bushel
" between the Western wheat fields and the Atlantic coast.
" An advantage of 3 to 4 cents per bushel between Chicago
" and Montreal, as compared with the cheapest rates of any
" other route, has not tempted one tithe of the Western
" grain to seek an outlet at Montreal in the Welland Canal.
" How can it be expected that a further relief to the extent
" of only 5/8 cents per bushel would appreciately alter the
" statu quo. The fight is not between the St-Lawrence and
" the New York State Canals. It is between land and water
'• borne-carriage, and the railways have come out victorious.
" At page 30, he adds ; The Railways will, however,
" continue as in the past, to take the lion's share for reasons
" already advanced. The abolition of tolls on the St-Law-
" rence and Welland Canals would result in a diminution
" of revenue to the extent of from $200,000, to $300,000
" per annum. It is not clear to the writer that the grain
" traffic to tidewater would be thereby increased to any ap-
" preciable extent."
Such are the views of a high functionary of the Dominion
and expressed officially in his annual report to the Gov¬
ernment. He clearly proves by unmistakable figures that
Railways have beaten the water-ways in the struggle for
the domestic and continental traffic.
LOWER RATES BY WATER COUNTERBALANCED
Revenue from the Welland Canal, which in 1844
amounted to $179,642, fell last year to $152,778. On the
St. Lawrence Canals the decrease was from $85,247 to
$79,842. The Ottawa yielded only $51,692 where the year
before it had yielded $60,819. The Rideau and the Chambly
also showed lessened returns. The total under Canal
Revenue showing a decline from $356,443 in 1884 to
32
|311,577 last year. The decrease was on carriage of corn,
coal, and wheat as well as on vessels. In addition to the
decreases above mentioned, says the Report, refunds were
made of Welland Canal tolls to the amount of $11,281, and
St. Lawrence Canals' tolls to the amount of $95, under
Orders in Council passed last June and July, " which
reduced, very materially, the tolls on grain shipped to
Montreal, or Canadian ports east of Montreal, for the
present season, in deference to the expressed opinion of
those interested in the trade that such a course woud
increase the traffic."
The tolls from lumber on the Ottawa and Chambly
Canals are less by $7,000 than during the previous year,
which is attributed to the shipments by Canada Atlantic
Railway. And as to Slides and Booms, the accrued revenue
from which is less than that of the previous year by 42
per cent, Mr. Miall says : " Three causes have contributed
to this result : 1st. The quantity of timber cut was less
than the previous year ; 2nd. The quantity of square
timber carried by rail was greater ; and 3rd. There is an
increasing disposition to locate the mills nearer to the
timber limits, and to transport the sawed lumber by rail. "
Another of the canalmen's strongest arguments is that
the traffic can be done much cheaper by water than by rail
and on that account our water routes should secure a large
share of the carrying trade. Now in 1882 the average
traffic rate from Chicago to New York via Lake and Canal,
and from Chicago to Montreal was 8 J cents per bushel. At
these prices there was no living profit for our river craft,
those engaged in that branch trade then cried out that these
rates were ruinous. Last Year the rate per bushel from
83
Chicago to New York per waterways and lakes was down
to 4£ cents. If it was ruinous at 8| cents what is it at
In fact nothing will satisfy the advocates of the waterways
till they have induced the government of the country to
become public carriers of American products at the expense
of the tax payers and to give our water carriers a bonus
for transporting through our inland navigation the products
of a foreign country, besides spending millions for the
amelioration of a highway which is falling into disuse in
spite of all. They forget, however, that speed, safety, prompt
delivery, and no insurance risks, will counterbalance to
some extent the inducement of lower rates and that
notwithstanding all the supposed advantages offered by
water route, railways on (his continent are steadily increas¬
ing the tonnage on their roads, whilst canals are going
behind.
DESPATCH THE GREAT COMMERCIAL DESIDERATUM OF THE
AGE.
The nature of business has greatly changed of late years.
Lines of telegraph extend not only over land, but also
from one continent to another by means of submarine
cables. Large and swift steamers are overcoming the
distances and the dangers of ocean navigation. Railways
are also continually adding to their facilities for traffic. On
this continent we are in constant communication with
the markets of Europe by several Atlantic cables ; and as
soon as any of these markets sh nvs the least sign of deple¬
tion, immediately the cables flash us the news. This is
especially true of the trade in grain and other products.
Our produce merchants are now in daily and even hourly
communication with the European markets, and sales are
3
34
effected by cablegram, so that, wherever there is the
slightest chance of doing business, the fact is almost im¬
mediately ascertained and the goods are at once forwarded
to the seeking market. The idea of using a slow and
tedious process of reaching the seaboard with them, under
the circumstances, would never enter any one's mind,
where prompt delivery is the very essence of successful
trade. In fact, the selling prices of nearly all articles vary
so often and sometimes even within the short space of a
month, that quick despatch is requisite in everything.
NO HOPE OF SECURING THE WESTERN TRAFFIC THROUGH
OUR CANALS.
I am convinced in my own mind that we cannot count
upon securing the western grain traffic, no matter what
improvements we may make in our canal system, while the
great grain markets continue to be Chicago and New-York
and while there are so much capital and so many facilities in
American hands for handling it between the interior and
the seaboard. According to my humble view, it is
preposterous to think of competing successfully for this
trade with our neighbors, upon their own ground and with
all the advantages of wealth, intelligence and an immense
population on their side. Even granting that we were to
do our best to draw it away from them, all they would
have to do to check us, would be to make such reductions
in their transportation rates as would at once neutralize
all our efforts. Indeed, with their extended system of
railways and their numerous harbors open in winter as
well as in summer, it is obviously absurd for us to dream
for a moment that our water routes, even when made free,
will ever take away from them their own traffic. We do
35
a considerable amount of business with the United Stated
and have a growing trade of our own, which requires to be
looked after and fostered by every possible means. But,
as for the western traffic, we have not got it, and what is
more, we cannot secure it, except what we choose to do in
that way on our own account. I may be wrong ; but I do
not believe that American business men will ever think of
using the St. Lawrence to any extent, or of abandoning
their own favorite routes for ours, while they have all the
facilities which they actually possess and which are a
hundredfold more than any we can boast of. I can
understand that, if it were possible for us to offer them
superior advantages to their own, they would naturally be
attracted to the St. Lawrence route. But are we really
capable of running them down in their own field by lower
rates ? I doubt it. In fact, there is no ground whatever
for the presumption. If we reduce our charges, there can
be 110 question of their ability to follow our example. We
should never forget that this is a kind of game two can
play at, and that our neighbors have a vantage-ground for
the purpose which we by no means enjoy. In its issue of
the 5th. March last, the Monetary Times hits off the situation
in this respect truthfully, in the following :—" The debt of
Canada is officially stated at $280,000,000, and the assets
set down at 70,000,000 : at the end of the last fiscal year
they were $68,295,915. But according to some enterprising
gentlemen, scattered through the Dominion, this is not
nearly debt enough When we have just completed the
construction of the Pacific railway, there are people who
want a submarine railway bored out in the rock across
Cumberland Strait, at a cost of twenty or thirty millions ;
others who call for the blocking up of the Straits of Belle-
36
Isle, at a cost of $40,000,000 ; a third interest insists on the
completion of the Trent Valley canal, at a cost of untold
millions ; a bridge across the Straits of Fuca has its
advocates ; the further deepening of the channel of Lake
St. Peter, and the enlargement of the St. Lawrence canals
are demanded ; a 600 mile railway to Hudson Bay is with
some a favorite speculation. Even from the enlargement
of the St. Lawrence canals, to the size of the Welland, ad¬
vocated by the Boards of Trade of Toronto and Montreal,
too much must not be expected. The capacity of the
canals is one thing, the diversion of a settled trade from
the richest city of the continent is another. If the proposed
enlargement were made, it would be possible for vessels to
go from Duluth to the seaboard ; but can mere canal
capacity ensure the diversion of the grain trade from New
York ? If there be any lesson which the enlargement of
the canals has taught, it is that mere enlargement fails to
attract the grain trade of the West. We are all too much
disposed to forget that the export trade will of necessity
follow the import trade, otherwise two ocean voyages
would be required to do the work of one, and this would
not be cheap but costly carriage. It is a delusion, we fear,
to suppose that Canada, by any effort she is capable of
making, can largely divert the export trade in grain which
now goes by may of New York. "
EVEN FREE CANALS CANNOT COMPETE WITH RAILWAYS.
Now, granted that we were to abolish all tolls and
launch into all the great expenditure for the improvement
of our water routes desired by their advocates, is there any
likelihood of its ever returning us any equivalent ? The
precedent furnished by the Erie Canal certainly does not
31
give much promise of such an eventuality. Jay Gould,
one of the great American railway kings, at all events did
not seem to fear the issue, when, in speaking of free canals,
he said : " The effect of removing the tolls will not be
noticed particlarly by the railroads ****". The actual
rivalry is no longer between the railroads and the canals,
but among the various trunk lines running between the
ocean*and the lakes.
CANADIAN DISABILITIES.
Even our own merchants engaged in the grain trade are
obliged to have recourse to the New York and Chicago
markets, whenever they receive orders for grain cargoes,
and to avail themselves of the most expeditious routes,
when they wish to strike a favorable home market. Our
great drawback is, as already stated, our long winter and
the necessity we are under of seeking an outlet on the
Atlantic during that season through American territory.
As for our North West, the seasons there are pretty much
the same as ours and the ingathering of its grain harvests
will consequently be always too late for fall shipment via
the St. Lawrence route, so that it is altogether unlikely
that shippers and forwarders will wait till the opening of
navigation in the following spring, to ship the grain of the
previous year.
A CON OLD SI VE ADMISSION.
But the admission of Mr. Andrew Robertson, Chairman
of the Montreal Harbor Commission, ought to satisfy the
most sceptical as to the overshadowing influence of rail¬
ways in this contry. In his annual report, this gentleman
says under the head of " Railways superseding Canals
38
" I applied the other day to the Secretary of the Board
" of Trade, to see if he could give me the relative quantities
" of grain carried by railways and the Erie Canal in 1885.
" These have not yet appeared, but he kindly sent me a
" book showing the tons of goods carried for several years
" past by Erie Canal and railways, to New York, every
" year, from 1880 to 1884, showed an increase by railways :
" thus, in 1880, canal carried 6,45*7,656 tons, or 25 percent.
" against 19,248,930 tons by railways, or *75 per cent. In
" 1884, canals carried 5.009,488, or 16 per cent., railways
" carried 26,432.016, or 84 per cent. These were the New
" York Central and Erie railways, and very shortly the
" Baltimore and Ohio, with their Staten Island accommoda-
" tion, will no doubt largely increase the tonnage by rail,
" as against the Erie canal. This shows that communica-
" tion all the year round by rail is beating water commu-
" nications when they are onlv open for a portion of the
" year and now that we are one of the summer terminals
" of two great railways, we shall no doubt receive by rail
" a fair proportion of what comes to them for shipment by
sea. The past year alone the largest half of the wheat
" shipped came by railway to Montreal."
This declaration of the Chairman of the Montreal Harbor
Commission really settles the question as to the influence
of railways over waterways as inland carriers. The greatest
advocates of inland navigation have always been found in
Montreal. It is there where all the schemes of improve¬
ment in our inland water courses have originated. It has
been the hotbed of all the agitation for canal improvement
that has been kept up for the last twenty years, and
scarcely a session passes without a strong deputation being
thence sent to Ottawa, to demand a further expenditure of
money in such improvements, deluding themselves and
the'publie with the hope of thereby attracting the bulk of
39
the American grain trade to the St. Lawrence route. I
need hardly refer to the very complete manner in which
the position I took, in 1883, on this important head before
our own Board of Trade, had been vindicated by this
admission of Mr. Robertson. Indeed, I might almost
wholly rest my case upon it ; but in the interest of the
question, it is, perhaps, better that I should complete my
demonstration.
A clear idea of the rate, at which the traffic on the
Canadian canals has been declining, is furnished by
figures supplied to Sir H. L. Langevin by Mr. Patterson,
the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade and Corn
Exchange, and printed in the annual report of the Dominion
Minister of Public Works. According to these figures, 011
the Welland canal alone, with its 12 feet of water and
improved locks, the tonnage of freight, both ways, fell
gradually but steadily from 1,135,635, in 1868, to 644,727 in
1882, the tonnage of craft both ways from 1,240,366 to 679,-
040 and the number of passengers from 7,536 to 1,741,
while in the Dominion canals, as a whole, the tonnage of
freight fell from 3,420,700, in 1874, to 2,542,883 in 1884,
and the tonnage of vessels, for reasons already indicated,
from 4,096,874 only to 4,063,247.
FALLACIES EXPOSED.
All these official figures and facts ought to be sufficient
to convince the most sceptical, that railways in this country
are fast taking the lion's share of both domestic and through
traffic, and that they are destined in the near future to
absorb the bulk of the carrying trade. But it is difficult to
convince people who are largely interested, that a change
40
which is detrimental to them is taking place, and no
evidence, however strong it may be, will actually act upon
them until they have exhausted not only their resources,
but that of others as well. They will never stop asking for
improvements as long as they live and would spend the
whole of the country's revenue, always with the hope that
their property will recover its former value. For years
past we have constantly heard them clamouring against
the absorbing monopoly of the free Erie canal, and that
unless a similar policy was followed by ourselves,
our inland navigation would be ruined. But, to
show the fallacy of their arguments, let us make a
1'ew comparisons : The length of the Erie Canal from
Buffalo to Albany is about 352 miles. The depth of water
is on an average 1 feet. The tolls levied upon it, before
their total abolition, which did not apply to the last fiscal
year, were a mere fraction upon its cost. The lift locks are
76 in number. The class of boats employed have not the
carrying capacity of the craft employed on our own canals.
They can only carry 8,000 bushels. The average time
required to take the round trip between Buffalo and New
York is 28 days.
The total length of our canals is only 70J miles. The
average depth is 9 feet compared with the Erie's 7.
The number of locks 53, as against the Erie's 76. The tolls
levied are a mere fraction (f ths. of a cent per bushel) and
to keep pace with the reduction in tolls made upon the
Erie Canal, ours were also reduced in 1881. For twenty
years the tonnage oA'er the Erie Canal has remained
stationary. In 1862 the total tonnage was 5,598,785, and
and in 1881, 5,179,192 tons. The A*alue in 1862 was
41
$203,234,331, in 1881 $162,153,565, showing a falling off,
both in tonnage and value for 1881. On the other hand,
the increase of the tonnage by rail has been enormous.
For instance, the total tonnage by the N. Y. Central and
Erie roads ran up from 3,220,388 or some 60 per cent
smaller than that of the State Canals in 1862 to 22,678,202
in 1881, equal to an increase of about 700 per cent and to
one of upwards of 400 per cent over the State Canals.
These and other figures already cited prove clearly not only
the soundness of my contention as to the destiny of rail¬
ways and the fate of canals, but also that it is not due to
any inferiority of our water route to the Erie Canal that
our traffic by water has not increased, seeing that our canals
had more water in them than the Erie Canal and we had
only 704 miles to their 352 of canal navigation. Our tolls,
too, were a mere fraction and up to last season too insigni¬
ficant altogether to repel trade. So that if we have failed
to attract more of the western traffic, it cannot be said to
be due to the inferiority of our water route. "What they
also establish beyond dispute is that both American and
Canadian waterways are alarmingly losing ground in the
battle with rail ; that the American railways are doing the
carrying trade of that country, that the western trade, about
which so much is said, is in the hands of our neighbors and
that we are not competing successfully with them for it,
although the capacity of our canals enables barges with
20,000 bushels of grain to pass from Kingston to Montreal,
wffiilst on the Erie Canal, barges can only carry 8,000
bushels. Consequently, the conclusion is inevitable that
if, with all the advantages of our waterways over those
of the United States, our grain trade has not increased, it is
not due to want of water in our canals, but is owing entirely
42
to other causes which I have already indicated, and all the
outcry about the western traffic taking the American route,
unless we hasten to make further extravagant improvements
on the Canadian water route, is either born of ignorance or
self interest. In fact, to talk of taking away or divirting a
large portion of the American grain trade is altogether out
of the question. Those who do so seem to forget that all
this western traffic, of which they speak so confidently,
belongs naturally to our neighbors, as it is created in their
own fields and within their own territory.
They should place the question in the true light by
fairly and above board stating at once, that all this western
traffic is not our own, but that, by making our water routes
cheap, they imagine they may kill out all the interests
involved in the vast system of American railway commu¬
nication, and all their lake interests, for we must not
forget that our neighbors have large propellers navigating
all the lakes west of Montreal ; that all these vessel navi¬
gate lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario, and that
all those lakes are surrounded on the American side by
railway lines communicating with the different seaboards.
In other words, they hope to do the impossible and they
look to the Canadian tax payer to foot the bill. It must
not be inferred, however that I am in favor of our
Canal system being entirely abandoned and allowed to fall
into disuse, on the contrary, I believe it can be largely
utilized for a local traffic and for a limited through trade, in
such bulky goods as lumber, coal, hay &c., which require
to be moved at a low figure. Consequently, I think our
canals should be maintained and even improved, so as to
give them a more uniform depth of water, if found necessary.
I o
-±o
But I persist in contending, that our water routes will not,
in any case, divert the large transcontinental traffic now in
the hands of our neighbours, and that it would be injudi¬
cious, in the face of railway competition, to go to an im¬
mense expense on those water routes, under the impression
that we can successfully compete with the United States on
their own ground and divert, via the St. Lawrence, a traffic
which they are more competent than ourselves to do, espe¬
cially when we see the immense progress that railways
are everywhere making and the influence they exercise
on the carrying trade. Indeed, in view of what has
taken place on the Erie Canal, the unanimous admission
of men of the largest experience, the evidence adduced
before the Paint's Committee on interprovincial trade, the
manifest absurdity of thinking that, by still further deepen¬
ing our canals, when they are already deeper, shorter and in
every way more advantageous than the American canals,
we will succeed in taking out of American hands any large
portion of their own traffic, which they are more competent
to handle than ourselves, the enormous traffic changes
already wrought by railways and their future probabilities,
I ask if it would be wise, 011 the part of the GfoArernment,
to undertake the enormous expenditure necessary to meet
the views of the water route advocates, when the chances
are that by the time the desired canal improvements are
completed, they will be renderend perfectly useless by
some further revolution in the carrying trade. I submit
that it would not, for in reality, the pretention that we
will lose the western traffic, if we do not improve our
water routes, has no raison d'être, as the traffic contemplated
is not our own and can only be attracted to Canadian
44
channels by a train of circumstances which we can never
hope to bring about.
RECAPITULATORY.
To sum up all I have said, I think I have sufficiently
established by official statistics, supported by the most
competent authorities, that Railways in this country and
in the United States are fast becoming the chief vehicles
for the handling of traffic and that our water courses, in
which, at one time, our faith for the future was, have lost
their former value and importance for the inland home-
carriage of our continent.
I think I have further demonstrated how futile are the
pretentions of those who proclaim that we will lose a "West¬
ern traffic, which really belongs to our neighbors, if we do
not hasten to add a few inches to the depth of water in our
canals, when statistics show that even, where there is
plenty of water, Railways are driving away all competition
from inland water carriage.
I have also shown that notwithstanding that modern
vessels in the Lakes have thirteen times the capacity
of those of thirty years ago, that they are now
carrying 80,000 bushels of grain at a minimum cost,
(I believe last summer the freight per bushel from
Chicago to Buffalo was only 2 cents, and from Buffalo
per Canal Erie to tidal water 2J cents) still they are not
able to hold their own as against inland carriage by Rail¬
way. We must naturally conclude that our great reliance
for the future development and extension of our commer¬
cial interests must be in railways, and that our magnificent
system of water-ways will be utilized only to a certain
45
extent, becoming of secondary importance for the inward
distribution of marchandize and for the great western
traffic to the seaboard, as compared with railways. Com¬
mercially sqeaking, we are gradually and surely being
absorbed by the immence railway system of the United
States, comprising some 120 thousand miles of well equip¬
ped railways, having all the adequate terminal facilities
at the seaboard, through their numerous parts opened all
the year round, backed by an intelligent population of up¬
wards of 50 millions of people, with an abundance of capital
for handling any amount of traffic, either of a transcon¬
tinental or domestic kind. If you look at a map of this
continent, you are struck with wonder at the immense
ramifications of the American railway lines, and you are
naturally inclined to ask yourself if, with our present un¬
developed railway system, there is a possibility, on our
part, of being able to resist the all-powerful influence that
must be brought to bear on our commercial destinies. To
my mind, such a collective railway force cannot do other¬
wise than exercise an unlimited control over the direction
of our continental traffic to the sea-board.
I feel sure that this mighty force in the hands of our
neighbours will not only be used effectively in their own
ground, but will likew ise extend its powerful grasp over
our own traffic seeking a foreign outlet. It seems to me
to be almost impossible to withstand the gigantic efforts
which this mighty Railway agency will be sure to make,
in order to obtain the monopoly of the carrying trade of
this continent. "What resistance have we got to offer to
counteract this invading force which ere long will have
encircled us in its iron grasp ?
46
We have our single lines of Railways, our watercourses,
our St. Lawrence ports closed for six months of the year,
and as winter ports, St. John and Halifax. A very small
force in face of such a formidable army. Our only chance of
avoiding being absorbed commercially speaking, and of
controlling our own traffic, will greatly depend in our
railway system, which would require to be placed on an
effective footing as soon as possible. Never will Montreal,
single handed, be able to oppose successfully the large
invading force that is being brought against us. If we
really mean to protect our own through traffic and if we
really intend to encourage our Canadian ports, it can only
be done by placing our Eastern Railways on the most
effective footing, and that will be accomplished only by
having all the Railways converging at the Port of Quebec
in constant communication with one another. Such a
connection can be effected only by a permanent structure,
such as a bridge. But on the other hand, if we are serious
about securing a through traffic, we must with all possible
despatch offer such terminal facilities for the handling of
a large trade such as we might expect from several Railway
lines having their terminal point at one of the principal
ports of the Dominion.
We have enough examples under our eyes to show its,
that unless we are alive and active, our Atlantic ports
will soon become deserted, so far as the through traffic
is concerned. This winter, our Atlantic steamers calling at
Halifax are charging 5o/o per ton measurement less to Port¬
land and Boston than via our own port ; and numerous
other examples could be shown that Canadian goods could be
brought cheaper through American ports than via Halifax.
47
Produce and lumber can be shipped in winter cheaper via
New York, than we can do either at Halifax or Portland.
Our great national highway, for the construction of which
we have so much sacrificed, and upon which we founded
great hopes for the future, by spanning the St. Lawrence
at Lachine, will become a powerful feeder to .American
traffic, both winter and summer, and will no doubt deprive
the eastern provinces of the advantages which they
expected would accrue from this national highway. The
fate of our railway system, as a distributor of the great
North-Western traffic, hangs upon a thread, so far as the
eastern provinces and the port of Quebec are concerned.
To my mind the great policy of the country should be the
encouragement of the Canadian ports, and that can be best
effected by a connection at Quebec, which would unite the
Canadian Pacific to our own road, the Intercolonial, and
others converging to our port. The policy of the country
should also be that of making the short line to the Lower
Provinces via Quebec. Such a policy, if carried out, would
be the virtual accomplishment of the expressed desires of
the people, and would be the best fulfillment of the obliga¬
tions of a solemn contract towards the country : that the
Canadian Pacific Railway was to be a great national
highway and as such was to be the real and true connecting
link which was to bind firmly together, by a community of
interests, all the provinces forming part of the Union.
If any other policy be carried out, it will be a permanent
injury to the through traffic, that would otherwise have
taken its course through our own sea board, and will un¬
doubtedly isolate the Eastern Provinces, thus depriving
them of the advantages which are likely to be derived
through the opening up of the Great North West. With
48
us, our position is quite clear and we should know by this
time where our true interest lies. We should be quite pre¬
pared to insist upon it, as we must be convinced that what
we have advocated will not only be useful to us but will
otherwise be advancing the interests of the whole
Dominion. We should feel no scruple about urging our
case with the proper authorities and asking them to fulfil
the pledges that have been made us. We should on no
account allow ourselves to be swayed by persons who,
under the pretext of being friendly to our interests,
nevertheless create among us a discussion which tends to
weaken our position. Beware of these men who will per¬
suade you that it is better to see the Canadian Pacific span¬
ning the St. Lawrence at Lachine than at Quebec.
Avoid also the advice of those who will attempt to
convince you that the Short Line via Quebec, should not
be adopted, although it is said we have a better one to offer
than the one via South Shore—because such opinion is not
desinterested. I am quite confident that every one will easily
understand, that it cannot be in the interest of these
Eastern Provinces, to have our great national Highway,
having its great diverging point to the seaboard 170 miles
further west, instead of via Quebec. By such a policy, it
is patent to every one that we will not form a part and parcel
of the main line, but will only be a branch or a insignifi¬
cant tributary of the great national Highway, built at
public expense. It is evident also that the great conti¬
nental traffic will, as a matter of course, follow the main
highway and not the tributary line.
I must now draw my remarks to a close, as I am afraid
I have already trespassed too long on your kind attention
49
and taken up, perhaps, too much of your valuable time.
But I have no doubt that you will consider that, if ou the
one hand, I have probably put your patience to the test,
you will not forget, on the other, that the motives which
are actuating me in this instance are entirely disinterested
as far as I am concerned, my only object, in making a study
of such an important question as that of our routes to the
seaboard, being to place the subject before you in its true
light and to lay before the general public such facts as will
enable them to judge for themselves as to the future destinv
of our inland carriage to the seaboard.
The lecturer then resumed his seat amid loud applause,
and an enthusiastic vote of thanks was tendered him on
motion of Archibald Campbell, Esq., seconded by Dr.
Harper and supported by Colonel Rhodes.
DEEPENING OF THE CHANNEL BETWEEN QUEBEC AND
MONTREAL.
The following is a statement made 'by Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Chairman of the Montreal Harbor Commission,
at the monthly meeting of the Board of Commissioners,
held on 14th June ; also, copy of a letter from him to the
Honorable Minister of Public Works, on 19th April last.
Mr. Robertson said the month of May had opened more
auspiciously than last year. As will be seen from the
Harbor Master's statement hereto appended, there have
been entered 74 vessels, agregating 83,699 tons as against
56 vessels and 63,252 tons for the month of May last year,
showing the gratifying increase of 32 per cent, for this
year. The financial statement also shows an increase of
revenue, it being $21,684 for this as against $18,300 for
4
50
last year, or 15§ per cent. In Mr. Kennedy's report the
usual details of the progress of the works will be found,
which require no special remark. During the last session
of Parliament the Commissieneis prevailed upon the
Government to introduce a bill to grant them an additional
loan of $900,000 for the further deepening of the channel
to 27£ feet. This action was bitterly opposed by several
parties in other cities, notably by the President of the
Board of Trade of Quebec, who wrote a letter to Sir Hector
Langevin, Minister of Public Works, on the subject, and
who alse headed a deputation for the purpose of obstructing
the request of the Commissioners. It was considered
necessary that Mr. Shehyn's letter should be replied to, and
the following was addressed to Sir Hector Langevin :—
Harbor Commissioners' Office,
Montreal, 19th April, 1883.
Hon. Sir Hector Langevin, K. C. M. G., C. B.,
Minister of Public Works, Ottawa :
Sir,—I am instructed by the Board of Harbor Commis¬
sioners to state that at their meeting yesterday their atten¬
tion was called to a communication which appeared in the
Quebec Chronicle from Joseph Shehyn, Esq., President of
the Quebec Board of Trade, addressed to yourself, against
the further deepening of the ship channel between Quebec
and Montreal at the public expense ; and while the Com¬
mission do not wish to trouble you unnecessarily, as you
are already so well seized of the facts, yet they are of
opinion that Mr. Shehyn's letter should not be allowed to
pass without comment.
51
You are already aware that the Harbor of Montreal is a
work entirely apart from that of deepening the channel and
that the expenditures are kept entirely separate.
In 1867, when Confederation took place, the indebtedness
of the Harbor of Montreal was as near as possible $1,126,000 ;
since that time there has been expended on the harbor
proper over $1,520,000, making in all $2,646,000 ; the pre¬
sent indebtedness is $1,881,000, being a difference of
$764,000, which has been paid out of the revenue. It may
be safely assumed that the Harbor of Montreal, which
means from "Windmill Point to Longue Pointe, has cost
over three million dollars, towards which expenditure the
Federal and Local Governments has never contributed one
cent, nor do the Harbor Commissioners propose that they
should do anything of the kind. They borrow the money
on their own harbor bonds, which have no guarantee from
the Government, and they have paid their interest regu¬
larly, which at present is a yearly charge of $114,010.
This statement will at once eliminate any reference in
Mr. Shehyn's letter to the Harbor of Montreal as a charge
upon the Government for either guarantee or principal of
interest, whereas he admits that theHarbor Commissioners
of Quebec get the money they require advanced by the
Government for harbor improvements in Quebec, while the
Montreal Harbor Commissioners are obliged to borrow
from the public at much higher rates.
As to the deepening of the ship channel, he says, " that
from 1856 to 1867 the Harbor Commissioners of Montreal
had spent for deepening the channel through Lake St.
Peter a sum of $1,164,235, which was assumed by the
52
Government." Admit the fact, what does this prove ?
that the Government of the day considered the deepening
of the ship channel as a public work.
On the other hand, we cannot look upon the work in
any other light than as one of the public works of the
Dominion, and bénéficiai to the commerce of the contry at
large. The work was at first undertaken by the Govern¬
ment and carried out by dredging plant belonging to the
Government, and under the oversight of the Department
of Public "Works, in precisely the same way as the chan-
nal through Lake St. Clair, the St. Lawrence canals or any
other great public works were carried out. Subsequently
the further deepening of the ship channel to 20 feet was
handed over to the Harbor Commissionners of Montreal,
but it was inspected by the Chief Engineer of Public
Works, and the cost assumed, as already mentioned, by the
Government, thus again placing it on the same footing as
other public works.
Mention has already been made of the deepening of the
ship channel between Lakes Erie and Huron, which has
been done by Government as a public work, and we think
properly so. It is an improvement of the great national
water way from the ocean to the Upper Lakes, and as such
is certainly in the interest of the Dominion at large. The
Galops on the upper St. Lawrence is another point being
deepened by the Government, and at enormous expense in
proportion to the extent of the work. And precisely the
same reasons, which have caused these to be looked upon
as public works, apply to other parts of the river. There
is no reason for the deepening of the Lake St. Clair Flats,
the Detroit River, and upper St. Lawrence by the Govern-
53
ment, which does not apply with tenfold force to the
deepening of Lake St. Peter Flats and the St. Lawrence
below Montreal, by Government. They are simply sections
of the same work, but the part between Quebec and Mont¬
real is vastly the most important.
The authority under which the further deepening to 25
feet has just been finished, is an Act of the Dominion
Legislature passed in May, 18T3, (36th Vic., Cap. 60),
authorizing the Government to contract a loan to defray
the expenses, and the work to be performed either by the
Harbor Commissioners of Montreal, or in such manner as
the Governor-in-Council might determine, but to be under
the superintendence of the Department of Public Works.
The authority to proceed was given the Harbor Commis¬
sioners of Montreal in terms of this Act and under it the
work is being executed ; that is to say the Harbor Com¬
missioners have in fact acted as the agents of the Govern¬
ment so far as the execution of the work was concerned.
The money advanced by the Government is now $1,780,-
000, on which the Harbor Commissioners of Montreal have
regularly paid the interest out of the Harbor Revenue, just
as Mr. Shehyn admits that the Government have advanced
money for the Quebec harbor improvements—the difference
being that the Government have advanced in the case of
Quebec for local improvement, and in the ship channel
case, we think, for public improvements.
The lake and river improvements have cost since con¬
federation to date, including plant, $'1,780,000, for deepen¬
ing the channel from 20 to 25 feet, and the Commissioners
are of opinion that the same should be further deepened to
54
the extent of 24 teet, at a cost of say I860,000 to $900,000.
It is this debt and the further deepening of the channel
which the Commissioners wish the Government to assume,
as they are fully and unanimously of the opinion that the
channel is a public work, of benefit to the whole Dominion,
and is not a local work, as is the improvement of the
harbor of Montreal. Now, supposing that the Government
were to assume the debt and agree to further grant the
needed sum to deepen the channel to 21$ feet, it would
come to $2,680,000, but as the plant after 21$ feet is ob¬
tained would certainly yield one-third of the cost, deduct
say $180,000, would leave two and a half millions as the
cost of a 21$ feet channel, at an annual charge of one hun¬
dred thousand dollars a year at 4 per cent.
Mr. Shehyn takes exception to this, and says :—" It is a
well known fact such a work as they propose handing to
the Government would likely cost a couple of millions."
What is his authority for this statement ? I have given
you Mr. Kennedy's report and also Mr. Reefer's, endorsing
the same, as you will see in the Harbor Reports for 1882,
pp 14-22, copy of which is herewith. The accuracy of
Mr. Kennedy's estimates heretofore is a good guarantee
that he is again correct, and the Board have implicit
confidence in his estimates, but to prevent any doubt I
enclose copy of letter from him on this point, appended
herewith.
The Commissioners regret extremely that Mr. Shehyn
should have introduced into his letter so much sectionalism.
He seems to forget that it is not the ports of Quebec and
Montreal who are to fight each other, but that it is the
55
St. Lawrance ports in summer and the Dominion Atlantic
ports in winter, as against the Atlantic ports of the United
Slates all the year round.
It is on this broad ground that the Commissioners base
their case, and they consider that for the money expended
and to be spent, the deepening of the ship channel is
decidedly the cheapest and most useful work that the
Government could undertake.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant
(Signed) Andrew Robertson,
Chairman.
Harbor Commissioners of Montreal, 1
Chief Engineer's Office, >-
Montreal, April 18th, 1883 J
Copy of reply from the President of the Quebec Board of
Trade addressed to the Honorable Sir Hector L. Langevin,
C. B., Minister of Public "Works.
Office of the Quebec Board of Trade,
5th July, 1883-
SIR,—A day or two since my attention was drawn to a
letter addressed on the 19th April last to the Honorable, the
Minister of Public Works by Mr. Andrew Robertson,
Chairman of the Harbour Commission of Montreal, being
a reply to a memorial of the Quebec Board of Trade against
the deepening of a channel between Quebec and Montreal
at the public expense, and which I had the honor of
sending you as President of that Board.
The Council of the Board of Trade would have allowed
this letter of the Montreal Harbour Commission to pass
56
unchallenged, had it merely contained arguments in favor
of their cause, but as the President, Mr. Robertson, has
placed before you and the public an acceptation very
different to that contained in our memorial, in justice to
the course we are advocating, we feel obliged to rectify
certain allegations, which, if unnoticed, would place the
Board of Trade in a wrong light. I was aware that such
a letter as that written by Mr. Robertson did exist, but
was not able to get hold of it until a few days ago, when
it appeared in the Montreal Gazette.
I remember quite well seeing in some Montreal paper a
statement to the effect that the Montreal Harbour Commis¬
sion had sent a reply to the memorial of the Quebec Board
of Trade, but that it was not to be made public for the pre¬
sent, and it was not to be made known until after the
session, which was then going on.
I must say that under the circumstances my curiosity
was a little awakened by the strangeness of such proceed¬
ings on the part of a public body such as the Harbour
Commission of Montreal, and I was very anxious to ascer¬
tain the contents of such a solemn document which was
not to see the light of day until the proper hour had arrived.
I supposed that being surrounded by so much mystery,
it must have been of paramount importance to the whole
country, as under a constitutional Government with respon¬
sible advisers such proceedings are not customary, especially
when the question at issue is pretended to be one of public
interest, and when the same public is supposed to be called
upon to shoulder the cost of such an undertaking as that
proposed by the Montreal Harbor Commission.
51
The secrecy, which has been observed on this occasion,
would lead one to suppose that their cause cannot have
been as good as they pretend it is, when they were afraid
that it should become public and thereby give an oppor¬
tunity to discuss its merits at a time when the members of
the Dominion were in session.
A question of this kind, involving the expenditure of
money, should have had all the publicity possible, in order
to afford those who are opposed to the scheme, the advan¬
tage of expressing their views to the representatives of the
country who are appointed to legislate upon questions of
that nature.
The Montreal Harbor Commission chose to follow another
course ; that is their business, but we cannot do otherwise
than consider the proceeding as a strange one, especially
under the constitutional laws which govern our political
institutions.
Mr. Robertson, at the last quarterley meeting of the
Harbor Commission, made the following statement, which
does not exactly represent a true state of facts :—" During
last session of Parliament the Commissioners prevailed
upon the Government to introduce a bill to great them an
additional loan of $900,000 for the further deepening of the
channel to 27£ feet. This action was bitterly opposed by
several parties in other cities, notably by the president of
the Board of Trade of Quebec, who wrote a letter to Sir
Hector Langevin, Minister of Public Works, on the subject,
and also headed a deputation for the purpose of obstruct¬
ing the request of the Commissioners."
The Board of Trade of Quebec never opposed the Gov¬
ernment from lending the sum in question, but sent a
58
duputation to Ottawa to oppose the demands of the Harbor
Commissioners contained in a memorial which they had
addressed to the Minister of Public "Works. In this
memorial it was not a loan which was asked for but a
request that the Government should relieve them of the
sum of 11,780,000 already expended, and to further assume
the cost of an additional depth of 2§ feet—amounting,
according to their engineer's estimate, to a sum of nine
hundred thousand dollars.
This is a very different question from that of borrowing
a certain sum of money from the Government.
In the one case the Government was to be saddled with
a debt of three millions, besides the responsibility of
keeping up a channel at the public expense, whereas in
the other case the Government lends a sum of f 900,000 for
which the Harbor Commission has to pay the interest and
has to maintain the channel at its expense.
The Quebec Board of Trade can have no objection to
Montreal making an artificial channel between Quebec and
Montreal, so long as they shoulder the expense and do not
put it on to the public under the pretence that it is going
to benefit the whole country, whereas it is for their own
advancement and to the detriment of other ports.
Mr. Robertson, in his letter to the Minister of Public
Works, seems to say that I had confounded the expense of
the ship channel and harbor improvements ; in that he is
again mistaken, as I knew perfectly well the difference,
and I know exactly what are the pretensions of the Harbor
Commissioners of Montreal ; they not only want the
channel to be deepened between Quebec and Montreal at
public expense, but they go further than that, they are
59
already using their influence and have done so for some
time past to obtain a free port, as far as tonnage dues,
reduction of pilotage fees, &c., are concerned.
In plain words, they want the Government to assume
the cost of all the charges inherent to a port, and make the
public pay for it, always under the pretention that it is in
the interest of the Dominion, and that every other port
should be sacrified for that favored spot, the Montreal harbor.
Mr. Robertson also alludes in his letter to the fact that the
Government has advanced money for our harbour improve¬
ments, but he omits to state that we pay interest upon those
advances ; until within a year, the interest which the Quebec
Harbor Commission had to pay was 5 per cent, besides
being obliged to lay aside one per cent, as a sinking fund.
Latterly, I believe, one or two sums have been borrowed
at 4 per cent, the same rate as that upon sums advanced
by the Government to the Harbor Commission of Montreal
for the deepening of the channel, with this exception,
that the Montreal Harbor Commission has been entirely
relieved of the sinking fund of one per cent, besides a re¬
duction in the rate of interest of 5 to 4 per ceut, whereas
the Quebec Harbor Commission has to maintain the sinking
fund in all its obligations.
As regards the channel, what was its origin? The
merchants of Montreal urged repeatedly upon the Govern¬
ment the deepening of the channel through Lake St. Peter,
and said that they would cheerfully submit to a toll being
levied on all vessels of great draught passing through the
the lake. An act was passed in 1850 empowering the
Harbour Commission of Montreal to excavate a channel
through Lake St. Peter to a depth of 16 feet. In 1860 they
60
had spent $680,000, which they induced the Government to
assume notwithstanding their promise to pay for it them¬
selves. The expenditure by act continued and with it the
assumption of that debt, until we find, in 1867, a channel to
accommodate vessels of 20 feet ; the total then spent was
$1,164,235, which was assumed by the Government,
notwithstanding the promises on the part of the Harbour
Commissioners of Montreal to pay the interest on the sums
expended. From that date a new start is made, always
under the pretense that they will pay for the cost them¬
selves. They succeed in obtaining further advances from
the Government, so that to this date the lake and river
improvements have cost $1,780,000 more, and an additional
depth of feet is asked, which is to cost $900,000,
estimated cost.
Out of all this Quebec is asked to pay its share although
against its interest. They first obtain the money under
the promise that they mean to pay for it, but no sooner
have they gained their end than they at once use all their
influence with the Government to be relieved from their
obligations.
Mr. Robertson also points out that I am wrong in my
estimates as to the cost of the intended further improve¬
ments, and brings Mr. Kennedy's certificate to sustaim him
in his letter to you on the subject. Time will tell whether
I am right or wrong in my estimates; but the Government
engineer having finally agreed to confirm Mr. Kennedy's
estimate of the work, all we can do is to wait patiently for
the. completion of the channel and then see if the sum
expended agrees with the present figures as to the cost of
an additional depth of 2| feet to the present channel ; that
is the only proof wre can look to. Estimates of all kinds
61
are, as a rule, rather uncertain till they have been verified
by the amount of work done.
It would be useless now be attempt to show that the
cost will exceed the estimates, and to bring arguments to
bear upon the subject to prove it ; the time is past for that,
as an act has been passed empowering the Government to
advance the money, that the Harbour Commission have
resumed their operations on the channel, so that all the
public has to do is to follow closely the sums that will be
expended in this enterprise and see if the total amount will
be kept within reasonable bounds.
I do not intend at present to go into the merit of the
question as to whether the deepening of the channel is a
public work or not, as I have already treated the subject
in the letter which I had the honor of addressing to you,
as Minister of Public "Works, and as I propose treating it,
at a future time, in a different form. My object just now
is merely to refute certain assertions contained in Mr.
Robertson's last letter, which I do not consider stating
exactly certain facts represented by me.
Were the Government to consent to assume the cost of
the works, that is, the sum already spent, and that to be
expended, it would be saddling the public with the sum
of about 14,000,000, relieving the shipping interest of so
much toll on tonnage for all vessels frequenting the port
of Montreal at the expense of the whole Dominion, for we
must not forget that every inhabitant would have to pay
his share of this expenditure.
We must not forget that the Montreal Harbour Commis¬
sion is supposed according to law to levy a toll sufficient
to cover all this expenditure, and that the city of Montreal,
62
for whose benefit all this work is going on, is not called
upon to pay for it.
The Government in relieving the Montreal Harbour
Commission would have to abandon this toll upon ships
and charge it to the general public.
Mr. Robertson is really sublime in his closing paragraph
when he says that he extremely regrets that I should have
introduced so much sectionalism in my letter.
What a great amount of disinterestedness and patriotism
he displays, all for the public good ; he is so much carried
away by a sense of public interest, not for Montreal, but
for the whole Dominion, (whose interests are so dear to
him) that he is ready to sacrifice us, and he feels astonished
that we should dare to defend ourselves aud our rights.
He does not understand how we dare not see things in the
same light as he does, and why we should not calmly
submit to our interests being sacrificed for the benefit of
another city without at least protesting against the encroach¬
ments upon our rights. I do not wish to enter into such
a subject as sectionalism, as it does not immediately concern
the question under consideration, but I can safely state
that the Harbour Commission of Montreal has heretofore
shewn as much of that failing as any other in the
Dominion.
Mr. Robertson also goes into certain figures to show the
percentage of Western traffic done at Quebec as compared
to Montreal and the West. According to his figures, which
I have no time to verify, and which I do not wish to
contradict, this argument of his proves nothing in his
favor, for if to this date they have succeeded in obtaining
public money to make up an artificial channel which has
63
brought trade to their own doors, the least they should do
would be to pay their own share of the expenditure, which
has been evidently largely for their benefit, according to
their own shewing.
No one can have any objection that they should deepen
the channel which has already been of so much material
benefit to their trade ; however, they should not grasp at
too much, but should rest satisfied with the success already
attained without wishing to crush all rival interests, which
have as much right to public consideration as they have.
If the Government were to yield to the demands of
Montreal they would injustice, have to do the same thing
for other localities equally entitled to their protecting care.
Besides if the cause advocated by the Harbour Commis*
sion of Montreal had been so evidently in the interest of
the general trade of the Dominion as they pretend it is,
your Government would not have hesitated a moment to
go into the undertaking with a good will, as your only
desire, I am sure, is to advance by all means possible the
material interests of the whole Dominion. But your Gov¬
ernment knows too well the consequences that would
follow if it were to adopt the policy urged upon it so vigo¬
rously by the Montreal Harbour Commission ; it would be
the admission of a principle which, if carried out to its full
extent, would entail upon your Government the responsi¬
bility of a large expenditure which the country at large is
scarcely prepared to sanction and which you would find
it difficult to control.
The Erie Canal policy is often quoted as an example for
this country, but those who use the argument, do not tell
the public that the Erie Canal is under the control of the
64
Legislature of the State of New York, and not of that of the
whole confederated powers of the United States. They
do not also say that the abolition of the tolls on the Erie
Canal has been done by the State Legislature of New York
to keep up the trade of the port of New York,
which has been considerably diverted to other American
ports for the last few years, and that this policy was also
adopted to prevent this canal route from falling into disuse
as the traffic upon it had not increased for the last twenty years.
Those, therefore, who constantly point out what is being
done on the Erie Canal have not gone into the subject
thoroughly, as they would never use that argument to
further their cause, as it tells strongly against them. The
Council of the Board of Trade will, no doubt, at the proper
time, be able to show how fallacious are the pretentions of
the Harbour Commission. Their object at present is merely
to object to the assertions contained in the letter of the
President of the Montreal Harbour Commission, and to set
themselves right as regards the true meaning of their last
memorial.
The Council of the Quebec Board of Trade sincerely
hopes that your Gfovernment will give due consideration to
their views, which I have endeavoured to express as clearly
and as simply as possible.
I have the honor to be,
With all due consideration,
Yery respectfully yours,
[L.S.]
(Signed,) JOSEPH SHEHYN,
President Quebec Board of Trade.
To the Honorable
Sir Hector L. Langevin, C B.
Minister of Public Works, Ottawa.
This book is a preservation facsimile
produced for the Northwestern University Library.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival
60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper)
Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by
Acme Bookbinding
Charlestown, Massachusetts
2012