The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

g MARINE Against River and Harbor Appropriations. On several occasions in the past the right of the government to appropriate funds for river and harbor improvements has been ques- tioned. This subject was referred to in the Review not long ago when extracts were printed from an article by Mr. George Tunell in the Journal of Political Economy. This journal is published by the University of Chicago, and Mr. Tunell's contributions on 'subjects pertaining to lake transportation have attracted considerable attention. In the article referred to, he directed attention to the claim that, if in computing the cost of transportation by water as compared with that of transportation by rail, there is included in the case of the railways the cost of construction, equipment, ete., allowance must be made on the other hand for the cost of constructing water channels and harbors, building and maintaining docks, light-houses, locks, etc., most of which is born by the government. 'This article has been taken as the basis of an editorial in the Railway Review of Chicago, in which the broader claim, that of the government aiding one branch of commerce to the detriment of another, is discussed. Vessel owners are of course willing, at all times, to listen to any argument that may be produced on this score, and they will therefore be interested in the editorial from the railway publication, which follows: 2 'Nothing is more common than for writers upon the relative merits of water and rail trauspertation to enlarge upou the power of the first named to regulate rates. It is generally claimed that water transportation acts as a kind of balance wheel, and were it not for its influence the railroads would demand exorbitant rates for their service. The idea that the reverse of this commonly accepted opinion is true, and that railroads have been the means of lowering the cost of water transportation, would be received with a considerable degree of incredulity, but it may be doubted if such is not actually the fact. Mr. Tunell 'is the only writer to our knowledge, outside the columns of this paper, to point out the unfairness of the comparisons usually madé in dealing with the water and rail transportation. He distinctly indicates that in order to arrive at any fair basis, all the elements entering into the cost of both methods must be given consideration. If, in computing the cost of rail transportation, reference must be had to construction, equipment, maintenance and operating, as well as movement expenses, so in estimaitng the cost of water transportation the expenditure required for the construction and maintenance of docks, channels. harbors, light-houses, locks, buoys, etc., must be taken into account. The fact that these last-named items do not constitute a direct charge upon property in course of transportation is of no moment. The people who pay the freight upon such commodi- ties also furnish the money required for these outlays. If the various sums devoted to navigation could be gathered together, and apportioned to the traffic benefited thereby, a material difference in the apparent cost of this class of traffic would be shown. Reflections upon such considerations as these seem to raise the question as to why the govern- ment is not in duty bound to exercise the same degree of care and furnish the same amount of assistance in the conduct of land trans- portation as in water transportation. It is of course conceded that in such a case the control of both kinds of transportation is a perquisite; that the government must own the rail channel as well as the water channel. But such ownership does not necessarily include operation. The government already owns the water channels, but it does not at- tempt to operate them. In fact the control exercised by it is much less- in the aggregate than it exerts over rail transportation even under present conditions. It is true that operating conditions do not permit of the free public use of railways in the same sense as does - a water channel, but in a larger sense it 1s more true of the rail route than of the water; for while an individual may not be able to run his - own vehicle at will upon a railway, he can compel the carriage of his property by the railroad. A water carrier can refuse to perform this service, but the rail carrier can not; and, given the ownership and maintenance of a railroad by government, the detail of transporta- tion, or the use of the railway, by private individuals or corporations would be a matter of easy adjustment. "The Railway Review is not an advocate of the ownership and operation of railroads by the government, nor is it yet prepared to ad- vocate a division of the question making the ownership a function of government coupled with private operation. It is, however, opposed to the proposition that the government shall aid one branch of com- merce to the detriment of another. It can see no justice in the theory that large amounts of public money shall be spent for the improve- REVIEW. ment and maintenance of water routes for the avowed purpose of depleting the revenues of the rail routes, and thereby destroying the property of those who have honestly invested their money therein, The people of the United States are entitled to the best transportation service that can be furnished at the least possible aggregate cost, byt they have no right to appropriate public money, which is the contriby. tion of all classes, to the upbuilding of one class and the destruction of another. Millions of dollars of such money is being spent annually upon our great lakes, which, in effect, requires a corresponding expenditure without a return by the railroads, in order that the two routes may be maintained upon a competitive basis. The problem thus presented js difficult of solution, but it is believed that the genius of the American people is equal to the task. That the education of, years can be easily overcome is not expected, any more than that the users of water routes will immediately concede the point where raised, Fairness however, is one of the chief characteristics of this people, and it is believed that, if it shall be found that the point is well taken, the answer will be discovered and accepted."' Association of Masters and Pilots. Delegates from lake cities to the annual convention of the American Association of Masters and Pilots of Steam Vessels, held recently in Washington, were interested mainly in the beneficial work of the or- ganization. The association is, of course, always at work on matters in congress and in the several departments of the government pertain- ing to the interests of masters and pilots on the coasts and rivers, but little was done regarding legislation pertaining to the lakes, on account of the Lake Carriers' Association and the Ship Masters' Association dealing specially with these waters. The new national officers are as follows: Grand captain, Wm. §. Van Keuren of Kingston, N. Y.; grand first pilot, Wm. 8S. Durkee of Brookline, Mass.; grand second pilot, Wm. D. McManus, St. Louis, Mo.; grand purser, Luther B. Dow, Brooklyn, N. Y.; grand cap- tain's clerk, Benjamin F. Perkins, Camden, N. J. The captain's clerks, or secretaries, at the several points on the lakes where harbors of the organization are now established are as follows: | Chicago, Geo. Tebo; Buffalo, Joseph P. Fontaine; Cleveland, Lee T. Brogan; Toledo, Geo. E. Hardy; Duluth, 8. A. Larnoreaux; West Bay City, Wm. H. Thorp; Port Huron, J. W. Montgomery; Detroit, A. KE. V. Lachlan. Delegates form)Portland, Me., and Portland, Ore., were in attend. ance at the convention. Among delegates from lake ports were Cap- tains Tebo and Jenks of Chicgao, Ferguson of Buffalo, Benham of Cleveland and Reynolds of Port Huron. Marking Vessels' Names. Some minor amendments have again been made in the law re- lating to the marking of vessels' names. The new act, as approved by the president a few days ago, is now in full as follows: '*Be it enacted, etc., that the act entitled 'an act to amend section 4,178, revised statutes in relation to the marking of vessels' names at bow and stern and also to provide for marking the draft,' approved Feb. 21, 1891, is hereby amended as follows: That section 4,178 of the revised statutes be, and the same is hereby, amended to read en- tire as follows: "Sec. 4,178. The name of every documented vessel of the United _ States shall be marked upon each bow and upon the stern, and the home port shall also be marked upon the stern. These names shall be painted or gilded, or consist of cut or carved or cast roman letters in light color on a dark ground, secured in place, and to be dis- tinetly visible. The smallest letters used shall not be less in size than 4inches. If any such vessel shall be found without these names being so marked the owner or owners shall be liable to a penalty of $10 for each name omitted; provided, however, that the names on each bow may be marked within the year 1897. 'Sec. 2. That the draft of every registered vessel shall be marked upon the stem and stern post, in English feet or decimeters, in either Arabic or roman numerals. The bottom of each numeral shall indt- cate the draft to that line." Now that the Lake Ontario grain movement will be increasing, _ masters will want Lake Ontario general chart No. 61 and coast chart No. 1, as well as St. Lawrence river charts Nos. 4, 5 and 6, The five will be sent by the Review to any address by express for $2.