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

customary for captains to try and lo- cate the north shore and. by means of echoes follow it to Duluth which course would, it is claimed, make the present channel, right in the corner of the lake, easier to find than one-half way between Duluth and Superior. That captains do so locate themselves is also urged be- cause of the small dependency which can be placed on a compass in these waters owing to the magnetic variation. The dock interests on the Superior side of the river support the breakwater proposition also. as against the central canal on the very evident grounds that if there is any wash through the canal and even in Superior damage has re- sulted, that the farther away the canal . the better, and to do the best that can be done with the present canal which is as far away as possible, is better than taking any chances with one close by. This is the situation as it was presented to the board, so consistently and with so little rebuttal from the many dock and elevator owners and captains who gave opinions that common report credits marine Duluth as strongly opposed to a central canal and decidedly in favor of a breakwater. At the Duluth meeting vessel owners in general were present and remarks were made by Harry Coulby, president and general manager of the Pittsburg Steamship Co., and Harvey D. Goulder, counsel of the Lake Carriers' Associa- tion, Mr. Coulby. stated that he speaking rather for his captains than for his company. He thought the men on ship should have protection. His talk was based upon what they had told him of the difficulties of maneuvering at that port. He argued that the big boats must have room to move about in, and that a middle canal through Minnesota Point was needed. He favored a canal from '750 to 800 ft. wide and was opposed to the proposed breakwater, He added that the feelings of owners of dock property should not be consulted 'and that if was damage resulted to shore property the government should reimburse the losers, 'He also emphasized the time that would be saved in 'making port. Mr. Goulder argued along the same lines and stated that fully 80 per cent of the vessel own- ers were in favor of the canal. That the proposed canal will save an hour's time in running for the entrance \ ee THE MarRINE. REVIEW and in winding around to reach the river is apparent which. means, figuring that 3,000 boats come to port for these com- panies during a season, a saving during the season of the earnings of one of the largest freighters for the season, It may also be pointed out that with a ca- nal of: the width proposed and in the central location, no harbor on the lakes will have a safer entry. Furthermore it seems as though 'the "dock 'interests at the Duluth end. of the bay in opposing the central canal were arguing against a proposition that will remove from them entirely the evil of which they are com- plaining, and that the steamship compan- ies in proposing the new entry are rem- edying all the evils mentioned with the possible 'exception of those affecting the -Superior docks. From the standpoint of advantage to marine interests generally, the central canal appears to be the wiser project, es- pecially in view of the comparative ex- pense, for a breakwater such as pro- posed would almost be prohibitive in cost and because there is apparent a de- gree of-uncertainty in the efficacy of the breakwater .and a certain lack of logic in its construction under any circumstances. As regards the breakwater not accom- plishing what it is intended for, it is admitted that the present current will be in no way affected but will continue to exist and it has been the current alone, ----the which has made the entry difficult, for the: captains who are generally credited cause of the Mataafa wreck,-- as being the most experienced on the lakes say that otherwise the canal is not nearly so dangerous to enter even in-a storm as many others, especially on Lake Erie. To have to maneuver around the . end of a breakwater, placed as that will be, despite the 4,000 feet leeway, in the swirl and breaking of waves that is bound to exist there, will be but another peril added to those already existing. There is always a dangerous point in passing from the open sea into a harbor and that is not obviated by a breakwater. As for the boats hugging the north shore in time of storm, there seems to be little foundation for the statement. This may be true of the smaller craft which seldom venture out in stormy weather in any case, but surely the big fellows are anxious to stay out in the open sea as much as possible. 21 In conclusion it does. appear lacking in logic to build a costly artificial break- water outside of the much boasted natu- ral breakwater, Minnesota Point. It has been said that Duluth is the only port on the lakes which has no breakwater, but what better protected basin could oe ask for than St. Louis and Allouez Let them be dredged out if deep water inside is not sufficient at present bays. for where would the building of break- waters cease if each one in turn is to be protected? And again, what assurance ~ is there that the proposed new docks in- side of the, projected breakwater will not suffer' the same disturbances that are now injuring the existing properties? Ordinarily the logical place for a harbor entrance is at the middle of the break- water, centrally located with respect to shipping, and so the entrance to the combined port of Duluth-Superior should have been midway between Du- luth through Minnesota Point. and Superior, a central canal The history of how reason was overlooked and the 'present Duluth canal cut through in a spirit of rivalry, more jealous than far- seeing, despite extended litigation in- stituted by Superior interests, is too well - known to need repeating. That the bay, acts as a tremendous siphon, with its opening at each end, allowing the wind to blow the water in at one entrance and pull it out of the other simultaneously, is only a small part of the result of that mistake, and it is to be hoped that the present board of engineers will consider well before recommending. RECKLESS NAVIGATION. The Ashtabula correspondent of the MARINE REVIEW sent in an article this week which is quite important, because it is at variance with a recent direct utterance of one of the prominent line managers. For that reason it is pub-. lished as follows: : ce "Masters of the big ore carriers put- ting in at Ashtabula, in discussing the question whether line captains check their boats at any time, declare they do not do so on any occasion. Some of the complaining skippers can even specify the particular line boats which never check, not even for a fog. The captains, who are giving expression to what might be called silent objections, are withholding their names. now, but