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

20 DEVOTED TO EVERYTHING AND EVERY INTEREST "CONNECTED - OR = ASSO- CIATED WITH MARINE MATTERS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Published every Thursday by The Penton Publishing Co. CLEVELAND. BUPPALO <0. ....-..6.-.5.: 932. Ellicott' Sq. CHICAGO: foSicce ess 1362 Monadnock Blk. CINCINNATSE- «2.65. 124 Government Place. NEW YORK ......... 1005 West Street Bldg. PIPES BURG asics ees oes 521 Park Bldg. DULUTH.....:.. oe 411 Providence Bldg. Correspondence on Marine Engineering, Ship ~ Building. and Shipping Subjects Solicited. Subscription, U. S. and Mexico, $3.00 per annum. Canada, $4.00. Foreign, $4.50. Subscribers can have adé¢resses ahanged at will. = Change of advertising copy must reach this office on Thursday preceding date of publication. The Cleveland News Co. will supply the trade with the Martine Review through the regular channels of the News Co. American The International News Breams Building, Chancery London, E. C, England, European Agents, Company, Lane, Entered at the Post Office at Cleveland, Ohio, ; as Second Class Matter. June 27, 1907. IMPROVING DULUTH HARBOR. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thurs- - day of last week the second board of United States | Engineers appointed within a year to consider the matter of improving the harbor at Duluth, met at that city, examined the harbor, lis- tened to the opinions of the local in- terests represented at a public meet- ing and discussed the problems with the local United States engineers. No information concerning the opinion ar- rived at by the board was given out. The public meeting however brought out a number doubtless final decision. of points which will influence the board. in its Dock owners, marine men and citizens of Duluth seem to be practically unanimous in their favoring of the breakwater plan and but one man who has in the past represented the interests desiring the central canal THE Marine REVIEW made any substantial arguments for that scheme. It is to be regretted that both propositions were not presented on the same basis. As recorded in editorial comment in the Marine Review of Aug. 9 and Dec. 13 a board of engineers was appointed last year for this same purpose, who having duly visited Duluth and studied the situation as thoroughly as possible, recommended certain improvements for the Superior entry, which are now be- ing carried on. The significant fact re- -mains that the board made no further provisions for the altering of the Du- luth entrance but stated on the other the Duluth canal not already built a recommenda- hand that were present tion would have been submitted to con- struct a canal through Minnesota Point, farther to the south, or as more commonly spoken of, a central canal. While 'no official explanation of the report has been vouchsafed the infer- ences. to be drawn from it are fairly First, the locating. of the Du- luth canal, as it now is rather than op- clear. posite the entrance to the river, was in the opinion of that board a mistake and that so far as the two canals are concerned, considering all the argu- ments as to inner harbor conditions, dangers and advantages to vessels en- tering port and the topographical sit- ation, a central canal 1s the proper entry. This belief would, of necessity, carry with it whatever protection the central canal would require and had the present canal not entered into the question there seems to be no other interpretation of the former board's report than, that a central canal was desirable regardless of the cost. As a preface to the second inference it may be pointed out that no board - would have any reason for neglecting to recommend such improvements as it saw were necessary even if it could anticipate that another board would be appointed to consider the same matter the It remains before any occasion demanding improvement would arise. a fact however, that the board last year saw fit to leave the Duluth canal just as it was, despite the strong argu- ments that were made then for the The - breakwater. second inference seems to be therefore that at the first investigation, whether or not the break- water was considered a menace to navigation it was at least not consid- ered a solution of the problem. In other words the conditions at the Du- luth entrance as they are now would not be sufficiently improved by the building of a breakwater to justify the undertaking. No other conclusion is patent since the board had full power to recommend. As opposed to what appears to have been the opinion of this board, the opinion of the many experienced engi- neers, marine men and business men Duluth, which opinion is practically unanimous having marine. interests at in its.support of the plan to build a breakwater out from the north shore far enough to run past the canal en- trance and far enough from it to pro- vide a large anchorage of sheltered water for the entering fleets in time of.storm, carries much weight... The wish of Duluth and Superior may be said to be the building of such a break- water. All interests are united how- ever in an urgent plea based on busi- ness conditions and prospects at Du- luth that whatever be found to be the adequate solution in the minds of those best qualified that should be recommended and to judge, plan carried out to completion. From the stand-. point of expense it was argued that shipping to be benefited would justify the necessary cost. Du- luth scarcely object to the the great can, therefore, with the of expense and in any case the expense central -canal any great consistency on grounds is entirely the government's considera- tion. If the government were disposed to debate between the two plans on the question of cost and favor the less ex- pensive regardless of final effectiveness there might be some wisdom in asking for what is most likely to be obtained but the utter lack of evidence of any disposition on the part of the govern- ment to do anything but what will af- ford a final solution of the difficulties at the head of the lakes, obviates this viewpoint and places the entire discus- sion on the basis of the relative merits of both projects,