There is a map in the possession of T. P. Thompson of New Orleans, who
has a notable collection of books and documents on the early history of
this city, dated March 1, 1827, and drawn by Captain W. T. Poussin,
topographical engineer, showing the route of a proposed canal to
connect the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, curiously near
the site finally chosen for that great enterprise nearly a hundred
years later.
New Orleans then was a mere huddle of buildings around Jackson Square;
but with the purchase of the Louisiana territory from France, and the
great influx of American enterprise that characterized the first
quarter of the last century, development was working like yeast, and it
was foreseen that New Orleans' future depended largely upon connecting
the two waterways mentioned--the river, that drains the commerce of the
Mississippi Valley, at our front door, and the lake, with its short-cut
to the sea and the commerce of the world, at the back.
When the Carondelet canal, now known as the Old Basin Canal, was begun
in 1794, the plan was to extend it to the river. It was also planned to
connect the New Basin Canal, begun in 1833, with the Mississippi. This
was, in fact, one of the big questions of the period. That the work was
not put through was due more to the lack of machinery than of
enterprise.
During the rest of the century, the proposal bobbed up at frequent
intervals, and the small Lake Borgne canal was finally shoved through
from the Mississippi to Lake Borgne, which is a bay of Lake
Pontchartrain.
The difference between these early proposals and the plan for the
Industrial Canal and Inner Harbor that was finally adopted, is that the
purpose in the former case was simply to develop a waterway for
handling freight, whereas the object of New Orleans' great facility,
now nearing completion, is to create industrial development.
Under the law of Louisiana, inherited from the Spanish and French
regimes, river frontage can not be sold or leased to private
enterprise. This law prevents port facilities being sewed up by selfish
interests and insures a fair deal for all shipping lines, new ones as
well as old, with a consequent development of foreign trade; and port
officials, at harbors that are under private monopoly, would give a
pretty if the Louisiana system could be established there.
But there is no law, however good, that meets all conditions, and a
number of private enterprises--warehouses and factories--have
undoubtedly been kept out of New Orleans because they could not secure
water frontage.
An artificial waterway, capable of indefinite expansion, on whose banks
private enterprise could buy or lease, for a long period of time, the
land for erecting its buildings and plants, without putting in jeopardy
the commercial development of the port; a waterway that would
co-ordinate river, rail and maritime facilities most economically, and
lend itself to the development of a "free port" when the United States
finally adopts that requisite to a world commerce--that was the
recognized need of New Orleans when the proposal for connecting the two
waterways came to the fore in the opening years of the present century.
The Progressive Union, later the Association of Commerce, took a
leading part in the propaganda; it was assisted by other public bodies,
and forward-looking men, who gradually wore away the opposition with
which is received every attempt to do something that grandfather didn't
do.
And on July 9, 1914, the legislature of Louisiana passed Act No. 244,
authorizing the Commission Council of New Orleans to determine the
site, and the Board of Port Commissioners of Louisiana, or Dock Board,
as it is more commonly called, to build the Industrial Canal.
The act gave the board a right to expropriate all property necessary
for the purpose, to build the "necessary locks, slips, laterals, basins
and appurtenances * * * in aid of commerce," and to issue an unlimited
amount in bonds "against the real estate and canal and locks and other
improvements * * * to be paid out of the net receipts of said canal and
appurtenances thereof, after the payment of operating expenses * * *
(and) to fix charges for tolls in said canal."
This was submitted to a vote of the people at the regular election in
November of that year, and became part of the constitution.
To avoid the complication of a second mortgage on the property, the
Dock Board subsequently (ordinance of June 29, 1918) set a limit on the
total bond issue. To enable the development that was then seen to be
dimly possible, it set this limit high--at $25,000,000.