Petrović, Nikola: Hajózás és gazdálkodás a Közép-Duna-Medencében a merkantilizmus korában (Vajdasági Tudományos és Művészeti Akadémia, Novi Sad - Történelmi Intézet, Beograd, 1982)
Summary
Company; however, two prominent counselors, baron Schwitzen and Count Strassoldo, defended the old, conservative, mercantilistic views. A detailed account of the debating of this vital problem is given particularly because it was soundly argued from both sides by qualified men. Its significance went far beyond the problem of the canal alone. In fact it represented a clash of trands and schools of thought that existed in the economic life of the Habsburg empire at the time of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The building of such a large and expensive structure with private funds, employing the mechanisms characteristic of the capitalist society, would in one way or another clear the path for other similar projects, and reperesent a significant contribution to the development of a new, capitalist exonomy in the central Danube Basin and what is now Vojvodina, a northeastern autonomous province of Yugoslavia. It is noteworthy that during the debates at the highest level of government, examples were often and effectively cited from England, where private capital was being invested in building canals, bridges and roads. Without major difficulties, the principle prevailed that the construction of the canal was to be left to a private stock company, with a 25—year concession and slightly less privileges than sought, and was acepted by the emperor. But before the final decision was made, two expert commissions were sent to survey the area, one by the Buda Regent Council and Hungarian Chamber and another by the Supreme Military Council (Hoffkriegsrat), the highest military body of the Habsburg empire. A detailed account of this matter is given. The military commission was headed by the engineer Col. Froon.and the Buda commission by the director of the Civil Engineering Office, Stanislaw Heppe, a hydraulics engineer who had also studied the»construction of canals in England. These two engineers will appear later on several occasions. The two commissions agreed fully on the purposefullness and technical feasibility of the project. In addition, the military commission expressed the opinion that, from the military point of view, the canal would come very useful in case of war. On 2 August, 1792, the new emperor Francis II made the final decision that the construction of the canal was to be assigned to a private stock company. The designers would sign a contract with the Hungarian Chamber, after some remaining legal problems had been solved. Thus, they could start with the preparations for the 1793 building season, because the 1792 season had already been lost. Nevertheless, it may be concluded that the Austrian administration acted relatively efficiently. 488
