Petrović, Nikola: Hajózás és gazdálkodás a Közép-Duna-Medencében a merkantilizmus korában (Vajdasági Tudományos és Művészeti Akadémia, Novi Sad - Történelmi Intézet, Beograd, 1982)
Summary
last role they had contracted the works on the canal with the company, for a sum of 800 000 forints. For this purpose they had set up an engineering venture, which they had given the English title „enterprise" because they could not find an adequate German term, together with a few other partners. In this setup one may find an explanation of the fact that as the costs of construction rose they sought cheaper alternatives deviating from their original design and questionable from the engineering point of view. Analyzing the conflicts over on the building of water mills, I have tried to identify the author of the Pro memoria. I conclud that he has to be sought among the technical staff of the Chamber administration for Backa. CHAPTER X - SERIOUS CLASH BETWEEN THE DESIGNERS AND THE COMPANY Archive materials for 1796 and 1797 do not contain any records of progress of work on the Danube—Tisa canal. But a document from 1798 gives comprehensive information on the events after the export commission finished its work. This is the minutes of the annual meeting of the Privileged Shipping Company shareholders, held on 22 January, 1798 in Vienna. On behalf of the management, the meeting was opened by Count A.Aponyi, who informed the shareholds, in a dramatic tone, about „disastrous upsets" and „dangerous turns" which, in his opinion, had badly shaken the very foundations of the company. The conclusions of Heppe's commission were, allegedly more than unfavourable for the Kiss brothers. It had been found that the works were not proceeding „neither as planned or in an orderly fashion". In order to get a full view of the situation on the construction site, the company head office,' ponyi told the shareholders, had set up a new commission, with General Froon, J.Walcher, S.Heppe, Colonel Ma i I lard and Captain Swoboda as its members. This commission had inspected the site early in 1797. Referring to its findings, Aponyi depicted the Kiss brother's activity in the darkest colours. After the moderate criticisms of the preceding commission, six months earlier, these accusations can hardly be credited. Froon's commission supplemented the technical recommendations of Walcher's one. It was concluded that the designers and construction managers, J. and G. Kiss, had had too broad, almost unlimited authority. The meeting agreed to curtail their rights as much as practicable. The Kiss brothers were also accused of misleading the company into the expensive and risky venture of canalizing the Kupa, which had not been adequately studied from the engineering side and was an extremely dubious project. 501
