Petrović, Nikola: Hajózás és gazdálkodás a Közép-Duna-Medencében a merkantilizmus korában (Vajdasági Tudományos és Művészeti Akadémia, Novi Sad - Történelmi Intézet, Beograd, 1982)
Summary
would be commercially profitable, and the stock company a sound investment, only if it served primarily as a traffic artery. CHAPTER III - PRINCIPAL CONFLICTS IN THE FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANAL Submitted to the Court Chamber in Vienna in December 12, 1791, the memorandum was put on the agenda of te plenary session of the Chamber of 22 Dec., and thoroughly debated. Before this, the matter was studied by Wolfgang von Kempelen, court counselor, and renowned mathematican, physicist and inventor, who submitted a report on it. He was well-known in Europe for his chess robot, which had played chess with many crowned heads and other famous personages and had always won. Later, an English researcher proved that a brilliant chess player was hidden inside the robot. However, this trick made Kempelen a lot of money, because his robot only played for a fee. Kempelen gave a favourable appraisal of the project. He considered the canal technically feasible and exonomically more than justifiable, and thought that the privileges (concessions) sought by the designers were exorbitant. The supreme administrative body, the Vienna Court Chamber, passed the project without ado. It was then submitted to the Hungarian Chamber in Buda for an appraisal, and to the emperor Leopold II, who was to make the final decision, after the Buda Chamber and the Regent Council had expressed their attitude. Wanting to commence work on the canal in the spring of 1792, the designers immediately left Vienna for Buda. There they had to give some further explanations concerning the shipping rates for salt and the state loan they had sought. The Hungarian Chamber was not quite satisfied with their replies. It therefore decided to send an expert commission to investigate whether the future canal would or would not jeopardize „either people or landowners", whether it would not harm the interests of feudal lords and whether it would not violate the so-called „regal rights". The designers accepted the remarks and demands of the Hungarian Chamber and the Regent Council without comment, so that a reply was soon sent to Vienna which was in principle positive, and in April, 1792, the Vienna Court Chamber started to debate the Kiss brothers proposal. The great controversy which arose was not „for" or „against" the canal, but whether it should be built by the state or by a private stock company. The majority of the Chamber members were for Kempelen's recommendation to leave the construction of the canal to a private 487
