Petrović, Nikola: Hajózás és gazdálkodás a Közép-Duna-Medencében a merkantilizmus korában (Vajdasági Tudományos és Művészeti Akadémia, Novi Sad - Történelmi Intézet, Beograd, 1982)
Summary
Hungarian Chamber, dated 24 April, 1796, headed Pro memoria and stating that the canal was not being built according to the project. The Chamber at once decided to propose to the emperor that a special expert commission be formed, including Ing. Stanislaw Heppe and Brigadier General Ing. Froon. The author of this Pro memoria claimed that the canal bed, from its beginning at Monostor, was at a higher elevation than planned, and that the Sivac swamp, instead of being drained as originally intended, would only be converted into a storage basin for feeding the canal with water. Furthermore, instead of three locks, a fourth had been constructed at Stapari, and the canal was narrower than planned, so that only one Kelheimer type barge could pass through it, instead of two at the same time. The bank slopes were also much steeper than planned and were inadequately fortified. The entrance works at Backo Gradiste were also not built according to the design. From this latter it may be concluded that after less than three years, i.e. by the beginning of 1796, most of the works on the canal had been completed, but also that there had been substantial deviations from the original design. A commission was set up, headed by Joseph Walcher. It also included Stanislaw Heppe, a company representative and a representative of the local authorities. It collaborated closely with the designers in the field who explained very thoroughly, in writing, why and what modifications had actually been made. Particularly interesting is their statement that the modifications, especially that concerning the creation of a storage basin to provide enough water for the canal, were made only after Wolfgang von Kempelen had tested their new alternative on a hydraulic model! However, the commission rejected this alternative and accepted a compromise solution, to allow less water into the Sivac swamp, so as not to flood the surrounding areas. A compromise solution was also found for the bottom of the entrance lock at Monostor, and for a number of other technical features. The commission behaved very fairly in its contacts with the designers and made several concessions to them. Its findings were summarized in a report of ten items, paying particular attention to the erection of large, modern public water mills, to compete with the existing water mills and to replace the obsolete horse—driven treadmills. The commission recommended that the building of water mills incorporated in the locks be allowed at Stapari, Vrbas and Gradiste. In all, the designers and builders of the canal might well have been satisfied with the commission's findings. Nevertheless, their position still remained very delicate and contradictory, because they were performing three opposing functions. First, they were the designers, then the technical managers and engineers for the company, and finally the contractors for the works. In this 500
