Historic Highways of America/Volume 14/Chapter 6
CHAPTER VI
THE CANAL FUND AND ENLARGEMENTS
NO more important question was proposed to the commissioners in 1816 than the one which asked them to ascertain where the money that was to build the Erie Canal was coming from. Of course a loan must be made and the commissioners at once began casting about for information. William Bayard inquired for loans in Europe, but no answer was now at hand. "The Committee entertain no doubt," was the tentative reply in 1817, "but that as much money can be obtained in this country, as may be required for the canal, on the credit of the state, at an interest of 6 per cent by the creation of a funded debt, and that ample funds may be appropriated for the payment of the interest, and the gradual extinguishment of the debt without the imposition of taxes." The commissioners applied to those states which, it seemed, would be most benefited by the canal, Vermont on one side and Ohio and Kentucky (!) on the other, and to the United States. "But if no extraneous aid should be afforded," the commissioners concluded with threatening menace, "it will at all times be in the power of this state to levy high transit on the articles transported to and from those states and the territory of the United States, and thereby secure eventually, a greater fund than can possibly arise from any present contribution from those quarters." In order to facilitate gifts in lands or money, the commissioners scattered blank forms of cession and bequest throughout the country; "one form relates to gratuitous grants of land for the ground through which the canal is to pass, and the other is a contribution to the fund for making it. Agents have also been appointed in Vermont and Ohio for the same purpose." It was reported that nearly all the land necessary for the canal throughout its entire length would be ceded by the owners to the state for the purpose. In concluding their report for the year ending February 15, 1817, the commissioners affirmed that "their investigations have shown the physical facility of this great internal communication, and a little attention to the resources of the state will demonstrate its financial practicability. And they may be permitted to remark, that unless it is established the greater part of the trade which does not descend the Mississippi, from all those vast and fertile regions west of the Seneca lake, will be lost to the United States." This report is signed by De Witt Clinton, S. Van Rensselaer, Samuel Young, and Myron Holley.
The needs of the canal were of course outlined in the estimates of expense of building; the estimated cost of the Western Section, according to James Geddes, was $1,801,862; that of the Middle Section, by Benjamin Wright's figures, was $853,186, and that of the Eastern Section, Charles C. Broadhead estimated at $2,271,690. The total amounted to $4,926,538 or five millions in round numbers. The committee of the legislature advised the organization of the Board of Commissioners of a Canal Fund, to borrow $1,500,000 at six per cent interest. The annual revenue of the canal was estimated at $924,000 and the expenditure $547,000.
William Ford, chairman of the joint committee of the legislature, addressed De Witt Clinton on March 8, 1817, asking him to outline a financial system for a canal fund. Clinton's scheme, which became the basis of all New York's canal building, is thus sketched by Mr. Sweet:[1]
"1. Borrow $1,500,000 on the credit of the State, by the creation of a funded debt, with interest at six per cent, principal reimbursable in twenty years.
"2. The said Committee shall keep an account of all moneys received for the said fund, (which moneys shall be kept in the treasury), and shall pay over, from time to time, such moneys as shall be required for the execution of the powers committed to them.
"3. The said Committee of the fund shall, as soon as the whole or a part of the said works be completed, have power to establish and receive reasonable tolls.
"4. The annual application of $60,000 of the moneys arising which the State may derive from the sale of unappropriated lands, shall be pledged for the payment of said debt and the interest thereof. And they shall have power to apply any unappropriated money in the treasury to make good any deficiency or suspension in the payment of said funds.
"5. The said Committee shall, at the opening of the next session of the Legislature, report a plan of finances for the execution of the whole of said canals, and also of a sinking fund for the extinguishment of the debt.
"In this same communication it was stated that 400,000 tons of freight were carried annually on the Hudson River.
"Thus De Witt Clinton laid the foundation of our canal financial system. He estimated that ten million tons annually would be carried upon the canals; that the cost of a ton for transportation from Buffalo to Albany would be $3.00."
The expenses of the engineering department to April 2, 1817, had been $14,462, and the total for exploration and surveying $42,957. The act to provide funds for the canal and also funds for the redemption of the funded debt of the state was passed April 21, 1818. This law authorized the comptroller to sell certain three per cent United States bonds, and to apply the proceeds to the redemption of the funded debt; the comptroller was ordered to borrow one million dollars at six per cent after advertising for proposals for the same. The governor was empowered to appoint a cashier of a New York bank to issue certificates of stock, the principal to be redeemable until 1823, taxed at one mill on the dollar; state deposits were to be made in any bank in New York that would loan one million dollars. The act of March, 1819, authorized the borrowing of $700,000 yearly for the building of the canal; on March 25 this was reduced to $600,000; an assessment of a tax upon all lands within twenty-five miles of the canal, formerly made, was at this time suspended. By a law of April 7, 1819, the commissioners were again authorized to borrow a sum not exceeding (together with the net income of the canal fund) $600,000. The board of commissioners of the canal fund was now reduced to three members (January 20, 1820) at a salary of $2,500 each. To meet the extraordinary expenses of 1819, as previously detailed, the commissioners were empowered, April 12, 1820, to borrow $122,500 at six per cent interest; three fourths of this was to be equally divided between the Eastern and Western sections; the remainder was for the Champlain Canal. The first tolls were levied on the Erie Canal July, 1820; in that year $5,244 was collected, $450 of it from the old canal of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company at Little Falls.
By a concurrent resolution in the legislature, the comptroller, A. McIntyre, was allowed to put into execution a plan for a sinking fund for the extinguishing of the canal debt, January 12, 1821. He took, as a basis of his calculation, a debt of $5,905,456 and a revenue of $210,000; the loan of $600,000, with revenues, was to be continued as heretofore. By this plan the debt was to be extinguished in 1842, at which time the revenue, it was estimated, would be about $580,000, and the canal tolls, $150,000 beyond expenditures for repairs.
"If these estimates of revenue and of the expense of making the canals, be correct, it results that the canals will be completed in 1830, and that the canal loans will be discharged in 1843." An act dated February 9, 1821, authorized the commissioners to borrow one million dollars in both 1821 and 1822. Nothing can be more interesting than the financial estimates, the fears and doubts and the staunch firmness of these directors of the Erie Canal. In almost every case the estimates of expenses fell far below the actual cost; often the expenses ran thirty per cent above estimates; on the other hand the most optimistic commissioner never, in his most enthusiastic moment, realized what a tremendous income was to be received from the Erie Canal when it should be completed. Far as expenses ran ahead of estimates, they never exceeded them so far as the actual income of the canal exceeded the estimated income. This cannot be more clearly indicated than by a table showing estimated tolls and those actually received, from 1826 to 1834:
Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Estimated (1826)Received | |
1826 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$500,000$492,664.00 | |
1827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
550,000786,244.64 | |
1828 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
600,000838,412.00 | |
1829 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
650,000861,302.00 | |
1830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
700,000943,545.35 | |
1831 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
750,0001,091,714.26 | |
1832 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
800,0001,085,612.28 | |
1833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
850,0001,290,136.20 | |
1834 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
900,0001,179,744.97 | |
| aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | ||
Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$6,300,000$8,539,377.70 | |
In only these eight years, it will be seen, the receipts exceeded the estimates by nearly two and one-quarter millions. In many places these estimates had been laughed to scorn. It will be difficult to find in all the commercial history of America a more splendid success, and it will be quite as difficult to find an instance where success was more richly deserved.
Between June, 1817, and October, 1821, the sum of $2,893,500 was borrowed for canal work, the lenders advancing $91,202 in premiums; the yearly interest was $159,580. The tolls of 1821 amounted to $23,000. It will be interesting to notice on what these tolls were levied; the list includes 44,723 barrels of flour, 17,068 barrels of salt, 43,078 bushels of wheat, 1,061,844 feet of lumber, 71,000 bushels of lime, 9,993 pounds of maple sugar, 85 tons of butter and lard, 772 tons of gypsum, 2,500 tons of merchandise, 47 wagons, and 10 coaches. The rates of toll per mile in 1821 were as follows:
| Article | Rate | |
Salt5 mills per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Gypsum5 mills per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Flour, meal, etc.1 cent per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Merchandise2 cents per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Timber (square and round)5 mills per 100 solid feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Boards (planks, and reduced to one inch)5 mills per 1000 solid feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Shingles1 mill per 1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Bricks, sand, lime, iron ore, and stone5 mills per ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Fence rails and posts2 cents per 1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Wood for fuel1 cent per cord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
All fuel for manufacture of saltfree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Boats for transportation of property1 mill per ton of capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Boats for carriage of persons5 cents per mile of their passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Staves and heading for pipes1 cent per 1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Staves and heading for hogsheads7 mills per 1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
Staves and heading for barrels5 mills per 1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
All articles not named1 cent per ton.[2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
The large amounts handled by the canal commissioners during the building of the canal will indicate the great responsibility that lay on their shoulders; between 1817 and 1822 the amount paid out by Myron Holley was $1,799,425.58; by H. Seymour, $833,335.70; by S. Young, $554,641.19.
By a law passed March 29, 1823, the commissioners were authorized to borrow $1,300,000 and also $120,000 to pay interest on the canal bonds. The tolls collected the year before amounted to $60,446.89; in this year they ran up to $125,991.76; $77,593.26 was collected between the Seneca and Utica, and $27,444.09 between Little Falls and Albany. On April 12, 1824, the commissioners were authorized to borrow one million dollars to complete the canals. In this year ten thousand boats passed the junction of the Erie and Champlain canals; 157,446 tons of freight were handled and $294,546.62 was received from tolls. The following table will show the exact number of miles that was completed in the years from 1820 to 1824 and the tolls received from the canal alone:
| Year |
Miles completed | Tolls | |
1820 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
94 | $5,437.34 | |
1821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
94 | 23,000.00 | |
1822 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
116 | 57,160.39 | |
1823 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
160 | 105,037.35 | |
1824 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
280 | 294,546.62 | |
The expense of building in these years was:
| Year | Expense | |
1817–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$2,004,523.53 | |
1822 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
1,184,468.73 | |
1823 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
1,941,962.37 | |
1824 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
1,785,447.84 | |
| aaaaaaaaaaaaaa | ||
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$6,916,402.47 | |
The debt incurred, including the amount required for completion and payment of all claims at the close of the year 1824, was $7,700,000.
This estimate proved approximately correct, the total cost being $19,255.49 per mile, a trifle over one-half of the cost per mile of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.
The success of the Erie Canal, shown by the tolls received from 1825 to 1834 ($8,539,377.70), was more than its promoters had expected; indeed it was so great that the enlargement of the canal was rendered imperative within a decade. This was first urged by the citizens of one of the jewel-cities made by the great waterway—Utica. The memorial now reported to the legislature by E. F. Johnson called for a steamboat canal from Utica to Oswego (Lake Ontario) which was to be extended to Albany; the proposed depth was eight feet, width fifty-eight feet on the bottom and ninety feet on the surface, the locks one hundred and thirty feet long by thirty feet wide. "On the Erie Canal," the memorial urged, "the cost of animal power is 12 per cent greater than steam power on the Hudson for flour, and 42 per cent greater for merchandize; agricultural products, including ashes, 21 per cent greater on the canal than on the Hudson river. The Erie canal is small, and the traction of boats that navigate it is from 30 to 45, and most usually 40 per cent greater than would occur on a canal of the most favorable size for the boat used. . . That a canal boat, 104 feet long, 16 feet wide, drawing 7 feet water, would carry 200 tons, and require a lock 115 feet long by 17 feet wide; the sectional area of boat below load water line 108 feet. The gross load of a schooner, with its own weight, would be 350 tons. Canal boats, constructed with reference to freight merely, will generally weigh in the ratio of their cargo as 4 to 9."[3] Engineer N. S. Roberts in a report dated January 17, 1835, said: "The present canal admits boats 13½ feet wide, 3 feet draught, 80 feet long, displaces 80 tons water, weight of boat 30 to 35 tons, cargo 45 tons. Size of canal, 28 [26?] feet bottom, 40 feet surface, 4 feet depth cross sec[tion] 136 [132?] sq. feet. Enlarged canal to reduce cost of transportation, 43¾ per cent must be 33 feet bottom, 48 feet top, and 5 feet deep, cross sec[tion]: 202.5; width and size of locks: 15 x 110 between gates, admitting a boat 102 feet long, 13½ feet wide, and 4 feet draught."[4]
After examination, the canal board determined to make the canal seventy feet wide on the surface, seven feet deep; the locks were to measure 110 feet between quoins and be eighteen feet deep. It was estimated that a canal of these proportions would save fifty per cent of transportation charges exclusive of tolls.[5] The enlargement construction law was passed May 11 , 1835; the act called for the construction of "double locks thereon as soon as they should deem it for the public interest; the dimensions of the canals and locks to be fixed by the Canal Board."[6]
The new canal, seventy feet wide by seven feet deep, was divided into four sections. The first was from Albany to the eastern end of the Rome summit; the estimated cost of this section for enlargement was $2,864,335.96. The second section ran from east end of Rome summit to Jordan; estimated cost, $1,194,804.74. The third lay between Jordan and Rochester; estimated cost $2,739,139.51. The portion from Rochester to Buffalo comprised the fourth section, its estimated cost being $4,518,575.85. The total estimated cost, after adding ten per cent for contingencies, was $12,448,856.06.[7] Twenty-one double and three single locks were planned between Albany and Schenectady; one double and three single at Little Falls; two double and one single at Syracuse; one single lock at Lyons; two single at Lockville; one double and one single at Macedon. On January 1, 1838, these were all under contract, at a contract price of $3,035,087.[8] One year later contracts to the amount of ten and one-half millions for the whole work of enlargement had been signed. The commissioners were authorized by an act passed April 18, 1839, to borrow four millions.[9] The work went on rapidly. By April 1, 1842, the Rochester aqueduct was completed, at a cost of half a million; the north tier of the locks at Lockport was in use in April of the next year. The total cost of the works here was $610,978. In 1845 twenty-nine out of forty-nine double set of locks between Albany and Syracuse were completed and ninety-eight miles of the new enlarged canal was open for use; the cost for this portion was $3,685,438. The total cost of enlargement contracted for prior to April 1, 1842, was $9,361,442. By 1850 the cost had run up to fifteen millions, which was distributed by years as follows:
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This enlargement was completed in 1862 and is legally known as the "enlargement of 1862." When completed the canal was 350½ miles long; it had seventy-two locks, measuring 110 x 18 feet, of which fifty-seven were double and fifteen single. The building of double locks did not cease until 1875.
Further enlargement of the Erie Canal has been almost constantly under discussion. In 1863 State Engineer Taylor suggested gunboat locks twenty-six feet wide and two hundred and twenty-five feet long, with a depth of seven feet. What was known as the "Seymour Plan" was brought forward by State Engineer Seymour in 1878, which called for a deepening of the canal to eight feet by lowering the bottom in some places and raising the banks in others. State Engineer Sweet proposed a ship canal across New York, eighteen feet in depth, in 1884. In 1892 the subject of enlarging the canal was considered by Congress,[11] but nothing was done until 1895 when the "Nine Million" act was passed by the New York legislature, granting about half the sum asked for by the state engineer for improvement.
The work was begun in 1897 and consisted of deepening the canal to nine feet in the waterway and eight feet over structures. The work went on through 1898 when the appropriation gave out and it was suspended.
But before the passage of this act an effort was being made to secure recognition at Albany in order that the subject of enlargement might be more thoroughly studied before the state should be committed to any policy; and even after the general assembly had voted for the expenditure of nine millions of dollars, yet the men behind the scenes were not dismayed, but with greater determination their work was carried on.
The story of initiative work, of the arousing of public sentiment, the obtaining of recognition of those in power at Albany, the years of work expended and of thousands of dollars obtained by voluntary subscription for the carrying on of the work can never be told in detail and could only be told by such men as Mr. George H. Raymond of Buffalo and his associates. But that their work was efficient time has already proved.
The first official recognition of the necessity for radical enlargement or total abandonment (this latter being a natural deduction from the former) was the passage of an act by the general assembly of the state[12] authorizing the governor to appoint a commission "to examine into the commerce of New York, the cause of its decline and the means for its revival."
Governor Black appointed Charles A. Schieren, Andrew H. Green, C. C. Shayne, Hugh Kelly, and Alexander R. Smith to constitute what was officially known as the New York Commerce Commission but was usually called the "Black Commission." This body of men submitted a preliminary report to the legislature of 1899[13] and continued its investigations under authority of an amendment[14] making, in 1900, a most exhaustive report thereon.
Long before the final report of the "Black Commission"[15] was submitted Theodore Roosevelt was governor and taking active steps to assist in the solution of the "canal question." A "Committee on Canals of the State of New York" was appointed. The following quotations from Governor Roosevelt's letter of appointment written to Francis V. Greene on March 8, 1899, are self-explanatory:
"I am very desirous of seeing the canal policy of the state definitely formulated. As you know, the nine million dollars designated to deepen the canal to the depth of nine feet has been practically expended, and it is reported that sixteen millions additional will be needed to carry this scheme through, while at the same time, certain experts have said that the scheme, when carried through, will not be satisfactory. . .
"I desire the opinion of a body of experts, . . I have decided to ask five of the citizens of New York, whose reputation in these respects stands highest, to act with the Superintendent of Public Works, Col. Partridge, and the State Engineer and Surveyor, Mr. Bond, to make the necessary investigations. . . The other four gentlemen will be Major T. W. Symons, Hon. John N. Scatcherd, Hon. George E. Green and Hon. Frank S. Witherbee. . .
"The broad question of the proper policy which the State should pursue in canal matters remains unsolved, and I ask you to help me reach the proper solution."
This committee submitted a report to the governor, under date of January 15, 1900, stating "That the canals connecting the Hudson River with Lake Erie, Ontario and Champlain should not be abandoned, but should be maintained and enlarged." The report contained many maps, documents and tables, and offered convincing arguments. The consideration of the two reports, viz., the Black Commission and the Roosevelt Committee, by the next general assembly resulted in the passage of "an act directing the State Engineer and Surveyor to cause surveys, plans and estimates to be made for improving the Erie canal, the Champlain canal, and the Oswego canal and making an appropriation therefor."[16]
The work thus authorized was carried out and a report, comprising a thousand pages of printed matter and thirty-four plates in atlas form, was submitted to the general assembly the following year.
One of the clearest statements of the conditions which led New York to face the great work of enlarging her canal is contained in a letter written to Governor Odell by William F. King, President of the Merchants' Association of New York, as follows:
"I wish to call your attention to what, to my mind, is one of the most important public improvements that can be made for the benefit of the people of this State, namely, the improvement of the Erie Canal. It must not be forgotten that formerly the minerals, the products of the farm, the production of cotton, lumber, coal; in fact, all raw materials, were brought Eastward to be turned into manufactured goods, and shipped West. Today what are the conditions? The goods are manufactured ready for market right in the States where the raw material is found. The consequence is that these self-same States have grown so rapidly and so much in wealth that it behooves our people to realize the importance of the Erie Canal to the manufacturing industries, and the farming element of the State.
"The widening and deepening of the Erie Canal means continued prosperity to the manufacturing industries of this State. It means that the raw material will come to our different towns, villages, and cities at an extremely low cost, and that we will then be able to compete with the manufacturing industries of the great Middle West. Unless this is done, there is but one alternative, that this great State lose its commercial supremacy, which would also mean a great loss in population. People must be employed. If they cannot secure work they will go to that market where their services can be utilized at good wages.
"The farmers of this State must remember that conditions have changed in regard to the products of the farm. Eastern farmers cannot, because of natural conditions, produce grain and meat products as well as Western farmers can. Therefore, Eastern farmers cannot profitably compete in these products. They think that cheap grain and provision freights from the West to the seaboard give Western farm products a still greater advantage, and therefore are opposed to them. That may be true; but will choking the Erie Canal, so that the New York Central Railroad Company can maintain high local freight rates on manufactured products and high-class traffic, keep Western farm products from reaching the seaboard as cheaply as now? We can prevent Western grain and provisions from passing across the State of New York, and the present railroad policy is rapidly doing it; but the only effect will be to send the traffic through Canada and by rail routes to Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newport News, Charleston, and especially New Orleans and Galveston. That will greatly harm this city, but what good will it do to the New York State farmer?
"The true market for a large part of this State's farm products must be local and the demand must come from the creation, development, and prosperity of local industries throughout the State, and these, in turn, depend upon cheap freight rates such as the Erie Canal will insure. Those cheap rates will enable the important cities of central New York to obtain iron ore, and coal as cheaply as the lake ports and the Pennsylvania towns now obtain those raw materials, and will give the manufacturers of those cities a considerable advantage in freight charges upon products intended for export. Factories in the midst of farms, with cheap freight outlets, is the ideal condition for industrial prosperity. This condition will reach its highest point by development of the Erie Canal.
"It is the duty of the people of the State to avail themselves of that which nature has provided, the greatest waterway in this country, if not in the world, the Great Lakes. The connection of the Erie Canal with the Hudson River also means a connection with the East River and turns Long Island Sound into an outlet of the Erie Canal, by which freight from the great West can be transported to the Eastern States. With the Erie Canal improved, New York would become the greatest harbor in the world. It would bring about a continuance of the enjoyment by this city of the import trade of the nation. It would also make New York the outlet for the export trade of the United States with other countries, making New York city not only the greatest financial center, but also the greatest commercial city. We have about 110 miles of water front available for shipping. This water front should be made available for additional shipping, so that the export trade could be increased, making New York city the center for export trade the same as Liverpool is in England. This can only be done by the improvement of the Erie Canal.
"It is for you, if you are reëlected Governor of the State, to advocate a referendum to allow the people to vote for the building of a 1,000-ton barge canal. The party ignoring this issue is, to my belief, doomed to defeat. The people throughout the State are aroused to the importance of the question. They are determined to be allowed to vote on this question."
The referendum was discussed, the necessary laws passed, the project submitted to the people and by a majority of nearly a quarter of a million the state voted to expend $101,000,000 for the rebuilding of its canals with a prism 12 feet deep, 75 feet wide on the bottom, and 123 feet at the surface of water, capable of floating economically a barge of 10 feet draft of 1,000 tons capacity; with locks 328 feet _-_V.png)
Map of the Erie Canal, Showing Improvements Proposed; from Report of February 12, 1901
long and 28 feet broad, capable of passing two boats, 150 feet long, 25 feet wide and 10 feet draft.
Thus, in brief, was inaugurated the largest work of its kind in our history, an artificial waterway to connect an inland lake and river, the entire expense to be borne by a single state.
For the very boldness of its conception and the magnitude of its realization it demands our respect. As the old Erie Canal heralded a new epoch in the commercial history of America, is it not possible that the new Grand Canal will be the beginning of another new epoch in this new century? A study of the map of the new canal appended will show, for one thing, that New York is going back to the old idea of canalizing rivers. Instead of building a canal beside the Mohawk, for instance, her engineers will canalize that river. This is in direct opposition to the advice sent by Benjamin Franklin from England to the Pennsylvania promoters of inland navigation at the close of the Revolutionary War;[17] it is an indication of the great advances in engineering science since the days of Smeaton, and is made possible by the substitution of the screw propeller for the mule and tow-path. It is by this means that the Ohio River is to be made a great artery of commerce.[18] With steamers fitted out with low pressure engines it is estimated that freight can be transported profitably on the Ohio at an astonishingly low rate with which no land method of transportation can ever dare hope to compete. The new project of New York, therefore, brings back all the old-time dreams of early American promoters—of Washington's for the Potomac, of Morris's for the Mohawk, and of Robert Morris's for the Susquehanna. If modern engineering can make the canalization of one river a success, it can of hundreds of rivers. No sooner was the Erie Canal a success in 1825 than Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and other states began canal building. No sooner had New York voted in favor of her thousand-ton barge canal than Ohio again followed by passing an act looking toward the improvement of her canal from the Ohio to Lake Erie. Does New York again lead the way to a new field of national development by means of canalization of rivers at the beginning of the twentieth century, as she did by means of canal-building at the beginning of the nineteenth?
- ↑ Documentary Sketch of New York State Canals by S. H. Sweet (Albany, 1863), p. 104.
- ↑ Laws of the State of New-York relative to the Canals (Albany, 1825), vol. ii, pp. 13–14.
- ↑ Sweet's Documentary History, pp. 198–199.
- ↑ Id., p. 201.
- ↑ Id., p. 207–208.
- ↑ Id., p. 204.
- ↑ Id., p. 205.
- ↑ Id., p. 210.
- ↑ Id., p. 213.
- ↑ Id., p. 326.
- ↑ House Reports, No. 423, 54th Cong., 1st sess., 1896, also, No. 1023, 55th Cong., 1st sess.
- ↑ Laws of 1898, ch. 44.
- ↑ Senate Documents, no. 23.
- ↑ Laws of 1899, ch. 494.
- ↑ Report of the New York Commerce Commission, Albany, 1900.
- ↑ Laws of 1900, ch. 411.
- ↑ Historic Highways of America, vol. xiii, p. 25.
- ↑ Historic Highways of America, vol. ix, pp. 213–215.