 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
![[image of flower]](../../ima/flowXS_04.gif)
First Enlargement, 1856 - 1862 |
|
The Governor’s annual message for 1856, reviewing the events of 1855, said that the gross canal receipts for the past fiscal year were $2,639,792.12; expenses of collection, superintendence and repairs were $989,792.12, leaving $1,650,000, – sufficient to meet constitutional requirements for canal debt sinking fund ($1,300,000) and general fund debt sinking fund ($350,000), but not sufficient for constitutional requirements for interest on loans for enlargement or for appropriations towards a sinking fund for the principal of such debts. Provision for these latter had been made by direct tax. The Governor attributed the embarrassment in finances not to the inability of the canal to pay for their improvements, but to the short time allowed by the constitutional limit of eighteen years, in which to do so. He advised an amendment extending the period, enabling the payment of the State debt from canal revenues and avoiding or reducing direct taxation. The six percent loan of $2,250,000 for enlargement, issued during 1855, brought a premium of $365,880.05. In June, 1855, a revenue-certificate redemption-loan, to cover the issue in 1851 of $1,500,000, brought a further premium of $259,405. The facility with which these and other loans were made, said the Governor, some at only five percent, and the large premiums received, showed not only that the credit of the State was unimpaired but that the prospect of the early completion of the canals had greatly strengthened it." Whitford The perennial claims of the Rochester mill owners were again brought to notice by the report of the canal appraisers to the canal board. The claims extended from 1832 to 1853, inclusive, and amounted to nearly a quarter of a million dollars. After an exhaustive and interesting historical review of the Genesee feeder, the appraisers held that the appropriation of the waters of the Genesee river from the time of the construction of the Erie canal was intended to be permanent. The State was simply using its own property, the losses since 1832 having been but the legitimate consequences of the rightful and permanent appropriation of 1822. Therefore, the claims were rejected. As to the permanent injury resulting from the construction of the Genesee Valley canal, claimants on the Seymour and Johnson race were awarded $13,500, and on the Brown race $10,125, as damages. Whitford Laws authorizing a trial of the system of repairs by contract not to exceed three superintendent’s sections of the enlarged Erie canal applied to section no. 8, extending from the Limestone Creek feeder in Manlius to the foot of lock No. 50, four miles west of Syracuse, a distance of 11 miles, was put under contract from October 1, 1854; the other, section no. 1 at Albany, was put under contract from March 1, 1855. Under the amended act of 1855, the Chenango, Crooked (Keuka) Lake and Oneida Lake canals, and the Chemung Canal and feeder, all on the middle division, were put under contract in September for five years from October 1; the Genesee Valley Canal in December for the same period from February 1, 1856; and the Black River and Champlain canals for the same period. Under the contracts let prior to December previous, the repairs had been made as promptly and as well as under the old system, and the navigation satisfactorily maintained at a greatly diminished expenditure, and the commissioners had every reason to believe that the contract system, if fully adopted, would rescue the canals from the extravagance and corruption which, if not arrested, threatened to swallow up the entire revenues. The commissioners of the middle and western divisions approved the suggested plan of abolishing the office of repair superintendent and placing the control with the resident engineers. The Senate canal committee of 1856, having in charge a measure for this purpose, namely, "An Act prescribing regulations for the repairs and superintendence of the canals," heartily endorsed the views of the commissioners. An Assembly bill was also favorably reported, the committee saying that the interests of the State and economy would be promoted by such a change. The Senate requested the canal board to inform them "what, in their judgment, would be the effect of the entire and summary abolition of the canal superintendents . . . as to the saving of expenses, the condition and care of the public property, and the general interests of the canals, in the event of the dismissal of that class of officers." The majority compared the expense of supervision under existing provisions with that by engineers, to the detriment of the latter method, and reported in strong opposition to disturbing the existing system. The minority report of the canal board advocated the passage of the bill, strenuously dissenting from what they termed the "specious and fallacious" arguments of the majority. The Assembly canal committee also advocated its passage, estimating an annual saving thereby of nearly $450,000, but the bill did not pass. State Engineer Silas Seymour, in his annual report for 1855, said that experience had shown that it was impossible to separate the management of the canals from the deleterious influences of party politics, resulting in wasteful extravagance, and he therefore reiterated his statement of the previous year: that the sale of the public works, in whole or in part, was the only effectual remedy and must eventually take place. He approved the plan of abolishing the office of repair superintendents, or at least of placing them in control of the commissioners instead of the canal board. He said that separate contracts were then in process of execution, extending over about 600 miles of canal, and entailing a large amount of engineering services. He called attention to the wall benches as constructed upon 85 miles of the Erie canal prior to 1848, and said that it would become necessary at some future period to remove that bench or hip which formed a projection in the prism, and to make its size and form to correspond with the plans adopted in 1848, and sanctioned by the canal board. In his own estimates submitted, he had made no provision for the change referred to. This is noted here as the first official reference to what a decade later proved to be one of the most persistent causes of complaint in canal management and expenditures. Whitford The Assembly ways and means committee on March 28, 1856 presented a report upon the financial condition as related to the canal improvements: the policy of indebtedness and the now obvious conclusion that the sum authorized for its completion by the amendment of 1854 would fall several millions short of being sufficient to accomplish the results expected. Their criticism fell severely upon the fallacious estimates based upon anticipated revenues from the canals, which were subject to so many unreliable contingencies. They condemned the clause which provided that the work should be so progressed as to bring the entire line into use at once, saying: "The moneys authorized by the amended constitution to be raised to complete our public works will fall short of accomplishing that result. The act under which the appropriations are made was so framed as to leave every work unfinished when the nine millions shall have been expended. This was intentional on the part of those who arranged the details of that act, so that when further loans became necessary, an interest might be combined in their favor, powerful enough to rule the State, and to secure enactments for that end. The committee will not stop here to inquire into the character of the deception practiced upon the people at the time the "Nine-million" loans were proposed, nor to characterize the policy under which it is to be expended, leaving no work completed. It is sufficient to know that further means will be required to bring into use the canals, upon which so much money has already been expended, and that the question must soon be met in some practical way. Of all the measures proposed to raise money by loans, no one presents the fair, honorable features of that which plainly lays before the people the amount needed, asking them to authorize the loan, and the means of paying the interest and principal when done. Were we called upon at our present session to devise the ways and means of meeting this deficiency, we should recommend this course as in every respect the most safe and satisfactory. The provisions of the constitution were intended to meet the necessities of just such a contingency, and it is far better to preserve these provisions intact, than to resort to a periodical amendment of that instrument." Whitford In accordance with the provisions of the act of 1854 as stated by the canal commissioners by which the several contracts for enlargement were to be so timed as to be brought into use at the same time, the entire work had been let to be completed in 1858. "By the amendment to the Constitution of 1854," said the commissioners, "only two and a quarter millions of dollars per annum could be applied of the nine millions authorized to be borrowed for the completion of the canals. These appropriations of two and a quarter millions each, had been made by previous Legislatures, for the three fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 1856, amounting in all to six and three quarter millions of dollars, and leaving two and a quarter millions to be appropriated by the present Legislature for the fiscal year commencing Oct. 1st, 1856. This leaves as the only available funds applicable to the canals after the 1st of October, 1857, the premiums already and hereafter to be realized from the loans of the above nine millions, which are estimated as nearly as may be to amount to $1,595,854.32. The cost of the completion of all the canals from the 1st of Jan., 1854, including engineering expenses, and land damages, as estimated by the State Engineer was $13,131,808.74. From this amount, deduct the $9,000,000.00 borrowed, add the estimated premiums and Interest of $1,595,854.32 for a total of $10,595,854.32, which shows a deficiency of $2,536,074.42 to complete the canals. This amount must be supplied in such manner as the present or succeeding Legislature may direct." In making this statement to the Assembly of 1856, the canal commissioners advocated an extension of the time limit on loans, to enable the canal revenues to meet the charges. Whitford In view of the increased estimates submitted, the Assembly endeavored to obtain an accurate statement of the actual situation of the work of enlargement on the several canals of the state, giving the statement of the Erie in divisions, and showing how nearly the entire work had been put under contract, when such contracts were to expire, what would be the probable deficit, after expending the nine millions provided by law, required for their completion, and whether or not a new basis of apportionment would be necessary to assure their synchronous completion. The canal board replied that the entire work was under contract, excepting sundry items aggregating less than $200,000. The progress of the work, they said, was governed by the appropriations to each purpose rather than by the time limit of the contracts. It was then contemplated to bring the enlargement of the Erie canal into use from Albany to Montezuma by May 1, 1857, while the lateral canals and the western division of the Erie could not be completed until two years later. The deficit was estimated at $2,519,226.65. This was the opinion of five of the nine members of the board. The minority, including Lieutenant-Governor H.J. Raymond, State Engineer Silas Seymour and Commissioners Gardinier and Fitzhugh were of the opinion that a different basis of apportionment was necessary, so as to bring forward the western division and the Oswego and lateral canals to permit the passage of boats of equal size, tonnage and draught with the eastern division. Among the most important structures of the Erie canal was the "Richmond" or Montezuma aqueduct, spanning the Seneca River, and known at that time by the name of its designer, Van R. Richmond. This was brought into use in the spring of 1856. It had a wooden trunk with a clear width of 50 feet at water-surface, which was carried upon 30 piers and two abutments of hydraulic stone masonry. The 31 openings or waterways for the river were each 22 feet wide and 11 feet high. The foundation floor covered an area of 79,783 square feet, or nearly two acres, supported on 4,464 bearing piles, varying in length from 15 to 30 feet. The towpath, with a parapet wall 3½ feet high, was carried over on 31 stone arches. During construction, a wooden lock temporarily connected the navigation of the old canal with the aqueduct level. On completion this level was extended to the Clyde lock. Although the unexpended balances of the appropriations for the enlargement were $1,561,086.53 on September 30, 1855, that sum, with the annual appropriation of $2,250,000, was exhausted before October 1, 1856, by commissioners’ drafts in favor of contractors, engineers, and for land damages and payments for other objects chargeable to these appropriations, and it became necessary, according to the commissioners’ representations, to anticipate the appropriations for the next fiscal year, in order to preserve navigation and complete some works necessary to be brought into use on the lateral canals. Under these circumstances of imperative necessity, commissioners’ drafts to the amount of $123,527.88 were paid by the auditor and refunded out of the appropriation from the Laws of 1856. Whitford In the State Engineer’s report for 1856, it said that in October notice was given to various contractors that current appropriations were exhausted, and thereafter work was generally confined to bringing the largest amount of enlarged canal into practical use before the entire means provided under the Constitutional amendment for this purpose was expended. The operations at Jack’s reef for draining the Cayuga marshes were continued throughout 1856 with the result of lowering the water at Cross lake 2½ feet with a probability of 4½ feet on completion. The supply bill for 1857 appropriated $25,000, and it was estimated that $55,000 more would be required for completion. $130,239.56 was expended to January 1, 1857, including $36,516.83 as extra allowance granted to the contractor by the Legislature of 1856 for difficult excavation and "under-water work." In reviewing the situation at the close of 1856, Governor John A. King, in his annual message to the Legislature of 1857, said that in 1855 the repair expenses were $887,934.46, and in 1856, when more finished sections had been put under contract, they were $669,405.16, making a reduction of $568,460.04 from the amount spent in 1854 for the same purpose. In calling attention to the deficiency that would exist after the loans authorized in 1854 had been exhausted, he said that the work had generally been contracted for below the estimates and on terms favorable to the State, and that this deficiency arose because the estimate for the amendment of 1854 had not included expenses for engineering, land and other damages. However, the Governor took an optimistic view of the situation, saying that there were 892 miles of canals, which would cost, when completed, $50,000,000. The deficiency then existing was only about 1/120 their cost and could be well borne by a State with an assessment roll of $1,400,000,000. Therefore, no thought of hesitancy in completing the canals, much less any purpose of selling them, should be considered. Comptroller Burrows also advocated a direct tax, as suggested by Governor King. To State Engineer Clark’s estimate of a deficiency of $2,535,974, he would add for safety enough to make a round $3,000,000, and he said that a three-quarter-mill canal tax for three years to come would raise a million annually and would be more quickly available than the method by a constitutional amendment. Whitford In his annual report for 1856, submitted January 15, 1857, the State Engineer said: "The following estimate is now submitted to the Legislature as the most reliable one that can be formed of the total cost of the ‘enlargement of the Erie, the Oswego and the Cayuga and Seneca canals, and the completion of the Black River and Genesee Valley canals, and the enlargement of the locks on the Champlain canal,’ as provided for in the amendment to the Constitution adopted on the 14th day of February, 1854." Condensed, the estimates cover, for work done in 1854, 1855 and 1856, including land damages and engineering, $9,174,909.80; and to complete the work, $5,075.090.20; in the aggregate, $14,250,000. This assumed that the extra $1,500,000, raised in 1854, provided payment for all work done prior to that time and under the revenue certificates of 1851. The State Engineer said that when the amendment of 1854 was adopted it was supposed that the surplus canal revenues, together with the loan of $9,000,000 then authorized, including premiums and interest on premiums, would provide for the cost of the improvements. It was now clear that no reliance could be placed upon the surplus revenues for this purpose. Deducting the proceeds of the loan amounting to about $10,500,000, there remained a deficiency of $3,750,000. The question of the hour to the engineer was:: "How can the surplus revenues of the canals be used as a basis to secure their completion within the shortest practicable time?" To save the delay which another amendment would cause, he advocated borrowing from the people a sufficient amount to avoid suspension of the work, and at the same time proposing an amendment providing means for the repayment of the loan and for the completion of the work. This would mean taxation in combination with a constitutional amendment and an extension of the loans, so that the canal revenues would ultimately take care of the debt. As to the management of the canals, he blamed the interference of partisan politics through the medium of a canal board of 9 members, of which only the engineer and the 3 commissioners were assumed to have practical knowledge of canal affairs and were respectively held responsible in their departments for its success. Yet the board, and not the State Engineer, appointed the engineers in charge of work; the board, and not the commissioners, appointed the superintendents of repairs, and these appointments possibly depending on the political complexion of the canal board. He advocated a modification of the law requiring the letting of contracts "to the lowest bidder," in the interests of good management, as Mr. Clark, his predecessor, had done before him. Commissioner Fitzhugh, of the middle division, expressed his continued confidence that the system of repair contracts, while not perfect, was yet a great improvement on the old system. As to appointments, he said the canal commissioners were held responsible by the public for the condition of the canals under their charge, while the agents appointed to carry out the details of superintendence and repairs were often not only appointed without their consent, but against their remonstrances. "The appointment of engineers by the Canal Board," he said, "without reference to the wishes of the State Engineer, or his opinion of their capacity to discharge the duties to which they must be assigned by him – often of persons of whose qualifications he is entirely ignorant – the conflict between the Canal Board and the State Engineer as to the right of one or the other to locate engineers, and the frequent changes that have been made in their appointment, has resulted in a state of instability, confusion, insubordination and inefficiency in that department, highly prejudicial to the public interests, and which demands prompt correction at the hands of the Legislature. Whitford The canal auditor, N. S. Benton, in his report for 1856, made a careful analysis of the increase and decrease of various classes of canal freights. He said: "The ascertained results presented are . . . worthy of much reflection. They not only show the steady and progressive increased carriage and movement, by railway, and the steady and progressive decreased carriage and movement by canal, but they also show the description of freight wherein the carriage by rail exceeds that of the canal." He compared the tonnage and the tolls received since 1851 and said: "The average [tolls] of 1851, on the tonnage of 1856, would give $3,542,178 of tolls" (a million more than the actual receipts). He was satisfied that the toll rates, as arranged in 1851, might be imposed on most of the property transported on the canals without any injury to trade, if the Legislature would interpose its constitutional authority to protect the trade of the canals. He predicted that the cheapening of transportation by the canal would not enable the State to realize a revenue commensurate to the constitutional demands upon the canal tolls, without the specific legislation referred to in his report to the commissioners of the canal fund, namely, the reimposition of canals tolls upon competing railroads. The canal board was at this time advocating to the Legislature a further reduction of tolls on certain articles. Whitford In his annual report to the commissioners of the canal fund for the same year, the auditor said : "In order to meet all these constitutional appropriations and requirements, the surplus annual revenues of the canals must amount to $3,277,389.07. " They had not, he stated, amounted to this sum in any year either before or since 1846, and would not for years to come, unless measures were taken to increase the net receipts by reducing expenses and protecting the State from fraudulent practices and devices. The charges for extraordinary repairs were entirely within the control of the canal board. The administration of the system might be vicious, while the system itself might be faultless. The auditor deprecated any reduction in the rate of tolls. In this connection, it is of historical interest to note his statement that, "when the railroads from Albany to Buffalo were chartered, it was supposed the State would lose all the tolls on packet boats and passengers as soon as the lines were completed and opened for traffic. In 1836, these tolls amounted to nearly $100,000; in 1840, to $36,815; in 1855, to $1,228; and in 1856, they touched zero. It was not until after 1850, however, that the railroads succeeded in taking all or nearly all the emigrant passengers from the canals. In this same document is contained an extremely interesting, though futile, argument upon the constitutionality of the act of 1851, abolishing tolls upon railroads. The auditor said that when the Constitution was adopted in 1846, some of the railroads were entirely prohibited by their charters from carrying freight under any conditions, while others could do so only upon payment of tolls. By chapter 270, Laws of 1847, all the railroads were allowed to take freight, but only upon the payment of tolls, which tolls were to go to the canal fund. This was not considered as a violation of the sixth section of article seven, because it did not alienate any part of the canal income. As the Legislature could not "sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any of the canals," it followed that their revenues, "known, fixed and enjoyed when the Constitution was adopted," could not be alienated, but must "remain the property of the State and under its management." "The State held an ungranted franchise in 1846," said the auditor, "which seemed to its citizens a sure and certain immunity from all future burthens in regard to a class of specified claims. Should or can that franchise be alienated before all the beneficial objects for which it was held, had been satisfied. If the State could grant away any portion of its revenues, he argued, it could dispose of them all without reserve. The act to abolish tolls on railroads was passed as a majority bill on July 10, 1851. In the printed session laws it does not appear that a three-fifths quorum was present, or that it was passed by a two-thirds vote. "Did not the act of 1851," he continued, "release, discharge or commute some claim or demand of the State? If so, then it can have no constitutional efficacy, unless it was voted for by a majority of all the members elected to each house, when a three-fifth quorum was present. "Did the act appropriate public moneys or property for local or private purposes? If it did, then it could have no constitutional validity, except with the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the Legislature. "If the Legislature cannot sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any of the canals of the State, can it sell, lease, or in any manner alienate or dispose of the profits, income, or tolls of the same? "Can the Legislature, by direct action, of any kind, so reduce the canal tolls as to render the surplus insufficient to meet the trusts constitutionally charged upon them? or in other words, would a law be valid which fixed the tolls at so low a rate, as to produce only income, sufficient to pay the ‘expenses of collection, superintendence and ordinary repairs,’ and leave the trust funds to be provided for in some other way?" To the argument that the reclamation of the railroad tolls would be an exertion of power, hurtful to trade and commerce, and be open to the charge of establishing a monopoly in the transportation of merchandise to market, it was answered that, if it was only a question of the reimposition of tolls or of repealing the law of 1847, there might be some grounds for its consideration, but such was not now the case. It had become a question of whether "the State, to redeem its obligations, [would] resort to the capacity and income of the canals to enable it to maintain its high and commanding position; or [would] it cripple the capacity of its public works, by surrendering to corporations, which are but the mere creatures of its will, the power to take so much of the carrying trade as may suit their pleasure or purpose, and thereby from loss of revenue, be compelled to turn round and levy a tax upon the people to replenish an exhausted treasury, and enable it to perform its whole duty to the public creditors." "It is difficult," said the auditor, "to see the justice or the right, or even the expediency of our loading posterity with a debt of our own creation when the heritage we give them therefor is a poor, old worn out and dilapidated canal, whose income from year to year we have handed over to the pockets of private individuals instead of applying it to the payment of this inheritable public debt." There was no doubt, in his mind, but that the canals would be able to maintain themselves and eventually to pay their indebtedness, if they could have the benefits of the carrying trade for which they were built. If it were true that shippers would pay 50% for transit by rail, it should not be forgotten that the State had called these railways into existence, not alone by the exercise of its sovereign power in granting their franchises, but by a direct loan, and later a grant, of some $3,000,000 in one case and $600,000 loans in several others, without which they would not have been completed when they were. If these considerations were not sufficient, the State could further say "that the completion of the Erie canal in 1826, opened the facilities for planting an empire at the west which now compared favorably in population and production with the old thirteen States in 1774, and that the development of production and trade consequent upon the construction of the canals, now [brought] to the railways a traffic, the annual receipts from which far [exceeded] the original cost of the Erie canal." If it appeared that "by railway diversion and competition, the trade and traffic on the canals [was] seriously impaired, and the revenues so diminished and diverted as not to be sufficient to satisfy the annual charges upon them, such an exigency must fully justify the act of reclamation." It was "a financial fallacy to say these tolls [were] not wanted to pay the interest on the new debt of $11,000,000, while the present deficiency [continued]. This process of borrowing money to pay the annual interest, [would] increase that debt about $11,000,000 more by . . . 1872, if the bottom of the loan bag [should] not be sooner reached." The legislative journals of the year 1851 show that the bill "to abolish tolls on railroads" passed the senate on July 9, by a final vote of 22 for and 5 against, and the Assembly on July 10, by a final vote of 81 for and 16 against. Whitford The net results of the legislation of 1857 were (1) providing for a general tax of one mill on the dollar for canal purposes and for a $500,000 loan, (2) appropriating from the revenues for the fiscal year beginning October 1 for maintenance and ordinary repairs and collection, $850,000, for interest and principal of the canal debt of 1846, $1,700,000, for the general fund debt sinking fund $350,000, for sinking fund for loans, $410,000, and for State expenditures $200,000, these being all "constitutional items", (3) appropriating for the enlargement and completion of the canals, $3,250,000, from the balance of premiums on loans and the proceeds of the mill tax above provided for, including the half million loan, (4) appropriating $29,569.08 to pay the awards of the canal appraisers on the Genesee river claims, and confirming the awards, and (5) providing a concurrent resolution on March 2, forbidding contractors from letting or leasing surplus canal waters under their charge under penalty of forfeiture of contract. "In 1857, another amendment was proposed to Constitution § 3 of article 7, authorizing the legislature to borrow $4,000,000 to complete the canal improvements." Such a joint resolution appears to have been introduced in Assembly on February 20, but we are unable to find that the Senate took any action thereon, to make it "joint." The appropriations for enlargement and completion were again exhausted by June of 1857, and the auditor faced the alternative of causing the work to be stopped, or of borrowing from other funds. The latter course seems to have been taken. During the year, the Erie, the Oswego and the Cayuga and Seneca canals were navigated by boats drawing four feet of water and carrying 130 to 150 tons. Prior to bringing the completed line of enlarged locks into use in 1854 and 1855, the burden of boats was from 90 to 100 tons. Navigation was greatly interrupted during 1857, more than in any previous year. The severe winter and spring retarded work. No boats passed between Buffalo and Lockport prior to June 1, and numerous breaches subsequently obstructed traffic between Lockport and Clyde. On November 19, a heavy snow storm and severe cold weather closed the Erie west of Rochester, cutting off Buffalo east-bound shipments at a critical period of the season. On the middle division, 3 breaches at the Centerport aqueduct suspended navigation 8 days in May, and another near Durhamville, 2 days in June. On the eastern division, navigation was suspended for 10 days in all. These were caused by excessive floods and by admitting water upon green and unsettled work. A large amount of tonnage was diverted to the railroads, and with the general depression of business throughout the country, this resulted in diminishing tolls to the extent of $702,562 below the previous year. The heavy floods demonstrated the value of the work of draining the Cayuga marshes. The cut at Jack’s Reef was completed at a total cost of $150,409.54, and the area benefited was covered by several less feet of water than ever before. The amount estimated for work done, engineering, land damages, etc., upon the enlargement and other works authorized by the Constitution, during 1854, 1855 and 1856, as has been stated was $9,174,909.80. The estimates for 1857, in addition, were $2,862,923.07, totalling $12,037,832.87. Whitford Governor King’s message to the Legislature of 1858, in a spirit of fairness towards the railroads, recommended "as an equivalent for re-establishing the tolls on freight, that railroad companies paying such tolls, be permitted to make such equitable increase in their present charges for the transportation of passengers as the Legislature [might] authorize." Evidently the sentiment in favor of reimposing tolls was yet strong and the Governor’s view was hopeful that such would be the result. "Of the canals," he said, "I must speak at some length and with entire frankness, not concealing whatever there may be of disappointment and discouragement in the statement to be made, but as certainly not doubting nor desponding, either as to the ability, the obligation, or the expediency of persistent efforts and sacrifices, if need be, speedily to complete the enlargement." He referred to the fact that the net tolls for the preceding fiscal year had fallen short by $110,984.40 of the $1,700,000 required for the canal debt sinking fund and also the $350,000 for the general fund debt, or in all, $461,984. The work of enlargement, he said, had been advantageously and steadily prosecuted during the past year. Assuming the Engineer’s estimates of $14,250,000 for completing the enlargement to be correct, a deficiency of $2,500,000 still remained to meet for which there was only the $500,000 loan, authorized the previous year, but not yet negotiated. He suggested, in addition to restoration of tolls on competing railroads, that canal tolls be raised to the limit of expediency, and that the balance be raised by a direct half-mill tax, equitably spread over the next two years, thus allowing the completion of the great work by the beginning of 1860, with an income which should thereafter obviate the necessity of taxing the people. Whitford The annual report of the canal commissioners to the same Legislature, after a tabulated comparison of the expense of contract repairs with the former system showed clearly the greater economy of the system of letting the repairs of the canals by contract compared with the old plan, still in operation on more than half of the superintendent’s sections of hiring men to do the work by the day or month under the discretion of the superintendents. This evidence convinced the canal commissioners of the eastern and middle divisions that the repairs of all the completed sections of the canals should be placed under contract as early as practicable. As to the completion of the canals, the commissioners said that the report of the State Engineer gave the amount required to complete after January 1,1858 as $3,711,167.13. Sound public policy and a wise economy suggested that these sums should be appropriated to the several canals, so that their completion might be effected by the spring of 1859. To suspend the work, even for a short period, would involve a loss in materials, tools and machinery on the line, and claims of contractors for damages incurred by suspension, nearly equal to the amount required to bring the canals into full use. Opposing the argument then frequently advanced; that is, to sell the canals and clear the State from debt, in view of diminishing revenues and the necessity for further taxation, the commissioners said that if such sale should be made, no matter who might be the purchaser, the inevitable laws of trade would soon bring the canals into the hands of the railways, rates would be raised to the limit of their power of enforcement and the regulative benefits of the canals would be forever lost. Since 1850, tolls had been frequently reduced "to meet the competition of railroads," as they frankly admitted. If the tolls of 1846 had been retained upon the tonnage of 1856, the revenues would have been nearly $5,000,000, and had the railways added their quota of tolls to the State treasury, the aggregate sum of $7,500,000 would have been received. In freights alone, these figures gave some idea of the value of the traffic, said the commissioners. They likewise gave some idea of the disastrous effects of railway competition for the traffic of the canals. They admitted that except for this competition even a higher rate than the tolls of 1846 might be maintained at this time without complaints, but for the regulative effect of the State canals, the additional cost to the people of the State of marketing their own domestic products would annually exceed the amount required to complete the canals. The commissioners argued that if both the canals and railroads were under single corporate control, rates during the entire year would be increased. The tariff of the great railroad lines even then were regulated by "conventions," and limited by their power to injure or annoy each other's business. "Consolidation in some form or other," said they, "will exist sooner or later, between roads in competition for any given trade." This deliberate admission, made half a century ago by men whose business it was to have broad knowledge of the trade and transportation conditions has been absolutely fulfilled in these latter days of combinations and of trusts that it seemed prophetic in its accuracy. Give to a single corporation the power to control and manage both canals and railroads, said the commissioners, would make its own laws. It is notorious that railroad influences have controlled the legislation of this State, when they pleased to do so, at any time since the consolidation of 1853, and that the law for resuming the enlargement and completion of the canals in 1851 could not have been passed without the passage of an act also for releasing the railroads from canal tolls. This means, that even at that early day the State, with all its power of the prestige of the canals and with public opinion behind it, was helpless to complete its canal improvements without the consent of the railroad interests, then comparatively infant in their proportions. The price of that consent was the State’s relinquishment of its right to control the traffic which its canals had built up and made possible by its people and for its people, and of its ability to build and maintain its hospitals, asylums, schools, roads and public improvements, to maintain the expenses of its State government and to pay its onerous indebtedness without the direct taxation of its people. It was later said that every dollar of subsequent taxation and of indebtedness should be called "not a canal but a railroad debt". Whitford In reply to an Assembly resolution of March 16, inquiring as to the amount necessary to complete the canals and also as to the amount of work done for which no provision for payment had been made, the State Engineer answered that his estimates called for $4,955,777.14. To his estimate of cost, including the year 1857, which was $12,037,832.87, there also should be added his estimates for costs after that date, $3,712,167.13, making a total of $15,750,000, as given in his annual report to the Legislature of 1858. This was an increase of $1,500,000 over the estimates of the previous year. The causes of this increase, he said, were (1) the more expensive character of the work as developed, (2) an additional number and increased cost of structures, with substitution of vertical for slope wall authorized by "special acts of the Legislature and resolution of the Canal Board", (3) and various other changes and addition most of which were required by the transition from the old to the new canal. The State Engineer again called attention to the probable necessity of bottoming out and of removing the wall benches from about 85 miles of the enlargement, as was previously noted, at a probable expense of about $1,000,000. These were caused by a change of plan in 1848, which, as State Engineer Clark had said in 1855, added to its cost, but greatly improved its capacity and usefulness, besides reducing the cost of maintenance. The change, he estimated, would add 9% to the capacity of the canal and would facilitate the movement of loaded boats. In the Senate, on March 24, the State Engineer was requested to report the earliest day at which 6 feet of water could be secured through the entire length of the Erie canal. He replied that all the necessary work could be done and the canal opened on May 1, 1859. However, as a precaution against breaches in opening a large amount of new work during the spring of 1858, it was advised that the opening be made with only the ordinary depth of water, to be afterwards deepened to 6 feet, as this might be done with safety. Two things are evident from this resolution and report: (1) that the Senate was impatient at the procrastination and (2) that there was a marked discrepancy between the "ordinary depth " referred to above and the 7 feet of water required by the plans for the enlargement. In April, 1858, further reductions in tolls were made by the canal board, including rates on wheat and flour, in order to retain and increase canal shipments of those articles. Whitford The net results of importance in legislation of 1858 appear have been the following: (1) authorizing the auditor pay interest on canal commissioners’ drafts in certain cases, (2) providing for a half-mill general tax to replenish the canal fund from which to pay interest on the canal debt under section three, article seven of the Constitution, as amended in 1853, (3) transferring $1,686,734.49 of unexpended Erie enlargement balances to the completion of sundry laterals, (4) providing from canal revenues for maintenance, $900,000, for deficiency in 1856, $70,453.46, for the constitutional payment of interest and principal of the canal debt of 1846, $1,700,000, for general fund debt sinking fund, $350,000, for interest on constitutional loans for canal enlargement, $720,000, for constitutional loan sinking fund, $450,000, and for State expenses, $200,000. Concerning the practical results of legislative action looking toward the speedy completion of the Erie canal, its friends were disappointed. The Legislature had under consideration a bill by which $3,800,000 would have been available for the payment of debts of construction, for land damages, and for prosecuting the work to completion. However, the two branches disagreed over minor details, with the result that adjournment came and the bill failed to become a law. The diversion also of the unexpended balances from the Erie enlargement funds to the laterals left the work on the main line restricted for lack of means. However, work continued and numerous contracts were completed, final estimates given, and commissioners’ drafts issued in payment. The aggregate of these drafts by the close of the year 1858 was estimated by the auditor at $1,700,000 beyond the means appropriated for their payment. This state of affairs naturally led to sharp recriminations among these officials. Whitford 301 separate contracts were in existence during 1858: 166 were completed and settled, amounting to $4,441,914.35, which included the settlement of 28 contracts canceled by the canal board, 135 contracts were still existing at the close of the year. The whole amount of work not under contract was estimated at $765,916.24. An effort was made during the season to secure six feet of water throughout the entire length of the Erie canal, but the large amount of work necessary and the short time allowed for its accomplishment rendered it impossible to fully realize such a result. There were a number of places along the unfinished portions of the line where the full depth of six feet could not be reached in time for the opening of navigation in 1859, and at other places the width obtained was not sufficient to allow heavily loaded boats of the largest size to freely pass each other. The State Engineer thought, however, that during the next season the six-foot depth could be entirely realized, with the full width of enlargement, while legitimately progressing with the work toward completion. "Notwithstanding the amendment adopted in 1854," said Judge Lincoln, "the canals continued to be a troublesome element in State affairs." The adoption of that amendment did not prevent the introduction of others, and the agitation continued, and the dissatisfaction with the canal article found expression, not only in proposed amendments, but also in the project for a constitutional convention. In 1858, a petition was presented to the Senate saying there had been a great falling off in canal revenues, and a large increase in the expenses of carrying on the government, thereby swelling up the taxes. Therefore, with the view of relieving the people from the large amount now unnecessarily expended to sustain the executive and legislative departments, and to secure the honest and better administration thereof, all petitioners prayed that act be passed calling a convention to revise the Constitution, abolishing the executive and legislative departments of the government, and vesting their powers in the president, vice-president, and directors of the New York Central Railroad Company. This curious petition, signed by 86 persons, was presented on the March 2. It seems to have been taken seriously, and was referred to the committee on canals. On the 13th, Mr. Stow, chairman of that committee, ‘to which was referred the petition of citizens for a convention to revise the Constitution of the State,’ reported a bill for that purpose. . . . According to the journal, the bill seems to have had its origin in the petition." The bill was passed, became chapter 320 and the question was submitted to the people in the following November, being defeated by the narrow margin of only 6,360 votes. Whitford Governor Edwin D. Morgan assumed office at the beginning of 1859. He addressed himself to the Legislature upon the subject of the State finances as he found them, and which were again at this time so inextricably entangled with those of the canals as to be incapable of separate treatment. The funded canal debt at the close of the previous fiscal year was $24,307,704.40, and the new canal debt was $12,000,000. In addition, there were outstanding commissioner’s drafts of $1,000,000; interest charges, $955,000; other land damages, $1,000,000; and to make good the contractor’s reserve of 15%, $500,000. If his figures were correct, said the Governor, these additional items made a new debt against the State of more than $4,000,000 for canals alone, without any estimates for their completion, a large part of which had been created without warrant of the Constitution, but which must be met and paid. The Governor believed that $2,100,000 would essentially complete the system, except the removal of the Erie wall benches, which was not required for the immediate needs of navigation. The entire channel of the Erie could also be deepened to seven feet, at a cost of $300,000, including $25,000 for deepening the present channel through the Cayuga marshes and another $150,000 would deepen the Oswego Canal to six feet. An alternative plan would be to secure six feet of water on the Erie, the Oswego and the Cayuga and Seneca canals, and to proceed with the permanent work across the Cayuga marshes during the winter of 1859 at a cost of $500,000, and then to provide for the final completion of the canals by the spring of 1860. However, the Governor urged that the improvements should be pushed to a speedy completion, in view of the millions which had already been expended and the small amount required. The estimated cost of the work remaining to be done to complete the enlargement of the Erie, the Oswego, and the Cayuga and Seneca canals, to complete the Black River and Genesee Valley canals, and to enlarge the locks of the Champlain canal, as given by the State Engineer, was at this time $2,900,540.37, to which should be added $467,135.58, the amount of the 15% retained from existing contracts. Referring to his estimates of March 24, 1858, for completion – $4,955,777.14, – the State Engineer explained that, if the cost of completing the new Genesee Valley extension ($88,333.70) should be added, making $5,044,110.14, and from this gross sum be taken the 15% retained ($835,691.17), and the expenditures during 1858 ($1,833,639.20), a balance of $2,324,780.47 would be left. His present estimate exceeded this sum by $575,759.90, made up of land damages, changes of plan, increased estimates, etc. These estimates, however, did not include the removal of wall benches on the 85 miles of canal completed according to plans adopted prior to 1848. He did not deem it necessary to remove these obstructions at this time. He believed that with needed funds the entire work could be finished by the spring of 1860. The most important part of the enlargement remaining to be done, and the only portion not then in use, was across the Cayuga marshes. It would require vigorous and unremitting labor at this point to bring the canal into use by the spring of 1860. The amount of work necessary to produce seven feet of water before the opening of navigation in 1859 would render the task difficult if not impossible. Moreover, six feet of water would enable experiments in steam navigation to be tried. The successful application of this new power, the completion of the canals, and the adoption of such a tariff as would secure the trade, were the hope of the canals, to successfully relieve themselves from the weight of debt and taxation, and to fulfill the high destiny they were designed to accomplish. Whitford An effort was made at this time to induce the Federal government to bear a portion of the expense of our internal improvements, but with the usual want of success. The canal board and commissioners united in a joint memorial, in January, 1859, reciting the expenditures already made by the State and the general benefits which had resulted to the commerce of the several States interested. They asked for a refunding of the expenditures upon the Buffalo pier and breakwater, which had always been kept separately and which then amounted to $179,473, or, with interest added, $230,300, and that the Government should properly protect, at national expense, the harbors at Buffalo and Oswego and the other harbors along the Great Lakes, which were used to shelter national shipping, or as ports of shipment for commerce designed to traverse the lines of the Erie canal. A concurrent resolution of the Legislature approved the purpose of the memorial. Whitford The Senate seems to have had under consideration a plan for the further lengthening of locks to pass boats of 130 feet, instead of 97 feet, as they then did, by moving the lock gates nearer to the end of the locks. But the State Engineer reported adversely in answer to their inquiry, under date of January 22, 1859. His chief objections were the limitations at Lockport and the great expense of changing conditions there. As a compromise, he suggested that sliding gates could be substituted there, admitting boats 108 feet in length, but this was the utmost and was not recommended. Whitford That the advocates of reimposing railroad tolls still possessed some vitality is shown by the fact that the Senate sought the opinion of the Attorney General upon the question of the validity of the act of July, 1851. He rendered an elaborate opinion on January 21, upholding its validity mainly upon the broad ground of the "plenary power of the Legislature for purposes of civil government," quoting the opinion of Denio, J., in People v. Draper, 15 N. Y. R., 543. Whitford It is obvious that the State finances were in a deplorable condition at this time. The Comptroller frankly admitted that they must face the unwelcome fact that the treasury was empty. This had been the case for some time. The commissioners of the canal fund had therefore been driven to the necessity of making a temporary loan of $200,000 in the preceding July to prosecute work which could not be suspended without serious detriment to the public interests. They also said that the surplus revenues were insufficient to cover the requirements of section one, article seven of the Constitution, to provide for interest and sinking fund for the old canal debt. This loan they asked the Legislature to protect. The deficiencies they urged provision for was to prevent the violation of public faith and the disregard of constitutional obligations. Upon this appeal, the Senate committee was divided, the majority claiming that the commissioners had power to negotiate a deficiency loan on the credit of the sinking fund, under section three, article seven, while the minority repudiated the power of State officials to borrow money to pay the interest, or to "postpone" the payment of its debts, as unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent. Whitford The canal and lock improvements having been followed closely by enlarged craft – as had invariably been the rule – the boats again crowded the dimensions both of the waterway and of its bridge clearances. The Legislature sought information from the commissioners concerning those bridges which had not 19 feet clearance from the bottom of the canal. They replied that 12 feet from water surface was the minimum limit and that most of the bridges had been raised to that point. It was said that the approved size of boats for the enlarged canal was understood to be 97½ feet long, 17½ half feet wide, and about 14 feet high. Such must be the size of a boat which would carry barrels of flour, or other like packages of about equal weight and bulk, with greatest economy. A boat of this size, having no cargo, would have about 1½ feet of draught, and consequently would stand out of the water about 12½ feet. Lighter loads of lumber and the like would require more headroom, and eventually all bridges must be raised. But this was not considered essential at present, inasmuch as there was not 7 feet of water in the canal. Whitford Part of the legislation of 1859 intent was to remedy some of the existing evils by curtailing the powers of the canal board and commissioners, prohibiting certain acts, among which were the canceling of contracts, except upon the contractor’s application and the making of extra allowances to contractors. Also, it appropriated for maintenance, $900,000; for deficiency of the previous year, $228,878.91; canal debt and interest, $1,700,000; general fund debt sinking fund, $350,000; and for State expenses, $200,000. It imposed a 5/8ths-mill tax for the canal fund, from which there was appropriated for Erie enlargement, $412,150; Oswego enlargement, $138,640; and sundry other sums for the laterals, and for interest on commissioners’ drafts and other items of floating indebtedness; the money was not to be used for the payment of "back debts," and no drafts were to be made in future except upon available monies in the treasury. The commissioners were further prohibited from spending any more money across the Cayuga marshes, except to maintain the old line of the canal. It reappropriated certain balances of $330,726.43 to enlargement purposes, under stringent limitations as to its expenditure. The whole trend of this legislation seems to have been to stop every possible avenue of extravagance or mismanagement that had been the subject of complaint. It was later said of this period, by Governor Morgan, that the people had authorized a new loan of $2,500,000 to pay the "floating debt," but, while they had ever been prompt to meet all just obligations, "they [would] not be likely again to sanction the payment of any debt not authorized by the Constitution and the laws, no matter for what purpose, or under what circumstances incurred. The act of April 6, 1859," he continued, "which prohibits the creation of any similar obligations in future, doubtless contributed much to induce the people to authorize the payment of those which existed." He advised attaching a penalty to the creation of any such indebtedness in future, to "prevent the people from ever again being placed in the dilemma of paying an unauthorized debt or seemingly incurring the stain of repudiation." Whitford On April 1, 1859, all the remaining sections of the canals were put under repair contracts. The aggregate sum per annum was $252,292, with $20,000 for superintendence. The Governor believed, however, that this sum was below its fair worth; including lock-tending, it should be in future estimated at about half a million dollars, which sum would maintain the canals in as good condition as when completed." The canal auditor substantially agreed with him that it was not expected that annual repairs could be maintained for the amount of the contracts, but for $400,000 the canals could be kept in as good repair as they were for twice that sum in the hands of superintendents. If the contracts had not been made, the cost of maintenance would have exceeded a million dollars. During 1859, 73 contracts were completed and settled, 18 new ones were made, leaving 80 existing at the close of the year. The enlargement of the Erie was so far advanced that the estimated amount of work remaining to be done was $675,019.25, and, in the opinion of the State Engineer, the whole work could be so far performed by the opening of navigation in 1860, as to give the full depth of 7 feet of water the entire length of the canal. A comparative view of the traffic on the canals, presented by the auditor’s report covering that period shows that between the years 1856 and 1859, a startling decrease in tonnage of 334,409 tons carried, and of $964,461 in tolls. Of this latter item, the auditor attributed $750,000 to the reduction in rates since 1857. The contract repair system, under which the canals were now being almost entirely governed, was fairly on trial, and while it was hoped that the system would ultimately prove to be all that could be desired, yet it was so far open to some criticism by the canal commissioners. The clause requiring the award to be made "to the lowest bidder" was objectionable. This often meant too low an amount for profit to the bidder, in which case there was a subsequent abandonment, without sufficient recourse for protection. Additional precautions in the way of deposits for security, they thought, should be exacted, together with increased vigilance on the part of the State over the execution of the contracts. The Comptroller began his annual report with the statement that "nearly all the demands upon the General Fund [had] been paid, and the State, by the adoption of the loan law submitted to the people at the recent election, relieved from the disgrace of a floating debt accumulated in violation of the Constitution." The reference was to the Laws of 1859, "An act to submit to the people a law authorizing a loan of $2,500,000 to provide for the payment of the floating debt," passed April 13. He continued: "There were many reasons of an equitable character which rightfully operated to induce the people to assume and pay this debt. Whilst the result exhibits a gratifying preponderance of sentiment in favor of fulfilling even doubtful obligations, yet with no organized or ostensible opposition to it, the vote of 77,466 against it, out of an aggregate vote of 202,836, will, it is hoped, have a salutary . . . effect in preventing a repetition of the experiment." Whitford The State Engineer presented revised estimates of cost on January 1, 1860 for completing the canals. These estimates amounted to $1,679,686.69, which was a slight diminution from the previous year’s estimates. The Cayuga marsh section embraced the most difficult remaining. When completed, the downward lockage at either end of the marsh level would be dispensed with, and the extension of the higher level across the marsh was expected to give safety and expedition to the movement of boats, if the work was not discontinued for want of money. The estimated cost to complete the work was $47,000. The Assembly made inquiry concerning the progress of this improvement, and the State Engineer, on March 3, 1860, strongly urged the completion of the drainage plans, in view of the fact that it was almost completed and that it would remove all cause of complaint about the obstruction caused by the embankment of the new canal. Double enlarged locks were by this time completed and in use on the line of the Erie canal from the Hudson River to the Cayuga and Seneca canal, and from this latter point single enlarged locks to Lake Erie, except at Macedon and Lockport, where they were double. Whitford Governor Morgan’s annual message of 1860 administered a stinging official rebuke to those canal officials who had contracted the "floating indebtedness" of the previous year, in defiance of the Constitution or of law. He said that he considered that the matter of reduction of tolls for the past few years "to meet railroad competition" had been overdone, that reduction, instead of increase of revenue, had been the result, and that a readjustment should take place. He strongly urged the completion of the canals to a full 7 feet in depth by 70 in width before the opening of navigation in 1861. He said that $1,658,969.37 would be needed to complete them, only one-half of which sum could be advantageously used in the pending year. He recommended the restoration of tolls to the rates that existed prior to the reductions of 1858 and 1859, and he also advocated the reimposition of railroad tolls until the canals should be completed. But the Legislature was dilatory in acting upon the suggestions of the Governor and in the latter part of February he addressed them a second time in a special message as to the necessity of increasing canal revenues, again urging the reimposition of railroad tolls as a means of obtaining that result. The Legislature then gave its attention to the subject, so far at least as to again request the Attorney General’s opinion regarding the constitutionality of the act of 1851. In his opinion, given at the conclusion of a careful historical review of the canal policy of the State from its inception, he considered that the act was a "diversion of the canal revenues," and as such was unauthorized, "unconstitutional and void." This conclusion was diametrically opposed to that of his predecessor. The majority of the ways and means committee also concurred in this view of the matter, but without accomplishing the result desired. Whitford Before the completion of the costly and long delayed enlargement, and long before the heavy indebtedness
which it had caused could be paid off or even reduced by the tolls from the increased volume of expected traffic, forwarders
and boat owners were close upon the heels of the improvements, clamoring for still further facilities. Under the law,
the "big bevels" were ordered removed from the locks in which they occurred throughout the line, and the
remaining bridges raised to a minimum clearance of 12 feet above water surface. It was now complained that on the
old "wall-bench" sections the bottom of the canal was obstructed by an accumulation of debris from these disintegrated
benches and from worn tow-paths, until scarcely 6 feet of water prevailed, instead of the promised 7. It has
been noted already that builders of boats, anxious to use every inch of canal and lock section and carry every possible
ton of cargo, had enlarged their boats to such proportions that many of the same difficulties of which they complained before
the enlargement now confronted them, but on a larger scale. The net results of legislation for the session of 1860 were as follows: appropriated from the revenues, for collections and salaries, $800,000; for old debt, $1,700,000; general fund debt sinking fund, $350,000; interest on constitutional loans for enlargement, $760,000; sinking fund for same (if anything was left from current revenues), $406,243; State expenses, $200,000; and from the tax of the previous year to pay the floating debt loan of $2,500,000, for interest on loans, $150,000, and for sinking fund, $243,055. The law imposed a one and one eighth-mill tax to increase the revenues sufficiently to pay the State creditors to the amount of $1,860,050, "or so much thereof as should be required." The law provided for a half-mill tax in 1860 and in 1861 to complete the canals, supply them with water, etc.; the water supply of the Rome level was to be increased; the Erie canal was to have full 7 feet of water throughout; the big bevels were to be cut from the locks so as to give 18 feet width on the miter sills; all bridges were to be raised to at least twelve feet clearance; the entire work was to be closed up by June 1, 1861; and the engineering force reduced to a maintenance basis of 3 division or 3 resident engineers. The canal auditor’s report for 1860 showed a marked improvement in tolls – $604,297.59 – over those of the preceding year, and a decrease in expenses of $170,902.93, making a total saving of $784,199.52, which was encouraging. The revision of tolls in April of 1860 had resulted in a decided increase of the revenues. No tonnage had been lost by the partial restoration of the rates of 1857, as had been insistently claimed by the opponents of revision, and none would have been lost, in the auditor’s opinion, by their entire restoration. Meantime a revised estimate of $700,000 had been given by the State Engineer of the cost of the work remaining to be done on January 1, 1861, to complete the canals, exclusive of land damages. During the year 1860, 28 contracts were completed, and 24 new ones were made, leaving 76 contracts existing at the close of the year. Whitford Governor Morgan extended his congratulations to the Legislature of 1861 upon the approach of the end of the enlargement, although it had been accomplished at too great a cost and quite too long delayed. Before the conclusion of their labors, he said, "New York [would] possess, finished and complete, a system of internal works unequaled both for capacity and extent in this or any country." The net gain in increased revenues and decreased expenses, he continued, of the past fiscal year over the preceding one was about $750,000. The Governor renewed his two suggestions of the previous year: (1) the increase of tolls, which had been acted upon with beneficial results, and (2) reimposing tolls upon railroads, which he again urged. On February 21, 1861, the canal board petitioned the Legislature to repeal the law requiring a reduction of the force to 3 division engineers, and urged that it be left to the judgment of the board, but this was not achieved. Little canal legislation was placed upon the statutes during the session of 1861. There seemed to be a disposition to "let well enough alone," at least for a period. The long deferred enlargement was approaching its conclusion. The system of repairs and operation under contract, while developing some objections so far under practical experience, was yet believed to be capable of being improved in its details, so as to render it more satisfactory. It was beyond question the most economical method yet devised, but the accumulated dilapidations, resulting from contractors’ efforts to save money by using temporary makeshifts and failing to thoroughly maintain the work at its initial standard, were possibly not so thoroughly realized as they were a few years later. The commissioners, in their report for 1861, discussed the system and its faults, criticising the way in which it "worked out." As one official put it: The contractors’ first idea was, "Will these structures hold together until my contract expires?" and repairs were made in the cheapest possible manner, resulting in a general deterioration of the entire section. The less he expended, the more he would save, his compensation depending upon the time expended, rather than upon the amount of labor performed. After he found himself facing the accumulated results of his neglect for a series of years with further loss in sight, abandonment, followed by an appeal to a complaisant Legislature, furnished the relief sought for from further responsibility. It was charged that of all the contracts abandoned, not a single judgment against a contractor or his guarantors had been so far collected and paid into the treasury, as provided by the law. Whitford Delays at the 5 locks of the middle division which were upward lifts to eastbound boats, by reason of the difficulty of disposing of the surplus water in the chamber on entering the lock, were noted by the commissioners in 1861. Boats had grown too large for the chambers and the only escape for the water was underneath. This and the current were objectionable. A stationary engine of five or six horse-power was suggested. In later years this difficulty was overcome by widening the locks and also by the use of a turbine wheel operating a system of haulage by ropes. During the enlargement, the size of boats had been increased from about 70 by 14 feet, as they were upon the old canal, to about 98 by 18 feet. The draught had likewise increased from 3 feet, 6 inches to 5 feet, 9 inches, while the cargo increased from 75 to nearly 200 tons. Whitford At the close of the 1861 fiscal year, the State Engineer estimated the cost of work remaining to be done on September 30, 1861, to complete the unfinished canals, at $390,000, exclusive of land damages. This estimate did not include an item for "bottoming out" the canal at various points, mostly in the western division, and which was then caused "by an error in the original base or bottom line of the canal." It was thought that $75,000 would cover the expense. At the close of the fiscal year, 14 additional contracts had been settled, 19 new ones entered into, leaving 80 still existing. The bridges upon the eastern division had been raised, and the big bevels of the locks were practically removed from the entire line. The slope wall benches, or "bermes," while causing considerable inconvenience in navigation, especially towards tide-water, were not provided for by an appropriation for their removal, and were left untouched. The Cayuga marsh embankment was reported as substantially completed, and carrying seven feet of water. As to the lengthening of lock walls and foundations, the estimate was placed at more than $1,250,000, and as the canals were capable of doing twice the business of the previous year and of producing a revenue, at existing rates, of over $6,000,000, it was considered unwise to disturb existing conditions. Whitford The increase of tolls for the season of navigation in 1861 gave a still brighter aspect to the situation, the increase in revenue being $899,188, and amounting to $3,908,785. Certificates of registry for 619 new boats were issued, with an aggregate tonnage of 95,230 and an average of 154 tons. A comparison of the figures given show that the net tolls of 1860 were nearly double, and those of 1861 more than three times the tolls of 1859, or since the rates had been largely restored to a revenue basis. The trouble seems to have resulted from the failure of the canal board and Legislatures, during the previous period of low tolls, to resist the powerful and continued pressure of shippers, who were constantly urging low rates for the benefit of their own pockets, regardless of their effect upon the revenues of the State and of its ability to pay its constitutional debts as they matured. It was fortunate and timely regarding canal revenues that the tolls had been brought back from their low rates of 1857-8, and that the general circumstances of the country favored an increased traffic at this juncture. The opening of the Civil War and the early closing of the gateway of navigation by way of the Mississippi River left New York as the only route for the products of western agriculture to its markets. Both the railways and the canals reaped rich benefits from these conditions and the tolls of the latter reached the maximum figures so far in its history. The auditor differed somewhat in his reasons, denying that the increase was from western grain, or that New Orleans was a shipping port for bulk grain. His tables show a gain in "vegetable foods" of over $,250,000, nearly half of which came from increased rates on wheat, corn and flour in the spring of 1861. Whitford Governor Morgan speaks of the increase of revenues in his message of 1862 as an encouraging exhibit in view of the "years of taxation and disappointment in relation to the cost and income of the canals." In February of that year, the canal board, replying to a legislative inquiry, advised beginning the construction of thirteen locks, in order to double those on the line between Montezuma and Rochester at an estimated cost of $412,000, together with a guard-lock at Black Rock at a further cost of $35,000. As we have seen, State Engineer Van R. Richmond, still standing against the outside interested pressure for further expenditures and facilities and demanding that the revenues be given an opportunity to pay or reduce the debt of the State, for which they were pledged, strongly maintained that the traffic so far had not reached and for years to come would not reach the ultimate capacity of the canals as they were. In support of this, he said that competitions showed that the original plan, when completed, would furnish ample facilities for delivering to tidewater through the Erie canal 5,220,000 tons, or a total movement of 10,665,011, and a revenue, based upon the rates of 1860, of $6,902,318. It followed, he argued, that no immediate necessity of further enlargement existed, either by lengthening lock chambers, enlarging the prism by removing wall benches, or by any other method. The plan of these wall benches had been changed in 1848. Prior to that time, about 80 miles had been so constructed. Its removal would necessitate an expenditure of $968,000 and it would enlarge the cross-area but little more than six per cent. There had been for several years, he said, a manifest disposition to proceed with the works in question. But in view of the debt for the canals then resting upon the people, he could not approve the expenditure for further or re-enlargement, until the completion of the unfinished work and increased business should have given evidence of its necessity. By the terms of the laws passed April 10, the first enlargement of the canals of the state was officially declared completed, although, as a matter of fact, much remained to be done to render them so. This remarkable internal improvement stands out unique in their history, from the fact that its finances were so closely interwoven with the financial policy of the State, and its management was so dominant a factor in its political struggles. For more than a quarter of a century, for one reason and another, had its continuance been prolonged and its completion deferred, until by the passage of this act all contracts contemplated by section three, article seven of the Constitution were ordered closed by September 1, following, after which no work should be done nor material furnished "under pretense of enlarging and completing" the canals, and the powers of the contracting board were to cease. Other canal legislation of this year, aside from appropriations, was, with a single exception, unimportant. The canal board was authorized to enlarge the locks of the Erie and Oswego canals so as to permit vessels adequate to the defense of the Lakes to pass, whenever the Federal Government should supply the means. Such vessels and their supplies and munitions of war were to be forever free of tolls. Whitford |
 |
|
|
|
|