Further Improvements, 1877 - 1888

In his 1877 annual message, the Governor said that conditions had largely improved during the previous year.   Railroad competition was less ruinous.   Crops were abundant.   Better rates of freight prevailed, and all boats were in service.   Yet only 69 boats were built during the year, which was the lowest number for at least 20 years past.   Not anticipating this traffic improvement, however, the toll sheet, which was fixed by the Legislature in each year, had been made unusually low, and the canal revenues did not keep pace with improved conditions, being the lowest in 45 years.   A quarter-mill tax was therefore recommended to supply the deficiency.   Only the Erie, among all the New York State canals showed in 1877 a small net surplus over expenses, the amount being $84,840.88. ^Whitford

A Senate resolution of inquiry as to the expense of lengthening canal locks by 40 feet, brought out an adverse report from the Engineer’s Department.   The difficulty and expense of making the proposed change at Lockport were urged as the chief reasons. ^Whitford

The question of steam versus horse power propulsion had been anxiously studied for several years, but so far, in the opinion of the State Engineer, the attempts to substitute steam had not displaced animal power.   Statutory permission was given to test various methods of steam towage, among which the Stevenson system and the Baker single-rail system were included.   State Engineer J. D. Van Buren, Jr., in his report presents some interesting facts and conclusions.   An important series of dynamometer tests were made to determine the tractive force required to move boats through the water of the canal at different speeds.   The average weight of a first class, horse-propelled, grain boat was then about 65 tons; its cargo of grain weighed about 230 tons.   It was found that an average loaded boat on the canal, at an average speed of about 1.55 miles per hour, developed a tractive pull of about 313 pounds.   This was considered as the maximum amount of work which an ordinary pair of canal horses could continuously perform.   With similar conditions of boat and speed, it was found that steam towage, by means of an ordinary screw-propelled tug, with about 300 feet of hawser attached, developed a much larger resistance, increasing with the speed.   This was owing to the rapid current thrown back by the propeller in the confined waterway of the canal.   The average rate of speed of a horse-drawn boat was shown by comparison of numerous records to be 1.55 miles per hour.   There was a slight difference in speed between east-bound and west-bound boats owing to the fact that there is a mean easterly current in the canal of about ¼ mile per hour.   Four horses were used to a boat – in pairs – working alternately in 6-hour shifts.   It was further deduced that the average work thrown upon each canal horse was 20,034 foot-pounds per minute, equal to six-tenths horse-power, or for a whole day of twelve hours (six hours on and six hours off), 14,424,480 foot-pounds.   From this it could be seen that canal horses were overtaxed and the condition in which they were kept at that time was not only poor economy but a disgrace to civilization.   The average time of a horse-drawn boat for a round trip from Buffalo to New York and return was 30 days.   In an average season of 210 days there were 7 round trips.   The cost of carriage of a bushel of wheat by horse-drawn boat, exclusive of tolls and terminal charges, from Buffalo to New York was computed at 5.69 cents.   In 1862, the average tonnage of a boat was 167 tons and the average time from Buffalo to Troy was 8½ days as against 10 days in 1877.   It was considered questionable whether in view of all circumstances boats were not then above the most economical size. ^Whitford

Regarding steam propulsion, the following is noted:   The Baxter boat was 96 long by 17 feet beam, with 9 feet depth of hold.   Displacement, was 264 tons; capacity was about 207 tons.   With 200 cargo, it should draw 5 feet, 10 inches of water.   It was propelled by a pair of 3-bladed screws, one on each side of the stern, revolving toward each other.   An upright boiler and engines completed the equipment.   The estimated cost per bushel of wheat from Buffalo to New York by this method was 5.76 cents.   The Belgian cable-towing system consisted of a wire cable laid in the bottom of the canal.   A clip drum was mounted upon the deck of a tow-boat over which the cable was lifted and passed. The drum being operated by steam drew the tug and its attached "trailers" through the canal at a speed of about 2½ miles per hour.   The estimated cost per bushel of wheat by this method from Buffalo to New York was 4.79 cents.   However, the installation of equipment including tugs and cable was estimated at $3,450,000, and the annual cost of maintenance about $1,600,000.   The Frick or Pennsylvania system of coupled boats, either horse-propelled, or by steam-power on the rear boat, was considered an improvement in the way of economy.   The speed was computed at about 2½ miles per hour by steam and the cost of freight per bushel from Buffalo to New York, a distance of 495 miles was 4.72 cents.   The average canal freight rates per bushel of wheat from Buffalo to New York for the season of 1877 to September 1, was 7.39 cents; for the balance of the season, 9.53 cents. ^Whitford

Commercial interests for some time had teen trying persistently and openly to secure a free canal system, and Auditor Schuyler was an earnest advocate of the plan.   In presenting arguments therefor, he stated that 170,000,000 tons of freight had been transported over the canals since their opening.   It was alleged by those who opposed free canals that the expenditures for canal purposes, since their opening, exceeded their revenues by nearly $35,000,000, and that this sum represented their net cost to the people, raised by taxes.   Admitting this for the purpose of comparison, the State owed by far the largest share of its prosperity to the canals.   The total amount of tolls collected since the opening of the canals was $130,034,897.09.   But in addition to this, during the preceding 40 years, the carriers of the canal were paid for transportation $146,868,964, exclusive of tolls, and the merchants and warehousemen were estimated to have received at least $100,000,000.   These sums were direct benefits to the people of the state from the tonnage of the canals, to which should be added the almost incalculable benefits resulting from the increase of wealth and population.   The population of New York City had increased from 123,706 in 1820 to 1,046,037 in 1875; the value of real and personal property in New York City had increased from $69,530,753 in 1820 to $1,234,191,178 in 1877; the population of the State had increased from 1,372,812 in 1820 to 4,705,208 in 1875, and its aggregate valuation, real and personal, from $256,021,494 in 1820 to $2,755,740,318 in 1877.   The auditor’s strong plea for the abolition of canal tolls asserted that the tonnage of the canals had brought to New York City the commerce of the world, and had made the Empire State what it was. ^Whitford

The improvement in transportation which began about July 1, 1877, continued in marked degree throughout 1878: the building of boats was resumed; 300 new boats were registered during the year, and 19 steam-propelled boats were in use.   The canals were opened April 15 and closed December 7 – a period of 237 days as against 214 days in 1877 and 211 days in 1876, the average open season for the preceding 20 years being about 219 days.   The expenditures under the new system of control were decreased nearly 50% under the corresponding period of the previous year.   Although the rates for tolls remained comparatively low, both the tonnage and the amount received were largely increased.   The net income of the Erie Canal for the fiscal year, after deducting all repairs, charges and payments, was $321,403.18.   The State Engineer in his report said of this period: "Only in the years 1861, 1862, 1863, when the Mississippi River and other routes were closed against northern commerce by the war, have the Erie and Oswego canals carried as much grain as during the past season; and this has been done in the face of the lowest prices ever charged by the railroads in their efforts to control the carrying trade."   At one time during this season, the rate was 4½¢ per bushel as against the lowest rate of 8¢ in 1874 from Buffalo to New York.   It was claimed that this increase in tonnage was caused by low rates and was the controlling factor in opening a larger foreign trade for our products, which resulted in the turning of the balance of trade in our favor to the amount of $250,000,000.   The Comptroller stated that the only debt remaining upon the State was the canal debt, which on September 30, 1877, was represented by outstanding obligations amounting to $9,900,360, exclusive of the sinking fund applicable thereto of $1,270,343.71. ^Whitford

An interesting bit of history should be recalled in this connection.   That portion of the New York Central Railroad originally called the Utica and Schenectady Railroad, chartered in 1833, had no right under its charter to carry freight.   In 1836 another link, then known as the Utica and Syracuse Railroad, could carry freight only by the payment of regular canal tolls to the commissioners of the canal fund.   In 1844, all of the railroads along the line of the Erie Canal were allowed to carry freight, but only upon payment of similar tolls.   By the Legislature of 1851, all railroad tolls were remitted.   "Every dollar of tax paid for the canals," said the State Engineer, "is the result of this act." ^Whitford

The commerce of the Erie Canal was at this time gravely threatened by the approaching completion of extensive improvements, at a cost of over $30,000,000, in the Welland and the Canadian St. Lawrence River & Canal system.   These improvements would permit the passage of boats drawing 13½ feet of water over the lock miter sills and enable vessels of 2,000 tons to load direct for Europe at the docks of Cleveland, Toledo and Chicago.   It was urged by those familiar with the competition that the cost of transportation by way of the Erie should be reduced, not only by the removal of lake obstructions by the United States Government to permit the use of much larger vessels to bring their cargoes at a lower rate to the port of Buffalo, but by improvements to the canal itself.   This could be accomplished either by lengthening its locks, or by deepening its channel.   State Engineer Horatio Seymour, Jr., advocated the deepening of the channel at least 1 foot, by lowering the bottom in some places and raising the banks in others, thus adding 50 tons or 20% to the cargo of each boat then in use.   Afterward this became known as the "Seymour Plan" of canal improvements.   Power appliances to operate lock gates and to draw boats through the locks were also advocated.   The time then consumed in passing the 72 locks of the Erie Canal was about 18 hours.   The new method would reduce this time by at least ½ with the existing depth of water.   With 1 foot of water added, both improvements would allow a boat drawing 6 feet of water to effect a saving of 37 hours in each round trip. ^Whitford

Various commercial interests were constantly effecting a reduction in specific rates of toll.   Flour, leached ashes and petroleum were this year added to the free list, which already contained hogs, bacon and salt pork, cattle, salt beef and tallow, sheep and wool, hemp, grass and clover seed, furs and fur skins, boats, lead, leather, tobacco (not manufactured), lard, lard oil, corn meal, coffee, hops, dried fruit, domestic spirits, cotton and domestic cotton and woolen goods.   Passengers over 10 years of age were charged one-half mill per mile.   To the free list were added butter, cheese, flax seed, oil meal and oil cake.   The canal auditor urged the passage of a constitutional amendment for the abolition of canal tolls as being necessary to meet changed competitive conditions.   However, the Superintendent of Public Works in 1879 complained that the toll-sheet was already dangerously low for proper maintenance, and urged the creation of a surplus fund from excess revenues for extraordinary repairs.   Under the constitutional limitation and the amount of canal receipts applicable to the payment for repairs and maintenance, rigid economy was necessarily the continued policy of canal management in 1879.   Although the open season was shortened to 212 days, the tonnage was increased by about 200,000.   The receipts for tolls were less because the rates were fixed at the lowest point in the history of the canals. ^Whitford

The number of steamboats in use was slightly increased, and 382 boats were built and registered during the year.   Trial of the Cooke System of propulsion, by submerged rail and tractors, or floating locomotives, was authorized in 1879.   The canal was equipped during the season from Rochester to Buffalo with the Belgian Towing System, and it was confidently expected that the entire canal would be similarly equipped during the next year and all traffic conducted by steam-power. ^Whitford

A deficiency canal tax of three-tenths mill was levied, and it was made a misdemeanor to bribe a lock tender by the laws of 1879. ^Whitford

Trade conditions continued to be the leading subjects of discussion.   The advantages which the Erie Canal possessed as the first effort to make available the only trade channel between the West and the Atlantic coast, were regarded as imperiled by the results of the competitive struggle between eastern cities for commercial supremacy.   Railway rates were then less to Baltimore and Philadelphia from the West than to New York City.   The auditor complained that the railway lines continued in their efforts to divert from the canal and absorb east-bound traffic; they applied rates below costs during the canal navigation season and then recouped their losses during the winter when the canals were inoperable. ^Whitford

The requirement that the canal should be self-supporting and still confine expenses within the amount received for tolls left no margin or fund for extraordinary repairs, and in case of disaster by flood or otherwise the canal was in constant danger of being closed without warning to traffic.   These conditions operated to discourage boat building and boating interests.   It was authoritatively stated that the canal as it was at this period was capable of passing double the tonnage thus far transported. ^Whitford

In the report of the Superintendent of Public Works, he opined that the immense exportation of American cereals for the preceding 3 years was not due to their cheapness here, but to successive failures of crops in foreign countries.   He also intimated that if the same principles of business management and economy, which had made the railroads their successful competitors, were applied to the canals, all fear of losing their share of the carrying trade would vanish.   In view of the fact that Montreal is 147 miles nearer Chicago by way of the Canadian canals than is New York by way of the Erie, the State Engineer again in this year called attention to the danger of Canadian competition. ^Whitford

During 1880, the net canal debt, after applying sinking-fund balances, was $6,936,879.83, at the close of the fiscal year.   In November, the canals were unexpectedly and suddenly closed by an ice blockade in which about a thousand boats were caught in transit.   Three-quarters of this number were grain-boats whose cargoes aggregated 6,000,000 bushels.   Yet, notwithstanding this drawback, traffic increased during the 220 days of the season.   The gross receipts of the Erie canal were $1,120,660.13.   However, it required 2/3 of this sum to pay the expenses of maintenance and collection, the net surplus being $442,535.71.   The auditor’s report for this period shows the aggregate tonnage of both canal and railroads (Erie and Central) for 12 months prior to September 30, 1880, to be 25,706,586 tons, of which the railroads carried about 3/4, or 19,248,930 tons. ^Whitford

The number of boats registered was 488, of which 433 were new.   Various methods of towage were given further trial.   The award of first prize, out of the $100,000 appropriated by the Legislature of 1871 for the purpose of stimulating towage inventions, had been given to William Baxter, but his boat had later been pronounced a failure, and at this period not one was known to be in existence.   This boat, however, led to the construction of other forms of steam-propelled boats which were increasing in number.   About 120 miles of the Belgian Cable System had been laid and was in operation during the season, but failed to meet expectations.   It was said to be not only in the way of other traffic but a menace to the security of the canal bank upon the inner side of curves.   The Illinois System of steamer pushing its consort was further used, but it was determined that longer boats could not be used to advantage on the curves of least radius.   The application of waterpower by means of a turbine wheel operating a towing hawser seems to have been in successful operation at lock No. 52.   By the aid of the mechanism boats were drawn into the lock at increased speed and time was saved. ^Whitford

The State Engineer reiterated his warning of the year before as to the danger of Canadian competition.   In view of the relative percentages of canal and open waterway between the Erie route and its commercial rivals, he remarked that it cost four times as much to carry grain upon the Erie canal – mile for mile – as upon an open lake waterway. ^Whitford

The increasing free list was the subject of severe criticism by the canal auditor; it was held to be without justification of law, and unfair, resulting in an added tax to supply the deficiency.   The growing custom of authorizing the construction of numerous and expensive lift or swing bridges to be paid for out of canal tolls was also condemned, as such bridges were not only of no benefit to navigation, but an obstruction to it.   The benefit, if any, was entirely local and should be paid by the locality benefited.   In the methods of collecting tolls, moreover, small frauds were beginning to creep into the service, and to correct this a flat rate of toll per ton-mile was advocated, with a more frequent use of weigh locks. ^Whitford

Excessive terminal charges and various extortions which came out of the boatmen’s pockets were the subject of investigation by a committee on terminal charges, created by the Assembly, March 11, 1881.   In New York, the committee found the charges to be: for elevating, ½¢ per bushel – chargeable to the boat; weighing and storage, ½¢ per bushel – chargeable to the grain; cleaning, ¼¢ (optional); lighterage from store to vessel, 1½¢.   Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore elevator charges were from ¼¢ to 1½¢.   There was in addition a "shortage" of from 5 to 40 bushels in reweighing, a loss which also fell on the boatman.   The committee advocated increased and exclusive wharfage room for canal boats, together with the abolition of the harbormaster’s dues of $1.25 per boat.   It was also claimed that the State could, if deemed necessary, exercise statutory control over terminal rates.   At Buffalo, the practice of "scalping" grain insurance premiums had grown to such proportions that for 2 years at least $50,000 had been paid in "rebates."   The average cargo of grain cost $25.00 premium to insure; of this $2.50 went to the broker or "scalper"; $10.00 rebate to the shipper; $3.75 to the insurance agent, and the balance, $8.25, to the insurance company for carrying the risk.   All of this, being included in freight charges, was a loss to the boatman. ^Whitford

The season of 1881 was marked by a large falling off in the volume of traffic and receipts.   The former amounted to over 1,250,000 tons, or20%, and the latter, over $500,000, or 45%.   The loss in revenue was partly due to the removal of tolls on westbound traffic, but as the auditor remarked, this experiment, undertaken as a stimulant to traffic, had proved a failure.   Governor Cornell gave as further reasons for the reduced volume of traffic the limited movement of grain products and the unusually strong trunkline railway competition.   Still lower freight rates prevailed.   The average canal rate for a bushel of wheat from Buffalo to New York for the season was 4.88¢, which included 1.03¢ toll.   The carrier’s net profit for nearly 500 miles of transportation ranged from 90½¢ to 128¢ per ton.   The report of the auditor’s department was the most discouraging since the opening of the canal: the aggregate revenues were lower than since 1825; for the first time in 56 years no payments could be made from the revenues to the sinking fund or interest accounts and the revenues were 28% below the cost of maintenance.   From the boatman’s point of view, the situation was even more discouraging.   Notwithstanding the continued efforts of the Legislature and the canal board to stimulate traffic by reductions and remission of tolls, his earnings had steadily decreased until no profit remained and a probable loss faced him.   The number of boats – old and new – registered during 1881 was 368, with an average tonnage of 188 tons.   The Erie canal exhibited this year a net loss, of all payments over receipts, of $27,029.17.   The net canal debt September 30, 1881, deducting balances, was $6,560,378.43. ^Whitford

The attention of the Legislature was called by the auditor to the probability of a grave crisis in canal affairs in case the income of 1881 should prove to be below the necessary amount required for expenses in 1882.   If this should be the case, the canals would have to cease operations for lack of funds.   The prompt abolition of the constitutional restriction alone could save them.   Two propositions for constitutional amendments were before the Legislature of 1882:   the first, to relieve the canal revenues from payments on account of the canal debt, leaving the surplus revenues over expenses, if any, for a deficiency fund, had already been embodied in a concurrent resolution passed by the Legislature of 1880; the second, which had been endorsed by both political parties in their respective conventions, and which provided squarely for the abolition of all tolls and the maintenance of the canals by taxation, had passed the Legislature of 1881.   Either of these would remove the constitutional restriction as to expenditures. ^Whitford

The effect which differential freight rates had upon canal traffic and upon the interests of the people of the state, and especially of New York City, had been for some time a matter of anxiety.   The auditor strongly commented thereon. This "differential," it may be explained, was the result of a traffic agreement as to eastbound freight between all the seaboard rail lines, whereby lines whose terminals were in New York City were to charge an additional sum upon every ton of such through freight over the rate charged by lines whose terminals were in Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore.   Prior to 1870, this "differential" had been for several years about $2.00 per ton, an equivalent of 6¢ per bushel on wheat, and for the same period this had been the average canal rate of toll per bushel.   Later, the canal tolls were reduced ½ and the differential was promptly lowered to $1.00 per ton.   In 1880, the toll was 1.03¢ per bushel and the differential was from 40 to 60¢ per ton.   The gradual diminution of canal tolls on eastbound grain had been for years followed by corresponding reductions in preferential rates allowed by New York railways.   Nevertheless, the percentage of New York receipts of grain by rail at this time, as compared with that of other seaboard cities, had fallen off considerably.   The argument was advanced that, without the restraining influence of the canal, the railway differential rates could not be controlled; that values in New York City would suffer an immense shrinkage and that the whole state would reflect the depressing influence of her commercial decline. ^Whitford

Aside from the vexing question of "free canals," which was before the people at the November election of 1882, there appears to have been little of interest to record in connection with the history of the Erie Canal during that year.   The amendment to the State Constitution, providing for the abolition of canal tolls, having passed the Legislatures of 1881 and 1882, came before the people and was approved by the decisive vote of 486,105 in favor of and 163,151 opposed to the amendment.   Traffic showed a slight improvement over the previous year.   The tonnage in 1882 was 5,421,720, a gain of 277,843; tolls collected amounted to $655,195.51, an increase of $23,574.45.   The gross receipts of the Erie for the fiscal year were $591,369.79; gross expenses for the same period, $504,948.77; net income, $86,421.02. Net canal debt on September 30, $6,259,661.43, a reduction of $300,000. 49.   The navigable season was 241 days as against 211 days in 1881.   Only 93 new boats were registered. ^Whitford

The constitutional amendment became operative on January 1, 1883, and thereafter no tolls were collected upon the canals of the state.   As Governor Cleveland said of it, the people had now voluntarily surrendered their constitutional safeguard of control over the limit of expenditures in their devotion to the interests of the great highways of the state.   But that did not mean that they had forgotten the era of extravagant expenditures which had theretofore made the canals a scandal and a reproach.   On the contrary, they demanded continued economy of administration, consistent with the use of the canal to their utmost capacity at the lowest possible cost.   All schemes for enlargements or expensive improvements should be stubbornly opposed.   In view of the fact that no more revenues were to be derived from Erie Canal tolls the following summary was presented by the auditor: Erie Gross revenues to date, $121,461,871.09; Collection, superintendence and ordinary repairs, $29,270,301.16; Cost of construction and improvements, $49,591,852.68; Total cost, $78,862,153.84; Leaving balance to credit of Erie to date, $42,599,717.25, exclusive of interest on the debt for construction and improvement.   But it should also be noted that it is exclusive of the value of the plant at that date. ^Whitford

It was urged by the State Engineer and the auditor that remission of tolls alone would not suffice to increase canal tonnage.   This theory had been repeatedly tried and proved a failure.   The controlling reasons why the canals had not kept pace with the railways had been the niggardly policy displayed in their management.   Aside from enlarging the prism and locks, the same antiquated methods and appliances were still in use.   Larger boats were in use, it is true, but without doubt they were too large for economical animal towage in the prism of the canal and so consumed more time than was proper in transit.   It was essential to increase the speed of boats to compete successfully.   By other routes, steam transportation had displaced more primitive modes.   It had proved a failure upon the canals because of the faulty design of the boats, which in the constricted waterway and with slow lockage could not reach a remunerative speed.   The lengthening of the locks by the use of tumble gates and a strong organization of boatmen with western agents seeking trade was advised.   In contrast with the above canal policy, the State Engineer, in his report for 1882, adverted to the progressive policy of the railways since the first canal enlargement was authorized.   At that time, a commission of prominent engineers investigated the subject of cost of transportation with the following conclusions: cost of railway transportation – level road – per ton-mile, 3½¢, cost of Erie canal transportation – including locks – about 1¢ per ton-mile.   If level, or without locks, still less.   This comparison of rates was doubtless a strong factor in shaping the canal policy of enlargement at that time. ^Whitford

In 1835, there were in New York State only 100 miles of completed railways.   In 1882, there were over 6,600 miles, with western connections having vast ramifications reaching out to every portion of the grain belt of the country.   Every device for reducing the cost of transportation had been put into service; alignments and grades had been straightened and reduced; the Erie Railroad had double-tracked and the New York Central had quadruple-tracked their lines; steel bridges replaced wood; heavy steel T-rails replaced straps; locomotives had quadrupled their power, until in 1882 the cost of railway transportation had been reduced from 3½¢ to ½¢ cent per ton-mile.   The subject of encroachments by railways upon canal lands at this time was a matter of public interest; so much so, that in the case of the West Shore Railroad – then building – it became the subject of legislative inquiry.   In response to an Assembly resolution of February 26, 1883, the Superintendent of Public Works stated that it had been the practice of his predecessors to grant permits for such encroachments under suitable conditions as to maintenance of waterway, etc., as authorized by the law.   On April 8, 1881, the Superintendent of Public Works revoked these permits, apparently on constitutional grounds, and the matter was then taken to the Supreme Court in proceedings for condemnation and appraisal of damages, and on September 7, 1881, Judge Churchill held that the permits were not unconstitutional.   Thereafter, new permits were granted.   Between Schenectady and Utica about 12 miles were thus occupied, within the blue line, by the West Shore railroad. ^Whitford

In the way of legislation, Governor Cleveland recommended abolishing the offices of canal auditor, the board of audit and board of canal appraisers, in the interests of economy, promising a saving of at least $30,000.   It was noted that the expense of maintenance of the board for the previous year had been – exclusive of awards – nearly $40,000, of which over $15,000 had been paid as fees to attorneys to defend the State against claimants.   The office of canal auditor was abolished, and the records were transferred to and became a bureau of the Comptroller’s office.   The offices of canal appraiser and State board of audit were abolished and a board of claims was established, to take effect June 1.   The offices of collector of tolls, weighmasters and assistants, were also abolished. ^Whitford

At Little Falls an interesting part of the works of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, known as the "upper lock and stone bridge," were transferred to a commission for preservation as a historical relic. ^Whitford

In 1883, an event occurred, inconspicuous in itself, but which was the first public act in the chain of events which may be designated as the modern era of canal improvement.   A legislative bill was introduced by Assemblyman Leighton to lengthen lock No. 46 at Utica, and to appropriate money for the purpose.   The journals of both houses show its passage and transfer to the Governor for his signature, but a careful search among the papers of the archivist and in the offices of the Governor and Secretary of State failed to reveal any record of its reception.   It was undoubtedly "a thirty-day bill," and failing to receive the executive signature, expired by limitation and is not of record among the statutes of that year. ^Whitford

The open season of 1883 was but 209 days.   As to traffic conditions remarkable development was shown; the tonnage for the year was 5,775,631, an increase of 324,350 tons.   Governor Cleveland remarked that the exhibition of the canal business for the year 1883 fully justified the policy adopted by the people of relieving commerce from the burden of tolls.   The grain shipments from Buffalo over the canal were 42,350,916 bushels as against 29,439,688 during the previous year, a proof of the fact that the increased commerce was attracted to this route by the abolition of tolls.   The Comptroller, however, attributed the increase to the unusual and general movement of freight through the state.   Railway freight traffic was increased and higher rates prevailed.   The increase in canal tonnage had been disappointing, he said, and there was no revival of interest in boat-building.   The net canal debt on September 30, 1883, was, after deducting balances, $5,852,606.94, a reduction within the year of $635,200. ^Whitford

It is extremely difficult to arrive at a just estimate of the canal situation at this period, owing to the divergent opinions then held by State officers, and freely expressed in their official statements of about the same date.   The retiring State Engineer, whose own office at that time it was seriously proposed to abolish, criticised the policy of insignificant appropriations which had prevailed, as being sufficient simply to maintain navigation in the dilapidated canals and entirely inadequate to put them in good condition.   Local steamboat and excursion traffic, other than the regular towing boats, at comparatively high speed was constantly washing away the canal banks and doing damage that required many thousands of dollars to repair.   The accumulated silt in the bottom of the canal, caused by the wash from high ground and from the sewage of many cities and villages along the line, called for a thorough cleaning out of the prism.   The experiment of "free canals," said the State Engineer, was a failure; their tonnage was more dependent upon the law of supply and demand than upon tolls, and finally "it was a foregone and inevitable conclusion that the canals must go." ^Whitford

In view of this conflict of official opinions, it may be well to seek for outside sources of information.   The colossal increase of traffic between the western states and the Atlantic seaboard had by this time caused the question of cheap transportation to become one of national importance.   In December, 1872, the President called the attention of Congress to it.   A Senate committee made a thorough and elaborate examination of the subject.   In the first session of the 48th Congress, a bill (H.R. 3538) to aid the State in enlarging its canal by an annual appropriation of $1,000,000 for 10 years was reported.   The benefits to the City and State of New York have heretofore been summarized in speaking of the events of 1877, so that it is needful here simply to refer to the report of this Congressional committee in the following brief form:   New York State possessed the key to the commercial situation.   The Erie Canal has done more to advance the wealth, population and enterprise of the western states than all other causes combined.   The value of the public lands has been increased.   The western grain regions were directly interested in the development, improvement and maintenance of this great waterway.   It was of supreme importance to the people of the United States to sustain this great regulator of freight charges.   The Erie Canal paid the people of New York State well in its period of highest rates, 1862 to 1869, when the tolls averaged 6¼¢ per bushel; it still paid when tolls were reduced one-half, 1870 to 1874; and now the people, in a liberal, catholic spirit, had abolished tolls entirely and had thrown open the canal, free to the commerce of the world.   The only hope of the people against the combined influence of the power and capital of railway interests lay in the Erie Canal.   It was directly beneficial to at least 20 million people in 12 western states, and had demonstrated that the greater the facilities the less the cost of transportation.   Senator Windom, in a speech on the Senate floor in 1878, said that canal rates exerted an influence over all other rates from the Gulf States to the St. Lawrence River, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the foothills of the Rockies, and in support of this statement introduced a letter from Albert Fink, then Railway Trunk Line Pool Commissioner, who said in substance that wherever rates from Chicago to New York were reduced, by reason of the opening of the Erie Canal, this reduction affected rates from all interior cities, as St. Louis, Indianapolis and Cincinnati.   If the direct lines from such points did not at once meet the reduced water rates their freights would reach New York by way of Chicago, lake ports and the canal, and the direct lines would be left without business.   It also affected Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore rates, and the rates from South Atlantic ports and the southern states generally, until it reached the line of influence of low ocean rates.   All rail rates are kept in check by water transportation.   The source of this statement, coming as it did from the one who was then acknowledged to be the best informed railway manager in the United States, would seem to give to it the binding force of testimony elicited on cross-examination. ^Whitford

According to the Governor’s next message, the condition of the canals for the season of 1884 – their business and their management – compared favorably with previous years.   No substantial improvements had been made for several years, and the Governor recommended that an earnest effort be made to restore and renew the various structures connected with it.   Skilled mechanics, however, had been employed upon the masonry and woodwork during the year, with good results.   12 gravel scows, each with 80 cubic yards capacity, had been put in service, and the towpath and banks were being raised and put in good condition. ^Whitford

The subject of radical changes and improvements in waterways for the transportation of western products to the Atlantic seaboard was one which engaged the attention of numerous engineers throughout the country.   The inadequacy of the Erie Canal, as it then existed, to handle the enormous and constantly increasing traffic and to at least control the rates upon, if not to successfully compete with the vigilant and up-to-date railway systems, was almost universally conceded by those who had made a study of the situation.   Various plans were advanced to meet required conditions.   At the annual meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers in June of 1884, Elnathan Sweet, the State Engineer, presented a project for a ship canal across the State of New York to follow the general route of the Erie Canal, but with radical changes at different points, both in route and profile.   The prism was to contain 18 feet depth of water, by 120 feet width on the bottom; the locks were to be 450 feet long by 60 feet wide; and by a continuous descent to the east the supply of water from Lake Erie was to be discharged into the Hudson River.   Summarized, the plan was: to widen, deepen and rectify the worst curvatures of the existing canal from Buffalo to Newark, 130 miles; to construct a new canal from Newark to Utica, 115 miles, by a change of alignment to the south near Newark, crossing Canandaigua outlet and thence on the south side of Clyde River, crossing Seneca River near its junction with Cayuga Lake outlet, where for, nearly two miles it would require an embankment and aqueduct 50 feet above the river, and recovering the present alignment east of Syracuse; to canalize the Mohawk River from Utica to Troy, about 100 miles; and to improve the Hudson River for 30 miles south of Troy.   The cost was roughly estimated at from $125 to 150,000,000, and the probable tonnage from 20 to 25 millions per annum.   Lake propellers were to pass through this canal to New York without transshipment of cargo.   The discussion which followed was participated in by a score of prominent engineers, members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, with the result of bringing to light various interesting plans as substitutes for the one proposed.   As these men voiced the most enlightened public thought, which had been dealing with this subject for the previous quarter of a century, their opinions are pertinent here. ^Whitford

A prominent railway engineer condemned the ship canal as antiquated and doomed to be superseded by railways, suggesting a barge railway as preferable.   Mr. Edward P. North entered exhaustively into the question of rates, noting the rapid increase of railway facilities and the lack of corresponding improvements in the canal.   He gave tables showing the great reduction in the cost of transportation year by year, by all routes, remarking that this was a great improvement over the $100 per ton charged from Albany to Buffalo before the completion of the canal.   This apparent reduction, however, was partly attributable to the fact that the earlier figures were given in a fluctuating and depreciated currency, caused by the premium on gold, which later gradually lowered until it finally disappeared with the resumption of specie payment.   Arguments were not required to show that the route by the lakes and Erie Canal, though no longer the chief factor in the distribution of freight, was a controlling factor in the price received for that service.   The grain product of 13 states – from Buffalo to the Missouri – amounting to 350,000,000 bushels, would be affected by the cheapening of canal freights.   The figures were from reports of the United States Department of Agriculture.   Mr. Willard S. Pope preferred making use of the Canadian system as being nearly 300 miles shorter from Chicago to Liverpool and with less proportion of restricted waterway.   Mr. E. H. Walker was opposed to the proposed canal as being too expensive and too slow.   Vessels of 75,000 to 90,000 bushels capacity would cost $100,000, would require a crew of 25 to 30 men, and the round trip from Buffalo east would require about a month.   The slow speed required for such an expensive vessel and crew would not compare favorably with a one-quarter cent transfer charge at Buffalo. A ten-foot canal, with miter-sills as they were, locks lengthened, tumble gates, steamboats of good model, costing $15,000, carrying 18 or 20,000 bushels of grain, using a crew of 6 men – such improvements to cost $2 or $3,000,000, would be better.   Mr. W. W. Evans said that the railway grabbers knew and felt that as long as the Erie Canal existed it would exert a very large influence on the cost of transport between the Atlantic Coast and the great chain of lakes.   No policy could be so suicidal as to sell or close it, and no policy could do as much good towards extending the wealth or influence of the State of New York as that of enlarging or improving this great water line, making it equal in carrying capacity to the Welland Canal.   A 10-mile branch at Great Sodus Bay to catch the Lake Ontario and the proposed Georgian Bay (Trent-Severn) Canal^CCS traffic was suggested.   Col. W. E. Merrill considered the plan entirely practicable from an engineering standpoint.   The strong current at the western end, resulting from the effort to feed the entire length of canal from Lake Erie would be objectionable, but could be modified by retaining Eastern feeders and concreting leaky points.   Lock gates, 35 feet wide by 45 feet high for a 25 foot lift, would be feasible, but fixed dams in place of the movable type on the Mohawk River would be preferable.   Mr. O. Chanute suggested relief by improving boat engines to obtain increased speed on the existing canal.   Mr. T. C. Keefer approved the transfer at Buffalo to cheaper barges on the score of economy, and as following the Canadian practice at Prescott.   In traversing some of the foregoing objections, Mr. Sweet claimed in reply to Mr. Chanute that present canal boats required 1-1/5 hp for a speed of 1-1/3 miles; that the hp required increased as the cube of the increase in speed.   As to the argument that all canals must now yield to railways, he said that the rule, applicable to small canals with local traffic only, did not apply; railways had reached their limit of development as to gauge, and increased traffic meant more tracks and more trains.   With canals the limitation was different.   The ratio of resistance and of immersed surface to the amount of cargo decreases with increase in the tonnage of vessels, and consequently economy increases.   The time required to pass by a typical lake propeller, loaded with 2700 tons, fitted with 1,000 hp engines and drawing 16 feet, was estimated at 5 miles per hour through 230 miles of restricted prism west of Utica; allowing 20 minutes detention at each of 8 locks, this would require 49 hours.   From Utica to New York, 260 miles, the river passage would permit a speed of 10 miles per hour.   Allowing 10 hours detention at the locks of the Mohawk, this would make the time from Buffalo to New York 85 hours.   The would be in effect to extend an arm of the sea nearly to the center of population of the whole country.   Other participants challenged the estimates of cost and placed the amount at $240,000,000.   The chief value of this discussion lies in the fact that it represented the most expert professional opinions of that day upon this important subject. ^Whitford

The net canal debt on September 30, 1884, was $4,276,323.15; the gross tonnage for the year was 5,009,488, a decrease of 654,568.   The West Shore Railway opened for through traffic during the year, but notwithstanding this, railway tonnage also decreased.   A restricted crop and less ample market were given as reasons.   Only 60 boats were registered, of 166 tons average tonnage. ^Whitford

In 1884, the Legislature appropriated $30,000 to lengthen lock No. 50 near Syracuse "in such a manner as to allow the locking of two canal boats of the ordinary size of those running on the Erie Canal, at one and the same time, one following the other, and upon such a plan as that while it would thus allow the passage of two boats at the same time, would also allow, if required, the passage of only one boat by the use of only the present existing lock."   The work of construction was substantially done in the winter following the close of navigation.   As this improvement was the initial experiment in the way of the lengthening of locks which afterwards took place, a brief explanation is necessary:   The use of the double-boat system, or steamer and barge, had by this time become quite common.   Canal officials had repeatedly called attention to the loss of time in locking boats through singly and had urged the adoption of quicker means of transportation in order to draw traffic back to the canal route.   By lengthening the chamber sufficiently to permit the passage of the steamer and its consort at one lockage, without uncoupling, much time could be saved at each lock, the original lower gate being retained for use in locking a single boat through if required.   Time saved meant lower canal freight rates and this in time meant increased traffic.   Lock No. 50, at the eastern end of the Jordan summit level, on the middle division, was selected for the first lock to be lengthened, and the results were awaited by canal officials with considerable interest. ^Whitford

The question of insufficient water supply for the canal, especially on the eastern and middle divisions, had engaged the attention of canal authorities and at this time seemed to be regarded as of vital importance.   Various legislative committees had investigated the subject to a greater or less extent and had reported thereon.   The enlargements of the canal, the lengthening of locks and other causes, required the use of more water to operate the canal.   From denudation of forest lands upon watersheds supplying canal feeders, from leakages, and more than all from the selfishness and greed of owners of antiquated leases and water rights along the line, using more and more water for private purposes, the supply was year by year growing comparatively less until the required depth could scarcely be maintained throughout the season.   Remedies had been persistently urged to remove the accumulated silt from the bottom and to deepen the prism another foot.   But as one discerning official put it, the trouble was not at the bottom but at the top of the water.   More water was needed and both the State Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works urged the speedy building of additional storage reservoirs in the Adirondack Region to provide an increased supply. ^Whitford

The annual message of Governor Hill covering 1885 did not contain a single word of direct reference to the canals.   Other subjects seem to have engrossed public attention.   The tonnage fell off about ¼ million from that of the previous year, by reason of lessened export demand.   Navigation was open only 205 days.   The Comptroller, in his statement for the fiscal year to September 30, makes the net canal debt $3,675,971.39. ^Whitford

The experiment of lengthening the berm lock at lock No. 50 to twice its original length, or to 220 feet between quoins, leaving the lower gate intact, to be used as a middle gate in case of locking through a single boat, proved very satisfactory.   Power derived from a waterwheel was also used in assisting boats through the lock.   It was recommended that other locks, Nos. 47, 48, 49, 51 and 52, – all locking down westward, be improved in the same manner.   It was also urged that the Forestport Reservoir be speedily completed to increase the water-supply of the Rome level. ^Whitford

Many people believed that by reason of the commercial advantage and national importance of the Erie Canal, the Federal Government should bear a portion of the expense of increasing its capacity.   Various measures to accomplish this result were advocated.   In the Legislature a concurrent resolution was reported, asking the State’s Representatives and Senators in Congress to support the Weber bill (H.R. 1577), then pending.   This bill provided Federal aid to the State, to the extent of $5,000,000 in United States 2½% bonds, on condition that the State maintain a depth of 9 feet in the canal, with locks of double length, and a free waterway to the commerce of the United States.   The bill, however, did not become a law. ^Whitford

The total tonnage of canals in 1886 was 5,293,982, an increase of 562,198 over the previous year, which was attributed to the partial cessation of a railroad rate war, which permitted higher rates to be maintained and much traffic to be restored to the canals.   Navigation was open 214 days.   The tendency was to cheapen transportation by quicker lockages and the use of three horses abreast on the towpath.   The lengthening of lock No. 50 had proved so satisfactory that a similar improvement in other locks was deemed desirable.   The sum of $200,000 was appropriated to double the length of the five other locks mentioned, above and, after the season of 1886 closed, the work was carried to completion before the canal was opened in 1887.   Guard lock No. 1 was likewise improved. ^Whitford

During 1887, further lock improvements were authorized by legislative enactment:   15 other locks upon the Erie Canal, 8 of which were to be east of and the remaining 7 west of Syracuse, were authorized to be similarly lengthened, $375,000 being appropriated for the purpose.   Also, $28,000 was appropriated for the lengthening of lock No. 72 at Buffalo.   The locks selected by the State Engineer and Superintendent of Public Works for improvement were Nos. 46, 45, 44, 35, 34, 33, 32 and 31, east of Syracuse, and Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61 and 62, besides the designated 72, west of Syracuse.   These, together with the locks already lengthened, secured this improvement to the longest possible stretch of the canal.   Contracts were let and work was pushed on them at once upon the close of navigation.   On lock No. 46, at Utica, the canal authorities became involved in litigation with the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company and work was stopped on the lock.   The net canal debt September 30, 1887, was $2,583,121.16.   The total tonnage for the year was 5,553,805.   Navigation opened May 7 and closed December 1.   The State Engineer urged the lengthening of the remaining canal locks, except the flights at Lockport and Cohoes and the completion of the partly built reservoirs supplying the Syracuse-Utica long level with water.   The duty of registering boats was transferred from the Comptroller to the Superintendent of Public Works in accord with the law of 1887. ^Whitford

Governor Hill’s 5th annual message, covering the period of 1888, was, like his previous messages, noteworthy by reason of the entire absence of direct reference to the canals, their history or their needs.   Nor do the department reports contain much of general interest concerning that period.   The canals opened May 10 and nominally closed December 1, although the release of east-bound boats continued about two days longer, a period of 207 days.   During the period of lock engthening, the seasons of navigation were purposely made as short as practicable so as to allow the contractors all possible time for completing their work during the winter.   The total tonnage was but 4,492,948, a decrease which was substantially accounted for by the fact that before the opening of the season canal rates were held by the boatmen higher than shippers were willing to pay.   While these rates were in abeyance, railroad agents were unusually active and secured the contracts for carrying large quantities of grain, which would otherwise have been carried by the canals.   Other influences were at work toward the same end, e.g., short crops, which caused a decrease in export trade, and a combination of traffic interests, which included the Union Steamboat Co. west of Buffalo, the Erie Elevator Co. at Buffalo, and the Erie Railway to New York.   The so-called "Hutchinson" wheat corner, a gigantic speculative deal of the time, also retarded shipments.   The building of new boats was also inactive, only 85 being registered.   The net canal debt at the end of September, 1888, was $2,066,370.61. ^Whitford

The locks lengthened under the statute of 1887 were completed before the opening of navigation in 1888, except No. 46, upon which work was not resumed, the injunction thereon not having been set aside.   $200,000 was appropriated to lengthen additional locks upon the Erie canal in a similar manner.   Five or more of these locks were to be east and two or more west of Syracuse.   $100,000 was authorized to the Superintendent of Public Works to deepen the Erie Canal by removing the accumulations of dirt from the bottom wherever in his judgment the interests of commerce demanded it, and to restore the waterway to its standard depth of 7 feet.   The locks to be improved were to be designated by the State Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works, so as most to facilitate and improve navigation, and numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 63 and 64 were so designated.   But the estimates of cost were later found to exceed the amount of appropriation and it was decided to exclude number 26 from the list.   Work on the other six was undertaken and pushed to completion after the close of navigation. ^Whitford

In attempting the work of deepening and cleaning out the bottom of the canal to a standard 7-foot depth under the special appropriation for that purpose, serious difficulties were encountered.   The statute required it to be done by contract.   It became evident upon investigation by the engineers that the removal of quicksand, clay, loam, hardpan and other changeable materials, found at various points, would endanger the walls and do more harm than good.   The appropriation, therefore, was not used, pending a more complete examination by the engineers during the following spring, and it was sought to have the statute so amended that the work could be done directly under supervision of the Department of Public Works. ^Whitford

The question of water supply for the middle division of the canal, which was to a great extent secured from the head waters of the Black River, through the Booneville Feeder and to the Black River Canal to the Erie Canal, was a subject of interest.   The State Engineer careful investigated the history and locality of this source of water supply to be made during the year 1888 with special reference to the increase of supply and to the claims of mill owners and others interested.   As a result of this investigation, he reported an interesting and elaborate history of the subject.   As a conclusion, he urged the raising or completion of the Forestport Dam from 15 feet to its originally planned height of 21 feet, to insure an adequate reserve of water supply, both to the canal and the interested mill owners.   $60,000 was the cost estimate.   Claims for damages by reason of leakage from the Erie Canal at various points, largely caused from its location and construction during the period of its first enlargement (1836-62) along side hills and through gravelly or porous soils, had become so numerous and such a never-ending source of loss to the State that the Superintendent of Public Works urged a special appropriation of $20,000 for drainage improvements to mitigate if not abolish this perennial problem. ^Whitford