Second Enlargement, 1895 - 1897

The agitation which culminated in the second attempt to enlarge the Erie Canal started several years earlier, but the beginning of 1895 marks the time when the project was definitely formulated in law, just subsequent to the popular declaration for some radical form of improvement.   The constitutional amendment to section 10, article 7, became operative on January 1, 1895, and this year promised to be one of increased activity in canal matters.   A complete transfer of political authority in both executive and legislative branches of the State Government had occurred, and it was hoped that this new order would be of great benefit to the State. ^Whitford

The National Government had deepened the lake channel from Chicago to Buffalo to 20 feet, and the Hudson River to 12 feet, while the Erie Canal remained at 7 feet for boats drawing only 6 feet.   The Canadian Government was also preparing to enlarge its system from 12 to 20 feet, from Chicago to Montreal.   These facts mainly led to a convention of mercantile exchanges which was held in September of 1894 at Toronto, Canada, in which delegates from the western cities in the grain belt participated.   The Georgian Bay canal project [Trent-Severn Canal] was inaugurated, shortening the haul to tidewater several hundred miles, and promising to be a dangerous competitor to the canal systems of our own state. ^Whitford

The Governor urged upon the attention of the Legislature the necessity of prompt action upon the question of improving the canals, and the State Engineer, in his annual report for 1894, presented an elaborate argument as to the value of the canals to the State and the necessity of their permanent improvement.   All the improvements so far were of a temporary character.   Comparisons were presented between the efficiency of the canal as it then stood, on the one hand, and the 5 great competing trunk lines of railway, as well as the Canadian canals, on the other.   The idea of a ship canal the State Engineer deemed to be impracticable, and he recommended that the canals be improved by (1) deepening to 9 feet, (2) lengthening the remaining locks, (3) the use of high lifts where necessary, (4) greater speed by the use of electric towage and (5) reducing cost of maintenance.   As to electric propulsion, he reported that the Milligan System appeared to supply all the necessary requirements and to solve the problem of easy and rapid canal transit.   This system, briefly stated, consisted of a line of 14-foot posts in the rear of the towpath, bearing two continuous rails, known as the east and westbound rails, about 3 feet apart.   A 20-horsepower motor ran on these rails and from the motor a towline connected with the boat. ^Whitford

Immediately upon the assembling of the Legislature of 1895, the subject of canal improvements was considered.   On January 9, in the Assembly, Mr. Clarkson introduced a bill making provision for issuing bonds to an amount not to exceed $9,000,000 for the improvement of the Erie, the Champlain and the Oswego Canals, (the Cayuga & Seneca Canal was added later) and providing for the submission of the measure to be voted upon by the people at the general election of the year 1895.   This bill was finally passed by the Assembly on January 19, by a vote of 83 to 31 and by the Senate on February 21, by a vote of 19 to 4.   It became a law on March 9, 1895, with the Governor's approval, and in accordance with its terms and with constitutional requirements was submitted to the people at the ensuing November election for approval.   In the event of such approval, it was provided in the bill that the Comptroller should issue not more than $9,000,000 in semiannual 4% bonds, to run not more than 17 years and to be sold for not less than par, in lots of not more than $4,000,000 at one time.   Premiums were to be applied to the sinking fund established for the payment of principal and interest, and an annual tax of 13/100 of a mill upon all taxable property was authorized for this fund.   By the terms of the bill as applied to the Erie Canal, the improvement was to consist of deepening the canal to a depth of not less than 9 feet of water, except over aqueducts, miter sills and other permanent structures, which might be left at 8 feet.   The deepening might be accomplished by raising the banks where practica.   Locks remaining to be lengthened were to be improved and provided with necessary machinery, and vertical stone walls were to be constructed where required. ^Whitford

The usual number of appropriations for special canal purposes was also made by the Legislature of 1895.   The amount of these special appropriations was afterwards stated to be about $660,000.   Among them were $77,500 from the balance remaining of the fund for deepening the canal, reappropriated to lengthen locks Nos. 21 and 22, and $10,000 from the same source to dredge lower Black Rock Harbor; $31,250 to build the State’s half of a bridge at Porter Avenue, Buffalo, the city to contribute an equal amount; $25,000 for a bridge at Exchange Street, Rochester; $18,000 for bridge changes in motor power at Genesee Street, Utica; $30,000 for drainage of State ditches at Cowassalon Creek and Swamp; $20,000 for drainage at Tonawanda; $10,000 for similar work plus $20,000 for the repair of the dam at Rexford Flats. ^Whitford

Senate resolutions were introduced reciting the facts that the canals annually cost $1,500,000 to maintain; that many other states were benefited by their service as a through freight rate regulator; that it was the policy of the United States to maintain interstate waterways; that the people could not sell the canals constitutionally; and that it was inequitable that New York should bear the entire burden of their maintenance while other states enjoyed their principal benefits.   The resolutions instructed their Representatives in Congress to support and urge the passage of a bill providing that the United States Treasurer should annually pay to the Comptroller of New York ¾ of the expense of their maintenance for the preceding year.   By this means, the opponents of the canals sought to divert public thought from the question at issue and to obtain the defeat of the referendum, but the resolutions were finally tabled. ^Whitford

An act providing for the construction of a dam on the Genesee River, for the purpose of supplying water to the Erie Canal and of restoring to the owners of waterpower on the Genesee River the water diverted by the State for canal purposes, was also passed by both Houses and sent to the Governor, but it failed to secure his approval and did not become a law. ^Whitford

In November, 1895, under Senate resolution 130, which became a law on March 2, 1895, the President appointed a United States Deep Waterways Commission, consisting of James Angell, John E. Russell and Lyman E. Cooley.   The report made to the commission by Mr. Cooley contains a large amount of valuable information on this subject and is accompanied by profiles of all the routes, giving information not before published.   The report of the commission was published in 1897, as H.R. Doc. 192, 54th Congress, 2d Session. ^Whitford

The publication which contained the most general discussion upon the subject of New York State canals was that of the proceedings of the International Deep Waterways Association, which met at Cleveland, Ohio, on September 24-26, 1895.   The proceedings of this convention were published in a book of 460 pages, which contains a vast amount of valuable discussion on the general subject, including articles by Thomas C. Clarke, Lyman E. Cooley, Chauncey N. Dutton, S. A. Thompson of Duluth and others. ^Whitford

Navigation opened on the canals on May 3 and closed December 5, 1895.   Lake navigation was open after April 4, and the Hudson River from April 2 to December 9.   The season was remarkable as being the dryest in many years.   Lakes Erie and Ontario were from two to four feet below their normal elevation.   Extreme care was used in drawing upon reserve supplies, but an abundant supply for navigation in the canals was maintained.   At Buffalo, on several occasions, with adverse eastern winds, the canal surface was lowered four or five feet and the unusual sight was presented of loaded boats lying hard and fast on the bottom of the canal until the wind shifted and the prism was again filled to its usual level. ^Whitford

An innovation in canal boat construction was demonstrated in August, 1895, in the trial trip of a fleet of steel canal boats – one steamer and five consorts – put in commission by the Cleveland Steel Canal Boat Company.   A thorough working trial was given them, with very satisfactory results and three more fleets on improved plans were ordered.   The boats were about 98 feet long by 18 feet beam, and 10 feet deep, made of 3/8-inch open hearth steel.   Light, they drew 1½ feet; capacity of consorts on a 6-foot draft, 235 net tons, and of propeller, 130 net tons.   The latter was fitted with fore-and-aft compound engine of 120 horsepower, and boiler of Scotch type.   The diameter of propeller was 64 inches, making 160 revolutions per minute; approximate cost of propeller, $15,000 and of consort, $6,000; time, New York to Cleveland, loaded to 6 feet, 13 days. ^Whitford

In October of 1895, there occurred another series of tests of electrical propulsion, the trial being made at Tonawanda by the Erie Canal Traction Company, of the "Lamb System", which consisted of a line of poles along the bank supporting a stationary cableway, on which electric motor carriages traveled, towing the attached boats.   The department was represented by Electrician Barnes of Rochester, and his report was made to the Superintendent of Public Works on December 11, 1895.   From his computations, the cost of propulsion, under experimental conditions that were somewhat disadvantageous, would be, for a boat whose gross weight was 217½ tons at a speed of 2½ miles per hour, 2.1 cents per boat-mile for power or $7.66 per trip and a like sum for towmotor rental.   The energy consumed would vary approximately as the cube of the speed divided by the ratio[?] of speed, and the item for motor rental would vary as the power divided by that ratio.   Thus, if the speed should be increased to 3½ miles per hour, the power would be increased from 8.5 to 23.4 electric horsepower, the cost of current to 4.1, and of motor rental to 4.1 cents, making 8.2 cents per mile, or $29.93 per trip.   Making allowance of 1/3 time for delays, there would be 23 trips per season at the lower speed and 32 trips at the higher speed.   This was considered to fall far short of the cost of towage prevailing at the time.   In comparison with the trolley system, tried in 1893, several points of advantage were noted.   Among them, the elimination of the necessity for building propeller boats, no space required for electrical machinery, and the absence of propeller wash.   The system was fully endorsed by the expert.   In the Milligan System, the motor was carried on rigid rails.   There was no sagging between poles, and an even strain on the towing cable was maintained.   It had double tracks upon which two motors traveling in opposite directions might pass without exchanging motors as in the Lamb System, on which the motor was carried on flexible cables and was much cheaper in both installation and maintenance. ^Whitford

The great interest in enlarged canals manifested by the Deep Waterways Association, and by the results of the recent elections led to a preliminary survey and estimates for an enlarged canal by the "Oswego Route" by Resident Engineer Albert J. Himes, under direction of the State Engineer, in the fall of 1895.   The route was from Troy through the Mohawk River to Rome, thence into Wood creek and across Oneida lake, thence down the Oswego river to Lake Ontario.   This was, to a certain extent, the line suggested by Elnathan Sweet in his paper before the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1884.   The Mohawk River was to be canalized into a series of level pools by means of dams.   The bottom width was to be 100 feet, the depth of water 20 feet, and the locks 450 feet long by 60 feet wide.   Huge elevator lifts were to be used, one at Cohoes of 130 feet and another at Oswego of half that height.   The length of the contemplated canal was 182½ miles and the total cost of the enlargement was estimated at $82,000,000. ^Whitford

Only 27 boats were registered during the year 1895, of which 17 were from 240 to 250 tons.   The total tonnage of the canals for the year was 3,500,314, compared with 1894, a loss of 1,000,692 tons, of which the loss in wheat was 622,996 tons and in corn, 177,453 tons.   The total receipts of flour and grain delivered at the port of New York by all routes during the season of canal navigation was equivalent to 87,783,418 bushels, of which the canals brought 14,612,700 bushels or 17.08%. These figures show a large falling off in the trade and tonnage of the canals for 1895.   This was another year of great commercial stagnation, although conditions were somewhat better than during the previous year.   It had probably proved to be the most disastrous to canal interests of any within the past 60 years, by reason of the ruinous competition of the parallel railway lines and the comparative inefficiency of the canals.   Without any apparent reason, the railroads reduced their rates nearly 50% below those of the year before, and to a point which was profitable neither to themselves nor to the boatmen.   The Legislature had decided to refer the question of expending $9,000,000 in canal improvements to the people at the November election.   If the canals and their usefulness could be discredited by an overwhelming reduction in tonnage before the election, might not the vote upon the amendment be negative and the canals decline as a competitor? This explanation was officially suggested. ^Whitford

Certain obnoxious exactions by lock tenders from the boatmen had gradually attained such proportions as to call for vigorous action by the Superintendent.   Particularly was this the case at Lockport and at the "sixteens" near Cohoes.   Boatmen had to pay tribute in passing these locks or suffer personal abuse, delays, swelling of boats against the walls, or flooding of their boats.   It was little better than highway robbery and had been too often winked at by officials.   During this season, a vigorous effort eventually stamped out the system. ^Whitford

The condition of the bridge over the canal at West Main street, Rochester, demanded attention, so by the law, the State Engineer was required to prepare plans for a complete overhauling of the structure, or if the cost of these repairs should approach that of a new bridge, then to submit estimates for the latter to the Legislature.   In September of 1894, Mr. George W. Rafter was instructed to visit and inspect movable bridges in Europe with a view to the selection of some appropriate type adaptable to this and other points on the canal.   Meanwhile, certain repairs were made to the existing bridge, which bettered conditions materially.   Mr. Rafter submitted an interesting report to the State Engineer on January 15, 1895, reviewing the various forms of movable bridges in different countries, but he seemed to find no type among them particularly adapted to use upon the Erie Canal, either for general service or at the Rochester crossing.   He was impressed with the advantages of fixed bridges of high span with long easy approaches, both in point of beauty and utility, and recommended their use for canal crossings wherever practicable.   In view of Mr. Rafter’s report, new plans were prepared in 1895 for a lift bridge with pressure applied to cylinders by an accumulated weight operated by a waterwheel driven by water from the canal.   But owing to the fact that local public opinion was divided as to whether a fixed or movable bridge was wanted, and to the unsettled questions arising from contemplated general improvements in the canal under the "Nine Million" act, the State Engineer, in January of 1896, recommended to the Legislature that no immediate action be taken. ^Whitford

Various devices for the propulsion of boats were at this time given careful consideration.   The State Engineer recommended an electrical propelling device, invented by C. N. Dutton, as being superior to any yet tested, in the low cost of construction, the ease with which boats could pass without switches or double tracks, and the facility with which wide waters could be crossed.   The economy in construction would insure to every boat a motor and screw, while only every fourth boat would need to be so supplied.   In general terms, it consisted of a wire cable supported on posts; an adjustable propelling apparatus carried on the boat and a trolley pole, controlled by the steersman, and of a length sufficient to reach the conducting cable from any portion of the navigable canal.   Bulger’s adjustable propelling apparatus with feathering paddles intended to eliminate bank wash was similarly brought to notice. ^Whitford

At the November election in 1895, the people again expressed their determination that the 3 canals should be improved and the law providing for their enlargement was ratified by a majority of 276,886.   As soon as the State board of canvassers had declared the results of the ratification of the "Nine Million" law, which they did on December 12, the Comptroller advertised for sale bonds to the amount of $2,000,000.   Unfortunately, at this juncture, Venezuelan complications with Great Britain arose, and another Government bond sale was ordered, but notwithstanding these difficulties, $1,770,000 was sold on January 9, 1896, at a premium of 1.378. These were 3%, 10-year bonds, due in 1906.   As to the manner in which the general improvements authorized by the "Nine Million Act" should be executed, the Superintendent of Public Works held the opinion that any substantial improvement short of a deep waterway, or ship canal, should have as a central idea the increase in speed of boats of existing tonnage, rather than the increased section of waterway, and in his view the appropriation available was for the necessary rebuilding of dilapidated structures, the restoring of strength and durability to the canal and for putting it in perfect condition rather than for its enlargement, except as to depth.   The purpose should be to increase the number of boat trips appreciably in anticipation of the adoption of improved methods of propulsion by steam or electricity. ^Whitford

By January 13, 1896, surveys were started over the entire length of the 3 canals, a distance of 454 miles.   28 survey sections were allotted to as many parties and over 200 men were drawn from the civil service lists and put into the field in order to obtain the necessary data for plans before navigation opened.   This done, the forces were reduced and plans begun.   For many years, this method of improvement, commonly known as the "Seymour Plan," had been the subject of general discussion.   In the preparation of plans many unforeseen difficulties were presented.   To deepen the Lockport level of 28 miles, much of it through rock, was a puzzling problem, the solution to which was reported by Assistant Engineer George W. Rafter in the State Engineers’ report for 1896.   Plans for improvements at Lockport were based on his recommendations.   The question of raising the banks or deepening the bottom, especially through cities, was often determined by the grade of important bridges or other structures or by extensive commercial establishments on the canal banks, by the feeders and the heights of their dams, and by the level of important aqueducts or other controlling features.   All of these difficult matters largely account for the delay in beginning construction. ^Whitford

The River and Harbor Act of June 3, directed the Secretary of War to make accurate examinations and estimates of the cost of a ship canal for the most practicable route wholly within the United States, from the Great Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson river, of sufficient capacity to transport the tonnage of the lakes to the sea.   The Secretary of War detailed Major T. W. Symons, Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., to prepare this report.   It contained a discussion of the general proposition of the various routes and of the class of vessels adapted for their navigation.   In its conclusions, this report stated that the route considered best for a ship canal was by the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, Oswego river, Oneida Lake, and the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers; also that the Erie Canal, improved and enlarged and modified to give a continuously descending canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson River, and the canalizing of the Mohawk River will give better results than a ship canal and at ¼ the cost.   On April 1, 1898, this report was discussed at length before the House committee on rivers and harbors of the Fifty-fifth Congress by Mr. S. A. Thompson, of Duluth, who was later Secretary of the Board of Trade of Wheeling, West Virginia.   This discussion contained a great amount of valuable information and was published by the Government printing office in 1900, under the title of "Proposed Ship Canal Connecting the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean."   In 1896, the United States Deep Waterways Commission published a report with map and sectional profile showing the most direct line through the Oswego-Oneida-Mohawk valleys, between Oswego and Troy, following the channels of the rivers and the lake and showing their materials.   These were made by Wm. Pierson Judson and are described in the report by the United States Deep Waterways Commission to be "the first map and profile adequate for the consideration for a ship canal."   These were also published separately with title "Lake Ontario to the Hudson River, 1896." ^Whitford

In the canal legislation for 1896, a general tax of 1/10 mill was imposed, which was expected to yield revenue of about $425,000.   Of this amount, $50,000 was devoted to the installation of a general system of communications [telegraph?, telephone?] on the canals, and of the remainder $125,000 was available to each division for use in extraordinary repairs and improvements on that division.   Achieving success, a similar appropriation of $360,000 was asked for the following year.   Under the $50,000 for electric communications, plans for two different methods of installation were obtained and submitted to an expert for examination and both were approved.   The estimated cost was $150,000.   Actual construction was deferred until the following season and a second appropriation of $50,000 was advocated in order to secure early completion and benefits from the system.   The laws of 1896 permitted floating elevators to be maintained on the canals at stations to be assigned by the Superintendent; shortening the time of advertising contracts and so facilitating the work; and appropriating $10,000 for making further investigations of the foundations of the proposed dam at Mount Morris and the best means of transporting materials to its site, and also for making detailed plans for the dam.   During the year, plans under the general improvement act for $3,500,000 were prepared and contracts were let.   Generally the work was to begin with the close of navigation. ^Whitford

Navigation opened on the canal on May 1 and closed December 1, 215 days, the Hudson River was open from April 7 to December 19, and Lake Erie opened to navigation at Buffalo after April 19.   Less trouble was experienced at the latter place from low water in the canal than in any previous year.   It was hoped that the work to be done under the general improvement act would entirely relieve this trouble. ^Whitford

Two or three more fleets of steel boats were added to the service during the season and were remarkably successful in their results.   The trip from Cleveland to New York was made in 10 to 12 days, and the ability of the boats to withstand heavy gales while on the lake was encouraging.   In the estimation of the forecasters, it was believed that they could successfully compete with railways as they then existed, at a fair margin of profit. ^Whitford

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1896, the expense of ordinary repairs and maintenance was stated to be $1,006,453.70.   The tons carried in 1896 by all canals was 3,714,894.   Of this amount, there were east-bound, 2,605,012 tons; and of through freight, 2,132,956 tons; the Erie Canal carried 2,742,438, an increase over 1895 of 214,580 tons.   On agricultural products, however, there was an increase of 492,656 tons, the small total increase being due to losses in other products.   As to comparative flour and grain receipts at the Port of New York during the season of canal navigation, May 1 to December 1, the total receipts by all routes were equivalent to 112,121,954 bushels, of which the canals carried 31,672,499 bushels or 28¼%. ^Whitford

At the close of the year, the Superintendent stated that he had been assured by the State Engineer that the appropriation of $9,000,000 would suffice to secure the depth contemplated in all three of the canals, and added that the contract prices so far made would seem to warrant this prediction.   But the State Engineer in his report stated that this sum would not suffice to put the canals in their highest state of efficiency.   It was a year of unprecedented financial stress in which the resources of the banks had fallen off $30,000,000, but Governor Black in his message of 1897 urged the energetic pushing of canal improvements in order that the full value of the appropriation might be used instead of being frittered away in commissions, boards and other expenses. ^Whitford

In 1896, locks Nos. 21 and 22 were placed under construction.   These, with possibly lock No. 2, and the three at Newark, were believed to be all that would admit of lengthening in the usual manner.   Lock No. 1, at Albany, was regarded as difficult and expensive to improve, and the fact that 85% of canal traffic sought the Hudson River at West Troy rendered its improvement of doubtful expediency.   In place of locks Nos. 3 to 18, known as the "sixteens" it was proposed to build a steel aqueduct from the head of lock No. 18 to a rocky point on the opposite bank of the river, and there to place a mechanical lift of 140 feet, capable of passing two boats at once.   From here, the river was to be canalized on the south side to the Champlain Canal.   The estimated cost of "improving" the existing 16 locks and levels was $1,686,881.   The mechanical lift lock would cost about 2/3 of this sum.   Among the many benefits to be gained by the proposed construction there was the saving of $34,000 annually in lock tending, and the abundant supply of water for the Cohoes mills.   The four Little Falls locks were to be lengthened in the usual manner.   At Newark, the three locks were to be reduced to two of higher lift.   At Lockport, the difficulties were regarded as enormous, but finally plans for a mechanical lift, combined with a new alignment, were decided upon.   These lift locks were to be operated by compressed air, and the preparation of plans was conducted under the supervision of the inventor, Chauncey N. Dutton. ^Whitford

Under the blanket appropriation for each division, the work on extraordinary repairs and improvements was greatly facilitated.   The waters from serious leakages were collected and carried away in ditches; numerous deposits of silt under aqueducts and culverts were removed, adding to their safety and avoiding damage suits.   Earthen or timber reservoir dams, especially on the middle division, were out of repair, and a great variety of work was done in connection with them, and still more was needed.   They were considered to be in much better condition than for 30 years past, according to Division Engineer Gere’s report.   Several aqueducts required rebuilding and, as they were not expected to be rebuilt under the Nine Million Act, they were paid for out of the blanket appropriations, and for reasons of economy in view of the forthcoming improvements, were made to carry 9 instead of 8 feet of water, as directed under the Act. ^Whitford

A popular misconception existed as to the scope of the Nine Million Act, which the Superintendent in his report for 1896 corrected.   The misconception was that it was applicable to the reconstruction or improvement of any structure on any canal.   But it was officially construed by the Department to mean that it could only be used on the Erie, Oswego or Champlain Canals, and that no expenditures for construction should be made unless such improvement or construction was necessary to, and formed part of, the general plan of improvement.   It followed that improvements to locks, aqueducts, waste weirs and culverts, and for cleaning out feeders, creeks, and like expenditures must be made under some other appropriation. The improvements either underway or planned would result, it was believed, in a reduction of the tractive power required to move a given weight at a given speed.   This would result either in shortening the time of a trip without increasing the motive power or in an increase of load and speed without an increase of power.   Experiments so far seemed to warrant the expectation of lowering the cost of movement substantially, even though hampered by a restricted prism, owing to deposits of silt. ^Whitford

On February 22, 1897, the Superintendent of Public Works addressed a communication to the legislature upon the subject of the rate of wages paid by contractors on State work to unskilled laborers.   Conditions then prevalent enabled the average working man to earn only 13½¢ per hour, making $1.00 for an 8-hour day, or $6.00 per week, a sum insufficient for the support of himself and his family.   It was suggested that the Legislature fix a minimum price of not less than 15¢ per hour for unskilled labor on the canals and other State work.   A bill was later introduced and passed by the Legislature to remedy this evil, but by clerical neglect it failed to come properly before the Governor and so did not become a law. ^Whitford

Under an appropriation of $10,000, Engineer Rafter submitted a voluminous report on the Genesee River storage project, on January 1, 1897, which was embodied in the State Engineer’s report for 1896.   A new site at Portage was examined.   Because of its greater elevation, 500 feet of additional head could be utilized for commercial purposes.   The solid rock foundation, found here at surface, and the narrower section of the canyon presented a saving of more than 50% over the Mount Morris site in the cost of masonry for dam alone, and a dam 118 feet in height at this location, estimated to cost $1,000,000, would provide storage for 15 billion cubic feet as against a storage capacity of 7.370 billion cubic feet at the Mount Morris site.   From a financial point of view, computations were made as to the relative power to be furnished by both the Mount Morris and the Portage projects and their value at Rochester, by which the former was shown to be commercially impractical and only to be constructed and maintained at an annual loss of many thousand dollars, while the Portage plan exhibited a net income of several hundred thousand dollars.   While the proposal was admirable in plan, and entirely feasible from an engineering standpoint, its salient feature was its proposal to restore to the mill owners of Rochester and vicinity the volume of water which came to their wheels in years long gone by, and of which they were deprived, not so much by its diversion for canal purposes as by the deforestation of the catchment basin of the upper Genesee by owners of forest lands, and for this loss the State was asked in this manner to provide compensation.   For the use of the canals it would appear that the existing works at Rochester would furnish ample supply. ^Whitford

Sundry bills were introduced in the Legislature of 1897 to prevent extortion and combination in transferring State canal grain, discriminations in freight rates against shippers by canal and to provide for State elevators.   One of these, by Mr. Koehler, was to submit to the people at the next November election a proposition to issue $3,500,000 in bonds, and with the proceeds buy all boats, harbor tugs and Hudson River towboats used in the transportation of flour, grain and merchandise, and all dry docks and boat yards used in the repair and building of canal, tow- and tugboats plying between Buffalo and New York along the Erie Canal and Hudson River, the ownership to be vested in the people and to be operated by the State, in order to cheapen transportation to the minimum rate between producer and consumer.   These various measures were referred to committees and died there. ^Whitford

A law was passed providing for a tax of .095-mill, out of the proceeds of which $360,000 was to be apportioned equally among the 3 divisions of the canal for extraordinary improvements and repairs, and $50,000 additional for installing electric communication.   Other laws provided for the leasing of surplus waters of the improved canals at the discretion of the authorities and the "labor law," gave preference to citizens of the state for employment upon public contract work, including the canals. ^Whitford

Under the sundry civil act of June 4, 1897, the President, on July 28, appointed a United States Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways, consisting of Major Charles W. Raymond, Corps of Engineers, Alfred Noble, and George Y. Wisner.   During this year and the three years following, appropriations were made for $485,000, which were expended by this board in exhaustive surveys of the waterways and routes through the Great Lakes and thence to tidewater.   The resulting report of this board was presented to Congress on December 1, 1900.   The lines examined by this board across New York State were: (1) from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario and from Oswego, by way of the Oswego-Oneida-Mohawk valleys to the Hudson, (2) by way of the St. Lawrence river to Lake St. Francis, across the country to Lake Champlain and through Lake Champlain and the upper Hudson to tidewater.   Estimates were made for both a 21- and 30-foot depth on each of these routes.   The route from the Hudson River to Lake Ontario was divided into three surveys: (1) from Oswego to Herkimer, (2) from Herkimer to the Hudson, and (3) water supply.   These surveys and estimates included two projects through the Mohawk Valley, one for a high level canal across the summit near Rome, and the other for a low level, cutting the summit down to the regulated level of Oneida Lake. ^Whitford

Canal navigation opened May 8 and closed December 1, 208 days.   Lake Erie was open from April 6, and the Hudson River from April 29 to December 7.   The season was again an unusually dry one throughout the drainage area for supplying the canals, but owing to improvements recently made in storage capacity, no hindrance to navigation on the main canals occurred.   There were 2,332 boats navigating the Erie Canal, of which 1,117 were grain carriers, and were rated as first, second and third class.   The others were classed as carriers of coal, lumber and other coarse freight.   Most of them were old and rotten and required only a slight accident to sink them.   Very few new boats had been built during the past 10 years.   Many still were propelled by mule power.   Practically the only improvements were a few steam-propelled fleets.   There were registered during the year 11 boats of 250 tons, 3 boats of 240 tons, and 1 each of 225 and 100 tons. ^Whitford

The aggregate payments for ordinary repairs and maintenance for the year ending September 30, 1897, were $904,309.48, as against $1,006,453.70 for similar payments for the previous year.   The total receipts of flour and grain at New York by all routes during the season of navigation, May 1 to November 30, 1887, were 140,030,101 bushels, of which the canals brought 20,998,561 bushels or 14.99%.   The whole number of tons of freight carried on the canals in 1897 was 3,617,804, of which more than 2/3 was east-bound and about 1/2 was through freight.   Of the total tonnage, the Erie Canal carried 2,584,916.   The tendency was toward a larger way freight business and a decrease in through freight. ^Whitford

The season was not a prosperous one for boatmen.   Rates were unusually low and many owners preferred to tie up their boats rather than accept the rates offered.   The principal causes were alleged to be deterioration of the canal prism, non-improvement of boats and motive power, and excessive terminal charges at Buffalo and New York.   The earnings of an elevator at Buffalo for handling a cargo of 200,000 bushels of grain at prevailing rates would be about $2,650.   A single elevator, costing $250,000, was known to have paid for itself in a single year.   Nearly all of them were under the control of a trust and received a share of the profits, whether operating or not.   The Superintendent of Public Works considered that the better remedy would be to control these excessive charges by statutory limitation rather than to provide State elevators.   In his report at the beginning of 1898, State Engineer Adams also strongly presented the necessity of curbing excessive terminal grain charges in order to supplement the improvements of the physical features of the canal, claiming both to be necessary to the restoration of the commercial supremacy of New York City.   In support of this argument numerous references were made to the report, already noted, of Major Symons to the Federal Government. ^Whitford

During the latter part of 1897, it began to be fully realized by those connected with the work of canal improvement and to be generally understood by the public that the whole amount of contemplated work could not be accomplished with the $9,000,000, and with these reports came rumors of alleged frauds and extravagance in the administration and prosecution of the undertaking. ^Whitford