Month: July 2021

More On the Middlesex Canal

Ed- After we posted the Middlesex Canal article, Bill Gerber, who is Mr. Middlesex, sent along the following.

The Middlesex Canal was authorized in the Summer of 1793. In the spring of 1794, Loammi Baldwin was sent by the Middlesex Canal Company Proprietors on an expedition to survey ‘southern canals’. (See “Instructions to Colonel Baldwin” <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsSept2010.htm> and “L Baldwin’s Report …” <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsApr2011.htm>.)

He visited the Schuylkill and Union Canal sites, met William Weston there and persuaded him to come to Boston to lead a survey for the Middlesex (he came because his wife wanted to mingle in Boston society!! Also, I suspect, because the Penna. Canals ran out of money about this time and weren’t completed for a couple more decades). Baldwin “borrowed” a ‘Y-level’ and station rod from Weston (first known introduction into New England of means to accurately measure elevations and the progression thereof – didn’t return it until 3-years later – probably led to the school of civil engineering at MIT). Baldwin bypassed Brindley’s work along the Susquehanna in PA because he was afraid he’d not be able to get a seat on a later ‘stagecoach’; he visited the site of the Pawtomack Canal in VA, and on the return met with Robert Morris in Philadelphia.

Soon after on an expedition led by William Weston, in the summer of 1794, two routes were surveyed for the Middlesex Canal; actual construction began on the western-most option in September 1794.

Some have asserted that William Weston was the ‘real engineer’ for the Middlesex Canal; IMHO, definitely not so!  Weston did come to Boston, he did lead the expedition that surveyed two potential routes for the canal, and he did produce the first estimates of what it would cost to build the canal. He then departed and never returned to the Middlesex; though it is clear that he carried on a correspondence with Baldwin, in which they discussed many technical matters, for a considerable time thereafter.

But Baldwin was his own man. E.g., Weston suggested a european source for ’trass’ (volcanic rock for use in making hydraulic cement), Baldwin got his from St. Eustacius in the Caribbean and did his own experiments to derive a practical formula; Weston suggested building locks of brick, Baldwin used granite; Baldwin took Weston’s advice and built bypass channels on both sides of his locks at the Merrimack flight; when building the bottom lock of that three-lock flight, Baldwin designed, built and employed a ‘horse-powered’ ‘bucket machine’ to extract much water from the pit. Weston was impressed, requested and received a copy of Baldwin’s design. [We know this from an unpublished manuscript, “Minutes of the History of the Middlesex Canal” by James Fowle Baldwin  (From the Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Printed Ephemera, Col. 204. Owned by the Winterthur Library)

Baldwin was called on to survey for the Pawtucket Canal when they got into trouble. James Sullivan, father of J.L., conceived a dump cart for use on the Middlesex, but Baldwin built to his own design, which apparently was used there and in many subsequent construction jobs. (It should be very interesting to learn how Christian Senf surveyed for and constructed the Cooper & Santee. Is any of that known?)

Considering canals of comparable length, the Santee did predate the Middlesex by a few years. Technically speaking, the 1-1/2+/- mile Pawtucket Canal predated them both, opening in 1797 after a flawed attempt to open the preceding year. (Probably a few other short canals opened earlier as well.)
By 1815, a year before the NY canal commissioners came to visit, the Pawtucket had become a key part of the more than 100-miles of canals and navigable waterways in use north of Boston. The complex had been built by more than a dozen private, independent companies at an overall cost of over $1M (e.g., $600+K for the M’sex; $400+K for the Merrimack above M’sex Village; and $60K for the Pawtucket. These included: the M’sex Canal, 27.5 miles; the canalized Merrimack River north to and beyond Concord NH, 52 miles (see Locks and Canals of the Merrimack River <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsJan2009.htm>); the Concord River south of where the M’sex crossed the Concord, to and beyond Concord MA, 10+ miles; the Pawtucket Canal (noted) and M’mack River east to tidewater, 25 miles, about 5 miles of the Charles River (to Watertown); and the Mill Creek Canal that crossed through Boston to reach Boston Harbor.
(Though I’ve not seen his diary, it is my understanding that notes describing L Baldwin’s experiments and conclusions are contained in his diary, available at the Harvard University’s Baker Business School Library. It would be interesting to compare his notes with whatever the Erie folks did, early on.

I did not realize that Sullivan was in Albany at DeWitt Clinton’s request although that certainly makes sense; thank you for that. I am suspicious that Sullivan was also ‘politicking’ to be allowed to set up a steam towboat concession on the Hudson River – which he received approval for from the NY legislature, but could never overcome the Livingston/Fulton monopoly for the use of ‘fire and steam’ on that river.

I was aware that Sullivan favored construction of the Erie well before there was ‘visible’ action to define, authorize, fund and construct it. Following their inspection of the Middlesex, the NY canal commissioners wrote and submitted an extensive report of what they had witnessed. This report was republished early on in TT, see “In This Issue”<http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/canalnewsApr1964.htm> and it is about the same as what you included at the end of your paper.

Apparently the NY commissioners did not go up the Merrimack to examine what had been completed there the preceding year and so, subsequent to their return to NY, John .L. Sullivan wrote a letter to DeWitt Clinton which described the work done to canalize 52 miles of the Merrimack River (i.e., a dozen bypass canal, three dozen locks), and all the costs associated with that enterprise. This letter was republished in Towpath Topics, see “Letter from J. L. Sullivan to New York Canal Commissioners advising concerning the cost of proposed Erie Canal”, http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsSept1965.htm>. The information content of Sullivan’s letter should have been very useful in initial efforts to estimate the costs to build the Erie. Both the report and Sullivan’s letter were bound into a book, a copy of which resides in the NY State archives in Albany.

For a fairly detailed description of what was done to canalize the Merrimack, see “Locks and Canals of the Merrimack River”  <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsJan2009.htm>. 
Because it was impractical to build towpaths along the Merrimack, which exhibited radical changes in level, Sullivan ‘invented’ the towboat. That story is told in “… Sullivan … his Steam Towboats”, <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsFeb2010.htm>. Likely Sullivan’s 1816 towboat, his fourth-generation boat, would have been available for inspection by the commissioners.

Re: Erie Waters West – it is my opinion –  that it was not so much that competent people could not be found to accomplish major engineering projects, as it was that none of the men who could do that kind of work were widely known and none had built an acceptably broad level of confidence in their abilities. E.g. – prior to the American Revolution, Loammi Baldwin and his younger cousin Benjamin Thompson would travel to Harvard College to attend lectures in Practical Philosophy, then work the suggested experiments together at home. Thus, both men had comparable technical educational roots. Thompson (who became a British spy! Settled in Europe after the war and never came back) went on to become the world recognized scientist and inventor known as ‘Count Rumford’, and Loammi Baldwin (who became a Colonel in Washington’s army) became the “Supervisor of Construction”(i.e., construction manager and chief engineer) for the Middlesex Canal. —  Similarly, along the Connecticut River at South Hadley Mass., Benjamin Prescott fulfilled a very similar “Supervisor of … “ role for construction of the Inclined Plane , probably the most ambitious technical endeavor of the young nation at that time. (And one that just ‘cries out’ to be properly written up and appropriately recognized.)

Baldwin was also the father of an engineering dynasty that included several of his sons (See “It was a Family Thing”, <http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsMar2012.htm> – his sons: Benjamin Franklin, Loammi (Jr.), James Fowle., George Rumford) became respected engineers in their own right. Cyrus Baldwin became the “Lock Keeper” at the head of the canal at Middlesex Village, which I think means the business manager overseeing operation of both the northern terminus and the Landing there, where goods were accepted for shipment, warehoused, loaded, unloaded, and delivered.

Re: Bond of Union – Technically speaking, the Middlesex opened for use in 1804. — What happened in 1803 to cause the confusion? Well, the MA legislature authorized the M’sex in the summer (June, I think) of 1793 and gave the Proprietors 10 years to complete the action. That time would have been up in the summer of 1803, but it appears that the legislature extended permission to the end of the year. And so, on December 31st, 1803, water was let into the entire length of the canal for the first time ever. (Oral history suggests that clocks in some of the towns along the route were set back to claim accomplishment!! One wonders – what the hell were they doing watering the canal in the middle of a New England winter, and in the midst of a mini ice age??? Fulfilling the terms of the legislation? Perhaps!! Why else would they pull off such a hair-brained stunt?)

Reference to cost overruns: I’d like to know where the author found this. It may be, but in 40+ years of research, including a fair number of primary (corporate) documents, I’ve never seen a budget for either the construction or operation of the Middlesex Canal. So how does he know? Was he referring to the ‘as built’ costs vs the original cost estimates? That would be an absurd comparison, utterly meaningless.

I concur that J.L. Sullivan made the Middlesex successful. And to counter the skeptics, yes, the company did pay a dividend for a few years, though that’s a subject for another discussion, as well as some targeted research. Reports that the investors lost money are not well based; i.e., a number of related factors were not considered when that estimate was made [by Christopher Roberts in his 1930s PhD thesis “The Middlesex Canal”. E.g., the sale of the M’mack River canals in the 1830s, the ‘Canal Bridge’ (toll bridge between Boston and Cambridge at Lechmere Point) and the tolls it produced, and several other factors were never considered.

And that’s about all that comes to mind at the moment!! Hope it helps.

The Middlesex Canal and It’s Roll in the Development of the Erie Canal

Construction began on the 27-mile-long Middlesex Canal in 1793 and it opened for business in 1803. Only the 22-mile-long Santee Canal in South Carolina is older, that canal being opened in 1800. These two canals predate the construction of the Erie Canal by 14 and 17 years, and certainly it is reasonable that engineers from New York would have traveled to the working canals to see what, and not to do, when it came to canal construction. (Yes, there were navigations such as the Western Inland Lock Navigation, and the Schuylkill, but no real canals during that period.) However, if you were to take a narrated cruise or hike along the old Erie, you would rarely, if ever hear about the influence of these canals on New York’s Erie Canal.

Bill Gerber, who serves as a member of our ACS board and is a past president of the Middlesex Canal Association, sent along this note. “It has long bugged me that the Middlesex Canal rarely, if ever, gets credit for its contribution to the success of the Erie Canal. For instance, in 1816, a group of New York Canal Commissioners visited the Middlesex to examine what had been built and how it operated.” In 2011, Bill wrote an article for Towpath Topics, the newsletter of the Middlesex Canal Association where he highlighted a couple examples of when the new canal commissioners of the Erie Canal visited the Middlesex in 1816, and when John Sullivan, the CEO of the Middlesex, visited Albany in 1817. (1)

Bill added, “Among other things, the Erie historians credit European sources with guidance to produce hydraulic cement. Perhaps so, but were the NY Commissioners not also given access to supervisor of construction Loammi Baldwin’s notes, the research he did into hydraulic cement, the successful conclusions he came to, and the implementation thereof? I find it hard to believe that they were not. How too did that knowledge factor into their engineering and construction decisions?”

“While the instances were certainly a modest contribution, they did provide very practical and useful information, and very likely assistance, from actual domestic canal engineering, construction and operation at a key point in the effort to obtain authorization and funding for the Erie. If true, I’d like to see the Middlesex appropriately credited.” -Bill Gerber

Bill’s comments are certainly true. In those old days when I studied only the Erie Canal and it’s laterals, I rarely ran across mentions of the Middlesex. One would read about the work of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, or William Weston, the English canal engineer who helped to guide our canal engineering. It was only after I became involved in the ACS that I realized that my “Erie-centric” view of the canal world was somewhat misguided.

But was the fault all mine, or could I cast blame onto the authors of the many Erie Canal history books I have read over the years? I decided to head into the American Canal Society library and pull out some of the more popular Erie Canal histories. I also conducted a quick search on some digital newspaper platforms to see if the people of the period were aware of the Middlesex Canal. Here is a sampling of what I found.

The Weekly Messenger, Friday, May 21, 1813. (2)

John Sullivan wrote an long article titled; “Inland Navigation, Remarks of the Importance of Inland Navigation” In this he details the route of the Erie Canal and the benefits to the state and union.

May-21-1813Download

Buffalo [NY] Gazette, Feb 6, 1816

The Middlesex Canal in Massachusetts runs over twenty-eight miles of ground, presenting obstacles much greater than can be expected on the route we purpose. The article goes onto explain the costs and lockages along the Middlesex canal.

Buffalo_Gazette_Tue__Feb_6__1816_Download

Laws of the State of New York, Feb 8, 1825, page 197 (3)

1817- The best artificial navigation in the United States being the Middlesex canal, in Massachusetts, two of the commissioners accompanied by two of the engineers, proceeded to examine it, in order to obtain practical information on the subject.

John Sullivan letter to Albany [NY] Argus and City Gazette, March 21, 1826

I am compelled to speak of myself, and to ask; Was I “a visionary” when Judge Wright and other gentlemen visited me for information respecting the Middlesex Canal before the Erie was begun?

sullivan-letter-1826Download

Erie Water West (1966), page 18 (4)

The canal builders of this period (1790s) must be judged to have left a record more of failure than success. When no competent American engineer could be found, the companies sent vainly to England for aid and finally secured the part-time services of William Weston, an Englishman who was then employed in Pennsylvania on the Schuylkill and Susquehanna Canal. But Weston could not visit the works until 1795. I include this as the services of William Weston are often confused when it comes to Erie Canal history. He was employed/engaged on a number of early canals, including the Western Inland Lock Navigation in central New York. His age prevented him from returning to assist with the construction of the Erie.

Erie Water West, page 69

As the only real precedent in the Untied States was the Middlesex Canal, twenty-seven miles long, between Boston and the Merrimac River, the commissioners had examined it and made it their model; but in actuality they had very few standards by which to judge their plans.

Wedding of the Waters (2005), page 131 (5)

There was also the record of the Middlesex Canal, at that time the longest canal in North America, a twenty-seven-mile waterway built in the late 1790s to connect Boston to the Merrimack River in the northern reaches of Massachusetts. The Middlesex did a good job of moving heavy material like granite and lumber but was never able to generate enough revenue to stay current on its debts. If Schuyler and Weston could be so wide of the mark on a relatively simple undertaking, and if the Middlesex was such a financial failure, what confidence could people place in anyone who recommended a project as large, as complex, and as novel as the Erie Canal?

Bond of Union, (2009), page 140 (6)

[Myron] Holley and [Samuel] Young traveled to Massachusetts and examined the Middlesex Canal. At twenty-seven miles, the country’s longest and only significant canal had finally started operations in 1803 after a decade of expensive surveys (including one by William Weston), construction difficulties, and cost overruns.

The particulars of the canal, which joined Boston and the Merrimac River, were of great interest to New York’s canal commissioners: its twenty locks, eight major aqueducts, $20,000-per-mile construction cost, and especially its dimensions – thirty feet wide at the surface, narrowing to twenty at the three-foot-depth. The commissioners also solicited construction and cost details from the proprietors of several private canals in New York.

Bond of Union, Page 169

Clinton and the other commissioners at Albany were indignant at the rejection from Washington, but immediately set about to control the damage. They countered first with what passed for a celebrity in the limited world of American canalling. By the end of the veto week, they had brought to Albany John Langdon Sullivan, superintendent of Massachusetts’s Middlesex Canal. In ten years on the job, John Sullivan had turned the country’s most substantial canal from a notorious failure into a singular success. (Sullivan’s father James had been the main developer of the project that sought to link the Merrimack and Charles rivers.)

Bond of Union, Page 170

In its early years Middlesex had been widely perceived as the Massachusetts twin of New York’s hapless Western Inland Company: paragons of unvirtuous private enterprise. By 1817 John Sullivan was transforming the Middlesex into an exemplary model for the proponents of the Erie Canal. Though only a fraction of the length of New York’s proposed canal, the Middlesex was proving that canal transportation could be practical and economical. And its basic dimensions- a width of thirty-feet on the surface narrowing to twenty at a three-foot depth- made it a nearly perfect three-quarter scale model for the Erie.

A Watershed Moment: The Middlesex Canal. T.R. Witcher, 2017 (7)

While American transportation before the Erie Canal may seem like something out of ancient history, the achievements reflected in the lesser-known Middlesex Canal, in Massachusetts, were certainly not lost on those who lived to see the Erie Canal built. In his 1808 report to Congress, Albert Galleatin, then secretary of the Treasury, called the 27 mile Middlesex Canal, which had been completed in 1803 and linked Boston with Lowell, Massachusetts, the “greatest work of the kind which has been completed in the United States.” (The full article is available as a download at the ASCE library)

Conclusions

It is clear from this limited survey that the Middlesex was researched and perhaps served as the model for the construction of the Erie Canal. Although the Santee Canal predated the Middlesex, it was in South Carolina, not next door in Massachusetts. The Santee was also located in a much warmer environment.

It is also clear that historians have been changing the way they look at the Middlesex Canal as it relates to the Erie. In 1966, Shaw in Erie Water West gives the Middlesex a passing mention, and Bernstein in Wedding of the Waters dismisses it as a failure. It is Koeppel in Bond of Union who gives much credit to the Middlesex as an model for the Erie and also explains why John Sullivan was in Albany during the winter of 1816/17. Witcher in A Watershed Moment goes in depth as to the engineering lessons that were taken from the Middlesex.

It is likely that the digitization of records and the continued scholarship has led to this transformation in how we view the early canals. Certainly the ability to perform Boolean searches into thousands of digital newspaper pages has helped the historian get a better sense of what was being done and said in those early days.

It is now up to the staff and volunteers who happen to give talks along the Erie to adjust the historical narrative they share with their visitors and give proper credit to these early canals. And if you happen to be in the Boston or Lowell region, be sure to stop and visit the Middlesex Canal Association’s museum.

In 1967, the Middlesex Canal Association put out this map of the entire canal.

(1) Towpath Topics, Volume 49 No. 2, January 2011, available on the web at http://middlesexcanal.org/towpath/towpathtopicsJan2011.htm

(2) The newspapers quoted here were found on newspapers.com and Old Fulton.com

(3) Laws of the State of New York in Relation to the Erie and Champlain Canals Together with the Annual Reports of the Canal Commissioners, and Other Documents, Vol.1, February 8, 1825

(4) Erie Water West, Ronald E Shaw, University of Kentucky Press, 1966

(5) Wedding of the Waters; The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation, Peter L. Bernstein, W.W. Norton and Company, 2005

(6) Bond of Union; Building the Erie Canal and the American Empire, Gerard Koeppel, DaCapo Press, 2009

(7) A Watershed Moment; The Middlesex Canal. T.R. Witcher, Civil Engineering, July/August 2017

Appendix

Canal Laws, page 301 (pdf 338), Miscellaneous particulars of information, respecting the Middlesex Canal, near Boston, in the state of Massachusetts.

The following information, respecting the Middlesex canal, was obtained in May last, by two of the Commissioners, who visited and carefully examined that canal, throughout its whole extent, and committed to writing, on the spot, the results of their own observations, as well as the answers to all their inquiries, which were obligingly given, by the very intelligent agent (Mr. Sullivan) of the canal company.

The canal is 27 miles long, and connects the tidewater, in Boston harbour at Charlestown, with the Merrimack river. The water in the canal is 30 feet wide at its surface, 20 feet at its bottom, and 3 feet deep. The Concord or Sudbury river crosses the line of the canal on the summit-level, 22 miles from Charlestown, and 5 miles from the junction of the canal with the Merrimack, and wholly supplies it with water for locking, down each way from the summit-level. From tide-water to the summit-level is an ascent of 104 feet, and from thence to the Merrimack a descent of 32 feet. There are, in all, 20 locks of different lifts, of which the highest is 12 feet. These locks are 75 feet long in the clear, 10 feet wide at the bottom, and 11 feet at the top.

Boats for the transportation of merchandise and produce carry 14 tons, and are drawn by one horse 3 miles an hour. Packet-boats pass the whole length in 5 hours coming down, and 7 hours going up. To each boat there are three men; two, however, are sufficient to manage the boat on the canal, the other being wanted only on the Merrimack river. From the summit-level, down the canal, there is, a current which exceeds in no place half a mile per hour there being a fall or descent in the canal of one inch per mile. The expense of transporting a ton the whole length of the canal is $3 50, of which sum $1 70 is toll, and $1 80 is freight.

Across the canal, there are 50 bridges, made by the canal company; they consist of 2 stone abutments (one on each side of the canal) 20 feet apart: from one of these abutments to the other, are laid sills or stringpieces, of wood, covered with plank, and of sufficient height for the towing horses to pass under. The towing-path under the bridges occupies 6 or 7 feet.

Two miles from the lower end of the canal, Mystick river, a turnpike road, and the canal run a little distance parallel with each other, the road being between the canal and river. Here is afforded a good opportunity of comparing the relative advantages of these three modes of conveyance.

Heavier boats than those above-mentioned, are used on the canal for transporting fire-wood, lumber, &c.; they are shaped like a scow, are 75 feet long, 9½ feet wide, and carry 25 tons of wood.

The towing-path is generally 8 feet wide, so that horses and oxen may easily pass each other. On the opposite side of the canal, where a towing-path is not wanted, the upper surface of the bank or embankment is five feet wide, and this is found to be sufficient. A branch-canal, or side-cut is made to connect the main canal with Mystick river, near Medford; this is owned by a separate company, and is principally used for transporting timber to Medford for ship-building.

The canal company was incorporated in 1789, and the next year commenced the work of making the canal. When the canal was begun, the price of labour by the month was $8. The canal was opened for use, in 1804, though not completed in 1808, when Mr. Sullivan took charge of it. Some repairs and new constructions have been made every year since. In assesments upon the proprietors, there has been laid out on the canal $528,000, and about $50,000 more, derived from tolls, has been expended in buildings, wharves, &c. At Medford is a swivel bridge, which is found to be very inconvenient. The principal articles transported on the canal are wood, timber, lumber of all kinds, pot and pearl ashes, rye, oats, provisions, and building stone from the Merrimack to Boston. Last year 12,000 cords of wood were transported down the canal, and there are more tons of timber in rafts, brought down, than of wood.

More than one half of the whole length of the canal is more or less embanked or raised above the natural surface of the ground. Above Medford is an aqueduct across the Mystick river, of which the abutments are 100 feet apart, and between them are three stone piers, each 8 feet thick, for supporting the aqueduct. The tide flows up the Mystick river above this place. The surface of the water in the aqueduct, is 10 feet above the surface of the water in the river below, at high water. This aqueduct consists of a kind of trough made of timber and plank, which has stood 16 years, but is beginning to decay. The timber is framed together in the usual way of carpenter’s work, by tenants and mortises, and strengthened by braces. As tenants soon rot, and give way, it might have been made on a better and more durable construction, with knees and bolts, in the manner of ship-building. At the upper end of the aqueduct, is a lock of 12 feet lift.

Mr. Weston, an English engineer, took the levels of the whole length of the line of this canal, part of the way on two routes. He estimated the expense of making it at 100,000l. sterling. The company went on to make the canal, without any further aid from any European engineer, and found Mr. Weston’s levels to be correct.

Over Syms’ river is an aqueduct, of which the abutments are 120 feet apart, with three intervening piers. The water in the aqueduct is 30 feet higher than the water in the stream below. These aqueducts all afford convenient waste-weirs. When the water is not drawn off from the canal at the commencement of winter, the expansion of its freezing, spreads and injures the timbers of the aqueducts; wherefore, it is the practice, just before the winter sets in, to draw off about one third of the water.

Half a mile above the last mentioned aqueduct, is deep cutting, 40 rods in length, through loose sand and gravel. In the deepest part of the excavation, is 20 feet below the natural surface of the earth; and the part excavated, is here, from 90 to 100 feet in width at the top. The earth was chiefly carried away in wheelbarrows, some in carts, to an embankment just above, on the right side. Half a mile higher up, the earth is very porous, and on the right side, the water leaks out through or under an embankment: this might have been prevented, by putting 2 or 3 feet of water-tight stuff in the bottom of the canal.

Near this place are two water-gates, by which the water of the canal is drawn off in the spring for the purpose of clearing out the earth, stones, &c. which fall into it, and injure the navigation. The expense of this, is perhaps $500 a year.

Mr. Sullivan states, that he has had a steam-boat on the Merrimack river for the purpose of towing boats; he found, that a man by a rope could easily hold a boat in tow, immediately astern of the steam-boat, which it would require a horse, on the bank of the river, to tow with the same velocity: such, in his opinion, is the great diminution of the resistance of the water, to the head of a boat, which is drawn in the wake of another boat.

For some weeks in the spring, the canal leaks much more than it does the remainder of the season; this is because the banks had been recently swelled and loosened by the action of the frost. Three men with a horse and boat, are, in the summer, constantly employed, to keep the banks, and particularly the towing-path in order.

The lands within six miles of the canal on each side, have increased one-third in price; while land in the country, generally retains its former value. In the state of New-Hampshire, through which the Merrimack flows, timber is now worth from 1 to 3 dollars per ton standing; before the canal was made, it was worth nothing; so that in the article of timber alone, that state is supposed to have been benefited to the amount of at least 5,000,000 of dollars. The wood-land there, has risen in price, since the opening of the canal, from $2 per acre, to $6, 8, and $10 per acre.

In Woburn, a pretty high embankment, which was made in the winter, across a marsh, sunk down in the spring, at the breaking up of the frost, so that its top was just level with the natural earth: another embankment was then raised upon it. Near this place, the canal, by a deep cutting of 25 feet, passes through a hill. An embankment at Maple meadow, in the town of Wilmington, is near 80 rods long, and 25 feet high, to the top of the towing-path. At a place called the sinking meadow, in the above-named town, an embankment is made across a marsh of about 30 rods in extent. When this embankment was commenced, it was found that the dirt and stuff carried on, to form the embankment, kept gradually sinking into the marsh; when measures were taken to ascertain how much it would sink: the labourers continued to carry on stuff which gradually went down, until the whole embankment sunk to the depth of 60 feet!

The great expense of making this embankment across the marsh, might have been foreseen, and prevented. The depth and softness of the marsh, might have been ascertained by sounding it with an iron rod, and by conducting the canal circuitously around its margin, a solid foundation might have been secured.

By the act of incorporation, the Legislature authorized the company to occupy, 5 rods of land in width on one side of the centre of the canal, and 3 rods on the other. If the owners of the land did not apply for pay within a year, it was deemed a donation. In the statement of monies expended, before made, are included, the costs of several law-suits, the building of boats, of offices, the purchase of 70 acres of land, and the erection of mills at Billerica. The land and mills cost $10,000. There is no income derived from hiring out water privileges, for hydraulic operations. The canal receives its whole supply of water, from the Concord river; and if any were let out for hydraulic purposes, a current would be created, the inconveniences of which, would probably more than counterbalance all the advantages of income.

Either through design or accident, logs, stumps and sticks were in some places left in the banks, when the canal was made; and these, having now become rotten, leave unsound places, through which the water escapes. A great part of the canal was made by contractors, in small parts or jobs, and where two jobs of embankment met each other, the workmen did not, in some cases, take the precaution to prevent the stones, as they threw on the stuff, from rolling down together, from each end of the separate job, and thereby forming a loose porous and leaky place in the embankment.

The aqueduct over the Shawsheen river is, between the abutments, 140 feet. The water in it is, 35 feet higher, than the surface of the river below. This aqueduct has been made 20 years; it is, like the other aqueducts on this canal, made of wood, and is so much decayed, as to require temporary props, to support it. There are three piers between the abutments, and, between the outside pier and the abutment on each side, there is a kind of wooden pier. On the inside, or river side of both the abutments, and on both sides of the piers at suitable distances, large horizontal timbers are embedded, which serve to support the lower ends of the aqueduct braces: when these timbers become rotten, the stone work will probably fall down. From each end of this aqueduct, to the distance of 500 feet, is an embankment nearly 35 feet high.

During the war, the timber used to repair the Constitution frigate, was brought, down the canal to Boston, and that used to build the Independence, seventy-four., except the live oak, was procured through the same channel, as also were many of the masts and spars, &c. which were furnished at Boston, to our vessels of war. Without the canal, this part of the country could not have supplied these necessary articles.

In approaching the Concord river, the canal passes through half a mile of deep-cutting, 800 feet of which is excavated by blasting through a hard granite rock. In some places, this blasting was carried 7 feet into the rock, and from 14 to 20 feet wide. The deep-cutting for this half mile, is from 12 to 20 feet.

Across the Concord river, a few rods below the line of the canal, a dam of 150 feet long, and 8 feet high is made. This creates a pond, out of which, through the deep-cutting last mentioned, the water flows and supplies the canal, 22 miles to Charlestown at the tide-water. From the other side of the pond, the water flows through the canal 5 miles to the Merrimack river. The water which supplies the 22 miles of the canal, passes through a horizontal apeture of 6 feet by 1, with a head of 2 feet water, above the upper side of the apeture. The towing-path, is carried across the pond, by means of a floating bridge, a part of which is occasionally drawn up, to let the logs, timber and drift-wood, which collect above pass through. There are two waste gates in the dam, by which the height of the water in the pond can, in some measure, be regulated.

In Chelmsford, within 60 rods of the Merrimack, is an aqueduct, of which the abutments are 110 feet apart, and there are ten wooden piers to support it. The water in the aqueduct, is, 16 feet higher than the stream below. Between this aqueduct and the Merrimack, is a fall of 32 feet, and 3 locks of durable stone masonry, in tarres mortar. Where the canal joins the Merrimack, a basin is excavated, 10 or 12 feet below the natural surface of the earth, and 5 feet below the surface of the river, at low water. The extent of the basin is about 200 feet on the shore of the river, and half that distance on a line at right angles with the shore, being nearly semi-circular. There are in all 7 aqueducts on the canal, but those not mentioned above are very inconsiderable: there are also several culverts. Grass grows in the bottom of the canal, and obstructs the passage of the water in autumn to such a degree, that at the lower end of the canal, 22 miles from its source, the water is sometimes 9 inches lower than it otherwise would be. To remedy this inconvenience a man is employed who wades along the canal and mows off the grass under water with a scythe. During the winter season, while the canal was not used, the muskrats would sometimes burrow into and endanger the breaking of the banks; in consequence of which the company had offered a bounty of 50 cents for every one that should be destroyed within a certain distance of the canal. This county had caused their destruction to such an extent that very little apprehension was entertained of their doing injury.

It was the original design of the company to employ three officers on the canal, viz. a superintendent, a treasurer and clerk; but that project has been abandoned, and those three officers are now united in Mr. Sullivan. His compensation is a salary of $1,500 a year, besides 5 per cent. on all the tolls or receipts, which are warranted not to fall short of $20,000 per annum.

The receipts of the company from the canal are rapidly increasing. The income in 1808, was $7000, in 1809, $9000, in 1810, $14,000, in 1811, $17,000, last year $25,000, and this year (1816) it will, undoubtedly, exceed $30,000.

Laws, page 320 (pdf 357) Vol 1.

Copy of a letter, to the President of the Board of Commissioners, from John L. Sullivan, Esquire, who has personally examined the most celebated canal and England, France, and Holland, has had the charge of constructing several short canals, with locks, dams, and etc, around falls in the Merrimack river, and has, for eight years, been superintendent of the Middlesex canal, in Massachusetts.

Albany, March 7, 1817

The Hon. DeWitt Clinton
President of the Board of Canal Commissioners

Sir:

In compliance with your request, in behalf of the board f commissioners, I have given all the attention in my power, at this time, to the report on the proposed canal, and shall with pleasure proceed to state my impression of the estimates in general, premising, however, that without see the ground, it would be presumption to offer a decisive opinion on the expense. It is, therefore, with the utmost deference to the engineers, and other gentlemen who have assisted in making them, that I shall express mine, from a comparison of the description of the route with works of this nature, with which I am intimately acquainted.

In comparison with the Middlesex canal, the description given of the country is peculiarly favorable; In the proportion, I should think, of three to one. That is, for the whole distance, the Middlesex canal, per mile, is three times as difficult or expensive, as to the work to be done by excavation and embankment, as the New-York state canal will be. And none of the heavy jobs will compare with what has often been done in Europe. In making the comparison, it will be recollected, that the dimensions of the canal are, as 4 to 7; the mean width and depth of Middlesex being 25 by 4, your canal 35 by 5.

The estimate have been made from the best sources of information in the country, and from experiments: I conclude, therefore, that the easy work can be done accordingly, but it would cost much more in our part of the country, if executed without the aid of labor-saving machinery, as wages now are.

The embankment will, I believe, generally, cost three times as much as excavation; and it is obvious to remark, that where they are extensive, the earth, to form them, must be carried the whole distance; and the quantity of earth will very much exceed, in square yard, at the place whence it is taken, the measurement of the bank. No doubt the board have attended to these and other local circumstances; but, in the estimate, the difference does not appear to be sufficient.

The waste-wiers, safety gates, and other constructions to control the streams, feeders, and etc., not expressly contained in the estimates, ought not, I think, to have been assigned to the 5 per cent added for contingencies; because that allowance is to be made as well on them as on other objects of expenditure.

The allowance of 10,000 dollars per lock appears to me to be ample. The cost of the aqueducts depends on so many local circumstances, that I can only say, it seems to me very probable, that the estimate for them is high enough; constructed of stone piers and trunks of wood; but much will depend on the previous preparation, and the season of the year in which the work is done.

In some instances the digging of the eastern route is represented as partly light and partly difficult. Where the pick ax is to be used, the digging will cost double what it will where it may be done by shovel alone; or, if the light loam or sand may be excavated for 12 to 20 cents, hard gravel and clay should be estimated, in my opinion, fro 30 to 50 cents per yard.

The middle and western sections, appear to be on the whole high enough. The eastern to Schoharie crosses so many streams, and there being some difficult digging, and considerable wall required to sustain the banks of the canal and adjacent high grounds, that I doubt if the estimate has been sufficiently considered in all these circumstances; but it does not appear to be, on the whole, a more difficult route than that of the Middlesex in proportion to its distance; I say this, however, with deference to the gentleman of the board who have seen both.

But on the whole, as the country is so generally favorable, as labour-saving machines can be used, and as there will probably be no land or damages to pay for, the estimate appears to be high enough.

In making a comparison with the Middlesex canal, having no minutes with me, I can only do it from recollection. The accounts, while this canal was in the process of construction, were not kept so as to admit of our knowing what ant particular piece of work cost. My analysis of it, therefore, will be wholly from judgment, formed from my knowledge of the ground, and some experience in other places.

The Middlesex canal is 27 miles in length, its depth is intended to carry at least three feet of water. The banks where formed, are meant to be one foot above the water. The width generally 30 feet on the surface, and on the bottom 20 feet. In carrying the work on, it was found necessarily to purchase some estates, the whole of which was not essential to the canal. The lands were generally paid for where most valuable. There was some considerable expense attending litigations, and perhaps some mistakes, which are not likely to happen in the proposed work. The whole expense in assessments has been 520,000 dollars; not including the application of income for several years past, in renovating and completing it; and the buildings, wharves, and etc., necessary to the business. As neither of these objects of expenditure apply to the present question, I shall leave them out, and also deduct 50,000 dollars as having been applied to the other works leading to the principal canal.

If this communication, which is very hasty and imperfect, can be of any use to the board, I shall have much pleasure in the reflection of having contributed, in any degree, to the great object of their attention.

With the highest respect,
I am, Sir, your most obed’t. serv’t,
JNO. L. SULLIVAN.