Tag: Erie Canal

The (New York State) Blue Line Maps

By Michael Riley

The focus of this article is how the built and operating canals were surveyed and mapped. We might call these maps “As Builts,” since they show what had been constructed. Having a decent map would aid the engineers and maintenance crews in their planning and repairs. And was necessary for the legal departments who had to defend against damage claims. This article will take a look at the history these maps, and why you should be using them as a canal researcher.

Although the process would be similar, the work of the surveying teams who measured the land to determine the route of the yet to be built canal, was very different. The life and hardships of these men is the stuff of legend, and there are many books and articles about them. In his autobiography, John Jervis wrote about his early life on canal survey crew, which offers a look at how someone could start as a axeman and work his way up to becoming an civil engineer.i William C Young wrote about his time on a survey crew in 1816-17 which offers a intimate look at how the crews functioned.ii

Over the nearly 100-years of the towpath canals in New York State, thousands of maps have been drawn that show the canals. But only a few maps show the entire length of the canals, from end to end, in a scale that allows the researcher to see structures, nearby buildings and streets, and even property owners. The maps that this article will focus on are;

1) The 1834 “Holmes Hutchinson” maps of the early canals.iii

2) The 1869 – 1874 maps of the Enlarged canals.iv

3) The 1896 “Schillner” maps of the Enlarged canals.v

4) The 1910 “Blue Line” maps.vi

At one time New York State had twelve working canals covering nearly1000 miles, and not every map set will cover every canal. But rest assured that somewhere in the New York State Archives, there will be a map of your canal and it is likely that many of these methods described here will apply.

Surveying the Built Canal, and the Red and Blue Lines

For the purpose of this article, let us keep things simple and say that the survey process locates fixed points on the earth, while a map is a visual representation of the survey. An example might an old deed that says something like, “Beginning at a blaze on a apple tree near the road.” Here the apple tree becomes the point where the survey begins and all others will go to start as they retrace the survey or property lines. If the deed is from the early 1800s, it might tell you to, “walk 14 paces to the rock in the stream and then follow the course of the stream down to the bridge.” This is the Metes and Bounds method of surveying. Over the years the process improved and became more scientific that used measuring instruments. Thus you will see phrases such as; “runs thence north 20 degrees 45 minutes east, two chains, 4 links.” Whatever the method, by repeatedly finding and connecting points in the landscape, a survey will be created. Later, by using the survey and notes, a map could be drawn.vii

This method of a boundary survey works fine for determining the outline of a piece of land. But on a long and linear canal, that might have been built through wetlands or deep cuts, it would be impractical to try to measure the properties boundary. Instead, another method was used. As the canals had a nice flat towpath, it was a simple matter to layout a line along the towpath and use this as the base line from which all measurements were made. The base line, shown on the survey notes and maps with red ink, became known as the red line.

Wherever there was a change in the canal, such as a change in direction or the width of the canal, or to note a structure (bridge, aqueduct, or lock, etc), the surveyor would stop and establish a cross section. The cross section was perpendicular to the red line running to outer edges of the canal property. Using the red line as the base, measurements would be taken to the outer edge of the towpath and berm embankments. So keep in mind that any red line on the map is a line of measurement.

A very simplified drawing of the redline and cross sections

Once the surveys were completed, a draftsman would use the survey data to draw a map. With the red line and cross sections laid out on paper, the outside boundary of the canal land could be roughly determined by drawing a line that connected the end of each cross section. Since blue ink was used to show this line, the “blue line” became the term for the state boundaries. This is why the drainage ditches on the outer edge of the embankments were called the “Blue Line Ditches,” and the maps are called the “Blue Line Maps.” Just keep in mind that the blue line was not measured, it was inferred.

In 1891, a newspaper article said; “What the Blue-Line Is.” The “Blue Line” is often mentioned in the course of the pending great debate in the senate. A brief explanation of what the Blue line is may be of interest. This line was established by the canal board when the canal enlargement of 1840 was made. The engineer corps, in surveying for the enlargement, indicated on its maps with a blue line the boundaries of the lands which were deemed necessary for State purposes. The irregularity of the line is explained as having been caused by adaptations to the needs of the canal. Where there wee embankments or streams or other peculiarities, the line was made to conform to these conditions as they were thought to affect the canals. The rule was to run the line five or six feet outside the limit of land absolutely required. The indication by the blue line was a formal taking of property by the State and extinction of the title of formal ownership.viii The date of 1840 in this article appears to be slightly in error as the first instance of the use of a blue line was with the 1834 canal maps. The term “blue line” would later be adopted for the line that shows the state lands in the Adirondack Park.

The blue line connects the cross sections.

Field Books and Monuments

A part of the survey teams tool kit were small note books in which they recorded their measurements and notes. In order to not turn this article into a book, it will suffice to note that these note books were used to record not only what the surveyor was measuring, but also what was around them. All the data you will find on the finished maps will be found in the field books, plus more. If you are exploring local history, and what may have been around the canals, be sure to check the field note books. Don’t assume it will be on the maps.

Below are two versions of the 1830s Holmes Hutchinson field notes, showing the Erie Canal in Port Byron, NY. The rough draft was likely done in the field while the other was a cleaned up version, perhaps drawn in the office. The survey shows the canal crossing the Owasco Aqueduct and passing Beach’s Mill. At the time the mill was one of the largest in the state and used the canal for receiving grain and shipping flour. Note that the canal is represented as running straight up the page, while on the map, the canal has quite the bend.

1834 field notes of Port Byron. All the maps used in this post are from the New York State Archives. (B0292)
A cleaned up version of the Port Byron notes. Note the location of the drydock and mill. (B0292)
The 1834 Holmes hutchinson map of Port Byron. Note the drydock and Beach’s Mill. (Joined by author. Erie Canal_6_Camillus to Galen, 309 Erie HH Map Mentz (Port Byron).pdf, and 310 Erie HH Map Mentz (Port Byron).pdf. Cropped to fit.)

As noted prior, all surveys need a physical point in the landscape where the measurements begin. These might be called a bench-mark, a hub, or a monument. While the older surveys used anything that was prominent in the landscape, such as that apple tree, eventually the tree would died and the stump dug up. And as more property was sold and divided, conflicts arose as to the lines of ownership.

In 1827, Governor DeWitt Clinton recommended that a survey of the state be made and a map drawn. Nothing happened with this. Then again in 1852 and ‘53, the governors stated that a state-wide survey be made, but nothing happened. In 1875, the American Geographical Society reported; “that the existing maps, made from these old land-parcelling surveys and by private parties, were as nearly worthless as possible.”ix The state finally relented and began a survey in 1876.

To begin their survey, the State used monuments that had been placed along the Atlantic coast by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, and and monuments around the Great Lakes that had been installed by the United States Lake Survey. These would serve as the foundation for their survey. If the survey was carried out correctly, the two should meet at exactly the same place somewhere in the middle of the state. This survey went on up to 1884 when the Governor vetoed the funding. It was restarted in 1888 by the U.S. Geological Surveyor and continued ever since.

As part of this survey, monuments were placed in the landscape that noted true north. Any surveyor could then use one of these to begin their measurements and thus, everyone would be working off the same grid. Interestingly, the canal itself would often become the place of permanence in the landscape and many deeds will often mention the blue line of the canal as part of the survey, even though in many cases, the line of the canal was often in doubt.

This is a fun example showing the use of bench marks. I include it because it is a remarkable example of what you can find in the field books. This is from the 1895 Improvement of the Clyde area. I would bet that Mack’s barn looked like this. (B0730 Box 23)

The 1834 Holmes Hutchinson Maps

As noted, the 1834 Holmes Hutchinson (HH) maps are a set of “as builts,” meaning that they are a record what had been built. During the canal construction, property was often taken and the state had no record of what was what, and who was who. The HH maps were made to fill that void.

In the HH collection, there are a total of 18 volumes showing five canals. The Erie Canal is shown in 10 volumes, with about 540 maps total. All the Hutchinson map sets have a set of Explanatory Remarks that go into detail as to how the map was drawn, but here are the basics with some added comments.

For surveyors of that time, the method of measurement was the 66-foot-long chain, otherwise known as the Surveyors or Gunter Chain. The chain had 100 links, each .66 of a foot or 7.92 inches in length. A mile would be 80 chains long (66ft times 80 chains = 5280 feet or one mile). The were drawn at a scale of two chains to the inch, or one inch equals 132 feet (66 times 2 = 132 feet), and all measurements are shown as chains and links. The measurements seem to run from west to east, although I have yet to find a point of beginning. But knowing where the surveyor began doesn’t really matter with this type of survey, because at every cross section, the measurement is reset to zero. So it goes something like this; start here- measure 2.50 chains to a cross section- stop, note the distance and measure the cross section, then reset and restart- measure 4 chains- stop, make notes, etc. In total, the measured distance was 6.50 chains, but it is not represented in that manner. On the colored version of the maps, it is easy to see where each measurement ends as it is noted with as a solid red cross section line running across the canal.

Confused? There is more. There are also places where an intermediate measurements were taken, meaning that the distance, bearing and cross section were noted, but the measurement continues. These intermediate sections are shown as dashed red lines. So you will see: start- measure 1.5 chains, stop to note measurement, continue- measure 3.0 chains – stop and reset to zero.

The measurements shown here are on one of the Hutchinson maps.

All compass headings are shown using the quadrant system where all headings begin either North or South, and then work between 0 and 90 degrees East or West. The heading N 88 E shows us that the canal was pointed 88 degrees east of north, or almost due east.

The HH maps are wonderful to study as they include the built and natural environs around the canal. Stores, businesses, property owners, roads and streets, prior canals, creeks, rivers, mill races, steam and electric railroads, historical sites, and more, can be found on the maps. The maps only include those features that are within a block or two of the canal, so in places where the canal passed through a city or village, you see a slice of the neighborhood. As they were drawn in the 1830s, these maps are often the first ever made of many villages and cities.

The 1834 HH maps were accepted and certified by the Canal Board, the Board of Canal Commissioners, and the Comptroller’s Office, as the legal maps of the State of New York.

The 1869-1874 Enlarged Canal Maps

The 1869 maps are another set of “as-builts,” showing the recently completed Enlarged canals. The funds to survey and complete the maps was provided by Chapter 543, Laws of 1866. The law states that the funding was to defray the expense of completing the work. This seems to suggest that the maps had been in the works prior to 1866, but there may have been an issue within the engineering offices as the act also notes that a uniform style of map had been adopted. The maps were completed in 1874. The Archives has them listed as B0292 in various volumes.

The maps were drawn in the offices of the division engineers, beginning with Van Richmond’s in the east. The 1869 “Richmond” map shows the canal from Albany to Rexford. These maps use the 66-foot-long Gunter chain, and many of the methods of measurement that were used on the Hutchinson maps apply to these. And yet, there are notations that tie the surveys, in some places, to local monuments. You can see these in the Cohoes area. As these maps predate the statewide surveys, it would be interesting to know what the monuments were. And other base lines were used to tie the survey to the landscape. In this way, these surveys are a bit more “scientific.” However, the maps are lacking in many of the details seen on the other maps. While they show nearby streets, and even the outline of blocks, they show only a few canal side buildings. They also show the route of the early canals. The maps were never certified but they were used by the state.

The 1869 Richmond map of the West Troy sidecut. The map was drawn by Charles D Burrus. (crop of Richmond1869 47-12A UpprSdCt.jpg)

The 1896 Schillner Maps

The Schillner maps came about as a result of the 1895 Improvement, also known as the nine-million-dollar deepening. The project was passed as an legislative act under Chapter 79 of the Laws of 1895, which called for the deepening of the canal by two feet, from seven to nine feet.x To support this work, surveys were made of the Erie, Champlain and Oswego in the winter of 1896 while the canals were shut down and drained. Although the main purpose of the surveys was to provide data to the engineering department in their efforts to create estimates and let out contracts for work, they were later used to create the1896 maps.

In the complete Schillner map archive, there are 71 rolls of three canals; the Erie, Champlain and Oswego. There are 53 rolls in the Erie set, 10 of the Champlain, and 8 of the Oswego. Physically, these maps are large at 234 x 183 cm, or 94 x 73 inches, Each roll is divided into four, five or six “frames” stacked top to bottom, each one running horizontally across the full width of the roll. Each frame is 30 to 60 cm, or 12 to 24 inches, in height. The height of the frame is governed by the complexity of the canal at that point, such as if it is passing through a populated area, or maybe somewhat twisting. So basically each roll will show 4, 5 or 6 segments of the canal. Each segment shows about 6700 to 6800 feet, or about 1.28 miles. So if you were to cut up the map and line each section side to side, the map would show between 4.8 to 7.8 miles of canal. These maps have been digitized. This divides the map into smaller bite-sized chunks of 10 to 30 plus images. Additional images were made of the locks and other notable features with a tighter lens and this adds to the number of images per roll.

(map-layout)

Here is a remarkable image made by Steven Talbot, where he pieced together all the images to create a roll. You can view Steven’s map work with this link.

We know the survey process used for these maps as it was outlined in the Annual Report. The Erie, Oswego and Champlain canals were divided into 28 sections that had an average length of 18 miles. (Note- these are not the eleven canal maintenance sections that are mentioned in the annual reports. These sections were only used for the 1895 canal improvement survey and later the 1896 maps.) Over 200 men were pulled from the civil service lists to act as assistant engineers, rod men, chain men, ax men, levelers and laborers. The work began in January 1896 and lasted throughout what they all said was a very harsh winter. The teams first laid out a base line (the red line) with stations every 100 feet using the Ramsden Engineers chain, or Paines steel measuring tape.xi All measurements on the maps are shown in feet and inches.

Selected stations, or a point of measurement, were tied to the ground by the use of bench marks. These bench marks ranged from iron spikes driven in between the stonework of canal structures, telephone poles, corners of buildings, fence posts, iron rods or wooden pegs driven into the ground, and more. Although the red line continued to be the inside edge of the towpath, to make it easier to work and set up the equipment, the line was “off-set” to the middle of the towpath. The off-set is shown on the maps with green ink. Once the red, and green, lines and stations had been established, the teams went back to run cross sections every 100 feet, or so, depending on the nature of the canal and what had to be removed or modified.

A big departure from the earlier maps was that each of the 24 sections were measured as one unit. The survey began at the east boundary line and worked to the western end. These measurements are show along the green line as small circles with a corresponding green numbering as needed to mark the location of structures, to aid the count, or bench marks. It appears that bench marks are noted as small triangles. So keep in mind that if you want to use these maps to locate a structure, the station count will reset to 0.00 23 times. I note this because in1905, Nobel Whitford also used the 100-foot-stations for measurements in his “Tables of Existing Structures On Canals.”xii However, he used a continuous measurement beginning at the Hudson River.xiii The blue lines are inferred by connecting the ends of the cross sections.

(diagram-003)

The 1896 maps. The blue line has been left out to make it easier to read.

As with the Hutchinson maps, these are very useful in showing the built and natural environs around the canal. The Archives listing says that, “In addition they show: city, town and county lines; streams, rivers, bodies of water and islands; property lines, along with names of owners and sometimes acreage of land; and streets, railroad lines, businesses and civic landmarks (ice companies, mills, cemeteries, etc.).” Basically anything within a couple blocks of the canal are seen.

The maps also are very useful in showing the route and some features from the Clinton’s Ditch canal. The older canal is represented with a combination of red and blue dashed lines, and/or black ink drawings that show a “shadow” of what once there. The use of shadow lines and ink wash seem to emphasize areas of note such as locks, basins, drydocks, etc. In addition, the maps include the 1834 cross section measurements with the old chain measurements converted to feet, and the older compass bearings. It does not include any of the linear measurements between the cross sections. Maybe this would have made the maps too busy, or perhaps Schillner felt it was unnecessary as anyone who needed them could simply pull out the old 1834 maps? The old canal does tend to wander off the Schillner maps in places where the two canal routes diverged, but it always comes back. It does appear that Clinton’s Ditch was added in the office and not surveyed.

Two of the 1896 maps of Clyde. If you look at the end of Lock Street, you can see the Clinton’s Ditch lock as a shadow. This is also the section of canal that was shown with the field book bench marks. Mack’s store is where the two maps are joined. (Merged by author, Roll 30 01_DSC0130.jpg and Roll 31 25_DSC0140.jpg. Cropped to fit.)

Although the work on the canal improvement was ordered to stop on March 8, 1898, the work on the maps continued as the state needed up-to-date maps. The Middle Division engineer noted that in addition to the work on the estimates, the survey teams were also gathering information that would be used by the State Board of Claims in defense of lawsuits that would very likely be lodged against the state for damages. He somewhat hopefully added that the survey data cold be used to; “create new set of canal maps, as there has been many changes in the canals since the enlargement which are not recorded on the maps now in use.”xiv Maybe he knew something was in the works. In 1921, Anson Getman, wrote that in 1896, George L. Schillner had, “commenced a compilation of all maps of all lands which had been acquired for canal purposes to that time,” and that the Canal Law of 1894 ordered “the preparation of complete manuscript maps and field notes of every canal then or thereafter.”xv So it certainly appears that Schillner and the others were working under two or more of these laws that were addressing different issues. You will also find these maps as being completed under Chapter 569, Laws of 1899. which was an act making appropriations for certain expenses of government and supplying deficiencies in former appropriations. One of the many projects listed was; “For the state engineer and surveyor, for completing new blue line maps of the Erie, Oswego and Champlain canals,…”

Getman noted that the work on the maps took 12 years, ending in 1908. Schillner’s name appears on other projects during this time, so the maps were not his only job. Getman also noted that the maps had not been certified by the State Engineer or approved by the canal board, so they “bear no endorsement.”

Getman might be the first person to add George Schillner’s name to the maps. Perhaps the maps were George’s pet project and the guys in the office just started to call them the Schillner maps? No one says. In 1939, the 1896 maps were introduced as evidence in the case Northern New York Power vs New York State, as the “Schillner Maps.”xvi This is odd as there is no mention of the 1910 maps. But being used as evidence in a trial seems to show that the court accepted the maps as somewhat “certified.”

By the time the 1896 maps were complete, the state was deep into the Barge Canal project. The maps, as nice as they were, showed a canal system that was disappearing.

The 1910 Blue Line Maps

Amazing, for all the work that went into the 1896 maps, they were never certified by the state. Instead the state passed Chapter 199 of the Laws of 1910, which was; “An act to provide for the mapping of certain canal lands and the lands adjacent thereto belonging to the state.” This act was certainly in response to the pending abandonment of the old canals as the new Barge Canal was brought into use. Within a couple years, the state would be in the position to begin selling off these lands and they needed a certified legal survey and map that would become part of the record. The 1910 Annual Report notes states that the only “official” canal map was the 1834 Holmes Hutchinson map, and that the purpose of the 1910 Act was to re-establish the boundaries of the canals that were being enlarged into the Barge Canal system.xvii

The Archives listing says; “This series consists of whiteprint copies of original survey maps, commonly referred to as “blue line maps,” of land appropriated by the State for canal purposes. The maps depict in minute detail lands acquired for canal purposes up to and including the time of construction of the Barge Canal. The Department of Public Works (earlier the State Engineer and Surveyor) produced and retained the original maps and submitted whiteprint copies to the Comptroller and Secretary of State. This set of maps was filed with the Comptroller. Laws of 1910 (Chapter 199) and 1917 (Chapter 51) authorized the production of “blue line maps” (the blue lines indicated boundaries of State-owned lands along the Erie, Champlain, Oswego, Black River, and Cayuga and Seneca canals) to minimize property disputes resulting from the construction of the Barge Canal. The maps depict inner angles of the towpaths on the old canal; property owned by the State prior to Barge Canal construction; property appropriated by the State for the Barge Canal project; locations of the old canal lines; location of the proposed Barge Canal; and various structures, roads, streets, and other landmarks and the names of owners of private property adjacent to the canal.”xviii A quick count of the maps showed 1029 maps in 71 volumes. The scale used was one inch equals 100 feet. The maps have a key, which is needed as the volumes do not run in sequential order.

Before the survey crews were assigned, the office of the state engineer made “survey” of what records they already had on file. In addition to the 1834 maps and field books, the 1869 maps were examined, and the “rolled maps” and ‘Nine Million’ surveys, which were called the “most valuable compilation existing,” but were also not considered to be of much value.xix One of the issues was that the older surveys and maps used compass bearings that were magnetic and not off the true meridian. And as the canal was so long, other factors such as the curvature of the earth had to be accounted for. All new surveys had to be conducted to re-establish the red and blue lines.

As they conducted the surveys, the teams used three-quarter inch iron pins to mark points on the blue line boundaries, and brass monuments to mark the red line. The brass plate had “ears” that were embedded into a concrete column that was eight inches round by 54 inches long. These were buried in the towpath along the red line. The top of the monument said; N.Y.S. – CANAL RED LINE MONUMENT, with blank spaces where the survey team would use a hand punch to add the station measurement and offset. (Sadly most of these have ended up in collectors hands over the years. Any that remained were plowed up by the contractors during the construction of the Empire State Trail.)

Two of the red line monuments in the collection of the Lock 52 Historical Society of Port Byron, NY.

By comparing the 1896 and 1910 maps, certain stations can be found on both, however the noted measurements do differ. Plus, the 1910 maps used two methods to establish base, red and blue lines, and the title page should be consulted if you are taking a deep dive into the measurements. The big difference between the Hutchinson and Schillner maps, and the 1910 maps, is that the blue line was surveyed and monuments placed so that; “Blue line points can be relocated by using the data shown on the map.”

The 1910 maps vary in what canal side features are shown. For instance, the little village of Pattersonville is noted, but few buildings are seen, while 3 miles away, the details for the village of Rotterdam Junction are a bit more robust. The maps also take an interesting approach to the new Barge Canal. The new Barge Canal Lock 10, dam 6 is shown fully constructed, however Lock 8, dam 4 is not even noted, and Lock 11, dam 7 merely shows up as dam piers.xx This is a bit odd as the work on the maps went on into the 1920s, so they certainly had time to update the maps and show the full lock and dam structures.

The 1910 Blue Line map of Rotterdam Junction. Lock 25 can be seen. (Set A BK_1_62.jpg)

The work went on for over 14 years. In the Annual Report of 1924, the State Engineer wrote that the work was almost complete. He said, “It is not a simple process, however, to prepare these lands for sale. Extensive surveys have to be made, maps must be prepared, and in these activities precautions taken which will insure accuracy of the surveys and correct descriptions of the lands. In preparing for the surveys it is necessary to examine old maps and deeds back to the first canals of the state, nearly one hundred years ago, when surveying and mapping was not the exact science it is today. In addition to the men required to examine the titles and plot the lands, survey parties are required to define the lands in the field, and others to prepare blue line maps for the Canal Board and to follow these with abandonment maps and descriptions. To survey one mile of old canal in a month is a good average rate of progress for a field surveying party.”xxi However, he added that the costs of mapping were not as high as continued maintenance of the old canal lands.

For those who wish to know everything about the maps, you might be wondering what the crosses with the numbers might be. I asked someone who used to use these maps in his day to day job, and he thought it might be part of a quadrant system that was tied to a master map. But he honestly wasn’t sure.

In Conclusion

If you have made it this far, congratulations, for you are a real map geek!

I picked these four map sets as they offer the most comprehensive view of the canals, its structures and canal side neighborhoods. However, the New York State Archives listing of maps is very extensive. There are over 140 volumes of maps in B0292 alone, with a great many of these dated between 1850 and 1880. So even if one of these sets missed a canal you are interested in, there is likely a map of it in the collection. Also, remember that other repositories will often have these maps, so be sure to check with the Canal Society of New York State or the Erie Canal Museum.

Steven Talbot has a great mapping webpage at Enlarged Erie Canal Map Viewer and he also helped me out with this article, so please take a look at what we has done.

And if you are a surveyor, and I got something wrong, please contact me!

Here is a comparison showing Sprakers, NY, with three of the four maps.

The Hutchinson map of Sprakers. The canal crossed Flat Creek on a small slack-water pool . You can see where Ferry and Clinton Streets ran up to the basin. (crop of 97 Erie HH Map Root & Canajoharie)

The Schillner map of Sprakers. The canal runs across the page while Flat creek runs from bottom to top. The canal crosses the creek on Aqueduct 9 and Enlarged Lock 31 is just to the right. Just above the lock is the boundary line that divides sections 4 and 5. The old line of Clinton’s Ditch can be seen curving across the top and note the outline of the basin. The line of the West Shore railroad runs across the bottom of the map. (Roll 10 Root and Canajoharie- 19_DSC9115.jpg)

The 1910 Blue Line Maps of Sprakers. The large circles note the location of bench-marks, and the map contains many measurements and compass headings. It also makes note of the old Clinton’s Ditch locks, something that the Schillner maps missed. (crop of Set FF BK3_110.jpg)

iJohn B. Jervis. The Reminiscences of John B. Jervis; Engineer of the Old Croton. Syracuse University Press. 1971

iiWilliam C. Young. Reminiscences of Surveys of The Erie Canal In 1816-17. Canal Enlargement In New York State. Buffalo Historical Society Publications, Vol. 13. 1909. Page 333.

iiiA0848. Canal system survey maps (“Holmes Hutchinson maps”), 1832-1843. 19 cu. ft. (26 volumes) The maps are available on the NYS Archives website. Search for the series number.

ivB0292, in various volumes; 31, 38, 43, 47, 57, 67, 75, 100.

vB0253. Barge Canal sectional maps (“Schillner Maps”), ca. 1896. ca. 132 cu. ft. (71 maps)

viA0867. Whiteprint copies of maps of lands permanently appropriated by the State for canal purposes (“blue line maps”), 1917-1948. 28 cu. ft. (69 portfolios containing ca. 850 maps)

viiFor those who are interested, Philip L. Lord, Jr., wrote an excellent book on reading old surveys and how they were conducted. Mills on the Tsatsawassa, The State Education Department, 1983.

viiiWhat the Blue Line Is. The Argus, Albany, NY. April 23, 1891. Page 4.

ixHenry Gannett. The Mapping of New York State. Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, Vol. XXVII, 1895. Page 22,

xThe full text of Chapter 79 can be found in the Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1895, Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford and Company, Albany, 1896, pages 6 – 11.

xi The NYS Archives mistakenly says that Schillner measured the canal using the surveyors 66-foot-chain.

xiiWhitford, 1905, Vol 2, Page 1069.

xiiiIt is easy to convert these stations to feet or miles by using ((station x 100)) / 5280). (Example- Station 528.89 times 100 equals 52889 feet divided by 5280 equals 10.02 miles.)

xivAnnual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, For the year 1896. page 450.

xvAnson Getman, Principles and Sources of Title To Real Property, Matthew Bender and Company, Albany, 1921. Page 53.

xviNorthern New York Power Corporation vs State of New York, Court of Appeals, 1939, Exhibit No. 116, “Certified copy of Map on file in the Department of the State Engineer and Surveyor, and commonly known as the 1896 or Schillner Map.”

xviiReport of Resurveying the Blue Line, Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, J.B. Lyon and Company, Albany, 1911. Page 282

xviiiFA05. The Mighty Chain: A Guide to Canal Records in the New York State Archives. 1992

xixReport of Resurveying the Blue Line, Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, J.B. Lyon and Company, Albany, 1911. Page 282

xx1910 Blue Line Maps, Volume A.

xxi Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor. For the year 1924. Page 32

Barge Canal Construction Equipment, The Steam Shovel

Steam shovel on Contract 1. This might be a Marion model improved A.

The steam shovel was perhaps the most ubiquitous machine on construction and mining sites between 1880 and 1930. The earliest steam shovel dates back to 1835 when William Otis designed what was called a railroad shovel. The machine, which included a steam boiler, various steam engines, dipper arm assembly, fuel and water, weighed several tons.(1) At the time the only large construction projects that could use such a machine were in railroad construction so the shovel was mounted to a flatcar and set on standard gauge railroad wheels. The shovel could also be mounted to a barge and used as a dredge but that came later.

This shovel loads a train on Contract 12.

The Otis patent ran out in the 1870s, and this allowed many companies to begin the manufacture of their own machines. Well known brands were the Osgood, Marion, Bucyrus, Barnhart, and American steam shovels. Osgood shovels were produced in Troy, NY, while Marion, Bucyrus and Barnhart were all Ohio companies. Improvements were made to the shovels as they got sturdier, heavier and more powerful.

A Vulcan is working at Lock 8 in Rotterdam on Contract 8. This contractor would late abandon this project due to the quicksand.

Shovels were soon at work on railroad projects, canal construction, mining and quarrying, basically anywhere large quantities of materials had to be excavated. But as this is about canal construction, lets take a look at how they were used.

The crew of the Model 60 and the steam trail pose for the photographer at Cranesville.

Because the shovels were mounted to railroad trucks and moved on rails, the shovel could only cut level swaths. The shovel would be moved around the site by men laying out temporary rails. Once at the cut, the shovel would extend it’s outriggers for stability then begin excavate to its front and sides. The machine could cut about three times it’s width. All spoils had to be loaded into hopper cars that were set on a narrow gauge railroad. Once the area was cleared to its front, the track team would lay out a new section of tracks and the shovel would slowly crawl forward. If the job was large enough to warrant more than one machine, a second machine would begin to remove earth on a lower terrace, following behind the first. The tracks also helped to distribute the weight of the machine allowing them to work in wetter areas, however as they were not easy or quick to move, there are many photographs of shovels sitting in flooded work sites.

We get a good look at the bottom of the shovel after this one turned over. Note the chain drive.

Shovels could also be mounted to barges and used as dipper dredges. Many of these were site built with the machinery being shipped to the job site and the barge being constructed from locally sourced lumber. Once the job was done the machinery was removed and the barge discarded. (2)

This Bucyrus shovel is being used to move blasted rock. Not the men loading the skips in the foreground.

Although good at handling gravel, sand and other aggregate materials, they were not good at moving larger rock. Many times you will find the shovel being used to load skips that were moved by cranes or cable ways.

On Contract 6. The shovel is loading an inclined tipple.

As they were developed, steam shovels were fitted out with crawler tracks. The only existing shovel of this configuration can be seen in Leroy, NY where a Marion Model 91 sits in a field. Once the internal combustion engine and hydraulic drives began to be used in construction machinery, the days of the steam shovel numbered. One man could do the work of 4 or 5, and once mounted to crawler tracks instead of railroad tracks, the mobility of the machine made it more useful. Today the hydraulic excavator, a distant cousin of the steam shovel, can be found on almost every job site.

From Contract 6. Not certain of model.

If you are interested in seeing these machines at work, check out the videos of construction of the Panama Canal. Bucyrus and Marion both supplied shovels to this work and were certain to make movies about it. With the clouds and steam and smoke, they make for interesting viewing. Of course the most famous steam shovel might be the Bucyrus in which President Roosevelt posed along the Cublra Cut in the Panama Canal.

There is a very good history of steam shovels at Heritage Machines.

Steam shovels were slow to move and were often caught in flooded situations.
This was a year after the flooded shovel. Note the dredge and steam pumps. The Marion Model 60 appears to be cold.

(1) A handy hint is that the model number refers to the weight of the shovel, thus a Marion 60 weighed about 60 tons.

Note the young girl sitting on the chair used by the man who operates the dipper.

(2) The images used in this post are from the New York State Archives, Barge Canal Construction Photos, 11833.

Construction Equipment on the NYS Barge Canal, 1905-1920

The New York State Archives has a wonderful collection of Barge Canal Construction photographs that show the progress of construction of the new waterway throughout the years of 1903 to 1920. In these you might find images of what the area looked like prior to construction, the first shovelful of work, progress through the years, work that was disqualified due to poor construction, damage from floods and ice, and then the finished projects (and more). You can find these in collection 11833 (Barge Canal Construction Photos).

These images also provide a remarkable record of the early days of heavy earth moving construction machinery. In the early 1900s, the steam shovel was only about 25 years old, and once they “perfected” that versatile machine, the possibilities were endless. Do you need to shape a bank? The cantilevered conveyor is the machine you need. Need to move rocks from a deep channel cut? How about the double boom crane? Do you have soft soils? How about a cable-way? If there was a job to do, some inventor had a machine to do it. And many of these machines were used to dig the new Barge Canal.

The Barge Canal was not the first use of these machines. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which was built in the 1890s, used many of the same machines. And it appears that some also were used on the Hennepin Canal construction.

Beginning with the Winter 2022 issue of the American Canals newsletter we have begun to look at these early machines. We will post the the same images from the articles, plus a few more, so you have the ability to enlarge and get a better look at their use and workings.

We start with Contract 40 which was the area of the big cut. This was the 5-mile section west of Lockport where the canal had to be cut through bedrock in order to reach the level of Lake Erie. This area was famous for its work during the construction of the original Erie Canal, and it posed the same challenges in 1900 with how to remove the massive quantities of rock from the channel.

The Brown Hoisting and Conveying Machine Company built this cantilevered conveyor. The machine was designed to remove spoils from the bank and deposit them directly behind the machine.
A close up of the Brown cantilevered excavator. A drag-line bucket runs along the arms and can be used to shape the banks. This machine was able to work in the navigation season. The machine sits of railroad style trucks.
You get a sense of the work with the shaped bank in the foreground and the vegetated bank behind it. A boat can be seen in the distance. The machine could also be used to lift skips of material that had been loaded by hand or team-shovel.
The Browning double-boom crane was designed to allow one boom to be working while the opposite one was dumping. This machine was used mostly to lift skips of rock out of the cut. Multiple skips would be in the work area either being loaded by men or using a steam-shovel.
You get a good sense of the scale of the work. The steam-shovel alone could never remove the rock so the double-boom crane is used to lift the rock out of the cut. The shovel would load a large skip and the crane would lift it clear. The machine would rotate 180-degrees and dump it’s load onto the spoils pile. At the same time, the boom over the canal would be lowering a empty skip into the cut.
Here you can see the skips, basically large baskets. This was July 1910 and the canal is in use. The canal cut is being widened down to the water level and the rest will be removed in the winter.
The Browning double-boom could also function as a drag-line by using only one of the booms and fitting it with a drag bucket. The machine sat on skids and would use it’s engines and capstans to drag itself around.
This view gives us a nice look at many of the machines used on the Barge Canal. The Brown Hoisting cantilever can be seen in the distance, which a Bucyrus steam-shovel loads skips on the Browning incline conveyor. The skips will run along the top of the track and then tip it’s load at the high end onto the spoils pile. A Lidgerwood cable-way flies over along the top of the photo.

Details on all these machines are featured in the Winter 2022 issue of American Canals. In upcoming issues we will take a look at more equipment used of the Barge Canal.

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.

William Frick’s Patent of Double Headers (1877) and the Erie Canal Lock Lengthening

Written by Thomas X. Grasso, Director Emeritus, Canal Society of New York State

Editor’s Introduction- I was looking at the route of the Schuylkill Navigation and I noticed the area called Frick’s Lock just south of Pottstown, Pennsylvania. This area was considered to be a small settlement and is now considered to be a “ghost town” of sorts. A number of articles have been written about it.

A crop of the Phoenixville Topo map from 1906 showing the area of Frick’s Lock

After finding Frick’s Lock, I recalled that back in 2012 when I was the editor, I had used a article written by Professor Thomas X Grasso for the Winter issue of the Bottoming Out, the Journal of the Canal Society of New York State. This article detailed the section boat coupling invention of William Frick of Pennsylvania. (1) I wondered if the two Frick’s were of the same family, perhaps even the same man? So I went to digging a bit.

I called Thomas and asked if I might use his article for this blog and he kindly agreed, so I will let Tom tell you about William Frick’s invention. A future post will look at the Frick family.

————————————————————

Of all the improvements inaugurated in the period before the 1895 Second Enlargement (otherwise known as the Nine Foot Deepening), Mr. William Frick’s Patent of Double Headers was paramount as this in turn, once the plan was adopted, led to the lock lengthening, These improvements were the first major steps that eventually culminated in the Barge Canal System we have today.

A 1869 newspaper article about Frick’s invention to couple boats.

Double headers are boats that are coupled together in tandem much like the double length tractor trailers we see today on the interstate highways. “A large economy results from coupling boats on the plan adopted on the Pennsylvania canal” wrote State Engineer and Surveyor John D. Van Buren Jr. in his annual report of 1877. “The boats being fastened in pairs close together, one ahead of the other, the total resistance is much less than for two single or separated boats; and, besides, the number of the crew can be very much reduced below what is required for two such boats.” He urged those engaged in canal transportation to give careful attention to this mode of transportation. (2)

This postcard shows two of the Enlarged Erie Canal boats coupled together. The steering wheel can be seen on the leading boat.

“The introduction of boats running in pairs coupled together has been of great importance. This applies to boats propelled by animal power as well as those propelled by steam”, concluded State Engineer and Surveyor John Bogart on page 20 of his Annual Report for 1891.(3) The method was introduced on New York Canals in 1877 but he went on to describe that the original patent by Mr. Frick of Chester, PA were two boats coupled in such a way that the ropes ran from the steering wheel to the rudder of the rear boat and therefore the rudder of the second boat maneuvered the consort as the wheel of the first boat was turned. But the double headers on the Enlarged Erie used a slightly different arrangement.

The plan on the Erie Canal was a modification of the Frick plan. “The two boats are connected by ropes running from the stern of the forward boat, through blocks on each side of the rear boat and returning to the wheel on the forward boat. These ropes are not connected to the rudder of the rear boat, which is left free.” Therefore this “short circuit” results in a very much larger rudder-like device because the entire second boat becomes the rudder navigating the consort. “Most of the better class of newly constructed boats, propelled by animal power, adopted this system thereby securing much greater economy than single boats.” [editors note– A search of patents shows that William Frick applied for a number of patents based on his “Steering Apparatus for Sectional Boats” beginning in 1868. Interestingly, his first patent steered the boats in much the same manner as was adopted on the Erie. His later patents used the rudder. Many of the patents by Frick and other inventors referred to double headers as “train boats, or boats in a train”.(4)] The number of double headers increased dramatically and very quickly indeed because the single boat requires a crew of four men and four horses or mules (two in service and two in reserve resting in the bow stable). The double header requires no more crew than a single boat but only two more animals– three to a team. The boats in use by 1891 that carried the greatest portion of the freight were double headers with a capacity of 250 tons each. These vessels require about nine to ten days to run from Buffalo to West Troy (Watervliet) or Albany. At Albany the boats were made into fleets and towed to New York taking an additional three days. Therefore a round trip consumed about twenty-five days. Allowing five days in the ports of New York and Buffalo and if there weren’t any delays from canal breaks, sunken vessels, loss of time in receiving and discharging cargo, and other mishaps– seven round trips could be made in one season. Usually the average was six.

For steam propelled fleets the same method of coupling was utilized except that the coupling was more rigid and the consort was pushed by the steamer. There we think that these steamer couplings were the first “pushtows” on the Erie Canal and the forerunner of the tug and barge of the new canal yet to come. Two connecting arms of wood on each side to the bow of the steamer were attached to the stern of the forward vessel. The wheel house was located above the boiler room and the living quarters for the captain and family was forward, with an apartment for use by the crew. The steamer could simultaneously push the consort and in addition, by use of one and a half inch think hawsers that were from 300 to 500 feet long, tow two to four more non-powered barges. Steam propelled fleets could make six round trips between Buffalo and New York City in addition to other ports such as Philadelphia and Bridgeport in a single season. They also were far more profitable than the animal powered doubleheaders whose days were certainly numbered, although the State did all they could to stem the tide and keep the “mom and pop” canal boat operators in business. Animal powered double headers who completed six round trips were marginally profitable. The State conducted a study and figured that with six trips, the owner would break even or loose $81.00, while seven trips would bring $356.00. A steam powered boat with six trips would earn $3,081.00. (5) [Ed’s note– A steamer powered doubleheader would need to have the powered unit in the rear, as so the prop wash could flow unimpeded. When the steamer is in the lead, it needs to have the separation provided by the long hawser so the prop wash did not hit the trailing boat. If it did, it would be in a sense acting against the powered boat. This is one of the reasons “push-tows” were used in the narrow confines of the canal.]

Another double header. Note that the steering wheel is mounted on the front of the rear cabin.

But double headers were not very profitable if they had to be uncoupled and rejoined at each of the seventy-two locks from Albany to Buffalo. Therefore the modified Frick plan of double headers to the canal was the inspiration for lengthening one chamber of a twinned Enlarged Erie lock to permit the passage of double headers without having to break the tow. Usually, but not always, the lock was lengthened by adding a second chamber to the foot or downstream end of the berme chamber thereby making it a “double-long” chamber. This chamber could be used by both ordinary and coupled boats depending on traffic. Lengthening at the head of the lock was much more expensive as workers had to excavate into the upstream canal bed and remove a considerable amount of earth. But at certain points, conditions such as a sharp bend very close to the lock could not permit the double header from making the curve and then have sufficient length of canal to line up the tow for easy entry into the chamber. Therefore four locks were lengthened at the head, tow of which were also lengthened on the towpath side. From east to west they were; St. Johnsville (33), Utica (40 towpath Chamber ), Syracuse (49), Lyons (55 towpath chamber).

The first lock to be lengthened was Gere’s Lock (50) which is the first lock west of Syracuse. This was done in 1885. [ed’s note– Lock 50 is a bit unusual in that the center culvert was covered by rock and earth, not by the wooden walkway we typically see.] That was quickly followed by five locks in 1887 (47, 48, 49, 51, 52); fifteen in 1888 (31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 72); six in 1889 (27, 28, 29, 30, 63, 64); six in 1890 (23, 24, 25, 26, 65, 66); five in 1891 (40, 41, 42, 43, 46); one in 1894 (19); two in 1895 (21,22). Lock 20 is not listed in Whitford’s chronology, although it does appear that it was lengthened somewhere between 1892 and 1895. In the end, forty-two of the seventy-two main line locks were lengthened in ten years, leaving thirty that were not lengthened.(6)

In this postcard view we see the typical arrangement for the lengthened locks.

Those that weren’t lengthened were the eighteen locks ascending from the Hudson River to the top lock at the west end of the flight in Cohoes (1-18); the four locks at Little Falls (36-39); the three locks at Newark, aka Lockville (57-59); and the Flight of Five at Lockport (67-71). These were bottlenecks that consumed much time in passing double headers or steam fleets because the boats had to be separated and passed through singly. At Cohoes, full time teams of animals and crews were on hand (for a reasonable fee) to assist with the passing of boats.

There were several reasons given for not lengthening the remaining thirty locks, such as sharp bends between the locks and / or they were located too close together to permit lengthening. What this really meant is that the engineers could not lengthen them one at a time or a few at a time over a number of years as they did with the forty-two that were already lengthened. To be most effective at each of the four locations, they had to be done in one go and that was a costly proposition, for those that scrutinized annual budgets. [Ed’s note– A lengthened lock used twice as much water as a single. The pools or reaches between locks located close together may have not had the capacity to fill the lock and maintain the navigation depth.]

But the problem of lengthening the locks in these four stretches was not ignored by the canal engineers. They continued their battle almost year after year throughout the 1890’s coming up with ideas to pass boats through these bottlenecks in an efficient and time saving manner. Some of these were ideas that were robustly cutting edge and very innovative indeed, such as constructing hydraulic or pneumatic boat elevators, similar to those that were in operation, or in the process of construction in England, France, Germany and Belgium.

The problem of the three locks at Newark (57, 58, 59), totaling twenty-four feet of lift, inspired a novel approach. In 1890, the State Engineer and Surveyor renewed a call made in earlier reports, that the three lock flight should be passed entirely by constructing a new channel for approximately three-quarters of a mile around the old locks and placing a two lock combine (two lengthened locks back to back like a staircase) of twelve foot lift each. This was easily doable plus the work could be accomplished while the old alignment was still in operation so that it did not have to be built in winter. (see map on next page)

The problem was that it was expensive and sadly was never undertaken. But it would have been singularly significant had it been accomplished– the only combined locks with lengthened chambers and the only locks without a single chamber.

However an updated version of this plan was resurrected during construction of the Erie Barge Canal through Newark. The present alignment of the canal at Newark closely follows if not exactly follows the alignment shown in the map. The difference today is that one lock (Erie 30 at Newark) with a lift of sixteen feet, was constructed approximately where the proposed channel above joins the main lock just west of the combined lock. The difference in lift today between Lock 30 of sixteen feet compared to the twenty-four feet of lift on the enlarged canal is due to design changes in elevation between the old and new canals. The lower Lockville Lock (57) was completely obliterated during the construction of the Barge Canal, leaving not a trace of its former existence.

References

1– The Professor’s article about Frick’s invention first appeared in; Three Erie Canals in Western Wayne County Study Guide, CSNYS, October 14, 15, 16, 2011. The article was then used in the Winter 2012 Issue of the Bottoming Out. Used with permission of the author.

2– Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor 1878 (Jerome B. Parmenter) Albany, NY. 52, 53. (report for 1877)

3– Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, pgs 20, 21. FTY 1891 Published 1892.

4– See Letters Patent;

William Frick 82,614 -1868

William Frick 5000-1872

Isaac Wistar 134,341– 1872

William Frick 152,099– 1873

William Frick 7934– 1877

William Frick 238,671– 1881

Charles McCabe 320,670– 1885

5– Annual Report 1892, pgs 33-48. The State Engineer noted that animal powered boats continued to be used because their owners don’t set aside funds for replacement and repairs. However the estimate of profit and loss by the State used all the variables of running a boat, resulting in the $81.00 loss.

6-Whitford 1906 Chronicle. Resume of Important Laws and Events pgs 955-979.

The Beginnings of the Second Enlargement of the Erie Canal 1858-1895

I wrote this article for the Canal Society of New York State’s journal Bottoming Out, some years ago. It is wordy, full of facts, and not really suited to the typical blog post. In all, it ran 17-pages. If you would prefer to download and print it, you can find a pdf version here. I hope you find it useful. Mike Riley, Feb, 2021.

Introduction

I think everyone understands that the Erie Canal has gone through many changes between the time it was first built in 1817-1825 and the building of the Barge Canal 1905-1918. When the canal was opened from Albany to Buffalo in 1825 it suffered from many imperfections that made the day to day operation and it’s use by the boaters difficult at times. The manner in how the canal was constructed following contours of the land made for many twists and turns. In 1834 the State decided to enlarge the canal from the four by forty feet dimensions to seven by seventy feet between Albany and Syracuse, and then in 1835, the State had decided to enlarge the full length of the canal from Albany to Buffalo. The goals were many but mostly centered around getting bigger boats on the canal. The locks were enlarged and doubled (two locks side by side), and new aqueducts were built. Since a larger canal needed more water, more reservoirs and feeders were constructed. This process of enlargement would last for the next twenty-seven years. Before the first enlargement had been completed, there were calls for a still larger canal which would allow for larger loads. In time this would be called the second enlargement, and that in turn would lead to the building of the Barge Canal. This article began its life as a look at the Second Enlargement of the Erie Canal. It has turned out to be an examination as to what factors led up to the second enlargement. As with everything about the canal, the more I dug into the history, the less clear things became.

A crop of the 1853 town of Mentz map showing the line of both the first (as dashed line) and the enlarged Erie Canal between Port Byron and Montezuma.

When did the Second Enlargement Begin?

We can flip the question about the beginning of the second enlargement to read, “when did the first enlargement conclude?” I am finding that an answer to this question is not as clear as one might think. For help, we might look to Whitford and his order of chapters. He places the beginning of the second enlargement at the same time as the Nine Million Dollar Act of 1895 since that is when the enlargement was written into the law. Another person might look to at when the shipper could move more tons of goods as an enlargement. So I set out to find a time when someone who had the power and the influence to make a call for a deeper canal made that call. Certainly demands for a deeper canal are not the same as actual digging, but other things did take place as a result of these calls, and these increased the capacity. As a result of this study, I decided to use the beginning of steam on the canal as my benchmark in a timeline of enlargement projects.

1858- The Steam Boat and a Deeper Canal

It is difficult to pinpoint the date of the first steam powered canal boat as many seem to claim the honor. It tends to circle around; “who built the first boat?”, and “who built the first successful boat?” In early August 1858, a trip was taken by New York State Governor King, Canal Commissioners Ruggles and Jaycox, and many others, to attend a celebration of steam on the canal. From Rochester to Buffalo they took part in a flotilla of steam boats that included the PS Sternberg, the Charles Wack, the Governor King, and the SS Whallon.i In one of the many speeches he gave, Governor King told the crowds that the Sternberg was the first successful steam boat and that the ongoing experiments with her and the others would show that steam was practical for use on the canals. He also said that it only remained for the State to, “Enlarge and deepen the canal, and make it what it was intended to be.” This was not a call to deepen the canal to more than seven feet; it was a call to deepen the canal to seven feet, as the canal enlargement had yet to be completed. Adding to the quote above, the Governor said, “Then you may put on the steam, and defy competition, from whatever source it may come.” The newspaper article went on to report that the boats often hit bottom on their tour, which is backed up by the annual reports of the time. ii

Although the railroads had yet to surpass the canals in tonnage of goods carried the men promoting the steam boats could see the future. In an extensive article about steam on the Erie Canal in Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review, the writer said; “It should be borne in mind that the railways are ‘up to time’ under the shrewdest competitive management, whilst the canal managers and forwarders have stuck like leeches to the tow-path, until they have sucked the financial blood from this great artery, so that she requires powerful stimulants in loans to reinvigorate her; hence, it wants an energetic and expeditious policy to meet the activities of the railways and redeem her from the sluggish habits of the past.”iii The point was that the railroad and the steam engine were evolving, while, even though the first enlargement process was ongoing, the canal had stopped growing. Clearly steam was the future, if only the canals would embrace it.

So let’s step away from the parade for a moment. One of the men on the Sternberg was temporarily appointed canal commissioner Samuel B Ruggles.iv He was a member of the State Assembly in 1838 and a canal commissioner from 1839-1842. Ruggles had been asked to fill the vacancy of Samuel Whallon. In this position he learned first hand about the condition of the canals and the progress of the enlargement. In 1858 the enlargement had been going on since 1835. Even with the missed Stop and Tax years (1842-1847), the work had been going on for eighteen years and it was far from complete. He wrote that, “It was soon discovered that the Erie Canal, the enlargement of which had been supposed to be nearly complete, had not a uniform depth even of six-feet of water, to which it had been limited during the progress of the enlargement, causing great dissatisfaction, delay and loss to the numerous persons engaged or interested in its navigation.”v

Let’s get back to the parade of steam in August 1858. Unlike Governor King who looked to the future, Samuel Ruggles looked back, “I have not time to speak to you of the future of this great work, and I desire only further to allude to the past, by calling to mind those to whom we are indebted for the grand canal, which has brought to you and the State so full a measure of prosperity. Let me in parting, point you to one memorial of those benefactors who have passed away, and whose monuments we see all along the line of this canal. Yonder, (pointing to a single arch of the old aqueduct) stands a monument to their wise forecaste and patriotism. Preserve that, fellow citizens, as a memorial of the triumphal accomplishment of a great enterprise. In Europe, and among all civilized nations, a mouldering ruin like that, illustrative at once of the art and enterprise of the past, would be cherished with religious care. Let it be your aim to secure it from the vandal hand, and preserve it for your children to contemplate as a memento of the opening of a new era to internal commerce.”vi This speech is interesting as it takes place during a tour of the new age of innovation, in which the central point is to push the State to finish the first enlargement. Ruggles is saying in effect, “The reason you are here is due in large part to the great canal. Let that arch be a reminder of this. Don’t forget it!” You can read similar reminders through all the yearly Annual Reports which all seem to start with a reminder of the past glory days of canals and the Empire State.

A push was made for the completion of the canal enlargement. Up to 1859, $29,800,000 had been spent on the enlargement. Engineers estimated that only one-million more would finish the work. On April 19, 1859, the Legislature passed a bill, Chapter 495 which in part gave money to survey the entire canal by boat, taking measurements of the actual depth, and publishing the results for all to see.

The 1860s

Thomas Colden Ruggles was appointed to carry out the survey, the first readings to be taken in 1860.vii A second test run was to be made in 1861. Ruggles found that the canal was between 5.9 to 6.7 feet deep. In addition there were large earthen benches that stuck out into the channel decreasing the width of the navigation channel and decreasing the amount of water in the canal. Ruggles also discovered that no surveys of the canal existed to aid him in his calculations of clearing out the canal channel. In the 1861 Annual Report, (the same one in which T.C. Ruggles report was published), the Canal Commissioners were quick to point out that this testing was a waste of money. On April 10, 1862 the State Legislature also reacted to Ruggles report by passing Chapter 169 of 1862, which declared the canal’s first enlargement complete as of September 1, 1862. What this meant was that if the canal was to be worked on after September 1, the money would need to come out of the general fund. The enlargement was complete.

Whitford noted that the policy change “left the enlargement of the canals far from actual completion.”viii As it stood in 1862, thirteen locks west of Syracuse only had one chamber; earthen benches remained along much of the canal; and over time, the canal had been getting shallower as soil, sewage, and trash filled up the canal prism. The depth was far from seven feet. And aside from the steam parade of 1858 little advancement was made in terms of non-animal towage.

The supporters of the canal only had to look to the loss of business to the railroads and see what the future held. In 1865 the canal hauled about a million tons more then the railroads. In 1867, the tonnage of freight moved by the canal and the railroad was about equal at about five-and-a-half-million-tons. In 1868 the canal hauled slightly more, and then after that the railroads pulled ahead never to lose ground again. The railroads were improving their steam engines which made it possible to move more freight in each train. In 1869 the Westinghouse air-brake was introduced and in 1873 the knuckle coupler was introduced. Meanwhile, the majority of boats on the Erie and other canals were being pulled by animal teams.

Little would happen along the canal during the next seven years. The locks west of Port Byron remained as singles. In his 1869 message, Governor Hoffman said it was the duty of the state to “foster and protect” the canal, and to restore it to full dimensions again, meaning seven feet of water.ix In May 1869, money was given to restart the lock doubling.x

The 1870s

The Governor repeated his message in 1870 and another $200,000 was given to the lock doubling effort.xi The Canal Commissioner stated that another $126,000 was needed to finish the work. One of the reasons to support the canals was that they acted as a check on the railroad’s freight prices. Even if the canals were not carrying great amounts, the fact that they were in business helped to regulate prices.

It was recognized that steam had not made the inroads along the canal as the people on the 1858 parade had expected. And in 1871 the Governor pointed out that Canada was actively enlarging their canals to allow for larger boats. The State reacted by encouraging any sort of towing system, saying that they wanted to see the use of steam, caloric, electricity or any motor power other than animals for the propulsion of boats.xii

In 1873, the newly elected Governor John Dix said that the State had been far too generous with its money over the Hoffman years and needed to make cuts. However, he did give his support for the canals and that the need to have full dimensions and steam. In 1874 Governor Dix mentioned the Canadian canals and the fact that ships of 1600-tons will soon be using the St. Lawrence River. He said that the State must respond by providing a canal that will cheapen the cost of moving goods or the State would lose its place in commerce. However, he warned, 1874 was not a time to even think about a ship canal across the State, since even as Governor Dix gave his 1874 message, the world had been in a financial depression since September of 1873.

In 1873, people selected from around the state met to discuss changes to the New York State Constitution. One of the big changes was to create the position of the Superintendent of Public Works, and to abolish the Canal Commissioners. Once recommended, and with the approval of the Legislature, the amendment would be placed on the fall ballot. Even with the change favorably voted upon by the voters, the change from Canal Commissioners to Superintendent would not happen until 1876.

In 1875, newly elected Governor Tilden made very favorable comments toward the canals, saying that the canal had enough capacity to do the job asked of it and more but that the canal needed to be cleaned out to seven foot.xiii His tone was measured, in light of the depression that was ongoing. “Economy from the best group of adaptations”, was his message. Then he wrote; “I may be excused for repeating here what I said in the Constitutional Convention eight years ago: “What the Erie Canal wants is more water in the prism; more water in the waterway. A great deal of it is not much more than six feet, and boats drag along over a little skim of water; whereas it ought to have a body of water larger and deeper even than was intended in the original project. Bring it up to seven feet- honest seven feet- and on all levels, wherever you can, bottoming it out; throw the excavation upon the banks; increase that seven feet toward eight feet, as you can do, progressively and economically. You may also take out the bench walls.”xiv

There are a couple of remarkable items in the Governors message. The first is that the Governor had made the argument for an honest seven feet in 1867, some five years after those in 1862 said the enlargement was complete, and here he was again making the argument again in 1875 some thirteen years after 1862. He also made statements concerning the way that boats move in the canal and this message may be the first serious call for a canal deeper than seven feet. But in doing all this, he also made it clear; “No Rash Innovations.”xv Complete the canal to seven feet, give steam a chance, study the results. In short, don’t do any thing else in a time of depression.

Governor Tilden was not done. On March 19, 1875, he released a special message to the Legislature. He began by saying that he had received a communication from the boatman, forwarders, and others concerned with the business of the canals asking for cheaper tolls and ways to cheapen the movement of freight. He then said he started his own investigation into the canals of the State, and that this investigation had found that many millions of dollars had been spent on useless improvements and repairs. He said that the canal must be cleaned out and gradually deepened so the boat is moving through more water. (more on this later) He asked for a measurement of the canal depth. He then pointed out the fraud in the canal bidding system and said that engineers, contractors, and commissioners have been ripping off the State for years. He finished with, “It is clear that, under the present system of canal management, the people will not be relieved from taxation, the boatmen from high tolls, or the needed improvements of the Erie and Champlain Canals will be finished.”xvi As a result, the Legislature set up an investigating committee which was given a year to study the management of the canals and make a report.

The Governors special message had the intended effect. The New York Herald ran a full page devoted to the message, the need for investigations, and the need for seven feet of water.xvii Thurlow Weed, no friend of Tilden, gave his support to the Governor.

Samuel Ruggles, the ardent canal supporter and member of the New York State Chamber of Commerce, joined the fight for the canals. Maybe not surprisingly, in May, 1875, the Chamber hired Thomas Colden Ruggles to run his depth survey/tests again, examining the speed of the boats on the canal, and the depth of water. Ruggles rode along on the City of Utica, a Baxter Steam Canal Transportation boat. He submitted his report to the Chamber on October 7, 1875.xviii Ruggles condensed his report down to three points; 1) that delays in navigation cause the boaters to waste money, 2) that in many places the canal is not more that thirty feet wide, and 3) that the boaters would be better served with eight feet of water. He also points out that in many places the canal has not been improved since his 1861 survey. On March 30, 1876, the Chamber passed a resolution in favor of making the canal seven-foot-deep, and deepening where ever possible.

The Canal Ring

In 1876, Governor Tilden called for a special investigation of “the canal ring”, and the waste and fraud connected to canal work. The conclusions of this investigation had an impact on what happened next with the canal enlargement. It is not the purpose of this article to investigate what was called “the canal ring”. But it is important to note what happened as it has such a bearing on what would happen next.

In March, Governor Tilden delivered the findings of the investigation which found; 1) almost fifteen million dollars had been spend over the last five years on canal repairs and improvements, 2) almost all the work done had little value to the State and was only done to enrich the contractors, 3) most of the bids and contracts were handed out illegally, 4) most of the work was useless. He then recommended that; 1) close all contracts, 2) make $400,000 available to close out any payments on closed contracts, 3) make $400,000 available to restore the canal so it could have seven feet of water, plus make $15,000 available for a complete survey of the canal, 4) use any non-expended balances left from prior appropriations on the Champlain Canal, 5) direct the canal board to come up with a set of recommendations for next year. These recommendations became law as Chapter 425 of 1876.xix The “canal ring” had been broken.

When the 1876 fall elections rolled around the voters had a chance to respond to the news of the canal ring by way of the Constitutional changes recommended in 1873. They were well prepared to change the management structure of the canals. The State would have its first Superintendent of Public Works, and the Canal Commissioners were to be gone. But change was to come slowly and political shenanigans would postpone the appointment of the Superintendent until late January 1878.

In 1877 newly elected Governor Lucius Robinson pronounced that the fraud on the canal was gone but that the boatmen had been harmed by the waste over the last years. And because of the ongoing depression the only way to help the boatmen was to cut the tolls.

At the heart of the matter for the boatmen was moving more freight at a faster speed. Whether it was a horse boat or a steam boat, the owner needed to get from Buffalo to Albany or New York City as fast as he could with as many tons of goods as the canal would let him carry. What stopped him was the depth of the water and the size of the enlarged locks. No boat could be larger then 98-feet-long and 17-feet-wide, with a maximum draft of six-anda-half-feet (if the canal had seven feet of water). This is why all the arguments made on behalf of the canal up to this point was to give the boaters a full seven feet of water, and to get the boats moving faster by allowing steam instead of animal towage.

As they had just finished enlarging the locks, it was unlikely that the State would enlarge the locks a second time, so every improvement had to work around the size restriction. Pennsylvanian William Frick had developed a device to allow two full size Erie Canal boats to be coupled so that one crew could safely steer the two boats. Most likely he based this on what he saw some of the Pennsylvania canals, with two small boats coupled together using a hinge device. In effect, his invention created one very long boat so the owner could move 400 tons instead of 200 tons. This greatly saved time and money as one crew could move twice the amount. But at the locks the boats had to be uncoupled and each boat passed through on its own. And lockage time was at least twice as working a single boat. And the work load on the horse was almost doubled. So it made sense to promote the use of a steam powered boat to pull or push a non-powered boat.

To drive home this point, in 1877, State Engineer John Van Buren, went into great detail as to the workload of the canal horse. He reported that despite all the efforts to get steam on the canal, the primary movers of boats was still the canal horse. He then gave an overview of the costs of running a horse boat and a steamer, an overview of the Belgium system of towage, an overview of the Frick coupling system, and the workload of either animal or steam to move a boat in the canal. He wrote that the animals would be better served to be owned by a large company and used in stages along the canal with proper food and rest, and then he concluded by saying, “The condition in which the horses employed on the canals are kept is very bad economy, to say nothing of its being a disgrace to our civilization.”xx

In his 1878 message, Governor Robinson announced that traffic was up on the canal, as all available boats were in use. The depression was over. However, since the State had cut tolls so deeply the revenue in 1877 did not cover the cost of running the canal which was higher because more boats were now using it. The State operated the canals under a constitutional article that said that the expenses for the coming year could not exceed the previous year’s revenues. If the expenses did run over the money had to be taken out of extraordinary repairs fund. With this restriction the State had to make cuts to the upcoming years budget. The Governor stated that governance of the canal under the auspices of the new Superintendent of Public Works would be able to cut the annual budget in half from 1877 and run a successful canal.xxi No mention of improvements was made. No mention would be made in 1879 either, however, it may have been that the Governor was giving the new Superintendent some time to get his bearings. The Governor also had other concerns to occupy his time. In a time of consolidation and cuts, the State had spent over nine-million-dollars on a new State Capitol building which was far from finished. The Legislature had moved in to the sections of the capitol that were usable. The Governor wished them well in their home hoping that it would lead them to pass only wise and good laws, but he feared that the new building was built in the fashion of European Courts and would lead to more dishonesty and corruption and he thought maybe the voters might wish that the earth would open and shallow it up.xxii

The Jervis Plan

Soon after VanBuren’s report was made public in January of 1878, John Jervis wrote at length of the need for a canal railroad.xxiii This may have been in response to the various methods of towage that VanBuren reported on which left out any sort of railroad / canal connection. In the 1878 International Review , Jervis wrote an article titled “The Future of the Erie Canal”, in which he attempts to make the case for canal boats to be pulled by steam engines on rails that would run along the towpath. His logic was that if the trains on rails were still pulled by horses as were the canal boats, the canal would be the dominate transportation of the times. However, since steam engines pulled train cars and horses pulled canal boats, the canal could not compete. Then he suggested that steam engines could tow five boats at one time. Nothing would come from this paper other then the fact that a well respected engineer had weighed in onto the future of the Erie Canal and added some facts to the discussion.

Sweet’s Tractive Force Study of 1878xxiv

In the 1878 Annual Report of the Surveyor and Engineer, Division Engineer Sweet included the results of a study he conducted for State Engineer Horatio Seymour Jr. The purpose of the study was to determine “the commercial value of the proposed improvement of the Erie Canal by deepening it a foot.” In his remarks Sweet made reference to a survey of 1876, “which was undertaken for the purposes of this improvement”. This appears to point back to Governor Tilden’s address, and the resulting act of the legislature (chapter 425 of 1876) which authorized $15,000 for this study. Although Governor Tilden did not call for a deeper canal it appears that Sweet’s instructions were to investigate this. Was this an improvement or an enlargement? [And I pose the question, “Is this the start of the second enlargement?”]

Sweet’s tasks were; 1) to determine the cost to the State of enlarging the canal, and 2) to determine the savings to the boat owners if the canal was made eight-foot-deep. The first task was relatively straight forward. How much would it cost to either dig out the bottom of the canal another foot, or, raise the banks a foot? The second task was a bit more involved and centered on determining how much energy was needed to move a canal boat in the narrow confines of a canal. The energy thus expended is called the tractive force.

At its very basic level, a boat, whether it is being towed or pushed, will resist being moved. Whatever is pulling or pushing the boat the animal or engine will need to overcome this resistance. The amount of water around and under the boat, the shape of the hull, the draft and length of the boat, the current, the shape of the canal, all serve to have an effect the amount of force needed to move the boat. Both Engineers Sweet and VanBuren tried to quantify this force, although Sweet seems to have taken it a bit further. Interestingly, Sweet seems to have only looked at horse boats while VanBuren studied both. In the end he wrote that if the canal was one foot deeper (eight feet), a boat could carry about 50-tons-more, and still have less drag than the boats operating in the seven foot deep canal.xxv

Seymour’s Plan

In his first Annual Report, State Engineer Seymour outlined the challenges faced by the New York State canals. xxvi The railroads and the Canadian canals were the major focus. Studies showed that the St. Lawrence route was a shorter route to Europe and when complete, the locks along the Canadian border would allow much larger boats access to the Great Lakes. The Erie had to innovate and improve, or lose most of its water borne traffic to the Canadian canals. He then turned his focus to how to help the Erie Canal.

For Seymour it all came down to the ease of transportation and how to cheapen the cost of moving goods. He reasoned that the State could either increase tonnage, or increase speed. He noted Sweet’s study as to how to increase the size amount of tonnage a boat could move while decreasing the amount of time that a boat remained in transit across the state. He also suggested that locks could be lengthened and that machinery be installed on the locks to assist boats through the locks. He also suggests deepening the canal to eight feet.

The enlarged Erie to scale with boat. An added foot to the top and bottom of the canal is also shown. The boat takes up 25% of the canal.

Deepening seems to suggest that the canal should be dug deeper. That is not what Seymour wanted to do. He wanted to raise the banks one foot. This could be done by adding a foot of earth to the top of the banks, adding some boards to the various feeder dams, and adding structure to the top of locks and aqueducts. Some bridges might need to be raised. Digging out the bottom of the canal would be much more difficult as the floors of the locks and aqueducts would need to be reconstructed. And the culverts that passed under the canal might need to be lowered or reconstructed. But the main reason to add to the top of the canal was that this would greatly increase the amount of water in the canal prism, since the top of the canal was seventy feet wide, and the bottom was only fifty-two. More water meant reduced drag. This plan of improvement was called the Seymour Plan, a name that would stick up through the Nine Million Dollar Enlargement.

1879- T.C. Ruggles and the Ten Foot Canal

Inspired by the Jervis’ article, Thomas C Ruggles responded with his own argument for a deeper canal. Ruggles agreed that a extra foot of water in the canal would help but an extra three-feet would allow steamers to run faster at an improved economy.

“I will speak first of the length of boats, then of the bottom of the canal. All vessels that go by steam require length; they are now being made about ten times as long as broad. This makes room for machinery, for cabins, and for cargo. The only way left to do on the canals, as the locks would not admit longer boats than those in use, was to fasten one boat before the other, taking them apart at the locks. This in fact, has doubled the capacity of the steamer, and enabled the same crew to bring down twice the load for the same price, and has made steam a success. I recommended this plan in 1861, and left models with Auditor Benton. The plan was approved of by Governor Hunt and Canal Commissioner Hiram Gardner, and the press along the line of the canal. It was adopted in Illinois on a smaller canal than the Erie, and is now approved on the Erie. As I passed along the canal in 1875, captains of canal boats told me if one horse canal boat was fastened before another, the two were towed with less effort than separately.”xxvii Ruggles made the case for a deeper canal and longer locks of twice the current length, if possible.

Ruggles seems to have then taken a step that others had not. He reached out to the newspapers who then used his facts and figures in various articles to publicize the idea. Not all the press was favorable but many picked up on the idea of a deeper canal.

The 1880s

After many years of Governors saying nothing about the future of the Erie Canal, in his address of 1881, Governor Alonzo Cornell may have been forced to address the situation by the soon to be completed enlarged canal of Canada. He said that the new Canadian canal rendered; “the future of the Erie Canal a subject of much concern, and well worthy of your intelligent consideration.”xxviii He said that the State Engineer wanted to raise the banks to increase the water to eight feet, and then said that the Engineer goes into much greater detail in his Annual Report.

In the 1880 Annual Report, State Engineer Seymour devotes many pages to the question of a deeper canal. He outlined the “Danger To Our Commerce” by the St. Lawrence route. He wrote; “The British are so confident that they will wrest the trade of the west from us, that they have nearly completed works that will cost more than thirty millions of dollars. This is in addition to about twenty-millions spent in early improvements, making about fifty-millions paid out to gain the great prize they seek, the control of the carrying trade from the heart of our country to the markets of the world. They do not fear our railroads. While we are neglecting our water-routes, they spare no cost to perfect theirs.”xxix

He then moved into ways to improve the Erie Canal. He used letters from Engineer Van Richmond, George Geddes, and free-tolls promoter Alonzo Richmond to emphasize the need for a deeper canal. In a complicated tangle of letters, Alonzo asked Van Richmond about the practicality of adding one foot to the banks and digging out the canal bottom, who then cited the opinion of George Geddes. Geddes endorsed the idea of a nine foot canal and then said; “The engines must be on the boats, and able to move them backward as well as forward, and for this reason, if for no other, all schemes of railroads on the banks of the canal, or cables laid along its bottom to move the boats, have appeared to me idle, and but divert the public mind from a full investigation of the true plan of improving our means of transportation.”xxx This was certainly a criticism of the Jervis Plan and the other towing plans. He closes with this statement; “The path of improvement is now so plainly marked out that it most certainly will be followed. The opinions of all experts, who have given investigation to this matter, may be said to be alike, and the time for prompt action has fully come. In addition to the financial advantages that would flow from the improvements you advocate, there is a moral consideration worth the attention of all lovers of men and animals. It will be a great advance in this direction, to give the galled and jaded horses and mules of the tow-path an honorable discharge from that service, and it would be a great thing to substitute for the drivers, facing storms and hardships on the bank, educated mechanics, managing steam engines in the comforts of sheltered cabins.”xxxi

By law the State Engineer was given the authority to make some improvements to help the canal without having to ask for an appropriation.xxxii In 1880 machinery was installed into the Port Byron Lock 52, to assist in moving boats through the lock. Once the success at Lock 52 was seen, the other four locks that lifted boats from the west (47,48,49,51) were fitted out with the water powered machinery.xxxiii The State Engineer estimated that two and a half hours would be saved, which was part of his plan to increase the overall time that boats spent in transit.

In his message for 1882 Governor Cornell points out the obvious that by continued cutting of tolls, there was not enough revenue generated to cover the expenses of operating the canal. If the canals were to stay in operation a new method of paying the bills would need to be found. The Legislature passed an act that would be presented to the voters in November that would abolish the tolls and raise the money needed from direct taxation.xxxiv This amendment passed and September 30, 1883 would be the last day that tolls would be collected on the canal.xxxv

The last day of 1883 would end the service of Engineer Silas Seymour. Silas seems to have had held a different opinion of the canals then his predecessor Horatio Seymour. Silas’ Annual Report is full of gloom, from the washing of the banks from the passing steamers, to the filling of the canal bottom due to sediment and sewage, he stated that the idea of a free canal, even though it had only been in operation for a year, was a failure. He then gave three pages of his report extolling the expanding railroad system of the country, and why the canal was a drain. He wrote; “The last named alternative [selling the canals] would, in light of past experiences, appear to be the wisest of the three; for the reason that Pennsylvania, Ohio and other States, have found it for their interest to dispose of their canals; and thus reimburse their treasuries to some extent, for the capital invested in them; and there can be no doubt that the canals of this State can readily be sold for a sufficient amount, to liquidate the entire canal debt of the State; and thus relieve the people from the burden of any further taxation on that account.”xxxvi His last word about the subject was that “THE CANALS MUST GO”.xxxvii It was, as he wrote, his last official act to submit these opinions to the Governor and the Legislature.

Elnathan Sweet was to replace Seymour as the next State Engineer. Sweet, you will recall, wrote the report regarding the tractive force needed by the boats in 1878. Unlike Silas Seymour who had been a railroad man most of his life, Sweet had worked for many years on the canals. He knew the difficulties faced by the State and the boatmen. The divide between the railroads and the canals had grown so that in 1884 the combined railroads had moved over twenty-two million tons, whereas the canal had moved just slightly over five-million-tons. Sweet is notable for his publication The Radical Enlargement of the Artificial Water-way Between the Lakes and the Hudson River.xxxviii Sweet proposed a ship canal one-hundred-feet-wide and eighteen-feet-deep, with locks four-hundred-fifty-feet-long and sixty-feet-wide. Sweet wrote that it would need to step down from Lake Erie to the Hudson, so that water from Lake Erie could be used to fill its entire length. The valley of the Seneca River near Montezuma would have an embankment fifty-feet-high. From Utica to Albany the canal was to use a canalized Mohawk River. He not only proposed this idea through his Annual Report of 1885 (which covered 1884), but also submitted the idea to the American Society of Civil Engineers. It is amazing that some thought the idea grand for the fact that ships of war could be quickly moved into the Great Lakes in case Britain was to move their ships of war into the lakes.xxxix Others had opposing opinions saying that as a nation we should be using the St. Lawrence route, “If the same facilities, and even better, can be got by the expenditure of thirty-three millions [what the Canadian Canals had cost] than by the expenditure of two hundred millions, where is the ground for hesitation and doubt as to the course for prudent sensible men to adopt? Simply this- reluctance to depend in any way upon a foreign nation- pride in our own country- the sentiment which we call patriotism. If the object is to gratify this sentiment- to enforce a Chinese like national exclusion- to build up New York City- then by all means let us enlarge the Erie Canal. But if the object is, as we first stated it, to secure cheap, rapid and reliable transportation from the lakes to the seaboard, then let us take the route that God, the great engineer, has laid out for us.”xl Sweet estimated the cost of his ship canal to be between $125 and $150 million dollars.

Sweet’s Ship Canal proposal was the last of the big ideas when it came to the canal. Sweet had Gere’s Lock 50 lengthened so that two boats could be locked through at one time and then after seeing the success seen at Lock 50, the effort to increase the capacity of the canal centered around lengthening the locks and dredging out the canal to return it to seven feet. Over the years, sediment, sewage, trash an anything else that could be poured or thrown into the canal decreased the working depth. It proved hard enough the keep seven feet of water, let alone eight or nine feet.

The Governors seem to be ready to move on or perhaps away, from the canals. As we have seen, most at least made some mention of the canals in their yearly message. But with the canals free as of 1883, there seemed little reason to push for any improvements. Whitford made note of this, writing “The annual message of Governor Hill, covering the period of 1885, is worthy of note from the fact that it did not contain a single word of direct reference of the canals.”xli Governor Hill did mention the canals in his 1885 message, where he said that no substantial improvements had been made in years.xlii But then after that, canals were absent from the messages covering 1886 to 1891.

The State Canal Union

This does not mean that the canals had lost all their friends and supporters. The State Canal Union was formed around 1885 to bring together interested parties and support the canals. Governor Seymour was the first president of the Union, replaced by George Clinton after Seymour’s death in 1886. In an interview in 1892, President Clinton said that, “The Union was formed for the purpose of lengthening the locks on the canal and deepening the channel so as to give two feet more water; also to clean it out and in part construct vertical walls. The great object was to give a broader and deeper bottom, making it nine instead of seven feet.”xliii The state-wide union would later try to organize smaller “local” canal unions that would advocate for canal improvements from a local perspective. It appears that the Union disbanded in the mid 1890’s.

The New York Produce Exchange

The New York Produce Exchange was a commodities exchange that could swing lots of power. It advocated for the canals but, at times found itself in conflict with other pro-canal organizations that wanted lower grain elevator prices in New York and across the state. It is notable that TC Ruggles sent his proposal for a ten foot canal to this organization before he mailed it out to the media at large. When it came to the deepening of the canal, the Exchange was on the side of the canal men.

The 1890s

1892 was the one hundred year celebration of the canals in New York, going back to the first small canals around the rapids of the Mohawk River. The men of the State Canal Union would seize upon this centennial to serve as a backdrop to the question of what to do with the canal system. The State Canal Union set a date of October 19, 1892 in Buffalo for men to gather to show their support. Canal Union President Clinton said that “the main object of the convention, is to arouse public interest in this matter of canal improvement and to make the convention in a sense educational.”xliv Over three hundred people attended the celebration.

For the first time in years, the 1892 Governor’s message mentioned canal improvements, continuing the lock lengthening project that had been going on since 1884. In the previous two years, little had been done as the Legislature had not given any money for the locks. In 1893 money was given to restart the work. The Governor also stated that he felt electricity should be used to propel the boats and asked for funding to install poles and wires along the canal. This was done under Chapter 499.

Again, in 1894, the Governor makes extensive comments about the canals, but takes an interesting twist. At first he states that a ship canal is out of the question, then says that the lock lengthening project has been a failure and that even the deepening would be useless. Then he suggests that electricity is the way of the future and that the State should continue with the experiments and infrastructure started in the prior year.xlv

The question of the canals came to a head at the 1894 Constitutional Convention. Since the canals are written into the constitution, each convention gave the State the opportunity to make changes such as the amendment to sell off many of the lateral canals in 1873. The canal men knew that this was their chance and held meetings to discuss the resolutions to be passed along to the Convention. They adopted the plan that had been in the works all along, the Seymour Plan.xlvi Their estimate for the work of lengthening the remaining locks, and making the canal a uniform nine-foot-deep was between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000. This plan was rejected and instead, the Legislature was given the power to enact laws in regard to the improvement of the canals. Article 7, Section 10 of the NYS Constitution does not give any number in regards to the enlargement of the canal. It merely states; “The canals may be improved in such manner as the Legislature shall provide by law. A debt may be authorized for that purpose in the mode prescribed by section four of this article, or the cost of such improvement may be defrayed by the appropriation of funds from the state treasury, or by equitable annual tax.”xlvii This was no change in the Constitution, as the Legislature held this power already, however, the question was put on the ballot as a sort of public referendum on the canals.

A investigating Canal Commission later wrote that before the convention, there was a “general impression” that the work could be done for $7,000,000 to $9,000,000. The convention delegates asked for a revised estimate from the State Engineer and gave him just twelve days to estimate the entire work of deepening and enlarging the 350-miles of canal. The last real physical survey of the canal had been made in 1876, and with so little time, this is what the Engineer used. Without leaving the office he estimated the cost to be $11,573,000. As the Commission later wrote; “It was merely the best guess which the State Engineer could give, based upon such facts as he had at hand.”xlviii For some reason, the Legislature, State Engineer and friends of the canal came to a $9,000,000 figure for the Seymour Plan enlargement. The Commission wrote; “It was, in fact, an amount fixed without sufficient data and upon the theory that there would be no unusual difficulties and that the best plan was to do the work as cheaply as possible.”xlix

With the affirmative November vote, the canal men jumped into action wishing to get their resolutions in order before the Legislature opened its 1895 session. A canal conference was held on December 21where as the men resolved that; a liberal amount of money be allocated for the enlargement of the canals; that the money be expended in 1895 and 96; a plan be made to continue and complete the work already in progress, with surveys and estimates; that bonds be secured in the least time, commensurate with the economy.l

1895

The next couple months would serve as the beginning of the second enlargement and at the same time mark the end of the second enlargement. At the beginning of the 1895 Legislature, newly elected Assemblyman Edward Clarkson introduced a bill that would allow the voters, who had just voted in favor of the canal enlargement, to vote again in the fall election. One might view this as a stalling tactic of the opponents of the canals, but Clarkson was a canal man. The newspapers reported, “Hon. Edward M. Clarkson, secretary of the Boat Owners and Commercial Association, was elected member of the assembly from the eighth assembly district, Brooklyn. He will make a capital worker for canal interests.”li Clarkson was also a member of the New York Produce Exchange.lii The bill that Clarkson introduced was for $9,000,000, a sum that was attributed to the canal union.liii

The first odd thing about this step is that the law did not require that the voters re-vote on a sum. The 1894 vote allowed the Legislature to move ahead with the enlargement as they saw fit and never before had the Legislature gone to the people for a vote on a appropriation even though millions had been spent on the canal improvements since 1884. The second odd thing is the $9,000,000 figure that Clarkson had used, since it came from the canal interests. Even the State Engineer had reported that at least $11,500,000 would be needed. Other estimates ran even higher. Clarkson’s bill also required that Superintendent of Public Works be required to enlarge and improve the canals within three months of the issuing of bonds. And it said; “The work called for by this act shall be done in accordance with plans, specifications, and estimates prepared and approved by the State Engineer and Surveyor.”liv The bill moved through the Legislature and was approved to move onto the voter at the fall election.

The canal men and other commercial interests met in June to plot their campaign to get the voters to give their approval a second time. The campaign worked, as enlargement was once again given the nod of the voters, with a majority of 250,000. The newspapers wrote; “The great improvement will begin this year, and three years’ time will see the completion of a wonderful change in the condition of the canals. It means work for idle workmen, a low rate for the transportation of merchandise, grain and coal, and a movement for the general prosperity of the State.”lv

1896

With the approval of the voters work could begin. However, before a shovel could be put to earth, much work had to take place. A survey of the canal had to be made so that the engineers could decide what work was needed. Survey men had to be hired and trained, and assistant engineers hired. There were not enough available men on the civil service lists so more had to be found. The canal was divided into thirty-bid-sections, and into each section estimates for improvements had to be made. Test cores had to be taken to judge if the soil was rock, clay, or earth. Measurements had to be made as to whether to raise or lower the canal, what structures were present. An engineer and assistant was needed for each section. Once the estimates were complete, the work needed to be advertised in all the papers along the canal. And then the contractors would submit their bids, and from these, work was awarded. All this was supposed to take place within three months. It took a year.

By July 1896 it became clear that the work for the enlargement of the canal using the Seymour Plan would cost $13,500,000. And this did not include engineering, advertising or inspection, all things that the State had to do. The enlargement law as written did not apply to existing structures, say when a bridge had to be raised or if a culvert had to be rebuilt. In fact all the structures that were in poor condition could not be repaired under this law.lvi And it was clear to the Superintendent that the canal would suffer if any part of it was disturbed. He wrote the banks were likely to collapse if any work was done around them, say when digging out the bottom or adding soil to the top.lvii The State Engineer was told to make cuts to bring the work in alignment with the $9,000,000.lviii Wholesale cuts were made to structures, bank work, excavations. And the work was bid out.

Bibliography

i Albany Evening Journal, August 9, 1858

ii Annual Report of the Canal Commissioners of the State of New York, Albany 1857, pg 42. This report covers the year 1856. In it, it was stated that the canal, although enlarged to seventy feet wide, only held five feet of water.

iii Hunt’s pgs 537-538

iv Wikipedia contributors, “Samuel B. Ruggles,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. The name Ruggles was well known in New York City. He donated the land in NYC for Gramercy Park, Irving Place, Lexington and Madison Avenues.

v Report on the Canals of New York, Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of State of New York, New York, 1875, Pg 21.

vi Need reference for speach

vii I have not been able to ascertain if Samuel and Thomas Ruggles were related.

viii Whitford, Noble E., History of the Canal System of the State of New York, Albany, NY., 1906, pg. 258

ix Message of Governor Hoffman from 1869. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909.Volume 6- pg 16. There is a volume series of annotated messages edited by Charles Lincoln dating between 1683 to 1906. All messages used in this article come from these volumes.

x Chapter 877 of 1869. Annual Report of State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany, 1892. This Report, which covers the year of 1891, contains a wealth of information about the canals, boats, and improvements. There is a list of the various laws passed in support of the canals beginning on page 75. Laws are also noted in Whitford and the messages of the Governors.

xi Chapter 767 of 1870.

xii Chapter 868 of 1871.

xiii At this time, Governors served two year terms.

xiv Message of Governor Tilden from 1875. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909.Volume 6- pg 743.

xv Ibid- pg 745

xvi Ibid- pg 808

xvii New York Herald March 24, 1875

xviii Ruggles, Thomas Colden, Report to New York Chamber of Commerce. Eighteenth Annual Report of the Corporation of the Chamber of Commerce, New York, 1876. Pg 47

xix Message of Governor Tilden from 1876. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 6, pg 994.

xx Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany 1878, pg 62. This report covers the year 1877.

xxi Message of Governor Robinson from 1878. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 7, pg 144

xxii Message of Governor Robinson from 1879. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 7, pg 273

xxiii Jervis, John B., The Future of the Erie Canal, The International Review, New York, Volume 5, 1878, pg 379. John B Jervis was a engineer of note, with projects on the Erie Canal, the Delaware and Hudson, and many other civil works projects.

xxiv Sweet, Elnathan in a report to Horatio Seymour, Jr., Increasing the Depth of Water in the Erie Canal, Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany, 1879, pg 54. Sweet’s report was dated October 1, 1878. There appears to have been two completely separate studies carried out in regards to the workload of a motor, be it animal or mechanical, when moving a canal boat. VanBuren’s report appears to have been carried out in the fall of 1877, and Seymour had another made in the summer of 1878. Why two studies were made is unknown.

xxv Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York, 58th Session, Volume 2, 1835. See Hutchinsons’ report on the enlargement of the Erie Canal. He first submitted it in 1834 as Assembly Document #88. It was resubmitted in 1835 as Assembly Document #143. Tractive force may have not been considered when the first Erie was designed, however, it is clear that that Engineer Holmes Hutchinson did consider the tractive forces when designing the first enlargement. If all had been equal between the first and second versions of the Erie Canal, the boats on the second Erie would have been twenty-six feet side. But they were only seventeen, which reduced the tractive resistance and allowed three boats to pass side by side. Governor Tilden referenced Hutchinson in his 1875 address when he called for canal improvements. Later Sweet and others will credit Hutchinson and Jervis for making use of the work of Frenchman Chevalier DuBuat, who in the late 1700’s, studied the way that boats moved in canals. This is all to say that as early as the mid 1700’s engineers realized that increasing the size of a canal boat was not always the best way to increase canal capacity.

xxvi Horatio was the son of John, and was not a junior at all. He appears to have been named for his uncle, Governor Horatio Seymour.

xxvii Ruggles, Thomas C. Letter of T.C. Ruggles on the Erie Canal. Report of the New York Produce Exchange for the Year 1879, New York, 1880, pg 72. Ruggles may have been making reference to a boat lashing system designed by William Frick. Frick applied for his patent on March 11, 1878, but some type of system was in use by 1875. Most of the engineers referred to the lashing system as the “Illinois system”.

xxviii Message of Governor Cornell from 1881. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 7, pg 516.

xxix Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany 1881, pg 8. This report covers 1880.

xxx Ibid. A letter from George Geddes to Engineer Seymour, pg 12

xxxi Ibid, pgs 12-13

xxxii Chapter 99 of 1880 allows the Superintendent of Public Works and the State Engineer to make repairs and improvements.

xxxiii Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany, 1882. pg 140. This report covers 1881.

xxxiv Message of Governor Cornell from 1881. State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 7, pg 685. Chapter 229 of 1882.

xxxv This law would remain in effect until 1994, when lockage fees were applied.

xxxvi Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany 1884, pg 32. This report covers 1883.

xxxvii Ibid, pg 33

xxxviii Sweet, Elnathan M., The Radical Enlargement of the Artificial Water-way between The Lakes and The Hudson River, American Society of Civil Engineers Transaction #299, Vol 14, New York, February 1885 p

xxxix Ibid, pg 66

xl Ibid, Comments of Willard Pope, Civil Engineer, pg 85.

xli Whitford, pg 327. It should be noted that the State Capital project was consuming a lot of the State budget and air in the room.

xlii Message of Governor Hill from 1885, State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 8, pg 13.

xliii Canal Centennial, Buffalo Courier Oct 17, 1892

xliv Ibid

xlv Message of Governor Flower from 1894, State of New York, Messages From The Governors, edited by Charles Z. Lincoln. Albany, 1909. Volume 9, pg 306

xlvi Canal Men Confer, Lockport Daily Journal, June 16, 1894

xlvii The Fourth Constitution of New York

xlviii Report of the Canal Commission, Albany, 1899, pg 144

xlix Ibid, pg 145

l A Canal Conference, Daily Palladium, Dec 21, 1894

li Rome Semi-weekly Citizen, November 23, 1894.

lii Canal Improvement, New York Sun,, September 20, 1894.

liii The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the report says that; “Mr. Clarkson, the canal unions $9,000,000 bonding bill for the canals.” Jan 10, 1895.

liv The Bill Has Passed, Buffalo Courier, Feb 22, 1895.

lv Buffalo Evening News, Nov 14, 1895

lvi Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor, Albany, 1896, pg 16. This report covers 1895.

lvii Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Works, Albany, 1897, pg 27. This report covers 1896.

lviii Report of the canal commission, pg 46

The Concrete Barge Fleet of the USRA on the New York State Barge Canal

Everyone has heard the brief history of concrete. The Romans used it and after the fall of the Roman Empire, the use was “forgotten” for about1500 years. The rebirth of concrete as a building material came back in the late 1600s and but was not heavily used until the invention of Portland Cement in 1824. The terms cement and concrete are often used as replacements for one another, however, cement is an ingredient in concrete. Concrete is a mix of cement, aggregates (stone and or sand), and water. The material is then poured into some type of form until it sets. Reinforcing materials are added to strengthen the structure. The recipe used in the mixing of the cement, stone, and water can vary the strength of the concrete. The use of concrete exploded in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the methods used in the mixing, pouring, and curing, were widely studied and reported on by engineering journals. For our study of canals, we must note that the rock cutters of the Enlarged Canal were replaced by the concrete workers of the Barge Canal. So there is your primer on concrete.

When the World War broke out, the need for barges and ships increased at a time when the shortage of metal forced builders to look to other methods of construction. The Emergency Fleet Corporation “floated” the idea of concrete barges and ships, for both on the inland waterways and on the open seas. It was pointed out that a concrete boat had been in use on the Welland Canal for a number of years. The Portland Cement Association jumped at the chance to promote their product into wider use. Thus the era of the concrete barge was born.

In the spring of 1918, the Concrete Ship Section of the Emergency Fleet Corporation designed a concrete barge for use on the Barge Canal. The barge was 150 feet long, 21 feet wide and had a depth of 12 feet. The cargo carrying capacity was to be 500 tons with a draft of 10 feet. The barge was divided into three sections and designed along the lines of the old Enlarged Erie canal boats, with a forward 15 foot section for storage and crew quarters; a cargo area of 115 feet; and a rear well appointed captains quarters of 20 feet. The captain’s quarters had a galley, living room, bed room, and wardrobe.

Four yards were chosen to build the barges;

  1. The Grayhaven Shipbuilding Company, operated by Thomas Currie of Detroit Michigan and built in Michigan. (Five barges- U.S.101 to 105);
  2. The Holler – Flood and Davis Company of Fort Edward, NY and built in Fort Edward (eight barges – U.S. 106 to 113);
  3. The Cummins Structural Concrete Company of Philadelphia, and built in Ithaca, NY (four barges- U.S. 114 to 117);
  4. The Caldwell Marshall Company of Columbus, Indiana, and built in Tonawanda, NY (four barges- U.S. 118 to 121);

A total of 21 barges were built and launched throughout 1918 and 1919. All the barges were to be identical, although the methods of construction varied, with each yard adapting to the landscape and available machinery. This gave the engineers a chance to review and improve the way concrete was handled and used. These methods were widely reported on in the concrete industry newspapers.

One of the concrete boat fleet.

With the exception of the interior decoration of the living quarters, the boats were made entirely of reinforced concrete. The hull was three inches thick in the middle and four to four and a half for the bow and stern. The deck was three inches thick except where the deck hatches attached.

Wood forms were designed and built that would give the boat its shape. The outer form was constructed and then reinforcing bars were laced together that followed the shape of the forms. An inner form then created the space that was filled with the concrete. The bow and stern of the barges had some degree of curvature, so the skills of the men were tested as they bent the bars to fit into the three to four inch space available between the forms.

Once the form was set, it was coated with some type of release agent that would allow the forms to be removed without harming the concrete. The boats were to be poured in one process. One hundred and twenty yards of cement, aggregate, and water was then mixed to a point that was flowable, but not liquid. As the mix was poured into the mold, air hammers vibrated the sides of the form to help the concrete fill the voids in and around the reinforcing bars. It was a demanding process that took between forty to fifty hours. Once the concrete had set, the forms were removed and reused on the next boat.

The boats were problematic from the start. We are fortunate that Richard Garrity wrote about his memories of the concrete barges in his book, Canal Boatman. According to Garrity, the boats were not well suited to the canal and were quick to puncture. Even when empty, the boats would sit draft lower then the wood barges. This is also apparent in a review of the newspapers of the period, with many mentions of sunken concrete barges. It wasn’t that the concrete barges did not float; it was that they had no give or bounce when they bumped into dock walls and bridge abutments. Wood and steel barges had some elastic abilities that the concrete lacked. The concrete simply would puncture. Garrity writes that the Munson Company did not take the concrete barges when it purchased the government fleet, although he doesn’t mention the New York Canal and Great Lakes Corporation, who first purchased the boats.

US 107 at Lock 9, Rotterdam Junction
US 107, 109 and 120 lie upstream of Lock 9 as seen in 2013.

In a twist of history, the New York Department of Public Works took a step that “saved” the concrete barges, so we can still see them today. The barges were purchased and then filled with stone and soil, towed to various locks along the Mohawk River and then sunk as approach walls. The Annual reports for 1927 and 1928 state that barges were placed at the end of the upper and lower walls of Erie Lock 9, the lower wall of Locks 10 and 13. This was done to correct the error in design of building very short approach walls to the locks. In times of high and fast water, the bargemen found it difficult to control their boats during the approach into the locks. To correct this issue, the concrete barges were sunk at the end of the existing approach walls. This gave the bargemen the opportunity to gently bump into the wall during their approach to the lock, and then pivot off them. It was not a perfect solution, but the walls were never extended beyond this quick remedial measure.

US 102 at Lock 13
US 102 at Lock 13

Over time, weather and water have taken a toll on the old barges. As the concrete failed and fell off, it left the old steel rebar sticking at at odd angles, waiting to catch the unsuspecting boater. The barges at Lock 13 have been buried in the last reconstruction after the 2011 floods. The floods and work appear to have destroyed the barges below Lock 10. The three barges along the upper wall at Lock 9 remain as the most intact and are quite the attraction in the winter when the water is low in the river. The barges below Lock 9 have been mostly buried and were in very poor shape when last seen.

US 112 and 116 lie downstream of Lock 9.

Concrete is still used to build rot resistant boats. The St Helena III at Canal Fulton in Ohio, and the General Harrison at the Johnson Farm and Indian Agency, also in Ohio, are animal powered boat rides that use a type of concrete in their hull. But this is a rather limited, and low impact usage.

Canal Boats Found in Seneca Lake

The Finger Lakes of Central New York are well known for their natural beauty and award winning wines. They are not so well known for the role they played in the state’s canal and boating history. Three of the Finger Lakes were connected to the Erie Canal by way of the Cayuga Seneca Canal, which joined with the Erie at Montezuma. From this junction, boats could travel south to Cayuga Lake and then west to Seneca Lake. Both Cayuga and Seneca Lakes are about forty-miles-long and allowed boats to reach Ithaca and Watkins Glen. In addition, the Chemung Canal allowed boats to reach the southern regions of the state and for a few brief years, provided a connection to the Pennsylvania canals and coalfields. The short Crooked Lake Canal allowed boat to travel between Keuka and Seneca Lakes. Once on Keuka Lake, boats could travel south about twenty miles to Hammondsport. Over the decades of canal transport, many boats were lost and now rest relatively intact on the lake bottom. These sunken boats could provide invaluable information about canal boat construction. Over the years, some boat have been found and investigated. The book, A Canalboat Primer (1981, Erie Canal Museum), notes that the Underwater Archaeology Association of Elmira found twenty-eight canal boats in Seneca and Keuka Lakes. Line drawings of one of these boats was included in the book.

In 2018, Art Cohn, the Director Emeritus of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, led a team of researchers from that museum on a hunt for the wreak of the Frank Bowley, a coal boat that had sunk in November of 1869. The loss of the Frank Bowley had been well documented in the papers and the approximate location was fairly well known. This allowed Art and his team to quickly find the canal boat. With some extra time to spare, the team conducted additional surveys which located an additional seven boats. It was clear that more boats could be found with more time and resources, and this encouraged the team to plan a return to the lake so a more in-depth survey could be conducted.

In the summer of 2019, Art Cohn, and Dr. Tom Manley, Assistant Professor of Geoolgy at Middlebury College, led a team of investigators on a Archaeological and Bathymetric Survey of Seneca Lake. This time they had the support of the New York State Museum; the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; the Canal Corporation; the Department of Corrections; as well as the Canal Society of NYS; Middlebury, and Hobart and William Smith colleges; and others. The primary vessel was Middlebury College’s research vessel R/V David Folger, with support from the Underwater Research Vessel Voyager. Together they were able to locate ship-wrecks and to map the lake features with a bathymetric survey.

Over the two years sixteen targets were found. These include one log raft, one lifting frame, seven original sized canal boats (one of which might be a packet boat), six Enlarged era boats, and one ship. What is notable is that if the team did find a packet boat, they might have found the only existing boat of this type. The report notes that in the cold fresh waters of the lake, these remains should be safe for years to come. However, the introduction of Quagga Mussels has changed the timeline for researchers. Research in Lake Champlain has shown that the mussels will consume any iron nails, bolts, or straps, which then destabilizes the boat. It is predicted that every boat will be covered and damaged no matter of the depth. As a result there isn’t a lot of time left before these sunken treasurers are lost forever.

Plans were made to return to the lake in 2020, but the pandemic delayed these until 2021. When the team is able to return, the goal is to complete the survey of Seneca Lake. It is hoped that the resources will be found to conduct a similar survey of Cayuga Lake.

The team released a very detailed report of the surveys and findings. This 106-page book, The Seneca Lake Archaeological and Bathymetric Survey 2019 Final Report, outlines the goals, gives a very good history of boating on the canals and lakes, and provides an overview of the sixteen targets and what the team believes these to be. I asked Art Cohn if the report would be made available as a pdf, and he has kindly allowed the ACS to post a copy on our website.

The Story Behind the 1834 Holmes Hutchinson Canal Maps

What follows is an article I wrote in 2011 for the Canal Society of New York State’s Bottoming Out journal.

Many years ago in 2002 when I was working on my book; Twelve and a Half Miles, The Erie Canal in Cayuga County, Craig Williams of the New York State Museum gave me a copies of some 1834 canal maps of Weedsport, Port Byron, and Montezuma, NY. This map showed the line of the canal and the structures immediately adjacent to it. Up to that moment in time the earliest maps I had seen and used were the 1853 Cayuga County wall map, so these new maps brought to life that early period of time when the canal was almost new and the small villages were even newer. These maps are known as the Holmes Hutchinson maps, and they showed details along the early canal that had all but disappeared by the 1850s.1

Years later, when I was doing some local research on the internet I stumbled across a court case involving Holmes Hutchinson that gave some insight into the making of these maps. In addition it provides some behind the scenes details that might be otherwise lost to history. So I had to dig into this bit of canal history and what follows is what I discovered. Much of what is known about this case comes from the testimony of the principals before the State Legislative Committees. I will do my best to lay out the story in chronological order.

But before I get into the details, it would be fitting to introduce the two people around whom this story revolves.

Holmes Hutchinson (HH) was born in Port Dickinson, Broome County, NY in 1794. He began work on the Erie Canal in 1819 as an engineer.2 He held this post until 1835 when he became the Chief Engineer of the middle division of the canal. He worked in this capacity until 1841. He died in 1865 in Utica, NY. Hutchinson’s career is well documented because of his public work on the canal system.

Jacob Trumpbour (JT) was born in Saugerties, Ulster County, NY in 1779. He lived all his life in Ulster County, and died in Kingston, NY, in 1843. He was a judge and surveyor. Jacob was a nephew of William Cockburn, a well known surveyor, land agent and land speculator.3 William also taught the art of surveying and it is presumed that Jacob learned his craft from him. Little else is known about Jacob.

So, on with the story.

One might think that the canals had been mapped as they were built. But apparently this was not the case for in 1827 the Legislature of the State of New York ordered that a survey be made of all the canals. This fell under the Revised Statutes of 1827, Part I, Ch. 9, Title 9, Article 1. In part, it said; “A complete manuscript map and field notes, of every canal that now is, or hereafter shall be completed, and of all the lands belonging to the State adjacent thereto, or connected therewith, shall be made, on which the boundaries of every parcel of lands, to which the State shall have a separate title, shall be designated, and the name of the former owners and the date of each title be entered.” And then; “If the Canal Commissioners, on examination of the premises, be satisfied that the cost and expense of making such a map, field notes and survey will exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, no such map and field notes shall be compiled.” 4 The statutes also state that the maps were to be approved by the Canal Commissioners and copies placed in the office of each county clerk that the canal passed through and that the maps were to be, “received as presumptive evidence in all judicial and legal proceedings.”5 This last phrase refers to ownership, even though it seems fairly vague.

Jacob Trumpbour was the first to submit a proposal for doing the field work and maps. Not surprisingly his proposal was for $5000, the amount allowed by statute. He shortly learned that Holmes Hutchinson had submitted a proposal for $4000, plus any additional expenses not to exceed $1000, or basically what was a $5000 bid.6 This type of ‘cost plus’ bid was something Trumpbour had been told was not allowed. Trumpbour was then told that Hutchinson’s proposal was more favorable to the State. He requested that his proposal be modified to $4000 plus expenses. His resubmitted bid was rejected at first but he persisted. As a result, the Canal Commissioners then sought to divide the survey between the two men. (The fact that the Commissioners took this step seems to indicate that they had made a mistake among themselves.) In April 1829 they dispatched Hutchinson with a letter and instructions to meet with Trumpbour in Kingston and to try to reach an agreement where both men could survey. The question comes to my mind is why send Hutchinson instead of sending a Commissioner? When Commissioner Seymour had Hutchinson go visit Trumpbour, was the understanding with Hutchinson that he was serving as a contractor taking on a State contract; or was he working on behalf of the State as a Canal employee; or was he acting as an agent of the Commissioners? Hutchinson was a paid State employee at this time so his role in the hiring or negotiating with Trumpbour could be seen from many different viewpoints, and as we shall see later no one was clear on this at the time. But evidence later showed that some sort of agreement was reached to split the survey at Canastota, about half way across the state. Trumpbour was to survey the western part of the Erie including all of the Cayuga Seneca, and the Oswego canals; and Hutchinson was to survey the eastern half of the Erie and all of the Champlain.

At this point in the story it might be helpful to cover the methods of surveying in use at the time because it is so critical to this case. Surveying was a multi-person job. The chief surveyor was the crew boss and kept a record of the measurements and make a sketch of the landscape. His main partner was a man who carried an instrument that had a telescope type sight that rotated on a compass rose often called a transit or a theodlite. This was mounted on a tripod. An axe-man would be sent forward along the intended route to clear a sight path. A fourth man would walk out along this path with a long rod and a fifth man would toss out a sixty-six-foot-long metal chain that was made up of 100 links. If the rodman had not been reached in that first toss, a pin was stuck in the ground, and the chain was moved forward. When the rodman was reached, the number of full chains and then the number of links were counted. The result was a measurement recorded as chains and links.7 As the ground rose or fell, the change in elevation was also noted through a process of fore and back sighting. He then moved forward and the process was carried out again and again. Surveyors will often close their loops by working back to the beginning point to check the correctness of their readings.

Along the canal this process would have been fairly easy as the land was cleared and flat. However, measurements would have been needed off the canal and into the nearby land and also across the water to the berm side. So let’s get back to the story.

By way of the court papers, we know that Jacob Trumpbour sought to construct a very detailed survey. It was an outside-in survey. This would be what you would likely get in any boundary survey. He ran his lines along the outside boundaries of the canal lands and noted these in his field book. He noted all encroachments onto canal lands. Trumpbour also took readings to permanent nearby landmarks. By taking this extra step, Trumpbour was providing starting points for future surveyors. This exacting method of surveying was not fast.

We don’t know what plan Hutchinson had planned on using, or even if he had a plan when he took the contract. Later testimony seems to point out that his employees settled this question. We know that he settled on a inside-out method that ran a base line down the inside edge of the tow path, and then every 100 feet; or when the compass heading changed; or when the construction of the canal called for it, such as at a wide waters or basin; he would run offsets to the outside boundaries of the canal. By using this method, he would miss any variations in the boundaries unless he made an effort to measure it. Any building encroaching onto canal land, which would have to show up on Trumpbour’s survey, may not be shown by this method. This method would keep the lead man on the flat and clear towing path. Of course, this method was far cheaper and faster.8

From my vantage point in 2010, it is easy to read a lot of conspiracy into the dealings of the players in this little drama. Under the Statutes under Title Nine, the Legislature seemed to be asking for a lot, but attempting to squash any efforts by under-funding the work and piling onto the Commissioners a lot of work. In addition to the survey and maps, the Commissioners were to approve, certify, copy and deliver maps to all the counties along the canals. And the wording that the Commissioners “be satisfied that the cost and expense of making such a map, field notes and survey, will exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, no such map and field notes shall be compiled.” seems to be an attempt to give everyone an easy and legal way out. Even in 1829, $5000 was not a lot of money. It represents about $116,000 today. For a team of men to survey across the 500-plus miles of canal lands; draw up the maps and compile the notes; then copy and deliver; all seems like a lot to ask. So looking at it just from that perspective, Hutchinson’s methods of cutting corners may have appealed to the Commissioners. They get the job completed and stay within the budget. I have not found anything that might suggest that the Commissioners looked at the Statute and the costs, and said that there was no way to get this done. So one way or another, the survey was getting done.

But leaving that as it is, as the survey work proceeded there may have developed a far larger reason for cutting corners. Through the statute, the State was seeking to know what lands did the State purchase, acquire, or simply build over with little regard to ownership? Although the State Legislature may have wanted to know the answer, this was a question the Commissioners did not wish to answer. Trumpbour pointed this out in a letter from 1831. If the reason for the maps were; “to furnish an authentic and precise record of the land belonging to the State, so that the owners of adjoining lands may know where the boundary line is, and that in controversies which may arise, evidence may be easily obtained from the county clerks office, to determine the respective rights of the State and of individuals”, then, Trumpbour went onto say, that the Hutchinson maps “will not furnish any such evidence. The boundaries of the State property are not actually run, but are artificial lines laid down on the map and depend upon a base line on the margin of the canal.”9 This question about land ownership may have been the can of worms that the Commissioners did not wish to open as they wrote, “…it will be seen that there is no record or public document (except the deeds which have been taken) which designates, or describes the bounds of the lands appropriated or purchased for the canals…”10

Jacob Trumpbour began his survey in the spring of 1829 at Port Byron. Trumpbour said that before he had begun his work he had met with both the Surveyor-General DeWitt, and Canal Commissioner Seymour, and settled on the method of survey. He began his work, but in June 1829, he fell ill and took a couple months off to recuperate while he stayed in his temporary home in Port Byron. During this time, Hutchinson stopped by and they discussed the survey methods. Hutchinson later admitted that he did not object to any of the methods that Trumpbour was using. In August Trumpbour had recovered from his illness and continued his work until late fall. In November Trumpbour stopped his work for the season and traveled to Rome to compare notes with Hutchinson. By this time Trumpbour had completed his survey on all of the Cayuga Seneca Canal and eighty-five miles of the Erie.

In his visit Trumpbour discovered that Hutchinson had not been so productive. In September 1829, Hutchinson hired Edwin Johnson to conduct the survey for him. By his later testimony, Johnson suggested that either he alone, or perhaps with Hutchinson, had come up with the plan of using the baseline off the towing path.11 By the time Trumpbour had stopped work for the season, Edwin Johnson had only completed about thirty to forty miles of work. As Trumpbour and Hutchinson compared their surveys they discovered the difference in methods, the outside-in, and the inside-out. And here it gets messy.

So when was Mr. Trumpbour made aware of this change, or perhaps we should say adoption of methods by Hutchinson? Remember that Hutchinson had been shown Trumpbour’s work in the summer of 1829 and had not voiced any concerns. Trumpbour, working under the idea that he had the approval of the canal commissioners, advised Hutchinson that he (Holmes) was incorrectly conducting the survey. Of course Hutchinson disagreed and the men took the issue to the canal board. It was at this meeting that Trumpbour also learned that some on the Board, along with Hutchinson, thought that Trumpbour was working for Hutchinson and not for the Board. Instead of walking away or adopting Hutchinson’s methods, Trumpbour simply dismissed the notion that he was an employee of Hutchinson. Trumpbour clearly felt that he had been awarded one half the survey and that he was working for the Board. Hutchinson thought that he had been awarded the entire survey and had been forced by the board to take Trumpbour on as an employee.

That winter of 1829/30, both sets of surveys were sent to the Surveyor General for his opinion. He said that Trumpbour’s were the best, but asked for the two men to settle the dispute and continue. If not, both should continue and complete their work, make their maps and submit them to the board. The State did not wish to pay either man to resurvey his work that was already complete.

On May 20, 1830, Trumpbour wrote to Seymour and told him that he is proceeding with his work and if Seymour has any comments to make, to do it to him. At this time Seymour wrote back telling him that he was not to continue work. “The Commissioners consider Mr. Hutchinson as the sole contractor for the survey of the canals, will hold him responsible for its due performance, and will pay him and him only, for the expense of completion.”12 Trumpbour was undaunted. He wrote to Seymour on August 31, 1830, telling him that he had completed his work. However no one from the State would reply to his letters.

In February, 1831, Trumpbour traveled to Albany for a face-to-face meeting with the Canal Commissioners, or finding no satisfaction there, with the Legislature. He learned that Hutchinson had been dispatched to resurvey all of Trumpbour’s work. He was outraged by this action, and he told the Commissioners that the work Hutchinson is doing is worthless; “Your memorialist would neglect that duty which every citizen owes his country, if he failed to apprise the Legislature that the surveys and fields notes made under the direction of Mr. Hutchinson, will not attain the object for which the map is directed. That object is believed to be, to furnish an authentic and precise record of the land belonging to the State, so that the owners of adjoining lands may know where the boundary line is, and that in controversies which may arise, evidence may be easily obtained from the county clerk’s office, to determine the respective rights of the State and of Individuals.”13

In his efforts to make a proper survey, Jacob Trumpbour may have stumbled upon something that the State did not wish to be common knowledge, or at least make evidence of easily attainable. It appears that Trumpbour saw his duty to the State and to his fellow citizens to provide them with the information they needed to settle canal land disputes. Whether it was surveyors pride, or a chance to help the State, he seemed to have reached the opinion that the records of who owned what was a complete mess. He continued to write; “Your memorialist is constrained to say, from an examination of the maps and field notes made by the persons employed by Mr. Hutchinson, that they will not furnish any such evidence. The boundaries of the State property are not actually run, but are artificial lines laid down on the map, and depend upon a base line on the margin of the canal, and upon off-sets across the canal and towing –path, leaving the outlines which constitutes the boundaries on the map, to be located without the aid of any written description of them, and without courses or distances, the buildings and other permanent monuments along the canal are not described, nor is their position designated in reference to any point of the outlines. This has been the general plans adopted by the surveyor employed by Mr. Hutchinson; but when they came to a basin or other place, when it was impossible to measure across the canal, they have abandoned their plan and pursued that of your memorialist. An inspection of the maps and field notes made by those surveyors, will more fully exhibit the radical defect of their plan.” Then Trumpbour went on with what he thought was the key issue in his favor. But perhaps not knowing or realizing who he was appealing to, it all seems to have worked against him; “Your memorialist would further represent, that in making the survey herein before mentioned, he could discover no releases to the State, of land occupied for the purposes of the canal, no entries by the appraisers or Canal Commissioners, of lands appropriated for those purposes, as required by law, and in fact no evidence whatsoever, of the title to any such property being vested in the State, (except in a few instances where information has been forwarded to your memorialist by the Comptroller, to whom your memorialist was referred by the Canal Commissioners for information, they stating that there were no documents on the subject in their possession).” Jacob went onto say that he had; “…surveyed and marked out the boundary lines on each side of the State property, and has designed the same on his maps, with their course and distances. When completed, they are to be accompanied by a written description of the boundaries on both sides of the lands belonging to the State, with the necessary references to buildings and other permanent monuments.”14

In the winter of 1832, Trumpbour wrote to the Legislature that he desired payment for his work completed. He included a letter written to him from Holmes Hutchinson asking if Trumpbour would like to work for him, resurveying his own work using Hutchinson’s methods. Jacob had refused to answer. And then the whole matter went before the State Legislature for settlement.

Assembly Document #334, June 27, 1832, is a fascinating investigation into the facts of this case. It covers the investigation of the select committee to whom the case of Holmes v Trumpbour has been referred. Early in the report the Committee seems to agree with Trumpbour on that the Statutes called for a survey of the canal. And to make a proper survey a man needs to make an actual map of the canal boundaries. Surveyor-General Simmon DeWitt the was asked to appear before the Committee and asked to read the Statutes. He concurred with the Committee and in large part with the methods of Jacob Trumpbour. The Committee seemed to grasp that the reliance of the towing path as a base line is questionable, since it is not a fixed point since weather, frost, wear and tear, or floods, could cause it to move and shift. John Kiersted, who was a witness called by Trumpbour, (and a student of William Cockburn) testified that Jacob’s survey matched what the Statutes call for; “I do not conceive the survey of Mr. Hutchinson to be conformable to the requirements of the act, because it gives no actual location on the ground, by metes and bounds of visible monuments, designating the division lines between the lands of the State and those of individuals: because also, his manner of taking offsets without taking the course of them by the compass, is, in my judgment, too loose for any survey.”15

This point was made again by the Surveyor-General to the Legislative Committee. Hutchinson method was to use canal features such as locks and other structures along the canal to pin his survey to the landscape. But what happened when there are no locks nearby? If one was to use the Hutchinson map to settle a property dispute, the Surveyor-General would need to begin a resurvey of the canal at the nearest lock even if it was twenty miles away. Trumpbour’s method was to use nearby objects to lock his survey to the landscape by using monuments on trees or buildings. Hutchinson’s defense of his methods centered on the ability and ease of the surveyor to walk along the edge of the canal banks, and precisely measure them with a surveyor’s chain. Later, in response to this, the Committee noted; “The great pains which Mr. Hutchinson has taken to prove by witnesses the innumerable difficulties of surveying the boundaries of the public property, as will appear by a reference to the affidavits, seems to have little other tendency that to shew [show] the steady fortitude, and unyielding perseverance , with which that duty has been actually performed by Jacob Trumpbour, according to the true construction of the statute, and the design of the Legislature, so far as that could be done.”16

Trumpbour had brought in as his witnesses surveyors from the Cockburn school of surveying. Cockburn has taught him and his friends and relatives and Jacob found them to be friendly witnesses. But Hutchinson was a long term canal employee and also had many friends. He decided to bring in the big gun to back his methods. He was able to get John Jervis, the well-known canal engineer. Unfortunately, Jervis was not a great witness for Hutchinson. At the beginning of his testimony, he was asked by the Committee if he had the opportunity to examine Hutchinson’s methods. He replied; “I suppose it is the book I have seen here in the committee room; I have looked at a few pages of it only, and cannot say I have examined further than to ascertain the plan upon which the survey was conducted, but not sufficient to give the details.” Jervis was then asked if he had seen Trumpbour’s maps and plans. He replied that he had given it the same examination as Hutchinson’s. Apparently, Jervis had not been prepped for this testimony, but under questioning he did state that he would conduct a similar survey much in the same fashion as Hutchinson. Jervis was then asked by Hutchinson’s lawyer; “Can you, from Mr. Hutchinson’s survey, map and field book, or either of them, ascertain, without further measurements on the ground, how many feet and inches, or chains and links, any buildings along the canal encroach upon the State property?” Jervis’ answer is brief; “Not without it is described in the field book.” [ed- I believe this should say, “Not as it is described in the field book.”] The Committee then asked; “Does the field book contain any such description?” Jervis: “I have not noticed any description in reference to buildings in the field book, but there may be such entries contained in it. My examination of it has been brief. In examining some cases upon the first sheet of the atlas of the survey of the Champlain Canal by Mr. Hutchinson, I think it would be necessary to take a measurement on the ground from some offset, to ascertain the encroachment.” Jervis is then asked, based on his examination of the maps, which survey better describes; “the parcels of land taken by the State for the use of the canals?” Jervis again stated that he is not sufficiently acquainted with the plans, but added; “…but from what I have seen from the samples produced, there is more fullness in Judge Trumpbour’s specimens of field book, submitted, and should rather give it the preference over that of Mr. Hutchinson…”17 If John Jervis had been called in to bolster Hutchinson’s case, he does not seen to have gotten the message. Or perhaps, once he saw Hutchinson’s methods, he couldn’t wholeheartedly support them.

Even Hutchinson’s own employee, a Mr. Edwin Johnson, wasn’t a good witness for his boss. The Committee reported that; “his atlas [of the survey of the Champlain Canal] is a very beautiful topographical map of that canal. Its practical utility is, as we have seen, a very different matter.” John told the Committee that he; “…was not directed to notice any interference or encroachment by the erection of buildings on the State property.” He went on to say; “The object of the survey was to obtain the means of determining at any future day, with the greatest practical degree of precision, the boundaries of the State property. It was with reference to that leading object, that all measurements were made.” He went onto say that either he or Hutchinson regarded most of the buildings on Canal property to be of a temporary nature.18

The Committee came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was making a survey for surveyors. His methods were to allow others who might have questions concerning canal property the means to begin their own surveys, whereas Trumpbour was making a survey for the people. As they began to close, the Committee pointed out very clearly at the lack of leadership by the Canal Board lead to the problem of method of survey. The Statute called for a survey and it was up to the Canal Board to set the method before work began. They had not done this and instead once the matter came to a head, they adopted Hutchinson’s methods; “without expressing any decisive opinion thereon.”19

Everyone on the Committee seemed to agree that the Trumpbour method were better in all respects. And they agreed that Trumpbour had finished his part of the survey and produced field books and rough maps. So the question came back to who did Trumpbour work for? If it was the State, then the State should pay him. But if it was Hutchinson and Trumpbour did not do the work the way Hutchinson wished it done, even if it was not as good as Trumpbour’s, then he should not be paid. The Canal Board may have seen this as the loophole to reach their goal.

The Canal Commissioners were not to be deterred. In their Annual Report of 1833, they lashed back at the findings of the Assembly Committee in a remarkable rebuttal that includes a rewriting of the goals of the 1827 Statute. Since the Statute placed the survey in the hands of the Canal Commissioners, then; “The statute evidently contemplates that the survey, map and field notes be made in such a manner as shall be approved of by the Canal Board.”20 So the argument, the Commissioners reasoned, was that it was up to the Commissioners to advise the Canal Board and the Assembly as to the proper way to carry out the Statute. If they chose Holmes Hutchinson, then that was their duty, regardless of the method of survey. The Commissioners reasoned that the Assembly really wanted two surveys to be completed. The first was of the lands appropriated for the canal. The second was to survey the lands adjunct to the canal complete with names and titles. They wrote; “The [Assembly] committee have evidently confounded these two classes of cases; and they seem to suppose that the statute requires ‘an actual survey on the ground…’” 21 If the Statute had wished a real survey of all the grounds, they should have appropriated at least $15,000 instead of the $5000. And, the Commissioners argued, “It has been the uniform practice of the Commissioners to reserve the power in their contracts of limiting, controlling, and changing the mode of their execution, whenever, in their judgment, the interests of the State require it.” 22 With this re-reading and re-writing of the Statute, then Holmes Hutchinson was simply carrying out the first phase of the survey as the Commissioners felt best for the people of the State. They also added; “The misconstructions which they [the Assembly Committee] have put upon the acts of the Canal Commissioners and the Canal Board, will be passed over in silence.” 23 They had not been given the opportunity to defend themselves before the Assembly Committee, so they wrote that they were using the Annual Report of 1832 to put the matter to rights. However, even in their rebuttal, they admitted that many of the agreements reached between Trumpbour and the Commissioners were informal, and that the Surveyor-General had given an “offhand and verbal assent” to the survey methods proposed by Trumpbour. And since the Statute had been entrusted to the Canal Commissioners, the Surveyor-General did not have the authority to say anything one way of the other.

In the mean time, the Albany Evening Journal was having a good time covering the issue. “Among the petitions presented to the House of Assembly this morning, was the memorial of Jacob Trumpour, which discloses some extraordinary facts in relation to the conduct of the Canal Commissioners, and the situation of the property belonging to the State.”24 A year later, the Journal again laid out the facts of the case, showing examples of how some in the Albany Regency were attempting to squash the claim and the investigation. The case would cause embarrassment to some in the party if they came to the light of day.25 On February 2, 1834, the Journal wrote;

“Judge Trumpour’s Claim- The Canal Commissioners obtained a vote in the Assembly, yesterday, which again defeats the liquidation of this claim. For the last two years, when they were too weak to defeat it by direct vote, it was by various legislative arts and contrivances, left as unfinished business.

It is a singular fact in the history of this claim, that no member of the Legislature whose duty it has been made to examine it thoroughly, has arrived at a conclusion adverse to the claimant. Two years ago an intelligent Committee, consisting of Mr. Hammond, or New York, Mr. Hogeboom, of Columbia, and Mr. M’Donald, of Washington, were appointed, with power to send for persons and papers, and to sit thirty days during the recess of the Legislature, for the purpose of making a full investigation of the subject. The result was an entire and unanimous conviction of the justice of this claim.

This Report was submitted to the last House of Assembly, in which so many members were familiar with the subject that the Regency dare not come to a direct vote, and therefore bent all their exertions to give it the go-by.

It is the opinion of all competent, disinterested judges, that Judge Trumpour’s survey of the Canals is the only true and practiced one, and one which will ultimately be adopted. But Holmes Hutchinson, the pet Engineer, and the partner of Henry Seymour, in various Canal Speculations, has been paid for the entire survey: and now, to relieve the Commissioners from the odjurn of having overpaid their pet Engineer.”26

While this was going on, Holmes Hutchinson applied to the Canal Board in January 1835 for additional funds for the completion of the making of the survey and maps. This was then turned over to the Assembly His expenses were over $6000, a figure that did not include his own time, plus he was seeking to cover the cost of counsel for the Assembly investigation.27 In 1836, Hutchinson was awarded an additional $2,545.

The matter of Trumpbour v Hutchinson was repeatedly introduced and legislatively given the “go-by” In 1837 an Assembly Committee wrote that they had “not been able to ascertain whether there ever was any understanding between the memorialist [Trumpbour] and Hutchinson, or the Canal Commissioners, as to what precise plan of survey should have been adopted; nor does it appear with certainty, whether the memorialist was expected to be governed by Hutchinson’s directions in that particular, the evidence on these points having been somewhat loose and conflicting.” And they finished with; “[The Committee] are also of opinion that the weight of testimony is decidedly in favor of the superiority of the mode of surveying pursued by the memorialist.”28 This committee also stated that Trumpbour should be paid for his services before and after his dismissal and for his efforts in pursuing his claim.

In 1838the Committee of Claims of the Assembly once again ruled in favor of Trumpbour, but only for his work of doing half of the survey and not for his efforts since to collect his money.29 The bill was introduced into the Assembly and passed. The matter was then sent over to the Senate, where the Committee on Canals took up the issue. After reviewing the years of investigations and claims, the Committee made their observations, of which I summarize here. Hutchinson had been given the contract and had he allowed Trumpbour to take half the work, and that an agreement had been entered into by both men. That both Hutchinson and Trumpbour had agreed on the method of survey and that Hutchinson would head up the drawing of the final maps. That Trumpbour had gone off on his own before he had the agreement of the Canal Commissioners. That Trumpbour had been given notice in 1830 by the Commissioners. That Trumpbour had already been given $500. That Trumpbour had rejected Hutchinson’s offer to resurvey the canal. That Trumpbour had finished his surveys without the agreement of the Commissioners once they had terminated him. That Trumpbour had forced his services upon the State because he had felt his methods were better. That it was up to the Canal Commissioners to decide on what plan of survey they wished to have used. That Trumpbour, if his figures were correct, had spent nearly $4000, $1500 more than the $2500 he would have received and based on this alone, Trumpbour should have been happy that he had released from his contract. That based on his figures, Trumpbour was overpaid for his work in 1829.

After stating all this, the Committee then wrote that they were “disposed to take a more practical, and they believe, a more just and equitable view of the subject.”30 They stated that the initial agreements were; “founded in mutual misunderstanding.” They wrote that Trumpbour should be paid for his services in 1829; “although” they added, “his services were of no value to the State.” Using figures based on estimates of surveying of “experienced engineers” they agreed to pay him a fee per mile, minus his $500, plus his interest over the last ten years, for a total award of $287.58. Then they stated that Trumpbour should not be given money for his services forced upon the State, nor for his time in sittings of the Legislature. They finished with; “although there are doubtless cases of individual hardship and injustice, it is better they should be endured, than that a precedent so pernicious should be set as that of inviting the services of claimants against the State in the legislative halls, by offering them a bounty.”31

With that, the matter was over.

But let us go back to Trumpbour’s claim that the Holmes Hutchinson maps were worthless as a legal document to determine the ownership of State or private lands. This issue was never really addressed in the end. Perhaps the Canal Board was able to divert the issues raised by Trumpbour by focusing on the question if he was a contractor of the State or employee of Hutchinson, and if he had the right to be paid for the work he had done. All the other issues were swept under the legal rug. In 1837, the Legislature passed a law, Chapter 451, declared that the Hutchinson maps; “…are hereby declared to be presumptive evidence that the lands indicated on said maps as belonging to the state, have been taken and appropriated by the state as and for the canals…” which basically reaffirms the 1828 Statute.32 The timing of this ruling seems odd as well with the maps becoming Law in 1837 and Trumpbour receiving his ruling in 1838.

There are many ways to look at this affair. In 1854, the Court of Appeals in Rexford v Knight ruled that landowners who lost land to the building of the canal had one year after the 1828 Statute to make claims to the State.33 The Court reasoned that the 1828 Statutes that ordered the making of the maps also gave landowners a year to ask for damages from the loss of land during the building of the canal. But the maps that might help the landowners were not even begun until 1829 and not finished until 1834.

The Hutchinson maps continued to emerge as legal evidence of State ownership even after the State repealed a number of canal acts in 1894 and 1909. In the case of People’s Gas and Electric Company v. The State of New York (1918), the State asserted that even though the State had appealed the use of the 1834 maps as evidence of State ownership, it really didn’t mean to and that the State should be allowed to use the 1834 blue-line. The State lost the case, but not on this technicality.

I have attempted to discover if the Jacob Trumpbour maps or field notes are still in existence or have been lost to history. The NYS Archives do not have them. I have also reached out to the Trumpbour family, but so far, no one knows much about Jacob.

In the end, the Holmes Hutchinson maps are a fantastic historical resource and in some areas they are the first maps of canal villages and towns. As I noted in the introduction, In Cayuga County the Hutchinson maps predate all other maps by over twenty years. Hutchinson’s field notebooks remain intact and are another great resource sometimes showing details missing on the published maps. And the Hutchinson maps make another appearance as dotted lines showing the first canal in the 1896 George Schillner Enlargement maps

But darn, wouldn’t it be fun to see those Trumpbour maps?

1 In addition to these maps, the NYS Archives collection includes the field notebooks you will read about later.

2 Whitford. In 1896, Daniel Wager gave Holmes’s birthplace as Genoa, Cayuga County, NY. Daniel Wager, Our County and Its People, The Boston History Company, 1896.

3 The name is also spelled as Trumbour or Tremper. Background on the family is found at the New York State Library, Manuscripts and Special Collections, Cockburn Family Land Papers, SC7004.

4 About $115,963 in 2007 dollars.

5 The Revised Statutes of the State of New York, Packard and Van Benthuysen, Albany. 1829. Title Nine begins on page 217.

6 Docs #334, pg 13.

7 For a good primer on old survey methods and reading of deeds, see; Philip L. Lord, Jr. Mills on the Tsatsawassa. New York State Museum. 1983. In later surveys of the canal the chain used was 100 feet long instead of 66 feet.

8 The methods used by the surveyors are at the core of the issue and are described in many places. I used the testimony by Augustus Tremain for this description. Docs #334, pgs 26-30.

9 Docs #188, pages 21-22. A letter from Jacob Trumpbour to the Canal Commissioners.

10 Docs #188, page 5.

11 Docs#334, page 48.

12 Docs #188, Page 20.

13 Doc’s #188, page 22.

14 Docs #188, page 23.

15 Docs#334, page 21-22.

16 Docs #334, pages 41-42.

17 Docs #334, pages 36-40.

18 Docs #334, page 44.

19 Docs #334, page 46.

20 Assembly Docs #36, 1833. Page 17.

21 Docs#36, page 20.

22 Docs #36, page 21

23 Docs#36, page 21.

24 Albany Evening Journal, Thursday, March 24, 1831.

25 AEJ, April 25, 1832.

26 AEJ, Friday, February 28, 1834.

27 See Documents of the Assembly, #140, 1835.

28 Docs #45, 1837

29 Assembly Docs #182, 1838.

30 Senate Docs #66, 1838

31 Senate Docs #66, page 7.

32 Laws, 1837, Chapter 451, page 518.

33 Reports of the Cases in the Court of Appeals, Vol 1. WC Little and Co. Albany. 1855. Pages 308-315. This case argues that the original land owner should have gotten his land back once the canal stopped using the land when the canal was moved during the Enlargement. The State felt that it had the right to sell the land since it had taken ownership during the building of the canal and that the owners had the opportunity to apply for damages. Evidence of ownership was shown in the Hutchinson maps.