Holmes Hutchinson Archives - The American Canal Society

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

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.