New York State 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

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.

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.

Barge Canal Construction Equipment- The Cable Way

Of the many machines we see in the construction of the “modern era” canals, the cable way (it is also seen as one word, cableway) is likely the least noticed. However it is one of the few machines that has survived the through the years and is still in use today. The cable way was the true multi-tasker of the construction site.

A cable way is a very basic machine with two towers, a hoisting engine with a steam plant to power it, wire rope (cable), and a traveling carriage that ran along the cables.

The cableway in use at the construction of Lock 32, Oct 1910. All the construction images are from the NYS Archives, Barge Canal Construction collection 11833.

Depending on what work needed to be completed, the contractor would build tall wooden towers so that the cable spanned the construction site. If the bases were mounted on flanged wheels on rails, the cableway could have movement in all three dimensions; side to side, back and forth, and up and down.

The Lidgerwood cable way carriage. As the carriage traveled away from the tower, the long pieces on the right would deploy and support the smaller cables. You can see these on the first image. As the carriage returned, the horn (with the point) would pick them up and store them.

Cable ways were very good at spanning deep cuts such as along the Chicago Sanitary Canal or in Lockport on the NYS Barge Canal.

All we see of the cable way is the carriage and large rock skip that is being returned to the work site to be loaded by the steam shovel. Many times multiple skips would be in use and they would simply unhook the empty and hook onto the full one.

They were useful on sites with soft soils such as along the Hennepin Canal for dredging out muck and quicksand. They were useful on lock and dam sites that spanned deep or wide rivers and would “fly” in building materials and buckets of concrete. They were also very useful on sites where there might be blasting as the cable wouldn’t be damaged and could be left in place unlike a steam shovel or other large equipment. Depending on the diameter of the main cable, the cable way could lift and move tons of materials at one time.

The Cable way is used to move materials across the Mohawk River at Lock 9, Dam 5 in Rotterdam Junction. Work has just begun in 1909.

Much of the lock is complete and work has moved to the piers of the dam, June 1910.

Work is basically complete and the work site has been cleaned up, Dec 1911.

Many manufacturers made cable way equipment as most of it consisted of the basic steam engine and hoisting machine that were used in many applications. In the Barge Canal photos you often see it described as the Lidgerwood cable way, but other manufacturers were Flory and Mundy.

Here the cable way is being used to shape the canal banks. It has been fitted with a clam-shell type dredging bucket. Note the caption says “Lidgerwood Cable Way.” Also note the piles of field stone on the base of the tower that was used as ballast.

A typical construction site with the cable way, a steam shovel in the cut, and a jib pole is seen west of Lockport at the site of a guard gate, Nov 1910.

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 1878^{^xxiv}

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, 58^th 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;

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

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, 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.

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.

Federal Control of the NYS Barge Canal During the First World War, and After

Introduction

As the United States entered the European War in 1917, it was found that the nation’s transportation facilities were not up to the task of mobilizing and supplying large quantities of materials and men to the east coast for shipment to the war front. What took place over the next three years was an experiment in the nationalization of the railroads, and to a much smaller extent, the waterways. I have tried to follow the chain of events that led to the take over of the New York Barge Canal and what happened after the War.

1917, The New Barge Canal, and The War

The year was 1917 and New York State found itself with a rather big problem. After fourteen years of planning, engineering and construction, the new Barge Canal was almost ready for use. Although terminal space was still being built, and plans were to have the entire canal channel and locks ready for use in the spring of 1918, there were few boats available for use on the canal. And there were many reasons for this;

The older wooden boats which had been used for years on the Enlarged Canal, were at best able to carry 250 tons, whereas the new canal was built to have boats of 2000 tons.
Boats operating on the new canal had to either be towed, or have a means of propulsion. Many family operated boats from the old Erie Canal simply didn’t have the means to purchase and operate a tug or powered barge.
It had taken years to build the new canal, and much of the new canal followed a new and different route across parts of the state. It had yet to be seen if shipping companies and industries would move to set up shop along the Barge Canal. The boat builders, the shippers, and the industry had taken a wait and see approach to use of the Barge Canal.

To put it as plain as one can, the State of New York had spent almost $150,000,000 dollars on the new canal, only to realize in a year before the grand opening, that few people and companies were ready or able to use it.

As the people in charge of the new canal looked at their new creation and saw few private companies ready to use it, they turned to the Federal Government for assistance. The reason they did this is because in the lead up to the War, the Federal Government, by way of the Department of Commerce under Secretary William Redfield, had begun to look at the readiness of the nation’s transportation resources. Redfield was from New York and was a waterways supporter. In 1916, he wrote, “Wherever it is possible to obtain direct transit by a steamboat on a waterway of sufficient size and depth for it to maintain speed the waterway provides at once the quickest and cheapest method of transit.” The Department created a Committee on Waterways, and it was a given that the men of New York would look to Secretary Redfield for help.

On August 24, 1916, the President of the United States created the Council of National Defense to ready the nation for war. A number of committees were created by this Council, one of which was another committee on waterways. So New York, under the direction of the Department of Public Works, asked the newly formed Council to tour the new Barge Canal to see if it could be of use in shipping. The group toured the State looking at the almost completed Barge Canal still under construction. It was clear to the Committee that the lack of boats and terminals was a major problem. Whitford states in his History of the Barge Canal that the report of the subcommittee appointed to study the canal was never made public and no action was taken.

While this was going on, in April 1917, the Emergency Fleet Corporation was created by the United States Shipping Board, which itself had been created by The Merchant Marine Act of 1916. The EFC was to acquire, maintain, and operate a fleet of merchant ships to meet the needs of the national defense, and the foreign and domestic commerce, during the war. On July 11, 1917, the President gave to the Emergency Fleet Corporation all his wartime power and authority to acquire all the existing vessels needed and to construct whatever additional vessels might be needed. The EFC also could operate all the vessels that had been acquired by the United States. (And here is the important part for our study here.) Legally, the EFC could not actually operate the ships unless no private companies could be found to do so. But again, no movement was made by the Federal Government to use the Barge Canal.

So on August 1, 1917, the canal men of the State held a New York State Canal Convention. At this gathering, they passed a resolution asking the New York State government to petition the Feds to take over transport on the Barge Canal. By the end of August 1917, Governor Whitman asked President Wilson to take charge. And in spite of all this, little happened at the Federal level.

However, the public and the press jumped on the Federal control bandwagon, with many articles stating that the Feds must take over the canal and predicting great benefits for the State and her people. “Let the Canal Help Win the War” was the headline in the Tonawanda Evening News of December 7, 1917. “How the Barge Canal Can Relive The Freight Tie-Up”, reported the Brooklyn Daily Star of December 21, 1917. This all pointed to one simple need; “Ask the U.S. To Build Barges”, reported the Ellicottville Post of January 7, 1918. Without boats, the new canal was useless, and few boats were available.

While all this agitation was taking place the EFC was working under its charter. But on December 26, 1917, the President took control of all the transportation facilities in the country and appointed his son-in-law William Gibbs McAdoo as head of the United States Railroad Administration. The reason for this step was a total break down of the railroad operations during the winter of 1917 when cars and entire trains loaded with supplies for the war front in Europe stacked up on the East Coast leaving few empty cars to load. With all the yards filled with cars, trains filled with coal could not make their way to the docks to load the ships that needed the coal as fuel in order to cross the ocean. And with the cars filled with coal waiting to be unloaded, there were few empties to send back to the mines. In short, the entire network of railroads came to a standstill. It was against this backdrop that the President exercised his war time power over the railroads.

1918, and the Federal Takeover of the Movement of Freight.

In February of 1918, McAdoo, head of the USRA, created the Inland Waterways Committee. The goal was to see if the waterways could be used to break up the railroad traffic jams. The Committee of Inland Water Transportation, which was working as a subcommittee to the Council of National Defense, was turned over in total to the Inland Waterways Committee of the USRA. The rumors about the Feds taking over the Barge Canal resurfaced.

During this changeover period, State Engineer Frank Williams, who had spent years working on the Barge Canal and was desperate to make it a success, testified before the EFC. On January 31, 1918, he touted the canal and what it could do for the war effort. And he again stressed the lack of boats and shippers as a major problem for the State and her people who had invested $150,000,000 in constructing the canal.

It is here that we must introduce George Ashley Tomlinson. Tomlinson was a self made Teddy Roosevelt type man, having gone to the west as a young man to find and prove himself and learn the value of a hard days work. He then bounced around a bit, working as a reporter, joining Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, and then returning to the newspaper business, finally becoming the Managing Editor of the Detroit Tribune. Encouraged by his father-in-law, he moved to Duluth and set to work to start a shipping business on the Lakes. By the time the US entered WW1, he had a fleet of twenty-six ships, and was a partner in many shipyards. He testified before the same Board that Engineer Williams was speaking to.

George Tomlinson took the exact opposite stand as Williams. He plainly stated that he, as a shipper and boat builder, would not use the canal if the Federal Government took control of the shipping and boat building. He stated that he had $3,000,000 of his own money ready to start the construction of 100 barges for use on the Erie Canal. He even stated that he had the steel all lined up. These barges would work with his line of Great Lakes steamers to move freight to and through the new canal. But, he cautioned, if the Federal Government was to run a line of barges on the canal, he would not.

What happened next was not recorded, but it appears from what Tomlinson said years later that he was almost immediately offered the job of Federal Manager of the Barge Canal, under the control of the USRA. He also stated later that he was made to see the need to have the Federal control over the canal. George Ashley Tomlinson was officially appointed by General Order #22 of the USRA, dated April 22, 1918, but it is clear from the records that he was serving on the Waterways Board months before this appointment.

Four days prior to April 22, McAdoo assumed control of shipping on the Barge Canal. It is one great misunderstandings of history that the Federal Government took over the Barge Canal. Even Richard Garrity in his memoir writes that the Federal government “operated and controlled” the Barge Canal. That was never the understanding that was worked out between the Federal government and the State. The Barge Canal was always to remain under the operational control of the State. The State constitution makes this clear. The State of New York would continue to maintain and operate the canal, it was just that the movement of traffic was be taken over by the Feds. They were to ensure the best use of the facilities, putting private boats under contract with the idea that one large management structure could coordinate the movement of freight. If there were not enough boats to move the freight, then the government would build and operate the boats as needed. This move by the Feds was greatly heralded by the State and her citizens for everyone knew that there were not enough private boats and that the Feds would need to build many boats. These boats would fill the empty canal and the construction of the Barge Canal would be justified. The headline in the Rome Daily Sentinel basically said what everyone else was saying; “McAdoo Takes Over Traffic Upon Canals”. The smaller headlines read; “Barge Canal and Connections To Be Operated As Part Of Railway System”, and then “To Build Great Fleet Of Barges”. The Ithaca Daily News reported; “Barge Canal Under Federal Control. Will mean much to Ithaca- Construction to start at once”.

But even in the State-wide joy, not everyone was happy. New York City Mayor Hylan was warning whoever would listen that the takeover by the USRA was a railroad plot to destroy the canal. But few papers carried this opinion.

On May 15, 1918, the completed Barge Canal opened. The New York Herald wrote of the USRA operations of the canal by saying; “Thus passes the old antagonism of the railways which so long retarded development of the State’s waterways.” The railroad and the canal were to become brothers in arms. With Tomlinson in charge, great plans were made. By the end of April, Tomlinson was stating that he intended to build barges for the canal. In June, Tomlinson was in Buffalo, urging the shippers of the city to use the canal. Here the paper reports an interesting conversation; Emphasis was laid on the fact that the new waterway was not created in opposition to the railroads. Although it was all part of the railroad administration, he [Tomlinson] supposed he was the only man connected with the canal administration who wasn’t a railroad man. It would be idle for me to seek to establish a barge canal system in opposition to the railroads. I don’t expect much encouragement from them, it is true and up to this date I haven’t gotten it. But we’re going to do business on the canal this fall. In the next thirty days we expect to be busy when the wheat comes east for the seaboard, as much of it will be diverted from the short hauls by rail to the water route.”… “At present we are operating on the railroad tariff”, said Mr. Tomlinson. “I have asked the administration to put on a differential for state service and expect a reply within a few days.”

It is hard to read Tomlinson and who he was. He said years later that a person did not need to like his job in order to be good at it. He was a practical man and was very successful in the shipping business. He saw that the people and industry needed to use the canal to make it successful, and he repeatedly pleaded with shippers to use and develop the canal. Terminal arrangements were made at Buffalo and New York City for large amounts of traffic. The papers did their part. The Syracuse Journal editorialized; “Let the communities through which pass the great fleet of carriers once catch the spirit of the industry and the new means of transportation will become as popular as the vastness of the enterprise merits”. In July, it was announced that a fast freight service was being added, with boats servicing terminals three times a week.

The good feelings were not to last. The tariff or shipping rate set by the USRA that Tomlinson spoke to was causing much concern. For the first time in history, the freight rates were equal between the railroad and canal, offering little incentive to ship by canal. By the end of June 1918, the USRA increased the railroad rates by 25%. But they didn’t lower the rates down to where the canal interests wanted them; instead they raised the rail rates. And this was not done to pacify the canal concerns, but to help the railroads who were losing money. The increase in rates resulted in an additional one billion dollars of revenue for the roads.

However, the concern lingered and grew that not only was the public not using the canal, but the federal government, who was supposed to be building large fleets of barges and shipping by canal, were instead giving all the traffic to the railroads. The New York Herald said that; “The State of New York is confronting a calamity unequaled in its history.” At the June 1918 NYS Canal Convention, just a month after the opening of the canal, and two months after Tomlinson’s appointment, a committee was appointed to make arrangements to go to Washington and speak directly with Director General McAdoo. The committee did not receive an appointment with McAdoo until October. When they finally got the chance to speak, what they heard was what they feared. The question was asked if the USRA would ship by canal, and McAdoo reportedly said that he would never ship by canal if he could ship by rail, because it would be harmful to railroad interests. It was the opinion of McAdoo that private boat owners could ship as they wished, however, it was pointed out by the New York delegation that the USRA had contracted with all the serviceable boats. And these boats were sitting idle, or were moving empty between ports. The question was also asked about the building of steel barges, which had been promised in April. They were told that all steel was being used in the war effort and none was available to build canal boats. However, the Federal government was having concrete boats built for use on the canal.

In late July, the Mississippi and Warrior Rivers were added to the USRA control, and on September 8th, George Tomlinson was appointed to become the Director of Inland Waterways, which had control of all the inland rivers and canals. H.S. Noble became the director of the New York Barge Canal section of the USRA.

On November 11, 1918, the War was over and it was hoped that the government would soon be returning control of the railroads and canals back to their owners. However, the railroads (and waterways) were still needed during the demobilization of the Nation, so control remained with the USRA. There were also numerous issues on the railroads that had yet to be dealt with. The problems that existed prior to the war and throughout 1917 were still there and simply handing the roads back to the private corporations might make things worse.

1919, and The Post War Era

One of the issues for the Waterways Division of the USRA is that they had been purchasing and building barges, tugs, and motorships, and they had many under construction as the war ended. The question then became; what to do with this equipment? With the railroads, the government had agreed to make restitution for use of the lines and the engines and cars could be given to the companies. But with the canals, there was no corporate structure to give the boats to. After all, New York State had offered the use of the Barge Canal for free. The short term answer was to operate the government fleet as a shipping business, and continue to provide a service to the State and the shippers. At the same time, the private boat owners were released from their contracts and allowed to operate without Federal control. And the Feds agreed that they would only take shipments between Buffalo and Albany. They would not compete in the local market. For the moment, this seemed to quiet the situation.

With the Nation at peace, public opinion quickly turned against government intervention of any kind, no matter how good the intentions. With no emergency to solidify public opinion, the mood was to go back to pre-war conditions. Although the cry in the papers was to return control of the canal to New York State, the railroads were feeling the same way. The War was over, and it was time to end the government control everywhere. For those in the government, there was still the issue of the failure of the railroads in the winter of 1917. Representative John Esch, a strong believer in the oversight of commerce, introduced a bill to the House of Representatives to switch oversight of the railroads from the USRA to the Interstate Commerce Commission. At the same time, Senator Atlee Pomerene introduced a similar bill in the senate. This became known as the Esch-Pomerene Bill and hearings were held. Although the bill pertained mostly to railroads, the fact that the waterways were controlled by the USRA meant that New York State would be impacted by any legislation. The New York Canal delegation was outraged to learn that the oversight of the federal fleet could be handed over to another federal agency, and much agitation against the Bill resulted. Superintendent Edward Walsh testified before the Committee on Foreign and Domestic Commerce on September 15, 1919 that any further government control or action would be disastrous to the canal and New York State.

In the end, Esch-Pomerene Bill was modified as the Esch Bill and sent to the House where it passed. Going to the Senate, the Bill was modified by Albert Cummins (and others) and the resulting legislation became known as the Esch-Cummins Bill, or the Transportation Act of 1920. This Act resulted in the returning of the railroads to private control as of March 1, 1920, albeit with much government oversight. And the Inland Waterways, well they were turned over to the Secretary of War. On March 1, 1920, George Tomlinson went back to private business, although he may have never totally quit his interests during his tenure in the USRA. A newspaper article from January 1920, states that Tomlinson had recently returned from a two month “ship building mission” to England. In January, 1920, he was appointed as the president of the Buffalo Drydock.

Why the end of federal operations of the waterways was not included in the Transportation Act was not clear. Senator Cummins said he thought the exclusion of the Barge Canal was a mistake, and all agreed that by the time it was noticed in the Act, the time it would take to remove it would push the passage of the Bill past President Wilson’s promised March 1 return date. So it had been left in.

With the government fleet waterways now under the control of the War Department, it was announced that the fleet would continue operations on the New York, Mississippi, Warrior and other waterways that had been under the control of the USRA. Recognizing that all the waterways were hurting from a lack of business, the Secretary of War decided upon an experiment of sorts, where the government fleet would operate solely as a commercial transportation company. (Director General McAdoo had suggested that the government retain control of the railroads for five additional years to see if they could be run as a nationwide experiment.) For the men of New York, this was a continued outrage. The message was clear; with any government craft working the canal, no private company would invest in shipping.

To be sure that the message was heard, in May 1920, an aide in the NYS Engineer’s Department wrote a article for the New York City papers titled; “Why New York’s $150,000,000 Barge Canal Is Idle”. Three reasons were given: a lack of boats, an intrusive Federal Government, and the shippers of the mid-west. An entire page was given to the article which carefully explained that after just two years, New York might abandon the new Canal if nothing changed.

Senator James Wadsworth led the charge to amend the Transportation Bill so that the Barge Canal could be exempt from federal government operations. While the Congressmen from the southern states were happy to have the federal government running barges on their rivers, the New York State Congressmen and men of commerce wanted them gone. More hearings were held and again, Superintend Walsh and others in the State traveled to Washington to beg the Federal government to leave. Again and again, it was claimed that not one private person would operate on the canal as long as the Government fleet continued to operate, because no one could compete with the Government. Although testimony revealed that many private boats were indeed operating on the canal, it was the position of the State that until the Federal government ended operations, the Barge Canal would never be able to prove her worth. Alexander Smith, the Editor of the Marine News, demonstrated the evils of the Federal Government by having placed into the record the testimony of George Tomlinson. George, it might be recalled, said early in 1918, that if the government was to go into the shipping business, he would not. That was proof enough that any level of control by the Fed’s would keep prosperous men of shipping away from the canal.

If the men of New York had simply gone before the Committee on Interstate Commerce and asked that the canal be exempt from the Transportation Bill, all would have been well. Even Chairman Cummins said that the matter would have been over. But they wanted more and asked that the resolution be changed so that in addition to the end of government operations, all the government built vessels; 73 barges, with another 27 being built, and 20 self propelled barges, would be given to the State of New York as “payment” for the use of the canal over the last three years. Thus begins a convoluted argument by Superintendent Walsh (and others), that New York State, who had at first told the Federal government that they were welcome to use the canal free of charge, deserved to be given (paid) a gift of the government fleet.

The men of the south protested and stated that if New York no longer wished government involvement, that they would be happy to take the barges for use on their waterways. The counterargument by Walsh was that the barges, being designed and built for the Barge Canal, were only suitable to the Barge Canal.

On February 28, 1921, the President signed the joint resolution to exempt the Barge Canal from the Transportation Act of 1920. The Government fleet was to be sold to the highest bidder.

The story might have ended there. But it doesn’t. In June 1921, Edward Walsh (the former Superintendent of Public Works and man who spent days testifying before Congressional Committees) and others under the name of the New York Canal and Great Lakes Corporation, purchased the government fleet for $1,400,000. By March 1924, Walsh and his concern were asking that the price be reduced as they could not make the payments. Stating that the canal was “almost unfit” for use, he placed the blame for his financial troubles squarely on the State. In March1925, a bill passed Congress to reduce the price of the sale by $900,000, from $1,400,000 to $500,000. By November 1925, the New York Canal and Great Lakes Corporation had been sold to the Munson Steamship Company for more than One Million. According to Garrity, the steel boats were later sold and moved to Cuba. (Walsh was also facing charges of failing to faithfully conduct the duties of his office while acting as Public Works Superintendent, but that is another article.)

Conclusion

So what really happened in the period between 1918 and 1921? It is clear that New York State asked the Federal government to take control of the new Barge Canal in the hopes that the federal boats would stimulate use of the new waterway. And although the terms; “federal control” and “federal takeover” have been used by many, the federal government never did take over the canal, they took over the movement of freight for one year during the War in 1918. By 1919, some private boating companies were using the canal in spite of the “federal control”. It is also clear that the actions by some people in the Federal government may have been purposely injurious to the new canal by routing freight away from the canal.

However, it is also clear that by the time the new canal was fully open, that there was a lack of serviceable boats and businesses to use the canal. Even if the Federal government wanted to ship by canal, there may have been no boats available to load. The War was over by the time the Federal government had time to design, bid out, and build new barges and ships for the canal. However, the Government pushed forward to finish the boats and put them into use.

When shippers didn’t rush into the canal use void, the builders and promoters of the new Barge Canal may have been looking around for scapegoats. It was clear by 1916 and 17 that there was a lack of boats and firms ready to use the canal. The Federal control would solve that problem. When it didn’t, it was clear that the Federal government control was keeping shippers away. And once the Federal fleet was gone, it was the lack of maintenance, the lack of terminals, etc. People may have been simply grasping at any reason to explain why shippers were not using the new canal. The Federal action of 1918-1921 was just a first in a long line of explanations as to why the canal never reached its full promise.

Surveying the Built Canal, and the Red and Blue Lines

Field Books and Monuments

The 1834 Holmes Hutchinson Maps

The 1869-1874 Enlarged Canal Maps

The 1896 Schillner Maps

The 1910 Blue Line Maps

In Conclusion

Introduction

When did the Second Enlargement Begin?

1858- The Steam Boat and a Deeper Canal

The 1860s

The 1870s

The Canal Ring

The Jervis Plan

Sweet’s Tractive Force Study of 1878xxiv

Seymour’s Plan

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

The 1880s

The State Canal Union

The New York Produce Exchange

The 1890s

1895

1896

Introduction

1917, The New Barge Canal, and The War

1918, and the Federal Takeover of the Movement of Freight.

1919, and The Post War Era

Conclusion

Sweet’s Tractive Force Study of 1878^{^xxiv}