abandoned. Notwithstanding the occasional annual appropriations and enlargement of some locks, there was no question in the minds of those familiar with existing conditions but that the system was retrograding rather than being advanced, and it would only require a short time to complete the abandonment. Accordingly canal advocates in the convention of 1894 addressed themselves to the importance of the canal system to the State and the necessity of making provision for radical improvement by so amending the Constitution as to permit the Legislature to determine the character of the improvement and to provide under the existing constitutional sections for raising the necessary funds for that purpose.

Various phases of the canal question were considered in the Constitutional Convention of 1894. Long and cogent arguments were made by such able men as Hon. George Clinton and others, before the Canal Committee of that convention, of which Judge J. Rider Cady of Hudson was chairman. The debates in the convention were spirited and reflected the sentiment of the people throughout the State on this important matter which had engrossed the public attention for nearly a century. In the Revised Record of the Constitutional Convention of 1894 may be found the debates which occurred on the various proposed amendments during the sessions of that body.

All the amendments originally proposed to the Canal Article of the Constitution, except that relating to the sale of the Main and Hamburg canal of the city of Buffalo, were either unreported or voted down during the evening session held on September 10, 1894. On the following morning, at a conference of the Republican members of the convention, held in the Assembly Parlor, I secured a caucus rule to the effect that all adverse action theretofore had in the convention, be reconsidered and the whole matter of canal improvement be again committed to the committee on canals. Accordingly, Judge Cady, chairman of the canal committee, on the morning of September 11th, rose in the convention and stated:

"Mr. President-In the hope that after the experience of yesterday some resolution of the much debated canal improvement question may be arrived at that will be satisfactory to a majority of this convention, I move that the vote of this convention taken last evening, by which the report of the committee of the whole on the canal amendments was disagreed, be reconsidered."

The President put the question on the motion of Mr. Cady and it was determined in the affirmative. Thereupon all the proposed amendments were referred back to the canal committee.1

It was apparent that canal advocates in various parts of the State who had entertained diverse opinions with reference to what ought to be done in furtherance of canal improvement must harmonize their views and agree upon a common plan of action. There were those who theretofore insisted on inserting in the Constitution itself an appropriation of from eighteen to twenty million dollars for canal improvement. Others had contended that the Constitution ought to be so amended as to enable the Legislature to make whatever appropriations it might find necessary to carry forward canal improvement as should thereafter be determined. This latter view was finally embodied in a proposed amendment, agreed upon by Judge Cady, Judge Chester B. McLaughlin, who was a delegate from the Twenty-first Senatorial district, and myself, after a conference with some of the leading canal advocates of the State, including Capt. William E. Cleary, Daniel A. Cooney and others and it is now Section 10 of Article 7 of the Revised Constitution of 1894, and reads as follows:

"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 4 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.”

This amendment gave rise to further debate, but was finally adopted by the affirmative vote of 89 members, one

1. Vol. iv, Revised Record of the Constitutional Convention of 1894, p. 355.

more than was requisite to secure its passage in the convention. Most of the delegates from the eastern and from some of the central and western counties of the State, spoke and voted in favor of measures proposed to enable canal improvement to be carried on, while most of the delegates from other counties were arrayed against them.

The canal article was finally submitted separately from the other proposed constitutional amendments to the people for their approval at the general election in 1894. The friends of the measure and commercial bodies throughout the State urged its approval and it was ratified by a majority of 115,353 affirmative votes, which was a larger majority than was given to any other amendment submitted at that time. This vote was reassuring to canal advocates throughout the State and they lost no time in preparing a measure which was introduced by Mr. Edward M. Clarkson in the Assembly on January 9, 1895, providing for the issuing of bonds not exceeding nine million dollars in amount for the improvement of the Erie, Champlain and Oswego canals, and providing for the submission of that measure to vote of the people at the general election in the year 1895. This bill passed the Assembly on January 19th and the Senate on February 21st, and with the approval of the Governor became a law on March 9, 1895. The bonds were to bear not to exceed 4 per cent. interest and to run for not more than 17 years.

The improvement contemplated consisted in the deepening of the Erie to not less than nine feet, except over aqueducts, mitre sills, and other permanent structures where there was to be eight feet of water, and except in the case of the Champlain canal where the depth was to be seven feet. Such locks as had not theretofore been lengthened were to be lengthened and made of the same dimensions as those already enlarged. Vertical stone walls were to be constructed and the aqueducts and bridges rebuilt where necessary. This measure was approved at the general election held in the fall of 1895.

The plan of improvement was that commonly known as the Seymour plan.

The report of the Canal Commission appointed by the Governor in 1898, of which the Hon. George Clinton was chairman, states:

"At the time the Act of 1895 was passed a considerable improvement of a portion of the canal had been made. Many locks on the Erie canal and some on the Oswego canal had been lengthened. Upon the Champlain canal deepening to the seven-foot standard had been accomplished in some places and the mitre sills of the locks adapted to the requirements of the improvement. . . . The work upon the Oswego canal was of a peculiar nature, consisting almost entirely of race dams and improving and canalizing the Seneca and Oswego rivers. . . . Before the convening of the Constitutional Convention in 1894, it was the general impression founded on no definite estimate that to deepen the canals and lengthen the locks would cost from seven to nine million dollars. That convention asked for an estimate. The State Engineer and Surveyor furnished one; the figures given by him were $11,573,000. This estimate was very defective. It had to be made in a few days without opportunity to make surveys and without sufficient data in the records to give any accuracy to the estimate. It was merely the best guess which the State Engineer could give, based upon such facts as he had at hand. . . . At the commencement of the work under the Act of 1895, the State Engineer's Department made an estimate based upon their preliminary surveys, which resulted in figures that in 1896 showed plainly that the cost would be at least $13,500,000, without any provision for engineering expenses, advertising, or inspection. These estimates the department at once proceeded to cut down with the idea that they might bring the expense within nine million dollars. This should not have been done. . . . As the work progressed it became plain that all prior estimates were too small and another one was prepared. This amounted to about $16,000,000, . . . and was made public through a letter from the State Engineer to Mr. Hefford of Buffalo. . . . Thus it finally appeared that seven million dollars more would be needed to complete the improvement; and now upon further investigation, based on figures furnished by the same official, it is apparent that a much larger sum will be necessary."1

The report proceeds to give further information in regard to the improvement undertaken in 1896 and to show that the

1. Report of Canal Commissioners appointed by the Governor; Chap. 15, Laws of 1898, as amended by Chap. 327, Laws of 1898.

appropriation was wholly inadequate to carry out the socalled Seymour plan. Prior to the appointment of such commission, all work under the nine-million dollar referendum measure was stopped by legislative enactment; contracts were closed and adjustments made with the contractors. The improvements were never completed and were the occasion of charges of fraud and misappropriation of funds, which led to the appointment of the investigating commission, with the results hereinbefore stated.

In the communication addressed to Robert R. Hefford, chairman of the Executive Canal Committee, Buffalo, N. Y., under date of December 22,1897, the State Engineer and Surveyor and Superintendent of Public Works summarize the salient points of the statement made by them in answer to the charges against them as follows:

I. That no surveys for such an improvement of the canals as is now under way had ever been made up to 1896.

2. That the estimated cost of this improvement, as submitted to the Constitutional Convention in 1894, was prepared in twelve days, and was, therefore, well known and stated to be practically mere guess work.

3. That the careful surveys and estimates when made in 1896 from a thorough examination of the 454 miles of canals to be improved showed that the probable cost of such improvement was about $16,000,000.

4. That an unsuccessful effort was then made to cut out work to bring the cost within the appropriated $9,000,000.

5. That the impossibility of using a large portion of the excavated material for use on the banks of the canals as originally contemplated very greatly increased the cost.

6. That during the progress of the work of excavation the unpreventable caving in of dilapidated and toppling walls and structures necessitated new constructions and increased quantities at large additional expense.

7. That contracts have been already let for the completion of about two-thirds of the proposed improvement, which portion it is expected will have been completed at the opening of navigation in 1898. The estimated cost at contract prices of this two-thirds of the work aggregates $7,121,812, though this covers two-thirds of the length and not the volume of the whole work.