8. The contracts already let cover what are believed to be the most difficult portions of the proposed improvement.

9. That proximately seven millions of dollars additional will be required to complete the improvement.

10. That with that sum available we believe the entire improvement can probably be completed at the opening of navigation in 1899.

II. That the progress made to date has been as rapid as was consistent with other conditions and that the whole work might have been under contract now, had sufficient funds been available.

12. The contractors are required by law to bid upon a definite character and quantity of work and that they are finally paid for the actual amount of work performed at the contract prices. Under this plan the State always pays for the work actually done for itno more, no less.

What steps shall be taken to complete the work must of course be determined by the Legislature, but that its prompt completion on the lines on which it is begun is a necessary, wise and expedient undertaking, can not be gainsaid.

From this and the Clinton Report it will be seen that it was impossible for the State Engineer and Surveyor from data in his office to certify to the Constitutional Convention of 1894, the cost of the improvement authorized by the Referendum Measure of 1895.

XIX. ENLARGEMENT

MEASURES-THE SHIP CANAL PROPOSITION.

During the legislative session of 1898, before the appointment of the Clinton Commission and after the letter from the State Engineer and Surveyor to Robert R. Hefford had been made public, in which it was stated that it required seven million dollars more to complete the improvement under the Seymour plan, Senator Jacob A. Cantor in the Senate, and I, in the Assembly, introduced what is known as the Seven Million Dollar Referendum Measure, designed to provide for the issuing of bonds to that amount to complete the improvement undertaken under the nine million dollar referendum measure. The bill was introduced concurrently in the Senate and Assembly and shortly thereafter a counter proposition was introduced by Senator Frank D.

Pavey, of New York, in the form of a resolution, designed to turn over the canals to the Federal Government.

The resolution proposed to amend Section 8 of Article 7 of the Constitution by providing that the prohibition against the sale, lease or other disposal of the canals of the State should not apply "to the sale, lease or other disposition of said canals or either of them to the United States Government, upon such terms as might be mutually agreed upon, and upon the express condition that the United States shall improve, maintain and operate the same as a free public waterway, and, in case of failure by the United States so to do, that the said canals or either of them, together with all improvements made thereon shall revert to and again become the property of the State of New York."

991

This was not a new proposition. As early as 1808 a joint legislative committee had been appointed to consider the propriety of making a survey for a canal between the Hudson river and Lake Erie, "to the end that Congress may be enabled to appropriate such sums of money as may be necessary to the accomplishment of that great national object." That committee reported by resolution, which was adopted, directing the Surveyor-General to make accurate surveys and charts and to transmit a copy of the same to the President of the United States.

On April 8, 1811, an Act was proposed, authorizing the appointment of commissioners who were empowered to make application to the Congress of the United States and to the legislatures of the various states, to coöperate in providing for the improvement of the internal navigation of the State. The commissioners made application to the President and to the Congress of the United States, and to the different states and territories. A bill was prepared for a general system of internal improvements in various states and granting 4,000,000 acres of lands in Michigan and Indiana territories to the State of New York, as soon as the

Erie canal should be open. The New York sub-committee presented the matter to Congress which at first appeared to view it with favor, but it was thereafter disapproved and the committee made its report on March 14, 1812, back to the Legislature of New York as follows:

"These men console themselves with the hope that the envied State of New York will continue a supplicant for the favor and a dependent on the generosity of the Union, instead of making a manly and dignified appeal to her own power. It remains to be proved, whether they judge justly who judge so meanly of our councils."1

On April 17, 1816, another act was passed "to provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of the State." Commissioners were appointed thereunder and authorized to explore the route, estimate the expense and make application for aid to the Government of the United States and to the various states and territories, and also to individuals.*

Thereafter, on February 15, 1817, these commissioners made their report in which they say that they applied "to the United States and to the States of Vermont, Kentucky and Ohio as having a common interest with New York in the contemplated canal, and where they feel persuaded that a favorable disposition exists." "But if no extraneous aid should be offered, it will be at all times in the power of this State to levy high transient duties on the articles transported to and from those states and the territories of the United States, and thereby secure, eventually, a greater fund than can possibly arise from those quarters." That committee made its report on March 17, 1817, and among other things states that "the Legislature of Ohio pledges an effective coöperation in the construction of the canal," and that "additional aid may be expected from other states in the West," and that they might confidently look for help from the Government of the United States.*

In the preamble of the Canal Act, passed on April 18, 1816, may be found this recital, that this act is proposed "in

full confidence that the Congress of the United States and the states equally interested with this State in the commencement, prosecution and completion of those proposed works, will contribute their full proportion of the expense."

In 1835 A. B. Johnson of Utica presented to Charles Humphrey, Speaker of the Assembly, a formal communication in favor of a ship canal from Lake Ontario, through Oneida lake and the Mohawk river to the Hudson river, of the following tenor:

"The inhabitants of this city (Utica) held a large public meeting on the 12th inst., and agreeably to a duty then enjoined on me, I have the honor to transmit you the proceedings of that meeting, and also a very elaborate report and survey and estimate, with maps made by Edwin F. Johnson, Esq., Civil Engineer, of a proposed ship canal from Lake Ontario to the Hudson. The present survey extends only to Utica. The survey was made at an expense of $1,000, and by the exertions of a committee which was constituted at a State convention of delegates held at Utica last fall. Of the report of the engineer I can speak with confidence that it is highly deserving of examination, and solicit this for it from the Legislature, with such further action as they shall deem proper."2

This is one of the earliest proposals for a ship canal from the Great Lakes to the sea. In the proceedings had in the city of Utica, over which Mayor Joseph Kirkland presided, was presented a report setting forth the reasons for such a waterway. After describing the success attending steamboat navigation of the Hudson river, the report proceeds as follows: "Looking then at the immense inland lakes and at the fertile territory of which they are the center, and at the restless industry and enterprise of our citizens, we may safely predict that the lakes are to become the scenes of mightier inland commerce than the world ever before witnessed." There are many other interesting statements in this historic report, such as the following:

"Your memorialists would not undervalue the great benefit which the Erie canal has conferred and is conferring upon the State, nor

I. lb. 358.

2. See Assembly Docs., Feb. 13, 1835.

would they advocate any measure calculated to bring it into disuse, or which would look even prospectively to its discontinuance. It possesses the important advantages of security in time of war; of forming a part of a chain of communication with the Susquehanna valley; and will, whether the work now recommended is executed or not, from an important medium of communication with the West."

From this may be seen something of the enterprise of the people of the interior of the State within ten years after the completion of the Erie canal, in proposing the construction of a ship canal from Lake Ontario to the Hudson river. It must be borne in mind that their conception of a ship canal was far different from our conception of such a canal, which would be adequate to accommodate vessels 600 to 700 feet in length, drawing 20 to 30 feet of water, with a beam width from 45 to 65 feet, and with a carrying capacity of from 7,000 to 15,000 tons of freight.

I have already spoken of the efforts made by the State of New York during the Civil War to enlarge the Champlain and Erie canals to a capacity sufficient to accommodate the passage of gunboats and other naval vessels to the Great Lakes for their defense against attack from Canada.1 In 1882 Representative Jonathan Scoville of the 32nd Congressional District, presented a bill in Congress for the purchase and management of the Erie canal by the National Government. A committee was appointed to consider the question of the cession of the canal properties of the State to the National Government. In 1884 Congressman Edward Wemple, from the committee on railways and canals, submitted a report of that committee on a bill to provide for the permanent improvement of the Erie canal and to aid in maintaining the same free to the commerce of the United States, which carried a provision for the payment to the State of New York of a million dollars a year for ten years, to be expended in enlarging the Erie canal. That bill, however, like the preceding one, failed to receive congressional approval.

1. The resolutions referring to these matters may be found in Senate Docs. for 1863, No. 110, pp. 11, 12, and appendix; and in the report of Saml. B. Ruggles, who had been appointed by Gov. Morgan to present the matter to the President and Congress.