Page images
PDF
EPUB

the expense involved, we should not be deterred from any expenditure that will hold the supremacy of which we are all justly proud. I hope that the conclusion reached may be so supported by data and figures that there shall be no dissent from the deductions which are thus arrived at, and that the people may be put in possession of every detail that is necessary to enable them to speedily pass upon and express their approval or disapproval of the plans to be submitted.

"In my last message I advocated the deepening of the canals to a nine-foot level, with locks capable and large enough to provide for one thousand-ton barge tonnage. To this subsequently suggestions were added that both the Oswego and the Champlain canals should be equally enlarged. This proposed measure failed of passage, I am convinced, because of an honest belief upon the part of many members of the Legislature that the plan proposed was inadequate to meet the requirements of commerce."1

In this message the Governor discusses the so-called Ontario route, and calls attention to the fact "that at the time when the canal traffic would be at its heaviest, it would be impossible because of adverse winds and dangers of navigation" to navigate Lake Ontario. Continuing he says:

"So we are forced to the conclusion that the only practical route for canal traffic for a thousand-ton barge would be along the more expensive line which can only be built at a cost under the State Engineer's estimate, and assuming that the bonds were for fifty years and the interest at three per cent. of $193,980,967.50, principal and interest. This plan only contemplates the deepening of the Champlain canal to seven feet, but the advocates of canal improvement now desire that it should be deepened to a twelve-foot level, which would increase the cost to $215,000,000.”2

Governor Odell discussed several other phases of the problem in this message and lay emphasis upon the point that something ought to be done to prevent the withdrawal of commerce. He suggested the introduction of electric motors and the electric equipment for the rapid propulsion of vessels over the existing waterway which might obviate the necessity of the construction of a thousand-ton barge canal. He also suggested that if the thousand-ton barge

N. Y. Assembly Journal, 1903, pp. 3016, 3017.

1.

[blocks in formation]

canal plan were authorized, he would "recommend the adoption of a concurrent resolution providing for the reimposition of limited tolls, which would, perhaps, produce revenue enough to provide for the maintenance of the canal, believing that the lowering of the freight rates would be so great that a tollage could be easily met without interfering with the results which it hoped to accomplish under this plan." 1

The effect of this message upon public sentiment was to encourage canal advocates in various parts of the State to unite upon the barge canal project in its full extent.

The commercial bodies of New York City, represented as they were in the Canal Enlargement Association of Greater New York under the chairmanship of the Hon. Henry B. Hebert, a forceful and strong advocate in 1899 of a fourteen-foot canal, were united on the barge canal project that had been recommended by the Green Commission, and of which surveys had been made by the State Engineer and Surveyor in 1900. Accordingly in the early winter a bill was prepared by Major Thomas W. Symons, Hon. Abel E. Blackmar, and others, providing for the construction of a barge canal from the Great Lakes to tidewater. The bill was introduced in the Assembly by Charles F. Bostwick, on January 15, 1903, and carried an appropriation of $81,000,000 for the improvement of the Erie canal, the Oswego canal and the Champlain canal. It provided for deepening the Erie and Oswego canals twelve feet, and the Champlain canal seven feet.

A conference was held in Albany on January 26, 1903, of the representatives of commercial bodies in New York, Oswego and Buffalo, which was attended by Alfred Haines and George Clinton of Buffalo; Gustav H. Schwab, William R. Corwine, Prof. William H. Burr and Abel E. Blackmar of New York; E. S. Morrison and Major Thomas W. Symons of Washington; Frank S. Witherbee of Port Henry; and Frederick O. Clarke of Oswego. At this con

[blocks in formation]

ference William H. Burr, professor of engineering in Columbia University and a member of the Isthmian Canal Commission, explained the method whereby the plans and estimates for the barge canal were made; and the prominent engineers employed by Edward A. Bond, State Engineer and Surveyor, in reaching the conclusions set forth in his report under the survey bill.

As a result of this conference the canal bill was modified in some respects and the authorized bond issue somewhat increased before its introduction in the Senate. As so modified it was introduced by Senator George A. Davis, chairman of the Senate Canal Committee, on January 28, 1903, and was entitled "An act making provision for issuing bonds to the amount of not to exceed $82,000,000 for the improvement of the Erie canal, the Oswego canal and the Champlain canal, and providing for the submission of the same to the people to be voted upon at the general election to be held in the year 1903." It was thereupon referred to the Committee on Canals.

1

On January 7th, I had introduced a proposed constitutional amendment, adding a new section to article 7 of the Constitution to be known as section II thereof. A concur rent resolution was introduced in the Assembly by Assemblyman Samuel Percy Hooker on February 2d,3 proposing an amendment to article 7 of the Constitution to authorize the construction of a railway by the State in the bed of the canal and its lease upon terms stated in the resolution. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee but was never reported therefrom. The introducer of this resolution maintained that such railway would relieve the terminal congestion and would be more efficacious than any other means of transportation except a ship canal through the State. He conceded that many members of the Legislature assumed that this resolution was only introduced to impede the passage of the referendum measure.

[blocks in formation]

XXIII. LEGISLATIVE STRIFE OVER THE CANAL MEASURES.

The canal measures encountered strong opposition immediately upon their introduction. Organizations were effected in various parts of the State and representatives were sent to Albany to appear before legislative committees at hearings upon these measures. Among these was the veteran editor and canal opponent, Hon. John I. Platt of Poughkeepsie, who called in question Governor Odell's position on the canal question as indicated in his campaign speeches and message to the Legislature. To this Governor Odell replied in substance, that in his letter of acceptance and his message to the Legislature he had clearly indicated that he favored canal legislation, and desired that a proposition be submitted to the people at the next general election. Mr. Platt further stated on that occasion that the Governor told him that he was not pledged to any particular scheme and that the anti-canal men would not have to fight him as well as the canal men. Later Mr. Platt modified his last remark.1

Others appeared in opposition to the measure. A large number appeared in favor of it, including such well-known advocates as George Clinton, Gustav H. Schwab, Major Thomas W. Symons, William F. King, S. C. Meade of the Merchants' Association of New York, Captain William E. Cleary, Frederick O. Clarke, W. A. Norris of Fort Ann, and George H. Raymond of Buffalo. In his speech Mr. Clinton summarized the arguments in favor of canal improvement and called special attention to the fact that "no scheme of electric propulsion would work on the canal, as it would confine it and its benefits to the few or the individuals who could use the patented devices for employing electricity as a motor power. This would not do. The canals should be free to all. If the improved barge canal did no more than regulate railroad freight rates, it would be enough to warrant its construction. Commerce followed the lines of least resistance and it was the duty of New York State to make the lines of resistance here as small as possible. This

1. Abstract in the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, Feb. 4, 1903.

could be done by the improved canal." Mr. Clinton also spoke of shipments of ore from the West and the building up of the great steel industries in Erie county, and said: "Such steel and iron plants would spring up along the canal as soon as the ore from the mines and the coal could be brought to them by a waterway with low freight rates.'

[ocr errors]

Hon. Gustav H. Schwab on that occasion presented a long and forceful argument in advocacy of the Senate and Assembly bills, in which he reviewed the commerce of the port of New York and the foreign commerce of the country, and made an unanswerable argument in support of the canal measures and the resulting benefits to the State from the construction of the barge canal and the resulting commerce over the same. In the course of this argument, he said:

"In connection with this nine-foot plan of canal improvement, the application of electricity to the work of towing upon the canal has been resurrected. This plan has been frequently discussed in former years, and found impracticable.

"The advocates of the ship canal scheme present a very fascinating and attractive picture of ocean-going steamers taking freight directly from the western lake cities, through the lakes and the canal, and across the ocean, without breaking bulk. To compete with the ocean carrier of the present day, such steamers would have to be of such capacity as to draw at least 30 feet to 33 feet. They will, therefore, require a depth in the canal of 35 feet, with corresponding width and size of locks. They will furthermore require an entire reconstruction of the channels between the lakes and of the harbor works in all lake cities. A ship canal of the depth required and all this reconstruction work on the lakes would involve enormous sums of money never heretofore reached in canal construction. Does any one suppose that the Congress of the United States would ever consent to undertake a work of this magnitude, which would inevitably be the signal for demands from all parts of the Union for the execution of works of similar magnitude in favor of particular localities? New York State would necessarily be obliged to surrender the Erie Canal, and New York's commerce and industries, so far as they depend upon a canal, would thenceforth be at the mercy of a Congressional majority for the appropriations necessary from time to time to maintain the canal and the lake channels and harbors."

1. lb., Feb. 4, 1903.

« PreviousContinue »