of certain depths can be constructed to float ships, and have estimated the cost of same at various sums up to $600,000,000, but have never declared that a ship canal would be commercially successful.

"A vessel must be adapted to the waters upon which it sails in order to attain the best results in transportation. Hence a vessel adapted to ocean conditions is not the cheapest carrier on the lakes, because the ocean vessel costs much more to build than the lake vessel, and a vessel adapted to lake navigation and built to give the lowest rate of transport on the lakes is not adapted to ocean conditions, because it is not strong enough for safety on the ocean, and neither the ocean nor the lake vessel is adapted to give the cheapest transportation on a canal, because canal barges cost much less than either of the other types."

"The great mistake made by advocates of ship canals is in assuming that a continuous trip will be made without transfer at New York from lake port to foreign port. This can not be done practically. It can be done as a possibility and has been done via St. Lawrence, but always at a loss. Therefore

"Ist. The commercial interests do not desire a deep waterway (meaning a ship canal).

"2nd. A ship canal is not needed because it could not carry as cheaply as a thousand-ton barge canal.

"3rd. A waterway to accommodate all ocean-going vessels is not desirable, because only the smallest of the ocean vessels, if they could go through a deep canal, could sail through the lake channels.

"4th. A waterway accommodating large lake vessels only would be of no advantage because the barges could drive them off the canal by carrying much more cheaply.

"5th. The 1,000 or 1,500 ton barge is preferable to either lake or ocean vessels on canals."

The Lewis bill came on for final passage in the Senate on March 25th, and was defeated, the affirmative vote being only 18 and the negative vote 27.1

XXV.

PASSAGE OF THE REFERENDUM MEASURE.

While the referendum measure was in process of perfection and revision for final passage, still another alternative proposition was presented, March 11th, to the joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly Canal Committees, by the In

1. Ib., p. 652.

ternational Towing and Power Company, which was endorsed by F. O. Blockwell, Chief Engineer of the General Electric Company, and by St. John Clark, the engineer of the Rapid Transit Commission of New York. This involved on the part of the State the construction of an elevated traction-way outside the tow-path, with one rail above the other, so that motor cars thereon propelled by electricity might pass and repass without interference with each other and without obstructing the tow-path for horses hauling canal-boats.

It was stated that the State might charge 50 cents per ton, and do the propelling of boats by that method at 29 cents per ton on the Erie and Champlain canals; and that such electric equipment would cost, approximately, $7,500,000. This was known as the Hawley System, and John Murray Mitchell, the counsel for the company, stated that "One great advantage that this proposition has over all others, is that the State is certain that no railroad or transportation company would be able to buy or absorb the system or control its operation."

This proposition was not acted upon favorably by either committee, but illustrates another phase of sentiment ever fertile in suggesting expedients to circumvent the passage of the referendum measure.

Another strange proposition was that of former State Senator Charles A. Stadler, president of the American Malting Company, who proposed to take the canal off the hands of the State, agreeing to form a corporation to carry freight from Buffalo to New York in one-half-possibly one-third-the time required for canal boats, and at an expense positively not greater than that of the "present antiquated system." This was to be done by building an electric or steam railroad in the canal bed, which would transport freights from Buffalo to the Hudson river at Albany in twenty-four hours, and then in large boats to New York City. This proposition also was so visionary as not to receive serious consideration, for the average railroad rate per ton mile in 1900 was said by George H. Daniels of the New York Central Railroad to be 5 9-10 mills, and few, if

any, would admit that the facilities for the transportation of freight, over a railway built in the bed of the canal, would be superior to those of the New York Central system with its four tracks extending alongside the Erie canal nearly the whole distance from Buffalo to Albany, on which the modern type of locomotives is capable of hauling seventy-five loaded cars containing a thousand bushels of grain each. And still with the remarkable equipment the railroad rate in 1900 was said by Mr. Daniels to be 59-10 mills per ton per mile,1 more than ten times the cost of freight predicted (52-100 of a mill per ton per mile) by Major Thomas W. Symons on the barge canal.2

Ön the same day that the Hawley scheme was under consideration, Assemblyman Charles S. Plank of St. Lawrence county, presented in the Assembly a concurrent resolution "proposing an amendment to section 9 of article 7 of the Constitution, relative to tolls for transportation on the canals, which was designed to permit the reimposition of tolls on boats navigating the canals. This was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee on April 3d and passed the Assembly on April 8th by 76 affirmative votes, a bare constitutional majority, with 50 votes against it. It was transmitted to the Senate, referred to the Judiciary Committee, but never reported therefrom.

The provisions of the Constitution then in force and for many years prior thereto, inhibited the submission of a bonding referendum measure to the electors to be voted on at the same time that proposed constitutional amendments were submitted. That provision, however, was eliminated from the Constitution in an amendment thereto which I introduced and which was passed in 1903 and again in 1905, and approved by popular vote at the election in the latter year."

1. "Address of George H. Daniels before the Chamber of Commerce of Utica," 1900, pp. 8, 12.

2. See report of the Committee on Canals of New York, 1900, p. 3.

3. N. Y. Assembly Journal, 1903, p. 630.

4. Ib., p. 1711.

5. Sec. 4, article 7, N. Y. Constitution of 1894.

6. Sec. 4, article 7, N. Y. Constitution of 1906.

Prior to the latter amendment it required much attention in the Legislature to hold in check proposed amendments to the Constitution (and there were many and some very urgent ones presented annually), and to prevent their passage and submission at the same election at which it was desired to submit a canal bonding referendum measure as prescribed by the Constitution. That constitutional limitation was constantly confronting us during the legislative sessions of 1896 to 1905, and was wisely stricken from the Constitution.

The attitude of the press toward the Davis-Bostwick referendum measure was not assuring. The New York Sun, the Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle, the Newburgh News, some of the Albany and nearly all the Rochester papers, the Elmira and Binghamton papers, some of the Utica and Syracuse papers,and the rural press in the north and south tiers of counties, where railroad influence was most effective, were quite generally hostile to the referendum measure. Others were alarmed at the magnitude of the revised estimates of the State Engineer and Surveyor, who in concluding his report stated:

"It has been my earnest endeavor to be perfectly unbiased in analysing and revising the estimates as covered in this report; and I have taken this position realizing that mine is an executive department only established for carrying out the wishes of the people of the State as expressed by their chosen representatives, and in reaching these conclusions I have tried to be just to those who are advocating and believe in the barge-canal project, to those who are advocating and believe in what is known as the finishing of the ninemillion work, and to those who believe that we should not spend more money in the enlargement of the canals, but simply maintain them in their present normal condition."1

The last class of journals above indicated withheld support from the measure, although they did not openly oppose it. There were many others, including most of the metropolitan journals of New York, the Troy Times, which for many years under the aggressive supervision of the Hon.

1. N. Y. Assembly Journal, 1903, p. 600.

John M. Francis, had been a strong canal advocate; the Plattsburgh, Rome, Oswego, Dunkirk, Tonawanda, Lockport, Niagara Falls, and all the Buffalo and many other papers, ably supported the measure as finally revised, carrying one hundred and one millions of dollars. The Binghamton Leader went so far as to publish a specialized report from Albany, stating that "Slowly but surely the scheme for strangling the plan for improving the State system of waterways progresses." This and other dispiriting reports were given wide publicity from Montauk Point to Jamestown, from Binghamton to Ogdensburg, and formed a part of the hostile sentiment to the referendum measure that tended to defeat its passage through the Legislature.

The Buffalo Evening News, in its aggressive and able advocacy of canal improvement, and in its keen analysis and complete refutation of many of the arguments of opposing journals, rendered yeoman service in the cause of maintaining and upbuilding the commercial and industrial prestige of the State. The Buffalo Express, also, was a consistent advocate of canal improvement on a broad basis.

There was opposition to the barge canals for various reasons. Quite naturally, the localities affected by the proposed change in route protested, although it had not been determined then (nor has it since been determined) that the existing canals will be abandoned. Among those who had long enjoyed the advantages of canal transportation in the Mohawk valley, was Daniel Spraker, Jr., of Sprakers. He keenly appreciated what the loss would be to his village if canal facilities were taken away. He issued circulars to the Canal Advisory Commission and others, and stated the objections to canalizing the Mohawk river in the following fashion:

"As one of the recommendations of the Canal Advisory Commission is to canalize the Mohawk river (contingent on the survey to be made) from Rexford Flats as far west as Little Falls, a little light thrown upon this subject would seem to be appropriate just at this time.

"In my humble opinion the following results would follow the carrying out of such a scheme.