The report of the Superintendent of Public Works for 1897, the last one printed, shows that the number of tons of freight of all kinds carried on the canals that year was 3,617,804. The amount paid in taxes for canal support that year, not including any of the money borrowed for the new enlargement, was $2,571,169.47. This was just as much a part of the real cost of transportation as the wages of the boatmen, or the feed of the horses, or the fuel consumed in producing steam. If we divide this sum by the number of tons carried, the startling fact is revealed that the State paid at the rate of 71.07 cents for every ton of freight moved on the canals— 71.07 cents per ton, or 3.55 cents per hundred pounds, 2.13 cents on a bushel of wheat, weighing 60 pounds, or 1.99 cents on a bushel of corn weighing 56 pounds. Last week the canal freight on wheat from Buffalo to New York was 3 cents per bushel, and on corn 25% cents. Adding what the State paid in 1897 to this, we have an actual canal rate of 5.13 cents on wheat, and 4% cents on corn. I am informed by a large shipper that that same week the railways were carrying wheat in large quantities at 5 cents, and corn at 41⁄2 cents. In other words it costs more money to carry wheat or corn from Buffalo to New York by canal than it does by rail."

This was fully answered by several members of the convention. Notwithstanding this opposition the discussions, resolutions and general effect of the Commerce Convention were opportune and effective in formulating public sentiment on the subject of canal improvement throughout the State. The resolutions were a bugle-call to the commercial interests of all sections of the State, and the results were apparent in the action of the Legislature at its next session.

We members of the Buffalo delegations made a formal report to the Hon. Conrad Diehl, Mayor of Buffalo, which was transmitted by him to the Common Council and appears in the Proceedings for that year. Reports were made to various other cities and commercial bodies throughout the State.

This convention was followed by a conference of the commercial organizations of Greater New York with the Committee on Canals of the New York Produce Exchange on December 12, 1899, at which the following conclusion was reached:

"It is the earnest hope of the New York Produce Exchange that all commercial organizations of this State will fully recognize the necessity of a modern waterway of large dimensions, not less than fourteen feet in depth, with corresponding width, connecting Lake Erie with tidewater in the Hudson river, as an essential condition to the continued commercial supremacy of the State.

"If this conviction be impressed with an unanimous sentiment on the part of our commercial organizations upon the People, the necessary appropriations can be secured for this great work, by the means of which there can be no doubt that New York's preeminence in trade will be permanently established."

There were submitted to the Roosevelt Commission reports from engineers, commercial bodies, and individuals. These were all embodied in a report made to the Legislature on January 25, 1900, together with a large compilation of data relating to various phases of transportation in this and other States and together with the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission. That report fills a volume of 525 pages and has served as a text-book for canal advocates ever since its publication.

This Commission recommended the construction of a barge canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, from Lake Ontario to the Erie canal, and from Champlain to the Hudson river, with a prism 12 feet in depth, except over mitre sills and other permanent structures where the water was to be II feet, with a width of 75 feet at the bottom, with sloping banks, except through the beds of lakes, and rivers where the width was to be 200 feet, and except through cities, towns and villages, where the width might be restricted. The route proposed for the Erie canal was along the Mohawk, through Oneida lake, and through Seneca and Clyde rivers, utilizing Wood creek which had formed a highway of commerce in the 17th century.

The Commission also recommended that the locks should be 28 feet wide and 310 feet long, so that two vessels each 150 feet in length, 25 feet in width and drawing 10 feet of water, might be locked through together. It was estimated that such a barge would carry approximately 1,000 tons and that the improvement of the Erie would cost approximately

$62,000,000. The report contains much valuable data and a large edition was printed and extensively circulated throughout the State. This was submitted to the Legislature with a special message by Governor Theodore Roosevelt on January 25, 1900.

This report made a profound impression on the people of the State. Canal advocates were surprised and made enthusiastic at the magnitude of the waterways proposed, for they were larger than they had theretofore thought it possible to construct on account of the enormous expense involved, while the opponents of canal improvement in this State considered the recommendations of the Roosevelt commission so gigantic as to be wholly unfeasible to be put into practical operation. Public meetings were held at various parts of the State to consider the subject matter of the report. The various commercial bodies appointed delegations to confer with the Governor and legislative committees, for the purpose of determining the policy to be pursued as a result of the recommendations of the Commission.

The experience under the enlargement undertaken in 1835, as well as the inadequacy of the nine million dollar appropriation to complete the improvement then undertaken, were such as to convince all interested in canal improvement that it was not only wise but necessary to have a thorough survey made of the proposed routes to determine approximately the probable cost of the barge canal, the construction of which was recommended by the commission.

Canal advocates throughout the State united upon this policy and a bill was drafted for that purpose by the secretary of the Board of Trade and Transportation. Before its introduction, however, the bill was examined by Judge Charles Z. Lincoln of the Statutory Revision Commission, by State Engineer Edward A. Bond, by Superintendent of Public Works Col. John N. Patridge, and by Hon. John D. Kernan of Utica, President of the State Commerce Convention, and by all these approved. It was subsequently examined and approved by a committee appointed at a conference representing a number of the commercial bodies of New York.

XXI. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE Barge Canal.

During the legislative session of 1900, I was chairman of the Canal Committee of the Assembly and on March 6th introduced in the Assembly the bill, which was entitled "An act directing the State Engineer and Surveyor to cause surveys, plans, and estimates to be made for improving the Erie canal, the Champlain canal and the Oswego canal, and making an appropriation therefor." The bill carried an appropriation of $200,000. On March 8th, Senator Henry Marshall of Brooklyn introduced the same bill in the Senate. Opposition immediately manifested itself in both Senate and Assembly, but the friends of the measures were on the alert and took effective steps to formulate public sentiment in favor of its passage. The press throughout the State was divided. On March 7th, Assemblyman Hyatt C. Hatch of Steuben offered a resolution in the Assembly proposing to amend the Constitution so as to enable the State to dispose of its canal properties to the Federal Government, substantially as proposed in the Pavey resolution of 1898. This tended to complicate matters still further.

About twenty-five of the leading commercial bodies of New York City on March 10, 1900, gave a dinner to Governor Roosevelt at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in recognition of his friendly attitude toward the canal interests of the State. It was presided over by the Hon. William E. Dodge, and was attended by Lieut.-Gov. Timothy L. Woodruff, Speaker S. Frederick Nixon, Hon. J. P. Allds, Gen. Francis V. Greene, Major Thomas W. Symons, Hon. John N. Scatcherd, Hon. Frank S. Witherbee, all of the Roosevelt commission, which had proposed the barge canal, and all the Canal Committee of the Assembly, and such other noted canal advocates as Senator Geo. A. Davis, John D. Kernan of Utica, Henry B. Hebert of the New York Produce Exchange, Gustav H. Schwab, Frank B. Brainard, Andrew H. Green, Frank S. Gardner, Lewis Nixon, Franklin Edson, A. B. Hepburn, Bird S. Coler, Edward A. Bond, John N. Patridge and Gherardi Davis, Franklin Quinby, W. R. Corwine, and scores of others interested in canal improve

ment in this State. It was stated that 460 prominent business men of the city and State of New York were in attendance, representing nearly all the commercial organizations in New York City. It was the most notable canal dinner ever given up to that time in the State.

In the course of his remarks on that occasion, Gov. Theodore Roosevelt said:

"The scheme proposed is one of tremendous and far-reaching importance. . . . It is the only scheme which offers an adequate check on the railroads that now can or do show their mastery over our commerce, but the very vastness of the scheme means in the first place that there should be the most careful preparation so that there shall be no possibility of repeating the mistakes which have marred feebler efforts in the past, and in the next place that there must be thorough and ardent missionary work to make the people of the State feel the need of doing what is proposed. . . . There are two or three vital features of any scheme we may adopt. In the first place, we must keep steadily before our minds the all-important fact that the canal is not an outworn method of transportation. During the lifetime of the present generation the canal system has received a greater development than the railroad system in every great European country where the topographical conditions permit of its existence at all."

Lieut.-Governor Timothy L. Woodruff said:

"I will admit that there was a time when I questioned the feasibility of the plans advocated by the Canal Commission, but after talking with General Greene, I am confident that the plans recommended by the Canal Commission to Governor Roosevelt can and will by his aid be carried out."

In the course of my remarks on that occasion, I said:

"During the last ten years canal commerce has been on the decline and a condition has been reached which would seem to warrant extraordinary efforts being put forth to regain it. It is generally believed that the construction of a new Erie canal, large enough to accommodate thousand-ton barges will not only regain for New York her commerce, but will hold it against all competition for a century to come. Such a waterway would prevent diversion of commerce through the Canadian canals to Montreal, as well as prevent railways from diverting it to the South Atlantic seaports. The most improved and modernized railroad system could not successfully