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.

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 concurrent resolution was introduced in the Assembly by Assemblyman Samuel Percy Hooker on February 2d, 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. conceded that many members of the Legislature assumed that this resolution was only introduced to impede the passage of the referendum measure.

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." 1

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."

"But assuming that all these difficulties, which certainly appear insurmountable, can be overcome, what would be gained thereby? A ship canal that would not be used by ocean-going steamers! The type of vessel used for ocean transportation is totally different from the type in use on the lakes, as the type of vessel on the lakes again differs from that in use on the canals. The ocean-going steamer is built to withstand the storms and heavy weather of the North Atlantic Ocean, and therefore costs twice as much as the lake steamer, which is built for service during only the spring, summer and fall months, being laid up during the winter. The canal barge, on the other hand, is a cheap affair comparatively, and costs approximately one-quarter of the price of a lake steamer. In the opinion of ship builders, it is absolutely impossible to combine the three types in one vessel that would be economical for the trip through the three kinds of navigation required, lake, canal and ocean. An ocean steamer of costly build could not make a better rate of progress through the canal than five or six miles an hour, whereas she is built to make a speed of two or three times as much. The result would be that the great expense attendant upon the navigation of the canal by an ocean steamer would prove prohibitive. The lake and the canal vessels, burdened with a much smaller cost of construction and maintenance, could run much more economically, and would take away the trade from the ocean steamer. The attempt has been made to run steamers from Chicago through the Welland canal, down the St. Lawrence, to Liverpool. Two or three trips were sufficient to prove the impracticability of this combined navigation, and the steamers were then withdrawn.

"Mr. Thomas C. Keefer, Ottawa, Canada, past-president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, makes the following statement:

""As regards the St. Lawrence river, I may state that we find it is better to keep the large vessels or propellers on the lakes, where they can move faster and make more trips in the season of navigation. Very few descend below Kingston, and from there to Montreal barges are used. The barges are loaded at Kingston from the vessel and taken down the river, and business is done more economically in this way than could be done by taking the lake vessels down.'

"The ship canal, in view of all these objections, cannot for a moment be seriously considered in connection with the improvement of the waterways of the State of New York, and the argument for such a ship canal can only be used as an obstruction to any improvement. "The Ontario route for a 1000-ton barge canal:

"To navigate the waters of Lake Ontario and the canal, vessels must be stronger built and heavier than those vessels that are con

fined to canal navigation, and it can be stated on the authority of competent ship builders that the additional cost of a vessel capable of navigating Lake Ontario and the canal would be approximately 100 per cent. more than that of an ordinary canal boat. This would involve a much higher interest charge on the combined lake and canal vessel. The heavier construction of a vessel capable of navigating Lake Ontario and the canal would cause a loss in carrying capacity amounting to not less than 10 per cent. A fleet of four boats of 1000 tons capacity each would therefore suffer a loss in carrying capacity of at least 400 tons. The cost of maintenance and operation of such boats would necessarily be higher than ordinary canal boats, as not only more men would be required, but crews of higher training and, therefore, better paid. The weather conditions during the early spring and fall on Lake Ontario are such as to render the towing of barges between the ports of Olcott and Oswego not only dangerous, but at certain times impracticable; and only steel barges, of great strength, fitted with sealed hatches, and well found with anchors and chains, would be able to make the passage with impunity. In the opinion of those most competent to judge, canal boats could not be handled over this lake route during the entire season. Insurance companies in New York, with reference to the insurance of vessels on Lake Ontario, state that as underwriters no amount of premium would tempt them to cover the present type of canal boat for traffic on Lake Ontario. They say that even if a new fleet of canal boats were constructed to navigate Lake Ontario and the canal, and therefore of a more seaworthy type than the present type of boat, the rate for that part of the trip on the waters of Lake Ontario would be considerably higher than on the inland voyage during the summer months. In the fall of the year the rate would be from five to eight times as much as in midsummer, and this is confirmed by the insurance companies of Buffalo. The substitution of the lake route for that portion of the inland canal route between Buffalo and Syracuse would deprive a considerable part of the State from the benefits that are expected to result from the improved waterway. The objections to the Ontario route are, therefore, a greatly enhanced cost of transportation, the impracticability of the route owing to the weather conditions during the spring and fall months, and the abandonment of a large part of the line of the present canal.

"The 1000-ton barge canal on the Seneca-Oneida-Mohawk river route:

"This is the route recommended by the Committee on Canals of New York State, appointed by Governor Roosevelt, after mature