deliberation and careful investigation of all the factors entering into the problem. The committee in their very thorough report give, as the cost of transportation on the canal as improved and capable of carrying barges of 150 feet long, 25 feet wide, and 10 feet draft, .52 mill per ton per mile, and the committee state as their conclusion:

"We feel confident that the larger project will result in a transportation cost across the State of New York as low as that by the St. Lawrence canals, which constitute their chief rival at present, far less than any rate which is possible by railroad at any time within the immediate future, equal substantially to the results which could be obtained by a large barge canal or a ship canal, and, in short, would be a complete and permanent solution of the canal problem. It would give New York advantages in the low cost of transportation and the commerce resulting therefrom, which would be possessed by no other State on the Atlantic Coast.

"We believe it is unwise to spend large sums of money in a mere betterment of the existing canal; what the present situation requires is a radical change both in size and management and what we recommend is practically the construction of a new canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson river, following the present canal for something over two-thirds of the distance, and new routes for the remaining distance of a little less than one-third, and utilizing the present structures and prism so far as they can be made use of. We are firmly of the opinion that any less complete solution of the problem will in the end prove to be unsatisfactory, and that while the sum of money required to put this into execution is large, yet the resources of the State are so enormous that the financial burden will be slight.'

"The cost of railroad transportation cannot approach this rate, and it is, in the opinion of the Committee on Canals, as well as competent transportation managers, that it is not probable that railroad transportation can in the near future be reduced below three mills per ton per mile. The great function of the canal has been that of freight regulator, as has been clearly shown by the fact that during the summer months, when the canals are open, the railroad rates uniformily fall, while with the close of navigation on the canals the railroad rates are always raised."

In this speech, Mr. Schwab quoted at length from an article prepared by S. A. Thompson and published in the Engineering News on the effect of waterways upon railway transportation in this and other countries, and presented

many data bearing on the general subject under consideration. During the entire campaign for canal improvement and enlargement, Mr. Schwab was one of the most aggressive, intelligent and persuasive speakers on various questions from time to time under discussion. There were other speakers at this hearing.

On February 17, 1903, a second hearing on the DavisBostwick bill occurred, which was a joint hearing held at the capitol, and there appeared in opposition to the measure E. B. Norris of Sodus, master of the State Grange, who expressed himself in favor of a Federal ship canal, and asserted that "farm property in Central New York had depreciated 75%"; and W. N. Giles of Schenectady, secretary and representative of the State Grange, who presented resolutions of that organization in opposition to the canal project. There also appeared George A. Fuller, vice-president of the Watertown Produce Exchange, who argued for a trans-State waterway to be constructed by the Federal Government; and Hon. John I. Platt of Poughkeepsie, who cited the history of the railroad development in this country, showing that canal traffic had no effect on freight rates, and renewed his statement that the money paid for canal improvement was a part of the cost of canal transportation. Former Assemblyman Robert J. Fish of the Oneida Chamber of Commerce objected to the bill on account of the proposed change of route from the present alignment through Oneida village to Wood creek and Oneida lake. Mr. A. H. Dewey of Ontario county, George H. Hyde of Cortland county and W. A. Rogers of Jefferson county, appeared and spoke in opposition to the canal bill.

At this hearing there also appeared in favor of the measure George S. Morison, ex-president of the Society of American Civil Engineers, member of the Isthmian Canal Commission and consulting engineer under Mr. Bond in making the survey for the barge canal, who made one of the principal arguments in favor of the measure at that hearing. Among other things he said:

"When the waterways of a State are neglected as those of this State have been, it invariably follows that the business goes to the railways. When the waterways keep pace with the railroads the canals get their share of the traffic and act as regulators of railway rates. The Erie canal cannot in its present shape hope to compete with the railroads. Some of those who have spoken in opposition to this bill have favored a ship canal, but such a canal would be much more expensive and would be of greater interference to the country through which it would pass, as it would have to have a draw-bridge at every farm crossing. The proposition to build a ship canal through this State was taken up by the Federal Government some years ago, but was dropped because it was decided that such a canal would benefit New York State only."1

He also said that the estimates for the thousand-ton barge canal had been carefully made and that considerable assistance had been gained from the Government survey for a ship canal.

In reply to some apprehension expressed as to the insufficiency of water to supply the barge canal, Mr. Morison said: "Less than one-tenth of the power put into a modern steamship would be sufficient to pump into the canal all the water that could possibly be needed."

There also appeared David J. Howell, a consulting engineer in charge of the barge canal survey, who had theretofore been connected with the United States Deep Waterways survey through the State, and who expressed the opinion that the barge canal could be constructed within the estimates made by the State Engineer and Surveyor.

At this same hearing appeared also Hon. Abel E. Blackmar, counsel for the New York Produce Exchange, William F. King of the New York Merchants' Association and Hon. Edward R. O'Malley of Buffalo, who spoke in favor of the measure. Assemblyman O'Malley in closing the argument before the committee said: "Even if the cost of the improved canal had to be borne by direct taxation, the expense to individual taxpayers would be so little that no Granger could afford to leave his corn-husking long enough to go a few miles to town to vote against it." 2

1. Abstract in the Buffalo News, Feb. 18, 1903.

Senator George A. Davis, the introducer of the referendum measure in the Senate, and chairman of the Senate Canal Committee, presided over the joint hearings and occasionally indulged in a mild jeu d'esprit, much to the discomfort of the opponents of the measure. His skillfullyframed interrogatories propounded to them exposed the fallacy in their argument which was thus resolved into a reductio ad absurdum. It was evident from the opposition, which appeared openly to the canal referendum measure and from the introduction of counter propositions in the Legislature, such as the concurrent resolution presented by Senator Henry S. Ambler, on January 23d, proposing an amendment to the Constitution by striking out section 8 of article 7, which is the section preventing the sale, lease or other disposal of the State canals,1 and the bill introduced by Senator Merton E. Lewis, on February 19th, authorizing the Governor to appoint a commission to negotiate with and inquire whether the Government of the United States would undertake the construction of a deep waterway from Lake Erie to the Hudson river, and if so, upon what terms such work could be accomplished, that the impending contest between the friends and foes of canal improvement was to be the most strenuous ever witnessed in the State.

In reply to the editorial of Hon. John I. Platt in the Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle, which urged upon members of the Legislature the passage of the Ambler resolution, I made the following answer:

"I cannot subscribe to the editorial in the Daily Eagle in relation to Senator Ambler's proposed amendment in favor of the abolition of Section 8 of Article 7 of the Constitution, and very few have ventured the suggestion that permission be given for the sale of the canal properties of the State. It is generally conceded that the canal system of the State has promoted its commercial interests to that extent which has very largely made it the greatest commercial state in the Union, and blind must be the man to history, who does not recognize the transcendant importance of the canal system to the commercial supremacy of the State. Therefore highly as I N. Y. State Journal, 1903, p. 56. 2. Ib., p. 223.

I.

h

esteem the Daily Eagle, I am compelled to dissent from its position in this matter and to oppose the passage of the Ambler resolution and this I do in view of what the canals have achieved in promoting the commercial interests of the State of New York."

XXIV. A LONG FIGHT-THE WHOLE STATE AROUSED.

In order to prepare for this contest, meetings were held in various parts of the State to formulate resolutions and appoint committees to aid in the passage of the referendum measure. On February 19th, the New York Chamber of Commerce convened for the purpose of considering the subject. The meeting was attended by such well-known men as Hon. A. B. Hepburn, who was a member of the Legislature when tolls were removed from the canals, and by exMayor Schieren, Morris K. Jesup, Stephen W. Cary, Gustav H. Schwab and William F. King. At this meeting resolutions were adopted favoring the pending legislation.

On February 20th, the new Canal Committee of the Merchants' Exchange of Buffalo convened and was presided over by Alfred Haines. This meeting was addressed by Theodore S. Fassett, Leonard Dodge, president of the Merchants' Exchange, Arthur W. Hickman, and others. The committee organized by electing Hon. George Clinton its permanent chairman; Theodore S. Fassett its vice-chairman, and George H. Raymond and Howard J. Smith its secretary and assistant secretary. This committee consisted of fifty men and included in its membership such well-known canal men as C. Lee Abel, W. H. Andrews, Leslie J. Bennett, Henry W. Brendel, Warren C. Browne, William E. Carroll, Frank L. Danforth, Henry Erb, T. S. Fassett, F. C. Ferguson, Gordon W. Hall, Alfred Haines, A. I. Halloway, Charles M. Helmer, L. M. Hewett, Arthur W. Hickman, Theo. Hofeller, Hon. John Laughlin, George W. Maltby, Hon. E. R. O'Malley, G. H. Raymond, John Roehrer, James M. Rozan, Edward C. Shafer, Howard J. Smith, L. Porter Smith, M. E. Taber, Frank Weaver and R. A. Eaton.

The standing canal committee, or the Committee on Canals and Harbors in 1903, consisted of the following well