State. Some of these have already been mentioned in this work. It is a well-known fact that the vote in Erie county on the referendum measure was 39,451 votes for it, to 8,355 votes against it, notwithstanding the large railroad interests centering in Buffalo, opposed to the measure when it was submitted to the people. This large preponderating vote clearly shows the strong canal sentiment in this city.

In each of the counties of Schuyler, Yates, Hamilton and Tioga there were cast less than 500 votes in favor of the measure, but in most of the non-canal counties of the State meetings were held at which speakers appeared in advocacy of the measure, and in some instances to engage in joint debate with those opposed to it. In several of these the procanal vote appears but a small proportion of the entire vote cast, but when it is remembered that the sentiment in the rural counties was strongly anti-canal in character, it may be seen that the results were quite as assuring as could reasonably be expected.

Albany, Cayuga, Erie, Kings, New York, Queens, Niagara, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, Ulster and Westchester counties cast large majority votes in favor of the measure, and all the other counties a majority against it. The aggregate affirmative vote was 673,010, and the negative vote was 427,693, which gave a clear majority of 245,323 votes for the measure. It required no end of oral and printed statements to reach the 1,258,777 voters, the aggregate number of those who voted for or against it, or who failed to vote by reason of defective ballots. The referendum measure received 43,622 votes over and above one-half of all votes cast, or that might have been cast for or against the proposition at that election. The preparation and dissemination of canal literature, and the traveling and other expenses of speakers, all together involved a large expenditure of money, which was raised by voluntary contribution from private individuals. All this was additional to the time and effort involved in the preparation and presentation of speeches, the dissemination of canal literature, and the organization and management of the campaign during the six months preceding the vote on the referendum measure.

XXVII. MEN and Measures-Progress and Prospects.

The well-considered policy formulated at the time of the drafting of the referendum measure was fully carried out, and a trend of favoring events largely dominated by that policy helped to bring about the ultimate success achieved. Many different interests for a long time coöperated to accomplish this result.

Engineers of repute and long service had been identified with the waterways of this State from the time of the improvement of 1835 down to that of the barge canal. Mr. George E. Gray entered the service in 1839, nearly 70 years ago; Mr. David E. Whitford had been in the service for a period of 52 years, with the exception of four years, and is still in the service; Mr. W. H. H. Gear had been in the service of the State at different times for 50 years; Messrs. Maurice S. Kimball and John Bisgood had been in the service of the State nearly 40 years; Mr. L. L. Nicholls, 30 years; Messrs. O. W. Childs, O. W. Storey, Daniel C. Jenne, Van R. Richmond, Bruce J. Kimball and J. Nelson Tubbs, 25 years; Messrs. Alfred Barrett, J. Platt Goodsell, Thomas Goodsell, Daniel Richmond, Dennison Richmond, George Arnoldt and Thomas Evershed, for a period of 20 years, and Mr. Holmes Hutchinson, William J. McAlpine, O. A. Bogardus, Wm. B. Taylor, Howard Soule, Walter W. Jerome, Charles Truesdell, Wm. B. Cooper, Byron Holley, Charles D. Burns, and John R. Kaley, upwards of 15 years.

In addition to those mentioned were such well-known engineers as Benjamin Wright, James Geddes, Canvass White, John B. Jarvis, Nathan S. Roberts and David S. Bates, who were the chief engineers who built the original Erie canal. Next came a group of engineers who wrought out the several enlargements and improvement down to the present project for the barge canal. Among these already mentioned were Messrs. Bisgood, Cooper, Evershed, Gear, Goodsell, Jenne, Jerome, Kaley, Kimball, McAlpine, Nicholls, Richmond, Soule, Storey, Taylor, Tubbs and

Whitford. To this list may be added Squire Whipple, John D. Fay, Byron M. Hanks, Silas Seymour, Sylvanus H. Sweet and John Bogart.

For several years before the scheme for a barge canal had been perfected, the subject of better conditions was being agitated and various improvements were undertaken more or less successfully. Among those who were instrumental in bringing about these improvements was Horatio Seymour, jr., who made a careful study of transportation problems and advocated a deepening of the canals one foot, in his report of 1878, which was thereafter known as the "Seymour plan." Many years after the deepening was actually begun under the modification suggested by Campbell W. Adams, known as the "Seymour-Adams plan."

We have already seen the services rendered by Martin Schenck in the plan of canal development in this State, as well as the surveys made under Edward A. Bond in 1900. Mr. Bond's successor was Henry A. Van Alstyne, who rose from a subordinate position to the head of the department and was entrusted as State Engineer and Surveyor with formulating the first working plans for the barge canal. He was succeeded by Frederick Skene, who had charge of the work from 1907 to 1909, and who in turn was succeeded by Frank M. Williams.

The division engineers appointed by the State Engineer and Surveyor, Frank M. Williams, were the following: On the eastern division, George T. Williams; on the middle division, Guy Moulton; on the western division, Thomas W. Barrally; and the deputy in charge of barge canal construction is William B. Landreth, who was employed in making the survey for the barge canal, and has since been associated with the Advisory Board of Consulting Engineers. Noble E. Whitford has long been identified with the department, and is the author of the valuable "History of the New York Canals," issued as part of the official report of the State Engineer for 1905. The bureau of canal affairs in the State Comptroller's office for several years has been under the supervision of William G. Shaible and Thomas W. Cantwell.

On December 21, 1903, a canal dinner was tendered by the Chamber of Commerce of Buffalo to Governor Odell and other gentlemen who had taken a prominent part in the canal campaign. President Leonard Dodge of the Chamber of Commerce, congratulated the gentlemen present on the successful issue of the canal campaign, and called upon W. Caryl Ely to preside. After an allusion to some of the phases of canal improvement, Mr. Ely introduced Governor Odell, who made a long, interesting speech on the utility and advantages of cheap water transportation as conducive to commercial expansion. He was followed by Attorney General John Cunneen, who gave a history of the campaign for canal improvement in this State, paying merited tribute to Alfred Haines, who had been actively engaged in the canal campaign, but had shortly before died.1 Messrs. Ogden P. Letchworth, John G. Milburn and Senator Thomas F. Grady of New York were also among the speakers on that occasion. Senator Grady was in his usual felicitous mood, and the recipient of many congratulations for his active and efficient part in the canal campaign in and out of the Senate. This was one of the largest canal banquets ever held in Buffalo, and was attended by many of its leading citizens. The impression given to those in attendance, including the Governor and other distinguished guests, was that the citizens of Buffalo looked forward to definite action in the line of canal enlargement on the part of those charged with the responsibility of issuing the bonds and proceeding with the work, now that all preliminary problems had been favorably solved.

Shortly after the organization of the Canal Board of 1904, State Comptroller Otto Kelsey presented the matter of a bond issue in conformity with the provisions of chapter 147 of the laws of 1903, and was directed to proceed with the preparation of the two forms of bonds authorized by that statute. In due time they were prepared; and subsequently, in place of the eighteen-year bonds, there were authorized and issued three per cent. canal bonds, running

1. Died Dec. 17, 1903.

for a period of fifty years, which have been disposed of to the amount of several millions of dollars. Mr. Kelsey, who thoroughly understood the difficulty of disposing of three per cent. State canal bonds under the market conditions existing in 1907, advised the enactment of a bill which I introduced to facilitate the sale of State bonds. As State Comptroller he had supervision of both the eighteen and fifty-year original bond issue.

The general interest manifested in the subject of adequate canal improvement in the State is shown by the variety of organizations and interests which from time to time coöperated in the consideration of plans proposed by engineers and others identified with the movement. The commercial centers of the State were quite generally procanal, while most of the rural counties were anti-canal. It is doubtful whether or not any great public question was ever more widely discussed and more carefully considered by the great mass of voters than the canal referendum issue of 1903. As has been stated, more than a million votes were cast on the proposition, of which 673,010 were in approval, and 427,698 were against it, thus giving it a fair majority of upwards of 245,000 votes. That was the largest popular majority ever given to any referendum measure submitted to the people in this State. It was gratifying to the great commercial centers, as well as to the thousands of broad-minded citizens who had had any part in the campaign contributing to that result. The measure as passed, in addition to the features already mentioned, provided that the Governor may employ, at a compensation to be fixed by him, five expert civil engineers to act as an advisory board of consulting engineers, whose duty it shall be to advise the State Engineer and Superintendent of Public Works, and follow the progress of the work, and from time to time report thereon to the Governor, the State Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works, as they may require, or as the board may deem proper and advisable. That provision was inserted in the bill by reason of the provisions of the State Constitution requiring all public works to be placed under the supervision of the State Super