At an early day the proximity of the Chemung river and the head waters of Seneca lake gave rise to plans for connecting the navigable streams of New York with those of Pennsylvania by an artificial waterway. During his expedition against the Six Nations of Indians in 1779, General Sullivan addressed a letter to General Washington, who was a strong advocate of canals, on the subject of uniting the northern and southern waters. General Washington presented the matter to the consideration of Congress, but without result.

The first account of legislative notice in New York is found in a letter of March 4, 1792, from General Philip Schuyler, in which he describes the action taken on a bill for incorporating the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company. He said: "A clause was proposed for preventing any canals to the Susquehannah but it was lost: it being conceived improper to oblige the inhabitants of the western country to make Hudson’s river, or the commercial towns on it, the only markets." ¹

This region had become well populated several years after General Sullivan’s operations against the Indians. The General led his army into Chemung county from the south by way of the Chemung river. He was so impressed with the country, and upon his return to Pennsylvania, he gave such glowing accounts of the fertility and beauty of the valley, that in 1787 immigrants from that state flocked to Chemung county in large numbers.

As early as 1812 the contemplated route was explored by James Geddes, under the direction of the board of canal commissioners, and he reported favorably upon the practicability of constructing a navigable communication on that route. In 1824 the Assembly committee on canals reported that later an exploration was made by two citizens of New York State, and also by commissioners and engineers appointed by the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and that their opinions coincided with the report submitted to the canal commissioners by Mr. Geddes.

In 1815 the people residing in western New York became interested in the construction of a canal over this route, believing that such means of navigation would be an object of great public utility, by affording an avenue for conveying by water to the interior of Pennsylvania great quantities of salt, made in their localities, and plaster of paris, found in great abundance in the county of Seneca. The exportation of these articles was considered a source of much wealth to the people interested, and so important was the making of this water connection regarded, that private enterprise was aroused to effect the object. Consequently in 1815, a petition was presented to the Legislature by a body of men desiring to be incorporated under the name of "The Seneca and Susquehannah Lock Navigation Company," with a capital of three hundred thousand dollars, for the purpose of connecting the head waters of Seneca lake with the waters of the Chemung river, a branch of the Susquehanna at or near the village of Newtown, in the county of Tioga. ² In 1813 the Seneca Lock Navigation Company had been incorporated for the purpose of opening navigation between Seneca and Cayuga lakes. Through the completion of this canal and the opening of the Chemung route the waterways of New York and Pennsylvania would be united.

The wishes of the petitioners were acceded to by the enactment of chapter 125, which specified that the capital stock of the company should consist of six thousand shares, of fifty dollars each, and fixed the dimensions of the canal at not less than twelve feet in width at the bottom of the prism, and the size of the locks at not less than seventy feet in length between the gates. The act also stipulated that unless the canal should be built within fourteen years the law would become void. The company, however, never carried out the purposes for which it was incorporated and the people, who had looked so hopefully towards the construction of the canal, were greatly disappointed.

In 1819, Governor Clinton, in his annual message to the Legislature, alluded to the feasibility of constructing a canal over this route. This speech, together with the growing popularity of the Erie canal, and the recognized need of some connection with the waters of the south, was responsible for the many petitions which deluged the Legislature in succeeding years, asking the State to undertake the works. Up to 1824 bills were annually introduced, but received the sanction of only one branch of the Legislature. The Assembly committee of this year, in reporting on petitions asking for legislative aid, said in reference to the construction of the canal: --

"The interest which this state has in executing this important work . . . arises from the following considerations. Its completion would extend our salt market to the supply of the vast extent of country bordering on the shores of the Susquehannah, and the tributary navigable streams to that river, and of a considerable portion of the State of Maryland, to the amount annually of 450,000 bushels, whereas the expense of transportation now, prevents the successful introduction of our salt trade, to any considerable extent in those states, by which alone an increase of revenue would be acquired, to the amount of $56,250 over and above the tolls, which would result from the use of this highly interesting and important public improvement; and when the contemplated canal navigations in those states ³ shall be completed, we may expect, with the great facilities and reduced expense thus rendered, of landing our salt in their markets generally to exclude foreign competition. Our western plaster will supply more cheaply the shores of the Susquehannah, and its many navigable tributaries; coal, from the extensive mines in the vicinity of the navigable waters of the Tioga river, will, by means of this facility of transportation, furnish a cheap fuel for our manufactories and cities. The produce of an extensive and fertile district of country, which is now carried to southern markets, will, by the proposed navigation, receive a new direction to the Erie canal, and while seeking a market on the shores of the Hudson, or in the great commercial emporium of our country, its transportation will add a large amount to the receipts from the tolls of the grand canal, and at the same time present a new channel to the enterprize of a respectable portion of our commercial citizens. By all which the state, while it will justly claim the honor of connecting, by direct navigation, the western and northern lakes, with the waters of the Susquehannah and Chesapeake, will insure to itself a large increase of revenue, and to the citizens of the district, through which the canal is to be made, a participation in the benefits of our grand system of internal improvements." ⁴

While the committee did not feel disposed to advise that at that time any portion of the public funds should be diverted from the Erie canal, which was then in process of construction, yet the great importance of the proposed work impelled the committee to introduce a resolution recommending that the canal commissioners be required to procure, by the aid of a competent engineer, a survey of a canal route and an estimate of the expense of constructing a canal to connect Seneca lake with the Tioga or Susquehannah rivers, and to report at the next session of the Legislature. The resolution was adopted by the House, but was never acted upon by the Senate.

In 1825 the subject of general investigation for lateral routes came before the Legislature and an act (chapter 236) was passed, providing for examinations, surveys and estimates to be made of several canal routes, which included one from Seneca lake to the Chemung river, ⁵ at or near the village of Newtown, the same points which the Seneca and Susquehanna Lock Navigation Company proposed to connect in 1815.

The survey was made by Mr. Geddes, who had examined this route in 1812. In his report in 1826 he said that "to make the communication required, a canal should be constructed from Seneca lake to Newtown, eighteen miles, and a navigable feeder from the Chimney Narrows, on the Chemung river, to the summit level of the canal, thirteen miles, making a navigation by canal of thirty-one miles." He also reported that the feeder would encounter some distance of high, steep, gravel bank before it could leave the river shore. Below this high bank the Big flats commenced, along which the canal could be conducted on favorable ground until after it crossed the valley of Singsing creek. Here began a piece of deep cutting something over a mile and one-half in length. The ridge to be cut through at this place appeared from wells in the vicinity to be of clay for a depth far below the proposed bottom of the canal. For nearly half a mile the highest part would necessitate a cut of sixteen feet, but from the eastern end of the deep cut to the proposed summit level of the main canal the ground was favorable. In this distance of thirteen miles there would be three eight-foot locks. The course of the main canal between Seneca lake and Newtown would be, according to the engineer, nearly north and south. The descent southward from the summit to the Chemung river was fifty-three feet and the ground was advantageous. From the summit northward the route would be through four and one-half miles of untimbered marsh and for the remainder of the distance to the lake along a narrow valley, once timbered, but then cleared and settled. The lockage from the summit northward would be four hundred and forty-three feet in a distance of about seven miles. In his estimate, the engineer computed the cost of construction, with wooden locks at $240,000 and with stone locks at $407,598. After taking into consideration all the products of the mines, the fields and forests, and the greatly increased imports that might be expected to be brought into this territory, Mr. Geddes concluded that the construction of the canal would be a profitable venture for the State.

With this report as a basis for their arguments the Assembly committee on canals made an effort to secure legislative action to authorize a canal along this route. This effort was ably supported by several persons immediately interested in the project, in an argument setting forth the revenue that would be yielded by the proposed canal. In order to estimate the probable income to be derived from the canal, some information was obtained as to the amount of tolls that were being paid for produce and other articles that were floated down the Susquehanna from that section of the state to Baltimore. It was considered that if the canal was constructed this produce would be carried to Albany, for a continuous water communication would thus be afforded from Montezuma, on the Erie canal, to Newtown, a distance of about seventy-eight miles, as the Cayuga and Seneca canal was being built at this time. The figures showed these tolls to be about $29,000 and it was estimated that, in addition, about $13,000 would be paid annually in tolls on coal that would be transported on the proposed canal from the bituminous coal region, upon the Tioga river, to the Hudson. One of the most essential reasons for building the canal was a need of an immense amount of coal by the salt industry of central New York. The supply of wood was fast becoming exhausted and it was considered that the time was not very far distant when the manufacture of salt would be very much crippled, unless a cheap supply of fuel could be obtained. The promoters also laid great stress on the fact that a company had already been incorporated in Pennsylvania for the purpose of building a canal from the coal mines to the State line, as soon as New York State should begin construction on the proposed Chemung route. A bill appropriating $300,000 for the project was introduced in the Assembly, but was lost in the Senate.

In 1827 and 1828 the Legislature again deliberated upon the question, but with no favorable results, and in 1829 the petitioners renewed their efforts. Their persistent labors were rewarded at last, and an act (chapter 135) was passed on April 15 authorizing the canal commissioners to construct the canal on the route suggested by Mr. Geddes, from Seneca lake to Elmira, ⁶ provided that they could complete the canal and feeder at a cost not to exceed $300,000. The feeder was to be built from the summit level to the Chimney Narrows, on the Chemung river in the town of Painted Post, and was to be made navigable. The law stated that work should not be commenced until the Seneca and Susquehanna Lock Navigation Company had released to the State all the rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted by the act incorporating the company in 1815. One clause of the act specified that the route should be known as the "Chemung Canal," and another provided that the tolls should not be less than those in effect on the Erie and Champlain canals.

When the news of the passage of the Chemung canal bill was received in the county there was intense gratification, not to say excitement. In Elmira the satisfaction was unbounded. In the evening there was a celebration; not a formal, conventional affair, but an "old time jollification." ⁷

After the navigation company had willingly surrendered their rights, the canal commissioners caused the routes of the canal and feeder to be surveyed, and estimates of the cost to be made by Holmes Hutchinson, who began his work in June, 1829. Mr. Hutchinson’s estimate placed the aggregate cost of both canal and feeder, exclusive of damages, at $331,125.00, and this included an allowance of twelve per cent, two per cent more than the usual allowance.

In general, except in the valley of Catharine creek, the configuration of the ground and the character of the soil were considered favorable for the cost of construction of the canal and its feeder and also for their maintenance. The most expensive parts would be the dam at the head of the feeder, the deep excavation on its summit level and the large number of locks from the summit level of the canal to the head waters of Seneca lake. The deep excavation on the feeder extended about two miles, ranging from a cutting of ordinary depth to one of twenty feet. The character of the soil was ascertained by sinking shafts at the deepest point to within four or five feet of the required depth. This soil was coarse gravel, mixed with sand and loam. It was expected to find places where these materials would be cemented and hard to excavate. The line from the summit level to Seneca lake passed along the narrow valley of Catharine creek, a distance of about nine miles, with a descent of four hundred and forty-one feet. In this valley the surface of the ground was broken and uneven, and the creek, in several places, crossed the line, thus rendering it necessary to alter and straighten the course of that stream, and to protect the banks of the canal against the destructive effects of its floods. It was proposed to connect the canal with the inlet of the lake a few rods below the village of Havana.

This inlet intersected the lake near the east shore and its entrance was obstructed by a bar near its mouth, which presented the greatest obstacle to natural navigation. In order to obviate the enormous expense of excavating and maintaining a navigable channel through this bar, it was planned to cut a canal of nearly half a mile In length from a bend in the inlet to the lake near the west shore, where the entrance would be in deep water and less liable to obstructions by alluvial deposits. At Elmira the canal would begin at the river with deep excavation through a street, then rise eleven feet by a lock, thence for the remaining distance to the summit level the excavation would be easy. The engineer planned for locks to be constructed of wood, connected with a breast wall of masonry extending across the head of the lock. This wall would terminate the upper level, and be so united with the lock as to admit of any part of the wooden structure being repaired without disturbing the stone work or earth. To protect the timber from destructive contact with the earth, the embankment upon each side of the lock was to be so formed as not to allow the earth to come in contact with any part of the woodwork, but the water of the lower level would be permitted to flow around the outer sides of the lock.

The length of the proposed canal from Seneca lake to Elmira was nineteen miles, and the navigable feeder from the Chimney Narrows to the summit level, in the village of Horseheads, thirteen miles. Mr. Hutchinson also surveyed a line for continuing the canal from Havana to the village of Jefferson (Watkins), the distance being three miles, estimating the cost at $16,035.

In November, 1829 the commissioners advertised for proposals for contracts, and about six hundred propositions for various parts of the work were received. The lowest contained an offer to make the canal for $245,000 and the highest, for $433,000, while there were two propositions for constructing the whole work for about $300,000 each.

In February, 1830, the canal commissioners, who up to that time had not accepted or acted upon any of these propositions, were requested by the Assembly to report their proceedings in relation to the canal and also in regard to the revenues to be derived from it. The commissioners submitted the report of Mr. Hutchinson, together with the figures obtained from the bidders, but stated they were not prepared to give a satisfactory answer regarding the probable amount of revenue. However, from figures compiled in 1829 by the chairman of the Assembly committee on canals, the commissioners estimated the annual revenue at $22,000. In the report was also a statement that all the several kinds of work, for which estimates had been made, could probably be done for the prices affixed to them, but the commissioners were apprehensive lest the estimated allowance for contingencies might prove insufficient. They said that experience had shown that proposals and sureties for the performance of contracts afforded an uncertain test of the expense of a public work; that in most instances contracts made for prices below the value of work were abandoned; and that adequate prices were a far more satisfactory guarantee for the performance of the contracts than the obligations of third persons, who sign the bond without any expectation of ever performing its condition or paying its forfeiture.

The friends of the canal insisted that the canal commissioners’ estimate of tolls was too small because it was calculated upon too short a length of canal. They contended that the canal should be credited with the item of lime, which was omitted from the estimate used by the commissioners. They claimed duties upon 3,797 tons of salt, that quantity being the probable increase which the salt trade would receive from the construction of the canal. They also contended that not enough lumber had been allowed by the commissioners, insisting that very small quantities of this article would continue to pass down the Susquehanna river if the Chemung canal were made.

The strongest argument advanced by the canal advocates was, that the State stood pledged to perform the work upon certain conditions, and that these conditions had been met. Inasmuch as the proposals to construct the canal and feeder for $300,000 had been accompanied by good and sufficient security, to repeal the law, they contended, after the only condition upon which performance depended had been fulfilled, would be to violate the pledge of the State. The Legislature took this view of the matter, and after tabling a resolution to suspend all further proceedings and operations until otherwise ordered by the Legislature, it passed a concurrent resolution which ordered the canal commissioners to proceed with the work in pursuance of the act of April, 1829.

Early in the spring of 1830 the proposals received in 1829 were re-examined, and those most favorable to the State were selected, contracts being awarded for nearly every part of the work at prices which, in the aggregate, after adding engineering expenses and other necessary items, amounted to $290,263.

Nearly all of the contractors were men of experience and skill in constructing canals, and during the first season they succeeded in making satisfactory progress. A very considerable portion of the work, however, was done by sub-contractors and for prices which, in many instances, were too low. Several of these sub-contractors were men possessing neither character nor responsibility and in consequence many laborers left the canal unpaid. Farmers, mechanics and merchants were defrauded of their rightful dues, and a want of confidence prevailed. Therefore, the operations of the year 1831 were sensibly affected by these occurrences and in 1832 unfavorable weather and scarcity of laborers retarded the work.

However, navigation would have been opened in the fall of this year had not the locks, after being filled with water, proved defective. The locks were constructed of wood, supported on the sides with braces, with a stone wall of masonry at the head, and a dry wall on the sides, resting on the foundation timbers, and were of ten feet lift, and the defect consisted in their not being properly supported on the sides to resist the great pressure of water within the chamber of the lock when it was filled. Those locks on which the work was well executed were frequently filled with water without producing any material injury, while others, on which the work was badly executed, gave decisive evidence of being imperfect. An experiment was made upon one of the most defective, and it was ascertained that they could be made sufficiently strong by more securely bolting to the bottom sill the longitudinal sill, into which the short upright posts were framed; by additional braces, and by increasing the dry wall to the extent of about fifty cubic yards for each lock.

This plan for repairing the locks was adopted, and by a vigorous prosecution of the work during the following winter and spring, the entire line of the canal was ready for navigation in May, 1833, being completed at a cost of $314,395.51. As this sum exceeded the appropriation of the act authorizing construction, an additional sum of $16,000 was granted by the provisions of an act (chapter 164), passed in 1832.

When the canal was completed there was rejoicing among the inhabitants of Elmira, the event being the occasion of a celebration which, however, proved to be somewhat premature. "A boat-load of celebrants went up as far as Pine Valley, having added to their number others from Horseheads and on the way. The boat used was a scow owned by Frederick Granger, and its usual employment was in bringing down stone from the narrows up the river for building purposes. . . . The craft at the celebration was crowded and all had to stand up, but the enjoyment was great at the cost of a ‘shilling’ a head. A great many flags were flying; there were speeches and songs, and much genuine rejoicing." ⁸

The prism of the canal and feeder was forty-two feet wide at water-line, twenty-six feet wide at bottom, and had a four-foot depth of water. There were fifty-three locks, each ninety feet long between gates by fifteen feet wide, having a total lockage of five hundred and sixteen feet. This canal was said to be the cheapest of the State canals, costing but $8,504.96 per mile. The length of navigation, including two and one-half miles of pond in the Chemung river above the feeder dam, was thirty-nine miles.

The feeder, it will be remembered, was built from the Chimney Narrows (near Corning) to Horseheads, and was for the purpose of supplying the canal with water from the Chemung river. The wooden dam across the river at the head of the feeder was six hundred and forty-five feet long and seven and one-half feet high, having stone abutments. In 1831, before work on the dam was started, the serious difficulties in the navigation of the Susquehanna river, in consequence of the dams erected by the State of Pennsylvania, excited some solicitude in relation to the plan on which this dam should be constructed. The evident importance of this subject induced the principal engineer to make a personal examination of the dams across the Susquehanna river in Pennsylvania, and after a consultation with several experienced navigators, a scheme was devised for constructing a chute in the dam for the purpose of passing "arks and rafts." Plans were prepared for a chute forty-seven feet wide and one hundred and fifty-six feet long, with piers or wings extending up-stream [original text has "up-steam".] -- the one on the river side being ninety-five feet long, and the other two hundred and forty-five feet -- so as to secure a safe and convenient entrance. An apron was carried from the chute on an inclined plane for a considerable distance down-stream. In 1838, this chute was lengthened to about two hundred feet.

Originally the dam had been located farther down, near the lower end of a rapid, the plans calling for a structure five hundred feet long. Upon investigating the dams in Pennsylvania, it appeared that this location was liable to produce a condition which had been one of the chief sources of difficulty in that state, for it was feared that the end of the chute would be so near deep water as to create a swell which would break the arks and rafts in passing. In order to avoid this objection it was decided to locate the dam farther up the rapid. This alteration lessened the original height of the dam, but increased its capacity to discharge the floods by giving to it an additional length of one hundred and forty-five feet.

The opening of navigation did not occur in May, 1833, as expected, but, owing to a flood which wrought much damage, was delayed several months. The Chemung River rose to a height of more than ten feet over the dam; the waters broke around the dam and effected a large breach in the south embankment; the water undermined and threw down the lower half of the south abutment, and ran over the stone work at the head of the guard-lock. Plunging down the feeder for about five miles, it made a breach in the embankment one hundred feet long and four feet below the bottom of the prism, and, continuing on its work of destruction, it caused a deep and extensive break in the high embankment at the head of the three locks at Horseheads. During this flood the Chemung dam settled for several feet at the lowest point. On the main canal the aprons at the heads of the locks, in most cases, were undermined and embankments were washed away. When the waters had partially subsided, some persons engaged in navigating the river wantonly injured the head of the chute at the feeder dam. Although complaints were entered before the proper authority and warrants procured for the arrest of the offenders, when the case was presented before the grand jury of Steuben county, the crime was allowed to go unpunished.

By the most vigorous exertions all the injuries to the canal and feeder were repaired and navigation was opened in October of 1833. As a result of the flood numerous claims for damages were presented, amounting to about $60,000. Under an act (chapter 178, Laws of 1835) the damages awarded to these claimants were paid out of the general fund.

In 1838, the Assembly received petitions from inhabitants of Steuben county, praying that the Chemung canal feeder be extended to a point at or near the junction of the Cohocton and Tioga rivers, or that a company be chartered for that purpose. The petitioners stated that the canal and feeder did not answer the expectations of the people engaged in doing business upon them, as there was not always a sufficient depth of water to navigate with full loads, this insufficiency being due, they alleged, to an improper termination of the feeder and a wrong location of the dam. They were of the opinion that the extension of the feeder to the point named in the petition, which was about three miles higher up the river, would be more beneficial to the country, and that a full supply of water could be obtained for navigation -- an opinion which was manifestly absurd. The wishes of the petitioners, however, were not granted.

At the next session several petitions both for and against this extension and also for improving the chute at the feeder dam were presented to the Legislature. At that time large quantities of lumber were being annually manufactured above the dam and were sent down the river in "arks or rafts" which had to pass through the chute. Owing to the abruptness of the decent, and the large volume of water passing through this narrow channel during the spring freshets, when much of this rafting trade was carried on, considerable property was injured, lost or destroyed each year. Consequently the dam and chute were the cause of great complaint to all engaged in the lumbering business, and these complaints were duly set forth in the petitions presented to the Legislature during these years. The prevailing opinion seemed be in favor of lengthening the chute, as it was claimed that at a dam at Towanada, on the Susquehanna river, which was fourteen and a half feet high, there was a chute over one thousand feet long, which afforded a perfectly safe and convenient mode of descent.

The names of many highly respectable citizens, who had resided in that locality for a long time, were attached to the petitions asking an extension of the canal, one having been signed by twenty-two supervisors of Steuben county. However, it appeared from evidence before the Assembly committee on canals that some of these supervisors and other petitioners were large owners of real estate near the termination of the proposed extension. That the opinions of these men were biased may be concluded from the fact that later some of the supervisors and many others of the original petitioners for the removal of the dam and the extension of the feeder, had changed their views as to the propriety of the work, and their names were afterward affixed to remonstrances against it, while others acknowledged their error and advocated the improvement of the chute, which they now believed was all that was necessary to perfect the navigation.

Among the remonstrances was one which carried great weight, as it came from the company which was operating a railroad that formed a connecting link between the State canals and the coal fields of Pennsylvania. This was the Tioga Coal, Iron, Mining and Manufacturing Company, a body incorporated by an act of April 9, 1828, and authorized by an amended act of March 26, 1833, to construct a railroad from Corning, situated at the head of navigation on the Chemung canal feeder, to the State line of Pennsylvania, where it connected with the Tioga Navigation Company’s railroad, which extended to the coal mines at Blossburg, Pennsylvania, about forty miles from Corning. In their remonstrance they say: --

"They believe no public benefit will be realized from such extension, but on the contrary that it would be a public detriment, at least to the extent of the money expended in constructing said canal or feeder.

"That they have, in pursuance of an act of Legislature, expended a large sum of money in the construction of this rail-road, from the termination of a rail-road from the coal mines at Blossburg, in Pennsylvania, to the pool of the Chemung canal dam; and have also made a large expenditure in the purchase of lands for a depot, and in the construction of a basin, &c., for the transhipment of coal and other commodities from the rail-road to canal boats, at the termination of their rail-road on the south side of the pool of said canal dam, and at the head of navigation. That by the removal of the present dam, and the extension referred to above, the said company will be left with the termination of their rail-road, fixtures, &c., &c., on the opposite side of the river from the canal, and will be deprived of the navigable waters, which they have, in good faith, purchased and paid for.

" . . . in their opinion, it is a measure calculated only to promote the speculative designs of a few individuals at the expense of others who are engaged in the construction of public improvements for the public good as well as their own; . . . that the extension asked for would cost at least one hundred thousand dollars, which sum expended in the construction of stone locks, (which will soon be required to render the present canal navigable,) would much better subserve the public interest than to extend the said canal." ⁹

The canal committee reported against the removal of the State dam and the extension of the canal feeder, and in favor of improving or reconstructing the chute in the dam, and this work was authorized by a bill which was introduced and which afterward became chapter 236, Laws of 1839.

This work was rendered imperative for the safe passage of rafts. The water had worn away the bed of the stream below the chute for a distance of one hundred and twenty feet and to a depth of from twelve to twenty feet. The rapid current in the chute and the deep water below caused one part of the ark or raft to be in swift and the other part in deep and comparatively still water, occasioning the fore part of the float to go deeply into the water, thus suddenly checking its progress, and either breaking or throwing it out of the channel. The old chute was forty-seven feet wide, with a timber floor commencing about eighty feet above the dam, and extending down the stream one hundred and eighty feet, the floor being on an irregular inclination and having a descent of four feet in one hundred and thirty feet of its length.

During 1839, according to the provisions of the law, the chute was extended, the plan being somewhat changed and improved. The new length was four hundred and fifty feet, the width forty-six feet, and the timber floor was one foot in depth and extended the whole length on a regular inclination of one foot in each one hundred feet of length.

The following year the commissioners reported that, from the lateness of the season and an early rise of the river, the lower end of the work done in 1839 had not been sufficiently secured against injury by floods; and that it was found that the heavy volume of water descending the chute had excavated a deep pool at the foot of the plane, and had raised a heavy bar of gravel and stone immediately below and in front of it, with the consequence that rafts descending this plane with great velocity, and suddenly plunging into deep water that had comparatively little motion, were so crushed and shattered that the value of the fragments was not equal to the expense of collecting them.

The loss to those engaged in the lumber and timber business on the rivers above the dam was serious, and this disaster clearly demonstrated that this great industry of a widely extended section of country would be utterly ruined, unless a remedy could be applied. An attempt was made to remove this difficulty and danger by adding a horizontal section to the lower end of the chute, and by protecting the channel below from being again washed out, by placing heavy brush timbers on the bottom, with their butts securely fastened to the lower timbers of the chute. The bed of the river at this place consisted of small stones and loose gravel and had made the construction and maintenance of the dam and its appurtenances exceedingly difficult and expensive. There was much reason to fear that, should this improvement to the chute be insufficient, it would not be practicable to sustain navigation on the Chemung canal and at the same time to protect the timber and lumber trade of the upper branches of the river without resorting to some plan radically different from that on which the work was originally constructed.

At this time the State of Pennsylvania was engaged in constructing what was called the North Branch division of the Pennsylvania canal. After a large portion of it was finished, the part remaining to be built being near the line between the States of New York and Pennsylvania, the authorities of Pennsylvania, being desirous that the North Branch canal should be connected with the canal system of this State, took the initiative in bringing about concerted action on the part of both States. It was the consensus of opinion among those interested, that the connection would be highly beneficial to both States, by securing to each a valuable interchange of commerce, especially in the staple articles of coal, plaster and salt.

Accordingly a committee was appointed by the Pennsylvania Senate to consult with the authorities of New York State for the purpose of ascertaining their opinion relative to the connection between the North Branch route and the Chemung or Chenango canals, or both. The committee arrived in Albany in April, 1839, and immediately informed Governor Seward of the object of their visit. The Governor, in turn, notified the Legislature, which appointed a joint committee to confer with the Pennsylvanians upon the subject. The result of the conference was the enactment of a law (chapter 306) by the New York Legislature, which states that "the canal commissioners shall cause a route for the continuation of the Chemung canal to be surveyed, from its present termination near Elmira, in the county of Chemung, . . . to the State line near Tioga point, at the termination of the North Branch canal of Pennsylvania, and cause an estimate of the cost of said continuation to be made, and report to the next legislature of this state at the opening of its session."

This action, to a certain extent, accorded with the desires of residents of Chemung county, who had, during the session, presented a large number of petitions in advocacy of extending the canal to connect with the North Branch line.

The report was submitted by the canal commissioners to the Legislature in 1840. Joseph D. Allen had been appointed to survey two routes, one on the north, and one on the south side of the Chemung river. It appeared from the engineer’s report that the route on the north side of the river, from the termination of the canal to the State line, was between seventeen and eighteen miles long, and had seventy-five feet of lockage, while along the southern route the distance was between twelve and thirteen miles, and the lockage forty-one feet. The estimated cost of construction on the north side, with composite locks, was $391,056.67, and on the south side, with the same plan of locks, $271,648.36. This made a difference in length of about five miles, and a difference in cost of $119,408.31 [original text has $19,408.31 - the estimates given above for the north and south sides, respectively, are consistent with those given in chapter XXI] in favor of the south line.

While the sentiment in the Legislature was favorable to the new project, yet it seemed to be questionable whether any new work of this kind should be commenced at that time, owing to the deranged condition of the monetary affairs of the country and the difficulty attending the raising of moneys. Therefore, the project was allowed to remain in abeyance until 1846, when the question was revived, and finally resulted in private enterprise (The Junction Canal Company) taking up the work.

In 1854 the Legislature by act (chapter 227) authorized the connection of the Junction canal and the Chemung canal, which established a through water communication from the canal system of New York State to Chesapeake Bay. As a more complete description of this survey of 1839 and of the subsequent building of this connecting canal is given elsewhere in this volume -- in the history of the Junction canal -- it is not necessary to dwell upon the subject at this time.

For some time prior to 1840 the locks on the canal, which originally were cheaply and imperfectly constructed, were known to be in a dilapidated state. On September 18, 1839, the canal commissioners had passed a resolution requesting Joseph D. Allen to examine into the condition of the structures. He reported to the Legislature on February 15, 1840, that the condition of the locks was such that all efforts to sustain them by additional repairs would be poor economy. The strength of the wood was constantly diminishing, while the difficulties attending their maintenance were constantly increasing. While he thought that many of them might possibly be maintained by repairs for two or three years, still it was a menace to navigation to place reliance upon any such hazard. He also reported that the guard-lock at the head of the feeder must, of necessity, be rebuilt without delay.

On March 14, 1840, the citizens of Elmira held a meeting to discuss matters relative to the condition of the locks and the necessity for their speedy reconstruction in order to preserve navigation in the canal. A report of the proceedings of this meeting, forwarded to the Legislature, showed that there was danger that some of the locks would fail during the season of 1840. Careful examinations had been made since the breaking up of winter, and the locks were found to be in a much worse condition than was supposed at the time of Mr. Allen’s examination. Unless provisions were made for the immediate commencement and the diligent prosecution of the work of rebuilding these locks, it was feared that navigation would have to be suspended altogether, and thus destroy a new and valuable branch of trade, the importance of which was only beginning to receive general recognition. This subject was of vital interest not only to the inhabitants of Chemung county, but also to a large portion of the people of western New York, because of the fact that the canal was looked to as the only avenue through which they could expect to reach the inexhaustible mines of bituminous coal in the interior of Pennsylvania.

The Legislature of 1840, realizing the necessity of lock improvement, enacted a law (chapter 176), which authorized the canal commissioners to rebuild the locks on the canal and feeder, but leaving to their discretion the plan for rebuilding them. This act appropriated $100,000 for the project.

In July the canal commissioners, after inspecting the canal, held a meeting in the village of Jefferson, situated at the head of Seneca lake, for the purpose of deciding upon a plan for constructing the locks. At this meeting the engineer, who had been directed to take charge of this work, presented his report, accompanied by four different plans, with detailed estimates of the cost of the work on each plan. The first was for composite locks (wood and stone) of the same size as the old ones, ninety by fifteen feet, estimated to cost $7,263 per lock. The second plan proposed wooden locks of the same dimensions, to be constructed of squared timber in the form of cribwork, the estimated cost being $4,390 for each lock. The third plan was for composite locks with chambers one hundred and ten by eighteen feet, corresponding in size with those then in progress on the Erie canal enlargement. The cost of a lock of this description was estimated at $11,536.48. The fourth was for timber locks of the same size, estimated to cost, for each lock, $5,803.78.

The least expensive plan, that of timber locks of the smaller size, was adopted. In September, 1840, the work was put under contract, and all locks, in their new condition, were brought into use in the spring of 1843, the Legislature in 1841 having passed an act (chapter 219) providing an appropriation of $200,000, as the amount appropriated in 1840 was inadequate.

In building the Chemung canal, a portion of the Seneca lake inlet (Catharine creek), extending from lock No. 1, at Havana, down the stream about three miles, was relied on for navigation. But the formation of bars in that part of the inlet had become so extensive as to impede navigation. A dredging machine was kept in operation, but with little effect, as new bars formed in other places, or the cuts in the old ones filled in as fast as they could be excavated. These difficulties constantly increased and became so formidable that navigation was suspended for nearly half the season of 1840. This showed the necessity of constructing a new channel, independent of the inlet, from Havana to the lake. The trouble caused a petition to be presented to the Legislature of 1841, requesting a new line to be built. In response the Legislature included in the act appropriating an additional sum for completing the locks, a provision authorizing the canal commissioners "to construct a canal of the dimensions of the Chemung canal, upon such route as they may upon examination designate, from or near its junction with the said inlet to the navigable waters" of Seneca lake, and giving the officials power to borrow such money as should be needed for the improvement.

Two lines were surveyed by Joseph D. Allen, both independent of the inlet. Each route commenced at the Havana lock and terminated at the channel originally cut between the creek and the lake, one being called the east line and the other the west line. The former pursued a nearly direct course from the point of commencement down through the central part of the marsh to the entrance of this cut of half a mile, which had previously been made from the inlet to the lake; while the latter pursued a more westerly direction, following near the base of a high hill on the west border of the marsh, until it reached the entrance of this original cut. Thence, both lines followed the route of the canal to its junction with the lake. The distance from the Havana lock to the lake, by the east line was 2.64 miles, and by the west line 2.93 miles. Estimates were made for two different dimensions of canal, one to correspond with the size of the Chemung canal as it then existed, forty-two feet wide at water-line, twenty-six feet wide at bottom, with four feet depth of water, and the other the same size as that of the enlarged Erie canal, seventy feet wide at water-line, fifty-two and a half feet wide at bottom, with seven feet depth of water. The estimates were: east line, 2.64 miles, original size, $52,643.10, enlarged size, $76,815.23; west line, 2.93 miles, original size, $27,718.20, enlarged size, $69,865.79.

After the completion of the surveys the canal commissioners examined the ground and the engineer presented another plan which proposed an independent line to extend from lock No. 1 northerly for about a mile and a quarter, and then again enter the inlet below the point of difficulty. This plan was preferred to either of the others and was the one adopted. The work was completed and the new route used for the first time in 1842. This extension made it necessary to pass Fall brook under the canal.

In 1842 an act (chapter 114) known as the "Stop law," put an end to works of improvement on this canal, in common with all the canals of the State. This act prohibited all work other than that which was essential to retain the canal in a navigable state. This condition prevailed until, by the provisions of the Constitution of 1846, a tax for canal purposes became effective.

The business transacted on the waterway in 1844 showed a gratifying increase over previous years, making it evident that the work of lock rebuilding had been well advised. All the locks were rebuilt except the one which connected the canal with the Chemung river at Elmira, which for some unknown reason, had not been put under contract with the others. The structure had not been used for several years, being in such a dangerous condition that it had become necessary, for the safety of navigation, to put in a bank of earth at the head of the lock. In addition, the foundation of the lock had been placed so high that boats could not pass it during low water in the river.

In 1845 some of the inhabitants in that vicinity sent a petition to the Legislature expressing a desire that the lock should be rebuilt. In the following year, by an act (chapter 325), the Legislature authorized the canal commissioners to reconstruct the lock at an expense not to exceed $5,000. In rebuilding the structure the bottom of the new lock was sunk two feet below that of the old one. It was completed for navigation in 1847.

It will be remembered that in 1841 an attempt was made to overcome the difficulties of navigation between Havana and the Seneca lake by constructing an independent canal for some distance and then by utilizing for the remainder of the route, the inlet which had been a part of the canal since its origin. Notwithstanding this work, traffic was interrupted each year and large sums were expended in an effort to maintain navigation upon this level. The Legislature of 1848 afforded relief by passing an act (chapter 218), which authorized the canal commissioners to construct the "Chemung canal from its intersection with Catharine creek, by an independent channel northerly to the Seneca lake, west of the mouth of said creek; such intersection with the lake shall be through the navigable straight cut already constructed by the state, unless in the judgment of said commissioners, the interests of the state will be best promoted by connecting it with the lake at a point nearer the mouth of said creek." The commissioners were also authorized by the act "to change the course of Watkins creek to the lake, so as to protect the canal from injury by said creek." Under the provisions of the law, the necessary surveys for the new route, were made, the line was located and contracts were let. This work was completed in 1849, making the Chemung canal an artificial waterway throughout its length. By this improvement the maintenance of a very difficult and expensive section of canal was avoided, and for the first time in many years loaded boats passed without detention from lock No. 1 at Havana to the lake during the entire season.

In 1850 another improvement was made by constructing a towing-path from the head of Chimney Narrows to Corning, a distance of nearly one mile. Since the construction of the canal, tolls had been charged from that village on all property shipped to and from that point, but the State had never furnished conveniences for towing farther than the head of the Narrows. It had always been necessary to push boats by hand against the current up to the village. When high water prevailed the boatmen suffered vexatious delays in trying to ascend, while at these times boats were brought down-stream at great risk, for in extreme floods many of the craft had gone over the feeder dam. This work had been urgently solicited for some time and subsequently proved to be a great convenience.

In 1850 the locks on the Chemung canal, rebuilt of wood in 1841-43, were in a much decayed and unsafe condition, and the canal commissioners recommended that most of them should be rebuilt, advising an improved form of composite lock. According to the officials, the locks as rebuilt had been constructed upon a plan which was defective in not properly securing the sides of the chambers so as to withstand the pressure of the earth and the action of frost, many of them, the first season of their use, having required extensive repairs. It was often with difficulty that boats could pass through some of the locks, because the chambers had become so contracted by the pressure of earth on the sides. To remedy this difficulty it was necessary to remove the embankment from the back of the timber work, and by filling locks with water, to force back the sides of the chambers to their original positions. With some of the locks this process had to be repeated each year, and for purposes of economy, it was customary at some of the more troublesome not to replace the embankment but to leave the excavation open on the sides.

In 1853 the attention of the Legislature was called to the rapid increase of business upon the canal. At this time a large additional trade was anticipated upon the completion of the Junction canal, the Williamsport and Elmira railroad to Elmira, the Corning and Olean, and the Allegany Valley railroads to Corning, which would bring the Chemung canal into connection with the rich coal fields and extensive lumber districts of Pennsylvania. The presence of this connecting canal and of these railroads, either terminating at Corning and Elmira, or passing through towns bordering on the canal, where already there were large quantities of freight for transportation, indicated plainly that this canal was to become one of the most important feeders of the Erie canal. The value of exports by canal from Corning during 1853, not including those from Elmira, was estimated at over $16,000,000, while in lumber alone upwards of 87,000,000 feet were shipped from Corning.

To protect slack-water navigation in Corning, immediately below the tow-path bridge, two thousand feet of docking were constructed in 1853, at an expense of $9,000, and in 1854, an addition of one thousand feet was built, costing $6,000. This improvement afforded great facility to boats in receiving and discharging their cargoes at a point where it was much needed.

Not until 1856 was any legislative action taken in regard to rebuilding the locks. To meet emergencies the structures were repaired as well as possible from year to year. The Assembly of 1856 requested the State Engineer, Silas Seymour, to communicate to the House such facts as he possessed relative to the policy of reconstructing the locks and as to the manner of such reconstruction and the size of locks. In his reply, Mr. Seymour referred to the dilapidated condition of the structures, and from his personal knowledge of the canal and its general condition, he judged that the locks should be rebuilt. "As a measure of commercial policy," he said, "the State ought to make the locks on this canal conform in size to those of the Cayuga and Seneca canal (110 feet by 18 feet) . . . as early as the state of the finances will permit, and that all permanent repairs and re-construction of locks ought to conform to this object." The Assembly committee on canals claimed that the rapidly growing business of the Chemung canal showed the policy of enlarging the Cayuga and Seneca canal, through which the Chemung communicated with the Erie, to have been wise, but it was manifest that its benefits would, in a great measure, be lost to the State unless the locks on the Chemung were made of corresponding size, so as to pass the boats employed on the Erie canal to the Chemung river. The business done on the canal was deemed more than sufficient to warrant the adoption of the enlarged lock policy, and as it would become a necessity when the great coal fields of Pennsylvania should be made a tributary to our commerce, which was then on the eve of accomplishment, a bill identical in its provisions with the act passed in 1847 for the enlargement of locks on the Cayuga and Seneca route, was introduced in the legislature of 1856 but failed to pass. This bill provided for locks the size of those on the enlarged Erie. The opponents of the bill argued that the locks could discharge two or three times as much tonnage as ever passed over the canal in any one year and that until the canal could be worked to its fullest capacity there would be no increase of revenues to the State consequent upon the enlargement of locks. They also claimed that the supply of water was entirely inadequate even for the locks as they then existed and that the need of the canal was not enlarged locks but increased water-supply. In fact, they characterized the expenditure of this large sum of money as a positive injury to the State, contending that the Chemung railroad, located along the line of the canal, provided that section of the State with ample means to transport its products to market. The defeat of the bill was to keen disappointment to those most interested, who for four years had been petitioning the Legislature for enlarged locks.

While awaiting the action of the Legislature relative to authorizing enlarged locks, the work of rebuilding had been delayed as long as the safety of navigation would justify. In the winter of 1856-57 the canal commissioners began to reconstruct the locks, adopting a plan of composite lock of the same size as the old structures. Two locks were rebuilt during this first winter at a combined cost of $31,334.34. This sum indicated that the total cost of reconstruction would be so large that the commissioners returned to the plan of wooden locks and in the succeeding years continued the work of rebuilding.

The sides of the chambers in the new locks were so reinforced by piles and bracing as to be secured in their places in a permanent manner. The chief defect of the former locks had been the springing in of the sides to such an extent as to require the faces of some to be hewed off six inches, or about half of the original thickness of the timber, so as to give the necessary width for the passage of boats.

Contracts for three locks were let in 1857, for six in 1858, and for seven in 1859; these seven were built at an average cost of $9,420. This work was continued till 1867 when all of the locks had been rebuilt, either in whole or in part. Although the agitation for enlarged locks continued for several years, this object was never accomplished, but they were all rebuilt of the original size of ninety by fifteen feet.

The water-supply of the canal at this time was such as to substantiate the claim of the opponents of enlarged locks and was a source of much vexation. During a season of low water, navigation was seriously impeded by the want of a supply to keep up the levels. At one period for several weeks all the water that could be saved from the Chemung river was not sufficient. This diversion of water from the river caused the authorities of Pennsylvania to make a protest. So serious was the difficulty that some attempt to obtain an adequate supply had to be made. An examination of Mud and Little lakes, located in Schuyler county, with a view to converting them into reservoirs, was made in 1856 and it was believed that these bodies of water, in addition to the natural supply of the Chemung river, would afford all the water necessary, even with enlarged locks and would enable a large quantity to be passed to the Junction canal. The engineer who had made the survey reported favorably, estimating the capacity of the proposed reservoirs at 313,196,400 cubic feet, which was equal to 23,199 lockages with locks of the size of those in use on the Chemung canal, or an average of one hundred and ten a day for two hundred and ten days of navigation. The cost, exclusive of land and other damages, he placed at $37,500. These lakes, however, were never brought into use as reservoirs.

On June 17, 1857, the main canal was seriously damaged by a flood caused by the breaking away of several dams on Catharine creek during a severe freshet. Altogether there were 4,573 feet of tow-path carried away at different points and while repairs were in progress another freshet occurred on the thirtieth of the same month, which destroyed all the work of repair done to that time. Navigation was suspended for thirty days in consequence of these freshets. In November there was still another flood which entailed an expenditure of about $50,000 for repairs.

In this year there was a further consideration of lock enlargement, and another bill was presented in the Legislature, but it met the same fate as the one of the previous year. In 1858 the legislature was again pressed for action, and the Senate instructed the State Engineer to furnish the approximate cost of such work and his opinion relative to the measure. Mr. Richmond, the State Engineer, estimated the cost of each enlarged composite lock, including the expense of pit, embankment, etc., at $19,000, or for the whole number on the entire route at $1,026,000, and he stated that the most economical plan of maintaining navigation did not require the construction of entire new locks but the renewal of such parts as would put the whole in such a condition that they might be successfully used for ten or twelve years, or until such test of the increase of business, or such other developments should have been made, as would render it practicable to more correctly determine the proper time for enlarging the locks. The Legislature, by an act (chapter 211), provided that whenever, after the completion of the enlargement of the Erie canal, it became necessary to rebuild any locks on the Chemung, then, if the canal board so decided, the locks should be of the composite type and enlarged to the size of those on the Erie.

In 1858 the Chemung canal was connected, by the completion of the Junction canal, with the entire system of canals in Pennsylvania, thus enabling the people to reach by canal the vast deposits of both anthracite and bituminous coal in that state.

The locks on the Junction and North Branch canals, although not as large as the Erie enlarged locks, were larger than those on the Chemung. This was advanced as a cogent reason for enlarging the Chemung locks. But as the act of 1858 forbade the enlargement of the locks of the canal until the Erie canal in its enlarged size was completed, the canal commissioners continued making repairs and reconstructing locks of the original size. In 1861 contracts for rebuilding ten wooden locks were let.

In this year the customary damages by flood were prevalent. On October 20 the water in the Chemung river at Corning rose to a height of about fourteen feet above ordinary low water, filling the canal with gravel at the foot of the guard-lock for a distance of about five hundred feet, and at a point about two miles below, causing a breach in the bank, nearly eight hundred feet of tow-path going out to a depth of about ten feet below canal bottom. Several smaller breaks occurred simultaneously on other portions of the feeder. In September also the river had been at flood height with the result that great damage had been done both to the works of the State and to lumber and coal yards of individual companies at Corning. This trouble made people solicitous for some remedial action by the State and a petition in 1863 was sent to the Legislature which, by act (chapter 165), appropriated $20,000 for the construction of a channel, or slip and basin, connecting with the feeder, together with such docking, etc., as would be necessary to facilitate the trans-shipments of coal, lumber and other freight without subjecting the shippers to great risks and damage from the freshets. The work, consisting of the raising of the banks and the cutting of a channel at an elbow of the river, was subsequently performed and was thoroughly appreciated by the people of that section.

In 1863, owing to a resolution of the canal board in the previous year, increasing the draught of boats from three and a half to four feet, the banks had to be raised to maintain the depth required to properly float boats drawing the increased amount of water. There was no difficulty in retaining the requisite depth, except upon the lake level, and here the greatest obstruction was the miter-sill of lock No. 1. The work of enlargement on the Cayuga and Seneca canal had so increased the channel of Seneca river as to permit a greater flow of water from the lake and a consequent reduction of its surface, so that there was scarcely four feet of water upon the miter-sill during a dry season. So troublesome did this become in 1866 that the lock was reconstructed, and the cause of complaint removed for a time, but low water in the lake continued to be a hindrance to navigation, so that in 1869 an appropriation of $15,000 was made for dredging the lake level to obtain a uniform depth of six feet There was delay in getting this improvement under way, and it was not till 1871 that the work proceeded under contract.

In 1863 the continued increase of business upon the waterway called for immediate attention from the Legislature to provide the needed lock improvement. The canal commissioners, in their annual report for this year, said: "The steady increase in the anthracite coal trade from the North Branch and Pennsylvania canals, and which mostly seeks a market through this canal, and the equally rapid increase in the bituminous coal business passing through the feeder and lower portion of this canal, are now shared with the Chemung railroad, whereas if large boats could pass to Elmira and Corning, the whole of this important and growing trade could be made to contribute to the revenues of the Chemung canal. The enlargement of the Chemung canal and feeder would no doubt be followed by a corresponding improvement in the North Branch and Pennsylvania canals, thus securing for all time an immense traffic through this line, and contributing largely to the business of many of the other canals of this State. If this work can not be undertaken immediately, it is certain that one or more new lines of railroad must and will be constructed to accommodate this important trade." ¹⁰

The Legislature of 1864 received petitions praying for lock enlargement, and passed an act (chapter 232) directing the canal commissioners, "When it shall become necessary to rebuild from the foundation any of the locks on the Chemung canal and feeder, . . . to construct and build such locks of timber, and of the same dimensions as the enlarged locks on the Erie canal." Chapter 211 of the laws of 1858 had given the canal commissioners authority to construct locks of the enlarged size, if they so decided, after completing the enlargement of the Erie. That they never so decided is very evident. Moreover, nothing was ever done under the law of 1864. The work of reconstruction, along the old lines, was nearly completed when the law was passed. This was continued till 1867, when all of the locks had been repaired or rebuilt, and were in a condition to endure until the foreshadowing of the coming abandonment made it evident that expenditures for lock enlargement were inexpedient.

Increased business in the transportation of coal showed the need of improving the Watkins harbor at the head of Seneca lake, so as to give protection for the making up of tows for passage down the lake to the head of the Cayuga and Seneca canal at Geneva. Plans and estimates for this improvement were approved by the canal commissioners and the assistance of the Legislature of 1866 was importuned, but without avail. In 1867 the sinking of several boats, with the loss of their cargoes, during a storm that raged on the eighth of May, brought clearly to public attention the imperative need of better protection to the shipping at Watkins. The Legislature of 1868 came to the relief and passed an act (chapter 715) appropriating $30,000 for a new pier. The small size of the Chemung canal and its dilapidated condition led to its gradual abandonment as a carrier of the extensive coal trade. Watkins thus became the harbor for trans-shipment to boats from the railroad, which had largely superseded the canals in bringing coal from the mines. The larger size of boats could reach Watkins through the enlarged Cayuga and Seneca canal. The coal shipped from this port contributed materially to increase the tonnage of the enlarged canals, a profitable market being found in Canada through the Oswego canal, and in the West through the Erie.

It was becoming very evident that the canal was not able to compete with the Fall Brook railway, which ran nearly parallel with the canal and extended to the Pennsylvania coal fields.

In 1870 another effort was made toward securing the enlargement of the waterway, but without success. This was made on the ground that the demands of the coal traffic alone necessitated the improvement.

In 1871 steps were taken to abandon a portion of the Chemung canal. This action, however, was due to local conditions, and not to the general decline in business on the several lateral canals of the State, which led to their abandonment a few years later. In that year several bridges at certain streets in Elmira needed rebuilding. It was suggested that, as there was no further use for the canal at the points where the bridges were located, the business formerly done there having gone to a new point, it would be better to abandon and fill that portion of the canal rather than to continue the cost of building and maintaining so many bridges. A law (chapter 785) was enacted in 1872 as a result of this suggestion, authorizing the City of Elmira to use as a public street that part of the canal lying between its junction with the Junction canal and the southern terminus of the Chemung, a distance of about one mile.

For the next few years only such repairs were made as were necessary to maintain navigation. The railroads had gradually absorbed most of the transportation of this section. The Legislatures of many years had failed to put the canal in a condition to compete for this traffic, appropriating year by year only enough to keep the canal open for navigation. There was also a growing sentiment throughout the state that some of the lateral canals had outlived their usefulness. The conditions on the Chemung canal were becoming such that, without a large amount of money expended on structures, there would be no assurance of its being passable or safe for any length of time. The chief remaining source of support to the canal was threatened by the completion of the Corning and Geneva railroad, and with very uncertain prospects for the future, the waterway was regarded by one of the canal commissioners as being one of the "unfortunate ‘limbs of the commercial tree,’ which it would be well for the legislative ‘axeman’ to lop off."

In 1877 the canal, by a resolution of the canal board on January 3, became a portion of the western division, after having been embraced in the middle division since its origin.

By the Constitution adopted in 1846 this canal was to remain forever in the hands of the State, but an amendment in 1874 removed this restriction. For the purpose of determining what should be the policy of the State in regard to certain of the lateral canals, the Legislature of 1876, by act (chapter 382), appointed commissioners to make an investigation of these canals and to recommend what disposition should be made of them.

The commissioners reported in regard to the Chemung canal that the structures were in a bad condition and would require large expenditures to put them in a safe and useful state, but that the banks were in fair shape; that two miles of the route at the Elmira end had already been abandoned, the canal at that time terminating in an open field, and not being used south of the summit level. In relation to the financial side they reported that the tolls collected in 1876 were $2,104.84; the amount of tolls contributed to the Erie, $907.92; the sum expended for maintenance, $9,794.71, and that at least an equal amount would be needed for such purpose for another year. As the carrying of coal had been almost entirely diverted by the railroads and as the only remaining business, the transportation of lumber, would soon cease, the commissioners recommended that the canal be opened for a part of the season of 1877, to allow lumber on hand to be shipped, and that then the canal be abandoned.

The Legislature of 1877 carried out this recommendation by enacting a law (chapter 404) which provided for the abandonment of the canal, but not until the end of navigation in 1878. Accordingly the canal remained open during the seasons of 1877 and 1878, but did very little business. The act of 1877 also provided for the disposition and sale of the canal and the lands, water-rights and other property connected with the system, declaring that when the canal should cease to be used for navigation, the water-power rights and privileges on the Chemung river, so far as they were taken and appropriated for the purposes of the canals, should revert to the person or persons from whom they were taken or to their successors in interest.

In 1881 all the material in locks, bridges and aqueducts was sold, about $2,200 being realized from the sale, and the remaining portions of banks and prism, under the provisions of acts, chapter 404, Laws of 1877, and chapter 344, Laws of 1878, were to be sold to adjacent owners or to parties desiring them for railroad or canal purposes.

An act (chapter 379), passed by the Legislature of 1880, gave the Board of Trustees of the village of Horseheads full and absolute control of a portion of the canal and feeder situated in that village, and an act (chapter 482, Laws of 1881) provided for the conveyance of the property, such as had not yet been sold, to "the person or persons owning the lands adjoining to the center of the prism of said canal," if the owners would file a declaration with the Superintendent of Public Works, "releasing and discharging the state from all obligation to maintain the bridges and other structures connected with such portions of said canal and feeder, and from all liability for damages arising from the abandonment thereof." Under the acts of 1877 and 1878, previously referred to, a portion of the canal extending from Elmira to the intersection of the Utica, Ithaca and Elmira railroad at Horseheads, was sold to the Canal Railroad Company of Elmira, and by an act (chapter 171, Laws of 1878) a section of the line lying south of the junction of the canal with the Junction canal, was transferred to the City of Elmira for street purposes.

All previous acts, wherein their provisions applied and related to the abandonment of the Seneca lake level extending to Montour Falls (Havana), a distance of about three miles, was repealed in 1887 by an act (chapter 169). It was claimed by men representing business interests that the maintenance of this level as an outlet to the lake was of vital importance to the commercial interests of Montour Falls and an application was made by responsible parties for its purchase. In the following year, 1888, the Legislature enacted a law (chapter 416) which appropriated $20,000 for the construction of a new basin at Montour Falls and for reopening this portion of the old Chemung canal for the convenience of the business people of that place, thus affording a waterway accessible to the Erie canal through Seneca lake and the Cayuga and Seneca canal. This work was accomplished and the waterway was again opened for navigation. Catharine creek had broken into the old channel near the head of this level and had nearly filled the prism with a large deposit of earth. In repairing this breach, it was deemed expedient to guard against its recurrence by excavating a new channel for the creek, thus eliminating the bend which approached the canal. This level did not remain in use for many years, for the creek again broke into the canal at a point about midway between Montour Falls and the lake and so filled the channel with bars as to render it unnavigable. This portion of the canal is still nominally open, but in fact has not been used for several years.

That the Chemung canal was a potent factor in developing the section through which it extended cannot be doubted. That it prepared the way for the later railroads and for the rich rewards of traffic which they have received is equally true. That it might have had a longer useful existence, even, perhaps, to the present time, if it had been properly cared for, is an open question, but there is significance in the fact that, in the revival of water-ways (but of a much larger size than of old) which seems to be sweeping over the whole world, this route is being considered as one of the avenues for connecting the new canals of our State with the rich coal fields of Pennsylvania.

1. Watson’s History . . . of the Western Canals, p. 35.

2. In 1826 Chemung County was formed from a part of Tioga County.

3. Pennsylvania and Maryland.

4. Assembly Journal, 1824, p. 743.

5. Also called Tioga river, but was officially announced in the act as Chemung river.

6. Formerly Newtown, changed in 1828 by act (chapter 336).

7. Towner’s History of Chemung County, p. 124. (1892.)

8. Towner’s History of Chemung County, p. 125.

9. Assembly Documents, 1839, No. 198, pp. 4-5.

10. Assembly Documents, 1864, No. 8, p. 89.