As we have seen in the account of the first attempts at internal improvement, the first means of communication between the western and central parts of New York state and the navigable waters of the Hudson river, was through the Seneca, Oswego and Oneida rivers, Oneida lake, Wood creek and the Mohawk river. This communication was an imperfect one, being interrupted by falls and by carrying places, at Rome and Schenectady, but was improved, at an early day, through the medium of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, the State itself being a large stockholder in the company.

After the completion of the works of this company, a great impulse was given to the settlement of the country in the vicinity of Oneida lake, and its tributary streams, and for many years afterward, this territory was regarded by emigrants, as one of the most desirable portions of our state, consequently the value of land was much increased and the country improved rapidly, in wealth and population.

At the time of constructing the Erie canal, the works of the Western Navigation Company were purchased by the State and then abandoned. Thus the inhabitants along the lake and streams, were at once deprived of an access to market which they had enjoyed for twenty-five years. The effect of this policy proved ruinous to the whole of that section of country; land depreciated in value, and for several years emigration from that part of the state was greater than the increase in population.

During the succeeding decade the prosperity of that section gave but few signs of recovery from the blow which it had received. The inhabitants, meantime, were making repeated efforts to induce the State to open a communication from Oneida lake to the Erie canal. After a lapse of ten or twelve years from the closing of the old works, they despaired of securing direct aid from the State for this object, and applied to the Legislature for a charter to enable a company to construct a canal from Oneida lake to the Erie canal. After strenuous efforts the Legislature was finally induced to take cognizance of their appeals in 1832, and passed a resolution asking the canal board, to which had been referred the bill to incorporate the Oneida Lake Canal company, to report its opinion of the utility of the contemplated improvement, "and whether it would be most promotive of the interests of the state," that the water route should be built by the State or by an incorporated company.

In reporting, the board stated that the construction of a navigable communication between the Oneida lake and the Erie canal would be useful to a large number of inhabitants residing near the lake by giving them advantages of conveying the products of the soil to market, and also that the waterway would be useful to the State by bringing freight to the Erie canal which, without the communication, would never reach it. But as to the feasibility of either the State or an incorporated company making the improvement, the members of the board considered it their duty to refer to the probable amount of tolls that would be realized from the canal. Taking this view of the subject, and judging of the probable amount of revenue that would be derived by the amount that the State had received from the lateral canals already constructed, they thought that the best interests of the State would be conserved if the work were done by an incorporated company.

The board, however, stated that there was an objection to the construction of the canal on account of the want of water for feeding it, and that unless this objection were removed it would be useless to authorize its construction. It was not considered safe to calculate upon drawing from the Erie canal a sufficient quantity of water to continuously feed the canal, as all of the surplus water upon the Erie in this locality had been sold by the canal commissioners (in pursuance of an act, chapter 275, Laws of 1825) to two persons, the lease having been given to the purchasers on August 25, 1827.

In order to compensate for the water that should be drawn from the Erie, an article providing that the company should construct a feeder from Oneida creek to the Erie, was inserted in the bill incorporating the company, which was passed on March 22, 1832, being act, chapter 53.

The capital stock was placed at $40,000. One of the canal commissioners was to designate where the route should be located, and all expense incurred by him, in employing an engineer to survey and examine the route, was to be defrayed by the company. Permission was given by the act to take possession of such lands as would be indispensable for the construction of the canal, giving in exchange a price to be arranged by mutual agreement. In case of a disagreement as to the compensation, the property was to be appraised by three competent persons who were to act as commissioners and award to the owner or owners an amount which they (the commissioners) deemed to be the full value of the property.

By the act of incorporation the company was authorized to construct and maintain the canal for fifty years, and to establish rates of toll not to exceed three times the amount then charged on the Erie canal. If the feeder were made navigable the same rates of toll could be charged as on the Oneida Lake canal. The act provided that the canal should be of suitable dimensions to pass boats navigating the Erie. The State reserved to itself the right, at any time within ten years after the passage of the act, to take possession of the canal and feeder, upon paying to the company the whole amount of moneys expended, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent after deducting the amount of tolls which might have been collected on the canal and feeder.

By the most active and unceasing exertions of some of the inhabitants of the towns on the northern and eastern shores of Oneida lake, a company was formed under the charter and sufficient stock subscribed to warrant the commencement of work.

For the purpose of opening vast tracts of wood and timber land, located in the region where it was planned to build the canal, as the wood and timber would be the chief marketable commodity, the company importuned the Legislature of 1833 for an amendment to the charter, which would authorize an appraisal and sale of certain lands to the company.

The lands thus sought consisted of a tract of sixteen hundred and ninety-two acres lying on the south side of the Seneca turnpike and west of Oneida creek, which was then occupied by Indians, and a second tract of fourteen hundred and thirty-eight acres lying in a narrow strip along the margin of Wood creek, which had been formerly reserved for the accommodation of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, and became the property of the State by the purchase of the interest of that company.

The first tract was ceded to the State by a treaty with the "first Christian party of Indians," on October 8, 1829, which secured to the Indians the undisturbed possession of the land, until they should be prepared to migrate to Green Bay. It was, therefore, deemed inexpedient to grant to any individual or company the preemptive right to lands in the possession of Indians, who had been assured of possession during their pleasure. As the second tract had been paid for out of the canal fund, and as the act of 1817, which authorized the Erie canal, had specified that all the net proceeds from the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company were to be applied toward the payment of the canal debt, it was considered that a diversion of any part of their value to other purposes would be an infringement of the spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, the petition of the Oneida Lake Canal Company for these lands was not granted.

The canal, as constructed, extended from the Erie canal at Higginsville to Wood creek, four and one-half miles, and thence to Oneida lake, a distance of two miles; the creek was used for navigation with a towing-path on the southerly bank. Early in the fall of 1835, the canal was completed at a cost of $64,886.37, and the feeder at an additional cost of $13,938.48, making a total of $78,824.85. In the four and one-half miles of canal, there were seven wooden locks, besides a guard-lock; the prism was forty feet wide at the water-line, twenty-six at the bottom, with four feet depth of water, and from the junction with the Erie to the lake the descent was fifty-six feet. The feeder was about three miles in length, extending from Oneida creek near the village of Oneida Castle, to the Erie canal, at a point about three miles west of the intersection of the Oneida Lake canal. The width of the feeder was twelve feet upon the bottom, with a few wider places for the convenient passage of boats.

Navigation on the canal was opened on September 12, 1835, but at this time the feeder was not navigable as a small expenditure was still required to render it so. In fact, the feeder never was made navigable, and no water of any consequence was ever received from that source. The account of this, however, will be noticed later in this chapter.

In this year by act (chapter 70), the company was authorized to increase its capital stock by an amount not exceeding $30,000, and in the following year (chapter 534) further power was given to augment the amount of stock by a sum not to exceed $10,000, over the increase allowed by the act of the previous year. This law was passed principally for the purpose of responding to the petition of the company, which, desiring to improve the navigation of Fish creek above its confluence with Wood creek, was granted permission by the act to extend its improvement up Fish creek for a distance of four miles and to charge the same toll as was then collected on the canal. Subsequently this improvement was accomplished.

After the canal had been in operation for two years, the inhabitants of the region benefited by the waterway presented a petition to the Legislature, requesting the State to purchase the Oneida Lake canal and feeder. These petitions were renewed each year till the request was granted.

The petitioners claimed that the construction of the canal by means of an incorporated body had been an evil; that the tolls collected by the company were exceedingly oppressive and that business done on the canal had fallen off in consequence of this great drawback to the industry and enterprise of the inhabitants of that portion of the state. The petitioners believed that the only measure by which they could obtain relief from the burdensome tolls would be State ownership, followed by the same rate of tolls as charged on the Erie canal.

The petitioners also urged, as a main inducement for the purchase by the State, the means which the possession of these works would afford for obtaining an additional supply of water for the enlarged Erie canal. This was a consideration that was of a somewhat weighty character as the feeder emptied into the long level between Utica and Syracuse, where a want of water was often experienced.

During the season of 1839 it was found that the Oneida Lake Company was not conforming to the requirements of the charter, which provided that it could use an equal amount of the waters of the Erie canal to feed the Oneida Lake canal, as was supplied by the feeder. An examination was instituted, which resulted in showing that the feeder delivered to the Erie canal little more than five hundred cubic feet, per minute, while the canal used over nine hundred cubic feet per minute. By a measurement of Oneida creek at the same time, it was ascertained that this stream was capable of affording about fourteen hundred cubic feet per minute, but for some reason it was not transmitted through the feeder.

In answer to petitions, bills were introduced in the Legislatures of 1838 and 1839 for purchase by the State, but were not acted upon. In 1840, upon a similar request the Legislature granted the prayers of the petitioners by passing an act (chapter 258), authorizing the canal commissioners to make the purchase for the State (for a sum not to exceed $50,000). On June 23, 1840, the canal commissioners appointed a committee of two to determine whether it would be expedient for the State to purchase the canal and feeder, and in March, 1841, the committee reported that "they had examined the waterways in person and that, on receiving the proper evidence of title from the Attorney-General, the canal and feeder ought to be purchased by the state."

Provisions contained in the second section of the act authorizing the purchase, which related to the certificate of title from the Attorney-General and to the execution, by the owners, of a release to the State, were complied with, and on April 12, 1841, a certificate of stock for $50.000, bearing interest at five per cent was issued by the Comptroller and delivered to the authorized agents of the company. Although the amount did not reimburse the company for the cost of constructing the canal, nevertheless the stockholders were contented, because the State agreed to maintain both the canal and feeder.

With State control came a reduction in tolls to the same rates as were charged upon the other canals. During the next few years only such work was done on the canal as was needful to keep it in a navigable condition. This canal came into the possession of the State just prior to the passage of an act (chapter 114) passed in 1842, popularly known as the "Stop law," which limited the expenditure on all canals to the necessary repairs for maintaining navigation. The Constitution of 1846 made provision for the raising of a certain amount by tax each year to be applied toward canal purposes. It also declared that this canal should remain the property of the State forever.

From 1841 to 1845 the canal drew largely on the treasury to pay the interest on the stock issued for its purchase, and for the necessary expenses of repairs. The deficiencies had amounted to $17,000 with a likelihood of being still further increased, as the locks were in a decayed state and considerable trouble was experienced with the towing-path along Wood creek.

In 1846 a new towing-path for a distance of one mile was constructed, a plan of pile and timber facing with a filling of brush and earth being used. The work was performed by contract and cost, including repairs to some of the locks, $12,242. But within one year the path was so far destroyed as to be a serious impediment to navigation. The piles were lifted from their places by the ice, making it difficult to pass a tow rope over them, and nearly the whole of the path was removed by floods.

In 1847 the feeder was bottomed out and made navigable for boats drawing three feet of water, from a point near the Erie canal to the Oneida depot. This improvement was made by individuals interested in procuring navigation in the feeder. As the water was withdrawn from the feeder for the purpose of facilitating this work, the Erie canal was deprived of that source of supply until after the work was completed. However, navigation on the Erie suffered no material inconvenience while the improvement was in progress.

In 1849 the Legislature passed an act (chapter 425) directing the canal commissioners to purchase sufficient land along the left bank of Wood creek below where the canal entered the stream, for a towing-path. In compliance with the statute the additional land was taken along the creek where the original land acquired for the towing-path was washed away in 1847, the owners being willing to execute conveyances in conformity to the law.

In 1849 the lower levels of the canal had not the four feet of water as originally constructed. The increasing business upon the waterway rendered a deepening of the levels necessary, and various other improvements were made to facilitate the large amount of business, which the canal was doing in these years.

The years between 1847 and 1854 formed the period of greatest prosperity on this canal. Notwithstanding its old locks, the tonnage carried in 1849 was nearly twice that of 1847, and nearly thrice that of 1846. Gradually business began to diminish. The locks were in so dilapidated a condition that it was apparent that a large expenditure must be made for repairs or rebuilding, or navigation must be suspended. The locks were built of wood and had been in use since the opening of the canal in 1835. In spite of thorough "shoring up" every winter the sides became "pressed in," requiring "dubbing back" each spring, and this process had been carried on so long that the sides were badly cut and weakened. At the same time the old locks were the cause of a large quantity of water being wasted by leakages through the gates. In 1862, the last season that an attempt was made to maintain navigation, the canal was nearly useless, on account of the worthless condition of the locks, which were almost impassable and wasted so much water that the supply could not be maintained from the Erie, and also on account of the bar in the lake at the outlet of the canal.

In 1860 plans were formulated for a decided improvement and an act (chapter 46) of that year provided that, whenever it was necessary to rebuild any of the locks, they should be constructed of timber and of the same dimensions as those then in use on the enlarged Erie. The cost was to be defrayed by any money in the hands of the commissioners not otherwise appropriated.

There being no funds at the time, the work was delayed, and in 1861 the Legislature amended the act of 1860, directing the canal commissioners to rebuild the locks, but the law failed to receive the approval of the Governor. However, there was favorable action in 1862, when act (chapter 486) amended section 1, of the act of 1860, so as to authorize the canal commissioners "for the purpose of ascertaining the increase of expense beyond the cost of reconstructing the locks on the old plan," to "cause accurate estimates to be made of the cost of rebuilding the locks of the present dimensions, and also the cost of constructing the enlarged locks." The additional cost of the enlarged locks was to be paid out of the general fund. The sum of $25,000 was appropriated for this additional cost, but the law specified that the money should not be paid for lock rebuilding as long as the locks then in position could be repaired sufficiently to permit navigation.

As the law of 1860 was considered not to have been repealed by the act of 1862, the canal commissioners believed that the only discretionary power possessed by them was to determine whether the time had arrived when these locks could no longer be kept in good navigable condition with ordinary repairs. They made an examination of the canal in person and a majority of them were united in believing that all of the locks were not only not in a condition fit for navigation, but could not be put in such condition without reconstruction.

To digress a moment, we consider another cause of trouble in 1862, which had a decided bearing on the subsequent change in location of the canal -- namely, the formation of sand bars at the mouth of Fish creek. These bars had long been a source of great difficulty, constantly changing their position during each season, but never failing to so obstruct the channel as to prevent the passage of loaded boats, all of which had to be lightened of nearly half their freight. It was considered that the best preventive against this evil was the construction of a suitable pier, to extend some distance into the lake. This subject came up before the canal board, but was dismissed on the grounds that the "blue line" of appropriation did not extend to the point where the pier should be constructed. A plan and estimate for a pier was made and submitted to the board, the cost aggregating $8,650.

But to return to the subject of lock reconstruction. Acting under the laws of 1860 and 1862, the commissioners caused surveys and estimates to be made in the latter year, and the maps and plans were submitted on September 6th, the estimated cost of enlarged locks being $83,375.87, not including any improvement to the prism of the canal, which was essential if the locks were to be enlarged, while the estimate for rebuilding on the old plan was $52,360.

In the spring of 1863, the locks were placed under contract and the structures were all removed by the contractors upon the order of the commissioner. This, of course, put a stop to all navigation, and this suspension of traffic was destined to last till 1877.

After the locks had been removed and the contractors had furnished material for rebuilding the structures, the auditor of the canal department, claiming that the locks required repairing only, and not rebuilding, refused to pay the draft. Consequently, the contractors abandoned their work, and in 1865 an act (chapter 626) permitted the canal board to settle with them on the ground that through no fault of theirs they were compelled to abandon their contracts after doing a portion of the work. The attitude of the auditor, it was alleged, was prompted by a prejudice against the canal on account of its location. He was opposed to the route followed at the time of construction, and warmly advocated connection with the Erie canal at another point.

In March, 1863, the division engineer reported to the State Engineer the results of an examination which showed that it was impracticable to build enlarged locks on the existing route of the canal. On April 9, 1863, the Senate passed a resolution requesting the canal board to transmit to that body an expression of their opinion upon the subject.

The board appointed a committee, consisting of the State engineer and one canal commissioner, to make investigations, and they reported that it was not economical, nor even practicable, to construct the enlarged locks on the line of the old canal; that there were good and sufficient reasons for a change of location, or a new route for the canal, whereby permanent navigation could be obtained.

Among the reasons stated was the impossibility of maintaining a towing-path on the banks of the creeks, and also of maintaining a clear and permanent channel at the mouth of Fish creek for boats of three and one-half feet draft. Owing to the fact that western winds were constantly shifting the bars and channels at this place, the continual service of a dredge and its consequent large yearly outlay was necessary to keep open a channel. The new route proposed by the canal board shortened the distance by two miles, intersecting Oneida lake in the vicinity of South bay, and reaching the Erie canal in Madison county, a short distance west of Oneida creek, in the village of Durhamville. This line was favored as It would give a better chance for the distribution of lockage, would enter the lake near its southeasterly corner, where the shores and beach were stone, and would give a depth of eight feet of water at a distance of a few chains from shore, thus allowing boats coming down the lake to enter the canal in any wind and avoid all slack-water navigation. The point of departure from the Erie canal (which was five miles west of starting point of old route) was opposite the mouth of the Oneida creek feeder, and in the immediate vicinity of the Cowassalon creek feeder, where an abundant supply of water could be obtained.

With the old canal impassable and a new route proposed, matters were at a standstill up to 1866, when the Legislature passed a bill authorizing the opening of the old canal, or the construction of a new canal, if the canal board thought this more expedient than to open the old channel. The bill further provided for raising, by general tax, the sum of $250,000 to be applied in payment of this improvement, and appropriated from the general fund the sum of $40,000 to pay for the rebuilding of locks on the original route, or should the old line be abandoned, the sum of $70,000 to meet the expense of constructing new locks, making a probable aggregate of $320,000.

The bill was vetoed by the Governor, on the ground that the proposed project did not, in his opinion, come within the scope of the constitutional obligation of the State. So far as the construction of a new canal was concerned, the conclusion of the Governor was admitted to be correct, but there was a belief that the State was constitutionally bound to open the old line, and it was averred that, if a new and better line could be constructed at a cost not largely exceeding the expense of reconstructing the old canal, sound policy and economy would justify such a course.

In the following year, 1867, petitions were sent to the Legislature by persons who desired the reopening of the old line. The Assembly passed a resolution directing the State Engineer and Surveyor to cause a survey to be made of a route for a canal from South Bay to the Erie canal, and to report within twenty days the "most practicable and economical location for the same, with estimates of the expense of constructing such canal and the necessary locks, of the size and dimensions of the Erie canal and locks thereon; also estimates of the cost of rebuilding and rendering available, upon the enlarged plan, the present Oneida Lake canal."

The survey and estimates along the two routes gave the following results:

Old Line -- enlarging prism, $139,100; dredging creek channel and channel through bar, $41,030; locks (seven), $122,975; lengthening culvert, $2,084; bridges, $8,793; pier and breakwater, $59,675; total, $373,657.

Proposed New Line -- prism, $252,100; locks (six), $99,678; bridges, $26,199; culverts, $19,023; dredging at lake, $3,131; total, $400,131. The length of the new line was 4.88 miles.

To obtain information for a further consideration of the subject, the Assembly called upon the auditor of the canal department for a report in regard to the number of tons of property moved over the canal from 1849 to 1864, inclusive, and the amount tolls paid on that tonnage, both on the Oneida Lake canal and the Oneida River improvement. In addition, the auditor was asked to state the amount of tolls that the State would have received if the tonnage had been carried from Three River Point on the Oswego canal to Syracuse, and thence to Higginsville, where the Oneida Lake canal joined the Erie.

The report stated that the tons of freight moved over the canal in those years, in both directions, were 434,067, which yielded $60,701.52 in tolls and at the same time this tonnage resulted in $192,038.98 being paid on the Oneida River improvement. The statement of the auditor also showed that if this tonnage had been carried via the other route mentioned, the State would have received $447,156.26 in tolls, a difference in favor of the latter route of $194,415.76.

The discussion eventually caused the passage of a bill (chapter 934) in 1867, which gave the canal contracting board the power to open navigation on the canal by rebuilding and enlarging the locks, and also by enlarging the prism, or if it was inexpedient "to open the old line by reason of quicksand underlying it or from any other cause, to remove the location of the canal, in whole or in part, to such point" as would be beneficial to the state and would secure permanent navigation.

The law especially provided that, if a change of location were made, the route should not exceed the length of the abandoned line, nor render an increased number of locks necessary.

In order to defray the cost of improvement, provision was made in the act for the levying of a tax of one-fifth of one mill on each dollar in valuation of real and personal property in the state, the amount of such tax aggregating $346,153.47. The law declared that a change in route should not be considered as a release or abandonment of the Oneida creek feeder, but that this should be maintained and its waters be taken into the Erie canal.

In accordance with this act the canal board had surveys made and found that the route already suggested, Durhamville to South Bay, was the most feasible to adopt. Accordingly, the work of constructing a canal along the new route, having the same dimensions as the Erie, was let to contractors on December 18, 1867, the work to be completed July 1, 1869. The estimated cost at the engineer’s prices was $306,000, and at contract prices, $258,000.

Thus was begun the channel which has become known as the New Oneida Lake canal, the first route being designated the Old Oneida Lake canal. It was suggested by the division engineer in 1868 that the canal, when finished, could not be opened without first adding more water to the Rome level of the Erie canal.

The work of building the new canal had progressed for some time when the contractors claimed that the excavation was of a harder material than was anticipated, necessitating in some cases an increase in quantities. The Legislature of 1869 came to their relief by passing an act (chapter 913) which authorized the canal board to make supplementary contracts, but specified that the total amount to be paid should not be in excess of the appropriation.

In December, 1869, the canal board made these supplementary contracts, establishing prices to be paid for each item of work done and to be done, and also fixing a limit or gross sum as the maximum to be paid for the completion of each section of the canal. The aggregate of the supplementary contracts amounted to $310,176.97.

When July 1, 1869, the day set for completion, arrived, the work was only about half finished.

The Legislature of 1870 again came to the assistance of the contractors by an act (chapter 737) which gave the canal commissioners authority to examine the contracts for building locks, and, if they found that the prices were fixed by officers of the State and were insufficient to pay the actual cost of the work, to fix in their stead such prices as would pay the actual cost of doing the work. In June, 1870, second supplementary contracts, for lock work only, were made.

In 1870 work was suspended because the appropriation had become exhausted. After the stopping of work, a careful estimate of quantities showed that several important items had been omitted and others underestimated, the amount of the new estimate at old contract prices being $314,000 or at the increased prices established under the two relief bills, $416,000, an excess over the original appropriation of $69,846.53. The work done had cost $330,760, leaving $85,240 still to be expended. Adding to this an amount for engineering and contingencies, it was estimated that $100,000 was needed to fully complete the canal.

The route had been divided into five sections, and at the time of suspension, one section had been practically completed, the other sections were about three-fourths done and the six locks nearly finished.

By act (chapter 930), passed in 1871, an appropriation of $25,000 was made by the Legislature to complete the canal, but with so small an appropriation the contractors were unwilling to go on with the work, and the greater part of this amount was applied towards the completion of the filling of a timber pier at the lake, and some other work that was a necessity in order to protect the work already done.

In 1872 the Legislature passed an act (chapter 850) appropriating the sum of $50,000, but directing that no portion of the amount should be used if the canal commissioners could not make a contract that would insure the absolute completion of the canal. After the passage of this act, estimates of the cost to complete the work were made on the existing plans and at existing low contract prices, in order to show that the amount of $78,000 was necessary. Therefore nothing was done, as only one of the contracts had been canceled and the other contractors were entitled to continue until their contracts were canceled by their consent. The division engineer reported that the amount appropriated was insufficient to accomplish the object upon any plan that would make the structures safe and secure good navigation.

In 1872 the Legislature appropriated $20,000 for paying the contractors for the work which they had done in excess of the original appropriation. This sum added to the original appropriation of $346,153.47 made the total amount available for the settlement of these contracts, $366,153.47.

On October 1, 1873, the contracts for sections Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were settled and canceled, section No. 2 having been settled soon after the stopping of work. The total amount paid was $350,509.54.

An additional sum of $25,000 was appropriated in 1873 under act (chapter 766) which, together with $50,000 appropriation of 1872 and a small surplus from former appropriations, was deemed sufficient to warrant the letting of contracts for completing the canal.

After surveys had been made, estimates were prepared and the work was relet, as the old contracts had been canceled. Work was resumed in June, 1874, the new contracts having been awarded on December 19, 1873, under the stipulation that the canal should be finished on January 1, 1875. But when that date arrived the canal was still uncompleted and work was soon suspended, and a little later the contracts were settled. In 1875 an act (chapter 499) made it the duty of the canal commissioners and the State Engineer and Surveyor to examine several canals in order to ascertain whether there should be a sale, lease or abandonment of the routes. Because the Oneida Lake canal was so nearly finished at that time, they recommended that it should be completed and maintained, as it was probable that, with the work so far generally done and structures so newly built, the canal would not require a large outlay to keep it in repair. As a reason for completing the canal it was said that a large number of glass factories, sawmills, tanneries and flouring mills, situated along Oneida lake and its tributary streams, needed the canal as an outlet for their products, many of these industries having been established on the shores of the lake since the abandonment of the old line. There were also in the region large quantities of a superior quality of sand for moulding purposes, which was shipped to all parts of the state, and it was argued that the use of the canal for shipments of this article would prove beneficial, as the sand was then being transported on the railroad at a great cost.

All work upon the canal was suspended from 1875 until 1877. The Legislature of 1877 enacted chapter 301, reappropriating an unexpended balance of $48,231.20 for completing the canal, if the canal board was in favor of such action. The members evidenced their opinion by adopting plans and estimates on April 10, 1877, for its completion.

Work was at once begun under the joint supervision of the canal commissioner in charge and the State Engineer, and was finished in the following September. As completed, there were seven feet of water on the first level and five on the remaining levels.

The total cost of the canal, up to the time of its completion, is shown in the following table:

The canal was opened for navigation on October 6, 1877. Upon admitting water several serious defects were disclosed. Although the banks had been constructed long enough to become thoroughly settled, they leaked in many places. Because of improper grouting one of the locks leaked so badly as to make it necessary to draw the water from two levels, and to remedy the defect by thoroughly grouting the walls.

On October 24, 1877, shortly after the opening of navigation, a break occurred through the berme bank just above the first lock. The damage was quickly repaired, but the canal had not been long in use again when another break compelled the closing of the canal for the remainder of the season. To guard against the threatened danger to navigation on the Erie by a break in the high embankment at the lower end of the first level, a tumble stop-gate was placed at the junction with the Erie.

The canal was not again opened until about the first of July, 1878. The few boats that were waiting to pass had little more than reached the lake when the berme bank above the second lock became undermined and was washed out, the water reentering the canal below the third lock, and, by overflowing the banks in its course to the lake, causing considerable damage to the canal, but not greatly damaging the adjacent lands. After repairs the canal was again opened, but during the next season it was not opened, nor was it ever again in use.

The chief cause of trouble was the quicksand in the soil. The prism of the canal had not been lined with any impervious material, and wherever the stratum of quicksand had been penetrated or quicksand used in embankments, leaks were the result and breaks were liable to follow. For fear of disastrous breaches that would be attended with greater damages to the lands and property along its line, the canal was closed until some means could be devised to keep the banks intact. But, although remedies were suggested, nothing was accomplished and the canal remained closed.

First in 1879, and from time to time till 1887, the Superintendent of Public Works advocated the abandonment of the canal, as, for purposes of navigation, it was utterly useless in its existing condition. Another reason, which he considered potent in prompting such action, was the lack of water to supply the canal. The long level of the Erie canal was the only source of supply, and the drain of the lateral canal had caused such a depletion in this level as to make it difficult to keep the water at its proper height.

In 1887 the Legislature, by an act (chapter 428) which became a law without the signature of the Governor, released all the lands taken for the canal to the parties from whom they had been acquired, under the condition that the State should be relieved from all obligations to maintain the bridges and other structures connected with those portions of the canal released, and from all liability for damages arising from the abandonment. The State reserved the right to retain such material in the locks as could be used on other canals of the State. The law directed the Superintendent of Public Works to remove the bridges where public highways crossed the canal, and afterward to fill up the bed of the canal to the level of the highways, at the same time having culverts built to carry off the water which would be apt to accumulate in the canal.

Thus ended the official existence of the New Oneida Lake canal, which had been open for so short a time and under such disastrous conditions as scarcely to be counted as a factor in the system of navigation in the state. The first level of the Old Oneida Lake canal is still open, extending northward for about a mile from its junction with the Erie at Higginsville. The channel is occasionally used for the transportation of stone, one of the few quarries of the locality being situated near its northern end. The remainder of the old route is still nominally in possession of the State, never having been abandoned by legislative act, but it has not been used since the removal of the locks in 1863.

Between 1796 and 1862, with the exception of about fifteen years, the people along Oneida lake had enjoyed direct water communication with the eastern part of the state, and there had existed a short route of transportation to Oswego. With the passing of this canal there remained only the long route by way of the Oneida river, the Oswego canal and the Erie from Syracuse. When the Barge canal shall have been completed, this territory will again be on the direct line of communication across the state.