The Barge Canal:   Its Place and Importance in State Canal History -- New York Canals, 1790 to 1862 -- Abandonment of Lateral Canals -- Abolition of Tolls -- Lock-Lengthening -- Review of New York City Trade History and its Effect on Canal Improvements -- "Seymour Plan" of Improvement -- Windom Committee Report -- Views on Toll Abolition -- Canal Improvement Union -- Discussion, American Society of Civil Engineers -- State Engineer Schenck's Proposal -- Constitutional Convention of 1894 -- Nine-Foot Deepening.

When the people of New York state went to the polls in November, 1903, they were called upon to decide one of the weightiest questions ever brought before them for determination. This was nothing less that the question as to whether the State should undertake an improvement of its canal system which was so large in comparison to anything previously attempted, so far-reaching in it results and so different in its nature from the earlier canals that it was in effect a new canal policy.

It is realized of course that to the casual observer this may not appear so momentous an event. But the student of canal history can interpret the occasion with clearer understanding. He knows what material benefits the original Erie canal brought in its train. He is aware that this early waterway was the greatest single agency in placing New York in its proud position of eminence among the states of the Union, that is was the chief instrumentality in opening and peopling the states of the Middle West, that the initial momentum it imparted to development and progress has been a force acting as a continuous acceleration from the day of the completed canal to this. He has learned too that it brought other than material advantages, that probably its most signal benefit was one which the statesmen of that time recognized as the great need of the hour -- its service in binding together by a more extensive and sympathetic intercourse and interdependence the great divisions of our land, in demolishing sectional jealousies and upbuilding mutual reliance, in dissolving provincialism and substituting a broad-minded community of interest and fraternity of spirit. He can understand why Lafayette pronounced the Erie canal "an admirable work of science and patriotism." Also the student of modern waterways can discern with keener insight what may be the portent of the decision given that day in 1903 to enlarge the State canals. He in turn knows how great a factor recent waterway improvements have been in the rapid commercial development of other countries. He has discovered that "the most profound economic changes of modern times have been brought about by the improvements in transportation."

The people of the state gave an answer of approval at the election in 1903 and as a result the State has made the improvement then ordered; to use the popular phrase, it has constructed the "Barge canal."

We must know first what the Barge canal is. The name itself, acquired through popular usage and now so long the generally accepted designation that it has become permanently fixed, really has no distinctive meaning; that is, it has no distinctive meaning according to the exact definition of words. In its original, unabbreviated form, however, "Thousand-ton barge canal," it did specifically describe the thing which it named, but even this more definite term long ago became a misnomer, since subsequent legislative enactment largely increased the capacity of the canal. But according to the authorizing law this enterprise is simply the "Improvement of the Erie, the Oswego, the Champlain and the Cayuga and Seneca canals," and if we are to get the true historical setting of the project and learn what causes brought it into being and what mission it was designed to fulfill, we must recognize a fact which this official phrasing indicates, namely, that the undertaking is but one phase of a development which has been going on for more than a century. Moreover, in our whole study of the State canals we must remember that the waterways are the product of an evolution, and this rule holds in the case of the latest phase of this large evolution, the Barge canal, which has been a development even within itself and has come to include several features not embodied in the original project. To put ourselves in the way of understanding this development we must bring in review certain events of the past century and a half.

Glancing quickly over the history of water transportation in New York state, we see that up to 1790 only the natural streams, with but few artificial improvements, were in use, and that the little effort to better them was as yet without tangible results. Between 1791 and 1807 came the period of the Inland Lock Navigation Companies' canals, during which the natural streams were improved by private enterprise and were used to a limited extent. The year 1808 marked the beginning of the agitation which resulted in the State commencing to build its own canal system in 1817. By 1825 the first two branches, the Erie and Champlain canals, had been completed. Then began a period of such unexpected success in the canal venture that five lateral canals were built by the State and two by private companies and the first enlargement of the Erie canal was begun, all within a decade. The years 1835 and 1862 are respectively the beginning and the official ending of the first canal enlargement. As a matter of fact, however, considerable remained to be done at the so-called completion in 1862 and gradually in after years this work was done. This period between 1835 and 1862 witnessed the enlargement of the Oswego, the Champlain and the Cayuga and Seneca canals as well as that of the Erie branch.

Our review of canal history after 1862 must proceed more slowly, since we soon come to events which bear directly upon the Barge canal project.

After so protracted a season of new construction as was the first enlargement, extending over a period of twenty-seven years, there naturally followed several years of little activity. It is significant, however, that scarcely four years had elapsed before the subject of additional enlargements had twice been seriously discussed.

From the beginning of waterway-building by the State the canals have had both their advocates and their opponents. The remarkable success attending the early years of the original canals gave rise to a blind, popular frenzy, which clamored for extensions and branches all over the state. Almost as unreasoning was an extreme disaffection toward the canals which was manifest in the late sixties and early seventies. This unfavorable attitude was growing for several years before it reached the climax of decisive action. The railroads had more and more been drawing traffic away from the canals. The revenue had been falling off and some of the lateral branches, which never had been self-sustaining, were making heavy demands on the surplus earnings of the more prosperous trunk lines. The canals, instead of being a rich source of income as in the initial years, had begun to draw on the public purse and the people grew restive. When in addition there came purported revelations of extravagance, mismanagement and fraud, the outburst of popular disfavor could be appeased only by the abandonment of all but the five canals which remain today and a few short adjuncts of these main branches. Four of these canals are included in the Barge canal system and the fifth delivers much of the required water-supply.

The most notable event in the years just succeeding the abandonment of the lateral canals is the abolition of tolls. Boatmen had long complained that they could not compete with rival routes and in an attempt to stem the tide of traffic diversion the tolls had been reduced year by year or had been entirely removed from certain articles. Since the Constitution restricted expenditures on canals to the revenues received, the continually decreasing tolls had not permitted the waterways to be kept in perfect repair and this condition in turn had reacted to the detriment of commerce.

At the general election in 1882 the people approved a constitutional amendment which made the State canals absolutely free. In one of its aspects this abolition of the tolls vitally concerns our study of later canal improvements. Thereafter the maintenance of the State waterways was paid from moneys appropriated by the Legislature and raised by taxation. The outcome has been that more extensive improvements were soon undertaken than was possible under the old policy and gradually the way was opened for accomplishing vast enterprises in comparatively short durations of time. In comparison it should be recalled that under the restrictive method of procedure the first canal enlargement was protracted through a period of twenty-seven years.

The year 1884 marks what may be termed the beginning of the present era of canal improvement. Since that year each succeeding project has followed so closely upon its predecessor that the time may with propriety be called a period of steady progress, which has gone on until the goal of a completed modern waterway, the Barge canal, has been reached.

The first improvement of this series was that of lock-lengthening. The Legislature of 1884 appropriated $30,000 to lengthen lock No. 50, which is located just west of Syracuse. The bill was piloted through the Legislature by Hon. George Clinton, of Buffalo, grandson of DeWitt Clinton, chief promoter and builder of the original State canals, and himself for many years and to the present time a most ardent and persistent. [original text has "presistent"] advocate of all measures for canal betterment.

During the first enlargement of the canal two locks had been built side by side. In the terminology of the time these were known as double locks, whereas locks placed end to end and each having a lift were called combined locks. (The names twin locks for the former type and tandem locks for the latter are now often used.) Each of the double locks was 110 feet long between gates and 18 feet wide. In the scheme of lock-lengthening, which in the next few years succeeded the initial experiment at lock No. 50, one of these double locks was increased to a length of 220 feet between gates. Generally the lengthening was done at the foot of the old lock and the berme lock was more often selected as the one to be lengthened.

The purpose of this work was to make it possible to pass at one lockage two boats lashed together end to end. The practice of boats traveling thus in pairs had become quite common. Double headers they were called; sometimes they were horse-drawn boats, sometimes the pair consisted of steamer and consort, and sometimes even a second pair was towed by a long hawser trailing from the forward pair. The time saved in locking two boats at one operation and also in avoiding the necessity of uncoupling and refastening reduced the cost of carriage by a considerable amount. The law authorizing the first lock-lengthening required that it should be possible still to use the old lock for passage of a single boat. This was accomplished by placing gates at the centers as well as at each end of the lengthened locks.

But the question naturally arises, Why should the people of the state have desired to improve the canals? Did they still have faith in them? We have seen how the pendulum had swung to the extreme of disaffection. Was there something more than sentiment behind the keeping of the main branches and then their improvement through three successive periods of enlargement? A brief review of the trade history of New York city will reveal one reason for making these canal improvements, perhaps the chief reason.

Confining our study entirely to the agricultural side we find that New York city early had added to her natural advantages other almost as powerful in their determining influence on the trade of the country in favor of the metropolis. To mention only two -- one the Erie canal, the other her financial preëminence in the country, the latter giving control of resources that enabled her to make immediate advances on all produce seeking its ultimate market through her port. Unquestionably the result of business originated by the canal was a period of uninterrupted progress and development lasting for over fifty years, a period of intense activity, of almost superhuman endeavor, of colossal enterprise, and of constant adjustment and readjustment to the needs of enlarging trade. During the whole period, aided by these two advantages, New York maintained her proud supremacy. The open line of communication through her port with every part of the world and her ability to finance the movement of the crops of the country gave her every ascendency in the grain trade and made her mistress of the flour and provision trades.

In the eighties, however, the commerce of New York began to feel the effect of the great economic and industrial changes that were taking place throughout the country. These changes revolutionized trade everywhere and in no place more than in New York. The advent of steam on the ocean; the extension of railroads on the land; improved financial conditions and facilities throughout the country; refrigerators and the introduction of the refrigerator car; the use of the telephone; the growth of the great milling and packing-house corporations, with their immense capital, splendid organization and extensive sales and distributing departments; all contributed toward the revolution in trade methods and resulted in opening many new channels for the steadily enlarging trade of the country.

To New York it all meant an active fight to hold the trade that formerly came to her without an effort on her part. Other ports began to actively compete for a share of her export trade. Western states began to assert themselves as trading centers. Canada became a formidable competitor. And, to cap it all, the railroads, pushed to the limit of their capacity by the enormous export trade of New York and by the demands of her constantly enlarging local business, sought to divert some of her heavy export traffic by establishing differential rates against her in favor of other cities, where it could be handled at less expense to themselves and with less interference with high-class freights. As a result, although New York still remains the great center of international trade, she has not made the relative trade gains in comparison with other ports.

This brief outline of general trade history shows the important part played by the waterways of the state in the development of its trade. It explains also the interest of certain men and organizations, especially the New York Produce Exchange, in canal affairs. It is estimated by experts and is generally conceded by all that grain and foodstuffs will furnish seventy-five per cent of the preliminary traffic on the Barge canal and this will practically all come consigned to members of the Exchange, to be inspected and distributed under its rules. It is no wonder then that the Exchange itself, as well as its members, when the old canal began to lose its real functioning power as a result of changed conditions, started to agitate for a new canal capable of doing for New York under modern conditions what the old canal did for New York under former conditions. It was the old canal that originated and developed its trade and now when its trade is subject to assault on all sides it is the new canal to which it looks for help in maintaining it. As we shall see presently it was these New York business men, members of the Board of Trade and Transportation, the Produce Exchange and other similar organizations, who revived interest in the canals when favorable sentiment was at the lowest ebb and who have been at the forefront of all canal agitation.¹

Before returning to the account of actual accomplishments in New York canal development, it is well to get a broad view of the whole field and consider for a little while what people had been and were thinking and what plans they were making in relation to the commercial situation as it then confronted them.

But first we must notice that a few years prior to the abolition of tolls a scheme of enlargement, known as the "Seymour plan," was enunciated, which, although it effected no change at the time, is noteworthy as showing a definite attempt at improvement. Also, a score of years later the channel actually was deepened somewhat after the idea proposed at this time by State Engineer Horatio Seymour, Jr.

The immense increase of traffic between the western states and the Atlantic seaboard had for several years made the subject of cheap transportation an all-important national problem. In December, 1872, the President had called the attention of Congress to it. A Senate committee, of which Senator William Windom was chairman, made a thorough and elaborate examination of the subject and reported ² its findings to the Senate in 1874.

This report stated that New York State possessed the key to the commercial situation and that the Erie canal had done more to advance the wealth, population and enterprise of the western states than all other causes combined. It went on to say that the canal had increased the value of public lands and that the western grain regions were directly interested in the development, the improvement and the maintenance of this waterway. It was of supreme importance, the Committee deemed, that the people of the United States should sustain this vital regulator of freight charges. The Erie canal had earned for the State a generous income during its period of highest rates, from 1862 to 1869, when the tolls averaged 6 1/4 cents per bushel and they still paid when the tolls were reduced one-half, 1870 to 1874, and now that the State in a liberal spirit had abolished tolls entirely and thrown open the canal to the free commerce of the world, the only hope of the people against the united influence, power and capital of the railroads, said the Committee, lay in the Erie canal. It was directly beneficial to at least twenty million people in twelve western states and had proved that the greater the facilities the less was the cost of transportation.

Senator Windom, in a speech in the Senate in 1878, said that Erie canal rates exerted an influence over all other rates from the Gulf states to the St. Lawrence river and from the Atlantic ocean to the foot-hills of the Rockies. In support of this statement he introduced a letter from Albert Fink, Railway Trunk Line Pool Commissioner, than whom there was no higher authority in the United States on the transportation question, who said in substance that whenever rates from Chicago to New York were reduced by reason of the opening of the Erie canal season there followed a reduction from all interior cities, such as St. Louis, Indianapolis and Cincinnati, and that, if the direct lines from such localities did not at once meet the reduced water rates, their freights would reach New York by way of Chicago or other lake ports and the Erie canal and these direct lines would be left without business. The canal affected Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore rates as well, continued Mr. Fink, and also the rates from South Atlantic ports and the southern states generally, until it reached the line of influence of low ocean rates, all rail rates in fact being kept in check by water transportation. The circumstances attending this statement, said Senator Windom, coming as it did from one who was then acknowledged as the best-informed railway manager in the country, gave it the binding force of testimony elicited under cross examination.

In this same Congress, the forty-eighth, first session, a bill to aid New York State in enlarging its canal by an annual appropriation of $1,000,000 for ten years was reported. This measure, however, never became effective.

Canal men declare now that the freedom from tolls saved the canal, but just after their abolition even official opinion was divided and often was skeptical of the success of the venture. Governor Cleveland in his annual message to the Legislature of 1884 said that canal business in 1883, the first year of free canals, fully justified the policy of relieving commerce from the burden of the tolls. Comptroller Ira Davenport, however, in his report, attributed the increase to an unusually large general movement of freight through the state, railway traffic having increased also, with higher rates prevailing. The increase on the canal, he said, had been disappointing and there was no revival of interest in boat-building. But it remained for State Engineer Silas Seymour to declare free canals a failure and to voice his unqualified opinion, set forth in emphatic language, that the State waterways had outlived their usefulness and "it must be regarded as a foregone and inevitable conclusion that THE CANALS MUST GO."

With so keen an appreciation of the need of speedily solving the transportation problem and with the canal prospect so gloomy that even its friends were wavering, the time was at hand when some one should rally the forces of the canal advocates and spur them on to united and vigorous action. This rallying agent was found in the New York Board of Trade, which in 1884 called a State convention to consider what should be done in order to secure the permanent improvement of the State waterways.

This convention met in Utica in July, 1885, and organized "The Union for the Improvement of the Canals of the State of New York." Former Governor Horatio Seymour was chosen president, but he died within the year after his election and was succeeded by George Clinton of Buffalo, who was elected president at the second convention of the organization, which was held in Syracuse in 1886.

As we have just seen, at the time of organizing the Canal Improvement Union canal affairs were at a very low ebb. The people generally had come to look upon the waterways as of small importance and of but little and decreasing influence in the field of transportation. Even the friends of the canals were becoming disaffected and were inclined to oppose any efforts for improvement. The work of the Union, therefore, was to make the people see the true importance of canals and to restore them again to public favor. In this it succeeded admirably, even in the face of an opposition that was reinforced by the trunk line railroads, which had established a bureau from which anti-canal literature was sent unceasingly and by the millions of copies to all parts of the state. But the Union gained great strength, such strength indeed that by 1887 a leading New York daily declared that it was "the most powerful and influential aggregation of commercial and manufacturing interests within the state of New York."

The Canal Union continued in existence for ten years. During that time the work of lock-lengthening was begun and completed and the project of increasing the depth of water to nine feet had been passed by the Legislature and approved by the vote of the people.

There is another occurrence which deserves a passing glance, since the men who were concerned voiced the most enlightened public thought and the most expert professional opinion of the day on the subject. In June, 1884, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers there was a discussion of the canal question, participated in by a score of prominent engineers. Elnathan Sweet, State Engineer of New York, led the discussion in presenting a paper on the subject of building a ship canal across the state. The project he outlined was a canal which should have 18 feet of water, a bottom width of 100 feet, and locks 450 feet long by 60 feet wide, and should be so located as to have a continuous descent from Lake Erie to the Hudson river. This discussion dealt not only with the ship canal but also with the whole broad state waterway question. It effected no result, of course, except as it helped to mold public opinion, but it is significant in showing the trend of thought which later became crystallized in actual accomplishment.

To return to the account of what was being accomplished on the canal, we note that for a period of about ten years, commencing with 1884, the project of lock-lengthening was in progress. During this time, forty of the seventy-two Erie canal locks were lengthened and twelve of the twenty-three Oswego locks. This work was continued up to almost the beginning of the next improvement, which was a comprehensive scheme of canal enlargement known popularly as the "nine-million dollar" improvement, the general plan of which was to deepen the canal to nine feet. During the nine-foot deepening, moreover, a little work of the earlier character was done, six more locks being lengthened on the Erie and one on the Oswego.

A certain act of the Legislature of 1892 is noteworthy because of its far-reaching effect in shaping the canal policy of the future. It authorized the election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention which met in 1894, one of its duties being the consideration of amendments relating to the care and improvement of the State canals.

The lengthening of locks had its place in canal development, but at most this slight improvement was not adequate to the needs of the time. It expedited the transit of boats but it did not increase their capacity. To enable the canals to compete with their rivals it seemed evident that the channel must be made larger. The first scheme of this character to be tried was a deepening from the existing seven feet to a proposed nine feet. This was really a modification of the "Seymour plan," which in its original form called for an increase of at least one foot in depth.

Canal advocates hoped that this contemplated improvement, which they had secured only after much labor, would meet the needs of water transportation for a number of years to come. We know, however, that even two or three years before construction was authorized a plan very much like the next succeeding enlargement had been proposed by State Engineer Martin Schenck as the practical canal of the future. Mr. Schenck gave expression to this opinion in his annual report for 1892. This report is worthy of attention not only because it contains this first official presentation of a scheme of enlargement which in general closely resembles the Barge canal project but also because there is revealed a clear insight into the reasons for such a canal -- the same reasons in substance which led the Canal Committee in 1900, after making an exhaustive study of the subject, to recommend to the State the building of what has come to be known as the Barge canal. The immediate occasion of discussing this topic was the measure then pending before Congress to appropriate $100,000 for the purpose of making a survey for a ship canal from the Hudson river to the Great Lakes. A little later, as we shall see presently, the Federal government did authorize this survey as a part of the undertaking known as the Deep Waterways Survey. In his discussion the State Engineer favored the proposed survey because of the valuable information it would furnish, but a ship canal, he deemed (and we quote his apt phrasing), was only a pleasing idea to contemplate and not a practical plan to consummate. The use of three types of vessels -- lake, canal and ocean -- in shipping goods from the Lakes to Europe was a state of affairs, he thought, which was likely to exist for years to come. Also ocean steamers could not with economy navigate the canal, and lake vessels could not compete with ocean liners in transporting cargoes to Europe.

In announcing his solution of the problem he said, "The practical canal of the future, connecting Lake Erie and the Hudson river, ought to be one capable of bearing barges 250 feet in length by twenty-five breadth of beam, of a draft not to exceed ten feet and of such height that the great majority of bridges that shall span this canal may be fixed structures instead of draw bridges. With this proposed canal (which can be built for a reasonable sum) bearing barges towed in fleets, each boat carrying 50,000 bushels of wheat, New York will be enabled to hold her commercial supremacy against all comers for many years to come."

In passing we should notice that in this same report the State Engineer called the attention of the Legislature to a set of very conservative and wise resolutions adopted by a canal convention held in Buffalo on October 19, 1892, relative to enlarging the canal prism. The demand for a larger canal seemed imminent and he recommended that funds be provided to enable him to make a survey of the Erie canal from which to make plans for increasing the depth of water to nine feet. It this suggestion had been heeded, there would have been something better than the antiquated survey of 1876 on which to base an estimate of cost for deepening the canals to this same depth, nine feet, when the Constitutional Convention of 1894 called upon the State Engineer and gave him only twelve days in which to prepare such an estimate, and much of the trouble attending the nine-foot enlargement might thus have been averted.

In his annual report the next year State Engineer Schenck described in more detail his idea of the canal of the future. Its depth was to be 12 feet, the same as later chosen for the Barge canal, and the width 100 feet at the water-line. The route, however, was to be practically the same as the existing canal and in this respect it differed from the Barge canal, which has left the old alignment and follows and canalizes many of the natural streams.

But to return to the nine-million-dollar improvement. Little regarding its details need be said here, since in this review of canal history prior to the beginning of actual Barge canal agitation we are concerned chiefly with the larger aspects of the various events, and these we are studying simply to learn what influences led up to and were instrumental in bringing about the building of the Barge canal.

Briefly it may be said that the Constitutional Convention met in May, 1894, and among the amendments it approved was one which provided that the canals might be improved in such a manner as the Legislature should decide and that a debt might be authorized for that purpose or the cost might be met by appropriating funds from the State treasury or by equitable annual tax. Although this amendment conferred upon the Legislature no powers in addition to those it possessed under the existing constitution, it was considered that the vote at the ensuing November election would reveal the popular attitude and if favorable would be in effect a mandate to the Legislature to undertake the improvement of the canal.

The Convention called upon the State Engineer for estimates of cost for deepening the canal to nine feet. For several years the State Engineers had been urging the Legislatures to appropriate money for a survey upon which to base this very estimate, but without avail. We have noted one of these recommendations -- made by Mr. Schenck. Lacking the information which this survey would have furnished, State Engineer Campbell W. Adams made what use he could of the old and entirely inadequate survey of 1876 and prepared his estimate within the allotted time, only twelve days, but stated it was merely a guess, assuming all conditions to be favorable. The amount was $11,573,000, with an additional million needed for repairing and rebuilding walls.

The people approved the canal amendment in 1894. The Legislature of 1895 passed a referendum for deepening the canal to nine feet, naming nine million dollars as the amount to be expended. This sum was arbitrarily fixed by the Legislature and without consultation with the State Engineer. Probably it was believed to be all the people would be willing to authorize at the time. This measure in turn was approved by popular vote at the general election of 1895. The statute required work to be commenced within three months. As soon as possible, by January 13, 1896, twenty-eight parties began surveys over the entire length of the Erie, Champlain and Oswego canals, a distance of 454 miles. The plans and estimates were prepared. The probable cost as shown by these estimates was thirteen and a half millions, or fifteen millions with engineering, inspection and advertising added. A later revision made the total sixteen millions.

Although there were only nine millions to expend, construction was begun. By cutting out certain pieces of work it was hoped to bring the cost within the amount of money available. This hope, however, proved to be without foundation and by the latter part of 1897 it began to be realized, first by those connected with the work and then by the public generally, that the proposed improvement could not be completed within the appropriation. And with these reports came rumors of alleged frauds and extravagance in administering and prosecuting the enterprise.

With the sudden stoppage of work, the inquiry of an investigating commission into the expenditures, the severe criticisms, the bitter controversy taken up by the public press, the later legal examinations and opinions to fix the responsibility and determine whether criminal proceedings should be started, with these things we need not now concern ourselves. What we do need to know, however, is that the appropriation was exhausted, the work of deepening less than two-thirds completed and the people of the state keenly disappointed; also that they were distrustful of all things and everybody connected with the canal and were bewildered as to what to do next.

It is worthy of note that the investigating commission, although in its report it criticised the way in which the improvement had been carried on, had only words of praise for the canal itself, calling attention to its high value as the cheapest means of transportation and recommending the continuation of the improvement regardless of its cost.

Before the Legislature of 1898 had ordered the appointment of a commission to investigate the nine-million improvement, it had before it two measures which call for our passing attention. One was a referendum bill for raising seven millions to complete the work then in progress, this sum being the State Engineer's estimate. The other was a proposition to turn over the canals to the Federal government. This latter measure raised a storm of protest and when it came to vote was defeated by a large margin. The bill to raise seven millions was not pressed to a vote, canal advocates deeming it wise in view of the forthcoming investigation to let the matter drop.

Footnotes:

    ¹   We are indebted to a member of the New York Produce Exchange for this review of the trade history. The main facts and several excerpts are taken from a paper ready by Edward R. Carhart before the New York Waterways Association on November 21, 1919, and printed in the Tenth Annual Report of that organization.
    ²   Report 307, 43^d Congress, 1^st Session.