Congressional Reports -- General Activity -- New York Survey for Ship Canal -- The Ship Canal Idea -- International Deep Waterways Commission: Summary of its Report: Its Recommendations -- Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways: Surveys and Report: Costs and Dimensions: Relative Advantages, 21-Foot and 30-Foot Channels: Route Favored: Ship and Barge Canals Compared: New York Route Preferred to St. Lawrence -- Col. Symons' Investigation on Ship and Barge Canals: Conclusions and Influence.

While the State had been thus engaged in lengthening its canal locks, in attempting a subsequent enlargement and later in investigating what it had done, the question of adequate water transportation between the Lakes and the seaboard was still an unsolved national problem of supreme importance, concerning which discussions and agitation had been going on continually.

In Congress, in 1889, a revision of former estimates and surveys was made by Captain Carl F. Palfrey, Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., for a 21-foot canal on two routes from Lake Ontario to Niagara river. This was published in the report of the Chief of Engineers for 1889. A bill was introduced in Congress the same year providing for a commission to select one of these routes and appropriating one million dollars, but was not acted on. In 1890 a report with maps, profiles and revised estimates was made by William Pierson Judson and published in H.R. 283, 52^d Congress, 1^st Session, 1892. The estimates were for two routes from Lake Ontario to Niagara river and for 21 feet depth of water. Other reports were also made to Congress -- in 1890 by Representative Sereno E. Payne, in 1892 by Representative C.A. Bentley and in 1896 by Representative C.A. Chickering and Senator Calvin S. Brice, in each of which the commercial and engineering aspects of the case were fully presented and favorably discussed. In February, 1892, the subject of ship canals across New York state, by both the Ontario and the Erie routes, was under consideration by Congress and Major Dan C. Kingman, Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., presented a general statement of the plans and estimates that had been made up to that time and of the existing conditions and costs.

At numerous waterway conventions and meetings of engineering societies papers were presented and the subject was discussed in all its aspects. Many articles were published in technical and popular periodicals, and editorials frequently appeared in the newspapers. Of this large amount of information that was continually being disseminated we need not mention specific examples. ¹ The topic of better and cheaper transportation was of sufficient public interest to demand a goodly supply of literature and frequent discussion, and the people gladly read and heard what those who knew about the subject had to tell.

About this time the question of a ship canal between the Lakes and the Atlantic came prominently to the front and the subject took on more of an international complexion than ever before. In 1892 the Congressional committee on railways and canals recommended a survey for a ship canal from the Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson river. In September, 1894, a convention of mercantile exchanges was held at Toronto, Canada, in which delegates from the western cities in the grain belt participated. These are merely two incidents which are indicative of what was happening.

During the same period the Canadian government was contemplating an increase in the size of its canal system, even up to the dimensions of a ship canal. On some of its branches a smaller enlargement was actually begun. Also the Georgian Bay ship canal project was launched, and this route would shorten the haul between Lake Huron and tide-water by hundreds of miles. In later years the survey for this canal showed 282 miles less distance between Sault Ste. Marie and Montreal than by the Lakes and St. Lawrence route. The plans made from this survey call for a 22-foot channel.

In New York state, even while the measure for deepening to nine feet was pending, the first steps towards a still larger channel were taken. On August 24, 1895, State Engineer Campbell W. Adams directed Albert J. Hines, Resident Engineer on the Eastern Division, to make an examination for an enlarged canal along what was called the Oswego route. It was in March of this year that the Legislature had passed the bill for the nine-foot deepening and the people were preparing to vote on it in November. The report on this examination states that it was undertaken because the great interest in enlarged canals manifested by the recent convention of the Deep Waterways Association and by the citizens of New York state in the late election had made it desirable to obtain better information than had heretofore been available about the cost of a work such as the one proposed. The route extended from the Hudson river at Watervliet to Lake Ontario at Oswego, following the Mohawk river to Rome and going thence down Wood creek and across Oneida lake and on by a cross-country line to the Oswego river near Phoenix and then down the Oswego to the lake. In making the estimate of cost it was considered that the canal would have a bottom width of 100 feet and a depth of 20 feet of water and that the locks would be 450 feet long by 60 feet wide. The estimate was $82,098,601.

As we have just said, the ship canal idea was growing in prominence and public favor. One who was closely associated with the whole waterway movement, Col. Thomas W. Symons, in writing of the two projects that were before the people in 1895 -- the nine-foot deepening of the New York canals and the ship canal scheme -- says of the latter:

"The other movement was much more widespread, but had not reached the era of actual work. It was the agitation and demand throughout all the region of the Great Lakes and a goodly portion of the Atlantic seaboard for a ship canal connecting the lakes with the sea. Many letters were written to the press, favoring the project. The newspapers of the region had many articles and editorials in the same line. Numbers of public meetings were held and enthusiastic speeches made for the ship canal project. Orators and writers depicted the magnificence of the future when great ocean ships should leave Liverpool and other foreign ports and proceed directly to Chicago, Duluth and all the other chief cities of the lakes bringing the commercial productions of the world and exchanging them for the grains, lumber, ore, etc., of the Northwest, right in the heart of the continent. Some, more conservative, were content with the idea of a canal which would permit the ships of the Great Lakes to reach the seaboard and there deliver their loads to the people of the coast or exchange their foreign-bound cargoes with the deeper draft ships engaged in ocean commerce. The glamor of the Ship Canal from the Lakes to the Sea, like a brilliant aurora borealis, shone brightly over the whole lake region." ²

Under the inspiration of this wide-spread movement an international Deep Waterways Commission was created, to "make inquiry and report" to use the language of the United States Congressional resolution, "whether it is feasible to build such canals as shall enable vessels engaged in ocean commerce to pass to and fro between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic ocean." By a law of March 2, 1895, Congress authorized the appointment of three persons who should meet with any similar committee appointed by Great Britain or Canada. On November 4 the President announced as his appointees, James B. Angell of Ann Arbor, President of Michigan University, John E. Russell of Leicester, Mass., prominent in politics in his state and a student of public affairs, and Lyman E. Cooley, C.E., a well-known engineer of Chicago. Soon afterward Canada appointed Oliver A. Howland, M.P.P, of Toronto, Thomas C. Keefer, C.E. of Ottawa, Past-President, American Society of Civil Engineers, and Thomas Monro, C.E., of Coteau Landing.

These commissioners served without pay and had but little money for expenses, not enough for comprehensive surveys, but they made a very thorough examination of the subject committed to their charge and presented a report filled with valuable information. The Commission presented its report on January 8, 1897, and the President in turn transmitted it to Congress a few days later, January 18.

From the wording of the Congressional resolution, already quoted, it appears that the chief duty of this commission was to determine the feasibility of a ship canal between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic seaboard. The commission was required further to report whether there was an adequate water-supply, where the canals might best be located, what the probable cost would be and what treaty arrangements would be necessary if any part of the canals should lie in Canadian territory.

This dream of a ship canal to the heart of the continent has been a most persistent idea in the minds of a large part of the American people. As we shall see presently a certain investigation ordered by the Federal government in 1896 convinced many persons that a barge canal was preferable to a ship canal and the ship canal idea lay quiescent for nearly a score of years, all through the period of constructing the New York State Barge canal, but recently it has been revived and now again, in the Middle West especially, is in full vigor. It is well then for us to consider carefully the findings of this commission, since it was created for the express purpose of rendering a careful, well-informed and just opinion on the ship canal question and moreover was composed of broad-minded men capable of rendering such an opinion. To avoid any possibility of wrong interpretation, we shall quote the report verbatim:

"After considering this question in its various aspects." Say the commissioners, "we conclude --

"First. That it is entirely feasible to construct such canals and develop such channels as will be adequate to any scale of navigation that may be desired between the several Great Lakes and to the seaboard, and to conduct through the same domestic and foreign commerce, and that, in our opinion, it will be wise to provide for securing a channel of a navigable depth of not less that 28 feet.

"Second. That starting from the heads of Lakes Michigan and Superior, the most eligible route is through the several Great Lakes and their intermediate channels and the proposed Niagara ship canal (Tonawanda to Olcott) to Lake Ontario; and that the Canadian seaboard may be reached from Lake Ontario by the way of the St. Lawrence River, and the American seaboard may be reached from Lake Ontario by way of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, or by way of the Oswego-Oneida-Mohawk Valley and the Hudson River.

"Third. That the alternative routes from Lake Ontario to the Hudson River require complete surveys and a full development of economic considerations to determine their relative availability.

Fourth. That moderate control of the level of Lake Erie and of the Niagara River above Tonawanda may be justified in connection with the Niagara ship canal, the determination in this matter to rest on a full examination of the physical conditions.

Fifth. That the policy should contemplate the ultimate development of the largest useful capacity, and that all works should be planned on this basis, and that the actual execution should conform thereto, except in so far as the works may, without prejudice, be progressively developed with the actual demands of commerce.

"Sixth. That it is practicable to develop the work in separate sections and the several sections in part by degrees, each step having its economic justification, so that benefits shall follow closely on expenditure, without awaiting the completion of the system as a whole.

"Seventh. That the completion of the entire system as quickly as proper projects can be matured and economically executed is fully justified.

"Eighth. That the Niagara ship canal should be first undertaken, and incidentally the broadening and further deepening of the intermediate channels of the lakes, the same being in the logical order of development, and also requiring the least time for consideration." ³

In order that the examination might be carried on to completion the commission made several recommendations, the result of which was the creation of a Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways. Since these recommendations became in effect the instructions under which this board of engineers undertook its work, we shall quote such of them as are pertinent, as follows:

"I. That complete surveys and examinations be made and all needful data to mature projects be procured for --

    "(a) Controlling the level of Lake Erie and projecting the Niagara ship canal.

    "(b) Developing the Oswego-Oneida-Mohawk route.

    "(c) Developing the St. Lawrence-Champlain route.

    "(d) Improving the tidal Hudson River.

    "(e) Improving intermediate channels of the lakes.

"II. That the collecting and reducing of existing information, supplemented by reconnoissances and special investigations, be continued until the general questions have been fully covered.

"III. That a systematic measurement of the outflow of the several lakes and a final determination of their levels shall be undertaken." ⁴

Under act of June 4, 1897, the President appointed a Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways. It consisted of Lieut. Col. Charles W. Raymond, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and Alfred Noble and George Y. Wisner, two well-known engineers in civil life. The act directed the Board to make the surveys and examinations in accordance with the recommendations we have just noted, and a later act, that of July 1, 1898, specified that the estimates of cost should be for canals of 21 and 30 feet depth, respectively, to be accompanied by a statement of the relative advantages of each.

The task set the Board was immense and several years were required for its performance. A large corps of engineers was employed and thorough surveys and estimates were made. A total of $485,000 was appropriated for the expenses. The report of the Board, which is dated June 30, 1900, was transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of War on December 2, 1900, and is most elaborate and complete in every detail.

Since this is the report of supreme authority on the subject of a ship canal between the Lakes and the Atlantic and also because its influence was ever present in the agitation for the Barge canal it will profit us to scan its pages thoughtfully. As an interesting sidelight we notice that many of the engineers engaged in this investigation, from two members of the Board down to those in the humbler ranks, were later employed on the Barge canal, either the preliminary surveys or the subsequent construction, the writer of the present volume among the number.

For our present purpose we need not look at more than the conclusions of the Board, but the details of its work have been of much value to New York State, first in assisting the State Canal Committee in its investigations in 1899 and then in helping the State Engineer in his survey in 1900, when they obviated many miles of surveys which otherwise would have been necessary, and later in the planning and construction of the Barge canal.

With the exception of the investigation into the relative merits of the 21- and the 30-foot channels the duties of the Board, as specified by the creating act, were of a purely engineering character and did not include the consideration of questions of Government policy or commercial desirability. In general the Board confined itself strictly to these prescribed duties, just hinting at something more.

The surveys covered two routes between Lakes Erie and Ontario, one from Lasalle to Lewiston and the other from Tonawanda to Olcott; also two routes from Lake Ontario to tide-water, one by way of the St. Lawrence river, Lake Champlain and the Hudson river, the other by way of Oswego river, Oneida lake, Mohawk river and Hudson river. Along the later course there were estimates on both a high-level plan and a low-level plan. The Board favored the Lasalle-Lewiston route and the Oswego-Mohawk low-level plan. The estimated cost of a 21-foot canal from Duluth to New York by the Lasalle-Lewiston-Champlain route was $190,382,436, and by the Lasalle-Lewiston-Oswego-Mohawk low-level route, $206,358,103. A 30-foot canal between these two points would cost $320,099,083 and $317,284,348 by the same respective routes. Estimates from Chicago to New York were also given -- $5,495,379 less for the 21-foot channel and $17,313,321 less for the 30-foot channel.

If these figures are to be compared with the costs of other projects, it must be remembered that prices of materials and labor have undergone a vast change since the time these estimates were made. Probably also in the event of construction many contingencies would have arisen to increase them. In writing of these estimates as long ago as 1909 Col. Symons said, "A study of the board's detailed estimates and recent experiences on the New York State barge canal construction, the increased cost of labor and materials since the report was completed, and the infinite complications which would arise to vested interests and properties in doing such a work, indicate very clearly to me that these estimates would have to be largely increased, probably by from 25 to 50 per cent." Moreover, if the canal had to be built, the lake harbors would have had to be deepened to accommodate sea-going vessels and this work would have added many millions to the sums contained in these estimates.

The channel widths on which the estimates were based were as follows: For the 21-foot depth in earth section, 215 feet bottom width with side slopes two on one with a bench ten feet wide on each side five feet below water-surface, a wash wall to line a further two on one slope from these benches to other benches ten feet wide at five feet above water-surface. Any excavation above these latter benches was to have the same two on one slope. The area of this cross-section is 5,497 square feet. In rock section for the same depth the average width was 240 feet at bottom with slopes of one on ten. At five feet above water-surface was a ten-foot bench with a further one on ten slope to the top of the rock cut. If there were earth excavation above that, it had a two on one slope, footing at the back of another ten-foot bench. The rock cross-sectional area was 5,040 square feet. For the 30-foot channel these same descriptions apply to the side slopes, but the earth section had a bottom width of 203 feet and the rock section an average width of 250 feet, the areas being 7,990 and 7,500 square feet, respectively.

Single locks designed for the 30-foot waterway were 740 feet long and 80 feet wide. If flights of locks were necessary, a duplicate set having a width of 60 feet was provided. For the 21-foot channel the locks, whether single or double, were 600 feet long and 60 feet wide.

In trying to answer the question as to the relative advantages of channels of 21 and 30 feet depth the Board divided its study into two parts and considered first the direct benefits and then the indirect benefits. The conclusion was that the return in direct benefit was much greater from the 21-foot waterway than from the 30-foot waterway. It appeared also that in indirect advantages the 21-foot canal promised a much greater return of value relatively to its cost than the 30-foot canal, the main superiority of the larger channel being that it would furnish the lowest cost of transportation to foreign markets and would permit the construction of ocean vessels at Great Lakes shipyards.

There are two things in the report which, because of their bearing on subsequent Barge canal agitation, we should notice particularly. The Board said that the most favorable route for a 30-foot waterway from the Lakes to the sea was by way of the Oswego and Mohawk valleys and that this same route was practically as favorable as any for a 21-foot waterway. Moreover this route had the added advantage of being wholly within United States territory, of having a longer season of navigation than the more northerly line, of having a much simpler problem of defense than a canal lying partially in a foreign country and of being available as a line of communication for ships of war. It will be observed that the Oswego branch and the easterly half of the Erie branch of the Barge canal follow the general alignment chosen by the Deep Waterways Board.

Throughout the fierce conflict between canal and anti-canal forces over the Barge canal project the ship canal scheme and this Deep Waterways report were ever being brought forward in argument against the 1,000-ton waterway. There was a reason for selecting the barge size of channel as the New York canal policy and those who were responsible for making this selection thought that it was a good and sufficient reason. We need not discuss this reason now; a full account of the matter will appear presently, but briefly it was that investigation had shown that transportation by barge canal, including two transfers of cargo, was cheaper than by ship canal with no transfer. But while we are reviewing this report we should see just what the Board had to say in regard to the subject.

"It is easily conceivable," reads the report, "that a barge canal of moderate dimensions, requiring transfers in Buffalo and New York, might be of more direct benefit to the State of New York than a canal of sufficient dimensions for the uninterrupted passage of ships; but much of this benefit would be at the expense of the producers and shippers of other parts of the country." ⁵

On the other hand the report says, "It is, however, considered by high authorities very doubtful whether a vessel can be so constructed as to navigate successfully and economically the ocean, the lakes, and the canal. The ocean vessel must be stronger than the lake vessel and more costly in construction, operation, and maintenance, and it must be fitted with expensive appliances which are not required in the lake traffic." ⁶

If we did not know who was speaking in this latter quotation, we might reasonably think that we were listening to a barge canal enthusiast expounding the basic reason for his advocacy of a barge rather than a ship canal. Surely the two quotations do not seem entirely consistent.

Two other quotations from this report are of especial interest, particularly in view of the recent revival of the ship canal project. These excerpts give the Board's reason for its opinion as to which route is best for a canal between the lakes and the sea.

"The project for a waterway from the lakes to the Atlantic suitable for transporting the commerce of the upper lakes," says the report, "has prominently attracted public attention for nearly a century, during which time the citizens of New York have maintained that such a waterway must be build directly across the State, as an aid in building up the financial and commercial supremacy of New York City, while the people farther west have insisted that the canal should be constructed on the route best adapted for transporting the commerce of the country tributary to the lakes."

Then after mentioning an incident of 1812 not pertinent to our present study, the report continues:

"It was then, and is still, openly admitted that the St. Lawrence River is the natural outlet and the line of least resistance for a waterway from the Great Lakes to tide water, but that for New York State to permit such canal to be built would be to commit commercial suicide.

"The advocates of this theory have left out of consideration the fact that the larger portion of the commerce between the lakes and tide water is of a domestic nature and that the only benefits to be derived from export traffic through a port are those from levying tribute on the foreign commerce of a neighboring State.

"It is an established fact that a waterway of sufficient capacity to transport the tonnage of the lakes to the sea can be constructed via Lake Ontario for less cost than by any other route, and that a steamer will traverse it in about three-quarters the time required on a direct waterway of similar dimensions from Lake Erie to the Mohawk at Utica. If, therefore, the object desired is to develop a waterway which will best subserve the interests of the lake commerce, it is apparent that the route should be through Lake Ontario and that a ship canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario should be an essential part of it." ⁷

There was one particular investigation, however, that was made under Federal authority a little earlier which had more to do with shaping the New York canal policy than any other examination or survey, either Federal or State. This investigation was made by Major Thomas W. Symons, later Colonel, Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., retired, who had come to Buffalo in 1895 to take charge of the Federal river and harbor work in the vicinity. Although the act of Congress authorized primarily an examination and estimates for constructing a certain type of canal, Col. Symons extended his studies into the realm of comparative costs of transporting by ships and canal barges and thus acquired definite information on a subject in which there had been before no authoritative data. In writing of this investigation Col. Symons describes so well the parts of it which became the controlling influence in determining future action that we are quoting from him at some length.

Referring first to the report of the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways, Col. Symons says:

"This elaborate and expensive report on the ship canal question on its presentation and publication fell flat and has scarcely been heard from since except to use some of its findings and statements for contentious purposes, and its maps and data for other canal projects. No official effort to bring it up or to cause its suggestions or recommendations to be carried into effect was ever made. The apparent reason for this practical obliteration of the ship canal from official consideration was the fact that while it was in progress the question of the relative economy and efficiency of ship and barge canals was studied and analyzed by the writer and others and found to be largely in favor of a barge canal.

"The River and Harbor Act of June 3, 1896, contained the following provision:

" 'The Secretary of War is hereby directed to cause to be made accurate examinations and estimates of cost of construction of a ship canal by the most practicable route, wholly within the United States, from the Great Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson river, of sufficient capacity to transport the tonnage of the lakes to the sea.'

"The work was placed in charge of the writer by letter from the Chief of Engineers, dated August 13, 1896, and the report called for was submitted June 23, 1897.

"The gist and greatest value of the report consists in the careful investigation that was made into the cost per ton of carrying capacity of lake ships and canal barges, and the cost of operating the same. These costs, with the items of transfer at Buffalo, insurance on vessels and cargoes, interest on investment and deterioration, all reduced to a single unit of freight, enabled a comparison to be made between the economy and efficiency of a ship canal and a barge canal.

"It was roughly estimated that the ship canal would cost $200,000,000 and the barge canal (Erie alone) $50,000,000. The estimated cost per ton of carrying capacity of steel lake freighters was determined to be from $35 to $50, while the cost per ton of carrying capacity of canal barges, including a steamer with each fleet, all suitable for navigating the canal, was $10 to $20.

"With everything reduced to the same basis, it was calculated that the cost of transporting a bushel of wheat in lake freighters of 7000 tons capacity through a suitable canal from Buffalo to New York was 2.28 cents, while the cost of transporting the same bushel in a fleet of barges, each carrying 1500 tons, through a suitable barge canal from Buffalo to New York, and including the transfer charges at Buffalo was 2.07 cents, and if the transfer charges were reduced, as they have since been reduced, was 1.66 cents.

"In making this comparison no consideration was given to the cost of the canal or the cost of operating it, the basis of comparison being the interest on the cost of carriers, deterioration thereof, insurance of carriers and cargoes, ordinary repairs, fuel, oil, and waste and the wages and subsistence of the crews of the vessels. If the first cost of the canal and the cost of maintenance and operation were taken into consideration, the showing in favor of the barge canal over the ship canal would have been still more marked.

"The study was convincing that for the highest economy in transportation, special types of vessels are needed for use on the ocean, on the lakes, and on the canals, and neither can replace the other in its proper waters without suffering loss of economical efficiency. Ocean vessels could not, as a general rule, engage in the business of passing through a ship canal and the lakes to the upper lake ports, and lake vessels are not fitted for use upon the ocean, and if they made use of a canal they would have to transfer their cargoes at the seaboard, ordinarily by means of lighter, floating elevators, etc,. at a higher expense than such transfers would cost at the lower lake ports. For economical transportation through a canal from the Great Lakes to the sea special vessels, differing from and far less costly than ocean or lake vessels, are required.

"The conclusion was reached by the writer that even if a ship canal were built, the greater cheapness of barge canal transportation would prevent its use by large ships, and cause it to be used almost entirely by fleets of barges which could be almost equally as well accommodated in a smaller and cheaper canal.

"The report was submitted June 23, 1897, and published in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1897. No action was taken on it by the General Government, but it had an important influence in shaping public opinion in New York, in killing the ship canal idea, and in furnishing a standard about which the canal interests of New York could rally. The $9,000,000 fiasco, the dazzling pictures of the ship canal advocates, and the dismal pictures of the enemies of all canals, had produced a state of bewilderment in regard to the canal questions. The report advocating a barge canal for boats of about 1500 tons capacity cleared things up, and was a solution of the problem which was received with favor and grew in estimation, until it was finally adopted by the State and, with modifications, is now being carried out." ⁸

It will be well to remember these words of Col. Symons. They explain the basic principle which governed the choice of a barge rather than a ship canal across New York state. In the maze of events and discussions that took place before the people finally decided what course to pursue we may lose sight of the influence Col. Symons' investigation had on the whole question. Col. Symons was a member of the committee which later formulated the State canal policy and thus was able to give the State the full benefit of his earlier researches.

Footnotes:

    ¹   See Bibliography in History of the Canal System of the State of New York, etc., for list of some of these publications.
    ²   Buffalo Historical Society Publications, Vol. XIII, p. 122.
    ³   House Document No. 192, 54^th Congress, 2^d Session, pp. 29, 30.
    ⁴   Id., p. 30.
    ⁵   House Document No. 149, 56^th Congress, 2^d Session, p.125.
    ⁶   Id., p. 123.
    ⁷   Id., pp. 50, 51.
    ⁸   Buffalo Historical Society Publications, Vol. XIII, selected paragraphs on pp. 124-129.