Power Development of Canal Waters -- Charting Canal Waters -- Blue Line Surveys -- Sale of Abandoned Canal Lands -- Sale of Appropriated but Unnecessary Lands -- Sale and Use of Excavated Materials -- Rome-Mohawk Section -- Cemetery Lands -- Advisory Board Abolished -- Toll Bridges -- Retention of Old Canal near Waterford; also near Schuylerville -- Maintenance Equipment -- Reorganization of Operating Forces -- Prize Lock -- Maintenance of Rochester-Lockport Water Level -- Protective Laws -- State Towage -- Faithful Performance Bonds -- Contracts under War Conditions -- Terminal and Navigation Rules -- Attempted Federal Jurisdiction -- Reorganization of Engineer's Department -- Terminal Organization -- Terminal Charges -- Amendments to Terminal Law -- Wharfage Fees Remitted -- "Finish the Job."

At the beginning of Barge canal construction there were many questions to be decided besides those dealing with the proper design of channel and structures and the multitude of similar matters of a more or less technical character. In our study of the canal these other topics, which are concerned with policies, methods and the like, are treated apart from events which have had to do more with the work of actual construction. While the larger questions of policy and procedure necessarily had to be decided early in canal construction, there have been numerous matters of similar nature throughout the whole period of building the canal. These later subjects make up the present chapter and of necessity they are not very closely connected.

Of the later policies the first in point of time to be considered by canal officials was that of developing and disposing of power which might be derived from surplus canal waters. As a matter of fact this problem received attention almost as soon as construction began, but its solution is an event of very recent date, if indeed it can be said to have been fully and finally solved.

As early as 1905 State Engineer Van Alstyne called the attention of the Legislature to the possibility of developing power at the many dams which would be built in canal construction. In the past the State had built dams for its canals and at these dams water-power worth millions of dollars in the aggregate had been generated, but in nearly every instance it had been private individuals or corporations that acquired possession of the power rights and had used them without making any adequate return to the State. It was to prevent such an outcome with respect to potential Barge canal water-power that the State Engineer made his appeal to the Legislature, counseling a careful guarding of the State's interests.

Through all of the years from this first recommendation until 1921, when a State water-power policy was adopted, this question of utilizing surplus waters has been most prolific of thought and discussion. In nearly every annual report the State Engineer has given it lengthy consideration, while the Superintendent of Public Works has discussed it in many of his reports. Not only these officials but others have grappled with the problem, or rather with the larger part of the problem of which the canal question is simply a part. This larger problem -- the whole broad subject of utilizing the State's available water-power in general -- was under consideration and many persons were trying to evolve a policy which would safeguard the State's interests and at the same time would be fair to power companies and also present opportunities sufficiently attractive for the companies to accept. Furthermore, water-power utilization is in turn only a part of the still larger problem of conserving all natural sources of energy. The days of canal construction have been also the days when the theory of conservation of natural resources has found ready acceptance and general recognition among us. Since, therefore, such far-reaching and all-important questions were more or less at stake in the proper solution of the canal water-power problem, it is scarcely to be wondered at that progress has been slow. In 1907 the Legislature provided by chapter 494, which became section 16 of the Barge canal law, that canal waters should not be leased, sold or otherwise disposed of until the canal should be completed nor thereafter until authorized by a statute which should specify conditions and restrictions to govern such lease or sale.

In 1909 another amendment to the Barge canal act (chapter 273) empowered the State Engineer to take possession of lands, structures and waters "for the utilization and full control by the State of the waters impounded, created and to be discharged as the result of the construction of any dam, mole, reservoir or other structure as part of the improved canal system." This amendment was evidently in response to a recommendation by Superintendent of Public Works Stevens, its purpose being to provide for the acquisition of whatever was essential to the complete control by the State of its canal waters.

In 1909 State Engineer Williams advised action which would allow the use of about six thousand horse-power at each of two large Barge canal dams, those at Vischer Ferry and Crescent, which would go to waste for several years if not utilized till the whole canal should be completed. The cities near these dams took up this cry and for years the Capitol District, as it is called, echoed the demands for power from these sources.

In the official recommendations of recent years there is apparent a deeper appreciation of the need of solving the whole water-power problem of the State rather than the canal question alone. Thus we read in State Engineer Williams' annual report for 1917, "State officials and others who have given the subject some thought agree that a strong, definite policy should be adopted in treating the broad question of power development and flood control in the rivers and streams of the state. I am strongly of the opinion that the State should not embark in any proposition of this nature or become a party to any undertaking until the many varied and complex problems which are involved have been approached from all angles and solved in such a way as to insure the greatest ultimate benefit to both the State at large and its citizens."

But in spite of these evidences of a general realization of both the complexities of the problem and the need of a complete water-power policy, the canal officials and the public at large appear to have been impatient at delay and continued to urge the use of canal waters. And their reasoning seems good. The dams were already built and the power was going to waste. As Mr. Williams pointed out, long-term leases could be so drawn that they would safeguard canal interests, allow the use of surplus waters, thus assuring additional State revenue as well as additional power for industrial purposes, and at the same time not interfere with any general water-power policy the State might thereafter adopt.

A list of Barge canal water-power possibilities, compiled by the Superintendent of Public Works and published in his 1919 annual report, shows the following conditions: At Crescent, Vischer Ferry, Rocky Rift, Caughdenoy, Cayuga, Clyde, Lock No. 1 on the Champlain canal and Crocker's Reef the State owns the whole flow of the streams, but no development has been made. At Fulton the flow is owned partly by the State and partly by outside parties and the power has been developed. At Minetto the State owns the eastern half of the river's flow and the western half is developed. At High dam, near Oswego, the flow is owned by the State, but has been applied for by the city of Oswego; the power has not been developed here. At Rochester the flow from the canal into the Genesee river and certain rights in the river are owned by the State; the power has been developed. At Medina the flow is owned by the State, but its use interferes with navigation interests; the power is developed. At Lockport the flow is now under lease and permit to water-power users; power has been developed here. At Northumberland one-half of the river flow is owned by the State and there is a partial development at this location. At Whitehall the whole flow is owned by the State and power has been developed.

In 1921 the State adopted a definite water-power policy, largely through the efforts of Governor Miller. The new law created a Water Power Commission and gave this Commission the authority to issue licenses for the development of power at places where the State owns the power rights, the license carrying with it the privilege of using such water-power upon the payment of equitable rental. The enactment by Congress of the so-called Federal Water Power Commission bill made the speedy adoption of a State policy almost imperative and probably had considerable influence on State action at that time. The original law placed Barge canal power under the jurisdiction of the new Commission, but required that before any of them could be developed the Superintendent of Public Works must certify that such development could be accomplished without detriment to transportation on the canal. Applications were made to the Water Power Commission for privileges to develop certain Barge canal powers, but the Superintendent would not make the necessary certificate to allow the applicants to proceed. He took the stand that the execution of a certificate of this character would constitute a relinquishment to other agencies of that control of canal waters which is essential for carrying out the duties and obligations imposed upon the Superintendent of Public Works by the Constitution and the statutes of the State. It would be better, he held, that canal waters should run to waste than that commerce should be crippled. The experience of the past had shown that, once privileges to use canal waters had been granted, even under provisions of revocation, it was next to impossible to discontinue or restrict such use. Since the development of canal water-powers was thus blocked, the Legislature of 1922 took the control of canal power sites out of the hands of the Commission and gave it to the Superintendent of Public Works. The new act constituted a State policy, applying to all potential power developments of canal waters. To begin the work one million dollars were appropriated for building power plants at the Crescent and Vischer Ferry dams. Under the act the Superintendent is empowered to sell any surplus electric current not needed by the canal or State structures adjacent to the canal.

The next subject to engage our attention is that of making charts of the canalized lakes and rivers which form so large a part of the Barge canal system. In 1909 State Engineer Williams told the Legislature that the time had come when provision should be made for preparing and printing such charts, since canal traffic would soon be turned into certain river channels. So radical were the changes in navigation in the new canal that it was absolutely necessary that boatmen should have charts. The Barge canal law contained no authorization for making charts and so the State Engineer recommend action on the part of the Legislature. A bill for this purpose in the 1910 Legislature failed of passage. In his report of this year Mr. Williams again referred to the subject but recommended that attempt be made to induce the United States to undertake the work. This recommendation was heartily seconded by a similar one from the Superintendent of Public Works in his report of the same year. The Barge canal adjoins Federal waters in so many places that a uniformity in charts was deemed advisable and moreover the United States already had an organization, called the Lakes Survey, at work charting the adjacent Government waters, and it was the extension of this survey to cover navigable lakes and rivers of the State waterways that Mr. Williams was seeking. State Engineer Bensel continued this policy and in 1911 secured Federal coöperation. As a result the Government has made surveys and prepared and printed charts and offered them for sale, just as it has done with respect to Federal waters. These charts, however, include only such parts of the canal as lie in waters which are considered naturally navigable, but even at that they cover a large portion of the State waterway. But later other charts were issued by the Superintendent of Public Works. In 1915 he found it necessary to do considerable work in marking the river channels by buoys and lights and in the same year he began making charts, these showing particularly the location of each light, buoy or other marker. This work he continued until the whole extent of the canal was covered, land lines as well as river channels.

An important policy adopted in 1909 was that of making what are known as "blue line" surveys. On the maps of the original State canals the line showing the boundaries of lands acquired by the State for its canals was shown in blue ink. The custom of referring to this as the blue line is now of such long-standing that the term has come to be synonymous with canal land boundary line.

It was on the recommendation of State Engineer Williams that this blue line policy was adopted. In 1909 he suggested it. Since the State owned valuable property within these lines and the description of much adjacent property depended on them and since also it would be almost impossible to retrace the lines after old canal banks and structures should be obliterated, the need of immediate action was apparent and the Legislature responded to the appeal and made an appropriation to begin the surveys.

In reporting on this work Mr. Williams said in his 1910 annual report: "In response to my suggestions you made appropriation to begin this work, and most wisely, it seems to me, for the need was very urgent. When it is realized that never, until the beginning of Barge canal operations, have State canal property lines been suitably monumented and that in many places no map since that of 1834 may be relied upon as authoritative in courts of law, the importance of the work is appreciated. When it is further realized that the State lands within these bounds have become very valuable in many localities and that much valuable adjacent property depends on these same lines for description or starting point, and that an alteration or destruction of existing canal banks and structures, before the 'blue line' should be rerun, would doubtless result in endless litigation and probable loss to the State, the necessity for continuing this work to the end will be seen."

As funds have become available from time to time these blue line surveys have progressed. They are as yet not entirely completed. After surveys have been made, maps have been prepared and these maps have been submitted to the Canal Board for approval.

Closely connected with the subject of surveying canal property lines is that of disposing of such of the property itself as would not be needed for canal purposes after the new canal should be put in full operation. The need of proper legislation to provide for the sale of these old canal lands seems to have been brought to public attention first by Superintendent of Public Works Treman in his annual report of 1911. The State Constitution prohibits the sale of canals, but under the Public Lands law the disposal of lands no longer necessary for the canal was permitted and for years such lands have been disposed of, only small parcels, however, ever having been involved. But is was considered that the law as it stood did not apply to long stretches of canal, and the portions of canal which eventually would be abandoned because of new alignment were long in extent, hundreds of miles in fact.

Aside from the value of these lands and the advisability of putting them to some use, it was not wise for the State to be under the expense of maintenance or to be liable for damage suits, which were sure to come, or for the menace to health which an unused channel would probably cause.

For several years the Superintendent reiterated his recommendation and the State Engineer joined him in advocating the policy. In 1914 legislation was introduced but not passed. In 1916, however, the Public Lands law was amended (by chapter 299) and thereafter the Commissioners of the Land Office could dispose of such portions of the old canal lands as the canal officials had formally declared to be of no further use for canal purposes. Considerable amounts of these abandoned lands have already been sold. The stretches in the cities have been bought largely by the cities themselves and have brought good prices, the city of Rochester for example paying more than a million and a half dollars for what it secured. A plan has been adopted of dividing the land into parcels of such extent as best to fit the needs of prospective buyers, in order, if possible, to sell all the parcels and leave no isolated pieces in possession of the State.

There were other canal lands, however, for which legislative provision had to be made. In 1909 an amendment to the Barge canal law (by chapter 244) provided that in the event any piece of land appropriated for Barge canal purposes should be found not to be necessary for such purpose, after certain procedure it should be returned to the owner from whom it had been taken, together with a quit-claim deed. The terminal law was amended in like manner by chapter 488 of the laws of 1915.

In addition to lands the State occasionally came into possession, by reason of new canal construction, of certain materials for which it had no use. An amendment (chapter 320, Laws of 1909) to the Barge canal law permitted the Superintendent of Public Works to sell "any materials found in deposit or otherwise during the progress of the improvement." In 1915 (by chapter 570) this amendment was added to and the Superintendent was authorized to allow any county, city, village or town to remove these materials encountered in canal excavation and use them for constructing or repairing highways without compensation to the State.

One portion of superseded canal which has given rise to considerable legislation and also to several constitutional amendments is that lying between Rome and the village of Mohawk. By provision in the terminal act this stretch was to be retained as a part of the terminal system. It was to be kept in a navigable state, but the size of its channel was not to be increased. New junction locks at either end, however, were made necessary. After these locks were built and the new canal in this vicinity was in use, it was attempted to keep open this old section of the canal under the new conditions. But this attempt was unsuccessful and the reason was that sufficient water to fill it was not available. At least it was not available from the existing source of supply. The old canal level between Utica and Syracuse was a summit level, which was fed principally from the Adirondack reservoir supply, coming in at Rome, and from the reservoirs south of the canal and west of Rome. The new channel crosses the old canal at Rome, but its surface is several feet lower than that of the old waterway. Thus the sole feeder of the thirty-mile stretch between Rome and Mohawk was Oriskany creek, and the flow in this stream would not fill the canal to a navigable depth. After nearly two months of vain endeavor to fill the canal, men having been stationed continuously at the feeder gates and every device for husbanding the supply having been tried, the Superintendent of Public Works came to the conclusion that the task was physically impossible and called upon the State Engineer to study the situation and suggest a remedy. From his study the State Engineer determined that the flow which might be expected from Oriskany creek was entirely inadequate and other means must be found to supply the need. Two methods were suggested. One was for electrical pumps at Rome, water to be pumped from the new channel. This scheme was estimated to cost $30,000 for installation and $22,000 yearly for operation. The other method was the use of a dive culvert under the new canal at Rome, connecting the stretch of old canal in question and another portion of old canal which extends to the west on the other side of the new channel. This section of old canal to the west, now joined to the new canal by a junction lock, is being retained for two reasons -- it is needed to connect the Black River canal with the new waterway and also it brings part of the Adirondack water-supply. The probable cost of the proposed culvert was set at $50,000.

To complicate the situation two other factors had entered into the problem. Eight lift-bridges spanned the old canal in Utica and one in Ilion. Previous to 1917 all save one of these bridges had been operated at the expense of the municipalities, but because of the wording of the terminal law, which reads, "The present Erie canal between Rome and Mohawk shall be retained at not less than its present dimensions, and all structures, locks, bridges and docks thereon shall be maintained and operated by the State for terminal purposes," the city of Utica refused longer to pay these operating expenses. To assume this burden meant an added $5,000 of annual State expense.

The second factor was a proposed constitutional amendment which would permit disposal of the old canal between Schuyler and Third streets, Utica, provided a sufficient flow of water should be maintained between these points to feed the portion of the old canal lying to the east. In the form of a concurrent resolution this proposition had been passed by the 1917 Legislature, even before the problem of feeding the Rome-Mohawk stretch had much more than presented itself.

The Legislature of 1918 appropriated $20,000 for the culvert under the new canal at Rome and this sum, together with $30,000 contributed by interested industrial companies, built the structure. The Legislature also passed the proposed constitutional amendment the second time necessary for bringing it to vote before the people and in the following fall it was approved by popular vote.

Later the State Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works submitted to the Canal Board the requisite statutory certificates declaring that the Schuyler-Third street section was no longer needed for navigation, but the Board took no action on the matter, since it appeared that the constitutional amendment merely gave to the Legislature the right to amend or repeal the section in the terminal law which provided for the retention of the canal. While that law stood in its existing form the Canal Board had no authority to abandon any of the old canal between Rome and Mohawk. The Board held public meetings, however, and at these the abandonment of the whole stretch from Rome to Mohawk was urged. The subject came before the 1920 Legislature, but instead of an amendment to the terminal act a measure was passed (chapter 744) which authorized the City of Utica to lower or remove any or all of the three bridges in the Schuyler-Third street section and to construct a conduit in the bed of the canal between Schuyler and Third streets. The work the city did under authority of this law constituted in effect, though not in fact, an abandonment of the old canal in Utica.

The Legislature of 1920 also took action looking toward the abandonment of the whole Rome-Mohawk section of the old canal. By concurrent resolutions it provided for two constitutional amendments. One proposed to permit the sale or other disposition of the portion lying between the village of Mohawk and the Herkimer-Oneida county line, while the other would allow such sale of the entire stretch between Rome and Mohawk. The second proposition of course made the first unnecessary, but notwithstanding this fact the Legislature of 1921 approved both of these proposed amendments and at the general election of that year the people in turn gave their approval. The Legislature of 1922 duly passed a law (chapter 341) amending the terminal act by omitting the clause which retained the Rome-Mohawk section for terminal purposes. Accordingly this portion of the old canal now passes out of use along with nearly all of the waterway which formerly ran beside the Mohawk river from Cohoes to Rome.

Another type of land for which provision had to be made was the cemetery. In acquiring the lands necessary for an enterprise of such magnitude as the Barge canal, especially for its great reservoirs, covering miles of territory, here and there were included small areas which had been used as burial grounds. Often these were isolated and unused, the family burial-plots, perhaps deserted and forgotten, standing in the midst of a cultivated field or broad meadow. Still each one, however small or neglected, was God's acre and as such was properly protected by law. The State could not with propriety flood such lands, whether small family plots or larger cemeteries, or sink them beneath the waters of a new lake without first removing whatever remains were there interred. An amendment (chapter 63, Laws of 1910) to the Barge canal law provided, therefore, that wherever it became necessary in canal construction to acquire and use such burial grounds the State should remove the bodies found therein to other plots, to be acquired for the purpose, and that the title to such new lands should be transferred to the persons, corporations or municipalities owning the plots in which the remains were originally buried. If persons having a right to the disposition of bodies desired to reinter them in plots of their own choosing, they were permitted to do this, but without expense to the State.

With the coming of a different political party into State public affairs in 1911 several changes in canal administration were made. Among them was the abolition of the Advisory Board of Consulting Engineers. This Board, it will be recalled, was created by the original Barge canal act and moreover by an amendment to this act provision was made to perpetuate the Board to the end of canal construction. But the Legislature of 1911 (by chapter 736) abolished the Board and in its stead the State Engineer was authorized to employ from time to time, with the approval of the Governor, one or more consulting engineers. The reason given for this action was that canal work would be expedited and the new system would operate to the advantage of the State, because the consulting engineers would perform their duties under the direction of the State Engineer and would be available for consultation at all times. In his appointment of consulting engineers Mr. Bensel retained two members of the Advisory Board and named three new men. In the working out of this law it has happened that generally one consulting engineer has been employed for full-time service and the others have been called for special occasions of a few days duration each, being paid only for the time they have actually served.

Several laws enacted in 1913, 1914 and 1915 call for brief attention. In attempting to appropriate certain toll bridges over the Mohawk river below Vischer Ferry the State was involved in litigation which caused delay and also made necessary the construction of a temporary lock at the north end of Vischer Ferry dam, at a cost of $163,000, in order to maintain navigation. A law passed at the extraordinary session of 1913 (chapter 801) directed the Superintendent of Public Works to take possession of such toll bridges as had to be altered or rebuilt in canal construction and to acquire also the franchises connected with these bridges. If a new bridge were to be built to take the place of any of these toll bridges, it should be maintained by the State and become a free public bridge.

Bridge across the Mohawk river at Crescent. The canalization of the river necessitated the removal of an aqueduct which carried the old canal over the stream and also a highway bridge, both only a few feet below the new bridge. Except the Schenectady-Scotia structure, this is the longest bridge on the Barge canal, 1,135 feet. There are five spans, each having a clear span of 224 feet. The old structure was a toll bridge. The State has made this free.

By another law of 1913 (chapter 243) the old canal from Waterford to lock No. 2 was to be retained as part of the canal system. Included in the retained channel was the portion of the Champlain canal from its junction with the Barge canal at Waterford southerly to its junction with the unimproved Erie canal; also the old Erie from this junction southerly to lock No. 2, and in addition what were known as the Watervliet basin and the Watervliet and Port Schuyler side-cuts.

Provision was made for retaining the old Champlain canal between Schuylerville and Northumberland by chapter 412, Laws of 1914. The portion affected extended from a point immediately south of the Schuylerville waste-weir northerly to a connection with the Barge canal just north of the Barge canal lock at Northumberland. This stretch of old canal was intended to serve Schuylerville as a terminal, having been chosen by the citizens in lieu of the ordinary type of terminal. The guard-lock needed at the north end of this section was paid for out of the terminal fund. It will be noticed that by this choice no boats larger than those of old canal dimensions can reach Schuylerville.

When new sections of canal, especially canalized river channels, were put in use, the Superintendent of Public Works found himself confronted with many new problems. The maintenance of the improved canals differed widely from that of the old waterways. Among the laws of 1914 was one (chapter 144) which appropriated funds for the purchase of new machinery for the work of maintenance; also one (chapter 145) which provided for building extra lock-gates to be ready in case of emergency. In the same year we find the Superintendent saying in his annual report that there were needed for maintenance four steel tugs, four sets of steel pontoons for raising sunken boats, six new repair shops, six dry docks, gantry tracks above the lower gates of all high lift locks, six sets of portable gantry tracks for handling smaller gates, hydraulic dredges for the river sections and a fund for painting bridges and other steel structures. In 1915 the Legislature furnished part of this equipment. By chapter 708 funds were supplied for some of the pontoons and cranes and for painting. The maintenance equipment, however, has not kept pace with the needs of the canal. All the recent reports of the Superintendent have contained appeals for better apparatus. The State equipment, he has said, is sadly inadequate and out of date. It has been necessary often to rent machinery from contractors and such practice is condemned as unbusiness-like and unduly expensive.

In 1915 the political complexion of the State government was again changed. To the office of Superintendent of Public Works came Gen. W.W. Wotherspoon, who brought to the department a wide experience in army affairs. Several innovations were made at this time. One of the first things to engage Mr. Wotherspoon's attention was the personnel of the canal operating forces. It had been realized for some time that the old type of lock operator would not serve the new need. Lock-tenders they had been called and the very difference in name is significant. The old locks did not demand any very high order of mentality or mechanical ability, and as the positions had generally been treated simply as political jobs, rewards for service to the party in power, the usual lock-tender had been an unskilled man, often an old man, and his appointment was for only one navigation season. There were also other canal positions which required no more ability and much the same type of individual filled them. The positions which called for skilled labor, however, and there were many of them, had of course been filled with a higher type of man. But in large measure canal operating forces had been organized on the basis of unskilled labor and of employment during only a little more than half the year.

The new locks and other structures, with all their intricate electrical machinery, required skilled operators. How the change was made and how it resulted is told by Gen. Wotherspoon in his annual report to the Legislature. He said:

"Already there has been brought to the attention of your honorable body by my predecessor, the necessity of placing the new locks, with their extensive operating apparatus, in the hands of men familiar with machinery and who could be relied upon to take prompt action in cases of emergency. It also has been pointed out to you that the people of the State may receive the full benefit of the new waterway only through its efficient operation; and such may be had only by some guarantee of a tenure of office to those found to be efficient and experienced. With the placing under the charge of this Department of many additional new locks for operation, the importance of securing an efficient operating force was manifest. Early in the year, therefore, the Civil Service Commission was consulted with the result that examinations were devised for the positions to be filled on the new locks and the holding of such examinations was widely advertised. The results obtained are most satisfactory. The new locks are now manned by young men, skilled in the various mechanical trades, and in addition to the safe and proper operation of the lock machinery, are able to make the repairs needed from time to time without any additional cost to the State. The change in personnel of this branch of the service has been much appreciated by canal users as navigation of the canal and the use of the locks has been placed on a definite and precise business basis. It is my belief that at the present time, the lock organization of this Department, man for man, is equal in ability to any similar force in the employ of any corporation or great business enterprise."

Another innovation was the prize lock. At the beginning of the 1915 navigation season a prize was offered to the crew of that lock which at the close of the season should have attained the highest excellence in the condition of the operating machinery and the appearance of the structure and grounds. The prize consisted in a small increase in salary to each man and the distinction of erecting a sign proclaiming it the prize lock, both of these privileges to be retained for only one year unless the same crew won again the next season. The plan was most successful. The machinery was kept in perfect condition and the surroundings were beautified, unsightly banks and the debris incidental to construction having disappeared. This plan has been continued and has worked out to the benefit of the State.

Upon assuming office Gen. Wotherspoon found that an unfavorable condition existed with regard to supplying the Rochester-Lockport level with sufficient water for navigation. Until the new channel should be completed and the supply could be taken from the Niagara river at Tonawanda the water had to come from Lake Erie and pass through the unimproved channel between Buffalo and Tonawanda in such quantity as to fill the enlarged prism from Tonawanda to South Greece, about seventy-three miles distant from the source of supply. To aggravate the difficulty there were factories along this stretch which depended more or less on canal water for power. While Gen. Wotherspoon appreciated the importance of manufacturing, he considered that his first duty to the State was to insure water for navigation. Accordingly he adopted a new policy; he placed the matter of maintaining the proper depth of water in this level in the hands of a single official who was answerable only to the Superintendent, and he gave strict orders that no water was to be diverted from the canal except with the knowledge and consent of the Albany office. The result was that for the first time in several years no complaints of insufficient depth were received from the boatmen.

Gen. Wotherspoon succeeded in having two important laws passed in 1915. These had been suggested by his predecessor, Superintendent Peck, just before he vacated the office. One (chapter 448) made it a felony for any person without authority of law wilfully to inflict an injury on any part of the canal system or to tamper in any manner with the machinery or apparatus connected with any mechanical structure. The other (chapter 491) declared it a misdemeanor for anyone without authority to remove any timber or growing things or materials from State land or to erect any building thereon. In the past the Superintendent had found himself with little authority to right certain wrongs and these statutes were intended to assist him.

The coming of the Barge canal has marked the end of the century-old custom of animal towage on the New York canals. No towing-paths even have been provided on the new waterway, except such as were used temporarily during the period of transition. In 1914 two stretches of new channel which had no towing-paths were opened to navigation. One lay in Wayne county, about twenty miles in length, and the other was a portion of the Mohawk river between Vischer Ferry and Rexford. Being thus isolated, with portions of the old canal extending from either end, it was necessary to provide some means of towing horse-drawn boats across these sections, since such craft constituted a large part of the shipping then in service. Accordingly the Legislature appropriated $40,000 to pay for tugs to do the towing in these sections. In 1915 the Wayne county portion had been lengthened, but it was still isolated. The Mohawk river section had been extended to the Hudson river at Waterford and therefore had not the excuse of isolation in requiring State towage, but another appropriation was made that year and the practice was continued. By 1916 the Mohawk river navigation reached from the Hudson to Jacksonburg, a distance of eighty-six miles. On the Champlain and Oswego canal boatmen had adapted themselves to the new conditions and had their own facilities for towage, but on the Erie branch sixty per cent of the boats plying on the canal were horse-drawn and again the State had to furnish tugs.

Each year after 1914 and until 1921, except during 1918, when the Federal government was in full control of canal transportation, the State made provision for towing such boats as had no other means of propulsion. In effect this was the adoption of a policy, although it was done through necessity and not from free choice or with the idea that it would be permanent. This action really amounted to a canal subsidy, a thing which is acknowledged by canal advocates as unwise and also as tending to discourage the best kind of private enterprise on the canal. But the State was confronted with the alternative of providing towage that would permit the majority of available canal craft to engage in traffic or of declining to do so, with the certainty of depriving the waterway of the larger part of its floating equipment and thus denying many shippers the advantages of canal transportation and condemning the waterway to comparative disuse. It was acknowledged of course that a sufficiency of new boats should be put on the canal and the State should not be compelled to furnish towage for the antiquated craft, but lacking this ideal only one course seemed open. The venture was not a success financially. For the first three years the towage was free and after that time the rates charged the boatmen were not sufficient to recompense the State. The cost, moreover, was large; as new sections of canal were added the amount for towage mounted higher and higher. And after all these costly endeavors to favor the owners of old boats there appears the prospect that the rate war they are planning will drive from the canal the new boats which are being operated by responsible companies and are giving such class of service as has long been the object of earnest seeking.

In 1921 the practice of State towage was discontinued. The experience of the year seemed to show that it had been maintained as long as necessary, since no marked detriment to canal traffic followed its cessation.

In 1916 at the suggestion of Superintendent of Public Works Wotherspoon a new policy was adopted with reference to the amount of security contractors should be required to furnish for the faithful and complete performance of their contracts. Originally the Barge canal law had fixed the amount as at least twenty-five per cent of the bid. By an amendment in 1909 (chapter 267) this had been reduced to ten per cent. Experience had shown that occasionally the State had lost money by this provision. It had been compelled sometimes to complete work which a defaulting contractor had failed to finish and to do this at a cost greater that the contractor's forfeited bond. The law of 1909 specified ten per cent as the minimum security and so the Superintendent appealed to the Canal Board to fix a larger sum. In response twenty per cent was set as the minimum bond for faithful performance of contracts and under certain circumstances this could be increased to fifty per cent.

The great bulk of canal construction had been completed before the United States entered the World war, but work to the value of about six million dollars was under contract on the day when the declaration was made. Almost immediately industrial conditions began to change and it was with continually increasing difficulty that contractors on the Barge canal were able to continue their work. It was during this first year after America's entrance into the war, it will be recalled, that such strenuous efforts were made to complete the channel throughout the entire length for an opening to commence in the spring of 1918. To accomplish this desired end the engineers and the contractors worked most zealously and the contractors bravely did their part, although they faced the certainty of having to bear heavy financial losses. Since the contractors who had undertaken work before war was declared were not responsible for the conditions which ensued and could not well have foreseen what was to happen, it was felt quite generally that they should not be made to suffer for the benefit of the public and therefore relief measures were sought. Thus we find State Engineer Williams making an appeal to the Legislature on behalf of Barge canal contractors.

The Legislature of 1918 responded to this and other like requests and passed a law (chapter 585) which recompensed the contractors for their losses. Not only Barge canal contractors but those on other forms of public works were included in the scope of this act. We need not consider the details of the law. Its provisions were rather intricate and demanded very careful study. Our chief interest is in knowing that the State adopted this policy of relief toward the contractors carrying on its public works who were caught unawares on April 6,1917. So far as Barge canal contracts were concerned the State Engineer found that virtually the whole responsibility for the proper administration of the law devolved upon him.

One of the provisions of the terminal law was that regulations for the management of the terminals should be prescribed by the Canal Board and enforced by the Superintendent of Public Works. Since the whole terminal project was a new venture on the part of the State, the canal officials deemed it wise to let experience dictate most of the rules. But from time to time regulations have been adopted and in his annual report for 1919 Superintendent Walsh published the seventeen terminal regulations which had been adopted up to that time.

The rules to govern general canal traffic had been published in convenient form some two years earlier. On July 1, 1917, Superintendent Wotherspoon had issued a brochure of sixty-two pages comprising a single set of rules and regulations for the control of navigation on the canals. It had been many years since anything like this had been published. A section of the general Canal Law directs the Superintendent of Public Works to make the rules to govern commerce on the canals, and as necessity has required, the various regulations have been adopted. With the advent of the improved canal new rules were formulated and in this year, since the whole Barge canal was about to be opened, the publication of the regulations then in force, both old and new, was very timely.

Since the Barge canal has been in operation there have been attempts on the part of Federal authorities to pass Congressional legislation inimical, in the eyes of New Yorkers, to our canals, and also a tendency to assert national jurisdiction over matters relating to navigation on the State canal system. It is interesting to observe how Superintendent of Public Works Walsh discovered and then thwarted one of these attempts. It was a proposed amendment to the Federal Act to Regulate Commerce which would have extended the control and jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over carriers on the inland waterways, including the New York canals. Apprehensive of some such danger, Mr. Walsh had followed the progress in Congress of legislation relative to transportation and when this measure appeared he marshaled the industrial forces of the State -- the commercial organizations, the merchants and the manufacturers -- and led a vigorous attack in opposition. He appeared before the Committee on Foreign and Domestic Commerce at Washington on September 16, 1919, and presented a strong argument against the proposed amendment, saying that its passage would make railroad influence dominant over the canals and this would mean that the waterways would virtually lose their value. With the coöperation of the State representatives in Congress and the support of shipping interests the measure was defeated.

The attempts to assert national jurisdiction over State canal matters were apparent in 1919 and 1920. What was actually done was not so important, but it involved a far-reaching principle. United States officials were trying to enforce a requirement that steam or motor vessels engaged in carrying passengers or freight on the inland waterways of the state should be inspected and licensed by the Department of Commerce and should not be allowed to operate unless they were in charge of persons duly licensed by United States inspectors. These orders were issued in the name of the Secretary of Commerce, who evidently relied for his authority on certain provisions of the United States Revised statutes which have to do with the construction, equipment, inspection and licensing of vessels using the navigable waters of the United States. It was held by Federal authorities that the State canals came within this classification. Under this interpretation the only State waterways left under State control would be small inland lakes which have no connection with the canals. So far as rules to govern navigation were concerned the State had its own Navigation Law, which was substantially the same as the National government and provided for inspecting vessels and equipment for the safety of traffic.

In speaking of this action by the Government, Superintendent Walsh said it was directly opposed to the theory of canal construction and also to the basic law of the State in regard to its canals. Whether State or Federal regulations were enforced was immaterial -- they were almost identical -- but the underlying principle of control was all-important. If the authority of the National government to regulate navigation were admitted or acquiesced in by the State, then the right of the State to control its own waterway was lost and the several State canals became merely "navigable waters of the United States." Carried to its logical conclusion the principle would require that many acts of the Superintendent of Public Works should be subject to approval by Federal authorities, the right of Government engineers to pass upon State plans for construction and repairs could not be denied, direction for the management of canal structures forthcoming from Washington would be in order and in the end the State would be left with only the privilege of paying the bills. Mr. Walsh maintained that his conclusion was not far-fetched and he urged that every means at the command of the State and its representatives in Congress should be exerted to amend the United States statutes upon which the Secretary of Commerce relied in his entrance into the field of canal control, so as to except the State waterways from their provisions.

In 1919 State Engineer Williams reorganized his department so that it might continue on the basis of maintenance rather than that of construction, such as had been the practice for many years. As construction had advanced toward completion the force of engineers had gradually been reduced and now this which was in the nature of a permanent organization was being effected.

With the virtual completion of the terminal project what Superintendent of Public Works Walsh had to say in his 1920 report in regard to operation, charges, revenue and other like terminal subjects is a matter of interest. In organizing his forces for terminal operation he had assigned to the care of the elaborate freight-handling machinery such employees from other branches of the department as had demonstrated their fitness. With these men as a nucleus, electricians and other skilled mechanics were added. The method of management was somewhat similar to that followed at other New York city terminals. Under its workings one or more officials, called harbormasters, remain constantly on duty during sixteen hours each day at the terminal. These men are vested with authority to enforce the adopted rules, they are responsible for State property, and it is their duty to serve the needs of traffic and protect the rights of all concerned. There is a chief harbormaster to whom all questions arising between the local harbormaster and the shipping public must be referred for decision. The chief harbormaster is guided by instructions from the Superintendent of Public Works. This plan applies particularly to New York city, but for other places also harbormasters have been appointed. This form of organization has proved to work well.

Navigation on the State canals, under constitutional provision, is free, but it has been held by canal officials that this provision does not prohibit a charge for the use of terminal facilities. It has been assumed that the authority given under the terminal act to prescribe rules and regulations carries the right to impose reasonable fees. At least such has been the policy established. Upon the Superintendent's recommendation the Canal Board adopted a partial schedule of charges for New York city and Buffalo terminals. Temporarily the imposition of fees at other terminals is held in abeyance, although it has been made plain that such policy is not to be permanent. The arrangements so far have seemed to be satisfactory to everybody and the fees have been paid willingly. Care has been taken not to make the charges too great, lest traffic be discouraged, but it is considered only just that the canal terminals shall become self-supporting.

The revenues from the New York city terminals had become sufficient in 1920 to assure their position not only as self-supporting institutions but also as producers of a surplus for making future improvements.

For the better management of the terminals Superintendent Walsh suggested a few amendments to the law. As the law stood the Canal Board was the governing body and the Superintendent was limited in his acts to directions given by the Board. In the opinion of Superintendent Walsh, while this provision was wise in its application to broad matters of policy, it restricted the Superintendent so narrowly that he could not cope with exigencies as they arose or administer the terminals to the best interests of the State. Mr. Walsh recommended an amendment to correct this situation. He also recommended an amendment to allow the Superintendent to impose penalties for the violation of rules. It was necessary too that the Superintendent should have authority to remove from a terminal any vessel, sunken or afloat, which should become a hindrance to the proper use of the terminal or a menace to other craft. As a fourth recommendation he suggested that a similar provision should authorize the disposal of freight which the owner should refuse or neglect to remove or which might be unclaimed or abandoned.

In 1921 Superintendent Cadle remitted wharfage fees on boats lying at terminals and loading or unloading. He considered that every effort should be made to foster use of the canals and this was one means he employed to accomplish the desired end.

As a final policy there remains to be considered, not a policy adopted by some canal official in connection with construction or management, but a policy advocated by representatives from commercial and civic bodies throughout the state. The questions involved in this policy had been receiving much attention for some time and many conferences were held, not only to formulate a definite policy, but also to determine the nature and location of further canal improvements. The subject was thoroughly discussed at public meetings and it was decided to submit to the Legislature a proposition calling for a further issue of bonds. The slogan, "Finish the job" was adopted and after a meeting held in Albany in March, 1920, a program of action was adopted which resulted in the introduction in the Senate of a bill to authorize a bond issue for a sum not to exceed $33,000,000. The particular improvements specified in the bill included grain elevators, coal transfer terminals, Hudson river terminals, the completion of certain canal terminals and new canal terminals. The locations and the sums for the grain elevators were: Buffalo, $1,600,000; Tonawanda, $1,000,000; Oswego, $1,000,000, Gowanus bay, New York, $2,400,000. There was to be coal transfer construction at two terminals, Ithaca and Watkins, to cost $1,250,000 at each place. Terminals were to be built at five Hudson river cities, these being Poughkeepsie, to cost $400,000; Kingston, estimated at $700,000; Newburgh at $600,000; Hudson at $300,000; and Yonkers at $500,000. For completing terminal construction there were to be the following sums: At Erie and Ohio basins, Buffalo, $2,500,000; at Rochester, $1,400,000; at Syracuse, $650,000; at Utica, $450,000; and at New York city, $3,500,000. A million dollars was added for terminals at municipalities not specifically mentioned and for coal- and freight-handling devices at all terminals. These items totaled $20,500,000. The remainder, $12,500,000, was intended to cover obligations said already to have been incurred by the State in connection with damage claims arising from canal and terminal work performed.

Although the bill failed of passage, appropriations have since been made for some of the projects. The Gowanus elevator has been built and that at Oswego started. Sums have also been provided for continuing terminal work at New York city, Buffalo and Rochester. The State had previously made a beginning of the Hudson River terminals. All of these several projects gathered together in a single measure had the appearance of a large, new policy, but really it was only the assembling of what had been discussed and advocated separately and in part had already been adopted or soon thereafter was to adopted as a State policy.