Commission Created -- Its Duties -- Its Personnel -- Its Work -- Its Recommendations -- Review of Recommendations: Traffic Organization: Coöperative Rail and Water Relationships: Charting Canal Waters: Distribution of Canal Cargoes by Surface Railways -- Mr. Bensel's Dissent -- Its Details.

There is a paragraph in the report of the Committee on Canals, the body that definitely formulated the Barge canal policy, which we did not notice in passing but which is pertinent to the subject now in hand. "As stated in the beginning of this report," says the committee, "in our judgment the efficiency of the canals depends quite as much upon the way the business is handled on them as upon their physical size, and we advise against the expenditure of any more money for their enlargement unless it shall be accompanied with measures which will lead to the adoption of more modern methods in conducting the business of water transportation across the state. The policy of the State hitherto has been to discourage the adoption of modern business methods and to foster the handling of the traffic by canal boatmen owning each a single boat, or small companies owning a few boats. This prevents the State from taking advantage of those improvements in business management which have brought about such enormous economies in other lines. Canal legislation has been largely in the interest of the comparatively small number of canal boatmen, but it has resulted in failure so far as they are concerned, for experience has shown that they are unable to cope with the methods employed through corporate action."

Some of the recommendations made by the Committee on Canals for adopting modern methods in conducting the business of water transportation were carried into effect. Aside from the repeal of the statute limiting transportation companies to a capital of fifty thousand dollars, these changes, however, had to do largely with the period of canal construction. The recommendations of the Terminal Commission in their turn resulted in the State again advancing by seven-league strides, but neither of these commissions had much more than hinted at the subject of canal administration and management. As the time for opening considerable portions of the new canal approached this became a live topic and a commission for its special consideration was created. The immediate cause back of the creation of this commission was a recommendation by Superintendent of Public Works Treman in his annual report to the Legislature of 1912.

The specific objects of investigation assigned by law to this commission, as paraphrased in its report, were the following: Rules and regulations for operating the Barge canal; methods to be applied in the matter of maintenance; principles to be applied to the end that commerce upon the canals may be encouraged, fostered and protected; the type or style of craft best suited to navigation; rules and regulations governing the operation of canal terminals; statutory changes necessary or desirable to a proper, efficient and economical management of the enlarged canal; also any and all other subjects and matters, the study of which may be expected to contribute to a wise and efficient administration of the State's waterways system, to the end that the new and enlarged waterways may fulfill to the greatest measure possible the purposes had in mind when their construction was authorized.

The creating act, which became a law February 28, 1912, (chapter 9) called this body a Commission of Barge Canal Operation and designated as members the two who then held the offices of State Engineer and Superintendent of Public Works and three others, to be appointed by the Governor from among persons who had had executive experience in the administration of the New York State canals. After the three appointees were named by the Governor the personnel of the commission was John A. Bensel, State Engineer, Duncan W. Peck, Superintendent of Public Works, Charles E. Treman, John N. Partridge and Winslow M. Mead. Mr. Treman and Mr. Partridge had each filled the office of Superintendent of Public Works, Mr. Treman in 1911 and 1912 and Mr. Partridge from 1899 to 1901, and Mr. Mead had but recently retired from the office of Deputy Superintendent of Public Works, which he had held since 1901. At the first meeting of the commission Mr. Treman was chosen chairman and Mr. Mead secretary.

One of the first acts of the commission was the sending out of nearly a thousand circular letters to boatmen, forwarders, marine insurance officials, shippers, boat-builders and other persons or organizations which were supposed to have the interests of the canal at heart, asking the recipients to submit whatever helpful suggestions they could. A little later public hearings were conducted, one in Buffalo and one in New York. The commissioners also made a personal inspection of some of the Canadian canals and to add to all the information they could collect relative to the management of American canals the secretary of the commission visited Europe and there made a study of the operation and control of canals, harbors, terminals and canalized rivers.

Probably the greatest contribution of this commission is to be found in its recommendations concerning two essential improvements, one the establishment of a traffic organization and the other the adjustment of relationships between rail and water carriers which should not be inimical to the canal.

First we shall quote a summary of recommendations submitted by the commission in its report to the Legislature and then we shall examine in detail the studies which led to some of its conclusions. This summary, which includes the more important recommendations, is as follows:

"That the Superintendent of Public Works be continued in charge of the canals, and that the division superintendents be increased from three to four in number, section superintendents being eliminated.

"That a traffic organization for the canals be established, to the end that traffic may diverted to the canal route and the State's commerce maintained and extended.

"To the end that interchange of traffic between railways and canals may be effected, that the Public Service Commission be given authority to compel extension of railway tracks to all canal terminals on such terms as may appear to be equitable.

"That such amendment of the statute shall be had as shall be necessary to prevent further disposition of any of the State's holdings of land under water or of water frontage excepting upon revocable leases, and that no lease should be for a greater term than twenty years.

"That the Public Service Commission be given authority to establish rates on through route and joint rates by railway and water carriers; and to prescribe a fair division of such rates; to prevent railway companies exacting from shippers more than they charge for the same service if goods were shipped by rail under joint traffic agreement by connecting railroads; power to compel the issue of through bills of lading; authority to compel railways to charge less than local rates to all lake, river and sea ports on through traffic to be exchanged with boat lines engaged in the domestic trade unless prorating arrangements already exist; authority vested in the Public Service Commission to compel fair treatment of canal-borne traffic by railways, and, further, to determine elevator and service warehouse rates, and maximum tug or other tractive power rates.

"All water lines operating within the State, whether controlled by corporation, company, firm or individual shall by statute be declared to be common carriers.

"That terminals and terminal equipment be operated as a separate bureau under the direction of the Superintendent of Public Works, and all accounts kept separate from maintenance and operation of the canals proper.

"Creation of a chief harbor-master, with local harbor-masters in charge at each terminal.

"That the Superintendent of Public Works be authorized to levy terminal charges against commodity tonnage, subject to the approval of the Canal Board, the rates being only sufficient to cover cost of upkeep and operation of terminals, the revenue therefrom to constitute a sinking fund to be devoted to repair and extension of terminal equipment.

"That the Public Service Commission be given power necessary to enable authorization of the use of surface lines for goods delivery purposes in terminal cities.

"That separate quarters in terminal storehouses, special berth, piers, cranes, and other utilities be assigned at terminals for the accommodation of package freight.

"That the Superintendent of Public Works, the State Engineer and Surveyor, and the Canal Board be given authority to grant owners of land adjoining canal waters authority to construct graving-docks, under proper restrictions.

"The enactment of a statute prescribing stringent rules for the transportation of explosives through the canal, and forbidding the mooring of boats carrying explosives, petroleum or any of its by-products, in basins or at any point excepting such place as may be specially prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Works.

"That steps be taken for charting and lighting of the river and lake portions of the canal uniform with federal regulations governing such matters.

"That provision be made for the installation of a complete telephone system, on the canals.

"Appropriations for the procurement of new repair machinery and hydraulic dredges.

"The repeal or amendment of several minor statutes in the interest of consistency, and to the end that an adjustment to new conditions may be certain.

"That a more comprehensive method for disposing of abandoned canal lands may be made, to apply to the lands that will be abandoned as a result of the placing of the improved canal in commission.

"Modification of civil service laws affecting skilled operatives in the Department of Public Works.

"Amendment of statute so as to increase maximum speed of craft in river and lake sections.

"Maximum dimensions of craft to be left to Superintendent of Public Works to determine."

Among a few minor recommendations may be mentioned three -- one that the Superintendent of Public Works should have full authority in matters of sanitation on the canals, another that he in coöperation with the Canal Board should have such jurisdiction over private docks and terminal equipment as to prevent them from being a menace to State terminals, and the third that the law be amended so as to allow greater speed on the canals than the four or six miles then permitted on various sections.

It will be observed that certain of these recommendations are but echoes of recommendations made by the Terminal Commission in its report of 1911. The first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth items of the summary just quoted are of such character. These relate to the administration of the canal being entrusted to the Superintendent of Public Works, the retention of State lands, the fixing of terminal charges and the regulation of canal and railroad relationships.

In recommending a traffic organization the commission was trying to cure one of the most pernicious ills of the whole canal system. To illustrate the gravity of the situation the report pictures what would happen if a railway should adopt the methods employed on the canal. This railway would maintain its trackage but the cars would be owned and operated by individuals. When a shipper had goods to send he would be obliged first to find an owner who had a car available for the service and then to bargain with him, since there would be no fixed rate for the use of the car. The only standard to guide in determining this rate would be what some other individual had asked in payment for a similar service at a particular time. With such a condition, the commission points out, there would be chaos and neither the shipper, the consumer or the car owner would be benefited; no one indeed excepting possibly a competing railway with systematized methods and highly developed regulations, offering through and combined rates to destination, would be the gainer.

"Yet this very condition, premised in the case of a railway company," to quote the report, "is the one that has been in existence on the canals since they were first placed in commission. There has been no unison of action on the part of individual boat owners; no guarantee, little assurance, no promptitude in the service, no energy in building up a clientele, no harmony of interests, no care for cargoes, no combined rates, no advance rate on which a shipper might depend as a basis for figuring on transportation; and the safety of the cargoes has been so little regarded that even the marine insurance companies have thought it necessary either to exact a greater rate than the cargo could properly stand or withhold insurance altogether. If the Barge canal is to be a success, system, capacity, reliability and stability must be substituted for the chaos that heretofore has ruled."

If objection be raised to the maintenance of a traffic bureau on the ground that such action becomes paternalism, the commission answers that the line into paternalism was crossed when canal tolls were abolished. If it be contended that the State should not enter into competition with railways which enjoy State charter and contribute a corporation tax in support of the State government, the answer is that the idea that railways and canals are competitors has been discarded abroad, is fast being discarded here and will be wholly discarded if the era of water-borne traffic on which the country seems to have entered develops to its promised proportions. The truth of the principle that the rational relationship between canals and railroads is complemental rather than competitive was proved by universal experience in Europe. So thought the commission, and it believed also that the establishment of a traffic bureau, although its acknowledged aim was to divert traffic to the new canal, would neither infringe on the rights of railroads nor for long do violence to their interests.

In going still farther and trying to secure coöperative relationships by compelling physical connections and a free interchange of freight between canals and railways the commission realized that it was dealing with a delicate question. Until the European idea of mutual benefit became more general any legislation looking toward compulsory coöperation was apt to be viewed as offensive, unjust and actually infringing on corporate rights. Nevertheless it was so important a question that without its settlement in favor of the canals their success, notwithstanding their natural advantages of cheap transportation, was a matter of grave doubt. This was a question, moreover, which had been much studied by Federal, State and municipal officials throughout the country. In the recommendations we have quoted we have seen in brief form how the commission proposed to solve the problem for New York State, and the solution it suggested was in close accord with Federal action for regulating interstate and foreign commerce. We shall see a little later that the commission's recommendations on this subject were enacted into State law.

In considering the regulation of the canal terminals the question arose in the minds of the commissioners whether the constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of tolls on persons or property transported on the canals could be construed to mean that no charge might be made for the use of terminal facilities. The law authorizing the terminals mentioned certain charges, which were to be established by the Canal Board and collected by the Superintendent of Public Works, but of course this law would not hold against any constitutional dictum.

The commission argued that canal terminals as now conceived did not exist when the constitutional amendment was passed, and reached the conclusion that no fair minded person could claim that it was ever intended by any one who had to do with authorizing the terminals that their facilities, including human and machine labor, should be furnished free by the State or that any equipment except the channels themselves should be free to commerce. Moreover it was not believed that commerce was in need of any such wholesale subsidy.

There are only two other recommendations which we desire to consider in detail. One concerns the charting of river and lake channels and the other the use of surface railways for distributing canal cargoes in cities and villages. It is obvious that a waterway having a channel somewhere within the broad expanse of river or lake area rather than confined within its own fixed banks needed charting. The suggestion was that the Federal practice be adopted. Eventually, as we have already seen, the channels were buoyed and lighted to accord with this practice and the Federal government was even persuaded to make charts, through its Great Lakes Survey organization, of the New York State canalized streams and lakes. In addition the State has also issued certain navigation charts.

The suggestion to use local railways to distribute goods was excellent. It was in line with a use of such trackage already being made in many American cities and in suburban territory to a limited extent, but as yet the companies carrying on this traffic were usually working independently of connecting lines and particularly had no connections with water carriers. Where comparisons had been made between this method and ordinary carting with horses, the latter had been found to be two and a half times more costly. It was the thought to use these distributing lines at night or at times other than the rush hours.

There was one dissenting voice in the commission's report. Mr. Bensel differed from the others, chiefly in desiring to have the administration of the canals vested in a commission to be created for the particular purpose rather than to have the Superintendent of Public Works continued as the managing head. Mr. Bensel believed that the welfare of the canals demanded their control by a body divorced from any one State administration, of a somewhat permanent character and composed of experts who should give their exclusive and continuous attention to the work. This form of management, he thought, was the prevailing tendency in institutions of public concern, such as canals. In closing his dissenting report, Mr. Bensel says:

"Referring to the summary of the recommendations made by the majority of the Commission, I would respectfully submit the following divergent opinions:

"First. -- That the charge of the canal be in the hands of a commission with full power of organization, that they may establish traffic on the new canal.

"Second. -- That such a commission, with the approval of the Public Service Commission, be given authority relative to the extension of railroad tracks to all of the canal terminals.

"Third. -- That such a commission be given authority to establish joint rates with railroads for carrying on through routes, subject to the Public Service Commission, and to compel the issuance of through bills of lading.

"In regard to the recommendation about terminals and terminal equipment, I would respectfully recommend that this matter be left to the management of a canal commission.

"Such a commission should also, in my opinion, be authorized to fix terminal charges over a commodity handled at the State's canal terminals, and further, that the commission above recommended have full authority to arrange and to permit the use of the storehouses, piers, cranes, etc., and to permit the construction of graving docks on lands adjacent to the State's canal lands, and to enact such rules and regulations in regard to the transportation of materials as may be determined necessary from time to time by the commission.

"And, further, authorized to install telegraph and telephone systems along the canal system, and to have whatever authority that will be necessary for the expenditure of moneys to light, repair, and maintain the canal, such as may seem to them expedient in order that proper commercial use may be made of the State's canal system."