Champlain Canal

The natural result of the settlement of Albany in 1624 by the Dutch and the early occupation of Canada by the French was to make the valley of the Hudson River and Lake Champlain one of the most important lines of communication on the continent.   When in 1760 Canada became a British colony, this line of communication became much more fully developed and began to show its effects on the intervening district.   The result was that this region was thickly settled long before the western section of the state began to be developed.   The natural advantages of this northern territory compared favorably with those of any other section.   In lumber, mines, waterpower, agriculture, grazing lands and other sources of wealth it was bountifully endowed. ^Whitford

In the war of independence, obstinate and continued efforts were made by Great Britain to open and hold this valley for military occupation, it being well understood that its possession would be fatal to the American cause by cutting the colonies into two parts which could then be dealt with separately.   It was but natural that this section, which occupied so important a position in the affairs of the State from the earliest times, should not remain silent nor be forgotten when the agitation for great internal improvements began. ^Whitford

The preliminary measures and operations which eventually led up to the construction of the Champlain Canal were so closely affiliated with the early history of the Erie Canal that it is almost impossible to treat of them separately.   The account of those events prior to 1816 is given in the early history of the Erie Canal.   It suffices to say that the Northern Inland Lock Navigation Company was chartered in 1792 for the purpose of constructing a waterway between Lake Champlain and the Hudson River and although over $100,000 was spent by this company, no real progress toward this end was effected and the vast sum of money expended was practically thrown away. ^Whitford

As far back as 1812 the canal commissioners, although appointed merely "to explore the route of an inland navigation from Hudson’s river to Lake Ontario and Lake Erie," noted in closing their report, that "a communication, by means of a canal, between Lake Champlain and Hudson’s river, is one of those things which are deemed of national importance."   In each succeeding report, the canal commissioners expressed the belief that this waterway could easily be effected, and in March, 1816, they represented to the Legislature "the expediency of adopting such preliminary measures as may be necessary for the accomplishment of this important object." ^Whitford

Finally on April 17, 1816, a law was passed appointing Stephen Van Rensselaer, De Witt Clinton, Samuel Young, Joseph Ellicott and Myron Holley as commissioners, "to consider, devise and adopt such measures as may or shall be requisite, to facilitate and effect the communication, by means of canals and locks, between the navigable waters of Hudson’s river and Lake Erie, and the said navigable waters and Lake Champlain."   This act marks the beginning of active canal policy in the State, which resulted in a law authorizing the canals during the following year.   The law further empowered these commissioners to employ engineers for the purpose of exploring and examining the routes which appeared to be suitable for the proposed canals, and for making maps, plans and estimates of cost.   $20,000 was appropriated for making these surveys, plans and estimates. ^Whitford

The canal commissioners made their report to the Legislature in regard to the feasibility of improving the navigation between Lake Champlain and the Hudson River on March 19, 1817.   In pointing out a few of the advantages to be derived from the construction of a canal between these points, they mentioned the immense quantity of lumber which would be conveyed on this canal.   They stated that, "within that tract of country, embracing the borders of Lake George, and the timber land north and west of the great falls in Luzerne, there are annually made, and transported to the south, two millions of boards and plank; one million feet of square timber, consisting of oak, white and yellow pine, beside dock logs, scantling, and other timber to a great amount."   In addition, all that territory contiguous to Lake Champlain abounded in wood, timber, masts, spars and lumber of all kinds, which, by the construction of the proposed canal would find a ready market along the Hudson and in New York City, instead of being driven to a doubtful market by a long and hazardous navigation to Quebec.   Most of this northern country was unfit for agricultural pursuits, as it was rough and mountainous and covered by native forests.   These lands would be greatly increased in value by the construction of the proposed canal. ^Whitford

The iron in the northern part of the state, which was found in almost inexhaustible quantities and was of excellent quality and at that time left unworked in the mine, also the fine marble of Vermont, which lay useless in the quarry, could be converted to useful and ornamental purposes and exchanged, in the West, for salt and gypsum; and thus the large sums which were annually expended abroad for the purchase of iron, salt and gypsum, would be retained at home and added to the permanent wealth of New York State.   In summing up the various advantages the commissioners said: "In short, the connection of Lake Champlain with the Hudson, by means of a canal, would greatly enhance the value of the northern lands; it would save vast sums in the price of transportation; it would open new and increasing sources of wealth; it would divert from the province of Lower Canada, and turn to the south, the profits of the trade of Lake Champlain; and, by imparting activity and enterprize to agricultural, commercial and mechanical pursuits, it would add to our industry and resources, and thereby augment the substantial wealth and prosperity of the State." ^Whitford

The preliminary survey for this canal was made by Col. Lewis Garin under the direction of the canal commissioners.   In his survey, Col. Garin found two favorable places of departure from the Hudson, in order to connect that river with Lake Champlain.   A previous commission had reported in favor of a route which left the Hudson at the mouth of Fort Edward Creek and pursued the valley of that creek to the summit level, whence it followed the course of Wood Creek, making the length of this section of the Champlain Canal as far as Whitehall, 22 miles.   Although mentioning this route as an alternative, the later commission recommended a route which left the Hudson near the mouth of Moses Kill, about six miles below Fort Edward Creek, and by following the natural channels of Moses Kill and Dead Creek reached the summit level, then partly by following the channel of Wood Creek and partly by artificial cuts, it came to Whitehall, making the distance 28 miles.   Both of the proposed locations were exceedingly favorable for the construction of a canal, the soil consisting for the most part of vegetable mould, loam and clay.   At the northern termination of the canal some limestone excavation would be necessary by either route, but the material to be excavated would be very useful in the construction of locks, nine of which were considered necessary between the Hudson and Lake Champlain.   It was proposed to extend the summit level about 15 miles and to have it terminate about one mile south of Fort Ann.   The commissioners proposed, "in order to turn off as much as possible the superfluous waters of freshets, and to insure at all times a sufficiency of water on the summit level, . . . to erect a dam across halfway brook, of 18 feet in height, half a mile above the mouth of said brook, and by a natural ravine leading to the south, to direct so much of the water of said brook to the summit level, and from there by several waste weirs, into the Hudson, as may be necessary for the convenience of the canal.   "The water in the canal," they reported, "is not to be less than 30 feet wide at the surface, 20 feet at the bottom and 3 feet deep, and the locks to be 75 feet long and 10 feet wide in the clear."   Continuing, the commissioners said, "From the mouth of Moses’ kill it is proposed to improve the channel of the Hudson for the purposes of navigation as far south as the village of Stillwater, at the head of Stillwater falls.   This may be effected in the following manner.   By erecting a dam three feet in height across the Hudson, at the head of Fort Miller falls, the river above as far as Fort Edward, would at all times afford a sufficiency of water for boats drawing three feet.   To overcome the descent of Fort Miller falls, a side cut or artificial canal of about one mile in length, and with two locks of 10.321 feet lift each, will be necessary. . . .   "Two and a half miles below the south end of this canal, at the head of Saratoga falls, a dam three feet in height is to be made across the river, and a side cut round the falls, similar to the above, of about one mile in length, with two locks of 6.198 feet lift each. . . .   "Thirteen miles below this place, at the head of Stillwater falls, another dam of three feet in height, will in like manner ensure a good boat navigation up to the Saratoga falls. . . .   "From the village of Stillwater, at a point above the dam last mentioned, it is proposed to cut an artificial canal to the village of Waterford, where it is to be connected with the Hudson.   This canal will be supplied with water from the river at its upper end.   Its length will be nearly twelve miles, and the whole descent is 76.464 feet, which will require eight locks. The excavation of this canal, for some distance near the upper end, will be considerably expensive, as it passes through a slate rock, the middle and lower parts, however, are very favorable. . . .   Recapitulation of Expenses: From Whitehall to the Hudson, $250,000; Dam, side-cut and other works at Fort Miller falls, $50,000; Do. at Saratoga falls, $35,000; To Stillwater, including dam, &c., $50,000; From Stillwater to Waterford, including lockage, $436,000; Add for contingencies, engineers, and superintendence, $50,000; Total, $871,000".   "Whether the canal from Lake Champlain enters the Hudson at Fort Edward creek or at Moses’ kill, is not very material in the estimate of expense." ^Whitford

Upon receiving this exhaustive report of the canal commissioners, the Legislature, on April 15, 1817, passed "an act respecting Navigable Communications, between the great western and northern lakes and the Atlantic ocean."   This act authorized the canal commissioners to commence the work of opening navigable communications by means of canals and locks between Lake Champlain and the Hudson river.   In all the legislative action of 1816 and 1817, the Champlain and Erie Canals were treated as one measure.   The details of these events are given at length in the account of the Erie. ^Whitford

There was some doubt in the minds of the commissioners as to whether the water supply to be derived from Half Way Brook would be ample to provide for the number of lockages that might be expected in future years, so on September 5, 1817, Mr. James Geddes commenced the reexamination of the Champlain Canal.   He discovered that, if such a deficiency should ever arise, the summit level could be supplied with as much water as might be desired by connecting it with the Hudson near Glens Falls by a short feeder.   Mr. Geddes also made a survey covering all that section lying between Whitehall and Fort Edward.   The first five miles south of Whitehall were staked out and the contract for this portion of the canal was let to Messrs. Melancthon Wheeler and Ezra Smith, at 12½¢ per cubic yard for excavation, except a deep cutting of about 30 rods in length for which they were to receive 18¢ per yard.   This work was prosecuted vigorously until the approach of winter put a stop to it. ^Whitford

The dimensions of the entire Champlain Canal had been changed to conform to those of the Erie.   It was estimated that this could be done without materially affecting the cost of construction, and at the same time it would greatly reduce the expense of shipping goods from the western to the northern parts of the state, since the same boats which brought the goods from the west could be used on the Champlain and thus cargoes would not have to be transferred to smaller boats at Waterford.   The canal commissioners were of the opinion that the original estimate was liberal enough to cover even the additional expenses incurred in increasing its size to 40 feet in width at the water surface, 28 feet at the bottom, and 4 feet in depth of water and the locks to 90 feet length by 15 feet width.   The towpath was to be 10 feet wide, except in deep cuttings where it was to be 12 feet wide, and it was to be at an elevation of not less than two nor more than five feet above the water surface. More than half of the land required for the canal between Whitehall and Fort Edward was voluntarily ceded to the State. ^Whitford

In 1818, more than 12 miles of canal were completed to the satisfaction of the engineer, and material for the locks on this northern section of the Champlain Canal was delivered.   During the following season, the locks, spillways, culverts, and the remaining parts of the excavation and embankment on the northern section were sufficiently completed to permit water to be admitted on November 24, 1819, when it was found that both levels of this section were perfectly correct and that the locks were practically watertight.   A towpath along the margin of Wood Creek was yet to be built.   The original estimate for this section between Lake Champlain and the Hudson River was $250,000, and the enlargement of the works added about 1/3 to the cost of construction, which would raise the estimate to about $333,000, but the actual cost of construction was only $262,268. ^Whitford

In 1820, much was accomplished towards completing the Champlain Canal.   Nearly 17 miles of excavation extending from Saratoga Falls to within 10 miles of Waterford were completed.   A dam had been constructed across the Hudson at the head of Fort Miller Falls, which, aided by excavations made in the bed of the river through Crocker’s and Potter’s reefs, had produced a boat navigation between Fort Edward and Fort Miller.   The excavation of a lateral canal around Fort Miller Falls and the construction of two locks at that place were progressing rapidly.   The aqueduct across Fish Creek and the dam above Saratoga Falls were under contract and the navigation of the northern end of the canal had been improved by straightening the channel of Wood Creek. ^Whitford

During the season of 1821, the dam at Saratoga Falls and the aqueduct across Fish Creek were completed, so that the whole line of the canal to a point about one mile south of the village of Stillwater was finished before the close of the year.   In the following year, the finished portion of the canal extended as far south as the village of Waterford, and water had been admitted to the entire portion so that loaded boats could pass from Lake Champlain to Waterford.   Owing to the swiftness of the current of Wood Creek and the insufficient depth of water in this creek for two or three miles south of Fort Ann, it was found necessary to construct a dam and wooden lock to remedy these inconveniences.   From Waterford to the Mohawk River work was progressing rapidly.   The dam across this river below the Cohoes Bridge was completed and the main line of the canal from Whitehall to the junction with the Erie was opened on September 10, 1823.   The work, however, in the Hudson River between Troy and Waterford was in bad condition. ^Whitford

The Champlain Canal was to be connected with the Hudson River at Waterford by a lateral cut with three locks.   The river works consisted of a dam and sloop lock.   The masonry of the lock was completed in 1822, but a section of the dam had been left open in order to discharge the water of the river while the other works were being constructed.   While the contractors were closing this gap, a heavy freshet occurred which undermined and carried away about 120 feet of the unfinished dam.   The high water continued so long that it was impossible to do any further work that season.   In the spring of 1823, this breach was repaired, but during the season another one occurred in the old portion of the dam.   In the following spring this breach became enlarged by the action of the heavy freshets and the commissioners were in a quandary as to what they should do.   Finally, an agreement was made with certain responsible individuals that they should repair the dam at their own expense and risk.   If the dam as repaired should withstand the fall, winter and spring floods and at the subsiding of the water in the spring should remain entire and undamaged, the contractors were to receive the sum of $25,750, otherwise nothing.   The dam was repaired upon these conditions and in the spring of 1825 it had withstood the test so well that it was accepted by the commissioners. ^Whitford

In the summer of 1820, the canal commissioners held a meeting at Sandy Hill to consider the best means of increasing the supply of water for the summit level.   They personally examined the routes of several proposed feeders from the Hudson, paying particular attention to those two leaving the Hudson, the first above Glens Falls and the other at Baker’s Falls.   In the report of the engineer, it appeared that in order to conduct the water from above Glens Falls to the summit level, a cutting of 45 feet would be encountered.   This route was, therefore, abandoned and it was decided to build a dam 28 feet in height across the Hudson about 1½ miles below Baker’s falls.   The contract for this dam was let and the work nearly completed when a sudden freshet on November 12, 1821, destroyed and carried away 185 feet of the dam.   During the suspension of work on this dam, it was ascertained that an error had been committed by the engineer who first made these surveys.   Five engineers sent to reexamine the other route agreed that it was the more advisable scheme, and they recommended the construction of a navigable feeder connecting the Hudson above Glens Falls with the summit level.   The commissioners concurred in this opinion and in the spring of 1822, Mr. Canvass White was sent to lay out the new feeder.   It was soon discovered, however, that the engineers, who had made their examination while there was a foot or more of snow upon the ground, had been very much deceived in the character of the excavation, the expense of the work, and the time necessary for its accomplishment.   It was found that "the feeder must pass for more than a mile in length, through a rock of secondary limestone, filled with chasms and fissures, which would require considerable time and expense to make sufficiently tight to hold water, and that a considerable part of the remainder of the line, must be located upon the margin of a declivity, composed of loose and porous sand, a portion of which would probably require lining, to make it secure."   The difficulties to be overcome would render it impossible to complete the feeder in one season; and the tying up of navigation for one season would result in such a great financial loss to shippers along the line of the canal that the canal commissioners passed a resolution, authorizing the repairing of the dam at Fort Edward, which had been injured in the freshet of November 12, 1821.   This work was carried to a successful completion so expeditiously that by September 1, 1822, water was running over the entire length of the dam and henceforth the Champlain Canal was furnished with a superabundant supply of water.   However it was considered advisable to construct the feeder from Glens Falls, both as a future source of water supply for the summit level and as a means of navigable communication between Glens Falls and the Champlain Canal.   In 1823, the new feeder was completed as far as Sandy Hill, but great difficulty was experienced in preventing excessive leakage.   It was not entirely completed that year on account of the scarcity of funds for the purpose.   It was expected that the Glens Falls Feeder would be completed by September 1, 1827, according to the contract, but it dragged along into the following summer and was not in good navigable condition until 1829.   The law for the construction of the feeder prescribed wooden locks to overcome a lockage of over 130 feet. ^Whitford

During the year 1824, numerous petitions were received by the Legislature from sundry inhabitants of Rensselaer, Saratoga, Washington, Warren, Essex, Clinton and Franklin counties in relation to the navigation of the Champlain Canal from Fort Edward to Fort Miller representing "That experience has already demonstrated the fact, that by using the bed of the Hudson river, between Fort Edward and Saratoga falls, as a substitute for canal navigation, transportation is at all times tedious and expensive, and during periods of floods and of high winds wholly interrupted"; and the petitioners asserted "that the expense of transportation between Lake Champlain and Troy, during the last season, has been greater on the short distance between Fort Edward and the Saratoga cut, than it has been upon the whole line of the canal which embraces the residue of the distance."   Inasmuch as these representations of the petitioners seemed to be well founded, a concurrent resolution was passed requiring the canal commissioners to make "such alterations and improvements in the northern canal, between Fort Edward and Fort Miller, as in their opinion is necessary, to make a fair and perfect canal navigation."   In accordance with this resolution, passed on April 10, 1824, this route was carefully surveyed and the length of the proposed line of canal was found to be about 8 miles, and the nature of the ground was found favorable for the construction of a canal.   The successful completion of this canal would not, however, entirely obviate all dangers, for it would still be necessary to use the bed of the river for about 2½ miles below Fort Miller, and it would also be extremely difficult to maintain a towpath on the bank of the river at this place in consequence of the lowness of the bank and the sandy nature of the soil.   The commissioners accordingly recommended this extension of the proposed canal and suggested that provisions be made for crossing the river either on an aqueduct just below the Saratoga Dam or by locking into the pool above this dam and crossing on a towpath bridge.   On April 20, 1825, a law was passed authorizing the canal commissioners "to make or cause to be made such alterations and improvements in the Champlain Canal between Fort Edward and the dam above Saratoga Falls on the Hudson River, as the said commissioners may think necessary to form a canal navigation: Provided, That the expense . . . shall not exceed one hundred and seventy thousand dollars: And provided further, That the said commissioners shall not construct . . . any aqueduct over or across the Hudson river."   Contracts for this work were let in July, 1825.   This section of the canal was 10 miles and 44 chains (1 chain = 66 feet) long and it had four locks, rising 36½ feet, 7 culverts and 39 bridges, including the towpath bridge across the Hudson.   Most of this work was completed in 1826, but some trouble was experienced from the sliding of banks and in some places the canal was moved a little farther into the hill, thereby delaying the opening of this section until late in the season of 1827. ^Whitford

Quite extensive repairs were made on the Champlain Canal in 1829.   Three locks at Fort Ann were rebuilt, and it was found that the timber in the ends of the dam across the Hudson at Fort Edward, which came in contact with the earth, was in such a state of decay as to render the dam insecure.   A substantial dock, filled with stone, was erected at the ends and this made the dam secure.   The feeder, leaving the Hudson at the Fort Edward dam, received a great deal of attention this year.   Also, a wooden guard lock was constructed where it left the river, and the feeder itself was enlarged and its banks were secured by piling. ^Whitford

Upon the completion of independent canal navigation between Fort Edward and Fort Miller, it was advisable to tear down the dam across the Hudson at Fort Miller, and thereby escape various claims for land damages to which the State would be subjected by the continued maintenance of the dam.   This was partially done, but certain milling interests, dependent for their power on this dam, secured the passage of a law requiring the canal commissioners to replace those portions of the dam that had been removed. ^Whitford

During the season of 1832, the guard lock at Saratoga Falls and also the one on the north side of the Mohawk River were rebuilt of stone in a very substantial manner.   In the year 1833, a dam was built across the Mohawk River, a short distance below the Cohoes Falls.   This dam was constructed of hardwood, with solid masonry abutments and was considered a fine piece of work.   It was found necessary to enlarge the Moses Kill aqueduct, the trunk of which was in bad condition, in order that it might accommodate two boats at once.   During the years 1833 and 1834, the water in the Hudson was very low and the leakage in the Fort Edward dam was so great that had it not been for the Glens Falls Feeder, which furnished an ample supply of water, navigation would have necessarily been suspended on the summit level for a great part of the season. ^Whitford

In the fall of 1834, Mr. Holmes Hutchinson was appointed by the canal commissioners to make an examination of the Glens Falls Feeder, and an estimate of the expense of improving it so as to make it both a navigable canal and an adequate feeder for the Champlain.   In his report, he suggested that the dam across the Hudson should be rebuilt with good stone abutments and that the entrance to the feeder should be protected by a guard lock of hammered stone masonry; that the feeder should be widened so as to give a surface width of 32 feet in rock excavation, and 36 feet in earth; and that, as the locks were decayed, they should be rebuilt of hammered stone masonry, laid in cement, with sluices to conduct the water around them.   The expense of putting this feeder in first class condition was estimated by Mr. Hutchinson at $127,829.62.   As the Legislature did not act on this report during the session of 1835, nothing was done toward making these changes except the construction of the guard lock at the head of the feeder. ^Whitford

On May 25, 1836, the Legislature passed an act authorizing the canal commissioners "to alter the Glen’s-Falls feeder, pursuant to the report heretofore made to said commissioners by Holmes Hutchinson, or in such other manner as said commissioners shall deem calculated best to promote the public interest; and shall, if deemed proper by them, construct the locks on said feeder with stone."   The plan adopted for this work was substantially that recommended by Mr. Hutchinson.   12 locks were to be rebuilt, one combination of 5 locks, one of 2 locks and 5 single locks.   These locks were "to be fifteen feet wide at the lower top water line within the chamber, and one hundred feet long between the upper and lower quoins."   The widening of the feeder was deferred until a later time.   All work on the Glens Falls Feeder was put under the personal supervision of Mr. James Walker, as resident engineer.   Three of these locks were completed in 1837 and the rest in the spring of 1839.   They were constructed in a firm, durable manner of stone brought from the Kingsbury quarries.   In connection with the construction of these locks, sluices were built around the structures in order to continually supply the summit level of the Champlain Canal with water. ^Whitford

While the Glens Falls feeder was undergoing repairs, great trouble was experienced in maintaining the summit level of the canal due to the leaky condition of Fort Edward dam.   Temporary repairs were made to the dam, and as soon as the improvements to the feeder were completed, so that a supply of water for the summit level could be safely relied upon from that source, the dam was scuttled, the water drawn off and the imperfections of the dam were thoroughly repaired. ^Whitford

In the year 1837, a new lock of hammer-dressed stone was built on the west side of the old wooden lock, opposite the dam across Wood Creek.   In the following year, the wooden aqueduct, by means of which the canal crossed Fort Edward Creek, was replaced by a culvert of substantial hydraulic masonry. ^Whitford

The towpath wall at Whitehall, begun in 1835, and designed to protect the canal at that place from the violence of the floods of Wood Creek, and to guard against breaches in the towpath bank, which had long been a large source of expense, as well as a hindrance to navigation, was completed in 1839.   The canal, which previously was too narrow above the locks to admit of boats turning around, was widened by the construction of this wall, and ample space was given for the mooring and turning of boats at a place where these conveniences were very much needed.   The wall itself was 840 feet long, from 12 to 18 feet in height and of sufficient width on the top to form a convenient towpath.   The whole wall was built of solid hammer-dressed stone, laid in hydraulic cement and founded upon the solid rock. ^Whitford

During the spring of 1840, two locks known as the "Flynn Lock" and the "Moses Kill Lock," were constructed of masonry under the direction of the canal commissioners.   Aqueducts across Fish Creek and the Moses Kill were also completed about the same time. ^Whitford

In the original construction of the Champlain Canal, no precautions were taken for preventing the wearing away of the banks of the canal.   Owing to the fact that the canal followed the bed of Wood Creek for several miles, its course was an almost continuous series of curves, rendering its banks especially liable to be eaten away by the current.   After the canal had been opened for a few years, the necessity of providing some protection to the banks was clearly seen, and a docking of wood was tried.   This, however, soon decayed and was thrown out of place by frosts or by the washing out of the dirt from behind the docking.   On several short portions of the line, slope wall had been laid, but this had been imperfectly done, the stone being small and the bed too nearly vertical to ensure its being permanent.   In 1840, it was finally decided that a permanent and durable slope wall could be built of large stone on this canal nearly as cheaply as a docking of wood.   While navigation was suspended during the following winter, nearly 7 miles of this slope wall was built at an average cost of about $1,000 per mile. ^Whitford

During most of August and September, 1840, navigation was wholly suspended on the Glens Falls Feeder, owing to the fact that the Fort Edward dam was so defective that all the water for the summit level had to be drawn through the Glens Falls feeder.   The sectional area of this feeder was not large enough to permit all the water required to feed the summit level of the canal to pass through it, and at the same time to maintain a navigable depth, even if it were tight.   It was determined by actual measurements that over half the water admitted at the head of the feeder was lost before it reached the Champlain Canal.   In view of these facts, the canal commissioners had surveys and estimates made by Mr. Charles A. Olmstead, engineer on the Champlain Canal, for three different methods of remedying the existing scarcity of water.   The three plans proposed were: (1) to repair or rebuild the Fort Edward Dam, (2) to continue the feeder from the Fort Edward Dam up to Baker’s Falls and to construct a dam at that point, and (3) to tighten the Glens Falls feeder and to enlarge it, if it should be necessary. ^Whitford

Mr. Olmstead estimated that the Glens Falls feeder could be repaired for $74,204.41 and both he and the canal commissioners recommended that this was by far the most feasible plan.   The Legislature accordingly acted upon this recommendation and passed an act appropriating $75,000 for the improvement of the Glens Falls feeder.   This work was all under contract by July 31 of that year.   During the progress of this work the canal received its supply of water from the Fort Edward Creek.   The improvements made under this act consisted in enlarging the prism of the feeder, in widening and deepening the channel of ingress above the lock at the feeder dam, and in constructing stone sluices in place of the old wooden ones around the locks.   The contracts for these improvements were all completed by June, 1842.   On October 13, 1842, a careful measurement of the quantity of water admitted into the feeder through the locks at the dam, and of that discharged by it into the Champlain Canal was made.   This large amount of water was nearly all lost in the rock section which extended for 1½ miles through and below the village of Glens Falls.   It was found that this leakage could be diminished by lining this section with fine gravel.   This method was used for several years with fairly good results.   Above the village of Glens Falls, the feeder was cut through a fine, loose sand.   To prevent this from being washed into the canal, it was necessary to protect the banks with "rubbish stone," which could be obtained without expense at Glens Falls and was serviceable as slope wall. ^Whitford

In 1842, the new lock at Fort Miller was completed.   During the previous year, a contract was let for the construction of a new stone lock to take the place of the "Becker Lock" near Stillwater.   As this lock had been partially rebuilt in 1835, it was thought that it could be put in shape to last several years longer at moderate expense.   Work on the new lock was suspended, however, since the act of March 29, 1842, stopped all work on the canals of the State not immediately necessary.   A new lock north of Waterford was also brought into use in the spring of 1842. ^Whitford

In the winter of 1843, a pier was constructed in the channel of Wood Creek at the side of the locks at Whitehall.   The pier was "two hundred and sixteen feet in length, extending into the lake twelve feet below the lower lock walls, ten feet wide at the north end and terminating in a point at the south and is fifteen feet in height."   It was a substantial structure and was planned to facilitate access to the locks from the lake in high water and to serve as a protection to the locks from the freshets in Wood Creek.   As the old dam and feeder at Fort Edward were no longer required as a means of water supply for the Champlain Canal, a portion of the dam, 100 feet long and 10 or 12 feet deep, was removed in order to reduce the liability of the failure of the dam at the time of river freshets. ^Whitford

The Saratoga towpath bridge across the Hudson River was carried away by a flood in the spring of 1843.   Instead of rebuilding this bridge, the canal board made an agreement with the Fort Miller Bridge Company, which was about to put up a road bridge at practically the same place to construct, for the sole use of the State, a towpath connected with their road bridge, and to keep it in repair for an annual consideration of $400.   The Troy dam required extensive repairs that year.   These repairs consisted mainly in sinking cribs of timber in the deep water below the dam and filling them with stone.   As an added precaution towards insuring a sufficiency of water in the Glens Falls feeder, the dam across the Hudson at its head was raised about 18 inches during this year. ^Whitford

In the year 1844, lock no. 3 above Waterford underwent thorough repairs.   The head and entire west wall were relaid and one complete new set of gates was put in place.   The culvert at Mechanicville was repaired by putting in new ring stones and by constructing a parapet wall, which was necessary to support the embankment.   During this same year, the aqueduct across Fish Creek at Schuylerville was rebuilt, having a new abutment and wings built of masonry on a pile foundation.   The trunk of the aqueduct was enlarged so as to permit two boats to pass in it.   The dam across the Hudson at Saratoga was raised and planked, and a new apron was constructed in 1844. ^Whitford

In the following year, a new change bridge was constructed at the junction of the Erie and Champlain Canals.   New gates were put in at the guard lock at Waterford and at the discharge lock at Fort Miller.   The old wooden guard lock, five miles south of Whitehall, where the canal leaves Wood Creek, had become so much impaired and weakened as to endanger navigation, and the canal commissioners decided to replace it with a new stone structure.   A new stone dam was erected across Wood Creek near this lock.   Gates large enough to take care of the flood waters of this creek in freshets were provided as it was planned to permanently close both of the other channels of Wood Creek near this place.   Four miles of slope wall of quarried stone were built north of Fort Edward and about the same amount made of field stone was laid south of that place. ^Whitford

Very little work was required on the Champlain Canal in 1846.   The side cut locks at Fort Miller were rebuilt, a large amount of slope wall was laid above Fort Edward, and a new spillway was built at Flynn’s Lock.   On the feeder, some work was required.   A new spillway of stone was built at Cornell’s, about half way between Sandy Hill and Glens Falls, to regulate the quantity of water as it passed down to the locks.   About 300 feet of cement wall were laid on the berme side of the feeder at Glens Falls to prevent the escape of water through the fissures of the rock into the river.   The guard lock at the head of the feeder was rebuilt, the feeder dam strengthened, and the towpath improved. ^Whitford

In the following year, the lock known as "Becker’s Lock" near Stillwater was taken up and rebuilt, while the work of preventing the escape of water through the berme bank of the feeder into the Hudson was carried on quite extensively. ^Whitford

In the year 1848, the spillway at Wilbur’s Basin gave way during a severe thunder storm.   This was considered the strongest and most durable structure on the canal and its failure could be accounted for only by assuming that it was struck by lightning.   This was thoroughly repaired and the old wooden culvert where the Glens Falls feeder crossed Cold Brook was replaced by one constructed of stone.   The east wall of one of the Whitehall locks was also rebuilt. ^Whitford

In 1849, a new stone lock was built about one mile above the village of Waterford.   Extensive repairs were made to the Mohawk, Saratoga, and Feeder dams.   It seemed advisable to the Canal Board to close the old Fort Miller side cut, which was no longer of any service in passing boats from the canal to the river, and which was a constant drain for water from the canal except during extreme high water in the river.   They accordingly directed the commissioners to close the side cut by an embankment at a point where the State had for some time maintained a bridge over the cut. ^Whitford

On March 16, 1850, the Assembly committee on canals made a report on "the expediency of enlarging the Champlain Canal to the size of a ship canal."   While recognizing the great benefits to be derived from the proposed improvements, in the event of the construction of a ship canal to connect the waters of Lake Champlain with the St. Lawrence River, the committee did not recommend that any active steps should be taken at that time towards enlarging the Champlain Canal for the following reasons: (1) the uncertainty when the Champlain and St. Lawrence canal will be completed, (2) this improvement cannot be made without an outlay of $3,000,000 or more, (3) the revenues of this State were pledged by the Constitution to the specific object which will require several years to comply with its requirements. ^Whitford

In the year 1850, one lock was constructed a few miles north of Waterford and contracts were let for reconstructing the combined locks at Whitehall.   As rebuilt, these locks were made of the enlarged size of 100 feet and their number reduced from three to two.   At that time, all lift locks, except the combined locks at Whitehall, which was under contract, and the two locks just north of the junction near Cohoes had been enlarged to 100 feet in length.   The trade on this canal was rapidly increasing.   In July, 1849, 86,398,475 feet B. M. of lumber were cleared at Whitehall, while in 1850 this item alone jumped to 138,091,513 feet B. M. ^Whitford

In the following year a spillway was rebuilt near the village of Whitehall.   The Fort Miller dam, in regard to which there had been so much ill feeling between the mill owners at Fort Miller and the citizens owning land abutting on the river north of the dam, was removed by direction of the canal board. ^Whitford

In 1852, the contract for rebuilding the combined locks at Whitehall was declared abandoned.   It was later proposed to increase the size of these locks so as to permit of locking two boats at the same time.   Lock No. 7 at Waterford was rebuilt during this year and a pier was built on the lower side of the dam at the head of the Glens Falls feeder.   A proposition was at this time submitted to the Legislature to construct the locks upon the Champlain Canal, when new structures should be built, of the size of the enlarged locks upon the Erie Canal.   This proposition was not acted upon immediately, although it was tried on the combined locks at Whitehall, the contracts for the reconstruction of which had been dragging along for several years.   These locks had been previously put under contract twice for rebuilding of the ordinary size and both contracts had been abandoned.   $10,000 was appropriated towards the additional cost of rebuilding them of the size of the locks of the enlarged Erie Canal.   On October 17, 1853, these locks were put under contract to be rebuilt of the enlarged size.   At this time, it was decided to be in the best interests of the State to change somewhat the location of these locks and to go back to the old scheme of three combined locks of 9 or 10 feet lift instead of two of 14 feet lift.   Finally, it was provided by the amendment of the Constitution, which was ratified by the people of the State on February 15, 1854, to enlarge the locks of the Champlain Canal to the size of those on the enlarged Erie Canal, whenever from dilapidation or decay it should be necessary to rebuild them.   During that year, the Legislature appropriated "$25,000 for the expense of enlarging the locks . . . beyond the cost of reconstructing them of their present dimensions."   Upon examination of the various locks on this canal, the three single locks located at Fort Ann were found to require immediate rebuilding.   A survey was made and "it was found best to adopt a new location for the canal for about a quarter of a mile at this place, and locate one single lock and two combined locks, and by this means get a more direct and better shaped canal, and very materially increase the reaches between the locks, which, in the old canal, were very short, not giving sufficient basin for water to fill the lock below."   This work was put under contract July 6, 1854, to be completed April 1, 1856.   It was also found necessary to rebuild the three single locks on the Waterford side cut.   On December 20, 1854, these locks were put under contract to be built in the form of three combined locks on the north side of the old side cut. ^Whitford

In the following year, the contract was let for rebuilding the lock at the north end of the Saratoga dam, of the enlarged size.   In July, 1854, the dam across the Hudson at Glens Falls was found to be in such a condition as to require immediate repairs to prevent its entire destruction.   It was secured by the construction of a pier of timber and stone, below the dam.   During the following winter and spring, it was found necessary to rebuild the Moses Kill aqueduct, which had been in a dangerous condition for some time. ^Whitford

In 1856, the old wooden lock on the Glens Falls feeder was removed and a new one constructed.   The Champlain Canal was now proving itself to be the principal and most productive of all the lateral canals in our system of internal improvements.   On the completion of the enlargement of the ten locks then under construction, an increase in capacity of 20% of the tonnage of boats would be obtained, provided that the two junction locks below Cohoes and the north guard lock at the Mohawk River were rebuilt.   The additional cost of enlarging the prism to give a capacity of 60 feet width and 6 feet depth of water would be small in comparison with the benefit it would give to all the interests connected with transportation.   While many of the locks had been enlarged, they did not in the least affect the capacity of the canal, until the prism itself was proportionately enlarged.   The prism had been allowed to fill up for years.   Instead of cleaning and dredging out the bottom of the canal when the banks had been washed in, the custom of repairing the Champlain Canal had been to merely raise the banks a little higher.   The result was that at this time the canal was practically worn out by the great amount of business it had been required to perform, and from the want of proper care and attention in keeping its original proportions and levels.   Since the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Canada, trade between the two countries had assumed such proportions that the Champlain Canal was wholly inadequate to accommodate it, so that in February, 1857, the canal commissioners recommended that it should be enlarged to the size of the Erie Canal. ^Whitford

In 1857, the Saratoga dam was thoroughly repaired by the construction of massive crib work.   Two years later, no progress had been made towards the enlargement of the canal further except for a request by the Legislature for the State Engineer to estimate the cost of deepening the Champlain Canal for five feet water depth.   The State Engineer reported that the plan was feasible and that it would cost about $167,645.   The additional cost of stopping the leaks and providing a depth of five feet of water in the Glens Falls feeder was estimated at $52,690. ^Whitford

In 1859, contracts were let for rebuilding and enlarging three more locks, two combined locks near the old junction with the Erie Canal below Cohoes, and one on the north side of the Mohawk River at that place.   In March of that year, the Fort Miller bridge, which was used as a towpath bridge for crossing the Hudson River above the Saratoga dam, was carried away by an extraordinary freshet and teams had to be ferried across the Hudson during the following season. ^Whitford

By a law of April 9, 1860, an appropriation of $170,000 was made for the long proposed improvement and enlargement of the Champlain Canal and the Glens Falls feeder, so as to give for their entire length a depth of five feet of water and a uniform width of 35 feet on the bottom, "or as near these proportions as in the opinion of the Canal Board may be deemed judicious."   This act also provided for rebuilding the residue of the locks on the canal as soon as they might be required by the demands of navigation and for the stoppage of all leaks in the Glens Falls feeder.   The first contracts let under this act provided for raising the banks of the canal from the junction of the Erie Canal to the foot of the combined locks, for rebuilding Bassett’s lock on the enlarged plan, and for driving piles on the 16- and 5-mile levels for protection of side hills and banks. ^Whitford

In 1861, these contracts were finished and others let for the reconstruction of the south guard lock at Cohoes, Parish lock No. 17 on Wood Creek, and a weigh lock and weigh master’s office at Waterford.   A weigh lock had long been needed at Waterford as up to that time the only one available for weighing boats on the Champlain Canal was at West Troy on the Erie Canal.   The Waterford side cut had served as a convenient shunpike to any boats that were not bound to points on the Erie Canal, and consequently the State had been defrauded of a large percentage of its just tolls.   In addition, the pressure upon the weigh lock at West Troy, due to weighing all the boats passing to or from the Erie Canal, was such as to cause delays that were inconvenient and prejudicial to the interests of boating men and shippers. ^Whitford

In 1862, when there appeared to be some prospect of war with Great Britain, the states bordering on the Great Lakes were greatly worried by the thought of the consequences of such a war.   Shortly after the treaty of Ghent, a supplementary treaty was made between the United States and Great Britain stipulating that the naval force to be maintained by each Government on the bordering inland lakes should be confined to one boat on each of Lakes Ontario and Champlain and two boats on each of the upper Great Lakes, and that these vessels could not exceed 100 tons burden nor have an armament greater than one 18-pound cannon.   The United States would have no way of bringing warships to the lakes to protect the many wealthy and prosperous cities along their shores, while Great Britain had so improved her waterways that she could bring a large fleet of warships up the St. Lawrence and have all our coast cities at her mercy.   It was then proposed to enlarge the Erie, Oswego and Champlain Canals and locks to permit the passage of boats adequate to the defense of the northern and northwestern lakes.   The Legislature, contemplating the enlarging of one tier of locks on the Erie, Oswego and Champlain Canals, ordered what has been known as the "Survey for Gunboat Locks."   On account of limited funds, the Canal Board dispensed with surveys along the Champlain route, but from data at hand it was estimated that the expense of enlarging the locks of this canal to the proposed dimensions – 150 feet in length and 25 feet in width – would be $815,000, or enlarging the prism and other mechanical structures to the same size as the existing Erie Canal would be $3,770,190.   New York State passed an act authorizing the construction of this work, provided that the Federal Government would provide all the money required for the improvement, but the United States Treasury was so drained by the War of the Rebellion then in progress that nothing ever came of the project. ^Whitford

During the summer of 1862, the dam across the Mohawk River at Cohoes was raised 18 inches, thereby obviating the difficulties which had been experienced during low water, both in towing boats across the river and in maintaining the levels on each side of the river.   The weigh lock at Waterford was also completed this year and it proved to be the most useful weigh lock on the canals, being of great benefit to navigation on the Erie by relieving the West Troy weigh lock of all the boats that came from the Champlain Canal, and permitting all boats that desired to pass into the Hudson river at Waterford.   During this year, a stone dam was built across Wood Creek at Parish lock.   Upon the completion of the enlargement of Parish lock in 1863, the Fort Edward lock was put under contract. ^Whitford

Up to this time, practically all of the appropriation authorized by the laws of 1860, had been expended in enlarging locks or in stopping leaks in the Glens Falls feeder, and consequently the canal was not able to accommodate any larger boats than before.   Every lock and also the entire prism had to be enlarged before any benefit could be derived from those parts that had already been enlarged, and if this were not done the money already expended was almost thrown away.   The prism of the canal was too small for the class and tonnage of boats then coming into use.   The banks were generally too low for the quantity of water they were required to sustain, so in the event of sudden rainstorms, it was common for them to be overflowed.   Loaded boats required a bottom width in the canal of at least 29 feet to permit passing each other, and as the average bottom width was then only about 26 feet, the boatmen experienced many difficulties and annoyances. ^Whitford

Following out these ideas, on April 15, 1864, the Legislature appropriated $295,000 to be expended in improving both the Champlain Canal and the Glens Falls feeder so as to make them 35 feet wide on the bottom and 5 feet in depth.   The act also provided for stopping leaks in the feeder.   The first contracts let on December 18, 1865, under this act were for improving the canal at Stillwater, Bemis Heights and at the Waterford weigh lock, for enlarging the Schuylerville aqueduct and for building sluices around the guard locks at Cohoes and at Saratoga dam.   In the following year, the enlargement of the Moses Kill lock was begun and also all the remaining work authorized under the appropriation of 1864 with the exception of raising a part of the towpath along Wood Creek.   In 1866, the funds for improving the Champlain Canal and feeder were increased by an appropriation of $247,500. ^Whitford

In 1867, the rebuilding of the Fort Miller lock to one of the enlarged size was placed under contract by the Canal Board.   The law provided for rebuilding with stone the State dam in the Mohawk River at Cohoes.   During this season, the improvements from Cohoes to the Saratoga dam were practically completed.   The work that remained to be done consisted for the most part in raising and grading the towpath from the Fort Miller bridge to Fort Ann, and in the building of docking and vertical or slope walls where necessary.   The value of the improvements already made was shown by the fact that the tonnage of the Champlain Canal for 1867 showed an increase of 46,000 tons over the previous year and that the tolls for the fiscal year 1868 amounted to $204,118.   By increasing the capacity of the prism to correspond with the size of the enlarged locks, it was thought that a more than proportionate increase of business would be the immediate result. ^Whitford

On February 9, 1870, after the State Engineer and Surveyor and the canal commissioners had for several years recommended the enlargement of the prism of the Champlain Canal so as to give 7 feet depth of water, and not less than 44 feet width of base of prism and 58 feet breadth at water-line, the State Engineer made an estimate, in accordance with a resolution of the Assembly, of the cost of the proposed enlargement.   The total estimate as prepared by him amounted to $3,200,000.   At this time, the Champlain Canal was indeed in a very poor condition to accommodate the rapidly increasing trade that was dependent upon it.   In 1834, the Erie enlargement was initiated and carried on year by year.   In the meantime, the State had made 10 additional canal improvements west of the Hudson.   To the original cost of the Erie canal – a little over $7,000,000 – about $45,000,000 had been added.   About $34,000,000 had been expended on other canals, but the Champlain had been little improved for actual operation, beyond its original state, and consequently its district had suffered, while all the others had been greatly improved.   Since 1827, the structures of the Champlain Canal had been improved from time to time, and more recently the line below Waterford had been adapted to the use of enlarged Erie canal boats, while the prism depth had been increased to five feet on the sections above Waterford, but this canal had not been included in the general enlargement laws and no systematic improvement had been made on the scale of the Erie improvement.   Of the renewed locks, bridges and other structures, no common standard of enlargement seems to have been adopted until about this time.   The result was, that, with a heavy account of expenditures for repairs, the canal was little improved over its original capacity and could not accommodate the business which properly belonged to it at this time.   The Champlain Canal was the natural channel through which all of the products of the vast northern section of the state should pass, but its incapacity was such as to cause large amounts of these products to seek other outlets.   In view of existing conditions, it seemed to be the duty of the State, by providing facilities for cheap transportation and an increased volume of trade, to be prepared for the rapid development of the agricultural, manufacturing and mineral resources of northern New York at that time in progress, and also to invite and intercept into this State its due share of the constantly increasing domestic and export trade of Montreal and its commercial tributaries.   Consequently, the Legislature passed an act appropriating $25,000 for the purpose of making the necessary surveys, maps, plans and estimates for enlarging the Champlain Canal.   The estimate was $2,850,574.72.   A survey was also made for the purpose of locating an independent line of canal outside of Wood Creek extending from the lower lock at Fort Ann Village to the guard lock north, a distance of six miles.   This line would be free from the constant annoyances and delays occasioned by high water, it would be much less expensive to maintain, and would possess many other advantages.   The adoption of this line would increase the other estimate by $283,625. ^Whitford

In 1866, a survey had been made of the "Hudson slack-water navigation from Troy to Fort Edward, and also of the Champlain canal, from the Erie canal junction to Whitehall, to ascertain the feasibility and expense of such slack-water navigation, with a canal enlargement to Whitehall, and the comparative expense of the canal enlargement from the Erie canal junction to the size of the Erie canal in prism, with gunboat locks, chambers 225 by 25 feet in length and width."   The report of this survey treats very fully of the various investigations and improvements along the valleys of the Hudson and Champlain, and urges in strongest terms the adoption of one of the proposed plans.   The estimates of cost were: on the plan of river improvement, with slack-water navigation for 39.8 miles and enlarged canal for 25.11 miles, a depth of not less than 6 feet of water, giving a navigation for vessels of 30 feet beam from New York City to Whitehall, $4,534,379; on the plan of canal enlargement for a length of 64.79 miles, with a depth of 7 feet of water, giving a navigation for vessels of 24½ feet beam from the Erie Canal junction to Whitehall, and thence to Montreal, $5,866,851.   Even at this early day, the best argument that the opponents of the enlargement could bring forward was that, before the work could be completed, a ship canal might be necessary from Whitehall to Albany. ^Whitford

The same law of 1870, which appropriated $25,000 for the survey for enlargement, provided for raising $400,000 in 1871 to carry on the work of enlarging the Champlain Canal so as to give throughout the entire length a uniform depth of 7 feet of water, a width of 44 feet on the bottom and 58 feet at water surface.   Under the laws of 1871, the canal commissioners put under contract two locks which were to replace the "Three Locks" above Waterford. ^Whitford

In 1872, 7 contracts covering some of the worst and narrowest places on the canal were let.   Although the Legislature at its 1873 session passed a bill appropriating $500,000 for carrying on this work, the bill failed to receive the Governor’s signature on account of some legal technicality.   On this account, all work on the enlargement was necessarily suspended during 1873, but the Legislature of 1874 appropriated $500,000 to be available in the spring of 1875, for the continuation of this program.   Work was not begun as authorized by this appropriation, and in 1876 a law was passed modifying the plans of enlargement.   Under the new law, the depth was to be only 6 feet, which was to be secured by bottoming out the prism and by raising and strengthening the banks. This law was passed after it had become evident from the failing revenues of the canals and from the manifest disaffection of the people that the State would not provide sufficient money for the completion of the enlargement to the 7-foot depth, and it was thought better to secure a uniform depth of 6 feet than varying depths of from 5 to 7 feet.   These were the years of popular agitation which led to the abandonment of several lateral canals, the spirit of retrenchment was abroad and the public mind was in no condition to favor large expenditures.   In spending this appropriation, precautions were taken to put the canal in such condition as to require the least possible expense for several years to come.   Bridges were repaired, a large amount of dredging was done, widening and deepening the channel in many places,   removing old coffer dams and bottoms of old locks, and thus the channel of the canal was very much improved.   These improvements resulted in giving the Champlain Canal the best navigation ever known in its history, although a uniform depth of 6 feet was not secured. ^Whitford

In 1880, only about half of the appropriation of 1874 had been expended and the remainder was reappropriated for the same object, but still nothing was done until 1883 when contracts were let for widening and improving the canal in various places.   In consequence of increasing the depth of the canal, the water was gradually but constantly encroaching on the banks, thus narrowing the towpath and endangering the stability of the embankments, and also filling in the bottom of the canal and thereby decreasing the depth of water. ^Whitford

During 1884 and 1885, many needed improvements were made, such as the building of culverts, spillways, vertical and slope walls, bridges, abutments, straightening out curves, bottoming out canal and other general repairs.   In 1886, a bad bend was removed from the canal at what was known as "Woodchuck Bend," about two miles north of Fort Edward.   At this point, the canal was widened about 30 feet and 500 feet of slope wall was built to protect the towpath. ^Whitford

During the following winter, the Legislature began making a new series of annual appropriations for the improvement of the Champlain Canal.   The work contemplated in this improvement consisted in carrying out the plan of obtaining a uniform depth of 6 feet throughout the entire canal; of widening the canal so as to obtain a width of 44 feet on the bottom where this width could be obtained without changing the existing foot of the slope on the towpath side or weakening the berme embankments; and of protecting the slope on the towpath side, where it was not already protected, by placing a layer of quarry chips on the slope from a point about two feet below the water surface to the top of the towpath, over the entire length of the improvement.   The first appropriation for this object was $70,000, which was followed by others in 1888 and 1889 of $105,000 and $130,000, respectively, with some additional allowance for the improvement of the Glens Falls feeder. ^Whitford

In 1887, the weigh lock at Waterford failed to operate properly, but it worked very well after lengthening the cradle about four feet.   Upon the completion of the work called for by the contracts let in 1889, there were about 20 miles of enlarged prism out of the total 66 miles of the Champlain Canal, not including those portions of Wood Creek which required no improvement.   The improved canal embraced in these 20 miles was, for the most part, in small sections, scattered throughout the entire length of the canal, wherever navigation had seemed to be most difficult.   In continuation of their policy, the Legislature appropriated $110,000 in 1890 for the purpose of further improvement. ^Whitford

In his annual report for 1891, the State Engineer estimated the cost of completing the contemplated enlargement at from $1,000,000 to $1,200,000.   He recommended that three sections of the canal should receive immediate improvement, these sections being: (1) the 3½ miles of canal extending from lock No. 6 to lock No. 7, (2) the 2¼ miles extending from Bemis Heights to Wilbur’s Basin, and (3) the ¾ of a mile between Salisbury’s Culvert and Searle’s Spillway.   On the completion of the enlargement at these three places, he stated that it would "probably be wise and practical to begin work at one end of the canal and prosecute it continuously until the enlarged prism was obtained for its entire length."   No provisions were made for carrying on the improvement of the Champlain canal for the next two years, but in 1893 a small appropriation of $50,000 was made for this purpose, and one of $90,000 for repairing the dam across the Mohawk River at Cohoes.   A new steel apron was constructed at this dam and quite extensive repairs were made.   In the following year, another small appropriation of $56,000 was made for enlarging the canal, but a new era in canal history was about to begin. ^Whitford

People were coming to realize that the old system of small appropriations and gradual improvements was neither wise nor economical.   No advantages could be derived from an enlargement until every structure on the canal was completely enlarged, for boats of increased size could not be used until the improvements were entirely finished, and before this end was reached the people were usually discouraged by the number of annual appropriations already made, without obtaining any apparent results.   It usually happened that appropriations would be discontinued before the enlargement was completed, with the result that little good was derived from the expenditure of large sums.   In order to obviate this difficulty, which had so frequently upset the plans for great canal improvements, the only practical way seemed to be to make a single appropriation large enough to cover all the expenses of enlarging the canals.   In the words of Campbell W. Adams, the State Engineer and Surveyor, in his annual report of January 25, 1895, where he speaks of the project of enlarging the Erie, Champlain and Oswego Canals, "the first great step to be taken is to definitely settle on some general plan broad enough to accomplish the one object of making ours the most attractive route between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, elastic enough to admit of prompt minor changes that may from time to time appear desirable, and so sound and well considered that in all essentials it shall suffice for many years." ^Whitford

Of the Champlain Canal, he said that on the completion of the work then under contract there would be about 28½ miles of enlarged canal, the greater part of which would have a uniform depth of six feet, 44 feet bottom width and 58 feet water surface.   The towpath bank would have a top width of 14 feet and a height of two feet above the water surface at the inner angle.   As the amounts already expended would be useless unless the whole enlargement was completed, he recommended that the entire canal should be so enlarged as to have a uniform depth of 7 feet. Continuing, he said: "The plan of enlargement should include the straightening of the line of the present canal; sharp curves now exist which render navigation very difficult where a direct line over a nearly level surface, and no more expensive, could have been adopted.   From the information at hand, it appears that the enlargement of the canal can generally be done by excavating the bottom from the junction at West Troy to the Saratoga bridge at Northumberland, and by raising the banks, from the Saratoga bridge to Whitehall."   It was estimated that the increased tonnage of one boat would amount to about 50 tons for each foot deepened, providing no change was made to existing boats or structures. ^Whitford

In accordance with these suggestions, the Legislature on March 6, 1895, passed an act for issuing bonds to the amount not to exceed $9,000,000 for the improvement of the Erie, Champlain and Oswego Canals, and providing for a submission of the same to the people to be voted upon at the general election to be held in the year 1895.   On November 5 of that year the people of the State ratified this law by a majority of 276,886, thereby showing their desire to have the canal system improved. The act provided for deepening the Champlain canal to seven feet of water.   The events preceeding the adoption of this plan of enlargement have been told in the history of the Erie Canal. ^Whitford

The Superintendent of Public Works in his report for 1896 saia that is was his judgment that the appropriation of $9,000,000 made for the canals is in no direct sense to be considered as an appropriation for enlargement; that it was intended to be used in improving or, in other words, putting in as perfect condition as possible the canals, they retaining their present dimensions except as relates to depth of water.   It involves the rebuilding of mechanical structures now in an unsafe condition, the rebuilding of vertical and slope walls where necessary, the raising and strengthening of embankments, together with all work which those previously mentioned involves; also to lower the bottom of the prism at least one foot and also to remove the vast amount of silt accumulated over a quarter century of neglect.   Two results are expected from the proposed form of improvement: (1) That the canals shall be restored to their original integrity so far as strength, durability, and repair are concerned, and, (2) That such conditions of strength and protection of banks and depth of water will be secured as will render safe and invite arrangements for an increase in the speed of boats, and under the terms of the act, the strengthening and protection of banks and increased depth of water, may be supplemented by certain improvements of the locks which will also decrease the time now required in the passage of boats.   The results will not be enlargement, but will increase the number of trips made by each boat during the season of navigation and which will thus result in a practical enlargement. ^Whitford

The first work done under this new law consisted in making careful surveys of the entire work.   These surveys were followed by the awarding of contracts for about 16 miles of the Champlain Canal.   In January, 1898, it appeared that $9,000,000 would be inadequate to fully accomplish the enlargement as originally contemplated.   The Constitutional Convention of 1894, the first body to deal with the question of this improvement, called upon the State Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works to prepare estimates.   These estimates of $11,573,000 and $9,456,000, respectively, were made in twelve days, and, as no surveys had yet been made, they could not be based on any reliable data, but were merely "as close approximations as it was possible to make from a mere knowledge of the length of the work and without knowledge, except of the most general kind, as to the condition of the walls and structures."   It seems that the sum of $9,000,000 was inserted in the bill at the instigation of the various commercial bodies of the state as a sum more likely to be acceptable to the taxpayers than the larger sum indicated by the State Engineer.   The important question of what that amount would accomplish seems to have been disregarded.   This canal, like the Erie and Oswego, needed larger expenditures than the appropriation provided for.   As the work progressed, it was found that much of the old slope and vertical wall, which it was hoped could be saved, was in such poor condition as to require rebuilding.   On the Champlain Canal, several special difficulties presented themselves, which increased the cost many thousand dollars.   These were chiefly breaks in the towpath, the banks slipping into the canal for long distances.   At the time when the fund of $9,000,000 was exhausted, contracts for improving 29.87 miles of the Champlain Canal had been let, of which 5.88 miles were completed.   It was estimated that it would require a further appropriation of $1,824,000 to complete the improvement of this canal. ^Whitford

Between the stoppage of this work and the beginning of the Barge Canal there is little additional to record.   When the preliminary surveys for the Barge canal were in progress in 1900, the estimates for the Champlain route were prepared from the notes of former surveys.   By the referendum of 1903, this canal was authorized as a part of the Barge project, with the following route: "Beginning in the Hudson river at Waterford, thence up the Hudson River canalized to near Fort Edward; then via the present route of the Champlain Canal to Lake Champlain near Whitehall."   The size of canal prism is the same for the Erie, Champlain and Oswego Canals, the minimum dimensions being prescribed as follows: bottom width, 75 feet; depth, 12 feet; cross section of water, 1128 square feet, except at aqueducts and through cities and villages where the width and cross section of water may be modified as necessary by the State Engineer and approved by the Canal Board.   The minimum dimensions in rivers are: bottom width, 200 feet; depth, 12 feet; cross-section of water, 2400 square feet.   The law as amended in 1905 so that the locks were to have the following dimensions: Minimum length between hollow quoins, 328 feet, minimum width 28 feet, minimum depth in lock chamber and on mitre sills, 11 feet.   This amendment did not definitely fix the size of locks, but placed upon the canal board the duty of determining the exact dimensions.   According to the decision of that body the length was to be 328 feet, the width, 45 feet and the depth of water, 12 feet over the miter-sills.   The first work was done on April 24, 1905, at Fort Miller, this being the first work on any portion of the Barge Canal. ^Whitford