Promoting the Canal

The New York State Assembly Journal of 1786 shows that on February 1, "A petition from Christopher Colles, with a report of the practicability of rendering the Mohawk River navigable, was read and referred to Mr. Jeffrey Smith," and others.   The following is an extract from the Journal of March 17, 1786:   "Mr. Jeffrey Smith moved for leave to bring in a bill, entitled, "An act for improving the navigation of the Mohawk river, Wood creek and the Onondaga river with a view of opening an inland navigation to Oswego and for extending the same, if practicable, to Lake Erie.   This is the first mention of a canal to Lake Erie.^Whitford

The Assembly passed the bill to study the Erie route on February 4, 1808:   "Whereas the president of the United-States, by his message to congress, delivered at their meeting in October last, did recommend, that the surplus monies in the treasury, over and above such sums as could be applied to the extinguishment of the national debt, be appropriated to the great national objects of opening canals and making turnpike roads.   And whereas the state of New York, holding the first commercial rank in the United States, possesses within herself the best route of communication between the Atlantic and western waters, by means of a canal between the tide waters of the Hudson river and lake Erie, thro’ which the wealth and trade of that large portion of the union, bordering on the upper lakes, would forever flow to our great commercial emporium.   And whereas the legislatures of several of our sister states have made great exertions to secure to their own states, the trade of that widely extended country west of the Alleganies, under natural advantages vastly inferior to those of this state.   And whereas it is highly important, that those advantages should as speedily and possible be improved, both to preserve and increase the commercial and national importance of this state.   Therefore, "Resolved, (if the honorable the senate concur herein) That a joint committee be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of exploring, and causing an accurate survey to be made of the most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and lake Erie, to the end that congress may be enabled to appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the accomplishment of that great national object, and in case of such concurrence, that Mr. Gold, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Forman, Mr. German and Mr. Hogeboom, be a committee on the part of this house."   The Senate concurred on February 5, 1808:   "Resolved, That the senate do concur with the honorable the assembly in their preceding resolution; and that Mr. Taylor, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Ward, be of the said committee on the part of the senate." ^Whitford

In the Assembly on March 21, Mr. Gold made a favorable report for the joint committee, and offered a resolution directing the Surveyor-General to take surveys of the routes between the Hudson river and Lake Erie, and prepare maps, which should be transmitted to the President of the United States.   So fixed was the idea of the Ontario route that the intention of the original resolution was disregarded, the members of the joint committee not being willing to sanction so insane a project, but substituting a joint resolution which directed a survey of the rivers and streams along the usual route to Lake Ontario and such other route as the Surveyor-General might deem proper.   Six hundred dollars was appropriated for the expense of the survey and James Geddes was appointed by the Surveyor-General to make it.   The Surveyor-General was likewise intent upon the Ontario route, for he directed Mr. Geddes to devote his time chiefly to investigations along this route, saying that, although it would be desirable to have a level taken throughout the whole distance of the interior route, the money would probably be so nearly expended that simply a view of the ground, with such information as could be obtained from others, would be all to be required, and that the survey of this route must be left to be undertaken later, if the Government should deem it necessary. ^Whitford

According to instructions, Mr. Geddes made surveys along several routes; one being from Oneida Lake directly across to Lake Ontario, by way of Salmon creek; another from Oneida lake to Lake Ontario by following the valley of the Oswego river, but on the west side of the river.   A third survey extended from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario around Niagara Falls.   An exploration was also made for an interior route or one not passing through Lake Ontario.   As the money available was nearly exhausted, this last survey was little more than an inspection of the territory.   The Surveyor-General entered into correspondence with Mr. Joseph Ellicott, the Holland Land Company’s agent, from whom he had received valuable information concerning the western country, which satisfied him that a canal was practicable from the Niagara to the Genesee River by following the valley of the Tonawanda River to its summit and descending thence to the east.   In December, 1808, Mr. Geddes had made a further exploration for which the Legislature afterward allowed $73 in addition to the $600.   He made his report, accompanied by maps and descriptions, to the Surveyor-General, on January 20, 1809.   The report showed the practicability of a completely interior route to Lake Erie.^Whitford

A report was transmitted in January, 1809, to Washington for financial support to receive the famous reply from President Jefferson:   "Why sir, here is a canal of a few miles, projected by General Washington, which, if completed, would render this a fine commercial city, which has languished for many years because the small sum of $200,000 necessary to complete it, can not be obtained from the general government, the state government, or from individuals – and you talk of making a canal of 350 miles through the wilderness – it is little short of madness to think of it at this day."   There the matter stood until March 13, 1810, when a resolution was passed by the New York State Assembly and Senate that appropriated $3,000 and appointed a commission to conduct another survey.   The commissions were Gouverneur Morris, Stephen Van Rensselaer, De Witt Clinton, Simeon De Witt, William North, Thomas Eddy and Peter B. Porter as "commissioners for exploring the whole route, examining the present condition of the said navigation, and considering what further improvement ought to be made therein."   They conducted another survey and issued another report showing a proposed route of the canal.^Whitford

On March 14, 1812, the commissioners made a report to the Senate of their labors.   Of their endeavors to obtain the aid of the United States Government they reported that in addition to letters addressed to President Madison and to Congress, two commissioners, Gouverneur Morris and De Witt Clinton, were deputed to convey these messages to Washington and to urge the cooperation of the general Government in promoting the interests of internal navigation.   After reaching Washington, the commissioners found that some jealousy against New York existed among the members in Congress, so they considered it wise not to ask for an appropriation of money, and to include other States in the benefits derived from the canal.   They succeeded in interesting the President s ufficiently to induce him to send a message commending the consideration of the subject to Congress.   That body referred the matter to a large committee, and a bill was drafted which proposed a grant of lands in the Territories of Michigan and Indiana to several of the States to aid them in building canals.   The proposed grants of land were to be redeemed by the U.S. Government after the canal was completed, and in consideration of this aid, no tolls were to be charged above the amount needful to pay the annual expense of superintending and keeping the canal in repair.   The committee, after considerable delay, decided to report the bill favorably, but later for some unknown reason reversed its decision.   Of the States and Territories appealed to for aid, nine returned answers: New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont declining to assist in any way; Michigan answering that a route around Niagara falls and by way of Oswego should be adopted instead of the inland route from Lake Erie; and Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Ohio saying that their Representatives in Congress had been instructed to favor a proposition for material aid.   The commissioners further reported that notwithstanding the scarcity of money consequent on the war which had so long raged in Europe, they had ascertained that a loan of $5,000,000 could be obtained there, on the credit of the State, for a term of 10 or 15 years at an annual interest of 6%.   The directors of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company asked $190,000for the shares held by them, exclusive of the 350 shares held by the State, but this demand was considered exorbitant.   After having had another year in which to consider the subject, the commissioners were still of the opinion, expressed in their former report, that the canal could be built for $5,000,000, but reported it at $6,000,000 to cover contingencies that might be encountered, admitting that they lacked the needful information and the professional ability to make a careful estimate.   The plan of an inclined plane from Lake Erie to the Hudson was abandoned and in its place was submitted the scheme of an inclined plane from Lake Erie to Seneca outlet, a descent by locks to a level suitable for crossing Cayuga outlet, this level carried to a point where ascent by locks into the Rome level was needed.   This level, in turn, was to be carried to a point convenient for beginning another inclined plane to a basin near the Hudson river.   The commissioners’ report of the previous year, together with Geddes’ map and profile, had been sent to Mr. William Weston, the eminent English engineer who had superintended the affairs of the Western Company.   The commissioners quoted from his reply, in which he approves of the interior route, and also of the inclined plane for the western section.   However, during the season of 1811, the commissioners made surveys between Seneca and Cayuga lakes and from Rome to Waterford, which showed that an inclined plane throughout the entire length was impracticable.   Benjamin Wright had been engaged to make the survey on the north side of the Mohawk between Rome and Waterford.   The commissioners employed two men, Geddes and Wright, who were destined to become the pioneers of a new profession in America.   Their abilities were not at first recognized, and the commissioners continued to call them surveyors and to advise the summoning of a capable engineer from England.   It is said that out of deference to Mr. Morris’s views that much surveying had been done to determine a location suitable for an inclined plane.   But with the passing of his influence had gone this idea, and also the idea that a foreign engineer must have the direction of the location and construction of the canals.   The report strongly urged the immediate beginning of the work, pointing out that it was absurd to suppose that an expenditure of $6,000,000 in 10 years, by a population of 1,000,000, would impose a great burden on any, and declaring that the needs were such as to demand a canal and that to delay would result in nothing but loss to the State.^Whitford

In consequence of the failure to obtain Federal aid, the commissioners advised an early beginning by New York State alone, saying: "The maxims of policy . . . seem imperatively to demand that the canal be made by her [the State], and for her own account, as soon as circumstances will permit. . . . Whether this subject be considered with a view to commerce and finance, or on the more extensive scale of policy, there would be a want of wisdom, and almost of piety, not to employ for public advantage those means which Divine Providence has placed so completely within our power." ^Whitford

At the request of the commissioners, Jonas Platt introduced a bill in the Senate at the extra session of June, 1812, which passed each House by a small majority.   On June 19, 1812, this became a law.   It authorized the commissioners previously appointed to purchase the rights of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, but the purchase was to be conditional and only to become if absolute when the commissioner should have satisfactory information from some experienced engineer, by actual examination, that the accomplishment of the contemplated canal would be practical, and when they should be authorized by an act of the Legislature to commence their operation for opening the canal.   The commissioners were also directed to procure any voluntary cessions or grants of any lands by persons or corporate bodies, who might be inclined to make the same, and to negotiate a loan of $5,000,000 on the credit of the State, and to invest this in stock or other funds till needed for the work of construction. ^Whitford

During the season of 1812, Benjamin Wright made two important surveys.   One extended from Rome to Seneca lake in an endeavor to locate a canal with a uniform level between those places.   The alignment proved to be so crooked and the distance so increased that the plan was abandoned.   The other survey was along the south side of the Mohawk between Rome and Albany, with special attention to the pine plains between Schenectady and Albany, which were searched in vain for any route other than along the side of the Mohawk.   The report of these explorations, with maps and profiles, seem to have been lost, as Wright said that he had never been able to find them after they were submitted.   The war between the United States and England turned the thoughts of the people from canal projects and interfered with any active operations.   The commissioners made no report of their labors till March 8, 1814, and then they had made but little progress.   They said that they had secured an English engineer to make the necessary investigations, but he had not yet arrived in America.   On account of the war the attempt to obtain a loan had failed, but several large grants of land had been secured.   The remainder of the report is devoted to ridiculing those who advocated the route by Lake Ontario.   While all energy was being engaged by the war, it was not deemed wise to attempt any vigorous canal agitation.^Whitford

On April 15, 1814, the Legislature passed an act repealing the clauses of a former act which provided for the borrowing of money, even a proposed amendment to supply funds paying the English engineer being lost.   Although this act has been characterized by De Witt Clinton as the culmination of a long threatened storm of opposition which stripped the commissioners of all substantial power and resolved them into a mere board of consideration, it seems to have been simply the part of wisdom to adopt such a measure, for the act was carried by a large majority in the Assembly and in the Senate without a dissenting voice.   Although the war interrupted the progress of the canal movement, the effect of this struggle was eventually in favor of the enterprise. The passage of troops through the western wilderness brought to light vast fields for development, and the need of improved facilities for transportation to bring about that development. Another fact which the war emphasized above all else was the necessity for providing a better means for conveying the munitions of war. It is said that a piece of ordinance worth four hundred dollars at the foundry had cost the Government two thousand dollars when delivered on the frontier, and that a barrel of pork had cost one hundred and twenty-six dollars. The hardships and disastrous delays, caused by the breaking down of wagons and the wearing out of horses, were potent arguments in favor of canals. The debts that the Nation had incurred for the mere transportation of war materials would have gone far toward constructing a canal. ^Whitford

During the latter part of 1815 the friends of the canal resolved upon another attempt to revive interest in the project.   The country was still suffering from the effects of the recent war, and by many citizens grave doubts were entertained of the practicability of the undertaking and of the sufficiency of the State’s resources to secure its completion.   The measure was also opposed on party grounds.   The same men, Eddy, Platt and Clinton, who had secured the appointment of the first commissioners in 1810, now took the initiative in arousing public sentiment.   In the autumn of 1815, Judge Jonas Platt and Thomas Eddy, proposed the plan of endeavoring to get up a public meeting, in order to urge the propriety of offering a memorial to the Legislature, asking them to construct the canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson.   Judge Platt readily agreed and consented to present the subject to the meeting.   Eddy called on De Witt Clinton, then Mayor of New York, who joined in the undertaking.   It was agreed that cards of invitation should be sent to about a hundred prominent men of the city.^Whitford

The large and respectable assemblage which gathered at the City Hotel, on December 3, was presided over by William Bayard and addressed by Judge Platt, De Witt Clinton, John Swartwout and others.   In his introductory speech Judge Platt urged the expediency of a formal and public abandonment of the plan of an inclined plane canal which had been proposed in the first report of the commissioners.   Clinton, Swartwout, Eddy and Cadwallader D. Colden were appointed a committee to prepare a memorial to the Legislature.   This document, known in canal history as the "New York Memorial," was written by Clinton, and from its presentation may be dated the earnest and active progress of the enterprise. " . . . this memorial," says one writer, "was the foundation of the present system of internal navigation; . . . it effectually exploded the Ontario route, and silenced forever its advocates; and . . . it produced an electrical effect throughout the whole country."   It was signed by a great portion of the respectable citizens of New York City, and copies sent throughout the state aroused an enthusiasm which resulted in public meetings in almost every city and village between Albany and Buffalo, and in the adoption of similar memorials.   This agitation brought before the next Legislature an appeal from more than one hundred thousand petitioners to proceed at once with the work of making a canal.   The project immediately became popular.   This memorial with its clear and concise style of expression, its forceful arguments, and its large amount of information concerning the whole subject appealed to the multitudes who read it, and turned many of the skeptical to its favor.   On the other hand, it awakened an opposition which asserted itself when the measure was being debated at the next session of the Legislature, a powerful opposition, which arose from rival interests, both individual and sectional, from political differences, from personal hostility and also from the honest doubts and fears of prudent men.   The leaders of the enterprise were still the subjects of ridicule throughout the land. ^Whitford

Governor Tompkins in his speech delivered at the opening of the Legislature on February 2, 1816, said: "It will rest with the Legislature, whether the prospect of connecting the waters of the Hudson with those of the western lakes and of Champlain, is not sufficiently important to demand the appropriation of some part of the revenues of the state to its accomplishments, without imposing too great a burden upon our constituents.   The first route being an object common with the states of the west, we may rely on their zealous co-operation in any judicious plan that can perfect the water communication in that direction.   As it relates to the connecting the waters of the Hudson with those of Lake Champlain, we may with equal confidence count on the spirited exertions of the patriotic and enterprising state of Vermont.   De Witt Clinton charged that Governor Tompkins was an opponent to the canals and that these utterances were made merely for political effect, and were prompted by the large number of mass meetings being held throughout the state.   However, a host of petitions, nominally in answer to this speech, were sent from all parts of the state to the Legislature of 1816.   The most important of these was the memorial from New York, which has just been mentioned. ^Whitford

On March 8, 1816, the board of canal commissioners, which had been created by the act of April 8, 1811, made its final report to the Legislature.   Deprived of funds by the Legislature of 1814, the commissioners had accomplished nothing, but they still urged the immediate commencement of operations on the canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and also on a route to Lake Champlain, and recommend employing American engineers.   They made their last appeal in the following words: "From the number and respectability of the applications now before the legislature in favor of an immediate commencement and vigorous prosecution of this great national work, it is evident that the immense advantages which would result from its completion are duly appreciated by our fellow-citizens; and it only remains for the legislature to sanction by their approval an undertaking which combines in one object the honor, interest, and political eminence of the state."   Mr. Morris did not sign this report.   He drafted a report which the other commissioners desired to amend, but upon his refusal to make the changes, another report was drafted by the other commissioners and was presented without Morris’ signature.   A favorable report from a joint committee of the Senate and Assembly was rendered and after many debates and amendments, a bill (chapter 237) was passed on April 17, 1816 which appointed 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."   The commissioners were directed to cause the necessary surveys, plans and estimates to be made, and were given $20,000 for expenses.   They were also instructed to ascertain whether loans of money could be procured, and to apply for donations of land or money to the United States, to interested States and to corporate bodies and individuals.   When this bill passed the Assembly it had provided for the beginning of work between Rome and the Seneca River and between the Hudson River and Lake Champlain, and had contained the names of 13 prominent men as commissioners, but when it was considered in the Senate it was so amended, on the motion of Martin Van Buren, as to strike out all clauses authorizing construction, and 8 names were stricken from the list of commissioners.   The bill had met with strong opposition throughout its course in the Assembly.   An amendment for a local tax on lands lying within 25 miles of the canal had allayed some opposition, but this amendment, together with all else directing the work of construction, was stricken out by the Senate, on the ground that more accurate knowledge was required before a law authorizing the work could be justified.   When the bill was returned, the Assembly refused to concur in the amendments and the Senate in turn refused to recede.   The friends of the measure despaired of its passage.   It was the last day of the session, and time was pressing.   These advocates thought that simply to order another survey was useless, but finally, lest all should be lost, through the strenuous efforts of a few of its friends, the Assembly was induced to reconsider its vote of non-concurrence, and the measure passed in the form in which it came from the Senate.   This act really marked the beginning of the active canal policy which resulted in the passage of an act during the following year, which authorized the construction of the canal. ^Whitford

The commissioners met in New York on May 17, 1816, and appointed De Witt Clinton as president, Samuel Young as secretary and Myron Holley as treasurer.   The Erie Canal was divided into 3 main sections, and an engineer assigned to each.   The western section, extending from Lake Erie along the north side of the mountain ridge to the Seneca river, was assigned to James Geddes; the middle section, from the Seneca river to Rome, to Benjamin Wright; and the eastern section, from Rome to the Hudson, to Charles C. Broadhead.   In the course of their investigations, the commissioners "found it expedient to appoint a fourth engineer, to explore and survey the country from Buffalo to the east line of the Holland patent purchase, on the south side of the mountain ridge, it being represented that this route might be preferable to that on the north side," and William Peacock was the engineer assigned to that work.   The surveys of the Champlain canal were under the direction of Colonel G. Lewis Garin, as engineer.   For years the commissioners had been endeavoring to persuade Mr. William Weston to again come to America and take charge, as engineer, of canal affairs, offering him a salary of $7,000 a year.   Upon his final refusal the commissioners were much perplexed as to what course they should pursue.   As is told more fully at Canal Engineering, Geddes and Wright came to the commissioners at this juncture, and expressed their confidence in their ability to locate and construct the canal, but desired that the commissioners should feel a like confidence.   This confidence the commissioners gave them, but with much censure from the enemies of the canal until the engineers had proved their ability. ^Whitford

On November 5, 1816, at an extra session of the Legislature for appointing presidential electors, Governor Tompkins, in his speech, obliquely addressed the subject of canals in what has been called a "negative paragraph."   He said: "It is respectfully submitted to your wisdom to make provision at the present session, for employing a part at least of the state prisoners, either in building the new prison at Auburn, erecting fortifications, opening and repairing great roads, constructing canals, or in making other improvements."   At a time when people had been aroused on the subject, this brief reference to the canals was interpreted to mean a hostility on the Governor’s part which he later plainly demonstrated.   However, it is only fair to Governor Tompkins to remember that the Legislature was convened at this time in its short session, chiefly to appoint electors and not to consider all measures of general welfare.   In 1816, the surveys and estimates were so far completed as to allow the commissioners to make a report to the Legislature on the Erie canal on February 17, 1817, and on the Champlain Canal on the eighteenth of the following March.   The commissioners had given their personal attention to the work of exploration, and had superintended the operations of the engineers.   Before beginning the surveys, two of the commissioners and two of the engineers had visited the Middlesex canal in Massachusetts in order to obtain practical information on the subject.   In their report on the Erie canal, the commissioners state that in their opinion the dimensions of the canal should be as follows: "width on the water surface, forty feet, at the bottom, twenty-eight feet, and depth of water, four feet, the length of a lock, ninety feet, and its width, twelve feet, in the clear"   They said that "vessels carrying one hundred tons, may navigate a canal of this size; and all the lumber produced in the country, and required for market, may be transported upon it."   The report consists of a long and detailed account of the plans and of the estimated cost of construction, most of the report being made from the several engineers’ reports, giving the results of the surveys and the estimates, mile by mile.   The estimates were made from actual surveys of the country between Lake Erie and Schoharie Creek, but from that point to the Hudson recourse was had to former investigations.   The commissioners were unable to obtain a sixth engineer to undertake this portion, and the five men employed had not had time to do the work.   As William Weston, the English engineer, who had been employed in 1795 by the directors of the Western Navigation Company, had investigated this territory, and as Benjamin Wright had twice leveled over the same location, the information gathered by these men was taken as a basis for the estimate.   Much pains had been taken to collect all the facts which might affect the estimated cost.   Test pits had been excavated to ascertain the nature of the soil.   "The estimate to complete the canal was $4,571,813.   The estimated cost of the Champlain canal was $871,000 and the dimensions adopted were "thirty feet wide at the surface, twenty feet at the bottom, and three feet deep, and the locks to be seventy-five feet long and ten feet wide in the clear." ^Whitford

In November, 1816, the president of the board of commissioners had sent communication to Congress and to the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Vermont, again soliciting aid or co-operation.   Ohio alone had responded, offering such help as its resources permitted, after some decisive action should have been taken by New York State, and some plan of cooperation formulated.   Again in January, 1817, he had written to Congress saying that the canal commissioners had seen, "with great pleasure, the outlines of a plan for appropriating a considerable fund to the internal improvement of the country," and suggesting that the distribution be made according to the ratio of population in each state.   In that case New York would receive about $85,000 or $90,000 annually, and as the interests of Ohio and Vermont were identified with those of New York in the construction of the proposed canals, the sum would be increased to $140,000, if their portions were added.   This communication to Congress was prompted by a bill which had been introduced and advocated in that body by John C. Calhoun, for apportioning among the several states, for constructing roads and canals, the dividends from stock owned by the United States in the National Bank.   Pending final action on this measure, it is probable that the commissioners had delayed presenting their report, and that the joint committee, to which it was referred, waited a while longer to learn whether National aid was to be given.   This bill passed both Houses of Congress, but finally on March 3, as one of the last acts of his public life, President Madison vetoed the measure on constitutional grounds.   As this action of the President was not only directly opposed to the invariable practice of the National Government, but also the reverse of his policy in sanctioning very similar appropriations for other States, a general feeling of indignation was aroused in New York, which in the end proved friendly to canal interests.   Many of the Legislators and also the people in general manifested a determination that the State should undertake the work alone. ^Whitford

In 1816, events had transpired which materially affected the canal project.   Governor Tompkins had been elected to the Vice-presidency, and the gubernatorial chair would be vacant after March 4.   De Witt Clinton had adopted the canals as a party issue, and the plans to elect him to the office of Governor awoke many old hostilities, and his canal policy became in part a test of strength between the two opposing parties.   However, the greater portion of early canal history is unusually divested of party spirit.   On March 18, 1817, the joint committee of the Senate and Assembly made a most favorable report recommending the immediate commencement of operations between Rome and the Seneca river and between Lake Champlain and the Hudson.   It was considered wise to undertake only a portion of the Erie canal at first, in order to prove whether estimates of cost were correct.   In the event of no more being built, this section would open new and valuable communications, which would greatly benefit the community.   Mr. J. Rutsen Van Rensselaer, who had been influential in pushing legislation through the Assembly in 1816, although not a member this year, was in attendance at this session, and he was so confident of the ultimate success of the enterprise, that he made a proposition, which accompanied the report of the joint committee, to undertake the construction of the whole canal himself, upon condition of receiving a certain portion of the tolls.   This report contained a plan of finance, which had been devised by the canal commissioners at the request of the joint committee, and was embodied in a bill which was introduced in the Assembly on March 19. ^Whitford

Then a fierce struggle began, which at times appeared hopeless for the canal project, until one by one the influential Legislators enlisted in the ranks of its friends.   The bitter opposition which it encountered is surprising.   The members from New York City were hostile, almost to a man.   That they could have been so blind to the benefits which have so largely added to the greatness of their city, is indeed strange.   The bill as first introduced specified that the State should borrow money for prosecuting the work, and directed commissioners of this fund to prepare a suitable plan of finance and present it to the ensuing Legislature.   This proposition was not favorably received, but in its place was substituted an able plan of finance which had been carefully worked out by George Tibbitts, a member of the joint committee and a Senator from Rensselaer county.   This substitution of Tibbitts’s plan was made by Wheeler Barnes, although the fact is not recorded in the Assembly Journal.   This plan "was to establish a fund to be managed by commissioners, the income of which would raise money sufficient to complete the canal in 12 or 14 years for $7,00,000 and leave a sinking fund sufficient to redeem the debt to be created, at a period not far distant from their completion."   Thus, it was that the State was indebted to Mr. Tibbitts’s ability for a successful and durable plan of canal revenue. This scheme provided that the fund should be raised in such a manner that the greater amount should come from those most benefited.   It was considered that the City of New York would be more than compensated for the loss of a part of the auction duties; that the West, where most of the salt was consumed, would pay a heavy tax upon that article; that the towns and counties along the line of the canal would consent to a small additional tax; that a portion of the wild lands might be devoted to this object; and that a steamboat passenger tax might be imposed.   The plan also provided for borrowing money on the credit of this fund.   After much debate, the provision for levying an annual tax upon the real and personal estates, in the several cities, villages, towns and counties, immediately to be benefited by the canals, was voted down.   It was seen that here was dangerous ground.   There was a determined opposition to any form of local taxation, and it was evident that without some such provision the bill would fail.   In lieu of this local taxation, a clause to tax lands within 25 miles of each side of the canal was inserted, and finally passed.   In the Assembly debates Judge Pendleton, Wheeler Barnes and William B. Rochester came to the support of William A. Duer on the side of the measure, but after Elisha Williams, of Columbia, stepped out in its favor, with his extraordinary powers of eloquence and debate, the battle was won.   In a masterly speech, just before the vote that indicated the final victory, "he appealed to the members from New-York. . . . He conjured them in the most animated and persuasive manner, not to forget that this was in fact an attempt of the people of the state to supply their favourite City, at the cheapest rate, with every production of the soil in abundance. . . . ‘If,’ said he, turning to a leading member of the New York delegation, ‘if the canal is to be a shower of gold, it will fall upon New York; if a river of gold, it will flow into her lap.’ "   When the measure was considered in the Senate, the most able speech in its favor was made by Martin Van Buren.   This was his great speech of the session, and his espousal of the cause was a surprise to many, for he was known to be working to defeat Clinton’s election as Governor.   But he rose proudly above party limitations, saying that he had been with regret that divisions had existed upon this subject, apparently arising from hostility to the commissioners.   He declared that he should consider his vote for the measure the most important vote he ever gave In his life.   At the close of the speech, Clinton, who had been an attentive listener, throwing aside the memory of their political collisions, warmly thanked Mr. Van Buren.   An important amendment was made in the Senate upon Van Buren’s motion.   This allowed the borrowing of money on the credit of the State rather than on the credit of the canal fund.   The granting of unappropriated lands was stricken out.   Finally, on April 15, 1817, was passed this act which authorized the construction of the Erie and Champlain canals, all the members of Assembly and Senate from New York City voting against it.   But it had still to be approved by the Council of Revision, a body consisting of the Governor, the Chancellor, and the Judges of the Supreme Court, which held the power of veto now possessed by the Governor.   In the Council of Revision this bill encountered determined opposition, which would have proved fatal, but for the accidental coming Into the council chamber of an opponent of the canal, and the use, on his part, of an unfortunate argument against a measure already lost.   The following is the narrative as given by Judge Platt, one of the members of the council:   "Lieutenant-Governor Tayler, as acting Governor, was then president of the council, distinguished as one of the ablest and most formidable opponents of the canal.   The other attending members of the board were Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Thompson, Judge Yates and myself.   After reading the bill, the president called on the chancellor for his opinion.   Chancellor Kent said he had given very little attention to the subject; that it appeared to him like a gigantic project, which would require the wealth of the United States to accomplish it; that it had passed the Legislature by small majorities, after a desperate struggle; and he thought it inexpedient to commit the State, in such a vast undertaking, until public opinion could be better united in its favor.   "Chief Justice Thompson was next called on for his opinion.   He said he cherished no hostility to the canal, . . . but, he said, the bill gave arbitrary powers to the commissioners over private rights, without those provisions and guards . . . required; and he was therefore opposed to the bill.   "Judge Yates was a decided friend of the canal, and voted for the bill.   My heart and voice were ardently engaged in support of the measure, which now seemed at a fatal crisis.   "The president of the council panted with honest zeal to strangle the infant Hercules at its birth, by his casting vote in the negative.   A warm and animated discussion arose; and afterwards a more temperate and deliberate examination of the bill and its provisions, obviated in some measure, the objections of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice.   Near the close of the debate, Vice-President Tompkins came into the council chamber, and took his seat familiarly among us. He joined In the argument, which was informal and desultory.   He expressed a decided opinion against the bill; and among other reasons, he stated, that the late peace with Great Britain was a mere truce; that we should undoubtedly soon have a renewed war with that country; and that instead of wasting the credit and resources of the State, in this chimerical project, we ought immediately to employ all the revenue and credit of the State, in providing arsenals, arming the militia, erecting fortifications, and preparing for war. ‘Do you think so, sir?’ said Chancellor Kent.   ‘Yes, sir,’ was the reply; ‘England will never forgive us for our victories on the land, and on the ocean and the lakes; and my word for it, we shall have another war with her within two years.’   The Chancellor then rising from his seat, with great animation declared, ‘if we must have war, or have a canal, I am in favour of the canal, and I vote for the bill.’   His voice gave us the majority; and so the bill became a law.   "If that bill had been rejected by the council, it could not have been carried by 2/3 of the Senate and Assembly. . . . At no future period could the work have been accomplished at so small an expense of land, of water, and hydraulic privileges.   Rival routes, and local interests, were daily increasing and combining against the project; and in my estimation it was one of the chief grounds of merit in the advocates of the Erie canal, that they seized on the very moment most proper and auspicious for that immortal work." ^Whitford

The act created a canal fund which was to be managed by a board denominated "the commissioners of the canal fund," consisting of the Lieutenant-Governor, the Comptroller, the Attorney-General, the Surveyor-General, the Secretary and the Treasurer.   This board was authorized to borrow money on the credit of the State, to an amount which, together with the net income of the fund, should not exceed $400,000 a year.   The canal fund was to be derived from a duty on all salt manufactured, from a tax on steamboat passengers, from the proceeds of lotteries and duties upon sales at auction after certain sums were deducted for other purposes, from the tolls on the canals, from grants and donations, and from a tax on lands lying within 25 miles of either side of the canals.   The commissioners appointed by the act of April 17, 1816, were continued in office, and were designated "canal commissioners."   They were authorized to construct a canal between the Mohawk and Seneca rivers, and between Lake Champlain and the Hudson river at Fort Edward.   The act also provided for the purchase of the rights of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, after the payment for such damages as were adjudged proper by appraisers to be appointed by the Supreme Court. ^Whitford

Early in the spring of 1817 operations were begun at Rome, by a careful reexamination of the previous year’s surveys.   Benjamin Wright was the engineer assigned to the Erie Canal and James Geddes to the Champlain.   It was found that a short summit level at Rome could be avoided, thus making a long summit level from Utica to Salina.   To prevent some error in taking the levels over this long distance from causing future trouble, a separate line of levels was run by the way of Oneida and Onondaga lakes, and closed with the first levels with an error of less than an inch and a half.   The law authorizing the canal directed that communications should be opened "between the Mohawk and Seneca rivers," without designating the point of junction with either stream.   The commissioners, therefore, deeming themselves vested with discretionary power, decided to continue the canal to Utica.   Inasmuch as the Mohawk River between Rome and Utica was very winding, and so shallow that in time of low water it became a portage and as this river would have to serve as the channel for navigation after the completion of the middle section and before the eastern section could be built, the commissioners considered that public interests would best be served by extending the middle section as far east as Utica.   This part of the line, being in general less encumbered with forests and other obstructions, was the scene of the first operations.   But the remainder of the middle section was through unopened territory.   If one considers the condition of central and western New York at the time of beginning the canal, one will appreciate the difficulties that were overcome by the early builders.   It is not easy now to realize that this region was at that time almost a trackless forest, with large areas of swamps and marshes along the valley of the Seneca river.   Benjamin H. Wright, a son of Benjamin Wright, the first chief engineer, said that as a lad he assisted in the survey of 1816, and that he could count upon the fingers of one hand the spots of ground then cultivated along the route of the survey between Rome and the Seneca river, a distance of 86 miles.   Almost the only towns of any size west of the Mohawk were Canandaigua and Batavia which had been established by the proprietors of large tracts of land, where they maintained their offices for the sale of lands.   Throughout the state the most primitive methods of communication still prevailed.   Steamboats were in their infancy, railroads had not been invented, and even the telegraph line of stages between Buffalo and Albany, in 48 hours, was an invention of the future. ^Whitford

The cost estimate of of $75,000 was for the purchase of tools.   Following the authority of precedents derived from the best engineers, it was supposed at that time, that it would be expedient for the State to incur the expense of purchasing these tools.   However, after deliberation, it was thought best to let the work in short sections to contractors, who should furnish their own tools, and be paid a stipulated price per cubic yard for excavation and for embankment.   As this was the initial piece of public improvements, the occupation of contracting, as we understand it to-day, was then unknown.   By this arrangement of dividing the work into short sections and by the further provision of advancing money for the purchase of tools, many men of various occupations eagerly sought the contracts.   In making these sections, the engineers so divided them as to have a brook or ravine at either end, in order that each contractor might properly delineate his work without interfering with his neighbor. ^Whitford

The first contract was dated June 27, and on July 4, 1817, work was actually begun just west of Rome in the vicinity of the Arsenal.   The people of Rome had arranged to unite the celebrations of National Independence and the beginning of operations on the canal.   Accordingly, at sunrise, a large company of citizens, together with the commissioners and engineers, assembled at the appointed place.   After a short address, adapted to the occasion, Judge Joshua Hathaway, president of the village, placed the spade in the hands of the commissioners.   Then Commissioner Young delivered a short but graphic speech, and handed the spade to Judge Richardson, the first contractor.   In his speech Commissioner Young said: "We have assembled to commence the excavation of the Erie Canal. . . . By this great highway, unborn millions will easily transport their surplus productions to the shores of the Atlantic, procure their supplies, and hold a useful and profitable intercourse with all the maritime nations of the earth.   The expense and labour of this great undertaking bears no proportion to its utility.   Nature has kindly afforded every facility; we have all the moral and physical means within our reach and control.   Let us then proceed to the work, animated by the prospect of its speedy accomplishment, and cheered with the anticipated benedictions of a grateful posterity."   Then Judge Richardson thrust the spade into the ground, making the first excavation.   He was followed by the assembled citizens and his own laborers, all eager to join in the labors of this memorable occasion.   Thus, amid the acclamations of the people and the discharge of artillery, was ushered in this great undertaking. ^Whitford