Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this volume
to replace the irreparably deteriorated
original. It was scanned using Xerox software
and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution
and compressed prior to storage using CCITT
Group 4 compression. The digital data were used
to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper
that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The
production of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of Library
Research Materials and the Xerox Corporation.
Digital file copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL
PROJECTS
BY HON. HENRY W. HILLNOTE.
The following historical study, by Hon. Henry W. Hill, President
of the Buffalo Historical Society, was prepared for the Canal Com-
mittee of the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, and constituted a report
of that committee, as set forth in the following, from the records of
the Chamber of Commerce:
At the regular monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, held on Tuesday evening, May 8, 1917,
at 6.15 o’clock, the following report, submitted by the Canal Com-
mittee, reviewing the history of inland waterways projects in relation
to New York State, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and discussing the
project of a ship canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as a
political, naval or military necessity and as a commercial waterway,
was presented and the resolution embracing the conclusions of the
Canal Committee, as printed herein, was unanimously approved.
The historical character of the report, and the intimate relation of
its author to the activities of the Buffalo Historical Society are
deemed sufficient reasons for including it in the present volume.HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECTS
Or a Ship Channel Between Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario
By Hon. Henry W. Hill
President of the Buffalo Historical Society
The Canal Committee of the Buffalo Chamber of Com-
merce has had under consideration that provision con-
tained in Section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of Con-
gress, approved July 27, 1916, authorizing and directing
the Secretary of War to cause a preliminary examination,
and survey for a waterway or ship channel along the most
practical route between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario of
sufficient capacity to admit the largest vessels in use on the
Great Lakes, and submit the following report:
The mandatory terms of the Act of Congress leave little
that can be done at this late day, other than to call attention
to some of the similar and other projects during the past
two centuries, which were designed to establish navigable
communication between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. All
such practical information may be useful in determining-
what the Federal government ought to do in the premises*
on the subject. This has necessarily extended the report
beyond the mere conclusions of the committee.
The Niagara Ship Canal project is not a new one and is*
periodically reoccurring. A review of the acts of the Stats-
and Federal governments in relation to the matter, as it
203204
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
has hitherto been pressed for consideration, may aid the
directors of the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce and others
in determining whether or not the project is of sufficient
importance to warrant the enormous expenditure of money
necessary for its construction and operation.
Your committee has considered the subject of the Niagara
Ship Canal under the following heads:
First: An historical view of the project;
Second:	The project as a political, naval or military
necessity;
Third: The project as a commercial waterway.
The history of the project for such proposed uses, how-
ever, is not chronologically consecutive and is necessarily
more or less involved on account of the individual, cor-
porate, State and Federal activities put forth for its accom-
plishment. That, however, does not preclude an historical
review of such principal attempts hitherto made to secure
such a waterway prefatory to the conclusions of the canal
committee as hereinafter stated.
I. AN HISTORICAL REVIEW.
In a report of a special agent of the French Government,
named Clerambaut d’Aigremont, dated October 18, 1710,
•occurs the following in its English version:
When I passed the portage at Niagara it did not appear to me
that any communication between Lake Ontario or Lake Erie could be
made that could avoid this portage, and if M. de la Mothe (Cadillac)
knows a means of doing so, I think he is the only man in the country
who does. But, My Lord, even if it were true that a communication
with Lake Ontario or Lake Erie could be made, it could only be done
with very great expense and it would not follow from that, that De-
troit would be able to obtain from Montreal any help it might need inNIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
20&
ease of war with, the Iroquois, for such help could not even be given
to Fort Frontenac, which has to be passed through on the way to*
Detroit.
Prior to the surrender of Fort Niagara to the British on
July 25, 1759, the western part of the State was under the
control of the French Government and there is no record of
any attempt to establish navigable communication between
Lakes Erie and Ontario during that period, nor for .the
several decades thereafter.
It will be remembered that a trading post was established
at Niagara as early as 1720, and that in the year 1721, there
was the “beginning of a great trade with the Indians upon
the Great Lakes,7 ’ and that Cadwallader Colden, in his
“Memorial Concerning the Furr-trade of the Province of
New York,” presented to Sir William Burnet, Captain-
General and Governor of the Province under date of
November, 1724, called attention to the water-carriage be-
tween the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes and the Missis-
sippi River with short land carriages between them.
In that remarkable memorial he also called attention to
the advantages of the inland waterways of the state, ex-
tending from Albany to the country , of the Senecas, over
which goods and furs might be easily and economically
transported and which he considered “more advantageous
than the way the French were obliged to take by the great
Fall of Jagara (Niagara), because narrow rivers are safer
than the lakes, where they were obliged to go ashore, if
there be any wind upon them. ”
The memorial is a long and intelligent presentation of
the advantages possessed by the Province of New York over
the St, Lawrence route to the sea through the then French
territory. To him may be ascribed the credit of being the
first to point out the remarkable system of waterways in
New York, which might easily be made to intercommunicate
as was afterwards done. However, he did not suggest a
navigable waterway between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.206
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
First Legislative Act in 1792.
In the extension of the' routes and increasing volume of
trade westerly from the Hudson to and beyond the Great
Lakes during three-fourths of the eighteenth century, not-
withstanding the] general use of the lakes, rivers and
streams of the Province as the principal highways of trade
and travel, nothing was done to effect navigable communi-
cation between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, though Sir
Henry Moore, Governor of the Province, in 1768, proposed
the construction of a canal around Little Falls on the plan
of the Grand Canal of Languedoc in France to establish
water communication between the Hudson and Lake On-
tario. No details are obtainable of a reported canal survey
around Niagara Falls in 1784.
The first legislative act of the State authorizing the con-
struction of artificial canals to connect its natural navigable
waters was chapter 40 of the laws of 1792. The act author-
ized the incorporation of the Western Inland Lock Naviga-
tion Company, for the purpose of opening a lock navigation
from the Hudson to Lake Ontario and from the Three-
River Point up Seneca River to the lakes of Western New
York for boats of two feet draft, 40 feet long and 20 feet
wide, and fifteen years in time was allotted to the com-
pany for the construction of the entire works. That, how-
ever, did not provide for navigable communication between
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
The first State law on the subject was chapter 92 of the
laws of 1798 entitled, “An Act for Opening the Navigation
Between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario/* incorporating “The
Niagara Canal Company,” which company was authorized
to lay out and survey the most practical route between the
navigable waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and to
construct a canal by means of locks and other devices large
enough to admit the passage of vessels 70 feet long, 16 feetNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
207
wide and having a draft of four feet. That company was
given ten years to complete the project, but did nothing.
In 1808, a concurrent resolution of Assembly and Senate
was adopted, authorizing an accurate survey of the rivers,
streams and waters in the usual route of communication be-
tween the Hudson River and Lake Erie and such other con-
templated route as the surveyor-general might deem proper
and cause the same to be delineated on charts or maps for
that purpose, one copy of which survey was to be filed with
the Secretary of State and another copy was to be trans-
mitted to the President of the United States.
James Geddes was appointed to make that survey and
among the directions given him by the Surveyor-General,
Simeon De Witt, was “the ground between Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario, which must be examined with a view to deter-
mine what will be the most eligible track for a canal from
below Niagara Falls to Lake Erie and to have the level
taken throughout the whole distance between the two
lakes.” Mr. Geddes made such survey from the outlet of
Lake Erie down the rapids at Black Rock, where he esti-
mated the fall at four feet seven inches and to the lower
storehouse at Black Rock at six feet, thence to Schlosser’s,
a distance of 18 miles, where he estimated the fall at
nine feet and thence to Lewiston, where he estimated the
fall at 317 feet, and from Lewiston to Lake Ontario, a dis-
tance of six miles, he estimated the fall at two feet, making
the entire fall from lake to lake 334 feet.
The Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways, with all
their facilities for accurate measurements, in 1898, esti-
mated the difference in mean levels of the two lakes at 330
feet, only four feet less than the estimate made by James
Geddes earlier, and that difference may have been due to
high waters in Lake Erie when his measurements were
made. He described the method of transporting salt and
other merchandise from Lewiston over the Niagara portage208
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
eight miles to Schlosser’s and thence by boat to the upper
storehouse at Black Rock. The charge was 75 cents per
barrel of salt and one dollar per barrel for other merchan-
dise.
James Geddes suggested two routes for a sloop canal be-
tween the lakes, one crossing the Tonawanda creek on an
aqueduct via Cayuga Island, across Gill creek to the brow
of the mountain (Niagara escarpment) and the other via
Gill creek, thence through a side cut to the Mills and to
the top of the mountain (Niagara escarpment). He pro-
posed that both routes converge at the point and descend
to the river through a flight of locks far enough to prevent
great waste of water, “or,” said he, “the vessels below
might sail almost under the boats above, and the goods be
draws on ways up 315 perpendicular feet, by means of
machinery wrought by the water which would run through
the canal.”
The first proposed route required an artificial cut from
Lake Erie to Lewiston, little more than 26 miles, with very
little rock and the second proposed route involved four
miles more of rock cut than the first route had. At that
time (1808) there were no wagon roads between Schlosser’s
and Black Bock, and James Geddes was obliged to ride his
horse across creeks and swim him over others. James
Geddes also surveyed an interior canal route via Cayuga
marshes, Mud creek, Tonawanda creek and Niagara river
to Lake Erie.
Interior Route to be Preferred.
In his comparison of the Ontario with the interior route,
he called attention to the argument, then insisted upon, in
favor of the latter; namely, “that it would be bad policy in
the United States to open a communication for sloops be-
tween Erie and Ontario, as the products of all the upper
lakes would, on their passage to the ocean, come into On-NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
209
tario and when there, the lockage to the tide in the St.
Lawrence being only 206 feet, while it is 574 feet to the
tide in the Hudson, there would be danger of the whole lake
trade being diverted to a port in the territory of another
nation. .	.	. The interior route to be preferred, as
being free from the risk and uncertainty of the wind and
wave” on Lake Ontario. (I, Canal Laws, 31.)
That argument is still relevant to the discussion of the
policy to be adopted by the United States government and
is being, used with some force in opposition to the proposed
Niagara Ship Canal.
In 1808, Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, re-
ported on a canal for sloop navigation around Niagara
Falls at an estimated cost of one million dollars, but Con-
gress took no action thereon.
In 1810, Senator John Pope of Kentucky introduced a
bill in the Senate of the United States for many waterway
projects, including a canal to pass the cataract of Niagara.
That failed of passage. At the same session of Congress,
Hon. Peter B. Porter presented a resolution in the House of
Representatives authorizing the appointment of a com-
mittee to examine into the expediency of appropriating
public lands for the opening of roads and canals. Mr.
Porter, as chairman of that committee, reported a bill for
the improvement of roads and canals, among which was a
provision 4 4 for opening canals from the Hudson to take
Ontario and around the Falls of Niagara. ’7
Cadwallader D. Golden reported in his Memoir that, in
1810, the Legislature was memorialized by many citizens in
different parts of the state, that Canada was attracting the
greatest part of our internal commerce in consequence of
the facilities, which were offered by water communications,
to transport commodities to her markets.
On March 13, 1810, the State Senate adopted a resolution
appointing seven commissioners, including Gouverneur210
NIAGAEA SHIP CANAL PEOJECT
Morris and De Witt Clinton, to procure such surveys as to
them shall seem necessary and proper in relation to inland
navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and
Lake Erie, which was concurred in by the Assembly on
March 15, 1810. On March 2, 1811, the commissioners
made their report to the Legislature. In that report,
among other things, in response to the question: 4‘Would
it not be advisable to descend from Lake Erie into Lake
Ontario, rather than encounter the difficulty and expense
of building a canal from Lake Erie via the Cayuga marshes
to the Hudson river V1 the commissioners stated that they
“believe it would not; .	.	. it is sufficient to say that
articles for exportation, when once afloat on Lake Ontario,
will, generally speaking, go to Montreal, unless our British
neighbors are blind to their own interests. .	.	. It is
probable that a good sloop navigation from above the
gallots to Montreal would cost less than a good boat naviga-
tion from Oswego to Rome. The extent of this last, deduct-
ing the Oneida lake, is 56 miles; the fall is on an average
near 40 inches per mile; the supply of water is doubtful
and in 12 miles of the distance, obstacles almost insur-
mountable present themselves.”
Some of the principal reasons for a canal along the in-
terior route were that its water supply might be largely
drawn from Lake Erie for that part of the canal extending
from Lake Erie to Montezuma and that some of the lakes
of Central New York might also be drawn upon as feeders
for the canal in its middle and a part of its western divi-
sions. The lowest point in its middle and western divisions
of the proposed canal was at the proposed Seneca aqueduct,
whose spillway afterwards constructed was 393 feet above
tidewater, approximately 144 feet above the level of Lake
Ontario, thus avoiding the 144 feet lockage down to Lake
Ontario and then the 144 feet lockage up from that lake to
the lowest level of any part of the Erie canal subsequentlyNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
211
^constructed; or, in other words, there was to be a saving
of 288 feet in canal lockage via the interior route as
•compared with the Ontario route, and what is still more
important on account of the limited water supply on the
Home summit level, as hereinafter stated, there would be
the great saving in water required to operate such 288 feet
of additional canal lockage. The Rome summit level is ap-
proximately 170 feet above the level of Lake Ontario. It
would have been necessary to have overcome that eleva-
tion by locks had the Ontario route been selected for the
original Erie canal.
Turned Commerce of the Upper Lakes.
After discussing the advantages of the interior New
York State route over those of Ontario-St. Lawrence river
route, the commissioners said that “It is evident that the
canal will, if properly effected, turn to the United States
the commerce of the upper lakes.’ ’ That prophecy was
abundantly fulfilled in the vast Great Lakes’ tonnage over
the Erie canal for three-fourths of a century after its com-
pletion in 1825.
The act to provide for the improvement of the internal
navigation of the state, passed April 8, 1811, authorized
Urouverneur Morris, De Witt Clinton and seven other com-
missioners to make application to the Congress of the
United States and legislature of any state or territory to
co-operate and aid in the undertaking of establishing canal
navigation between the Great Lakes and the Hudson river.
Only the States of Tennessee, Massachusetts and Ohio
instructed their representatives in Congress to favor the
project. Michigan opposed the interior route, but favored
a canal around the cataract of Niagara and another by the
Falls of Oswego. The New York Commissioners inferred
lhat decision was due to information not founded in fact,
although President Madison sent a special message to Con-212
NIAGARA SEIF CANAL PROJECT
gress on the subject and a bill was introduced to appro-
priate four million acres of land to the State of New York:
as soon as canal navigation be opened between Lake Erie
and the Hudson river, 63 feet wide on the top, 45 feet wide
on the bottom and 5 feet deep, for boats 60 feet long, 18
feet wide and drawing 3 feet of water. The committee, to
which the bill was referred, failed to make a favorable
report thereon. Various reasons were assigned for suck
non-action. From that time to the present, Congress has*
made no appropriation of lands or money towards the cost
of the construction of any of the New York canals, nor of
a Niagara ship canal. In their report, under date of March
14, 1812, the commissioners opposed the Niagara-Ontario*
route for various reasons, one of which they stated as fol-
lows, that 4'Instead of drawing to us the trade of our
neighbors it would turn much of our trade to them.7 7
In their lengthy report are presented the facts that ulti-
mately led to the adoption of the interior route instead of
the Ontario route.
The Canal Commissioners reported again on March Sr
1814, quoting with approval the statement of William
Weston, the distinguished engineer, formerly employed by
the Western Inland Lock Navigation Co. in substance that
"the stupendous plan of uniting Lake Erie with the Hud-
son .	.	. would insure the commerce of the immense
extent of country bordering upon the upper lakes .	.	.
and would in its eventual consequences render New York
the greatest commercial emporium in the world.7 ’ Water
might be taken for the canal from Lake Erie as far as
Seneca river.
Again on March 8, 1816, the Canal Commissioners re-
ported among other things, that "the route from Borne tu
the Seneca river .	.	. would have the most imme-
diate tendency to divert the trade from passing down the
Oswego river to Lake Ontario and Montreal, to permitNIAGARA SKIP CANAL PROJECT	213
-which would be improvidently to abandon to a foreign and
•a rival nation commercial advantages, which ages may not
enable us to reclaim. ’ ’ That was the opinion of such Canal
Commissioners and statesmen as Stephen Van Rensselaer,
De Witt Clinton, Simeon De Witt, Peter B. Porter, Thomas
-Eddy, Robert Fulton and Charles D. Cooper a century ago
.and is worthy of serious consideration in forecasting the
results that may still follow from the construction of a
ahip canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario, for it will not
be practicable to operate as economically a ship canal from
Oswego to the Hudson as down the St. Lawrence to the
ocean. That was pointed out by William Weston in 1812.
.Further reference to the subject will hereinafter appear.
In the memorial of the citizens of New York in 1816, in
favor of canal navigation between the western lakes and
tidewaters of the Hudson, it is stated that “when a vessel
once descends into Ontario, she will pursue the course or-
dained by nature. The British Government are fully aware
of this and are now taking the most active measures to
.facilitate the passage down the St. Lawrence.”
For a time that settled the controversy. The argument
fhen used applies with equal force today.
In November, 1816, a further appeal was made to Con-
gress and to Ohio, Kentucky and Vermont (I, Canal Laws,
269), for aid, but Ohio alone, responded, offering to co-
operate if some feasible plan could be formulated agree-
able to both states (I, Canal Laws, 280). The Government
of the United States was expected to appropriate lands or
money (I, Canal Laws, 280, 285), but it failed to do so.
Corporation Effort which Failed.
In 1826, Nathan S. Roberts, the engineer in charge of the
♦construction of the locks at Loekport and the Erie canal
from Loekport to Buffalo in 1822 to 1825, was engaged by
individuals to make a survey of a proposed ship canal214	NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
around Niagara Falls. That was made for the purpose of
securing a charter from the State for a corporation to build
and operate such a canal. Mr. Roberts at that time made*
such a survey for a canal 60 feet wide at the surface, 3&
feet wide at the bottom and 8 feet deep. Such a canal
would hardly be large enough for the accommodation of
war vessels of any considerable side.
The Utica Convention of 1834 memorialized the Legis-
lature and Congress to construct navigable communication,
between Lake Ontario and the Hudson river and also be-
tween Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, primarily for commer-
cial purposes and incidentally as a military defense, but
the size of the waterway advocated by that convention
would have been inadequate to admit war vessels of more*
than eight feet draft, thus showing that the argument as*
a political, naval or military necessity was made merely
as an aid to secure the favorable action of Congress on a
commercial project. Congress made no response to that
memorial.
In 1835-6, Captain William G. Williams surveyed four
routes for a ship canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario.
One route was via Niagara river and Lewiston, and another
via Niagara river, Gill and Four-Mile creeks to Lake On-
tario, and another via Cayuga and the Twelve-Mile creek
to Lake Ontario, and another via Niagara river, Tonawanda
creek, Lockport and Eighteen-Mile creek. He estimated
the cost of these at from two and one-half to five millions of
dollars. He proposed to make locks 200 feet long, 50 feet
wide, 10 feet deep, and the canal 110 feet wide at the sur-
face. The locks were not to have a lift exceeding 10 feet
with intermediate basins between the locks. He also urged
its construction for military purposes as well as a commer-
cial necessity.1
1. Print copies of the surveys and profile maps of the several routes surveyed byr
Captain William G. Williams for the proposed Niagara Ship Canal are in the library
of the Buffalo Historical Society. In the same depository, and in the GrosvenorNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT	215
T
House Document No. 174 of the 1st Session of the 24th
Congress, bearing dated March 2, 1836, contains a topo-
graphical survey of the harbor at the Eighteen-Mile creek,
made by Captain William G. Williams of the United States
Topographical Engineers for the purpose of securing a
channel 75 feet wide and 10 feet deep for a distance of
1,500 feet. In 1837, the Legislature of Ohio adopted a reso-
lution relative to such a ship canal.
House Document No. 463 of the 2d session of the 25th
Congress, dated January, 1838, is the report of the com-
mittee on roads and canals of the House of Representa-
tives on a ship canal around the Falls of Niagara and con-
tains a recital of the various efforts theretofore made by
the State and National governments to establish such a
navigable waterway between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario
to accommodate the larger class of steamboats or vessels
navigating Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. It was based
upon and included the survey of Captain William G. Wil-
liams, made in 1835-1836.
A joint resolution was presented in the Assembly on
February 15, 1840, reading as follows: ‘ ‘ That the consent
of the Legislature is hereby given to the construction, by
the Governor of the state, of a ship canal around the Falls
of Niagara, and that the Senators and Representatives of
this state in the Congress of the United States be requested
to use their best efforts to procure the passage of a bill for
this purpose.* ’ That was concurred in by the Senate on
April 18, 1840. Nothing, however, was done by Congress
of the United States in relation thereto.
The Michigan Legislature presented a resolution to the
House of Representatives, under date of December 29,1849,
directing its Senators and Representatives in Congress to
Library at Buffalo, may be found many maps, papers, publications and documents
relating to this and other activities in the region. The writer takes this oppor-
tunity to express to the officers of both the Grosvenor Library and the Buffalo
Historical Society his appreciation of the courtesies extended to him in placing at
his disposal the material in their libraries for his use in the preparation of this
report.216
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
use all honorable means in obtaining appropriations of
money for the construction of a ship canal by the general
government around the Falls of Niagara, uniting the waters
of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, both as a commercial neces-
sity and a military expediency. The report (Senate Mise.
Doc. No. 5, 1st Session, 31st Congress) was based upon the
survey of Captain William G. Williams.
Congress Refused to Aid Project.
A corporation with a capital stock of $5,000,000 was in-
corporated under chapter 595 of the laws of 1853, authoriz-
ing the construction of a canal from some point above
Niagara Falls to some place below the Falls or on the shore
of Lake Ontario to allow vessels of at least 500 tons burthen
to pass through it. However, it was unable to proceed with
the work, and the Legislature of Illinois, on February 28,
1854, adopted a resolution, which was presented to Con-
gress on March 21, 1854 (House Mise. Doc. No. 36 of the
1st Session of the 33d Congress), reciting that:
Whereas, A New York Company had been formed in 1853 to
build a ship canal around the Falls of Niagara and was unable to
proceed without the aid of national government, therefore be it
Besolved. That the Eepresentatives in Congress from the state of
Illinois be instructed to favor and to make such grant of lands as
they may deem just and necessary in aid of the completion, at as
early a date as is practicable, a ship canal around the Falls of
Niagara in accordance with the Act of the Legislature of New York
upon that subject, passed July 1, 1853.2
Congress took no action thereon.
In 1854, Charles B. Stuart and Edward Serrell reported
on the proposed Niagara ship canal as follows:
“For this project various plans have been proposed and
surveys made at different periods during the past half
century.9 9
2 See House Mise. Doe. No. 36, 1st Session, 33d Congress.NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
217
The principal examination theretofore made was that of
the late Captain William G. Williams, United States Topo-
graphical Engineer in 1835-1836, of which an able report
was submitted to Congress with information as to the feasi-
bility of the route. Their estimates were based upon the
cost of a canal of sufficient capacity to accommodate ves-
sels then in use, which was not larger than would be neces-
sary for thousand-ton canal barges.
On May 11, 1858, a committee of the House of Repre-
sentatives reported in favor of a bill granting lands to aid
in the construction of the Niagara Ship Canal, basing their
report largely on the survey of Captain William G. Wil-
liams of the United States Topographical Engineers, which
survey was made in 1835, and upon the experience of the
Western Inland Lock Navigation Company between Seneca
Falls and Schenectady, and upon the joint resolution of
New York, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin,
and upon resolutions of Boards of Trade in Chicago, De-
troit, Milwaukee, Racine and other western towns. This
last Congressional report is a lengthy one and contains a
resume of some of the preceding steps taken to establish
such waterway communication between those lakes. Its
recital of facts is not entirely accurate and its recommenda-
tions do not appear to have been adopted.3
In 1862, Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles, urged upon the Con-
gress of the United States the construction of gunboat locks
in the Erie and Oswego canals, which Congress declined to
construct.
The National Canal Convention of 1863, in which Hon.
Samuel B. Ruggles was a prominent member, favored the
^construction or enlargement of ship canals connecting the
Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean as of national, military
;and commercial importance with dimensions sufficient to
3 See Reports of Committee of the House of Representatives, Vol. 3, 1857-1858.218
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
pass gunboats, on the ground that they would furnish the
most efficient means of protecting the northern frontier.
The State Senate Committee on Commerce and Naviga-
tion in January, 1864, reported in favor of the construc-
tion, by a corporation, of a ship canal between Lake Erie
and Lake Ontario and in 1866 such a company was in-
corporated, though primarily for commercial purposes as
will hereinafter appear.
In the Report No. 53 of the 3d Session of the 37th Con-
gress presented by the select committee on the Niagara Ship
Canal, dated March 3, 1863, it is stated that “the project
of the ship canal to connect the navigable waters of Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario has for many years claimed the
attention of the general government as one of conceded
public utility and one whose construction is immediately
connected with the military and commercial prosperity of
the country. ’’
Four Alternate Routes Proposed.
In that report four different routes were proposed, one
from Porter’s storehouse on the Niagara river to a point
below Niagara Falls near the village of Lewiston, the second
starting from the same point as proposed route number one
and terminating at the mouth of the Four-Mile creek on
Lake Ontario, the third commencing at Niagara river, fol-
lows up Cayuga creek and across Lewiston ridge at Pekin
and descends to the mouth of the Twelve-Mile creek and the
fourth leaves Niagara river at the mouth of Tonawanda
creek, intercepts the Niagara canal at Pendleton and fol-
lows the canal to Lockport and descends the ridge at Lock-
port and pursues the flow of the Eighteen-Mile creek to its
mouth.
The committee expressed no preference as to either of
these routes and reported that it ought to be left to the
President of the United States, or officers appointed by him,NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
219
to make a selection and designate a route. That report
also states that “that the system of gunboat fighting upon
our lakes, rivers and other waters has become so efficient
and consequently was so popular of late in our (civil) war,
that the attention of Congress and the government is turned
towards developing and extending, it to a much larger and
more perfect system and to give it still more efficiency. ’ ’4
In 1863, the State Engineer estimated the cost of locks*
225 feet long, 26 feet wide and 7 feet deep, to pass gun-
boats through the Erie canal, at $11,902,888.
The memorial of Horace H. Day, presented on March 3,
1863, in favor of the Niagara ship canal, was referred to
the committee on Naval Affairs and reported upon by that
committee of the House of Representatives with the recom-
mendation that the whole subject be indefinitely post-
poned.5
In 1863, surveys were made by Daniel Marsh, assisted by
George D. Stillson, for a ship canal around Niagara Falls*
That canal was to have had locks 275 feet long, 45 feet wide,
with chambers containing 12 feet of water. Those were
identical in size with barge canal locks, except they were
to be not quite so long. The cost of that canal, with single
locks, was estimated at $5,784,101 and with double locks at
$7,316,307.6
The memorial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, dated
April 27, 1864, addressed to the House of Representatives
of the United States, favored a ship canal around the Fall&
of Niagara river and the importance of the Erie canal by
4	See the Engineer’s Report in House of Representatives Report No. 53, page 8,
of the 3d Session of the 37th Congress, dated March 3, 1863, wherein are presented
the reasons for the construction of such canal between the lakes as a political*
naval, military and commercial necessity.
5	See House Report No. 54 of the 3d Session of the 37th Congress, under date
of March 3; 1863.
€ See House Ex. Doc. No. 61, 1st Session, 38th Congress.220
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
the General Government, as a work of national character
and of great military and commercial importance.7
On March 29, 1864, President Lincoln commissioned
Charles B. Stuart to examine into the matter of the im-
provement of the New York canals for the passage of gun-
boats from tidewater to the Great Lakes. His lengthy re-
port is House Executive Document No. 61 of the 1st Ses-
sion of the 38th Congress. That engineer adopted the views
of other engineers and concluded that an ample supply of
water might be obtained by the construction of additional
feeders and reservoirs at an expense of from $600,000 to
$700,000. He estimated the entire cost of the improve-
ment at $20,571,169.75 to $22,289,085.15, conditioned upon
the material used and character of the improvement. He
added little to the information on the subject, other than
direct attention to the feasibility of an additional and
ample water supply for the Erie canal route, whose sources
have been availed of in providing the water supply for the
barge canal.
This Question never Answered.
Josiah D. Hayes, Esq., in 1865, propounded the signi-
ficant question: “Why do we need another ship canal from
Lake Erie into Lake Ontario ?” The one existing canal
between those lakes, then as now, was the Welland. That
question has never been affirmatively and satisfactorily
answered and from that day to this no such canal has been
undertaken, even though several charters have been granted
therefor.
The Niagara Ship Canal Company was such corporation
with $6,000,000 capital, formed under chapter 772 of the
laws of 1866, authorizing the construction of a canal 105
feet wide on the surface, 90 feet wide on the bottom and
7 Senate Misc. Doc. No. 110, 1st Session, 38th Congress, dated April, 1864.NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
221
13 feet deep with locks 275 feet long and 46 feet wide with
the same optional termini as had the company, which was
incorporated in 1853.
This last company was spurred on by a bill in Congress
which “ authorized the President, by proper engineers and
agents, to enter upon and take possession of the lands and
[Waters within the territory and jurisdiction of the state,
exercise the right of eminent domain without the consent,
and peradventure, against the will of the Legislature of the
state, and transfer to a non-existing corporation all the
immunities, privileges and franchises he may have acquired
under its provisions. ’9
In strongly opposing the passage of the bill in Congress,
the Legislature declared in substance that the construction
of the ship canal in question would injure New York, be-
cause .	.	. the traffic of the Western States would
pass down the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean and that
it was being advocated as a commercial enterprise rather
than a military expedient. The bill did not pass the Senate
and become a law.
Under that bill the Niagara Ship Canal Company was
required to expend $300,000 before it could receive the
bonds of the United States, and it developed that such a
canal would cost $9,000,000 and that it would afford an
outlet to the sea but through the port of Montreal, rather
than through the port of New York. That project also
failed.
Neither the Detroit nor the Morris (Illinois) Convention
of 1865 urged the waterway as a military necessity but as
a direct route via the St. Lawrence river to the ocean.
That has been and still is the principal reason, actuating
representatives in Congress from the Central States in
their support of measures designed to effectuate ship canal
navigation between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.222
NIAGAEA SHIP CANAL PEOJECT
The State Canal Board, in 1866, reported that one of the
results of a Niagara ship canal would be the passage down
the St. Lawrence to the ocean of the produce of the West
and to that extent its diversion from New York. In that
harbor are the merchant fleets of the world, whence the
agricultural products and commodities, under normal con-
ditions, find ready export to foreign markets at all sea*
sons of the year, whereas the St. Lawrence route is be-
fogged much of the time and choked with floating fields
of ice and icebergs nearly half the year, rendering its navi-
gation and the navigation of the Gulf of St. Lawrence
extremely hazardous, as nautical reports show.
In 1867 Lieut.-Colonel C. E. Blunt, Corps of Engineers,
United States Army, made surveys of three routes from
Schlosser’s, on the Niagara river, about three miles above
the Falls, to the river near Lewiston; one from Schlossers
to Lake Ontario, at mouth of Four-Mile creek, one to Wil-
son on Lake Ontario, and one from Tonawanda to Olcott, at
the mouth of Eighteen-Mile creek. The estimates were
based on a canal 90 feet wide at the bottom, 125 feet wide
at the surface, and 14 feet deep, with locks 275 feet long
and 36 feet wide, with lifts of 15 feet and 16 feet, and
varied from $11,032,000 for the Lewiston line to $12,-
893,000 for the Olcott line.
A memorial and report on the Niagara ship canal, formu-
lated and presented by the executive committee of the
Detroit Commerce Convention, held December 13, 1871,
is contained in the House of Representatives Mise. Docu-
ment No. 22 of the 3d Session of the 42d Congress.
It is a lengthy document, containing a number of resolu-
tions and memorials of several states, addressed to the
Senate and House of Representatives, and a vast amount
of material bearing on the subject of the proposed ship
canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. In that report
it was conceded that by the construction of the NiagaraNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
223
Ualls ship canal and the opening up of the proposed water
route to the Atlantic ocean, the agricultural products of the
west might pass down the St. Lawrence river and thence to
Europe and thereby the trade and commerce of the city
and state of New York would be very greatly damaged.
That report also contains a partial summary of the efforts
theretofore made to establish such water communication
between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and concluded with
the recommendation to Congress that a Niagara ship canal
would establish cheaper rates of transportation between
different sections of the country and more especially be-
tween the great food-producing states of the West and the
Atlantic seaboard.
State's Commerce was Imperiled.
In that convention one of the arguments advanced in
favor of the Niagara ship canal was that the St. Lawrence
river was navigable for more days of the year than the
-existing Erie canal, thus inadvertently admitting that the
St. Lawrence route was preferred to the Erie canal route
and that the commerce yearly tributary to the port of New
York would find shipment largely through the port of
Montreal. That convention was dominated by delegates
from states outside of New York, but its recommendations
had little or no effect upon the Congress of the United
^States.
In 1872, the Legislatures of Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa
.and Ohio presented resolutions to Congress in favor of a
Niagara ship canal. Michigan repeated its appeal in 1873
and 1874, and Wisconsin also the latter year.
In 1874, instead of acting affirmatively on those resolu-
tions, Congress called for a report on the cost of the en-
largement of the locks of the New York canals, to the
^dimensions stated in Col. Blunt's survey with prisms eight
feet deep.224
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
Major John M. Wilson of the Corps of Engineers of the
United States Army estimated the cost of such lock enlarge-
ment on the Erie canal with a prism 7 feet deep at $6,-
676,231 and with a prism 8 feet deep at $8,173,596. He also
estimated at the same time the cost of a canal from the
Hudson to Lake Ontario with locks 185 feet long, 29 feet
wide and 9 feet deep at $25,213,857.
In 1884, Elnathan Sweet, State Engineer and Surveyor,,
suggested a plan for a ship canal 100 feet wide at the bot-
tom and 18 feet deep, across the state, following the route
of the Erie canal, except swinging southward near Newark
far enough to maintain an elevation sufficient to produce a
continuous descending profile from Lake Erie to the Hud-
son river, without dropping as low as the Seneca river and
then locking up to the Rome summit, level and thereby pre-
vent feeding the canal from Lake Erie farther east than
the Seneca river.
Such an artificial channel would have been 270 miles long
and there would have been 73 miles of Mohawk river canal-
ized, 30 miles of narrow Hudson river channel and 123
miles of Hudson river of deep water. That would have
required 25 locks of 22 feet lift to overcome the 555 of total
lockage. The locks were to have been 450 feet long and
60 feet wide. He estimated the cost of the improvement
of the Erie canal at from $125,000,000 to $150,000,000 and
that of the Oswego canal at $25,000,000.
The surface of the Seneca river at Montezuma is approx-
imately 376 feet above tidewater, and the elevation of the
lower miter-sill of the Rome level of the Erie canal is
422.028 feet above mean tidewater. The spillway of
the Montezuma aqueduct on the Erie canal is 393.012
feet above tidewater, so that it was necessary for canal
boats navigating the Erie canal to lock up from that
aqueduct to the Rome summit level, a distance of 29.01 feet.
The barge canal at the Three-River Point has a surfaceNIAGARA SKIP CANAL PROJECT
225
elevation of 363 feet above tidewater, that being determined
by the elevation of the crest of the new dam at Phoenix.
The difference in elevation between the water surface of the
barge canal at Three-River Point and at the Rome summit
level (that being 420 feet above tidewater) is 57 feet, which
is overcome by the three barge canal locks. The surface of
the barge canal at Three-River Point is approximately 114
feet above the high-water .elevation of Lake Ontario.
Profile maps, showing both a southerly and a northerly
continuous descending canal from Lake Erie to the Rome
summit level, were included in the State Engineer's Report
for 1900.
Revision op Surveys and Estimates.
The River and Harbor Act of August 11, 1888, author-
ized a revision of the surveys and estimates of Col. C. E.
Blunt for a waterway around Niagara Palls sufficient to
float merchant ships and ships of war drawing 20 feet of
water.
Accordingly Carl E. Palfrey was designated to make the
resurveys and estimates. However, he examined only two
of the routes surveyed by Col. Blunt, namely, route No. 4
and route No. 5. Route No. 4 was known as the "Wilson or
Twelve-Mile creek route, extended from Twelve-Mile creek
southerly and southwesterly to the Pekin road and thence
to the valley of Cayuga creek to Niagara river. The whole
distance was 18.35 miles, and the canal was to have 18 lift
locks and was estimated to cost $24,201,550 with a prism
20 feet deep with single locks and to cost $29,347,900 with
a prism 20 feet deep with double locks.
Route No. 5, known as the Olcott or Eighteen-Mile creek
route, extended from Olcott harbor on Lake Ontario 18
miles east of the Niagara River up the Eighteen-Mile creek
to 4 4 the gulf, ’’ that being a remarkable gorge in the face of
the cliff near Lockport and thence ascending the cliff by226
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
four lifts in close proximity and then by a succession of
other lifts more or less separated, to the summit level of
the mountain range and thence southwesterly to the Ni-
agara river one mile north of the Tonawanda creek, the
whole distance being 25.28 miles, and was estimated to
cost $23,617,900. The locks were to be 400 feet long and
80 feet wide and the channel was to be 200 feet wide.8
On April 14, 1890, the House Committee on Railroads
and Canals made its report9 to which committee it was
referred, and House Bill, introduced by Sereno E. Payne
of New York, directing the United States of America to
make a ship canal around the Niagara Falls in the State
of New York. In that report may be found some of the
data already considered, but more especially excerpts from
the survey of Captain William G. Williams in relation to
the military and commercial advantages of the subject. It
also contained a resume of some of the other projects
already discussed, without presenting anything new and
many things that tended to show that it was impracticable
to construct such a proposed inland waterway. It con-
tained some information in regard to the commerce of the
Great Lakes’ region. In conclusion, the committee alleged
that “ distress and ruin was staring in the face of the
people of the West. Unless they get relief in some way and
from some quarter, disaster and bankruptcy must virtually
overtake vast numbers of the smaller farmers in all parts
of the country.” Subsequent events refuted that predic-
tion, but the declaration illustrates the futility of the state-
ments made by those advocating a ship canal around the
Falls of Niagara.
That report also contains the report of Captain Palfrey
hereinbefore epitomized.
8	See Vol. VI, House Ex. Docs., 1st Session, 51st Congress, 1889-90, p. 2434.
9	Report No. 1430, 1st Session, 51st Congress.NI AG ABA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
227
In 1890, William Pierson Judson of the American Society
of Civil Engineers made a report10 containing a map, pro-
files and revised estimates of a canal from Lake Erie to
Lake Ontario. That was reported on again by the same
engineer in 1896.
On April 8, 1892, the House Committee on Railways and
Canals submitted its report* 11 on a ship canal from the
Great Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson river.
In that report the committee say that ‘ ‘ the point is to
decide between improving the St. Lawrence canals or the
Erie, either on its present lines or a modification of it.
.	.	. Only a detailed and carefully planned survey
can fully settle the question, but there are several alterna-
tives open.” That committee was disposed to favor a ship
canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario. To its report were
appended several statements of prominent citizens and
engineers relative to some of the matters involved in the
construction and operation of such a waterway.
Plan op the Oswego Route.
In the State Engineer’s annual report for 1895, appeared
a special report of Albert J. Himes, resident engineer, of
the “Oswego Route.” His plan contemplated a canal
182% miles long, from Oswego to the Hudson river. It
was to have a bottom width of 100 feet and a depth of
20 feet and locks 450 feet long and 60 feet wide with huge
elevator lifts—one at Cohoes being 130 feet high and
another at Oswego, about 65 feet high. Other lifts ranged
from 10 to 27 feet. He estimated its cost at $82,098,601.
On February 18, 1896, the House Committee on Rail-
ways and Canals submitted its report on a ship canal from
the Great Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson
10	House Report No. 283, 1st Session, 52d Congress.
11	House Report No. 1023, 1st Session, *52d Congress.228
NIAGAEA SHIP CANAL PEOJECT
River, found in House Report No. 423 of the First Session
of the 54th Congress. It dealt largely with the commercial
aspects of the project and had appended lengthy statements
of prominent citizens and engineers in relation to some of
the problems involved in constructing such a waterway.
In 1896, William Pierson Judson, a civil engineer, sur-
veyed a route for a ship canal from Oswego to the Hudson,,
a distance of 179 miles. He planned to ascend the Rome
summit level, 172 feet above Lake Ontario, by several locks
of 24 feet lift or to excavate for 11 miles through the
Rome summit level, down 24 feet and to make both east
and west thereof a lesser cut, reducing the summit level
to 148 feet above Lake Ontario in case the supply of water
for the Rome summit level were inadequate. Pie also pro-
posed an enormous cut 50 miles long, with a maximum
depth of 100 feet and an average depth of 60 feet, making
Oneida lake the summit level, which was 394 feet above
tidewater. That route through the Mohawk Valley en-
countered many obstacles and required the construction
of many dams. Much dredging was required 4 4 in the Upper
Hudson, estimated at $20,000,000.” He supplied a map
and profile for his proposed ship canal. He had prepared
a report prior thereto, in 1892, for the Oswego Board of
Trade on an enlarged waterway between the Great Lakes
and the Atlantic seaboard.
In December, 1896, Major Thomas W. Symons reported
in House Document No. 231 of the Second Session of the
54th Congress on the radical enlargement of the Erie Canal
and enlarging one tier of locks to dimensions large enough
to admit the passage of torpedo boats and vessels of war,
but Congress took no action.
On January 30, 1897, the Secretary of War transmitted
to the House of Representatives a report from the chief of
engineers on the matter of widening the locks of the Erie
and Oswego canals, contained in House Document No. 231NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT	229
of the Second Session of the 54th Congress. That plan
contemplated locks 250 feet long, from twenty-five to thirty-
seven feet wide, having lifts from nine to eleven feet. The
estimated cost thereof ranged from $3,840,000 to $5,398,000.
On July 15, 1897, the Secretary of War transmitted to
Congress a preliminary examination for a ship canal from
the Great Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson
River, made pursuant to Section 8 of the Rivers and Har-
bors Act of June 3, 1896, directing the Secretary of War
“to cause to be made accurate examinations and estimates
of cost of construction of a ship canal by the most practic-
able route, wholly within the United States, from the Great
Lakes to the navigable waters of the Hudson river of suffi-
cient capacity to transport the tonnage of the lakes to the
sea. ’ *
The appropriation made for that purpose specified in the
act last mentioned was insufficient to make such a complete
survey as that proposed, and the chief of engineers inter-
preted the act to contemplate merely a preliminary survey.
Major Thomas W. Symons of the C'orpa of Engineers of
the United States Army was assigned to that work. His
xeport fills a hundred pages of House Document No. 86 of
the First Session of the 55th Congress. It includes a gen-
eral survey, not technical, of what Major Symons denomi-
nates three possible routes for a ship canal entirely within
the United States, from the Great Lakes to the navigable
waters of the Hudson river; namely:
(1) The Oswego route; (2) The Erie Canal route; and
(3) The St. Lawrence-Champlain route.
Only the first and third of these contemplated a ship
canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario. If that were to be
constructed, Major Symons preferred the line of route
from Niagara river near Tonawanda to the Eighteen-Mile
creek, entering Lake Ontario, a distance of 25 miles, and
Raving a fall of 320 (330) feet, accomplished by thirteen
locks of an average lift of 24 feet.230
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
Barge Canal Route Preferred.
Major Symons did not advocate either the proposed Os-
wego-Oneida-Mohawk route or the Ontario-St. Lawrence-
Champlain route. Of those two routes, he preferred the
former, but did not consider that as advantageous as a
barge canal along the route of the Erie Canal from Lake
Erie to the Hudson River. He disapproved of the St.
Lawrence-Champlain-Hudson route, remarking that “Can-
ada was making every possible effort to deflect American
commerce to its ports.’’ He also reported that “the build-
ing of a ship canal by the St. Lawrence route (and that will
now apply to the Oswego route) would be still further and
more completely opening the doors of the lake commerce to
the subsidized fleets of Great Britain and Canada.” He
strongly urged the improvement of the Erie Canal to such
dimensions as to admit of the passage of barges carrying
1,500 tons as the best solution of the best type of waterway
between the Great Lakes and the Hudson.
The report of the United States Deep Waterways Com-
mission is found in House Document No. 192 of the Second
Session of the 54th Congress, transmitted to the President
of the United States on January 8, 1897. The Commission-
ers were James B. Angell, John A. Russell and Lyman E.
Cooley.
The Commission recommended that complete surveys and
examinations be made and all needful data to mature proj-
ects be procured for:	(a) Controlling the level of Lake
Erie and projecting the Niagara ship canal; (6) Develop-
ing the Oswego-Oneida-Mohawk route; (c) Developing the
St. Lawrence-Champlain route; (d) Improving the tidal
Hudson River; (e) Improving intermediate channels.
The report is an exhaustive one, but is lacking in tech-
nical information. It is based largely on lay data and
served as a preliminary report leading up to the report of
the Engineers on Deep Waterways in 1900.NIAGAEA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
231
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Deep Water-
ways Commission last hereinbefore mentioned, the act of
Congress, approved June 4,1897, appropriated moneys, and
Major Charles W. Raymond of the Corps of Engineers of
the United States Army, Alfred Noble and George Y. Wis-
ner, on July 28, 1897, were designated to make “ surveys
and examinations (including estimates of cost) of deep
waterways and the routes thereof between the Great Lakes
and the Atlantic tidewaters, as recommended by the report
of the Deep Waterways Commission. ’9
The act of July 1, 1898, made a further appropriation
for continuing the work for a waterway of 21 and 30 feet
deep respectively and the relative advantages thereof.
Mr. C. L. Harrison, C. E., was placed in charge of the
surveys for 21 and 30 foot waterways between Lakes Erie
and Ontario.
Two routes were surveyed for a 21-foot canal and for a
30-foot canal; namely, the La Salle-Lewiston route and the
Tonawanda-Olcott route. The surveys included, for a 21-
foot waterway, locks 600 feet long and 60 feet wide, and
for a 30-foot waterway, locks 740 feet long and 80 feet wide.
The La Salle-Lewiston route was to have one lock of 8 feet
lift of six locks of 40 feet lifts and two locks of 39.4 feet lift
and a channel 600 feet wide. It was estimated that the La
Salle-Lewiston route canal, which was 21.7 miles long, of 21
feet in depth, would cost $43,214,344, and of 30 feet in
depth would cost $75,084,453, and that the Tonawanda-
Olcott route canal, which was 32.4 miles long, of 21 feet
in depth, would cost $49,274,894, and of 30 feet in depth
would cost $77,221,353.
None of these estimates included any allowance for any-
thing except for proposed channels between Lakes Erie and
Ontario. The differences in elevation is 330 feet. The
draft on the waters of the upper Niagara River to oper-
ate nine locks with chambers from 600 to 740 feet in length,232
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
from 60 to 80 feet in width and from 61 to 70 feet in depth,
for the passage of vessels through a canal of that lockage
might be felt as far as Niagara Falls and would necessitate
the construction of a barrage across the outlet of Lake Erie
to maintain its normal level. The engineers estimated the
entire cost of the proposed 21-foot waterway through to the
Hudson River at $206,358,000, and of the proposed 30-foot
waterway at $317,284,500. That was on June 30, 1900.
Since that date the cost of labor and material has so in-
creased that the foregoing estimates are no longer reliable
as indicating the cost of such a work. It may safely be
assumed that a 21-foot waterway via the La Salle-Lewiston
route would cost not less than $55,000,000, and via the
Tonawanda-Olcott route not less than $60,000,000. That
amount would be required to construct the Niagara ship
canal, and when completed, would tend to divert commerce
away from the port of New York to the St. Lawrence River
route through the port of Montreal to foreign markets, as
there is only one natural outlet to Lake Ontario and that
is down the St. Lawrence River. Hereinafter it is pointed
out that the physical obstacles to the construction and oper-
ation of a ship canal from Lake Ontario, via Oneida Lake
and the Mohawk River to the tidewaters of the Hudson
River, are such that no one is bold enough to predict that
such a project will ever be undertaken and especially not
since the completion of the Oswego barge canal.
Barge Canals the Best Type.
Prof. William H. Burr of Columbia University wrote
Gen. Francis Y. Greene, chairman of the Roosevelt Com-
mittee that proposed the barge canals, that they were the
best type of waterways to transport the tonnage passing
between the Great Lakes and the Hudson River, that “the
cost of a ship canal, ranging as estimated from $200,000,000NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
233
to $500,000,000, is sufficiently formidable to exclude that
solution from serious consideration.7 7
The Roosevelt Commission of 1900, in its well-considered
report, stated that “The State of New York must be pre-
pared to face ... a serious competition in the export
trade over the St. Lawrence route77 and that Commission
said further:
It seems to us that there are certain insuperable difficulties in the
way of such a canal (ship canal around Niagara Falls to Lake Ontario
and from Oswego via Oneida Lake and the Mohawk to the Hudson)
ever being a success, no matter by whom constructed. It is intended
to be used by a vessel which can navigate the ocean, the canal and
the lakes- We do not believe that such a vessel can be constructed
so as to be economically and commercially successful. The ocean
steamer is built to withstand the fierce storms of the Atlantic, and
costs, in its most modern type, about $71 per net ton of carrying
capacity.
The vessel to navigate the lakes is built to withstand less frequent
and dangerous storms; it has less draft on account of the smaller
depth of the harbors on the lakes and it is built much less substan-
tially; its cost is about $36 per net ton of carrying capacity.
The cost of a canal fleet, consisting of a steamer and three consorts,
with a total cargo capacity of 3,900 tons, according to figures fur-
nished us by boat builders, would be $28,500, or $7-31 per ton of
carrying capacity.
We have, then, the difference in first cost between $71, $36 and $8
per ton of carrying capacity for the three types of vessels which, in
the evolution of business, have been produced as the most economical
for the particular class of work each has to do. We do not believe
it is possible to combine these three types into one vessel, which will
be as economical for the through trip, as to use the three existing
types with two changes of cargo, one at Buffalo and one at New York,
or to use the boat of 1,000-tons9 capacity going through the lakes to
New York and there transferring its cargo to the ocean steamer.
In 1900, Hon. Edward A. Bond, State Engineer, reported
that he “caused estimates to be made for canals around Ni-
agara Falls as a part of the barge canal project on the basis
of 11 feet depth in the locks and 12 feet depth in the water-
ways.77 He also caused a survey of the Olcott-Lockport-234
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
Buffalo route to be made in 1900, beginning at the mouth of
the Eighteen-Mile Creek and proceeding to the head of 4‘the
gulf where it was to unite with the Erie Canal, the elevation
of whose surface was 570 feet above tidewater. That eleva-
tion from Lake Ontario was to be reached through nine locks
with lifts ranging from 28.7 to 40.4 feet each. The locks
were to be of barge canal dimensions. Mr. Bond also caused
a survey of the Lewiston-La Salle route for the barge canal.
The total lift was said to be 319.6 feet, but that was taken
from survey of the United States Board of Engineers on
Deep Waterways and may not accord exactly with other
measurements, as at times there was more or less fluctuation
in the upper and lower Niagara River levels and the ter-
mini of different surveys did not always coincide. The
Bond surveys, however, were for barge canal purposes and
not for a ship canal around Niagara Palls.
In the Forum for March-iAugust, 1900, Major Thomas
W. Symons said: 4 4 That a ship canal via Ontario, the St.
Lawrence and Lake Champlain would certainly be a detri-
ment to our inbound and outbound foreign commerce, tend-
ing strongly to divert it from the port of New York down
the St. Lawrence River through the port of Montreal. It
would only be necessary for Canada to build a short canal
to connect up with the Niagara ship canal to Lake Ontario,
and that the Canadians would certainly do. Since that
date they have decided to enlarge the Welland and that will
lead to the enlargement of the remaining short canals to the
tidewaters of the St. Lawrence. ” 12
Major Symons strongly advocated the barge canal on
account of its economic advantages as a highway and its
adequacy to meet the demands of commerce at the least ex-
penditure of money in construction and operation. Major
Symons, on other occasions, has pointed out the menace to*
12 The Forum, Vol. XXIX, p. 203.NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
235-
the commerce of the State in the proposed Niagara ship
canal that would divert such commerce down the St. Law-
rence to the sea.
Unofficial Documents on Problem.
The foregoing historical summary does not include suck
unofficial reports as the paper of Joseph Mayer, published
in the October (1900) proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, entitled; “Canals Between the Lakes
and New York,” nor the paper presented at the same time
by George Y. Wisner, one of the Board of Engineers on
Deep Waterways, and published in the same proceedings,
entitled: “The Economic Dimensions for a Waterway from
the Great Lakes to the Atlantic,” nor the papers of Edward
P. North of New York, J. Y. McClinton of Rochester, John
Patten and many others, who at various times have sug-
gested a waterway between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, or
between the Great Lakes and the Hudson River for commer-
cial or power purposes. The latter purpose has much force
on account of the possibilities of great power development
in the 330 feet fall of water from Lake Erie to Lake Ontaria
and on account of that fall, such a waterway ending in
Lake Ontario and with nine locks, most of which must have
40 feet lifts, as has already been shown, would not prove a
commercial success in comparison with the barge canal,
extending from Buffalo to the Hudson River with only one
elevation to overcome and that of only 57 feet by three locks,
in the 42.35 miles between the Three-River Point and the
Rome summit level. With that exception the barge canal
is a continuously descending waterway from Lake Erie to
the Hudson River, a distance approximately of 345 miles.
Some of the early memorials presented to the Congress of
the United States in advocacy of a ship canal around the
Falls of Niagara are startling in the dangers predicted as
likely to occur to this country in case that waterway were236
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
not constructed, and they may now be read with amuse-
ment.
One of these memorials, prior to 1836, contained the fol-
lowing: ‘4 Your memorialists respectfully represent that if
again our country should be visited by the calamities of
war, the inhabitants alone on the northern frontiers are
likely to be brought into immediate contact with its evils.
They would respectfully ask the attention of your honorable
House to the extraordinary augmentation of power, popula-
tion, wealth and resources of the British North American
possessions during the past few years. ”
Since that time the State of New York alone has out-
populated all the Canadas, and the United States has be-
come a world power and is allied with Great Britain in all
that makes for our common civilization.
Many of the arguments advanced for such a ship canal
are predicated upon inaccurate statements of facts as mis-
leading as the dissolving “aery shapes,” that
.	.	. Fancy, with her dream-dipped brush,
may project when the cold, calculating, reasoning powers
are dormant.
Such arguments were refuted in their day by Jesse Haw-
ley, Josiah D. Hayes, Hon. Israel T. Hatch, Hon. Harmon
S. Cutting, Robert Hadfield, Hon. James M. Humphrey,
Hon. Franklin A. Alberger, William Thurstone, Major
Thomas W. Symons and others, whose devotion to the com-
mercial development of the Empire State is attested by
many imperishable achievements. But it appears that each
succeeding generation must travel again the well-worn way,
blazed a century and a half ago, and learn from experience
what others have repeatedly declared, in substance, that a
ship canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario is neither a
political, naval, military nor a commercial necessity, and if
it were constructed and used, it would tend to divert theNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
237
commerce of the United States away from New York, Penn-
sylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other Atlantic
States down the St. Lawrence River to the sea. The St.
Lawrence is nature ?s outlet of Lake Ontario and that river,
rather than the Hudson, would become the great commercial
highway between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean.
II. THE PROJECT AS A POLITICAL, NAVAL, OR
MILITARY NECESSITY.
We will next consider briefly another aspect of the mat-
ter—The project as a political, naval or military necessity.
Much has already been stated on this branch of the subject.
It has been one of the favored arguments of those who had
other interests to promote, or to serve, that the Niagara
ship canal was a political, naval or military necessity.
They believed that such an argument would appeal to the
political impulses of members of Congress far enough re-
moved from the locus in quo as not to know the real condi-
tions existing in and about the Great Lakes and the diffi-
culty of constructing and operating a ship canal between
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and the uselessness of such a
waterway for political, naval or military purposes. Those
urging its construction on that ground may not recall the
terms of the Rush-Bagot Treaty, concluded in 1817, and
ratified in April, 1818, between the United States of
America and Great Britain, whereby the contracting
powers limited themselves on Lake Ontario to one vessel not
exceeding 100 tons burthen and armed with one eighteen-
pound cannon, and, on the Upper Lakes to two vessels of
like tonnage and armament. The treaty is not likely to be
abrogated, and until it be abrogated or modified there is no
need of a ship canal between those lakes as a political, naval
or military necessity.
The proposed Niagara ship canal has not been generally
favored by the people of this State, though at a State con-288
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
vention held in Utica on September 11, 1834, such a canal
was advocated, among other reasons, as a military defense,
and in 1862, chapter 415 of the laws of that year was en-
acted “to adopt the canals of this State to the defense of
the northern and northwestern lakes/ ’ The first section
of that act provided as follows:
Section 1. Whenever the Government of the United States shall
provide the means, either in cash or their six per cent, stock or bonds,
redeemable within twenty years, for defraying the cost of enlarging
a single tier of locks, or building an additional tier in whole or in
part upon the Erie and the Oswego canals, including any necessary
alteration of said canals, or their structures, to a size sufficient to pass
vessels adequate to the defense of northern and northwestern lakes,
the Canal Board shall, without delay, put such work under contract,
in the manner now required by law, to be constructed and completed
at the earliest practicable period, without serious interruption to
navigation, with power, in the discretion of the Canal Board, to direct
the construction of new and independent locks, when found more ad-
vantageous. The said Canal Board shall, whenever the Government
of the United States shall provide the means as aforesaid, construct
a canal of the requisite dimensions and capacity, from the Erie canal,
at or near the Village of Clyde, to some proper point on the Great
Sodus Bay, or Lake Ontario.
Section 6 of the act prohibited the State from contracting
any debt for that purpose. Hon. S. B. Buggies was sent
to Washington to procure funds for the improvement, esti-
mated by the State Engineer to cost $4,451,000, and a bill
was introduced in Congress in 1862 and again in 1863 and
another in 1865, but Congress refused to make an appro-
priation for that purpose. It was said at the time that the
only votes for such a waterway were given by some mem-
bers of Congress “on the ground that this ship canal would
give a continuous water communication with the Atlantic.
Project Pleasing to Canadians.
It was said by Hon. Franklin A. Alberger, in 1872, that
such a “ship canal project was hailed with delight by theNIAGARA SKIP CANAL PROJECT
239
Canadians,” because “the artificial navigation necessary to
reach Montreal from Lake Ontario was only forty miles.
.	.	. The Bank of Montreal, to meet the emergencies
of commerce, had established a branch in Chicago with
agencies at other points and was making advances on prop-
erty consigned to Great Britain. The Canadians are our
active rivals/ ’ The Board of Trade of Chicago memorial-
ized the Governor-General of Canada as follows:
The Interior of North America is drained by the St. Lawrence,
"which furnishes for the country bordering upon the lakes a natural
highway to the sea- Through its deep channel must pass the agri-
cultural productions of the vast lake region. The commercial spirit
of the age forbids that international jealousy should interfere with
great national thoroughfares, and the governments of Great Britain
and the United States will appreciate this spirit and cheerfully yield
to its influences.
The great avenue of the Atlantic, through the St. Lawrence, being
once opened to its largest capacity, the laws of trade, which it has
never been the policy of the Federal Government to obstruct, wiU con-
vey the commerce of the Northwest through it.
The foregoing resolutions reflect the sentiments of the
people of the central states on this project and show con-
clusively that they have always favored it as a commercial
highway rather than as a political, naval or military
necessity.
In 1865, the Legislature of the State adopted, among
others, the following resolutions in relation to the bill then
pending in Congress, authorizing the construction of a ship
canal around Niagara Falls, namely:
And Whereas, There is a bill now pending in the Congress of
the United States, authorizing the construction of a ship canal, under
the auspices of the Government of the United States, around the
Niagara Falls, within the territorial jurisdiction of this State and
committing the construction of the said work to any corporation
created by any State in the Union, no matter whether the assent of
this State may or may not be given thereto, and authorizing such
corporation to levy and collect tolls upon vessels and tonnage passing240
NIAGARA SKIP CANAL PROJECT
through the said canal, except on vessels and tonnage of the United
States, and pledging the funds of credit of the United States to the
sum of six millions of dollars toward the expense of constructing
said work;
And Whereas, The power of Congress to exercise any jurisdiction
of this character over the territory of a loyal State should depend
upon a present imminent impending “military necessity,;y‘ and not
one that is or may he wholly and entirely contingent and remote —
a military necessity that may or may not arise or exist between the
United States and a coterminous foreign territory, should not be
urged or relied upon to uphold a measure of this description.
And Whereas, In the judgment and opinion of this Legislature,
the said measure is promoted and advocated more as a commercial
enterprise than a military expedient; therefore,
Resolved (if the Senate concur), That this Legislature do most
earnestly but respectfully remonstrate against the passage of the
aforesaid bill by Congress, or any other bill of a like character
whereby any commercial rivalship shall be created upon the territory
of this State and within its jurisdiction, antagonistic to the present
commercial status of the State, and highly injurious to our canal
finances and the material interests of the people of the whole State.
In his report for the year 1865, the auditor of the Canal
Department, in commenting upon the subject, said, “The
military necessity no longer exists. ”
Appeals to Congress Unavailing.
The appeals to the Congress of the United States, com-
mencing as early as 1811 and repeated several times there-
after, for Federal aid to establish water communication be-
tween Lake Erie and the Hudson river were unavailing,
even though the United States fully understood all the
grounds therefor, including those of the alleged political,
naval or military necessity for such a waterway. Later
appeals for like aid to establish such communication, after
the State, at its own expense, had established it, were also
unavailing and no Federal aid was ever given.
The Congress of the United States did not consider such
a waterway a political, naval nor a military necessity andNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
241
up to the present time has withheld its support, while the
State has been allowed, without any assistance from the
Federal Government, to go forward with its waterway con-
struction and operation at an authorized expenditure to the
taxpayers for the barge canals and terminals alone of $154,-
800,000.
The Deep Waterways Commission, in its report trans-
mitted to Congress on January 18, 1897, did not conclude
among its recommendations for a ship canal from the Great
Lakes to the Hudson that such a canal was a political, naval
or military necessity between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
Evidently that purpose did not occur to or make any im-
pression upon that distinguished commission, charged with
the responsibility of reporting on a ship canal between the
Great Lakes and the Hudson, notwithstanding the numerous
congressional memorials, petitions and reports calling atten-
tion to the matter prior to 1896. The silence of the Deep
Waterways Commission on that important subject is signifi-
cant and clearly indicates that the Commissioners did not
predicate their report on the various arguments theretofore
presented for a ship canal between Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario as a political, naval or military necessity. In fact
the Federal government has never considered a Niagara
ship canal as a political, naval or a military necessity.
Therefore it has made no appropriation for the construc-
tion of such a waterway, though several surveys have here-
tofore been made.
The provision in the Sundry Civil Act of Congress of
June 4, 1897, was “for surveys and examinations (includ-
ing estimates of costs) of deep waterways and routes thereof
between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic tidewater, as
recommended by the report of the Deep Waterways Com-
mission.’? In their comprehensive survey, the army en-
gineers, in substance, reported that in time of war, the
large ships of war would be required on the high seas and242
NI AG ABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
such vessels would be unnecessary on the Great Lakes and
that both a 21-foot and a 30-foot channel would be ample
for naval defense, the Canadian harbors and channels at
that time admitting vessels of only 14 feet draft. The
survey, however, for a ship canal from Lake Brie to tide-
water was advocated primarily for commercial and not
for political, naval and military purposes.
The conditions of modern warfare, with submarines de-
stroying merchant and other ships, and aircraft sweeping
battlefields and the sea, are such that ship canals are of
little value and, in fact, they may be a menace to interior
regions, exposed as would be those states bordering on the
Great Lakes to the ravages of vessels of war sailing up the
St. Lawrence river into Lake Ontario and thence through a
ship canal into the upper lakes.
It is not at all likely that the Government of the United
States would appropriate enough money to construct a ship
canal as large as the improved Welland canal is to be. That
is 25 miles long, from 200 feet to 210 feet wide on the bot-
tom, 25 feet deep in the prism and 30 feet deep in its seven
locks, 800 feet long, 80 feet wide, each having a lift of 46^2
feet, and the entire waterway improvement costing many
millions of dollars.
No Military or Naval Value.
Any ship canal in the territory of the United States be-
tween Lake Erie and Lake Ontario of smaller dimensions
than those of the Welland canal would not suffice for the
passage of war vessels or other large lake vessels. Further-
more, little would be gained by making those lakes inter-
communicate through a waterway having a total lockage of
330 feet in a distance not exceeding 60 miles, with the en-
trance to the lower lake, from the ocean, under the control
of the British government, as are the St. Lawrence river
and Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is not apparent in whatNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
245
manner such a ship canal around the Niagara Falls would
or could be of naval or military service to the nation in time
of war, which is as improbable now as it has been for the
past century.
Engineers of the army of the United States have not
advised the construction of the Niagara ship canal as a
political, naval or military necessity, nor have they re-
ported that such a waterway could be successfully operated.
They realize the difficulty of navigating large lake vessels,
now even larger than those in use when the Board of En-
gineers on Deep "Waterways made their surveys in 1898-
1900, through a narrow, restricted channel up and down a
flight of six or more locks, that must be at least 650 feet
in length and from 65 to 80 feet in width and having
40 lifts to overcome the so-called mountain elevation of
approximately 300 feet at Lewiston or at Lockport, in addi-
tion to the other locks required to overcome the 330 feet
differences in elevation between the two lakes. Who can
foretell the possible mishaps to war vessels navigating a
waterway of such unusual lockage ?
There is no such canal in operation anywhere in the world
and it is not likely that the Government of the United States
is disposed to experiment in a matter involving such an
expenditure of money as the construction of the proposed
ship canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario would necessi-
tate. In addition to the cost of construction will be in-
volved many expenses incidental to operation and the para-
mount problem of obtaining an ample water supply.
The Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways concluded
that in order to maintain the level of Lake Erie at a regu-
lated stage of 574.5 feet above tidewater and thereby secure
a maximum discharge of 277,270 cubic feet per second, in
part required to supply the proposed Niagara ship canal,
it would be necessary to construct regulating works, con-
sisting of a barrage with openings, or a submerged wear244
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
2,900 feet long with 13 sluices, each having an opening of
80 feet in the clear, across the outlet of Lake Erie, or to
construct regulating works across the Niagara river between
Tonawanda, in case a ship canal were to be constructed be-
tween Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, for such a canal could
not be operated without the lake levels being so maintained.
The expense involved in such a structure and possible dam-
age to property are more or less problematical, but they
must be considered in estimating the cost of such waterway.
The diversion of water from Lake Erie is regulated by
treaty with Great Britain.
The Suez, the Cronstadt, the Corinth and the Kaiser
Wilhelm are all sea-level ship canals without locks, but may
have tidal gates. Ships sail through them without lockage.
The Manchester ship canal is 35% miles long with sum-
mit level 60 feet above tidewater, which is approached by
four sets of locks each of 15 feet lift.
Panama a Smaller Undertaking.
The Panama canal is approximately 40 miles long from
Limon bay in the Atlantic to La Boca bay in the Pacific and
its regulated summit level is between 82 feet and 87 feet
above sea level and is approached by a flight of three double
locks on the east and three separate double locks from the
west. The entire lift from either ocean to the summit level
does not exceed one-third of the lift from Lake Ontario to
Lake Erie and only one-half the lift from Lake Ontario to
the Rome summit.
The new Welland is incomplete and it is too early to pre-
dict what its operation for large lake vessels may demon-
strate, if the improvement be completed as planned.
The proposed Georgian bay ship canal is to be 440 miles
in length, of which 108 miles will require excavation, leav-
ing 332 miles of natural river or lake channels. Its summitNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
245
level is 99 feet above Georgian bay and 659 feet above tide-
water at Montreal. To overcome that summit level 27 locks
will be required, ranging in lift from 5 to 50 feet, with
chambers from 650 to 800 feet in length and from 65 to 75
feet in width, with 22 feet of water over miter sills. Most
of the proposed locks have lifts not exceeding 30 feet and
not more than four of them are in close proximity. Only
one has a lift of 50 feet. But the suggested lockage on the
proposed Georgian bay ship canal is so distributed with
long intervening reaches between locks, that it presents far
fewer difficulties to navigation than either the proposed
Niagara ship canal or the improved Welland, whose success-
ful operation and navigation by large lake vessels, if com-
pleted, is regarded as more or less problematical. Though,
as a matter of engineering, it be possible to construct such
a waterway, there still remains the problem of obtaining an
ample supply of water for its operation and the uncertainty
of its success as a commercial highway. It is not needed
as a naval or military waterway, so that argument ought
not longer be seriously made in advocacy of its construction.
United States war vessels could not descend the Canadian
canals and the St. Lawrence river, but they would be con-
fined or bottled up in Lakes Ontario and Erie and other
Great Lakes, unless a ship canal were built via the St. Law-
renee-Champlain-Hudson route, or via the Oneida-Mohawk-
Hudson route to the deep waters of the Hudson river, in-
volving the locking up from Lake Ontario 133.6 feet to the
so-called low-summit level 40.833 miles long, extending from
Fulton, lengthwise across Oneida lake and up Wood creek
valley 5% miles east of Sylvan beach. The surface of such
low-summit level in that route was 379 feet or approxi-
mately above tidewater. Oneida lake was designed to con-
stitute its principal storage reservoir, although other stor-
age reservoirs were to be constructed in the valleys of Sal-
mon and Black rivers. That route, as surveyed by the246
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways, involved a long:
cut easterly from Oneida lake through Utica shale, rock,
hardpan and a sand ridge, which cut at one place was 84
feet deep and would be subject to land slides, unless thor-
oughly drained. That route was estimated to cost $1,-
678,000 more than the cost of the high-summit level proj-
ect between Oneida lake and the Mohawk river. The
elevation of the latter was 416 feet above tidewater and
required the locking up from Lake Ontario 170.6 feet. The
Board of Engineers said: 44In both of which projects the
water to generate power for operating the locks and for
locking ships across the divide must be secured by storage
in reservoirs located on the watershed or oh adjacent water-
sheds.
4 4 The lockage required to cross the divide with the low-
level project will be 267 feet and for the high-level project
341 feet, making the route expensive to construct and slow
to navigate. .	.	. Probably the most serious difficulty
to adjust on either route, if the waterway should be con-
structed, will be to make satisfactory arrangements for rail-
road crossings. This is especially the case in the Mohawk
valley, where the river is paralleled by the four tracks of
the New York Central and the two tracks of the West Shore
railroads/’ Ships must also be locked down from the sum-
mit level to the Hudson.
Slow and Difficult Navigation.
The distance from Oswego to the Hudson river via the
Oswego-Mohawk route, low-level survey made by the Board
of Engineers on Deep Waterways, is 172.87 miles, whose
navigation by war or other large lake vessels would un-
avoidably be attended with expensive delays and difficulties
so perplexing that no master or owner of any such vessel
has ever advocated its construction. In 1896, Major SymonsNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
247
reported that a ship canal between the Great Lakes and the
ocean would have no military value.
The distance via the high-summit level Oswego-Mohawk
route is fully as long and navigation thereon would be
attended with still greater obstacles, rendering it commer-
cially unprofitable to operate large vessels 600 or more feet
in length through such a restricted channel as that pro-
posed by the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways.
Navigators of experience in handling large vessels in var-
ious channels, both artificial or natural, appreciate the diffi-
culties of operating successfully such a waterway as that-
proposed, and Congress is importuned constantly to make
appropriations for river and harbor improvement to obviate
the very difficulties incident to navigating restricted chan-
nels, such as the proposed ship canal must necessarily be.
The annual appropriation for river and harbor improve-
ment ranged from 30 to 50 millions of dollars, which shows
the extraordinary demands made upon the Federal Govern-
ment in the main to keep open and improve existing chan-
nels.
As already stated, the operation of such a ship canal
through the state, with its large locks, would draw such
enormous quantities of water from the several watersheds
of Central New York, as to deplete the normal flow of its
streams and involve the United States Government in claims
for damages for injuries to water rights along the Salmon,
the Oswego, the Oneida, the Black, the Mohawk, the Hud-
son and other rivers running up into untold millions of
dollars. The extent of such claims may be judged from the
awards made and upheld by the Court of Appeals for the
injury to water rights in the case of the Fulton Light, Heat
and Power Company vs. The State of New York, 200 N. Y.,
400. This phase of the matter ought not to be overlooked.
Enormous compensating reservoirs would be required in
the Adirondacks to keep up the flow of the Black, Mohawk,
Hudson and other rivers.248
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
Extraordinary Demands on Water Resources.
It became necessary to construct the Delta reservoir with
a capacity of two and three-quarters billions cubic feet and
the Hinkley reservoir with a capacity of three and one-half
billions cubic feet to supply water for the Rome summit
level on the barge canal. The Delta reservoir is supplied
by the water resources of a drainage area of 137 square
miles, and the TIinkley reservoir by water resources of a
drainage area of 372 square miles.
The demands on the water resources of the State to
supply a ship canal would be extraordinary and might
exceed the resources of the watersheds. This is more evi-
dent now than it was in 1898, when the estimates were orig-
inally made for a ship canal, in view of barge canal opera-
tion requiring much more water than was contemplated.
Menace to State's Water Supply.
A still more serious matter confronts the people of New
York and that is the future supply for its large cities.
It has been stated by those who are more or less expert and
familiar with the conditions, that in twenty-five years New
York City must seek other resources of water supply outside
of the Croton, Catskill and Long Island watersheds, as the
demands of pure and wholesome water may then exceed the
supply. It will then be necessary to impound the waters of
the upper Hudson and its tributaries and those of other
streams, having their unfailing sources in the Adirondacks
to provide an ample supply for the needs of the millions
inhabiting Greater New York. The acquisition of the Cats-
kill watershed by the City of New York for additional water
supply to that municipality is one of the large problems of
the present age.
The water supply of cities is taxing the watersheds more
and more, and this shows the importance to which the
water resources of the state are being devoted as the popu-NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
249
lation increases and the demands for wholesome water mul-
tiply. This is a problem of paramount importance to the
health and existence of the millions resident in the state and
a ship canal will not be suffered to exhaust the water re-
sources that may be imperatively required for such domestic
consumption and for municipal and other purposes.
Under all the circumstances hereinbefore stated and
others considered, it does not appear to your committee that
the arguments advanced for the construction of a ship canal
between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, justify its construc-
tion and operation as a political, naval or military necessity.
The New York State barge canals may readily be adapted
to all necessary naval and military purposes as already
proposed.
III. PROJECT AS A COMMERCIAL WATERWAY.
To gain 138 or 112 or 98.6 miles of open navigation on
Lake Ontario, the distance depending on the place of entry
into that lake, it is proposed to construct and operate a ship
canal with 319.5 feet of lockage from La Salle to Lewiston,
a distance of 8.34 miles, in addition to navigating the canal-
ized river from Black Rock to La Salle, a distance of 13.52
miles, or via another route to construct and operate a ship
canal with 324.6 feet of lockage from Lockport to Olcott, a
distance of 14.48 miles, in addition to navigating the canal-
ized Niagara River and Tonawanda Creek from Black Rock
to Lockport, a distance of 24 miles, or via still another route,
to construct and operate a ship canal between Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario with 326 to 330 feet of lockage between Lake
Erie and the Niagara River as lengthy and expensive to
construct as either the La Salle-Lewiston or the Tonawanda-
Lockport-Olcott proposed ship canal. All estimates hereto-
fore made are inadequate, both on account of the large
canal now required to accommodate the Great Lakes’ ves-
sels, upwards of 600 feet in length and 60 feet in width,250
NIAGAEA SHIP CANAL PEOJECT
drawing 20 feet of water and also on account of the in-
crease in the cost of labor and materials. Accordingly
former estimates are to be superseded by the new estimates
directed by Congress on July 27, 1916, to be made.
The Niagara ship canal from Lake Erie or from the
upper Niagara River to the lower Niagara River or Lake
Ontario will range in length, according to various surveys
hitherto made, from 18.21 to 64.79 miles, depending on the
place of departure from the Lake Erie or the upper Ni-
agara, the route followed and the place of entry into the
lower waters, which are the lower Niagara or Lake Ontario,
The shortest of these routes is one-half as long as the Man-
chester ship canal and approximately half as long as the
Panama Canal and its lockage would be more than five
times as great as that of the Manchester ship canal and
more than three times as great as that of the Panama Canal.
The longest of the routes hitherto surveyed is one and one-
half times the length of the Panama Canal and two-thirds
as long as the sea-level Suez Canal. It may, therefore, be
realized that the proposed ship canal between these lakes is
a matter of great magnitude and must be approached with
due consideration of the engineering, hydraulic and finan-
cial problems involved in the project.
Little or nothing is to be gained by the use of such a
waterway. The distance from the Niagara River to Oswego
is 138 miles, from Olcott is 112 miles and from Ontario
Junction, as surveyed by the Board of Engineers on Deep
Waterways, is 98.6 miles. Those places, whence the meas-
urement commences, are the several proposed lower termini
of the ship canal, any one of which might become its actual
terminus.NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
251
Extravagant Cost of Navigation.
The cost to the owner of a large lake vessel in navigating
it through such a ship canal, down a flight of six or seven
locks of 40 feet drop each and thence into Lake Ontario,
would necessitate such an increase in freight rates as to
more than offset the saving in freight rates on the short
water haul through Lake Ontario of 138 or 112 or possibly
only 98.6 miles. The delays unavoidably incident to the
passage of a large, expensively built and costly operated
vessels down and up through the proposed ship canal would
entail so much expense on the owners of the vessels over and
above what he would receive for freights on cargoes from
Buffalo to Oswego via the Ontario route, that it is very
problematical as to whether he would use the ship canal if
it were constructed.
Major Symons, in his exhaustive report on the subject
of the comparative advantages of various waterways, trans-
mitted to Congress on July 15, 1897 (House Document No*
86 of the 1st Session of the 55th Congress), in substance,
said that such a ship canal would not be generally used by
Great Lakes ’ vessels, if it were constructed, but it might be
used by barges of 1,500 tons capacity.
Ship owners and operators, like railway managers, must
make expenses and something more for the upkeep of the
vessels and realize some return on the large investment in-
volved in their construction. They must estimate what
they may reasonably expect to realize in a season of seven
months of navigation. They must and do figure very closely
to lose no time in port or in transit, for delays with large
crews to feed and pay and other expenses to meet are very
expensive, and ship masters, therefore, force their vessels
through thick and stormy weather at their maximum speed
of twelve to fifteen miles per hour to avoid any loss of time
and consequent loss in earnings. That cannot be done in
navigating ship canals, and navigators avoid them as much252	NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
as possible, and many prefer to half circumnavigate Africa
rather than be delayed by the frequent congestions in the
Suez Canal and to pay the enormous tolls exacted for such
transit and necessary for its upkeep.
The Roosevelt Canal Committee reported that, “In a
restricted waterway (referring to the proposed ship canal
through New York) ... we do not believe that ocean
steamers or lake vessels could attain an average speed ex-
ceeding five miles per hour, .	.	. and that in order to be
profitable the now (1900) existing rates on the ocean and
lakes of about one-half of a mill per ton mile would have to
be very largely increased/ ’ The rates must increase as the
time consumed in transportation increases, for the operat-
ing expenses and interest in the investment in ships and in
their equipment go on without interruption, regardless of
the loss of time of vessels in passing through artificial
waterways, or delays in ports.
The low Great Lakes’ freight rates prevail only in the
unobstructed open lakes, wherein large lake vessels may be
crowded forward at the rate of twelve to fifteen miles per
hour. Much higher freight rates than Great Lakes’ freight
rates are inevitable for the transportation of cargoes on
vessels passing through artificial channels, such as the pro-
posed Niagara ship canal or a ship canal passing from the
Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean.
This is true also of vessels navigating sea-level canals
and much more so of vessels navigating such artificial water-
ways as the proposed ship canal interrupted by numerous
slowly operating locks of extraordinary lifts necessary to
overcome the differences in elevation between Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario of 330 feet and between Lake Ontario and the
Rome summit level of 133 to 170 feet and between that
summit level and the Hudson River of 379 to 416 feet, de-
pending on whether the low level or high level route be-
tween Oneida Lake and the Mohawk River be selected for
such a ship canal.NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
253
Not Justified by Necessity.
Experience the world over does not warrant the con-
struction and operation of shipcanals merely as commercial
highways. Their construction is usually justified on the
ground of physical necessity, as in the case of the Corin-
thian, the Kaiser Wilhelm and the Panama canals, across
narrow isthmuses of land separating large navigable waters,
not otherwise readily susceptible of intercommunication.
In such cases ship canals are justified, but for long dis-
tances, such restricted channels cannot be economically
navigated by large vessels and any experienced navigator
will so declare.
Major Thomas W. Symons, in his report submitted to the
Congress of the United States by the Secretary of War on
July 15, 1897, contained in House Document No. 86 of the
1st Session of the 55th Congress, said that, “If the Erie
Canal be further improved (as is now being done) by en-
larging it to a size sufficient for 1,500-ton barges, making
necessary alterations in its alignment so as to give it a
continuously descending grade all the way from Lake Erie
to the Hudson, canalizing the Mohawk River, such improved
canal, navigated by barges, will enable freight to be trans-
ported between the East and West at a lower rate than
could a ship canal navigated by the large lake or ocean
vessels. The cost of such enlargement would be approxi-
mately one-quarter the cost of a ship canal.” The new
barge canal is a continuously descending canal from Lake
Erie to the Hudson River with the exception of the 57 feet
lift from the Three-River Point to the Rome summit level,
accomplished by three locks. It fulfills all the other
requisites stated by Major Symons and has some features
not outlined in that report.
The ship canal project from Lake Erie to the Atlantic,
including a ship canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario, was
also considered in 1899 by the Roosevelt Canal Committee,254
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
of which Gen. Francis V. Greene was chairman and of
which Hon. Frank S. Witherbee, Major Thomas W. Symons,
United States Engineer, Hon. John N. Scateherd, Hon.
George E. Green, Hon. Edward A. Bond, State Engineer
and Surveyor, and Hon. John N. Partridge, State Superin-
tendent of Public Works, were members. That committee,
among other things, reported on the ship canal project in
part as follows:
4 4 It seems to us that there are certain insuperable diffi-
culties in the way of such a canal ever being a success, no
matter by whom constructed. It is intended to be used by
a vessel which can navigate the ocean, the canal and the
lakes. We do not believe that such a vessel can be con-
structed so as to be economically and commercially suc-
cessful. ’ ’
The Chamber of Commerce and Commercial Union at
Rochester, in January, 1872, unanimously adopted the fol-
lowing preamble and resolutions in opposition to the project
of the Niagara canal; namely:
Whereas, We have learned, with no little anxiety, that the project
of the building of the Niagara ship canal has again been revived by
western and eastern men, living out of this State, and who are joined
by Oswego men; and
Whereas, There being no demand for further facilities for the
transit of western produce and eastern goods to and from the East
and West and the Old and New World — the canals of New York
having kept pace with the demands made upon them and will for the
next decade, if not two — if New York does her duty and puts them in
complete navigable order and properly discipline the force to manage
the same, and while this grand trunk channel affords facilities for all
that offers and is prepared to accommodate at all times millions of
tons more than now seeks transit through New York; therefore be it
Resolved, That it is the sense and opinion of this Chamber of Com-
merce and Commercial Union of the State of New York, that it is
most emphatically inexpedient at this time of the nation's financial
condition to appeal to the exhausted treasury for aid to construct aNIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
255
■work which would be the ruination of our canals and the commerce
thereof, benefiting only the commercial interests of foreign nations,
resulting as a sure and natural consequence in the diversion of traffic
from American channels and home markets; ruining and blighting
the material interests of our State; therefore it is hereby
Besolved, That the Grand Erie canal, since its construction, has
been the cheapest medium of transit and most direct route for com-
merce between the Eastern and Western states, vastly encouraging the
settlement of the uncultivated territories. The canal has become a
powerful balance wheel in checking and regulating the price between
the producer and consumer. The Erie canal is susceptible, with a
moderate outlay, of redoubling its carrying capacity;
Besolved further, That in the event at any future time the Erie
and Oswego canals should fail to meet the demands made upon them
and the building of said ship canal became a necessity, that we deem
it expedient for the State of New York itself to construct and retain
the control of the same;
Besolved, That this Chamber and Union enters its solemn protest
against the construction of this ship canal at this time or the grant-
ing of the right of way to the general government, and that we call
upon each and every member of the Legislature to set their faces
strongly against it and to defeat it and the foreigners from inter-
meddling with our internal affairs and the carrying trade of the State
of New York.
$154,800,000 Invested in Barge Canals and Terminals
The New York Produce Exchange and the Chamber of
Commerce of the State of New York at that time also form-
ally opposed the construction of the Niagara ship canal.
The conditions that now exist make the construction of such
a canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario still more ob-
jectionable, for the State of New York is already obligated
to expend $154,800,000 for the barge canals, having a mini-
mum bottom width of 75 feet and a minimum depth of 12
feet and a minimum water cross-section of 1,128 square feet,
except at aqueducts and through cities and villages where
these dimensions as to width may be reduced and cross-256
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
section of water modified to such an extent as may be
deemed necessary by the State Engineer and approved by
the Canal Board. In.the rivers and lakes the canal may
have a minimum bottom of 200 feet and shall have a mini-
mum depth of 12 feet; the cross-section of water may be
2,400 square feet. The locks for the passage of boats on
the Erie, Oswego and Champlain canals shall be single locks,
except at flights of locks which shall be double locks. The
locks shall have the following governing dimensions: Mini-
mum length between hollow quoins, 328 feet; minimum
width, 45 feet; minimum depth in lock chambers and on
mitre sills, 12 feet, and with such lifts as the State Engineer
may determine.
The dimensions of the prisms and locks of the new barge
canals are greater than those of any of the earlier proposed
ship canals between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. They
were decided upon after the most exhaustive investigations,
commencing at an early date and including in addition to
those already given the recommendations of Hon, Martin
Schenck, State Engineer and Surveyor, in his annual re-
port for 1892; namely, “The practical canal of the future,
connecting Lake Erie and the Hudson River . .	. ought
to be one capable of bearing barges 250 feet in length by 25
feet in breadth of beam, of a draft not to exceed 10 feet and
of such a height that the great majority of bridges that
should span this canal might be fixed structures instead of
drawbridges,” and also including those of Major Thomas
"W. Symons, United States Engineer, in his report already
cited, comprising a lengthy review of the economics of
transportation by water on all kinds of waterways by vari-
ous types of vessels in this and other countries from their
practical operation, thereby reducing, the feasibility of such
waterways as the barge canals to a certainty and also in-
cluding those of the General Greene Canal Committee of
1899, embodied in its report, comprising the expert and theNI AG ABA SHIP CANAL PMOJECT
257
lay opinions of scores of shippers, vessel owners and author-
ities on transportation matters and the recommendations
of waterway engineers, chambers of commerce and others,
whose knowledge of the conditions and objects to be attained
qualified them to speak on the subject.
Cheap Transportation Assured.
The cogency of the conclusions of that committee and the
overwhelming popular vote in this State in 1903 on the
$101,000,000 first bond issue for the construction of the
Erie-Champlain-Oswego barge canals to admit of naviga-
tion of vessels conveying from 1,500 to 3,000 tons of freight,
as well as the later popular majorities on the $7,000,000
bond issue for the Cayuga and Seneca barge canal, on the
$19,800,000 bond issue for barge canal terminals and on the
$27,000,000 last bond issue to complete the barge canals,
ought to convince all, including ship canal theorists,
*hat the State of New York, first in commerce of all the
States of the Union, has for itself finally settled the prob-
lem of transportation by water through the State in the
construction of its barge canal system, that insures as
cheap transportation for domestic and through freight as
can possibly be provided over any artificial waterway in
the world, not excepting any ship canal, which type of
canal State Engineer Martin Schenck declared in 1892 was
not feasible between the Hudson River and the Great
Lakes.
The late Gustav H. Schwab, American manager of the
Oelriehs & Company steamships, engaged in trans-Atlantic
commerce, and one of the best informed men on transporta-
tion on inland waterways, as well as the high seas, reported
to the Greene Committee on Canals in 1899 as follows:
By offering to barges of the capacity of 1,200 or 1,500 tons a quick
means of transit through a commodious canal of the size contemplated,
a very material reduction can be gained in the transportation of bulk258
NI AG ABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
articles from the interior to the seaboard, which I believe you have
correctly estimated at 1.8 mills per ton per mile.
The only other alternative to be considered appears to be the fourth
proposition in your letter; namely, the construction of a ship canal
suitable for lake and ocean vessels of 5,000 to 10,000 tons capacity.
Such a canal I believe to be removed from consideration, not only
by the high cost, but also hold that the benefits that would flow from
such a ship canal will not be commensurate with the enormous outlay
and with the work. The style of vessel in use on the Lakes is entirely
different from that adopted for ocean transportation; neither style of
vessel can be substituted or used for the other, nor can a vessel em-
ployed in the navigation of the North Atlantic successfully compete
with the lake craft and vice- versa, owing to the great difference in the
mode of construction.
Mr. Schwab spoke from long experience in such water
carriage, and on several occasions thereafter he publicly
advocated the barge canals in preference to all others, stat-
ing in substance that they were the better adapted for serv-
ice in transportation between the Great Lakes and the
Atlantic Ocean. His practical knowledge did not permit
him to be blinded to the obstacles which nature had inter-
posed to the impeded navigation of ship canals with their
necessarily restricted channels and flights of locks, in the
case of the Niagara ship canal, half as high as the tower of
the Metropolitan Building in New York City and fully as
high as the tower of the Electric Building in Buffalo.
The only parallel to such a canal is the "Welland canal,
now free of tolls on vessels owned by people in the United
States and therefore rendering the construction of another
canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario entirely un-
necessary. The expense and delays, however, to vessels
passing through the "Welland Canal have been such that
only a limited number of vessels use that waterway, not-
withstanding the fact that it leads into Lake Ontario and
thence down the St. Lawrence River and through a few
short canals to the ocean. That natural water route, with
all the alleged advantages of a ship canal, has never beenNIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
259
us generally used, nor transported as much tonnage, as the
old Erie Canal.
But little weight should be given to the argument ad-
vanced in the report of the Commission on Deep Water-
ways; namely:	“If an ocean steamer could clear from an
upper lake port to Europe, it would save the time and ex-
pense required to break bulk at two intermediate points
and the cost of carriage would be about one-half of what
it is now. Such a vessel could carry her cargo from the
east end of Lake Erie to the ocean for not exceeding one
cent a bushel for the additional water distance.”
Would not Lower Freight Rates.
In answer to that, stand such expert detailed statements
us the following of Major Thomas W. Symons, who has con-
clusively shown in his exhaustive report,13 comprising
many tables of itemized expenses of vessels of various types
that would navigate a ship canal from Buffalo to New York
via the Oswego route, that the least cost of transportation of
wheat would be 2.28 cents per bushel, or 76 cents per ton
in large lake freighters of 20 feet draft of 7,000 tons capac-
ity, making ten trips a season with full cargoes down and
one-third cargoes of miscellaneous freights on return trips.
Major Symons made an exhaustive investigation of all the
facts entering into the resultant cost of such transportation
and conclusively answers all such ill-advised opinions of lay-
men, unfamiliar with transportation problems.
Major Symons shows in that same report that the cost
of transportation of wheat, including transferences at Buf-
falo from Buffalo to New York City via the barge canal
route on barges of 1,500 tons capacity, in fleets of four
boats, will be reduced to 2.07 cents per bushel, or 69 cents
13 House Doc. No. 86, 1st Session, 55th Congress, p. 81.260
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
per ton, which is 7 cents per ton lower than the lowest ship
canal rate via the Oswego route.
The Greene Canal Committee adopted Major Symons’s
estimates of the cost of transportation of wheat on
1,000-ton barges over the Erie Canal, enlarged to barge
canal dimensions, from Lake Erie to the Hudson River,
which were eight-tenths of a cent per bushel, or 26 cents
per ton, equivalent to fifty-two one-hundredths of a mill per
ton per mile. That estimated cost of transporting grains
or other tonnage over the new barge canals, now nearly
completed, as well as other estimates of Major Symons, are*
based on a most careful study of the actual cost of trans-
portation and on data procured from boat builders, canal
boatmen and from every available source, bearing upon tho
actual cost of running boats of different sizes. This last esti-
mated cost, however, apparently did not include terminal
charges at Buffalo of one-half cent per bushel for elevating
and five days’ storage and charges in New York. In 1897,
Major Symons reported14 that the' cost of transportation^
from Buffalo to New York, including trimming charges at
Buffalo and shoveling charges at New York, on 1,500-ton
barges, was estimated at 1.13 cents per bushel, or 38 cents;
per ton. He said: “Comparing the ship canal with the
Erie Canal radically improved to accommodate 1,500-ton
barges, we see an advantage of the barge canal with the
business conducted in fleets as at present over the 5,000-ton
ship of 25 cents per ton, or $6,000,000 per annum and over
the 7,000-ton ship of 7 cents per ton, or $1,680,000 per
annum, a mean advantage of $3,840,000 with the Buffalo
transfer charges remaining as at present.
“It may therefore be stated that the large barge canal
would offer marked advantages to the shipper, even pro-
vided the Buffalo transfer charges remain as at present.
As the barge canal would not cost more than one-fourth aa
14 House Doc. No. 86, 1st Session 55th Congress, pp. 88-90.NI AG ABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT	261
much as the ship canal, its advantages as a business propo-
sition are apparent.”
The Congress of the United States was evidently im-
pressed with the force of that report more than that of the
Commission on Deep Waterways and more so, when the
^enormous expense involved in building and operating a ship
eanal was partially disclosed in the estimates therefor, made
by the Board of Engineers on Deep Waterways and sub-
mitted to Congress in 1900. The Government of the
United States did not proceed with the construction of a
waterway from the Great Lakes to the Hudson River, that
was sure to entail an expenditure of $200,000,000 and pos-
sibly $350,000,000 to $500,000,000 that was likely to be of
doubtful practicability, if completed as proposed. The
problem of obtaining an ample water supply for the Oneida
Lake-Rome summit lever was not easy of solution and was
sure to fully tax, and possibly deplete for other purposes,
the water resources of the watersheds tributary thereto.
The economical and practical navigability of such water-
way by large lake vessels is entirely problematical.
Delay and Danger in Locks.
The delays and dangers to vessels in locking down 330
feet into the Ontario basin through a flight of seven locks,
•each of 40% fees descent with chambers 650 or more
feet in length and from 65 to 80 feet in width, with 22 to
30 feet of water over mitre sills, in addition to the 40%
feet of water therein when filled, in such close proximity
that a break in the uppermost of them would sweep away
all other costly locks and flood the country below and pos-
sibly ruin the ship and cargo, and furthermore, in locking
up from 133 to 170 feet from Lake Ontario to the Oneida
Lake-Rome summit level through a succession of eight or
more locks, depending on route, with lifts ranging from 20
to 42.8 feet and furthermore in locking from the Oneida262
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
Lake-Rome summit level down 379 to 416 feet to the tide-
waters of the Hudson through a succession of 22 locks with
lifts ranging from 11 to 21% feet and in winding down the
canalized Mohawk River, hemmed in by double and quad-
ruple railroad tracks and interrupted by railway and
many highway bridges and on return trips passing through
the same locks in inverse order, were so readily foreseen
that neither vessel owners nor experienced shippers ever
favored such a waterway.
In the meantime the State of New York prosecuted its
investigations through experienced commissioners, legisla-
tive committees and otherwise, and finally adopted the views
of Major Symons, Gen. Francis V. Greene and others and
by the popular approval of four referendum measures in
succession, bonded itself to expend $154,800,000 for the
construction of its Erie, Champlain, Oswego, Cayuga and
Seneca canals, aggregating approximately 450 miles in
length with their terminals, such canals having the dimen-
sions already stated, substantially as recommended by
Major Thomas W. Symons in his report of 1897, but more
especially recommended by the Greene Canal Committee in
1900 and subsequently approved in the passage and ap-
proval of the Canal Survey Law of 1900, and in the pas-
sage through the Legislature and ratification by the electors*
of the several referendum measures hereinbefore outlined.
Dr. Leo Sympher of Berlin, the leading authority in Ger-
many on its navigable waterways, aggregating 8,570 miles,
in extent in 1905, expressed his opinion to the chairman of
this committee in terms of unqualified approval, of the
barge type of canals for the purposes contemplated, which,
the state was about to construct.
The members of the International Congress of Naviga-
tion, comprising many of the leading engineers of Europe*
inspected some parts of our barge canals in 1912 and lauded
the great work New York was carrying to completion.NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
263
Authorities on inland waterway construction and opera-
tion the world over have pronounced them uniquely de-
signed to secure the maximum efficiency in water carriage.
They are the embodiment of the dream of State Engineer
Martin Schenck, the realization of the ideal of Major Sy-
mons, and the final culmination of the masterful efforts of
the Clintons and of the manifold activities of others,
''whose number is legion/’ extending through the years to
promote, as was prophesied by De Witt Clinton a century
ago:	"The commerce of the ocean and the trade of the
lakes passing through one channel, supplying the wants,
increasing the wealth and reciprocating the benefits of each
great section of the empire, .	.	. producing a "canal
as to the extent of its route, as to the countries which it
connects and as to the consequences which it will produce,
is without a parallel in the history of mankind.” The fore-
going prediction of De Witt Clinton has already been
verified.
For the foregoing and other reasons a ship canal between
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as a commercial waterway is
not justified, and in the opinion of your committee its con-
struction and operation would involve the government of the
the United States in an expenditure of fifty or more millions
of dollars without serving any substantial commercial pur-
pose other than making it possible for a few vessels from
the Great Lakes to descend into Lake Ontario, either to
transfer their cargoes at Oswego to canal barges to be trans-
ported up over the Eome summit level 172 feet above Lake
Ontario and thence down to the tidewaters of the Hudson
river, or what is more likely to happen, to descend the St.
Lawrence river to Montreal and divert thereto commerce
from the port of New York.
Such proposed ship canal between Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario, as already shown, would neither cheapen the rates
of transportation nor expedite the transit of tonnage from264
NIAGABA SHIP CANAL PBOJECT
the Great Lakes to the Atlantic ocean. Therefore yonr com-
mittee disapproves the project as a commercial waterway.
No Necessity will be Served.
From what has already been stated, it must be apparent
to all that had there been any necessity—political, naval,
military or commercial—for the construction of a ship
canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario or any real
interest in the project, which has engaged the attention of
worthy people and many theorists during the past century,
undoubtedly either the Congress of the United States would
have been prevailed upon to build it, or some one of the
several corporations, chartered for that purpose, would
have gone forward with its construction.
The fact that neither the United States Government nor
any such corporation has done so, argues strongly against
it. Rather than appropriate millions of dollars for the con-
struction of such waterway, whose chief function would be
to divert tonnage away from New York, it were far more
statesmanlike for the United States Government to make
a liberal contribution towards the cost of building the barge
canals of New York which are destined to perform a most
important service in the transportation of no small part of
the products and commodities of a score of great states,
bordering on the Great Lakes and on the Atlantic ocean,
brought into navigable communication through such arter-
ies of commerce.
Congress might well address itself to the matter of reimr
bursing the State of New York for its unprecedented outlay
for the promotion of the domestic commerce of the United
States, rather than expend its energies and waste the funds
of the nation in waterway projects that tend to divert
rather than promote such internal commerce. The State
ought not to be forced to contribute to such projects and
especially so after its good faith has been shown in itsNIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT	265
waterway activities, extending over more than a century of
time. Congress might more wisely appropriate funds to
improve the prisms of the barge canals.
Wherefore a strong protest should be made by the Buf-
falo Chamber of Commerce to the State of New York and
to the Federal Government in opposition to the construc-
tion of the proposed Niagara ship canal and an appeal
might well be made by the state to the Congress of the
United States for a substantial appropriation of money to
the sinking funds of the State of New York, created to
liquidate its canal bonded indebtedness.
We therefore recommend the adoption by the Board of
Directors of the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce of the fol-
lowing resolution:
Resolution Adopted.
Resolved, That the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes
a survey for a ship canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as
directed by the Act of Congress of July 27, 1916, on the grounds—
First:	That the project is neither a political, naval, military or
commercial necessity,
Second: That if it were constructed it would tend to divert com*
merce from the Great Lakes away from the state of New York down
Ihe St. Lawrence river, through the port of Montreal, to foreign
markets, and largely that would be true, even though a ship canal
were constructed from Oswego to the Hudson river, a distance of 172
miles, beset with many engineering obstacles and for whose operation
an adequate supply of water may not be obtainable without depleting
fhe water resources of the watersheds of Central New York, that are
now needed for power purposes and may be imperatively demanded
in the near future for municipal, domestic and potable consumption
and for other domestic purposes,
Third:	On the further ground that such ship canal would involve
fhe expenditure of many millions of dollars, to which the State would
be forced largely to contribute, despite the fact that the operation of
such a canal would not cheapen the rates of transportation on tonnage266
NIAGARA SHIP CANAL PROJECT
passing over it below the rates of transportation on tonnage over the
barge canals and would tend to divert business from the state and
the port of New York.
Fourth: On the further ground that such a ship canal in operation
might prove to be an impracticable waterway and very difficult ta
navigate, as it is quite generally believed by experienced ship owners
and operators, and in that event the moneys expended in its construc-
tion would be entirely wasted,
Fifth:	The State of New York is now providing what is con*
sidered the most modern and well-equipped inland waterways in the-
world, which are believed will afford as eheap rates of transportation
as it is possible to obtain on any interior waterway and these will
afford as expeditious transportation of the products, commodities and
tonnage of the state and of other states in touch with the barge canal
system and there is no occasion for the construction of the proposed
Niagara ship canal or any other ship canal between the Great Lakes-
and the ocean.
In the foregoing, your committee has not considered the feasibility
or expediency of a canal between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario for
sewage disposal or power development purposes, which are entirely"
divorced from the Niagara ship canal project.
X
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Canal Committee,
Bated April 25, 1917.	HENRY W. HILL, Chairman,
C. LEE ABEL,
HENRY V. BURNS,
EDWARD H. BUTLER,
SAMUEL J. DARK,
H. C. HARRISON,
MAXWELL M. NOWAK,
RICHARD C. O 'KEEFE,
GEORGE W. SMITH,
HOWARD WINSHIP.