RealPersonalSection AClass I$150.22$49.11Class II195.9634.34Classes I and II159.7846.02Class III166.4937.22Section BClass I133.8149.71Class II108.9217.41Classes I and II124.6137.78Class III90.6813.34Section CClass I154.5026.39Class II131.1915.49Classes I and II146.9422.85Class III103.9014.02
“Both real and personal property were greatest in Class I, Class II was second in both, and Class III was third in both. Class I of Section C was first in both real and personal property; Class II was second and Class III was third in both real and personal property. This section shows the same relations that we find in Section B.
“The location of the real and personal property in the three sections considered indicates very clearly that the personal property was massed along the waterway; in Class I and as the distance increased from the waterway the personal property diminished.”
Of the improvement of land Mr. Winden remarks:
“It may be stated that there was a slight tendency for the improvement of land to increase concomitantly with the increase in population; but the topography of the country and other elements entered in to such an extent as to nearly destroy this parallel growth. The improvement of land is much more stable and less likely to sudden and great changes than is the population. For this reason we would not expect to find as large a per cent of improved land in proportion to the population in Section C as we would find in Section B, nor as large a per cent in Section B as in Section A; because Section A is the oldest in settlement, and Section C the youngest. The per cent of improved land as a whole in the three sections supports this conclusion. But in comparing the various classes of each section with each other, however, we do not always find the greater per cent of improved land in the region of the most concentrated population. In Section A, in 1820 and 1825, a larger per cent of land was improved in Class II than in Class I, while the population in Class I was much greater than in Class II. In Section B in1835 Class II had a larger per cent of improved land than Class I while the population was nearly twice as great per square mile in the latter as in the former. A somewhat similar condition also existed in Section C. In 1820 and 1825 both the population and the per cent of improved land were greater in Class II than in Class I; in 1835 the per cent of improved land was still greater in Class II but the population was much less than in Class I. The above conditions indicate that the population and also the wealth increased with such remarkable rapidity in Class I along the entire watercourse independently of the topographical conditions and in spite of natural disadvantages. They also indicate that the concentration of population in Class I was much greater than the population per square mile taken alone would seem to indicate. This is especially true of Class I in 1835.”
The effect of the canal on live stock is thus summed up:
“During this entire period Classes II and III raised more stock in proportion to their population than did Class I. At thebeginning of the period in 1820, Class II in Sections A and B and Class III in Section C raised the greatest number of horses. Class III in Sections B and C and Class II in Section A raised the greatest number of cattle; Class III of Sections A and C and Class II of Section B raised the greatest number of sheep. At the close of the period in 1835, Class II in all three sections raised the greatest number of horses, Class III in Sections A and C and Class II in Section B raised the greatest number of cattle. Class III in all the sections raised the greatest number of sheep. It is thus clearly seen that the area of the least concentration of population was the region in which stock-raising was most extensively carried on. By this it is not meant that there is a smaller amount of stock raised in a given area, where the population is dense than in a sparsely settled region, but that there is a smaller proportion raised to the population.”
Mr. Winden’s summary in connection with the study of aliens and foreigners is most interesting:
“It is thus clearly seen that if New YorkState received her just share of all the classes of emigrants arriving in the United States during this period, she would have added to her population, a strong, useful and able-bodied class of men who would aid her greatly in her development.
“Why this region of concentrated population, the towns along the Erie canal, should contain such a large part of the foreign element is probably due to numerous causes. This was a region of great activity and growth; a place where there was room for unskilled as well as skilled labor of all kinds; it was along a direct route of transportation and travel to the great and growing west and a foreigner knowing nothing about the country and having no definite destination would stop along the route wherever he could make a living. Although chance may have largely determined the location of the foreigners in this new country, his old environment was also an important factor in determining his place of settlement. He came from an old and well settled region in Europe where the population was concentrated and the country often overcrowded and in coming to America he would tend to seek a region of somewhat similar characteristics. He found these conditions with the exception of an overcrowded population in the densely settled country immediately along the Erie canal and the Hudson.
“In turning to the New Englander in New York we find a people of an entirely different education and character from that of the foreigner. This is seen most strikingly in the choice of their location. They were shrewd, frugal, and hardworking farmers who left their New England homes because they failed to supply their wants. In seeking a new home in the west they naturally followed their old occupation and for this reason we find the larger part of them in the rural region. In Class I of Section A, 4.1% was of New England birth; in Class II 2.7%, and in Class III, 5.2%; in Class I of Section B, 5.7%, in Class II, 9.7%, and in Class III, 10.1%; in Class I of Section C, 10.1%, in Class II, 10.3% and in Class III, 11.7%. The New Englander also tended to shun the large cities. In Albany 5.1% was of New England birth, and in Utica 7.8%, while in Class I of Section B, in which these two cities were situated, 5.7% was of New England birth. In Buffalo 9.3% was of this origin and in Rochester 9.6% while in Class I of Section C 10.1% originated in New England.
“The preceding discussion leads us to the conclusion that the foreigner was massed in the region of concentrated population and especially in the cities, and as the concentration of population diminished, the per cent of foreigners decreased. In other words, along the Erie Canal lay the larger part of the foreign population. Of this foreign population in New York State, the larger per cent was born in Great Britain and her dependencies, and this class was chiefly found where the population was thickest. The New Englander constituted a larger part of those born in other states of the Union and they were found chiefly in the rural regions.”
In his study of politics as presented in the territory traversed by the Erie Canal Mr. Winden raises most interesting questions. We quote him in full, appending his notes:
“Turning now to the political aspect inNew York State during this period we find a complicated problem. In the election of 1830 there were two important parties. Summing up the principles for which these two important political parties of New York stood in this election, we find that the Anti-Masonic or National Republican party opposed the Masonic order;[43]supported Clay’s American policy of protection and the extension of the internal improvement system;[44]catered to the workingmen[45]and opposed the administration of both the national and state government. In other words it was like all new parties, gathering to its fold all the radical elements by adopting some of their ideas.[46]In the campaign which followed they made an aggressive canvass, making the most of the Morgan outrage. The Republican, orMasonic party, as it was called by the Anti-Masons, tried to be indifferent to the Masonic order and disavowed all support of it;[47]opposed the American system and did not advocate an extensive local improvement system[48]and supported the national and state administrations. They conducted a defensive campaign against the accusations of the Anti-Masons.
“Before considering the vote of the election it is necessary to take a hasty view of the social and economic conditions of the state at that time. Morgan had disappeared in western New York four years before and this had caused a great local opposition to the Masons which had spread throughout the state and even into neighboring states. The internal improvement movement had assumed stupendous proportions; the state had completed four canals within the last seven years; the Champlain in 1823, the Erie in 1825, the Oswego in 1828, and the Cayuga and Seneca in 1829. And the people were clamoringfor more. Just after the completion of the Erie canal in 1825, petitions for other canals had poured in from almost every county in the west.[49]Thus it can be safely said that the entire western part of the state was in favor of internal improvements at public expense.
“Now considering the vote, we find that Section A gave a large majority to Mr. Throop, the Republican candidate. In Section B he also received a majority but not as great as in Section A. In this section an important fact is noticeable, Classes II and III gave a smaller majority to Mr. Throop than Class I. These two classes having no canals thus expressed their desire for some means of communication. Section C cast a large majority in favor of Mr. Granger, the National Republican candidate. The result in Section C was just what we should expect. Class III of thissection which was in most need of some means of communication voted a much larger majority in favor of Mr. Granger than Classes I and II. The cities, however, gave a majority to Mr. Throop, Utica casting a larger and Albany a smaller majority than the class in which they are situated. Buffalo also cast a majority in favor of Mr. Throop, although the class in which it is situated cast a majority in favor of Mr. Granger. (See table.)
“Thus it is clearly shown that the people largely voted for the respective candidates because they stood for economic principles which were of direct interest to them.[50]The most densely populated east determined the election and Mr. Throop, the Republican candidate, was elected bya vote of 128,842. Mr. Granger received 120,361 votes, mostly from the west and rural regions which were demanding internal improvements, while Mr. Williams, the candidate of the dissatisfied Working Men’s party, received 2,332 votes.[51]
ELECTION OF 1830
Section AThroopGrangerClass I60%40%Class II6238Classes I and II6040Class III6040Section BClass I5842Class II5446Classes I and II5743Class III5545Section CClass I4456Class II4456Classes I and II4456Class III3961CitiesAlbany5446Buffalo52-48+Utica60+40-
“In the presidential election of 1840, strictly economic principles were not prominent. The Whig National convention met at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, December 4, 1839, and nominated William H. Harrison of Ohio and John Tyler of Virginia for President and Vice-president respectively. They conducted the campaign with unbounded enthusiasm, attacking Van Buren and his financial policy with great energy. Although they adopted no platform, they favored loose construction, the American system of protective tariff, and internal improvement by the national government.
“The Democratic national convention met at Baltimore, May 5, 1840, and adopted a strict constructionist platform, denying the power of Congress to carry on internal improvements,[52]to protect manufactures, to charter a National Bank, or to interfere with slavery in the states. It unanimously renominated President Van Buren, but left nominations for the Vice-presidency to be made by the various states. The simultaneous appearance of the ‘Panic of 1837’ and Van Buren in the presidential chair produced the belief in the popular mind that he was the cause of that unfortunate financial distress. The vote in New York is likely to indicate the two following facts: where the financial distress was greatest and the region most favorable to internal improvements. Van Buren carried Section A, with the largest majority in Class III. Recalling that this was a rural region, very stable in its population and valuation, we see that it would be least affected by financial distress. Classes I and II of Section B were also carried by Van Buren, but the rural region, Class III, was carried by Harrison. Section C was also carried by Harrison, with the largest majority in Class III. The large cities also gave a majority to Harrison and although Albany and Utica are situated in a class which cast a larger vote for Van Buren they gave a majority to Harrison; and even Buffalo gave a greater per cent of its vote to Harrison than the class in which it is situated. The large majority in Class III of Section C may be accounted for by the enthusiasmfor internal improvements in this region and the majority in the cities by their opposition to Van Buren because of the great distress they were subject to during the Panic of 1837.
“We find the state issues and results of the election somewhat similar to those of the national election in the state. The Whigs nominated Governor W. H. Seward and the Democrats nominated Mr. Bouck. The Whigs advocated internal improvements upon a large scale, while the Democrats advocated retrenchment in this work. The AlbanyArgusof September 25, 1840, states of Mr. Seward, the Whig nominee for governor: Departing from the democratic policy of enlarging the Erie canal by means of its revenues only, he has urged upon the legislature, its ‘more speedy’ enlargement, at all hazards, and the creation of a debt for that purpose—a debt which alone will absorb all our revenues, leaving the principal to be paid by direct taxation. He has recommended that state work be undertaken, the cost of which will involve the people in debt of at least $40,000,000. In addition he hasurged upon the legislature loans to corporations—of the credit of the state to an indefinite amount—for almost every mad scheme speculators might suggest.[53]
“Summing up the most important internal improvement works for which Mr. Seward advocated state aid, we have, the enlargement of the Erie canal,[54]the Black River canal in the counties of Oneida and Lewis and joining the Black River with the Erie canal, the Genesee Valley canal in the counties of Broome, Chenango, Madison, and Oneida joining the Chenango river with the Erie Canal (the two canals last mentioned would unite Lake Ontario withthe Susquehanna River), and the Hudson and Erie Railroad previously mentioned. Turning to the results of the election we find that Section A gave a large majority to Mr. Bouck with the greatest per cent of the vote in Class I, and the least in Class III; Classes I and II of Section B also cast a majority for Mr. Bouck, but Class III and all of Section C gave a majority to Mr. Seward. Class III of the last mentioned section gave the largest per cent and Class II the next to the largest per cent of the vote to Mr. Seward. Recalling that the Hudson and Erie railroad was to pass through the entire length of the southern part of Class III of Section C and also through Class III of Section A, we see the cause of the increased vote above the neighboring classes for Mr. Seward. (See Table.) The conclusion to be drawn from the above fact that the rural region which was most desirous of obtaining some means of communication had cast the larger per cent for Mr. Seward who supported an extensive system of internal improvement, is that economic conditions largely determined the vote.
ELECTION OF 1840
For GovernorFor PresidentSewardBouckHarrisonVan BurenSection AClass I44%56%47%53%Class II47534753Classes I and II48524753Class III46544654Section BClass I47534951Class II48524753Classes I and II48524951Class III50+50-5149Section CClass I53475347Class II54465248Classes I and II53475248Class III55455644CitiesAlbany54465545Buffalo55+45-5644Rochester5545Utica52485248
“In conclusion it may be stated that the Erie Canal was a great stimulus to the growth of population and the increase in valuation of property along the entirewaterway of the Hudson and Erie Canal. The greatest activity, however, was felt west of the head waters of the Mohawk along the canal proper. This concentration of population tended to turn the attention of the people away from rural pursuits and resulted in their congregation in cities where they developed a commercial life. Along this line of dense population the immigrating foreign element gathered in large numbers while the New England settlers confined themselves to the rural regions. The political effect of the canal was to produce a great enthusiasm for internal improvements which was the main political issue in the state during the following years. The western part of the state and rural regions at a distance from the canal clamored for further improvements which would benefit them, and accordingly cast a majority of their votes for the candidates who stood for an extensive internal improvement system while the east opposed them. It should also be mentioned that in each section with the exception of Section A in the election of 1830 and the presidential election of 1840, the region with thelargest number of foreigners cast a greater per cent of its vote for the conservative candidate than the region containing the greatest number of New Englanders. Thus it is clearly seen that political life is largely influenced by economic conditions and the character of the people.”
No more important question was proposed to the commissioners in 1816 than the one which asked them to ascertain where the money that was to build the Erie Canal was coming from. Of course a loan must be made and the commissioners at once began casting about for information. William Bayard inquired for loans in Europe, but no answer was now at hand. “The Committee entertain no doubt,” was the tentative reply in 1817, “but that as much money can be obtained in this country, as may be required for the canal, on the credit of the state, at an interest of 6 per cent by the creation of a funded debt, and that ample funds may be appropriated for the payment of the interest, and the gradual extinguishment of the debt without the imposition of taxes.” The commissioners applied to those states which,it seemed, would be most benefited by the canal, Vermont on one side and Ohio and Kentucky (!) on the other, and to the United States. “But if no extraneous aid should be afforded,” the commissioners concluded with threatening menace, “it will at all times be in the power of this state to levy high transit on the articles transported to and from those states and the territory of the United States, and thereby secure eventually, a greater fund than can possibly arise from any present contribution from those quarters.” In order to facilitate gifts in lands or money, the commissioners scattered blank forms of cession and bequest throughout the country; “one form relates to gratuitous grants of land for the ground through which the canal is to pass, and the other is a contribution to the fund for making it. Agents have also been appointed in Vermont and Ohio for the same purpose.” It was reported that nearly all the land necessary for the canal throughout its entire length would be ceded by the owners to the state for the purpose. In concluding their report for the year ending February 15, 1817, the commissioners affirmed that “their investigations have shown the physical facility of this great internal communication, and a little attention to the resources of the state will demonstrate its financial practicability. And they may be permitted to remark, that unless it is established the greater part of the trade which does not descend the Mississippi, from all those vast and fertile regions west of the Seneca lake, will be lost to the United States.” This report is signed by De Witt Clinton, S. Van Rensselaer, Samuel Young, and Myron Holley.
The needs of the canal were of course outlined in the estimates of expense of building; the estimated cost of the Western Section, according to James Geddes, was $1,801,862; that of the Middle Section, by Benjamin Wright’s figures, was $853,186, and that of the Eastern Section, Charles C. Broadhead estimated at $2,271,690. The total amounted to $4,926,538 or five millions in round numbers. The committee of the legislature advised the organization of the Board of Commissioners of a Canal Fund, to borrow $1,500,000 at six per centinterest. The annual revenue of the canal was estimated at $924,000 and the expenditure $547,000.
William Ford, chairman of the joint committee of the legislature, addressed De Witt Clinton on March 8, 1817, asking him to outline a financial system for a canal fund. Clinton’s scheme, which became the basis of all New York’s canal building, is thus sketched by Mr. Sweet:[55]
“1. Borrow $1,500,000 on the credit of the State, by the creation of a funded debt, with interest at six per cent, principal reimbursable in twenty years.
“2. The said Committee shall keep an account of all moneys received for the said fund, (which moneys shall be kept in the treasury), and shall pay over, from time to time, such moneys as shall be required for the execution of the powers committed to them.
“3. The said Committee of the fund shall, as soon as the whole or a part of the said works be completed, have power to establish and receive reasonable tolls.
“4. The annual application of $60,000 of the moneys arising which the State may derive from the sale of unappropriated lands, shall be pledged for the payment of said debt and the interest thereof. And they shall have power to apply any unappropriated money in the treasury to make good any deficiency or suspension in the payment of said funds.
“5. The said Committee shall, at the opening of the next session of the Legislature, report a plan of finances for the execution of the whole of said canals, and also of a sinking fund for the extinguishment of the debt.
“In this same communication it was stated that 400,000 tons of freight were carried annually on the Hudson River.
“Thus De Witt Clinton laid the foundation of our canal financial system. He estimated that ten million tons annually would be carried upon the canals; that the cost of a ton for transportation from Buffalo to Albany would be $3.00.”
The expenses of the engineering department to April 2, 1817, had been $14,462, and the total for exploration and surveying$42,957. The act to provide funds for the canal and also funds for the redemption of the funded debt of the state was passed April 21, 1818. This law authorized the comptroller to sell certain three per cent United States bonds, and to apply the proceeds to the redemption of the funded debt; the comptroller was ordered to borrow one million dollars at six per cent after advertising for proposals for the same. The governor was empowered to appoint a cashier of a New York bank to issue certificates of stock, the principal to be redeemable until 1823, taxed at one mill on the dollar; state deposits were to be made in any bank in New York that would loan one million dollars. The act of March, 1819, authorized the borrowing of $700,000 yearly for the building of the canal; on March 25 this was reduced to $600,000; an assessment of a tax upon all lands within twenty-five miles of the canal, formerly made, was at this time suspended. By a law of April 7, 1819, the commissioners were again authorized to borrow a sum not exceeding (together with the net income of the canal fund) $600,000. The board ofcommissioners of the canal fund was now reduced to three members (January 20, 1820) at a salary of $2,500 each. To meet the extraordinary expenses of 1819, as previously detailed, the commissioners were empowered, April 12, 1820, to borrow $122,500 at six per cent interest; three fourths of this was to be equally divided between the Eastern and Western sections; the remainder was for the Champlain Canal. The first tolls were levied on the Erie Canal July, 1820; in that year $5,244 was collected, $450 of it from the old canal of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company at Little Falls.
By a concurrent resolution in the legislature, the comptroller, A. McIntyre, was allowed to put into execution a plan for a sinking fund for the extinguishing of the canal debt, January 12, 1821. He took, as a basis of his calculation, a debt of $5,905,456 and a revenue of $210,000; the loan of $600,000, with revenues, was to be continued as heretofore. By this plan the debt was to be extinguished in 1842, at which time the revenue, it was estimated, would be about $580,000, and the canal tolls,$150,000 beyond expenditures for repairs.
“If these estimates of revenue and of the expense of making the canals, be correct, it results that the canals will be completed in 1830, and that the canal loans will be discharged in 1843.” An act dated February 9, 1821, authorized the commissioners to borrow one million dollars in both 1821 and 1822. Nothing can be more interesting than the financial estimates, the fears and doubts and the staunch firmness of these directors of the Erie Canal. In almost every case the estimates of expenses fell far below the actual cost; often the expenses ran thirty per cent above estimates; on the other hand the most optimistic commissioner never, in his most enthusiastic moment, realized what a tremendous income was to be received from the Erie Canal when it should be completed. Far as expenses ran ahead of estimates, they never exceeded them so far as the actual income of the canal exceeded the estimated income. This cannot be more clearly indicated than by a table showing estimated tolls and those actually received, from 1826 to 1834:
YearEstimated (1826)Received1826$500,000$492,664.001827550,000786,244.641828600,000838,412.001829650,000861,302.001830700,000943,545.351831750,0001,091,714.261832800,0001,085,612.281833850,0001,290,136.201834900,0001,179,744.97———————————Totals$6,300,000$8,539,377.70
In only these eight years, it will be seen, the receipts exceeded the estimates by nearly two and one-quarter millions. In many places these estimates had been laughed to scorn. It will be difficult to find in all the commercial history of America a more splendid success, and it will be quite as difficult to find an instance where success was more richly deserved.
Between June, 1817, and October, 1821, the sum of $2,893,500 was borrowed for canal work, the lenders advancing $91,202 in premiums; the yearly interest was $159,580. The tolls of 1821 amounted to $23,000. It will be interesting to noticeon what these tolls were levied; the list includes 44,723 barrels of flour, 17,068 barrels of salt, 43,078 bushels of wheat, 1,061,844 feet of lumber, 71,000 bushels of lime, 9,993 pounds of maple sugar, 85 tons of butter and lard, 772 tons of gypsum, 2,500 tons of merchandise, 47 wagons, and 10 coaches. The rates of toll per mile in 1821 were as follows:
ArticleRateSalt5 mills per ton.Gypsum5 mills per ton.Flour, meal, etc1 cent per ton.Merchandise2 cents per ton.Timber (square and round)5 mills per 100 solid feet.Boards (planks, and reduced to one inch)5 mills per 1000 solid feet.Shingles1 mill per 1000.Bricks, sand, lime, iron ore, and stone5 mills per ton.Fence rails and posts2 cents per 1000.Wood for fuel1 cent per cord.All fuel for manufacture of saltfree.Boats for transportation of property1 mill per ton of capacity.Boats for carriage of persons5 cents per mile of their passage.Staves and heading for pipes1 cent per 1000.Staves and heading for hogsheads7 mills per 1000.Staves and heading for barrels5 mills per 1000.All articles not named1 cent per ton.[56]
The large amounts handled by the canal commissioners during the building of the canal will indicate the great responsibility that lay on their shoulders; between 1817 and 1822 the amount paid out by Myron Holley was $1,799,425.58; by H. Seymour, $833,335.70; by S. Young, $554,641.19.
By a law passed March 29, 1823, the commissioners were authorized to borrow $1,300,000 and also $120,000 to pay interest on the canal bonds. The tolls collected the year before amounted to $60,446.89; in this year they ran up to $125,991.76; $77,593.26 was collected between the Seneca and Utica, and $27,444.09 between Little Falls and Albany. On April 12, 1824, the commissioners were authorized to borrow one million dollars to complete the canals. In this year ten thousand boats passed the junction of the Erie and Champlain canals; 157,446 tons of freight were handled and $294,546.62 was received from tolls. The following table will show the exact number of miles that was completed in the years from 1820 to 1824 and the tolls received from the canal alone:
YearMilescompletedTolls182094$ 5,437.3418219423,000.00182211657,160.391823160105,037.351824280294,546.62
The expense of building in these years was:
YearExpense1817-21$2,004,523.5318221,184,468.7318231,941,962.3718241,785,447.84——————Total$6,916,402.47
The debt incurred, including the amount required for completion and payment of all claims at the close of the year 1824, was $7,700,000.
This estimate proved approximately correct, the total cost being $19,255.49 per mile, a trifle over one-half of the cost per mile of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.
The success of the Erie Canal, shown by the tolls received from 1825 to 1834 ($8,539,377.70), was more than its promotershad expected; indeed it was so great that the enlargement of the canal was rendered imperative within a decade. This was first urged by the citizens of one of the jewel-cities made by the great waterway—Utica. The memorial now reported to the legislature by E. F. Johnson called for a steamboat canal from Utica to Oswego (Lake Ontario) which was to be extended to Albany; the proposed depth was eight feet, width fifty-eight feet on the bottom and ninety feet on the surface, the locks one hundred and thirty feet long by thirty feet wide. “On the Erie Canal,” the memorial urged, “the cost of animal power is 12 per cent greater than steam power on the Hudson for flour, and 42 per cent greater for merchandize; agricultural products, including ashes, 21 per cent greater on the canal than on the Hudson river. The Erie canal is small, and the traction of boats that navigate it is from 30 to 45, and most usually 40 per cent greater than would occur on a canal of the most favorable size for the boat used.... That a canal boat, 104 feet long, 16 feet wide, drawing 7 feet water, would carry200 tons, and require a lock 115 feet long by 17 feet wide; the sectional area of boat below load water line 108 feet. The gross load of a schooner, with its own weight, would be 350 tons. Canal boats, constructed with reference to freight merely, will generally weigh in the ratio of their cargo as 4 to 9.”[57]Engineer N. S. Roberts in a report dated January 17, 1835, said: “The present canal admits boats 13½ feet wide, 3 feet draught, 80 feet long, displaces 80 tons water, weight of boat 30 to 35 tons, cargo 45 tons. Size of canal, 28 [26?] feet bottom, 40 feet surface, 4 feet depth cross sec[tion] = 136 [132?] sq. feet. Enlarged canal to reduce cost of transportation, 43¾ per cent must be 33 feet bottom, 48 feet top, and 5 feet deep, cross sec[tion]: 202.5; width and size of locks: 15×110 between gates, admitting a boat 102 feet long, 13½ feet wide, and 4 feet draught.”[58]
After examination, the canal board determined to make the canal seventy feet wide on the surface, seven feet deep; thelocks were to measure 110 feet between quoins and be eighteen feet deep. It was estimated that a canal of these proportions would save fifty per cent of transportation charges exclusive of tolls.[59]The enlargement construction law was passed May 11, 1835; the act called for the construction of “double locks thereon as soon as they should deem it for the public interest; the dimensions of the canals and locks to be fixed by the Canal Board.”[60]
The new canal, seventy feet wide by seven feet deep, was divided into four sections. The first was from Albany to the eastern end of the Rome summit; the estimated cost of this section for enlargement was $2,864,335.96. The second section ran from east end of Rome summit to Jordan; estimated cost, $1,194,804.74. The third lay between Jordan and Rochester; estimated cost $2,739,139.51. The portion from Rochester to Buffalo comprised the fourth section, its estimated cost being $4,518,575.85. The total estimated cost, after adding ten per cent for contingencies,was $12,448,856.06.[61]Twenty-one double and three single locks were planned between Albany and Schenectady; one double and three single at Little Falls; two double and one single at Syracuse; one single lock at Lyons; two single at Lockville; one double and one single at Macedon. On January 1, 1838, these were all under contract, at a contract price of $3,035,087.[62]One year later contracts to the amount of ten and one-half millions for the whole work of enlargement had been signed. The commissioners were authorized by an act passed April 18, 1839, to borrow four millions.[63]The work went on rapidly. By April 1, 1842, the Rochester aqueduct was completed, at a cost of half a million; the north tier of the locks at Lockport was in use in April of the next year. The total cost of the works here was $610,978. In 1845 twenty-nine out of forty-nine double set of locks between Albany and Syracuse were completed and ninety-eight miles of the new enlargedcanal was open for use; the cost for this portion was $3,685,438. The total cost of enlargement contracted for prior to April 1, 1842, was $9,361,442. By 1850 the cost had run up to fifteen millions, which was distributed by years as follows: