CHAPTER III

WATER WAYS AND CANALS From the earliest exploration and settlement periods rivers and coast inlets have been used for transportation. As has been pointed out, the Indian, before the coming of the white man, made good use of his canoe. Boats and barges propelled by oars, poles, or snubbed along by ropes attached to trees on the banks were in early use. Along the coast and the larger rivers sails were made use of. Upon the ocean there was a large development in wooden sailing vessels. The great number of American ships and the inroads made by American merchants upon English trade had much to do with bringing on the war of 1812. =Canals.=--Canals had shown their usefulness in England and other European countries, for transporting the internal commerce cheaply and efficiently; it was but natural, therefore, that they should be considered in the United States. The first canal was in Orange County, New York, and was used for transporting stone as early as 1750. Numerous short canals were constructed in Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts prior to 1810, but the peak of canal building came after this date. The first lock used in the United States was part of a canal extending from the Schuylkill River to the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. New York, seeing the trade of the Northwest Territory going to Philadelphia on account of the turnpikes which had crossed the Alleghanies through state and private means, was anxious to do something to get control. An agitation for a canal joining the Hudson River with Lake Erie or Lake Ontario consummated in a commission, 1810, headed by Gouverneur Morris, to investigate the question of building one or both of the canals which seemed feasible, namely (1) from Albany up the Mohawk and westward to Lake Erie near Buffalo; (2) from Albany to Lake Champlain, thence an opening to the St. Lawrence, which had already been surveyed. In 1812 a second commission was formed which included with Morris, such men as De Witt Clinton, Robert Fulton, and Robert R. Livingston. An endeavor was made to secure Congressional aid. The war coming on no action was taken, but the demands for the canal continued. To the energy and political ability of DeWitt Clinton is attributed the final success of the enterprise. When he was elected governor in 1816 he made this the paramount effort of his administration. He stirred public interest by addresses and presented a convincing memorial to the legislature. He argued that “As a bond of union between the Atlantic and western states it may prevent the dismemberment of the American empire. As an organ of communication between the Hudson, the Mississippi, the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes of the north and west, and their tributary rivers, it will create the greatest inland trade ever witnessed. The most fertile and extensive regions of America will avail themselves of its facilities for a market. All their surplus productions,” he prophesied, “whether of the soil, the forest, the mines, or the water, their fabrics of art and their supplies of foreign commodities, will concentrate in the city of New York, for transportation abroad or consumption at home. Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, trade, navigation and the arts,” he continued, “will receive a corresponding encouragement. That city will in the course of time become the granary of the world, the emporium of commerce, the seat of manufactures, the focus of great moneyed operations, and the concentrating point of vast, disposable and accumulating capitals, which will stimulate, enliven, extend, and reward the exertions of human labor and ingenuity, in all their processes and exhibitions. And before the revolution of a century, the whole island of Manhattan, covered with habitations and replenished with a dense population will constitute one vast city.”[47] As bombastic as this may seem his predictions have been more than realized and the realization began with the completion of the canal to Buffalo in 1825. There grew up along its way the great cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and scores of smaller ones. The products of the entire west did seem to flow through it, for the tolls are said to have been a half million dollars per year immediately upon its completion and over a million by 1830.[48] This the largest canal project in the United States is still in use. As first constructed, it was 40 feet wide at the top, 4 feet deep, and was navigable for 76-ton boats. It was later enlarged to a general width of 70 feet and depth of 7 feet, navigable for boats of 240 tons burden. Some of the locks had been replaced by power lifts; the transfers are more quickly made. The increase of New York’s prestige of course diminished that of Philadelphia. Pittsburgh was, too, growing up at the head of Ohio River navigation and in the coal and iron regions of Pennsylvania. While numerous canals had been constructed by private enterprises an extensive system of canals was begun under an act of 1825, to connect Philadelphia with Pittsburgh as well as other objective points. Jealousies sprang up over the state, as usually do with any improvement. Always one part thinks the other is getting more than its just share. But notwithstanding, nearly a thousand miles of canals have been constructed in Pennsylvania, some of which washed out and were never replaced, some were abandoned and some are still in operation. In Ohio two canals were built by the state from Lake Erie to the Ohio River, over 400 miles in all. One of these extended from Toledo through Defiance, St. Mary’s, and Dayton to Cincinnati; the other from Cleveland through Akron, New Philadelphia, Coshocton, Newark, Columbus, Chillicothe, to Portsmouth. Branch lines were run down the Muskingum to Marietta, down the Hocking to Athens, and from Junction westward to Antwerp to connect with the Indiana canal system. Making a total for Ohio about 1000[49] miles. In Indiana the Wabash & Erie Canal, begun about 1834, was constructed through Fort Wayne, LaFayette, Terre Haute to Evansville, in 1853, on its way to the Ohio River. By this time the railroads had paralleled its course and its trade had practically ceased. One of the earliest projects, said to have had the backing of President Washington, culminated, eventually, in the Chesapeake & Ohio canal extending from Georgetown, the upper limit of tidewater on the Potomac, to Cumberland. After numerous efforts and years of talking, representatives of Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania met in a convention in the city of Washington and passed resolutions stating that “Whereas the connection of Atlantic and Western waters by a canal leading from the city of National Government to the River Ohio ... is one of the highest importance to the states ... Resolved that it is expedient to substitute for the present defective navigation of the Potomac River, above tidewater, a navigable canal from Cumberland to the eastern base of the Alleghany and to extend such canal as soon thereafter as practicable to the highest constant steamboat navigation of the Monongahela or Ohio River.” Jealousies between the states delayed matters somewhat, but in 1825 the proponents obtained governmental participation. Delays occurred for various causes, but in 1828 Congress authorized the U. S. treasurer to subscribe for $1,300,000 worth of stock and went further and guaranteed subscriptions made by the towns of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria to the amount of $1,500,000. The United States had then once more endorsed the policy of spending national money for internal improvements, and had become a partner in a canal proposition. Building proceeded slowly. Many difficulties were encountered. Opponents fought it in the legislatures of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as in Congress. In two years the money was gone and the canal not completed. Maryland extended further aid, and then still more aid by the help of which the canal was completed to Cumberland in 1850. In 1870 efforts were made to have the Government carry the canal on to the Ohio River, but the plan was never consummated. This canal is still in use, the bulk of its traffic being coal brought down to Washington. Canals were constructed in many other states, but they need not here be followed in detail. Illinois was connecting Chicago with the Mississippi River; Massachusetts built artificial ways about falls and rapids; New Jersey connected the Hudson with the Delaware; and numerous other schemes were carried out. =Canal Prosperity and Desuetude.=--Until the greater advantages of railway travel and traffic lessened the usefulness of the canals, they did a thriving business. As has already been noted with regard to the Erie canal so was it with the others.[50] In the whole United States there was a “grand total of 4,468 miles[51] of canals, costing approximately $214,141,802.” Not all these were remunerative. To the end of 1872 the New York Canals had only averaged a profit of 3.2 per cent, while the Erie Canal proper paid but 4 per cent on its cost.[52] The speed at which the barges traveled was about 2 miles per hour; this was reduced on account of time lost by regular stops, passing through locks, and accidents, to 1.7 miles per hour on the average. Rates for freight were about 0.3 cent per ton per mile. The railroads later hauled through freight at 0.7 cent per ton per mile. Both these rates were, no doubt too small, for proper maintenance and remuneration. Passenger traffic, notwithstanding the slow speed, amounted to a considerable volume. Packets were in use, that for workmanship, finish and convenience vied with the Pullman cars which later supplanted them. They were decorated in bright colors--green, yellow, brown, red, white, blue--with windows and panels done in contrasting and harmonizing shades and tints. On the interior in addition to compartments for the crew which were separated from those for the passengers, were usually a large general assembly room ordinarily occupied by the men for lounging, writing letters, playing games, and protection from stormy weather. There was a special cabin for the women, also lavatories and conveniences for men and women. In addition there were kitchen, lockers, and cupboards. Three times daily the assembly saloon was transformed into a dining room by re-arranging and setting the tables which constituted a regular part of the room’s furniture with others of a temporary nature, carried stored away on the boat, into one long table lengthwise of the room. The captain and his two assistants--the mule driver and steersman not on duty at the time--performed this service and waited upon tables. At night both the saloon and ladies’ cabin were converted into dormitories by attaching shelves about 6 feet long and 3¹⁄₂ feet wide to hooks in the wall, the outer edges being held up by wooden supports extending from the floor. In each berth was placed a “mattress,” that is a tick having some straw in it and a pillow of similar make. The passenger usually furnished his own sheets if they were wanted, although some of the later boats were supplied with sheets and coverlets. The berths were three high along the wall and had curtains suspended in front of them. The passengers selected their berths in the order in which they had secured passage, late comers being obliged to sleep on the tables or on the floor. Sometimes the whole floor was thus covered. Travelers complained bitterly of the mosquitoes. Crude as this may seem at the present time, these packets were no doubt the forerunners of the present Pullman palace car. The outside decks and the roof of the car were utilized for promenading, lounging and sight-seeing. They were often enlivened by music and dancing. Greeley[53] speaks of the “‘cent and a half a mile, mile and a half an hour,’ line boats.” The expression he puts in quotations as though it were common or a slogan. Charges on the Wabash and Erie Canal in Indiana were for the 221 miles from Cincinnati to Fort Wayne, $6.75; 138 miles from LaFayette to Fort Wayne, $3.75; 104 miles from Fort Wayne to Toledo, $3.25.[54] An average of about three cents per mile. The canals were unable to compete with the railroads when time became an element. Passengers would not be content to travel 36 miles per day along a tortuous canal when they could travel a much more direct route at nearly 36 miles per hour. The swifter speed of freight traffic accelerated business; the merchant’s capital could be turned over more frequently; his net profits were consequently greater. Is there any wonder, therefore, that the business of the canal continually decreased while that of the railroad as continually increased. Many canals were actually abandoned, others allowed to depreciate from want of proper maintenance, and now only occasional barges are run to transport heavy non-perishable freight such as grain, iron-ore, and coal. And of these commodities, because of better terminal facilities and the time element, the railroads soon were carrying much more than the canals. [Illustration: © _Underwood and Underwood_ THE SAULT ST. MARIE CANAL] =Ship Canals.=--Reports show the tonnage of the Erie Canal to have continually decreased from 2,031,735 tons in 1911 to 667,374 tons in 1918. The total tonnage of all the New York state canals shows a like decrease from 3,097,068 tons in 1911 to 1,159,270 tons in 1918. Notwithstanding such records there are those who firmly believe canal transportation will again take an upward trend with better terminal facilities and possibly electric propulsion. There is one class of canals that seems to have held its own, that is ship canals. The great canal and locks at Sault Ste. Marie transfer a vast lake traffic annually from one level to another between Lakes Superior and Huron. Vast quantities of iron-ore are brought in mammoth vessels by this route from docks near the Mesaba mines for the great iron mills at Gary, at Cleveland, at Pittsburgh, and other points. Similar vessels loaded with wheat, oats, and flax from the Northwest grain fields are unloaded at Buffalo for transportation to the seaboard. Agitation has been going on for some time to enlarge the Welland Canal and its locks between Lakes Erie and Ontario, thus giving seagoing vessels the opportunity of coming up by way of the St. Lawrence River and traversing the entire Great Lake system. The ambition of cities is here again manifest; Chicago would like such transportation, but it would not be beneficial to New York. A ship canal across Cape Cod saves 70 miles and considerable time and makes the trip much less dangerous from New York to Boston. Ship canals within the islands along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts have been proposed to make safe coast commerce. There is also talk of a ship canal from Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico by way of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers; and still another from Lake Erie to Pittsburgh. =The Panama Canal.=--All present-day readers are familiar with the greatest of all ship canals, the Panama Canal, constructed by the Government at a cost of approximately $400,000,000, and open to the ships of the world. It will be remembered that a canal across the isthmus had been dreamed of practically ever since Balboa passed over and for the first time a white man saw the Pacific from the west coast of America. With the opening of the Oregon territory there was increased interest in such a canal. With the discovery of gold in California much traffic went by way of Panama being freighted across and transshipped on the other side. Soon a railroad was established for that purpose. Other crossings, too, were much in mind. In 1846 a treaty of amity and commerce was entered into with New Granada, afterwards the United States of Colombia, which gave the United States a right of way across the Isthmus by any available method. In return the United States agreed to guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus. Great Britain had likewise long been interested in a canal scheme and courted Nicaragua. Also because of English settlements at Belize or British Honduras they claimed rights which had been confirmed by the treaty of Versailles in 1773. Another route, across the isthmus of Tehauntepec, had also assumed importance. In 1848 a company of American citizens was formed for and began at once to construct a railway across the isthmus of Panama. Another contracted with the Nicaraguan government for a canal there. A treaty was made with Nicaragua whereby a concession was granted the company for the waterway, the United States guaranteeing the neutrality of the way as had been done with New Grenada. But the British government claimed control of the eastern terminus, therefore a treaty had to be negotiated with her. As a result the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was signed and ratified in 1850, whereby the United States and Great Britain agreed to join in promoting a canal by the Nicaraguan route promising that neither “would obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the ship-canal,” nor, and here was the joker, “assume or exercise any dominion ... over any part of Central America.” Neither was to acquire nor have any rights the other did not have and they both guarantee the neutrality of the canal. This, apparently, was a violation of the Monroe Doctrine in so far as it did allow a European nation a foothold upon this continent, and it was contrary to the Washingtonian policy of avoiding “entangling alliances.” However, it was considered at the time to be a victory for American diplomacy. But Great Britain retained her hold on Belize and some islands along the coast, and finally it was made known that before the signing of the treaty Sir Henry Bulwer had left with Clayton a memorandum to the effect that British renunciation in Central America should not apply to “Belize” or any of its “dependencies.” Greytown, a British trading post, had been established as a “free” city at the eastern terminus of the Nicaraguan route through British influence and support. In 1851 Greytown levied tribute upon the steamers of the transit company. One of these refused to pay and was fired upon by a British man-of-war, the fiction of Greytown being a “free city” apparently went glimmering. The situation was critical and for some time looked as though a war might result. Meanwhile the Accessory Transit Company continued in a state of trouble with the Greytown government. So bad was it that the United States vessel _Cyane_ was called upon to protect the buildings of the Canal Company from destruction. Conditions remained strained, feelings ran high, until in 1854 one of the officers of a company steamer killed an individual and in a riot which followed the mob attacked the United States consul. Lieutenant Hollins, commanding officer of the Cyane, demanded reparation, and as this was not forthcoming he bombarded and destroyed the town. This accentuated the trouble between the United States and Great Britain but did not particularly enhance the building of the Nicaraguan canal. About this time Great Britain became involved in the Crimean War while in the United States the slavery question divided the country. Some hot-headed southerners wished forcibly to annex Nicaragua and filibusters actually joined in some of the “revolutions” which are almost always in progress in Central American States with the idea of extending slave territory.[55] Through one of these a man by the name of Walker had made himself head of Nicaragua and for two years remained a dictator. His rule was marked by severity and a series of acts that won him the enmity of the Central American States and also that of the Accessory Transit Company, whose charter and steamers he confiscated. He had secured the presidency and opened the state to slavery; he had also been able to get recognition at Washington. But another revolution broke out and he was driven out in 1857. The action of Walker had destroyed American influence in Central America. In the United States opinion was divided. Slavery enthusiasts openly advocated control of any transit route across the isthmus and that “no power on earth should be suffered to impede.”[56] This and numerous other troubles which followed, off and on intermittently, delayed and prevented canal construction. =French Participation.=--After the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 by the French an organization of French scientists made a careful study of the various routes across the Isthmus and decided the one at Panama to be the most feasible. As a result, in 1875, De Lesseps, the engineer of the Suez Canal, began a careful survey of that route and in 1878, Lucien Bonaparte Wyse, of the French Navy, secured from the United States of Colombia (which had succeeded New Granada) a concession giving a company to be organized by him exclusive right to construct a canal and railroad across the Isthmus of Panama. Neutrality was to be maintained and troops transported only by permission of Colombia. In return for this privilege and certain grants of land Colombia was to receive 5 per cent of the gross tolls collected. The concession was for ninety-nine years and the canal was to be opened within eighteen years. While it was claimed this concession did not conflict with the treaty of 1846 between New Granada and the United States, nevertheless it provided that the latter might share in its advantages. The concession was transferred to De Lesseps, who arranged for an International Congress of Geographical Sciences, which assembled in Paris, May 15, 1879. The United States was one of the twenty-five nations there represented. Fourteen projects involving seven different routes were discussed and included all that were considered feasible. Without going into detailed description some of these routes may be mentioned. The Tehauntepec route was 148 miles long and required 120 locks, would take about twelve days to pass a vessel through, and was in the region of earthquakes. The Nicaraguan Route was favored by many--it was 180 miles long, needed 17 locks, but it required an actual construction of only 60 miles as existing rivers and lakes could be utilized. A route from the Chiriqui Gulf to the Gulf Dulce, another from the Gulf of Darien by way of the Atrato and Napipi Rivers, and another into the San Miguel Bay, were discarded for various reasons. The choice centered upon the route from Colon to Panama by way of the Culebra pass and the Chagres River. This route, the shortest of all, was only 45 miles in length, but there were several disadvantages. The Chagres River must be diverted by a large dam or carried for miles in an aqueduct. A company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interoceanique) was organized and popular subscriptions invited. It was claimed that further than granting the charter the French Government had nothing to do with the canal. Stock could be owned by people of all nations, but the United States did not take kindly to the measure, although no formal action to prevent the construction of the canal was taken. Several promotion schemes were advanced by private individuals to head off the French and Congress was petitioned for aid. Captain Eads, who by jetties had deepened the mouth of the Mississippi River, and an engineer of note, suggested a ship railway across the isthmus of Tehauntepec. A “Marine Canal Company of Nicaragua” wanted Congress to guarantee its capital stock; another Nicaraguan company had Ex-President Grant as a sponsor.[57] The surveys made by the United States of the Panama and of the Atrato-Napipi routes in 1875, were printed by order of Congress. In 1880 the House asked the president for the report of surveys made in 1872 and submitted in 1875 which had not yet become public; this report recommended the Nicaraguan route. From time to time indignation was manifested in the United States against allowing a foreign country to gain a foothold even though by a neutral company on the American continent. The Monroe Doctrine was brought out; the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was presented; the reports of Congressional Commissions were referred to as arguments against the De Lesseps Canal. Various other complications entered, one of which was a possible conflict of authority if in case of a revolution on the Isthmus it were necessary to send troops by the United States to maintain the neutrality of the railroad and by France troops to maintain the neutrality of the canal. Sweeping aside these questions De Lesseps made preparation to construct the canal, and landed a force of seventy engineers, superintendents and workmen on the Isthmus of Panama in 1881. De Lesseps planned a tide-water canal which would require a cut of 285 feet in the Culebra pass. Difficulties encountered from slides in this cut and other reasons made it advisable afterwards to change the plans. De Lesseps purchased much machinery in Europe and America at large expense; bought the Panama railroad for $17,000,000, because the line of the Canal crossed it frequently and it could be utilized for transporting materials, and began the operation of opening up the cut at various points along its course. The engineers estimated the cost at 843,000,000 francs; this, De Lesseps cut to 600,000,000 francs, and set the opening ceremonies for 1888. During the Garfield administration Secretary of State Blaine held out for a strong American policy and informed Colombia, which was charged with making arrangements whereby certain European powers might assume joint guarantee over the canal, that “any movement in the sense of supplementing the guarantee contained (in the treaty of 1846) would necessarily be regarded by this government as an uncalled for intrusion into a field where the local and general interest of the United States of America should be considered before those of any other power save those of Colombia alone.”[58] England claimed to be a new world power equally interested with the United States in maintaining the neutrality of the canal. Blaine proposed amending the Clayton-Bulwer treaty so that the United States could fortify the canal, also to annul that part extending it to any other practical routes so that the United States might be free to build a canal at Panama or elsewhere as it chose. Garfield’s death and Blaine’s retirement from the cabinet ended for the time being policies regarding South and Central Americas that would either have brought the United States in trouble with England or secured to her complete control of the canal and also, perhaps, much of South American trade. A treaty with Nicaragua allowing the construction of a canal wholly under American control, the United States guaranteeing the integrity of the territory of Nicaragua, which was undoubtedly a violation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and prepared by Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State under Arthur, for the purpose of testing that treaty, was withdrawn by President Cleveland who was inaugurated before its confirmation. There was a growing feeling that the De Lesseps company would never finish the canal. The company had spent $10,000,000 more than the estimate of 600,000,000 francs ($120,000,000), and had not paid the $17,000,000 promised for the Panama railway. In fact it was bankrupt. While a large amount of excavation had been done, it was small compared with what was necessary. A magnificent plant with much costly machinery was going to decay. The Spanish-American war brought forcibly to the attention of the public the need of an interoceanic canal. In 1900 a treaty negotiated by John Hay and Sir Julian Pauncefote embodying some modifications of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had been so amended in the Senate that Great Britain would not accept it. A new treaty made in view of the Senate amendments and the British objections was submitted a few months after Roosevelt became President. It abrogated parts of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and gave to the United States full ownership and control of the proposed canal. Colonel Roosevelt had strongly advocated this while governor of New York before his accession to the presidency.[59] Two commissions in the past had reported favorably on the Nicaraguan route. A third commission with Admiral John G. Walker as chairman was appointed and authorized in 1899 to expend a million dollars, if necessary, to make a thorough investigation of the several routes. In 1901 the committee reported that the “Commission is of the opinion that the most practicable and feasible route for an Isthmian Canal, to be under the control, management, and ownership of the United States is that known as the Nicaraguan route.”[60] The Commission placed the estimated cost of the Nicaraguan Canal at $189,864,062; of completing the Panama Canal at $144,233,358; and that to this latter sum should be added the cost of acquiring the rights of the French company. The company asked $109,141,500, but the Commission estimated its worth at $40,000,000. The company considered this unfair but finally offered to negotiate with the United States and sell on the best terms possible. The Commission made a supplementary report recommending the Panama route and purchase of the French company’s work and rights at $40,000,000. An act was signed by the president, June 28, 1902, which had passed Congress, not without opposition, authorizing the president to acquire control of the rights and property of the Panama Canal Company, to acquire perpetual control of a strip of land not less than 6 miles in width, across the Isthmus, to proceed as soon as these rights were acquired to construct a canal through “The Isthmian Canal Commission” created by the act; but should he be unable to get satisfactory title to the property of the French company and the control of territory from Colombia, then the president was authorized to negotiate with Nicaragua and build a canal along the Nicaraguan route. Attorney General Knox reported that the French company could give a clear title; a convention was entered into by which the United States upon the payment of $10,000,000 in cash and an annual rental of $250,000 per year was to receive the necessary control and strip of land. The Senate ratified this March 17, 1903. When it went to the Colombian congress, however, it was rejected by unanimous vote. President Roosevelt declared Colombia wanted to wait until they could forfeit the title of the French company then sell to the United States for $40,000,000.[61] This view may and possibly was erroneous. There was again a demand that the Nicaraguan route be chosen. But on November 3, 1903, the Panamanians, instigated by the French company, whose entire concession and undertaking would revert to Colombia in less than a year,[62] seeing their interests being sacrificed by the cupidity of Colombia, consummated a revolution. Many were of the opinion that the president of the United States was _particeps criminis_. In a letter to a friend[63] dated October 10, 1903, he says, “I cast aside the proposition at this time to foment the secession of Panama. Whatever other governments can do, the United States can not go into the securing, by such underhand means, the cession. Privately, I freely say to you that I should be delighted if Panama were an independent state, or if it made itself so at this moment; but for me to say so publicly would amount to an instigation of a revolt, and therefore I cannot say it.” Many years later when chaffingly accused of being a wicked conspirator, Mr. Roosevelt is quoted as having said: “What was the use? The other fellows in Paris and New York had taken all the risk and were doing all the work. Instead of trying to run a parallel conspiracy, I had only to sit still and profit by their plot--if it succeeded.”[64] The revolution was bloodless except for the accidental killing of a Chinaman and a dog. Colombia, however, as soon as possible sent troops to Colon. The following day the U. S. Ship _Nashville_ landed fifty marines. The next day the Colombian troops left, said by some to have been bribed. A Panamanian government was formed; on November 6th, the American consul was ordered from Washington to recognize it; a week later their minister was formally received by President Roosevelt. On January 4, 1904, the president presented for ratification a treaty. The Senate ratified it February 23, 1904. Thus rapidly did things move. By this agreement the United States secured from the Republic of Panama a zone of land 10 miles wide for the canal with full power over it. In return the United States guaranteed the independence of the Panama republic, and agreed to pay $10,000,000 upon exchange of ratifications and the sum, beginning nine years thereafter, of $250,000 per annum. The Colombians protested and sent their former president General Reyes to Washington to persuade the Government to abrogate its compact with Panama. The counsel for Colombia is quoted as saying that “Reyes was authorized to accept $8,000,000 for all the desired concessions and he would have taken $5,000,000, but Hay and Roosevelt were so foolish they wouldn’t accept.”[65] Be that as it may, the effort was several times made to get for Colombia a gratuity much greater than Reyes would have accepted, and in 1921 Congress appropriated for that purpose $25,000,000, thus, in a way, acknowledging that Colombia was wronged and that the United States had been profited thereby. A commission was formed to undertake the construction of the canal. This was changed two or three times during the construction. The immensity of the work necessary to make a tidewater canal, and the fact that its completion would be materially delayed, caused the abandonment of that plan. Three sets of locks were provided--at Gatun, Pedro Miguel, and Miraflores. A great dam was built across the lower end of the Chagres, entirely blocking the flow of that river and creating a large artificial lake 165 square miles in area whose maximum height is 85 feet above sea water. This lake serves for storage water necessary to manipulate the canal and locks; any surplus flows through a spillway into the Pacific Ocean. Great breakwaters were constructed to make smooth harbors at Colon and Panama and prevent silting. The canal is at sea level to Gatun, 8 miles, then three steps lead it to Gatun Lake; it continues on that level for 32 miles; then down one step at Pedro Miguel to Miraflores Lake, 55 feet above sea level; thence through the Miraflores locks to sea level again and then out to deep water in the Pacific, 11 miles. The locks are 1000 feet long and large enough in every way to accommodate the largest ships afloat. These great locks with their mammoth gates, tunnels for filling, and mechanical means of operation are one of the seven wonders of the modern world. The cost was about $400,000,000 to date of opening. Since that time considerable sums have been spent in fortifications, improvements, and maintenance--several large slides having occurred in the Culebra Cut. The “total amount expended or advanced to disbursing officers for purchase, construction, fortification, etc., to June 30, 1919, $452,075,376.”[66] The tolls amount to about $7,000,000 annually. The principal arguments in favor of the United States building the inter-oceanic canal were its utility as a measure of preparedness for and strategy in case of war. By furnishing quick passage between the east and west coasts the navy necessary for the protection of these coasts could be reduced one half. With the canal entirely in the control of the Government no foreign nation could take advantage of it to our detriment. Notwithstanding the need of the canal for war purposes, the benefits to be derived by the commerce of peace will doubtless be manifold more valuable. It furnishes cheap transportation between the west and east coasts, and shortens materially the distance from the Atlantic seaboard to western South America as well as to the islands of the Pacific Ocean. During the year 1920, “2814 ships representing 11,236,119 tons of cargo, passed through the waterway” being a considerable increase over any preceding year.[67] Of these 45.5 per cent were registered United States vessels, more than any other one nation. Fuel-oil, nitrates, steel and iron hold leading places in the line of commodities carried. =River Transportation.=--As has already been stated streams and rivers were early adopted as a means for transportation. Birch-bark and dug-out canoes, flat-boats and keel-boats, with and without sails, and rafts were extensively used. For small boats paddles and oars furnished the means of navigation, while several pairs of oars were utilized on the larger boats. In shallow water poling was much in vogue. Two men by pushing poles against the bottom of the stream from opposite sides of a small boat could easily propel it. On still larger boats and rafts the men as they pushed walked toward the stern as far as possible while the craft moved through the water under them. A third man held it with his pole until the first two regained a position near the front for another push. By this arduous and crude means boats were propelled up shallow but often swift currents. On the larger rivers sails were employed. Going downstream offered little difficulty except to keep clear of sand bars and snags. Sails, oars, and poles were sometimes relied upon to assist the current in making speed. Large rafts of logs and lumber made by tying timbers together with wooden pins were floated down the rivers and broken up and sold when they reached their destination. Furs, hides, bacon, cured hams, or jerked-meat might form a cargo, stored during transit, in a small cabin erected at the center of the raft, which might occupy from 400 to 600 square feet. The construction of a practicable steamboat in 1807 by Robert Fulton[68] and another by John Stevens, the same year, revolutionized both river and sea navigation. While many attempts had been made to utilize the steam engine for propelling boats, and some of them mechanically successful, Fulton’s was the first boat built and adapted for the conveyance of freight and passengers on a scale commercially successful. Fulton had had the confidence and backing of R. R. Livingston and the firm of Fulton & Livingston was formed. This firm secured a monopoly for operating steam vessels in the waters of the state of New York. The first boat, the _Clermont_, named after Livingston’s estate on the Hudson River, was 130 feet long, 18 feet beam, and 7 feet deep, with a burden of 160 tons. The Boulton & Watt engine had been brought from England the year previous by Fulton and the boat built for it. The vessel made a successful trial trip to Albany, August 7 to 9, and returned the following two days; her running speed had only averaged about 5 miles an hour, but she had demonstrated the practicability of steam navigation on inland waters. Following close after this event, Stevens, who had been experimenting for years and, it is claimed, had launched a screw propeller vessel driven by steam as early as 1804, perfected his vessel, but because of Fulton & Livingston’s monopoly took it to the Delaware River at Philadelphia. The trip around by sea demonstrated the feasibility of steam navigation on the ocean. Very shortly thereafter Fulton & Livingston had placed a fleet of their vessels on the Hudson River and Long Island Sound, and had begun to build them at Pittsburgh while John Stevens & Sons had their vessels on the Delaware and Connecticut Rivers. Soon all navigable waters were covered with steam propelled vessels. Prior to the introduction of the steamboat Mississippi River traffic had been, as has been stated, carried on by flat boats, rafts, and perhaps some twenty barges[69] of a better quality. These latter had been making one round trip a year requiring sixty days down and ninety days back from Louisville to New Orleans. This time, by 1822, had been reduced to seven days down and sixteen days up. By 1830 all the navigable tributaries of the Mississippi were traversed by steamboats and the produce of a western empire teeming through the portals was rapidly making New Orleans a great city. The value of these commodities were given as approximating $26,000,000 annually.[70] In 1860 a writer said: “upward of two hundred millions of dollars worth of merchandise are annually brought to this market.”[71] New Orleans was an extremely busy place with all the picturesqueness of pioneer cities generally. Ranking twelfth of the cities of the United States in 1790, it had steadily climbed up to third place in 1840,[72] when the northern cities through the influence of the railroads and the decline of river traffic began to outstrip it. The levee, an embankment along the river, several feet higher than the city, was bordered by a long line of warehouses on the land side and by quays extending into the river on the other side. Miles of ships, boats, and barges were anchored along the levee as automobiles are now parked along a street, heads in. A contemporaneous writer describes it thus: The New Orleans levee is one continuous landing-place, or quay, 4 miles in extent, and of an average width of 100 feet. It is 15 feet above low water mark, and 6 feet above the level of the city, to which it is graduated by an easy descent. During the business season, from November to July, the river front of the levee is crowded with vessels, of all sizes and from all quarters of the world, with hundreds of large and splendid steamboats, barges, flat-boats, etc. The levee presents a most busy and animated prospect. Here are seen piles of cotton bales, vast numbers of barrels of pork, flour and liquors of various kinds, bales of foreign and domestic manufactures, hogsheads of sugar, crates of ware, etc., draymen with their carts, buyers, sellers, laborers, etc. Valuable products from the head waters of the Missouri, 3000 miles distant, center here. The Illinois, the Ohio, the Arkansas and Red Rivers, with the Mississippi, are all tributaries to this commercial depot. Under the influence of the river traffic many other cities were springing into importance. Many of these later became centers of railroad activity and thus retained or even bettered their rank. Others gradually wasted away until they are mere hamlets to-day. The times seem to have been ripe when Fulton’s _Clermont_ appeared, for almost immediately the steamboat industry thrived. During the first ten years 131 steam vessels had been built and by 1832, 474;[73] in 1836 and 1837, 145 and 158 respectively were launched. Building was for a few years checked by business depression but soon revived and in 1846 there were constructed 225 steam vessels. The Civil War reduced the number; immediately following business sprang up again and taking into account coasts, rivers, and lakes has continued brisk ever since. With the growth in the number of vessels, up until railroads began to monopolize travel and freight, the accommodations and speed were continually improved until river and sound boats were frequently spoken of as “floating palaces.” Packets were built to accommodate several hundred passengers, with staterooms, saloons, dining rooms, bathrooms, barber shops, and other features. The river steamboat may be said to be a development of the pole-boat or flat-boat. On account of the shoals they must be broad and shallow. The paddle wheels on the sides are operated independently in order to facilitate quick turning. The weight of engines, boilers, fuel bunkers, freight and passenger burden, are distributed fairly well over the entire surface. Some of the best lower Mississippi boats had a length of hull of 300 feet, a width of 50 feet and depth of hold of 9 feet. The boat fully loaded drew about 10 feet of water, when light, 4 feet. “Mark twain,” 6 feet, represented the shallowest water the vessels piloted by Samuel L. Clemens could navigate; after quitting steam-boating he adopted that term for a _nom-de-plume_, under which his inimitable writings were published.[74] The main deck overhangs the hull and is about 90 feet wide. A complete system of ties and braces above the hull gives it strength and stiffness. Modern boats are electric lighted and have swinging gangplanks, capstans, and all the recent power improvements for the rapid handling of freight and passengers. The staterooms are erected on the saloon deck with doors opening into the saloon and on a narrow passageway along the outside. The saloon generally extends the full length of the house, giving a large well-lighted room, used as a lounging and dining room. Above this is another deck on which are officers’ quarters and above all fully glassed in is the pilot house. The freight capacity of these boats is given as 1500 tons, and there are 70 staterooms to accommodate 140 passengers. Deck passage could be provided for a number more. The cost of a “floating palace” was in the ’eighties from $100,000 to $120,000. Extremely handsome, well equipped, and finely decorated boats ply regularly on the Hudson River and on Long Island Sound. Some of the vessels of one line are over 400 feet long and 50 feet wide. The decks are about 90 feet wide and they have over 350 state rooms; many of them are magnificently equipped. O’Hanlon’s “Irish Emigrants’ Guide to the United States,” published in 1851, would indicate that all traveling in that day was not as comfortable as might be inferred from the preceding. With regard to steamboats it says: These have been termed “flying palaces,” and many of them are fitted up in style of great magnificence. But the comfort of traveling by them is confined to cabin passengers, state rooms, accommodating two persons each, in separate berths, are appropriated for retirement by day and for rest at night; ladies and gentlemen have separate cabins, but dine at the same table, which is set out in the “social hall,” and stocked with a variety of luxuries.... The deck passengers are immediately under the cabin, and in the hinder part of the boat. A few berths are fitted up for their reception without bedding. Provisions must be provided at their own expense, and also a mode of preparing them. Sometimes numbers are huddled together on board without having room to move, or stretch themselves out for rest; the inconvenience of this mode of traveling can hardly be appreciated without being experienced. It is also stated that steamboat traveling was dangerous because of the explosions. It is true there were a number of boiler explosions. Mark Twain mentions one of the very worst,[75] the explosion of the _Pennsylvania_. He also discusses the subject of racing, which after the Government rules regarding steam pressure went into effect, he claims not to have been dangerous. One of the later races, that between the _Robert E. Lee_ and the _Natchez_ in 1870 was an event of national interest. The time of the _Robert E. Lee_ from New Orleans to St. Louis was 3 days 18 hours and 14 minutes from dock to dock. Mark Twain claims the fastest long-distance running was made by the _Eclipse_ in 1855 when she made the trip from New Orleans to Cairo at an average speed “a shade under fourteen and three-eighths miles per hour.” An idea of the rates charged for passenger fare and for freight traffic on steam-boats may be obtained from the following. In 1816 from New York to Albany the fare was $7, about 4 cents per mile. For way stations between about 5 cents per mile, but no charge less than $1.[76] STEAMBOAT FARES ----+----------------------+--------+------------------------ | | | FARE | | +-----+------------------ Date| Between |Distance|Total| Per Mile Cents ----+----------------------+--------+-----+------------------ 1816|New York and Albany | 145 |$7.00| 4 1817|New York to Providence| 200 |10.00| 5 1825|Boston to Portland | 160 | 5.00| 3 1825|Boston to Bath | | 6.00| } 1825|Boston to Augusta | | 7.00| } With meals 1825|Boston to East Port | 275 |11.00| 4 } 1848|New York to Albany | 145 | .50| .3} 1848|New York to Erie | 600 | 7.50| 1.3} 1848|New York to Detroit | 825 | 8.50| 1 } 1848|New York to Chicago | 1520 |12.50| .7}[77] 1848|Baltimore to Richmond | 378 |10.00| } 1848|Tuscaloosa to Mobile | 675 |12.00| } 1848|Boston and New York |Sailing}| | } | to New Orleans |Packet }|40-50| } ----+----------------------+--------+-----+------------------ In 1817 from Rhode Island to New York, $10, approximately 5 cents per mile. =The Government’s Attitude Toward River Improvement.=--The individual states had been encouraging turnpikes, canals, and other interior improvements by subscribing and underwriting stock in private companies authorized to build and operate the improvements. Frequently monopolies were granted to operating companies.[78] States were jealous of each other and hesitated to appropriate money for improvements which would inure to the benefit of another state, and frequently an improvement in one state was worthless unless joining improvements could be made in neighboring states. Many men, believing in a large and unified nation rather than a confederation of several small nations advocated governmental action. Strict constitutionalists and states’ rights men objected. President Madison had vetoed Calhoun’s Bonus Bill for roads and canals upon the ground that the constitution did not vest Congress with power to undertake such improvements.[79] Calhoun had used all the power of his great eloquence based upon the “common defense and general welfare” clause of the constitution in favor of such improvements. He considered it the duty of Congress to “bind the republic together with a perfect system of roads and canals.” He exclaimed that the very extent of the country “exposes us to the greatest of all calamities,--next to the loss of liberty,--and even to that in its consequences--disunion. We are great, and rapidly--I was about to say fearfully growing. This is our pride and our danger; our weakness and our strength. We are under the most imperious obligation to counteract every tendency to disunion.... Whatever impedes the intercourse of the extremes with this, the center of the Republic, weakens the Union.”[80] Monroe’s first message indicated that he followed Madison in the belief that Congress was not empowered by the constitution to establish internal improvements; and later he vetoed a measure to authorize the president to erect toll houses along the Cumberland Road, appoint toll gatherers and otherwise regulate its use, on the ground that it exceeded the power of congress. He favored internal improvements but thought a constitutional amendment necessary.[81] The next year, however, some bills for internal improvements got through among them the first act for the improvement of harbors. In 1802, under the influence of Gallatin, Randolph and Jefferson, 5 per cent of the Ohio lands sold were appropriated for the building of roads.[82] In 1809 was passed the first act for river improvement.[83] These were the beginnings of National aid for internal improvements in the United States. The “implied powers” adherents seem to have been in the ascendency for a report of the treasurer shows that up to 1830 the United States had appropriated for internal improvements--Cumberland Road, $2,443,420.20; subscriptions to canal stock and improvements of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, $1,263,315.65; for other items such as building of piers, preservation of ports and piers, making roads and removing river obstructions, $1,603,694.31. It was pointed out that only $234,955.92[84] had been expended in the territories where the question of constitutionality did not arise. Presidents had nearly always declared in favor of internal improvements but desired that constitutional provision be made for the same. Jackson, a strong state sovereignty man, suggested that the surplus funds of the Government be distributed among the several states in proportion to their representation in Congress; and in 1830 vetoed a bill for subscription to the stock of one canal and pocketed others, and closed his administration by pocketing a bill for the improvement of the Wabash River. While Jackson’s attitude checked federal appropriations, especially for roads and canals, those for rivers and harbors became almost a national scandal, and were with other public appropriation bills frequently referred to as “pork bills.” A congressional appropriation, whether for rivers and harbors, a federal building, or an irrigation project, brought considerable money into a state; it was considered a feather in the cap of a congressman and enhanced his chances for reelection. Consequently nearly every congressman introduced such an act for his district and “log-rolling” schemes were entered into by many to procure their passage. River and harbor appropriations continued to increase until 1882, when they amounted to the vast sum of $18,743,875 to be applied to some 500 different localities. President Arthur[85] vetoed the bill, but Congress passed it over the veto and the “barrel of pork” was divided up as usual. The publicity given the matter checked appropriations for a while but they soon climbed higher than ever. The appropriation for the fiscal year of 1920 was $33,378,364.[86] SELECTED REFERENCES ARTHUR, PRESIDENT CHESTER A., Veto of river and harbor bill, Richardson’s “Messages and Papers,” VIII, pp. 120-122. BARNARD, CHARLES, “Inland Navigation of the United States,” _The Century Magazine_, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 353-372. CALHOUN, JOHN C., “Works of.” Edited by Richard K. Cralle, 6 volumes, 1853-1855. Vol. II, p. 190. D. Appleton & Company, New York. Canals.--“Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals (of the House of Representatives) in reply to memorials of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and inhabitants of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, asking additional subscriptions by the United States to the capital stock of the Canal.” Report No. 414, H. of R. 23d Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 378 et seq. DUNBAR, SEYMOUR, “History of Travel in America,” 4 volumes, Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis. GREELEY, HORACE, “Recollections of a Busy Life.” J. B. Ford & Co., New York, 1869. HAZARD, GEORGE S., “The Erie Canal. Its National Character.” Published by order of Board of Trade, Buffalo, N. Y., 1873. HOWE, HENRY, “Historical Sketch of the West.” “Isthmian Canal Commission Report,” Sen. Doc., 57th Congress, 1st session, No. 54. Johnson’s Cyclopaedia. Article on Canals. MACDONALD, WILLIAM, “Jacksonian Democracy,” Vol. XV of the American Nation Series, Chapter VIII, “Internal Improvements.” Harper & Brothers, New York. MCMASTER, JOHN BACH, “History of the United States,” Vol. V, Chap. XLIV. D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1911. O’HANLON, REV. J., “Irish Emigrant’s Guide of the United States,” Boston, 1851. Panama Canal.--Financial Statement to June 30, 1919, The American Year Book for the year 1919, p. 364, D. Appleton & Co., New York. RICHARDSON, JAMES D., “Messages and Papers,” Vol. I, 584, President Madison’s Veto of Calhoun’s Bonus Bill. Published by order of Congress, 8 Vols., Washington, 1896-1899. ROOSEVELT, PRESIDENT THEODORE, “Messages to Congress,” January 4, 1904, Sen. Doc. 58th Sess., No. 53, pp. 5-26. SMITH, THEODORE C., “Parties and Slavery,” Vol. XVIII, of the American Nation Series, Harper & Brothers, New York. SPARKS, EDWIN E., “National Development,” Vol. XXIII of the American Nation Series, Chapters IV and XIII, Harper & Brothers, New York. THAYER, WM. R., “Theodore Roosevelt,” p. 178 et seq. Grosset & Dunlap, New York. THAYER, WM. R., “John Hay,” Vol. II, pp. 339-41. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1915. TURNER, FREDERICK J., “Rise of the New West,” Vol. XIV of the American Nation Series, Chapter VIII, “Western Trade and Ideals,” Harper & Brothers, New York. TWAIN, MARK (Clemens, S. L.), “Life on the Mississippi,” Harper & Brothers, New York. U. S. Census review of “Agencies of Transportation,” 1880. WARNER, I. W., “Immigrant’s Guide and Citizen’s Manual.” New York, 1848. FOOTNOTES [47] “American Nation,” Vol. XIV, p. 32. [48] McMaster, “United States,” Vol. V. [49] Length of Miami and Erie Canal 301.49 miles „ „ Ohio Canal 512.26 „ „ Penn. and Ohio Canal 76 „ „ Sandy and Beaver Canal 79 „ „ Whitewater Canal 32 ------- Total 1000.75 miles --Dunbar’s “History of Travel in America”. [50] Total mileage of boats clearing from Fort Wayne in 1849 209,982 LaFayette 162,297 Total mileage by passengers from and to Fort Wayne in 1849 519,336 LaFayette 505,397 “Annual Report of the Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal,” 1849. [51] U. S. Census review of “Agencies of Transportation,” 1880. [52] Johnson’s Cyclopaedia. [53] “Recollections of a Busy Life,” by Horace Greeley. [54] “A History of Travel in America,” Dunbar. [55] Smith: “Parties and Slavery,” (“American Nation,” Vol. XVIII). [56] Democratic Platform, 1856. [57] _North American Review_, Vol. CXXXII, p. 107. [58] “American Nation,” Vol. XXIII. [59] “Theodore Roosevelt,” by W. R. Thayer, 180. “John Hay,” by W. R. Thayer, II, 339-41. [60] Isthmian Canal Commission Report, Sen. Doc. 57th Congress., 1st session, No. 54. [61] Message of January 4, 1904, Sen. Doc., 58th Cong. 2nd Sess. No. 53, pp. 5-26. [62] “Theodore Roosevelt,” by William Roscoe Thayer, p. 184 et seq. [63] Letter to Albert Shaw by President Theodore Roosevelt. _Literary Digest_, October 29, 1904. [64] “Theodore Roosevelt,” by W. R. Thayer, p. 190. [65] “Theodore Roosevelt,” by W. R. Thayer, p. 186. [66] “The American Year Book,” 1919. Appleton, N. Y. [67] _Panama Canal Record._ [68] For a long list of steamboats built in America, and operated under their own power prior to Fulton’s _Clermont_, see “A History of Travel in America,” by Seymour Dunbar. [69] “American Nation,” Vol. XIV. [70] “American Nation,” Vol. XIV, p. 105. [71] Henry Howe, “Historical Sketch of the West.” [72] Statistical Atlas 1900. 12th Census of the U. S. [73] Charles Barnard in _The Century Magazine_, Vol. XXXVIII, from which also is derived information relative to dimensions and decorations of steam vessels, pp. 353-372. [74] See “Life on the Mississippi,” by Mark Twain, p. 117. [75] “Life on the Mississippi,” by Mark Twain, Chapter XX. [76] Dunbar, “A History of Travel in America.” [77] Warner’s “Immigrant’s Guide and Citizen’s Manual.” [78] March 18, 1786, John Fitch was granted by New Jersey “the sole and exclusive right of constructing making using and employing or navigating, all and every species or kind of boats, impelled by the force of fire or steam” within the limits of that state. Delaware gave him similar rights in 1787 and New York, likewise, the same year. In 1798 Fitch’s grant in New York, which was to have run fourteen years, was canceled and Livingston given a monopoly for twenty years providing within a year he run a steamboat at four miles an hour. This he failed to do, but got his grant renewed in 1803, and again extended until the successful operation of the _Clermont_ in 1807. [79] “Messages and Papers,” Richardson, I, 584. [80] Calhoun: “Works II,” 190. “American Nation” XIII, 253. [81] “American Nation,” XIV, 231. [82] “Laws of the United States,” VI., 120. [83] MacDonald, “American Nation” Vol. XV, 134. [84] “American Nation,” Vol. XV, pp. 136-137. [85] Richardson, “Messages and Papers,” VIII, 120-122. [86] “The American Year Book,” 208.