The State Engineer the Chief Builder -- His Duties -- List of State Engineers -- Mr. Bond's Place in Barge Canal History -- Mr. Williams' Preëminence among the Chief Builders -- Mr. Van Alstyne's Important Work in Early Plans and Policies -- His Chief Assistants -- Mr. Skene's Work -- His Chief Assistants -- Important Undertakings Started during Mr. Williams' First Term -- His Chief Assistants -- Changes Made and Work Begun by Mr. Bensel -- Large Amount of Construction during His Term -- His Chief Assistants -- Completion of Canal and Addition of New Features during Mr. Williams' Second Term -- His Chief Assistants.

In the scheme of Barge canal construction the State Engineer has been the official who has carried most of the responsibility for the accomplishment of the enterprise. He has not always held so prominent a place in canal affairs. In the earlier days he shared with the Superintendent of Public Works the duty of supervising works of construction, but this form of divided responsibility was most severely condemned by the investigators of the nine-million-dollar canal enlargement and certain experiences of that ill-fated project led the framers of the Barge canal law to place in the hands of the State Engineer the task of both planning and constructing the new waterway.

Thus the State Engineer became the chief builder of the Barge canal. It was his duty to decide just how the canal should be built, where within specified limits the channel should run, where the structures should be placed and what should be their character, and after these and numberless other decisions were made and had taken on the form of approved plans it was his further duty to see that the contractors built the canal according to these plans or according to such revisions as he should make to meet the contingencies that might arise. The State Engineer, however, was not clothed with autocratic powers; his plans, his revisions, his extra work orders and various other of his activities had to be approved by the Canal Board -- a board of which he himself was a member; the consulting engineers constituting the Advisory Board had little real authority at first and never very much, but by their advice and their easy access to the public ear in case they desired to criticise they wielded considerable power; the Superintendent of Public Works awarded the contracts and his warrant was the instrument which authorized payments to the contractors; together these two officials accepted completed work; other State officers too had their several parts to do. But naturally the problems of a project essentially engineering in most of its aspects fell to the lot of the only engineer among the responsible officials, and in the end the State Engineer had to shoulder most of the obligation for the proper planning and conduct of the work.

We are interested then in knowing who are the men that have held the office of State Engineer during the construction of the Barge canal -- who are these men to whom credit is due for building one of the great engineering works of the world. That this is one of the great engineering works of the world there can be no question. Whatever may be one's opinion of the economic value or the expediency of this or any other canal, or whatever may be one's view as to the best type of canal, if any, for this particular location, there can be no doubt of the high standing of the Barge canal as a work of engineering.

There have been five men to hold the office of State Engineer since the autumn of 1903, the time when the plebiscite was given for building the canal. These are Edward A. Bond, Henry A. Van Alstyne, Frederick Skene, Frank M. Williams and John A. Bensel. But the first one named in the list can scarcely be enumerated among the chief builders. Mr. Bond resigned the office of State Engineer to assume the chairmanship of the Advisory Board so soon after construction was authorized, even before the making of contract plans was more than begun, that we shall not include him in our discussion of the chief builders of the canal.

Mr. Bond, however, occupies a unique place in Barge canal history. He was a member of the committee which after thorough investigation gave to the State its Barge canal policy. He directed the preliminary survey and rendered a report on it which became a model of its kind and a text-book for similar projects. He was responsible for the preliminary estimates, which have been characterized even by a bitter political opponent as being so accurate "that seldom if ever has a work approximating the magnitude of the Barge canal improvement been carried to completion at a final cost for construction so near to that originally estimated" as was the case of the Barge canal. He was chairman of the Advisory Board of Consulting Engineers, a body which for the first seven years of Barge canal construction was accorded by the courtesy of general practice an authoritative supervision over canal planning and building.

Among this list of names there is one which stands out above the others, that of Frank M. Williams. If for no other reason Mr. Williams would be entitled to distinction for his long service. At the close of his present term he will have served as State Engineer for ten years, two years longer than any other incumbent since the Constitution of 1846 created the office. But the length of Mr. Williams' administration, although it extends over more than half the construction years, is not its chief claim to honor. The momentous problems solved under his direction, especially the all-important question of adding terminals to the canal project, and also the periods of his control, both in the early stages and in the years of completion, when the country was struggling with war or its aftermath, have made Mr. Williams preëminent. It is he, therefore, whom history will acclaim the builder of the new waterway; it is he who will be known as the DeWitt Clinton or the Colonel Goethals of the Barge canal.

In reviewing the administrations of the several chief builders of the Barge canal we do not find many sharp distinctions of procedure or radical changes of policy, such as might be found in an enterprise administered by officials selected by other than popular elective methods, such for example as actually did occur in constructing the Panama canal, on which the chief engineers were changed for the very purpose of carrying out new policies and different methods.

It was no easy task to form an organization for so large an undertaking as the Barge canal. It was still more difficult to establish precedents, fix standards, institute studies and do the numberless first things in such a manner that the great work should start in orderly fashion and continue without the prospect of many changes of policy in the future. It is a tribute to the thoroughness and foresight of the first chief builder, Mr. Van Alstyne, that in general his policies were continued throughout the whole work and that but few errors needed correcting.

We may enumerate a few of the achievements of Mr. Van Alstyne's administration, and we shall do little more now than name them, since they are described at length in the chapter on early policies and methods. Several very important matters came before him for consideration or decision. Probably the most important was the change in lock width, and increase from twenty-eight to forty-five feet. It was upon his suggestion that the Legislature authorized this change, and it has proved to be a change far-reaching in its results. To prepare the first specifications was also an important task and moreover there is one particular feature in them which does Mr. Van Alstyne much credit -- the elimination of the classification of excavated materials. Among other policies of Mr. Van Alstyne's choosing may be mentioned the substitution of movable for fixed dams in the Mohawk river, the use of concrete in nearly all structures in preference to cut-stone masonry and the selection of test contracts to determine at the beginning the probable cost of the whole enterprise. Under Mr. Van Alstyne the most important of the changes in route and plan were made. These included a new location at the eastern end of the Erie canal, the selection of route which resulted in the remarkable series of high lift locks in the short stretch of land line between the Hudson and Mohawk rivers in the vicinity of Waterford; also a new route which began with a contemplated short change of alignment at Savannah and expanded into a long and radical variation, including eventually a new branch in the canal system. The new grade for the Tonawanda-Lockport level was determined at this time. In addition Mr. Van Alstyne made the first survey for the new Cayuga and Seneca canal and instituted the study which brought Federal coöperation for the channel from Troy to Waterford.

Mr. Van Alstyne had as his Special Deputy Henry C. Allen. The Special Deputy State Engineer was the man who was in immediate charge of the whole Barge canal work, the office having been created by the law authorizing canal construction. The three Division Engineers were Charles W. Trumbull on the Eastern Division, Charles O. McComb on the Middle Division, and A.J. Rockwood on the Western Division.

Mr. Skene's administration was the shortest of any during Barge canal building, only two years, 1907 and 1908. The period was early in the enterprise, before construction had really got under full headway and also before certain, new, all-important features arose, and yet after the main questions of policy and methods had been decided. There were a few circumstances of importance, however, in Mr. Skene's time. He was the first State Engineer to bring the need of terminals prominently before the people and to recommend that these most necessary adjuncts be included in the canal scheme. He joined forces with the Deeper Hudson advocates and also pushed with vigor the plan of his predecessor to secure Federal assistance for the Troy-Waterford section. It was Mr. Skene who began publishing the Barge Canal Bulletin, and the studies made under his guidance included those for the Syracuse harbor, the movable dams at Rochester and Phoenix and the troublesome and complex route through Rome.

Mr. Skene's Special Deputy was William R. Hill, a man who had made a name for himself as the chief engineer of the Syracuse water works. As Division Engineers there were J.F. Creeden for a short time and then L.B. Harrison on the Eastern Division, Henry B. Brewster on the Middle Division and John P. Kelley on the Western Division.

It should be remembered that both Mr. Van Alstyne and Mr. Skene had charge of State highway construction as well as the building of the Barge canal, and the highway work had grown to large proportions by that time. A poll of the engineers under Mr. Skene on both canal and highway projects would have shown a corps of about eighteen hundred men. Soon after Mr. Skene's administration the highways were transferred from the State Engineer's department to a special commission, but it was during Mr. Skene's term that action was taken to effect this change.

During Mr. Williams' first term, 1909 and 1910, several important things happened, the most important being the appointment of a Terminal Commission, a body of which Mr. Williams was chairman. This Commission made an exhaustive study of the whole terminal question and rendered a report which, it may be said incidentally, stands at the top of terminal literature, but it also did that which was of greatest import to the State, it gave a new canal policy, no less a policy indeed than one for adding to the original canal scheme the feature upon which the success of the whole project mainly depends.

Second in importance of the events of this administration was the adding of the Cayuga and Seneca canal to the Barge system. The first survey for this branch had been made under Mr. Van Alstyne, but early in 1909, after lying quiescent since 1905, the project came to a head and before the year closed the preliminary surveys and estimates had been made and the scheme had received, first legislative approval and then popular authorization at the polls, and prior to his retirement at the close of 1910 Mr. Williams was able to prepare contract plans and put the first contracts in force.

Another piece of work which Mr. Williams instituted was what is known in canal parlance as the "blue line" surveys. The time was at hand when much would have been lost to the State by way of property values and to its citizens by way of information relating to considerable private property, had this work not been undertaken. It was fortunate that there was serving the State at this particular juncture a man with Mr. Williams' long familiarity with State engineering affairs as well as his breadth of vision to appreciate the necessity of the case.

During this administration there came also Federal aid for the Troy-Waterford section, important decisions affecting railroad crossings, a series of tests for the proposed Medina aqueduct and the first recommendation relative to charting new canal waters.

Mr. Williams selected his chief assistants from among those who like himself had been long in the State Engineer's department and were thoroughly familiar with the problems which would confront them. William B. Landreth served as Special Deputy, while the Division Engineers were George D. Williams for the Eastern Division, Guy Moulton for the Middle Division and Thomas W. Barrally for the Western Division. It will be recalled that Mr. Landreth had been prominent in the preliminary Barge canal survey and had had charge of such work as had been done between the time of popular ratification of the project and the appointment of the first Special Deputy State Engineer.

Mr. Bensel came to the office of State Engineer with the prestige of having been at the head of other large engineering works and of being at that time the President of the American Society of Civil Engineers. For the first time in many year the Democratic party was coming into full control of the State government and changes were rife. Mr. Bensel himself was not in accord with various acts of his predecessors, and being a man of pronounced opinions and direct address, he did not hesitate to criticise and to change where he saw fit.

Prominent among the changes was the abolition of the Advisory Board of Consulting Engineers, accomplished of course by legislative act but done at the State Engineer's suggestion. In place of this board the State Engineer was permitted to employ, with the approval of the Governor, one or more consulting engineers.

One of the first things to take Mr. Bensel's attention was the problem of railroad crossings. This feature of the work he regarded as having been particularly slow in progress and wrong in management. What he did in carrying out his ideas, however, resulted in throwing the affair into the courts. It remained there until the last year of his administration and then a decision was rendered which upheld the action of the former administrations. Another change attempted by the State Engineer met with no better success. The authority of Federal control over the waters of the Hudson at Troy was questioned and attempt was made to stop Government construction at the Troy lock and dam, but without avail.

At certain places Mr. Bensel found it advisable to make changes in structural designs. The most notable of these were the substitution of pneumatic-caisson for coffer-dam methods in building the lock and dam at Scotia and the use generally of heavier steel construction, including the strengthening of bridge superstructures at the Mohawk river movable dams.

Construction of canal terminals was begun under Mr. Bensel and considerable progress was made during his term of office. This was the outstanding new venture of his time. The policy he instituted of waiting for traffic to demonstrate its need of certain facilities before attempting to supply those facilities has remained the accepted policy throughout terminal construction.

This was the time of the Commission on Operation and Mr. Bensel served on that body. It was also the time of the serious break at Irondequoit creek, for the repair of which speed and resourcefulness were demanded. In this administration Congress was induced to extend the Lakes Surveys to cover the navigable natural streams of the Barge canal system, thus assuring Federal charts for these waters. The need of making legislative provision for the disposal of old canal lands abandoned by reason of new alignments was a subject of Mr. Bensel's propounding.

The years of Mr. Bensel's administration, 1911 to 1914, both inclusive, were the years of largest accomplishment in the amount of canal work done. Measured in money values about half of the work was done during these four years. But this fact does not entitle Mr. Bensel to unusual credit nor detract from the honor due to the other chief builders. It was to be expected that the middle period of construction would be the most active.

In choosing his principal assistants Mr. Bensel did not bring many new men into the department. Some of his earlier appointments were from among the existing corps and all of his later selections were from that source. Alex. E. Kastl was Special Deputy, John A. O'Connor and Edwin Styring were promoted to be Division Engineers of the Eastern and Middle Divisions, respectively. Edward J. Govern was the Western Division Engineer. When terminal construction began Mr. O'Connor was placed in charge, having the title of Terminal Engineer. To fill the vacancy thus made, Dwight B. LaDu was promoted to Eastern Division Engineer. Two Division Engineers for terminals were appointed, Carleton Greene for the Southern Division and Guy. L. Noble for the Middle Division, both of them being elevated from lower ranks. On August 1, 1914, Mr. Kastl resigned as Special Deputy and Mr. LaDu was appointed to the position. Thus again the office of Eastern Division Engineer was vacant and R.G. Finch was promoted to fill it. On April 1, 1914, Mr. Govern resigned as Division Engineer of the Western Division and Friend P. Williams was appointed to the vacancy, this also being a promotion. As Consulting Engineers there were appointed George S. Greene, Jr., William H. Burr, T. Kennard Thomson, Mortimer G. Barnes and Joseph Ripley. Mr. Barnes and Mr. Ripley had been members of the Advisory Board of Consulting Engineers. Mr. Ripley was the only Consulting Engineer employed full time for canal work.

Mr. Williams began his second administration under most unpropitious circumstances. The canal was not completed, the appropriation was over-obligated by the contracts then in force and funds were actually so nearly exhausted that all work must stop within a few months unless additional money should be forthcoming.

Mr. Williams' task was to finish the canal and to do this as quickly as possible in spite of many handicaps and the numberless loose ends and last things that might be expected, necessarily perhaps, in an enterprise of such magnitude.

Early in the administration the separate terminal organization was abolished and the whole work, on both canal and terminals, was supervised by one and the same set of officials.

One of the chief things to engage Mr. Williams' attention after the way was cleared to getting additional funds was the Rochester problem. Here, as we have seen, there had been endless discussion without getting satisfactory results, but by the time the new appropriation was available construction could be started in accordance with plans acceptable to both the State and the citizens of Rochester.

Among the questions to be solved early in this administration were those relating to the larger types of navigation aids, such as lighthouses, lake buoys and the like. Then too there was the troublesome and seemingly endless problem of railroad crossings. Soon there came the necessity of completing the canal while contending against the almost insuperable difficulties of war-time restrictions and delays, and with this need came also the incentive to overcome in spite of all odds. The story of this achievement we have already heard and this alone would make Mr. Williams' administration memorable.

With the war new duties devolved upon the chief canal builder. There was a State Council of Defense, of which the State Engineer was a prominent member. In modern warfare the engineer has a large place and so the engineer in the Council of Defense was an important personage. Mr. Williams played a large part also in inducing the Federal government to take over and operate the canal he had finished under such trying circumstances.

Among the new canal features to appear in Mr. Williams' administration are the Hudson river terminals, two special bridges over the canalized Mohawk, at Rexford and Scotia, the latter being an unusual structure, and the grain elevators at New York city and Oswego. Elevators stand next in importance to terminals in the list of canal adjuncts, and with the adding of both of these two essentials to the Barge canal project Mr. Williams' name is inseparably and most prominently linked.

Now that there has arisen strong agitation for a rival waterway, a ship canal to the Great Lakes, an impracticable dream as viewed by New Yorkers, Mr. Williams has been in the forefront of opponents to this scheme, which, to say the least, has turned away from the Barge canal the thoughts of those living west of the state, so that they are not inclined to give the New York waterway a fair trial.

At the beginning of Mr. Williams' present administration his Special Deputy was Dwight B. LaDu, who was retained from the preceding administration. The Division Engineers were George D. Williams and Guy Moulton for the Eastern and Middle Divisions, respectively, both of them having served in the same positions during Mr. Williams' first administration. The Western Division Engineer was Friend P. Williams, also retained from the preceding administration. In the fall of 1918 Mr. LaDu resigned. He was succeeded on January 1, 1919, by Friend P. Williams, the work of the Special Deputy having been assumed during the interim by William B. Landreth, Deputy State Engineer. During the war Division Engineer George D. Williams entered the service and while he was absent his work was performed, first by L.C. Hulburd and later by Russell S. Greenman, Mr. Hulburd acting till January 1, 1919, when he was appointed to fill the vacant position of Western Division Engineer. On September 1, 1919, E.D. Hendricks was made Eastern Division Engineer, George D. Williams having resigned. In the early summer of 1921 Friend P. Williams resigned as Special Deputy and thereafter such canal and terminal supervision as remained was assumed by R.G. Finch, Deputy State Engineer.

As Consulting Engineers Mr. Williams has had Henry C. Allen, Elmer L. Corthell, E.E. Haskell, E.C. Moore, Joseph Ripley, Henry Goldmark and William B. Landreth. During the early years of the administration Mr. Ripley gave all his time to the work and in the later years Mr. Landreth has done the same; the others were employed only occasionally. For consultation on terminal work, B.F. Cresson, E.P. Goodrich, H.McL. Harding and Maurice W. Williams have been employed on various occasions. In addition three others have acted in a consulting capacity for special work -- B.A. Davis in concrete arch construction, H.R. Wait in grain elevator design and C.C. Egbert in electrical work. Mr. Egbert has acted as expert electrical advisor during most of the canal construction period.