History of the Chenango Canal in Binghamton

Portion of 1855 map of Binghamton showing Chenango Canal near entrance to the Chenango River. Note canal boat basin, dry dock and boat yard off Susquehanna street.

From: Binghamton Its Settlement, Growth and Development 1800-1900  William S. Lawyer, Editor. Century Memorial Publishing Company, 1900

(P. 272)  The Chenango canal was authorized by an act of the legislature, February 23, 1833. The work of construction was begun the same year and was finished in 1837, at a total cost of $1,737,703. From Utica, the northern terminus, to the summit of the greatest elevation on its line, a series of seventy-six locks gave a rise of 706 feet; thence the canal descended 303 feet by thirty-eight locks to the southern terminus at the junction of the Susquehanna and Chenango rivers in Binghamton.     The feed supply was obtained from the elevated water bodies of southern Madison county, and were Madison brook, Woodman’s pond, Leland’s pond, Bradley’s brook, Hatch’s lake and Eaton brook reservoir. The length of the canal was ninety-seven miles, and of its feeders, thirteen and three-fourths miles. The greatest altitude above tide water was at Bouckville, the elevation being 1,128 feet.

    The old canal is now a thing of the past, but during g the period of its existence it was one of the most important factors of our village history and in a hundred ways it contributed to municipal growth and prosperity. The section between Chenango Forks and Binghamton was last to be finished, and the earth excavated from the channel through our then village was used to fill Court street between the canal bridge and Water street.

    On May 6, 1837, a canal boat arrived in Binghamton, having made a trip from Crooked Lake (now Lake Keuka) via Crooked Lake canal, Seneca Lake, and the Seneca, Erie and Chenango canals to this village. On this memorable occasion, according to the published account in the Broome County Republican at the time, there was “considerable rejoicing and some powder burnt.” Indeed, the celebration was continued several days, for never before in our history has such a gigantic enterprise been carried to a successful end.

        The first boat to leave this port was that fitted out by Deacon Wattles, a worthy resident of the town of Chenango, who was about to take his departure for the West. His craft was built on the Chenango river, above the village, and thence, with a cargo of household goods, the good deacon and his family floated down the river to the outlet lock, where his boat entered the canal.

(P.  273.) From the time of the completion of the canal to the time when the New York and Erie railroad was opened for traffic the former was the principal avenue of commercial intercourse with the markets of the East and West. Previous to that time all importations for domestic use were transported  from the commercial centers overland by team and wagons, but when the canal opened the old custom was discontinued. One of the first families tor each the village by the new route was that of Samuel H.P. Hall, on whose arrival the opening celebration was still in progress.

    Hardly a vestige of the old canal is now visible within the city limits, except the ill-defined outline east and north of the Chenango street crossing. Its general course through the city was on the line of State street, which is laid out on the “filled-in” canal bed. From Susquehanna street to Chenango street, 

State street is on the exact line of the canal.

    As has been stated, a stone lock was constructed on the point where the canal discharged into the river. The next lock was about in the rear of the brewery property on Collier street, on the south side of Evans’ basin. Another was about opposite or a little above the Westcott building on State street.    

    Still farther up was the well known “upper level,” the most popular skating place in the village. This stretch extended from the lock mentioned to the famous “one-horse grocery,” which stood just south of the Bevier street crossing. The lower level, in common parlance among boys of the period, was between Court street and the lock on the south side of Evans’ basin.

    The basin itself was a favored spot for the pastimes of youth, and also a busy locality during the boating season, from May to December.  It extended from the west curb line of State street east along the south line of Hawley street to about the west wall of Bartlett & Co.’s main building; thence south between these lines to the brewery property. Its main use was for turning and loading boats, and otherwise it served many and valuable purposes not the least of which was a skating ground for the academy pupils in particular and the whole townsfolk in general.

    The Evans’ warehouse and lime-kiln were on the east side of the basin; the brewery and a lumber yard on the south; Hull’s spoke and hub factory and one or two other industries on then west; the Collier mill and the foundry on the north, besides lesser business interests scattered over the locality.

    The basin above Henry street was of less size, yet was in the center of an equally busy locality during the boating season and particularly (P. 274) so previous to the burning of the Weed & Ayers steam mill and adjoining buildings. Later on several minor industries were maintained in the vicinity, one of the largest of which was the Mather line-kiln, where a poor  old darker, whom we all knew only as “Jeff,” was burned to death.

    But on these scenes we cannot dwell, notwithstanding the many interesting reminiscences which are associated with the history of the Chenango canal. It was a noted thoroughfare for trade and traffic during the period of its operation and was perhaps productive of as much good in our village as any of its early institutions. While the rivers were important auxiliaries during the lumbering and rafting period, the canal at the same time acquired a certain prominence in that industry.

    The Susquehanna carried both lumber and logs to markets along the river while the canal boats transported lumber to both eastern and western markets. In 1840 Christopher Eldredge, General Waterman, Col. Lewis, John D. Smith and Lewis Seymour shipped four million feet of lumber to market over the canal route alone, while like outposts were in the same manner marketed during the years when that industry was at its height.

    The pioneer of the general shipping and forwarding business on the canal in this village was Charles McKinney, who, by his energy and thrift, accumulated a fortune. In 1851 he began shipping coal and for years carried on a large business. His example was followed by other enterprising men, and for at least twenty-five years Binghamton was a shipping point of much importance on the canal. 

    On April 18, 1838, the legislature passed an act to extend the Chenango canal from its terminus at Binghamton to the state line near Tioga Point, (Athens) at the terminus of the North Branch canal of Pennsylvania. More than twenty-five years elapsed, however, before anything was done in the matter of extension, and then under new legislation. The next act authorizing an extension was passed April 15, 1864, and appropriated $500,000 for the work. Further appropriations were made as follows: $200,000 in 1869; $200,000 in 1870; $175,000 in 1871 and $120,000 in 1872. In all, nearly $1,250,000 were appropriated - and wasted - in this fruitless undertaking. 

    The scheme contemplated a change in the route through the city by following the general course of Brandywine creek from a point above Chenango street to the mouth of the creek at the Susquehanna river. It was not proposed (P. 275) to immediately abandoned  that that portion of the canal which passed through the business part of the city. The waters of the Susquehanna were to be made more sluggish and deep by raising the Rockbottom dam, while at the south end of the dam the extension on the south side of the river was to begin. 

    The river itself was to serve the double purpose of a canal and feeder for the extension, and for this purpose the dam was raised about two feet. This work was done in the summer of 1871, but not one boat was ever run into the canal south of the river. The mere act of raising the dam would presumably increase the water power capacity of the mills on the north side of the river, but a contrary result was asserted. Riparian owners also claimed, and were awarded, excessive damages, whereas in fact little of any real injury resulted from raising the dam.

   In due time the canal extension was substantially completed, the appropriations were exhausted, and our city was benefited by the project only to the extent that business interests were temporarily advanced  by the increased trade enjoyed by our merchants. Land owners, through whose premises the extension was constructed, were compensated according to the damages suffered by each, but ultimately they were again possessed of their lands under acts of the legislature abandoning the canal.

    While the work of canal construction was in progress railroad companies were constantly extending their lines, and new corporations at the same  time were adding to the number of roads crossing the state in every possible direction. The completion of the Utica, Chenango & Susquehanna Valley road worked the downfall of the Chenango canal so far as the latter was a factor in the carrying trade between this city and the New York Central road which almost paralleled the Erie canal.

    By the canal route from three to four days were required to complete a freight boat trip from this city to Utica, while by rail, at about the same expense, the distance could be covered in as many hours. The more rapid means of travel and transportation proved preferable to businessmen throughout the state, hence in 1872 (Ed.: This is an error. It was closed November 5, 1876) the Chenango canal was abandoned; and that before the extension to Oswego was fully completed.

    The village of Binghamton was indeed a place of busy activity during the boating season away back in the forties and fifties, when the canal had no competitor in the carrying trade except the New York and Erie railroad, and it seemed wrong to close this well traveled thoroughfare which had served our business interests so well. Throughout the (P. 276) length of the village, from the Point to the Chenango street bridge, the canal banks on both sides were busy places and many of our best industries prospered under the fortunate conditions then existing; the inconveniences were few while the benefits were many.

    Originally, on the principal east and west streets, Court, Henry and Hawley, the canal was crossed on bridges elevated several feet above grade in order that canal boats and horses might  pass under them, but between 1865  and 1869 the legislature authorized the removal of the raised structures and the erection of modern swing bridges. The bridge on Court street was of iron, and was built in 1870, to the full width of the street.

    By an act of the legislature, passed May 20, 1872, the city was authorized to use (after September) for a public street that portion of the canal between the south line of Susquehanna street and the north line of Prospect avenue; and by an act passed June 4, 1878, the use of the entire canal within the city limiteds was authorized for street purposes. The Chenango canal was permanently closed in 1875 (Ed., error, closed 1876. Officially abandoned May 1, 1878).  During the period of its operation the collectors at Binghamton were as follows:

   Erasmus D. Robinson, appointed Feb. 22, 1837, and reappointed March 13, 1838; William Clook, March 14, 1829, Feb. 25, 1840 and Feb. 10, 1841; Giles Orcutt, March 10, 1842, and March 20, 1843; Joseph Congdon, March 1, 1844, and Feb. 18, 1845; William E. Abbott, Feb. 13, 1846, and April 19, 1847; Henry W. Shipman, Feb. 8, 1848, Feb. 9, 1849, Feb. 20, 1850, and Feb. 5, 1851; John H. Smith, Feb. 5, 1852, and Feb. 19, 1853; Hamden K. Pratt, Jan. 20, 1854, and Feb. 21, 1855; Patrick H. Drake, Jan. 22, 1856, and Feb. 29, 1857; Charles Davis, March 8, 1858, and March 3, 1859; Benjamin De Voe, March 8, 1860, March 14m 1861, Feb. 2, 1862, Feb. 4, 1863, Jan. 27, 1864, Feb. 25, 1865, Jan. 23, 1866, and Feb. 6, 1867; Ezra F. Davis, March 17, 1868; Edward H. Freeman, March 10, 1869; Fred M. Abbott, March 25, 1870; George L. Lawyer, Jan. 27, 1871; Elias Conklin, Jan. 24, 1872, and Jan. 21, 1873; James O’Brien, Jan. 29, 1874 and Feb. 5, 1875.

Exchange Hotel was located at 6 Main St.  in Binghamton in 1855. At left is bridge over the Chenango Canal.

Binghamton Press

May 25, 2016

Canal bridge was unfunded mandate, but worked

Gerald Smith, Correspondent

    We have heard the phrase countless times in New York state — unfunded mandates.

     In today’s society, rising costs of health care, business regulations and minimum wages bring cries that the government is forcing changes without providing the funds to cover those changes. While the changes are often necessary, it seems as if the government issues “edicts” without caring how a locality will pay for those items.

    If you think this is a modern issue, think again. In the 1830s, such an unfunded mandate came to the new village of Binghamton. When state government officials approved the construction of the Chenango Canal along a route following the Chenango River, they realized this construction also would require the building of bridges to allow pedestrian and vehicular traffic to flow from one side of the land, next to the canal, to the other side of that canal.

    The 97-mile-long man-made waterway snaked from Utica in the north to Binghamton in the south. Along the route of that waterway, 162 bridges were built to accommodate the residents, their vehicles and their livestock. These small cross-over bridges were built in farm pastures to allow cows, horses and other animals, as well as the farmers, to move from one part of a pasture to another.

    In the villages along the way, smaller truss bridges connected the roads of the town to allow traffic to continue while packet boats to make their way through the locks of the canal to the next stop. The bridges were not just a means of getting from one side to another, but also offered a place for people to watch the goings-on below. It was especially exciting for children to watch. Unfortunately, some of those children had the habit of dropping rocks into the canal bed below to watch what would happen. In some cases, those rocks would hit the passengers and crews of the packet boats.

The old Court Street bridge over the Chenango Canal in Binghamton in 1866. Building shown is the famous Sisson Brothers and Weldon Co. building – the area’s first department store that opened that year. (Photo: Broome County Historical Society) 

  In Binghamton, the situation became more complex when the canal construction entered the downtown area. Evans Basin, a pulloff for packet boats, was just a short distance south of Court Street. New businesses were being located next to the canal to take advantage of the new transportation system. Court Street was a growing area, and the traffic of people and wagons meant a bridge had to be built over the canal (which is today State Street).

   An iron bridge using the Whipple truss system was completed at the same time that the canal opened in 1837. Three years of canal construction led to the moment when packet boats could flow freely along the route, ending at the southern terminus in Binghamton. On that opening day, the residents of the village could gather on that new single-span bridge to watch as progress was being made.

    But one problem remained — the state officials complained about the bridge in Binghamton. They realized that one span would not be sufficiently safe to handle what was going to be increased traffic in the town. So, they did what government has done for many years — they told them the bridge would have to be fixed by adding a second lane. That way, traffic could pass in both directions at the same time, and it would provide safety to the citizens.

    Actually, they were right that the bridge needed to be wider, but the issue was not that a second span would have to be added. No, it was that the state told the local officials that the people of Binghamton would have to pay for it. After some inevitable squabbling, the second lane was added to the bridge at local expense.

Despite the fact that this was an unfunded mandate from the state, the bridge was a success. Its simple, efficient design was in place for the entire time of the existence the canal in Binghamton. When the canal downtown closed in 1874 (the entire canal was closed in 1878), the two-lane bridge came down as dirt filled the now-abandoned waterway.

The Chenango Canal, as it passed Evans Basin toward its southern terminus. In the foreground is the Blanchard  And Bartlett Planing Mill where rough cut timber was processed into finished lumber. 

(Photo: Broome County Historical Society)