Canal Law Handout
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Law Office of Laura E. Ayers, Esq. 434 Main Street, P.O. Box 237 Schoharie, NY 12157 www.lauraayerslaw.com Canal Law Handout I. History and Background: 45 minutes a. Early Transportation • Roads were in poor condition, no funding to create roads • Waterways were not continuous • Appalachian mountains were a barrier 400 miles from the coast • Turnpikes were dusty in summer, impassible in spring due to mud, dangerous b. Post Revolutionary War Transportation • Bridgewater Canal in England led to a rush of canal building across Europe. • Often considered to be the first "true" canal, it required the construction of an aqueduct to cross the River Irwell, one of the first of its kind. Its success helped inspire a period of intense canal building, known as "canal mania". c. Establishing Routes for the Canals • George Washington wanted to turn the Potomac River into a navigable link to the west. Resulted in Patowmack Canal. By 1788 Washington's Potomac Company was successful in constructing five locks which took boats 4,500 feet (1,400 m) past the Potomac Great Falls • in 1784 NYS legislature was presented with the idea to create a canal through the Mohawk Valley to lake Ontario, but it failed to gain support • The Mohawk and Hudson valleys form the only cut across the Appalachians north of Alabama, allowing a water route from New York City in the south to Lakes Ontario and Erie in the west. d. Promoting the Canal • Christopher Colles presented the idea to the legislature in 1784 having surveyed the route • Gouverneur Morris and Elkanah Watson were other early proponents of a canal along the Mohawk. Their efforts led to the creation of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company (which took the first steps to improve navigation on the Mohawk), but the company proved that private financing was insufficient. • In 1798 the Niagara Canal Company was incorporated. • Jesse Hawley and Joseph Ellicott (Holland Land Company) pressed for the creation of the canal along the Mohawk River valley e. Authorization for the Erie Canal • President Jefferson rejected the proposal because it would be too expensive © Laura E. Ayers 1 Law Office of Laura E. Ayers, Esq. 434 Main Street, P.O. Box 237 Schoharie, NY 12157 www.lauraayerslaw.com • Governor DeWitt Clinton of NY obtained approval from the NYS legislature • The Erie Canal began construction in 1817 in Rome NY and was completed eight years later at a cost of $7 million • James Geddes and Benjamin Wright, laid out the route • Canvass White an amateur engineer studied the canal system in Britain at his own expense • Nathan Roberts was a mathematics teacher and land speculator. • Yet these men "carried the Erie Canal up the Niagara escarpment at Lockport, maneuvered it onto a towering embankment to cross over Irondequoit Creek, spanned the Genesee River on an awesome aqueduct, and carved a route for it out of the solid rock between Little Falls and Schenectady—and all of those venturesome designs worked precisely as planned". • 363 Miles long, 40 feet wide, 4 feet deep • within 15 years NY became the biggest port in the Country moving greater tonnages than Boston, Baltimore and New Orleans combined. • Every major city in the state, except Binghamton and Elmira falls along the trade route of the canal • 80% of the population of upstate NY still lives within 25 miles of the canal path • The Canal was enlarged several times in 1835, 1895 and 1903 • Between 1905 and 1918 new techniques were used to “canalize” the rivers and lakes that the original man made canal had been built to avoid. Barge Canal f. Acquisition Methods used • Chapter 262 of the Laws of 1817 was “An Act respecting the navigable communications between the great western and northern lakes and the Atlantic Ocean” • Section III: “That it shall and may be lawful for the said canal commissioners, and each of them, by themselves and by any and every superintendant, agent, engineer employed by them, to enter upon, take possession of and use all and singular any lands, waters and streams necessary for the prosecution of the improvements intended by this act….and that in case any lands waters or streams taken and appropriated for any of the purposes aforesaid shall not be given or granted to the people of the state, it shall be the duty of the canal commissioners … to make an application to justices of the supreme court….to appoint appraisers ….to make a just and equitable estimate and appraisal of the loss and damage, if any , over © Laura E. Ayers 2 Law Office of Laura E. Ayers, Esq. 434 Main Street, P.O. Box 237 Schoharie, NY 12157 www.lauraayerslaw.com and above the benefit and advantage to the respective owners and proprietors or parties interested in the premises so required for the purposes aforesaid by and in consequence of making and constructing any of the works aforesaid…. Shall make regular entries of their determination and appraisal and with an apt and sufficient description of the several premises appropriated for the purposes aforesaid in a book or books to be provided and kept by the canal commissioners…and the fee simple of the premises so appropriated shall be vested in the people of the state.” 1. What interest does the state have in those portions of the canal that were given or granted? Easement or Fee? Look to the grant or conveyance. 2. No maps required, just an apt description where eminent domain had to be used vs. voluntary grant “As to the quantity of estate acquired by the state, I entertain no doubt that it is a fee simple. The language employed is so broad as to require a fee simple. The lands are to be deemed the property of the state, and that excludes the idea that any one else is to retain a property in them. That under such a state of the title, the lands would not revert upon the abandonment of their use for the purpose of a canal, and that such a title might be acquired under the right of eminent domain, notwithstanding the possibility that the lands might cease to be used for the purpose for which they were originally taken.” Rexford v. Knight, 11 N.Y. 308 (1854) [Interpreting the state’s use of lands for the canal as fee appropriation since 1825 when there was no map entered into evidence based only on language of statute and fact of continuous use since 1825.] “The claim for compensation, it is said cannot well precede the appropriation of the property; and even if the Legislature had omitted to make proper provision, that does not prevent the just claim of the owner for compensation. These cases settle the right of the Commissioners to enter upon private property and appropriate it to public use without being trespassers, which is all that is necessary to the defendants' justification in this case; and they seem to obviate the difficulty of the learned judge at the circuit. The language of the Constitution is: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Any law which should authorize private property to be taken for public use, and should at the same time direct that no compensation should be allowed for it, would be unconstitutional; but according to the preceding cases, a law which authorizes such appropriation, and merely omits to provide the mode of making such compensation, is not unconstitutional.” Wheelock v. Young, 4 Wend. 647 (1830). [Plaintiff’s challenged the constitutionality of the statute because it allowed a taking to occur before compensation and did not fix the mode of compensation where contractors appropriated gravel from Plaintiff’s lands for the canal] “Proceedings were instituted before the canal board by which these lands were appropriated for the use of the Chenango canal, and an appraisal was had by the canal appraisers, pursuant to statute, and the damages were appraised at $ 2,500, and it was determined that the benefits conferred by the construction of the canal upon the owners of the property were greater than the damages sustained by them by the appropriation of the land for canal purposes, and no damages, over and above said benefits, were appraised to the owners of the land.” Whitney v. State, 96 N.Y. 240 (1884) [Example where compensation to landowner was Zero because the canal was deemed a benefit] • Section IV: “… all interest and title, (if any) in law and equity of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company should be vested in the people of this state.” 1. Western Inland Lock Navigation Company damage assessments and reimbursement, 1820 from State Archives. © Laura E. Ayers 3 Law Office of Laura E. Ayers, Esq. 434 Main Street, P.O. Box 237 Schoharie, NY 12157 www.lauraayerslaw.com Records documenting this company's claims for damages include a report of the appraisers on damages; resolution of the company's board of directors authorizing Barent Bleecker to receive award from the State, with his receipt for $91,616; Thomas Eddy's account of expense of appraisement; and a copy of legislative committee report on the company's petition. A law of 1817 (Chapter 262) authorized the Canal Commissioners to appropriate the company's property and to apply to the Supreme Court to appoint appraisers to assess damages to the property. The law authorized reimbursement for the damages to be paid from the Canal Fund. Chapter 451 of the Laws of 1837 §6. “The original maps and canals of this state which purport to have been made and completed under and in virtue of the first article of title nine chapter nine of the first part of the Revised Statutes, which said maps are now filed in the office of the comptroller; and such maps of said canals as hereafter shall be made, completed approved, signed certified and filed under and in virtue of the act referred to, are hereby declared to be presumptive evidence that the lands indicated on said maps as belonging to the state, having been taken and appropriated by the state as an for the canals; and a transcript from any such maps certified as required by the act referred to , shall be of equal effect with the original.” “The point that the title of the State was not sufficiently shown is not well taken.