MEMORIAL 
 
 OF 'THK 
 
 DELAWARE AWi);;:H;tiDil|N 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MARCH, 1852. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 JOHN M. ELLIOTT, PRINTER, 
 133 Water Street. 
 
TO THE HONORABLE THE %E^tSLATURE OF 
 THE STATE oVnEW ^6^4 ;, ; , 
 
 The Memorial of the President, Manager^, ^i^id Company of 
 the Delaware and Hudson Caii?4/0Q™P^iiy> lespectfully 
 represents, " " V ^ 
 
 That at an early day in the session of your honGrabl&body, a re- 
 solution was passed in the Assembly, at the instance of one of 
 its members, for the appointment of a committee to inquire whe- 
 ther this Company had violated its charter by the enlargement 
 of its canal. The resolution was referred to the Commitcee on 
 Canals. 
 
 The Company, through its President, by letter addressed 
 to the chairman of that committee, promptly reported itself 
 ready to enter upon the inquiry, and meet the charge imputed 
 in the resolution, if, in the opinion of the committee, it was 
 one calling for, and to be determined by, legislative inquiry. 
 The chairman replied, that should charges be presented to 
 the committee, which, in its judgment, required legislative in- 
 quiry, the Company would be informed of it, and an oppor- 
 tunity afforded to answer them. At a subsequent time the 
 committee reported the resolution back to the House, with a 
 request to be discharged from the further consideration of the 
 same. Tliis was ordered, but the resolution was then referred 
 to a select committee. 
 
 Again, your memorialists, by their President, tendered 
 themselves ready to meet and to answer the charge imputed in 
 the resolution ; and to that end he attended two meetings of 
 the committee. At these meetings, sundry exj)arte affidavits 
 were presented by the mover of the resolution. On behalf of 
 your memorialists, objection was made to the reception of 
 these affidavits, as being entirely irrelevant to the inquiry be- 
 fore the committee, which was purely legal in its character ; 
 and because also if the subject matter of the affidavits was to 
 be gone into, it was the undoubted right of your memorialists, 
 according to all settled rules of evidence, that the parties mak- 
 ing the affidavits should be adduced and subjected to a cross- 
 examination, as a test of their truth, and an opportunity also 
 given to your memorialists to present rebutting testimony, 
 which they could, and would have done, through witnesses 
 
4 
 
 they had in attendance in the committee room, and by whom 
 every material averment made in these ex^arte affidavits 
 would have beep .disproved. 
 
 The committeeVhevVever., deemed it expedient to permit 
 the e^^'w^y? davits offei t^d by the complainant to be read, 
 with th^3 reservaiion, a's your memoriahsts understood, that if 
 they did iiot ccifiiain matter pertinent to the inquiry with which 
 the c6mn)ittee was'/; harmed, the rights and interest of the 
 Company shoitld riat" tliereby be prejudiced ; and if they did 
 contain such matter, that an opportunity should be afforded to 
 the Company, fully to answer, explain or rebut by testimony 
 this ex])arte shewing. After hearing and duly considering 
 the exparte affidavits offered, and all that the complainant had 
 further to submit by himself or his counsel, the committee de- 
 cided that it was unnecessary for your memorialists to pre- 
 sent any testimony by way of answer to the exj)arte shewing 
 of the complainant, and the witnesses then in attendance, on 
 behalf of the Company, were dismissed without examination. 
 
 From this decision of the committee, your memorialists 
 heard of no dissent by any member of it ; and they respect- 
 fully submit, that they could not understand it in any other 
 way, than as an unconditional and unqualified ruling out of the 
 case, of all the exjparte matter presented by the complainant, 
 as impertinent to the inquiry before the committee, and which 
 could not properly be used to the prejudice of the Company, 
 in the report which was to be presented to the House in an- 
 swer to that inquiry. In accordance with these views, your 
 memorialists understood the report of the committee to have 
 been made. 
 
 But they have seen, with much surprise, a minority report 
 made by one member of the Committee, which they think 
 does gross injustice to your memoriahsts, and subjects them to 
 great misconstruction by your honorable body and the pubhc 
 in general. That report is not only based mainly on these 
 exparte affidavits, ( the truth of which your memorialists had 
 no opportunity to test by a cross-examination, nor to refute by 
 the testimony of witnesses in actual attendance, ) but the ex- 
 parte affidavits themselves are actually incorporated in, made 
 part of, and printed with the minority report, whereby your 
 memorialists are condemned unheard. In addition to this, 
 an extract from the opinion of a professional gentleman is 
 embodied in the minority report in affirmance of it, without 
 any reference or allusion to the fact that your memoriahsts. 
 
5 
 
 were ready to submit to the committeej the opinions of two> 
 professional men, of at least equal eminence and authority 
 with the one whose opinion is thus quoted, and l^fpsf- di- 
 rect opposition to it. One of these opinions was handed to the 
 committee, and the other would have been, had the Company 
 been called upon for a defence. But what is yet more stri- 
 king is, that in the minority report, no reference or al- 
 lusion is made to the still more significant fact, which was 
 stated to the committee, that there had been at least two, if 
 not three, judicial decisions in as many separate suits, ( in one 
 of which, the mover of the resolution of inquiry was plain- 
 tiff, ) all affirming the right of your memorialists to enlarge 
 their canal, under the provisions of the charter. 
 
 Your memoriahsts are therefore utterly unable to perceive 
 how the structure or conclusion of this minority report can be 
 recconciled with fair and just deahng toward them, (the honor- 
 able member making it, never having heard their defence, ) 
 unless indeed it be deemed right to arraign a party, try him 
 by exparte testimony, shut out his defence, and then con- 
 demn him. Your memorialists do therefore respectfully re- 
 monstrate against the minority report as erroneous in its matter 
 and conclusion, as unjust and unfair toward your memorialists, 
 and as placing them in a false position before your honorable 
 body and the public. 
 
 In reference to the exparte affidavits themselves, your 
 memorialists beg leave to remark, that one of them is made 
 by the honorable member who moved the resolution of inquiry, 
 and whose assumed " private griefs" have heretofore been the 
 subject of judicial examination. In that, the appropriate tri- 
 bunal to pass upon them, the decision was against him. Yet 
 even now, within a few days past, while avaihng himself of 
 his position as a member of your honorable body, to arraign 
 and prejudice your memorialists on exjparte shewing, he has 
 notified them that he will again harass and annoy them by vexa- 
 tious suits, unless his unreasonable and unfounded demands 
 are complied with ; notwithstanding he has heretofore, by 
 written agreement, for an expressed and received considera- 
 tion, consented to the enlargement of the canal through his 
 lands. 
 
 Another of these exjparte affidavits is made by a person,, 
 who has now a suit pending against the Company for alledged. 
 grievances, but who not being willing to rely on the justice or; 
 equity of his case, desires to gain strength and increase his. 
 
6 
 
 ©hance of success by exciting the public mind, and, if possi- 
 ble, by making the State directly or indirectly a party thereto. 
 These appeals to the Legislature are also less expensive than 
 judicial proceedings, and are probably stimulated by the hop© 
 that your memorialists will thereby be intimidated into a com- 
 pHance with demands which courts of justice would not sus- 
 tain. 
 
 It is with these hopes and these objects in view, as your 
 rpemorialists' believe, that this complaint has been made, and 
 these exjm'te afljdavits have been arrayed against the Com- 
 pany. They have been gotten up by one or two designing 
 individuals to whom the others have turned a credulous ear ; 
 and the same parties, as your memoriahsts are informed, are 
 now circulating, for signature, petitions to your honorable 
 body against your memorialists, containing matter similar to 
 that found in the affidavits, and in furtherance of the object for 
 w^hich they were prepared. 
 
 Your memorialists distinctly and unequivocally deny the 
 truth of the allegations contained both in the affidavits and the 
 petitions refered to. Your memorialists have, in no instance, 
 occupied the land of any person without his consent first had 
 on specified terms, or faihng to obtain that, as has been the 
 fact in but two or at most three cases, your memoriahsts have, 
 before such occupation, given ample security, in the manner 
 prescribed by the charter,, for the payment of any damages 
 that might be awarded to the party s^^vithholding his consent. 
 
 Nor have your memoriahsts ever exceeded the limit pre- 
 scribed by law in relation to tolls on the canal. Whether the 
 rate charged has been reasonable or not, your honorable body 
 may infer from th.e fact, that in no one year has the aggregate 
 amount of toll received from the entire country through 
 which the canal hasbeeu constructed in this State, exceeded 
 $35,000 ; the length of that portion of the canal being eigh- 
 ty-four miles, its cost over $4,000,000, and the expense of its re- 
 pairs, supervision and taxation being over $100,000 per annum. 
 
 In relation to the new piece of canal constructed at High 
 Falls, Ulster county, your memorialists would remark, that 
 its entire length is not over one mile and a half, its distance 
 at the widest place from the old line is but 1804 feet ; it is 
 constructed in its entire length on land acquired by the Com- 
 pany by the voluntary consent or fair purchase of the former 
 owner ; or (as prescribed in the charter,) for consideration 
 pa,id according to the awa.rd of a jury of appraisei:s. The 
 
7 
 
 consttutitiOn of this new piece of canal beqame necessary, be- 
 cause of great difficulty in the location ucd a-b-solute insecuri^ 
 ty of the locks, and also of sorae.part of the c-.aitd mi ihe old 
 line. The old line of canal is'stiH ;in'exi^tei?c6, and raay be 
 used by any person who desires to, do s6 ; ^nd this new piece 
 of work is really a "side cut qt :iaterii\ canal,". conr<ected 
 with a basin at one end, and at the other with iho old line of 
 canal. Its construction as such, is expressly 'mithorized by 
 the 8th section of the charter of the Company, to say nothing 
 of the great difficulty and hazard of " maintaining" uninter- 
 rupted navigation on the old line, which has always been 
 •deemed highly insecure. 
 
 Your memorialists might thus proceed to answer and re- 
 fute in detail, each and every allegation contained in the affida- 
 vits and petitions arrayed against them ; for they are ahke 
 unfounded and untrue. They will not, however, further oc- 
 cupy the time of your honorable body in that way. But they 
 respectfully submit that all of these matters are purely and en- 
 tirely private and not public in their nature ; that the cog- 
 nizance of them belongs appropriately and exclusively to the 
 judiciary ; and before that tribunal your memorialists are 
 ready, willing, and able, to meet, to answer, and to disprove, 
 the allegations made against them, if the issue is permitted to 
 stand on its merits, and to be decided by regular, customary, 
 unbiassed judicial action. This the agitators well know, and 
 hence they seek to forestall public opinion, and also invoke 
 the overshadowing influence of legislative intervention in their 
 behalf. Against such a course, your memorialists respect- 
 fully remonstrate, as contrary to the theory, spirit, and prac- 
 tice of our government, and the estabhshed law of the land. 
 
 In reference to the legal question involved in the resolution 
 referred to the committee, your memorialists respectfully so^ 
 licit the attention of your honorable body to a letter addressed 
 by the President of the Company to the chairman, on the 
 10th day of February, a copy of which is herewith submittedi 
 
 By order of the Board of Managers. 
 
 JOHN WURTS, FresidenU 
 
 March 10, 1852. 
 
Office pi-j vim Delaware and Hudson ) 
 Canal Company. ) 
 
 ; " ' New YorJcy Feb. 10, 1852. 
 
 Hon. R. B. "yAN Valkenburgh, 
 Chairman^ &fc. 
 
 Sir, — As I had not an opportunity to present to yourself or 
 the Committee my views in regard to the inquiry with which 
 it is charged, I take the hberty to submit them in the form of 
 a letter with as much brevity as possible. 
 
 I have already said that I regard the question raised by the 
 resolution referred to the Committee as one purely legal, belong- 
 ing as it seems to me, to the judiciary rather than the Legislature. 
 Without, however, now taking any exception to legislative 
 inquiry, I would remark, that the answer to the inquiry, wher- 
 ever made, must depend on a proper construction of the act 
 by which the Company was incorporated. 
 
 Before proceeding to an examination of the act, I beg 
 leave respectfully to suggest one or two considerations in re- 
 lation to the rule that should guide us in the interpretation of 
 this act. 
 
 There are some principles of construction apphcable alike 
 to legislative grants and private deeds, which have become set- 
 tled maxims in the law with which you are doubtless famihar, 
 but I desire to bring them to the notice of the Committee, as 
 bearing on the matter before it. 
 
 The construction of a statute, like the operation of a devise, 
 depends upon the apparent intention of the maker to be col- 
 lected either from its particular provision, or the general con- 
 text. Dwraris on Statutes, p. 39. Every statute ought to 
 be construed, not according to the letter, but according to the 
 meaning, for qui haeret in litera haeret in cortice. 11 R. 
 p. 73. 
 
 A thing which is within the intention of the makers of a 
 statute is as much within the statute, as if it were within the 
 letter. Zouch vs. Stowell Plowden, 366. ' 
 
 Again, in Rep. p. 52, the principle is recognized that 
 to whomsoever any one grants a thing, he is supposed to 
 grant that also without which the thing cannot exist. 
 
That this maxim is applicable to corporations, is shown by 
 the case of Rex vs. Westwood, 7 Bingham 70, where it is 
 said that when the Crown creates a corporation, it grants to 
 it, by implication, all powers that are necessary for carrying 
 into effect the object for which it was created. 
 
 Now, to apply these principles to the case or question un-^ 
 der consideration : the Delaware and Hudson Canal Com- 
 pany was incorporated on the 23d April, 1823, and the Le- 
 gislature by which the act was passed, has not left us in doubt 
 as to what was the object it intended to accompHsh by the 
 enactment. It thought proper to declare that object and in- 
 tent, in a preamble in which both are fully and distinctly 
 avowed as follows : — 
 
 " Whereas, it is desirable that a channel should be opened 
 through which the City of New York and other parts of the 
 State may receive a siipidy of stone coal, which is found in 
 the interior of the State of Pennsylvania : And whereas, there 
 is a large body of this valuable article belonging to Maurice 
 Wurts, of the said State of Pennsylvania, situated near the 
 head waters of the river Lackawaxen, which empties into the 
 river Delaware, opposite the county of Sullivan ; and the 
 Legislature of that State has recently passed an act authorizing 
 the abovenamed individual to improve the navigation of the 
 said river : And whereas, it is represented that a water com- 
 munication can be formed between the rivers Delaware and 
 Hudson, through the counties of Orange, Sullivan, and Ulster, or 
 some one or more of them, so ih^i a supply of this coal may be 
 had from the source aforesaid ; and a number of the citizens 
 of this State have petitioned the Legislature to incorporate a 
 Company for the purpose of making such a communication 
 between the said rivers ; therefore, be it enacted," &c. 
 
 It is the province of a preamble to set forth the views and 
 motives, the object and intent of the Legislature, in the enact- 
 ment to which it is affixed, and this is most clearly and effec- 
 tually done by this preamble. 
 
 The leading, indeed I may say, the only motive for the 
 act, was to obtain a supply of coal for the city and other parts 
 of the State of New York. This, and nothing less than this, was 
 the object and intent of the Legislature in the enactment; and 
 because a large body of this valuable article existed near the 
 head waters of the Lackawaxen river, and it was represented 
 that a water communication could be formed between it and 
 the Hudson, " so that a supply" of this coal might be had 
 
 2 
 
to 
 
 from that source, and the citizens of the State had petitioned 
 the Legislature to incorporate a Company for the purpose of 
 making such a communication, that is, one that would furnish 
 " a supply" of coal for the city and other parts of the State of 
 New York ; therefore, and to attain this desirable end, did 
 the Legislature of that day create the Delaware and Hudson 
 Canal Company. There can be no doubt that such was the 
 intent of the Legislature. It is so clearly and broadly ex- 
 pressed that it cannot be made plainer by argument. Shall the 
 statute have an interpretation which will carry out this intent, 
 or shall it be defeated by any vague doubts or suggestions en- 
 tirely at variance with the expressly avowed intent of the Le- 
 gislature ? Shall we depart from the established rules of con- 
 struction I have quoted, which declare that a statute ought to 
 be construed, not according to the letter, but according to the 
 meaning ; and that a thing which is within the intention of 
 the makers of a statute, is as much within the statute as if it 
 were within the letter ? I presume not. On the contrary, 
 I presume that these rules of interpretation will prevail and 
 sustain the legislative intent against the mere wording or let- 
 ter of the act, even if anything was there found at variance with 
 such intent. But do we find any such variance ? Not at all. 
 On the contrary, we find abundance in the enactment to sus- 
 tain and carry out the intent of the Legislature. 
 
 What powers, then, did the Legislature give to this Compa- 
 ny that was to be its instrument for opening a channel through 
 which the city and other parts of the State of New-York 
 might for the future receive a "supply" and nothing less than 
 a supply of coal, that important necessary of life ? Did the 
 Legislature fail to give the requisite powers to accomphsh the 
 avowed purpose for which it created the Company? Let us 
 see. 
 
 In the first place the Company was made perpetual, a 
 thing not very common in our legislation, and going far to 
 show that the Legislature intended to provide no temporary 
 or half way measure for the attainment of this important ob- 
 ject. In the next place, as you will see by the second sec- 
 tion of the act, the Company was authorized to enlarge its 
 capital stock " from time to time by new subscriptions, in 
 such manner and form as it might think proper, under the 
 same rules, regulations and penakies however as are or may 
 be imposed on the original subscribers, if such enlargement 
 shall be found necessary to fulfil the intention of this act." 
 
11 
 
 We have seen by the preamble what the intention of the 
 Legislature was in passing the act, and knowing that, it is 
 obvious how entirely in keeping and harmony with it is this 
 very unusual power given to the Company to enlarge, from 
 iime to time, its capital stock by new subscriptions, if such 
 enlargement was found necessary to fulfil the intention of the 
 <ict. 
 
 Here is a corporation created that is to exist durmg all 
 future time, charged with the duty and clothed with the power 
 to open a channel by which, for a period of course coexten- 
 sive with its own existence, a rapidly growing city and adjacent 
 country might receive " a supphf of fuel, than which, scarce- 
 ly any thing could be more essential to the continuance and 
 increase of'their prosperity. Now it was perfectly obvious 
 to the Legislature of that day, that such a channel as would 
 be adequate to a supply of the wants of the community then, 
 would before long cease to be so, in consequence of the rapid 
 increase of population and of the growth of the country. It 
 was known too, that to open a channel commensurate with the 
 then wants of the public, would, at that early day, be a work 
 of great magnitude for individual or associated enterprize. 
 It would have been useless, perhaps fatal to the project, to 
 have imposed on them the obligation to do more then than 
 the exigency of the day required. It would have been 
 equally useless, at variance with the object in view, and with- 
 out doubt fatal to the enterprize, to have withheld from its 
 authors, the power to expand and progress in their work with 
 the growth and expansion of the country that was to receive 
 through it a sujiply of fuel y In this state of things the 
 Legislature pursued a course that obviated the difficulty pre- 
 sented by either alternative. It incorporated the Company 
 with the declaration prefixed, that it intended thereby to pro- 
 vide for " a supply, of coal." It gave the Company power 
 to raise capital by subscriptions of stock for that purpose, and,, 
 deemed sufficient to opexi a channel adequate to a supply of 
 the wants of the comm-unity then, with express power to en- 
 large its capital stock from time to time by new subscriptions, 
 if such enlargement should be found necessary to fulfil the 
 intention of the act ; evidently intending and providing that 
 the works of the Company and their capacity to supply coal, 
 should expand with the growth of the country, at least to the 
 jextent of the avowed object of the act of incorporation, 
 whijch \^ras to prqvidQ for " a supply" of that article. 
 
This conclusion is sustained and confirmed by the fact that 
 the Legislature nowhere prescribes the dimensions of the 
 
 channel" or canal through which this " supply" of coal is 
 to be had ; but on the contrary, in the 8th section the Compa-. 
 ay is " empowered to make, construct and for ever maintain 
 31 canal or slackwater navigation of suitable width, depth and 
 dimensions, to be determined by said Corporation," &c.; and 
 m the 9th section, provision is made for " assuring to said 
 Corporation, all the lands, real estate, and waters requisite for 
 most economically constructing and maintaining said canal." 
 Here is power given to acquire all lands, real estate, and wa- 
 ters requisite to construct and for ever maintain a canal or 
 slackwater navigation of suitable width, depth and dimensions 
 to be determined by the Corporation. In the exercise of 
 this discretion as to width, depth and dimensions, they must 
 surely keep in view the avowed object of the Legislature in 
 creating the Company, which is to provide "a channel for a 
 supply of coal." They are not bound by the terms of the 
 act to provide a channel more than adequate at any time to 
 the attainment of that object. They have power given, and it 
 is their duty as well as their right, at all times, as far as physi- 
 cal means, (namely, land and w^ater,) will permit, to live up to 
 the intent of the Legislature in their creation, namely, to pro- 
 vide and for ever maintain an avenue of suitable width, depth, 
 and dimensions, to furnish a supply of coal. 
 
 In accordance with this exposition of the statute, and of the 
 views and intentions of its makers, has been the history of the 
 Company's action, and of the coal trade. The business of 
 the Company as a Canal and Coal Company commenced in 
 the year 1829, with locks 9 feet wide, and 76 feet long, and a 
 canal of four feet minimum depth of water, 32 feet wide on the 
 top water hne, and 20 feet at the bottom, navigated by boats av- 
 '^raging about 25 ton cargoes. But it has been improved and 
 enlarged from time to time, until it has now a minimum depth 
 of 5^ to 6 feet, with locks of 15 feet wide by 100 long, 
 and a top w^ater line of 48 feet, and 30 feet at the bottom, and 
 is navigable by boats averaging, during 1851, cargoes of about 
 1.05 tons, which will be increased during 1852. I beg leave 
 to correct my verbal statement from memory, before the Com- 
 mittee, by my present figures, where there is a variance be- 
 tween them. 
 
 And were not these alterations and improvements called 
 for by the progress and developement of the coal trade which 
 
13 
 
 have taken place since the year 1829 ? Look, if you please, 
 at the annexed table, exhibiting the Anthracite coal trade of 
 the country from 1820 to the present time, commencing in 
 1820 with 365 tons, reaching in 1829 from all sources, 
 112,683 tons, and increasing from year to year thereafter until 
 in 1851 it amounted to over 4,000,000 of tons. 
 
 ANTHRACITE COAL TRADE OF THE UNITED STATER 
 
 The following Table exliibits the qiiantiiv of Anthracite Coal sent to 
 market from tlie ditferent re^^ions iu Pennsylvania, from ihe 
 mencement of the Trade, in 1820, to 1851, inclusive 
 Annual Increase : 
 
 com- 
 toeether with the 
 
 Schuylkill 
 
 1820 
 1821 
 1822 
 1823 
 1824 
 1825 
 1826 
 1827 
 1828 
 1829 
 1830 
 
 mi 
 
 1832 
 1833 
 1834 
 1835 
 1836 
 183 
 18:i8 
 1839 
 1840 
 1841 
 1842 
 1813 
 1844 
 
 Lehigh. 
 
 6.500 
 16.76 
 31.360 
 47,284 
 79.973 
 89 984 
 81 ,8-54 
 209,271 
 252,971 
 226,692^ 
 339.508 
 432.015 
 523.152 
 433,875; 
 442,^1081 
 452 291; 
 584,692 
 540 892 
 t)77.295 
 839.934 
 1845 L0t53.796 
 1846! 1,237.002 
 1 847 i 1,583,374; 
 184811 652,835 1 
 
 1849 1,605,126, 
 
 1850 1 712.007: 
 
 1851 2.184 240 
 
 365 
 1,073 
 2.240 
 5,H23 
 9,541 
 28.393 
 31 280 
 32,074 
 30,232 
 25.110 
 41.750 
 40,966 
 70.000 
 123,000 
 106,244 
 131.250 
 148,2ir 
 223,902 
 213,615 
 221 .025 
 225.318 
 143,037 
 272,546 
 267.793 
 377,002 
 429,453 
 523,002 
 643,973 
 680,746 
 801.246 
 722 6 ^2 
 V8,:),296 
 
 7, COD 
 43.009 
 54.000 
 84.600 
 111.777 
 43,700 
 90,000 
 103.861 
 115,38' 
 78 20' 
 122,300 
 148.' 
 192.270 
 205.253 
 227,605 
 251.005 
 276.435 
 320,000i 
 3 8 203 
 437,500 
 454 240 
 543 353 
 788,495 
 
 Other 
 Regions. 
 
 305 
 1 073 
 2.240 
 5.823 
 9,541 
 34.893 
 48.047 
 63,434 
 77.516 
 112.083 
 174.734 
 r6.S20 
 363,871 
 487.748 
 376 636 
 560,758 
 6^2,45.8 
 681,476 
 739,293 
 819,327 
 865 414 
 958.899 
 .,108,001 
 1,263 539 
 
 1 331.669 
 
 2 023.052 
 2.943 992 
 2.962,303 
 3.069,238 
 3.242 541 
 3,254.321 
 4,377.130 
 
 Annual 
 Iriciease. 
 
 Increase m 
 each 5 
 years 
 
 Av. annual 
 delivery. 
 
 19,042 
 
 1,579,1 
 
 25,352 
 
 13. 154 
 
 15.837 
 
 14.082 
 
 34.567 1 335,978 
 
 62.6511 
 
 2,080; 
 
 187.051 
 123.877 
 decrease. 
 184 1-22 
 121,670 
 199,048 
 decrense. 
 
 80,034 
 
 46.087 
 
 9g'i485 
 149.102 
 155,538 
 368,130! 5,627.052 
 391.383 
 320.940 
 638.317 
 106.929 
 163,403 13,681,132 
 
 11.760j 
 1 1 92.809 1 
 
 3,683,283 
 
 Av. annual 
 incrr-ase 
 
 eai.li year 
 ovei the 
 
 iirrcedins. 
 
 3,809 
 
 67,194 
 
 315,961 
 
 1,165,504 
 
 13.438 
 
 82,139 
 
 85,769 
 
 2,736,226 
 
 314,144 
 
 The ratio of increase for the five years, ending in 1849, 
 over the previous 5 years, was nearly 135 per cent ; at this 
 rate the increased quantity of coal required to meet the de- 
 mand for the next 5 years would be over 18,000,000 tons, or 
 an increase over the present production of 3,693,905 tons per 
 annum. 
 
 Now, with these facts before us, can it be doubted that when 
 the legislative authority of the State of New-York granted 
 to the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company the right to 
 connect a coal field with a seaboard market by means of a 
 " canal," and to maintain that as a channel of communicatioa 
 
for ever, with the avowed intent in the act of thereby obtaining 
 a " supply of coal," with power also to enlarge its capital 
 stock from time tp time if such an enlargement should be 
 found necessary to fulfil such intent, can it be doubted, I say, 
 that the Legislature granted also the right of improving, re- 
 pairing and enlarging the canal, from time to time, ag should 
 be necessary to effectuate the object in view ? As mere mat- 
 ter of construction such an implication seems not only just 
 but unavoidable, especially when we bear in mind that the 
 canal was to be of suitable width, depth and dimensions, to be 
 determined by the Corporation. It was known, it must have 
 been known, that the canal would open up an almost wilder- 
 ness country and fill it with population ; that tt)wns and villla- 
 ges would spring up and manufactures be established in its 
 vicinity ; that increased capital, skill and facilides would be 
 employed in developing coal ; and that the markets of New- 
 York would continually expand with the increase of com- 
 merce, population and trade : and was it, could it be the 
 intention of the Legislature that the canal of 1829, adequate 
 as it was to the then condition of the country, should remain 
 and be the canal for all this increase of population and trade? 
 That whilst every thing around it was growing, it should be 
 condemned to dwarfish insignificance and uselessness, that 
 coal should abound at one end of it, and consumption call for it 
 at the other end, but that the canal, though designed to furnish 
 " a supply of this coal," should not be increased in capacity 
 beyond what it was in the very infancy of the coal trade, 
 although it was to be a channel for its transit ? Such a mode 
 of interpreting the legislative will would dishonor the in- 
 teUigence and public spirit that has always characterized the 
 State, and it does much better comport with her character as 
 well as the true spirit and intent of the act, to hold, not only 
 that the Company had the right, but that it was its duty so to 
 enlarge and qualify its c^nal as to accommodate all the 
 business, but especially all the coal business that should come 
 upon it. 
 
 Bear in mind also, that since the year 1829, j^n entire revp- 
 lution has taken place, not merely in the quantity of Anthra- 
 cite coal consumed, but in the cost of its producUon. While 
 it has become an element of civihzation, and enters largely 
 into the domestic economy, the manufacturing and the navi- 
 gation of the country, it is furnished on tide water at Httle if 
 ^ny mpre than h^lf of the price it commandeil in 1,829. Now 
 
15 
 
 had this canal ifemained of its original dimensions and capaci- 
 ty, it would long ago have been out of use for coal transpor- 
 tation because of the cost in small boats, and if not used for 
 that purpose, it must have gone to decay. The other business 
 on it would not have kept it in repair. And yet the act im- 
 poses heavy penalties on the Company if it shall neglect to 
 keep it in repair, as you tvill percfeive by the 17th section. 
 May it hot then avail itself of the only branch of trade or 
 business that was competent to that object, when in fact it was 
 the very trade and business for the accommodation of which 
 it was more especially designed by the L egislature ? It would 
 indeed be most extraordinary if it could not do so. 
 
 Such, Sir, are my views as to the interpretation of this act, 
 the powers conferred and the duties enjoined on the Company 
 by it. It would, as it seems to me, have failed in its duty, 
 disappointed the just expectations of the Legislature, and in- 
 curred, most likely, the consequences of a non-user of its fran- 
 chise, had it failed to come up to the object of its creation, by 
 opening, and maintaining a channel " thtough which the city 
 of New York, and other parts of the State, might receive a 
 supply of coal." 
 
 I deem it inexpedient and unnecessary to comment on the 
 affidavits submitted to the Committee, because I do not re- 
 gard them as at all pertinent to the inquiry before the Committee. 
 Were it worth while to do so, we would have no difficulty in 
 refuting all that is there imputed to the Company of an un- 
 worthy character, by the most indubitable testimony. I would 
 remark, however, that while the Company claims and believes 
 it has a right under its charter to improve and enlarge its canal 
 as it has done, it never has disclaimed or attempted to evade 
 responsibility for its acts. On the contrary, it clearly and dis- 
 tinctly avows, and has done so in all past times, its responsi- 
 bility under its charter to any one who may feel himself ag- 
 grieved by the enlargement, in the same manner and form 
 that it was responsible for the original making of the canaL 
 Nor has it on any occasion occupied the land of any one 
 against his consent, without first giving security as provided 
 by the act, to pay all damages that might be awarded to the 
 complainant. 
 
 One word as to the new piece of canal constructed at High 
 Falls. I stated verbally to the Committee the reasons for 
 making this piece of new or enlarged canal, namely: that 
 there was not room on the site of the old locks to construct 
 
16 
 
 the enlarged Ones ; and that if it were not so, we would have 
 
 deemed it unsafe to place the new locks there, because we 
 had found difficulty in maintaining the old ones in their place 
 in consequence of strata of clay and quicksand affecting their 
 foundation But aside from this consideration, there can have 
 been no violation of the charter, by the construction of this new 
 piece of canal, because, by the 8th section, the Company is 
 authorized "to construct artificial harbors for boats, side cuts 
 or lateral canals connected with said basins," &c. This is in 
 fact a "lateral canal" connected at one end with a "basin or 
 artificial harbor for boats," common to and accessible from 
 both canals, and made for the accommodation of the trade of 
 the place. But in addition to all this, the old locks and sec- 
 tion of canal are still in existence and kept in repair, and may 
 be used as in all former times, by any one who prefers to nav- 
 igate the canal with a boat of 50 tons rather than a larger one. 
 
 I have thus. Sir, presented my views of the matter before 
 the Committee, and regret that I have been obliged to inflict 
 on you so long a letter. The importance of the subject to the 
 Company and the public is my apology. I will only add, 
 that so far from expecting to be arraigned before the Legisla- 
 ture and the pubHc as wrong-doers for doing what we have 
 done, we have really supposed that we had thereby " done 
 the State some service." We have thereby cheapened very 
 much and provided for a supply of one of the most im- 
 portant necessaries of life, the want or the abundance of 
 which affects sensibly the comfort and the interest of the 
 whole community. We have provided the means for a 
 large inland trade, which will soon spring up under the influ- 
 ence of the change made in the canal ; for the boats that now 
 navigate it, can with safety proceed from the head of our canal 
 with their cargoes of coal to the City of New York, or any 
 place on the North river, or on the enlarged State Canal ; and 
 after discharging the coal, take in return cargoes of sak, 
 grain, flour, oats or other articles, the product of the country, 
 and which are required and consumed in large quantities along 
 the line of the Delaware and Hudson Canal. 
 
 Will you. Sir, be good enough to submit the foregoing to 
 the Committee, and beUeve me to be. 
 
 Very respectfully, your ob't serv't, 
 
 JOHN WURTS, President, 
 
J