Project Gutenberg's History of Steam on the Erie Canal, by Anonymous This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: History of Steam on the Erie Canal Author: Anonymous Release Date: December 28, 2006 [EBook #20209] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF STEAM ON THE ERIE CANAL *** Produced by Bryan Ness, Irma Špehar and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print project.)
NEW YORK, JANUARY, 1873.
NEW YORK:
EVENING POST STEAM PRESSES, 41 NASSAU STREET, COR. LIBERTY.
1873.
With Respects of the Author,
155 Broadway, N. Y.
During the maple sugar season of the spring of 1858, a well-to-do farmer, of western New York, whittled out a spiral or augur-like screw-propeller, in miniature, which he thought admirably adapted to the canal. He soon after went to Buffalo, and contracted for a boat to be built, with two of his Archimedean screws for propulsion by steam.
Although advised by his builders to substitute the common four-bladed propellers, he adhered to his original design, and with one propeller at either side of the rudder—called "twin-propellers"—she was soon ready for duty. She is the vessel known to history as the Charles Wack.
She carried three-fourths cargo and towed another boat with full cargo, and made the trip from Buffalo to West Troy in seven days, total time, averaging two miles per hour. But she returned from Troy to Buffalo, with half freight, in four days and sixteen hours, net time; averaging three and one-twelfth miles per hour, without tow.
This initiated the series of steamers from 1858 to 1862, and, with others that soon followed, created a general enthusiasm in behalf of steam transportation, which led to a trip through the canal that fall, on a chartered steam-tug, by the Governor of the State, the Canal Board, and other notables, and with public receptions, speeches, &c., at different [4]cities along the route.
That boat was soon followed by the S. B. Ruggles, a first-class steam canal-boat, built by the Hon. E. S. Prosser, of Buffalo, with a first-class modern propeller, and with double the engine capacity of the former.
The P. L. Sternburg soon followed, and was a first-class boat, with modern twin-propellers, but with less engine capacity than the Wack.
The same season there were some local steamers built to run regularly between different cities on the line of the canal.
The following season of 1859 was the most active year the Erie Canal has ever known in regard to steam.
The C. Wack was sold to Mr. Prosser, who took out her Archimedean propellers, and substituted a modern propeller, and doubled her engine capacity, and reproduced her as the City of Buffalo.
The Gold Hunter was produced by the Western Transportation Company, of Buffalo. She was a short, oblong tub, with a square, box-like bow, and rounded stern, designed only to carry machinery and coal, and was to be recessed into the stern of ordinary horse-boats by cutting away an equivalent space therefrom. She was designed to make a trip on the canal, and be immediately transferred to another boat for return trip, thus to avoid the usual loss of time at the termini of the canal. She was abandoned after a brief trial.
The canal-boat Niagara had the Cathcart propeller supplied, which consisted of a union of the propeller and rudder by a universal joint in the shaft, and so adjusted as to unite them for steerage purposes. This design was tried on the steamer Cathcart, upon the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, in 1858, and with considerable newspaper eclat.
The Rotary, of New York, was a new steamer for freighting purposes, with a rotary engine and common propeller. This occupied but little space, and worked prettily on exhibition.
The Eclipse, of New York, was new, and had oscillating propeller engines.
The Gov. King was a medium-sized New York harbor propeller, and made repeated trips with three boats in tow, and[5] one trip with five boats. She was so slow as to be unremunerative, as compared with horses.
The Western Transportation Co., after the failure of the Gold Hunter, built two powerful tugs, the Washington and Lafayette. They were soon withdrawn.
Mr. Prosser built the first-class tug, Stimers, but she had a short canal history.
The tugs, Bemis and Dan Brown, made good runs each, with three boats in tow, but were short-lived canallers.
During these years the paddle-wheel system was thoroughly tried, and under varied circumstances.
As the locks prevented the use of side-wheels for full freights, an adjustable stern-wheel was tried. This could be raised or lowered in adaptation to the light or full cargo.
The H. K. Viele was a first-class canal steamer, with stern-wheel and vertical, or excentric, acting paddles. These were considered by some as peculiarly well adapted to canal purposes, yet in practice proved otherwise.
The Fall Brook was built by Mr. John McGee, of Seneca Lake renown, for towing purposes, intending to establish a line between Seneca Lake and New York city; but her canal abilities were so poor as to cause her withdrawal to lake duty.
She had powerful engines, with vertical acting paddle-wheel, set amidships between twin-hulls, with a full flow of water from bow to stern, and was decked across forward and aft of her wheel.
The Lady Jane, of Utica, was a bow paddle-wheel boat with small engines. She accomplished but little.
As paddle-wheel canallers have proven less efficient than screw propellers they are more limited in numbers.
Other contemporary devices were tried.
The canal-boat, Oswego, had her stern recessed to receive a submerged horizontal, centrifugal-acting water-wheel, which received water at a central and ejected it at a periphery opening for propulsion.[6]
This opening could be turned for steerage or backing purposes. She was altered at Green Point and received good machinery at Brooklyn, but was soon restored to horses.
Duck's-feet paddles were experimented with at Buffalo. A scull propulsion was tried upon the Hudson. Also hinge-bladed propellers, to open and close with a fore-and-aft movement at the stern. This last device was tried by a Doctor Hunter, who has more recently tried a "Fish-Tail Propeller," the blades being made of rubber, to imitate the form and elasticity of the tail, with mechanical imitations of movement.
It is hardly necessary to add that these devices were all worthless, and others of miscellaneous character may have been tried, yet without merit.
Wealth, experience and skill have marked this first era of steam, and though combined, they utterly failed. Both Mr. Prosser and the Western Transportation Co. were owners of fleets of splendid lake propellers, and were wealthy, with interests intimately identified with canals. It is evident there was no want, either of money, mechanical resources, or knowledge of canal business as basis of their failures with steam.
Capital flowed into the steam enterprise from various resources, and ambition multiplied experiments, but with no appreciable success.
The difficulties lay beyond the reach of capital and beyond the reach of known resources, and no adequate knowledge had been developed to solve the problem. Therefore, after suffering failures for several years, the State wisely volunteered to add extraordinary inducements by a large appropriation to encourage success. It could not have been to encourage the reproduction of former failures by the repetition of former trials.
The inquiry is therefore proper, as a lesson from the history of the early era of steam, what are the difficulties? Why has steam failed so absolutely and so universally? Why did the State subsequently offer a large bounty to foster and develop steam.
Obviously there is some hidden difficulty, some unknown in[7]ability, because steam is the arbiter of the age, it is the great supreme motor of man's agencies throughout the world, hence we come from the sublime to the ridiculous when we use it to load boats at Buffalo, to be towed 350 miles by horses.
The lessons of the early era are worthless for repetition. There is no better screw-propelling machinery known than was then tried and abandoned; but the lessons are of value to discover the difficulties which must be remedied; to teach that the success of steam lies beyond the reach of publicly known mechanical resources.
The trials establish plainly and incontrovertibly that the failures were owing to the want of mechanical adaptation to required duty; to a mechanical inability to utilize the power of the steam; to a mechanical waste of power beyond their ability to control or remedy; and that the wasted power was extravagantly large and the utilized insignificantly small. A very intelligent captain of one of the best and most powerful steamers known to the Erie Canal, who had a full and carefully-kept log, stated that when his engine exceeded a hundred horse-power of steam, he could only equal twelve horses on the tow-path. Thus over seven-eighths of his power was wastefully developed in order to render one-eighth useful. But this occurred when he was moving only two loaded boats—the steamer and one in tow—but when moving four boats—three in tow—the percentage of utility was lessened, and he could not exceed eight to ten per cent. of his steam, as shown in slower movement, when fewer horses on the tow-path could equal him.
The steamer is a reservoir, and its rotatory power is free to be developed "inversely as its resistances." Hence, when fastened to a pier, it is all developed in its receding currents, and per contra when moving; if its machinery had a perfect fulcrum, it would all be developed in the run of the boat; consequently, on rivers and lakes, with fine-lined steamers, that cut the water like a knife, it is like standing in a small boat and pushing from a large one, but on canals, with their full bows, it is like standing in a large boat and pushing from a small one; the little one runs away with the power. The more than 100 square feet area of immersed section of the full bow represents the large boat, and the dozen square feet effective area of pro[8]peller blades, set at an easy angle for spiral motion and recession velocity, is the little one that squanders the power so extravagantly. Increase in number of boats increases this contrast. The propeller blades of a good canaller will move twelve to fifteen miles, in their line of spiral movement, to get two to three miles headway for the boat.
A correct scientific analysis can trace the developments of the eighty-five to ninety per cent. of the inherent power of the steam that is wasted on the common canal-boat, and that has no resultant effect whatever in the motion of the boat, just as positively as it can trace the co-developments of fifteen to ten per cent. that is utilized and that moves the boat.
The practical man sees the truths of these statements. He sees steam used with small, medium and large engines for canal purposes, and sees them all fail to meet the economy of transportation established by horses; but he would just as soon put men on the tow-path to compete with horses as to put horses into his elevators to compete with steam; and that, because in the elevators the power of the steam is chiefly utilized, whilst on the canal it is chiefly wasted.
It is therefore conclusive that there is an absolute necessity for a new mechanical system, for a radically different system of transmissive mechanism, for a system that can develop a considerable portion of the power of the steam in the movement of boats.
The variations of the old systems of propulsion that are being continuously tried are worthless, in the very nature of the case, because they are in no sense a remedy for existing inabilities, and because they do not, in any sense whatever, meet the difficulties.
Soon after the Act of April, 1871, to foster and develop the inland commerce of the State, the steam canal-boat Cathcart was tried. She is like the Niagara of 1859, and has not been continued in the trade.[9]
The canal-boat George Barnard, afterward called the Andrew H. Dawson, was tried, and has run through the season of 1872. She has a common propeller in her bow, with a recess from the water-line inclined to twenty feet aft to the bottom. Her propeller, therefore, forces the current against this incline and along the bottom in retardation of its progress. Hence, she cannot be expected to excel former trials.
The Eureka is an iron boat, built at Buffalo, with twin-propellers at her bow, set in recesses, at a diverging angle, to throw the water from the bow along the sides of the boat. She is built, by men of canal experience, with compound engines, and was designed to be a superior boat for canal purposes. But her mechanical currents at and against the bow must have a retarding tendency, not compensated by any other considerations.
The George A. Feeter is also a twin-propeller, with diagonal, channel waterways on each side for about twenty-five feet, when they merge into a larger channel about five feet forward of the rudder. Her propellers are set in these channels, about ten feet aft of their side openings. With her propellers thus housed, the mechanical currents against the aft-sides of her channels are very damaging to her efficiency.
The Wm. Baxter is also a twin-propeller, like the P. L. Sternburg, of 1858, and with compound engines, like the Eureka and the Dawson. She is built of yellow pine, with easy lines, and so low as to be unable to carry five-sixths of a horse-cargo of wheat or corn below deck, so that her lightness gives help to cargo, and her sharp bow and stern to speed. But her construction and model were long since abandoned by canal-boat builders.
The Wm. Newman is a common propeller and double-deck boat, and carries two hundred and ten tons. She is much like the Ruggles of 1858, but has less steam capabilities.
The Charles Hemjee was built upon the Western Division, with a tunnel-shaped encasement to her propeller. Of course she is reported as "very slow."
The John Durston had a propeller built in with her rudder, and driven with a vertical shaft, extending down through a cylindrical rudder-post, but was unfit for service.[10]
The Port Byron is a stern, paddle-wheel boat, with vertical or eccentric acting paddles, and is like the Viele of 1858. She has a recess the entire length of her bottom of several square feet area, intended to facilitate a flow of water from the bow, but the flow does not occur; the mechanical currents of the wheel will be from the nearest water, and not from ninety feet forward.
The Montana is a similar stern-wheeler, without the recess.
The Success consists of two sections, to be disconnected for passing the locks, with paddle-wheel machinery at the bow. Her wheel, inside of the paddles, is a drum or cylinder, filled with cork, to be buoyant, and the hull has an easy, scow bow, for the water to pass under the boat. Practically, the large drum makes her a horizontal, cylindrical-bowed boat, and she mechanically throws the water therefrom against the scow-shaped bow, and so that the cylinder displacement with the mechanical currents, and the scow-bow displacement, combine to make her very slow. With her two sections she brought one and a half cargoes of corn.
The Excelsior has a horizontal, eccentric-acting paddle wheel, and was built of light iron at Green Point. She had a recess at the bow for her submerged wheel, and, when thus tried, found the retarding effects of the mechanical currents at and against the bow so great, as to cause her original bow-propulsion to be made stern-propulsion, when she was much improved. She was tried with cargo for a short distance on the canal, and withdrawn.
The Fountain City is a common boat, with machinery at her stern. She has two submerged horizontal, excentric-acting paddle-wheels, each of small diameter. These are placed under her quarters, in the rudder cross-section, and she is steered by her machinery. The characteristics of these wheels are like the Excelsior's, and the eccentric variations of both—together with the Byron's, Montana's and Viele's—are known as old devices of secondary merit on river, lake and ocean steamers.
The Santiago is a scow-boat, with a recess, or flume, the whole length of her bottom, to a stern propeller. Her steam was soon abandoned.[11]
An endless-chain propulsion was tried upon the Western Division, without success.
A common canal-boat has been experimented with at Brooklyn to propel her by the reaction of a powerful blower or fan. This was driven first by a ten-horse, and next by a forty-horse stationary engine, and afterwards by a forty-horse oscillator. Each failed to move her from her slip, and the conception proved an absurdity.
In addition to these, local steamers have been run between different cities for local purposes, more or less, since 1858, and steam-tugs have been brought into requisition occasionally.
This review presents the important fact, that no new mechanical system has been introduced.
The screw-propellers and paddle-wheels are multiplications from the former era. The variations from the common propeller and paddle-wheel, in the miscellaneous devices, are all under reductions of merit.
All the bow-propulsions, and all the variations from the Viele, Sternburg and Ruggles of the former, and the Byron, Baxter and Newman of the present era, are inferior, whether viewed practically or scientifically.
Hence, steam has received no mechanical advancements since 1858; and the efforts of 1872 are as positive and determinate failures as those of 1862.
It should be observed that the first trials of steam in 1858 were made during a season of low water, and when the Canal Board had limited the loading of boats to four and three-fourths feet draught of water, which, later in the season, was increased to five feet, and in subsequent years to six feet, as continued to the present time.
Among the most successful trials of the first era of steam on the canals, may be mentioned the H. K. Viele, P. L. Sternburg,[12] and S. B. Ruggles. Each could carry three-fourths cargo and tow a full cargo, and each exceed the speed of horse-boats.
Among the most successful trials of the present era may be mentioned the Port Byron, Baxter, and Newman. Each can carry five-sixths of a common cargo, and exceed the speed of horses.
In the early era of steam, the prominent policy was to combine towage with carrying capacity by the steamer, for economical expedition. In the present era, it has been to make the carrying capacity of the steamer, in itself, economical and expeditious.
This latter policy has arisen under the Appropriation Act of April, 1871, which limits the minimum cargo to two hundred tons, and the minimum average speed of three miles per hour. But these limitations must cover a superior economy of freight transportation to that by the former trials with steam. Else, they are worthless; else, they are failures, as in 1862, and their general introduction impracticable.
As in the steamers Byron, Baxter and Newman, there is nothing mechanically new, in variation from the Viele, Sternburg and Ruggles—these trios being respectively mechanical counterparts of each other; the paddle-wheels of the Byron and Viele, the twin-propellers of the Baxter and Sternburg, and the common propellers of the Newman and Ruggles, being respectively identical—the economical features are easily considered.
The first trio can carry 200 tons at good speed; the second can carry 180 tons, and tow 240 tons; total, 420 tons, at good speed.
To the first trio, two boats of each class must be altered; two sets of machinery must be furnished; two corps of engineers maintained, and coal for two round trips must be supplied, with incidental expenses to two steamers, to move 400 tons of freight.
To the second trio, only one boat of each class is to be altered; one set of machinery furnished; one corps of engineers maintained, and coal for one round trip supplied, with the incidental expenses, to move 420 tons of freight.
The costs of alterations and adaptations of the first trio are two-fold those of the second; the cost of machinery greater[13] to the first trio than to the second; the costs of engineers two-fold to the first trio; the costs of coal about the same to each, with greater incidental expenses to the first than to the second per tons of freight moved.
The differences in the two trios are in their steam capabilities and in their times; the second requires about one day extra on the canal, as possibly due to the locking of the tow, though no extra time is required where both locks of the pair are ready. But the extra twenty tons of freight more than pays the extra time.
The times of transit or rates of speed to the two eras are very nearly alike, the steamers of the first having greater steam capabilities, as due to their boat in tow, whilst those of the present era have reduced their steam capabilities to increase their cargoes from the 180 tons to 200 tons.
The times of transit, or rates of speed, are given in the following miscellaneous record, and as published, from time to time, from 1858 to 1862:
The Wack was 7 days, total time, with boat in tow, from Buffalo to Troy.
The Wack was 4 days 16 hours, net time, with half freight, from Troy to Buffalo.
The Sternburg was 28 hours, total time, with boat in tow, from Buffalo to Rochester, 93 miles, averaging 3⅓ miles per hour.
The Ruggles was 5½ days, net time, with boat in tow, from Buffalo to Troy, and 6 days 14 hours, net time, from Buffalo to New York.
The Eclipse was 7½ days, total time, without tow, from Buffalo to Troy, and 5½ days, total time, without tow, from Troy to Buffalo.
The Gold Hunter was 7 days 5 hours, total time, without tow, from Buffalo to Troy.[14]
The Rotary was 4 days 4 hours, total time, with half freight, from Troy to Buffalo, and 3 days 16 hours, net time.
The Bemis, a screw-tug, with three boats, was 5 days and 8 hours, net time, from Buffalo to Schenectady, 321 miles, average 2½ miles per hour.
The Washington, do., with 3 boats, was 5 days 2 hours, net time, from Buffalo to Cohoes, 340 miles, average 2¾ miles per hour.
The Dan Brown, do., with three boats, was 6 days, net time, from Buffalo to Albany, 351 miles, average nearly 2½ miles per hour; and was 7 hours from Buffalo to Lockport, 31 miles, averaging 4⅔ miles per hour.
The Dawson and the Cathcart have both made and repeated through trips from Buffalo to Troy, with 5⁄6 of horse cargoes, in about 7 days, total time.
The Port Byron was 5 days 10½ hours, total time, and 4 days 7 hours, net time, with 117 tons of freight, from Troy to Buffalo, from Oct. 29th to Nov. 4th. The more important down time was not published.
The Baxter was 5 days 14 hours, total time, and 4 days 9 hours, net time, with half freight, from Troy to Buffalo, from Oct. 29th, in the morning, to Nov. 3d; from Sept. 30th to Oct. 5th she was 5 days on her up trip, and early in September was 5 days, also, from Troy to Buffalo.
On her first trip down she left Buffalo Sept. 12th, and arrived at West Troy, the 19th, in 7 days 4 hours, total time, and reached New York the 21st, in 8 days 13[15] hours, total time, with 200 tons of freight. In some way she reduces her 7 days 4 hours to 4 days 8 hours, net time, to Troy; and her 8 days 13 hours, to New York, to 5 days 17 hours.
Second trip down was from Buffalo to Waterford, when she was longer upon the canal than on her first trip of over 7 days.
Third trip down, left Buffalo Nov. 9th, and arrived at Troy 15th, and New York 17th, or over 6 days to Troy, and 8¼ to New York, with 5⁄6 horse cargo. This canal trip was during the horse epidemic, and the large number of boats laid up made it very favorable for steam.
But the Baxter's times have been developed by a model which would require one-third of a common boat to be rebuilt—one-sixth at the bow and one-sixth at the stern—it is, therefore, proper to state, that if we put her machinery and steam capabilities into a common boat—and the seven thousand such boats cannot be dispensed with—it would be very slow, as her speed would be reduced by three causes:
1st. Because of an increased velocity of bow displacement at a reduced speed of boat.
2d. Because of an increased velocity of stern replacement, at a reduced speed of boat, against the mechanical or counteracting propelling currents.
3d. Because the percentage of wasted power is increased, and of utilized is diminished, by greater resistance to motion.
The Wm. Newman left New York Oct. 30th, and arrived at Buffalo Nov. 7, in 8 days, with 120 tons of freight.
The Wack's through time from Buffalo to West Troy, with boat in tow, is the same as the Baxter's average without tow.[16]
The Ruggles' net time, from Buffalo to New York, with boat in tow, is only 21 hours in excess of the Baxter's shortest net time without tow.
The through times of the Eclipse and Gold Hunter, from Buffalo to West Troy, without tow, are just equal to the Baxter's first and second trips.
The Rotary's through time up, with half freight, is nearly one day less than the Byron's, Baxter's or Newman's shortest through time. Her net time is 17 hours less than the Baxter's shortest net time.
The net time of the tugs, each with three boats in tow, is nearly equal to the Baxter's without tow, from Buffalo to West Troy.
Therefore, by this comparison of times, the one day extra allowed for the greater steam resources of the former era with a boat in tow, is ample; and the policy of that era is plainly more economical for freight than that of the past two years.
We therefore observe: That the policy of introducing steam canal-boats as carriers of freight, is illustrated in the Niagara, Eclipse, Gold Hunter and Rotary. The policy of carrying and towing one boat, in the Wack, Sternburg, Ruggles, City of Buffalo and Viele. The policy of screw-tugs in the Gov. King, Bemis, Washington, Lafayette, Stimers, Dan Brown and the paddle-wheel tug Fall Brook. Under each policy steam was a failure on the canals under the agencies tried. The single carriers died first; the tugs second; the carriers and one boat third; and last, the carriers with three-boat tows.
In 1861 and 1862, the policy of using the powerful canal steamers, Ruggles and City of Buffalo, to carry freight and tow three boats each, was introduced to supersede the former policies. During these years the privilege of priority at locks, by paying double toll on the boats, was suspended, and soon thereafter steam was totally abandoned.
It is noticeable that the steamers for carrying, only, had less vitality, and were less economical, than those for carrying and towing, and those for carrying and towing but one boat had less than those for carrying and also towing three boats.
Hence, the carrying steamers, or the automaton policy of[17] 1871 and 1872, can only compare with the automaton policy of the former era, and they must have less vitality, and be less economical, than those other for carrying and towing one boat, and still less than those for carrying and towing three boats.
It has been clearly shown that steam in 1872 is less economical than in 1858 to 1860, and still less so than in 1861 and 1862.
But steam, in its former history, failed to compete with horses; and as, in its recent history, it has failed to be as economical as in its former, because of less economical policies of introduction (machinery being substantially the same), it follows that its failure to compete with horses must be still more marked, still more disappointing to the hopes entertained by the Legislative Department of the State, that independent financial encouragement could possibly foster and develop steam successfully, than it was in its former most significant failures.
But steam in 1872—independent of its failure as compared to itself in 1858—is shown to be less economical than horses by direct comparison of steamers and horse-boats.
As steamers have run under a prospective bounty of one hundred thousand dollars for a success, they have been first-class in all their appointments, and have been, as in the language of one of their engineers, "rushed through," it is strictly proper to compare them with a well-known duty of first-class horse-boats, under the ordinary business enterprise of their captains.
Thus, the first-class modern horse-boat can carry a cargo of 8,800 bushels, or 244 tons of corn, and make seven round trips between New York and Buffalo per season, averaging a round trip per month for the season of navigation.
The most systematic and business-like trials that have made speed an element of competitive economy, are the Port Byron, Baxter and Newman.
The short lives of the Viele and the Fall Brook in canal service, render it unnecessary to give details of the Byron.[18]
The Baxter left New York late in August or early in September, in new and perfect equipment, in a supposed race for a hundred thousand dollars, and through September, October and to the 19th of November was in the trade, and was in a contest for superiority or supremacy. During this time she delivered at New York two freights, and at Waterford one freight, being the equivalent of three freights of 7,200 bushels each, or a total of 21,600 bushels of corn; with runs equivalent to two and two-thirds round trips.
But she had priority at locks and right of way at all times, so that the horse-boat, at the sound of her steam whistle, when fifty feet behind, must stop and lay over to the tow-path and let her pass. Under these privileges and benefits she was enabled to make her first time between Buffalo and West Troy, as advertised, in a few hours over (7) seven days; her second, required still longer time; her third, being when the horse-disease had nearly "tied up" all other boats, so that she had a river-like freedom, she required about (6) six days, thus averaging about (7) seven days from the Lakes to the Hudson.
Give any first-class horse-boat captain a supposed or possible bounty of a hundred thousand dollars, with priority at locks and right of way, and he would in the same time have delivered three times 8,800, or a total of 26,400 bushels of corn from the Lakes to the Baxter's destinations; or 4,800 bushels of corn in excess of the Baxter's capabilities; and have delivered at Buffalo the same up-freights, with ease.
But the profits of this excess pays a profit over the entire cost of horse-movement, leaving the Baxter in debt for her entire cost of movement, for her entire time, and an excess in addition.
Again, suppose Baxter's were multiplied and reduced to horse-boat regulations, then she would have to make eleven trips to deliver at tidewater the freight of nine horse-trips—as 11 × 7,200 = 9 × 8,800. This she cannot do in the same time, nor can she do it at the same expense. Her necessity for the two extra trips would destroy her economy and practicability, or her competitive abilities as against horses.
Hence she is obviously and largely deficient in economy as compared to first-class horse-boat.[19]
The Wm. Newman run 5,000 miles from May 17th to November 7th, carrying in the aggregate 2,330 tons of freight. Her time is 5⅔ months; her mileage is five round trips from Buffalo to and from New York, by the canal 1,000 miles round, each; her freightage is (5 × 210 or) 1,050 tons down and (5 × 120 or) about 600 tons up, total 1,650 tons This amount carried indicates a towage of two boats down with full freight, and up, through the canal, with half freight; all of which make her aggregate tonnage.
If we allow one and two-thirds months for her towing trip, and leave four months for her four round trips, or a run of 4,000 miles, delivering in New York (4 × 210 or) 840 tons, and in Buffalo (4 × 120 or) 480 tons, total 1,320 tons, it may be supposed nearly correct in the absence of details.
A horse-boat, in same time and circumstances, would have made the 4,000 miles and have delivered in New York (4 × 244 or) 976 tons, and at Buffalo (4 × 120 or) 480 tons, total 1,456 tons. Excess of down freight 136 tons, equivalent to 4,850 bushels of corn. To make this wantage of freight good, requires nearly two-thirds of a full cargo, or of a full round trip. Hence, she is obviously and largely deficient in economy, as compared to a first-class horse-boat.
Therefore steam in 1872 is less economical than horses.
Under another view of the case we have the following relations of horses and steam to show that steam in 1872 is less economical than horses.
The captain of the Vosburg states that he left West Troy in Oct., carrying over 100 tons of freight, after the Baxter had left there for Buffalo, and with two mule teams, alternating one with the other every six hours, he arrived at Buffalo in advance of the Baxter; through time less than the Baxter's shortest time. "Net time" not stated.
Publishing net time of steamers instead of total or through time, is deceptive, and creates a false impression with the community. Had not the through time of steamers this season been suppressed, the governor of the State would not have[20] imagined five-day trips from Buffalo to New York, as per his message, and our city editors would not have ventilated such visionary pretensions. There are a multitude of horse-boat captains that can reduce their net canal time of movement below the Baxter's, which has been so extensively commented upon; but their so doing would not expedite the transfer of grain from the lakes to tide-water.
A certain horse-boat, in a former season, made two round trips from Buffalo to and from New York in twenty days each, and on each trip lay three days in New York. This made her through time average between the cities 8½ days each way. Her captain once towed in the "Line" and was only nine days twenty hours from Buffalo to New York. This season a horse-boat made the round trip from New York to and from Buffalo in twenty-one days.
These round trips have probably never been exceeded by steam.
In the former era the prism of the canal seemed imbedded with innumerable old and broken tow-lines, which the propeller, by its high velocity, sucked up, and was thereby "fouled;" and now the sea-grass is a hidden enemy that entwines itself around the propeller to foul it.
When the waters are low, forcing the engines of screw propellers lets the stern of the boat "squat" or hug the bottom, and although these are minor features of want of mechanical adaptation to canal duty, they illustrate petty detentions serving to lengthen the through times of steam.
Hence, if we intermix the slow steamers with the fast ones, as we do the slow with the fast horse-boats, for a general average, it is quite probable that horse-times are fully equal to those of steam, and that the excess of horse-cargoes makes a large and handsome advantage in their favor.
Therefore, under this general average, steam in 1872 is less economical than horses.
Because steam has been encouraged by the Legislature, heralded by the press, and favorably reported by the Execu[21]tive officers of the State as a standard of advancement most desirable to attain, a supposition very generally prevails outside of canal men that it will succeed.
As early as 1845, before the enlargements, three steamers were built and tried, and one, the Pioneer, ran from New York to Oswego in five days, total time, 362 miles; and then "supposition very generally prevailed that steam would succeed." But light freights would not pay then as against full horse-freights; neither would they pay from 1858 to 1862; neither have they paid in 1872, as against horses.
A large part of the boats own and carry their horses, two teams (four horses), alternating the teams from boat to tow-path every six hours. Many desire to see the hardships, cruelties and dangers to horses obviated. It is said that one company during the war, when most of the best drivers turned soldiers, lost as many horses during the season as they put on for all their boats in the spring; that is, they had to purchase a complete equipment to make good their losses.
Some humane captains tow by the "lines" to avoid suffering and dangers to horses, many of which are drowned, and many left by the wayside. When changed from tow-path to stable, a stout man must hold the horse by the tail as he descends the steps into the stable, to prevent his pitching against the opposite side; and he holds with greater difficulty as he descends the bridge from the high, light boat to the tow-path, which is often more dangerous than the stable descent.
Others tow by the "lines"—take turns for teams, often with tedious delays—and they are, to a great extent, subservient to the drivers, else they suffer by their indifference, laziness or caprices, and many are sure to do their "poorest," unless they are feed extra.
All would be charmed with towage by steam, if done with economy, dispatch, regularity and safety; but quite another feeling prevails under the suggestions of changing drivers for engineers, stables for engine-rooms, horses for machinery, and light cargos for full ones, as in case of converting the horse-boat to a steamer.
Steam, as used for towing purposes, would be acceptable and subservient to the several thousand boatmen constantly in service.[22]
If we give to the automaton system of steam any privileges over horse-boats—excepting for incidental initiatory encouragement to steam—we have a war of the many against the few. In the former era the double toll system was obliged to be suspended, and the no-toll system of this era is only a temporary sufferance.
Therefore, steam must stand or fall by its own merits, and should be fostered and developed until horses possess no competitive ability.
The history of the experiments for means of propulsion on our canals shows that no system has been developed by means of which the carrying power of these great channels of communication can be made available by steam. If this deplorable fact is to be overcome, it must be through the aid of the inventor; we must have some instruments of propulsion not hitherto in use, and some other means of application of the propelling power than those now in practice, or steam can never be sufficiently utilized to supersede horses on canals.
We see the New York and Albany tow-boats, with from twenty to forty loaded canal boats, running at four miles per hour, and they have taken over sixty boats in a single tow from New York to Albany. But an engine, with a respectable part of their steam, can take but a small fraction of their boats, and at a largely reduced speed on the canal.
The doom of 1845, of 1858 to '62, and of 1871 to '72, hangs over steam like a shroud; it is a mechanical doom. Steam should be mechanically elevated so that it can utilize from a third to half of its power, and so that an engine can develop an equivalent of thirty to fifty horses on the tow-path to a train of boats, and so that it can take trains of ten to fifteen boats on the two sixty-miles levels—where large hulls can be built and used without necessity of passing locks—and somewhat smaller trains on the other parts of the canal, averaging eight to ten boats per tug, or moving from 70,000 to 80,000 bushels of corn, all as fast as they can be safely handled, and then the day of horses is limited, and canals will need new arrangements, new regulations and new customs.[23]
Tugs on the canal have never exceeded a utility of eight to fifteen per cent. of the inherent power of their steam. Hence, they have never had towing power to develop the movement of trains of boats; but when they can be made mechanically to utilize from thirty to fifty per cent., the train movement becomes initiated with boats just as absolutely as with cars, and the tow-boat system will be just as prominently and universally established between Buffalo and Albany as it is between New York and Albany.
It is perfectly practical for steam, when it shall possess a respectable mechanical adaptation to canal duty; that is, when it shall not be so shamefully profligate in expenditures of power—to double the average speed of horses, or lessen the general average of ten days on the canal to five days, of which the down trips may overrun and the up trips fall short, as with horse average.
When a single tug shall equal 30 to 50 horses on the tow-path, it equals 60 to 100 of supply, as all require the alternate team.
The automaton system of steam is a hinderance to horse-boat navigation, besides increasing the risks and dangers, whilst the towing system, in substitution for horses, greatly improves the navigation and lessens the risks and dangers. Averaging the total mileage of a season with horse-boat times of transit, and boats meet each other every twenty minutes, night and day including Sundays, for seven months. To carry this tonnage, there must be eleven meetings of steamers to nine by horses, which increases the risks and dangers twenty-two per cent.; on the other hand, tows to the same tonnage would only meet each other about every three hours, hence for long distances they have an unobstructed water way.
Mechanical invention, to adapt steam to the heavy resistances of canal boats, is therefore the first and greatest necessity of canals.
A second necessity will be auxiliary and co-operative power at the locks and short levels.
These must be local, and may be by stationary steam-power, by water-power from the upper levels, or by horses.
Thus, there would be only one detention of a tug through[24] all the sixteen locks from West Troy to Cohoes—only one wherever there are two or more locks near each other, and at all locks there must be an independent local power to handle all boats. In this way tugs will lose less time between Buffalo and Albany than horse-boats do in changing teams from boat to tow-path every six hours.
Following these necessities, new rules, regulations and customs will be established, protecting the rights and equities of all.
A third necessity will be a centralized management, or control of all tugs, train-movements, and local powers at short levels and locks.
This is essential to a harmony of movements, to a proper distribution of motors, and to a proper adaptation to all the ebbs and flows of trade. This is just as essential for the tugs of a canal as for the locomotives of a railway. Provided the control of steam shall be held, upon the merits of some invention, protected by Letters Patent from the General Government; then the owners thereof might establish a centralized management to meet the merits, demands and exigencies of the case. They could enforce a harmony of interests between all trains and a harmony of police regulations, and they could enforce a consolidation of effort and co-operation to meet any exigency, just as a railway company can consolidate and develop its efforts upon any necessitous occasion.
In the nature of the case, these three necessities, when accomplished, will give to steam the universal movement of boats.
First.—Because it becomes a cheap motor in regard to which horses can hold no competitive claim.
This is seen from the fact that when steam can only utilize from eight to twelve per cent. of its power, as under the two eras of steam, the two best steamers—the S. B. Ruggles and City of Buffalo—lived five years in competition with horses, nothing since has exceeded their economies or capabilities; but give the steam they used a utility of thirty to fifty per cent.,[25] or over three times its present capabilities, and no team can be supported in competition.
Second.—Because it possesses the economies of concentrated power.
Horse-power must be diffused into small and limited qualities to be economical. The cost of double, treble, or quadruple teams, to increase speed or reduce time, swells the cost of transportation almost in like ratio, and would eat largely into the value of cargoes.
With the present enormous waste of steam-power, trains with over three boats begin to increase the cost of freight per ton. The Governor King was less economical with five boats than with three. On a part of the Eastern Division, two powerful tugs, lashed side by side on the levels, have taken a train of (17) seventeen boats successfully. Give to half their combined steam fifty per cent. addition to their combined power, and train movement receives an important inauguration. Economy, dispatch, regularity and a universal harmony of interests prevail.
The considerations of facts and suggestions herewith presented, embody important reasons for the Legislature to continue in force the Act of April, 1871, "to foster and develop the inland commerce of the State." It seems well adapted to influence, encourage and facilitate the development of mechanical, inventive talent; and to this end, all interests pertaining to the immediate elevation of canals, to the benefits of steam, should co-operate.
To encourage invention to utilize the steam is of paramount importance, because the other "necessities" will then be met, and they need no legislation, for common business talent will supply their demands.
The Mechanical Necessities of our canals are greater than pertain to any possibilities by the old systems of propulsion. It is not sufficient for steam to barely or doubtfully compete with horses, it should supersede them with the same superiorities and same universality that it has on railways.[26]
Where steam is mechanically adapted to its uses, horses bear no comparison to its economies; hence, give steam its required mechanical adaptation to canals, and horses must be abandoned.
The enthusiasm of 1872, in regard to steam, is less than in 1858, but there is a deep feeling of necessity for steam permeating the community, and it should be encouraged and directed in the proper channel, for the anxieties of 1858 foundered on incompetent mechanism, and the anxieties of 1872 are in the same impassable channel.
The Governor's Message of 1873 renews the scheme which was prominently before the Legislature a few years since, which was to lengthen one tier of locks by gates of different construction, and so as to receive longer boats of present width; yet a single thought will show that this will not help steam; for the insatiable desire for maximum cargo will put the Bull Head boat into the long locks, just as it has into the present locks, and sharp steamers cannot compete with it.
It is proper to observe that such lengthening of one tier will first: coerce present boatman to sacrifice their property, which with boats and equipments, exceeds a valuation of twenty million dollars, or else cut the boats into two parts, and lengthen them (and strengthen their sides and "back-bones") to the full capabilities of the lengthened locks; for the short boats cannot compete with the long ones.
Then, when the mass are altered, they will coerce the State to alter the second tier, because it becomes worthless and inoperative, and because the one tier becomes incapable of passing so great a multitude of boats, and it would otherwise greatly reduce the carrying capacity of the canals.
The State is sure to complete the removal of the "benches" on the remaining part of the "Eastern Division" as they are already removed from a part, and from the Middle and Western Division; and then we can find no fault with the canal. But this will not help steam vs. horses. All improvements help horses equally with steam, and there is the ever-pending difference of cargo.
The same authority discusses the advantages to follow, "if[27] the time can be shortened from Buffalo to New York from (14) fourteen to (5) five days," &c. If a hundred thousand dollars reward for expedition, pending during two seasons of navigation, has proved insufficient to reduce the average of the three shortest trips, with 200 tons cargo, below seven days total or actual time from Buffalo to West Troy, the five days to New York, with the present knowledge of steam machinery, becomes an impossibility. But newspapers have preceded the message with the false supposition and the same error.
The extraordinary measures initiated by the N. Y. Central R. R., by their forty million dollars issue of bonds for the construction of a double track exclusively for freight, shows the growing importance of this already immense business, and whilst automaton steamers, under the known mechanism of the age, will inevitably lessen the carrying capacity of the canal, by filling its locks—which alone control the maximum carrying capacity—eleven times with light cargoes in place of nine times with full freights; the mechanical elevation and substitution of steam, as shown by the Canal Necessities herein set forth, possesses still more extraordinary importance.
Every consideration enforces the Necessities, set forth in this appeal, of Mechanical Improvement, Local Auxiliary Power, and Concentrated Management.
Please hover your mouse over the words with a thin dotted gray line underneath them for seeing what the original reads.
LIST OF FIXED ISSUES
End of Project Gutenberg's History of Steam on the Erie Canal, by Anonymous
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF STEAM ON THE ERIE CANAL ***
***** This file should be named 20209-h.htm or 20209-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
https://www.gutenberg.org/2/0/2/0/20209/
Produced by Bryan Ness, Irma Spehar and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced
from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print
project.)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
https://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at https://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit https://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
https://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.