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 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.

Screw-Tugs.

The Gov. King was a medium-sized New York harbor propeller, and made repeated trips with three boats in tow, and 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.

Paddle-wheels and other Devices.

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.

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.

Remarks.

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 inability, 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 propeller 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.