1st Session.

FARMINGTON AND HAMPSHIRE CANAL COMPANY.

APRIL 2, 1830.

Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Statement of the Connecticut River Company, in relation to the petition of the Farmington and Hampshire and Hampden Canal Companies. The Connecticut River Company was incorporated by the State of Connecticut, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, for the purpose of improving the navigation of that river, above sloop navigation. In the same year, the States of New Hampshire and Vermont incorporated, each a distinct company, for the purpose of improving the boat navigation of the same river, within those States respectively.

In eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, the State of Massachusetts incorporated a company to improve the navigation of the river within that State. In eighteen hundred and twenty five, the Connecticut River Company procured a survey of the river, extending two hundred and twenty miles above sloop navigation, and made with great care by Holmes Hutchinson, a civil engineer on the Erie Canal.

From a minute report of facts ascertained by that survey, and previous personal knowledge of the Connecticut valley, Judge Wright, now Chief Engineer of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and Canvass White, another eminent engineer, united with Mr. Hutchinson, in giving a decided opinion that Connecticut river might be improved for steam boat navigation, to the extent of the above-mentioned survey; and that such was the mode of improvement best suited to that valley.

Confiding in those opinions, the Connecticut River Company have expended more than two hundred thousand dollars under their charter. They have constructed a large canal, by some rapids in the river, called Enfield Falls, and thus extended steam-boat navigation where it had not previously been enjoyed, thirty-five miles above sloop navigation, and within ten miles of Northampton, in Massachusetts.

The foregoing incorporations were an extension of a system of improvements in the navigation of Connecticut river, commenced more than thirty years ago, and prosecuted with useful though imperfect results, owing to the deficiency of capital and skill. About four hundred thousand dollars had been expended at the most difficult rapids in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, before the Connecticut River Company commenced

operations.

A petition is now pending before Congress, for a survey of the river by Engineers of the General Government, and for such appropriation to aid the improvement, as the subject shall be found to merit. This petition stands referred to the Committee on Commerce.

For several years past, the Farmington Canal Company, and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company, have been engaged in constructing a canal from New Haven towards Connecticut river, at Northampton, in Massachusetts; and it is in behalf of this canal, that a subscription is asked from the General Government. An inspection of a map of that section of country, and of the route of the canal, will show that its principal business must consist of trade diverted from Connecticut river. Beginning at Northampton, the canal passes down within from five to ten miles of the river, through a country provided with good roads, to Farmington, within thirty miles of New Haven. At Farmington, the canal is only nine miles from sloop navigation, in Connecticut river. Its chief object is not to accommodate the country on its immediate route, but to serve as an outlet for the valley above Northampton.

From Canada line to Narthampton is more than two hundred miles, being about three quarters of the whole length of the Connecticut Valley. Hitherto the outlet for property passing down the valley below Northampton, has been by way of the river.

The Canal to New Haven now proposes to afford a new outlet, and asks the aid of the Government to complete it. If the policy of the Government should not admit of its aiding two thorough fares from Northampton to Long Island Sound, so contiguous as are the river, and the Canal to New Haven, it becomes important to select the best.

It appears, from actual surveys, that the distance from Northampton to sloop navigation at Hartford, is forty-five miles, with a descending lockage of ninety feet, requiring ten locks.

The distance from Northampton to New Haven, by the Canal, is about ninety miles. The lockage, by reason of two intervening summits, swells to five hundred and twenty feet, requiring sixty locks.

Springfield, Hartford, and Middletown, on the river, offer at least as good a market as New Haven. The two last towns, also, by daily steamboats or other vessels, afford the means of transportation to New York, Boston, and other ports, on as favorable terms as New Haven.

Every improvement of the river route benefits the National Armory at Springfield. It is by way of the river that supplies are received for that establishment. The Canal to New Haven can afford no facilities to its operations.

Whether the river itself, or a canal, or railway, shall be thought to afford the best mode of transportation for the Connecticut Valley, it is believed that the best location is along the river instead of the route chosen for the New Haven Canal.

It is, therefore, hoped that the divisions in the public mind as to the best mode of improvement-the unnecessary length and lockage of the Canal to New Haven, as an outlet for the valley above Northampton-the direct interest of the General Government, in the river route, by the National Armory-and the magnitude of private interests to be affected, will be deemed sufficient reasons to require a careful survey under authority of the Government itself, before determining which route and location is most worthy of public aid.

In behalf of the Connecticut River Company.

ALFRED SMITH, Agent.

ALFRED CONKLING.

APRIL 3, 1830.

Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. WICKLIFFE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which had been referred the petition of Martha Bradstreet, complaining of the official conduct of Alfred Conkling, District Judge of the United States for the Northern District of New York, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorials of Martha Bradstreet, report:

That they have had the same under consideration; and, after hearing the counsel of the memorialist, in explanation of the thirty-eight charges prefaced against Alfred Conkling, District Judge of the United States for the Northern District of New York, and a patient examination of the documents submitted, the committee do not find that there is any probable cause to believe, that Judge Conkling has committed any offence in his official conduct, with which he has been charged, requiring this House further to examine into the same; and submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the memorials of Martha Bradstreet.