st. marys falls canal haer no. mi-322 (soo locks) st ... · 1811 and represented a major step in...

St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks) St. Marys River at the Falls Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa County Michigan

PHOTOGRAPHS

WRlTTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRlPTIVE DATA

Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service

Midwest Regional Office 1709 Jackson Street

Omaha, Nebraska 68102

HAER No. MI-322

Location:

Present Owner:

Present Use:

Significance:

HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD

ST. MARYS FALLS CANAL (SOO LOCKS)

St. Marys River at the Falls Sault Ste. Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan

HAER No. MI-322

USGS Sault Ste. Marie South, Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Zone 16 Easting 702420 Northing 5153295

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Navigation/Ship Passage

The locks of the St. Marys Falls Canal reflect a national level of significance in settlement, transportation, industrial, and engineering history. The completion of the State Locks in 1855 effectively opened to settlement the territory surrounding Lake Superior. Prior to that, large-scale settlement of the region was impractical. Ultimately, it was discovered that the land made accessible by the canal was rich in copper and iron ore. These deposits fed the nation's industrial revolution in the latter portion of the nineteenth century. Naturally, the primary method of transporting large amounts of this mineral wealth was through the St. Marys Falls Canal. Until the 1950s, the fleet serving the Great Lakes made the Sault Canal the busiest waterway in the world. Due to the dramatic growth of shipping on the Lakes, the St. Marys Falls Ship Canal has received constant attention by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over its history. Between 1881 and 1969, the Corps constructed six locks on the American side of the Sault. Each of the facilities embodied the most advanced form oflock technology known at the time of their construction. Additionally, several of the structures were designed as the largest in the world at the time.

PART 1. HISTORICAL INFORMATION

A. Physical History:

1. Date of erection: 1

1852 Land transferred to State of Michigan for canal 1853 Work on State Locks initiated

1All dates and descriptions provided in this section are discussed and footnoted in Section B: Historical Context. Dates are ascribed only to those activities associated with the various locks, as all other activity and building occurred around these facilities.

1855 State Canal opened

ST. MARYS FALLS CANAL (SOO LOCKS) HAER No. MI-322 Page2

1873 Work started on Weitzel Lock 1881 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assumes control of Soo

facility; Weitzel lock finished 1887 Demolition of State Locks begun 1890 Poe Lock construction initiated 1896 Opening of Poe Lock 1897 Completion of Administration Building and Poe Lock pump-

house 1908 Work started on Davis Lock 1913 Sabin Lock construction undertaken 1914 Davis Lock opened 1919 Sabin Lock opened 1942 Weitzel Lock removed; construction of MacArthur Lock

initiated 1943 MacArthur Lock opened 1962 Original Poe Lock removed; work started on development of

New Poe Lock 1969 New Poe Lock opened

2. Original and subsequent owners:

1852-1881 1881-2000

State of Michigan United States of America, Army Corps of Engineers

3. Alterations and additions: The Soo Lock complex has been a dynamic and evolving resource since its inception in 1852. Developed to accommodate Great Lakes shipping, the facility has adapted and changed over time in order to permit the passage of ships. The size and loads of these ships have grown substantially since the development of the canal. Accordingly, old locks have been removed and replaced, as have the support buildings associated with their operation. Significant structures that no longer remain include the State (185 5), Weitzel (1881 ), and [ original] Poe (1896) Locks. Extant locks in year 2000 are the Davis (1914), Sabin (1919), MacArthur (1942), and New Poe (1969).

B. Historical Context:

To understand the significance of the Sault Ste. Marie Canal and locks, it is important to consider the evolution of this facility within the following historical context. Particularly important are the development of water transportation in general as well

as those concerning Great Lakes shipping.

Early Waterway Transportation in the U.S.

ST.MARYS FALLS CANAL (SOO LOCKS) HAER No. MI-322 Page 3

Transportation in colonial America primarily relied upon river navigation along the Atlantic Coast. Water passage westward beyond the Appalachian Mountains was not pursued much until the end of the eighteenth century, due to rapids and uneven depths. As commerce centered around rivers in both the agrarian South and the more urban North, merchants and farmers in the British colonies relied upon rivers to carry their freight to the primary commercial centers of Charleston, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York.

Natural land barriers and river obstructions led early entrepreneurs and politicians to invest in so-called internal improvements such as canals to increase trade. These improvements also decreased transportation costs in terms of both time and money. Canals were considered in North America as early as 1676, when French explorers Louis Joliet and Pere Marquette hypothesized that a canal cut from Lake Michigan to the Illinois River would provide a water route to Florida. Indeed, Europeans initially supplied the expertise in canal construction in North America. The French, Dutch, and British were accomplished canal builders; however, the British had the most influence on American canal construction. By 1 792, over thirty canal corporations were incorporated within the fledgling U.S. Most of the resultant canals were short in length and primitive in their method of construction. The construction manager of the Middlesex Canal near Boston, Massachusetts, stated that "the science of engineering was almost unknown to anyone in this part of the country." But the combination of advice from British engineers and American trial-and-error brought the canal to completion in 1803. The Middlesex Canal proved that, despite limited engineering knowledge, a lack of capital, and a complicated landscape, quality canals could be constructed in America. While the Middlesex Canal helped trigger an initial fascination with canals, only 100 miles had been dug for artificial waterways in the U.S. when work began in 1817 on the "Big Ditch," or Erie Canal. By 1850, however, the nation boasted nearly 4,400 miles of canals.2

Westward Expansion and the Need for Internal Improvements

Meanwhile, a number of pioneers pushed ever farther into the interior of the new

2Madeline Sadler Waggoner, The Long Haul West: The Great Canal Era, 1817-1850 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), 15, 18, 21; Thomas C. Proctor, "The Middlesex Canal: Prototype for American Canal Building," Canal History and Technology Proceedings 7 (26 March 1988): 152; Ronald E. Shaw, Canals for a Nation: The Canal Era in the United States, 1790-1860 (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1990), 1.

ST. MARYS FALLS CANAL (SOOLOCKS) HAER No. MI-322 Page 4

nation. Many of these settlers ventured westward by foot and wagon to the Ohio River Valley and settled the cities of Pittsburgh, Wheeling, and Cincinnati. But the Appalachians effectively cut commercial contact between these new settlements with those located on the Atlantic Coast, forcing trade through French-controlled New Orleans. Indeed, as early as 1782, the first boat traveled from Pittsburgh down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to the city of New Orleans. By the 1790s, seagoing vessels originating in Pittsburgh would routinely sail through New Orleans into the Gulf of Mexico and across the Atlantic to European ports. Coastal American cities faced the reality oflosing the growing western markets if internal improvements were notmade.3

As canal companies slowly forged water routes in the East, the federal government constructed roads to connect the Atlantic Coast with the nation's evolving Northwest Territory (later known as the Old Northwest). These efforts included a system of primitive roads constructed with a variety of materials including wooden planks, logs, and stones. By the early 1800s, a few crude roads were cut into the interior. For years, government leaders recognized the national and economic importance of maintaining a strong bond between the burgeoning western settlements-and their natural resources and markets-with the established communities on the Atlantic seaboard. The Cumberland Road, also known as the National Road, was begun in 1811 and represented a major step in accomplishing a national transportation system; however, the narrow, dirt trail was extremely difficult to travel, poorly maintained, and was often a haven for vandals and thieves. Nonetheless, the Cumberland Road handled thousands of Easterners heading west towards the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. Despite the heavy traffic, the Cumberland Road served as a gateway to the Old Northwest for only a short period. By 1825, the opening of the Erie Canal would usher in a new era of transportation and settlement for the Great Lakes region. 4

Development of the Erie Canal

By the tum of the nineteenth century, commercial interests in New York City craved control of the potentially lucrative Great Lakes trade. Up to that point, the Canadian city of Montreal and the distant city of New Orleans had been the two primary beneficiaries of the Great Lakes trade as these cities served as the northern and

3American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 1776-1976 (Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1976), 24; Russell Bourne, Floating West: The Erie and Other American Canals (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992), 32, 51; John W. Oliver, History of American Technology (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1975), 191-92.

4Waggoner, The Long Haul West, 29.

ST. MARYS FALLS CANAL (SOO LOCKS) HAER No. MI-322 Page 5

southern gateways, respectively, to the region. The Appalachians had for decades deterred American engineers from attempting any waterway to the West; however, a gap through the Allegheny Mountains in upstate New York showed promise for constructing a canal that would connect the Hudson River with Lake Erie. Work on the project began in 1817. When completed in 1825, the Erie Canal effectively redirected the Great Lakes trade to New York City and the rest of the East Coast. Unlike the National Road, the canal did not receive federal funding. Instead, the work was initiated by the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company and was later assumed by the State of New York. As a result, the Erie Canal served as a model for other states and subsequent canal-building efforts.5

The Erie Canal's 364-mile system connected the city of Buffalo (situated on Lake Erie) to the Hudson River and ultimately, to New York City. The canal boasted building technology not seen before in the United States. It consisted of eighty-three cut-stone locks that were kept watertight with a floor constructed of timbers and planks. The mitered, timber lock gates were bound with iron and controlled the release water through the use of sluices and wickets. Long, hand-powered, wooden arms opened and closed the lock gates. The discovery in New York of trass, a form of cement, made the Erie Canal and other American canals more durable than ever.6

The "Big Ditch's" economic benefits exceeded expectations. Freight charges between Buffalo and New York City were reduced from one hundred dollars to ten dollars, and travel time decreased from twenty-six to six days. During the first decade of the canal's operation, western and central New York supplied the majority of commerce that moved through the Erie Canal; however, the Great Lakes trade eventually caught up. By 1835, trade was so heavy that the canal's dimensions had to be enlarged to 70 feet wide and 7 feet deep, with locks that measured 110 feet long and 18 feet wide. Not surprisingly, numerous states quickly constructed their own canals in attempts to cash in on the Great Lakes trade. Though a large proportion of the subsequent canals faltered, the canal age in the United States was well underway by the 1830s and Great Lakes shipping became a dominant economic force in the nation. 7

5Shaw, Canals for a Nation, 30, 40.

6Canvass White, an American engineer, traveled to England to study English underwater cements. Upon his arrival in the U.S., he discovered trass, a variety of limestone that enabled the mixture of a high-quality hydraulic cement. See Shaw, Canals for a Nation, 39, 40; Harry Sinclair Drago, Canal Days in America: The History and Romance of Old Towpaths and Waterways (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., Publisher, 1972), 11; American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 26.

7The increase in lock size at the Erie Canal enabled boats three times larger than those that passed through the original lock to travel the waterway twice as fast. See Shaw, Canals for a Nation, 44-45.


Development of Great Lakes Shipping and the Great Lakes Region

General Navigation

The first vessels to sail the Great Lakes were Indian canoes; during the early seventeenth century, French bateaux (large canoes for hauling furs) plied the waters. Soon thereafter, French ships of a larger scale sailed the St. Lawrence River and the lower Great Lakes until the mid-eighteenth century. The French even managed to circumvent some of nature's impassable obstacles. In 1679, LaSalle's Griffin was portaged around Niagara Falls, which separated the upper and lower Great Lakes. Incidentally, the Griffin was the first wooden ship to sail on lakes Ontario, Huron, and Michigan. Fifty years later, the French bypassed the rapids of the St. Marys River, which connects Lake Superior to Lake Ontario. They did so by constructing a fortyton sailing vessel above the rapids. This feat allowed the French to monopolize the fur trade in the Lake Superior region for the next three decades. Following their victory in the French and Indian War in 1763, the British followed the lead set by the French and constructed vessels above Niagara Falls; soon, the British had ships throughout the Great Lakes, where they maintained military posts even after the American Revolution. Up until the turn of the nineteenth century, British merchants dominated Great Lakes commerce through the fur trade, supplying British military posts, and carrying household goods over the lakes. 8

American presence on the Great Lakes lagged behind its European counterparts. In 1789, the first American trading vessel set sail on Lake Ontario. As an increased American presence grew on the lakes, so did gradual efforts to improve travel on them. It took a few decades for steam-powered vessels to appear on the Great Lakes, especially Lake Superior, as numerous natural obstacles stood as barriers to lake-wide travel. A year prior to the completion of the Erie Canal, Canadian engineers and American contractors started to bypass the numerous obstacles between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in attempts to gain access to the upper lakes. Specifically, the 326-foot barrier created by Niagara Falls stopped all continuous water navigation between the lakes. In 1829, the Canadians completed the 28-mile-long Welland Canal around the Falls. By 1834, the Welland Canal and other waterway improvements had reduced steam travel between Buffalo and Detroit from five days to forty hours. Because of greatly increased ship traffic, the dimensions of the Welland Canal had to

8 Alfred Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," Engineering News 44:24 (11 June 1903), 532-34; American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 26-7; James Cooke Mills, Our Inland Seas. Their Shipping and Commerce for Three Centuries (Cleveland: Freshwater Press, Inc., 1976), 63; John N. Jackson, The Welland Canals and Their Communities: Engineering, Industrial, and Urban Transformation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 52, 280.


be expanded within six years. As a result, the Welland's total traffic volume grew from 767,210 tons in 1854 to over one million tons by 1861. Despite these significant increases in freight tonnage, the Welland could not handle the large steamships that were increasing in numbers on the Great Lakes. Consequently, larger carriers had to transfer their cargoes to smaller vessels capable of traveling through the canal. This routine continued until 1875, when a third expansion of the facility was completed.9

The Rapids of the St. Marys River (The Sault Ste. Marie): The Need/or a Canal

A smaller albeit troublesome obstacle separates Lake Ontario and Lake Superior. The rapids of the St. Marys River-also known as the Sault Ste. Marie-are adjacent to the present-day city of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and drop 22 feet within one-half mile. The barrier made passage between the lakes impossible for large vessels. The only crafts able to shoot the rapids were canoes, which, along with portaging, constituted the methods previously used by the French to bypass the falls. The desire to overcome the obstacle grew when, as early as 1772, the British were aware of tremendous copper deposits in the Lake Superior region. They built a 70-ton sloop above the Sault in an attempt to develop the resource while the British Northwest Fur Company bridged the rapids in 1798 with a small canal. No copper was successfully mined, however, and during the War of 1812, American soldiers destroyed the facility in 1814. With the British effectively ousted from the area, politicians in Washington, D.C., viewed the distant wilderness along Canada's border as more of a hindrance than an opportunity. Only one small schooner sailed Lake Superior's waters between 1815 and 1822. It was not until 1834 that commercial interest in the Lake Superior region had been renewed. Consequently, the first American vessel, the John Jacob Astor, was built on Lake Superior. Other vessels soon followed. These ships were either constructed on Lake Superior or tediously portaged around the rapids-a process that took between one to three months. Portaging ships was also very expensive, costing between $1,000 and $3,000, depending on the size of the ship.10

9 American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 3 9; Jackson, The Welland Canals and Their Communities, 3, 134, 135; Ronald E. Shaw, Erie Water West: A History of the Erie Canal (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1990), 413; Charles Hadfield, The Canal Age (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1969), 168, 193; "New Welland Canal," Engineering News 70:13 (25 September 1913), 598; Lew Allen Chase,"Michigan's Share in the Establishment of Improved Transportation Between East and the West," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 38 (Lansing: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1912), 593; Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," 533.

10Mentor L. Williams, ed., Schoo/craft's Narrative Journal of Travels: Through the Northwestern Regions of the United States Extending From Detroit Through the Great Chain of American Lakes to the Sources of the Mississippi River in the Year 1820 (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1992), 94; Frederick Clever Bald, The Sault Canal Through 100 Years, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (Detroit: University of Michigan Press, 1954),


Eventually, renewed interest in Lake Superior's vast supply of natural resources helped Americans re-think their previously indifferent policy toward accessing the virgin landscape ofLake Superior. As early as December 183 7, a canal was proposed to bypass the Sault, but that effort was stymied. Nearly five years later, massive veins of copper were discovered in the vicinity. Soon thereafter, iron ore was found along the shores of Lake Superior. In 1845, the steam-powered Independence was portaged around the Sault to Lake Superior in order to ship copper. Other ships soon followed to facilitate the growing trade. A passable water route around the rapids, however, was only one of the many internal improvements being encouraged by both merchants and U.S. surveyors. 11

By 1850, there existed virtually no roads in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Due to a lack of land transportation, iron ore and copper could only be transported from the mines during the winter months aboard horse-drawn sleighs. These sleighs could carry only one-and-one-half tons at a time. During the lake navigation season, work crews pushed wheelbarrows up gang planks to an awaiting schooner of very limited size. The ore was usually dumped on the schooner's decks to facilitate convenient unloading at Sault Ste. Marie. Still, the portage saw modest increases in total tonnage as of 1850, when the total freight portaged around the rapids reached 6,000 tons. The next year, that total was doubled to 12,600 tons.12

In 1852, the State of Michigan petitioned Congress for funds to construct a canal around the rapids of the St. Marys River. Congress provided a land grant the following year. Increased confidence in canal engineering gained from the construction of both the Erie and Welland canals, along with reports of the massive quantities of natural resources in the Lake Superior region, helped convince eastern

3; American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 39; John N. Dickinson, To Build a Canal: Sault Ste. Marie, 1853-1854, and After (Miami, OH: Miami University, 1981), 3; Charles Moore, ed., The Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905 (Detroit: Semi-Centennial Commission, 1907), 92; History of the Great Lakes with Illustrations (Chicago: J.H. Beers & Co., 1899), 196, 198.

11 John W. Larson, Essayons: A History of the Detroit District US. Army Corps of Engineers (Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, 1981), 43; Sao Locks Centennial Official Souvenir Program (N.p., 1955), 21, 23, On file at the State Library of Michigan, Lansing, MI (SLM).

12Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," 532-33; John 0. Greenwood, The Fleet Histories: A Historical Narrative andPhotographical Depiction of Former and Present Great Lakes Fleets (Cleveland: Freshwater Press, Inc., 1990), Introduction; Walter Havighurst, "Way to the Big Sea," American Heritage 6:3 (April 1955): 22; Dickinson, To Build a Canal, 24; Moore, ed., The Saint Marys Falls Canal, 57; Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction.

ST.MARYS FALLS CANAL (SOOLOCKS) HAER No. MI-322 Page 9

politicians that a canal was needed. 13 Israel D. Andrews, an American diplomat, correctly hypothesized one year before the canal's completion in 1855, that a canal at the Sault:

would be wholly incalculable to the commerce of all the several states, to the general wealth and well-being of the nation, and to almost immediate enumeration of the outlay to the general government by the increased price of, and demand for, the public lands in those regions. 14

The construction of the Welland and Sault Ste. Marie canals, together with the introduction of steam-powered craft, were critical to the development of the Great Lakes region. Indeed, the Old Northwest would have been hard-pressed for development if not for the cheap and accessible transportation that the canals provided. Having come into use soon after 1800, steam-powered vessels also facilitated a significant increase in settlement throughout the lower Great Lakes, particularly with the removal of the British as a result of the War of 1812. Steam vessels were increasingly built to be larger, quicker, and more comfortable by the late 1820s and early 1830s. As a result, migration patterns expanded from the old overland travel routes that led to the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys to travel via the Great Lakes. A chief reason for this was widespread land speculation in the West that attracted large numbers of East Coast residents to the region. 15

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Another factor facilitating western expansion was the development of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which conducted the earliest surveys and repairs on harbors and waterways around the lower Great Lakes. The roots of the Corps of Engineers are

13Communication From the Secretary of the Treasury, Transmitting, In Compliance with a Resolution of the Senate of March 8, 1851, The Report of Israel D. Andrews, Consul of the United States for Canada and New Brunswick, on the Trade and Commerce of the British North American Colonies, and Upon the Trade of the Great Lakes and Rivers; Also, Notices of the Internal Improvements in Each State, of the Gulf Of Mexico and Straits of Florida, And a Paper on the Cotton Crop of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Beverly Tucker, Senate Printer, 1854), 188-89.

14Ibid., 194.

15Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," 533; James L. Barton, Commerce of the Lakes. A Brie/Sketch of the Commerce of the Great Northern and Western Lakes for a Series of Years; To Which is Added, An Account of the Business Done Through Buffalo on the Erie Canal, for the Years 1845 and 1846. Also, Remarks as to the True Canal Policy of the State of New York (Buffalo: Press of Jewett, Thomas & Co., 1847): 15; Mills, Our Inland Seas, 102, 117; Arthur M. Woodford, Charting the Inland Seas: A History of the US. Lake Survey (Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, 1991), 28, 29.


traceable to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy was organized in 1802 as a school to train professional soldiers in the art of war, as well as the science and engineering aspects. Academic courses concentrated on mathematics, surveying, and hydraulics. In fact, West Point was the leading engineering school in the nation during most of the nineteenth century. This emphasis on engineering spawned from the need to develop coastal fortifications and the corresponding water survey data needed to repel invasion and protect vulnerable harbors. Soon, the Corps had gained a significant amount of practical experience dealing with sea walls, breakwaters, and other erosion control measures, thus making it an appropriate agency to handle harbor construction. 16

After the Erie Canal was completed in 1825, the Corps was busy improving various harbors around the Lake Erie region and eventually throughout the entire Great Lakes. Whether driven by public need or pork-barrel politics, Congress eventually authorized numerous river and harbor projects for the Corps. This work done by the Corps "made possible a remarkable expansion of shipping" during these early days of lake travel. In 1831, eleven steamboats cruised Lake Erie with a total freight tonnage of 6,582 tons. After numerous harbor improvements by the Corps over the span of two years, the total amount of cargo reached 10,471 tons because larger ships could ply the Erie's waters. By 1836, forty-five steamboats and 211 other vessels on Lake Erie represented 24,000 tons in cargo capacity. As a result, the shores around Lake Ontario-facilitated by both the Erie and Well and canals-were the first in the area to experience permanent settlement and establish cities of trade. The development of Lake Michigan was not far behind and by 1839, eight steamers ranging between 350 and 650 tons ran between Buffalo and Chicago in a sixteen-day round-trip. By 1841, the Great Lakes trade was worth $65 million. 17

In addition to this commercial surge on the waterways, the Great Lakes region underwent an explosion in settlement. Michigan, for example, received an influx of settlers: in 1830, 31,000 newcomers arrived while in 1840-three years after statehood was achieved-200,000 people had settled in Michigan. In 1845, 200,000 passengers traveled throughout the upper lakes and another 250,000 passengers followed suit the following year. 18

16Todd Shallat, Structures in the Stream: Water, Science, and the Rise of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1994), 79-83.

17Larson, Essayons, 39-40.

18Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," 533; Chase, "Michigan's Share in the Establishment oflmproved Transportation Between East and the West," 593; Larson, Essayons, 30; Barton, Commerce

'

of the Lakes, 49.


Improving Great Lakes travel was still in its infant stage, however. In 1841, the Corps of Topographic Engineers was commissioned to undertake a hydrographic survey of the northern and northwestern lakes. Completed in 1845, this survey included all of the lake harbors except those on Lake Superior. By 1877, each of the Great Lakes had been surveyed and important navigation charts were published; in 1882, the Great Lakes Survey Office was closed. By that time, the Corps had $18 million to spend on over five hundred river and coastal projects. But as ships were increasingly built to be larger and to carry deeper drafts, and as lake water levels fluctuated, the need for improved surveys and charts developed. Thus, surveys resumed in the early 1890s. Changes in Great Lakes shipping came quickly as new ideas of a waterway to the Atlantic Ocean were planned. Again, the Corps was critical in this process of surveying and charting navigable passages as well as in improving and maintaining harbors all over the Great Lakes up through the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Atlantic in 1959. Although mostly consisting of civilian employees today, the Corps still manages U.S. waterways. 19

Natural Resources and Products

Clearly, the Corps was instrumental in opening up the Great Lakes area, thereby tapping the region's vast resources.

•Copper

Its bountiful mineral resources were, for the most part, unknown as late as 1836 when the Upper Peninsula was added to the Territory of Michigan. Throughout the previous centuries, early travelers and surveyors had been aware that copper deposits existed in the region in small quantities. However, it was not until circa 184 3 that rich deposits of virgin, almost chemically pure copper were discovered near Lake Superior's southern shores. By 1855-the first year of operation of the Sault Canal-3, 196 tons of copper were shipped from area mines. From the opening of the first mine in the early 1840s to 1881, Lake Superior copper mines produced a total of 330,000 tons ofrefined copper at a total market value of $150,000,000.20

19Shallat, Structures in the Stream, 87-88, 94, 106, 117-18, 189, 200; American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 30, 39; Larson, Essayons, 30; Woodford, Charting the Inland Seas, 1, 28, 67, 69-70.

20History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan Containing a Full Account of Its Early Settlement; Its Growth, Development and Resources; An Extended Description of Its Iron and Copper Mines (Chicago: Western Historical Company, 1883): 158-59.

•Iron Ore


On 19 September 1844, iron ore was discovered near Marquette, Michigan, by U.S. Deputy Surveyor William A. Burt. In 1845, the Jackson Mine was established as the area's first iron ore mine, when 300 pounds of the mineral were produced by a small mining party. A forge was built nearby on the Carp River with a capacity to process nearly 6 tons of ore per day. Five years later, a second forge was built at the mouth of the Carp River. Here the ore was crushed and heated to a pasty consistency so as to be hammered into wrought iron and prepared for shipment. However, the cost of processing the ore along Superior's shores proved unprofitable; thus, ore shipping became the region's focus. In 1853, the Cleveland Iron Mining Company sent the first notable shipment of iron ore-152 tons-to the Sharon Iron Company in Sharon, Pennsylvania. Four ships carried the freight to Sault Ste. Marie, where it was portaged around the rapids and loaded onto another ship. Yet iron ore was not among the primary products of the Lake Superior region until 1888, when 5,063,877 tons of ore were transported. A series of developments facilitated this dramatic rise in iron ore shipment: the discovery during the late nineteenth century of the massive Gogebic, Mesabi, and Vermillion iron ranges in the Upper Peninsula and Minnesota; the continued development and enlargement of the Sault Canal; the deepening of channels throughout the Great Lakes; and the expanding size of ships, enabling greater load capacity. In addition, technological advances in steel production after the mid-nineteenth century, coupled with continued industrial growth through the twentieth century, created a high demand for Lake Superior's iron ore. By 1905, for example, the Mesabi Iron Range alone provided 20,153,699 tons of a total of 35,357,042 tons of iron ore shipped through the Sault Canal (the St. Marys River Ship Canal). In Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh, Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad carried this iron ore from the shipping terminus at Lake Erie to Pittsburgh, where advanced industrial methods such as the Kelly-Bessemer process were used to make steel in larger quantities by the turn of the twentieth century.21

•Grain, Timber and Coal

Wheat and various other grains from Minnesota and the Dakotas found their way via railroad to Lake Superior for shipment to eastern markets. Grain freight constituted a large portion of Superior shipping from 1870, when 49,000 bushels were carried through the Sault, to the 292,827,942 bushels transported in 1925. Indeed, grain shipment became the premier trade of the area for numerous years. In addition, the land surrounding Lake Superior was heavily wooded; this led to a prosperous lumber

210liver, History of American Technology, 316-17, 321; Moore, ed., The Saint Marys Falls Canal, 194; Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction.


industry that peaked between 1885 and 1895. Expansive forests of white pine, cedar, spruce, and poplar were lumbered and shipped through the Sault Canal aboard giant rafts towed by tugs. And lastly, Michigan's Lower Peninsula was underlaid with over 8,000 square miles of coal, creating a significant industry whereby coal was shipped to the East to heat homes and fuel industrial furnaces. 22

Evolution of Great Lakes Ship Design

The cargoes of natural resources and products continued to increase in size once the St. Marys River Ship Canal was constructed and the need to develop a quick procedure to unload these massive shipments became apparent. Consequently, throughout the nineteenth century, cargoes were limited by both the size of a ship's hold and the means to remove that cargo.

On 17 August 1855, the brig Columbia passed through the new canal at Sault Ste. Marie, carrying with it 132 tons of iron ore-the first cargo ever to pass through the canal. Whereas the Sault's arduous portage was eliminated with the opening of the canal, both the transportation of ore to and from ships remained a difficult process, despite minor improvements. A plank railroad was completed from the Marquette mines to Superior's shores in 1855, where carts pulled by mules carried 4 tons each. A day was considered to be productive when 35 total tons were transported from the mines to the docks. This number was significant as there were only three or four schooners on Lake Superior in 1850 and these vessels could only carry 15-to-20 tons each. Just two years later, the mules were replaced by a steam railroad that greatly eased the manner in which the ore reached Lake Superior. To alleviate further the loading process, a new dock with trestle work was built in 1862 at Marquette. It contained pockets to facilitate the loading of iron ore through a spout that could reach from the rail cars to a schooner's hatches. Unloading the ore was much harder work. Staging was eventually built in the holds of the schooners, positioned about half-way from the bottom to where the ore was shoveled upon it. The ore was subsequently re-shoveled from the staging deck into wheelbarrows that were transported off the ship. Other attempts were made to ease the unloading process, including the use of a horse with block-and-tackle. The tackle was attached to both the ship's mast and dock from which the harnessed horse pulled a bucket of ore out of the hold by moving forward. While such methods made the most of available means to help with the unloading process, the average cargo was 300 tons in the 1860s and required nearly

22History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 162, 183; Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 24-26; William Gerald Rector, Log Transportation in the Lake States Lumber Industry, I 840-19 I 8 (Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clarke Co., 1953), 41, 45; Joseph E. and Estelle L. Bayliss, River of Destiny: The Saint Marys (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955), 141, 173.

four days to be unloaded. 23


In 1867, Robert Wallace constructed a small, portable, 6-foot by 12-foot engine that fastened to the side of a boiler that could be moved along the dock to any desired location. Wallace's machine, operated by three strands of rope, could convey three tubs of iron ore at a time. But as ore tonnage continued to rise, the demand for even quicker unloading processes was met by Alexander E. Brown. In 1880, Brown developed a single-wired rig that carried the bucket from the hold and transported the ore to a storage area. The first such rig was installed in 1882 at the New York, Pennsylvania & Ohio Dock at Cleveland, Ohio. In all, five rigs with the first movable pier cableways built in the U.S. were located in Cleveland. The time needed to unload iron ore was drastically reduced as several hatches were able to be emptied simultaneously. This development, in addition to increased channel depths and lock lengths, virtually revolutionized the design of the Great Lakes steamer.24

Due to early ship improvements that made loading and unloading heavy freights practical, steamers were gradually built to carry more freight, as well as passengers. Two steamers in particular revolutionized early ship design on the Great Lakes. In 1839, the 183-foot-long, Great Western, which could carry 781 tons, was launched with the first upper deck cabin. The upper deck cabins provided for more hold space. Two years later, the Vandalia, a 91-foot, 138-ton steam sloop, was one of the world's first commercial steamers to utilize an aft engine and underwater screw propeller. Previous steamers used paddlewheels located on the side of the ships, and the mechanisms that turned the wheels occupied valuable hold space. By the 1850s, the age of exploration had come to an end as most of the land surrounding the Great Lakes was settled or claimed. Thus an era of transportation developed as the Great Lakes became the nation's most important waterway. Still, the majority of the ships on the Great Lakes were wind-powered. For example, in the early 1860s, schooners comprised 93 percent of Great Lakes tonnage compared to steam-powered vessels, which comprised 7 percent. This difference reflected the fact that sailing ships-unlike early steamers-were equipped for bulk cargoes and had deck hatches where deck spouts could easily load their holds. Consequently, sailing vessels maintained their usefulness well after their sailing career was over by being converted to barges towed by steam-powered ships. At the height of the grain trade, these ships reached between 1,500 and 1,900 tons. Later in the same decade when iron ore was discovered and was in high demand for various industrial needs, ships could carry

23 American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 40; History of the Great Lakes, 242; Woodford, Charting the Inland Seas, 29-30; Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction.

24Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction.


between 3,000 to 4,000 tons of freight on a draft of 14 to 15 feet. In 1882, out of necessity, the first iron-hulled freighter was launched. Wooden sailing vessels were thus displaced by steamers with deck hatches, which tended to have more reliable speed and were much easier to handle on the lakes.25

Larger Ships, Larger Locks

A direct result of increased ship sizes was a push for larger canal locks. For example, the Welland Canal underwent expansion in 1875 and the Sault Canal added the Weitzel Lock in 1881. But the 1886 launching of the first steel ship, the Spokane, which was 249 feet long and weighed 2,357 tons, meant the beginning of the end of the usefulness of the State Locks, a pair of tandem locks at the Sault Canal that raised vessels through a series of two lifts. Indeed, its fate was sealed as the growing iron ore and grain trade led to the development of "whale back" freighters; between 18 8 8 and 1898, over forty such vessels were constructed in Duluth, Minnesota. An average "whaleback" weighed approximately 2,200 tons, measured 308 feet in length, 42 feet in width and had a 25 draft. Ships of this size dictated a new lock; consequently, the Poe Lock replaced the State Locks in 1896. The Poe facilitated a new era of cargo carriers led by the 4,477-ton Samuel B. Morse, which was 456-feet long and had a 50-foot beam. In 1899, the Carnegie Steel Company located in Conneaut, Ohio, installed the first self-filling-bucket unloading machine. Designed by George H. Hulett, it quickly became the fastest unloading machine in the world with its capacity to grab between 5 and 10 tons per bucket-load. In addition, new advancements in dock design helped further quicken the loading process. Typically, boat hatches were spaced in 24-foot centers whereas ore pockets on the loading docks were spaced on 12-foot centers. As a result, a vessel received its cargo from every other dock pocket and then the vessel had to shift along the dock 12 feet to be in line to receive ore from the alternate series of pockets. Shipbuilders saw a golden opportunity to eliminate the need to shift 12 feet when in the midst ofloading its cargo and thus quicken the entire process. Great Lakes shipping design incidentally underwent another revolution. In 1902, the bulk freighter James H Hoyt was constructed with hatches spaced at 12-foot centers that allowed the vessel to be loaded from every pocket simultaneously. The vessel set records when its 5,250-ton cargo was loaded in approximately a half an hour and unloaded in just under four hours. In 1905, the steamer G. W Perkins, with its 10,514 tons of ore, was unloaded in just over four hours.26

25Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," 535; Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction; Woodford, Charting the Inland Seas, 29, 68.

26"The New Welland Ship Canal," 599; Brian S. Osborne and Donald Swainson, The Sault Ste. Marie Canal: A Chapter in the History of Great Lakes Transportation (Ottawa: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, 1986),


Indeed, large cargoes aboard large vessels characterized the era. There were seven carriers that operated with up to 8,000 tons of freight at the turn of the twentieth century, each ship measuring 478 feet long, 52 feet wide with a 30-foot draft. The Weitzel Lock at the Sault proved to be outmoded as two ships of such evolving size could not pass through at the same time. Planning began near the turn of the century to construct the Davis Lock and, later, the Sabin Lock (the Third and Fourth locks, respectively). The need was great for in 1910, the J Pierpont Morgan-the first 600-foot ship-was launched on the Great Lakes. Eight carriers of similar length soon followed, each featuring a 5 8-foot beam and a 3 2-foot draft. And by the 193 Os, there were over thirty ships of this class operating on the Great Lakes. During World War II, 640-foot-long ships were constructed, necessitating the new MacArthur Lock, which was built at the Sault in 1943. 27

By the late 1950s, large bulk carriers made their appearance on the Great Lakes, when taconite pellets replaced iron ore as the area's major freight. 28 By 1953, two 714-foot-long ships plied the Great Lakes and by 1968, the 729-foot Edmund Fitzgerald carried 30,260 tons of taconite pellets-the largest cargo on the Great Lakes. In response to these developments, the Corps of Engineers opened the 1,200-foot New Poe Lock at Sault Ste. Marie in 1968. Between 1972 and 1981, thirteen carriers each measuring 1,000 feet were built. This number of vessels remains the total in service today. Of these ships, which carry between 52,000 and 64,000 tons, the Stewart J Cort is the largest. It measures 1,014 feet long, 105 feet wide and has a maximum draft of 25Yz feet. These dimensions enabled the freighter to set a new cargo record of 51,000 tons oftaconite pellets in 1972.29

Larger Ships, A New Waterway: The St. Lawrence Seaway

Up to the mid-twentieth century, the various waterway improvements done throughout the Great Lakes facilitated travel of strictly lake vessels. Still, water

99-100; Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction.

27Greenwood, The Fleet Histories, Introduction; Moore, ed., The Saint Marys Falls Canal, 60, 200-1; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 117-18.

28Taconite pellets are produced from both low-grade magnetic iron ore found in Minnesota's Mesabi Range and a somewhat softer, higher grade non-magnetic ore found in Michigan. These pellets contain an iron content of about 60 percent, which is about twice the content of raw ore. The pellets are uniform in size. This proved an incentive to make bulk carriers as large and as easy to unload as possible. See Larson, Essayons, 209.

29Noble, "The Development of the Commerce of the Great Lakes," 535; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 118; Larson, Essayons, 301-2; "Evaluation of Soo Locks Expansion Enters Final Stages," Seaway Review (June-August, 1985): 89.


depths varied on the lakes to the point where the travel of some lake freighters was limited and ocean-going vessels were prohibited entirely. By the 1950s, Canada and the United States created a waterway of uniform depth. The result was the St. Lawrence Seaway, which allowed any vessel to travel from the Atlantic Ocean through the St. Lawrence River to Lake Erie and the other four Great Lakes.

The St. Lawrence Seaway stretches from Duluth, Minnesota, to the Atlantic Ocean-a distance of 2,340 miles. It represents a joint venture between Canada and the U.S. and permits seagoing vessels to traverse deep into the North American continent through a series of locks and canals. The Canadians, however, had constructed the Welland Canal by 1831 and had created a continuous waterway from the Atlantic to Lake Erie. Influenced by the abundance of natural resources in Lake Superior, the State of Michigan constructed the St. Marys River Ship Canal (the Sault Canal) in 1855, which connected Lake Ontario and Lake Superior. Still, a navigable route was not available for ocean-going ships to gain access to the ports of the Great Lakes. A more complete survey of the Great Lakes and the necessary improvements needed were undertaken between 1841 and 1882. As a result, on 2 March 1895, Congress authorized the President to form a Deep Waterways Commission to determine the feasibility of a continuous passageway through the lakes. Successive Presidents pursued this, but Congress continuously blocked the action. 30

It was not until 1931 that an agreement was reached with the Canadians to construct a hydroelectric power generator and to develop the necessary structures to complete the St. Lawrence waterway. Near mid-twentieth century, there were large differences between upper- and lower-lake travel. The average upper lake vessel was made of steel and averaged 600 feet long with a 60-foot beam and a 21-foot draft. The typical "lower laker" was constructed to fit the narrow locks of the Welland and shallow St. Lawrence canals. That style of vessel averaged 253 feet in length with a 43-foot beam and a 14-foot draft. In contrast, an average ocean-going vessel had a draft of 25Yz feet and averaged cargoes of between 250,000 to 300,000 tons in the early 1950s -- a figure that would double by the end of the decade. Given these dramatic discrepancies, the U.S. House of Representatives asked the Corps of Engineers in 1953 to deepen all American waterways in the Great Lakes to a depth between 27 and 30 feet. In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the St. Lawrence Seaway Act, which appropriated $105 million to construct the American portion of the seaway. When the joint project was completed in 1959, almost four million tons of overseas

30Tom Ireland, The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence, Deep Waterway to the Sea (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1934), 143; Larson, Essayons, 141; American Public Works Association, History of Public Works in the United States, 40; Woodford, Charting the Inland Seas, 157-59.

commerce sailed into Great Lakes ports.31

Evolution of Lock Technology


The St. Lawrence Seaway is indeed an important link in Great Lakes shipping; however, it possesses little groundbreaking technology in its design. On the other hand, the contributions of the St. Marys River Ship Canal to the evolution of lock design rival those of the Panama and Welland canals. Indeed, a total of eight locks have been constructed on both sides of the St. Marys River (seven American and one Canadian) and these represent some of the largest and most technologically advanced canal structures of their day. A comparison of the Sault's lifts and other notable shipping locks illustrates thoroughly the evolution in technology employed to design these structures.32

The first "modem" lock in the western world is believed to have been developed in present-day Milan, Italy, sometime in the mid-1400s. These crude, early locks consisted of two gates that separated two different levels of water. A boat desiring to continue to a lower level would go into the lock and have the upper gate closed. Next, the lower gate would be opened to allow both the boat and the head of water to wash into the lower waterway. These developments allowed for the creation of canal networks throughout Europe and England; however, these waterways were primarily barge canals for inland navigation. The most lasting development of this period was the invention of the miter gate by Leonardo da Vinci. A miter gate has two leaves that when closed, form a vee that points upstream. The force of the water pushing against the gate keeps it closed. Also the vee redistributes the force of the water against the gate to the lock walls. The mitered gate allowed for larger lock structures. By the late 1700s and early 1800s, ship canals were being cut across peninsulas or from the ocean to large inland lakes to promote ocean commerce.33

31 Ireland, The Great Lakes, 92-93; Larson, Essayons, 202-3, 209; John L. Hazard, The Great Lakes -- St. Lawrence Transportation System: Problems and Potential (N.p., 1969), 67.

32Robert W. Passfield, Technology in Transition: The 'Sao' Ship Canal, 1889-1985 (Ontario: Canadian Park Service, 1989), 16.

33Robert Payne, The Canal Builders: The Story a/Canal Engineers Through the Ages (New York: Macmillan Company, 1959), 66-68, 76-93, 108, 128-33; Jackson, The Welland Canals and Their Communities, 5; Harry F. Hodges, Notes on Mitering Lock Gates: Professional Papers of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Press, 1892), 7.

Welland Canal and Its Locks


Canada's Welland Canal best represents the achievements of this early period of canal and lock construction. Completed in 1829, the canal bypassed the Niagra River and connected Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. The difference in elevation between these two lakes was 327 feet and was negotiated with forty locks. These locks consisted of wooden walls and measured 100 feet long, 22 feet wide, and 8 feet deep at the sill. The lift of these locks ranged between 6 and 11 feet. In 184 2, the Welland Canal was enlarged by building a new route between the lakes. The new route was straighter and required only twenty-seven locks. Each of these locks had cut-stone walls and measured 150 feet long, 26Yz feet wide and 9 feet deep at the sill. Despite fewer locks, the range of lift was between 9 and 14 feet. 34

The Sault Canal and Its Locks

•The State Locks

When the State of Michigan completed the St. Marys River Ship Canal (the Sault) in 1855, its two tandem locks (the State Locks) were the largest shipping locks in North America. Despite their immense size, the locks were similar in construction to other lifts of the period. Each lock was constructed of stone masonry and had a lift of 9 feet. The lock gates were operated by a group of men turning a capstan, which provided the force necessary to manipulate a boom-and-cable system to open and close the timber gates. Water entered or exited the lock chamber through valves located within the gates. These valves were operated by hand from the top of the lock gate. While simple to construct, the gate-valve system created a large amount of turbulence within the chamber due to the direct entry of water and it proved to be difficult to hold a ship in place.35

•The Weitzel Lock

The Weitzel Lock at the Sault was, at the time of its construction in 1881, the largest

34Jackson, The Welland Canals and Their Communities, 7, 42, 51-52; "The New Welland Ship Canal," 598; Roberta M. Styran and Robert R. Taylor, The Welland Canals: The Growth of Mr. Merritt's Ditch (Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1988), 158-59.

35Passfield, Technology in Transition, 16; Bald, The Sault Canal Through 100 Years, 22-24; United States Army Corps of Engineers, Report of the Chief of Engineers (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907-1977), hereafter cited as Chief Engineer Report, [1913], 2:2899; "Specifications of the Manner of Building the Saint Marys Falls Canal," Located in Record Group 58-17, Box 34, Folder 259, SAM.


lock in the world. Alfred Noble, one ofits chief designers, was a civilian employee of the Corps of Engineers who would later serve on the Isthmian Canal Commissionthe planning body for construction of the Panama Canal. Noble also would be a chief designer of the Panama Canal Locks. The single-lift Weitzel Lock exceeded the size of the dual-lift State Locks by measuring 515 feet long and 16 feet deep at the mitered sill. The Weitzel' s cut-stone lock chamber measured 80 feet wide; however, the space between the lock gates was only 60 feet wide. This design element allowed for the use of double-leaf timber gates. Generally, timber was only used for lock gates if the leaf spanned less than 40 feet because wood sheathing did not add any structural strength to the gates (the metal sheathing of iron gates materially added to the gates' overall strength). The Weitzel Lock is representative of significant technological advancements in lock design. Its lock chamber was filled through the floor by timberlined culverts rather than through the gates or culverts that only passed around the gates. The effect of filling through the floor was that a vessel was raised by its keel. The flow of water through gate valves would push against either the front or rear of a ship. Moreover, gate valves place a tremendous amount of pressure on the gatesan undesirable circumstance as gates became larger. The Weitzel Lock's gates and valves were powered by hydraulic turbines. These turbines harvested the direct flow of the St. Marys River to turn a series of gears and drives that eventually connected to the gates and valves. 36

•The Poe and Canadian Locks

Despite the massive size of the Weitzel compared to the State Locks, the increases in Great Lakes shipping dictated the construction of even larger locks. Although both were essentially constructed in the 1890s, the Poe and Canadian locks of the Sault Canal are significantly different. With regard to lock technology, it can be argued that the Poe Lock represented the last shipping lock of the nineteenth century and that the Canadian Lock was the bridge to the twentieth century. The Poe Lock was intended to be the largest in the world when it was designed in 1886; however, the only differences, other than size, between the Poe and the Weitzel were that the Poe possessed steel gates and utilized steam power to drive the machinery that manipulated the valves and gates. On the surface, the Canadian Lock appeared to be no different than any other typical lock of the day. It too was constructed with cutstone walls and it even had timber gates. Yet the lock possessed several pioneering

36Passfield, Technology in Transition, 16, 204; "Iron or Wooden Lock Gates: Costs of Construction and Maintenance," Engineering News 68: 15 (9 October 1902): 289; Hodges, Notes on Mitering Lock Gates, 8; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 217-18; Chief Engineer Report, [1913], 2:2899; [1914], 1:1213; Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 24; "New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo,'" Engineering News 71:10 (5 March 1914):513; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 108; Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905, 155,250.


elements that would be incorporated into future large locks. When it was completed in 1895, the Canadian Lock was the longest in the world. Its great length was intended to allow several ships to pass through the lift in one lockage. This concept of a flotilla lock was not new; however, contemporary locks such as the Poe and Weitzel required ships to be arranged abreast rather than in tandem. The tandem design was a result of the significant increases in ship size. It was often difficult and dangerous to maneuver large ships abreast in a confined space. By moving vessels in tandem, navigation through the lock was safer and more efficient. In addition, the length of the Canadian Lock allowed for narrower timber gates-a significant savings over wider, steel gates.37

In addition to the above, the Canadian Lock marked a transition from the use of stone masonry to concrete for constructing lock walls. The exterior portions of the walls were built with cut-stone; however, the backing,portion of the wall was formed from a combination of stone blocks and concrete with a Portland cement base (see below). Specifically, large blocks of limestone and sandstone were set into puddles of concrete. The method proved to be relatively economical since the backing stone did not have to be formed to fit perfectly; also, sandstone from the lock pit excavation could be used in conjunction with limestone imported from other parts of Canada. The wall could be constructed faster and yet retain the same strength as a wall built only from stone. Furthermore, concrete proved to be a superior waterproof barrier to a structure consisting of only cut stone. Previously, water seepage was prevented by clay puddling between the lock wall and the surrounding earth. Prior to the invention of the rotary kiln in 1889, the use of Portland cement-based concrete was cost-prohibitive for large-scale construction. Portland cement is an artificial cement that has superior setting, hardness, and drying qualities compared to natural cements. Once an effective manufacturing process was developed, the price of the material dropped considerably and it began to be used in a variety of construction projects.38

The Canadian Lock was the first in the world built with an electrical system for operating valves and gates. In 1893, the Canadian Department of Railways and Canals began to investigate using electricity as a power source for canals. A small experiment was completed at the Soulanges Canal along the St. Lawrence River. An improvised system of dynamos and street car motors was used to open a gate leaf. The result of the test proved that only a small amount of electricity was required to open the leaf and, more importantly, the operation was smoother and quicker than a

37Bayliss, River of Destiny, 109; Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 28-29; Osborne and Swainson, The Sault Ste. Marie Canal, 46, 70.

38Passfield, Technology in Transition, 40, 42.


direct hydraulic system. Moreover, an electrically powered system would improve operations in icy conditions. Cold weather slowed hydraulically operated systems to the point that they were sometimes unreliable. The success of the tests persuaded the engineers of the Canadian Lock to include an electrical system in their design. The Canadian Lock utilized the St. Marys River to generate electricity for its electrical system. Water turbines would provide the energy to turn two forty-five kilowatt, DC (direct current) generators. The generators, in turn, powered the various twenty-five horsepower motors that manipulated the lock's gates and butterfly valves. When it was complete, the lock's electrical arrangement was considered to be one of the most advanced electrical systems in the world for any purpose.39

Indeed, the efficiency of the electrical system allowed a gate to be opened or closed in fifty seconds. In comparison, the steam-powered hydraulic system of the Poe Lock manipulated a gate in two minutes. Additionally, electricity allowed for precise operation of the operating mechanisms .. For example, the control that electrical power offered allowed for culvert valves to be used to propel ships out of a lock. The lock operator could open a valve enough to provide a brief, controlled spurt of water to start a ship on its way out of the lock. After the successful application of electricity to the Canadian Lock, all future, large-scale, ship canals and locks would be built with an electrical power system; however, these new systems were based on AC current rather than DC current because the former offered a greater range of distribution. 40

•The Davis and Sabin Locks

The period when the Poe and Canadian locks were the foremost locks in the world was shortlived. Shortly after the tum of the century, the St. Marys River Ship Canal received two even more substantial lifts-the Davis and Sabin locks. The Davis and Sabin locks are essentially the same design.41 The Davis Lock was completed between 1907 and 1914 and the Sabin between 1913 and 1919. The design of the essentially twin locks was an efficient compromise of nineteenth- and twentiethcentury technologies based upon what would best fit the geographical and navigational situation of the Great Lakes. Specifically, the St. Marys Ship Canal was the busiest in the world-a most remarkable fact given that winter prohibited navigation for four months out of the year. Therefore, any lock built at the Sault

39Ibid., 94-98, 101; Osborne and Swainson, The Sault Ste. Marie Canal, 46, 70.

40Passfield, Technology in Transition, 113-14, 131.

41Even though both the Davis and Sabin locks are the same design, the older date of construction for the Davis Lock makes the Sabin Lock subordinate in the discussion of lock evolution.


needed to be efficient, reliable, and easy to repair. The number of ships passing through the canal also required the locks to be extremely large, allowing several 600-foot ships through in one passage. Finally, the 21-foot lift at the Sault was appraised by lock designers as moderate and did not require the development of unique technology to overcome the obstacle efficiently.

With a length of 1,350 feet, the Davis Lock replaced the Canadian Lock as the longest lock in the world. 42 Similar to the Canadian, the Davis was designed as a flotilla lock that would pass ships through in tandem. The Davis incorporated several of the newest features of lock engineering. Its walls, culverts, and floor were formed completely from poured concrete, which by 1907, was considerably cheaper than cut stone. Also, the lift used electricity to power gates and butterfly valves efficiently. Remaining elements of the Davis Lock reflected time-tested technology but did so on a larger scale. The Davis utilized a floor culvert system for filling and emptying. The moderate lift of the lock and the relatively shallow draft of Great Lakes vessels ( as compared to ocean vessels) did not demand digging an excessively deep lock pit, which made the simple floor culvert system an economically feasible option. As for gates, the Davis used a standard girder variety manipulated via a cable-and-pulley system. This was essentially the same system used for the gates of the Weitzel Lock. The choice of steel cables over the newer jack-arm system reflected a need for simplicity, ease of repair, and preventing ice from damaging moving parts. That is, the moving elements of the jack-arm system were exposed and were prone to locking up in cold weather-a potentially catastrophic condition during the busy closing days of the navigation season. While the jack-arm system was the most efficient method to open a lock gate-indeed, it was the system employed at the Panama Canal-the gates of the Davis Lock operated in the impressive time of ninety seconds.43

The Sault Canal and Its Locks in Perspective: The Panama Canal

Constructed at the same time as the Davis Lock, the Panama Canal is perhaps the most spectacular example of canal and lock construction ever built. Constructed between 1904 and 1915, the 51-mile canal connects the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean through the Isthmus of Panama. Unlike the Sault Canal, the Panama Canal crosses an expanse of land rather than bypassing a section of an unnavigable river. This important geographic aspect requires that a ship be raised 85 feet so it can navigate Gatun Lake; the vessel is then lowered 85 feet in order to complete passage through

42See Davis Lock Subcomplex HAER Document for a complete description of the facility.

43"New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo,"' 512-19; "Completing the World's Busiest Waterway," Scientific American 116:8 (24 February 1917): 202.


the canal. These two lifts are accomplished with three lock complexes that cost nearly $60 million to construct. All of the lock complexes consist of side-by-side dual locks, which provide tremendous flexibility during busy shipping, periods of maintenance, or in times of emergency such as when a lock is unable to be used due to accident. The lock complexes work in the following manner: the so-called Gatun Locks raise a ship on the Atlantic side of the canal to an elevation of 85 feet. The lift is accomplished by a flight of three locks. On the Pacific side, the lift to Gatun Lake is negotiated through two sets oflocks known as the Miraflores and the Pedro Miguel. Located 8 miles from the Pacific Ocean, the Miraflores Lock raises a ship in two flights to a channel that leads to the Pedro Miguel Lock. The Pedro Miguel is a single-lift structure that elevates a vessel 31 feet to Gatun Lake.44

The size of each lock basin is 1,000 feet long, 110 feet wide, and 40 feet deep (navigable depth). The outer side walls for this structure are made out of masses of unreinforced poured concrete that measure 50 feet wide at the bottom of the basin and taper to 8 feet wide at the top. The division between the two basins measures 280 feet wide. I ts lower portions consist entirely of concrete, while its upper sections contain a variety of spaces for culverts, machinery, and utilities. A typical crosssection of the dual locks reveals a system of three side-wall culverts. One culvert runs the entire length of each outer side wall and another culvert runs the length of the center division. A network of cross-culverts branches off of each main culvert underneath the lock floor. The center division culvert has cross-culverts extending underneath both basins. The branch culverts open into the lock basin through a series of seventy apertures. The wall-culvert system was selected over a floor-culvert system primarily to reduce the depth of lock pit excavation. It was economically desirable to limit excavation because of the multiple levels oflocks as well as of the 40-foot depth of each lock basin. Water is regulated through the culverts by two types of valves. Massive gate valves that slide up and down in a frame guard the main culverts, while cylindrical valves separate each branch from the main tunnel. The culvert system allows the basin to fill or empty in fifteen minutes.45

At the time of their construction, the gates of the Panama Canal were the largest in the world. Each gate consists of two steel leaves that measure 65 feet wide and range in weight between 400 and 750 tons. The sheer size of the locks necessitated the use of steel rather than timber for the gates. Structurally, each gate consists of a network

44George W. Goethals, ed., The Panama Canal: An Engineering Treatise, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1916), 2:3; Ira E. Bennett, History of the Panama Canal: Its Construction and Builders (Washington, D.C.: Historical Publishing Company, 1915), 150.

45Goethals, ed., The Panama Canal, 2:4, 9-11, 69-73, 83-84; Bennett, History of the Panama Canal, 150-51.


of horizontal and vertical girders instead of a series of steel arches, which would have given the gate a curved appearance. An arched gate of this size would have required very deep gate recesses in the lock walls, which would have required substantial reinforcement. A pioneering feature of the Panama Canal gates is the inclusion of flotation chambers within the structure. These chambers make the gate lighter in water and allow for smaller connecting elements. The gates are manipulated by a large bar that connects the gate to a mammoth, flat master wheel. The electrically driven master wheel assembly resembles the drive wheel of a locomotive. The system allows the gates to be opened or closed in two minutes.46

The locks have a large number of safety features for preventing collisions with the lock gates. First, all ships going through the locks are pulled through with locomotives rather than under their own power. If for some reason the locomotives lose control of the ship, the vessel would be prevented from hitting a lock gate by a huge safety chain that spans the lock chamber. A third level of precaution is the use of double gates at every exposed position. If a vessel breaks through the safety chain, two sets of gates would have to give way before two different levels of water could directly interact. Finally, if all the preceding elements failed, a movable emergency dam stands ready to check the uninterrupted flow of water through the lock.47

The design of the Panama Canal's locks set the standard for future lock construction; however, some aspects were modified to meet conditions affecting other locks. This included the Sault Canal's MacArthur Lock, which was opened in 194 3 to augment shipping during World War II. For example, its gate operating design was similar to that employed in Panama. But to overcome the problem of ice affecting the gate mechanisms, the walls of the MacArthur were constructed with ice recesses, and movable parts were located underneath large deck panels. Aside from such adjustments, there have been no significant developments in the major components of lock construction since the Panama Canal was built.48

All of the preceding provides the larger context for the development of the St. Marys River Canal Complex-the Sault (Soo )-which is described in full detail in the

46Goethals, ed., The Panama Canal, 2:5-6, 92, 96; Bennett, History of the Panama Canal, 151-52.

47Bennett, History of the Panama Canal, 152-53.

48J. Roland Carr, "MacArthur Lock at the Soo," Engineering News-Record 131:20 (18 November 1943): 78-85; George W. Reschke, "Design, Size, Construction and Operation ofNew Second Lock, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan," Paper presented to the Bay City Society ofNaval Architects and Marine Engineers, 21 May 1964, Located in the Soo Locks Vertical Files (SLMVF), State Library of Michigan, Lansing, ML

remainder of this section.


SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF THE SAULT STE. MARIE COMPLEX

St. Marys River and Falls

The St. Marys River is 63 miles long and connects the eastern end of Lake Superior to the northern end of Lake Huron. Historically, the width of the river varied and was divided into numerous channels separated by islands. In the lower portion of the river, these channels opened up into a series of small lakes. The fall of the river is between 21 and 23 feet, with all but 3 feet of that drop occurring at St. Marys Falls (also known as St. Marys Rapids or the Sault Ste. Marie). The falls are located approximately 15 miles downstream from the river's head. Historically, the rapids were one mile long and strewn with large boulders. Also, several small islands were located among the rapids. The combination of these features created a violent turbulence that forced the vast majority of travelers to portage around the falls.49

Early Travelers and Commerce

The first Europeans to use the St. Marys River and Lake Superior for commerce were French voyageurs. They relied upon massive canoes to transport furs and either would bravely run the rapids or utilize a time-consuming land portage. These methods facilitated passage between Lakes Huron and Superior until 1798, when the Northwest Fur Company completed a small canal with a single lock on the river's Canadian side. The lock measured 38 feet by 8 feet and could lift a vessel only 9 feet, or half of the elevation between the two lakes. Basically, the structure was used only to carry fur-laden canoes around the worst of the rapids. The U.S. Army destroyed both the canal and lock during the War of 1812.50

Prior to the War of 1812, both the Hudson Bay Company and the American Fur Company built large schooners on Lake Superior to facilitate the fur trade. After the war, the fur trade went into a sharp decline and many of these ships were removed to the lower lakes. The fur business had rebounded by 1834, and the American Fur

49Williams, ed., Schoo/craft's Narrative Journal of Travels, 94-95; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 3; Chief Engineer Report, [1921], 1:1586-87.

50Joseph A. Ten Broeck, "Old Keweenaw," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 30 (Lansing, MI: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1905), 145; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 136-37; "New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo,'" 513. The remains of the lock were discovered in 1889 and the facility was later reconstructed. See Bayliss, River of Destiny, 272-73.

3:3075.


Company put the 112-ton John Jacob Astor on Lake Superior. The vessel's components were portaged past the falls of the St. Marys River and assembled. In the 1840s, rollers were installed at the portage to assist in moving freight and ships between the lakes. Soon, a diminutive fleet centered around the 150-ton, steampowered Independence plied Lake Superior. This flotilla allowed for the establishment of small, copper mining outposts along the lake's southern shore ( see Natural Resources section in General Historical Context). Initially, these isolated settlements completely relied upon what could be portaged through the Sault, regardless of cost. In 1850, the Chippewa Portage Company constructed a portage tramway through Sault Ste. Marie. The next year, the tramway carried 12,600 tons between the two Great Lakes; however, the majority of that quantity consisted of subsistence dry goods and mining machinery destined for the mining camps, with only minimal export of copper, iron ore, and fish. 51

The Need/or a Canal

But Americans recognized the need for a canal around the falls of St. Marys even before the implementation of the portage tramway. Their first concerted effort to construct such a facility began in 183 7, when Michigan Governor Stevens Mason sent a message to the Michigan State Legislature regarding his desire to build a canal. The body reacted by appropriating $25,000 for studying and surveying the project. Mason appointed an engineer named John Almy to complete the study, and Almy recommended constructing a canal that was 7 5 feet wide and measured 10 feet deep. According to his design, the waterway would include two locks, each of which would measure 100 feet long, 32 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. Almy estimated the cost of the project to be $112,544.52

Acting upon Almy' s recommendations, the Michigan state legislature allocated an additional $25,000 in 1838 for the project and awarded a construction contract to Smith & Driggs of Buffalo, New York. A $5,000 advance was granted and workers began excavation in the spring of 1839; however, work was halted due to what was essentially a right-of-way issue with the U.S. Army. This resulted when the contractor decided that for construction purposes, it was necessary to close the government millrace that served Fort Brady. Fort Brady was a twenty-six-acre

51 History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 136-37; Larson, Essayons, 47; Chief Engineer Report [1916],

52History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 213-14.


military installation located adjacent to the rapids.53 It is possible that the contractor deliberately underbid the project in order to break the contract legally and pocket as much of the advance as possible. It is known that the construction firm had been told by the Army prior to the start of excavation not to disturb its millrace during canal construction. Additional evidence explaining the contractor's actions is that economic distress during the Panic of 183 7 had placed a severe strain upon the State of Michigan's treasury. The fledgling state had embarked on a spree of expensive internal improvements using borrowed money. Because the state was on the brink of bankruptcy, it was doubtful that it could have paid the remainder of the canal contract. Nevertheless, Senator William Woodbridge of Michigan formally protested the halting of the project by the Army.54

Despite this setback, Michigan's Congressional delegation continued to push for a canal appropriation. In 1840, a bill that would fund a canal with a 100,000-acre land grant was defeated in the Senate. Henry Clay of Kentucky led the majority block. He said that a canal at Sault Ste. Marie was "a work beyond the remotest of settlement in the U.S., if not the moon." Over the next dozen years, canal supporters unsuccessfully pressured for funding until a bill providing a right-of-way through Fort Brady and a 750,000-acre land grant was passed in August 1852. The appropriation demanded that construction commence within three years and be completed within ten. Also, the terms dictated that the canal had to be at least 100 feet wide and 12 feet deep and include locks that were each at least 250 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 12 feet deep.55

St. Marys Falls Ship Canal Company

Meanwhile, during the summer of 1852, a man named Charles T. Harvey was investigating potential mining opportunities in Michigan's Upper Peninsula for the Erastus & Thaddeus Fairbanks Company of Vermont. In his report, Harvey recognized the potential a Sault canal would unleash. Most notably, he acknowledged that the eventual canal contractor probably would receive a land grant containing mineral-rich territory in Michigan's undeveloped Upper Peninsula. Based upon Harvey's findings, Erastus Fairbanks approached several investors about a canal project, including Erastus Coming, John W. Brooks, and James F. Joy, all of whom

53See historical context section entitled "Defense of the St. Marys River Ship Canal" for additional information about Fort Brady.

54History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 214; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 101-3.

55Bayliss, River of Destiny, 103; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 214.


were associated with the Michigan Central Railroad. The group benefitted from Joy's involvement since he was one of the most influential lawyers in the state and had many political connections. Specifically, Joy persuaded the legislature's canal committee to have Harvey assist in drafting the technical details of the canal legislation. Joy also used his influence to work the board that was tasked with assigning the contract. Although several bids were lower than that of the Fairbanks-Corning-Brooks-Joy group, its proposal covered every possible detail required by the State of Michigan. The group also had the desirable reputation of including "monied men" who could impact an area that severely lacked capital. For all of these reasons, the group was awarded the contract to construct, and subsequently formed the St. Marys Falls Ship Canal Company. The enterprise was incorporated in New York with capital of $1 million; Harvey was named the company's general agent in charge of operations. 56

Under terms of the contract, contractors nominated state land grant agents to be appointed by the Michigan governor. Not surprising, one of the agents appointed by Governor Andrew Parsons was none other than twenty-three-year-old Charles Harvey. Harvey was the agent responsible for selecting a 140,000-acre portion of the land grant located in the state's Upper Peninsula. Harvey, of course, chose the yet unclaimed mineral-rich tracts that he had surveyed during his 1852 visit to that region. These tracts eventually became some of the richest copper and iron ore mining areas in the entire country. On 4 June 1853, Harvey's work crews broke ground on the canal project. Captain Augustus Canfield of the U.S. Army Topographic Engineers was retained by the State of Michigan to be the chief engineer. Work progressed quickly, despite a cholera epidemic and a strike over working conditions. Eventually 2,000 men were working on the project. Most were gathered by company agents from the immigration docks in Eastern cities and shipped to Sault Ste. Marie. While the majority of the work focused on constructing lock facilities, the entire channel from the locks to Lake Superior was deepened by 1 foot and a substantial stone reef was removed at the head of the St. Marys River. On 18 June 1855, the steamer Illinois was the first vessel to lock through the canal.57

56Bayliss, River of Destiny, 103-5; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 215; Irene D. Neu, "The Building of the Sault Canal, 1852-1855," Mississippi Valley Historical Review 40 (June 1953): 26-27, 30-36; Idem., "The Mineral Lands of the St. Marys Falls Ship Canal Company," in David H. Ellis, The Frontier in American Development (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), 168-71; Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan Passed at the Regular Session of 1853 (Lansing, MI: Geo. W. Peck, Printer to the State, 1853), 48-52.

57Bayliss, River of Destiny, 105-7; Shaw, Canals for a Nation, 147; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 216; Neu, "The Mineral Lands of the St. Marys Falls Ship Canal Company," 170-71, 176; "First Sault Ste. Marie Canal," Scientific American Supplement 53: 1375 ( 10 May 1902): 22042; Neu, "The Building of the Sault Canal, 1852-1855," 38-39, 41; Chief Engineer Report [1913], 2:2899.

The Completed Canal and Locks


Overall, the project cost $999,802.46 and consisted of a 5,548-foot ship canal with two tandem locks, each measuring 350 feet long, 70 feet wide, and 12 feet deep. Each lock was constructed of stone masonry and had a lift of 9 feet. The lock gates were operated by a group of men turning a capstan, which provided the force necessary to manipulate a boom and cable system to open and close the gates. Water entered or exited the lock chamber through valves located within the wooden lock gates. While simple to construct, the gate-valve system created a large amount of turbulence within the chamber due to the direct entry of water and it proved to be difficult to hold a ship in place. 58

The canal's opening season lasted from 18 June to 23 November 1855. During that time, the canal was used by 149 steamers and forty-four sailing ships, which carried a total of 5,690 tons of merchandise, 14,503 tons of freight, and 8,295 passengers. Freight generally consisted of flour, copper, iron ore, manufactured iron, and coal. In order to pay for operating the canal, the State of Michigan charged tolls based upon the passing vessel's registered tonnage (regardless of load). During its first season, the canal garnered $4,375. In 1859, a weakness in one of the lock walls required the state to repair the facility at a cost of $100,000. The funds came from state-issued bonds, which were paid back from canal tolls.59

Improvements: The Weitzel Lock

Over the next two decades, both freight tonnage and the number of vessels passing through the canal continued to grow. During the Civil War, cargo annually carried through the locks averaged 184,875 tons. By 1869, that amount had exploded to 282,791 tons annually; however, many of the newer boats passing through the canal could not be loaded to capacity due to their deep draft and the shallowness of the entire facility. It was becoming apparent that the state canal would soon be unable to handle traffic between the two lakes. Again, Congress was lobbied for funding to improve the facility; however, nothing was done because the canal was under the control of the State of Michigan. In response, the Michigan legislature showed a willingness to cooperate by authorizing on 27 March 1869 the transfer of the canal

58Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 22-24; Chief Engineer Report, [1913], 2:2899.

59Chief Engineer Report [1913], 2:2893-94; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 216-17; Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 22. No statistics were found to compare the canal's freight tonnage to that of the portage tramway.

to the federal government. 60


In addition to this effort on the part of the State of Michigan, other states surrounding the Great Lakes pushed Congress for an improvement at Sault Ste. Marie. Eventually, Congress recognized the Sault Canal's national importance and on 11 July 1870, the body appropriated $150,000 to build a new lock; however, Congress did not accept Michigan's offer to turn over the existing facility at that time. Most likely, the federal government did not want to operate the canal during construction of the new lock. Regarding construction, the Army Corps of Engineers' Detroit District Commander General Orlando M. Poe supervised the surveying, development of general plans, and actual construction until he was superseded by General Godfrey Weitzel in 1873. Alfred Noble, a civilian engineer, designed the lock chamber and also served as the on-site manager throughout the term of the project. Noble would later serve as a consulting engineer on the construction of the Panama Canal. Although there were several contractors, the firm of Boy le & Roach of Cincinnati, Ohio, was the primary builder of the lock. The majority of the work directed by the Corps of Engineers centered around constructing a lock parallel to the existing State Locks. The new, one-lift lock (named after General Weitzel in 1896) exceeded the State Locks as it measured 515 feet long and 16 feet deep at the mitered sill. The Weitzel Lock cost $2,625,692.61

At the time, the Corps of Engineers and shipowners thought that vessels would not exceed 200 feet in length and 38 feet in width for the foreseeable future. The stonewalled chamber of the Weitzel Lock measured 80 feet wide; however, the space between the lock gates was only 60 feet wide. The difference in width reflected the fact that the lock chamber was designed to hold four ships simultaneously, although only one ship would enter or exit at a time. The Weitzel Lock was more technologically advanced than the State Locks in that the lock chamber ofthe Weitzel Lock was filled from the floor through timber-lined culverts rather than through the gates-a feature that limited turbulence within the chamber. Moreover, hydraulic turbines replaced human-powered capstans for gate and valve operation. In addition to the lock, the entire canal had its depth lowered to 16 feet while its minimum width was increased to 100 feet. After work was completed in 1881, the State of Michigan formally turned over the improved facility to the Corps of Engineers. The Weitzel

6°Chief Engineer Report, [1913], 2:2895; History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 217; "New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo,"' 513.

61History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 217-18; Chief Engineer Report, [1913], 2:2899; [1914], 1: 1213; Bald, The Sault Canal Through I 00 Years, 24; "New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo, "' 513; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 108; Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905, 155,250.

Lock was opened for traffic on 1 September 1881. 62


The deepened channel and new lock facilitated an explosive increase in shipping. During the Weitzel's first full season of operation (1882), the complex handled 54 percent more freight tonnage and 1,271 additional vessels than it did during the final year of the State Locks' solo operation. Shipping statistics from thel 880s and 1890s reveal that both the number of vessels and the amount of freight tonnage continued to escalate sharply. In 1885, the canal handled three million tons of freight for the first time. Two years later, the amount had grown to over 5 .4 million tons. By 1892, that record had been shattered as 11.2 million tons were handled that season. In addition, the number of steamers, sailing vessels, and small craft passing through the canal steadily increased, growing from 4,315 in 1883 to 7,424 in 1886 and totaling 10,557 in 1890. The growth and evolution of the steamship industry accounted for the majority of the increase.63

More Growth, More Improvements: The Poe Lock and Administration Building

With regard to ship size, the conventional wisdom of the 1870s held that developments in shipping would not surpass the Weitzel Lock's capacity for many years; however, ship design evolved rapidly to accommodate developing trade. In 1882--one year after the Weitzel opened-the first iron-hulled bulk freighter was placed on the Great Lakes.64 This style of freighter allowed for larger ships and easier shipment oflocal commodities such as grain, iron ore, and copper. Previously, these items were shipped in barrels or in small, wooden-hulled freighters, which limited profitability for shipowners and, therefore, the desire to ship such items. Soon after the development of the iron-hulled bulk freighter, the opening of the rich Gogebic Iron Range in Michigan, followed shortly by the openings of the Mesabi and Vermillion ranges in Minnesota, created the need for an armada of ore carriers feeding steel furnaces in the East. 65

62History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 217-18; Chief Engineer Report, [1913], 2:2899; [1914], 1:1213; Bald, The Sault Canal Through 100 Years, 24; "New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo,"' 513; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 108; Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905, 155,250.

63 Chief Engineer Report [1913], 2:2893-94.

64See section entitled "Development of Great Lakes Shipping" for additional discussion of the development and impact of iron-hulled bulk freighters.

65Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 24-26.


In his 1882 annual report for the Detroit District, General Weitzel predicted that the freight tonnage shippers desired to pass through the Sault complex would exceed the facility's capacity by 1890 and recommended the construction of an additional lock at the Sault. Two years later, the Sault's general superintendent, Ebenezer S. Wheeler, commented on the obsolescence of the State Locks, stating that only 1.5 percent of the annual freight tonnage passing through the canal used this original lock. Consequently, Congress appropriated funding for a new lock in 1886. Work began the next year. The first order of business was to raze the original lock-a task that a forlorn General Poe, who had replaced General Weitzel in 1883, did not eagerly anticipate.66 Poe commented:

I must confess to a feeling of great regret that it has become necessary to destroy these first locks. Inanimate as they were, they seemed to appeal to every sentiment of respect. They had never failed to respond to any demand within their capacity; they had contributed in a higher degree than any other one factor, to the development of the country to the westward of them, and having done such good work are now to be obliterated in the interest of the very commerce they did so much to establish. The man who, knowing their history, can see them go, without compunction, is made of other stuff than I am, and, if an engineer, has no genuine love for his profession nor pride in the achievement of those who successfully apply its teaching to the best examples of his art.67

The planned dimensions of the new lock illustrated just how much ship design had changed since the construction of the Weitzel Lock. For instance, at the time of its design, the new stone-walled structure was the largest in the world. It measured 800 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 21 feet deep at the mitered sill. Although much larger than the Weitzel, the new facility incorporated many successful design features of the Weitzel Lock. A primary example was utilization of timber-lined filling and draining culverts located underneath the lock floor; however, the larger size of the new lock required a total of twelve culverts while the Weitzel included only four. Yet due to its size, the new facility was only slightly faster in filling than the Weitzel, accomplishing the task in seven minutes compared to eight. And similar to the Weitzel, the new lock was designed to hold four ships positioned in two rows of two. Both locks employed hydraulic machinery to operate the valves and gates, but rather than using water turbines to supply operating power, the new lock used more powerful steam engines. The engines were necessary because the immense lock gates

66Ibid., 28; Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905, 167.

67Quote in Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 28.


were constructed of steel. The engines that moved these gates were located in the basement of a new powerhouse/administration building. Construction of the $100,000 facility, later known simply as the Administration Building, began in 1894 and was completed in 1897. It was designed by Edward Pierce Casey of New York and constructed by a firm owned by Joseph Vernon Gearing of Detroit, Michigan. 68

As for the lock itself, many firms worked on the $3 million project; however, the primary contractor was Hughes Brothers & Bangs of Syracuse, New York. The new structure was named the Poe Lock in 1896 in honor of General Poe, who had died in 1895 from an injury received while inspecting progress on the project. The Poe Lock formally opened on 3 August 1896 and the first vessel to pass through was the revenue cutter Andrew Johnson. The opening of the Poe Lock came none to soon since by 1895, the average wait to utilize the Weitzel Lock had grown to five hours. Part of the delay was undoubtedly due to the continuous work of deepening the entire St. Marys River from 16 to 21 feet. The project, authorized by Congress in 1893, also expanded several of the navigation channels located in the river. It was completed in circa 1897.69

Canadian Improvements at the Sault

Meanwhile, lock development was not limited to the American side of the St. Marys River. Ever since 1855, the St. Marys River Ship Canal had always been open to Canadian ships; however, tension between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1870 threatened that arrangement. During that year, the Half-Breed Rebellion near Winnipeg, Manitoba, required the intervention of British soldiers, who had to first pass through the canal.70 Although the conflict did not involve the U.S., American relations with Britain were not amicable at this time so the U.S. refused to allow Canadian military transports through the locks. The event made the British and Canadians realize that a canal on their side of the river was necessary. Consequently, construction began in 1888 and lasted until 1895. Although the Canadian canal possessed only one lock, it was the longest and most technologically advanced lift of its day. The structure was 900 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 22 feet deep at the mitered

68Larson, Essayons, 94, 98; "The New Soo Lock," Scientific American 75: 15 (10 October 1896): 281; Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Semicentennial, 1905, 253; Blueprints of Poe Lock, Located in Record Group 77, Main Office Reports, National Archives and Records Administration -- Great Lakes Branch, Chicago, IL (NARA-GL).

69Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905, 253-54; Larson, Essayons, 93, 100.

70The Half-Breed Rebellion occurred in 1870 and was led by Louis Riel. It originated with disagreements between the local population and the business practices of the Hudson's Bay Company. The conflict was resolved quickly by the British military. See Bayliss, River of Destiny, 109.

ST. MARYS FALLS CANAL (SQQ LOCKS) HAER No. MI-322 Page 35

sill. The depth of the lock was significant since every inch of draft over 21 feet allowed ships to carry an additional 150 tons of cargo. Also, the Canadian Lock was the first lock in the world to utilize electricity to power gate and valve operation.71

At the time of this facility's construction, the arrangement was considered to be one of the most advanced electrical systems in the world. The complex also had a movable emergency dam located adjacent to its upper approach. The dam was designed to prevent a torrent of water from washing the lock away in case its wooden gates failed. The dam included a center-bearing swing-bridge that could be extended over the channel. The bridge provided a platform from which to drop a series of steel wickets into a sill located at the bottom of the channel. The dam was put to the test on 9 June 1909 when a steamer rammed the upper gate and the resulting 18-foot wave ripped the remaining gates from their hinges, allowing water to rush freely through the chamber. The dam was quickly closed and further damage to the lock was prevented. 72

Capacity of the Sault Locks

Similar to the Weitzel Lock in the early 1880s, both the Canadian and the Poe locks removed severe constraints on Great Lakes commerce. In 1893, only fifteen ships on Lake Superior exceeded 3,000 tons in freight capacity, and none could carry more than 4,000 tons. Two years later, eleven ships averaging between 5,000 and 6,000 tons in capacity plied Lake Superior. A steady increase ensued over the next four years. And by 1899, five vessels with the capacity of nearly 10,000 tons traveled the largest lake. Increased capacity largely stemmed from improved ship loading and unloading machinery. In fact, by 1905, a 10,000-ton freighter could be loaded with iron ore in eighty minutes and unloaded in a few hours. The increase in tonnage naturally resulted in longer and wider ships. In 1899, most vessels traveling through the locks were between 100 and 300 feet long. Only forty-one vessels exceeded 400 feet. The year 1904 marked the first time a 500-foot freighter passed through the Sault Canal. By the time the first 600-foot ship locked through the canal in 1907, there were seventy annual passages of 500-foot vessels through the locks. These large ships had a beam of up to 64 feet and, therefore, could not fit side-by-side in

71The Canadian Lock initially was designed to use hydraulic power for gate and valve operation; however, experiments conducted for the proposed Soulanges Canal on the St. Lawrence River persuaded Canadian authorities to use electrical power at the Sault. The powerhouse that generated the electricity was part of the lock complex. See Passfield, Technology in Transition, 93-97.

72Bayliss, River of Destiny, 109; "The Accident to the Lock Gates at the Canadian Canal, Sault Ste. Marie," Engineering News 61:24 (17 June 1909): 672-73; Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 28-29; Osborne and Swainson, The Sault Ste. Marie Canal, 46, 70.


either the Weitzel or Poe. This limited their lockage capacity from four to, in some cases, one ship at a time.73

More important than the length and width of a lock, was its depth. As previously mentioned, each inch of draft meant many additional tons of cargo could be carried. With a depth of 21 feet for the Poe and 22 feet for the Canadian, these new locks immediately surpassed the Weitzel as the locks of choice for freighters. During its last year of solo operation in 1895, the Weitzel facilitated an impressive 7,039 lockages for 16,793 vessels. During the Canadian Lock's first complete year of operation (1896), traffic through the Weitzel dropped to 5,462 lockages for 11,040 ships. Meanwhile, the Canadian Lock handled 3,043 lockages and 5,147 vessels that same year. In 1897, or the year when both the Canadian and Poe were on line for the entire season, the Weitzel experienced a drastic decline to 1,577 lockages for 2,677 vessels. In addition, the average freight load of these ships had dropped by nearly 50 percent from the previous season. The Poe absorbed most of the Weitzel' s declining usage by posting 10,135 passages in only 4,390 lockages. The Canadian Lock came in a distant second by passing 2,604 vessels in 4,359 lockages.74

Plans for a Third American Lock: The Davis Lock

Clearly, the three locks at the Sault (two American and one Canadian) were quickly becoming overwhelmed by the growth of Great Lakes shipping. Indeed, the Sault was the busiest lock complex in the entire world. The size of many ships exceeded the intended capacity of the three locks. Compounding this problem was the fact that water depth in the channel above the locks varied from season-to-season and frequently was under the level used when the Poe Lock was designed. In fact, several ships drawing only 18 feet were reported to have grounded on the Poe's mitered sill. Varying water depths annoyed shipowners, who needed a consistent depth for their heavily laden freighters. In response, the deeper Canadian Lock began to pass most of the largest eastbound freighters. Nevertheless, shipping expansion continued and by 1908, the locks on the American side had reached their capacity with the excess being absorbed by the Canadian facility. 75

73Chief Engineer Report, [1907], 2:2024; [1913], 2:2884; Moore, ed., Saint Marys Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905, 200-2.

74Chief Engineer Report, [1907], 2:2033.

75"The Increased Traffic of the 'Soo' Canals," Scientific American Supplement 55: 1411 (17 January 1903): 22615-16; "New Canal and Locks atthe 'The Soo,"' 513; "The 600-FootLock at Sault Ste. Marie," Engineering News 44:4 (26 July 1900): 53; "Sault Ste. Marie Canal Traffic," Engineering News 57:20 (16 May 1908): 627.


In 1904, Colonel Ebenezer L. Davis, Detroit District Commander of the Corps of Engineers, began to investigate seriously the need for a new lock at the Sault-a task that had received minor consideration as early as 1900. Initially, he considered the possibility of building a new lock on the site of the Weitzel; however, for various reasons, shipowners thought that the Weitzel should be maintained while a third lock was built elsewhere on the American side of the St. Marys River. First, although the Weitzel did not pass many freighters, it was still useful for passing large numbers of recreational and fishing craft that regularly used the canal. Diverting these vessels to the Weitzel allowed the Poe and Canadian locks to handle larger ships more efficiently. Second, the upper approach canal for the existing lock complex was considered to be too narrow because a dangerous current was created when both the Poe and Weitzel locks filled their chambers. This phenomenon had caused an occasional collision among waiting ships. The current would have been increased by an additional narrowing of the approach canal by use of cofferdams and other construction-related hassles. 76

Davis ultimately settled on a plan that was flexible enough to handle future expansion. He decided that a new lock should be situated north of the existing complex and connected to the rest of the canal by its own approach canal. The resulting two canals would be separated by a long, narrow island. Besides not compounding the existing channel's current problems, the new approach could easily accept the addition of a fourth lock sometime in the future. Moreover, a separate channel would allow shipping to be maintained in the event that an accident closed one channel or damaged a lock. Davis also was mindful of the increasing ship dimensions and did not want the new lock to be obsolete within a decade of its construction-a fate that had befallen all of the previous locks at the Sault. His analysis revealed that 650-foot freighters were already in the planning stages and that even longer ships might eventually be built; however, Davis believed "that the number of boats longer than 650 feet will be very small and provision need not be made for placing two of them in one lockage." In the end, the plan called for the lock to be 1,350 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 251h feet deep during times of extreme low water. While significantly longer than the Poe, the new lock was narrower since it was impractical and often dangerous to place two extremely large freighters side-by-side within a lock. Rather, ships would be passed through the new so-called Third Lock in tandem. When Davis submitted his plan to the Chief of Engineers on 3 December 1906, he estimated that the project would cost $6.2 million.77

76Larson, Essayons, 105; "Sault Ste. Marie Canal Traffic," 627.

77Larson, Essayons, 105-6; "Work on the New Lock and Canal at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan," Engineering News 66:10 (7 September 1911): 275.

}


Plans/or a Fourth American Lock: The Sabin Lock

On 2 March 1907, Congress approved the project and allocated funds. The responsibility for lock design fell to Louis C. Sabin, who was the general superintendent of the St. Marys River Ship Canal. He was assisted by W.J. Graves and Issac De Young. The main contract for construction was awarded to the Great Lakes Dock & Dredge Company of Chicago, Illinois. The project was enormous for it required digging 4,000 feet of approach channel and constructing the longest lock in the world. Meanwhile, Sabin reported to the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors in 1908 on the expected needs of the St. Marys River Ship Canal. He anticipated the rate of increase in annual shipping to lessen, speculating that it would not exceed 153 million tons prior to 1950. Nevertheless, shipowners continued to agitate for improved navigation so that they could construct larger ships, as well as more of them. In 1908, the Lake Carriers Association approached Congress for yet a fourth lock to be built on the American side of Sault Ste. Marie. While the Third Lock was expected to handle increases in ship size, Association members argued that it would not be able to accommodate the increase in the number of the largest freighters. Congress responded by ordering the Corps of Engineers to investigate further the need for additional lock capacity. 78

A panel of engineering officers asked Sabin to submit plans and cost estimates for two possible courses of action: constructing a fourth lock and deepening the Poe Lock to 24 feet. While Sabin reported that the latter would be significantly cheaper, he also stated that excessive shipping delays would occur while the Poe was out of operation for improvement. Also, Sabin emphasized that if an accident closed the Third Lock during the improvement of the Poe, all shipping through the American side of the Sault would cease. In addition, while the need for a fourth lock was not perceived in 1908, Sabin explained that it would be needed sooner rather than later. Finally, a fourth lock in conjunction with the Third Lock would provide a duplicate lock system akin to that under construction at the Panama Canal. A twin lock system would offer options at the Sault during times of accident and repair-a wise course of action according to Sabin, especially for the busiest waterway in the world. Despite Sabin's logic, two boards of engineers elected to deepen the Poe Lock rather than construct a fourth lock. Nevertheless, Chief of Engineers William H. Bixby overruled both boards because he held Sabin's opinion on Great Lakes shipping in high regard and advised the Secretary of War on the need for a fourth lock. Congress approved construction of the new so-called Fourth Lock on 12 July 1912; the building effort

78Larson, Essayons, 107-10; Chief Engineer Report, [1908], 1:718; [1908], 2:2076.

began the next year.79

Construction of the Davis and Sabin Locks


Designers integrated many technical advances in construction of both of the two new locks, essentially making the two structures identical to one another. It is noted, however, that the Third (Davis) Lock was built before the Fourth (Sabin) Lock. The walls of the twin structures each consisted of 30-foot-long, poured-concrete monoliths. The floor and culverts of the basin were also made from poured concrete. In older locks at the Sault, these components had been built from wood timbers. In the two new locks, the culverts were opened and closed by butterfly valves powered by hydraulic piston-engines. The system was large enough to empty or fill the chamber in nine minutes. Each end of the locks had two pairs of mitered, steel service gates and a set of mitered, timber guard gates. With three end gates in place in each lock, it was initially believed that an upchannel emergency dam would not be necessary. The gates were opened and closed via steel cables connected to electric motors. Electricity was supplied to the complex from a power plant harnessing the power of the St. Marys Falls. Even though the gates were indeed large, the powerful motors could open or close them in ninety seconds. The choice of steel cables over a jack-arm system (a steel beam that either pushed or pulled the gate from its mount on the lock wall) reflected a need for simplicity, ease of repair, and preventing ice from damaging the movement system. Specifically, the moving elements of the jackarm system were exposed to the elements and were prone to locking up in cold weather-a potentially catastrophic condition during the busy closing days of the navigation season. 80

The above design elements were incorporated in actual construction. The Third Lock opened on 21 October 1914 and immediately assumed an important role in Great Lakes shipping. Its first downbound lockage of two 600-foot, iron ore freighters illustrated its potential while underscoring why the Weitzel Lock was outmoded. Despite the earlier decision to retain the Weitzel Lock, it was subsequently closed after the 1914 season. With only the Poe and Third locks operating on the American side during the 1915 season, passages at the Sault (including the Canadian Lock) represented a 29 percent increase in freight tonnage from the previous year while there was only a 2 percent increase in the number of ships utilizing the canal. The timing of the Third Lock's opening was fortunate for the U.S. Even before its entry in World War I in 191 7, the conflict had placed tremendous demands on American


80"New Canal and Locks at 'The Soo,"' 512-19; "Completing the World's Busiest Waterway," 202.


industrial and agricultural production. The need for raw materials increased dramatically throughout the war years and freight shipments through the Sault (mostly grain, iron ore, and coal) reached an unprecedented 91 million tons in 1916.81

Capacity at the Sault was further expanded by the opening of the Fourth Lock on 18 September 1919; however, due to post-war economic decline, freight tonnage remained below wartime levels until the return of prosperity in the mid-1920s. Nevertheless, the Third Lock-which was renamed the Davis Lock in 1925 in honor of Colonel Davis-and the Fourth Lock-renamed the Sabin Lock in 1943 in honor of Louis Sabin-were responsible for making the American Sault Canal the preferred route for freighters. Prior to the opening of the Davis and Sabin locks, the Canadian Lock was most desirable for handling the largest ships; however, the immense size of the improved American facilities essentially buried the Canadian facility's commercial value for freight during the 1920s. The American locks carried over 97 percent of all cargo passing through the Sault; yet the Canadian facility was still useful for passenger vessels. Indeed, it carried up to two-thirds of the Sault's annual passenger load during the 1920s. 82

Further American Improvements: 1905-1922

Aside from construction of the Davis and Sabin locks, the American side of the Sault was a beehive of activity in the first part of the twentieth century for other reasons. In 1905, Congress authorized widening the Lake Superior side of the Weitzel/Poe approach canal, which was situated to the south of the Davis/Sabin approach canal. A source of major delay for passing ships, the channel's narrowest point-a distance of only 108 feet-was where an international railroad bridge crossed the waterway. Since the channel could not be closed for widening, the solution was to dig a parallel, 125-foot-wide channel underneath the railroad bridge. The island that remained (socalled Bridge Island) allowed for placement of a rotating railroad bridge to cross both channels. Also, it provided for a central point on which to place a movable emergency dam. The emergency dam resembled a center-swing truss bridge that could block the waterway on each side of the island. The undertaking was initiated in 1908 and was completed in 1911 by the Great Lakes Dock & Dredge Company. 83

81Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 33; Chief Engineer Report, [1915], 2:3236; [1916], 3:3058-59; Larson, Essayons, 135.

82Bald, The Sault Canal Through JOO Years, 33; Chief Engineer Report, [1916], 3:3058-59; [1921], 2:1102; [1925], 1:1396; Larson, Essayons, 140.

83"The Sault Ste. Marie Canal," Engineering News 59:9 (5 March 1908): 236; Chief Engineer Report, [1907],


In the meantime, the U.S. purchased all the land north of the existing lock complex in 1909. This encompassed a small hydroelectric plant operated by the Edison Sault Electric Company. The U.S. acquired this condemned property in order to gain control of the water utilized for non-canal activities, such as power generation. The federal government agreed to lease the hydroelectric facility back to Edison Sault Electric Company for $24,000 a year, requiring the lessee to pay for any expansion of the plant. This condition would help contribute to further improvements at no cost to the U.S. government. For example, with multiple shipping and power canals operating on both sides of the Sault, it became desirable to control the depth of the water west of the rapids. Without any limitations, fluctuations in water depth ranged up to 41/z feet. In 1909, an agreement between the Canadian and American governments enabled both countries to build controlling works on their respective side of the river, along with a dike in the middle. These structures each consisted of eight 52 foot-wide gates. The gates limited depth fluctuation to 21/z feet or could stop the flow through the rapids entirely. The project on the American side was completed by the Edison Sault Electric Company as part of its power plant lease. Specifically, the company applied for permission to increase the size of its Sault power plant in 1913. Because the improved plant would substantially tap the river's flow, the company was responsible for constructing the necessary controlling works. 84

The last major improvement made during this period included construction of a movable emergency dam for both the Davis and Sabin locks. This was a different emergency dam than the one that served the Poe/Weitzel approach canal. As mentioned before, the triple gate design of these two locks was thought to provide a sufficient safeguard in the event of an accident. However, the gates at the Canadian Lock were lost due to ramming by a ship and a minor collision damaged the Weitzel Lock gate in 1909. These accidents, along with the incredibly high rate of traffic at the canal convinced the Corps of Engineers that an emergency dam was necessary. The resulting structure consisted of twin derricks that could place a 98-foot bridge across either lock's approach. Subsequently, steel wickets would be inserted and stop the flow of water through the lock. The apparatus was designed by Issac De Young and Owen M. Frederick of the Corps of Engineers. The dam was completed in 1922

1 :688; [1911], 1:890; "Widening the American Canal at Sault Ste. Marie," Engineering Record 60: 11 (11 September 1909): 284-87; War Department Advertisement for Emergency Dam Contractor, 9 March 1908, Located in Record Group 77, Box 10, Saint Marys River File 18, NARA-GL.

84St. Marys River, Michigan, at the Falls: The Necessity for Government Ownership and Control of the Rapids of St. Marys River, at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, 60th Congress, 2nd Session, Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives Document # 13 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1909), 7-10, 27; "Greater Power Development at Sault Ste. Marie," Engineering News 71:25 (18 June 1914): 1384-85; Chief Engineer Report, [1914], 3:2998; Larson, Essayons, 111.


by the Independent Bridge Company at a cost of $269,224.85

A Growing Need for a Deep-Draft Lock: The MacArthur Lock

During the remainder of the 1920s, the Corps of Engineers was authorized only to maintain existing works on the Great Lakes. Thus the only construction activity of consequence at the Sault was to widen and deepen the various channels in the St. Marys River. These improvements allowed a vessel to travel faster through the channels and also provided for an increase in ship size. Increased speed meant lower shipping costs and the Corps of Engineers credited its overall channel improvement project for lowering freight rates by half between 1887 and 1929. Shipping continued to increase throughout the decade and reached a record-high 92.6 million tons in 1929. Meanwhile, the average ship size of the Great Lakes fleet continued to increase. Indeed, by 1925, the fleet had evolved to the point that over 80 percent of its freighters could have their holds filled to the maximum 21-foot draft available on the St. Marys River.86

Industrial inactivity caused by the Great Depression led to a substantial decrease in traffic through the St. Marys River Ship Canal. The worst year was 1932, when only 20.4 million tons passed through the Sault. The Corps of Engineers took advantage of this slow shipping period to increase its improvement activities along the St. Marys River. Various projects sponsored by the Public Works Administration and the National Industrial Recovery Act provided funding to deepen the river channels to 23. 7 feet. Consequently, shipowners put larger vessels on the lakes because the greater freight capacity of these ships meant reduced transportation costs. In 1936, all the freighters passing through the Sault had a draft less than 23 feet. Within four years, there were 213 vessels that, when fully loaded, could pass through the channels of the St. Marys River but were too low in the water to go through any lock in the Sault complex. 87

By 1940, the need for a deep-draft lock at the Sault was becoming very apparent. In February 1941, Congress requested that the Corps of Engineers provide a feasibility

85L.C. Sabin, "New Type Movable Dam Guards Soo Canal Locks," Engineering News-Record 93:17 (23 October 1924):656-60; "The Accident to the Poe Lock Gate at the St. Marys Falls Canal, Sault Ste. Marie," Engineering News 62:21 (18 November 1909): 562; Chief Engineer Report [1923], 1:1460.

86Larson, Essayons, 140-41; Chief Engineer Report, [1925], 1:1393; [1929], 1:1484-85.

87Larson, Essayons, 140-41; Chief Engineer Report, [1933], 1:907, 2:757. Sources reviewed do not reveal whether or not the PW A or the NIRA provided labor for various Great Lakes navigation projects.


report for such a lift at the Sault. Colonel Ralph G. Burrows, who was the Detroit District Commander of the Corps, prepared the report and recommended that a new lock should be 800 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 30 feet deep. Burrows' report stated that construction would cost $8 million and could be completed under emergency conditions within only sixteen months. While Congress pondered the report during the summer of 1941, a new record for the amount of freight shipped through the canal was set-110.7 million tons. This reflected an improving American economy as a result of World War II as well as a build up of American military forces. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the War Department recognized the importance of the canal to the American economy and significantly increased security around the Sault complex. 88 Indeed, security considerations ultimately triggered construction of the proposed new lock. According to Colonel Burrows, a new lock located on the site of the defunct Weitzel Lock would be far enough away from the Davis and the Sabin locks "[to] minimize the possibility of all major locks being put out of commission by a single large-caliber bomb." Based upon this reasoning, Congress authorized construction of a deep-draft lock on 7 March 1942. 89

Work began on 20 April 1942. The project was divided into three main contracts, all of which were awarded to the Great Lakes Dock & Dredge Company of Chicago, Illinois. One major contractor was used because the Corps thought that it would be the fastest way to complete the work. The first tasks performed included completing plans for the new lift and removing the Weitzel Lock. Because of the importance of the Sault locks to the war effort, speedy construction was essential. Work proceeded on a twenty-four-hour, seven-day a week schedule-even during winter months. Concrete work was performed in sub-zero temperatures by building plywood and canvas shelters around the area to be poured. The shelters would then be heated with steam boilers for a five-day curing period. The brisk work pace set many records for lock construction, including the overall completion of the structure in only fourteen months. The lift was completed on 4 July; a few weeks previously, Congress had named the structure the MacArthur Lock to honor General Douglas MacArthur. Given the pace of construction and increased cost for materials, the actual cost of the MacArthur Lock was $14 million -- $6 million over the projected cost.90

88See context section entitled "Defense of the St. Marys River Ship Canal" for additional information on the measures used to defend the canal during World War II.

89Chief Engineer Report, [1938], 2:939; Larson, Essayons, 141-42.

9° Carr, "MacArthur Lock at the Soo," 78-85; Larson, Essayons, 143; "Turned Over to U.S. Tomorrow; Dedicated on Sunday, July 11th," Unmarked and undated newspaper article located in SLMVF.


The basin for the MacArthur Lock was 800 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 31 feet at the mitered sill. Similar to the Davis and the Sabin locks, the MacArthur Lock featured walls formed by a series of poured-concrete monoliths; however, a series of steel bars were set into the wall surface in order to limit damage from ships gouging the sides of the lock-a problem at the unarmored Davis and Sabin locks. The MacArthur Lock's culvert system was different from previous facilities at the Sault in that it consisted of a single culvert located within each sidewall. Each culvert accommodated both filling and emptying. Water flowed from the culverts into the basin through twenty-four connecting laterals located underneath the lock floor. Water exited the chamber through the same laterals. The chief advantage of this system was that turbulence in the water during filling and emptying was reduced to virtually nothing. The design was based upon research conducted at the University of Iowa's Institute of Hydraulic Research.91

Regarding gates, each end of the MacArthur Lock possessed two sets of steel service gates and one set of steel guard gates. The gates were manipulated by a steel strut connected to a sector gear. The gear was turned by a twenty-five horsepower electric motor. This type of mechanism could be used in cold weather because ice recesses were built into each lock wall. The lock walls also had vertical recesses for emergency steel bulkheads located at each end of the lock. The placement of the two bulkheads would allow the entire 1,306.5 foot-long structure to be dewatered for repair and maintenance. The bulkheads were placed into the wall recesses by an electrically operated boom derrick. These features allowed a single ship to pass through the lock in as little as ten minutes.92

The MacArthur Lock was opened to traffic during a ceremony on 11 July 1943. The steamer Carl D. Bradley, which carried a delegation of military and civic leaders, was the first ship to pass through the facility. During the ceremony, General Samuel T. Lawton awarded the Army-Navy's "E" award to the Great Lakes Dock & Dredge Company for its rapid completion of the facility. In its first season, the MacArthur Lock facilitated the passage of 1,994 ships carrying 7,844,505 tons of freight. During the last year of the war, the lock was used by 3,890 ships transporting 41,966,981 tons of freight, or 3 7 percent of all freight passing through the four American Sault

91 Carr, "MacArthur Lock at the Soo," 78-82; "Pouring Final Section of New Lock for Opening July 4th; All on Schedule," 26 March 1943, Unidentified newspaper article located in SLMVF.

92Carr, "MacArthur Lock at the Soo," 78-85; Statistical Report of Lake Commerce Passing Through Canals at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario During Season of 1946 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946), 31.

locks (MacArthur, Davis, Sabin, and Poe).93

Post-War Developments at the Sault Canal


After World War II, improvements at the St. Marys River Ship Canal continued. The most significant navigation project involved removing Bridge Island from the center of the south upper approach canal and deepening that waterway to 27 feet since it served the deep-draft MacArthur Lock and the Poe Lock. As mentioned, Bridge Island was created between 1907 and 1911 when the south approach canal was doubled in width. The primary purpose of the tract was to serve as the pivot point for the center-swing span of the International Railroad Bridge. In order to remove the island, the Corps of Engineers required the owners of the bridge to replace the center-swing span with a lift bridge. The entire project cost $1.4 million and was completed in 1948.94

Along with removal of Bridge Island, Congress approved a plan to construct a new hydroelectric power plant at the rapids. The new structure replaced an existing government-owned facility (built in 1907) that was inefficient and was structurally unstable. Whereas the previous facility was located near the center of the rapids, the larger plant was built at the foot of the rapids in order to maximize power-generating potential. The new plant cost $5.5 million and had the capacity to generate 14,000 kilowatts of electricity. It was completed in 1951. 95

In the midst of these changes, decisions were being contemplated regarding the fate of the Poe Lock. Prior to World War II, the Poe had become obsolete for modern shipping. During the slow 1932 and 1938 seasons, the structure was closed. Even during the hectic shipping seasons of World War II, the number of ships utilizing the lock dropped each year. In 1946, only thirty-two vessels passed through the aging structure. On 24 July 1946, Congress authorized replacement of the Poe Lock as part of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946. Originally, the proposed replacement structure would measure 800 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 32 feet deep; however, no action to build the lock was undertaken because an incredible transition in the design of freight carriers was taking place. Before World War II, Great Lakes freighters

93 "Thousands Watch Under Blazing Sun as New Lock Opens," Sault Ste. Marie (MI) Evening News, 12 July 1943; Statistical Report of Lake Commerce Passing Through Canals at Sault Ste. Marie, 27-28.

94Chief Engineer Report, [1945], 1:1842; [1947], 1:2074-76; [1948], 1:2331; Larson, Essayons, 144; "Old Landmark to Come Down," Engineering News-Record 134:23 (7 June 1945): 801.

95Chief Engineer Report, [1945], 1:1842; [1947], 1:2071, 2077; [1952], 1:1800-1.


were built to a rough standard of 600 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 19 feet in draft. After the war, several bulk cargo vessels that approached 700 feet in length and had a beam of70 feet plied the lakes. One of these ships, the Wilfred Sykes, could carry 21,700 tons of freight-nearly double the total of an average Great Lakes freighter. Shipowners soon built a number of these larger ships since a doubling of cargo capacity increased their profits by a factor of four. By 195 6, the development of the taconite industry at the Michigan and Minnesota iron ranges also promised additional increases in ship size. Taconite is basically a low grade iron ore transported in pellet form. Because of their uniform size, taconite pellets are extremely easy to load and unload via mechanical means, which provided an incentive for larger ships.96

At this time, the U.S. government was in the process of joining the Canadian government to construct the St. Lawrence Seaway, which would allow ocean-going ships (known as "salties") to enter the Great Lakes. The depth of the seaway would be 27 feet. Studies by the Corps ofEngineers concluded that all Great Lakes shipping channels should be that depth in order to allow access to salties as well as to lower the cost of existing water transportation since larger ships could carry more freight. President Dwight Eisenhower signed the St. Lawrence Seaway Act on 13 May 1954. By 1962, all portions of the St. Marys River had been dredged to between 27 and 30 feet, which provided the depth needed to operate a ship drawing 25 Yz feet of water. 97

The New Poe Lock

Given the increases in ship size, the development of the taconite industry and the proposal of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Corps of Engineers did not initiate any construction work on an authorized replacement structure for the Poe Lock (issued in 1946) because the intended replacement lock quickly would have been obsolete. Also, the existing facilities were able to handle effectively any ship traveling the lakes until 1957, although both the Davis and Sabin locks were too shallow for heavily loaded freighters. In that year, special methods had to be developed to pass the longest vessels through the MacArthur Lock. Basically, the lock's safety boom had to be lifted in order for the ship to fit into the lift. A safety boom is a thick steel cable that prevents a ship from ramming the lock gate while in the lock basin. With the boom out of position, the ship had to be maneuvered into the lock via mooring lines-a delicate and time-consuming process. The use of this method allowed 730-foot

96Statistical Report of Lake Commerce Passing Through Canals at Sault Ste. Marie, 27-28; Chief Engineer Report, [1947], 1:2073; Larson, Essayons, 144-45, 151.

97Larson, Essayons, 144-47; 151; A.F. Mahan, "Sault Cities Busy with $100 Million Projects," The State Journal (Lansing, MI), 30 November 1960.


vessels to utilize the MacArthur Lock, whereas the lock could only handle 660-foot ships with the booms in position. Clearly, it was time to construct a larger lock.98

In 1958, Congress allocated funds for the planning and design of the lock it had previously authorized to replace the Poe in 1946. Whereas the lift authorized in 1946 essentially would have been a mirror image of the MacArthur, the new design allowed for a lock that would be 1,000 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 32 feet deep at the mitered sill. The lock's operating mechanisms were studied at the Corps Waterways Experimentation Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Work at the Sault commenced in 1961 and was overseen by Clifford Aune, General Superintendent of the Sault complex. The Poe Lock was demolished by the A.S. Wikstrom Construction Company of Skaneateles, New York. After the firm had completed its work, both the Corps and shipowners agreed that the planned lock would not be large enough for the expected increases in ship size. At that time, vessels were under consideration that would be 950 feet long and 95 feet wide-a size beyond the safety limits of the design. Work on the project was halted during 1962 and 1963 while the facility was redesigned. The final plan resulted in a lift that measured 1,200 feet long, 110 feet wide, and 32 feet deep at the mitered sill; it would be the largest lock in the world. The new lock was constructed by the McNamara Construction Company of Toronto, Canada, at a cost of$40 million. On 30 October 1968, the steamer Phillip R. Clarke made the inaugural lockage. The structure was formally dedicated the New Poe Lock on 28 June 1969.99

Despite its immense size, the New Poe Lock operated very efficiently. Filling and emptying were performed through two side-wall culverts controlled by large tainter valves. The culverts fed a system oflaterals located in the lock's subfloor. With this system, a ship could be raised in twelve minutes and lowered in ten minutes. Similar to the other lifts at the Sault, the walls of the New Poe Lock were constructed of poured concrete. The structure only featured one set of steel gates at its upstream end and two sets at the downstream end. A 3 Yz inch-thick steel arresting cable carried by a boom was placed on each side of the gates in order to prevent ships from hitting the gates. All gates, valves, and booms were operated by electrically powered machinery installed by Hatzel & Buehler, Inc. ofLansing, Michigan. One final safety item consisted of an emergency bulkhead that could be lifted into place by a derrick. The bulkhead was designed to stop the unlimited flow of water through the lock in

98Larson, Essayons, 151; Reschke, "Design, Size, Construction and Operation ofNew Second Lock, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan."

99Larson, Essayons, 151-53; E.J. Sundstrom, "New Poe Monument to Commerce," Sault Ste. Marie (MI) Evening News, 26 June 1969; Reschke, "Design, Size, Construction and Operation of New Second Lock."

case the gates were damaged. 100


On 3 May 1972, the Stewart J Cort passed through the New Poe Lock and became the first 1,000:.. foot freighter to pass through the St. Marys River Ship Canal. It also had a beam of 105 feet and was capable of carrying 51,000 tons of taconite pellets. The building of the Stewart J Cort and other vessels of similar dimensions further reduced traffic through the Davis and Sabin locks. Although the twin locks were both long and wide enough to handle many vessels plying the Great Lakes, the two venerable structures were too shallow to handle the deep drafts of many of the newer ships. By the late 1960s, the Davis and Sabin could only be used by the oldest freighters on the Great Lakes, which were gradually being retired as more ships of the Stewart J Cort's class were placed on the lakes. 101

Fate of the Davis and Sabin Locks

In 1972, the Corps of Engineers began to conduct studies on the replacement of one or both of the locks. An initial thought was to replace both of the locks with a new lift that would be 1,300 feet long, 130 feet wide, and 32 feet deep at the mitered sill. An important consideration was that a new lock would require a deepening of navigation channels and would also spawn development of a generation of even larger ships. Essentially, a lock of the size being proposed was favored by shipping and mining interests but opposed by environmental groups. Concern over deepened channels and larger ships, coupled with a 1978 Corps study revealing that Great Lakes navigation capacity would not be reached until 1990, persuaded the Corps to defer any plan to replace either the Davis or Sabin. 102

Nevertheless, interest in replacing the two aging locks was renewed in the 1980s. The Lake Carriers Association pushed for a second Poe-sized lock for the purpose of defense. In 1984, the group argued that twenty-five of the Great Lake's 111 freighters could only use the Poe Lock. Moreover, those twenty-five ships represented 45 percent of the shipping capacity of the entire Great Lakes fleet. The Association stated that if navigation though the Poe Lock ceased, the result would have a severe impact upon the American economy and be devastating if the event happened during a national emergency. It was essentially the same argument the

100Stewart T. Moran to Senator Thomas Schweigert, "Poe Lock Fact Sheet," 3 April 1969, Correspondence located in SLMVF; Reschke, "Design, Size, Construction and Operation of New Second Lock."


102Ibid., 154, 190-91.


Association used in 1908 when lobbying for the Sabin Lock. In 1985, the House of Representatives passed a bill to construct a second Poe-sized lock at the St. Marys River Ship Canal.103

Behind the Technology: The People Who Operated the St. Marys River Ship Canal Locks

The workforce of the St. Marys River Ship Canal naturally has evolved with the expansion and improvement of the facility and particularly with the increase in shipping throughout the last century. While under the control of the State of Michigan from 1855 to 1881, the canallocks required only one watch of twenty men. The shift operated during daylight hours only since the technology of the era would not allow safe operations throughout the night. After the state transferred control of the facility to the Corps of Engineers and the Weitzel Lock was opened, the locks facilitated night traffic (kerosene lamps illuminated the locks at night until electric lamps were instituted in 1884); watches consisted of two twelve-hour shifts. The resulting workforce then consisted of thirty-two personnel. Shortly after General Poe took over the district in 1883, the Sault's staff purchased their own uniforms and badges so that the ships' crews would "readily recognize the persons in authority." Although the locks operated twenty-four hours a day, so few ships passed through during the evening that a lone watchmen patrolled the facility and summoned lockmen when a ship approached. 104

In conjunction with operating the lock machinery, the workforce performed other duties. For instance, the Sault complex in the 1880s and 1890s consisted of sixty acres, 12,000 feet of wooden piers, 3,100 feet of masonry piers, a movable dam, several buildings, and a scow-all of which had to be maintained. Consequently, canal personnel also served as a grounds crew, which planted some one-thousand trees, graded ground for lawns and erected fencing. Work did not cease while the canal was closed during the winter months. The locks were drained for both repair and the removal of debris from the lock floor. In addition, a portion of the workforce was retained to organize and analyze the vast shipping statistics compiled over the preceding season. A detailed method of record keeping was organized by Andrew

10311Second Poe-Sized Lock Critical to Nation's Defense," The Bulletin (January 1984): 8-11; Nancy Benac, "Bill Includes a New Lock at the Soo," Detroit News, 21 November 1985; Robert W. Davis, "Poe II: The Logic and the Need for a Second Poe-Sized Lock at Sault Ste. Marie," Seaway Review (September 1984): 31-32.

104Chief Engineer Report, [1916], 3:3077; Larson, Essayons, 92-93.


Jackson, who was the chiefrecordkeeper of the complex between 1881 and 1899.105

Given the vast duties of staff, a third shift was added in 1891; all shifts were shortened to eight hours. The increase in shifts required expanding the staff to forty-five. Also, the opening of the Poe Lock warranted further growth, as the complex's workforce jumped to seventy-nine. By 1914, the Corps had increased its staff to ninety-six, which consisted of a general superintendent, superintendent, chief engineer, overseer, storekeeper, three clerks, three assistant superintendents, six lock masters, six engine men, seven watchmen, three recorders, three messengers, thirty-three lockmen, and twenty-seven linemen. These workers were employed between nine and twelve months a year. In addition to this force, a tradesmen contingent including as many as fifty carpenters, painters, masons, blacksmiths, caulkers, and a diver were employed as needed to conduct repairs and basic maintenance. With the opening of the Davis Lock, the permanent crew was expanded to 113, with the inclusion of a junior engineer, electrician, six lockmen, six linemen, and sixteen miscellaneous workers such as watchmen, janitors, laborers, and telephone boys. The completion of the Sabin Lock not only led to an increase of the crew to 130, but also triggered a reorganization of responsibilities. Specifically, the force consisted of a general superintendent, chief lockmaster, chief engine man, overseer, junior engine man, storekeeper, two clerks, three assistant chief lock masters, nine lock masters, six engine men, forty-nine lockmen, forty-two linemen, and twelve auxiliary personnel. However, the utilization of two concrete locks ( which required less maintenance than stone and wood locks) and the closing of the Weitzel Lock required fewer tradesmen for maintenance. In 1920, the Corps only had to use twenty skilled laborers. 106

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the canal workforce numbered about 250. By 1971, the workforce totaled 296. This group was employed year-round since the extremely fast pace of shipping during the navigation season demanded that even the most massive repairs-including pouring large amounts of concrete-should occur during winter months. Typically during the winter, the locks were dewatered as soon as the navigation season ended. Workers would then inspect, clean, and overhaul machinery and surfaces submerged under water for the majority of the year. One of the most important functions was to check the gate mounts and make sure that the gates were set within extremely precise tolerances. Also, workmen would surround one or two sets of gates in enclosed scaffolding and paint them. 107


106Ibid., 93, 100; Chief Engineer Report, [1914], 3:3005; [1915], 2:3224; [1916], 3:3077; [1920], 2:2850.

107Larson, Essayons, 153; "Soo Canal Crews Battle Winter to Get Repairs Done," Flint (MI) Journal, 20

Defense of the St. Marys River Ship Canal


The St. Marys River was a strategic location long before the construction of the St. Marys River Ship Canal. Defense of the river, and subsequently, the canal, has always been a concern of the nation who controlled it. The French first placed a stockade on the south side of the river in 1750. The same site was later occupied by a diminutive British force in 1763, after France lost its holdings in North America. The British were forced to abandon the stockade and withdraw to the Canadian side of the river after the American Revolution. The British force was ineffective during the War of 1812 because an American force was able to destroy the Northwest Fur Company's canoe canal in 1814. The U.S., however, failed to garrison the region and the area remained under Indian control until a treaty was signed in 1820. Two years later, Colonel Hugh Brady and a battalion of U.S. infantry built Fort Brady on the ruins of the original French works. The fort consisted of a 12-foot-high stockade with two blockhouses on a twenty-six-acre tract adjacent to the St. Marys Rapids. The fort's garrison proved to be influential in area affairs, preventing the State of Michigan from constructing a canal in 1837 because the contractor shut down the fort's millrace. 108

As portage traffic through Sault Ste. Marie increased, General Brady recognized the imminence of a canal and commented in 1846:

I believe that the best interest of the Government and the community would be served by not offering lots fronting on the line of the canal from the reserve to the line of the rapids. The day is not far distant when a canal will be made there if not by the General Government, by Michigan and the adjoining states. 109

Fort Brady continued to be an active post until its troops were transferred to Minnesota in 18 5 7. It was reopened in 1866 and remained in use until new facilities were completed in 1893 on nearby Ashmun Hill. It consisted of seventy-three acres and approximately thirty buildings. Prior to World War I, soldiers from Fort Brady did not actively guard the locks at the Sault. In fact, the fort was not open during the Civil War and was only garrisoned by a skeleton force during the Spanish-American War. Due to the Sault's distance from the fighting, the safety of the locks was not an issue and they were not physically guarded by the military during those periods.

February 1949; Alan P. Ternes, "Rush Job: 400 Men Hustling Repairs on Locks in Race Against Time and Ships," Detroit News, 24 March 1957.

108 History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 211; Chief Engineer Report, [ 1913), 2:2899; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 193.

109Quote in History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 212.


However, during World War I, the importance of the locks to the American war effort justified an active military presence; thus, the facility was under military guard from March 1917 to May 1919. The troops guarded the locks from sabotage by foreign agents or those sympathetic to Germany by preventing land access to the complex and looking for suspicious behavior among the crewmen of the ships passing through the locks. The only known action taken by the military was to close the Poe Lock for ten minutes in order to investigate the action of a crewman on a steamer. 110

The Army stationed four companies ( several hundred troops) at the fort during the interwar period. With the start of World War II in 193 9, the military was ordered to increase security around the lock complex. Although the U.S. initially was neutral in the conflict, the Canadians were involved in the war early on and relied heavily on the American side of the Sault to help the Canadian war effort. Due to increased Canadian use, the Americans had Coast Guard vessels patrol the approaches to the locks, placed machine guns and searchlights around the facility, enclosed the grounds with barbed-wire fence, erected eighteen sentry towers, and put military guards on all pleasure and passenger craft passing through the locks. These efforts were most likely made to deny saboteurs. In March 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Military District of Sault Ste. Marie to assist in organizing its defense. The district allowed for the formation of a joint security plan with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Several months later, the Army appointed the 702nd Military Police Battalion to replace the lone infantry company guarding the Sault (the other three had been transferred shortly after 1939).111

Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, American military planners determined that the Germans had the capability to launch a bomber attack on the Sault Locks. Specifically, planes could be launched from German submarines located in Hudson Bay. A more plausible option was that the Germans would fly long-range planes from Norway to a remote region of northern Canada. Half of the planes would carry nothing but fuel and the other half would carry bombs or paratroopers. The bombing element would refuel in northern Canada and then drop bombs or paratroopers at the locks before returning to the refueling element. While the possibility was deemed to be remote, the importance of the Sault facility for shipping

110History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 211; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 194; Chief Engineer Report, [1918], 2:3217; [1919], 2:3217; A Statement by the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Committee for Assisting the Army in Plans for Defense of the Sault Locks (N.p., 1949), 3, Located at SLM.

111Bayliss, River of Destiny, 194-95; Stetson Conn, et. al., The United States Army in World War JI: The Western Hemisphere -- Guarding the United States and its Outposts (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961 ), 102-3; Chief Engineer Report, [ 1940], 1: 1686.


iron ore and grain was such to trigger a phenomenal increase in defensive measures. In April 1942, the 131st Infantry Regiment (a unit of the Illinois National Guard) arrived to strengthen the existing defenses. Other forces that augmented the 131 st included the 100th Coast Artillery (Anti-Aircraft) and 3 9th Barrage Balloon Battalion. By the summer of 1942, over 7,000 soldiers guarded the facility. Some interesting defensive measures included placement of torpedo nets at both ends of the lock channels and the ability to create an artificial fog by burning special chemicals. Canada assisted the defensive effort by placing anti-aircraft and barrage balloon units on its side of the river and organizing 266 observation posts throughout Ontario to look for approaching planes. These joint initiatives made the Sault the most heavily fortified place in the U.S. As the Allies regained the offensive against the Axis, it was recognized that Germany could no longer launch such an attack on the Sault and the security force was cut to 2,500 in September 1943. By December 1944, the force had been reduced to a single company of military police. 112

On 1 November 1946, the Army deeded Fort Brady to the Michigan College of Mining and Technology for a branch campus. Thus, for the first time since the Civil War, the Sault did not have a permanent military presence. It was believed that the U.S. at that time faced no serious military threat. However, the development of the Cold War and eventually, the start of the Korean Conflict, forced an increase in national security. As a result, military planners initiated a mock attack in 1950 on the Sault complex and realized that a renewed military presence was required. Within weeks, the federal government obtained a forty-acre site for a new military post. The post was named Camp Lucas after General John P. Lucas, who had commanded elements of the American assault onAnzio, Italy, during World War II. The site was located on the western corner of Sault Ste. Marie, adjacent to the former Fort Brady. President Harry Truman also authorized $1 million to create facilities on the post, which encompassed only a collection of dilapidated World War II-era military hospital buildings. The buildings had recently accommodated a state mental health hospital. Aside from these measures, in June 1950, Site Superintendent Clifford Aune closed the locks to all public access and passenger traffic. Passenger and pleasure craft were forced to utilize the Canadian Lock until this security measure was ended in October 1953.113

In the meantime, Camp Lucas formally opened on 30 June 1950 when elements of the

112Bayliss, River of Destiny, 195; Conn, The United States Army in World War II, 104-5; Larson, Essayons, 142; "Midwest May Face Aerial Attack," The Outpost (Ft. Brady, MI), September 1943.

113Bayliss, River of Destiny, 195; Duane Ernest Miller, "Camp Lucas: A Forgotten Post at Sault Ste. Marie," Journal of the Council on America's Military Past 13:3 (August 1985): 27-28, 30-31.


8th Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) Battalion hurriedly moved to the facility from Fort Custer, Michigan. Detachments of other units arrived to support the 8th AAA Battalion and by 1956, Camp Lucas had a garrison of eight hundred soldiers. In 1958, the 8th AAA Battalion was reflagged the 2nd Battalion, 68th Air Defense Artillery (2-68th ADA). During the 1950s, these soldiers manned anti-aircraft guns located on the grounds of the Sault complex as well as at other strategic positions. These guns guarded against a potential Soviet bomber attack that could reach the Sault by flying over the polar ice cap and Canada. 114

All of these defensive measures reflected the prevailing view among American military planners in 1950. Specifically, the St. Marys River Ship Canal was regarded one of the three most strategic sites in the entire U.S.-the other two were Washington, D.C., and a plutonium plant in Hanford, Washington. This evaluation explains why soldiers were deployed to Camp Lucas before it was fully ready to receive them. In bomber terms, the Sault locks were considered to be a linear target, or one that was best hit with a low-level air attack. Low-level air attacks were best defended by anti-aircraft guns rather than missiles. Initially, forces at the Sault used the 40-mm Bofors antiaircraft gun, but switched in 1956 to the larger M51 75-mm "Skysweeper" antiaircraft gun. By the late 1950s, advances in jet, radar, and missile technology made low-level attacking obsolete. As a result, the Army placed more-potent NIKE antiaircraft missiles at Raco Airfield (25 miles away from the Sault) and removed the 75-mm guns from the Sault locks. On 15 June 1960, the 2-68th ADA was deactivated and Camp Lucas reverted to caretaker status. In 1962, the site was acquired by Lake Superior State College. 115

The Growth of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan

Perhaps lost within the complex commercial/military history and development of the Sault complex is the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, itself. The history of the city has always been tied to traveling on the Great Lakes. The French were the first Europeans to set eyes upon the area, which is depicted on French maps of North America from as early as 1632. In 1668, French Jesuits placed a mission near the rapids of the St. Marys River because it was the place where all Indian tribes of the region gathered to send their furs to Montreal and Quebec. One of these early Jesuits included Father Pere Marquette, who would later explore large sections of the

114Miller, "Camp Lucas: A Forgotten Post at Sault Ste. Marie," 27-28, 30-31; Janice E. McKenney, Army Lineage Series: Air Defense Artillery (Washington, D.C.: United States Army, Center for Military History, 1985), 364.

115Stephen P. Moeller, "Vigilant and Invincible," ADA (Air Defense Artillery) Magazine (May-June 1995), unpaginated; Miller, "Camp Lucas," 34; McKenney, Army Lineage Series, 364.


present-day American Midwest. Over the next twenty-five years, the Sault Ste. Marie settlement served as France's primary trading point for the upper Great Lakes area. Indians from all over the region would bring their furs to Sault Ste. Marie to trade for European goods. A complex series of events involving European wars, Indian conflicts, and Jesuit-inspired anti-imperialist sentiment persuaded France's King Louis XIV to order all of New France's western posts in North America to be abandoned in 1696, except for the Jesuit missions. This forced Indians to either transport all of their furs to Montreal or trade with the British. With no trade occurring at the Sault, the area went into a severe decline and the Jesuits abandoned their mission sometime prior to 1700. By 1720, the French had returned to a policy of western expansion by placing a network of military posts around the western Great Lakes; however, Indian warfare and the difficulty of navigating Lake Superior limited French efforts to northern Lake Michigan. 116

Although the French in the early 1700s had no military presence at the Sault, the number of traders venturing to the site slowly increased. In 1751, the King of France bestowed the land at the Sault to Louis de Bonne, who was a minor nobleman. De Bonne sent Sieur de Repentigny to construct Fort Repentigny adjacent to the southern side of the St. Marys Rapids to protect his tract and also to provide sanctuary for voyageurs trading in the Lake Superior region. Besides building a fort, Repentigny organized formal land settlement and initiated agricultural pursuits for a small number of settlers; however, his chief concern remained facilitating the fur trade with the local Indians. After the French lost control of their North American possessions with the conclusion of the French and Indian War in 1763, possession of de Bonne's tract fell to de facto British military rule until the War of 1812.117

During the period of British occupation, an army of British-sponsored fur traders flocked to the Lake Superior region to profit from the fur trade. With the increase in fur trading came a temporary rise in the importance of the St. Marys River to the Lake Superior trade; however, British fur companies located their trading facilities on the northern (Canadian) side of the river. The hamlet on the southern side continued to decline in importance. Other resources that could spawn development for Sault Ste. Marie, such as timber and minerals, were too costly to harvest and transport during the period. Also, in the early nineteenth century, American settlement trends were more focused upon the region around the Ohio River-not the Great Lakes. In

116Bayliss, River of Destiny, 5, 15-16, 31-33; Edna Kenton, ed., The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in North America (New York: The Vanguard Press, 1954), 225-27, 326.

117Bayliss, River of Destiny, 36-42.


1820, the tiny settlement on the American side of the St. Marys River consisted of twenty buildings occupied by approximately five families. Famed Great Lakes explorer Henry Schoolcraft commented that the village "[had] the marks of an ancient settlement fallen to decay." Meanwhile, a hamlet on the Canadian side reflected the de facto British control of the entire area by sporting a saw mill, boat yard, several stores, and a number of dwellings. 118

As previously mentioned, the first formal American presence at Sault Ste. Marie was in 1820, when General Hugh Brady constructed a fort adjacent to the southern side of the rapids. Little occurred at the Sault until the 1830s, when the fur trade rebounded after a period of decline. Soon several fur trading companies placed boats on Lake Superior. Subsequently, the villages on both sides of the Sault evolved to serve as a portage point around the rapids. In 183 7, Michigan Governor Stevens Mason pushed for a canal to improve communication between the state's two separate peninsulas. 119

The mineral wealth of the Upper Peninsula began to interest copper prospectors and speculators as early as the 1840s. During that decade, several small mining settlements including Copper Harbor and Ontonagon sprouted up along the shores of Lake Superior. The only link these settlements had to the outside world for supplies and markets was via a small fleet that served Lake Superior. In tum, all items shipped on this fleet had to pass through the land portage at Sault Ste. Marie. Naturally, a number of businesses including portage and dock operators, inns, stores, and other services popped up to facilitate the growing trade. The population had also grown enough to occupy one hundred houses. By 1850, a horse-powered rail portage tramway was laid through the American village's Water Street in order to move goods effectively. The trade business was so good that many residents opposed construction of a canal, fearful of a negative impact upon the local economy .120

But construction of the state canal induced more business as it brought nearly 2,000 workers to Sault Ste. Marie. These workers were housed in make-shift shanties while several hundred higher-ranking workers rented houses in the village. The construction project and its tremendous workforce were an economic boon for the hamlet. Besides benefitting store owners and other merchants, the workforce supported nearly fifty "grog shops" that were opened solely to provide entertainment

118Ibid., 45, 50-51; Williams, ed. Schoo/craft's Narrative Journal of Travels, 94-96, 101.

119History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 136-37, 213-14.

120Ibid., 133-34, 136-37; Larson, Essayons, 46-47; Havighurst, "Way to the Big Sea," 22.


for the canal workers. But most of these workers left after the canal was completed and the population of the hamlet actually declined after the canal's completion. It was not until 1879 that Sault Ste. Marie was large enough to be incorporated as a village. Its population naturally increased during periods of lock construction. Since locks took many years to build, contractors set up offices in Sault Ste. Marie and hundreds of workers took up residence. Regardless, the village continued to grow on its own account. In 1880, the settlement had a population of2,000 and was incorporated as a city in 1887. By 1900, Sault Ste. Marie's population had exploded to 10,500; however, the city's massive growth period had peaked and it took thirty years for the population to increase to 14,000.121

The Locks and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan

The effect of the locks upon the local economy was readily apparent during the Great Depression. While the number of ships going through the canal was very low in comparison to previous decades, the economic effect of the shipping decrease was not felt at the Sault because the locks still had to be maintained. The payrolls and operation of the locks were little changed during the period. In addition, few ships stopped at Sault Ste. Marie's small harbor even during the most vibrant of economic times. The only shipping-related impact on the city was that many vessels took on supplies, laundry, and mail while passing through the locks; a decline in shipping naturally hurt those businesses. 122

By 1950, the population of Sault Ste. Marie reached 20,000. With regard to industry, the city lacked the amount of large-scale industry enjoyed by its Canadian counterpart. 123 Although it possessed a wide-variety of small-scale factories, the only large-scale employers in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, included a Union Carbide chemical plant and the locks. During that time, it was estimated that the locks contributed $10 million to the local economy. Much of that money involved

121"400 Men Arrived in Soo on June 1, 1853," Sault Ste. Marie (MI) Evening News, 18 June 1855; Bayliss, River of Destiny, 184, 190.

122Arthur W. Baum, "World's Busiest Waterway," Saturday Evening Post (4 June 1955): 108-9.

123Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, experienced more remarkable growth than the settlement in Michigan. In 1881, the Canadian village only had a population of eight hundred. After construction of the Canadian Canal at the Sault, Sault Ste. Marie's population exploded to 6,000. In addition to the canal, the village benefitted from the construction of a power canal, pulp paper plant, steel mill and other manufacturing facilities. These stemmed from Ontario's vast natural mineral and timber wealth. All of these elements launched the Canadian Sault past its American counterpart so that by 1930, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, recorded a population of 23,000. See Bayliss, River of Destiny, 142-45, 148-49.

government salaries and purchases.124


Sault Ste. Marie experienced a period of economic and population decline during the 1960s. The local economy was forced to shift from an emphasis on manufacturing due to the closing of the city's sawmill, tannery, woolen mill, and boat works. As a result, Sault Ste. Marie lost 19 percent of its population during the decade. The city's economy increasingly relied upon the locks as a tourist attraction. In 1960, only 75,000 people annually visited the locks; however that number had exploded to 900,000 by 1971. Tourists provided a source of revenue for an array of hotels, restaurants, shops, and other tourist-related business. The Corps of Engineers accommodated the massive increase in tourists by building a visitor information building on the grounds of its Sault complex. 125

Aside from the tourism component, the employment directly provided by the locks was extremely important to the residents of Sault Ste. Marie. Thus, when the Corps of Engineers pondered cutting forty-five positions from the 280-person workforce in 1971, the community responded by writing to the Corps and Congressional representatives. Also, the local newspaper featured editorials on how the lock's general superintendent ran a "tight ship" and was not prone to "featherbedding" the workforce. The Corps relented during the tumult and, in the end, the staff of the Sault was actually raised to 296.126

Conclusion

The St. Marys River Ship Canal has had a significant impact upon not only Great Lakes shipping, but also industrial development of the United States. In addition, the locks that currently exist and that historically have been part of the complex were instrumental in the development of present-day lock construction technology.

PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION

A. General Statement:

1. Architectural character: The primary structures of the Soo Lock complex are

124Baum, "World's Busiest Waterway," 108.

125Larson, Essayons, 153.

126Ibid., 153.


the MacArthur Lock (HAER No. MI-322-E-1), New Poe Lock (HAER No. MI-322-F-1), Davis Lock (HAER No. MI-322-A-1), and Sabin Lock (HAER No. MI-322-B-l), each of which is the focal point of a sub-complex that includes a variety of operating shelters and structures. Additional facilities include the military barracks sub-complex (HAER No. MI-3 22-D) and its five structures, the Emergency Dam Steam Plant (HAER No. MI-322-C), the General Administration Building (HAER No. MI-322-G), the Davis Building (HAER No. MI-322-H), Powerhouse No. 1 (HAER No. MI-322-1), Powerhouse No. 2 (HAER No. MI-322-J), and Boathouse & Maintenance sub-complex (HAER No. MI-322-K).

2. Condition of fabric: The Soo Locks have to be maintained on an on-going basis in order to accommodate the lockage and passage of ships. Consequently, the condition of the general facility is very good. However, there are components of the complex that are not presently used and falling into disrepair. These include the Davis Lock sub-complex (HAER No. MI-322-A), Sabin Lock sub-complex (HAER No. MI-322-B), Emergency Dam Steam Plant (HAER No. MI-322-C), and Military Barracks sub-complex (HAER No. MI-322-D).

B. Setting:

The Soo Lock complex is located at the Falls of St. Marys on the St. Marys River. Additionally, it is adjacent to West Portage Street and the downtown business district in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan. The southern-most component of the property is a park in which the facility's Visitor Center is located. Thereafter, public access is restricted by a fence, immediately north of which-in order-are the MacArthur Lock, New Poe Lock, Davis Lock, and Sabin Lock. The General Administration building is situated between the MacArthur and New Poe locks, while the Davis building is between the New Poe and Davis locks. Both are at the east end of the east/west-oriented complex. North of the Sabin Lock are the remaining military barracks which are flanked by Powerhouse #1 on the west and Powerhouse #2 on the northeast. The City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, is immediately across the St. Marys River to the north.

PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A. Bibliography

1. Document Repositories: (See individual footnotes for specific citations.)


Bayliss Public Library, Sault Ste. Marie, MI. Sault Locks Vertical Files; Sault Lock Historic Photograph Collection.

National Archives and Records Administration-Great Lakes Region, Chicago, IL (NARA-GL). Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Detroit District. Record Group 77.

State Archives of Michigan, Lansing, ML St. Marys Falls Canal, Map, Plans and Specifications, Record Group 58-17. Canal Tonnage Reports, 1855-1858, Record Group 67-35, Box 103. Soo Locks Iconographic Collection.

State Library of Michigan, Lansing. Sault Ste. Marie Locks Vertical Files.

2. Primary Sources:

Books:

Barton, James L. Commerce of the Lakes. A Brief Sketch of the Commerce of the Great Northern and Western Lakes for a Series of Years; To Which is Added, An Account of the Business Done Through Buffalo on the Erie Canal, for the Years 1845 and 1846, Also, Remarks as to the True Canal Policy of the State of New York. Buffalo, NY: Press of Jewett, Thomas & Co., 1847.

Goethals, George W. The Panama Canal: An Engineering Treatise. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1916.

Kenton, Edna, ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in North America. New York: The Vanguard Press, 1954.

A Statement by the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Committee for Assisting the Army in Plans for Defense of the Sault Locks. N.p., 1949. Located at the State Library of Michigan, Lansing, MI.

Williams, Mentor L., ed. Schoolcraft 's Narrative Journal of Travels: Through the Northwestern Regions of the United States Extending from Detroit Through the Great Chain of American Lakes to the Sources of the Mississippi River in the Year 1820. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1992.

Government Documents:


Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan Passed at the Regular Session of 1853. Lansing, MI: Geo. W. Peck, Printer to the State, 1853.

Annual Report of the Superintendent of the St. Marys Falls Ship Canal. Lansing, MI: W.S. George & Co., Printers to the State, 1866, 1871, 1873, 1880-81.

Communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, Transmitting in Compliance with a Resolution of the Senate of March 8, 1851, The Report of Israel D. Andrews, Consul of the United States for Canada and New Brunswick, on the Trade and Commerce of the British North American Colonies and Upon the Trade of the Great Lakes and Rivers; Also, Notice of the Internal Improvements in Each State, of the Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida, And a Paper on the Cotton Crop of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Beverly Tucker, Senate Printer, 1854.

Hodges, Harry F. Notes on Mitering Lock Gates: Professional Papers of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Press, 1892.

St. Mary's River, Michigan, at the Falls: The Necessity for Government Ownership and Control of the Rapids of St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives Document #13, 60th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909.

Statistical Report of Lake Commerce Passing Through Canals at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario During Season of 1946. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. Report of the Chief of Engineers. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1907-1952. Cited as Chief Engineer Report.


Journals: (See individual notes for specific citations.)

Engineering News, 1900-1917.

Engineering News-Record, 1917-1970.

Engineering Record, 1908-191 7.

Scientific American, 1890-1917.

Newspapers: (See individual footnotes for specific citations.)

The Outpost (Fort Brady, MI), 1943-1944.

Sault Ste. Marie(MI)EveningNews, 1855, 1896, 1919, 1943, 1948, 1969.

3. Secondary Sources:

Books:

American Public Works Association. History of Public Works in the United States, 1776-1976. Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1976.

Bald, Frederick Clever. The Sault Canal Through 100 Years, Sault Ste Marie, Michigan. Detroit: University of Michigan Press, 1954.

Bayliss, Joseph E. and Estelle L. River of Destiny: The Saint Marys. Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955.

Bennett, Ira E. History of the Panama Canal: Its Construction and Builders. Washington, D.C.: Historical Publishing Company, 1915.

Bourne, Russell. Floating West: The Erie and Other Canals. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992.

Conn, Stetson, et. al. The United States Army in World War II: The Western Hemisphere -- Guarding the United States and its Outposts. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961.


Dickinson, John N. To Build a Canal: Sault Ste. Marie, 1853-1854 and After. Miami, OH: Miami University, 1981.

Drago, Harry Sinclair. Canal Days in America: The History and Romance of Old Towpaths and Waterways. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., Publisher, 1972.

Greenwood, John 0. The Fleet Histories: A Historical Narrative and Photographical Depiction of Former and Present Great Lakes Fleets. Cleveland: Freshwater Press, Inc., 1990.

Hadfield, Charles. The Canal Age. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1969.

Hazard, John L. The Great Lakes -- St. Lawrence Transportation System: Problems and Potential. N.p., 1969.

History of the Great Lakes with Illustrations. Chicago: J.H. Beers & Co., 1899.

History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan Containing a Full Account of Its Settlement; Its Growth, Development and Resources; An Extended Description of Its Iron and Copper Mines. Chicago: Western Historical Company, 1883.

Ireland, Tom. The Great Lakes --St. Lawrence, Deep Waterway to the Sea. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1934.

Jackson, John N. The Welland Canals and Their Communities: Engineering, Industrial, and Urban Transformation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Larson, John W. Essayons: A History of the Detroit District US. Army Corps of Engineers. Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, 1981.

McKenney, Janice E. Army Lineage Series: Air Defense Artillery. Washington, D.C.: United States Army, Center of Military History, 1985.

Mills, James Cooke. Our Inland Seas. Their Shipping and Commerce for Three Centuries. Cleveland: Freshwater Press, Inc., 1976.


Moore, Charles, ed. The Saint Mary's Falls Canal Semicentennial, 1905. Detroit: Semi-Centennial Commission, 1907.

Neu, Irene D. "The Mineral Lands of the St. Mary's Falls Ship Canal Company," in David H. Ellis, The Frontier in American Development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969.

Oliver, John W. History of American Technology. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 197 5.

Osborne, Brian S. and Donald Swainson. The Sault Ste. Marie Canal: A Chapter in the History of Great Lakes Transportation. Ottawa: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, 1986.

Passfield, Robert W. Technology in Transition: The 'Sao' Ship Canal, 1889-1985. Ontario: Canadian Park Service, 1989.

Payne, Robert. The Canal Builders: The Story of Canal Engineers Through the Ages. New York: Macmillan Company, 1959.

Rector, William Gerald. Log Transportation in the Lake States Lumber Industry, 1840-1918. Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clarke Co., 1953.

St. Marys Falls Canal, Michigan Statistical Report of Lake Commerce Passing Through St. Marys Falls Canal, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, During Season of 1977. Detroit: U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, 1977.

Shallat, Todd. Structures in the Stream: Water, Science, and the Rise of the US. Army Corps of Engineers. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1994.

Shaw, Ronald E. Canals for a Nation: The Canal Era in the United States, 1790-1960. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1990.

__ . Erie Water West: A History of the Erie Canal. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1990.

Sao Locks Centennial Official Souvenir Program. N.p., 1955. Located at the State Library of Michigan (SLM), Lansing, ML


Styran, Roberta M. and Robert W. Taylor. The Welland Canals: The Growth of Mr. Merritt's Ditch. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1988.

Waggoner, Madeline Sadler. The Long Haul West: The Great Canal Era, 1817-1850. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1958.

Woodford, Arthur M. Charting the Inland Seas: A History of the US. Lake Survey. Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, 1991.

Journal/Periodical Articles:

Baum, Arthur W. "World's Busiest Waterway," Saturday Evening Post (4 June 1955): 36-37, 108-09.

Chase, Lew Allen. "Michigan's Share in the Establishment of Improved Transportation Between East and the West," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections. Vol. 38. Lansing: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1912.

Davis, Robert W. "Poe II: The Logic and the Need for a Second Poe-Sized Lock at Sault Ste. Marie," Seaway Review (September 1984): 31-2.

"Evaluation of Soo Locks Expansion Enters Final Stages," Seaway Review (June-August 1985): 89-90.

Havighurst, Walter. "Way to the Big Sea," American Heritage 6:3 (April 1955): 21-24.

Miller, Duane Ernest. "Camp Lucas: A Forgotten Army Post at Sault Ste. Marie," Journal of the Council on America's Military Past 13:3 (August 1985): 27-34.

Moeller, Stephen P. "Vigilant and Invincible," AIM (Air Defense Artillery) Magazine (May-June 1995): unpaginated.

Neu, Irene D. "The Building of the Sault Canal: 1852-1855," Mississippi Valley Historical Review 40 (June 1953): 24-40.

Proctor, Thomas C. "The Middlesex Canal: Prototype for American Canal Building," Canal History and Technology Proceedings 7 (26 March 1988): 124-74.


"Second Poe-Sized Lock Critical to Nation's Defense," The Bulletin (January 1984): 8-11.

Ten Broeck, Joseph A. "Old Keweenaw," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 30. Lansing, MI: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., 1905.

Newspaper Articles:

Benac, Nancy. "Bill Includes A New Lock at the Soo," Detroit News, 21 November 1985.

Mahan, A.F. "Sault Cities Busy with $100 Million Projects," The State Journal (Lansing, MI), 30 November 1960.

"Soo Canal Crews Battle Winter to Get Repairs Done," Flint (MI) Journal, 20 February 1949.

Ternes, Alan P. "Rush Job: 400 Men Hustling Repairs on Locks in Race Against Time and Ships," Detroit News, 24 March 1957.

PART IV. PROJECT INFORMATION

Prepared by:

John N. Vogel, Ph.D. Heritage Research, Ltd. N89 Wl 6785 Appleton A venue Menomonee Falls, WI 15 January 2001

This project was sponsored by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and undertaken by Heritage Research, Ltd., a historical/environmental consulting firm located in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, in association with Great Lakes Research Associates, Lansing, Michigan. In addition to Dr. Vogel, who directed the project, significant HRL staff contributions were made by Brian J. F altinson, M.A., and Chris Lese, M.A., both of whom developed the historic context and completed the site-specific research, and Laura A bing, Ph.D., who edited the final document. Photographic copies of the plans were completed by Mr. Wayne Chandler of Mayfair Photography, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, while both Mr. Chandler and Dr. Vogel accomplished the field photography. All photographs were archivally processed and printed by Mr. Chandler.

St. M<1"'1 ' Fe. \\s Gx.V\«.\

5'·~V'<{ ~ i N, "" a.:~ ""'' fo..\\s

5Au\'t Mo..1r,·t

(40n\'t

2.42.0 / 5tS'31..G'\S
