powers of the company that year, but also chartered another company, the Niagara County Irrigation and Water Supply Co. (See page 156.)

In its next annual report the eighth, dated January 29, 1892, the Commission again requested the Legislature to "refuse to enact all bills, the object of which is the utilization of the water power of the river above the Falls for manufacturing and other purposes." (See page 89.)

The warning of the danger from a succession of large diversions was repeated in the Commission's ninth annual report, dated January 31, 1893. But these appeals were unheeded, and in April, 1893, the Legislature chartered still another corporation, entitled the Model Town Company, renamed the Niagara Power and Development Co. (See page 157.)

The Commission succeeded, however, in blocking the attempt of the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Co., in the Legislature of 1893, to continue and enlarge its privileges. (See page 92.)

In 1893, also, the Commission secured an important concession in connection with the application of the latter company to the Commissioners of the Land Office for a grant of about four and one-half acres more of land under water at Port Day, adjoining the eastern boundary of the Reservation. The grant was made by the Commissioners of the Land Office under date of July 19, 1893, (see copy page 174) but with the express provision, embodied in the grant that the company should not allow any vessels to be on said premises, nor erect any structures either upon the premises then granted or upon a specified portion of the grant of 1886,

without the permission of the Commissioners of the State Reservation. The only permission granted by the Commission under this power has been that given by resolution of October 4, 1893, (see page 177) permitting the company to protect its intake from ice and debris by booms and crib work, which adjoin the company's property on the up-stream side and curve down-stream.

The whole year of 1894 was one of the most strenuous contention by the Commission for the protection of the Falls. The President of the Commission had been elected a member of the Constitutional Convention which was to meet that year, and in the light of previous experience, the Commission determined to utilize this instrumentality if possible, to hedge the Reservation about with a Constitutional protection.

The first step of the year was the declaration, in the Commission's tenth annual report, dated January 27, 1894, of its unalterable opposition to all legislation seeking to divert the water of the upper Niagara. (See page 92.)

The next step was the fight in the Legislature against new legislation of this sort. In February, March and April, 1894, three bills were introduced in the interest of the Model Town Co. (Niagara Power and Development Co.) and in March a bill was introduced incorporating an entirely new company, the Niagara, Lockport and Ontario Power Company, (see page 158.) And they all became laws. The Commissioners of the State Reservation at Niagara opposed this legislation, the President appearing in person before the legislative committee in opposition to the Niagara, Lockport and Ontario Power Company bill. The opposition of the Commission to the renewal and extension of the

charter of this company in the Legislature of 1904 was therefore entirely consistent with its attitude ten years before when the charter was granted. (The personnel of the Commission in 1894 was entirely different from its personnel in 1904.)

The fight was next taken up in the Constitutional Convention, which met in May, 1894. In that body, the President of the Commission, the late Hon. Andrew H. Green, offered the following resolution:

"Resolved, That it be referred to an appropriate committee to report to the convention what, if any, amendment should be made to the Constitution to restrain the Legislature from granting to or conferring upon corporations or individuals, privileges, rights, or licenses to divert the waters of the upper Niagara river, or any portion thereof, from their natural channel, and that said committee in their report inform the convention of those rights and privileges heretofore granted and the particulars and extent and the consideration therefor."

The subject was referred to a sub-committee of the committee on Legislative Powers and Duties of which John A. Barhite was chairman. The committee reported in favor of a constitutional amendment which, while not impairing existing grants to divert the waters of the upper Niagara for commercial purposes, forbade any future grants; subjected existing corporations to the control of the Commissioners of the State Reservation at Niagara; and exacted from operating corporations such compensation as the Commissioners should prescribe. The report of this committee, presented September 1, 1894, is given in full on pages 151-167, following.

After protracted and at times heated discussion, the proposed amendment was not adopted.

Immmediately after this failure, the Commission set about to secure international protection. The details of these efforts are given hereafter. (See page 75.)

In its eleventh annual report, dated January 30, 1895, the Commission expressed its views concerning the granting of the Niagara, Lockport and Ontario Power Company charter; the refusal of the Constitutional Convention to adopt an amendment protecting the Falls, and the subject of the diminution of the Falls generally. (See page 92.)

In 1895 the Commission took an important step in a new direction, and went to the limit of its authority to secure the restraiat of one of the oldest and most active companies diverting the water of the Upper Niagara. In that year, the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company began to widen its canal so as to increase the volume of water consumed. In 1886, as before stated (page 67) the Commission had called attention to this company's illegal use of land under water. Now the President of the Commission wrote to the Attorney-General under date of July 17, 1895 (see page 130), calling into question the right of the company to divert any water from the river and requesting the AttorneyGeneral to take the necessary measures to protect the interests of the State. On the 18th he wrote again suggesting an immediate injunction. (See page 130.)

Under date of November 16, 1895, the Attorney-General replied, (page 131) reviewing the facts and the law, and making these four important statements:

1. That the company had no right to increase the capacity of its canal and could be restrained.

2. That the company had no right to divert any water from Niagara river, and could be restrained.

3. That a diversion of water sufficient to diminish the flow over the Falls was a nuisance and could be restrained.

4. That the nuisance could be abated at the suit of the AttorneyGeneral.

It was clear from the foregoing that the company was unlawfully diverting the water of Niagara river and that the responsibility for securing redress lay upon the Attorney-General. The Commission had gone as far as it could in calling his attention to the situation and expressly requesting him to move in the matter. It does not appear, however that the Attorney-General took any action in the premises.

On January 28, 1896, the Commission returned to the attack in its twelfth annual report. (See page 98.) The correspondence with the Attorney-General and his official reply were given publicity and the whole situation reviewed with respect to the eight corporations authorized to divert water from above the Falls.

On February 28, 1896, a bill was introduced in the Legislature granting and confirming the privileges hitherto unlawfully exercised by the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company. (See page 187.) This bill was vigorously opposed by the Commission in a letter by the President to the Legislature dated April 6, 1896, (see page 119). ation and dangers were called to the attention

ture, but without avail. The bill became a law.

Again the situ

of the Legisla