the _Baxter's_ without tow, from Buffalo to West Troy. Therefore, by this comparison of times, the one day extra allowed for the greater steam resources of the former era with a boat in tow, is ample; and the policy of that era is plainly more economical for freight than that of the past two years. * * * * * WE THEREFORE OBSERVE: That the policy of introducing steam canal-boats as carriers of freight, is illustrated in the _Niagara_, _Eclipse_, _Gold Hunter_ and _Rotary_. The policy of carrying and towing one boat, in the _Wack_, _Sternburg_, _Ruggles_, _City of Buffalo_ and _Viele_. The policy of screw-tugs in the _Gov. King_, _Bemis_, _Washington_, _Lafayette_, _Stimers_, _Dan Brown_ and the paddle-wheel tug _Fall Brook_. Under each policy steam was a failure on the canals under the agencies tried. The single carriers died first; the tugs second; the carriers and one boat third; and last, the carriers with three-boat tows. In 1861 and 1862, the policy of using the powerful canal steamers, _Ruggles_ and _City of Buffalo_, to carry freight and tow three boats each, was introduced to supersede the former policies. During these years the privilege of priority at locks, by paying double toll on the boats, was suspended, and soon thereafter steam was totally abandoned. It is noticeable that the steamers for carrying, only, had less vitality, and were less economical, than those for carrying and towing, and those for carrying and towing but one boat had less than those for carrying and also towing three boats. Hence, the carrying steamers, or the automaton policy of 1871 and 1872, can only compare with the automaton policy of the former era, and they must have less vitality, and be less economical, than those other for carrying and towing one boat, and still less than those for carrying and towing three boats. STEAM IN 1872 LESS ECONOMICAL THAN HORSES. It has been clearly shown that STEAM in 1872 is less economical than in 1858 to 1860, and still less so than in 1861 and 1862. But STEAM, in its former history, failed to compete with HORSES; and as, in its recent history, it has failed to be as economical as in its former, because of less economical policies of introduction (machinery being substantially the same), it follows that its failure to compete with horses must be still more marked, still more disappointing to the hopes entertained by the Legislative Department of the State, that independent financial encouragement could possibly foster and develop steam successfully, than it was in its former most significant failures.