Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "203744526",
    "label": "The Great American Canals, Archer Butler Hulbert, 1904",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744526"
}

{
    "id": "203744526",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744526",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "The Great American Canals, Archer Butler Hulbert, 1904",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744526",
    "collections": [
        "Dr. Robert Kapsch Collection",
        "Senior Scholar Records"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Hulbert_The_great_American_canals_Vol_13.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Hulbert_The_great_American_canals_Vol_13.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Hulbert_The_great_American_canals_Vol_13.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744526",
    "naId": 203744526,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Hulbert_The_great_American_canals_Vol_13.pdf",
    "mediaId": "12fd83ce0e39ea1e",
    "ocrText": "Google\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project\nto make the world's books discoverable online.\nIt has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject\nto copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books\nare our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.\nMarks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the\npublisher to a library and finally to you.\nUsage guidelines\nGoogle is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the\npublic and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to\nprevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.\nWe also ask that you:\n+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for\npersonal, non-commercial purposes.\n+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine\ntranslation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the\nuse of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.\n+ Maintain attribution The Google \"watermark\" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find\nadditional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.\n+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just\nbecause we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other\ncountries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of\nany specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner\nanywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.\nAbout Google Book Search\nGoogle's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers\ndiscover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web\nathttp://books.google.com/\nThe Great American Canals\nArcher Butler Hulbert\nDigitized\nby\nGoogle\nSTANTORD UNIVERSITY IVERSITY LIBRARYS\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nHISTORIC HIGHWAYS OF AMERICA\nVOLUME 13\nThe Great American\nCapals\nLIBRARIES\nBY\nARCHER BUTLER HULBERT\nWith Maps and Illustrations\nVolume I\nThe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nand\nThe Pennsylvania Canal\nH\nALISHBAINO\nLELAND MISTANFORD JUNIOR\nTHE ARTHUR H. CLARK COMPANY\nCLEVELAND, OHIO\n1904\nS\nDigitized by Google\n973\nH912\nV.13\nCOPYRIGHT, 1904\nBY\nTHE ARTHUR H. CLARK COMPANY\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\nУПЕЯЗИИИ\nDigitized by Google\nCONTENTS\nPAGE\nPREFACE\nII\nI. INTRODUCTORY\n. 15\nII. THE POTOMAC COMPANY\n. 33\nIII. THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL\nAND ITS RIVAL\n. 65\nIV. THE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL AND ITS\nSUCCESSOR\n. 169\nAPPENDIXES\n217\n85242\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nILLUSTRATIONS\nI. FOUR ROUTES TO THE WEST Frontispiece\nII. MAP OF THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO\nCANAL\n. 81\nIII. THE CACTOCIN AQUEDUCT\n117\nIV. SCRIP ISSUED BY THE CHESAPEAKE\nAND OHIO CANAL COMPANY\n. 147\nV. A VIEW OF THE CHESAPEAKE AND\nOHIO CANAL (at the entrance of the\ntunnel near Cumberland, Mary-\nland)\n165\nVI. MAP OF PENNSYLVANIA CANAL AND\nPORTAGE RAILWAY\n185\nVII. THE FIRST AMERICAN TUNNEL (by\nwhich the Portage Railway crossed\nthe Mountains)\n201\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nf Penn\nDigitized by Google\nCoogle\nPREFACE\nimportant part in\nmovement west-\nward in America. Two mono-\ngraphs of this series, therefore, are devoted\nto the rise and building of three great\ncanal routes westward, the Chesapeake and\nOhio, the Pennsylvania, and the Erie\ncanals.\nThe present volume is devoted to the\nPotomac Company and its successor, the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, and\nfinally the Pennsylvania Canal. In each\ncase the birth and development of the two\ngreat railroad routes which follow these\ncanals, the Baltimore and Ohio and the\nPennsylvania Railways, is also sketched.\nThe history of the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal is contained in the reports of\nthe company; Hon. Theodore B. Klein has\nwritten a very interesting account of the\nPennsylvania canals, The Canals of Penn-\nDigitized by Google\n12\nPREFACE\nsylvania, and the System of Internal Improve-\nments of the Commonwealth; Mr. William\nBender Wilson has included a fine sketch\nof the Allegheny Portage Railway in his\nHistory of the Pennsylvania Railroad Com-\npany. To both of these the author is in-\ndebted for advice and assistance.\nA. B. H.\nMARIETTA, OHTo, March I, 1904.\nDigitized by Google\nThe Great American Canals\nVolume I\nThe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nand\nThe Pennsylvania Canal\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nCHAPTER I\nINTRODUCTORY\nC\nANALS are of two classes, those ad-\nmitting large and those admitting\nsmall craft; the former are techni-\ncally known as ship canals, the latter,\nbarge canals. It is, of course, the barge\ncanal, in its relation to the western move-\nment of the American people, that agrees\nin all essentials with our present study of\nHistoric Highways and which should be\nconsidered in any study of the subject.\nThe subject of fast and safe transporta-\ntion of freight has become so commonplace\nin our day of railways that it is with\ndifficulty that we catch any true idea of the\neconomic importance to our forefathers of\nthe invention and general use of such an\nordinary thing as a good wagon. The\nmeaning of the successful opening of a\ngreat canal, such as the Erie Canal, can\nhardly be understood unless one has known\nDigitized by Google\n16\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nnothing of the problem of transportation\nsave as represented by the pack-saddle and\n\" Conestoga\" wagon. When looked at\nfrom such a standpoint, the lock canal is at\nonce seen to be one of the grandest inven-\ntions of any age; it was every whit as far\nahead of any system of transportation when\nit was discovered as the railway is in\nadvance of the best canal today.\nFrom this point of view - that of the\ncomparative value of this method of mov-\ning freight over any method known before\nit - it must seem most inexplicable that\nthe lock canal was the invention of mod-\nerns. The simple canal lock, with all its\nimmense benefits, escaped the notice of the\nbuilders of pyramids or the \"Hanging\nGardens,\" of the Parthenon and of the\nengineers of the Cloaca Maxima. Egypt,\nBabylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, with all\ntheir vast needs in the way of handling\nheavy freight, never invented the simple\nhydraulic lock. And this is the more as-\ntonishing because they dug great canals;\nthe Royal Canal of Babylon was twice as\nlong as our American Erie Canal; the\nFossa Mariana, from the Rhône to the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nINTRODUCTORY\n17\nGulf of Stomalenine (102 B. C.), the Em-\nperor Claudius's canal from the Tiber to\nthe sea, the canal from the Nile to the port\nof Alexandria, Odoacer's canal from Men-\ntone, near Ravenna, to the sea, the\nRoman canals in England and Lombardy,\nthe Moorish canals in Granada (which lan-\nguished when Ferdinand conquered the\ncountry!) all indicate the knowledge the\nancients had with this form of inland\nnavigation.\nThe general early theory was to make\ninland navigation possible by means of a\n\"canalization\" of rivers. One of the most\nsuccessful efforts in this direction is the\nGrand Canal of China, the great highway\nof the Middle Kingdom; it was built in\nthe thirteenth century, to connect the\nwaters of the Yang-ste and the Pei-ho\nRivers, the former the great waterway of\ncentral China, the latter the waterway of\nthe strategic province of Chili. This great\nwork nearly a thousand miles in length is\na series of canalized rivers. Other canals,\nsuch as that pushed forward by Charle-\nmagne to unite the Rhine with the Danube,\nwere almost impossible until the invention\nDigitized by Google\n18\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nof the lock. The blockheadedness of the\nSpaniard is most clearly shown in the atti-\ntude of a certain state paper, though, in\nfact, it very nearly voices a fundamental\nscientific law; with reference to the canali-\nzation of Spanish rivers a decree of a state\ncouncil read: \"\nif it had pleased\nGod that these rivers should have been\nnavigable, he would not have wanted\nhuman assistance to have made them such,\nbut that, as he has not done it, it is plain\nthat he did not think it proper that it should\nbe done. To attempt it, therefore, would\nbe to violate the decrees of his providence,\nand to mend these imperfections which he\ndesignedly left in his works.\" There was\na vast deal of mending the imperfections of\nProvidence before men found the secret of\none of Providence's simplest laws.\nIn 1481 two engineers at Viterbo, Italy,\ninvented the canal lock by which craft\ncould be lifted or lowered from one level\nto another. The discovery gave great im-\npetus to canal building, especially in Italy.\nThe first canal in France was the Braire,\nbuilt in 1605-1642. The Orleans was\nopened in 1675. Of all European works of\nDigitized by Google\nINTRODUCTORY\n19\nthis character the Languedoc Canal, built\nby Riquet, from 1667 to 1881, was the most\nconspicuous. It connected the Bay of Bis-\ncay and the Mediterranean, its termini\nbeing Narbonne and Toulouse. It is one\nhundred and forty-eight miles in length\nand its summit level is six hundred feet\nabove the sea, while the works on its line\nembrace upwards of one hundred locks and\nfifty aqueducts, an undertaking which is a\nlasting monument of the skill and enter-\nprise of its projectors; and with this work\nas a model it seems strange that Britain\nshould not, till nearly a century after its\nexecution, have been engaged in vigorously\nfollowing so laudable an example.\"1\nThe Romans had built two canals in\nEngland, the Caer Dyke and the Foss\nDyke; of the former only the name re-\nmains. \"Camden in his Britannia states\nthat the Foss Dyke was a cut originally\nmade by the Romans, probably for water\nsupply or drainage, and that it was deep-\nened and rendered in some measure navig-\nable in the year II2I by Henry I. In\n1762 it was reported on by Smeaton and\nEncyclopedia Britannica, \"Canals.\"\nDigitized by Google\n20\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nGrundy, who found the depth at that time\nto be about two feet, eight inches. They,\nhowever, discouraged the idea of deepening\nby excavation.\nIt was resolved\n[1840] to increase the dimensions of the\ncanal, and to repair the whole work\nand thus that ancient canal, which is quoted\nby Telford and Nimmo as 'the oldest\nartificial canal in Britain,' was restored to\na state of perfect efficiency, at a cost of\n£40,000.\"⁸\nThe internal navigation of Great Britain\nwas the subject of legislation in 1423; locks\nwere known on the river Lee as early as\n1570. The seventeenth century saw con-\nsiderable canal digging, but the island is so\nnarrow that in early days the coasting trade\nand navigable rivers answered almost all\npurposes of commerce. About the middle\nof the eighteenth century the growth\nof manufacturing centers wrought great\nchanges, and for half a century canal build-\ning in England came to the fore, though\nsouth of Durham no point was fifteen miles\nfrom navigation. The Duke of Bridgewater,\nprocuring a grant for construction of canals\n\"Id.\nDigitized by Google\nINTRODUCTORY\n21\nin 1758, was the great promoter in this line\nof industry at this period. These were the\nbrilliant days of John Smeaton, civil engi-\nneer and improver of hydraulic machinery.\nBorn near Leeds in 1724, he achieved per-\nhaps his most celebrated success in 1759, by\nthe completion of the Eddystone lighthouse.\nHis other famous works were building\nRamsgate Harbor and the Forth and Clyde\nCanal in Scotland; this work, first proposed\nby Charles II, was completed in 1789, accord-\ning to Smeaton's plans. It is thirty-five\nmiles in length, passing over a summit\nlevel of one hundred and sixty feet, by\nmeans of thirty-nine locks. In Ireland the\nGrand Canal from Dublin to Ballinasloe,\nwith a total length of one hundred and\nsixty-four miles, was built in 1765. In\n1792 the Royal Canal leading from Dublin\nto Tormansburg, ninety-two miles, was\ncompleted. Nearly five thousand miles of\ncanals have been built in Great Britain.\nIt was natural that an echo of the awaken-\ning of internal improvements in England\nshould have been heard in her American\ncolonies where such a vast field for such\nenterprise lay awaiting a similar awaken-\nDigitized by Google\n22\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ning. It is believed that as early as 1750 a\ncanal or sluice was dug in Orange County,\nNew York, by Lieutenant-governor Colder\nfor the transportation of stone. The earli-\nest planned lock canal in the provinces was\nthe Schuylkill and Susquehanna, surveyed\nfrom the Schuylkill River near Reading,\nPennsylvania, to Middletown on the Sus-\nquehanna in 1762. Work on this canal was\nnot begun until 1791, but only four miles\nwere opened by 1794, when the work again\npaused. Not until 1821 was it resumed,\nand the canal was completed in 1827 under\nthe name of the Union Canal. It became\na division of the later Pennsylvania Canal.\nThe second canal survey in the Ameri-\ncan colonies was of a route between Chesa-\npeake Bay and the Delaware River in 17643\nA new survey was made of this proposed\ncanal in 1769, under the auspices of the\nAmerican Philosophical Society; it was\nnot, however, until 1804 that work was\ncommenced on this canal - the Chesapeake\nand Delaware, as it was known - and this\nwas soon suspended. The route was re-\nsurveyed in 1822 and completed, thirteen\nand one-half miles long, in 1829.\nDigitized by Google\nINTRODUCTORY\n23\nIt is interesting to note that the subject\nof canals was being widely mooted in\nAmerica at a time far remote from the day\nwhen they came actually into existence.\nEngland waited a century after the cele-\nbrated Languedoc Canal in France proved\nwhat vast good this form of internal im-\nprovement could bring, before she took up\nthe canal problem in earnest. Within half\na century, and less, after canal building\nwas common in England it became com-\nmon in young America. We were com-\nparatively quick to make the most of oppor-\ntunities in this as in every branch of inven-\ntion and promotion which helped toward\nannihilating distances. The great extent\nof our territory in itself was an induce-\nment to this end. Our colonial roads were\noften impassable in the winter season and\nwretched in any wet weather; the main\nline of communication was the Atlantic\nCoast, never easily navigated and, for a\nlarge part of the year, extremely dangerous\nin these early days before the invention of\nthe blessings of our present coast surveys,\nlighthouses, and lightships. As a conse-\nquence, it was natural that the idea gained\nDigitized by Google\n24\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nground rapidly that if the splendid rivers\nwhich are scattered in profusion up and\ndown our seaboard could be connected by\ncanals a new era would dawn in our coast-\nwise trade, which was, in fact, almost our\nonly trade. Thus it came about that hosts\nof schemes were proposed for connecting\nour Atlantic rivers and bays.\nIn many cases our rivers were easily\nnavigated for long distances into the in-\nterior; but these distances varied in differ-\nent seasons of the year, and when, in the\nlast quarter of the eighteenth century the\nwestern movement became prominent, and\nthe rivers were ascended further than\nbefore, the question of the navigation of\nunnavigable waters came quickly to the\nfore. Unfortunately for their pocket-\nbooks, our forefathers did not agree with\nthe Spanish idea that improving unnaviga-\nble rivers was a wilful attempt \"to mend\nthe imperfections of providence.\" The\nstory of the sorry attempts to make such\nrivers as the Mohawk and upper Potomac\nnavigable proves that the Spanish decree\nwas somehow in the right, whether the\nSpanish reasoning was correct or not.\nDigitized by Google\nINTRODUCTORY\n25\nThe following letter written by Benjamin\nFranklin to S. Rhoads, Mayor of Phila-\ndelphia, from London, August 22, 1772,\nwith reference to the improvement of rivers\nand building of canals is an interesting\nearly view of the subject.' Mayor Rhoads\nhad evidently applied for and received data\nrespecting the canals of Great Britain:\n\"I think I before acknowledg'd your\nFavour of Feb. 29. I have since received\nthat of May 30. I am glad my Canal\nPapers were agreeable to you. I fancy\nwork of that kind is set on foot in America.\nI think it would be saving Money to engage\nby a handsome Salary an Engineer from\nhere who has been accustomed to such\nBusiness. The many Canals on foot here\nunder different great Masters, are daily\nraising a number of Pupils in the Art,\nsome of whom may want Employment here-\nafter, and a single Mistake thro' Inexperi-\nence in such important Works, may cost\nmuch more than the Expense of Salary\nto an ingenious young Man already well\nacquainted with both Principles and Prac-\ntice. This the Irish have learnt at a dear\nrate in the first Attempt of their great\nDigitized by Google\n26\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nCanal, and now are endeavoring to get\nSmeaton to come and rectify their Errors.\nWith regard to your Question, whether it\nis best to make the Schuylkill a part of the\nNavigation to the back Country, or\nwhether the difficulty of that River, sub-\nject to all the Inconveniences of Floods,\nIce, &c., will not be greater than the Ex-\npense of Digging, Locks, &c., I can only\nsay that here they look on the constant\nPracticability of a Navigation, allowing\nBoats to pass and repass at all Times and\nSeasons, without Hindrance, to be a point\nof the greatest Importance, and, therefore,\nthey seldom or ever use a River where it\ncan be avoided. Locks in Rivers are sub-\nject to many more Accidents than those in\nstill water Canals; and the Carrying away\na few Locks by Freshets of Ice, not only\ncreates a great Expense, but interrupts\nBusiness for a long time \"till repairs are\nmade, which may soon be destroyed again,\nand thus the Carrying on a Course of Busi-\nness by such a Navigation be discouraged,\nas subject to frequent interruptions. The\nToll, too, must be higher to pay for such\nRepairs. Rivers are ungovernable things,\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nINTRODUCTORY\n27\nespecially in Hilly Countries. Canals are\nquiet and very manageable. Therefore\nthey are often carried on here by the Sides\nof Rivers, only on ground above the Reach\nof Floods, no other Use being made of the\nRivers than to supply occasionally the\nwaste of water in the Canals. I warmly\nwish Success to every Attempt for Improve-\nment of our dear Country.\nThe Revolutionary War put an end to\nmany plans for the improvement of Frank-\nlin's dear country.\" Immediately after\nthe close of the war, however, the various\nprojects were again advanced here and\nthere as the young republic began to grasp\nthe great opportunities that lay before it.\nAmong the most important early undertak-\nings were those which looked forward to a\nnew West and the need of lines of commu-\nnication in advance of the rough roads which\nwere the only avenues of commerce. The\nscheme of improving the rivers which rose\nin the Alleghenies, and connecting their\nheads with the waterways which flowed\ninto the Ohio River at Lake Erie, was one\nof the moving projects of the hour. The\nimprovement of the James, Potomac, and\nDigitized by Google\n28\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nMohawk Rivers for this purpose com-\nmanded the attention of the nation at the\ntime; these projects were the first steps\ntoward building the Chesapeake and Ohio\nand the Erie canals, and will be treated in\nthe chapters devoted to those topics. It is\nour purpose here only to emphasize in\ngeneral terms the mania for improving the\nminor waterways in which so many mil-\nlions of dollars were wasted before such\nadvice as that given by Franklin in 1772, as\nquoted, was found to be well-grounded.\nThe spirit of this enterprising but unfor-\ntunate movement cannot be caught better\nthan by studying the papers and projects\nof a \" Society for promoting the improve-\nment of roads and inland navigation,\"\nformed in Philadelphia at the beginning of\nthe last decade of the eighteenth century\nand of which the able but unfortunate\nRobert Morris was president. Much of\nPennsylvania's leadership in works of im-\nprovement was due to the activity of this\norganization. One of the main objects of\nthe society is stated in a memorial to the\nPennsylvania Assembly dated February 7,\n1791, the introduction of which reads:\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nINTRODUCTORY\n29\n\"The memorial of The Society for pro-\nmoting the improvement of roads and\ninland navigation,'\n\"Refpectfully sheweth,\n\"That your memoralifts, refiding in\nvarious parts of this ftate, with a view to\ncontribute their beft endeavors to promote\nthe internal trade, manufactures and popu-\nlation of their country, by facilitating every\npoffible communication between the differ-\nent parts of the ftate, have lately formed\nthemfelves into a fociety, by the name\nabove mentioned. And knowing that the\nLegiflature, with the laudable intention of\nadvancing the beft interefts of this com-\nmonwealth, and availing themfelves of the\nextenfive information, which they have\nobtained of the geography and fituation of\nthe country, have now under their confid-\neration the important fubject of roads and\ninland navigation; we, therefore, beg\nleave, with all poffible deference, to fuggeft\nfome important confiderations which have\noccurred to us in our enquiries into this\nfubject.\" A description of the position of\nPennsylvania then follows, with an outline\nof her rivers which, as was then believed,\nDigitized by Google\n30\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nwere to become by improvement the com-\nmercial avenues of the dawning age.\n\"To combine the interefts of all the parts\nof the ftate, and to cement them in a per-\npetual commercial and political union, by\nthe improvement of thofe natural advan-\ntages, is one of the greateft works which\ncan be fubmitted to legiflative wifdom; and\nthe prefent moment is particularly aufpi-\ncious for the undertaking, and if neglected,\nthe lofs will be hard to retrieve.\"\nFollowing this the river systems of Penn-\nsylvania are taken up in order, showing\nthe number of miles of waterways which\nit was supposed were capable of being\nconnected and made avenues of trade.\nThe two main divisions and their various\nsubdivisions were as follows:\n\"Delaware Navigation\nI. From the tide water at Trenton falls\nto lake Otfego, the head of the northeaft\nbranch of Sufquehanna\n2. From the tide water on Delaware to\nOfwego on lake Ontario\n\"An Historical Account of the Rise, Progress and\nPresent State of the Canal Navigation in Pennsyl-\nvania (Philadelphia, 1795), p. I.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nINTRODUCTORY\n31\nSufquehanna Navigation\nI. From Philadelphia, or the tide wa-\nters of Schuylkill, to Pittfburgh on the\nOhio\n2. From Philadelphia to Prefqu'Iñe on\nlake Erie, by the Juniata and Kifkemine-\ntas &c\n3. From Philadelphia to Prefqu'Ifle, by\nthe weft branch of Sufquehanna, Sinne-\nmahoning and Conewango.\n4. From Philadelphia to Prefqu'Ifle, by\nthe weft branch of Sufquehanna, Sinne-\nmahoning and Toby's creek.\n5. From the tide waters of Sufquehan-\nna to Pittfburgh.\n6. From the tide waters of Potomack,\nat George Town, to Pittfburgh\n7. From Conedeffago lake to New York\n8. From the middle of the Geneffee\ncountry to New York\"\nThe Pennsylvania Assembly responded\nliberally to the appeal of Robert Morris's\nsociety, and appropriated, April 13, 1791,\n£22,220 for the improvement of Pennsyl-\nvania rivers; the largest appropriations\nwere for the Sufquehanna, from Wright's\nferry to the mouth of Swatara creek, inclu-\nDigitized by Google\n32\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nsive\" £5,250; \"For the river Delaware,\"\n£3,500; \" For the river Schuylkill,\" £2,500;\nConemaugh, £2,800; Allegheny, £150; and\nLehigh, £1000.4 Thus it will be seen that\nthe improvement of rivers was firmly con-\nsidered to be one of the important under-\ntakings of the day.\n'Id., pp. 73, 74.\nDigitized by Google\nCHAPTER II\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\nG\nEORGE Washington's efforts to\npromote internal improvement in\nVirginia and Maryland with special\nreference to the Middle West have been\nlightly sketched in other portions of\nthis work.5 A more or less complete\nexamination into the Potomac Company\nmust be essayed here, for among the\nimprovements of internal waterways in\nAmerica that of the Potomac urged by\nWashington meant to the last quarter of\nthe eighteenth century what the building\nof the Erie Canal meant to the first quarter\nof the nineteenth.\nHaving maintained with earnestness for\nmany years that Virginia and Maryland\nshould, through the Potomac River, secure\nthe trade of the rising empire west of the\n\"Historic Highways of America, vols. iii, pp. 189-\n204; xii, pp. 15-30.\nDigitized by Google\n34\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nAlleghenies, Washington, at the close of\nthe Revolution, gave himself wholly up to\nthis commercial problem. Before peace was\ndeclared he left the Continental camp at\nNewberg and made a long, dangerous tour\nup the Mohawk Valley, examining care-\nfully the portages to Wood Creek at Rome,\nand to Lake Otsego at Canajoharie. With\nthat far-sighted shrewdness which, of\nitself, made him a marked man, he felt\nthat this route which avoided the mountains\nwas the great rival of his Potomac River.\nYet he was no narrow partisan. Returning\nfrom his tour he wrote Chevalier de Chas-\ntellux from Princeton, October 12, 1783:\n\"Prompted by these actual observations,\nI could not help taking a more extensive\nview of the vast inland navigation of these\nUnited States and could not but be struck\nwith the immense extent and importance\nof it, and with the goodness of that Provi-\ndence, which has dealt its favors to us with\nso profuse a hand. Would to God we may\nhave wisdom enough to improve them. I\nshall not rest contented, till I have ex-\nplored the western country, and traversed\nthose lines, or great part of them, which\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n35\nhave given bounds to a new empire.\"\nThis clear cry of enthusiasm was from\nthe heart, and within a year Washington\ncarried out his plan of western exploration.\nOf this journey we had occasion to speak in\nour sketch of the Old Northwestern Turn-\npike.⁶ In that connection our attention\nwas confined to the portage route between\nthe Cheat and Potomac Rivers. Here his\nplan for a water avenue from East to West\nmust be emphasized as the first chapter in\nthe history of both the Potomac Company\nand the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. This\ncannot be so well done as by quoting the\nsummary of the Journal of this trip, which\nhas never been published.\" It will be seen\nthat it is the basis and, in part, the first\ndraft of his famous Letter to Harrison writ-\nten upon his return to Mount Vernon:8\n\"And tho' I was disappointed in one of the\nobjects which induced me to undertake this\njourney namely to examine into the situa-\ntion quality and advantages of the Land\nwhich I hold upon the Ohio and Great\n'Historic Highways of America, vol. xii, ch. iii.\n\"Id., note I.\n\"October, 1784.\nDigitized by Google\n36\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nKanhawa - and to take measures for rescu-\ning them from the hands of Land Jobbers\n& Speculators - who I had been informed\nregardless of my legal & equitable rights,\nPatents, &cª; had enclosed them within\nother Surveys & were offering them for\nSale at Philadelphia and in Europe.- I\nsay notwithstanding this disappointment I\nam well pleased with my journey, as it has\nbeen the means of my obtaining a knowl-\nedge of facts - coming at the temper &\ndisposition of the Western Inhabitants- -\nand making reflections thereon, which,\notherwise, must have been as wild, inco-\nhert, or perhaps as foreign from the truth,\nas the inconsistency, of the reports which\nI had received even from those to whom\nmost credit seemed due, generally were\n\"These reflections remain to be summed\nup.\n\"The more then the Navigation of\nPotomack is investigated, & duely con-\nsidered, the greater the advantages arising\nfrom them appear.-\n\"The South or principal branch of\nShannondoah at Mr Lewis's is, to traverse\nthe river, at least 150 Miles from its Mouth;\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n37\nall of which, except the rapids between the\nBloomery and Keys's ferry, now is, or very\neasily may be made navigable for inland\nCraft, and extended 30 Miles higher.-The\nSouth Branch of Potomack is already navi-\ngated from its Mouth to Fort Pleasant;\nwhich, as the Road goes, is 40 computed\nMiles; & the only difficulty in the way (and\nthat a very trifling one) is just below the\nlatter, where the River is hemmed in by\nthe hills or mountains on each side - From\nhence, in the opinion of Col° Joseph\nNeville and others, it may, at the most\ntrifling expense imaginable, be made navi-\ngable 50 Miles higher.-\n\"To say nothing then of the smaller\nWaters, such as Pattersons Creek, Cacape-\nhen, Opeckon &cª; which are more or less\nNavigable; - and of the branches on the\nMaryland side, these two alone (that is the\nSouth Branch & Shannondoah) would afford\nwater transportation for all that fertile\nCountry between the bleu ridge and the\nAlligany Mountains; which is immense -\nbut how trifling when viewed upon that\nimmeasurable scale, which is inviting our\nattention!\nDigitized by Google\n38\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\n\"The Ohio River embraces this Com-\nmonwealth from its Northern, almost to its\nSouthern limits.-It is now, our western\nboundary.-& lyes nearly parallel to our\nexterior, & thickest settled Country.-\n\"Into this River French Creek, big\nbever Creek, Muskingham, Hockhocking,\nScioto, and the two Miamas (in its upper\nRegion) and many others (in the lower)\npour themselves from the westward through\none of the most fertile Country's of the\nGlobe; by a long inland navigation; which,\nin its present state, is passable for Canoes\nand such other small craft as has, hitherto,\nbeen made use of for the Indian trade.-\n\"French Creek, down wch I have myself\ncome to Venango, from a lake near its\nsource, is 15 Miles from Prisque Isle on lake\nErie; and the Country betw\" quite level.—\nBoth big bever creek and Muskingham,\ncommunicates very nearly with Cuyahoga;\nwhich runs into lake Erie; the portage\nwith the latter (I mean Muskingham) as\nappears by the Maps, is only one mile;\nand by many other accts very little further;\nand so level between, that the Indians\nand Traders, as is affirmed, always drag\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n39\ntheir Canoes from one River to the\nother when they go to War - to hunt,- or\ntrade.- The great Miame, which runs into\nthe Ohio, communicates with a River of the\nsame name, as also with Sandusky, which\nemp themselves into lake Erie, by short\nand easy Portages.- And all of these are\nso many channels through which not only\nthe produce of the New States, contem-\nplated by Congress, but the trade of all the\nlakes, quite to that of the Wood, may be\nconducted according to my information, and\njudgment - at least by one of the Routs- -\nthro' a shorter, easier, and less expensive\ncommunication than either of those which\nare now, or have been used with Canada,\nNew Yk or New Orleans.-\n\"That this may not appear an assertion,\nor even an opinion unsupported, I will\nexamine matters impartially, and endeavour\nto state facts.-\n\"Detroit is a point, thro' which the\nTrade of the Lakes Huron, & all those\nabove it, must pass, if it centres in any\nState of the Union; or goes to Canada;\nunless it should pass by the River Outa-\nwais, which disgorges itself into the St\nDigitized by Google\n40\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nLawrence at Montreal and which necessity\nonly can compel; as it is from all accts\nlonger and of more difficult navigation than\nthe St Lawrence itself.-\n\"To do this, the Waters which empty\ninto the Ohio on the East Side, & which\ncommunicate nearest and best with those\nwhich run into the Atlantic, must also be\ndelineated - -\n\"These are, Monongahela and its\nbranches, viz, Yohiogany & Cheat.-and\nthe little and great Kanhawas; and Green-\nbrier which emptys into the latter.-\n\"The first (unfortunately for us) is\nwithin the jurisdiction of Pensylvania\nfrom its Mouth to the fork of the Cheat,\nindeed 2 Miles higher - as (which is more\nto be regretted) the Yohiogany also is, till\nit crosses the line of Maryland; these\nRivers I am persuaded, afford much the\nshortest Routs from the Lakes to the tide\nwater of the Atlantic, but one not under\nour controul; being subject to a power\nwhose interest is opposed to the extension\nof their navigation, as it would be the\ninevitable means of withdrawing from\nPhiladelphia all the trade of that part of its\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n41\nwestern territory, which, lyes beyond the\nLaurel hill.- Though any attempt of that\nGovernment to restrain it I am equally\nwell persuaded wd cause a separation of\ntheir territory; there being sensible men\namong them who have it in contemplation\nat this moment.- but this by the by.-The\nlittle Kanhawa, which stands next in order,\n& by Hutchins's table of distances (between\nFort Pit and the Mouth of the River Ohio)\nis 184½ Miles below the Monongahela, is\nnavigable between 40 and 50 Miles up, to\na place called Bullstown.- Thence there\nis a Portage of 9½ Miles to the West\nfork of Monongahela- - Thence along the\nsame to the Mouth of Cheat River, and up\nit to the Dunker bottom; from whence a\nportage may be had to the N° branch of\nPotomack.\n\"Next to the little, is the great Kan-\nhawa; which by the above Table is 981/2\nmiles still lower down the Ohio.— This is\na fine Navigable river to the Falls; the\npracticability of opening which, seems to\nbe little understood; but most assuredly\nought to be investigated.\n\"These then are the ways by which the\nDigitized by Google\n42\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nProduce of that Country; & the peltry and\nfur trade of the Lakes may be introduced\ninto this State; & into Mary1d; which\nstands upon similar ground.- There are\nways, more difficult & expensive indeed by\nwhich they can also be carried to Philadel-\nphia - all of which, with the Rout to A1-\nbany, & Montreal,- and the distances by\nLand, and Water, from place to place, as far\nas can be ascertained by the best Maps now\nextant - by actual Surveys made since the\npublication of them - and the information\nof intelligent persons - will appear as fol-\nlow - from Detroit - which is a point, as\nhas been observed, as unfavourable for us\nto compute from (being upon the North\nWestern extremity of the United territory)\nas any beyond Lake Erie can be.-\nviz -\nFrom Detroit to Alexandria\nis\nTo Cuyahoga River\n125 Miles\nUp the same to the Portage\n60\nPortage to Bever Ck\n8\nDown Bever Ck to the Ohio\n85\nUp the Ohio to Fort Pitt\n25\n303\n-\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n48\nThe Mouth of Yohiogany\n15\nFalls to Ditto\n50\nPortage\nI\nThree forks or Turkey foot\n8\nFort Cumberlᵈ or Wills Creek 30\nAlexandria\n200\n304\nTotal\n607\nTo Fort Pitt - as above\n303\nThe Mouth of Cheat River\n75\nUp it, to the Dunker bottom\n25\nNorth branch of Potomack\n20\nFort Cumberland\n40\nAlexandria\n200\n360\nTo Alexand* by this Rout\n663\nFrom Detroit to Alexandria avoiding\nPensylvania\n*\nTo the M° of Cuyahoga\n125 Miles\nThe carrying place with\nMuskingham River\n}\n54\nPortage\nI\nThe M° of Muskingham\nI92\nThe little Kanhawa\nI2\n384\n*The Mouth of Cheat River & 2 Miles up it is in\nPensyla\nDigitized by Google\n44\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nUp the same\n40\nPortage to the West Bra 10\nDown Monongahela to Cheat 80\nUp Cheat to the Dunker Botm 25\nPortage to the N° bra.\nPotom\n20\nFort Cumberland\n40\nAlexandria\n200\n415\nTotal by this Rout\n799\nFrom Detroit to Richmond\nTo the Mouth of the little Kan-\nhawa as above\n384\nThe Great Kanhawa by Hut-\nchins's Table of Distances\n98½\nThe Falls of the Kanhawa\nfrom information\n90\nA portage (suppe)\nIO\nThe Mouth of Green brier & up\nit to the Portage\n50\nPortage to James Rr\n33\n281\nRichmond\n175\nTotal\n840\nNote - This Rout may be more incorrect\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n45\nthan either of the foregoing, as I had only\nthe Maps, and vague information for the\nPortages - and for the distances from the\nMouth of the Kanhawa to the Carrying\nplace with Jacksons (that is James) River\nand the length of that River from the Car-\nrying place to Richmond - - the length of\nthe carrying place above is also taken from\nthe Map tho' from Information one would\nhave called it not more than 20 Miles.\nFrom Detroit to Philadelphia\nis\nMiles\nTo Presque Isle\n245\nPortage to Lebeauf\n15\nDown french Creek to Venango\n75\nAlong the Ohio to Toby's Creek\n25\n115\nI\nTo the head spring of D°\n45\nBy a Strait line to the nearest\nWater of Susque\n15\nDown the same to the West\nbranch\n50\nFort Augusta at the Fork\n125\nMackees (or Mackoneys) Ck\nI2\nUp this\n25\nBy a strait line to Schuylk1\n15\nDigitized by Google\n46\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nReading\n32\nPhiladelphia\n62\n381\nTotal\n741\nBy another Rout\nTo Fort Pitt as before\n303\nUp the Ohio to Tobys Ck\n95\nThence to Phila as above\n381\nTotal\n779\nNote - The distances of places from the\nMouth of Tobys Creek to Philad* are taken\nwholly from a comparative view of Evan's\nand Sculls Maps - The number, and length\nof the Portages, are not attempted to be\ngiven with greater exactness than these -\nand for want of more competent Knowl-\nedge, they are taken by a strait line between\nthe sources of the different Waters which\nby the Maps have the nearest communica-\ntion with each other - consequently, these\nRouts, if there is any truth in the Maps,\nmust be longer than the given distances -\nparticularly in the Portages, or Land\npart of the Transportation, because no\nRoad among Mount\" can be strait - or\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n47\nwaters navigable to their fountain heads.\nFrom Detroit to Albany\nis\nTo Fort Erie, at the N° end of\nLake Erie\n350\nFort Niagara - - 18 Miles of\nWch is Land transp\"\n30\n380\n-\nOswego\n175\nFall of Onondaga River\n12\nPortage\nI\nOneida Lake by Water\n40\nLength of D° to Wood Ck\n18\nWood Ck very small and\nCrooked\n25\nPortage to Mohawk\nI\n97\nI\nDown it to the Portage\nбо\nPortage\nI\nSchenectady\n55\nPortage to Albany\n15\n131\nIn all\n783\nTo the City of New York\n160\nTotal\n943\nDigitized by Google\n48\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nFrom Detroit to Montreal\nis\nTo Fort Niagara as above\n380\nNorth end of Lake Ontario\n225\nOswegatche\nбо\nMontreal - very rapid\n110\n395\nIn all\n775\nTo Quebec\n180\nTotal\n955\n\"Admitting the preceding Statement,\nwhich as has been observed is given from\nthe best and most authentic Maps and\npapers in my possession - from informa-\ntion - and partly from observation, to be\ntolerably just, it would be nugatory to go\nabout to prove that the Country within,\nand bordering upon the Lakes Erie, Huron,\n& Michigan would be more convenient\nwhen they came to be settled - or that\nthey would embrace with avidity our Mar-\nkets, if we should remove the obstructions\nwhich are at present in the way to them.-\n\"It may be said, because it has been said,\n& because there are some examples of it\nin proof, that the Country of Kentucke,\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n49\nabout the Falls, and even much higher up\nthe Ohio, have carried flour and other arti-\ncles to New Orleans - but from whence\nhas it proceeded? - Will any one who has\never calculated the difference between\nWater & Land transportation wonder at\nthis? - especially in an infant settlement\nwhere the people are poor and weak\nhanded - and pay more regard to their\nease than to loss of time, or any other cir-\ncumstance?\n\"Hitherto, the people of the Western\nCountry having had no excitements to In-\ndustry, labour very little; - the luxuriancy\nof the Soil, with very little culture, pro-\nduces provisions in abundance - these sup-\nplies the wants of the encreasing popula-\ntion - and the Spaniards when pressed by\nwant have given high prices for flour -\nother articles they reject; & at times, (con-\ntrary I think to sound policy) shut their\nports against them altogether - but let us\nopen a good communication with the Set-\ntlements west of us - extend the inland\nNavigation as far as it can be done with\nconvenience - and shew them by this\nmeans, how easy it is to bring the produce\nDigitized by Google\n50\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nof their Lands to our Markets, and see how\nastonishingly our exports will be encreased;\nand these States benefitted in a commercial\npoint of view - wch alone is an object of\nsuch Magnitude as to claim our closest\nattention - but when the subject is con-\nsidered in a political point of view, it\nappears of much greater importance.\"\nBy means of letters, urging these private\nspeculations on public attention, to Gover-\nnor Harrison and James Madison, the mat-\nter of improvement of the Potomac was\nbrought before the Virginia legislature.\nThe consent and coöperation of Maryland\nbeing of greatest importance, General\nWashington, General Gates, and Colonel\nBlackburn were appointed by the legisla-\nture to obtain the concurrent action of the\nMaryland legislature. On December 20,\n1784, the deputation, with the exception\nof Colonel Blackburn who was detained by\nillness, reached the Maryland capital. A\ncommittee from that state being duly ap-\npointed to confer upon the matter in hand,\na conclusion was reached as contained in\nthe following report.\n\"That it is the opinion of this confer-\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n51\nence, that the removing the obstructions\nin the River Potomac, and the making the\nsame capable of navigation from tide-water\nas far up the north branch of the said river\nas may be convenient and practicable, will\nincrease the commerce of the common-\nwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland,\nand greatly promote the political interests\nof the United States, by forming a free\nand easy communication and connection\nwith the people settled on the western\nwaters, already very considerable in their\nnumbers, and rapidly increasing, from the\nmildness of the climate and the fertility of\nthe soil.\n\"That it is the opinion of the confer-\nence, that the proposal to establish a com-\npany for opening the River Potomac,\nmerits the approbation of, and deserves to\nbe patronized by, Virginia and Maryland;\nand that a similar law ought to be passed\nby the legislatures of the two governments\nto promote and encourage so laudable an\nundertaking.\" It was further agreed that\nthe commonwealths of Virginia and Mary-\n'Pickell's A New Chapter in the Early Life of Wash-\nington, p. 44.\nDigitized by Google\n52\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nland should each subscribe for fifty shares\nof stock in the undertaking in order to\n\"encourage individuals to embark in the\nmeasure\" and as a substantial proof to\nour brethren of the western territory of our\ndisposition to connect ourselves with them\nby the strongest bonds of friendship and\nmutual interest.\" How closely Washing-\nton's plan was carried out is suggested in\nthe following resolutions: \"That it is the\nopinion of this conference, from the best\ninformation they have obtained, that a\nroad, to begin about the mouth of Stony\nRiver, may be carried in about twenty or\ntwenty-two miles to the Dunker Bottom or\nCheat River; from whence this conference\nare of opinion, that batteaux navigation\nmay be made, though, perhaps, at con-\nsiderable expense. That if such navigation\ncannot be effected by continuing the road\nabout twenty miles further, it would inter-\nsect the Monongahela where the navigation\nis good, and has long been practiced.\nThat it is a general opinion, that the navi-\ngation in the Potomac may be extended to\nthe most convenient point below, or even\nabove the mouth of Stony River, from\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n58\nwhence to set off a road to Cheat River;\nand this conference is satisfied that that\nroad, from the nature of the country\nthrough which it may pass, wholly through\nVirginia and Maryland, will be much bet-\nter than a road can be made at any reasona-\nble expense from Fort Cumberland to the\nYoughiogheny, which must be carried\nthrough Pennsylvania.\" In a succeeding\nresolution it is affirmed that the Dunkard\nBottom route is more feasible than one\nfrom Fort Cumberland to Turkey Foot\n[Connellsville, Pennsylvania], though the\nlatter road, if improved, would be of great\nvalue to many settlers upon and near it.\nThe legislatures of the respective states\nwere asked to appoint examiners to view\nthe doubtful portions of the South Branch\n(from Cumberland to the mouth of Stony\nCreek) and the Cheat (from established\nnavigation and Dunkard Bottom) and lay\nout a road between the heads of practicable\nnavigation on each. It was also suggested\nthat Virginia and Maryland ask permission\nof Pennsylvania to lay out a road from\nCumberland to Turkey Foot on the Yough-\niogheny.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n54\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nAccordingly Virginia and Maryland\npassed laws authorizing the formation of a.\ncompany for the improvement of the\nPotomac River. \"I have now the pleas-\nure,\" wrote Washington to Richard Henry\nLee, February 8, 1785, \"to inform you\nthat the Assemblies of Virginia and Mary-\nland have enacted laws, of which the in-\nclosed is a copy.10 They are exactly simi-\nlar in both States. At the same time, and\nat the joint and equal expense of the two\ngovernments, the sum of six thousand six\nhundred and sixty-six dollars and two\nthirds is voted for opening and keeping in\nrepair a road from the highest practicable\nnavigation of this river to that of the River\nCheat, or Monongahela, as commissioners,\nwho are appointed to survey and lay out\nthe same, shall find most convenient and\nbeneficial to the western settlers.\" Wash-\nington believed fully that the project was\nto be a great success for stockholders; he\nestimated that they would receive twenty\nper cent from investments in Potomac im-\nprovement in a few years. 11\n10 See appendix A, p. 219.\n11 E. Watson's History of the\nWestern Canals\nin the State of New York, p. 87.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n55\nThe subscription books of the new com-\npany having been, as the law required,\nopened on February 8, 1785, a summons\nwas issued for a meeting of the subscribers\nat Alexandria, Virginia, on May 17. The\nmeeting having been called to order,\nDaniel Carrol was elected chairman and\nCharles Lee, clerk.¹⁸ The books being\nopened, it was found that Virginia had\nsubscribed for two hundred and sixty-six\nshares, the Richmond book showing one\nhundred shares, the Alexandria book, one\nhundred and thirty-five, and the Winches-\nter book thirty-one; Maryland had sub-\nscribed for one hundred and thirty-seven\nshares, divided as follows: Annapolis,\nseventy - three; Georgetown, forty - two;\nFrederick, twenty-two. The total shares\nwere therefore four hundred and three,\ngiving the company a capital of £40,300.\nPresident and four directors of the Potomac\nCompany, as it was known, being ballotted\nfor, George Washington was elected presi-\ndent, and Thomas Johnson, Thomas Sim\n\"All particulars concerning the inner history of the\nPotomac Company are from Pickell's A New Chapter\nin the Early Life of Washington; the author had\naccess to all documents in the case.\nDigitized by Google\n56\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nLee, John Fitzgerald, and George Gilpin\nwere elected directors.\nThe services of Mr. James Rumsey, the\nmechanician, being secured, as general\nmanager of improvements, the president,\ndirectors and manager made an examina-\ntion of the river with a view to planning\nthe work to be done. Three important\nimpediments to navigation were immedi-\nately attacked; these were known as\n\"Great Falls,\" \"Seneca Falls\" and\n\"Shenandoah Falls.\" The Great Falls'\nof these early days are the rapids and falls\nabove Washington which bear the same\nname today. Seneca Falls were early\nknown as Sinegar Falls,\" in the Revolu-\ntionary era on Fry and Jefferson's map.\nThey lie just above Great Falls, near the\nmouth of Seneca Creek. Shenandoah\nFalls were at the present Harper's Ferry\nat the mouth of the river of the same name.\nIn the summer of 1785 parties of workmen\nwere blasting and removing the boulders\nat these two points until the fall rains put\nan end to the work. Attention was then\ngiven to excavating a canal around Great\nFalls, concerning which there was a great\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n57\ndiversity of opinion, especially as to its\nlower termination.\nThe work of this first season quickly\nbrought out the fact that it was a great\ntask which the cómpany had undertaken.\nThis may have been the reason why pay-\nment on shares had been so slow; already\nthe company's treasury was almost de-\npleted. \"The original motive which\nactuated the stockholders seemed for some\ncause to have abated, and it required the\nmaster spirit of the enterprise to be exerted,\nto prevent at this important and critical\njuncture, a total abandonment of the pro-\nject.\nThe State of Maryland had\nfailed to pay the sums due on the shares it\nheld, and a large number of individual\nstockholders had also neglected to meet\ntheir instalments.\nThe treasury\nwas no longer able to liquidate the claims\nof individuals against it, and a total pros-\ntration of its credit seemed inevitable\nunless soon relieved.\" 18\nStrenuous efforts on the part of the\nofficers brought desirable results and with\n\"A New Chapter in the Early Life of Washington,\npp. 83-84.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n58\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe opening of the season of 1786 work on\nthe improvements was being pushed with\nearnestness. At the annual meeting, Au-\ngust 7, the same officers were re-elected\nand the treasurer's books were examined\nand found in good order. The president\nand directors were allowed thirty shillings\nin Virginia currency for the time they had\nspent in the business of the company. It\nwas determined that the directors should\nvisit in person the river from Great Falls\nupward, to inspect the ground, choose a\nchannel, and take such action as, in their\njudgment, the case demanded. This was\ndone, the trip covering four days; and as\na result the legislatures of the states were\nrequested to extend the time limit from'\nthree years to November 17, 1790. In this\nthe legislatures acquiesced.¹⁴\nDuring the new fiscal year additional\ndifficulties arose to unite with those of\nunpropitious weather and financial distress\nto delay and discourage. The appoint-\nment of Mr. Richardson Stewart as prin-\ncipal Assistant Superintendent\" resulted\nin the resignation of Mr. Rumsey, who\n\"Hening's Statutes at Large, vol. xii, ch. cxiv.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n59\npreferred charges of incompetency against\nMr. Stewart.¹⁸ The directors replied to\nthe charges in the order they were made,\nfinding Mr. Stewart guilty of.only one,\nnamely of \"causing another servant. to\nburn Michael Barnet with a hot iron with-\nout reason; the directors declared, with-\nout fear or favor, that in this Mr. Stewart\nacted with an impropriety the Board disap-\nproves of \"!16 A difficulty had arisen, early\nin the work, in securing workmen and in\nkeeping them in submission to law and\norder when once obtained. In the fall of\n1785 half the laborers were dismissed from\nthe company's service. The secretary of\nthe company now, and at numerous times\nthereafter, was in correspondence with par-\nties in Baltimore (Messrs. Stewart and\nPlunket) and in Philadelphia (Mr. John\nMaxwell Nesbit) who might secure work-\nmen for the Potomac improvements.\"\nFurnishing the workmen with liquors also\nseems to have been a troublesome item.\nIn November, 1785, a contract was made\n\"A New Chapter in the Early Life of Washington,\npp. 94-95.\n16Id., p. 98.\n\"Id., p. 78.\nDigitized by Google\n60\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nwith William Lyles and Company to furnish\nwhat rum might be necessary for the use\nof the hands employed by the company on\nthe river at the rate of two shillings per\ngallon. 18 For the winter 1786-7 the mana-\nger was directed to retain such a force as\nwas deemed necessary at a monthly wage\n(from November I2 to April 12) of thirty-\ntwo shillings for common laborers, and\nforty shillings for prime hands, with the\nusual ration except spirits, and with such\nreasonable allowance of spirits as the\nmanager may from time to time think\nproper.\n\" 19\nAt a meeting of the directors January 3,\n1787, the financial crisis was faced sternly.\nThe funds were quite exhausted and work\nwould have to be suspended unless the\ndelinquent stockholders immediately ad-\nvanced the assessment long overdue. It\nwas determined to warn delinquents that\nunless advances were made within the next\nfive months the legal recourse of reselling\nsubscribed stock at auction would be\n18Id., p. 83. Cf. Historic Highways of America,\nvol. v, p. 142.\n\"Pickell, ut supra, p. 100.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n61\nresorted to. A few responded but the\n\"large majority continued delinquent.\" In\naccordance with the threat of the directors,\nit was announced in public advertisements\nthat forty-six shares of stock in the Poto-\nmac Company would be offered at auction\nat the court house at Alexandria on Mon-\nday, May 14, and nine shares at Shuter's\ntavern in Georgetown on May 21. The\nattitude of the general public toward the\nPotomac improvement scheme was revealed\nclearly at these auctions - for at neither\nAlexandria nor Georgetown was a single\nbid made when these shares were offered\nfor sale, though numbers of people had\ngathered out of interest or curiosity.\nA meeting of the board of directors was\ncalled at the mouth of the Shenandoah\n(Harper's Ferry) June 2, 1788, at which it\nwas determined to cut down expenses\n\"without jeopardizing the progress of the\nwork.\" It was now the opinion of the\nboard that by the ensuing season loaded\nboats could descend from the pool or\n\"reach\" above Seneca Falls to tide-water;\nthis meant that a channel in Seneca Falls\nwId., p. 104.\nDigitized by Google\n62\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nhad been opened and the canal about Great\nFalls completed. It was given out that in\nJuly the entire force of workmen would be\nconcentrated at Shenandoah Falls to hasten\nthe opening of a channel at that point. At\nthe annual meeting in Alexandria, August\n4, it was reported that high water had\ndelayed operations but that by November\nI, the channel would be open from tide-\nwater to Cumberland. Since the last meet-\ning of the company £2,990 sterling had\nbeen paid into the treasury, making a total\nof paid up assessments to date of £13,719\n18s 8d.\nThe election of a president for the year\nensuing was postponed, as it was plain that\nWashington was soon to be named Presi-\ndent of something of more note than a\nPotomac Company. In May 1787 he had\nbeen elected president of the National Con-\nvention at Philadelphia, and it was clear\nthat he would be first choice as executive\nof the new republic. He was elected\nPresident of the United States for the term\nbeginning March 4, 1789. From the day\nof his withdrawal from the Potomac Com-\npany its affairs languished - proving\nDigitized by Google\nTHE POTOMAC COMPANY\n63\nclearly that but for Washington's name\nand energy the organization would proba-\nbly never have existed.\nOn ten different occasions did the legisla-\ntures of Virginia and Maryland extend the\ntime demanded by law for the completion\nof the Potomac improvements, between\n1786 and 1820. By this time the promotion\nof the Erie Canal aroused the proprietors\nto inquire into the feasibility of cutting a\ncanal from the Potomac to the Ohio River.\nDuring thirty-six years $729,380 had been\nspent in the attempt to improve the Poto-\nmac and little had been accomplished;\nan inquiry into the affairs of the Poto-\nmac Company by a state commission,\nappointed in 1821, and reporting July,\n1822, resulted in the following report:\n\"\nthat the affairs of the Potomac\nCompany have failed to comply with the\nterms and conditions of the charter; that\nthere was no reasonable ground to expect\nthat they would be able to effect the\nobjects of their incorporation; that they\nhave not only expended their capital stock\nand the tolls received, with the exception\nof a small dividend of five dollars and fifty\nDigitized by Google\n64\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncents on each share declared in 1802, but\nhad incurred a heavy debt which their\nresources would never enable them to dis-\ncharge; that the floods and freshets never-\ntheless gave the only navigation that was\nenjoyed; that the whole time when produce\nand goods could be stream bourne on the\nPotomac in the course of an entire year,\ndid not exceed forty-five days; that it\nwould be imprudent and inexpedient to\ngive further aid to the Potomac Com-\npany.\" The committee advised a more\neffectual method of inland navigation and\nsuggested the plan of a canal through the\nregion in which the Potomac Company\nhad proposed to operate, to be connected\nwith Baltimore, the metropolis of the\nChesapeake, by means of a lateral canal,\nfrom some point along the Potomac Valley.\nDigitized by Google\nCHAPTER III\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL AND\nITS RIVAL\nIT is exceedingly interesting to note that\nthe old plan of Washington's, by\nwhich the Middle West and Northwest\nwere to be held in fee by those who con-\ntrolled the Potomac, was as dominant now\nin 1823 as it was, within a limited circle,\nin 1784. In fact this is what the Potomac\nCompany, the Potomac Canal Company,\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company\nand the Baltimore and Ohio Railway Com-\npany have all stood for - this commercial\ncontrol of the trans-Allegheny empire.\nOur general plan demands a full examina-\ntion of this phase of our subject at the time\nat which we now have arrived - 1823.\nIn view of the canal project now on the\ntapis the Potomac Company adopted a reso-\nlution on February 3, 1823, signifying their\nwillingness (!) to surrender their charter\nDigitized by Google\n66\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\non liberal terms to a new company for the\nprosecution of the new plan of communica-\ntion. A bill was introduced, in accordance\nwith the same plan in the Maryland legis-\nlature, to incorporate a joint stock com-\npany to be known as The Potomac Canal\nCompany.\" It was estimated that the pro-\nposed work of cutting a canal, from Poto-\nmac tide-water (Washington, D. C.) up the\nvalley, across the mountains to a branch of\nthe Ohio, and down the same, at a million\nand a half dollars, of which Virginia,\nMaryland, and the District of Columbia were\neach to subscribe one-third.\"\nA commission was appointed by Virginia\nand Maryland to examine the old route\nacross the Alleghenies marked out by\nWashington with a view to the possibility\nof constructing a canal from the head of the\nPotomac to one of the heads of the Ohio.\nJames Schriver made an examination of the\nAlleghenies with reference to the new\ncanal in the summer of 1823, and the result\nwas given to the public in the form of a\nreport entitled: An Account of Surveys and\nExaminations with Remarks and Documents\n\"Scharf's, History of Maryland, vol. iii, p. 156.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 67\nrelative to the projected Chesapeake and Ohio,\nand Ohio and Lake Erie Canals.* Though\nwe find Mr. Schriver a United States As-\nsociate Civil Engineer in 1826,* he seems\nto have made his explorations to satisfy\nhimself and a few friends. Since the\nday of Washington's explorations in 1784 it\nwas generally understood that the most\npracticable route for a road or canal from\nthe Potomac to an Ohio tributary would fol-\nlow the portage route outlined by Washing-\nton from the Potomac at the mouth of\nSavage River to the Cheat River. But the\nemphasis given by Washington to this\nportage was not based wholly on utilitarian\nmotives. He desired his route to keep\nwithin the bounds of Virginia and Mary-\nland - the possessors of the Potomac - for\nany more northerly course would carry the\nroute into Pennsylvania. Washington,\nhowever, was searching for waterways\nwhich could be made navigable; Schriver,\na generation later, sought only for streams\nwhich could furnish sufficient water for a\n\"Baltimore, 1824.\nHouse Docs. no. 10, 19th Cong., 2d. Sess., p. 9.\n\"An Account of Surveys and Examinations, p. 3.\nDigitized by Google\n68\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncanal. As a result, Schriver was satisfied\nwith the head of the Youghiogheny which,\nthough it could never be made navigable,\nyet contained plenty of water to fill a\ncanal. Schriver's proposed route, there-\nfore, left the Potomac at the mouth of\nSavage River, ascended that stream and\nits tributary, Crabtree Creek. Reaching\nHinch's Spring by means of a tunnel,* the\ncanal would follow the North Fork of Deep\nCreek and Deep Creek itself to the Yough-\niogheny. Descending the Youghiogheny\nand Monongahela, the Ohio River would\nbe reached at Pittsburg. The vital ques-\ntion was thought to be whether there was\na sufficient current of water to supply the\nsummit level of the canal at the tunnel\nunder Little Backbone Mountain.\nThe bill to incorporate the Potomac\nCanal Company, however, failed to pass the\n25 The probable success of a tunnel of a mile and a\nhalf in length was not doubted at this time. The Trent-\nMersey Canal in England had five tunnels in ninety-\nthree miles, and one (at Harecastle) was more than a\nmile and a half long, and over two hundred feet beneath\nthe surface of the earth. Its cost was £31 IOS 8d per\nyard. The Chesterfield canal had a tunnel at Hartshill\nthree thousand yards long.-An Account of Surveys\nand Examinations, p. 57, note.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 69\nMaryland legislature. This brings us at\nonce face to face with one of the most\ninteresting phases of the subject- - the\nposition and commanding influence of Bal-\ntimore in the commercial world at that\nday. \"The progress of the [Potomac\nCanal Company] bill,\" writes the Maryland\nhistorian Scharf, caused much excite-\nment in Baltimore. The people of that\ncity, notwithstanding they were in favor of\ninternal improvements, and had freely sub-\nscribed for the construction of roads,\nbridges, etc., were unanimously opposed to\nthis bill, because it called for an appropria-\ntion of the funds or credit of the State (one-\nthird of which they would be compelled to\npay) to an object that would be rather an\ninjury than a benefit to the trade of the\ncity. Though they had but a fortieth part\nof the power of legislation in the House of\nDelegates, they paid one-third part of the\ntaxes of the State, and as the funds of the\nState were not sufficient to meet the ordin-\nary expenses of about $30,000 a year, the\nfinancial burden bore with great pressure\nupon them. Besides, they especially ob-\njected to the Potomac canal, because, under\nDigitized by Google\n70\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe bill in question, the canal was to termi-\nnate as at present, in Georgetown, and the\nprivilege was virtually denied them of tap-\nping it so as to connect it by a canal with\nBaltimore, if they so desired; besides, the\nState was asked to cede to the company all\nits rights to the waters of the river [Poto-\nmac], thus virtually preventing the future\nconnection of the canal with the City of\nBaltimore. To produce concert of action\nin the next session of the Maryland and\nVirginia legislatures, the friends of the\nmeasure began to hold meetings in various\nparts of the country.\n[These\nmeetings] resulted in the assembling of a\nconvention in the city of Washington, on\nThursday, the 6th day of November, 1823,\nwith delegates from Maryland, Virginia,\nPennsylvania, and District of Columbia.'\nThe business of the convention, of which\nCongressman Joseph Kent was chosen\nchairman, was to advocate the enlargement\nof the plan of the Potomac Canal Company\nso that it would include Baltimore as its\n*eastern terminus, by means of a lateral\ncanal or an extension of the main canal\n\"History of Maryland, vol. iii, pp. 156-157.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 71\nfrom its terminus at Georgetown.\n\"Whereas, a a connection of the Atlantic\nand Western waters, by a canal,\" read the\nintroduction to the resolutions adopted,\n\"leading from the seat of the general\ngovernment to the river Ohio, regarded as\na local object, is one of the highest import-\nance to the states immediately interested\ntherein, and, considered in a national\nview, is of inestimable consequence to the\nfuture union, security, and happiness of\nthe United States:\n\"Resolved, unanimously, That it is ex-\npedient to substitute, for the present defec-\ntive navigation of the Potomac river above\ntide water, a navigable canal, by Cumberland\nto the mouth of Savage Creek, at the eastern\nbase of the Alleghany, and to extend\nsuch canal, as soon thereafter as prac-\nticable, to the highest constant steamboat\nnavigation of the Monongahela or Ohio\nriver.\" 27 Another resolution outlined a\nplan of enlargement of the Potomac Canal\nCompany by the appointment of commit-\ntees \" each consisting of five delegates, to\nprepare and present, in behalf of this\n\"Niles Register, vol. xxv,p. 173.\nDigitized by Google\n72\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nassembly, and in co-operation with the\ncentral committee, hereinafter provided,\nsuitable memorials to the congress of the\nUnited States, and the legislatures of the\nseveral states before named [Virginia,\nMaryland, Pennsylvania, and the District\nof Columbia], requesting their concurrence\nin the incorporation of such a company\nand their co-operation, if necessary, in the\nsubscription of funds for the completion of\nthe said canal: And whereas, by an act of\nthe general assembly of Virginia, which\npassed the 22d February, 1823, entitled,\n6 an act incorporating the Potomac canal\ncompany,' the assent of that state, so far as\nthe limits of her territory render it neces-\nsary, is already given to this object, and for\nits enlargement to the extent required by\nthe preceding resolution, the said act appears\nto furnish, with proper amendments, a\nsufficient basis: Be it, therefore, resolved\nThat it will be expedient to accept the\nsame as a charter for the proposed com-\npany, with the following modifications,\nviz: That in reference to its enlarged\npurpose, the name be changed to the\n6 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.'' These\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 73\nresolutions 28 are practically embodied in\nthe act incorporating the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal.20\nThe two hundred delegates concluded\ntheir convocation by a banquet at Brown's\nHotel, Washington, on Saturday evening.\nCertain of the 'spontaneous sentiments\"\nwere: By the Secretary of State, John\nQuincy Adams, the first right and the\nfirst duty of nations - self-dependence and\nself-improvement;\" by the Secretary of War\nJohn C. Calhoun, Canal navigation be-\ntween the Atlantic and the western waters,\nessentially connected with the commerce,\nthe defence, and the union of the states -\nmay it receive the patronage and support\nof the nation;\" by C. F. Mercer, soon to\nbe the first president of the Chesapeake\nand Ohio Canal, \"the eastern and western\ncountry - whom the Author of Nature has\njoined together, may no man put asunder;\"\nby Mr. James Schriver, pioneer surveyor\non the upper Potomac, The Chesapeake\nand Ohio; they have' passed meeting' 30_______________________\ns⁸Id., pp. 173-175.\n29 See note 33.\n30 '' Passed meeting,\" a practice among the Friends\nprevious to the marriage ceremony.\nDigitized by Google\n74\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nmay their marriage be speedily consum-\nmated.\" A toast which tells of Clay's\npresidential ambitions was proposed by\nB. S. Forrest of Maryland after the speak-\ner's withdrawal from the board in the fol-\nlowing technical phrase: \"Henry Clay,\nqualified to pass the summit level; neither\ngiddy in ascending, nor dismayed in\ndescending!\" The members of the im-\nportant Central Committee were Charles\nF. Mercer, John Mason, Walter Jones,\nThomas Swann, John McLean, William\nH. Fitzhugh, H. L. Opie, Alfred H.\nPowell, P. C. Pendleton, A. Fenwick, John\nLee, Frisby Tilghman, and Robert W.\nBowie. The committee to memorialize\nCongress was as follows: Walter Jones,\nJohn Mason, George Washington Park\nCustis, Robert I. Taylor, S. H. Smith.81\nThat George Washington's original plan\nof connecting the Potomac with the Great\nLakes was still dominant, a resolution of\nthis convention proves; the Virginians and\nMarylanders were bound to control the\ncommerce of the Lakes even with the Erie\n\"National Intelligencer; Niles Register, vol. XXV,\np. 175.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 75\nCanal as a rival. Their resolution read:\n\"And be it further resolved, That a com-\nmittee of five delegates be appointed\nto prepare, and cause to be presented, in\nbehalf of this convention, a suitable me-\nmorial to the state of Ohio, soliciting the\nco-operation of that state in the completion\nof the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, and its\nultimate connexion with the navigation of\nLake Erie; and that, for the latter pur-\npose, the memorial shall respectfully sug-\ngest the expediency of causing the country,\nbetween the northernmost bend of the\nriver Ohio, and the southern shore of\nLake Erie, together with the waters of\nGreat Beaver and Cayuga [Cuyahoga]\ncreeks, and all other intervening waters\nnear the said route, to be carefully sur-\nveyed, with the view of ascertaining the\npracticability and probable cost of a canal,\nwhich, fed by the latter, shall connect the\nformer.' Mr. Schriver, in his volume\nquoted, gives much attention to this west-\nern extension of the Chesapeake and Ohio\nCanal. \"The proposed Ohio and Lake Erie\nCanal,\" he affirms, \" is intimately blended\n\"Id., pp. 174-175.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n76\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nwith that of the Chesapeake and Ohio. In\nthe opinion of many, it is embraced and\nconstitutes only a part of the same grand\ndesign; but whether it be considered in\nconnexion with it, or independently, it is\nconfessedly a project of vast public impor-\ntance, involving considerations of great\nnational and local concern.\"\nThe Washington canal convention\nbrought forth much fruit; its demands\nwere eminently reasonable; the plan of\noperations proposed was logical, and fair\nto all concerned. The Potomac Canal\nCompany could not face the future success-\nfully without the friendship of Maryland and\nMaryland's commercial metropolis. The\nlegislature of Virginia passed an act incor-\nporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nCompany, January 27, 1824.8 Upon being\nslightly amended, it was passed by the\nMaryland legislature January 31, 1825. A\nperusal of the act will show that the new\ncompany was capitalized at $6,000,000,\ndivided into 60,000 shares of $100 each.\nCertificates of stock in the old Potomac\nCompany, or debts of the same, were to be\nas See appendix B, p. 225.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 77\naccepted at par or nominal value for certifi-\ncates in the new company, under certain\nconditions and limitations. The canal was\ndivided into Eastern and Western sections,\nthe mouth of the Savage River being the\ndivision point; 84 if the company did not\nbegin work in two years, or if one hundred\nmiles were not completed in full in five\nyears, the charter should become null and\nvoid. If the western section was not begun\nwithin two years after the time allowed\nfor the completion of the eastern section,\nor was not completed in six years, the\nright and title of the company in said\nwestern section, shall cease and determine.\"\nIt will be noted that failure to complete\nthe western section did not affect the\ncompany's right to the eastern section.\nThe annual dividends were not to exceed\nfifteen per cent, and unless one-fourth of\nthe capital should be subscribed all sub-\nscriptions were to be void.\nIn December 1823 President Monroe\n84 While the law divided the canal into only two sec-\ntions, eastern and western, the engineers divided it into\nthree, eastern, middle, and western. The two former\nmet at Cumberland, and the latter began at the mouth\nof Casselman's River.\nDigitized by Google\n78\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\npresented the internal improvement pro-\nposed by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nCompany to Congress, and in April 1824\nan appropriation of $30,000 was made to\nprocure surveys and estimates in order to\nprove the feasibility of the plan. In May\nthe President appointed Brigadier-general\nSimon Bernard and Lieutenant-colonel\nTotten and Civil Engineer John L. Sullivan\nof Massachusetts as a board to outline the\nmost suitable route for a canal from Poto-\nmac tide-water to the Ohio River. Their\nreport was made October 23, 1826.85 The\nfour memoirs of the report include a survey\nof the Potomac Valley from tide-water to\nCumberland, Maryland, by Lieutenant-\ncolonel J. J. Abert; a descriptive state-\nment with reference to the eastern section\nof the summit level between the Potomac\nand the heads of the Ohio by Captain\nWilliam G. McNeill; a descriptive ac-\ncount of Casselman's River or the Som-\nerset route, also by Captain McNeill; a\nreview of other routes by James Schriver.\nIn the eastern section the canal was\nplanned on the Maryland side of the\nss,State Papers 19th Cong., ad Sess., Doc.no. 10.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 79\nPotomac River, because the obstacles on\nthat bank were of less magnitude than\nthose on the opposite Virginia shore, the\nexposure was more favorable, an earlier\nnavigation could be secured there in the\nspring, and a later navigation in the fall,\nand no aqueduct would be required at\nCumberland, as Wills Creek enters the\nPotomac at that point from the Maryland\nshore. Moreover the water supply from\nMaryland to the Potomac exceeded that of\nVirginia, the rivers of the latter sending\nI90 cubic feet of water per second into the\nPotomac, and the former 267.35 cubic feet.\nWhile perhaps not fully accurate, these\nfigures approximated the truth.\nThe length of the eastern section was\nplaced at one hundred and eighty-six miles,\nand it was divided into eleven subdivisions\nmarked by the following points beginning\nat Cumberland: South Branch of the\nPotomac, Great Cacapan, Licking Creek,\nGreat Conococheague, Antietam Creek, one\nmile below Harper's Ferry, Monocacy\nRiver, Seneca Creek, Great Falls, Little\nFalls, and Georgetown. The old canal of\nthe Potomac Company was to be used by\nDigitized by Google\n80\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe new canal as far as possible. A sum-\nmary of the eastern section reads:\nDistance (miles)\n1855/8\nDescent (feet)\n578\nNumber of locks\n74\nEstimated cost\n$8,177,081.05\nIn seeking a route across the towering\nridges between the Potomac and heads of\nthe Ohio, the course first suggested by\nWashington and studied by commissioners\nsince his day was discarded by the board of\nsurveyors which now planned the actual\ncourse of the canal. The Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company being incorporated in\nPennsylvania, it was now no object to\nkeep the highway within the territories of\nVirginia and Maryland alone. Upon\nexploration, it was found that a route up\nWills Creek from the Potomac at Cumber-\nland, Maryland, and across to Casselman's\nRiver, a branch of the Voughiogheny, was\na more favorable route than that by way of\nSavage River and Deep Creek to the\nYoughiogheny. The question was deter-\nmined by the supply of water at summit\nlevel. The reservoirs in the Deep Creek\nplan would have to be twelve miles in\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 83\nlength, while those by the more northerly\nroute would be but three and one-half\nmiles in length. A saving of six million\ncubic yards of water by evaporation in the\nCasselman's route made that way far more\nadvantageous. The lockage on the Deep\nCreek route was eight hundred and seventy-\nthree feet more than by the Casselman\nroute; on the other hand this was equalized\nby the fact that the tunnel on the latter\nroute was to be four miles and eighty yards\nlong, while the Dewickman tunnel on the\nDeep Creek route was only one mile and\nfive hundred and sixty-eight yards long.\nWith all factors taken into account, it was\nestimated that the Deep Creek route would\ncost $2,861,288.90, and the Casselman's or\nFlaugherty Creek route $2,324,315.37, or\nmore than a half million dollars less than\nthe Deep Creek route.\nThis Middle Section, therefore, extended\nfrom Cumberland, or the western extremity\nof the Eastern Section, to the mouth of\nCasselman's River in the Voughiogheny,\nthe Turkey Foot\" of pioneer days. Its\nlength was seventy miles and one thousand\nSee Historic Highways of America, vol. iii, p. 133.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n84\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nand ten yards. The lockage was nineteen\nhundred and sixty-one feet and the sum-\nmit was to be crossed by a tunnel four\nmiles and eighty yards long, dug at eight\nhundred and fifty-six feet below the sum-\nmit of the ridge. The Middle Section was\ndivided into an eastern and a western por-\ntion. The former had two subdivisions;\nthe first, descending from the summit, was\nfifteen miles in length, with a descent of\none thousand and sixteen feet, from the\neastern end of the summit level to the\nmouth of Little Wills Creek; the second\nsubdivision, nearly fourteen miles long,\nand with a descent three hundred and nine\nfeet, extended from Little Wills Creek to\nthe western end of the Eastern Section,\nbelow Cumberland. The western portion\nof the Middle Section was, likewise, divided\ninto two subdivisions; the first, sixteen\nmiles long with a drop of two hundred and\nsixteen feet, ran from the western end of\nthe summit level to the mouth of Middle\nFork Creek; the second, nineteen miles\nlong, with a descent of four hundred and\ntwenty feet, ran from there to the mouth\nof Casselman's. The summit level was\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 85\nfive miles and one thousand two hundred\nand eighty yards long, to be crossed by a\ntunnel four miles and eighty yards long\nand a deep cut the remaining distance.\nThe summary of the Middle Section\nreads:\nAscent Number\nDistance and\nEstimated\nof\ndescent\ncost\nlocks\nmiles yds.\nEastern Portion\n20\n240\n1325\nI66\n$3,856,623.60\nSummit Level\n5\n1280\n3,471,967 01\nWestern Portion\n35\nI250\n636\n80\n2,699,532.25\n70\nIOIO\n1961\n246\n10,028,122.86\nThe Western Section began four hundred\nand forty yards below the junction of Cas-\nselman's River with the Youghiogheny and\nextended to Pittsburg on the Ohio River.\nThe canal was planned on the right bank\nof the Youghiogheny and Monongahela\nRivers, and was divided into four subdi-\nvisions:\nDescent\nTermini\nMiles (feet)\nWestern end of Middle Section to Con-\nnellsville\n27½\n432\nConnellsville to Sewickly Creek\n27½\n144\nSewickly Creek to mouth of Youghiogheny\n16½\n8\nMouth of Youghiogheny to Pittsburg\n14\n35\nDigitized by Google\n86\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nThe summary for the Western Section\nwas:\nDistance (miles)\n85½\nDescent (feet)\n619\nNumber of locks\n78\nEstimated cost\n$4,170,223.78\nThe total estimate of the board, there-\nfore, for the entire work was as follows:\nAscent Number\nEstimated\nDistance and of\ncost\nmiles. yds. descent locks\nEastern Section . 185 1078 578 74 $8,177,081.05\nMiddle Section\n70\nIOIO\n1961\n246\n10,028.122.86\nWestern Section 85 348 619 78 4,170,223.78\nTotals\n.\n341 676 3158 398 $22.375,427.69 37\nUnder the head of \" General Considera-\ntions 88 the board treated minutely the\nproposition presented by the acts incor-\nporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nCompany, and the treatise is one of the\nmost interesting studies of early commerce\nbetween the East and the West. The\ngreat population and area concerned on\nboth sides of the Alleghenies, the increased\nvalue of real estate which would follow the\n8'Id., p. 62.\n⁸Id., pp. 65-80.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 87\nbuilding of the canal, the articles of import\nand export which would pass and repass\nover the great highway, the probable\nrevenue which would be derived from tolls,\nthe enhanced value, commercially, of a\ncanal to the Ohio River whenever the Ohio\nwas in turp connected with Lake Erie,\nand the strategic military position and\nvalue of the canal on the shortest route\nfrom Atlantic tide-water to the Ohio River\nand the Great Lakes by way of the national\ncapital, are points considered at some\nlength.\nThis report of the board, naming over\ntwenty millions as the cost of the canal\nwas an overwhelming and disappointing\nsurprise. The capital of the Chesapeake\nand Ohio Canal Company was, as we have\nseen, only six million - in itself a tremen-\ndous sum in that day. The blow fell\nheavily on Baltimore; while the building\nof the canal in the Potomac Valley was\nentirely reasonable, it was the larger inter-\nests of the great scheme that had a special\nappeal to the capitalists of the Maryland\nmetropolis. As a highway between tide-\nDigitized by Google\n88\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nwater and the Ohio Basin the scheme had\nbeen greatly favored by them. Already,\non March 6, 1825, the Maryland legislature\nhad provided for the formation of what\nwas known as the Maryland Canal Com-\npany\" with a capital of half a million dol-\nlars, which should bind the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal with the city of Baltimore. In\nany lesser sense - as merely a canal in the\nPotomac Valley - the Chesapeake and Ohio\nCanal was of far less interest to Balti-\nmoreans than an improvement of communi-\ncations, for instance, to the rich Susque-\nhanna country. And the moment it was\nknown that merely the Middle Section, of\nseventy miles, of the Chesapeake and Ohio\nCanal was to cost nearly twice the entire\nproposed capitalization of the company,\nthe idea of a continental canal to the West\nthrough the Alleghenies was deemed im-\npracticable at Baltimore. A new estimate\nof the expense was undertaken by James\nGeddes and Nathan S. Roberts, who cut\ndown the figures named by General Bern-\nard one half. Those greatly interested\nin the advancement of the scheme hailed\n\"Scharf's History of Maryland, vol. iii, p. 165.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 89\nthis announcement with delight, but the\nmore conservative relied upon the esti-\nmates of the national board as being the\nmost reliable.\nThe actual resulting effects of the dis-\ncouraging report of the board concerning\nthe cost of this enterprise were so far-reach-\ning, that it is altogether proper to pause a\nmoment here and consider the position and\ninfluence of the city of Baltimore, and note\nwhat the failure of the canal scheme\nmeant to her. As a commercial metropolis\nBaltimore's reputation was very great, and\nsecond only to that of Philadelphia. Not\nonly was it a great seaboard market, but\nthroughout the preceding half century it\nhad been one of the great markets for wes-\ntern produce. Its position was unique;\nalthough a seaport it was many miles\nnearer the Ohio Valley than any rival. In\nlaying out possible landward routes from\nthe Ohio River to the seaboard for the\nCumberland National Road, the commis-\nsioners found that the route to Baltimore\nwas thirty-nine miles shorter than to Phila-\ndelphia, and forty-two miles shorter than\nto Richmond. The distance from the sea-\nDigitized by Google\n90\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nport of Baltimore to Brownsville, Pennsyl-\nvania, on the Monongahela, where naviga-\ntion by boat was almost always possible,\nwas only two hundred and eighteen miles.\nThus Baltimore was the natural eastern\nmetropolis for the trade of the West.\nMoreover, Baltimore had, up to date, taken\nperhaps all advantages of her situation,\nand had grown rich in consequence; the\nbuilding of the Cumberland Road had been\nof great benefit, for Cumberland was but\nthe half-way house to Baltimore. Balti-\nmore and Maryland had improved their\nopportunities by building many miles of\nfine roads, really extending the Cumber-\nland Road to Baltimore and tide-water.\nBaltimore's commercial prestige was\nsecure so far as land ways were concerned.\nNew measures calling for water ways now\non foot, made popular by the great success\nof the Erie Canal, promised to overturn all\nprevious considerations. The coach and\nfreighter, it seemed, were now to be re-\nplaced by the easy-gliding canal-boat.\nBaltimore had been the metropolis for\nwestern trade during the reign of the\nfreighter. Must she resign her place upon\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 91\nthe advent of the canal-boat? This was\nthe question which was being agitated\nthroughout the years of the Potomac\nchimera; the failure of that scheme again\nrestored the confidence of the Baltimoreans.\nBut the revival of the plan under the new\narrangement of a canal from tide-water to\nthe Ohio Basin again created alarm. The\nposition of the Marylanders in this ex-\ntremity is well indicated by one of Niles's\neditorials as follows: \"The ' National In-\ntelligencer' of Tuesday last [November,\n1823], in an article signed ' Multum in\nParvo,' contains a very illiberal attack on\nthe people of Baltimore, because of their\nsupposed opposition to the Potomac, canal.\nIt accuses us of ' avarice and ambition' -\nof being 'selfish' - as ' jealous' of Wash-\nington, and as preparing to oppose a resto-\nration of their ' political rights' to the\npeople of the District of Columbia! It also\nputs it down as impossible to conduct an arm\nof this canal to our city.\nBalti-\nmore avaricious and ambitious!' We refer\nto the support afforded by loans, and the\ngreat disbursements made on our own re-\nsponsibility, during the late war; the splen-\nDigitized by Google\n92\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ndid public roads with which we have inter-\nsected the country, and the beautiful edi-\nfices, fountains, &c. that we have built in\nour city, in proof of our 'avarice' - and\ndirect public attention to North Point and\nFort McHenry, for evidences of our am-\nbition:' and, as to being 'selfish' or\n' jealous,' these are nearly the last things\nthat should be said about Baltimore;\nSo far as my information goes,\nthe\ncitizens of Baltimore are not opposed to the\nPotomac canal: but how is it possible to\nexpect their support for it when the follow-\ning facts are considered:\n\"I. We have expended a million of\ndollars on certain public roads, to obtain\nthat trade which the canal is designed to\ndeprive us of.\n\"2. Yet, and notwithstanding we are\nto suffer this loss of capital and trade, if\nthe canal should be made as heretofore\nproposed, we must pay one third of Mary-\nland's share of the expense of making it:\nthat is to say, 10,000 dollars a year will be\nadded to the amount of our taxes, though\nsuch is our present condition that the usual\ntaxes can hardly be collected, through the\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 93\ndepreciation of property and want of busi-\nness.\n\"3.\nAs well might we accuse\nthe people of the District of Columbia of\nselfishness, because they will not help us to\nmake a canal to the Susquehannah, as they\ncan censure us for preferring that canal to\none on the Potomac. We are willing that\nthe Potomac canal should be made - but\nnot at our cost; until, at least, we have\nfully ascertained what can be done in re-\nspect to a favorite measure of the same\nnature. But we must be permitted to\ndoubt whether the people of the district\nwould feel very zealous about the naviga-\ntion of the Potomac, provided it was ascer-\ntained as practicable, and conditioned, that\nan arm of the canal should be extended to\nBaltimore, though the last is so much\nnearer the sea than Washington, &c. 40\nAs noted, Maryland refused to pass the\nbill incorporating the Potomac Canal Com-\npany, because of the objections, largely, of\nBaltimoreans. To the enlarged plan em-\nbraced under the name of Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company, assent was given,\n\"Niles Register, vol. XXV, p. 145.\nDigitized by Google\n94\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nunder the impression that full connection\nwith the West by canal was possible, and\nthat Baltimore was to become, virtually,\nthe eastern terminus. The report of the\nnational board as to the enormous expense\nof the canal precluded the thought of the\nbuilding of the Middle and Western Sec-\ntions, and, consequently, deprived it of its\ngenuinely national character. The dis-\ncouragements discovered by the Maryland\nCanal Company in their attempt to find a\nsatisfactory location for a canal route from\nthe Potomac to Baltimore, 41 also had its\neffect in strengthening the opinion of Balti-\nmore capitalists that Baltimore could never\nhold the trade of, the West by water routes\nas for half a century she had held it by\nland routes. New York and Philadelphia\nwere fast surpassing her, and, by means\nof the Pennsylvania and Erie Canals,\nseemed in a fair way to secure the trade of\nthe West which once had been hers. In\nthe editorial already quoted the discourag-\ning state of trade in Baltimore is hinted at.\nPhilip E. Thomas, president of the Me-\nchanic's Bank of Baltimore and a commis-\n41 Scharf's History of Maryland, vol. iii, p. 164.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 95\nsioner for Maryland for the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company, resigned his office\nupon reviewing the report of General\nBarnard, and, calling into his counsels\nGeorge Brown, the two in private faced the\nsituation in which Baltimore was placed.\nWithout hope of taking any advantage of\nthe Potomac to gain the trade with the\nWest, with New York and Pennsylvania\nfast outstripping Baltimore in trade and\npopulation and both pushing canals to the\nWest, the outlook for Baltimore seemed\nunpromising indeed. These two energetic\nand daring men, in comparatively a\nmoment's time, changed the whole com-\nplexion of affairs, and brought not only the\neyes of the world to Baltimore but in very\nfact brought back to her the commercial\nprestige, so far as western trade was con-\ncerned, which she had enjoyed in the day\nof the' stagecoach and freighter. On the\ntwelfth of February, 1827, the plans of\nThomas and Brown had gone so far that a\nmeeting at the home of Mr. Thomas of\nover a score of Baltimore merchants and\npromoters was called \"to take into con-\nsideration the best means of restoring to\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n96\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe City of Baltimore that portion of the\nWestern Trade which has lately been\ndiverted from it by the introduction of\nsteam navigation and other causes.\"\nThe plan of Thomas and Brown compre-\nhended the building of a railway from\nBaltimore to the Ohio. Both men had\nbrothers in England who had forwarded\nreports of railway experiments there. The\nmatter had received considerable previous\nattention and the great proposition was\ndiscussed with an intense interest. From\nall the data which were gathered by the\ncorrespondents abroad, the proposition\nwas wholly reasonable. And in its realiza-\ntion the promoters would find a relish in-\ntensified a hundred-fold, because of the\nrumors circulated that Baltimore must\nresign her commercial position to Alexan-\ndria or Georgetown because of the building\nand influence of the Chesapeake and Ohio\nCanal. The two railways then in operation\nin the United States were at Quincy,\nMassachusetts, a road to a quarry; and at\nMauch Chunk, Pennsylvania, from the\nLehigh River to the Summit Coal Mine,\nnine miles distant. As means of conveying\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 97\nheavy freight rapidly the success of the\n\" rail road\" was assured. The idea of\nconveying passengers was an afterthought;\nit was the freight traffic that Baltimore had\nlost - it was the freight traffic which the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal would draw\nfrom even the best roads Baltimore could\nbuild or have built. By means of rails,\ncars with freight could be moved, it was\nestimated, at least twelve miles an hour,\nand railroads could be built anywhere\nmacadamized roads could go. The supply\nof water at the summit level was not a\ncritical factor.\nThe result of this meeting at the home\nof Mr. Thomas was the appointment of a\ncommittee which was ordered to review the\nwhole proposition, and report a plan of\naction. On February 19, the committee\nreport was ready, and the second meeting\nwas held. The report affirmed that rail\nroads promised to \"supercede Canals as\neffectually as Canals have superceded Turn-\npike Roads,\" and recommended that a\ndouble Rail Road\" be constructed \"be-\ntween the City of Baltimore and some\nsuitable point upon the Ohio River, by the\nDigitized by Google\n98\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nmost eligible and direct route, and that a\nCharter to incorporate a Company to execute\nthis work be obtained as early as practi-\ncable.\"⁴ On February 28, 1827, a charter\nwas granted by the Maryland legislature;\nit was confirmed by Virginia on March 8,\nand by Pennsylvania February 22, 1828.\nMr. Thomas resigned the presidency of the\nMechanic's Bank to give his whole atten-\ntion to the affairs of the enterprise.\nA unique situation now presents itself to\nthe historical inquirer. On the one hand\nwe find the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nCompany, under the presidency of Charles\nF. Mercer of Virginia, chairman of the\nCommittee of Roads and Canals of the\nNational House of Representatives, backed\nby a capital of over three and one-half mil-\nlion dollars, ready to proceed in building a\ncanal through the Potomac Valley from\nWashington to Cumberland; on the other\nhand is the new rail road company called\nthe Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Com-\npany, with Mr. Thomas at its head,\nbacked, in 1828, by four millions of dol-\n48 W. P. Smith's A History and Description of the\nBaltimore and Ohio Rail Road (Baltimore, 1853), p. 13.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 99\nlars, beginning to build a rail road from\nBaltimore to the Potomac Valley, up the\nvalley to Cumberland, and across the moun-\ntains to the Ohio River. It was evident\nat the start that the rivalry would be\ntremendously bitter; that the two com-\npanies would give rise to factions which\nwould harm and decry each other in every\nway possible. The canal idea was, com-\nparatively, very new, and the Erie Canal\nbeing successfully prosecuted from the\nHudson to the Lakes had created immense\nenthusiasm. On the other hand the rail\nroad was almost an untried novelty; on\nsuch roads as were in operation in England\nand America horse power was the only\npower to be relied upon; sails were in use\nbut were not successful under many cir-\ncumstances. The steam engine had not\nbeen successfully adapted as yet; the road-\nbeds were far more costly than even the\nmost expensive macadamized roads; there\nwas still a question whether the mountains\ncould be spanned by this method of trans-\nportation, and whether, even if the locomo-\ntive could be utilized on a straight track,\nit could ever be useful on a curved track!\nDigitized by Google\n100\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nThe bitterness of the rivalry was intensi-\nfied by the fact that the two companies\nwere organized within the same states, to\noperate in exactly the same territory and\nboth seeking the same carrying trade.\nAnd, lastly, one company had its origin in\na detrimental report from the highest\nauthority made concerning the other. The\nseed of the Baltimore and Ohio Railway lay\nin General Bernard's report of 1826, in\nwhich the cost of building the Chesapeake\nand Ohio Canal across the mountains was\nestimated at a prohibitive figure.\nBoth companies went to work eagerly,\nand both sure of success. The infancy of\nthe rail road science, and the fact that as\nyet nothing had been done in all the world\non such a scale as was proposed by the Balti-\nmore and Ohio Rail Road, naturally rend-\nered public opinion more or less skeptical;\nwhile as for the canal, success was prac-\ntically assured. It would be taking a very\nnarrow outlook upon the situation to de-\nscribe the building of the canal, without\npresenting a briefly sketched-in history of\nits great rival for western trade. The two\nmust go hand in hand.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 101\nEarly in 1828, both companies were in\nthe field surveying the route of their two\nhighways. At the point of conflict, where\nthe railway approached the Potomac River,\nit was easily seen that trouble would be\nprecipitated. In fact, as early as June 10,\nthe canal company got from Judge Bu-\nchanan an injunction against the railway\ncompany, to prevent them from encroach-\ning upon lands needed by the former and\ngranted them by charter rights.⁴³ The\nrailway company returned the compliment\nby obtaining an injunction from the\n\"chancellor of the state of Maryland\"\nlikewise restraining the canal company.44\n\"\nIf we understand it [the situa-\ntion],\" wrote the perplexed editor of the\nRegister, June 28, the state of things is\nas it was, before the injunction obtained of\nJudge Buchanan.' 45 The canal promoters'\nview of the affair was thus voiced by the\neditor of the National Journal: It appears\nto us to be very essential to the harmonious\nprosecution of these two great works, that\n\"Niles Register, vol. xxxiv, p. 266.\nId., p. 282.\n\"Id.\nDigitized by Google\n102\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe rights of each company should be pre-\ncisely defined. It was with this view, we\nbelieve, that the injunction [of June I0] in\nthe present stage was applied for; in order\nthat the question how far the charter\ngranted to the canal company, giving to\nthem the privileges of condemning such\nland as may be necessary for the construc-\ntion of that work, barred any other com-\npany from obtaining land along the same\nline, until the objects of the canal company\nshould be accomplished. By the final set-\ntlement of this question, in the beginning,\nall ground for future collision would be\nremoved. We should regret, therefore, if\nour Baltimore neighbors should regard as\nan act of hostility to them, that which is,\nin fact, simply an assertion of our own\nrights. There is no disposition to embar-\nrass their work, to which we desire all suc-\ncess; there is no wish to delay it, as is evi-\ndent from the offer which is said to have\nbeen made\nto refer the ques-\ntion to\nthe court of appeals now\nsitting at Annapolis.\" 46\nPlans were already making by the rival\n\"Id,, p. 267.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 103\ncompanies for grand celebrations on the\nFourth of July succeeding, when, near\nWashington, the ground should be broken\nfor the canal, and, at Baltimore, the\n\"Foundation of the Rail Road,\" in the\nshape of the corner-stone, should be laid.\nThese rival celebrations attracted great\ncrowds to the two cities on the day named.\nAt Washington the streets were alive with\npeople at an early hour, and at seven\no'clock the directors of the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company met the honored\nguests of the day at Tilley's Hotel. These\nincluded the President of the United States\nand cabinet, and the various ambassadors\nof foreign countries then in the city, and\nother dignitaries, including survivors of\nthe Revolutionary War. The procession,\nattended by troops and regaled with the\nmusic of bands, marched to the Potomac\nand embarked on the steamboat Sur-\nprize,\" for a journey to the Great Falls of\nthe Potomac. Crowds followed on either\nbank of the river. \"The sun shone now\nand then from the clear blue heavens\nthrough the fleecy clouds,\" wrote the\ninspired reporter of the National Intelli-\nDigitized by Google\n104\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ngencer; all nature\" seemed to smile upon\nthe scene.\" Disembarking, the company\nmarched to canal-boats lying in the old\ncanal built by the indefatigable labors of\nWashington's Potomac Company nearly fifty\nyears before. During the journey up the\ncanal, we are assured, the senses of the\ncompany were regaled by a scene at once\nnovel and really enchanting.\nThere\nwas a part of this passage, when the music\nof Moore's sweet song of 6 The meeting of\nthe waters,' poured its melody on the ear\nso as to suspend the labor of the boatmen,\nand charm to silence every voice.\" Two\ncompanies of riflemen saluted the arrival\nof President Adams on the ground. \"Thou-\nsands hung upon the overlooking hill to\nthe north, and many climbed the umbrag-\neous trees.\" Within a hollow square, sur-\nrounded by the crowds, a spot was marked\nfor the raising of the first spadeful of earth\nby John Quincy Adams. Then amidst a\nsilence so intense as to chasten the anima-\ntion of hope and to hallow the enthusiasm\nof joy,'' the mayor of Georgetown handed\nMr. Mercer, president of the Chesapeake\nand Ohio Canal Company, the implement\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 105\nwith which the ground should be broken.\n\"There are moments,\" said Mr. Mercer,\nin the progress of time, which are the\ncounters of whole ages. There are events,\nthe monuments of which, surviving every\nother memorial of human existence, eternize\nthe nation to whose history they belong,\nafter all other vestiges of its glory have\ndisappeared from the globe. At such a\nmoment have we now arrived. Such a\nmonument we are now to found.\" At this\npoint Mr. Mercer handed the spade to\nPresident Adams who, in turn, delivered\nthe address of the day. In the course of\nhis oration the speaker said: \"To subdue\nthe earth is pre-eminently the purpose of\nthe undertaking, to the accomplishment of\nwhich the first stroke of the spade is now\nto be struck. That it is to be struck by\nthis hand, I invite you to witness.\" At\nthis point the President attempted to sink\nthe spade into the ground; but it struck a\nroot. \" Not deterred by trifling obsta-\ncles,\" wrote an eye-witness, from doing\nwhat he had deliberately resolved to per-\nform, Mr. Adams tried it again, with no\nbetter success. Thus foiled, he threw\nDigitized by Google\n106\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ndown the spade, hastily stripped off and\nlaid aside his coat, and went seriously to\nwork.\nThe multitude\nraised a loud and unanimous cheering,\nwhich continued for sometime after Mr.\nAdams had mastered the difficulty.\" 47\nSimultaneously with this memorable\ncelebration, an imposing ceremony was\nbeing enacted at Baltimore. \"Fortu-\nnately,\" we read in the Baltimore American,\n\"the morning of the fourth rose not only\nbright but cool, to the great comfort of the\nimmense throng of spectators that, from a\nvery early hour, filled every window in\nBaltimore street, and the pavement below,\nfrom beyond Bond street on the east, far\nwest on Baltimore street extended, a dist-\nance of about two miles.\" It was estimated\nthat seventy thousand people were in\nattendance. During the early morning the\ncrowds streamed toward the spot about two\nmiles from the city, just south of the\nFrederick turnpike, where on a rise of\nground in the open field a pavilion was\nraised for the reception of the honored\nguests of the occasion. The distance of\n\"Id., vol. xxxiv, pp. 325-328.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 107\nthe scene of laying the corner-stone of the\nBaltimore and Ohio Rail Road from Balti-\nmore made the processional display more im-\nposing, led by the First Baltimore Hussars.\nThe venerable guest of the day was\nCharles Carroll of Carrollton, the only sur-\nviving signer of the Declaration of Inde-\npendence. After the invocation and the\nreading of the Declaration of Independ-\nence, John B. Morris, a director of the\nBaltimore and Ohio Rail Road, addressed\nthe assembled throng. His words were\nsingularly prophetic. \"We are about\nopening the channel,\" he said, through\nwhich the commerce of the mighty country\nbeyond the Alleghany [Mountains] must\nseek the ocean - we are about affording\nfacilities of intercourse between the east\nand west, which will bind the one more\nclosely to the other, beyond the power of\nan increased population or sectional differ-\nences to disunite. We are in fact com-\nmencing a new era in our history;\nIt is but a few years since the introduction\nof steam boats effected powerful changes,\nand made those neighbors, who were before\nfar distant from each other. Of a similar\nDigitized by Google\n108\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nand equally important effect will be the\nBaltimore and Ohio rail road. While the\none will have stemmed the torrent of the\nMississippi, the other will have surmounted\nand reduced the heights of the Alle-\nghany.\nIt is not in mortals to\ncommand success, but if a determination to\nyield to no obstacle which human exertion\ncan overcome\ncan ensure suc-\ncess - success shall be ours.\"\nThen, descending from his seat in the\npavilion, Charles Carroll lifted a spadeful\nof earth from the designated resting place\nof the foundation stone, which was then set\nin position. Within the stone was placed\na copy of the charter of the company, the\nnewspapers of the day, and a scroll contain-\ning these words:\n\"This stone is deposited in commemora-\ntion of the commencement of the Baltimore\nand Ohio Railroad, a work of deep and\nvital interest to the American people. Its\naccomplishment will confer the most im-\nportant benefits upon this nation, by facili-\ntating its commerce, diffusing and extend-\ning its social intercourse, and perpetuating\nthe happy union of these confederated\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 109\nstates. The first general meeting of the\ncitizens of Baltimore to confer upon the\nadoption of proper measures for undertak-\ning this magnificent work, was on the 2d\nday of February, 1827. An act of incor-\nporation, by the state of Maryland, was\ngranted February 28th, 1827, and was con-\nfirmed by the state of Virginia March 8th,\n1827. Stock was subscribed, to provide\nfunds for its execution, April 1st, 1827.\nThe first board of directors was elected\nApril 23, 1827. The company was organ-\nized, 24th April, 1827. An examination\nof the country was commenced under the\ndirection of lieutenant colonel Stephen H.\nLong and captain William G. McNeill,\nUnited States' topographical engineers,\nand William Howard, United States' civil\nengineer, assisted by lieutenants Barney,\nTrimble and Dillahunty of the U. S. artil-\nlery, and Mr. Harrison, July 2d. 1827. The\nactual surveys to determine the route, were\nbegun by the same officers, with the addi-\ntional assistance of lieutenants Cook,\nGwynn, Hazzard, Fessenden, and Thomp-\nson and Mr. Guion, November 20th, 1827.\nThe charter of the company was con-\nDigitized by Google\n110\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nfirmed by the state of Pennsylvania, Febru-\nary 22d, 1828. The state of Maryland\nbecame a stockholder in the company, by\nsubscribing for half a million of dollars of\nits stock March 6th, 1828. And the con-\nstruction of the road was commenced July\n4th, 1828, under the management of the\nfollowing named board of directors: Philip\nEvan Thomas, president, Charles Carroll\nof Carrollton, William Patterson, Robert\nOliver, Alexander Brown, Isaac M'Kim,\nWilliam Lorman, George Hoffman, John\nB. Morris, Talbot Jones, William Steuwart,\nSolomon Etting, Patrick Macauley, George\nBrown, treasurer. The engineers and\nassistant engineers in the service of the\ncompany are, Philip Evan Thomas, presi-\ndent, Lieutenant-colonel Stephen Harry-\nman Long, Jonathan Knight, Board of Engi-\nneers. Captain William Gibbs McNeill,\nU. S. topographical engineer. Lieutenants\nWilliam Cook, Joshua Barney, Walter\nGwynn, Isaac Trimble, Richard Edward\nHazzard, John N. Dillahunty of the U. S.\nartillery. Casper Willis Weaver, superin-\ntendent of construction.' 48\n\"Id., pp. 317-318.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 111\nBoth companies now went quickly to\nwork on their undertakings; in the same\nissue of the Register (July 19, 1828), and\nside by side on the same page are these\nnotices:\n\"The engineers of the Baltimore and\nOhio Rail Road Company have, by public\nnotice, invited proposals for the construc-\ntion of twelve miles of the road, commenc-\ning at the city [Baltimore] line, and ex-\ntending westwardly.\" 49\n\"The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com-\npany have issued proposals for the excava-\ntion, embankment and walling, of the 11½\nmiles of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, in\nhalf mile sections, extending from the head\nof the Little Falls to the head of the Great\nFalls of the Potomac river.\"\nIn August, thirty-four sections of the\ncanal from Little Falls to Seneca (seven-\nteen miles) were placed under contract and\non September I, work was actually begun.50\n\" At this time the capital stock subscribed\nand payable in current funds, exclusive of\n\"Id., p. 331.\n\"Report of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com-\npany (for 1851), pp. I-44.\nDigitized by Google\n112\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nsubscriptions in the stocks and debts of the\nPotomac [Canal] Company, amounted to\n36,094 shares, or $3,609,400 as follows:\nShares\nEquivalent to\nUnited States\n10,000\n$1,000,000\nWashington City\n10,000\n1,000,000\nMaryland\n5,000\n500,000\nAlexandria\n2,500\n250,000\nGeorgetown\n2,500\n250,000\nShephardstown\n20\n2,000\nIndividuals\n6,074\n607,400\n36,094 $3,609,400 51\nThough the rail road was far more of an\nexperiment than the canal, its stock had\nbeen taken up quickly. \"The subscription\nbooks of the company,\" reads a note in the\nRegister of April 7, 1827, were closed on\nSaturday the 31st ult. on which day alone\nwere taken thirteen thousand three hundred\nand eighty-seven shares, making, with\nthose previously taken, forty-one thousand\nseven hundred and eighty-eight shares, inclus-\nive of the five thousand allotted to and\ntaken by the corporation of Baltimore.\nThe amount of money, therefore, sub-\n\"Scharf's History of Maryland, vol. iii, p. 170.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 113\nscribed by this city [Baltimore] alone, is\nfour millions one hundred and seventy-eight\nthousand dollars, divided amongst twenty-\ntwo thousand names.\nEach name\nwill be entitled but to 7-10ths of a\nshare\nwhich will be further re-\nduced by the subscriptions in Frederick\nand Hagerstown, which are not yet ascer-\ntained, but are supposed to amount to two\nthousand shares. It is believed that of this\nsubscription, which outruns so largely the\nfund contemplated to be raised, but a com-\nparatively small part has been made with a\nview to speculation. There is, therefore,\nevery reason to think, that the stock is\nprincipally in the hands of persons who\nintend and are able to hold it. 52\nThe question of stock subscription brings\nup one of the points of conflict between\nthe canal and the road - a government\nsubscription to the Baltimore and Ohio Rail\nRoad. We have seen that the government\nhad subscribed for ten thousand shares, or\none million dollars, in the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company stocks. Accordingly,\nthe Board of Directors, headed by Charles\n\"Id., vol. xxxii p. I00 (from the Baltimore American).\nDigitized by Google\n114\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nCarroll, signed a memorial, January, 1828,\nto the United States Congress asking for a\nnational subscription. \"The Senate com-\nmittee to which the memorial was referred\nreported a bill authorizing a subscription\nof $1,000,000. The committee of the House\nof Representatives also made a favorable\nreport, but it being late in the session\nwhen the committee reported, it would\nsubmit no bill. The company therefore\nrenewed its petition at the next session of\nCongress in 1829, but, although the com-\nmittees of both houses of Congress recom- -\nmended a qualified subscription to the com-\npany, the measure failed. It was said at\nthe time 58 that the reason the company\nwas unsuccessful in this application was\nbecause of the opposition of the president\nof the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com-\npany, who was at this time chairman of the\ncommittee on roads and canals in the\nHouse of Representatives.\nSmith's History and Description of the Baltimore\nand Ohio Rail Road, p. 22.\n\"Reizenstein's, \" The Economic History of the Balti-\nmore and Ohio, Railroad,\" Johns Hopkins University\nStudies, fifteenth series, vii-viii, p. 23; Congressional\nDebates, vol. vi (1829-30), pp. 453-455, 1136-1137.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 115\nThe rail road company was not in great\nneed of a national subscription, though dark\ndays were at hand. A perusal of the\nreports of President Thomas, the first of\nwhich was made October I, 1827,55 will\ncause the reader to marvel \"that the\nformidable obstacles almost daily encount-\nered\ndid not crush the energies of\nthe Company, and induce them to abandon\nthe work.\n\" An unforeseen diffi-\nculty in the shape of an immense cut near\nBaltimore called for an expenditure of\nnearly a quarter of a million. And it soon\ndeveloped that the Canal Company, which\nhad deprived the rail road of the govern-\nment's aid was yet to strike a harder blow.\nBy its charter the Chesapeake and Ohio\nCanal Company had secured a right of way\nfor a canal on the Maryland bank of the\nPotomac from Washington to Cumberland.\nBy its surveys the rail road was compelled\nto gain the Potomąc at the \"Point of\nRocks,\" twelve miles below Harper's\nFerry, and follow the river to that point.\nOtherwise a tunnel would have to be built\nunder the mountain spurs - a financially\n55Niles Register, vol. xxxiii, pp. 137-138.\nDigitized by Google\n116\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nimpossible alternative. The point at issue\nin the great quarrel, which became exceed-\ningly bitter and was at last settled only by\nFederal interference, was, therefore, very\nplain. This famous dispute for right of\nway through these strategic twelve miles\nwas not settled until 1832, both companies\nsuffering in consequence of the delay, and\nthe railway losing its argument but effect-\ning a compromise. In this year the Court\nof Appeals reversed the decision of the\nChancery Court of Maryland and sustained\nthe Canal Company's contention for the\nright of way between the Point of Rocks\nand Harper's Ferry. After a series of\ncompromise proposals by the rail road to\nthe canal had been refused, the Maryland\nlegislature took up the matter, both works\nbeing important to that commonwealth.\nOn May 9, 1833 a compromise was effected\nby the passage of a law calling for the joint\nconstruction of canal and rail road through\nthe disputed territory; to Messrs. Charles\nF. Mayer and Bene S. Pigman great credit\nwas due in handling successfully this prob-\nlem, which had at its root the bitter\nrivalry of many years standing. The com-\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 119\npromise cost the rail road heavily. It was\nto subscribe for 2,500 shares of Canal Com-\npany stock ($266,000) and the canal com-\npany built the road through the territory\nin dispute (the Point of Rocks). The Rail\nRoad Company completed the road to the\nMaryland shore of the Potomac opposite\nHarper's Ferry in 1834, it being opened\nDecember I. Here, however, it was to\npause, for the compromise signed by the\ntwo companies demanded that the rail road\nshould not be built up the Potomac until\nthe canal should have been completed to\nCumberland- - if that was done within the\ntime named in the charter (1840).\nThough at all times master of the situa-\ntion, the Canal Company found its task\ntremendously heavy; the weather, varying\nprices of labor and necessaries, combined\nwith great physical obstacles, rendered the\nundertaking one in which patience was as\nnecessary as capital. Both were many\ntimes exhausted. We have seen that con-\ntracts were first let in 1828. By the presi-\ndent's report to the legislature in January,\n1831, we find that forty-eight miles were\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n120 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nunder contract and that twenty-one miles\nwere in use during the fall of 1830 and\nwinter of 1830-31.06 In February, 1833\nthe state of Virginia authorized a subscrip-\ntion of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal stock to\nthe amount of $250,000, subject only to\nreasonable conditions.57 In March, 1834,\nMaryland authorized an additional sub-\nscription of $125,000, and promised a larger\nsubscription in case the National Govern-\nment voted the investment of an additional\nmillion in the canal. Neither the govern-\nment or any state, save only Maryland,\nbefriended the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,\nhowever, from this date forward.58 At this\ntime (June, 1834) the canal had cost\n$4,062,991.25. Seventy-eight miles re-\nmained to be built and the Company's\nfunds were unequal to the task. The\nfriends of the great work met in conven-\n\"Report from the President of the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company to the Legislature of Maryland,\nJanuary 31, 1831.\n\"Report to the Stockholders\n.\n.\nmade February\n27th, 1851, p. 47. Many of the following facts are\ntaken from this Report, which is the only history of\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company extant. It\nwill be referred to as Report of 1851.\n\"Id., p. 48.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 121\ntion at Baltimore in the December follow-\ning, and a committee was appointed to\nreport on probable expense of completion\nof the canal, and committees to memorialize\nCongress and the legislatures of states\ninterested in the work. The former com-\nmittee brought in a report, which consisted\nof nothing more reliable than an expres-\nsion of opinion based on former experi-\nences, which gave the public to understand\nthat the canal could be completed in two\nyears with two million dollars.50 The other\nstates turning a deaf ear to the plea, Mary-\nland came to the rescue, March 7, 1835,\nand appropriated the entire two millions\nneeded.⁶⁰ It was granted in the form of a\nloan, the state reserving the power to con-\nvert it into capital stock at any future time\nif it was deemed expedient.\nThe company now took the steps which\nshould have preceded the circulation of any\nopinion by friends of the canal as to the\nexpense of completing it-a survey and\nestimate was made. This being done, it\nwas found that the cost of completing the\n59Id., p. 50.\n\"Id., p. 52.\nDigitized by Google\n122\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncanal exceeded three and one-half mil-\nlions. The consternation aroused by this\nreport can be imagined. Many felt that\nMaryland had been deceived and imposed\nupon. But the friends of internal improve-\nments arose to the occasion. Meetings\nwere held up and down the state. The\ncanal and rail road people united hands\nwhich formerly had been clinched in threat-\nening attitude, and on June 3, 1836, the\nMaryland Legislature passed the famous\n\"Eight Million Dollar Bill.' 61 Its items\nwere as follows:\nTo the Chesapeake and Ohio\nCanal Company\n$3,000,000\nTo the Baltimore and Ohio Rail\nRoad Company\n3,000,000\nTo the Eastern Shore Rail Road\nCompany\n1,000,000\nTo the Maryland Canal Company\n500,000\nTo the Annapolis Canal Company\n500,000\n$8,000,000\nAs it stood the bill was a great victory\nfor the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road\ninterests, as one of its most important pro-\n\"Id., p. 6I (Laws of 1835, ch. 395).\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 123\nvisions demanded that the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company permit its rival to\nascend the Potomac Valley.⁶ Baltimore\nwent wild over the passage of the act. A\npublic dinner, fireworks, the ringing of\nbells, and a salute of a hundred guns gave\nevidence of the feeling at the Maryland\nmetropolis. \"The citizens of Baltimore\nhad, indeed, ' evident cause' to rejoice at\nthe triumph which had been achieved.\nAll the important provisions of the bill,\nlooked to the interests and had been framed\nwith a view to the aggrandizement of the\ncity. Its great leading object was, to\nsecure the completion of the rail road to the\nOhio river, and the completion of the canal\nto Cumberland, and its connexion with\nBaltimore by the route that might be\nfound most conducive to the prosperity of\nthat city. The enthusiasm of the occasion\nwas, therefore, all embracing, on the part\nof the citizens of Baltimore. In the public\ndemonstrations that were ordered, no dis-\n\"The canal had been built at this time only to\nHolman's Dam, twenty-six miles above Harper's Ferry,\neighty-six miles from Washington; twenty-six miles\nmore were under way.-Report of the President and\nDirectors.\nApril 22, 1835.\nDigitized by Google\n124\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncrimination was indicated, in regard to any\nparticular work. No thought of jealous\nrivalry - no dream of future disappoint-\nment, or difficulty, was allowed to mingle\nin their exaltation at the auspicious event.\nBut the act was not welcomed, by the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, with\nthe same satisfaction and pleasure. Indeed,\nby many of the stockholders, it was looked\nupon coldly, and, by some, positively ob-\njected to. Serious doubts were entertained,\nfor a time, whether it would be accepted by\nthe company.\" On July 28, 1836, however,\nthe stockholders assented and agreed to the\nprovisions of the Eight Billion Dollar Act. 68\nThe directors of the Baltimore and Ohio\nRail Road gave their assent to the law of\n1835 on July 25, 1836. In addition to\ngranting them the right to build their road\nup the Potomac Valley, the law allowed the\ncity of Baltimore to subscribe to the stock,\nand, accordingly, Baltimore subscribed\nimmediately for three million dollars worth\nof stock. Therefore within a year the\nassets of the road were increased by six\nmillion dollars.\nReport of 1851, p. 66.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 125\nBrighter days were now dawning for the\nroad. The past six years had been a time\nof trials, drawbacks, and discouragements.\nThe contest for a right of way to Harper's\nFerry had been exasperating and had at\nlast been won only by agreeing to limit the\nextension of the road to that point. There\nwere other difficulties to be overcome\nbefore the new company could claim the\ngenuine confidence of the public. All fea-\ntures of the road, excepting the road-bed\nalone, were experiments - rails, sleepers\n(ties), and cars. The road was opened May\n22, 1830, and soon the public had passed a\nfavorable verdict on the enterprise. In\nthis day we would call the affair a horse-\ncar railway. The only difference between\nthis and other ordinary roads was the fact\nthat the coach wheels ran on rails, being\nheld in position by means of flanges. The\ncoaches used were almost precisely like\nthose on an ordinary pike, but were mounted\non four light cast-iron wheels. Among\nroads - dirt, macadamized, plank, and cor-\nduroy - this road with rails was \" the\nlatest.\" As to its general practicability\nthere was much discussion. What grades\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n126 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncould it overcome? Would curves be per-\nmitted as the scheme developed? As to its\npopularity, no question could be raised.\nThough the company had few cars and the\ntrack was a single track and the road but\ntwelve miles long (running from Baltimore\nto Ellicott's Mills), during the first four\nmonths of operation the receipts were $20,-\n012.36, and ten times the freight that could\nbe handled was offered. An advertise-\nment of the rail road of 1830 is interesting.65\n\"Brigades\" (trains) of cars left Baltimore\nat 6 and 10 A. M. and from 3 to 4 P. M. ;\nbrigades left the opposite terminus at 6\nand 8½ o'clock, A. M.\" and \"12½ and 6\no'clock P. M.\" Drivers were not allowed\nto permit passengers to enter the cars with-\nout tickets. A postscript reads: \"P. S.\nParties desirous to engage a Car for the day\ncan be accommodated after the 5th July.\"\nThe question of motive power was the\ngreat question of the hour. Horses and\nmules only had been used on the other\ntwo rail roads in Pennsylvania and Massa-\nchusetts; in this year (1830) on the Liver-\n\"Smith's History and Description, p. 25.\n65 Baltimore American, July 17, 1830.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 127\npool and Manchester Rail Road steam\nlocomotives were used more successfully\nthan had been the case on other English\nroads, where their speed had never exceeded\nthe gait of an easy-going road horse - six\nmiles an hour. It was greatly doubted\nwhether such a machine was possible; and\nif, under good conditions, steam locomo-\ntives could haul a \"brigade of cars\" faster\nthan a horse or mule on straight track, the\nthing would never get around a curve; and\nit was never the plan of the builders of the\nBaltimore and Ohio Rail Road to avoid\ncurves. Other locomotives than steam\nwere being prepared for trial on the new\nrail road. Evan Thomas, brother of the\npresident of the road, invented a car which\nwas moved by sails! It was named\n\" Æolus.\" \"I well recollect,\" recorded\nBenjamin H. Latrobe, the little experi-\nmental locomotive of Mr. Evan Thomas; it\nwas 'a basket body,' like that of a sleigh,\nand had a mast, and, if I recollect, 6 a square\nsail, and was mounted upon four wheels of\nequal size.' It ran equally well in either\ndirection, but of course only in that in\nwhich the wind happened to be blowing at\nDigitized by Google\n128\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe time, although it would go with the\nwind abaft the beam, but at a speed pro-\nportioned to the angle with the plane of\nthe sails. It was but a clever toy, but had\nits use at the time in showing how little\npower of propulsion was necessary upon a\nrailway, compared with the best of the\nroads that had preceded it.\" ⁶⁶ The\n\" Æolus\" attracted much attention; Baron\nKrudener, envoy from the emperor of\nRussia, made an excursion in the sailing\ncar, managing the sail himself. On his\nreturn he declared he had never before\ntravelled so agreeably, and remarked that\nhe 'would send his suite from Washington\nto enjoy sailing on the Rail Road.' The\nPresident of the Company, to whom he had\nbeen introduced, caused a model sailing car\nto be constructed, fitted with Winans' fric-\ntion wheels, which he presented to him,\nwith the reports that had been published\nby the Company, to be forwarded to the\nEmperor. As a result Ross Winans of Bal-\ntimore was invited to Russia to take charge\nof the emperor's plan of binding that empire\nwith railways. His success marked one of\nScharf's History of Maryland, vol. iii, p. 167.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 129\nthe earliest if not the most spectacular in-\nstances of the success of American genius\nabroad. 67\nA horse-power locomotive was another\ninvention, prior in date to the sailing car.\n\"A horse was placed in a car and made to\nwalk on an endless apron or belt, and to\ncommunicate motion to the wheels, as in\nthe horse-power machines of the present\nday. The machine worked indifferently\nwell; but, on one occasion, when drawing\na car filled with editors and other represen-\ntatives of the press, it ran into a cow, and\nthe passengers, having been tilted out and\nrolled down an embankment, were naturally\nenough unanimous in condemning the con-\ntrivance. And so the horse-power car,\nafter countless bad jokes had been perpe-\ntrated on the cowed editors, passed out of\nexistence, and probably out of mind.\" 68\nThe fate of the railway hung suspended\non the successful solving of the question of\nmotive power. Peter Cooper's locomotive\n67 Smith's History and Description, pp. 25-27; Brown's\nHistory of the First Locomotives in America, p. 124.\nThe name is here given as \" Meteor.\"\n\"Id., pp. I24-125.\n69 Peter Cooper to Wm. H. Brown, Id., p. 109.\nDigitized by Google\n130\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\n\"Tom Thumb,\" constructed in 1829, at\nBaltimore, and sent over the Baltimore and\nOhio Rail Road to Ellicott's Mills in one\nhour and twelve minutes, August 28, 1830,\nsettled the momentous question.⁷⁰ In\nspite of its laughable features the picture\nrepresenting the Exciting Trial of Speed\nbetween Mr. Peter Cooper's Locomotive\n'Tom Thumb,' and one of Stockton &\nStokes's Horse-Cars,\" in which the little\nmodel locomotive has caught up with and\nis passing the horse-car, represents nothing\nless than the dawning of a new epoch in\nhuman history. Though improvements\nwere not made with great rapidity, they\ncame as fast as the rail road was able to\nprofit by them. The Baltimore and Ohio\nRail Road merited the honorable title that\nhas been given it - the Railway University\nof America. While its rival, the Canal\nCompany, had a struggle to secure funds\nto do its work, the railway carried the same\nburden and with it the heavier burden of\ndoubt as to the future and many physical\nand mechanical perplexities forever holding\n\"Id., pp. II4-II6.\n\"Id., p. II9.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 131\nback successful realization of its schemes.\nFor illustration, take the question of track:\n\"The granite and iron rail; the wood and\niron on stone blocks; the wood and iron on\nwooden sleepers, supported by broken\nstone; the same supported by longitudinal\nground-sills, worked to a surface on one\nside to receive the iron, and supported by\nwooden sleepers; and the wrought iron\nrails of the English mode; had all been laid\ndown, and as early as the year 1832, formed\ndifferent portions of the work.\" 72 With\nthe advent of the locomotive the light coach\nwheels were replaced by cast-iron wheels\nto the perfection of which Ross Winans,\nJohn Elgar, Jonathan Knight, and Phineas\nDavis all contributed.' 78 In 1832, steel\nsprings were placed upon a new locomo-\ntive \"York\" - built at York, Pennsylva-\nnia - and soon springs were placed on all\nengines and cars. The discovery of the\nadvantage of combined cylindrical and\n\"Smith's History and Description, p. 33.\n78 Reizenstein's Economic History, p. 34. It is inter-\nesting to find Jonathan Knight, formerly Superintend-\nent of the Cumberland Road in Ohio, now Chief Engi-\nneer of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road.-Cf. His-\ntoric Highways of America, vol. X, p. 91.\nDigitized by Google\n132\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nconical car wheels was a great forward\nstep helping to solve the question of turn-\ning curves sharply. As early as 1831 the\nRail Road Company offered a prize of\n$4,000 for the best locomotive offered for\ntrial on the road. The \"York\" was the\nonly engine of three offered that was capa-\nble of any good service. Up to June 1834,\nthis engine, with the \"Atlantic\" and\n\"Franklin\" were the only locomotives on\nthe road. Horse-cars were still in common\nuse. By the fall of 1834, five more locomo-\ntives were added and eight more had been\nordered.\nHaving passed through its darkest days\nof struggle with the Canal Company and\nwith the vexatious problems of internal\nbetterment of rolling stock and motive\npower, the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road\nwas now in 1836, quite ready to take advant-\nage of the provisions of the new law which\nmade it possible to throw its gleaming rails\nup the Potomac from Harper's Ferry to\nCumberland and on to the coveted Ohio\nBasin. With the momentous question rep-\nresented by the locomotive once solved\n\"Smith's History and Description, p. 30.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 133\nand solved forever, with an open route\nfrom tide-water to Cumberland and the\nWest - little wonder that the controllers of\nthe canal had been only lukewarm in their\nattitude to the Eight Billion Dollar Act!\nDespite their efforts, the railway was win-\nning its way; with every new invention the\nWest was made nearer the East; the loco-\nmotive was solving Washington's old ques-\ntion how the Potomac Valley could hold the\nWest in fee. As Fate would have it - or\nFortune - the hard labor and the thousand\nperplexities of many men from Washington\ndown, who had attempted first to get in\ncommercial touch with the West by means\nof rivers, then by means of a canal, were\nbeing swept aside by one blast of that little\nlocomotive's whistle. How changed now\nthe situation. But a few years back the\ncanal was master of the Potomac Valley;\nit had allowed the feeble rail road a pas-\nsage-way through the Point of Rocks only\non condition that not one foot of track\nshould be laid above Harper's Ferry\nuntil the canal had been completed to\nCumberland. Now the canal was to receive\nsufficient state backing to complete its line\nDigitized by Google\n134\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nto Cumberland, on condition that the rail\nroad be allowed equal rights between\nHarper's Ferry and Cumberland! The\ngloomy year of 1837 in the financial world\nheld the rail road back, and it was not\nuntil 1839 that the work was actively\npushed on. From now on there was no\ndelay; in June, 1842 the road was completed\nto opposite Hancock, and by the end of the\nyear it was completed to Cumberland - one\nhundred and seventy-eight miles from\nBaltimore. Exciting as is the story of the\nwestward movement of this giant, it can-\nnot be treated here. The first division to\nPiedmont was opened in June 1851, not far\nfrom the \"blind\" trace Washington rode\nthrough far back in 1784, in search of a\nportage road from eastern to western\nwaters. By June, 1852, the road was\nopened to Fairmont on the Monongahela,\nand on the following January the first train\npassed from Fairmont to Wheeling on the\nOhio.⁷ᵇ On the night of January 12, 1853\nthe banquet was spread in Wheeling to\nend the day of celebration. And of the\nfive \"regular\" toasts none was so typical\n\"Smith's History and Description, pp. 78-81.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 135\nor welcomed so loudly as that to \" Thomas\nSwann 76 Standing upon the banks of the\nOhio, and looking back upon the mighty\npeaks of the Alleghanies, surmounted by\nhis efforts, he can proudly exclaim - 6 Veni,\nvidi, vici.'\nAt the meeting of the Maryland legisla-\nture in December, 1838, the Chesapeake\nand Ohio Canal Company asked further\nassistance from the state and submitted an\nestimate of the work yet to be done to\nfinish the canal to Cumberland. This esti-\nmate had been prepared by the chief engi-\nneer of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal\nCompany and reported to the board of\npresident and directors January 22, 1839.\nSince the estimate of January, 1836, this\nwas the first revised estimate, regarding\nquantities and including the extent of the\nwhole line from Dam No. 5 to Cumberland,\nthat had been made. Including a dam at\nthe great Cacapon - now known as Dam\nNo. 6 - but excluding the dam designated\n\"Mr. Swann was elected president of the rail road in\n1848 and had ably conducted its affairs during the past\nfive critical years, a worthy successor of Thomas and\nMcLane.-Id., p. 156.\nDigitized by Google\n136\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nas Dam No. 7, which was then temporarily\ndispensed with, the estimate submitted ran\nas follows:\nFor the 50 miles above the\nmouth of the Cacapon, now\nbetter known as Dam No. 6 $4,440,657.00\nFor the 27½ miles between\nDam No. 5, and that point 1,640,000.00\n$6,080,657.00\nOf this work there had been done, on the\nfirst of December, 1838: $947,394.27 on the\n50 miles; and $1,589,453.44 on the 27½\nmiles. This left $3,543,809.29 as the work\nremaining to be done on December I,\n1838, to complete the canal to Cumberland.\nThe work done in December was estimated\nat about $90,000 which reduced the amount\nremaining to be executed, on January I,\n1839, to about $3,450,000. The twenty-\nseven and a half miles between Dam No. 5\nand Dam No. 6 were nearly completed at\nthe time the estimate was submitted. In\nApril, 1839, navigation opened to Dam No.\n6, which remained the western terminus\nfor a decade.\nThe $3,560,619 estimate of the seventy-\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 137\neight miles between Dam No. 5 and Cum-\nberland, made in January 1836, was\narrived at by adding together the surveys\nof two distinct parties of engineers. By\ncomparing the estimate submitted in De-\ncember 1838 with the foregoing, made in\nJanuary 1836, which included the same\ndistance, it will be observed that although\nthe work on more than one-third of the\ndistance had been completed, the latter\nestimate was nearly seventy-one per cent\nin excess of the former. About fifty-seven\nper cent of the increase was attributed by\nthe chief engineer to the advance in the\ncost of labor, which was very high. The\npecuniary difficulties of the company, the\nhigh prices and great difficulty in procuring\nprovisions along the line of the canal, and\nthe want of proper control over the\nlaborers by the civil authorities of the\nstate, were some of the causes contributing\nto this excess. The remaining fourteen\nper cent of the increase was stated to be\nchargeable, mainly, to an increase of quan-\ntities found to be necessary in the progress\nof construction for the security of the\ncanal. The \"revised estimate\" of Janu-\nDigitized by Google\n138\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nary, 1839, was the last estimate upon which\nan available appropriation has been made\nto the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company\nby the state of Maryland.\nA committee was appointed, after the\npresentation of the memorials and the re-\nvised estimate, to investigate the affairs\nand transactions of the company. In their\nreport they expressed their belief in the\nimportance of an early completion of the\ncanal and suggested the expediency of an\nappeal to the general government. Instead\nof an appropriation by the state they\nrecommended that a proposition be made\nto Congress, that the general government\nshould either aid the company, or transfer\nto the state of Maryland the interest of the\nUnited States in its capital stock both as\nan original stockholder and as assignee of\nthe district cities, on the condition that the\nstate would provide the necessary means\nto complete the canal to Cumberland. A\nsimilar proposition had previously been\nmade under joint resolutions adopted at\nDecember session, 1837, but nothing\ndefinite had resulted. The legislature,\ntherefore, was not disposed to postpone the\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 139\nadvantages that were anticipated to result\nfrom the completion of the work by a hope-\nless recurrence of abortive expedients.\nThey were of the opinion that the state had\nalready gone too far in its investments in\nthe company to stop now - and it could\nnot recede. The unexpended and unen-\ncumbered balance on hand was $681,853.59.\nThis was not sufficient to continue the\nwork during the present year. The credit\nof the state was high and above suspicion.\nBoth applications were granted. An act\nwas passed on April 5, 1839, known as the\nact of December session, 1838,77 releasing\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company\nfrom the twenty per cent premium, stipu-\nlated in the act of 1835, and authorizing\nthe commissioner of loans to issue to the\ncompany five per cent sterling bonds to the\namount of $3,200,000 as an equivalent for,\nand in lieu of, the $2,500,000 of six per\ncent certificates which had been delivered\nto the company, and the $500,000 of six per\ncents which had been retained by the\ntreasurer of Maryland as security for the\npayment of the premium. This act made\n\"Maryland Laws, 1838, ch. 386.\nDigitized by Google\n140\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\na further appropriation 78 which authorized\nan additional subscription to the capital\nstock of the company to the amount of\n$1,375,000 payable in five per cent sterling\nbonds.\nThese acts were promptly accepted by\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company\nand their provisions carried into effect and\ncomplied with. An instrument of guar-\nanty, and mortgages to secure the payment\nof the three years interest, in compliance\nwith the condition of both acts, were duly\nexecuted on May 15, 1839, and delivered to\nthe treasurer of Maryland. The subscrip-\ntion of $1,375,000 authorized by the latter\nact was the last subscription made to the\ncapital stock of the company. A report of\nthe treasurer, issued June I, 1839, stated\nthat the means of the company, over and\nabove its liabilities and applicable to the\nconstruction of the canal and the payment\nto the state of the interest on the bonds,\namounted to $2,087,139.94. In this state-\nment the whole amount of the sterling\nbonds was computed at par value. The\ncost of the remaining work to be done to\n\"Maryland Laws, 1838, ch. 396.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 141\ncomplete the canal, on the basis of the\nJanuary 1839 estimate, was, at that time,\n$2,935,103.\nAt the following session of the general\nassembly, December 1839, the company\nmade a formal application to the state for\nfurther assistance. The accompanying\ncommunication, dated February 10, 1840,\naffirmed the correctness of the engineer's\nestimate of January, 1839, and stated that\nthe fifty miles of canal between Dam No.\n6 and Cumberland would cost $4,440,350.\nOf this, $2,030,128 was expended on the\nfirst of January 1840, leaving $2,410,222,\nnecessary to complete the work. The re-\nsources of the company, on the same day,\nestimating 318,175 Maryland five per cent\nsterling bonds at par, were stated to be\n$1,489,571; the liabilities of the company\n$1,244,555, leaving, January 1, after paying\nall debts, a balance of $245,016. Upon this\nexhibit, presented to the legislature, the\nadditional appropriation was asked for.\nAt this time the public appeared fully\ncognizant of the great importance of press-\ning forward an early completion of the\ncanal. The members of the legislature\nDigitized by Google\n142\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nwere also generally inclined to the adop-\ntion of adequate measures of relief; but\nthe question which arose now was concern-\ning the manner in which the relief should\nbe given. Two ways were open: the state\nbonds could be placed in the hands of the\ncommissioner of loans and be sold at par,\nand the proceeds paid over to the Chesa-\npeake and Ohio Canal Company; or, the\nbonds could be delivered to the president\nand directors of the company and sold by\nthem at par, or be exchanged at their\nnominal value for the evidences of debt of\nthe company. Apparently, there was no\nsubstantial difference between these two\npropositions, but, because of the views and\nfeelings that originated and entered into\nthe controversy, a broad line of distinction\nwas drawn between the two plans. Each\nhad its advocates and the supporters of\neach were equally immovable- - conse-\nquently the legislature adjourned without\nmaking any appropriation at all. In this\nemergency the company took into con-\nsideration the course most proper to be\nadopted in regard to continuing the\nwork on the canal. When called upon to\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 143\npresent his views in reference to a total\nsuspension of operations and the postpone-\nment of the completion of the canal, the\nchief engineer estimated that the accumu-\nlation of interest and other losses would\namount to not less than a million dollars.\nPetitions from the contractors, merchants,\nand others, residing in the neighborhood\nof the operations, were received by the\ncompany, begging the continuation of the\nwork and an issue of scrip, or promissory\nnotes, which would be a convenience to\neach community. Accordingly the com-\npany decided to allow the work to proceed\nand to gratify the petitioners by issuing\nscrip. In 1839, and previous to that time,\nthe issues had generally been secured by a\npledge of state bonds or stocks. The pres-\nent issue, on the other hand, which, during\nthe year 1840, and from January to April\n1841, amounted in the aggregate to\n$555,400, had no pledge to sustain it. It\nwas the company's last issue of scrip.\nAt the December meeting of the Mary-\nland legislature, 1840, an appropriation for\naid was again asked for. The expenditures\nupon labor performed during the year had\nDigitized by Google\n144\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\namounted to $531,160, and the sum required\nto finish the canal to Cumberland, accord-\ning to the estimate of January 1839, was\nstated to be $1,825,892. In addition to\nthis, estimating the unsold state bonds at\neighty per cent, the company would need\n$700,000, exclusive of the interest due the\nstate, to redeem the scrip and other debts.\nA committee was appointed by the legisla-\nture which made a rigid examination into\nthe affairs and transactions of the company.\nThe disposal of the state bonds and the\nissues of scrip were severely censured -\nand the general assembly again adjourned\nwithout adopting any measure of relief.\nBecause of the threatening aspect of affairs,\nand the difficulty of procuring the necessary\nmeans for the continuance of the work on\nthe canal, in the year 1839 the company\nbegan to cut down operations. In the\nmonth of May of that year the amount ex-\npended on the work was $96,320. In De-\ncember, 1839, and January and February,\n1840, the expenditure had been reduced to\nan average of $40,817 per month. The\npolicy was also adopted of paying off the old\nloans, which had been secured by a pledge\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 145\nof the six per cent certificates without\nrestriction as to sales, by an immediate sale\nof the five per cent sterling bonds. At a\nmeeting of the stockholders of the com-\npany, on April 3, 1841, an adjourned ses-\nsion of a general meeting, the proceedings\nstate that the president announced if a\nbreach should take place in the canal, the\ncost of repairing which might be $1500 or\n$2000, the money, and credit of the com-\npany, would not be sufficient to secure the\nrepair of it, but that the company must,\nthereupon, be declared to be utterly bank-\nrupt.\"\nAt an extra session of the Maryland legis-\nlature which was convened in March, 1841,\nby the proclamation of the governor, to\nprovide means to pay the interest on the\nstate debt, an application for further aid\nwas again made by the company. On the\nfifth of April, 1841, an act was passed for\nan additional loan of two millions of dol-\nlars, payable in six per cent stock, or bonds\nof the state, which the legislature required\nto be sold by the treasurer of the state in\nbehalf of the company. \"The bonds were\nmade to rest, upon the faith of the State\nDigitized by Google\n146\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nand upon a specific pledge of the proceeds\nof the State's investments in the capital\nstock of the company, for the payment of\nprincipal and interest. The act, however,\ncontained, as conditions precedent, clauses\nrequiring the several companies of Alle-\ngany county, to enter into bond, satisfac-\ntory to the treasurer of the State, for the\nconstruction of a rail road, from the [coal]\nmines, to connect with the canal, and to\ncomplete the same simultaneously with its\ncompletion to Cumberland; and also, to\nguaranty the payment, to the company, of\nat least $200,000, per annum, for the trans-\nportation of their own coal on the canal.\"\nThe board of directors, as well as the coal\nand iron companies of Allegheny County,\nmade strenuous efforts to comply with\nthese conditions, but the securities offered\nwere not satisfactory to the treasurer of the\nstate and the act failed. Later it was\nrepealed.\nAt the December session, 1841, the pro-\nfessional beggar again asked aid of the\nlegislature, but failed to secure it. For\nsome time previous several contractors had\nbeen prosecuting the work on the canal on\nDigitized by Google\nFrederick\nOctr 9 181,0\nNi/J'3\nD\nNew\nIntersood, Mold Spenesor Phines\nNine. Months\nafterdate\nTHE CHESAPEAKE & oHTo\nFIVE\nCANAL COMPANY\nPromise topay on Demand at their Office at Frederick\nMaryland to Jawb wb M whill or bearer\nFIVE\nFIVE DOLLARS\nwith Interest from date.\nm. hurner\nClerk Francis Homan Prest\n5\nSCRIP ISSUED BY THE CHESADEAKE AND OHIO CANAL COMDANY\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 149\ntheir own credit and at their individual\nexpense, quite sure that the state would\nmake an appropriation at this session.\nFailing to receive the desired assistance,\nthe work on the canal stopped abruptly\nimmediately after the adjournment of the\nlegislature, and before the end of the year\n1841 not a man was in employ between Dam\nNo. 6 and Cumberland. At this time,\nprostrate and overwhelmed with difficulties,\nthe company experienced great depression.\nNot only were there great liabilities to the\nstate, secured by mortgage liens on the\ncanal and its revenues, but in addition to\nthis, the debts and obligations of the com-\npany due to individuals on scrip, accept-\nances, certificates of debt, common loans\nand open amounts, as stated in the treas-\nurer's abstract, on October 1, 1843,\namounted to $1,174,566.31. The urgent\nappeals for payment coming from those\ncreditors, to whom large amounts were\ndue for work done, and who had been\nquite reduced to poverty, excited general\nsympathy. The canal had been completed\nto Dam No. 6 in 1839, to which point it\nwas now only navigable. The chief engi-\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n150\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nneer estimated that it would cost $1,545,000\nto complete the eighteen and three-tenths\nmiles to Cumberland. The United States,\nthe state of Virginia, the cities of the\nDistrict of Columbia and all the stock-\nholders had long since discontinued their\npatronage and refused all pecuniary aid;\neven the state of Maryland, which had\nheretofore sustained the company and loy-\nally upheld it in all its misfortunes, was\nnow unable to give further assistance.\nThe state was struggling under the evils of\ndisordered finances and prostrate credit and\na black shadow had been cast upon the\nname of the state because of its great debt\ncontracted in behalf of the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal. Unable, because of the want\nof timely legislation, after the default of\nthe internal improvement companies was\nmade known, to meet her own public lia-\nbilities, she was certainly unable to give\nassistance to others. So the canal had no\nfriend and no resources. The freshets of\nApril and September, 1843, made heavy\nbreaches in the canal which had to be re-\npaired. This was done by the aid of\naccommodations from the banks and as a\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 151\nconsequence the deficit was large and em-\nbarrassing at the close of that year. The\nentire revenues of the year only amounted\nto $47,635.51 and the current expenses to\n$83,792.80, showing a deficit of $36,157.29.\nAt the December session, 1844, applica-\ntion was renewed for a waiver of the state\nliens on the revenues of the canal so as to\nempower the company to issue its bonds,\nwith preferred liens on its revenues to an\namount not exceeding two millions of dol-\nlars. In principle and amount it was simi-\nlar to the measure which had been proposed\nand rejected at the sessions of 1841 and\n1842. Those who had been friends to the\ncompany during previous periods of diffi-\nculty were now conspicuous for their\nabsence only, and the officers alone stood\nin vindication of the measure. Instead of\na state convention and primary meetings\nto sustain and encourage the company, it\nwas surrounded by enemies who opposed.\nThe city of Baltimore took decided grounds\nin opposition to it, and the newspapers of\nthe city were full of communications\nadverse to the proposed measure. The\nrail road company with diplomatic skill\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n152\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nsought to crush the effort by statements to\nthe effect that a connection between the\nrail road and canal at Dam No. 6 would\nrender further prosecution of the canal\nunnecessary. It also with probably a simi-\nlar object in view stated that \"many years\nwould elapse, before the demand for coal\nwould require more than 100,000 tons, in\nany one year, whatever facilities or trans-\nportation may be afforded.\" Had the same\nopposition been brought forward in Decem-\nber of 1834 or 1835 the work on the canal\nat that time would probably have been\nstopped; for, even with the powerful sup-\nport of the immediate friends of the inter-\nnal improvement companies, and the influ-\nential backing of the city of Baltimore, the\nappropriations of 1834 and 1835 were\nobtained only after a prolonged struggle,\nespecially on the part of the canal com-\npany. The question of 1844 was one of an\nentirely different nature. It was not a\nquestion of internal improvement- - not\nwhether the wealth in the mountains\nshould be added to the general aggregate\nof the state's resources, but a question of\nfinance - a question of whether the mil-\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 153\nlions which the state had invested in the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,\nshould be given up as irretrievably lost or\nan effort be made to make the investment\nproductive. Maryland had already ex-\npended seven millions on the work and\nhad never expected any return from it\nuntil after completion. Neither money\nnor the state's credit was now asked, only\nthat, since she herself was in pecuniary\ndifficulties arising mainly from her support\nof the company (and these investments\nwould remain unproductive until the com-\npletion of the canal) the state would waive\nher unprofitable liens on the revenues to\nsuch an extent as would enable the com-\npany to finish the work upon a preferred\npledge of its future income. Although the\nopposition was great and influential there\nwere Marylanders in the house of delegates\nat the December session, 1844, who be-\nlieved in the importance of the completion\nof the canal and whose judgment was\nearnestly enlisted in favor of the plan.\nAfter a prolonged struggle the act waiving\nthe liens of the state,⁷⁹ under which the\n\"Maryland State Laws, 1844, ch. 281.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n154\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncanal was completed, was passed - passed\non the last day of the session, March 10, by\nthe limitation of the constitution, and\nreceived a majority of one vote in each\nhouse of the assembly! And, even then,\nit had been so modified that its most\nprominent advocates pronounced it value-\nless and felt disposed to abandon its sup-\nport!\nIn the charter of the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal Company, prior to the year\n1844, there was no express power to borrow\nmoney for the completion of the canal, and\nits right to do so had been much ques-\ntioned. Even the force and validity of the\nmortgages which it had given the state to\nsecure the payment of the two million loan\nwere called in question. Also, the time\nlimited by the charter for the completion of\nthe canal to Cumberland expired in 1840,\nand since that time the corporation had\nexisted merely by the suffrance of the\npower which had created it. No steps had\nbeen taken to procure amendments in\neither of these points. In the belief that\nthe measure suggested by the company for\nthe completion of the canal must prevail,\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 155\nand that it would prove ineffectual unless\nthese defects in the charter were remedied,\nthe board of president and directors, at the\nsession of 1843, transmitted a memorial to\nthe legislature of Virginia asking for the\npassage of an act providing for these\namendments. It also asked that the powers\nof the company be enlarged, in regard to\nextending the canal by a slackwater im-\nprovement to the mouth of Savage River\nwhenever it seemed expedient. This\nmemorial was accompanied by a draft of a\nbill which embraced the desired provisions\nand contained a reservation as to the liens\nof Maryland. The legislature of Virginia\npromptly acted and, with unimportant\nchanges, passed the bill on January 20,\n1844. The act provided for an extension\nof the time for the completion of the canal\nto Cumberland to the first of January, 1855;\nand authority was conferred upon the\npresident and directors, or a majority of\nthem assembled, to borrow money,\nto carry into effect the objects authorized\nby the charter of the company, to issue\nbonds or other evidences of such loans, and\nto pledge the property and revenues of the\nDigitized by Google\n156\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ncompany, for the payment of the same,\nand the interest to accrue thereon, in such\nform, and to such extent, as they may deem\nexpedient; with a proviso saving the prior\nrights or liens of the state of Maryland,\nunder the mortgages which had been\nexecuted by the company, to this state,\nexcept in so far as they should be waived,\ndeferred, or postponed, by the Maryland\nlegislature.\" When the company's accep-\ntance was sent to the state treasurer, the\nact went into effect. The mortgage, bear-\ning date of January 8, 1846, and executed\nin favor of the state of Maryland, was\nplaced in the hands of the treasurer by the\ncanal company. The amendments to the\ncharter were ratified by Congress about one\nmonth before the passage of the act waiv-\ning the liens for the completion of the\ncanal.\nConsidering the general depreciation of\nAmerican securities and Maryland's dis-\ncredit at this period, and the small means\nallowed for the accomplishment of the ends\nproposed, a sale of bonds at par was entirely\nout of the question. The only practicable\ncourse for the company to follow was a\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 157\nresort to a contract payable in bonds cover-\ning all the subjects necessary to be pro-\nvided for; this course was adopted. The\nboard, with the approval of the Maryland\nstate agents, after advertising for proposals,\nconcluded a contract which was carefully\nguarded in all its provisions, on the twenty-\nfifth of September, 1845. For the con-\nsideration of $1,625,000 of the bonds to be\nissued under and pursuant to the act of\n1844,80 the four contractors pledged them-\nselves to commence the work within thirty\ndays and finish the canal to Cumberland\nwithin two years, according to the estimate\nof 1842; they were, also, \"to pay to a\ntrustee, for the use of the company, in\ntwenty-one monthly instalments, an aggre-\ngate sum of $100,000 in money, to enable\nthe Board of President and Directors to\nliquidate land claims, engineering, and\nother incidental expenses - and to pay the\ninterest on the bonds to be issued under\nthe act, until, and including the half year's\ninterest that would fall due, after the work\nhad been finished.\"\nVery soon after the contract was made,\n\"Maryland State Laws, I844, ch. 281.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n158\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe contractors commenced work on the\ncanal between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland.\nAll went well until the legislature again\nmet and adjourned without restoring the\ncredit of the state, when, their private\nmeans being exhausted, once more the\ncontractors were compelled to suspend\noperations about June I, 1846. The chief\nengineer's last report, made before the\nsuspension, shows that the work done\nunder the contract, according to the revised\nestimate of August 1845, amounted to\n$55,384. In addition to all other misfort-\nunes, during the years 1846 and 1847 a\nseries of freshets occurred in this region,\none following the other in rapid succession.\nThe lower division of the canal was re-\npeatedly damaged until this increase of\nexpense became very embarrassing. Nor\nwere they able to make these repairs with-\nout the aid of temporary loans obtained\nfrom the banks.\nAfter the execution of the contract for\nthe completion of the canal, two of the\noriginal contractors of the co-partnership\nwithdrew and Thomas G. Harris, of Wash-\nington County, Maryland, went in with the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 159\nremaining two - James Hunter, of Vir-\nginia, and William B. Thompson, of the\nDistrict of Columbia. The new firm was\ncalled \"Hunter, Harris and Co.\" In Novem-\nber, 1847, the contract was greatly modified;\nthe time for the completion was extended,\nspecific changes in the plan of construction\nwere made, and certain portions of the\nwork were entirely dispensed with - all\nthis with a view to a saving of cost, which\nwas absolutely necessary. Under the new\ncontractors' management operations were\nquickly resumed, but, prosecuted under\nsuch constant embarrassment, again ceased\nMarch II, 1850. The contractors made\ngreat sacrifices in their sales of the bonds,\nand, although stimulated to perseverance\nin the honest expectation of completing the\ncanal, they had previously abandoned all\nhope of profit, and found the pressure too\ngreat to continue. This suspension, how-\never, lasted but a few days. Hunter,\nHarris, and Company made an assignment\nof their interest in the contract to two of\ntheir agents and attorneys, for the benefit\nof their creditors, and the work was recom-\nmenced and continued until July, 1850,\nDigitized by Google\n160\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nwhen it was again abandoned because of\nthe usual lack of means. Upon the seven-\nteenth of July the board of president and\ndirectors formally declared the canal\nabandoned and on the following day en-\ntered into a new contract with Michael\nByrne, of Frederick county, for the com-\npletion of the canal to Cumberland. The\nwork remaining to be done was inconsid-\nerable, yet tedious, consisting of numerous\nunfinished portions between Dam No. 6\nand Cumberland. This work was promptly\ncommenced and diligently prosecuted, and\nthe canal was opened for navigation pur-\nposes, and through trade commenced, on\nOctober 10, 1850. Mr. Byrne continued to\npress forward the work, which did not\ninterfere with the passage of the boats, and\non February 17, 1851, the final payment\nwas made to him under the provisions of\nthe contract. From this time the comple-\ntion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal may\nbe dated.\nFrom the clerk's statement made from\nthe books of the company, with an addi-\ntional allowance for a few small unsettled\nclaims, it appears that \"the cost of the\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 161\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal, from the\nmouth of the Tyber in the city of Washing-\nton, to the town of Cumberland, a dis-\ntance of one hundred and eighty-five and\nseven tenths miles, for construction, engin-\neer expenses, lands, and other contingen-\ncies properly applicable to construction,\namounts, in the aggregate, to the sum of\n$11,071,176.21, or $59,618.61 per mile.\"\nIt is interesting to note that the original\nestimate for a canal of less dimensions,\nmade by the experienced General Bernard\nin 1826, was $8,177,081.05, or $43,963 per\nmile. This estimate did not embrace land\npurchases or condemnations nor make any\nprovision for contingencies with the excep-\ntion of an allowance of $157,161 for fencing,\nwhich, in the statement of cost, is included\nunder the head of lands. Therefore, in\norder to make a just comparison between the\noriginal estimate and the actual cost of the\ncanal there should be added to General\nBernard's estimate the cost of those items\nwhich are excluded from it, and included\nin the clerk's statement, after deducting\nthe amount for fencing already embraced\nin the estimate.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nBernard's estimate, exclusive of land purchases, condem-\nnations and contingencies\n$8,177,081.05\nAdd the items excluded, viz., actual cost of lands, de-\nducting therefrom $157,161, for fencing, already em-\nbraced in the estimate\n267,562.91\nEngineer expenses\n429,845.94\nIncidental damages\n28,870.09\nPay of officers, say\n80,000.00\nTotal\n$8,983,359.99\nDigitized by Google\nAggregate actual cost, as per clerk's statement\n11,071,176.21\nExcess of actual cost over original estimate, with the\nabove additions-twenty-three and one-fifth per\ncent, or\n$2,087,816.22\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 163\nIt is rather a difficult undertaking to\ngive a brief yet succinct and accurate his-\ntory of the old waterway since 1850. In a\nnutshell, the history of the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal from its completion to 1889\nmay truthfully be said to be a history of\nthe Democratic party in the state of Mary-\nland during that period. It was used as a\npolitical machine and lever by that party\nat the expense of its physical and financial\ngood. The officers of the company were\nappointed by the Board of Public Works\nof the state, some of whom were ex officio\nmembers of the board of directors. The\nmembers of the Board of Public Works were\nappointed by the governor of the state,\nand in that way the management of the\ncanal was controlled by the party in power,\nwhich, during that period, was the Demo-\ncratic party. There was much litigation\nin an effort by some of the holders of bonds\nto protect themselves, but it was always\nunsuccessful. Mr. Gorman, now Senator\nA. P. Gorman, was president for a number\nof years. It is an open secret throughout\nthe state that it was on the placid waters of\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal that the\nDigitized by Google\n164\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nsenator rode into the high dignity of a\nSenatorial seat. The canal was in every\nway a financial failure and paid nothing to\nthe holders of its debentures. There are\ntoday thousands of dollars of unpaid wages,\ndue for labor and material supplied. It has\ncost the state of Maryland millions of dol-\nlars, none of which are likely to ever find\ntheir way back to the state coffers. Con-\nducted upon an economical and business-\nlike basis, it should have been a source of\nrevenue.\nThe disastrous floods of 1889 caused\nsuch damage to the waterway that a large\nsum was required to restore it. The state\nrefused further financial aid and, in con-\nsequence, the canal lay abandoned. The\nDemocratic politicians of the state, many\nof whom were interested in the West\nVirginia Central Railway, made an effort,\nthrough an act passed in Maryland legisla-\nture, to sell the valuable property and its\nfranchises to that rail road for a nominal\nprice; in fact were on the point of dispos-\ning, for about two hundred thousand dol-\nlars, of a property worth millions. After the\npassage of the act and its signature by the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nDigitized by Google\nA VIEW OF THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL\n[This part of the canal, at the entrance of the tunnil thirty mi'es east of Cumberland, shows the expensive nature of portions\nof the work]\nDigitized by Google\nTHE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 167\ngovernor, the holders of the bonds which\nwere authorized to be issued in 1844, and\nwhich were issued in 1848, stepped in.\nWhen these bonds were authorized there\nwere already so many liens upon the canal\nthat it was a well-known fact that no mar-\nket would be found for them. Realizing\nthis fact, the state, to give them a value,\nwaived its rights, under previous issues\nand loans, as we have seen, in favor of\nthese bonds about to be put upon the market,\nand also securing them by a mortgage on\nthe tolls and revenues of the canal. The\nholders of these bonds arose and petitioned\nthe courts to protect them, claiming that a\nsale of the canal to the rail road would\ndestroy the corpus, and that with the\ncorpus destroyed, the toll and revenue\nearning capacity would cease. In other\nwords they claimed that a mortgage on the\ntolls and revenues constituted a mortgage\non the corpus. They further petitioned\nthat the court appoint trustees to operate\nthe canal for the bondholders of 1848,\nthereby enabling them to have an oppor-\ntunity to protect themselves. The case\nwas bitterly fought in the courts and\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n168\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nended finally by the granting of the peti-\ntion. Trustees were appointed for a term\nof four years to show what they could do.\nThen the canal was repaired, at a cost of\nover half a million dollars. In 1891\ntraffic was resumed and has been going\nsteadily on since that time. That the\ncourt is evidently satisfied with the show-\ning made by the trustees is attested by the\nfact that, at the expiration of the four years\noriginally granted (in which to show that\nthey could run the canal successfully) the\ncourt granted an extension of that time for\nfour years more, and at the expiration of\nthe latter grant, further increased it four\nyears, and so on.\nThe Canal is now, as it has been since\n1891, operated by the trustees, under mort-\ngage of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com-\npany, dated June 5, 1848.\nDigitized by Google\nCHAPTER IV\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL AND ITS\nSUCCESSOR\nTHE Pensylvania trade route through\nin the days of the\npack-horse and Conestoga\" wagon\nhas been outlined in previous volumes of\nthis series.⁸¹ By means of Forbes's Road\nthe metropolis of the United States at the\nbeginning of the nineteenth century,\nPhiladelphia, was in close connection with\nthe metropolis of the Ohio Basin, Pitts-\nburg. The rivalry with Baltimore had\nbeen keen, and the Philadelphia merchants\nwere eager to overcome their handicap of\nnearly one hundred miles, by internal im-\nprovements of a most advanced pattern.\nIn the matter of roads, liberal as had been\nPennsylvania's policy, Maryland was far\nahead, so far as the West was concerned.\nAnd in 1806, when a national road across\n81Historic Highways of America, vols. V, xi, xii.\nDigitized by Google\n170\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe Alleghenies was proposed, and a Mary-\nland (Cumberland) route was chosen by the\ncommissioners appointed by President Jef-\nferson, it seemed probable that Maryland's\nlead in the matter of trade was about to. be\nmaterially increased.\nBut Pennsylvania, as we have seen, had\nbeen an early promoter of inland naviga-\ntion; its \"Society for promoting the im-\nprovement of roads and inland navigation\"\nin 1791, had called specific attention to the\nrivers which should be made important\nroutes of an expanding commerce. Among\nthe most important recommendations of\nthis society was that looking to the im-\nprovement of Pennsylvania's great western\nwaterway, the Susquehanna River and its\ntributary, the Juniata. This latter stream\ninterlocked, beyond the Allegheny crest,\nwith the roaring Conemaugh, a tributary\nof the Kiskiminitas and Ohio, And in\nresponse to this appeal we have seen that\n£5,250 was appropriated to the improve-\nment of Susquehanna navigation from\nWright's Ferry to the mouth of Swatara\nCreek. As Philadelphia was the com-\nmercial center, the route thence by water\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n171\nwas first up the Schuylkill, then across by\ncanal to the Susquehanna. It was out-\nlined as follows in the society's memorial,\nsigned by Robert Morris, February 7, 1791\nMiles Chains\nUp Schuylkill to the mouth of Tulpehocken\n6I\n00\nThence up Tulpehocken to the end of the\nproposed canal\n37\n09\nLength of the canal\n4\nI5\nDown Quitipahilla to Swatara\nI5\n20\nDown Swatara to Susquehanna\n23\n00\nUp Susquehanna to Juniata\n23\n28\nUp Juniata to Huntingdon\n86\nI2\nFrom Huntingdon, on Juniata, to the mouth\nof Popular run.\n42\n00\nPortage to the Canoe Place on the Cone-\nmaugh\nI8\n00\nDown Conemaugh to Old Town at the\nmouth of Stoney Creek\n18\n00\nDown Conemaugh and Kiskeminetas to Al-\nlegheny\n69\n00\nDown Allegheny river to Pittsburgh on the\nOhio\n29\n00\n-\nTotal\n426\n04⁸\nThe progress of Virginia and Maryland\nin connection with the Potomac Company\nand the opening of the Potomac River was\nfelt in Pennsylvania at this time. \" For,\n83 \"An Historical Account\nof Canal Navigation\nin Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1795), p. 3.\nDigitized by Google\n172\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nin the firft place,\" read this memorial,\nif we turn our view to the immenfe terri-\ntories connected with the Ohio and Mif-\nfiffippi waters, and bordering on the great\nlakes, it will appear from the tables of\ndiftances, that our communication with\nthofe vaft countries (confidering Fort Pitt\nas the port of entrance upon them) is as\neafy and may be rendered as cheap, as to\nany other port on the Atlantic tide waters.\nThe diftance from Philadelphia to the\nAllegheny, at the mouth of Kifkeminetas,\nis nearly the fame as from the mouth of\nMonongahela to George Town on Potomac;\nand fuppofing the computed diftances from\nPittfburgh to the Dunkard Bottom to be\njuft, and the navigation of Cheat river, on\nthe one hand, and the Potomack, at the\nmouth of Bavage river, on the other, to be,\nat all feafons of the year, equal to the navi-\ngation of the Kifkeminetas, Conemaugh\nand Juniata; yet as the portage from\nDunkard Bottom to the Potomack, at the\nmouth of Savage river, is thirty-feven\nmiles and a quarter, and the portage from\nConemaugh to Juniata only eighteen miles\n(which may be confiderably fhortened by\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n173,\nlocks) there can be no doubt but that the\ntranfportation of all kinds of goods and\nmerchandize from Philadelphia to Pittf-\nburgh may be at a much cheaper rate than\nfrom any other fea port on the Atlantic\nwaters.\"\nIt mattered not where it was, every one\nof the Atlantic seaboard cities had an ex-\npert who could show in black and white\nthat that particular port was in closest\ntouch with Pittsburg and the West. Wash-\nington had done so, conclusively to all\nSoutherners; Morris does it here to the\nsatisfaction of Pennsylvanians, and New\nYork had a score of mathematicians who\ncould prove the same thing concerning\nNew York, and the Hudson and Mohawk\nroute.\n\"This is not mentioned,\" continues the\nmemorial, hopefully, \"with a view to\ndifparage the internal navigation of our\nfifter ftates, more efpecially Maryland and\nVirginia. We admire their noble exer-\ntions.\nBut, although a confidera-\nble part of the Settlers on the Ohio waters\nmay be accommodated by the Potomack\nnavigation, and the ftate of Pennfylvania\nDigitized by Google\n174\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nmay only have a fhare in the trade of thofe\nwaters; yet there remains to us the im-\nmenfe trade of the lakes, taking Prefqu'Ifle,\nwhich is within our own ftate, as the great\nmart or place of embarkation. 88\nIt is exceedingly interesting to note that\nwhile Pennsylvania at this time only\nexpected to share with her southern neigh-\nbors the trade of the Ohio Basin, she\nexpected a monopoly of the trade on the\nGreat Lakes. Of the latter trade she\nsecured only a fraction, while of the former\nshe secured practically a monopoly for half\na century.\nThe route is more carefully outlined in\nthe memorial: \" It connects Philadelphia\nwith Pittfburgh and all the Ohio waters, by\nthe Schuylkill, the Swatara and Juniata\nbranches of Sufquehanna, and the Kifke-\nminetas branch of Allegheny, with the\ndiftance of five hundred and fixty-one miles\nand an half\nand alfo Philadelphia\nand Prefqu'Ifle, ufing the fame waters\nto the mouth of Kifkeminetas, and then by\nthe eafy waters of Allegheny and French\nCreek. In this whole communication to\n\"Id., pp. 7-8.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n175\nPittsfburgh, there are only eighteen miles\nportage between the Juniata and Cone-\nmaugh\nand only the addition of\nfifteen miles and an half more at the port-\nage from Le Bœuf to Prefqu'Ifle, which\nportage is, likewife, included in both the\nother communications. In this ftatement\nof portages, it is fuppofed that the canal\nor lock navigation between the heads of\nTulpehocken and Quitipahilla, is to be com-\npleated; but if that work fhould be\nthought too great to begin with, it will be\nonly the addition of four miles portage, by\nan excellent and level road.\"\nFor many years the problem of the navi-\ngation of this westward waterway was the\nsubject of discussion and legislation. In\nno case does any state seem to have\nprofited by the experience of any other.\nNew York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and\nMaryland each boldly attacked the problem\nof the improvement of their rivers, the\nMohawk, Juniata, and Potomac, without in\nthe least profiting by the experience of the\nothers. It was New York which first\nbroke away from the old ideas, upon which\nmillions of dollars had been squandered,\nDigitized by Google\n176\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nand built her Erie Canal, which soon\nturned doubt and derision into a vast\ntumult of applause. Yet it must be re-\nmembered that the New York canal had\nan easy path to follow. The Mohawk was\nnot the wild Potomac as known in bleak\nHampshire County, nor Wood Creek the\nracing Conemaugh or upper Youghio-\ngheny. The wet flats of the \"Genesee\nCountry\" offered a different prospect for\ncanal engineers from that to be viewed in\nKittanning Gorge where only the eagles\nlived. The Erie Canal conquered, by\nmeans of locks, 500 feet in 360 miles; the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal faced the\nproblem of overcoming 2754 feet in 340\nmiles, and the Pennsylvania Canal, 2291\nfeet in 320 miles. It is not to be won-\ndered at, then, that New York found a\nwater connection with the West first. And\nyet the fact remains that much was spent\non the Mohawk before the Erie Canal was\nbegun.\nSo the struggle went on in Pennsylvania\nfor nearly a generation until at last the suc-\ncess of the Erie Canal and the failure of'\nthe improved unnavigable rivers gave birth\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n177\nto the Pennsylvania Canal.84 On March 27,\n1824, an act of the Pennsylvania legislature\nauthorized the appointment of a board of\ncanal commissioners to view and explore\nroutes for a canal from Harrisburg to Pitts-\nburg. The commissioners, Colonel Jacob\nHolgate, James Clark, and Charles Trezi-\nyulney, were appointed March 31. From\nMay until December they were in the field.\nTheir exploration resulted in the following\nestimate of the height to be overcome\nbetween the Susquehanna 86 and Ohio:\nRise\n(feet)\nHarrisburg (mouth of Juniata) to head\nof Juniata\n589\nHead of Juniata to proposed tunnel\n945\nTunnel level to summit of mountain\n754\nSusquehanna to mountain summit 2288\n84 One of the most enlightening broadsides of the time\ntreating of the delay of the internal improvement plan\nis Turner Camac's Facts and Arguments respecting\nthe great Utility of an extensive plan of Inland Navi-\ngation in America (Philadelphia, 1805).\n85 The canal was proposed to begin on the Schuylkill\nand lead to the Susquehanna, but it actually began on\nthe Susquehanna, the country between that point and\nPhiladelphia being covered by the old Union Canal and\nthe Columbia Railway which was soon built.\nDigitized by Google\n178\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nThe tunnel at summit level was as long\nas that one proposed on the Chesapeake\nand Ohio Canal, and gave rise to great dis-\ncussion. One commissioner, Treziyulney,\nwhose name gave weight to his opinion,\ndisagreed with his associates on the matter\nof the tunnel, and, in fact, on the entire\ncanal proposition. The majority report\nhaving been made to the governor of\nPennsylvania February 2, 1825, this\nminority report was dated February 21.\nIn short,\" it read, the whole country,\nfrom the upper forks of the Juniata to the\nforks of the South branch of the Cone-\nmaugh, is mountainous; mountain rising\nafter mountain in quick succession. The\nmain one where the proposed tunnel is to\npass, is hemmed in and surrounded by\nother high mountains, with steep slopes\nseparated from one another by narrow\nravines and presenting no favorable situa-\ntion for canaling, either by lockage or tun-\nneling. Here nature has refused to make\nher usual kind advances to aid the exer-\ntions of man; mountains are thrown\ntogether, as if to defy human ingenuity,\nand baffle the skill of the engineer.\" The\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n179\ndifference of opinion caused much debate\nand conjecture as to the practicability of\nthe great plan.\nAnother cause of delay was the agitation\nwhich was now sweeping all thinking\nminds on the question of the new roads of\n(literally) iron and steam as a motive power.\nSuch had been the progress of railways in\nEngland that it was believed by many that\nthis method of locomotion would supersede\nall others. On February 5, 1825, the Penn-\nsylvania senate granted the wish of the\nadvocates of railways by appointing a\ncommission to inquire into the possibility\nof building a railway from Philadelphia to\nPittsburg. Three editions of a pamphlet,\nFacts and Arguments in favor of adopting\nrailways in preference to Canals in the State\nof Pennsylvania, were published in Philadel-\nphia this year. 'It maintained that a rail-\nway could be built from Philadelphia to\nPittsburg in one-third the time it would\ntake to build a canal and at one-third the\ncost; it would, moreover, be available\nalmost the entire year, whereas the Erie\nCanal was navigable only two hundred and\ntwenty days in the year. It urged that\nDigitized by Google\n180\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nmore persons would be required in the\noperation of a canal than a railway, and\nthat the tolls would be higher on the\nformer than on the latter. \"If a railway,\nor even a canal, existed between Pittsburg\nand Philadelphia, New Orleans would not\nrequite the consideration of a moment.\nThe great distance of this port from Ken-\ntucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; in\nwinter the ice in the Ohio river\nthe numerous sawyers, snags &c.\nthe length of the voyage\nare pow-\nerful objections to this port.\nBaltimore presents itself as the second\nrival.\nBut when the Pennsyl-\nvania railway shall be constructed, Balti-\nmore cannot for a moment withstand the\ncompetition of the enormous capital of\nPhiladelphia. She may, indeed, construct\na canal or a railway\nbut little is\nto be apprehended, as the length and\nexpense of constructing these works will\nbe far greater than those contemplated in\nPennsylvania. New York is the third\nrival\nbut the communication be-\ntween New York and Pittsburg must be\neffected by a long, tedious, and expensive\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n181\nvoyage, requiring four changes of ves-\nsels.\nThe route of nearly 800 miles\n[via Buffalo, Lake Erie, and the Allegheny\nRiver] will be very circuitous; and will be\nimpracticable five months every year.\nIt does not require the voice of prophecy\nto predict that the period is not far distant\nwhen the New York canal will be superseded by\na railway.\"\nThus was the question of rivalry between\nthe Atlantic ports stated by a railway\nexponent of 1825; and the statements must\nbe considered extremely prophetic. The\nrailway commission was appointed too far\nahead of the times, but it had a forward\ninfluence, and by the act of April II, the\ncanal commissioners were authorized to\nhave all routes across the Alleghenies sur-\nveyed, and in June of the year following\nthe Juniata route was announced to be the\npreferable route in the commission's report\nto the governor of Pennsylvania; the tun-\nnel, however, was considered impossible\nfor the same reason as with the tunnel\nbetween the heads of Savage and Yough-\niogheny Rivers in western Virginia - the\nFacts and Arguments, pp. 57-58.\nDigitized by Google\n182\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ndifficulty of supplying water at the summit\nlevel. In the place of a tunnel, inclined\nplanes were proposed by the commission.\nEvidently anticipating this report, the\nPennsylvania legislature passed an act for\nthe construction of the Pennsylvania Canal\nat the expense of the state; and it was ap-\nproved by Governor Shulze, February 25,\n1826. It read:\nAN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMENCE-\nMENT OF A CANAL, TO BE CONSTRUCTED\nAT THE EXPENSE OF THE STATE, AND TO\nBE STYLED THE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL.\nWhereas, The construction of a canal\nwithin our own limits, for the purpose of\nconnecting the eastern and western waters,\nis believed to be practicable, and within\nthe means of the state, and its speedy com-\npletion will advance the prosperity, and\nelevate the character of Pennsylvania, and\nby facilitating intercourse, and promoting\nsocial interests, will strengthen the bands\nof the Union; And whereas, There `are\nimportant sections of the work which may\nbe immediately begun without the danger\nof error:\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n183\nTherefore,\nSection I. Be it enacted by the Senate and\nHouse of Representatives of the Commonwealth\nof Pennsylvania, in General Assembly met,\nThat the commissioners appointed by the\nof act, canal entitled, commissioners,\" An act to appoint passed the a board 11th\nApril, 1825, are hereby authorized and\nempowered, in behalf of this state, im-\nmediately to locate and contract for making\na canal, and locks, and other works neces-\nsary thereto, from the river Swatara to the\nmouth of the river Juniata, and also from\nPittsburg to the mouth of the Kiskiminetas.\nSection 2. And be it further enacted by the\nauthority aforesaid, That the said commis-\nsioners shall be authorized to appoint one\nor two of the board, as occasion may\nrequire, as acting commissioner or com-\nmissioners, who shall receive - dollars\nper day, while actually engaged in the\nsuperintendence of the works contemplated\nby this act.\nSection 3. And be it further enacted by\nthe authority aforesaid, That the said board\nshall appoint a treasurer, and shall have\npower to appoint engineers, clerks, and\nDigitized by Google\n184\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nother officers, toll-gatherers, and such\nother agents as they shall judge requisite,\nand to agree for, and settle their respective\nwages, and to establish reasonable toll.\nProvided, That the treasurer shall give\nbond in such penalty, and with such\nsecurity, as the said board shall direct, for\nthe true and faithful discharge of the trust\nreposed in him.\nSection 4. And be it further enacted by the\nauthority aforesaid, That the location and\ndimensions of the said canals and locks\nshall be determined by a majority of the\nboard, with the approbation of a skilful\nengineer, and with the consent of the\nGovernor.\nSection 5. And be it further enacted by the\nauthority aforesaid, That it shall and may\nbe lawful for the said board, or a majority\nof them, to agree with the owners of any\nland, through which the said canal is\nintended to pass, for the purchase, use and\noccupation thereof, on behalf of the 'state,\nand in case of disagreement, or in case the\nowner thereof shall be a feme covert,\nunder age, non compos, or out of the state\nor county, on application to a justice of the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n187\ncounty in which such land shall be, the\nsaid justice of the peace shall issue his\nwarrant, under his hand, to the sheriff of\nthe county, to summon a jury of eighteen\ninhabitants of his county, not related to\nthe parties, or in any manner interested,\nto meet on the land to be valued, at a day\nto be expressed in the warrant, not less\nthan ten nor more than twenty days there-\nafter; and the sheriff, upon receiving the\nsaid warrant, shall forthwith summon the\nsaid jury, and when met, shall administer\nan oath or affirmation to every juryman\nwho shall appear, being not less than\ntwelve in number, that he will faithfully,\njustly and impartially value the land, and\nall damages the owner shall sustain by\ncutting the canal through such land, or the\npartial or temporary appropriation, use or\noccupation of such land, according to the\nbest of his skill and judgment, and that in\nsuch valuation he will not spare any per-\nson, for favor or affection, or any person\ngrieve for malice, hatred or ill will; and in\nevery such valuation and assessment of\ndamages, the jury shall be, and they are\nhereby instructed to consider in determin-\nDigitized by Google\n188 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ning and fixing the amount thereof, the\nactual benefit which will accrue to the\nowner, from conducting the said canal\nthrough, or erecting any of the said works\nupon his land, and to regulate their verdict\nthereby, except that no assessment shall\nrequire any such owner to pay or contribute\nany thing where such benefit shall exceed,\nin the estimate of the jury, the value and\ndamages ascertained as aforesaid; and the\ninquisition thereupon taken, shall be\nsigned by the sheriff, and some twelve or\nmore of the jury, and returned by the\nsheriff to the clerk or prothonotary of his\ncounty, and unless good cause be shown\nagainst the said inquisition, it shall be\naffirmed by the court and recorded; but if\nthe said inquisition should be set aside, or\nif from any cause, no inquisition shall be\nreturned to such court within a reasonable\ntime, the said court may at its discretion,\nas often as may be necessary, direct another\ninquisition to be taken in the manner\nabove described, and upon every such.\nvaluation, the jury is hereby directed to\ndescribe and ascertain the bounds of the\nland by them valued, and the quality and\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n189\nduration of the interest and estate in\nthe same, required by the said board for\nthe use of the state, and their valuation\nshall be conclusive on all persons, and shall\nbe paid for by the said board, to the owner\nof the land, or his legal representatives;\nand on payment thereof, the state shall be\nseized of such lands, as of an absolute\nestate in perpetuity, or with such less\nquantity and duration of interest or estate\nin the same, or subject to such partial or\ntemporary appropriation, use or occupation\nas shall be required and described as\naforesaid, as if conveyed by the owner, and\nwhenever, in the construction of the said\ncanal, or any of the works thereof, locks,\ndams, ponds, feeders, tunnels, aqueducts,\nculverts, bridges or works of any other\ndescription whatsoever appurtenant thereto,\nit shall be necessary to use earth, timber,\nstone or gravel, or any other material to\nbe found on any of the lands adjacent or\nnear thereto, and the said board or their\nagent cannot procure the same for the\nworks aforesaid, by private contract of the\nproprietor or owner, or in case the owner\nshould be a feme covert, non compos, or\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n190 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nunder age, or out of the state or county,\nthe same proceedings in all respects shall\nbe had as in the case before mentioned, of\nthe assessment and condemnation of the\nlands required for the said canal, or the\nworks appurtenant thereto.\nSection 6. And be it further enacted by the\nauthority aforesaid, That every person\nactually engaged in labouring on any canal\nauthorized by law, shall be exempt from\ndoing militia duty in this state, except in\ncases of insurrection or invasion, during\nthe time when he is so actually engaged;\nand the certificates of the contractor who\nshall employ such men, so liable to perform\nmilitia duty, in the performance of their\ncontracts shall be prima facia evidence of\nsuch engagement.\nSection 7. And be it further enacted by\nthe authority aforesaid, That the sum\nof three hundred thousand dollars be,\nand. the same is hereby appropriated,\nto be paid by the state treasurer, in\nsuch sums as shall be required for\nthe execution of the work, which sums\nshall from time to time be paid into\nthe hands of the treasurer of the board\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n191\nby direction of a majority of the board,\nand by warrant of the Governor.\nThe method of joining the two divis-\nions of what now became known as the\nPennsylvania Canal was left undecided,\npending further investigation. But an act\nof March 24, 1828 authorized the location\nand construction of the Juniata division,\nfrom Lewistown to the highest practicable\npoint on the river. [Eventually Hollidays-\nburg on the eastern slope of the Alleghen-\nies, and Johnstown, on the western, were\ndecided upon as the termini of the eastern\nand western divisions of the canal. The\nthirty-six miles intervening were to be\ncrossed by a railway, through Blair's Gap,\nof the inclined planes previously sug-\ngested.\nThe interminable delays and postpone-\nments which have been described on the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal were unknown\nin the present instance. What was known\nas the central division (there being really\nno eastern, though the Union Canal was\nsuch nominally) was begun at Columbia on\nthe eastern shore of the Susquehanna, July\nDigitized by Google\n192\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\n4, 1826, and was opened to Duncan's\nIsland, above Harrisburg, in 1830. This\ncentral section also extended across the\nSusquehanna and up the Juniata Valley; it.\nwas begun in 1827 and completed to Hunt-\ningdon in 1830 and Hollidaysburg in 1834.\nThe western division of the canal extended\nfrom Pittsburg-to Johnstown; it was begun\nin 1826 and opened in 1830.87\nFrom Huntingdon on the east to Johns-\ntown on the west of the mountains was\nplanned the Allegheny Portage Railroad,\nwhich from any point of view must be con-\nsidered one of the most interesting and\nremarkable of all attempts to abridge dis-\ntance in our early history.\nThe history of the divisions of the Pennsyl-\nvania Canal on either side of the mountains\nis commonplace beside this interesting and\ndaring bit of engineering. Inclined planes\nwere not, at this time, a novelty, but their\nuse as proposed now in the Alleghenies was\n87 For this and many additional items of information\nconcerning the greater problem of Pennsylvania's entire\nsystem of canals, see Theodore B. Klein's monograph\n\" The Canals of Pennsylvania and the System of Inter-\nnal Improvements,\" Report Pennsylvania Secretary\nof Internal Improvements, 1900.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n193\nsuch an advance on former instances that\nit was considered a bold experiment. The\nMorris Canal between the Hudson and\nDelaware is peculiar,\" wrote the British\nengineer Stevenson, in 1837, \"as being\nthe only canal in America in which the\nboats are moved from different levels by\nmeans of inclined planes instead of locks.\nThe whole rise and fall on the Morris Canal\nis I557 feet, of which 223 feet are over-\ncome by locks, and the remaining 1334 feet\nby means of twenty-three inclined planes,\nhaving an average lift of 58 feet each.\nThe car [on which canal boats ascend and\ndescend]\nconsists of a strongly\nmade wooden crib or cradle\non\nwhich the boat rests, supported on two iron\nwaggons running on four wheels. When\nthe car is wholly supported on the inclined\nplane, or is resting on the level, the four\naxles of the waggons are all in the same\nplane\n; but when one of the\nwagons rests on the inclined plane, and the\nother on the level surface, their axles no\nlonger remain in the same plane, and their\nchange of position produces a tendency to\nrock the cradle, and the boat which it sup-\nDigitized by Google\n194\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nports; but this has been guarded against in\nthe construction of the boat-cars on the Mor-\nris Canal by introducing two axles\non which the whole weight of the crib and\nboat are supported, and on which the\nwaggons turn as a centre. The cars run on\nplate rails laid on the inclined planes, and\nare raised and lowered by means of ma-\nchinery driven by water wheels.\nThe railway, on which the car runs, ex-\ntends along the bottom of the canal for a\nshort distance from the lower extremity of\nthe plane; when a boat is to be raised, the\ncar is lowered into the water, and the boat\nbeing floated over it, is made fast to the\npart of the framework which projects above\nthe gunwale.\nThe machinery is\nthen put in motion; and the car bearing\nthe boat, is drawn by a chain to the top of\nthe inclined plane, at which there is a lock\nfor its reception.\" 88\nThe building of such inclined planes on\nthe Allegheny Portage Railway from Hol-\nlidaysburg to Johnstown marks the first\nconquest of that thousand mile summit\n\"Sketch of the Civil Engineering of North America,\npp. 128-129.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n195\nline of the Alleghenies. For fifty years,\nin the infancy of engineering, American\npromoters had been struggling with this\nproblem; it is a far cry - measured by the\nhosts of futile plans and dreams - from\nWashington, pushing his horse through\nthe dripping laurels along McCullough's\nPath,\" to Sylvester Welch who spanned\nBlair's Gap by a railway; then, and not\nuntil then, was a passage-way from the\nAtlantic seaboard to the Mississippi Basin\nopen for freight and passengers on which\nneither freighter nor coach played any\npart. The building of the Allegheny\nPortage Railway, 1830-33, was as epoch-\nhaking an event as the opening of the\nCumberland Road in 1818 or the opening\nof the great trans-Allegheny railways at\nthe middle of the century. In many ways\nit was more significant than the opening of\nthe Erie Canal, which was merely a lengthy\napplication of a principle already perfectly\nunderstood. Considering the coach and\nwagon to have been natural means of com-\nmunication, we can then say that the Port-\nage Railway was the first artificial means\nof communication between the East and\nDigitized by Google\n196\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthe Mississippi Basin. Well did Mr.\nStevenson say that in boldness of design\nand in difficulty of execution this railway\ncould be compared with no modern work\nhe had seen, unless exception be made for\nthe passes of the Simplon and Mount Cenis\nin Sardinia; and these, as engineering\nworks, did not impress him as more won-\nderful.\nThe project had been proposed early in\nthe history of the canal and in 1826 the\nexperienced Erie Canal engineer Canvass\nWhite delivered an opinion that the plan\nwas feasible, but added that a portage\nwagon road would perhaps answer tempor-\nary needs. As the canal building advanced\nin the valleys on either side of the moun-\ntains, the plan of a connecting link which\nwould satisfactorily mount the towering\ncrest which intervened was seriously\ndebated. Late in 1828 Moncure Robinson\nbecame engineer in charge and went into\nthe field in 1829 with plans well developed;\nin November he reported to the board of\ncanal commissioners that the crest could\nbest be overcome by a system of inclined\nplanes, with stationary engines; near the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n197\nsummit, a tunnel a mile in length was\nplanned to pierce the crest one hundred\nand seventy-seven feet beneath its summit\nand twelve hundred and sixty-four feet\nabove Hollidaysburg, the starting point of\nthe inclines. The total cost for a railway\nthirty miles in length, of the pattern de-\nscribed, was estimated at slightly less than\na million dollars ($936,004.87). On June\n8, 1830 a board of engineers consisting of\nRobinson, Lieutenant-colonel S. H. Long,\nand Major John Wilson was appointed to\nsurvey the route proposed and make final\nrecommendations. Late in that year a\nreport was made which conformed largely\nwith Mr. Robinson's plan matured in 1829,\nand on March 21, 1831, Governor Wolf\napproved \" An act to continue the improve-\nment of the State by canals and railroads.\"\nSection 3 of that act read:\n\"And be it further enacted by the authority\naforesaid, That the said canal commissioners\nshall commence forthwith and prosecute\nwithout delay, a rail road over and across\nthe Allegheny mountains, from the basin at\nHollidaysburg, in the county of Hunting-\ndon, to Johnstown, in the county of Cam-\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n198\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nbria, a distance of about thirty eight\nmiles, according to the extent, route and\nplan thereof, stated in their report of the\ntwenty-first day of December, one thou-\nsand eight hundred and thirty, excluding\nthe plan of a tunnel as recommended by\nMoncure Robinson in his report of the\ntwenty-first November, one thousand eight\nhundred and twenty-nine; and also, that\nthey shall commence and prosecute, with-\nout delay, the extension of the Juniata\ndivision of the Pennsylvania canal, from\nthe town of Huntingdon, in the county of\nHuntingdon, to the basin at Hollidays-\nburg, in the same county, either by canal\nor slack water navigation; towards the\nexpenditures of which rail-road and canal\nor slack water navigation, as specified in\nthis section, during the present year, the\nsum of seven hundred thousand dollars is\nhereby specifically appropriated, to be\npaid out of the loan hereinafter men-\ntioned.\" 89\nThe great work was now actually begun.\nSylvester Welch, formerly superintend-\nent of the western division of the canal,\nLaws of Pennsylvania, 1830-31, no. 104 (p. 195).\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n199\nwas made principal engineer, and Mr.\nRobinson consulting engineer; Samuel\nJones was superintendent. The final\nsurveys were conducted from Johnstown\nto the mountain summit beginning in\nApril; they were completed by May 20,\n1831, and the work let to the lowest bid-\nders at Ebensburg May 25. The surveys\non the eastern slope of the mountain were\nconducted from Hollidaysburg and were\ncompleted in the July following. The\ncontracts were let at Hollidaysburg on\nJuly 29.90\nThe termini of the road were at the\ncanal basins at Hollidaysburg and at Johns-\ntown, the former 1,398 feet below the\nmountain summit, and the latter 1,771 feet\nbelow the summit. The road occupied a\nclean swath through the forests, of one\nhundred and twenty feet in width, lest fall-\n\"These, as well as many preceding and succeeding\ndata, are from William Bender Wilson's admirable\nmonograph, The Evolution, Decadence, and Abandon-\nment of the Allegheny Portage Railroad' in the Annuak\nReport of the Secretary of Internal Affairs of the\nCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1898-99, part iv, pp.\nxli-xcvi. This monograph forms an important chapter\nin Mr. Wilson's History of the Pennsylvania Railroad\nCompany.\nDigitized by Google\n200 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\ning trees should damage the work. All\nsurveys, estimates and recommendations to\nthe contrary notwithstanding, Mr. Robin-\nson's tunnel was not now built, another\nplane being added to the total which\nenabled the railway to vault the summit.\nThe planes were ten in number; beginning\nat Johnstown they were as follows:\nLength Elevation\n(feet) (feet)\nPlane No.\nI\n1,607.74 150.00\n2\n1,760.43\n132.40\n3\n1,480.25\n130.50\n4\n2,194.93\n187.86\n5\n2,628.60\n201.64\n6\n2,713.85\n266.50\n7\n2,655.01\n260.50\n8\n3,116.92\n307.60\n9\n2,720.80 189.50\nIO\n2,295.61 180.52\nThere were six levels between the\nplanes on the western division and five on\nthe eastern. The level between Johns-\ntown and the foot of Plane No. I was four\nmiles in length, and that between Planes\nI and 2 was thirteen miles in length, over-\ncoming an elevation of 189.58 feet. The\nDigitized by Google\nTHE FIRST AMERICAN TUNNEL\n(By this tunnel the Allegheny Portage Railway crossed the\nsummit of the mountains]\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n203\nremainder on that division were about a\nmile in length, each rising about twenty\nfeet. The shortest level on the eastern\nslope was .15 of a mile and the longest 3.72\nmiles, descending 146.71 feet. The steepest\nincline rose only 101/4 feet in a hundred -\na grade not much steeper than that on\nmany pioneer roads. Mr. Welch affirmed\nthat cars could be drawn up these by\nhorses or by stationary steam or horse-\npower engines. On the eastern planes he\nsuggested that advantage be taken of the\nforce of gravity; on three of the levels,\nthose at each terminus, and the thirteen\nmile level between Planes I and 2, he\nurged the use of locomotives; elsewhere he\nadvised the use of horse power. The road\n(single track) was completed by the begin-\nning of 1834 and traffic began March 18,\n1834. The ten planes were supplied with\nten stationary engines. Half a century\nago, Washington, in that classic appeal to\nHarrison, of 1784, maintained that a great\nplan of communication between the East\nand West was practicable, in that \"The\nwestern inhabitants would do their part\ntowards its execution. Weak as they are,\"\nDigitized\nby\nGoogle\n204\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nhe said, 'they would meet us half way.\"\nWhat a splendid comment it is on Wash-\nington's wisdom and foresight to record\nthat these engines on the Allegheny Port-\nage Railway, which hauled the first load\nof freight over the Alleghenies which ever\ncrossed them by artificial means were made\nin the young West - in Pittsburg! Wash-\nington, at least, did not misjudge in the\nleast the spirit of those Virginians and\nPennsylvanians who in his day were push-\ning ahead over Indian trails into the lands\nbeyond the mountains.\nThe second track of the railway was put\nunder contract at Hollidaysburg May 31,\n1834. In the same year three locomotives\nfor the levels were ordered, one from Bos-\nton, and two from Newcastle, Delaware.\nOne of these was sent on to Pittsburg by\ncanal to serve as model of others to be built\nthere. \"The road as completed,\" writes\nMr. Wilson, \"showed a width of track\nbetween rails of 4 feet and 9 inches, and a\ndistance between tracks, including width\nof inner rail of each track, of 5 feet. The\nrailway between the planes was laid to\ncorrespond vertically with the grade\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n205\nadopted for the road, and was in all cases\nlaid to form horizontal arcs of circles, or\ntheir tangents. Flat iron bars on wooden\nrails were placed on the inclined planes.\nOn the balance of the road, edge rails 18\nfeet in length, weighing 39½ pounds to\nthe yard were laid, resting in iron chairs\non wooden sills. The latter were fastened\nto cross ties where the road passed over\nhigh embankments, but, on solid ground\nthey were attached to stone blocks measur-\ning about 3½ cubic feet. To do this two\nholes were drilled into each block. Into\nthese holes oak plugs were driven. The\ncast-iron chair was placed directly upon\nthe top of the stone block, and spikes\ndriven through holes in the flanges of the\nchair into the oak plugs. The rail was a\ndouble headed rail, and held in place by a\nwedge. The difficulty of the spreading of\nthe tracks was at first overcome by substi-\ntuting for each alternate pair of blocks a\nstone block some 7 feet long, extending\nacross the track, and having a chair at each\nend. This was found to be too expensive,\nand wooden cross ties were placed between\neach pair of stone blocks.\"\nDigitized by Google\n206\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nThe road as opened was, like the origi-\nnal Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road, merely\na new sort of road-way, on which horses\ndrew cars on rails (instead of on a flat\nroad-bed) between the inclines. A rush of\nbusiness at once overwhelmed the road.\nBetween the middle of March and the\nmiddle of April, 1834, the number of cars\ntripled in number and were then entirely\ninadequate to the trade. Much \"portag-\ning\" was done in the old way on the old-\ntime portage path by wagon. The busi-\nness was done by transportation firms or\nby individuals, the commonwealth furnish-\ning the road-bed, and a motive power only\non the inclined planes.\nIt was in October, 1834, that the keel-\nboat Hit or Miss\" from the Lackawanna,\nJesse Crisman owner and Major C. Wil-\nliams commander, first of all craft to leap\nthe Alleghenies, was taken from Susque-\nhanna waters at Hollidaysburg and laid\nsafely in Allegheny waters at Johnstown.\nCrisman expected to sell his boat at Holli-\ndaysburg - as his ancestors had ever done;\nbut John Dougherty of the Reliance Trans-\nportation Line, constructed a car calculated\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n207\nto bear the novel burden.\" Starting at\nnoon, \"they rested at night on the top of the\nmountain, like Noah's Ark on Ararat, and\ndescended the next morning into the\nValley of the Mississippi, and sailed for St.\nLouis.\" It was fifty years, to the month,\nsince the pioneer promoter of trans-Alle-\ngheny communications, Washington, was\nsearching in Dunkard Bottom for a path-\nway for keel-boats across this great divide.\nHistory was again repeated; as in the old\ndays when, in 1758, Forbes's Road through\nPennsylvania eclipsed Virginia's highway\nwhich Washington championed, Brad-\ndock's Road, because it was a more direct\nroute from the heart of colonial life to the\nOhio Basin, so now Pennsylvania's water-\nways, joined by a portage railway of only\nthirty-eight miles in length, eclipsed any\nand all other possible water routes to the\nOhio Valley by being actually opened\nto commerce. These repetitions of\nhistory illustrate Pennsylvania's keystone\nposition in the United States, so far as\nthe seaboard and the commercial centers\n\"Sherman Day's Historical Collections of the State\nof Pennsylvania, p. 184.\nDigitized by Google\n208\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nof the Mississippi Basin are concerned.\nThough exceptionally interesting and\nsuggestive, the Allegheny Portage Rail-\nway was only a link in a chain. The two\ngreat canals, in the valleys of the Juniata\nand Conemaugh were the greater links; a\nhorse-car rail road was laid from Philadel-\nphia to Columbia on the Susquehanna and\nthis, soon supplied with locomotives,\nbecame the eastern link in the chain of\ncommunication of which the Pennsylvania\nCanal was the important part. By 1835 the\ncomplete system was in operation between\nPhiladelphia and Pittsburg; a table of\ndistances will be interesting.\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA ROUTE IN 1835\nDivision No. I\nColumbia Rail Road\nMiles from\nPhiladelphia\nFair Mount Water Works\nI\nViaduct over Schuylkill River\n3\n\"H.S. Tanner's A Brief Description of the Canals\nand Rail Roads of the United States (November, 1834),\npp. 25-26.\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n209\nPaoli\n201/2\nDowningtown\n32\nCoatsville\n40\nMine Ridge\n52½\nLancaster\n69½\nMt. Pleasant\n761/2\nColumbia\n813/4\nDivision No. 2\nCentral Division of the Pennsylvania Canal\nMiles`from\nPhiladelphia\nMarietta\n843/4\nBainbridge\n911/4\nFalmouth\n943/4\nMiddletown\n99\nHarrisburg\n108\nDuncan's Island\n124½\nNewport\n135\nMifflintown\nI57\nLewistown\n171\nWaynesburg\n185\nAughwick Falls\n197\nJack's Mt.\n203\nHuntingdon\n214\nPetersburg\n221\nDigitized by Google\n210 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nAlexandria\n228\nFrankstown\n2501/2\nHollidaysburg\n253½\nDivision No. 3\nAllegheny Portage Rail Road\nMiles from\nPhiladelphia\nWalker's Point\n255\nInclined Plane No. IO\n2573/4\n\"\n\" No. 6\n2633/4\nMountain Br.\n2723/4\nEbensburg Br.\n2753/4\nStaple Bend\n2853/4\nJohnstown\n2901/4\nDivision No. 4\nWestern Division of the Pennsylvania Canal\nMiles from\nPhiladelphia\nLaurel Hill\n297\nLockport\n307\nBlairsville\n320\nSaltzburg\n336\nWarrenton\n348\nLeechburg\n358\nAqueduct over Allegheny River\n361\nFreeport\n363\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n211\nLogan's Ferry\n376\nPine Creek.\n388\nPittsburg\n394½\nThe lockage in the central division be-\ntween Columbia and Hollidaysburg was\n7473/4 feet; it was forty feet wide at the\ntop, twenty-eight feet at the bottom, and\nwas four feet deep. The dams numbered\neighteen; there were thirty-three aque-\nducts and one hundred and one locks, in-\ncluding guards; those between Columbia\nand Duncan's Island were 90 X 17 feet;\nthe remainder 90 X I5 feet. About six-\nteen miles on the Juniata was slack-\nwater navigation in 1834. The western\ndivision was the same in width and\ndepth as the central; the lockage from\nJohnstown to Pittsburg was 471 feet. On\nthis division there were sixty-four locks,\n90 X 15 feet, ten dams, two tunnels, sixteen\naqueducts, sixty-four culverts, thirty-nine\nwater weirs and one hundred and fifty-two\nbridges; 21½ miles was slackwater navi-\ngation. The cost of the central division\nwas $5,307,253.26; the Juniata Valley por-\ntion costing $3,570,016.29. The western\ndivision cost $3,096,522.30; making the\nDigitized by Google\n212 THE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nentire original cost of the canal proper\n$8,403,775.56. The total original cost of\nthe Allegheny Portage Railway to January,\n1837, including laying the second track\nand building the Conemaugh viaduct was\n$1,634,357.693,, making the total cost of the\n\"Pennsylvania Canal\" $10,038,133.253/4 -\nhalf a million dollars more than the Erie\nCanal, which it also exceeded in length by\nthirty-one miles. Yet the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal, of only one hundred and\neighty-five miles in length, cost a million\ndollars more than the Pennsylvania Canal.\nThe later history of the Pennsylvania\nCanal well illustrates the restlessness of\nhuman hearts, and the mighty conquests\nover nature which restless ambition has\nmade possible. One success, such as the\nPortage Railway, only suggested a greater\none, a railway over the mountain. The\nroad was only in fairly good working order\nwhen, in 1836, the Pennsylvania legislature\npassed a resolution ordering the canal com-\nmissioners to have a survey made of the\nAlleghenies to determine whether the\ninclined planes could not be dispensed\nwith! Within the next decade a New\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n213\nPortage Railway was planned which would\nfollow, in part, the route of the old line.\nThe hundreds who were connected with\nthe manipulation of the expensive and\ncumbersome planes decried, of course, the\nnew road, as we have noted so often in this\nseries; the owners and operators of earlier\nmethods of transportation scoffed at and\nopposed the new. But the new rail road\nwas not built at once. The opposition\ncarried weight. In April, 1846, however,\nthe Pennsylvania Railway was incorporated\nto build a through thoroughfare from\nPhiladelphia to Pittsburg. Of all routes\nthe Juniata-Conemaugh passage-way offered\nan unrivaled course and was quickly chosen.\nThe long contest over right of way in the\nPotomac Valley could not be reproduced\nhere, as the canal was a state affair. In\n1847, contracts had been let for sections\neastward from Pittsburg and westward\nfrom Harrisburg. In two years the sixty\nmiles between Harrisburg and Lewistown\nwere opened; in the year following the\nportion from Lewistown to Hollidaysburg\nwas completed. The western division was\npushed up the Conemaugh with equal\nDigitized by Google\n214\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nrapidity and on December 10, 1852, com-\nmunication between the termini was possi-\nble, passengers and freight being trans-\nferred across the mountain crest by stage\nand wagon. In 1854 the railway was com-\npleted across the Alleghenies.\nIn 1850 the legislature took steps to im-\nprove the communication between the two\nends of the canal by building the proposed\nportage road and avoiding planes. The\nwork went on simultaneously with the\nbuilding of the Pennsylvania track; as a\ntemporary accommodation the railway com-\npany allowed the portage operators to avoid\nPlane No. I, by using the railway track for\na distance of four miles east from Cone-\nmaugh station, east of Johnstown. Planes\nNo. 2 and No. 3 were avoided by means of\na new double track to the foot of Plane\nNo. 4. In 1854 the Pennsylvania Railway\nwas completed across the mountain, and\nthe trade of that company was of course\nlost to the Portage Railway. On July I,\n1855, the new portage route was in opera-\ntion, though incomplete.\nThe great success of the Pennsylvania\nRailway and its importance to the commer-\nDigitized by Google\nTHE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL\n215\ncial interests of the commonwealth tended\nto sink the old canal and its portage rail-\nway out of sight. In 1855 this main line\nof the public works\" was offered for sale,\nbut the offer was not liberal. Another act\nwas passed May 16, 1857, for its sale and\nJune 25, it was purchased by the Pennsyl-\nvania Railway Company; possession was\ntaken in August.\nAfter attempting to operate successfully\nthe Portage Railway, the new owners lost\n$7,220.14 in three months and ordered the\nline closed. The canal was operated by\nthe Pennsylvania Canal Company in the\ninterest of the railway and that was gradu-\nally abandoned. The division from Pitts-\nburg to Johnstown was entirely abandoned\nby 1864; the portion in the Juniata Valley\nwas abandoned in 1899, and that along the\nSusquehanna in 1900.\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nAppendixes\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nAPPENDIX A\nAN ACT FOR OPENING AND EXTENDING THE\nNAVIGATION OF POTOWMACK RIVER 98\nI. Whereas the extension of the naviga-\ntion of Potowmack river, from tide water to\nthe highest place practicable on the North\nbranch, will be of great public utility, and\nmany persons are willing to subscribe\nlarge sums of money to effect so laudable\nand beneficial a work; and it is just and\nproper that they, their heirs, and assigns,\nshould be empowered to receive- reasonable\ntolls forever, in satisfaction for the money\nadvanced by them in carrying the work\ninto execution, and the risk they run: And\nwhereas it may be necessary to cut canals\nand erect locks and other works on both\n\"We present here the first three sections of the act\nas given in Hening's The Statutes at Large; being a\ncollection of all the Laws of Virginia from the first\nsession of the Legislature in the year 1619\n.\n(Richmond, 1823), vol. xi, 9th of Commonwealth, ch.\nxliii, October, 1784.\nDigitized by Google\n220\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nsides of the river, and the legislatures of\nMaryland and Virginia, impressed with\nthe importance of the object, are desirous\nof encouraging so useful an undertaking:\nTherefore,\nII. Be it enacted by the General Assembly\nof Virginia, That it shall and may be law-\nful to open books in the city of Richmond,\ntowns of Alexandria and Winchester in this\nstate, for receiving and entering subscrip-\ntions for the said undertaking, under the\nmanagement of Jaquelin Ambler and John\nBeckley at the city of Richmond, of John\nFitzgerald and William Hartshorne at the\ntown of Alexandria, and of Joseph Holmes\nand Edward Smith at the town of Winches-\nter, and under the management of such\npersons and at such places in Maryland as\nhave been appointed by the state of Mary-\nland, which subscriptions shall be made\npersonally or by power of attorney, and\nshall be paid in Spanish milled dollars,\nbut may be paid in foreign silver or gold\ncoin of the value; that the said books shall\nbe opened for receiving subscriptions on\nthe eighth day of February next, and con-\ntinue open for this purpose until the tenth\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX A\n221\nday of May next, inclusive; and on the\nseventeenth day of the said month of May,\nthere shall be a general meeting of the\nsubscribers at the town of Alexandria, of\nwhich meeting notice shall be given by the\nsaid managers, or any four of them, in the\nVirginia and Maryland Gazettes, at least\none month next before the said meeting;\nand such meeting shall and may be con-\ntinued from day to day until the business\nis finished; and the acting managers at the\ntime and place hereinafter mentioned,\nshall lay before such of the subscribers as\nshall meet according to the said notice, the\nbooks by them respectively kept, contain-\ning the state of the said subscriptions; and\nif one half of the capital sum hereinafter\nmentioned, should, upon examination, ap-\npear not to have been subscribed, then the\nsaid managers at the said meeting, are em-\npowered to take and receive subscriptions\nto make up the deficiency; and a just and\ntrue list of all the subscribers, with the\nsums subscribed by each, shall be made\nout and returned by the said managers, or\nany four or more of them, under their\nhands, into the general court of each state,\nDigitized by Google\n222\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nto be there recorded; and in case more\nthan two hundred and twenty-two thou-\nsand two hundred and twenty-two dollars\nand two ninths of a dollar, shall be sub-\nscribed, then the same shall be reduced to\nthat sum by the said managers, or a\nmajority of them, by beginning at and\nstriking off a share from the largest sub-\nscription or subscriptions, and continuing\nto strike off a share from all subscriptions\nunder the largest, and above one share,\nuntil the sum is reduced to the capital of\ntwo hundred and twenty-two thousand two\nhundred and twenty-two dollars and two-\nninths of a dollar, or until a share is taken\nfrom all subscriptions above one share, and\nlots shall be drawn between the subscribers\nof equal sums, to determine the numbers\nin which such subscribers shall stand, on\na list to be made for striking off as afore-\nsaid; and if the sum subscribed still\nexceeds the capital aforesaid, or all the\nsubscriptions are reduced to one share:\nand if there still be an excess, then lots to\nbe drawn to determine the subscribers\nwho are to be excluded, to reduce the\nsubscriptions to the capital aforesaid,\nDigitized by Google\nAPPENDIX A\n223\nwhich striking off shall be certified in the\nlist aforesaid, and the said capital sum\nshall be reckoned and divided into five\nhundred shares of four hundred and forty-\nfour dollars and four-ninths of a dollar\neach, of which every person subscribing\nmay take and subscribe for one or more\nwhole shares, and not otherwise. Provided,\nThat unless one half of the said capital\nshall be subscribed as aforesaid, all sub-\nscriptions made in consequence of this act,\nshall be void, and in case one half and less\nthan the whole of the said capital shall be\nsubscribed as aforesaid, then the president\nand directors are hereby empowered and\ndirected to take and receive the subscrip-\ntions which shall first be offered in whole\nshares as aforesaid, until the deficiency\nshall be made up, a certificate of which\nadditional subscriptions shall be made\nunder the hands of the president and\ndirectors, or a majority of them for the\ntime being, and returned to and recorded\nin the general courts, aforesaid.\nIII. And be it enacted, That in case one\nhalf of the said capital, or a greater sum,\nshall be subscribed as aforesaid, the said\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n224\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nsubscribers, and their heirs and assigns,\nfrom the time of the said first meeting,\nshall be, and are hereby declared to be\nincorporated into a company, by the name\nof the Potowmack Company,\" and may\nsue and be sued as such; and such of the\nsaid subscribers as shall be present at the\nsaid meeting, or a majority of them, are\nhereby empowered and required to elect a\npresident and four directors, for conducting\nthe said undertaking, and managing all the\nsaid company's business and concerns, for\nand during such time, not exceeding three\nyears, as the said subscribers, or a ma-\njority of them, shall think fit. And in\ncounting the votes of all general meetings\nof the said company, each member shall be\nallowed one vote for every share, as far as\nten shares, and one vote for every five\nshares above ten, by him or her held at\nthe time in the said company; and any\nproprietor, by writing under his or her\nhand, executed before two witnesses, may\ndepute any other member or proprietor to\nvote and act as proxy for him or her, at\nany general meeting.\nDigitized by Google\nAPPENDIX B\nAN ACT INCORPORATING THE CHESAPEAKE\nAND OHIO CANAL COMPANY\n94\nWhereas a navigable canal from the tide\nwater of the river Potomac, in the District\nof Columbia, to the mouth of Savage creek,\non the north branch of said river, and\nextending thence across the Alleghany\nmountain, to some convenient point on the\nnavigable waters of the river Ohio, or\nsome one of its tributary streams, to be\nfed, through its course on the east side of\nthe mountain, by the river Potomac and\nthe streams which empty therein, and on\nthe western side of the mountain, and in\npassing over the same, by all such streams\nof water as may be beneficially drawn\nthereto by feeders, dams, or any other\npracticable mode, will be a work of great\nThis act, of which we present here the first two\nsections, was passed by the Virginia legislature January\n27, 1824. It was published in Laws Relative to the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal (Washington, 1827).\nDigitized by Google\n226\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nprofit and advantage to the people of this\nState, and of the neighboring States, and\nmay ultimately tend to establish a con-\nnected navigation between the eastern and\nwestern waters, so as to extend and multi-\nply the means and facilities of internal\ncommerce, and personal intercourse be-\ntween the two great sections of the United\nStates, and to interweave more closely all\nthe mutual interests and affections that are\ncalculated to consolidate and perpetuate\nthe vital principles of Union; and whereas\nit is represented to this General Assembly\nthat the Potomac Company are willing and\ndesirous that a charter shall be granted to\na new company, upon the terms and con-\nditions hereinafter expressed; and that the\ncharter of the present company shall cease\nand determine:\nI. Be it therefore enacted by the General\nAssembly of Virginia, That, as soon as the\nLegislatures of Maryland and Pennsyl-\nvania, and the Congress of the United\nStates, shall assent to the provisions of this\nact, and the Potomac company shall have\nsignified their assent to the same, by their\ncorporate act, a copy whereof shall be\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX B\n227\ndelivered to the Executives of the several\nStates aforesaid, and to the Secretary of\nthe Treasury of the United States, there\nshall be appointed by the said Executives\nand the President of the United States,\nthree commissioners on the part of each\nState, and the Government of the United\nStates, any one of whom shall be compe-\ntent to act for his respective government.\nThe said commissioners shall cause books\nto be opened at such times and places as\nthey shall think fit, in their respective\nStates, and the District of Columbia, under\nthe management of such persons as they\nshall appoint, for receiving subscriptions\nto the capital stock of the company herein-\nafter incorporated; which subscriptions\nmay be made, either in person or by power\nof attorney; and notice shall be given in\nsuch manner as may be deemed advisable,\nby one or more of the said commissioners,\nof the time and places of opening the\nbooks.\n2. And the said commissioners shall\ncause the books to be kept open at least\nforty days. And within twenty days after\nthe expiration thereof, shall call a general\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n228\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nmeeting of the subscribers at the city of\nWashington, of which meeting notice\nshall be given, by a majority of the com-\nmissioners aforesaid, in at least four of the\nnewspapers printed in Pennsylvania, Mary-\nland, Virginia, and the District of Colum-\nbia, at least twenty days next before the\nsaid meeting; and such meeting shall, and\nmay be continued from day to day until\nthe business is finished; and the commis-\nsioners at the time and place aforesaid,\nshall lay before such of the subscribers as\nshall meet according to the said notice, the\nbook containing the state of the said sub-\nscriptions: and, if one fourth of the capital\nsum of six millions of dollars should appear\nnot to have been subscribed, then the said\ncommissioners, or a majority of them, at\nthe said meeting, are empowered to take\nand receive subscriptions to make up such\ndeficiency, and may continue to take and\nreceive such subscriptions for the term of\ntwelve months thereafter; and a just and\ntrue list of all the subscribers, with the\nsum subscribed by each, shall be made out,\nand returned by the said commissioners, or\nby a majority of them, under their hands,\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX B\n229\nto the Board of Public Works of this State,\nto the Governor and Council of the State of\nMaryland, to the Secretary of State of the\nState of Pennsylvania, and to the Secretary\nof the Treasury of the United States, to be\ncarefully preserved; and in case more than\nsix millions of dollars shall be subscribed,\nthen the sum subscribed shall be reduced\nto that amount, by the said commissioners,\nor a majority of them, by beginning at and\nstriking off a share from the largest sub-\nscription or subscriptions, and continuing\nto strike off a share from all subscriptions\nunder the largest and above one share,\nuntil the same is reduced to the capital\naforesaid, or until a share is taken from all\nsubscriptions above one share; and lots\nshall be drawn between subscribers of\nequal sums, to determine the number of\nshares which each subscriber shall be\nallowed to hold, on a list to be made for\nstriking off as aforesaid: and if the sum\nsubscribed still exceed the capital aforesaid,\nthen to strike off by the same rule, until\nthe sum subscribed is reduced to the capi-\ntal aforesaid; or all the subscriptions re-\nduced to one share respectively: and, if\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n230\nTHE GREAT AMERICAN CANALS\nthere still be an excess, then lots shall be\ndrawn to determine the subscribers who\nare to be excluded, in order to reduce the\nsubscription to the capital aforesaid; which\nstriking off shall be certified on the lists\naforesaid; and the said capital stock of the\ncompany, hereby incorporated, shall con-\nsist of six million of dollars, divided into\nsixty thousand shares, of one hundred dol-\nlars each; of which every person subscrib-\ning may take, and subscribe for one or\nmore whole shares; and such subscriptions\nmay be paid and discharged either in the\nlegal currency of the United States, or in\nthe certificates of stock of the present\nPotomac company, at the par or nominal\nvalue thereof, or in the claims of the credi-\ntors of the said company, certified by the\nacting president and directors to have been\ndue, for principal and debt, on the day on\nwhich assent of the said company shall\nhave been signified by their corporate act\nas hereinbefore required: Provided, that the\nsaid certificates of stock shall not exceed,\nin the whole amount, the sum of three\nhundred and eleven thousand one hundred\nand eleven dollars and eleven cents; nor\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX B\n231\nthe said claims the sum of one hundred and\nseventy-five thousand eight hundred dol-\nlars: Provided, also, that the stock so paid\nfor in certificates of the stock of the present\ncompany, shall be entitled to dividend,\nonly as hereinafter provided: and that no\npayment shall be received, in such certifi-\ncates of stock, until the Potomac company\nshall have executed the conveyance pre-\nscribed by the thirteenth section of this\nact: And, provided, that, unless one-fourth\nof the said capital shall be subscribed, as\naforesaid, all subscriptions made in conse-\nquence of this act shall be void; and, in\ncase one fourth, and less than the whole\ncapital, shall be subscribed as aforesaid,\nthen the said commissioners, or a majority\nof them, are hereby empowered and\ndirected to take and receive the subscrip-\ntions, which shall first be offered in whole\nshares, as aforesaid, until the deficiency\nshall be made up; a certificate of which\nadditional subscription shall be made,\nunder the hands of said commissioners, or\na majority of them, for the time being,\nand returned as aforesaid.\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nImportant\nHistorical Publications\nOF\nThe Arthur H. Clark Company\nFull descriptive circulars will be mailed\non application\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\n\"The most important project ever undertaken in the line of Philippine his-\nory in any language, above all the English. - New York Evening Post.\nThe Philippine Islands\n1493 - 1898\nBeing the history of the Philippines\nfrom their discovery to the present time\nE\nXPLORATIONS by early Navigators, descrip-\ntions of the Islands and their Peoples, their His-\ntory, and records of the Catholic Missions, as related in\ncontemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the\npolitical, economic, commercial, and religious condi-\ntions of those Islands from their earliest relations with\nEuropean Nations to the end of the nineteenth century.\nTranslated, and edited and annotated by E. H. BLAIR, and\nJ. A. ROBERTSON, with introduction and additional notes\nby E. G. BOURNE.\nWith Analytical Index and Illustrations. Limited edi-\ntion, fifty-five volumes, large 8vo, cloth, uncut, gilt top.\nPrice, $4.00 net per volume.\n\"The almost total lack of acceptable material on Philippine history in English\ngives this undertaking an immediate value.\"\n-JAMES A. LE Roy in American Historical Review.\n\"With our freshened interest in the Far East, American readers ought not to\nneglect the new possessions in that region which now fly the Stars and Stripes.\"\n- Chicago Evening Post.\n\"Now at least there should be no difficulty for the American student to gain a\nclear view of the difficulties which both the Spaniards and their successors have\nhad to contend with in these islands, when they have this work before them, and\nhave not, as formerly, to obtain information from obscure Spanish sources, in a\nlanguage hitherto comparatively little studied in the United States,\nwel-\ncome to all students of the Far East. \"-English Historical Review.\nDigitized by Google\n23\nEarly Western Trabels\n1748-1846\nA\nSERIES OF ANNOTATED REPRINTS\nof some of the best and rarest contemporary vol-\numes of travel, descriptive of the Aborigines and Social\nand Economic Conditions in the Middle and Far West,\nduring the Period of Early American Settlement.\nEdited, with Historical, Geographical, Ethnological, and Bibliographical\nNotes, and Introductions and Index, by\nReuben Gold Thwaites\nEditor of 'The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents,\" \"Wisconsin His-\ntorical Collections,\" \" Chronicles of Border Warfare,\"\n\"Hennepin's New Discovery,\" etc.\nWith facsimiles of the original title-pages, maps, portraits,\nviews, etc. 31 volumes, large 8vo, cloth, uncut, gilt tops.\nPrice $4.00 net per volume (except the Maximilien Atlas,\nwhich is $15.00 net). Limited edition ; each set numbered\nand signed.\nAn Elaborate Analytical Index to the Whole\nAlmost all of the rare originals are without indexes. In the\npresent reprint series, this immense mass of historical data will\nbe made accessible through one exhaustive analytical index, to\noccupy the concluding volume.\nMr. Cowaited's Cminence as an authority on all matters connected with\nthe history of the West, and his well-known standing as an Editor and Libra-\nrian, will be sufficient assurance of the value of the Travels seletted, and of the\ncare with which the series will be edited throughout.\nBOOKBINDING CO.\n9ST\n004\nI\n53\nBD\n6121\nNTROL MARK\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nH912\nV.13\nDATE DUE\nDigitized by Google"
}