be of large, even nation-wide importance. Such, for example, were the Susquehanna canal of Maryland, the Potomac navigation of Virginia and Maryland, the Dismal Swamp canal of Virginia and North Carolina, the Santee and Cooper navigation of South Carolina, the Catawba and Wateree of South Carolina and North Carolina, the Schuylkill and Susquehanna navigation in Pennsylvania, the Delaware and Chesapeake of Pennsylvania and Maryland, the New York northern and western canals, and the Middlesex canal of Massachusetts. Others, though varying in size, were small and merely of local consequence. Regarding the larger enterprises considerable information is extant, and this it has seemed worth while to summarize. The smaller companies must be more quickly passed over, both because of their minor importance and because much less information concerning them is obtainable. Incidentally reference will be made to certain less highly developed forms of organization, peculiarly numerous in this field, which preceded and accompanied the corporation.

The accompanying table indicates how completely the southern states took the lead in chartering canal companies in the decade 1781-90, and how widespread was the movement in the next few years. It also reveals the high points of enthusiasm in 1792 and 1795-96.

On Dec. 26, 1783, the Maryland assembly granted the first full and complete canal charter, to The Proprietors of the Susquehanna Canal.1 The act recites a long list of men, including Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Henry Lee, Jr., who,

"actuated by very laudable motives, have undertaken to render the river Susquehanna navigable from the line of this state [Love Island] to tide water, and have subscribed the sum of eighteen thousand five hundred pounds current money of Maryland, and obliged themselves to raise by subscription the further sum of one thousand five hundred pounds . . . to be applied to that purpose; and this general assembly being strongly impressed with the general utility of the said undertaking, and the beneficial

1 Md. Laws (Kilty), 1783, c. 23. Thomas W. Griffith says, in his Annals of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1824, p. 101), that the company was chiefly composed of citizens of Baltimore.

consequences that will be derived from the accomplishment thereof to the inhabitants of this state, by extending the trade thereof, and being willing to give the said undertakers every proper encouragement and support

Within the next six years several thousand pounds were expended in this enterprise. The preamble of an act of November, 1784, which granted a desired amendment regarding the tolls, notes that "the said corporation have already made a considerable progress in the said undertaking, and are prosecuting the same with great avidity."2 Madison wrote Jefferson April 27, 1785, reporting "the undertaking on the Susquehannah by Maryland goes on with great spirit & expectations,” and again Aug. 12, 1786, that it was "in such forwardness as to leave no doubt of its success." Negotiations were had with Pennsylvania looking toward permission to open the river within that state, for, as Madison remarked, "Unless this is permitted the opening undertaken within the limits of Maryland will be of little account." In July, 1787, a New Yorker wrote to a Baltimore friend of a tour he had lately made to view the canal making around the falls of the Susquehanna, which, contrary to expectations, he "found in a fair way to be completed; as far as Maryland extends." He continues:

"No doubt the heretofore narrow partial views of Pennsylvania will be soon at an end, as the counties contiguous to the River are increasing fast, who will all find it to their advantage to direct their trade down the Susquehannah, which might be made navigable, at a small expense, as far as Pennsylvania extends." 4

But Pennsylvania was backward about granting this permission until Maryland should accede to the northern proposal of a canal between the Delaware and Chesapeake bays; and in 1789, in speaking on the site of the new federal capital, the best

1 At the outset there were to be twenty shares, and no person might subscribe more than one or less than one-fifth of a share. In 1790 the number was increased to thirty and in 1797 to forty: Laws, 1790, c. 36, 1797, c. 99.

2 Md. Laws (Kilty), 1784, c. 66, adding: "it is necessary to ascertain with precision the tolls to be received . . . and to adjust them in such manner as that they may be proportional to the comparative value of the commodities which shall be transported through the said canal." Cf. supra, 115, and infra, 122.

3 Madison, Works, ii, 137, 258.

Quoted in Mass. Centinel, Aug. 8, 1787.

a Pennsylvania senator could say on the subject was that Pennsylvania was not disposed to obstruct the Susquehanna navigation.1 Twice Maryland extended the time for completion of these works-in 1790 to 1798, in 1797 to 1805; and in 1790, 1797, and 1799 she authorized the raising of additional capital.2 In the summer of 1795 a committee of the company arranged a meeting in Harrisburg of citizens of several river counties of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the meeting resolved unanimously to open subscriptions, payable half September 11, half Aug. 1, 1796, for improving the navigation from Wright's Ferry to the Maryland line; committees were appointed to solicit subscriptions in the several counties; commissioners were appointed to superintend the work; and "a spirited address" to all interested was published. The efforts seem to have been largely in vain, and the enterprise was still in a sad state of incompleteness when the century closed.

Meanwhile the Potomac project had been revived. On May 31, 1783, the Maryland legislature appointed a committee to examine the river and to estimate the expense of making it navigable and the time this work would take. Report was made in November that an outlay of $92,000 and two years' time would be sufficient for opening the navigation from Fort Cumberland to the Great Falls. No action was taken, but the subject came to be considerably discussed."

In September, 1784, Washington, once more a private citizen, made a journey west to inspect his lands beyond the Alleghanies." On his return he submitted to the governor of Virginia a transcript of his journal and a letter urging the importance and prac

1 King, Rufus King, i, 371–372. This was Maclay; Robert Morris spoke with pride of the bargaining policy. Cf. infra, 136–137.

2 Md. Laws (Kilty), 1790, c. 36; 1797, c. 99; 1799, c. 17. The earlier act authorizes "foreigners" to hold stock as well as citizens, probably to attract Dutch capital.

...

3 G. H. Morgan, Annals . . . of Harrisburg . . . (Harrisburg, 1858), 114-115. The fullest account is that of Mrs. Corra Bacon-Foster, Early Chapters in the Development of the Patomac Route to the West (Washington, 1912). She reprints most of the relevant documents. John Pickell's account is also fairly extensive. Б Scharf, Hist. of Md., ii, 518–519.

Cf. Herbert B. Adams, "Washington's Interest in Western Lands," in Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies in Hist. and Pol. Sci., iii, No. 1 (Baltimore, 1885), 55-57.

ticability of opening up the Potomac route to the Ohio country. Governor Harrison laid the letter before the assembly, with his cordial approval.1 Washington believed in having the work undertaken by the government, but realized that this method stood no immediate chance of adoption. He therefore threw his influence in favor of launching a corporation in which the states would become stockholders. A petition for a charter was soon submitted, with a bill, perhaps drafted by the General himself. To Thomas Johnson, then a member of the Maryland assembly, Washington wrote October 15, enclosing a duplicate of the Potomac Company petition and commending to him the task of pushing the plan through his legislature. On November 15 a mass meeting was held at Alexandria, the town likely to benefit most by the proposed navigation, "to deliberate and consult on the vast great political and commercial object," and "every possible effort" was pledged to accomplish it.1 On December 4 the House of Delegates heard a memorial from sundry inhabitants of Maryland and Virginia "setting forth, that they conceive it would greatly contribute to the extension of commerce, and the improvement of agriculture, if the river Potomac were made navigable from the falls, and a communication opened by that means with the western country," and asking a corporate charter. Three days later the Committee of the Whole reported favorably and appointed a committee to bring in a bill. 'On December 13 it was voted that inasmuch as "acts passed without communication between the two States, may be dissimilar and productive of much delay," General Washington, General Gates, and Col. Thomas Blackburn be sent as commissioners from Virginia to confer with persons similarly appointed in Maryland, on the matter in general and on specific points. The conference took place December 22.

1 Washington's letter and Harrison's reply are printed in Bacon-Foster, Patomac Route, 154-162.

* See his letters, quoted in ibid., 45, 159.

Letter printed in ibid., 44.

Ibid., 45, printing the account from the Va. Gazette.

Journal of House of Delegates, 58, 61, 68. Blackburn did not attend, and Gates's illness threw the entire burden on to Washington.