met.1 After a lapse of three years charters were granted in 1800 for the New Castle Bridge, which evidently was not completed for many years; and for the "Republican Bridge" over the Pemigewasset Branch at Webster Falls between Salisbury and Sanborton, which was completed in 1802.2

From this sketchy review it is evident that New Hampshire's companies, though more numerous than those of Massachusetts, were on the whole smaller, less conspicuous, and less successful. Yet the list of charters indicates a surprisingly ready resort to incorporation even for small ventures.

As noted above, Vermont somewhat tardily accorded charters to two companies first incorporated by New Hampshire for bridging the Connecticut: The proprietors of the White River Falls Bridge waited from 1792 to 1795 for the Vermont act, the Cornish Bridge company from 1795 to 1797 for its act.3 Almost at the same time as the first of these The West River Bridge company in Brattleborough was chartered, and within a few years it had completed its object. Practically simultaneously with the second joint charter, in 1797, Vermont incorporated The Second West River Bridge Company, for building a bridge at Dummerston; and in November, 1799, the Onion River Bridge Company was chartered to bridge the Onion River in Waterbury.5 The success of these is not evident. Vermont, therefore, with not very different topographical conditions, appears to have been during these years notably behind her twin sister in this form of business enterprise.

In general it is to be remarked that the bridge companies of northern and western New England found much more difficulty in securing capital, were slower in completing their structures, and were less successful than the companies near Boston. The

1 MSS. Laws, x, 278, 380, xi, 42 (Index, 177, 410, 244).

2 Ibid., xiii, 17, 102 (Index, 404, 473-474, 486). Cf. ibid., xxii, 5, 264, xvii, 256; Dearborn, Salisbury, N. H., 316–317. Petition in N. H. Town Papers, xii, 392.

3 Session Laws, October, 1795, pp. 62-66; ibid., October, 1797, pp. 66-69.

▲ Ibid., Oct. 16, 1795, pp. 22–25; ibid., Nov. 16, 1801, pp. 66-67. Ibid., 39-42, 59-63.

For lack of complete files of the Session Laws, however, it is not certain that this list is complete.

trouble in securing capital was due partly to the smaller supply of it available near at hand and its timidity in venturing far from the large centres except for special attraction, and partly to the smaller amount of travel, upon which success depended. The relatively smaller success of the bridges erected reflects the special importance of the second factor. The delays in completing structures were due partly to the delay in securing capital, but also, no doubt, to the poorer management available outside the considerable towns. Yet the numerous charters attest the willingness of promoters to dare failure and the readiness of the legislatures to encourage them.

Three toll-bridge companies were chartered in Rhode Island. In February, 1792, the Providence citizens set on foot subscriptions and preferred petitions for charters for building bridges over the Seekonk, "at the upper ferry and the lower ferry;" and in June the legislature incorporated The Proprietors of the Central Bridge, leading to and from Providence and The Providence South-Bridge Society, in the Town of Providence for these purposes. The first of these bridges was first used April 12, 1793. Possibly the second was also completed in due course.1 A bridge to connect Portsmouth and Tiverton at Howland's Ferry was under discussion in February, 1792, when these companies were chartered, and two years later The Rhode Island Bridge Company was incorporated to construct it. Two hundred shares of $100 each were subscribed, and between May 11 and Oct. 15, 1795, the bridge was built, by one Whiting of Connecticut. It was thirty-six feet wide and eight hundred feet long exclusive of the abutments. In January following, the greater part of the bridge was carried away in a gale and flood. In April $30 was assessed on the original stockholders, two hundred new shares were taken at $80, and the reconstruction of the bridge was contracted for with John Cooke of Tiverton for $20,000. This bridge was completed Nov. 20, 1796, only to be carried away by a storm in the fall of 1797. Eventually, in

1 Providence Gazette, Feb. 25, 1792, Sept. 14, 1793; Session Laws, 1792, pp. 1517; R. I. Records, xii, 478, 491-493; Staples, Annals of Providence, 359; Dwight, Travels, iii, 61-62.

1806-07, it was replaced by a stone bridge costing $70,000.1 In view of the size of the state and its topographical conditions it is easy to understand why no more companies were chartered.

Connecticut, though from 1795 a leader in the turnpike company movement, had surprisingly few bridge companies. Only three were incorporated, and but one of these clearly completed its object before the end of the century. The first bridge charter was granted in October, 1796, to The Company for erecting and supporting a Toll Bridge from New Haven to East Haven.2 This bridge was completed in due time, at a cost of some $60,000, much greater than had been anticipated; and in May, 1799, upon representing that the tolls yielded only 4 per cent on this cost, the company secured an increase of toll.3 In 1797 were incorporated The Proprietors of Niantic Toll Bridge, in New London County, and in 1798 a Company for erecting and supporting a Toll bridge, with Locks, from Enfield to Suffield, which was completed without the locks in November, 1808.5

Outside of New England toll-bridge corporations were much less numerous. There seems to have been none in Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, or Tennessee. New York, South Carolina, and Kentucky show each but a single one. Maryland had four, Pennsylvania had five. New Jersey, with the same number, alone of the middle and southern states incorporated companies at all numerous in comparison with her size and importance. Perhaps this was to be expected, for her territory lay right athwart the seaboard highway between north and south; geographically she was a bridging state.

Under the stimulus of the success of the Massachusetts undertakings a movement was set on foot to improve by similar means the greatest highway of the day-between New York

1 Amer. Museum, xii, App. III, 6 (1792); Newport Mercury, Aug. 11, Oct. 20, 1795; Session Laws, October, 1795, p. 26; N. Y. Magazine, vi, 639 (October, 1795); W. A. Watson, "History of the Rhode Island Bridge Company," in The Newport Historical Magazine, iii, 170–172 (January, 1883).

2 Private Laws (ed. 1837), i, 241–242.

3 A further increase was granted in May, 1805: ibid., i, 242-243.

• Ibid., i, 279.

Ibid., i, 250-252; Love, Navigation of the Conn. River, 404.

and Philadelphia, the two chief cities of the country. This road not merely required the crossing of the noble Hudson and Delaware, near its extremities, but within New Jersey it crossed three New Jersey streams of some size. The improvement of this communication was of more than local interest, whether the national capital was at New York or (as after 1790) at Philadelphia; and the execution of the project shows interestingly the transition that was painfully made from the older methods of lotteries and state commissioners to the newer method of corporate enterprise.

On May 31, 1790, the assembly heard a petition from the quasi-public trustees of the ferries over the Passaic and Hackensack,' requesting permission to erect toll-bridges over these streams and submitting an estimate of the expense prepared by George Cabot, the honorable senator from Massachusetts.2 The matter was laid over till the next session, leave being given to advertise the proposal. The outcome then was the appointment of a commission composed of three Jerseymen and two New Yorkers, with power to select sites, to "erect or cause to be erected" bridges thereon, and to lay out roads joining Newark, the bridges, and Powles Hook (Jersey City). The commissioners were authorized to farm out the bridges "to be erected and made, and afterwards maintained and kept in Repair by the Toll arising therefrom," at rates to be fixed by the commission, but not in excess of three-fourths of existing ferry rates, upon conditions such as they should deem expedient and for a term not exceeding ninety-nine years from the passage of the act. Other bridges within certain distances were prohibited, provided these be completed within four years. The commissioners were authorized to receive voluntary subscriptions, and any person contributing £20 or more was to be entitled, "with his Dwelling, household, and his and their Goods and Chattels, to pass and repass the said bridge Toll free." Moreover, by another act passed the same day the commissioners were authorized

Incorporated 1765; see Essay I, 99.

2 Assembly Minutes, May 31, p. 29.

3 Ibid., Nov. 8, 10, 1790, pp. 24, 27; Session Laws, Nov. 24, 1790, pp. 685-692.

to raise £4000 by lottery for constructing the road and causeways.1

4

In February, 1791, the ground was surveyed by Casimer Th. Goerck for the commissioners, and in April the commissioners advertised for bids for building the bridges, setting forth the terms of the contract they were empowered to make. The lottery was promptly put into operation. The various "classes" were drawn during the summer and fall, and so satisfactory was the outcome that the commissioners thought it possible to raise by this means the entire cost of the bridges. Accordingly, in November, 1791, the same legislature which so liberally incorporated the "S. U. M." authorized the commissioners to raise by lottery the sum of £27,000, of which £20,000 was to be applied to building the bridges, with the prospect that tolls not exceeding one-fourth of the ferriage rates would suffice for maintenance and replacement fund. The New York assembly consented to allow the lottery tickets to be sold in that state. Despite this privilege, and though liberally advertised for a year, this second lottery proved a disappointment. John Pintard, one of the commissioners, was deeply immersed in the speculative activities of 1791 and 1792, and failed with Duer in March, 1792; and rumor charged that the lottery funds were misappropriated by the speculators. Finally in November, 1792, when almost two years had been wasted, the legislature directed procedure according to the original plan.10

9

1 Session Laws, 693.

8

2 Map and description in N. Y. Magazine, ii, 365–368 (July, 1791).

3 Brunswick Gazette, June 21; Gazette of the U. S., July 2; N. Y. Daily Advertiser, August 1; and other newspapers.

See advertisements in N. J. Journal, June 22, July 6, September 28; Newark Gazette, July 7, November 24.

5 Assembly Minutes, Nov. 11, 1791, p. 60.

Session Laws, Nov. 24, 1791, pp. 752-755. Of the balance, £2000 was to be applied to provide buildings to accommodate the legislature in Trenton, the new state capital, and £5000 to the building of the New Brunswick bridge.

7 Newark Gazette, Feb. 2, 1792.

8 See New Jersey newspapers, passim. Whitehead, Perth Amboy (1856), 287, says that £14,000 was raised, but this is doubtful.

Cf. Essay II, 284. Alexander Macomb, a leading speculator, had been one of the petitioners for permission to sell tickets in New York: Newark Gazette, Feb. 2, 1792.

10 Session Laws, Nov. 29, 1792, p. 810.