In

the Easton and Trenton Delaware Bridge companies. April, 1793, a company was chartered to build a bridge over the Susquehanna, four miles below Wright's Ferry; but letters patent were never issued, and it probably was not constructed.1 Five years later a company was chartered to build a bridge over the Lehigh near Northampton, but letters patent for this were not issued till 1812.2 The third was more important and successful.

The Schuylkill Permanent Bridge Company act of March 16, 1798, was, like many others, the outcome of steps taken over a period of years. During the Revolution a floating bridge, little more than a military pontoon, was thrown across the Schuylkill at Market Street, Philadelphia, the principal highway to the west; and after the war this was maintained by the city because of its superiority to the ferry. With the growth of the city in importance the need of a fixed structure became increasingly evident, and a flood of 1789 which swept away the floating bridge further emphasized the need. In 1786 Thomas Paine had proposed an iron bridge of a single arch, and prepared a model which was much admired. The Philadelphia Agricultural Society petitioned that this be carefully examined and a charter granted, and the legislature resolved to grant a charter to any company agreeing to build and maintain a bridge till the tolls should repay principal and interest; but neither the terms nor the times were propitious, and the enterprise slumbered. In the winter of 1787-88 a company was formed to build a permanent bridge, but the city wardens (and perhaps others) were heard in opposition, and no charter was granted. The city council desired to build the bridge, but could not raise the requisite funds. Finally, early in 1798, a company of weighty capitalists headed by Richard Peters, justice of the supreme court, was formed and secured a charter. It bought for 1 Session Laws, 380; Hazard, Register of Pa., ii, 295 (1828). 2 Session Laws, 141; Hazard, Register of Pa., ii, 295 (1828).

* Scharf and Westcott (History of Phila., 2141) say that Paine produced another model in 1787 "and the Assembly chartered a bridge company, included in whose members were John Paine, Samuel Powel, and Robert Morris, with a nominal capital of $66,666.66.” Such a company may have been formed, but the published acts give no evidence of a charter.

$40,000, half in stock, the rights of the city in the ferry and floating bridge, then yielding about $3500 per annum. A design by Timothy Palmer of Newburyport, builder of the Merrimac, Piscataqua, and Potomac bridges, was accepted. After numerous delays, due principally to capitalist backwardness, the corner-stone was at last laid Oct. 18, 1800. The engineering difficulties, chiefly in the construction of the huge piers, were finally overcome through the energy and ingenuity of Reynolds, the constructing engineer, in the face of much scoffing and criticism; but not till Jan. 1, 1805, was the bridge ready for use. Originally $150,000 capital had been authorized, in $10 shares; 750 new shares were later added, and in all $218,000 stock was fully paid; but the cost mounted to some $300,000, the income from the ferries and floating bridge having been invested in the new one and a considerable sum raised by loan.1

New York's sole charter in this class was granted in 1795 to The Cayuga Bridge Company for erecting a bridge across Cayuga Lake, with a capital of $25,000 in $50 shares. Two years later its term to complete the bridge was extended one year. When it was finally completed, in September, 1800, this structure was reported the largest in the world.2 One of New York's turnpike companies, as noted below, was empowered to build and operate a toll-bridge over the Mohawk at Schenectady, on its route westward to Utica.3 It may be that the presence of numerous turnpike companies, in this state and in Connecticut, was partly responsible for the smallness of the number of separate toll-bridge companies.

The George-town Bridge Company was incorporated by Mary

1 Scharf and Westcott, History of Phila., iii, 2141-2143; Joseph Jackson, in Public Ledger (Philadelphia), March 14, 1915, showing picture of the bridge; Pa. Stats. at Large, xvi, 36–46, 244-245, 397-398; Hazard, Register of Pa., x, 145-150, 179, 193, 213 (1832) an account by Judge Peters; ibid., ii, 295 (1828), xi, 292– 293 (1833); Pa. Mag. of Hist. and Biog., xvi, 175, 422 — extracts from the diary of Jacob Hiltzheimer; ibid., xxviii, 131 (1904); Mass. Centinel, May 16, 1787, Dec. 18, 1790. Cf. J. J. Currier, History of Newburyport, Mass. . . . i,, 369, for Timothy Palmer's testimonial when the bridge was completed.

2 Ringwalt, Transp. Systems in U. S., 36; Laws (ed. 1887), iv, 78–80, 326–327. 3 Infra, 223.

land late in 1791, to build a bridge over the Potomac to connect Georgetown with northern Virginia. Subscriptions were not forthcoming at the first invitation. In 1795, however, a contract was made with Timothy Palmer, the renowned bridge builder of Newburyport, Mass., and the majority of the four hundred shares ($200 par) were subscribed. The bridge was opened in October, 1797, having cost nearly $84,000, of which $47,000 had been secured from the stockholders and the rest by a loan. In 1801 the directors announced that the tolls had sufficed to cover maintenance and interest on the debt, and proposed to sell eighty-six unissued shares at $200 to pay off the debt, setting forth the prospect of early dividends at six per cent. This plan failed, and the next year a suit was brought to enforce the sale of the property to settle the debt. This seems to have been averted, but possibly the deferring of maintenance on account of financial difficulties may have been partly responsible for the catastrophe of 1804, when the high wooden arch fell into the river. This was replaced in 1806, at a cost of $8000. This having been destroyed by a flood in 1808, a chain bridge was built at a cost of $4000; and when this was likewise swept away in 1810, another better one was built at an expense of $8000. In 1826 the stock of the company amounted to $81,562.50 – three hundred and sixty-two and one-half shares of $225 each. The directors then reported that the profits had not averaged one per cent and were at this time yielding only 2 per cent.1

Late in 1795 a company was chartered to build a bridge over the eastern branch at the foot of Kentucky Avenue (where the Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge now is). In January, 1798, The Anacostia Bridge Company, chiefly a Benjamin Stoddert enterprise, was chartered with an authorized capital of $20,000 to build another bridge over the same branch. Neither company was floated at this time. The former, however, known as the Lower Bridge, was opened in January, 1804, three months

1 Bryan, History of the National Capital, i, 243, 290-291, 430-431, 490-491; petitions in Sen. Doc. 86, 19th Cong., 1st Sess. (1826); Md. Session Laws, Dec. 29, 30, 1791, pp. 81, 89, and Dec. 24, 1795; McDonough v. Templeman, 1 Harris and Johnson (Md.) 156-163 (1801).

before the first destruction of the Georgetown Bridge, and within two years the other, known as the Upper Bridge, was completed.1 Late in 1796 Maryland also chartered the Water-street Bridge Company, which erected a bridge over Jones' Falls in Baltimore at the site of the so-called Tower Bridge.2

South Carolina chartered, in May, 1794, The port Republic Bridge Company to construct "Causeys and a Bridge, across the marshes and river, which separate the Island and Port Republic, (formerly Port Royal) from the . . . mainland." 3

Finally Kentucky, in 1799, chartered the Frankfort Bridge Company, for erecting a toll-bridge at the town named. This was the sole business corporation chartered by that state prior to 1800. It appears not to have accomplished its purpose.

In the main it is to be said that the toll-bridge companies performed important services in many states and were highly regarded both by legislatures and by investors. The type of enterprise was one for which the corporation was peculiarly fitted, and it was one field in which corporations usually justified expectations.

The bridge companies varied greatly in size, but few could be called large. The Massachusetts charters fixed no capital, but the investment there usually came to less than $50,000 and was frequently under $10,000. Among the most costly of those finished before 1801 were the New Brunswick Bridge, costing over $80,000, and the Piscataqua Bridge, costing between $60,000 and $70,000. Several companies had specific authority to raise over $100,000, but none of these completed its undertaking till after the end of the century. Probably more than half of the number floated built structures costing under $20,000.

The charters were not far different from the turnpike charters, though somewhat briefer and simpler. Of their outstanding features a few words will be said at the end of the chapter.

1 Md. Laws (Kilty); Bryan, History of the National Capital, i, 336-337, 491–492. 2 Session Laws, c. 56.

3 Stats. at Large (ed. 1838), viii, 182; Columbian Centinel, Sept. 10, 1794.

Turnpike corporations followed both canal and bridge companies.1 The first company was chartered in 1792, and it was only in 1794, as the accompanying table witnesses, that the turnpike movement began in earnest. They were offspring of the same movement for improved communication. Yet the prejudice, in some places, in favor of water communication, and the generally firm establishment of roads as "public goods" and subjects of public management, operated to delay the

entry of the private corporation into this sphere. It is probable that an impetus to the private toll road was furnished by the success of the toll-bridge companies and the ill success of the navigation companies. Late in appearing, the turnpike company was also slow in getting upon a firm footing. Difficulties in securing capital proved more formidable than in the case of bridges, and the works, quite naturally, required more time to

1 For English turnpikes, see Edwin A. Pratt, A History of Inland Transport and Communication in England (New York, 1912), 77-107. The system was generally adopted about 1767. The common form of organization was somewhat different from the simple American business corporation.

2 Cf. supra, 112, 149, 151, and Washington to Patrick Henry, Nov. 30, 1785, regarding repairs of roads "until the period shall arrive when turnpikes may with propriety be established": Henry, Works, iii, 339.