CHAPTER IV

RAILWAYS VERSUS CANALS

1830-1840

RAILWAYS DID NOT FIND A CLEAR FIELD

When the railway came it did not find a clear field. It found well-established canals and turnpikes already occupying many of the most profitable routes, and those whose fortunes were sunk in such systems naturally made every possible objection against a means of transportation which would rob their investments of value. For some time, too, unbiased engineers were in doubt as to the relative merits of railways and canals, in which doubt Congress shared. It is the purpose of this chapter to describe the early conditions in this regard, in so far as they bear upon the attitude of Congress toward railways, and to trace briefly their development down to the time when the railway superseded the canal as a means of internal improvement which could be regarded as national. Incidentally light will be thrown upon the general question as to when the railway became predominant in the greater part of the field of transportation.

THE HOUSE INQUIRIES: 1825

In 1808 Latrobe had written that railways could not be adopted to advantage in this country, and Gallatin's report merely proposed canals and turnpikes. Everyone knew that in 1812 Stevens' proposal to substitute a railway for the projected Erie canal had been rejected by the commissioners. Rapid improvement in track and locomotive, however, soon put a new face on matters, till in 1825 William Strickland could

write from England, that railways had received numerous tests which proved them to be practicable, and he announced that one was about to be constructed from Newcastle to Carlisle in preference to a canal.1 At about this time, too, the Liverpool & Manchester railway was being planned to parallel a wellestablished and profitable canal.

These developments could not but affect the proceedings of the Congress of the United States, which, as we have seen, was continually considering plans for improving the transportation and communication facilities of the nation. It is more than a coincidence that on December 15, 1825, it was resolved by the House of Representatives2 that its committee on roads and canals be instructed to inquire into the utility of railways, and that it report to the House upon the comparative cost of constructing railways and canals, together with the relative advantages of the two modes of conveyance. The resolution implies a desire to encourage a system of "internal improvement;" but it was not clear that the railway was practicable, or that it was a better system than canals afforded.

Just as the year 1825 marks a growth of active interest in railways, so it is the time when the question as to the relative merits of canals and railways came before Congress as an important one.

CONGRESS EXPERIMENTS: 1830

Between 1825 and 1830 improvement in railway construction was especially rapid, yet even at the latter date its superiority was not clear. In that year the committee to which was referred a memorial of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company mentioned the fact that the Chesapeake & Ohio canal and the railway were proceeding over the same territory, and rejoiced that a direct and conclusive experiment was now to be made.3 Accordingly a bill was reported for aiding the railway as far

1 Reports on Canals, Railways, etc.

(Phila. 1826), p. 23. 25 copies of this report were purchased by the House of Representatives, see above, p. 190. 2 H. J., 1825-26. See above, p. 190. No report was made. Rep. of Com., 1829-30, II, No. 211.

as the Point of Rocks, where it came together with the canal.* The committee only reported after having "reflected much on the interesting question, now in agitation in England and this country, namely, whether railroads are to be preferred to canals in ordinary cases, and on routes where there are no intermediate water communications;" and they wished it to be understood that not the slightest preference was to be given to either.

This report was made notwithstanding the opposition of the Chesapeake & Ohio canal, and in spite of the impartial words used, it would seem to indicate a strong tendency toward the railway, especially in the light of later developments. But it shows that people were still divided on the subject.

THE BALTIMORE & OHIO VERSUS THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO

In this connection the struggle that was taking place between the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company is typical of the status of affairs in general. An account of this controversy, so far as it throws light on the subject of this chapter, follows."

The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company was chartered by Virginia in 1824, and in 1825 Congress confirmed that charter. The books of the company were opened, and by November, 1827, one-fourth of the stock being subscribed, the corporation was established. In the same year, at a public meeting in Baltimore, a report was adopted according to which the legislature of Maryland was applied to for a railway charter; the charter was granted; the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company came into existence as a corporation. In April of the same year, the company applied to the government for surveyors.

Now, the railway company had made it known that they intended to proceed toward the Ohio by a "direct route," and this fact, together with the saving in time and expense sup

The report was not favorably acted upon.

This account is drawn almost entirely from Congressional debates and documents. For a more general account, see J. H. U. Studies, XV, 285 ff; XVII, 519 fr.

posed to accompany it, aided it in securing favor. The company, moreover, was well acquainted with the projected canal route, which followed the line of the Potomac river. In 1828, however, when construction was begun, instead of taking a direct route, it proceeded to survey its way along the Potomac valley, and soon came into contact with the canal at the Point of Rocks, where but a narrow strip of land was available along the river. Controversy arose, and was soon carried into the courts.

Both of these corporations had been aided by Congress, the canal company by a subscription to its stock, and the railway by government surveyors. Moreover, both were seeking further assistance, so the conflict came prominently before Congress. In 1829 the canal company memorialized Congress, stating that by its charter it was authorized to construct a railway on its "middle section" over the Alleghenies; hence this railway (the Baltimore & Ohio), which was asking assistance' was usurping its place. Further, it asked that no opinion be expressed as to the relative legal pretensions of the opponents.

Meanwhile, the legal controversy thickened. An injunction was obtained from the Washington county court by the canal company against the railway. The railway company in turn secured an injunction against the canal company, which had attempted to rush its construction through; but, upon appeal, the canal company won, and the railway had the worst of it on the legal side. Popular opinion, however, supported it, and, through the state legislature, pressure was brought to bear upon the canal company which resulted in a compromise. In 1833 it was finally agreed and settled that in return for a subscription for 2,500 of its shares by the railway company, the canal company was to build both systems through the Point of Rocks. This was a victory for the railway.

9

Sen. Docs., 1828-29, II, No. 99.

'The Baltimore & Ohio presented a memorial asking stock subscription, December, 22, 1828. See below in chapter IX.

Exec. Docs., 1832-33, No. 113.

The nature of this compromise accounts for a memorial of the president and directors of the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. in favor of a further subscription of stock in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co., which was presented in 1834 (Exec. Docs., 1833-34, III, No. 95). The redundancy of the revenue and the national

THE BALTIMORE & OHIO-CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CONTROVERSY TYPICAL OF THE TIME

It is to be emphasized that this controversy is of more significance than a mere squabble between the interests of two corporations. It typifies the general situation that existed in 1830 as regards the transportation question. It was not the fate of the Chesapeake & Ohio canal alone that was decided, but that of many others. The Chesapeake & Ohio was the result of years of agitation and planning, for it had sprung from the ruins of an earlier project by the Potomac Company, to the establishment of which the interest of Washington himself had contributed. The founders of the new canal plan had only decided upon that plan after much discussion, in which the railway figured as a possibility, and the railway was rejected. In the minds of most men down to about 1830 the canal was the beau ideal of perfected transportation. At the close of this third decade, however, at least four factors combined to work a revolution. These factors were: (1) the growing extent and importance of the West; (2) the decline, real or feared, of the Atlantic coast states south of New York; (3) the realization of the limitations of canals from topographical conditions, -mountains, lack of water etc.; (4) rapid progress in railroad invention and improvement. They centered in Baltimore.10 It was the working of these forces, given point by the rivalry with New York City, that made the triumph of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad possible at this time, and its triumph opened the way for others.

Exactly the same forces11 were at work at Charleston, and led to the establishment of the Charleston & Hamburg Railroad Company only a few months later.

As has been observed, this controversy came prominently be fore Congress, and it has been intimated that that body virtu

character of the work were urged as grounds for granting $1,000,000 to be expended on the western section of the canal.

10 See Memorial of the Citizens of Baltimore to the mayor and city council, in relation to the Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road, presented in council, Feb., 1836.

11 The impracticability of a canal was not so great, however, while the spread of cotton culture westward was more important.