EXCERPTS FROM THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON
Vol. 8: Mar. 1784-Mar. 1786
16 March 1784 To Thomas Jefferson (from Orange), pp. 6-13
p. 10: "The Charter granted in 1732 to Lord Baltimore makes, if I mistake not, the Southern Shore of the Potowmac, the boundary of Maryland on that side.(12) The constitution of Virginia cedes to that State "all the territories contained within its charter with all the rights of property, jurisdiction and Government and all other rights whatsoever, which might at any time have been claimed by Virginia, excepting only the free navigation & use of the Rivers Potowmac & Pokomoque &c."(13) Is it not to be apprehended that this language will be construed into an entire relinquishment of the Jurisdiction of these river, and will not such a construction be fatal to our own port regulations on that side & otherwise highly inconvenient? I was told on my journey along the Potowmac of several flagrant evasions which had been practised with impunity & success, by foreign vessels which had loaded at Alexandria. The jurisdiction of half of the rivers ought to have been expressly reserved. The terms of the surrender are the more extraordinary as the patents of the N. neck place the whole river within the Government of Virginia, so that we were armed with a title both of prior & posterior date, to that of Maryland. What will be the best course to repair the error?-to extend our laws upon the river, making Maryland the plaintiff is she chooses to contest their authority-to state the case to her at once and propose a settlement by negociation-or to propose a mutual appointment of Commissioners for the general purpose of preserving a harmony, and efficacy in the regulations on both sides. The last mode squares best with my present ideas. It can give no irritation to Maryld.; it can weaken no plea of Virga., it will give Maryland an opportunity of stirring the question if she chooses, and will not be fruitless if Maryland should admit our jurisdiction. If I see the subject in its true light no time should be lost in fixing the interest of Virginia. The good humour into which the Cession of the back lands must have put Maryland, forms an apt crisis for any negociations which may be necessary.(14) You will be able probably to look into her charter & other laws, and to collect the leading sentiments relative to the matter."
p. 14: Ed. Note 12: The phrase "Southern Shore" is italicized because JM underlined it. The charter of 1632 (not 1732) granted by Charles I to Cecilius Calvert, defined a part of Maryland's boundary as from "the first Fountain of the River of Pattowmack, thence verging towards the South, unto the further Bank of the said River, and following the same on the West and South, unto a certain Place called Cincquack, situated near the Mouth of the said River, where it disembogues into the aforesaid Bay of Chesopeake" (William MacDonald, ed., Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775 [New York, 1906], p. 54).
p. 14: Ed. Note 13: JM's italics and a loose quotation from the opening sentence of Art. XXI of the 1776 Virginia Constitution (Hening, Statutes, IX, 118). The lower reaches of the Pokomoque (Pocomoke) River form part of the boundary between southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore of Virginia."
p. 14: Ed. Note 14: Although influential Marylanders were speculators in the lands ceded by Virginia in 1783 and accepted by Congress on 1 Mar. 1784, the terms of the cession tacitly excluded the pretensions of private land companies to title to the soil (Abernathy, Western Lands and the American Revolution, pp. 171, 239; JCC, XXVI, 110-17). Certainly Marylanders as a whole had reason to be in a "good humor" with the triumph of a demand first presented to Congress on 15. Oct. 1777 (JCC, IX, 806-8).
25 April 1784 To Thomas Jefferson (from Orange), pp. 19-21
p. 20: "I hope the letter which had not reached you at the date of your last, did not altogether miscarry. On the 16 of March I wrote you fully on sundry points. Among others I suggested to your attention the case of the Potowmac, having in my eye the river below the head of navigation. It will be well I think to sound the ideas of Maryland also as to the upper parts of the N. branch of it. The policy of Ba[l]timore will probably thwart as far as possible, the opening of [it]; & without a very favorable construction of the right of Virginia and even the privilege of using the Maryland bank it would seem that the necessary works could not be accomplished."(4)
p. 22: Ed. Note 4: The "head of navigation" on the Potomac River was near Georgetown. Any scheme to open the Potomac and extend the navigation of that stream by use of canals would likely arouse the hostility of Baltimore merchants, who were geographically positioned to hold a practical monopoly on the trade routes into western Maryland as well as northern and northwestern Virginia.
25 April 1784 From Thomas Jefferson (from Annapolis), pp. 23-25
p. 24: "I like the method you propose of settling at once with Maryland all matters relative to Patowmac. To introduce this the more easily I have conversed with mr Stone (one of their delegates) on the subject & finding him of the same opinion have told him I would by letters bring the subject forward on our part. They will consider it therefore as originated by this conversation."
May 1784 The General Assembly Session, pp. 35-38
This is entirely an editorial note.
pp. 35-36: Ed. Note: The [war had ended], so the problems faced by . . . Virginia and her sister states in 1784 were not longer a life-and-death matter. . . . What JM soon learned was that the peacetime power structure in Virginia was a jealous and static as in earlier days. Peace brought a shifting of attention to the lingering problems of prewar debts . . . . On the other hand, there was some good new. . . Some of the northern states were quibbling over boundaries and resented the rapacity of their neighbors but Virginia had no quarrels with North Carolina, and the Maryland legislature appeared disposed toward a settlement of grievances related to the maritime use of Chesapeake Bay. . . . JM saw sings of coming trouble, however. . . Left unsettled were the irritation Spanish presence in the Mississippi Valley. . . The Spanish were inclined to block western expansion by closing the great central river to American shippers.
28 June 1784 Resolutions Appointing Virginia Members of a Potomac River Commission, p.89
p. 89: "Whereas great inconveniences are found to result from the want of some concerted regulations, between this State, and the State of Maryland touching the jurisdiction & navigation of the River Potowmack:(1)
"Resolved that George Mason, Edmund Randolph, James Madison jr & Alexander Henderson Esqrs. Be appointed Commissioners & that they or any three of them do meet such Commissioners, as may be appointed on the part of Maryland, and in concert with them, frame such liberal & equitable regulations concerning the said River as may be mutually advantageous to the two States, and that they make report thereof to the General Assembly.
"Resolved, that the Executive be requested to notify the above appointment with the object of it to the State of Maryland, and desire it's [sic] concurrence in the proposition."
p. 90: Ed Note 1: JM's anxiety regarding jurisdiction over the lower Potomac was explicit in his letter to Jefferson of 16 Mar. 1784. Jefferson followed through and in his reply of 25 Apr. expressed the belief that the best way to solve the problem was through appointment of a joint commission-JM's preferred plan. Possibly the seed for the conference originated in Jefferson's earlier remark to JM (20 Feb. 1784) that a scheme was afoot to annex the Northern Neck of Virginia to Maryland, and that Arthur Lee favored such a measure (Papers of Madison, VII, 424).
JM must have been the author of these resolution (he was directed to carry them to the Senate [JHDV, May 1784, p. 84]), but through a circumstance of bureaucratic ineptness, he and Randolph were not notified that the meeting was scheduled for Mar. 1785. Thus JM was absent when the commissioners met at Mount Vernon and learned of the proceedings only from personal letters (Mason the JM, 9 Aug., 7 Dec. 1785).
20 August 1784 To Thomas Jefferson (n.p.), pp. 102-111
pp. 100-102: Ed Note: The decision to introduce the Mississippi question in the context of JM's experience is necessarily an arbitrary one because an open western waterway was among his concerns from the early days in Congress until the matter was settled by the Louisiana Purchase. The main point is that JM never looked upon the problem as a Virginia riddle. As a Virginia legislator he hoped to see citizens in the Kentucky district flourish through an easy access to ports via the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. But beyond that hope there was a greater realization that American nationality was involved . . . .
[This note goes on at length regarding the Mississippi problem; I don't think it's particularly relevant for our purposes.]
[See Sam's notes in Jefferson Papers, vol. 7, on this letter (I don't think it's particularly relevant for our purposes.]
14 November 1784 To James Monroe (from Richmond), pp. 136-37
p. 136: ". . . The H of D. have resolved to . . . instruct the Delegation to urge in Congr. Treaties with the Southern Indians, and negociations with Spain touching the Mississpi. They also propose to set on foot Surveys of Potowmac & James River from their falls to their Sources. . ."
28 November 1784 From George Washington (from Mount Vernon), pp. 159-60
p. 159: After the several conversations we have had on the subject on inland navigation; and the benefits which would, probably, be derived from a commercial intercourse with the Western territory; I shall make no apology for giving you the trouble of the enclosed.(1)
p. 160: Ed Note 1: Washington's enclosure was undoubtedly the memorial from "sundry inhabitants" of Virginia and Maryland which JM probably laid before the House of Delegates on 4 Dec. (JHDV, Oct. 1784, p. 58). Washington had been in Richmond earlier in the month lobbying for legislation that would establish a state-regulated, but privately owned Potomac navigation company. JM became floor manager for the legislation after Jones was elected to the Council of State and subsequently resigned his House seat. The memorial stressed "the practicability and importance of the work" and asked for an act of incorporation with a perpetual grant of tolls to the investors (JM to Jefferson, 9 Jan. 1785). JM was ill in late Dec. and some of the burden of managing the Potomac navigation bill fell on William Grayson when efforts were made to coordinate the Maryland legislature's work into a Virginia law. For further information on the canal scheme see Alexander Crosby Brown, "America's Greatest Eighteenth Century Engineering Achievement: The Potowmack company's Canal at Great Falls is Today's 'Magnificent Wreck,'" Virginia Cavalcade, XII, no. 4 (1963), 40-47l Corra Bacon-Foster, Early Chapters . . . ; and Grace L. Nute, ed., "Washington and the Potomac: Manuscripts of the Minnesota Historical Society [1754] 1769-1796," AHR, XXVIII (1922-23), 497-519, 705-22.
8 December 1784 From Thomas Jefferson (from Paris), pp. 177-80
p.178: "I look anxiously to the approaching & improving the navigation of the Patowmac & Ohio, the actual junction of that of Big-beaver & Cayahoga by a Canal; as also that of Albemarle sound & Elizabeth through the dismal [swamp]. These works will spread the feild of our commerce Westwardly & Southwardly beyond any thing ever yet done by man."
11 December 1784 To Richard Henry Lee (from Richmond), pp. 180-81
p. 181: "The scheme for opening the navigation of the Potomac, which has been settled between the Maryland and [the Virginia] gentlemen, is before the House of Delegates, and will be favoured, as far as the objectionable amount of the tolls will admit. (4) As the concurrence of Maryland in this scheme is necessary, some difficulty will attend its progress."
p. 182: Ed. Note 4: The plan for navigating on the Potomac involved a conference at Annapolis between interested Maryland parties and Washington. Thomas Johnson seems to have been the chief promoter of a bill which became the model for the one the Virginia General Assembly finally accepted (JHDV, Oct. 1784, pp. 99, 101, 103; Hening, Statutes, XI, 510-25). Washington thought the toll rates excessive but urged their adoption as an attraction for private investors (Washington to Robert Morris, 1 Feb. 1785, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, XXVIII, 48-49).
15 December 1784 From Lafayette (from New York), pp. 185-87
p. 186: "I Have much Conferred with the General Upon the Pottowmack System. (4) Many people think the Navigation of the Mississippi is not an advantage-But it May Be the Excess of a very good thing Viz the oppening of your Rivers. I fancy it Has not changed your opinion-But Beg you will write me on the Subject."
p. 187: Ed. Note 4: Lafayette was in Washington's company from 18 Nov. to 30 Nov. Washington's interest in the Potomac River system is described in Rives, Life of Madison, I, 617-18. See also Corra Bacon-Foster, Early Chapters . . .
18 December 1784 Bill Providing Funds for a James River Canal, pp. 192-94
pp. 191-92: Ed. Note: Passage of bills which permitted the creation of public corporations for canal-building projects on the Potomac and James rivers was the cause of Washington's optimism [in a letter to Lafayette of 15 Feb.], and the credit for their enactment was chiefly his. As Madison explained to Jefferson, the subject was tossed in the legislators' laps by Washington when he wrote a persuasive letter to Gov. Benjamin Harrison, who in turn relayed the message to the VHD with a strong endorsement. The governor's cover letter spoke of GW's arguments as conclusive, and expressed hope that the Assembly would move forward by "setting on foot the surveys recommended as a necessary preparatory Step to the undertaking" (Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, XXVII, 471-80; Executive Letter Book, pp. 412-13).
With such powerful support, aided by the petitions from citizens whose signatures attested to their belief in the efficacy of canals as harbingers of prosperity, the legislative course of necessary bills was sure and steady. JM was chosen as one of the floor managers for the program, and a model for the Potomac canal project was prepared and forwarded to Richmond by Washington after it had been revised and passed by the Maryland legislature. Washington had gone to Annapolis to further the scheme and although his head throbbed he reported the altered bill had passed "with only 9 dissenting voices" (GW to JM, 28 Dec. 1784). Everybody in the Virginia legislature must have known that the Potomac bill soon to be introduced in Richmond came via Mount Vernon.
Before the model act from Maryland had reached his hands, however, JM had already introduced the bill printed below [re. the James River] and it had gone through all the steps for enactment except Speaker Benjamin Harrison's signature. JM's bill would have financed the canal by borrowing money on a 10 percent loan guaranteed by the credit of the commonwealth . . . The arrival of the Potomac bill from Maryland changed the whole complexion of the legislation, for the Annapolis-passed measure created a public corporation with shareholders subsidizing at least $222,222.22 in construction funds. The House decided to drop JM's bill and use the Maryland statute (almost verbatim). Surely the appeal of a corporation with no risk of public money must have held its allurements. Thus, "it was found advisable to pass a similar one in favor of James River" and JM's energies were turned to a new channel. William Grayson handled the borrowed Potomac River bill, JM took the assignment for the James River version, and after several tries the companion bills survived a House-Senate conference committee to become law on the same day-5 January 1785. To guard against future disappointment the bills took cognizance of past failures and ordered that the work begin within a year and be finished within ten "under the penalty of entire forfeiture" (JM to Jefferson, 9 Jan. 1785). GW was optimistic about the bill, JM more cautious. "These acts are very lengthy," he wrote Jefferson, "and having passed in al the precipitancy which marks the concluding stages of a Session, abound I fear with inaccurracies."
[The act printed pp. 192-94 deals exclusively with the James River, and the editor does not say anything about a bill for the Potomac having been passed or even introduced before a bill for the Potomac modeled on the Md. legislation was introduced and became law.]
28 December 1784 From George Washington (from Annapolis), pp. 203-5
pp. 203-5 "I have been favored with your letter of the 11th [not found, p. 183].
"The proceedings of the Conference, and the Act & Resolutions of this Legislature consequent thereupon (herewith transmitted to the Assembly) are so full, & explanatory of the motives which governed in this business, that it is scarcely necessary for me to say any thing in addition to them; except that this State seem highly impressed with the importance of the objects wch. we have had under consideration, and are very desirous of seeing them accomplished.(1)
"We have reduced most of the Tolls from what they were in the first Bill,* and have added something to a few others-upon the whole, we have made them as low as we conceived from the best information before us, and such estimates as we had means to calculate upon, as they can be fixed, without hazarding the plan altogether. We made the value of the commodity the governing principle in the establishment of the Tolls; but having had an eye to some bulky articles of produce, & to the encouragement of the growth & Manufacture of some others, as well as to prevent a tedeous ennumeration of the different species of all, we departed from the genl. Rule in many instances.
"The Rates of tollage as now fixed, may still appear to high to some of the Southern Gentlemen, when they compare them with those on James River; but as there is no comparison in the expence & Risk of the two undertakings so neither ought there to be in the Tolls. I am fully perswaded that the Gentlemen who were appointed, and have had this matter under consideration, were actuated by no other motives than to hit (if they could do so) upon such a happy medium as would not be burthensome to indiv. or give Jealousy to the public on one hand, nor discouragement to Adventurers on the other. To secure success, and to give vigor to the undertaking, it was judged advisable for each State to contribute (upon the terms of private subscribers) to the expence of it; especially as it might have a happy influence on the Minds of the Western Settlers and it may be observed here, that only part of this money can be called for immediately, provided the work goes on-and afterwards, only in the proportion of its progression.
"Though there is no obligation upon the State to adopt this (if it is inconvenient, or repugnant to their wishes) yet I should be highly pleased to hear that they had done so-(Our advantages will, most assuredly, be equal to those of Maryland and our public spirit ought not, in my opinion, to be less)-as also the Resolutions respecting the Roads of Communication-both of which, tho they look in some degree to different objects, are both very important; that by the Yohiogany (thro' Pensylvania) is particularly so for the Fur & Peltry of the lakes, because it is the most direct Rout by which they can be transported; whilst it is exceedingly convenient to the people who inhabit the Ohio (or Alligany) above Fort Pitt-the lower part of the Monongahela-and all the Yohiogany.
"Matters might perhaps have been better digested if more time had been taken, but the fear of not getting the report to Richmond before the Assembly would have risen, occasioned more hurry than accuracy-or even real dispatch. But to alter the Act now, further than to accomodate it to circumstances where it is essential, or to remedy an obvious error if any should be discovered will not do. The Bill passed this Assembly with only 9 dissenting voices-and got thro' both houses in a day, so earnest were the members of getting it to you in time.
"It is now near 12 at night, and I am writing with an Aching head, having been constantly employed in this business since the 22d. without assistance from my Colleagues-Genl. Gates having been Sick the whole time, & Colo. Blackburn not attending. . . ."
p. 205: Ed. Note 1: The enclosures, now widely dispersed, included a holograph letter from GW (also signed Gen. Gates) addressed to the Gen. Ass (Vi); and GW's schedule of canal tolls, which bears JM's endorsement: "Rates of Tollage" (ICU). As JM soon explained to Jefferson, GW was the prime mover of the Potomac canal bill and the enclosed bill from Maryland "arrived just in time for the session" (9 Jan. 1785). GW probably sent them by an express rider, for the whole bundle was before the legislature three days later. JM apparently went through the channels by turning the enclosures over to the governor, who relayed them to the Speaker of the House. GW's report was turned over to a committee that included JM and William Grayson (JHDV, Oct. 1784, p. 99). Grayson introduced the Virginia version of the Maryland act, which was hurriedly "passed without opposition".
[* The editor does not explain what is meant by the "first Bill."]
28 December 1784 Resolutions Authorizing an Interstate Compact on Navigation and Jurisdiction of the Potomac, pp. 206-7
pp. 206-7: "Resolved that the Commissioners or any two of them appointed on the 28th. day of June last (1) to concert with Commissioners on the part of Maryland, regulations touching the navigation and jurisdiction of the Potowmac, be further authorized <to unite> with the said commissioners in representing to the State of Pennsylvania, that it is in contemplation of the <said> two States to promote the clearing and extending the navigation of <the> Potowmac from tide-water upwards as far as the same may be found practicable; to open a convenient road from the head of such navigation to the waters running into the Ohio; and to render these waters navigable as far as may be necessary & proper: that the said Work will require great expence which may not be repaid, unless a free use be secured to the said States & their Citizens, of the Waters of the Ohio and its branches, so far as the same lie within the limits of Pennsylvania: that as essential advantages will accrue from such works to a considerable portion of the said State, it is thought reasonable that the Legislature thereof should by some previous act engage that for the encouragement of the said works all articles of produce or merchandize which may be conveyed to or from either of the said two States, through either of the said rivers within the limits of Pennsylvania, to or from any place without the said limits, shall pass throughout free from all duties or tolls whatsoever, other than such tolls as may be established and be necessary for reimbursing expences incurred by the State or its Citizens in clearing, or for defraying the expence of preserving the navigation of the said rivers; And that no articles imported into the State of Pennsylvania through the channel or channels or any part thereof to be opened as aforesaid and vended or used within the said State, shall be subject to any duties or imposts other than such articles would be subject to if imported into the said State thro' any other channel whatsoever; And it is further resolved that in a case a joint representation in behalf of this State and of Maryland shall be rendered by circumstances unattainable, the said Commissioners. or any two of them may of themselves make such representations on the subject <to the State of Pennsylvania,> as will in such event become proper; and that in either even they report their proceedings to the next General Assembly.
"Resolved that a Copy of the above Resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the Executive to the State of Maryland."
p. 207: Ed. Note: In JM's hand, and later docketed by him. The FC was used for the version printed in JHDV, Oct. 1784, p. 91. Additions made by the Gen. Assembly are printed here within angle brackets.
p. 207: Ed. Note 1: The commissioners appointed exactly ten months earlier were Alexander Henderson, JM, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph. They had not met to carry out their earlier assignment, which was now considerably enlarged. An administrative blunder almost nullified the efforts made in Mar. 1785 to clarify the rights of Virginia and Maryland citizens regarding river commerce and fishing (Brant, Madison, II, 375-76). The Virginia commissioners-Henderson and Mason-made their report on 28 Mar. 1785 (Rutland, Papers of George Mason, II, 814-21), while Mason explained the circumstances and outcome of the Mount Vernon conference to JM in his letter of 9 Aug. 1785. The interstate agreement was a hopeful sign, and in one sense this meeting was the embryo of the federal Convention of 1787.
[NOTE: The highlighted section in the resolve (above) was quoted by the Md. & Va. commissioners in their letter to the president of Pa. dated Mar. 28, 1785, which is printed in Mason Papers, 2:822-23. This demonstrates that the Md. & Va. commissioners meeting at Mount Vernon to discuss the navigation of the Potomac were not supposed to negotiate or discuss anything regarding Pa. but merely to sign and pass on the text of the Va. resolution.]
[NOTE: This resolution does not say anything about inviting commissioners from Pa. to join the Md. & Va. commissioners to discuss the navigation of the Potomac, but the editor persistently puts forth this interpretation in his editorial notes (passim, vols. 8 &9).]
1 January 1785 To George Washington (from Richmond), pp. 208-9
pp. 208-9: "I was yesterday honored with your favor of the 28 Ult: accompanying the Report of the Conferees & c. &c. (1) The latter have been laid before the H. of Delegates, and a Com[mitte]e app[ointe]d. To report a bill & Resolutions corresponding with those of Maryland. The only danger of miscarriage arises from the impatience of the members to depart . . . I am not without hopes however that the business of the Potowmac at least will be provided for before the adjournment, and some provision now depending be compleated in favor of James River. Before the rect. of your despatches a bill had been passed by the H. of D. for surveying the former as well as the latter river on a plan, which we shall endeavour by concert with the Senate, to accomodate to the provisions of Maryland.(2) A Resolution has passed both Houses instructing the Commissrs. app[ointe]d. in June last to settle with Maryd. Commissrs. the jurisdiction & navigation of Potowmac, to join in a representation to Pena. on the subject of the Waters of the Ohio within her limits.(3) This instruction ought rather to have been committed to the late Conference; but when the Commission under which you attended it passed, I was confined to my room and it did not occur to any other member. And indeed if I had been well the haste which necessarily prevailed might have precluded me from comprehending the object within your Mission, especially as I had not previously digested any ideas on the subject nor accurately examined the text of the Confederation. It were to be wished too I think that the application to Pa. on the subject of the Road cd. have been blended with that of the Rivers. As it s it will I think best to refer it after the example of Maryld. to the Executive. I beg you Sir to excuse the brevity which our hurry has imposed upon me. As soon as I have leisure I will endeavour to make amends for it by a fuller communication on this subject . . ."
pp. 209-10: Ed. Note 1: After GW wrote Gov. Harrison on 10 Oct. 1784 on ways and means of building James and Potomac canals the letter had been sent to the HD to provide a kind of blueprint for creating the required public corporations (Fitzpatrick, Writings, XXVII, 471-80). To implement GW's suggestions the HD appointed three Va. "Conferees"-GW, Horatio Gates, and Thomas Blackburn-who were to meet with Maryland appointees (JHDV, Oct. 11784, p. 68). . . GW relayed to Richmond the bill which had resulted from his talks with the Md. conferees and this legislation became the model for the two laws enacted by the Va. assembly in its waning hours. JM's bill of 18 Dec. (which was scrapped when the Maryland measure arrived) represented the first ideas on how the canals should be financed.
p. 210: Ed. Note 2: The survey bill, passed before GW's dispatches arrived, was introduced on 21 Dec. but had not become law when JM received the general's 28 Dec. letter. A House-Senate conference committee had been trying to iron out differences between the two bodies on 31 Dec. when GW's letter arrived, and on 1 Jan. 1785 JM was ordered to inform the Senate its amendments were not acceptable (JHDV, Oct. 1784, p. 102). This bill seems to have been allowed to die, however, for JM introduced a resolution imitative of that adopted in Maryland, which provided for a survey of the James and a link with "the nearest navigable part of the waters running into the Ohio" (ibid.).
p. 210: Ed. Note 3: The resolution which had "passed both Houses" dealing with Potomac navigation was JM's. He introduced the resolution creating an interstate commission three days before GW's letter arrived. JM was appointed to served on this commission, which met at Mount Vernon in mar. 178, but JM did not attend its sessions.
1 January 1785 Resolutions Appointing a Western Road Commissioner, p. 210
p. 210: "Resolved that Thomas Massey . . . be authorized in Conjunction with the person appointed or to be appointed on the Part of Maryland, to open and keep in repair a convenient road from such part of the Waters of the Potowmack, to such part of the River Cheat-or of the River Monongalia, as on examination they shall judge most eligible . . . (2)
"Resolved that the Governor be desired to write to the State of Pensylvania, requesting permission to lay out and improve a Road through such part of the said State, as may be necessary in the best and most proper direction from for Cumberland to the navigable Part of the River Yohogania."
p. 211: Ed. Note 2: GW must have been the prime mover behind this resolution, which follows the line of reasoning in his 10 Oct. 1784 letter to Gov. Harriosn. In that important message GW noted that good could be brought from Pittsburgh to Alexandria "by the Yohoghaney in 304 Miles; whereof only 31 is land transportation: And by the Monongahela and Cheat river in 300 miles; 20 only of which are land carriage" (Fitzpatrick, Writings, XXVII, 478). GW had recently heard from on expert on distances and he may have shared this information about land routes with JM (Nute, "Washington and the Potomac," 705). JM introduced the resolution and carried it to the Senate after its passage-conclusive evidence he was the author.
1 January 1785 Resolutions Authorizing Surveys for a Western Road and Canal, p. 213
p. 213 [This resolution authorizes a survey "of James river from Lynch's Ferry in Campbell County upwards of the most convenient course for a road from the highest navigable part of the said river to the nearest navigable part of the Waters running into the Ohio" and for commissioners to lay our a course for a canal from the Elizabeth River to North Carolina. It does not mention the Potomac River.]
p. 214 Ed. Note: After GW visited Richmond and communicated his zeal for canal and road building to the legislators . . . he went to Annapolis, worked his magic there, and sent the Maryland bills back Virginia as models. One result was that several bills were written, introduced, and near final passage when GW's dispatches arrived on 31 Dec. changing the situation. Thus the Maryland legislature's measures were generally adopted after some revision, instead of those bills prepared prior to consultation with Virginia's neighbor. For example, a bill calling for surveys of the James and Potomac rivers had been introduced on 21 Dec. and sent to a committee that included JM. A revised bill was offered on 29 Dec., passed by the House the next day, and sent to a committee that included JM. A revised bill was offered on 29 Dec., passed by the House the next day, and sent to the Senate. The Senate insisted on so many amendments that the bill was finally rejected, but the business had to be carried on, and it appears that JM took the responsibility on 1 Jan. by writing and introducing these resolutions (JHDV, Oct. 1784, pp. 92-102). The Senate accepted JM's compromise, and JM told Jefferson the prospects were that a short road would link the James with the Kanawha and give the proposed James River canal "a great superiority over Potowmac"-a circumstance GW had not expected (JM to Jefferson, 9 Jan. 1785). A similar optimism was expressed concerning the Elizabeth river . . .
[Apparently the survey of the Potomac river was dropped.]
4 January 1785 Act Giving Canal Company Shares to General Washington, p. 216
[See Henings. This adds nothing new.]
6 January 1785 To James Madison, Sr. (from Richmond), pp. 216-17
pp. 216-17: "The prinicpal Acts which have passed since my last, are [lists 5 acts, 1 & 2 deal with taxation] 3. An Act for clearing the navigation of Potowmac River. 4 An Act for clearing the navigation of James River. The former has passed in concurrence with a like Act of Maryland and established a Company for the purpose. 5. An Act vesting in Genl. Washington a very handsome share in each of the Undertakings. . ."
8 January 1785 To James Monroe (from Richmond), pp. 220-21
p. 221: "Before this accident [weather problems causing adjournment] we had passed the bill for opening the Potowmac, and a similar one for James river together with a third presenting the Genl. Washington a handsome portion of shares in each of the Companies, and had taken some other measures for opening the commercial channel to the Western waters."
9 January 1785 To Thomas Jefferson (from Richmond), pp. 222-32
p. 222: "I reached this place [Richmond] the 14th. day after that fixed for the meeting of the Assembly and was in time for the commencement of business. . . . According to my promise I subjoin a brief review of its most material proceedings."
pp. 223-24: "An act for opening and extending the navigation of Potowmac river. An act for do. do. of James river. The subject of clearing these great rivers was brought forward early in the Session under the auspices of General Washington, who had written an interesting private letter on it to Govr. Harrison, which the latter communicated to the Genl. Assembly.(2) The conversation of the Genl. during a visit paid to Richmond in the course of the Session, still further impressed the magnitude of the object on sundry members. Shortly after his departure, a joint memorial from a number of Citizens of Va. & Maryland, interested in the Potowmac, was presented to the Assembly, stating the practicability and importance of the work; and praying for an act of incorporation, and grant of perpetual toll to the undertakers of it. A bill had been prepared at the same meeting which produced the memorial, and was transmitted to Richmond at the same time. A like memorial & bill went to Annapolis where the Legislature of Maryland were sitting. The Assembly here lent a ready ear to the project, but a difficulty arose from the height of the tolls proposed, the danger of destroying the uniformity essential in the proceedings of the two States, by altering them, and the scarcity of time for negociating with Maryland a bill satisfactory to both States. Short as the time was however, the attempt was decided on, and the negociation committed to Genl. Washington himself. Genl. Gates who happened to be in the way and Col: Blackband were associated with him.(3) The latter did not act, the two former pushed immediately to Annapolis, where the sickness of Genl. Gates threw the whole agency on Genl. Washington. By his exertions in concert with Committees of the two branches of the Legislature, an amendment of the plan was digested in a few days, passed thro' both houses in one day with nine dissenting votes only, and despatched for Richmond, where it arrived just in time for the Session. A corresponding act was immediately introduced and passed without opposition. The scheme declares that the subscribers shall be an incorporated body, that there shall be 500 Shares amounting to about 220,000 dollars, of which the States of Va. and Maryd. are each to take 50 shares, that the tolls shall be collected in three portions at the three principal falls, and with the works vest[ed] as real estate in the members of the Company, and that the works shall be begun within one year, and finished within ten years under the penalty of entire forfeiture.
"Previous to the receipt of the Act from Annapolis a bill on a different plan had been brought in and proceeded on for clearing James River. [Some details of the plan followed.] In the case of the Potowmac which depended on another authority as well as our own, we were less at liberty to consider what wd. be best in itself. Exuberant however as the [financial] harvest appeared, it was pronounced by good judges an inadequate bait for subscriptions even from those otherwise interested in the work, and on the arrival and acceptance of the Potowmac plan, it was found advisable to pass a similar one in favor of James River." [More details of the James River plan followed.]
p. 225: "In addition to these acts joint resolutions have passed the Legislatures of Maryd. and Va. for clearing a road from the head of the Potowmac navigation to cheat-river or if necessary to Monongalia, and 3333 1/3 Dollares are voted for the work by each State. Pennsylva. is also to be applied to by the Governors of the two States for leave to clear a road thro' her jurisdiction if it should be found necessary, from Potowmac to Yohogania; to which the Assembly here have added a proposition to unite with Maryland in representing to Pena. the advantages which will accrue to a part of her citizens from opening the proposed communication with the Sea and the reasonableness of her securing to those who are to be at the expence, the use of her waters, as a thoroughfare to & from the Country beyond her limits, free from all imposts & restrictions whatever, and as a channel of trade with her citizens free from greater imposts than may be levied on any other channel of importation. This Resolution did not pass till it was too late to refer it to Genl. Washington's negociations with Maryland. It now makes a part of the task allotted to the Commissrs. who are to settle with Maryd. the jurisdiction & navigation of Potowmac below tide water."
p. 235: Ed. Note 2: Gov. Harrison forwarded GW's letter of 10 Oct. 1784 along with other papers to the speaker of the House on 18 Oct. (Executive Letter Book, pp. 412-13). Harrison regarded GW's case for canal construction as "so conclusive" he hoped the legislature would readily provide for the surveys recommended as the "necessary preparatory Step to the undertaking."
p. 235: Ed. Note 3: Thomas Blackburn
9 January 1785 To George Washington (from Richmond), pp. 234-35
pp. 234-35: "I have now the pleasure of confirming the expectations hinted in my last concerning the result of the measures which have been favoured with your patronage. The Bill for opening the Potowmac has passed precisely on the model transmitted from Maryland, the last conditional clause in the latter being rendered absolute by a clause in the former which engages this State for fifty shares in the Company. Before the receipt of your despatches some progress had been made in a bill for James River founded on different principle. After the receipt of them, the bill was exchanged for one on the Potowmac principle which has passed into a law with the same rapidity & unanimity which attended the other [discusses James River bill] . . ."
"The Assembly have likewise taken several kindred measures in the form of Resolutions, of which copies are herewith inclosed.(3) No. 3 was meant to carry into effect an idea suggested in your letter to the late Governour & explained in conversations with which several members were honoured during your visit to Richmond. It had passed before the rece[i]pt of your report from Annapolis. I observed in my last that the subject of it ought to have made a part of your negociation with Maryland, and mentioned the circumstances which prevented it. I regret the omission the more, as the task devolved on Gentlemen to a notification of whose appointment and object, no answer I am informed has yet been vouchsafed to the Governour by Maryland, and whose commission it may be presumed is not altogether palatable to that State. Taking a more candid supposition, that the Silence of the latter is the effect of some miscarriage, the delay or the necessity of a separate representation to Pennsylvania, are inconveniences still to be regretted."
p. 235: Ed. Note 3: The missing enclosures were relayed by GW to his Fairfax Co. associates, John Fitzgerald and William Hartshorne, on 18 Jan. 1785. GW's letterbook shows that he included in his letter to the Alexandria merchants "Mr. Madisons letter enclosg. No. 1. Similar Resolutions respectg. Roads & c. No. 2. Surveying James River, & Country between that & the Western Waters. No.3. Respecting the Jurisdiction &c. of Potomac." "No. 1" was JM's resolution of 1 Jan. 1785 authorizing surveys for a western road from Fort Cumberland "to the navigable part of the river Yohogania." "No. 2" was the James River survey authorization Jm also introduced on 1 Jan., and "No. 3" carried out the "idea suggested" in GW's letter to Gov. Harrison on 10 Oct. 1784 regarding the participation of pa. in the canal-building endeavors, wh. JM had introduced on 28 Dec. 1784 before GW's "report from Annapolis" arrived in Richmond (JHDV, Oct. 1784, pp. 91, 101, 102; DLC: Washington Letter Book).
16 March 1785 From Lafayette (from Paris), pp. 245-46
p. 246: "By My last letters from the General, He was in full enjoyment of a plan for the Navigation of the Pottowmack." (3)
p. 246: Ed. Note 3: GW's letter of 23 Dec. 1784 refers to negotiations concerning the navigation of the Potomac River.
20 March 1785 To Lafayette (from Orange), pp. 250-54
p. 254: "Our Legislature made a decent provision for the remittances due for 1785 from Va. to the Treasy. Of the U.S. and very extensive provision for opening our inland navigation: they have passed an Act vesting in Genl. Washington a considerable interest in each of the works on Ja. River & Potowmac but with an honorary rather than lucrative aspect."
27 April 1785 To Thomas Jefferson (from Orange), pp. 265-70
pp. 267-68: "I have not learnt with certainty whether Genl. Washington will accept or decline the shares voted him by the Assembly in the Companies for opening our rivers. If he does not chuse to take to himself any benefit from the donation, he has I think a fine opportunity at once of testifying his disinterested purposes, of shewing his respect for the Assembly, and of rendering a service to his country. He may accept the gift so far as to apply it to the scheme of opening the rivers, & may then appropriate the revenue which it is hereafter to produce, to some patriotic establishment. I lately dropped a hint of this sort to one of his friends & was told that such an idea had been suggested to him. The private subscriptions for Potowmac I hear amount to £10,000 Sterling. I can not discover that those for James River deserve mention, or that the undertaking is pushed with any spirit. If those who are most interested in it let slip the present opportunity, their folly will probably be severely punished by the want of such another. It is said the undertaking on the Susquehannah by Maryland goes on with great spirit & expectations. I have heard nothing of Rumsey or his boats since we nt into the Northern States.(7) . . .
"I understand that Chase & Jennifer on the part of Maryland, Mason & Henderson on the part of Virginia have had a meeting on the proposition of Virga. for settling the navigation & jurisdiction of Potowmac below the falls, & have agreed to report to the two assemblies, the establishment of a concurrent jurisdiction on that river & Chesapeak. The most amicable spirit is said to have governed the negociation.(8) . . .
"I recd. a letter from the Marquis Fayette dated on the eve of his embarcation which has the following paragraph. [']I have much confered with the General upon the potowmac system. Many people [think] the navigation of the Mississippi is not an advantage but it may be the excess of a very good thing viz., the opening of your river. I fancy it has not changed your opinion but beg you will write me on the subject. In the meanwhile I hope Congress will act cooly and prudently by Spain who is such a fool that allowance must be made.['] It is unlucky that he should have left America with such an idea as to the Mississippi. It may be of the worse consequence as it is not wholey imaginary, the prospect of extending the commerce of the Atlantic State[s] to the Western water having given birth to it. I can not believe that many mind[s] are tainted with so illiberal and short sighted a policy. I have thought it not amiss to [write] the marquis according to the request of his letter and have stated to him the motive[s] and
obligation which must render [the] United States inflexible on the subject of the Mississippi, the folly of Spain in contesting it and our expectation from the known influence of France over Spain and her friendly disposetion toward United States. It is but justice to the marquis to [observe] that in all our conversations on the Mississippi he expressed with every mark of sincerity a zeal for our claims and a pointed dislike to the national character and policy of Spain and that if his zeal should be found to abate I should construe it to be the effect of a supposed revolution in the sentiments of America."
p. 271: Ed. Note: Italicized words were coded by JM.
p. 271: Ed. Note 7: In his 9 Jan. 1785 letter to Jefferson, JM reported upon the passage of the act investing GW with shares in the cos. for opening James & Potomac rivers and also the act giving the exclusive right to James Rumsey for building and operating certain boats on the Va. rivers.
p. 271: Ed. Note 8: JM and Randolph had also been appointed by the House to serve in commercial discussions with Maryland, but a meeting was held at Mount Vernon when it was clear that a conference had to proceed without a full delegation. See Randolph to JM, 17 July 1785.
30 May 1785 From Richard Henry Lee (from New York), pp. 288-89
p. 288: "I am very happy to see by the Newspapers that the business of opening Potomac goes on so well.(1) Tis certainly an object of great consequence to extend our internal navigation."
p. 289: Ed. Note 1: Lee must have seen in the NY newspapers "a letter from Alexandria, in Virginia, date May 19" which told of the meeting held at Lomax's tavern where the subscription books on the Potomac canal were opened. "It appeared that forty thousand three hundred pounds were subscribed, a sum far beyond what was requisite to incorporate the company" (reprint from a NY newspaper in Pa. Gazette, 1 June 1785).
12 June 1785 From Joseph Jones (from Richmond), pp. 292-93
pp. 292-93: "I know not whether any Copy of the resolution you allude to(2) has been officially communicated to Mr. Mason. . . . If the Attorney has not sent I will contrive you the Copies you desire. I heard but have only heard that Mason and Henderson proceeded to execute the other branch of the business committed to the Comrs. withot. the attendance or call for attendance of the other Commrs. What they have done has not come to my knowledge."
p. 293: Ed. Note 2: "Undoubtedly either the resolution appointing Virginia commissioners to meet with Maryland commissioners to consider the jurisdiction and navigation of the Potomac River or the resolution directing the Virginia and Maryland commissioners to meet with ones from Pennsylvania to consider the same (Resolutions Appointing Virginia Members of a Potomac River Commission, 28 June 1784; or, the Resolutions Authorizing an Interstate Compact on Navigation and Jurisdiction of the Potomac, 28 Dec. 1784; Jones to JM 23 June 1785; Randolph to JM, 17 July 1785; JM to Monroe, 28 July 1785). JM, although one of the commissioners, was never informed of the time and place of the meeting. It may have been the unfulfilled commission to meet with representatives from Pa. that occasioned JM's statement to Monroe that he might have to go to Philadelphia to perform a public duty (JM to Monroe, 28 July 1785).
[Emphasis added n. 2; this editor is INCORRECT; the resolution of Dec. 28, 1784, (printed above) did not direct the Va. & Md. commissioners to meet with ones from Pa. In their report to the Assembly Mar. 28, 1785, the commissioners that did meet enclosed "Copy of their joint Application to the State of Pensylvania, respecting the Communication between Potomack River and the Western Waters" (Mason Papers, p. 816). The communication to Pa. they enclose (Mason Papers, p. 822) is clearly done by direction of the Dec. 28 resolve, so there is no reason that JM would have had to go to Philadelphia to complete this business. JM to Monroe, 28 July 1785 (pp. 331-32) is responding to an invitation to "a ramble this fall." JM discusses various possibilities for a trip, then says "at all events it is not unlikely that I may be obliged to ride as far as Philadelphia." He makes no mention of the Potomac or the Compact or meeting Pa. commissioners, but the editor interprets this to mean that JM thought Gov. Henry might belatedly communicate to Pa. "the invitation" to meet with Md. & Va. delegates "to discuss the mutual matter of navigation and jurisdiction" as directed by Dec. 28, 1784, resolution. As noted earlier, the editor is INCORRECT about what that resolution actually said.]
23 June 1785 From Joseph Jones (from Richmond), p. 309
p. 309: "Mr. Beckley has at length furnished me with a copy of the resolution you lately requested might be sent to you.(1) . . . Mr. Blair tells me a Copy of this resolution ha been transmitted to the State of Maryland but knows nothing further of the matter-perhaps the Clerk or Speaker sent one to Mr. Mason.(3) It wod. Seem necessary something shod. be done in it previous to the meeting of the Assembly."
p. 309: Ed. Note 1: The resolution JM sought probably was the one concerning a meeting of an interstate commission to discuss the navigation of the Potomac and related problems. See Resolutions . . . 28 June 1784.
p. 309: Ed. Note 3: JM did not know that George Mason and Alexander Henderson had already met with the Maryland commissioners in March 1785 until informed by Jones of the Mount Vernon conference. See Jones to JM, 12 June 1785; Mason to JM, 9 Aug. 1785.
17 July 1785 From Edmund Randolph (from Richmond), pp. 324-25
p. 324: "Our apparent disobedience to the appointment of the assembly must be ascribed to the forgetfulness of our friend Henry. Genl. Washington having inquired from me the reason of our non-attendance at the time and place, marked for the conference by the government of Maryland, I immediately applied to the govr. for information, whether he had communicated the resolve of that state to the deputies. He could not recollect; but seemed anxious to avail himself of the probability of having inclosed it to you with several other public papers. Even Mason and Henderson knew nothing of the meeting; and would have been absent but for the activity and urgency of the general.(1) But I am yet disposed to believe, that the communication with Pennsylvania has been forgotten: nor can I procure satisfaction on this head.(2)"
p. 325: Ed. Note 1: The conference held at Mount Vernon suffered from an administrative oversight in that the instructions to notify the appointed representatives were not effectively carried out. The GA resolution appointed GM, AH, ER and JM. Mason claimed he learned of the appt. only by accident. The Md. commissioners appeared in Alexandria and gather up Mason and Henderson, both of whom lived nearby. JM and ER, far from the immediate scene, were uninformed of the session until after it had taken place (Rutland, Papers of George Mason, II, 812-14).
p. 325: Ed. Note 2: "JM wrote the resolution of 28 Dec. 1784 which invited Pennsylvania to participate in the interstate conference on 'regulations touching the navigation and jurisdiction of the Potowmac' (JHDV, Oct. 1784, p. 91). The conference was either ignored by the Pennsylvania executive, or the careless clerk who failed to notify the Virginia commissioners also forgot to forward the invitation to Philadelphia."
[Emphasis added n. 2; this in INCORRECT; the Dec. 28 resolution did not invite Pennsylvanians to participate in the conference re. the navigation and jurisdiction of the Potomac. The resolution, printed above, only authorized the commissioners to communicate with Pa.; it did not invite them to join the conference.]
26 July 1785 To Edmund Randolph (from Orange), pp. 327-28
p. 327: "Your favour of the 17th. inst: . . . came safe to hand. . . .
"The urgency of Genl. W. in the late negociation with Maryland makes it probably I think that he will feel some chagrin at the inattention to that with Penna. which has a much nearer connection with his favorite object and was moreover suggest by himself. Shortly after the date of my last, I dropped a few lines to Col: Mason, reminding him that some report will be expected from the Commissioners by the Assembly, as well as of the real importance of the business. I have not yet recd. any answer; and begin to suspect that my letter may have miscarried. Your information leads me to doubt whether he has even been furnished with a copy of the Resolution under which he is to proceed.(4) I will write to him again and inclose one which Mr. Jones sent me.
p. 329: Ed. Note 4: JM's letter to Mason of 2 June 1785 has not been found [this letter is not mentioned in the text of the letter]. JM's suspicions were correct, as George Mason's letter to JM of 9 Aug. 1785 explained. The process of notifying delegates turned into a comedy of errors because of some clerical oversights.
9 August 1785 From George Mason (from Gunston-Hall), pp. 337-38
p. 337-38: "I shou'd have answered Your Favour of the 2d. of June,(1) long ago, had not ill Health, & the Absence of my Sons from Home, disabled me from making out the Copys of the Proceedings of the Virga. & Maryd. Commrs. which I now inclose; and upon which I wish to be favour'd with Your Sentiments."
"We thought ourselves unfortunate in being deprived of your, & my Friend the Attorney's (2) Assistance, in this important Business; and nothing but absolute Necessity shou'd have induced me to enter upon it, without You; but the Maryland Gentlemen (3) wou'd have been much disgusted with a Disappoi[nt]ment, after attending, at such a Distance, in very bad Weather. We waited some Days expecting Your Arrival in Alexandria; when I received a Letter from the Attorney, upon other Business, without mentioning a Word of the Meeting, or the Assembly's Appointment: this co[n]vinced Us that there must have been some Blunder or Neglect, in some of the public Offices, in not giving the proper Notification to the Virga. Commrs. The Maryland Gentlemen declared that Nothing had been ommitted on their Part, that they had written an official Letter to the Virga. Comrs. (4) (addressed by their Governor to the Co[mr]s of ours) proposing the Time & Place, if agreeable to them, and if not, desiring they wou'd name some other; that having recd. no Answer, they took it for granted, that the Time & Place was accepted, and attended accordingly.
"So great has been the Neglect in some of our public Departments, that neither Mr. Henderson or myself had been furnished with Copys of the Assembly's Resolutions; and I shou'd not have known that I was one of the Persons appointed, had I not, by mere Accident two or three Days before the Meeting, been informed of it, by two of the Maryland Commissioners writing to me that they shou'd endeavour to take my House in their Way, and go with Me to Alexandria. His Excellency General Washington happened to have a Copy of the Assembly's Resolutions respecting the Application to be made to the Government of Pennsylvania,(5) which He very obligingly gave Us; by which any two or more of the Comrs. were impowered to proceed; and it was natural for Us to conclude that these last Resolutions had pursued the Style of the former respecting the Jurisdiction of the two States; as well as that this Subject had been taken up, upon the same Principles as in the Year 1778 (6); when Comrs. were directed to settle the Jurisdiction of Chesapeake Bay & the Rivers Potomack & Pokomoke; in which Sentiments, Mr. Henderson, from what He was able to recollect of the Resolutions, concurred."
"Thus disagreeably circumstanced, only two of the virga. Commission present, & without any Copy of the Resolves upon the Principal Subject [emphasis added], we thought it better to proceed, than to disappoint the Maryd. Commissioner; who appeared to have brought with them the most amicable Dispositions, and express'd the greatest Desire of forming such a fair & liberal Compact, as might prove a lasting Cement of Friendship between the two States; which we were convinced, it is their mutual Interest to cultivate: We therefore, upon the particular Invitation of the General, adjourn'd to Mount Vernon, and finished the Business there. Some Time after, Mr. Henderson wrote to Mr. Beckley (Clerk of the House of Delegates) for a Copy of the Resolves; upon receiving which, we were surprized to find no mention made of Chesapeak or Pokomoke River, that our Powers were confined to Potomack River, and to not less than three of the Commissioners. I am still inclined to think that the Ommission of Chesapeake Bay & Pokomoke River was owing to Mistake, or Inadvertence, in not attending to the Resolves of 1778; and if so, it was perhaps lucky, that we had not been furnished with a Copy of the Resolves; for the Maryd. Comrs. had an express Instruction, from their Assembly, to consider the Relinquishment, on the Part of Virginia, of any Claim of laying Tolls &c, on Vessels passing thro' the Capes of Chesapeake, as a sine qua non; and if it was refused, immediately to break off all further Confurence with the Virginia Commissioners.
"This blundering Business, however, will give Me the Trouble & Expence of a Journey to Richmond, next Session, to appologize for, & explain our Conduct;(7) when, if the Substance of the Compact is approved by the Assembly, I hope Forms will be dispensed with; especially as the Breach of them has been the Fault of some of their own Officers, not ours. . . .
p. 338: Ed. Note 1: JM's letter of 2 June 1785 is missing.
Ed. Note 2: Edmund Randolph.
p. 339: Ed. Note. 3: Samuel Chase, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, and Thomas Stone were the Maryland commissioners.
p. 339 Ed. Note 4: It would appear that the "official Letter" must have been sent to Gov. Patrick Henry, who then failed to inform the Va. commissioners of its contents.
p. 339 Ed. Note 5: GW's copy of the Assembly's Resolutions concerned the resolution of Dec. 28, 1784, which "authorized the Virginia and Maryland commissioners to meet with commissioners from Pennsylvania to consider the clearing and extending of the Potomac River and added that if a joint representation of Virginia and Maryland be unattainable, then any two of them might meet with representatives of Pennsylvania (JHDV, Oct. 1784, pp. 91, 99)."
[Emphasis added; the Dec. 28 resolution (printed above) does NOT say that.]
p. 339: Ed. Note 6: A resolution of Dec. 10, 1777, had authorized three Va. commissioners to meet with the Md. delegates and adjust the long-standing problems of maritime jurisdiction related to Ches. Bay, Potomac, and Pocomoke (JHDV, Oct. 1777, pp. 77-78).
p. 339: Ed. Note 7: Ill-health prevent Mason from making the trip to Richmond. JM took charge of the compact business in the House; so he was in on the finish of the affair even though he had missed the negotiations at Mount Vernon (Mason to JM, 7 Dec. 1785; JHDV, Oct. 1785, pp. 114, 117-19; Act Ratifying the Chesapeake Compact with Maryland, ca. 24-26 Dec. 1785).
20 August 1785 To Thomas Jefferson (from Orange), pp. 344-46
p. 346: "The Potowmack Company are going on with very flatter prospects. Their subscriptions sometime ago amounted to upwards of four fifths of the whole sum.
The General Assembly Session of October 1785, pp. 389-91
p. 390: Ed. Note: "In writing the bill to ratify a Virginia-Maryland compact on the regulation of Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, JM included recognition of Congress's authority over interstate treaties by requiring congressional approval of the agreement."
30 November 1785 From George Washington (from Mount Vernon), pp. 428-30
p. 430: "From the complexion of the debates in the Pensylvania [Assembly] it should seem as if that Legislature intended their assent to the proposition from the States of Virginia & Maryland (respecting a Road to the Yohiogany[)] should be conditional of permission given to open a Communication between the Chesapeak & Delaware by way of the Rivers Elk & Christeen-which I am sure will never be obtained if the Baltimore interest can give it effectual opposition.
"The Directors of the Potomack Company have sent to the Delegates of the County to be laid before the Assembly a Petition (which sets forth the Reasons) for relief in the depth of the Canals which it may be found necessary to open at the great & little Falls of the River."
7 December 1785 From George Mason (from Gunston-Hall), pp. 434-35
p. 434-35: Mason is sick and dares "not undertake a Journey to Richmond; and therefore, after putting it off as long as I well cou'd, in Hopes of recovering such Health as wou'd permit me to present the Compact with the State of Maryland, in person, I have now inclosed it in a Letter to the Speaker.(1) . . . I must entreat You, if You find it necessary, to make my Apology to the Assembly for having rather exceeded our authority. I have You the Reasons, in a former Letter, soon after the Meeting of the Commisioners; but least You shou'd not recollect them, I will repeat them."
[Mason then quotes his letter to JM of 9 Aug. 1785]
" "My Paper draws to an End, & leaves Me only Room to beg Your Attention to the inclosed Memorandum, to express my Desire of hearing from You on the Subject of the Compact."
p. 435: Ed. Note: The enclosure is Mason's transcript of "The Compact between Maryland and Virginia Relating to the Jurisdiction and Navigation of the Potomac and Pokomoke Rivers" [not printed here] of 28 Mar. 1785 (cites Rutland, II, 816-21). The Gen. Ass. ratified the agreement in Dec. 1785-Jan. 1786, when JM acted as a manger for the confirming legislation (JHDV, Oct. 1785, pp. 90, 114, 117, 128).
P. 436: Ed. Note 1: The Speaker laid the letter before the House on 13 Dec. 1785 (JHDV, Oct. 1785, p. 90). The bill became law on Dec. 30 (ibid., pp. 113, 119).
9 December 1785 To George Washington (from Richmond), pp. 438-40
pp. 438-39: "The discussion f [the commercial propositions] has consumed much time, and though the absolute necessity of some such general system prevailed over all the efforts of its adversaries in the first instance, the stratagem of limiting its duration to a short term has ultimately disappointed our hopes. . . . . The propositions however have not yet received the final vote of the House, having lain on the table for sometime as a report from the Commee. of the whole. The question was suspended in order to consider a proposition which had for its object a Meeting of Politico-commercial Commissrs from all the States for the purpose of digesting and reporting the requisite augmentation of the power of Congress over trade. What the even will be cannot be foreseen. The friends to the original propositions are I am told rather increasing, but I despair of a majority in any event for a longer term than 25 years for their duration. The other scheme will have fewer enemies and may perhaps be carried. It seems naturally to grow out of the proposed appointment of Commssrs for Virga. & Maryd, concerted at Mount Vernon for keeping up harmony in the commercial regulations of the two States. Maryd has ratified the Report, but has invited into the plan Delaware and Penna. who will naturally pay the same compliment to their neighbours &c. &c. Besides these general propositions on the subject of trade, it has been proposed that some intermediated measures should be taken by ourselves, and a sort of navigation act will I am apprehensive be attempted. . . . "
[ca. 24-26 December 1785] Act Ratifying the Chesapeake Compact with Maryland, pp. 457-61 (see notes from Hening's Statutes: Potomac)
30 December 1785 To James Monroe (from Richmond), pp. 465-66
p. 466: "The Compact with Maryd. has been ratified. It was proposed to submit it to Congs. For their sanction, as being with the word Treaty used in the Confederation.(3) This was oppd. It was then attempted to transmit it to our Delegates to be by them simply laid before Congs. Even this was negatived by a large Majority."
p. 467: Ed. Note 3: The House Journal is silent on this contest between the localists and delegates of JM's bent, who might have used the Mount Vernon compact as a test case under Art. 6 of the Confederation which required congressional approval for treaties between two or more states.
22 January 1786 To Thomas Jefferson (from Richmond), pp. 472-81
pp. 479-80: "On Potowmack they have been at work for some time. On this river they have about eighty hands ready to break ground, and have engaged a man to plan for them. I fear there is a want of skill for the undertaking that threatens a waste of labour and a discouragement to the interprize."
22 March 1786 From William Grayson (from New York), pp. 508-10
p. 510: "I tryed to get you the book respecting canals, but all were sold but one, which at Genl. Washingtons desire I sent to him. All I could do was to imploy the book seller to import some this will be done with all convenient speed. Out of the importation I have engaged 5. Copies: two for you, two for myself & one for the Potowmack people."