Vol. 8: June 1767-Dec. 1771
[1769] John Semple's Proposal for Potomac Navigation, pp. 284-88
pp. 284-88 "The Opening & making Convenient Passage for Vessells of Ten to Fifteen Tons
Burthen through such particular parts of the River Potomac above the Great falls, as is now difficult, & render Tedious and Expensive Portages Necessary, has been long considered as highly meriting the public attention; but as is often the fate of matters wherein many are interested, little has been hitherto done to carry it into execution. On Generall Braddocks arrivall at Alexandria a fair prospect was presented of having it Speedily done, It admitted of no sort of dispute, that much the readiest & easiest communication with the waters of the Ohio & Consequently Fort du Quisnie must be by the river Potomac, as it would reduce the whole of the land Carriage from Alexandria to the aforesd fort, (now fort Pitt) a distance of two hundred & Sixty Miles to no more than Seventy. The Generall Sensible of the Superior advantages of this Conveyance, undoubtedly had its improvement in view, and made use of it even in the State It was for the carriage of his Artillery, Ammunition & Provisions A great part of the way; His defeat and Death and the consequences resulting therefrom, Facts too recent to want enlarging upon, put an entire Stop to all further proceedings. The future Operations to the westward were by a peculiar Management unnaturally carried on from a qu[i]te different quarter and Potomac lay Neglected.(1) A Second attempt was afterwards made to have it done by private Subscription which being in the time of the late war and thought by many to be too heavy for private persons to Accomplish, It was proposed to apply to the Legislature for their Concurrence and assistance in a work of Such Generall Utility, some of that respectable body being Consulted, they advised the postponing of it to a more favourable opportunity The people at that time being heavily burthened with taxes occasioned by the late war upon which the matter was laid aside,(2) The last mentioned objection being now happily removed, it is hoped that an application to the Legislature in a work of so publick a nature will not at present be thought unseasonable or impertinent.(3) The vast bodies of land now Ceded to us by the Indians must open a new and extensive field of Commerce, of which the River Potomac must Necessarily be the principall Channell, not the mention the very lucrative Skin & furr Trade which this must make our own whenever we chuse to make Use of it.(4) As some Gentlemen have lately carefully viewed the river and Computed the Expence of removing the different Obstacles, that obstruct & make the passage of Vessells Difficult, the following account of their observations may not be unnecessary.(5)" Viz. From the lowest landing place to which it is proposed opening a passage, The Widow Brewster's Two Miles above the great falls or Cataract and within ten miles of Tide water [Note: there is no mention how they will get around Great Falls, hence the intention does not seem to be to open a straight passage from tidewater on up, but to start above tidewater and make the upper river navigable], There is good water for five Miles to the lower part of Senecca falls which Consists of Continued Rifts of Rocks for near a mile up the River, these may be easily passed [by dams] in a narrow naturall Channell between a Chain of Islands and the Main . . . (As this will be the only safe & practicable pass, and as Mr. Ballendine intends Erecting a saw Mill and other works on the said Channell, would it not be expedient & even Necessary for the Legislature to interpose & prevent him from Executing his plan, in such a manner as may be so injurious to the Community as Stop the farther passage past that place?(6) More Especially as it wou'd require but a triffling additionall Expence to have a passage through his Dam & to Continue his race a little farther which wou'd equally answer every purpose he can propose to himself,) From these falls there is now water sufficient for Boats properly Constructed, during the winter and Spring months, and generally as late as the last of June or July as High as Payne's fall (the foot of what is Called Shanadoah falls) a distance of about forty miles . . . [etc. describes obstacles on up the river and estimates on the cost of removing obstructions] from thence [Shanadoah Falls] to Fort Cumberland one hundred and thirty miles, and to a Much Greater distance up the North and South Branches, There is no very materiall obstruction but want of water over Shallow places when the River is low in autumn and the latter end of Summer . . . From Shanadoah downwards, such shall places when the river is low being all gravelly Shoals may be improved and made passible in any time of the Year at a small expence and trouble by . . . appointing Overseers on the Shoals [like road overseers, with responsibility to keep them clear] . . . This plan being followed and Fish and other Dams removed and every thing prevented for the future, that would any ways hinder or prejudice the passage of Vessells up and down the River, which Dams and Obstructions, our neighbouring Colony has wisely prohibited, (9) will render it in a very short time readily passible att all time be the river high or low. As a farther Explanation and Proof to Show the great Utility and advantage of this improvement [annexed is] a Just State[ment] & Cost of the difference of the expence as it now is, of land and water Carriage on a Ton of Iron from Keep Triste Furnace to Navigation; There being so great a difference from that place as the river now is Unimproved, How much greater must it be to persons inhabiting higher up in the Country, in proportion to their greater distance and which wou'd be still Greater if the above obstructions were removed that Vessells might pass from one end of the River to the other [ie. above Tidewater], without hindrance or Stoppages, Portages, and different handling of the Commodities of which very will admitt, Was the above improvements made, any Commodity whatever might be transported with Safety and ease at a small and reasonable Expence, from the highest landing to the lowest without shifting untill they were put ashore at the lowest landing intended.
"Thus at the expence of £5000 the best Channell is opened for inland trade that can be possibly had in British America, The land Carriage between the bay of Chesapeak and the mouth of the Mississippi, The Ilenois, three hundred Miles up the Missuri and to the different lakes, by very small Portages is reduced to Seventy Miles, and in time may be reduced to a much Shorter distance . . .
[Appened is a list of expenses which I have reworded slightly]
"The Expence of transporting a Ton of Iron by land carriage from Keep Triste
Furnace [located on the Va. banks of Potomac just above Harpers Ferry (p.293)] £3.15.0
"The Expence of transporting a Ton of Iron down the River Potomack as it is
now unimproved, to the Little Falls is Viz."
Portage from the furnace, ½ day by waggon, to Payne's landing £0.6.3
From Paynes landing to Seneca falls by water 7.6
Portage past Seneca falls 1.6
From lower Seneca falls to widow Brouster's landing 5 miles by water 2.6
Portage from widow Brousters to Little falls, ten miles, a days journey by land 12.6
Total £1.10.3
Difference between land and water Carriage gained 2. 4.9
£3.15.0
pp. 289-90: Ed. Note: This was one of nine documents associated with GW and relating to the navigation of the Potomac River which were deposited together in the Minn. Hist. Soc. at some point during the 19th century. Semple also presented to the lower house of the Maryland legislature, on 4 Dec. 1769, "A Representation . . . relative to the Navigation on the River Patowmack" (Md. Archives, 62:63).
Ed. Note 1: Semple is referring to the campaign of Gen. John Forbes of 1758 in which Braddock's Road was not used for the successful march on Fort Duquesne.
Ed. Note 2: See GW to a Participant in the Potomac River Enterprise, 1762, and note.
Ed. Note 3: In the Nov.-Dec. 1769 session Va. legislature Richard Henry Lee and GW on 5 Dec. were given "Leave . . . to bring in a Bill for clearing and making navigable the River Potowmack, from the great Falls of the said River, up to Fort Cumberland." What role if any the Semple proposal played in this action or drafting the bill is unknown, but presumably GW had the proposal by this time. The House voted to approve the bill 14 Dec. but apparently did not forward it to the council for approval (JHB, 1766-1769, 314, 322, 334, 338). The text of the bill has not been found. GW had been only peripherally involved in the effort in 1762 to begin work on improving navigation on the Potomac, but with the renewed prospect in 1768 and 1769 of the opening of the transallegheny west to settlement, GW assumed a leading role in the movement by Virginians and Marylanders to make the Potomac River a part of a great waterway to the west. Except during the AR, it was a project that commanded his attention until the time of his death.
Ed. Note 4: For references to the treaties negotiated with the southern and northern Indians in 1768 by John Stuart and Sir William Johnson, see GW to William Crawford, 17 Sept. 1767, source note, and John Armstrong to GW, 3 Nov.-20 Dec. 1767, n. 1.
Ed. Note 5: The men who made this particular survey of the Potomac have not been identified.
Ed. Note 6: Ballendine had built (1760s) a public house, gristmills, and a bakery at the Little Falls of the Potomac and in 1769-70 was planning to build another gristmill and a sawmill, but in Apr. 1770 was put in jail for debut and in Sept. 1770 some of his Little Falls property was put up for sale, and in Dec. all his enterprises there were offered for lease.
Ed. Note 9: In its May-June 1768 session the Md. legislature passed an act "to Prevent Obstructions of the Navigation in the river Potowmack." The act provided that "all Fish Dams or other Devices for catching of Fish already made or hereafter to be made and all other Erections hereafter to be made in the River Potowmack between the Great Falls and Wills's Creek . . . are hereby deemed and declared Nusances and may by any Person or persons be pulled down prostrated and abated as such" (Md. Archives, 61:427).
8 Jan. 1770 John Semple to GW (from Occoquan), pp, 291-93
pp. 291-93: "I am greatly pleased to find you are so likely to Carry the point of Improveing Potowmack River(2) But the plan adopted on the footing of the Adventurers being to be repaid with Interest from a Tolls Will be lyable to a Great difficulty which I am Affraid will prevent Its being accomplished. Money is not so plenty that Persons possessed of It are under any dificulty to let it out at Interest on the Terms of withdrawing and Commanding It when they please Which Would not be the case in Sunk in a plan of this kind Attended with the Greatest uncertainty when it might be Recoverable Which would prevent any Persons Sinking in It a Sum more than as a Gift of Charity He had given away and did not Exspect to receive again which Scanty Methods I am Affraid May not be Sufficient to accomplish the End. On the footing of the Toll being made the property of the Adventureres As is the mode of all Such Publick undertakeings in Britain . . . people would Subscribe freely and Sink considerable Sums in It . . . The Adventureres would have the Greatest encouragement that could be given them which would Induse them to continue It on to Tyde Water with Locks at the foot of what is called the Meadows below the Great falls . . . and from thence I presume It may be continued past the Little falls to Tyde Water.(3)
"In the forming of the Law there is a point that ought to be Guarded against That perhaps might not be Attended to. . . all encouragement ought to be given By the Legislature for the Manufactoring of [flour and iron] And no place prevented from being Improved for these purposes that possibly can be made Serviceable towards that End. . . . [The improvements on the river ought] to Serve both pruposes vizt The Navigation of the river And manufacturing these Commoditys . . . The Proprietor ought not to be deprived of so valuable a part of property And so advantatgious to the Community [does the ref. to proprietor indicate that Semple recognized Md's ownership of the river?] . . . Which Hint in your Makeing of the Law I hope will and Pray may be attended to As otherwise great unjustice may be done to Inviduals Nay to the Community in prevent the Improvement of of very valuable places in a manner not prejudicial to the Navigation of the River . . . These things in the Law would be necessary to be Gaurded against In case the Legislature thought proper to Incorporate the Adventurers into one Body or Company with a Power to Cut through and make use of any mans Lands Which might be the most prudent Method under proper Managers."
pp. 293-94: Ed. Note: this letter is one of a packet of nine documents in the Minn. Hist. Soc.
Ed. Note 2: He is perhaps referring to the bill regarding the navigation of the Potomac drawn up by GW and others, which the House of Burgesses had passed a few weeks before.
Ed. Note 3: If the Potomac River bill drawn up in Dec. 1769 by Richard Henry Lee and Gw did include, as Semple seems to indicate, a provision for financing improvements of navigation solely with private funds lent at interest, GW changed his mind about this, for in July 1770 he was taking Semple's position and arguing the infeasibility of relying entirely on private investments of this sort. Rather, he favored what the Va. legislature was to adopt in 1772 and what both the Va. & Md. legislatures adopted in 1784, the vesting of subscribers "with a kind of property in the Navigation" of the river, whereby investors collected the tolls and retained control of the proceeds (GW to Thomas Johnson, 20 July 1770; Henings 8:570-70 and 11:510-25; GW to Benj. Harrison, 10 Oct. 1784, source note).
2 April 1770 Jonathan Boucher to GW (from Caroline), pp. 324-25
pp. 324-25: "Might not your proposed Improvemts of the Naviga[tio]n of the Potomac to the
to the Wtward be accomplished on some such Plan as This?-I mean obtaing an Act of Assembly, empowering certn Commissioners, therein named to borrow the Sum supposed to be wanted, at a high Interest (suppose 10 P Cent) & this Interest to be rais'd fm a Tax proportioned thereto, on all the Vessels makg Use of sd Navigan? Or, if the Navigan wd bear it, wc. tho' prhaps it might not at first yet, undoubtedly it soon would, might not this Tax be rated so as to produce a considerable Surplus, enough not only to sink the original Loan, but to raise a fund for still farther Improvements. . . . You doubtless, have heard long ago wt was done on this Matter by the Maryland Assembly; but, as I fear, fm the Acct of Things, our Assembly wd not easily be persuaded to advance any Cash towards the Scheme, tho' I can have no immediate Interest in it, I shd be grieved so beneficial a Project shd be dropp'd.(3)"
p. 325: Ed. Note 3: See John's Semple's Proposal for Potomac Navigation, 1769, n.3.
18 June 1770 Thomas Johnson to GW (from Annapolis), pp. 349-52
pp. 349-51: "I take the Liberty by the Revd Mr Boucher who as well as others have assured me of your Friendship to the Inland Navigation on Potowmack to inclose you a Subscription Paper which is intended to be put about at our Frederick Court next Week(1)-I have with some though too few others taken a View of the River from a little below Fort Frederick to Paynes Falls-in our Voyage down we met with Nothing of any Consequence till we came to Catons Gutt what is called Hoses Falls another Rift-between that and Andietum and what is called Shepherds Falls a little below Shepherds Town being the only Obstructions and which might be easily removed at very small Expence. from Catons Gutt to Paynes Falls about 5 Miles Distance will we think be in prudence our present Object and 2500£ Pensylva. Currency it is thought . . . will reduce Shannandore to allow a tolderable passage and make a towing Path-If we once get through the Shannandore I need not remark that all the Force above may be easily drawn to a point at Seneca or any other Obstruction below which will admit of Improvement at a tolerable Expence. We choose to blow a passage rather than attempt Naviga. through Locks because the Fallsno where appear too steep for Vessels to come down if they had but Room enough and this plan is the more eligable as it avoids a very strong Objection to Locks from the Freshes, &ca [&ca] our Boat came through and we are satisfied loaded Battoes might with safety was there Room enough and a Channel deepnd[.] . . . Should this Mode of effecting the Navigation be generally approved I am not unapprized that the Scheme of raising Money by subscription is liable to Objection and I think with many that this River justly claims the Attention of the Legislatures of both Provinces[.] I sincerely wish they could be both brought into one generous and grand Scheme and am sure that the vast Addition to Trade would soon repay almost any Expence but I fancy you and I are too well acquainted with the Difficulties of carrying points of Consequence through the three Branches of one Legisl[ature] to entertain Expectations that both legislatures will soon concur circumstantially in the same Scheme for clearing Potowmack(3)-If any Thing should be given in Maryland in a public way a Subscription will certainly be an essential Condition and from what I have understood in Virginia the plan of a Corporation Subscription of Shares & Tolls would be the most agreeable there. A great many of the interested in Maryland are willing to put their Hands into their own pockets at once . . . so that if the people of your Side can be brought to do their just part, I do not mean an Arithmetical exactness, I flatter myself the Thing is well within our power and that a considerable party may still be done this Year. To convince people of the immediate Advantages to themselves I make this Estimate.
Land Carriage 80 Miles at 1/ Pensylva. Curry per Mile per Ton or
38 Bushels of wheat is 4.
From Paynes Falls to Shannandore Semple now gives for Water
Carre per Ton . 8.
from the Mo. of Connegocheage to Paynes about the same Distance
suppose the like . 8.
Land Carriage from Seneca to the little Falls or 14 Miles say 14 .14.
____
1.10.
saved by Water Carriage except the small Expence of Carriage from
the little Falls to Geo. Town or Bellhaven on each Ton 2.10.
But what has weight with some though not enough are the [immense] future Advantages which you much better that I [illegible] favor and see of in making Poto. the Channel of Conveyance and Connection between the new Country westward and Britain.
"If you sr should approve the Scheme of a Subscription and think any Thing can be done that Way in Virginia it will give us new Spirits on this Side-if not I shall be greatly obliged by your communicating your Thoughts on the Subject."
p. 352: Ed. Note: With this letter, Thomas Johnson (1732-1819), a Maryland lawyer who became the state's first governor, began a correspondence with GW that lasted until GW's death. It was rooted in their mutual interest in opening the upper Potomac to navigation and their persistent efforts to achieve this. GW indicates that it was largely through his own efforts that the Va. legislature in 1772 enacted a bill for opening and extending the navigation of the river, but Johnson was unable to overcome the opposition of the Baltimore merchants to secure the passage of a similar bill in the Md. legislature in 1772 [no cite]. The return of John Ballendine from England in 1774 "with a number of engineers and artificers," to begin work on the Potomac (Annap. Md. Gaz., 8 Sept. 1774) gave renewed impetus to the enterprise. Both GW & Johnson became trustees of a company for opening the Potomac, and they took leading roles in preparing for their respective assemblies bills for giving public support tot he project (see correspondence between them 1774 and 1775). The outbreak of war put an end to their efforts, but in late 1784 and early 1785 GW personally oversaw the simultaneous passage of identical Potomac River bills in the Va. & Md. legislatures.
Ed. Note 1: Johnson's "Subscription Paper" has not been found, but see GW to Johnson, 20 July, and Jonathan Boucher to GW, 18 Aug. On 11 April 1768 Johnson and Lancelot Jacques received a patent for 15,000 acres in Fred. Co. where they erected their Green Spring furnace for making pig iron, and soon thereafter Johnson obtained a patent for another 7,000 acres of mineral land on the Catoctin Creek, all of which gave him a stake in the navigation of the Potomac.
Ed. Note 3: Md. lower house on Dec. 4, 1769, ordered a bill to be brought in based on Semple's proposal (above) and made Johnson chairman of a committee to prepare the bill (Md. Archives, 62:63-64). Johnson's bill passed the lower house on 20 Dec., but it was not passed by the upper house (ibid., 81, 89, 91, 29, 31).
20 July 1770 GW to Thomas Johnson (from Virginia), pp. 357-60
pp. 357- : "I was honourd with your favour of the 18th of June . . . but . . . till now I have not been able to enquire into the Sentiments of any of the Gentlemen of this side in respect to the Scheme of opening the Inland Navigation of Potomack by private Subscription-in the manner you have proposed-and therefore, any opnion which I may now offer on this head will be considered I hope as the result of my own private thinking-not of the Publick.
"That no person more intimately concernd in this Event wishes to see an undertaking of the sort go forward with more facility and ardour than I do, I can truely assure you . . . but I leave you to judge from the Tryal, which before this you undoubtedly have made, how few there are (not immediately benefited by it) that will contribute any thing worthwhile to the work; and how many small sums are requisite to raise a large one.
"Upon your Plan of raising money, it appears to me that there will be found but two kinds of People who will Subscribe much towards it-Those who are actuated by motives of Publick Spirit; and those again, who from their proximity to the Navigation will reap the salutary effects of clearing the River. The number . . . of the former, is more difficult to ascertain; for wch reason I own to you, that I am not without my doubts of your Schemes falling through . . .
"This Sir, is my Sentiment, generally, upon your Plan of obtaining Subscriptions for extending the Navigation of Potowmack; whereas I conceive, that if the Subscribers were vested by the two Legislatures with a kind of property in te Navigation, under certain restrictions & limitation's, and to be reimbursed their first advances with a high Interest thereon by a certain easy Toll on all Craft proportionate to their respective Burthen's, in the manner that I am told works of this sort are effected in the Inland parts of England-or, upon the Plan of Turnpike Roads; you would add thereby a third set of Men to the two I have mentioned and gain considerable strength by it: I mean the monied Gentry; who tempted by lucrative views woud advance largely on Acct of the high Interest-This I am Inclind to think is the only method by which this desirable work will ever be accomplished in the manner it ought to be; for as to its becoming an object of Publick Expence I never expect to see it-Our Interests (in Virginia, at least) are too much divided-our Views too confind, if our Finances were better, to suffer that, which appears to redound to the advantage of a part of the Community only, to become a Tax upon the-tho in the Instance before Us, there is the strongest speculative Proof in the World of the immense advantages which Virginia & Maryland might derive (and at a very small comparitive Expence) by making Potomack the Channel of Commerce between Great Britain and that immense Tract of Country which is unfolding to our view the advantages of which are too great, & too obvious I shoud think to become the Subject of serious debate but which thro. illtimed Parsimony & supiness may be wrested from us & conducted thro. other Channels such as the Susquehanna (which I have seen recommended by some writers) the Lakes &c.-how difficult it will be to divert it afterwards, time only can show. Thus far sir I have taken the liberty of communicating my Sentiments on the different modes of establishing a fund. . . .
"As to the manner in which you propose to execute the work, in order to avoid the Inconvenience which you seem to apprehend fr. Locks I profess myself to be a very incompetent Judge of it. . . But I am inclined to think that, if you were to exhibit your Scheme to the Publick upon a more extensive Plan than the one now Printed, it woud met with a more general approbation; for so long as it is considered as a partial Scheme so long will it be partially attended to-whereas, if it was recommended to Publick Notice upon a more enlargd Plan, and as a means of becoming the Channel of conveyance of the extensive & valuable Trade of a rising Empire; & the Operations to begin at the lower Landings (above the Great Falls) &t o extend upwards as high as Fort Cumberland; or, as far as the expenditure of the money woud carry them; from whence the Portage to the Waters of Ohio must commence; I think many woud be envited to contribute their mite, that otherwise will not. . ."
18 Aug. 1770 Jonathan Boucher to GW (from Annapolis), p. 367
p. 367: "They are still going on wth thr Subscriptn for clearg the Potomac, &, as I am told, wth Spirit. Four hundred pounds are subscribed in this City; nor have They yet got all They xpect. Messrs. Jacques & Johnson set off for Frederick to-morrow, & talk of fixing a Day for a general Meeting, before They return.