|
17
drafted a bill in 1769 incorporating most of Semple's ideas and intro-
duced it in the Virginia House of Burgesses. 27 The bill was never
acted upon possibly because of the strong support in Eneland for the
Walpole Associates, who at this time had just begun to frustrate Mercer's
efforts to renew the Ohio Company charter.
Thomas Johnson meanwhile had heard of Washington's "friendship
to the inland navigation of the Potowmack" and wrote to him in June
1770 enclosing a sample copy of his subscription paper. Johnson revealed
his own crude understanding of hydrodynamic engineering when he asserted
that locks were unnecessary because he had heard that "a German who has
long been employed in blowing rocks will reduce Shannandore to allow a
tolerable passage and make a towing path." Johnson felt that Semple's
proposed locks were too susceptible to floods and ice. 28
In relation to finance Johnson wrote that he hoped that the
Maryland and Virginia colonial legislatures could be persuaded to under-
take his modest projected cost of 63426 to improve the river because of
the increased trade it would bring to both colonies. He offered no
estimates of how much trade might grow. Johnson doubted, however, that
the two colonies would underwrite the project. Furthermore, although
joint stock companies which paid dividends to shareholders from the pro-
fits of tolls collected on improved rivers were becoming common in
England, Johson did not think it likely that funding for the Potomac
project would come from any individuals except those who would directly
benefit from the improved transportation:
27Ibid; John P. Kennedy, ed., Journals of the House of Burgesses
of Virginia Michmond, 1906), 1766-176 , December , ,
28 Thomas Johnson to George Washington, June 18, 1770, and Mary-
land Subscription Paper, George Washington Papers, Minnesota Historical
Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
|
