| THE STATE IN THE MARYLAND ECONOMY, 1776-1807 117
tion,12° increasing shares, and allowing foreigners or aliens to
purchase stock in order to bring more capital into the com-
pany'21 Governor Stone, in his speech to the legislature in
1796, asked that " a liberal sum of money be granted and ap-
plied in aid of the -funds of the Susquehanna Company to
complete the navigation of that river as far as it extends in
Maryland." 122 In its reply the General Assembly declared that
it would give the application of the Susquehanna Canal Com-
pany " the consideration which its importance merits." 1z$ How-
ever, not until 1799 did the legislature grant the company a
loan of $30,000 at six per cent interest for ten years to be used
to open the canal.114
Soon it was seen that no matter how much effort and money
was put in canalling the Susquehanna in Maryland, it would
be of little use unless Pennsylvania would give permission for
the obstructions to be removed from the river on the Pennsyl-
vania side.125 Of course Philadelphia, not desiring to benefit
Baltimore, its greatest rival, at its own expense, refused.
Maryland then decided to clear the river bed of obstructions,
and first declared the Susquehanna River a public highway,
giving anyone willing the permission to clear the river. Two
years later, finding this work proceeding inadequately, the
legislature gave the Susquehanna Canal Company the right to
charge half-tolls on the river itself if within five years it would
spend $5,000 to clear the river bed 12g Pennsylvanians were
furious about this law because just a short time before Mary-
land had declared the river a public highway, i.e., toll free to
all. Thereupon Pennsylvania reinstated its old policy of ob-
struction by passing an act that year making it an offense, pun-
ishable by a fine of $200 to $2,000, to remove any obstacles
'$° Md. Sess., 1790 c. 86 extending time to 1798 and 179'1 c. 99 extending
to
Dec. 1805.
'~' Ibid., and 1799 c. 17, 1801 c. 99.
lE$ A. Md. Gaz, Nov. 24, 1796, p. 2
1:8Ibid.
"' Md. Sess., c. 17.
'26 See Davis, Ii, 119 on contemporary opinion of the limited value of Mary-
land's canal and a New Yorker's view of Pennsylvania's " narrow and partial
views,"
use Md. Sess., 1797 c. 99, 1799 c. 17. See also 1795 c. 63, 180¢ c. 100
authorizing
lotteries to improve the river bed. These acts do not place the lotteries
under the
control of the Susquehanna Canal Company as Lrvlngood, p. 95, says although
some original subscribers to the canal stock appear as managers of the
lotteries.
|
