| THE STATE IN THE MARYLAND ECONOMY, 1776-1807 121
brought agreements, grudging on Pennsylvania's side, on
routes for such roads, costs, and free use of the Ohio River. By
1786 all three states had approved these plans.-13 Baltimore
merchants were always opposed to any improvement to Poto-
mac navigation because it would direct much of the western
trade to the Potomac ports of Georgetown and Alexandria.
However, the Baltimore interests did not block the project
in 1784, probably because they thought it unlikely to suc-
ceed ;I4' but many citizens complained bitterly in the Balti-
more newspapers about the money the legislature had voted to
spend on opening the Potomac.'11° Annapolitans who favored
the project, partly as a check to Baltimore's influence and pow-
er, replied that if attempts to link east and west were not
made, the western trade " will otherwise go down the Missis-
sippi." Virginia, one- article continued, would not derive all
the benefits from the act. Georgetown, Maryland was further
upstream than Alexandria and could expect great benefits.l'$
A president, George Washington and directors for tile
company were elected in 1785 and soon placed advertisements
in the Annapolis paper for a manager and assistants and 100
laborers.l'7 Work was actually begun August 8, 1785 at Shen-
andoah Falls, Harper's Ferry. By 1792 many boats were able
to come from the headwaters to Great Falls, and the Company,
by a revision of its charter, was allowed to charge half tolls on
this traffic"$
After this initial advance the work was slow and the -com-
pany sought further state aid. Almost immediately the com-
pany had been beset by problems of finance, labor, manage-
ment, and lack of technical knowledge common to all canal
"' Md. Sess., 1784 Resolution No. 7, Davis, 11, 122-23, A. Md. Gaz., Feb.
16,
1'786, giving Pennsylvania act.
"' Davis, lI, 122.
"s B. Md. Gaz., Feb. 11, 1785, " Planter."
I'e A. Md. Gaz., Apr. 21, 1785, p. 2, " Answer to the 'Planter.'" He thought
that when the state saw to it that the Susquehanna was opened to its
sources,
it was " probable that no more complaints will come from any Baltimore
writer
on this score."
'°' A. Md. Gaz., May 26, 1785, p. 2, June 9, 1785. It is interesting to
note that
James Rumsey of Virginia was chosen the " principal manager " since he was
familiar with the Potomac River; Davis, 11, 125.
"e Ibid., pp. 132-33 and Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Protects: A
History of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Johns Hopkins University Studies
in Historical and Political Science, LXVIV (1946 No. 1), p. 34.
|
