A much more important project was the Middlesex canal in Massachusetts, a charter for which was obtained in 1793. This canal extended from the Charles river to the Merrimac, twenty-seven miles, and was designed to attract to Boston the trade normally tributary to Portsmouth. Work was begun in 1794, and ten years later the canal was opened for traffic, though it was not entirely completed until 1808.
The successful completion of the Erie canal, which became an assured fact long before its actual accomplishment in 1825, stimulated similar projects all over the country. The local strife between trade centers, combined with the local demand for outlet, set a number of private projects in motion. Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Georgetown were successfully appealed to for support for transportation routes which would enable them to compete with New York for the trade of the West. The Blackstone Canal Company, chartered by Rhode Island and Massachusetts in 1823, began the construction of a canal along the Blackstone river to connect Providence and Worcester, and this route was opened for traffic in 1828. Another New England project started at about the same time was for a canal to extend from New Haven northwards to Northampton, and on up the Connecticut valley into Vermont. Two companies were chartered for this purpose, the Farmington canal in Connecticut in 1822 and the Hampshire and Hampden canal in Massachusetts in 1823. The Farmington canal was completed in 1830; but the work on the Hampshire and Hampden project was for a time abandoned for want of funds, and the canal was not cut through to Northampton until 1835. While carrying a large traffic this canal, like the Blackstone canal, was more beneficial to the general business of the section traversed than to those who held its stock. Other private works of this period upon which large sums were expended were: The Delaware and Raritan canal, connecting Philadelphia with New York; the James River and Kanawha, an unfinished canal project in Virginia; and the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, which was not extended further west than Cumberland.
SCARCITY OF CAPITAL FOR CANALS.
On account of local needs, few canal or navigation companies had difficulty in obtaining their first subscriptions, but most of them experienced trouble in collecting assessments and in obtaining additional subscriptions. This timidity of investors, it now appears, was not without ground, for few of the private canal companies were able to bring their construction work to completion, and fewer still paid any dividends to their stockholders. The Middlesex canal was profitable until the building of a parallel line of railroad; the Montague canal, also in Massachusetts, yielded a fair return during the first twenty years that followed its completion in 1800. The Delaware and Schuylkill canal may be cited as a third exception. But it early became evident that public works of the number and magnitude required could be constructed only at national expense. As the constitution contains no direct provision for internal improvements, the subject became a party question.
From the first Congress had appropriated money for lighthouses, public piers, buoys and other aids to navigation, and about such action there had been no dispute, for it was agreed that these matters lay strictly within federal jurisdiction. From the first, also, Congress had been petitioned for appropriations for internal improvements. Most of these demands were local in character, and so were easily disposed of; but when the directors of the Chesapeake and Delaware canal asked Congress to supply the funds which they had been unable to obtain from sales of shares, the question was forced to an issue. Two facts were incontestable, the general importance of the work, and the ability of the national government to carry it on in view of the revenue surplus in the treasury.
In another way Congress had already committed itself to the support of public works. So long as the country was made up of states bordering on the Atlantic seaboard, improvements were matters of interest to all alike, but with the admission of new states in the interior, and the prospect of future accessions to the westward as the country expanded, an element of injustice seemed to enter these appropriations, which benefited the seaboard states at the expense of all. The feeling of discontent was intensified by the fact that the favored states were more thickly settled, and therefore better able to incur the expense. With the admission of Ohio, however, this was remedied by the establishment of the five per cent. land fund, and the self-interest of the seaboard was appealed to by the argument that the building of roads into the West would so stimulate sales of the public lands as to increase the national revenues.
The matter of national aid to internal improvements was again brought before Congress in 1816 by Calhoun, who presented a bill providing for the direct construction of roads and canals and the improvement of waterways out of a fund to be created by setting apart the bonus and dividends received by the government from the United States bank. This bill, which was drawn up by Clay, passed through Congress in 1817, but it was vetoed by Madison, who, though favorably disposed toward public works, had inherited from Jefferson a doubt as to the rights of Congress to participate in their construction without a constitutional amendment specifically granting the authority. And Monroe, holding the same opinion, vetoed a bill for the repair of the Cumberland road, and submitted to Congress a long statement of the principles involved in his decision. In the meantime, weary of waiting, New York had succeeded in building the Erie canal. Its success shifted the whole plan of promotion. With credit established abroad, internal improvements were taken up by the states, and for the next two decades transportation interest centers in state funding.
It was during this period of struggle for means of transportation facilities adequate to meet the demands of those whose fortunes had been cast in the remote interior that the railroad became the subject of serious economic interest.
(In subsequent chapters, Messrs. Cleveland & Powell trace the beginnings of the railroad, the physical and financial difficulties that beset them at every turn; the indomitable spirit with which they were projected, promoted and built into every quarter of the Union, until through the investment of billions of private capital the United States has been furnished with the best system of internal transportation in the world. To their pages the reader is referred for the continuation of this most interesting narrative.)