INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT CONVENTION.

163

the members of the House of Delegates, as well as of the Senate, are chosen without the shadow of a regard for either population or taxation. Baltimore City or County, with one-fourth of the whole, and nearly one-third of the free population of the State, has six members in the House of Delegates out of the eighty which compose it, of which six, the city is entitled to two, though its population is as large as that of six or eight counties, sending twenty-four or thirty-two members, and the rate of taxation is equally disproportioned. In the apportionment of the State tax of 1823, no less a sum than $19,468 was saddled on Baltimore, (and chiefly on the city, for its two members,) whereas there were three counties with twelve members, that paid less than three thousand dollars each! In the first class of counties, the people paid about two hundred and forty dollars for a representative in the Legislature; but Baltimore City and County were rated at three thousand two hundred and forty-four dollars for each representative, and the City of Baltimore, separated from the county, was to pay somewhere about eight thousand per delegate!" 1

To promote the system of internal improvement, the Baltimore Convention appointed a committee to present their report to the Legislature at the December session. The progress of the New York and Erie Canal, connecting Albany with Buffalo, and the Pennsylvania Canal, connecting Philadelphia with Pittsburg, admonished the Legislature of Maryland when it assembled, that it had become necessary for this State, from the examples of her more thriving sisters, to bring and retain within her borders, her mechanics, manufacturers, merchants and agriculturists.

Up to this time, the only means contemplated to be used for the conveyance of the products of agriculture and manufactures, and for carrying on the commerce of the State, was by canals in the direction of the Potomac and Susquehannah, and from these rivers to Baltimore. To enable Baltimore to compete with the improvements of her sister cities, and to put her in close. connection with the contemplated canal along the Valley of the Potomac, the Legislature, in addition to the survey made for a canal to form a connection. with the Susquehannah country, at the same session of the Assembly on the 18th of February, 1823, passed a resolution appointing Allan Fenwick, William Howard and William Price, commissioners "to ascertain whether a water communication could be opened between the City of Baltimore and the projected Potomac Canal," and "to lay out the route of such canal from the City of Baltimore to the mouth of Monocacy, or any other point adjacent thereto, not going farther up the river than Harper's Ferry."

In pursuance of their appointment, the commissioners immediately proceeded in the execution of their work, and on the 10th of June, 1823, appointed Isaac Briggs, chief engineer, and on the 16th of December, after a survey and examination, he made a report "on the practicability of a route with a due supply of water, from the Linganore, across to the head waters of

Register, xxix., p. 34.

the Patapsco." This view is now considered as erroneous. The subject was renewed at each succeeding Legislature, and, in compliance with one of the conditions contained in the Act, confirming and assenting to the charter of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. Dr. William Howard, of the United States Engineer Corps, was instructed, in August, 1826, by the Secretary of War to make a survey, with a view to a canal connection between the canal at the Potomac and the harbor of Baltimore. Dr. Howard made his report, which has been sustained by subsequent surveys, on the 25th of June, 1827, and was communicated to Congress, by the Secretary of War, on the 11th of January, 1828. The examinations made by Dr. Howard, led him to the conviction, that any canal from the Potomac, in the direction of Baltimore, and passing north of Georgetown, was "absolutely impracticable."

"A canal, however, from a point on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, in Georgetown, to the City of Baltimore, was pronounced practicable; provided, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal should be continued from the Little Fails of the Potomac to Georgetown, at an elevation of at least twenty-five to thirty feet above tide, and afforded to this lateral canal, a supply of water sufficient for its consumption, at least as far as the eastern branch, a dis· tance of about five miles. This elevation and extension of the canal, below the Little Falls, has been made, and the supply of water provided, by amendments to the canal company's charter. The route proposed by Dr. Howard, commences at the point on the canal in Georgetown, which we have above mentioned, passes across the City of Washington, to the boundary of the city on the Maryland avenue, thence to the Eastern Branch of the Potomac), then along the bank of the Eastern Branch, which it crosses at Bladensburg, thence through the town, to and along the north-eastern branch and Piney Branch, crossing the turnpike near Vansville, where the line attains its highest elevation, and the summit level commences. From the summit level it continues to, and across the Patuxent, and thence nearly parallel with the turnpike road, until it has passed the deep cut of the middle ridge, here it deviates from a direct course, passing the north branch of the Patuxent, and then running nearly east, reaches the valley of Chandler's branch, and pursues it to the commencement of the deep cut of the Waterloo ridge, near the end of which is the termination of the summit level. The line then follows the valley of Licking Run and Deep Run, to Elkridge Landing, where it crosses the Patapsco. It then follows the left shore of the Patapsco to the Ferry Branch. Arrived at the Ferry Branch, it continues along its west shore, and passes the outlet of Gwynn's Falls, about one hundred yards from the bridge, and communicates with the tide at Carroll's Point. Here the canal was supposed to terminate, but if a further continuation should be desired, Dr. Howard states that it could be made without difficulty to enter the basin, near the intersection of Light street wharf with Hughes' quay."

The estimated cost of the canal with a width of forty-eight feet at the surface of the water, thirty-three feet at the bottom, and five feet deep, exclusive of land damages, etc., was $2,980,815.40.

By an Act passed on the 6th of March, 1825, the State provided for the organization of the "Maryland Canal Company," to construct a canal from the Potomac River to the City of Baltimore, so soon as the State Board of Public Works, which was created at the same session, should ascertain the practicability of such a work; and, likewise, authorized a subscription to it on the part of the State, to the amount of $500,000.

MARYLAND CANAL COMPANY.

165

At this time the main object of the people of the State, and particularly of the City of Baltimore, was to secure the completion of the canal to Cumberland, and a connection with the City of Baltimore. These objects were steadily kept in view by the State, in its early legislation in regard to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; but the spirit with which the Baltimore Convention had originally insisted on, and advocated that enterprise, had passed away between the time of Dr. Howard's survey and the presentation of his report. When General Bernard's report was transmitted to Congress, December 7th, 1826, showing the immense cost necessary for the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, it produced for a time the most paralysing effect on the public mind generally in reference to the subject, and all hopes of accomplishing this desired object by its means, were at once abandoned.

It is true, a revision of the survey of General Bernard was subsequently undertaken by James Geddes and Nathan S. Roberts, chiefly for the purpose of abating the estimates, and in their report they placed the cost of the eastern section of the canal at about one-half of the amount indicated as necessary by General Bernard and his colleagues in the United States' Board. This report was hailed with joy and congratulations by a number of the friends of the canal, yet the belief remained generally unaltered that the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, if constructed as originally projected, would not fall much within the expense estimated by General Bernard. The people of Baltimore, sharing then this latter opinion had but one course left; and they adopted the railroad system, which by this time had attracted public attention in Europe and America, as free from all those difficulties, that rendered the execution of the canal more than doubtful, or, if executed, would still render it inefficient to accommodate the great commerce, of which it was intended to be the channel.

A meeting of a number of the citizens of Baltimore was accordingly held on the 12th of February, 1827, two months after the report of General Bernard, "to take into consideration the best means of restoring to the City of Baltimore that portion of the western trade which had lately been diverted from it," when various documents and statements, illustrating the efficiency of railroads, were produced and examined, and a committee composed of Philip E. Thomas, Benjamin C. Howard, George Brown, Talbot Jones, Joseph W. Patterson, Evan Thomas and John V. L. McMahon was appointed to take the subject into consideration. The committee reported at an adjourned meeting, held on the 19th of the same month, recommending "that measures be taken to construct a double railroad between the City of Baltimore and some suitable point on the Ohio River, by the most eligible and direct route," and that a company should be incorporated for the purpose. This report was unanimously accepted, and resolutions in accordance with it were at once adopted. The following committee was then appointed to petition the Legislature for a charter: Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, William Patterson, Isaac McKim, Robert Oliver, Charles Ridgely, of Hampton,