|
Home : Quarterly Archives : Volume 19 |
Tredyffrin Easttown Historical Society |
|
Source: April 1981 Volume 19 Number 2, Pages 47–56 The Great Valley Canal To insure trade for the fledgling port of Philadelphia, a canal to connect the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers with the Susquehanna was proposed by William Penn as early as in 1690, Even at that early date, he recognised that as his colony expanded to the west the Susquehanna would provide a natural transportation artery that would carry trade to the rival city cf Baltimore. The idea was revived almost three-quarters of a century later, in 1762. In that year, the astronomer David Rittenhouse and William Smith, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, made a survey for a canal to parallel the Swatara Greek from Middletown on the Susquehanna River and continue to Reading on the Schuylkill. In 1791 a company was chartered by the legislature to build such a connecting canal; at the same time a second company was also chartered to construct a canal along the Schuylkill to expedite traffic between Reading and Philadelphia. The two companies soon ran into financial difficulties despite authority later to conduct a lottery to raise additional funds, and in 1811 they were merged into the Union Canal Company. Work continued slowly, however, because of an insufficient water supply and differences of opinion on how to remedy that situation. In the meantime, a small, mile-long canal was constructed around the Conewego Falls on the Susquehanna, just above the little town of Columbia. This canal not only eliminated the obstacles to navigation created by those rapids, making the Susquehanna navigable down to that village; it also opened up for reconsideration the possibility of an entirely different route for a canal to connect the Susquehanna and the Schuylkill — a canal from Columbia, running through Lancaster county "by or near to the city of Lancaster to and through the Great Valley of Chester County" to join the Schuylkill in the vicinity of "the Swedesford". Such a canal, obviously, would run right through the middle of Tredyffrin Township. In his message to the legislature in 1818, Governor William Findlay "hinted" at such a plan, but apparently, as was later reported in the Village Record in West Chester, "no action was taken on this item of the governor's communication by the last legislature".
An early attempt to aronse interest in a Valley Canal While no action was taken by the legislature, however, the proposal for the Valley Canal, as it was soon called, was quickly espoused by the Village Record. In its May 26, 1819 issue it was observed, "There is a valley running through from the Schuylkill to the Susquehanna, so level, that to the traveller there would seem to be no obstruction to taking out the waters of the Susquehanna and bringing them with a gentle descent to Philadelphia. ... At Columbia, the Susquehanna is one hundred and forty feet above Philadelphia. Downingtown is one hundred and thirty eight feet above Philadelphia. The question is thus put to gentlemen acquainted with the ground, to say whether the waters of the Susquehanna may not be taken out, some distance above Columbia, brought into the Valley, and taken to Philadelphia?" "Why has not the route of the Valley been explored, surveyed, etc.?" it was asked; "Twenty years ago some attempts, very unsatisfactory, were made. But if it offers such natural advantages, why was not the enquiry pursued with more spirit?" In answer to its question, it was then pointed out, "The route by the Swatara was preferred, because it commenced above the Conawago [sic] Falls, which were then, and the falls below to Columbia, objects of great dread. They are so no longer. The Ark and Raftsman, familiar to the danger and skilled from practice to escape it, pass down with indifference — and will pass on to Baltimore, unless a safe and easier route is opened to Philadelphia." (The previous week, there had been printed a letter to the Editor "from a very intelligent and public spirited citizen", in which the writer had pointed out, "The projected canal from the Schuylkill near Philadelphia through the Valley to the Susquehanna should be considered a sine qua non to the prosperity of Philadelphia.") Early in 1820 a bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by Abraham Baily, one of Chester County's four representatives in the House, "authorizing the appointmemt of ... 2 commissioners to view and examine the ground, along the Great Valley of Chester county, from a point at or near the Swedesford, on the Schuylkill, thence along the said Valley, by Downingtown & Coatesville, in Chester County, Thomsontown in Lancaster county, and thence to the Susquehanna, at or near the Pequea Creek, or other points on said river, from thence up north to the mouth of the Chickasalongo Creek; for the purpose of establishing the practicality of making a Canal along the said valley or parts adjacent thereto, ... taking into view particularly the waters of the Conestoga, Pequea, Hill Creek and other streams, in the vicinity of the city of Lancaster, so as to determine whether a canal can advantageously be made along the said route". The commissioners were also to determine whether the canal could go through the city of Lancaster, to make a survey and level of various routes and their draughts, and to estimate the probable expense, "together with such other information as they may deem of importance relating thereto"! The bill was immediately endorsed by the Village Record, and also by the American Republican, published in Downingtown. "We are aware, that in the present state of the public funds," it was observed in the January 11, 1820 issue of the latter, "little aid can bs looked for from the state, towards the accomplishment of this great object at present, even if it should be found practical. But certainly the importance of such communication ... would warrant the legislature in providing the means of ascertaining the fact, whether or not such communication be within the reach of human exertion. With these impressions, we think Mr. Baily, deserves much credit for bringing forward his resolution, in the timely and prudent manner he has done. The expense of an investigation cannot be very great; and we cannot think that a single member of the legislature, will object to so reasonable a proposition, as merely to ascertain the possibility of so important a fact." At the same time, it was also noted that "the first thing to be considered, in regard to making a canal, is said to be !the places to be benefitted in point of trade.' In this respect, the contemplation of this canal includes so large a scope of country, whose productions are to receive an outlet by it, that we should be lost in attempting to name !the places to be benefitted.' And the important advantage of turning the whole productions of the country on the wide spread waters of the Susquehanna, in a direction to our great metropolis, great part of which now takes other channels, is too vast for us to describe, and certainly too obvious to escape the attention of wise legislators." In succeeding issues was commentary on the importance of canals in various European countries — England, France, Russia, Holland, and Sweden — and of the sections of the Erie Canal which had already been completed "in less than two years and five months". Prejudging the findings of the requested commissioners, it was concluded that "we cannot believe that even the lake country is more favorable to canal operations than is the Great Valley of Chester County". Still advocating the passage of legislation for the exploration of the feasibility of the canal, on January 9, 1822 a proposed petition, to be sent to the representatives "in General Assembly met", was printed in the Village Record. "The importance of opening a way to market to the great and rapidly increasing trade of the Susquehannah [sic]," it was pointed out in the proposed petition, "is, we presume, sufficiently obvious. ... If a Canal should be formed . .„ broad and deep — sufficiently so as to admit light steam boats, together with Arks — Rafts and the craft that descend the Susquehannah, so that they would go on to market without unloading, it is believed the trade of that River might be secured to our own Emporium of trade. We have no wish to interfere with the Union Canal; v/e sincerely wish It success; but we earnestly ask the attention of the Legislature to the plan by us proposed. ... We then respectfully ask — that the Legislature would cause to be appointed three Commissioners for the exclusive purpose, who should be authorized to employ a skillful engineer to accompany them — to take a general view of the route proposed — and if from such view, they deem the plan both practicable and eligible, that they should then be authorized to proceed to make a complete survey of the route; and make a particular and accurate estimate of the expense of completing the canal upon the most liberal plan — a plan worthy of Pennsylvania to accomplish; and suited to the interests of posterity." Continuing its advocacy of the project, in the next issue of the Village Record it was predicted, "If this Canal was done, Philadelphia and Lancaster would double in size. Lancaster would become the Birmingham of America. The value of farms along the Susquehanna and all its branches would greatly increase in value; for the Canal ought to be made so that Arks and Rafts could go on to the city without unloading or breaking up. All along the Canal wealth would overflow; the lime stone in the Valley might be sold a thousand bushels where now there is one. The country for thirty miles around Philadelphia would be benefitted by its increases, from the increased demands for marketing of every kind." Arguments that might be offered in opposition to the Great Valley Canal were also anticipated and rebutted in the newspaper. To finance the project, for example, it was suggested that, in addition to public appropriations, "the Banks, to wit: those of Philadelphia City and county, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Lancaster and Harrisburg, would, as a condition of the extension of their Charters, make the Canal". With regard to the possible effect the Canal might have on turnpikes, it was pointed out that the Canal, "would give such a stimulus to business of every kind, that, although the heavy western carriages would be checked; yet the increase of pleasure carriages and carriages for local business, and hauling to and from the canal sometimes small and sometimes greater distances would render it much travelled, and more productive than at present, for the heavy waggons injure the road much, and pay a light toll, while the light pleasure carriages injure it little and pay more. The turnpike ought not to be injured by the canal;" it was agreed, "and to prevent it the law might be so framed ... that the Turnpike Company should have the right, if they chose, to subscribe the stock of that Company to the Canal at par. Then the two stocks would be blended". To forestall difficulties that might result from the limestone bed of the Great Valley, and the possibility that "the water would waste", it was suggested that "instead of running through the centre of the Valley, the route ought to be located along the foot of the south hill that bounds the Valley. It would then have a slate bottom which holds water admirably. It would not cut up farms and injure improvements. It could be carried for a greater distance upon a level". (Later in the year, in a letter to the Editor, an unnamed reader also pointed out that "there is [also! no limestone on the north side, it is sandstone, and composed of earth that will maintain water nearly as well as the south side — besides, the feeders may be made to commence some distance in the hills, where the streams get rapid, and by these means the canal filled on an elevation",) "Presenting this view on the subject," it was pointed out in conclusion in January 1822, "we earnestly invite the public to join in proposing all that we now ask — an examination of the ground preparatory to further measures." When the Legislature still had taken no action by the end of May of the following year on legislation to authorize Commissioners to make a feasibility study, on May 31, 1823 "a number of persons interested in ascertaining the practicability of forming a canal" met at the home of Joshua Hoopes in Downingtown to implement studies of their own.
Joshua Hunt one of the princinal advocates of a Canal study "After a free conversation on the subject," it was reported in the Village Record on June 4th, "it was thought proper, as a first step, to take measures to ascertain whether water enough to supply a canal could be obtained at the summit level." With the cost of obtaining this information estimated to be about two hundred dollars, a committee, consisting of James Wright of Columbia; James Buchanan of Lancaster, later president of the United States; Samuel Haines of Philadelphia; David Townsend of West Chester; John R. Thomas of West Whiteland; and Joshua Hunt of Downingtown, was selected "to receive subscriptions to pay the necessary expenses" and "to cause regular surveys to be made as early as practicable". While the committee was to report back at a meeting "to be holden at West Chester" in August, it was not until December that it was able to make its report. In the meantime, the now-familiar argument for the Valley Canal was continued in the Village Record, "To reasonable men; to prudent calculating men, I address myself, and beg their attention to these questions:" the Editor observed in the November 12, 1823 issue, as introduction to a series of rhetorical questions, "From a general view of the ground amd the stream, does it not appear highly probable that a canal could be made, with ease, through the Great Valley, from the Susquehanna to the city? Could such a canal be made, (passing near the city of Lancaster and the village of Downingtown) of sufficient size to take the arks & rafts, as they descend the river, would it not, to a moral certainty, turn the greatest portion of the trade of that mighty stream, through this channel, to Philadelphia? Would not the lumber, coal, and other productions of that river be of immense value to the citizens of Lancaster, Chester, and Montgomery counties? Would not the lime of Chester County — the extensive and beautiful marble quarries, and the facilities of transporting our produce to market render the canal of infinite value to ourselves? Would not the vast trade along the canal, from the surrounding country, create so much additional travel along the turnpike an to increase the value of that stock? Could not the stock of the turnpike, and that of the canal, be so blended, if thought best, so to insure the holders of the former from loss? Would it be necessary to send one dollar out of the state for materials to complete the canal; and would, therefore, the completion of it, in any way, impoverish the state? Would it not, while in its progress, give employment to thousands of poor and laboring men; and create a demand for all sorts of provisions and materials? Would not the wholesome trade along its banks, after being completed, greatly increase the wealth and comfort of the whole country thro which it would pass? And finally, * Will it not be wise for us, one and all, to make a special application to the legislature, that judicious commissioners be appointed to explore the route — to report on its utility and practcability; and, if practicable, to present an estimate of the expense?" On December 6th, at a meeting held at the home of Jesse Evans in Downingtown, the Committee, having employed Samuel Haines, whom it considered "eminently qualified by his attainments and experience", as its chief engineer, made its report. Its findings were summarized in a memorial, or petition, to be "circulated for signatures and forwarded to our Representatives at Harrlsburg". In the memorial, the Committee reported that it had "ascertained ... that an abundant supply of water can be obtained at the summit level" and was of the opinion "That a Canal is practicable to [from?] the Susquehanna River, to pass near the city of Lancaster, thence into the Great Valley through the Gap, and thence to Philadelphia follows as a necessary consequence, there being no intermediate obstacle of any considerable extent. Indeed," it added, "the Great Valley of Chester County, extending from the Schuylkill west presents ground so eligible for a Canal that it seems as if Nature had formed it to invite the enterprise of man to accomplish such an object." With the canal, it was claimed, the cost of transporting freight from Columbia to Philadelphia could be reduced by about one third and still provide for a six per cent yield on the canal!s stock while repaying the whole expense "in a few years". "A vast market would be opened ... at a price comparatively low to the purchasers, yet high to the enterprising seller," it was predicted, for the various products of the area along the canal — lumber, boards, coal, iron, lime, marble. (It was even suggested that "Philadelphia, now built of brick, might become, in her future improvements, a city of marble"!) Perhaps to broaden support for the memorial, it was also forecasted that "the citizens of Mifflin, Huntington, Bedford, Cumberland, Perry, Northumberland, Union, Columbia, Luzerne, Lycoming, Centre, Bradford and Susquehanna [counties]" would also "be benefitted beyond the power of calculation to show" as a result of a choice of markets in which to sell their products. "There is a time for all things," it was observed. "There is a tide in public sentiment, which wisely taken at the flood, may lead to glorious results. Now, your petitioners believe, is an auspicious moment for commencing this great undertaking; to the consideration of which, they respectfully ask your attention." Bolstered by these findings, in the following months the Editor of the Village Record addressed "open letters" to various legislators and other state officials, summarizing the conclusions of the Committee and pointing out the potential benefit the Valley Canal would have for their respective constituents and areas. And again, he urged action by the Legislature. In early 1824 another bill calling for the appointment of a Board of Commissioners "to view and explore" the routes for several proposed canals, including "the country between the Schuylkill and Susquehanna through the great valley of Chester and Lancaster counties", was introduced, this time by Joshua Hunt, now returned as a representative to the Assembly after a two year absence. "We hope the subject may be considered by itself," it was noted in the Village Record, "as it is of first rate consequence. Baltimore is making a bold push to runaway with the trade of the Susquehanna; but I think we shall get the start of them." This time the proposal met with success. On March 27 the bill reported by Hunt was approved, and James Clarke, J. Holgate, and Charles S. Trcziyulny were appointed the Commissioners. A month later, on April 24, 1824, it was reported in the Village Record, "We are informed that the Commissioners intend, early, to commence upon the duties of their appointment, & that the ground for the valley Canal, will, probably, be the first object of their examination," Again, the following week, it was noted, "The Commissioners, it is supposed, will commence their duties soon. Every facility it is hoped will be afforded them by our citizens, to aid them in forming a just opinion upon the subject." On August 4 there was a further report of the Commissioners' activities: "We feel exceedingly anxious to hear from the Canal Commissioners. The last report we had from them was, that they were satisfied an abundance of water could be brought to the summit level; and they were exploring various routes beyond the Gap in Lancaster county. If this canal be not made," it was added, "the trade through this country will every year be less and less, until the whole goes down to tide. It will require a great and united effort of all our citizens, and by such an effort it may, we feel confident, be accomplished." Two weeks later it was reported that it had been noted in the Lancaster Gazette, "The Canal Commissioners were last week engaged in levelling in the neighborhood of the city of Lancaster. ... So far as the ground has been examined, the commissioners appear sanguine of success, and are of the opinion that no great obstacles are to be apprehended. ... We are informed that it is contemplated the canal shall be forty feet wide and contain 4 feet water." On August 25th, an item in the Village Record noted, "Mr. Holgate, one of the Canal Commissioners, passed through this place (West Chester) last week. We are happy to learn that no doubt exists of the possibility of forming the canal." On December 8th it was reported, "Early after the meeting of our Assembly, the Commissioners who have been exploring a route for a canal from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, may be expected to report. What will be said respecting the Valley Canal, we can only conjecture. The Commissioners, we have reason to think, were satisfied of its entire practicability; it is probably [sic] their report will be favorable. ... MEANS to accomplish the whole are abundant — the SPIRIT only is wanting. We look for the report of the Commissioners with intense anxiety." (The Commissioners, incidentally, apparently did their work only with considerable difficulty. In the Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company by George H. Burgess and Miles C. Kennedy it is observed, "Trained engineers were hardly to be found outside the Army, and the supply of ordinary surveying instruments was so small that only one spirit level could be found in all Philadelphia. After vain efforts to find competent engineers, the Commissioners undertook to make the survey themselves." Trcziyulny, one of the Commissioners, was himself an engineer.) With no official report by the end of May, at a meeting at the Court House in West Chester on May 31, 1825, a committee was appointed to attend a Convention in Harrisburg, together with delegates from other counties, in early August to meet with the Commissioners. The four delegates elected to represent Chester County at the Convention were David Townsend, Joshua Hunt, Joseph Sharp, and General Joshua Evans, political leader of Tredyffrin Township. At the same meeting, resolutions were also adopted reaffirming a belief in canals and inland navigation and expressing "the fullest confidence in the integrity, intelligence and patriotism" of the Board of Canal Commissioners. Whatever the cause of the delay in the report of the Canal Commissioners, it appears by hindsight to have been most fortuitous! For on the eve of the Harrisburg Convention, startling new information was reported in the Village Record. On August 3, 1825, the Editor of the paper reported, "We have just risen from a perusal of a pamphlet of 70 pages on the subject of CANALS and RAIL WAYS, unaccompanied by the author's name, but put forth, we presume, by the Pennsylvania Society for the encouragement of Internal Improvements. The public know with what zeal we have, for years, advocated the making of a canal from the Delaware to the Susquehanna, through the Great Valley. For some time we have said but little on the subject, not because we doubted the practicality of such Canal, for that had been proved by the surveys and examination of Mr. Haines ana his public spirited friends; and confirmed by Messrs, Clark, Holgate and Trczyulney [sic], nor that we entertained the slightest doubt of the usefulness of the Canal. ... But new light has come in upon our minds — new views had begun to unfold themselves to us. The subject of Rail Ways had become an object of spirited discussion in England, and began to be much talked of here." Noting that a Mr. Strickland had been sent to Europe by the newly-formed Pennsylvania Society for the encouragement of Public Improvements "to obtain accurate information on the latest improvements in various modes of intercommunication in that country", the Editor continued, "We have waited with great anxiety for Mr. Strickland's report. Last week an extract of a letter from that gentleman was published in the Record, in which he gives an opinion fully and distinctly that 'Although much wealth and commercial greatness has been produced by numerous Canals, still RAIL ROADS OFFER GREATER FACILITIES FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF GOODS, WITH MORE SAFETY, SPEED AND ECONOMY.'" As a result of this information, the Editor of the Village Record now recommended that the Commissioners consider, in their "surveys and calculations", both railways and canals! It was a forecast of what was to come. Supported by the 113-delegate Convention, in late 1825 the Legislature replaced the existing three-man Board with a new five-man Canal Commission which was given this broader authority. In December 1827, almost a decade after Governor Findlay had "hinted" at a plan incorporating a canal through the Great Valley, the Canal Commission reported that "A navigable communication between the eastern and western waters of Pennsylvania is wholly impracticable", particularly in that section between the Susquehanna River and Philadelphia which was much more appropriate for a railroad than a canal. On March 24, 1828 the "Main Line of Public Works" was approved by Governor John Andrew Schulze. It was a program for the construction of canals, linked by railroads, across the state. The eastern segment was to be a "railroad from Philadelphia through the city of Lancaster to Columbia, and thence to York". And thus ended any further consideration of the Great Valley Canal, the proposed waterway that was to have run through the middle of Tredyffrin Township and the Great Valley of Chester County to connect the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers with the Susquehanna. What changes it would have brought! |
