Ohio History Journal

The Ohio Canal Movement, 1820-1825

 

By HARRY N. SCHEIBER*

 

 

 

NO SINGLE ACT of the Ohio General Assembly prior to the

Civil War had so profound an effect upon the state's economic

development as did the bill of February 4, 1825, by which

construction of the state's canal system was first authorized.

On the eve of the bill's passage, Alfred Kelley, one of its

eading exponents, sought to explain to De Witt Clinton of

New York the reasons why the Ohio legislature had agreed to

undertake a canal project. Ohioans had long sought profit-

able access to a northern market for Ohio's agricultural sur-

plus, Kelley wrote. The Erie Canal, then approaching comple-

tion, would provide a route whereby western products might

be shipped inexpensively from Lake Erie to the New York

City market. Ohio needed, therefore, to provide cheap trans-

portation facilities from the interior to the lake; and the

spectacular success of New York State in financing and

building a state canal system had convinced Ohioans "of the

ability and necessity of a similar policy to be adopted by us,"

Kelley concluded.¹

The modern student would not question the soundness of

Kelley's explanation. Yet it is relevant to note also that the

decision to undertake canal construction was made only after

an intensive three-year study of the project had been com-

pleted by the Ohio Canal Commission, of which Kelley had

* Harry N. Scheiber is a graduate research fellow in the department of history,

Cornell University. His article is part of a larger study, "Internal Improvements

and Economic Change in Ohio, 1820-1860," research for which has been made

possible by a grant from the Social Science Research Council.

1 Kelley to Clinton, January 20, 1825. De Witt Clinton Papers, Columbia Uni-

versity Library. The Clinton Papers are cited with permission of Columbia

University.

• 1
 

232     THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

been a member. Established by the legislature in 1822, this

commission had been instructed to determine the feasibility

and probable costs of canal construction along various routes

connecting the waters of the Ohio River with Lake Erie, and

to determine the means whereby a canal might be financed.²

The importance of the canal commission, however, went far

beyond the limits implied in the legislation by which its tasks

were delineated. Its members included influential political and

business leaders representing every major settled area of Ohio.

Despite some personal friction, these men early came to share

a conviction that construction of a canal system was indis-

pensable to the future growth of the state. As a result, the

commission assumed the additional role of a pressure group,

its members exerting their individual and collective influence

to win public opinion to their views. In this respect the com-

mission may be compared to the private pressure groups which

promoted internal improvements in the older states, notably

New York and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, as in the eastern

states, the leadership of the canal movement included many

men with broad business interests, motivated by a personal

stake in improved transportation as well as by a belief in its

importance as a stimulus to economic development.³ Since

the canal promoters in Ohio worked almost from the begin-

ning of the movement as agents of the legislature, political

considerations as well as their engineers' findings inevitably

 

2 The best study to date of the surveys is John S. Still, "Ethan Allen Brown and

Ohio's Canal System," Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXVI (1957), 22-43. General

studies include C. P. McClelland and C. C. Huntington, History of the Ohio

Canals (Columbus, 1905), and Ernest Ludlow Bogart, Internal Improvements

and State Debt in Ohio (New York, 1924). See also Alfred Byron Sears, Thomas

Worthington: Father of Ohio Statehood (Columbus, 1958).

3 On eastern canal promotion, see Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of

American Canals and Railroads, 1800-1890 (New York, 1960), passim; Richard

I. Shelling, "Philadelphia and the Agitation in 1825 for the Pennsylvania Canal,"

Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXII (1938), 175-204; Ralph

D. Gray, "The Early History of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal: Delay, De-

bate, and Relocation," Delaware History, VIII (1959), 354-397; William Cha-

zanof, "Joseph Ellicott and the Grand Canal," Niagara Frontier, VI (1959),

51-60; N. E. Whitford, History of the Canal System of the State of New York

(Albany, 1906), I, passim.

• 2
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                233

influenced their deliberations. Before presenting recommen-

dations to the general assembly, they carefully considered and

balanced the demands of the populous and politically power-

ful sections of the state. Thus the commissioners' success in

winning support for their program in the 1824-25 session of

the legislature rested at least in part upon the political con-

text within which they had framed their proposals and the

unanimity with which they supported their recommendations.

Before examining more closely the history of the canal

commission, however, it is necessary to recall the economic

conditions which provided the setting for the Ohio canal

movement.

The Ohio economy in 1820 held out little promise of rapid

growth. The panic of the previous year had destroyed the

flimsy banking structure of the state and virtually halted

immigration from the East. "The failure of our merchants to

meet their payments to their correspondents in the Eastern

cities and New Orleans," one Cincinnati observer wrote,

"[has] put an entire stop to all commercial intercourse be-

tween the Eastern and Western Countries that is not based

upon a cash foundation."⁴ Public land sales declined dras-

tically, while settlers who had purchased farms during the

boom period of the previous decade now called for relief. Rich

lands which had been engrossed by speculators depreciated

precipitously, threatening many with bankruptcy. "It is hard

to say what the worth of real estate is, at this time," wrote a

Chillicothe speculator, "as there is no money in the country to

purchase it."⁵ A war-fostered boom in manufacturing, which

had seen factories spring up in Cincinnati and other western

 

⁴ Rosamund R. Wulsin, ed., "A New Englander's Impressions of Cincinnati

in 1820: Letters by William Greene," Historical and Philosophical Society of

Ohio, Bulletin, VII (1949), 121.

5 Ira Delano to Jabez Hammond, December 6, 1820. Delano Family Papers,

Dartmouth College Library. See also E. A. Brown to Jonathan Dayton, February

4, 1821. Ethan Allen Brown Papers, Ohio Historical Society. A survey of the panic

and its aftermath in Ohio is in William T. Utter, The Frontier State, 1803-1825

(Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the State of Ohio, II, Columbus, 1942), 263-

295, and passim.

• 3
 

234    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

towns, ended abruptly as renewed foreign competition and

financial derangement took their toll.⁶

Yet the panic merely compounded deeply rooted difficulties

which had long retarded effective economic growth in the Old

Northwest. Never since the beginnings of settlement had the

agricultural producers of the region enjoyed a steady and

reliable market for their surplus. New Orleans afforded the

major outlet for western products, yet land carriage from the

interior to the Ohio River often added $1.50 or more per

hundredweight to the cost of transport. To take his produce

downriver to New Orleans the farmer or middleman needed

approximately $100 for the building of a flatboat and $40 or

$50 pay for each hired hand. The streams were dangerous

because of snags and bars, a portage was often necessary at

the Falls of the Ohio, and during early freshets ice floes

might impede navigation at the Ohio's junction with the

Mississippi. Moreover, wheat, flour, and pork were subject to

spoilage in the southern climate. If the farmer was fortunate

he might sell his produce at towns or plantations along the

Mississippi; if he was unable to sell along the river, it usually

indicated the New Orleans wharves would be crowded with

hundreds like himself, bidding down prices in a flooded mar-

ket. Port facilities and warehouse accommodations at New

Orleans were inadequate and handling costs were excessive.

Even upon breaking up his flatboat to sell for lumber, the

shipper would sustain a further loss before confronting an

arduous journey homeward. While the newly popular keel-

boats were capable of navigating upstream, although with

great difficulty, shippers still had to cope with marketing

difficulties at New Orleans. The steamboat promised to revo-

lutionize the upriver import traffic, but relatively high freight

 

6 Richard C. Wade, The Urban Frontier: The Rise of Western Cities, 1790-

1830 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), 57-58. On the early decline of some boom indus-

tries in Cincinnati, see Otto L. Schmidt, ed., "The Mississippi Valley in 1816

Through an Englishman's Diary," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XIV

(1927), 149; compare Thomas H. Greer, "Economic and Social Effects of the

Depression of 1819 in the Old Northwest," Indiana Magazine of History, XLIV

(1948), 234-235.

• 4
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                   235

rates seemed to preclude exclusive reliance upon the new ves-

sels for the crucial downriver export trade.⁷

Moreover, crossing the Appalachian barrier with the bulk

agricultural commodities of the West was not economically

feasible, although completion of the National Road and the

Pennsylvania Turnpike to points on the Ohio River by 1820

reduced westward freight rates significantly. The only size-

able export via the overland route eastward was livestock on

the hoof, and while droving produced some spectacular for-

tunes, it involved costs and risks which were comparable in

magnitude with those of the flatboat trade.⁸

Although the depression afforded a sense of urgency to the

search for a solution to the transportation problem, early pro-

posals that Ohio undertake construction of a canal system

were received with little enthusiasm. Every settled area of

the state had long had its advocates of internal improvements.

Local ambitions varied, however, and each area was interested

primarily in improvement of already established commercial

routes.⁹ By 1822 the construction of the Erie Canal (and the

prospect that Ohio's exports might reach the New York mar-

ket via the new waterway) was to give something of a com-

mon focus to these diverse local ambitions. Until then local-

ism remained a divisive influence. Thus when Governor

Ethan Allen Brown proposed surveys of possible canal routes

 

7 Charles H. Ambler, A History of Transportation in the Ohio Valley (Glen-

dale, Calif., 1932), passim; on labor costs, James A. Trimble to John Trimble,

November 7, 1822, Trimble Family Papers, Ohio Historical Society; and on

overland transport costs, E. A. Brown to Charles Haines, September 20, 1820,

Ethan Allen Brown Papers, Ohio State Library. Unless otherwise noted, further

references to Brown Papers are to those in the Ohio State Library.

8 Thomas S. Berry, Western Prices Before 1861 (Cambridge, Mass., 1943),

71-76; George Rogers Taylor, The Transportation Revolution, 1815-1860 (New

York, 1951), 133-134; Robert Leslie Jones, "The Beef Cattle Industry in Ohio

Prior to the Civil War," Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXIV (1955), 294-299.

9 Thus southeastern Ohio was particularly interested in the improvement of the

Ohio River, better roads, and the proposed Potomac-to-Ohio-River canal. Scioto

Valley settlers emphasized the need for rapid extension of the National Road

and for improvement of the roads and streams of the interior. The Cincinnati

mercantile community focused its attention primarily upon Ohio-Mississippi River

improvements, particularly the projected canal at the Falls of the Ohio. And

the tiny Lake Erie shore towns vied with one another for roads to the interior,

harbor improvements, and designation as ports of entry.

• 5
 

236    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

between the Ohio River and Lake Erie in 1818 and 1819, his

idea met with considerable hostility in the legislature; local

jealousies were excited even though Brown did not insist upon

a definite route that would bypass certain areas. A further

reason for the legislators' hesitancy in endorsing Brown's

scheme was the long-standing western belief that the federal

government should assume responsibility for major internal

improvements. It was contended, and not unreasonably, that

the general revenues of the thinly settled western states were

insufficient to underwrite the costs of large-scale road and

canal projects.10

In February 1820 the Ohio legislature did authorize sur-

veys for a canal which would run along the Scioto and then

northward through congressional lands in the central portion

of the state. But the persons appointed to make the surveys

were instructed to proceed only if congress extended aid in

the form of a land grant. The efforts of Ohio's representa-

tives at Washington to obtain such aid were unavailing and

the surveys were not made.11

In the 1820-21 session of the general assembly Brown again

sought to arouse interest in the canal project. Despite some

powerful support for a bill providing for surveys--"Harrison

wants to ride into the Senate upon it," one observer wrote--it

proved impossible to force the measure through without arous-

ing strong feelings.¹² Brown explained the bill's failure as

follows:

 

The magnitude and novelty of the enterprise and the dread of in-

curring a debt of so considerable [an] amount as might be required to

complete the work, was sufficient to deter many; but some local opposi-

tion, and particularly no surplus of money like to be in the treasury

 

10 Still, "Ethan Allen Brown," 23-25. For a full discussion of western attitudes

toward federal sponsorship of internal improvements, see Curtis P. Nettels, "The

Mississippi Valley and the Constitution," Mississippi Valley Historical Review,

XI (1924), 332-357.

11 Still, "Ethan Allen Brown," 27-29; John Kilbourn, Public Documents Con-

cerning the Ohio Canals (Columbus, 1828), 13-14.

12 Charles Hammond to J. C. Wright, December 14, 1820. Hammond Collection,

Ohio Historical Society.

• 6
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                 237

... induced the friends of the measure not to press the step of authoriz-

ing a survey and estimates this year.13

When a survey was undertaken, Brown wrote, "it should be

under the auspices of a stronger [majority] than the late

session promised, that its progress might not be embarrassed,

when begun, by the murmurs and alarms of a large minor-

ity."14

One year later Brown was more successful. On January

3, 1822, a house committee headed by Micajah T. Williams of

Cincinnati reported favorably on the governor's renewed pro-

posal for a survey. Williams' report was a comprehensive

discussion of the state's marketing problem. Available data

suggested that a canal following the Sandusky and Scioto

valleys would be practicable, he reported. The enterprise

should not be left to private promoters, for the state might

ultimately realize revenue from tolls of as much as $600,000

annually. In addition, it would provide indirect benefits of

incalculable value by giving Ohio farmers access to the New

York market. There was known to man no "mode of convey-

ance so safe, easy, and cheap, as canal navigation," and an

Ohio canal would diffuse "wealth, activity, and vigor," the

report concluded.¹⁵

The Williams committee report was a "public document" in

the broadest sense. It was directed as much to the people as

to the legislature and, as expected, it was reprinted in news-

papers throughout the state.

A bill was thereupon introduced authorizing surveys of five

routes from the Ohio River to the lake. In the debate which

ensued, the representatives of Cincinnati and the Miami Val-

 

13 Brown to Jonathan Dayton, February 4, 1821. Brown Papers, Ohio Historical

Society.

14 Brown to Haines, February 7, 1821. Brown Papers.

15 Report of the Committee on Canals (Columbus, 1822), passim. William

Steele, a Cincinnati businessman, had in 1819 considered organizing a private

company to build a lake-to-river canal in Ohio. He had been informed in New

York that eastern capitalists probably would not invest in a private company, but

would be willing to purchase canal bonds backed with the credit of the state; and

he so informed Williams. Clinton to Steele, June 24, 1818, Clinton Papers; Steele

to Williams, December 19, 1821, Micajah T. Williams Papers, Ohio State Library.

• 7
 

238   THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

ley area "astonished and mortified" the canal faction by

opposing the bill; probably they wished to have the state direct

its attention exclusively to the proposed canal at the Falls of

the Ohio. On the other hand, members from counties least

likely to benefit from a canal were "amongst its most zealous

friends."¹⁶ During the debate Williams argued that if sur-

veys proved the canal could not be built by the state without

federal aid, then private capital could be attracted, as a last

resort, through the granting of a liberal charter.¹⁷ The canal

faction prevailed and the bill was passed on January 31, 1822.

It provided for the appointment of an engineer by the

governor, established a seven-member commission, and di-

rected that examinations be made to ascertain the practicabil-

ity of connecting the river with the lake along the following

routes: (1) from Sandusky Bay to the Ohio; (2) from the

mouth of the Cuyahoga River to the Ohio via the Muskingum;

(3) from the mouth of the Black River to the Ohio, also via

the Muskingum; (4) from the mouth of the Grand River to

the Ohio via the Mahoning; and (5) from the mouth of the

Maumee River to the Ohio.18

The bill named seven commissioners: Brown, who had been

elected to the United States Senate in January; Alfred Kelley

of Cleveland, a lawyer, banker, and real-estate owner; former

Governor Thomas Worthington of Chillicothe, a merchant,

farmer, land speculator, and manufacturer; Ebenezer Buck-

ingham of Putnam (opposite Zanesville), a merchant; Ben-

jamin Tappan of Steubenville, a lawyer and former judge;

Isaac Minor of Madison County, a former judge; and former

Congressman Jeremiah Morrow of Warren County. All of

the appointees had been active in state politics, and several--

notably Brown, Morrow, and Worthington--had long been

among the most dedicated proponents of internal improve-

ments in Ohio. Buckingham and Worthington were among

the state's wealthiest men, and most of the commissioners had

 

16 Williams to Brown, January 27, 1822. Brown Papers.

17 Columbus Gazette, January 24, 1822.

18 Kilbourn, Canal Documents, 27.

• 8
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT            239

been active enough in banking, farming, commerce, or land

speculation--usually some combination thereof-to feel a

personal interest in transportation improvement. While some

of the bill's supporters feared that so large a commission

would prove unwieldy, a wide geographic representation

had to be provided "to effect the object and get the bill

through."19

The commission did not begin surveys until April, for an

engineer had to be engaged. Meanwhile, Brown, who was in

Washington attending the congressional session, was asked

to seek advice in New York regarding means of financing an

Ohio canal. One commissioner suggested that Brown engage

also in some elementary fact-finding: The commission would

need to know the number of boats which might pass through

canal locks each day, the amount of water required to supply

a given distance of line, and other basic data pertaining to

the Erie Canal.²⁰

In March, James Geddes, one of the senior engineers on the

Erie Canal, agreed to serve as principal engineer in Ohio.

Clinton and the New York canal commissioners made Geddes

available, although they could ill spare his services, because

of their state's interest in the Ohio canal project.21

Geddes joined Alfred Kelley in Cleveland in mid-April, and

together they set out to examine the Grand-Mahoning, Cuya-

hoga-Tuscarawas, and Black-Killbuck summits. Having de-

termined that any of these summits might be provided with

water, they then left for Columbus to attend a meeting of the

commission scheduled for the end of May.²² On their way to

the capital they cursorily explored the Sandusky-Scioto sum-

mit. From settlers acquainted with the streams in the area,

they learned that no dependable water supply for the summit

would be available nearby. "What will be our success in

19 Kelley to Brown, February 3, 1822. Brown Papers. Abundant biographical

information is available for each of the commissioners except Isaac Minor.

20 Allen Trimble to Brown, January 27, 1822, Kelley to Brown, March 16, 1822.

Brown Papers.

21 Clinton to Brown, December 11, 1821, Clinton to Allen Trimble, March 30,

1822. Clinton Papers.

22 Still, "Ethan Allen Brown," 36-37.

• 9
 

240    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

obtaining a sufficient supply from a greater distance remains

to be ascertained," Kelley stated.²³ A canal connecting the

Scioto and Sandusky valleys would command the support of

Columbus, Delaware, and towns in the Scioto country and

the Firelands; hence the possibility of supplying that summit

with water from distant streams was to be long and carefully

considered by the commissioners.

At the Columbus meeting the commission agreed that the

canal should pass through as many of the settled areas of the

state as possible.²⁴ Some favored a "diagonal canal" which

would extend from the Miami country to the northeastern

section, where it would branch out with termini at both the

lake and the Ohio River north of Steubenville. Such a canal,

Kelley wrote, "might possibly unite the people and promote

the best interests of the State," but he feared that the task

would be overwhelming. Brown agreed that this would indeed

be "a very grand design" and would provide a strong combi-

nation of local interests in favor of the canal. Yet he recog-

nized that in the country between the Scioto and the Miami

"Nature presents an insuperable obstacle."25

During the remaining months of 1822 Geddes surveyed

more carefully the northern portions of the five routes named

in the bill and explored a sixth route as well. Although

a reliable water supply for the Sandusky-Scioto summit was

not found, the commissioners were reluctant to abandon the

search. As Kelley wrote, if neither the "diagonal route" nor

the Sandusky-Scioto route proved practicable from the engi-

neering standpoint, it might well "prevent a combination of

interest sufficient to make [a canal] on any route."²⁶ Seek-

ing another route which would command equally wide support

23 Kelley to Brown, May 31, 1822. Brown Papers.

24 Kelley reported "considerable unanimity of sentiment among the Commission-

ers and much seeming friendship for the object expressed by all" at the meeting.

Both he and Brown regretted the election of Worthington as president of the

commission. "I should myself have been pleased with the compliment," Brown

wrote, "but for local reasons that might have been inexpedient." Kelley to Brown,

May 31, 1822, Brown Papers; Brown to Kelley, July 24, 1822, Canal Commission

Papers, State Archives, Ohio Historical Society.

25 Letters cited in preceding note.

26 Kelley to Brown, August 13, 1822. Brown Papers.

• 10
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT            241

(and incidentally going beyond the legislature's instructions),

the commissioners ordered Geddes to examine the land be-

tween the Scioto and Muskingum valleys. Fortunately, he

found that a canal might be located eastward from the Scioto

to the headwaters of the Muskingum and then northward

across a second summit and down either the Cuyahoga or the

Black river valley; this was later to become the route of the

Ohio and Erie Canal, which followed the Cuyahoga and

terminated at Cleveland.

On January 3, 1823, the commission submitted a report of

its findings to the legislature. The document included a dis-

cussion of the advantages of a canal similar to that which had

been presented in the Williams committee report in 1822. It

asserted that agricultural prices would rise once eastern mar-

kets became profitably accessible. Land values would be en-

hanced and immigration encouraged; factories would "spring

up and flourish"; coal, Lake Shore fish, Sandusky gypsum,

and flax, wool, and iron ore would all find new markets.

Adequate revenue from tolls would thus be assured by a

heavy flow of freight. Furthermore, the state should not

hesitate to borrow for construction of the canal. Its benefits

would accrue to future generations as well as the living, and

the burden of an internal-improvements debt would be like

that of the Revolutionary debt, "light and trivial when com-

pared with the great blessings we enjoy in consequence of

it."27 In addition to presenting these general assertions, the

commission reported that there was some possibility of suc-

cess on any of the five routes originally suggested. Hope was

kept alive even for the central route, as Geddes had granted

that the headwaters of distant streams might possibly be

turned to supply its summit.²⁸

The legislature voted to extend the life of the commission

and to provide funds for further surveys. Micajah Williams

was appointed to replace Morrow, who had been elected gover-

 

27 Report of the Canal Commissioners, January 3, 1823 (Columbus, 1823), 8-11.

28 Geddes endorsed the idea only tentatively. Canal Report Made by James

Geddes (Columbus, 1823), 9 ff.

• 11
 

242    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

nor, and the commission was empowered to hire an engineer

to succeed Geddes, who had returned to New York. Two

commissioners were to be named by their associates as "acting

commissioners," to spend full time in the field when necessary

and to be reimbursed for their services. (No compensation

was provided for the other commissioners, except for actual

expenses.) Finally, the commission was instructed to deter-

mine whether and on what conditions loans might be obtained

by the state.²⁹

Upon the opening of navigation in the spring Alfred

Kelley visited the Erie Canal to collect data on construction

costs and methods. He hoped also to hire a prominent engi-

neer to succeed Geddes.³⁰ At the end of May he reported from

New York that he had examined "very minutely" the canal

line from Rochester to its junction with the Hudson and had

consulted with state officials and with various contractors

engaged in construction.³¹ There were no engineers available

for service in Ohio, however; the few who were qualified had

already contracted for employment in New York or other

states. "We must train some for ourselves," Kelley wrote,

warning that the shortage of trained engineers was critical.³²

In June 1823 the commission met at Columbus and ap-

pointed Kelley and Williams to serve as acting commissioners.

Thus the two men who later were called upon to supervise

construction of the first Ohio canals (1825-33) initially as-

sumed a managerial role in mid-1823. Their service through-

out more than a decade provided a noteworthy continuity to

the administration of both surveys and construction.³³ The

commission decided also to engage in an intensive reexamina-

tion of the Sandusky valley and the streams by which the

29 Still, "Ethan Allen Brown," 38-39.

30 Williams to Brown, February 3, 1823. Brown Papers.

31 Kelley to Worthington, May 20, 1823. Thomas Worthington Papers, Ohio

State Library.

32 Ibid. On the shortage of trained American engineers, see Forest G. Hill,

Roads, Rails and Waterways: The Army Engineers and Early Transportation

(Norman, Okla., 1957), 27-29.

33 Although Kelley seems to have committed himself early to accept the position

of acting commissioner, Williams was reluctant at first to accept even the appoint-

ment as canal commissioner. Williams to Brown, February 3, 1823. Brown Papers.

• 12
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                 243

Sandusky-Scioto summit might be supplied with water. While

Kelley undertook that task, Williams went with a second party

to the northwestern portion of the state, where he surveyed

what later was to be the Miami and Erie Canal route.³⁴

During August both parties were transferred to the Scioto

valley. The summer weather was hard on the men, and almost

every member of the two parties (including Kelley and Wil-

liams) became ill with fever and chills. No senior engineer

could be obtained from the Erie Canal, and a shortage of sur-

veying equipment created an additional burden for the com-

missioners.³⁵

In spite of these difficulties the acting commissioners were

eager to make at least a tentative decision regarding the San-

dusky-Scioto route. Kelley went to the central summit to

gauge the flow of streams there once again, and he found the

water supply to be entirely insufficient.³⁶ On September 18

the commissioners met to consider Kelley's findings. The

acting commissioners reported that the route seemed impracti-

cable, yet they asked that final judgment be deferred until the

following year. By then a sixty-mile feeder would have been

completed in the Genesee country on the Erie Canal; its con-

struction would provide information relevant to the question

of turning the headwaters of the Mad River and the Great

Miami River and running the water through a 150-mile feeder

to the central summit. Thus the commission ordered a sus-

pension of major surveys on the Sandusky-Scioto route.³⁷

Williams much regretted this decision. "I had adopted the

conclusion," he wrote, "that on this route there would be less

 

34 Williams to Kelley, June 10, 1823. Canal Commission Papers.

35 Kelley to Worthington, July 20, 1823, Worthington Papers, Ohio State

Library; Williams to Kelley, August 6, 9, 1823, Canal Commission Papers.

36 Worthington to Minor, September 17, 1823. Canal Commission Papers.

37 The acting commissioners were, however, authorized to examine the swamp

in the southwest corner of Huron County to determine its value as a source for a

feeder. On October 15 Williams reported that he and Kelley had explored the

ground, accompanied by James Kilbourn. Despite Kilbourn's views to the con-

trary, the acting commissioners judged the water insufficient. Williams to Brown,

October 15, 1823. Brown Papers.

• 13
 

244    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

difficulty in uniting the public feeling and opinion than on

either of the others." 38

The most promising alternative route, from the point of

view of "public feeling and opinion," was the Scioto-

Muskingum line which Geddes had explored the previous year.

It ran eastward from the Scioto valley over the Walnut-

Licking summit to the Muskingum's headwaters, and then

northward. The commission ordered that it be more carefully

examined. Both acting commissioners thereupon set out to

explore the Killbuck-Black and the Tuscarawas-Cuyahoga

routes, whereby a canal would be carried from the Mus-

kingum's sources to the lake. They reported in October that

they had found favorable terrain along both valleys.39

In November, Williams went to New York City, where he

obtained "very flattering assurances" that Ohio would find it

possible to market state canal bonds as successfully as New

York State had done. While on the Erie Canal, Williams

observed construction methods and also sought information

concerning its water needs which would be relevant to the

Sandusky-Scioto question. As a result of his inquiries he

abandoned hope that the central route might be supplied with

water by turning the flow of the Mad River and the Great

Miami.⁴⁰

In their annual report to the legislature, in January 1824,

the commissioners declared that it was "at least extremely

doubtful" that the Sandusky-Scioto route would be adopted.

A letter by a prominent New York engineer, David S. Bates,

was appended to the report, endorsing this conclusion on the

basis of Kelley's gauges of streams. Once again the commis-

sion included in its report expressions of confidence in the

canal project which were calculated to arouse the interest of

the public; the emphasis this time was upon the beneficial

38 Williams to Worthington, September 19, 1823. Worthington Papers, Ohio

State Library.

39 Ibid.; Williams to Brown, October 15, 1823, Brown Papers.

40 Williams to Brown, January 24, 1824, ibid.; Report of the Board of Canal

Commissioners, January 21, 1824 (Columbus, 1824), Appendix. The notes which

Williams took while on the Erie Canal line are preserved in a notebook in the

Williams Papers.

• 14
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                245

effects of the Erie Canal in upstate New York. Wheat prices

had soared and flour milling had boomed in the area served

by completed portions of the canal. Capital and labor which

otherwise would have lain idle were put to work by a produc-

tive, long-term investment, and an Ohio canal would doubtless

produce the same benefits. The commission recommended

further study of the Muskingum-Scioto route, and they sug-

gested that a second canal line from Dayton to Cincinnati

would be relatively inexpensive to construct. In time, the

second canal might be extended northward to the Maumee

and the lake.⁴¹

In response, the general assembly authorized the commis-

sion to prepare detailed estimates of construction costs on

both routes. Perhaps as a partial concession to the dissatis-

fied proponents of the central route, the legislature also in-

structed the commission to hire a competent and experienced

engineer to supervise the examinations and estimates. Finally,

the commission was ordered to report upon the comparative

costs of such harbor facilities as would need to be constructed

at Cleveland or at the mouth of the Black River.⁴²

The friends of the canal project anticipated that 1824

would be the critical year for their cause. "The canal spirit is

growing in Ohio," Kelley told Brown, "and if we stand the

shock of want of water on the Sandusky summit, uninjured,

I think we shall be safe in securing public sentiment ....

Since our report was published, some who were before un-

believers, now say they are convinced a canal can and will be

made. God grant it may." 43

Kelley and Williams were determined to complete all of the

locations and estimates before the legislature's next session

 

41 Report of the Board . . . January 21, 1824, passim.

42 By the same act Nathaniel Beasley was appointed as commissioner to repre-

sent the district between the Scioto and the Miami. Williams to Kelley, February

25, 1824. Canal Commission Papers.

43 Kelley to Brown, February 23, 1824. Brown Papers. Learning that congress

might act that winter to provide aid to western internal-improvements projects,

Kelley wrote, "It ought not to lull us to sleep. There is enough for the States

to do which will not fall particularly within the province of the Genl. Govern-

ment" Ibid.

• 15
 

246    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

in December. They pinned their hopes upon the successful

location of the Scioto-Muskingum line. A deep cut in the

Licking summit would tie together the interests of the people

of the two river valleys, Williams wrote. "This must be done,

whatever the cost may be."44

Despite inclement winter weather and illness among the

men, a navigable feeder from Columbus to the summit was

successfully located by March 15.⁴⁵ As soon as the cold

weather abated, Williams and Kelley together located the

line of the deep cut on the summit, and planned the construc-

tion of a reservoir to supply the summit line with water. Their

assistant Samuel Forrer was sent out in May to locate a line

southward from the summit down the Scioto valley to the

Ohio River. His brother, John Forrer, went with Williams

to begin surveys on the northern portion of the proposed

Miami-Maumee line.⁴⁶

The commissioners meanwhile sought to engage a principal

engineer. It was crucial that this be done in ample time for

preparation of the annual report to the legislature, and equally

important that the man hired be one who was known and

respected in Ohio. Geddes, who was the logical choice, was

unavailable; the commissioners were chagrined, for they had

hoped Geddes would reconsider his earlier opinion that the

central summit might possibly be supplied by turning distant

streams.⁴⁷ Another Erie Canal engineer, David S. Bates,

who had been employed by the Ohio legislature to examine

the Falls at Louisville in 1823, was selected. Bates arrived in

Ohio in early September, too late to supervise any of the

surveys. But by traveling rapidly through the state he was

able to review personally all of the surveys which had been

made on both the Miami-Maumee and the Muskingum-

Scioto routes. He also went to the Sandusky-Scioto summit

 

⁴⁴ Williams to Brown, March 7, 1824, Brown Papers; Williams to Clinton,

March 7, 1824, Clinton Papers.

45 Williams to Kelley, March 15, 1824. Canal Commission Papers.

46 Williams to Kelley, May 6, 24, 1824. Ibid.

47 Tappan to Williams, March 17, 1824, Williams Papers; Kelley to Bates,

June 30, 1824, Canal Commission Papers.

• 16
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT              247

to gauge once again the streams with which it might be sup-

plied; his findings confirmed Kelley's view (and his own

previously stated view) that the supply was insufficient.⁴⁸

As the surveys proceeded, the commissioners did not neg-

lect the political aspects of the canal question. If the people

were informed and understood the potential benefits of the

canals, Williams wrote, "their representatives will act accord-

ingly."⁴⁹ Both he and Kelley maintained close contact with

newspaper editors in the areas through which the proposed

lines would pass. For example, the Cincinnati Gazette, citing

Williams as its source, asserted that the Dayton-to-Cincin-

nati line could be constructed cheaply and would reduce

transport costs in the trade, "already immense and yearly

increasing," between Cincinnati and its hinterland. Williams

must have been gratified when the editor urged that "every

representative from this county . . . be chosen in reference

to this canal." The canal question, the Gazette proclaimed,

"is of greatly more importance to us . . . than who shall be

President."50 Williams himself was a candidate for the lower

house of the legislature; he declared that he would not have

sought office that year "but for the approaching crisis at

Columbus."51 In Cleveland, Kelley had long furnished the

editor of the Herald with news calculated to foster canal

sentiment in that section of the state. Thomas Worthington

also participated in the publicity campaign, writing a lengthy

article in favor of the canal project for the Scioto Gazette.

His article was reprinted in several newspapers.⁵²

Newspaper editors and businessmen in eastern Ohio and in

towns along the ill-fated central route did not permit the com-

missioners' publicity efforts to go unchallenged. James Kil-

bourn of Worthington emerged as the most prominent critic

48 Report of the Canal Commissioners, January 10, 1825 (Columbus, 1825),

passim; letters of late 1824 in Canal Commission Papers.

49 Williams to Brown, March 15, 1824. Brown Papers.

50 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, August 27, September 3, October 5,

1824.

51 Williams to Kelley, October 18, 1824. Canal Commission Papers.

52 Randolph C. Downes, History of Lake Shore Ohio (New York, 1952), I, 106;

Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, September 24, 1824.

• 17
 

248    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

of the canal project. Widely known as a surveyor and land-

locator, he owned property at Bucyrus and elsewhere on the

central route, and he had been consulted by the canal com-

missioners during their examination of the Sandusky-Scioto

line.⁵³ In a series of newspaper articles Kilbourn insisted that

the central route should be selected despite the "ill-informed"

assertions of the commissioners. He charged that the num-

ber of boats which would pass daily through locks on the

summit had been intentionally overestimated. Consequently

the commission had exaggerated the amount of water which

would be required. Should the locks be operated only four

hours daily, he asserted, the water which would accumulate

during the rest of the day would be sufficient to service the

traffic. Furthermore, the harbor at Sandusky was superior

to that at Cleveland, and the commission's estimate of $5,000

for construction of harbor facilities at the latter port was far

too low. Finally, he claimed that Bates had arrived in the

state too late to give full consideration to the possibilities of

the central route.⁵⁴

The Sandusky Clarion publicized Kilbourn's contentions

and offered its editor's opinion that the "all-important" con-

sideration of the commissioners, particularly Kelley, was a

terminus at Cleveland even if it involved a canal "located

nearly parallel with, and but a few miles distant from the

Ohio river." Later the Clarion termed the commissioners "a

band of speculators, intent upon aggrandizing themselves at

the expense of the public." 55 Opposition was directed also

against the Cincinnati-Dayton line of the proposed Miami

Canal. This "sectional canal," it was claimed, was merely a

bribe by which Cincinnati and the Miami country were drawn

into the coalition.⁵⁶

 

53 See note 37, above.

54 Delaware Patron, September 23, December 6, 1824, January 20, 1825.

55 January 22, April 30, 1825.

56 Sandusky Clarion, February 12, 1825. One opponent of the canal bill astutely

pointed out that the Cincinnati-Dayton canal had as its trade outlet New Orleans,

"the very market which is intended to be avoided by the main canal through the

state." Delaware Patron, April 21, 1825.

• 18
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT            249

The autumn elections offered little indication of how the

canal program would fare in the legislature. Since a large

proportion of those elected were new members, past voting

records meant little.⁵⁷ Upon convening in December, the gen-

eral assembly was urged by Governor Morrow to place full

trust in the recommendations of the canal commission and to

provide the means for carrying a canal debt by revising the

taxation system.⁵⁸

The report of the commission was not ready for presenta-

tion when the legislature met. Bates remained in the field

until late November and was unable to prepare his estimate

of construction costs until early in January. Williams esti-

mated that at least ten members of the house surely would

oppose the canal program, and he anticipated stronger oppo-

sition once the details were announced.⁵⁹ Sentiment in the

legislature was undoubtedly influenced, however, by pub-

lication of the New York Canal Commission report in

December; the New York board reported success in market-

ing state bonds, rapid progress in construction, and high

revenues from tolls even before completion of the works.

This news "produced . . . excitement not only in the Legisla-

ture, but in the community in general," Buckingham informed

Brown.⁶⁰

By January 2 the commissioners (all at Columbus with the

exception of Brown) had agreed upon the broad outlines of

their report, and it was published a week later. Its recom-

mendations included: (1) construction of the Ohio and Erie

Canal in its entirety, from the Ohio to the lake along the

Scioto-Muskingum route, and construction of the Miami

Canal from Cincinnati as far north as Dayton, with con-

struction above Dayton to be deferred; (2) a commitment by

the state to undertake the canal project as a public enterprise;

57 Jacob Blickensderfer to Kelley, October 22, 1824. Canal Commission Papers.

58 Privately, Morrow expressed doubt that the tax bill would pass. Morrow to

Brown, December 17, 1824. Brown Papers.

⁵⁹ Delaware Patron, November 18, 1824; Williams to Brown, December 17,

1824, Brown Papers.

60 Buckingham to Brown, December 27, 1824, ibid.; Columbus Gazette, Decem-

ber 24, 1824.

• 19
 

250     THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

(3) establishment of a canal commission, empowered to adopt

the actual location of the canals, with discretion to select

either the Killbuck-Black or Tuscarawas-Cuyahoga route

north of the Licking summit; and empowered to employ

agents and engineers, and to establish toll schedules; (4)

establishment of a board of canal fund commissioners, em-

powered to issue bonds on the general credit of the state and

to disburse funds thus obtained; (5) adoption of a revised

taxation system, substituting an ad valorem tax for the old

land tax; and (6) adoption of a plan for the allocation of

specific revenues to comprise a sinking fund whereby interest

and principal of the canal debt would be paid.⁶¹

In support of these recommendations the commission as-

serted that both canals would be profitable enterprises in time,

but the Dayton-Cincinnati line would be more immediately

profitable, since it would exploit an established commercial

relationship.⁶² The developmental value of canals was also

emphasized: they would promote settlement, encourage agri-

cultural production, and open profitable new markets. Public

control of the canals was deemed essential; the state would

forever be at the mercy of a powerful private monopoly should

a company be incorporated to undertake the project.⁶³ More-

over, the state could be more certain of commanding capital

in eastern money markets than could any private corporation;

this fact had been emphasized consistently by the eastern

businessmen and political leaders whom the commissioners

had consulted.

The argument in favor of state enterprise was bolstered at

 

61 Report of the Canal Commissioners, January 10, 1825, passim.

62 Buckingham conceded to Brown that political necessity also figured in the

decision to recommend construction of the Miami line. Buckingham to Brown,

December 27, 1824. Brown Papers.

63 The anti-monopoly argument was particularly important because of the broad

judicial interpretation of corporate charter privileges then current as a result of

the Dartmouth College Case. See Carl Brent Swisher, American Constitutional

Development (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), 209. It should also be noted that the

recent decision against Ohio in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824) had

revived resentment against the most widely known and hated monopoly of the

time. For strictures against a private canal monopoly, see Columbus Gazette

January 3, 1823.

• 20
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                 251

a strategic moment when Governor Clinton stated before the

New York legislature that Ohio state bonds could be sold in

the New York market. His carefully timed statement was

given wide publicity in Ohio during the canal debate at

Columbus.⁶⁴

Supporting the commissioners' recommendations were also

the presumably impartial findings of Bates, who as an out-

sider had no personal stake in the adoption of any particular

route.⁶⁵ The most important argument, however, rested in the

example of New York. The canal advocates might now call

attention to a spectacular precedent, as did the Cincinnati

Gazette:

The New York Canal is no longer a matter of theory and speculation.

The practicability of its construction, its beneficial results and influence

upon the physical welfare of the people, are now matters of fact and

experience. We have them . . . before our eyes, and can reason upon

them with as much certainty as upon the plainest and most common

concerns of life.⁶⁶

 

There was little debate on the report in the senate. In the

house, however, opposition was vocal. The state should

undertake the Ohio and Erie Canal first, some argued, and if

the expected profits were forthcoming they might then be

applied to construction of a second canal. Others asserted

that the legislature had been asked to delegate unwarranted

powers; they objected to leaving final location of the lines

to the canal commission. The actual cost of the canals would

exceed the modest estimates presented by the commission, it

was claimed. Finally, some argued that the public should be

given time to consider the measure and legislative action

 

64 Clinton to Williams, December 24, 1824, Clinton Papers; Liberty Hall and

Cincinnati Gazette, January 28, 1825. In May 1824 Worthington had conferred

with New York bankers, who informed him that Ohio canal bonds would be sold

with little trouble if the credit of the state were pledged and six percent interest

offered. Worthington Diary, Library of Congress (microfilm copy at Ohio

Historical Society).

65 Bates's "unquestionable impartiality" was stressed also by Morrow in his

annual message. Columbus Gazette, December 9, 1824.

66 March 1, 1825.

• 21
 

252    THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

therefore deferred until the next session.⁶⁷ Significantly, the

assumption that the canal would bring vast benefits and the

idea that the state should undertake the project were not

seriously questioned. The opposition was primarily sectional,

for all of the representatives opposed to the canal bill were

from "disappointed" counties which would be bypassed by

the two proposed canals. Located in the same counties were

all of the newspapers which opposed the bill and all of the

groups organized in early 1825 to demand reconsideration of

the measure. Many of the most prominent critics of the canal

commission's recommendations were editors, politicians, and

businessmen who had earlier been among the leading pro-

ponents of a canal project. Most of them had favored the

central route.⁶⁸

The canal bill and the taxation bill were passed on February

3 and 4, 1825, despite the opposition of a hard core of north-

central and eastern representatives. Some of the legislators

from "disappointed" counties were won over, probably in

part by passage of a bill appropriating funds for the repair of

the Columbus-Sandusky state road; similar road-improvement

bills were passed affecting the eastern portion of the state.⁶⁹

The power of patronage may well have come into play also, as

in the case of Senator David H. Beardsley, representing the

Delaware-Marion-Sandusky district; he voted for the canal

bill and was later appointed collector of canal tolls at Cleve-

land.⁷⁰

In the last analysis, however, it was not political trading

on the floor of the general assembly which assured the success

of the canal measure. It was rather the political basis upor

which the routes had been selected, the extraordinary example

of the Erie Canal, and the unanimity with which the commis

67 Columbus Gazette, January 29, February 3, 8, 24, 1825.

68 Blickensderfer to Kelley, March 27, 1825, Canal Commission Papers; Kelley

to Brown, March 11, 1825, Brown Papers; Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette

April 19, 1825; and list of opposition leaders in Sandusky Clarion, May 7, July ??

1825.

69 Columbus Gazette, December 23, 1824, February 15, 1825; Delaware Patro??

February 24, 1825; Sandusky Clarion, August 13, 1825.

70 Delaware Patron, February 24, 1825. See also ibid., April 14, 1825.

• 22
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT                253

sioners supported their recommendations.⁷¹ Three years of

careful planning, persistent field work, and able persuasion

were rewarded as the canal bill embodied all of the commis-

sion's proposals. All of the commissioners except Brown and

Buckingham were appointed to the new canal commission;

John Johnston of Piqua was named to serve with them.

Brown and Buckingham, with Allen Trimble, were named

fund commissioners.

With the political battle won, it remained to be seen whether

a $400,000 loan authorized for 1825 could be obtained. The

fund commissioners hoped to obtain the loan in time to per-

mit construction to begin by early July. They reasoned that

the state would thus be committed irrevocably to the canals,

and no effectual movement to halt construction could develop

before the next session of the legislature.⁷² In March they

advertised in New York and other eastern cities, asking for

bids on a $400,000 bond issue.

In an attempt to thwart the sale of the bonds, public meet-

ings were called at Warren, Painesville, and Sandusky.

Resolutions questioning the constitutionality of the canal bill

were adopted and published in eastern newspapers. Also, a

committee of Norwalk and Sandusky men was appointed to

reexamine the central route, and they vowed "never to ground

their arms until the frauds and intrigues of the commission-

ers [were] detected."⁷³ These opposition meetings failed in

their purpose. By mid-March the fund commissioners had

received assurances that favorable offers would be made for

the five percent bonds. On April 2 the entire $400,000 issue

was taken at a slight discount by Rathbone and Lord, a New

York firm.⁷⁴

71 See especially Benjamin Tappan's defense of his record, written in response

to a Jefferson County convention resolution opposing the canal bill as detrimental

to eastern Ohio's interests, in Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, October 7, 1825.

72 Williams to Brown, February 6, 1825. Brown Papers.

73 Moses Beech to Kilbourn, February 28, 1825, James Kilbourn Papers, Ohio

Historical Society; E. Cooke to Zalmon Wildman, Wildman Family Papers, Ohio

Historical Society; Sandusky Clarion, March 5, April 2, 1825.

74 Buckingham to Worthington, March 15, 1825, Worthington Papers, Ohio His-

orical Society; Allen Trimble to James Trimble, March 15, 1825, Trimble

Family Papers; Still, "Ethan Allen Brown," 45-46.

• 23
 

254     THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

The canal commission then acted quickly to prepare for the

commencement of construction. Location of the northern part

of the Ohio and Erie line had been left to their discretion.

Hence they ordered three engineers to submit detailed esti-

mates of costs for the Cuyahoga and Black river routes. On

May 5 the commission met at Wooster to consider the engi-

neers' findings, and the Cuyahoga line was formally

adopted.⁷⁵ There is some evidence, however, that adoption of

the Black River route had never been seriously contemplated

by the commission, the April surveys being merely a ruse

designed to prompt proprietors in the Cuyahoga valley to

donate land in aid of the canal.⁷⁶

The commission also established a schedule for awarding

contracts when they met at Wooster. Bids would be taken in

June for work on the northern part of the Ohio and Erie and

on ten miles of the Licking summit line, and in early July for

work on the Miami Canal. Even before the advertisements

for bids were published, many contractors who had worked

on the Erie Canal appeared in Ohio carrying letters of recom-

mendation from New York officials.⁷⁷ Of forty-eight con-

tracts awarded on June 17 for construction on the Portage

summit, not one was above the estimates prepared by the com-

mission. Contracts awarded on the other lines also proved to

be uniformly below estimates.⁷⁸ The low bids were given

much publicity, for the commissioners believed this to be "the

most powerful argument to meet the opposition with that can

 

75 Columbus Gazette, May 12, 1825.

76 The canal bill had authorized the commissioners to accept donations of land

and money. In early April, Kelley appointed agents to solicit donations of land

from settlers and non-resident landowners in both the Black and Cuyahoga

valleys, implying that such donations would influence the commissioners' selection

of a route. Yet in early February, Benjamin Tappan had written that work on

the line "from the Portage summit to Cleveland" should begin as soon as Kelley

had "got the people of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga valley to give all they will

give." Tappan to Kelley, February 7, 1825, Williams to Kelley, February 24, 182?

Blickensderfer to Kelley, March 27, 1825. Canal Commission Papers.

77 Columbus Gazette, May 12, June 9, 1825; Kelley to Brown, March 11, 182??

Brown Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

78 For the procedures involved in contracting, see McClelland and Huntington

Ohio Canals, chapter 3.

• 24
 

THE OHIO CANAL MOVEMENT              255

be urged--it must be conclusive against them."⁷⁹ With the

bonds sold and preliminary contracting concluded, prepara-

tions were then made for the gala ground-breaking at Licking

summit on July 4, 1825.

During the eight years which followed, the canals author-

ized by the 1825 bill were constructed, and $4,500,000 in

canal bonds were successfully sold in eastern money markets.

Although construction and finance involve a separate and

more complex phase of Ohio canal history, it may be said here

that the assumptions and predictions of the canal commission-

ers, as expressed in their reports of 1823-25, proved to be

of varying merit. As they had predicted, agricultural prices

and land values rose and settlement was stimulated in areas

served by the canals. Yet the through traffic from river to

lake which had been anticipated did not materialize, and the

products of the southern part of the state continued to find

an outlet at New Orleans. Actual construction costs, on the

other hand, proved to be relatively close to the commissioners'

1825 estimates despite the addition of certain feeder lines.

However, costly repairs and improvements cut deeply into

toll revenues; hence interest costs had to be paid out of funds

obtained by further borrowing, contrary to the original sink-

ing-fund plan. Finally, the plan for supplying the Licking

summit with water proved defective, and traffic was fre-

quently impeded.⁸⁰

After the completion of the canals authorized by the 1825

bill, almost every town and county in Ohio demanded exten-

sion of the main canal lines, construction of feeder canals,

or state aid for railroad and turnpike facilities. By 1836 the

pressure upon the legislature had become irresistible, and in

1836-37 the state undertook a comprehensive internal im-

provements program which involved much wasteful expendi-

ture and left Ohio with an enormous bonded indebtedness.

79 Williams to Worthington, June 17, July 14, 1825, Worthington Papers, Ohio

State Library; Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, May 24, 1825.

80 For a discussion of the impact of the canals, see Francis P. Weisenburger,

The Passing of the Frontier, 1825-1850 (Wittke, ed., History of the State of

Ohio, III, Columbus, 1941), 89-106 and passim. See also W. F. Gephart, Transpor-

tation and Industrial Development in the Middle West (New York, 1909).

• 25
 

256   THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

The establishment of the canal commission in 1822 had

brought together a group of able business and political lead-

ers who, because of common interests and a common under-

standing of the state's economic problems, were predisposed

to favor construction of a canal system. Inspired by the suc-

cess of the Erie Canal, they hammered out a policy which was

politically acceptable as well as consistent with the economic

needs and resources of the state. In these respects theirs was

a cautious policy. Yet it was at the same time bold and vision-

ary, for it contemplated an enterprise far greater in magni-

tude than any the state had previously undertaken. Its bold-

ness rather than its cautiousness had the more telling influence

on the climate of opinion. While the reckless "improvements

spirit" was stimulated by the boom of the early 1830's, it was

also an expression of public attitudes fostered during the

initial period of canal promotion in Ohio.

• 26