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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.