USA > Pennsylvania > Progressive Pennsylvania; a record of the remarkable industrial development of the Keystone state, with some account of its early and its later transportation systems, its early settlers, and its prominent men > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32
The author of An Historical Account of the Rise, Prog- ress, and Present State of the Canal Navigation in Penn- sylvania, published in 1795, referring to events occurring in 1793, clearly indicates in the following extract that about 1769 a survey of a canal route to unite the Schuyl- kill and Susquehanna rivers had been made. "The sum- mit level of middle ground between the headwaters of Quittapahilla, near Lebanon, and those of Tulpehocken, near Myerstown, (a distance of four miles and a half,) had been examined and leveled about twenty-five years ago by a committee appointed by the American Philosophical Society, viz : William Smith, D.D., then Provost of the College of Philadelphia, John Lukens, Esquire, Surveyor General of the Province (now State) of Pennsylvania, and John Sellers. The same ground was afterwards ex- amined and leveled under legislative sanction by sundry skillful persons, and among others by the celebrated phi- losopher and mechanic, David Rittenhouse, Esquire, L.L.D., and his brother Benjamin Rittenhouse, Timothy Matlack, John Adlum, Esquires, and others, all agreeing in the re- sults of their work respecting the proper tract of the canal for a junction of the Schuylkill and Susquehanna ;- ex- tending their prospects still further to the great plan now
133
EARLY CANALS IN PENNSYLVANIA.
in operation, viz : the junction of the tidewaters of the Delaware with the Ohio and western lakes."
These circumstantial statements indicate that the first survey referred to for a canal to unite the Schuylkill and Susquehanna rivers was made about 1769, under the aus- pices of the American Philosophical Society, and that sub- sequently another survey was made "under legislative sanction" by David Rittenhouse and others. The date of the last survey is uncertain. We can not find any proof of the correctness of a statement that has been frequently made that David Rittenhouse and Dr. William Smith sur- veyed a route for a canal between the Schuylkill and Sus- quehanna rivers as early as 1762.
Henry S. Tanner, in his Description of the Canals and Railroads of the United States, (1840,) says that "applica- tion was made to the Provincial Legislature for authority to open a water communication between the Schuylkill and the Susquehanna rivers, and in the year 1762 a sur- vey with a view to this object was effected, by which its practicability was satisfactorily demonstrated." Tanner gives no further particulars of the alleged "survey," but other writers, without submitting any proof, say that it was made by David Rittenhouse and Dr. William Smith in 1762. We think that this early date is an error.
In the "Proposals for a Second Settlement" on the Susquehanna river, issued by William Penn in 1690, and from which we have already quoted, Penn says that a "way" by land had been "laid out" between the Dela- ware and the Susquehanna rivers "at least three years ago," and that communication between this proposed set- tlement and the settlements already made on the Dela- ware would "not be hard to do by water by the benefit of the river Scoalkill, for a branch of that river lies near a branch that runs into the Susquehanna river and is the common course of the Indians with their skins and furs into our parts." In these words Penn certainly indicates French creek and Conestoga creek as the branches which could be utilized in uniting the Susquehanna and Schuyl- kill rivers. His "way" was undoubtedly a road from the mouth of French creek to a point near the mouth of the
134
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
Conestoga. H. Frank Eshleman, of Lancaster, has made this matter clear. To Penn belongs the credit of first sug- gesting, as early as 1690, the project of continuous water transportation from the Delaware to the Susquehanna, but he did not specifically suggest the building of a canal.
In 1772 Benjamin Franklin, who was then represent- ing the colonies at the British Court, wrote a long letter to Samuel Rhoads, afterwards the Mayor of Philadelphia, which Ringwalt prints in full, recommending the building of canals in our country and giving the experience of England in canal construction. He said : "Rivers are un- governable things, especially in hilly countries. Canals are quiet and very manageable."
Without quoting further from old records the forego- ing summary shows how greatly interested before the Revolutionary period were the people of Pennsylvania in the improvement of its waterways and in the building of canals. Nothing of a practical character was, however, accomplished before the Revolution, owing mainly to the financial difficulties that were encountered.
It has been claimed that the first canal that was un- dertaken and completed in the United States was built to overcome obstructions to the navigation of the Connecti- cut river at South Hadley Falls and at Turner's Falls at Montague, in Western Massachusetts. It was projected in 1792 by a company, commenced in 1793, and finished about 1796. This canal was about five miles long. It is also claimed that the next canal to be completed was built by a company between 1792 and 1797 around the rapids of the Mohawk river in New York, to improve its naviga- tion, as in the case of the pioneer canal in Massachusetts. This canal was six miles long. These short canals were of only local importance.
The above claims of priority in canal building must be read in connection with other canal enterprises which are mentioned in detail by Ringwalt, and which, omitting the reference already made to the early canal in Orange county, New York, we condense as follows : "Probably the first charter under which active operations were pros- ecuted was granted by an act incorporating the James
135
EARLY CANALS IN PENNSYLVANIA.
River Company, which was passed by the Legislature of Virginia on January 5,1785, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the James river. The company con- structed a canal around the Falls of James river, extend- ing from the city of Richmond to Westham, a distance of about seven miles, and improved the bed of the river by sluices as high up as Buchanan. Other canals include the following : A charter was granted on June 25, 1792, to 'The Proprietors of the Locks and Canals on the Merri- mac River' in Massachusetts, and this company opened a line in 1797, about one and one-half miles long, which provided a channel around Pawtucket Falls, leading into the Concord river, and thence into the Merrimac river at Chelmsford. The Middlesex Canal Company was chartered in 1792. Active operations on this work were commenced in 1795. The Carondelet Canal was built in Louisiana about 1794, partly as a drainage canal for the city of New Orleans. It was constructed by Governor Carondelet, and the citizens contributed a large force of slaves to aid him. A canal was built in South Carolina in 1802 which con- nected Charleston harbor with the Santee river. It was twenty-two miles long and cost $720,000."
We now come to the canals which were actually built in Pennsylvania after the storm and stress of the Revolu- tion had come to an end. The earliest mention we, have found of a completed canal in Pennsylvania relates to the Conewago Canal, in York county, which was authorized by the Legislature on April 10, 1793, to be constructed by the Conewago Canal Company. This canal was com- pleted in 1797. It was only one and a fourth miles long and was built to overcome an obstruction in the Susque- hanna river caused by the Conewago Falls.
One of the first improvements in river transportation to be undertaken in Pennsylvania was the slackwater im- provement of the Conestoga Lock and Dam Navigation Company, which company was chartered by the Legisla- ture on March 17, 1806, to improve the navigation of Con- estoga creek between Lancaster and Safe Harbor, on the Susquehanna, a distance of eighteen miles. This improve- ment was completed by another company several years
136
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
afterwards, but it is worthy of mention as one of the first canal enterprises that was undertaken in Pennsylvania.
The first State to undertake any comprehensive canal project was undoubtedly Pennsylvania. Before the Massa- chusetts and New York enterprises were undertaken the Legislature of Pennsylvania chartered the Schuylkill and Susquehanna Navigation Company to connect the waters of the Schuylkill and Susquehanna rivers by canal and slackwater navigation, the exact date of the act being September 29, 1791. On April 10, 1792, the Legislature also incorporated the Delaware and Schuylkill Navigation Company to build a canal from Norristown to Philadel- phia. It was proposed to have the first named company build a canal from Middletown, at the mouth of the Swa- tara river, where it empties into the Susquehanna river, to Reading, in Berks county, and thence by canal and slackwater to Norristown, where it would unite with the canal of the second named company, thus giving continu- ous water communication between Philadelphia and the interior of the State. Robert Morris was the president of both these companies. Gordon, in his Gazetteer, published in 1832, gives the further history of these enterprises as follows : "About fifteen miles of the most difficult parts of the two works, comprising much rock excavation, heavy embankments, extensive deep cuttings, and several locks of bricks, were nearly completed when, after an expendi- ture of $440,000, the works were suspended by reason of the pecuniary embarrassments of the stockholders of the companies. The suspension of these works, and subse- quently of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, discour- aged every similar work which was projected for many years afterwards." Gordon continues : "In the year 1811 the two companies, composed chiefly of the same stock- holders, were united under the title of the Union Canal Company. A large part of new stock was indispensable to the success of the company, which they were authoriz- ed to create by act of 29th March, 1819, and for payment of interest thereon the avails of a lottery granted by the last preceding act were pledged. By act of 26th March, 1821, the Commonwealth guaranteed the interest and also
137
EARLY CANALS IN PENNSYLVANIA.
granted to the company a monopoly of lotteries. Thus sustained the managers resumed their operations in 1821. The line of the canal was relocated, the dimensions chang- ed, and it was rendered navigable in 1827."
As completed the Union Canal extended only from Middletown, on the Susquehanna, to a point on the Schuylkill a short distance below Reading, a distance of nearly 90 miles, including about ten miles of branches.
At Reading the Union Canal connected with the works of the Schuylkill Navigation Company, which was char- tered on March 8, 1815, to build a canal from Philadel- phia to Pottsville, in Schuylkill county, utilizing wherever possible slackwater navigation on the Schuylkill river. This canal, which is still in use from Philadelphia to Port Clinton, in Schuylkill county, about fifteen miles below Pottsville, was completed and opened for business between Philadelphia and Mount Carbon, a suburb of Pottsville, in 1825. In 1828 the canal was extended from Pottsville to Port Carbon, a distance of about two miles. As finally completed there were 58 miles of canal and 50 miles of slackwater, making a total length of 108 miles. This enterprise was undertaken because of the failure of pre- vious attempts to improve the navigation of the Schuyl- kill river, as described above. The whole line of the canal was leased to the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Com- pany in 1870. Since that year its coal and other trade has been almost entirely transferred to this company. In 1826 and 1827 the packet boat Planet made regular trips between Philadelphia and Reading, the fare being $2.50.
During the first two decades of the nineteenth century many canal enterprises were undertaken in many States, including others in Pennsylvania additional to those above mentioned. The most important of these enterprises was the celebrated Erie Canal in New York, to connect Lake Erie with the Atlantic Ocean by way of Albany and the Hudson river, the canal terminating at Albany. The first ground was broken for this work at Rome, on July 4, 1817, and the canal was formally opened from Buffalo to Albany, a distance of 352 miles, on November 4, 1825. The inception and subsequent completion of this really
138
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
great work gave a great impetus to canal building in other States, especially in Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.
In addition to the reasons which called for the estab- lishment of closer commercial connections between the dif- ferent parts of Pennsylvania its citizens could not afford to yield to New York the trade of the Great West through its Erie Canal without making an effort to secure a part of this trade. Leading citizens had long urged the neces- sity of more convenient means of communication between the Delaware and the western parts of the State than were afforded by roads and turnpikes. The project of uniting the Delaware with Lake Erie by a system of canals and river navigation was considered by the General Assembly as early as 1769, and was embodied in 1811 in the char- ter of the Union Canal Company already mentioned. Oth- er early projects contemplated the opening of communi- cation by water as far as possible between the Delaware and the Ohio at Pittsburgh. But none of these schemes assumed tangible form until about the time of the com- pletion of the Erie Canal in 1825. Even if practicable in all cases they could not have been realized by individual effort; the State would have had to undertake them.
139
THE BUILDING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE BUILDING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL.
ON February 10, 1824, a committee of the Pennsylva- nia Legislature, to which had been referred the subject of improving the transportation facilities between the eastern and western parts of the State, recommended that a sur- vey be made of a route "along the valleys of the Susque- hanna, Juniata, Conemaugh, Kiskiminitas, and Allegheny rivers, with a view to a continuous canal from Philadel- phia to Pittsburgh." On March 27, 1824, an act was passed authorizing three commissioners to "explore a route for a canal from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh by the waters of the Juniata and Conemaugh rivers, and by the west branch of the Susquehanna and Sinnemahoning with the waters of the Allegheny, and also a route from a point on the Schuyl- kill river in the county of Schuylkill, thence by Mahanoy creek, the river Susquehanna, the Moshannon or Clearfield and Blacklick creeks, the Conemaugh, the Kiskiminitas, and Allegheny rivers to Pittsburgh." These commissioners recommended the adoption of a canal route from Harris- burg to Pittsburgh by way of the Susquehanna, Juniata, and Conemaugh rivers, with a tunnel through the Alle- gheny mountains to be four miles long. On April 11, 1825, another act was passed providing for the appointment of five commissioners, who were authorized to explore and report upon two proposed routes of canal communication between the eastern and western parts of the State, and upon three less comprehensive and really local routes.
Only the first two of these routes need be described. One of these was "from Philadelphia through Chester and Lancaster counties, and thence by the west branch of the Susquehanna and the waters thereof to the Allegheny and Pittsburgh, also from the Allegheny to Lake Erie," and the other route was "from Philadelphia by the Juni- ata to Pittsburgh and thence to Lake Erie." On Febru- ary 25, 1826, an act was passed providing for the com-
.
140
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
mencement of a canal " from the river Swatara, at or near Middletown," by the Juniata route, and from Pittsburgh eastward to the mouth of the Kiskiminitas, the work to. be styled the Pennsylvania Canal. Three hundred thou- sand dollars were appropriated for the beginning of the work. On July 4, 1826, the first ground was broken for the canal near Harrisburg. The canal commissioners, now increased to nine in number, had decided that work on the canal westward should begin at Middletown, at the mouth of the Swatara river, to which point, as previously ex- plained, canal and slackwater communication eastward to Philadelphia had been made or was about to be made by way of the Union Canal and the Schuylkill river. As finally determined by the act of March 4, 1828, the canal was to be continued eastward to Columbia, on the Susque- hanna. It was also determined by the same act that con- nection from Columbia with Philadelphia should be made by railroad and not by canal, and also that a railroad was necessary from Hollidaysburg to Johnstown instead of a tunnel. Thus originated the most important public im- provement ever undertaken by Pennsylvania-a more ex- pensive enterprise than the Erie Canal and relatively more difficult than the Panama Canal of our day.
The Pennsylvania Canal, as its courses and distances were finally decided upon and established by the joint ac- tion of the Legislature, the canal commissioners, and the engineers, embraced a main line of combined canal and railroad from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, with numerous canal branches, all the branches from the main line run- ning northward, and also embracing other canals which did not directly connect with the main line. Beginning at Philadelphia the various divisions of the main line may be briefly summarized as follows : The Columbia Railroad, 81 miles long, connecting Philadelphia with Columbia, hav- ing two inclined planes, one at Philadelphia and one at Columbia; the eastern division of the canal, 47 miles long, extending from Columbia along the Susquehanna river to Duncan's Island, at the mouth of the Juniata ; the Juniata division, 132 miles long, extending from Duncan's Island to Hollidaysburg ; the Allegheny Portage Railroad, 36.44
141
THE BUILDING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL.
miles long, crossing the Allegheny mountains, having ten inclined planes, and connecting Hollidaysburg with Johns- town, five ascending from Hollidaysburg to the Allegheny summit and five descending to Johnstown ; and the west- ern division, 104 miles long, extending from Johnstown along the Conemaugh, Kiskiminitas, and Allegheny rivers to Pittsburgh. The total length of the main line of the canal and connecting railroads was 400.44 miles. Work on the main line was prosecuted with vigor from its com- mencement and soon afterwards on some of its branches.
The branches of the Pennsylvania Canal, and the ca- nals which were not directly connected with the main line but were part of the Pennsylvania Canal system, were as follows : The Susquehanna division, 42 miles long, com- mencing at Duncan's Island and extending along the Susquehanna river to Northumberland; the West Branch division, 76 miles long, extending from Northumberland along the west branch of the Susquehanna through Will- iamsport, Jersey Shore, and Lock Haven, to Farrandsville, in Clinton county ; the North Branch division, 167.2 miles long, commencing at Northumberland and extending along the north branch of the Susquehanna through Berwick, Nanticoke, and other towns to the New York State line near Elmira, where it connected with the New York sys- tem of canals through the Junction Canal; the Delaware division, 60 miles long, extending from Bristol along the Delaware river to Easton, where it connected with the canal of the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company; the Beaver division, 30.75 miles long, beginning at the mouth of the Beaver river, at Beaver, on the Ohio, 28 miles be- low Pittsburgh, and extending to New Castle ; the Erie Extension, 105.50 miles long, extending from New Castle to Erie. There was also a branch of the main line, the Wiconisco Canal, 12} miles long, commenced in 1838, ex- tending from Duncan's Island along the Susquehanna to Wiconisco, where it connected with the Lykens Valley Railroad. There were various feeders of the canals, ag- gregating 13 miles in length, which need not be mentioned in detail. The entire length of canals and railroads form- ing the Pennsylvania Canal system was 907.39 miles, of
142
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
which 789.95 miles were canal and 117.44 miles were rail- road, all undertaken and built at the expense of the State.
In 1834 the canal commissioners announced that 600 miles of canal and 120 miles of railroad were finished and that the main line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh was open for business. A single track of the Portage Railroad had been completed on November 26, 1833. On April 16, 1834, the whole line was opened, the Columbia Railroad, which formed the last link, having been finished on that day. The Beaver division was opened for business on May 28, 1834, and the North Branch division on July 4, 1834. Other branches were opened at later periods. Some of them, indeed, were not undertaken until after the main line had been some time in operation. The whole time consumed in the construction of the main line was about eight years, the same number of years as were occupied in the construction of the Erie Canal.
The Erie Canal, 352 miles long, was not only nearly fifty miles shorter than the main line of the Pennsylvania Canal and its railroad connections, in all about 400 miles long, but its builders encountered fewer engineering diffi- culties than those which confronted the builders of the Pennsylvania system of canals and railroads, while its cost of construction was very much less. The Erie Canal passed through a territory free from any serious moun- tain elevations to be overcome by locks or otherwise, but the engineers of the Pennsylvania Canal were compelled to overcome by inclined planes and a railroad the almost in- surmountable obstruction of the Allegheny mountains be- tween Hollidaysburg and Johnstown and to abandon the project of building a canal through the elevated country between Philadelphia and Columbia and substitute a rail- road. Ringwalt gives a diagram showing the elevation of the Erie Canal from Buffalo to Albany and another show- ing the elevation of the Pennsylvania Canal and its con- necting railroads from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. He says : "In constructing the Erie Canal the rise and fall along the entire line was only 692 feet. In adopting on the Pennsylvania main line system the Portage Railroad. as a device for overcoming the elevation of the Allegheny
143
THE BUILDING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CANAL.
mountains there was an ascent from Johnstown, west of the mountains, to the summit of 1,171.58 feet in 26.59 miles, and on the eastern side of the mountains a descent from the summit to Hollidaysburg of 1,398.71 feet in 10.10 miles. In other words, the Pennsylvania main line sys- tem, by the aid of the Portage Railroad, undertook to overcome, in a distance of 36.69 miles, about twice the elevation that it was necessary to overcome, by locks, along the entire length of the Erie Canal." Of the ten inclined planes on the Portage Railroad the longest was 3,116.92 feet long, with a rise of 307.60 feet, and the short- est was 1,480.25 feet long, with a rise of 130.50 feet. To which we add the length and elevation of the two inclined planes on the Columbia Railroad, as follows : The plane at Belmont, near Philadelphia, was 2,805 feet long, with a rise of 187 feet, and the plane at Columbia was 1,800 feet long, with a fall of 90 feet.
The work of building the Columbia Railroad was com- menced in 1829 and completed in 1834, but about twenty miles of the eastern end of the road were opened for traf- fic in September, 1832. Work on the construction of the Portage Railroad was commenced on April 12, 1831, and on March 18, 1834, when navigation on the canal opened, the road was opened for use as a public highway.
Horses and locomotives were used on both railroads. The first locomotive used on the Portage Railroad was built in Boston in 1834 and named Boston. Solomon W. Roberts says that "it was a light engine, with one pair of driving wheels, which were made of wood, with iron hubs and tires." The fuel used was wood. On the Co- lumbia Railroad two locomotives, built in Philadelphia by Matthew W. Baldwin in 1834, were in use in that year, when the road was opened. The Pittsburgh Gazette for Monday, November 25, 1833, referring to the completion of the Portage Railroad, contains the following reference to the first railroad car that was used on that road : "We are informed that a railroad car, made after the most ap- proved models and the designs of the chief engineer, has been constructed in this city, and that it was forwarded, on Saturday evening, by the canal line, to Johnstown,
144
PROGRESSIVE PENNSYLVANIA.
where it will arrive this evening. It is supposed that this is the first railroad car ever constructed west of the Alle- gheny mountain." The first car passed over the Portage Railroad, from Johnstown to Hollidaysburg, on Tuesday, November 26, 1833. This was probably the car above re- ferred to. Presumably it was a passenger car.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.