Historic Resource Study:

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal

By

Harlan D. Unrau  
Historic Resource Study: 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

By 

Harlan D. Unrau 

United States Department of Interior 

National Park Service 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

Hagerstown, Maryland 

August 2007 

Prepared by 

Karen M. Gray 

Headquarters Library Volunteer 

Chesapeake &Ohio Canal National Historical Park

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 3

By Harlan D. Unrau 

CONTENTS 

PREFACE 5 

MONOGRAPHS: 

1. DESIGNERS OF THE C&O CANAL 7 

2. CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS 45 

3. LABOR FORCE 107 

4. QUARRIES, MILLS AND KILNS 153 

5. CONSTUCTION CHRONOLOGY 175 

6. FLOODS 273 

7. BOATS AND NAVIGATION 327 

8. COMMERCE 427 

9. MAINTENANCE 535 

10. ECONOMIC IMPACT 633 

11. CANAL IN THE CIVIL WAR 703 

12. LOCKTENDERS AND BOATMEN 781

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 5

By Harlan D. Unrau 

PREFACE 

On January 8, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon signed into law the bill creating the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park. In the mid-1970s, National Park 

Service historian Harlan D. Unrau produced a major, handwritten, multi-volume study of 

the history, engineering, operation, maintenance, and other aspects of the Chesapeake & 

Ohio canal. A rough, unedited typed version was produced in the early 1980s for general 

use by park staff. 

 In 2006, C&O Canal NHP volunteers began the task of transcribing the Unrau 

work into MS Word. The present document lacks the benefit of information that has become available since the 1970s when Unrau created this work. Various imperfections will 

be apparent to the reader and some sources are not fully documented, but the work represents an early compilation of the canal’s history and engineering that has never been surpassed and will be of incalculable value to researchers and those who simply desire to 

know more about this unique historic treasure. 

 It should be noted that the original work was developed as sixteen chapters organized in several volumes. The first four chapters are not included here and have not yet 

been transcribed. For the most part those early chapters contain information on the general state of canal building and engineering in the early 19th century, and background history—although there is also a section on certain C&O structures and engineering problems. Overall, however, the information is less specific to the C&O in chapters one 

through four than that in chapters five through sixteen treated as separate monographs in 

this volume. 

 Special appreciation for the preliminary transcription and minimal editing of the 

text goes to NPS volunteers William Bauman (who did the vast majority of the transcriptions), Rita Bauman, Karen Gray, Gary Petrichick, and Cecilia Thompson. Their work 

represents literally thousands of hours at their computers and in the C&O Canal NHP library. They, in turn, are indebted to C&O Canal NHP staff, especially William Justice 

and Sam Tamburro, who provided invaluable assistance in resolving many of the problems and uncertainties that the material presented; and Gary Scott from the regional office whose experience and advice in preparing the material for publication was also invaluable. 

Karen M. Gray, Ph.D. 

Volunteer and 2007 Draft Editor 

C&O Canal National Historical Park 

1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100 

Hagerstown, MD 21740-6620 

CHOH_information@nps.gov

HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

1. 

DESIGNERS OF 

THE C & O CANAL 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 9 

Unrau: 1. Designers 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 11 

I. QUALIFICATIONS OF AN ENGINEER 12 

II. DESIGNERS WITH FULL LENGTH BIOGRAPHIES 13 

 A. JOHN JAMES ABERT (1788–1863) 13 

 B. CHARLES ELLET, JR. (1810–1862) 16 

 C. JAMES GEDDES (1763–1838) 20 

 D. WILLIAM RICH HUTTON (1826–1901) 22 

 E. CHARLES FENTON MERCER (1778–1858) 25 

 F. NATHAN S. ROBERTS (1776–1852) 30 

 G. BENJAMIN WRIGHT (1770–1842) 33 

III. DESIGNERS WITH PARTIAL BIOGRAPHIES 39 

 A. ALFRED CRUGER 39 

 B. CHARLES B. FISK 40 

 C. JOHN MARTINEAU 42 

 D. ELLWOOD MORRIS 43 

 E. THOMAS F. PURCELL 44 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 11

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to present the biographies of the engineers who played a prominent role in the design and construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. By studying the background of these men, one will gain a better understanding of the skills and experiences which 

they brought to the construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio. A look at the activities of these men 

after they left the canal will also enable one to place their services on the canal in the context of 

their professional engineering careers. 

 This chapter has been divided into two parts. The first section contains those individuals 

for whom biographical information is available to treat their entire lives. The second section includes those men for whom only limited biographical data is available. For the purpose of organization, the entries in both sections are alphabetized. 

 This chapter should not be considered as an exhaustive treatment of the aforementioned 

subjects. There are other lesser-known engineers who also played a role in the building of the canal. However, it can be argued that this chapter contains virtually all of the readily available biographical information on the lives of the most prominent engineers to be engaged in the construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. 
12 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

I. QUALIFICATIONS OF AN ENGINEER 

Before one studies the biographies of the principal engineers on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, it 

is imperative that he understand the qualifications for such a job as described by American canal 

promoters in the early nineteenth century. Civil engineering was just emerging from an infant 

state of development during this period. Furthermore, the canal era in the United States was just 

beginning to flourish when the Chesapeake & Ohio project was initially conceived and designed. 

Thus, one can more easily appreciate the training and expertise which the canal engineers brought 

to their task by understanding the qualification for such work as stated by contemporary writers 

active in the promotion of American canals. 

 Samuel Young, one of the New York canal commissioners, compiled his A Treatise on 

Internal Navigation at the request of the other commissioners in 1817 in order to familiarize New 

Yorkers with the standard engineering technique employed in Europe. Later, this book was 

widely read by canal enthusiasts throughout American. In the book, young listed seven qualifications for an engineer as follows: 

1. A skillful engineer should undoubtedly possess a considerable degree of mathematical 

knowledge. Calculations, of which some are of the most obstruse [sic.] and laborious 

kind, will frequently occur; and he should therefore, be well acquainted with the principles on which all calculations are founded, and by which they are to be rightly applied in 

practice. 

2. An engineer should also have studied the elements of most or all of the sciences, immediately connected with his profession; and he should particularly excel in an acquaintance 

with the various branches of mechanics, both theoretical and practical. 

3. His knowledge should comprehend whatever has been written or done by other engineers, and he should have information in every department of his office from an accurate 

examination of the most considerable works that have been executed in all the various 

circumstances that are likely to occur. 

4. It is necessary, that he should be a ready and correct, if not a finished, draughtsman. 

5. He should also be conversant with the general principles of trade and commerce; with the 

various operations and improvements in agriculture; with the interests and connection of 

the different owners and occupiers of land, houses, mills, & c.; and with all the general 

laws and decisions of courts, pertaining to the objects connected with his profession. 

6. By an extensive acquaintance with the disposition, inclination, and thickness of the various strata of matter, which compose the soil or land...he will be able to avoid many errors incident to those who are destitute of this knowledge, and to have the course and 

causes of springs, to which it leads. 

7. “As the last, though not the least, of these qualifications of an engineer, which we shall 

enumerate, we shall add, that he should be a man of strict integrity.”1

 

1

 Samuel Young, compl, A Treatise on Internal Navigation (Ballston Spa, 1817), 9–10 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 13

II DESIGNERS WITH FULL LENGTH BIOGRAPHIES

A. JOHN JAMES ABERT (1788–1863) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

John J. Abert performed significant services for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal both as a director 

of the company in 1833–1834 and 1836 and as a member of the U. S. Topographical Engineers. 

In 1824–25, he and his assistants conducted a detailed survey of the proposed route for the canal. 

A preliminary report submitted by Abert on February 14, 1825, supported the practicality of 

building an artificial waterway along the north bank of the Potomac from tidewater and of connecting the Potomac and Ohio River Valleys. Based on the results of this survey, Congress chartered the canal company in a measure signed by President James Monroe on March 3, 1825. Because his cost estimate for the canal’s construction was considered extremely high, his survey 

was submitted to a reexamination in 1827 by James Geddes and Nathan S. Roberts, two civil engineers who confirmed the suitability of the route he had surveyed but at a lower estimated cost. 

Shortly before the canal was opened to navigation between Georgetown and Seneca Falls 

in the summer of 1831, Abert and James Kearney, a fellow topographical engineer, were asked to 

inspect the canal’s engineering works. In their report, they reported favorably on the quality of 

construction completed and described the existing conditions along the waterway. 

During the late 1830s when talk was revived of an earlier project to connect Baltimore 

and the Chesapeake and Ohio via a crosscut canal, Abert was called to survey three possible 

routes for such a waterway. In his December 1838 report, he found that all three routes were impractical because of an insufficient water supply on the summit levels. Although he reported the 

discovery of a fourth, from Seneca to the Patapsco River via Brookeville, his projected high cost 

estimate for the waterway ended further speculation about the connection at that time. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years 

Born probably in Shepherdstown, Virginia, (some sources place his birth at Frederick, Maryland), 

on September 17, 1788, John J. Abert was the son of John Abert, who is said to have emigrated to 

America as a soldier with Rochambeau in 1780, and Margarita Meng. On January 18, 1808, he 

was appointed from Virginia to the Military Academy at West Point where his scholarship soon 

won for him an assistantship to the professor of mathematics. In 1811 he left the Academy and 

for some three years he was an assistant to the chief clerk of the War Office in Washington, at the 

same time studying law. He was married to Ellen Matlack Stretch, granddaughter of Colonel 

Timothy Matlack, a Revolutionary War veteran, on January 25, 1812.2

He was admitted to the District of Columbia bar in 1813, practicing law there in 1813 

and in Ohio in 1814. He served as a volunteer in the District of Columbia militia in 1814 and 

 

2

 Asa M. Stackhouse, Col. Timothy Matlack: Patriot and Soldier (Haddonfield, 1910), 29–58. They had 

two daughters and four sons, three of which, James William, Silvanus Thayer, and William Stretch, served 

with distinction in the U.S. Army during the Civil War. Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, I, 

8–9. 
14 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

fought as a private in the Battle of Bladensburg, August 24, 1814, and his services were acknowledged by a land grant of 160 acres in Wisconsin.3

Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

On November 22, 1814, Abert was appointed major in the Topographical Engineers and was attached to the northern division of the army from this date until January 15, 1829. He was engaged 

as an assistant under Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler and Isaac Roberdeau in geodetic surveys of the 

Atlantic Coast (1816–1818); in topographical surveys concerning harbor and river improvements, 

canals, and defenses, principally in the eastern United States; and in the preparation of extensive 

reports covering these activities. The wide scope of his work in making important surveys during 

the period of America’s development after the War of 1812 is indicated by the following services, 

which form only part of those which he rendered during this time. He was an assistant in the reconnaissance of the East River in New York in 1818. That same year he served as superintending 

Topographical Engineer of Surveys in the Chesapeake Bay. The following year he held the same 

position in surveys of Dutch Island, Mount Hope Bay, Newport Neck, and the western entrance to 

Narragansett Bay, and the Narragansett roads in Rhode Island; the East River in New York; the 

Fall River in Massachusetts; and the Louisville Canal in Kentucky. After directing a survey of 

Cox’s Head in 1821, he superintended a survey for the proposed Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in 

1824–25, during the same period heading a reconnaissance of the Patuxent River in Maryland. 

Later in 1826–27, he made surveys in the State of Maine. In recognition of his abilities as well as 

his frankness in criticizing the organization and functions of the Topographical Bureau, he was 

brevetted lieutenant colonel on November 22, 1824.4

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

During 1824–25, Abert and his assistants conducted a detailed survey of the proposed route of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. The survey was ordered by Congress which had appropriated $30,000 

in response to the campaign growing out of the first Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention held 

in Washington in November 1823. The U.S. Board of Engineers made a preliminary report on 

February 14, 1825, supporting the practicability of building an artificial waterway along the north 

bank of the Potomac from tidewater and of connecting the Potomac and Ohio River Valleys.5

Based on the results of this survey, Congress chartered the canal company in a measure 

approved by President Monroe on March 3, 1825.6

 On October 13, 1826, however, the Board of 

Engineers made its full report, which the President transmitted to Congress on December 7, 

1826.7

 The report reiterated the physical practicality of building the canal, but estimated the cost 

of the canal upon the dimensions required by the federal government at approximately 

 

3 Dictionary of American Biography, XI, 1 4

 George W. Cullum, Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at 

West Point, N.Y., from Its Establishment in 1802 to 1890 (3rd. ed., Boston, 1891) I, 101–102. 5

 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, 

H. Rept. 90, 19th ,Cong., 2d sess., 1827, Appendix 3, 37, 76. 6

 U.S., Congress, Senate, Documents Relating to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, S. Doc. 610, 26th Cong., 

1st sess., 1840, 13. The charter called for the following minimum dimensions: 40 feet wide at the surface, 

28 feet wide at the bottom, and 4 feet deep. 

7

 The full report is printed in Message of the President of the United States, Transmitting a Report from the 

Secretary of War with that of the Board of Engineers for Internal Improvement, on the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal, H. Doc. 10, 19th Cong., 2d sess., 1826.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 15

$22,000,000 for the eastern section.8 The estimated cost had a devastating impact on the hopes of 

the canal supporters, who had been thinking in terms of a cost of $4,000,000 to $5,000,000. The 

result was the call for a second Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention in December 1826, which 

sought to discredit Abert’s estimate and pressure President John Quincy Adams to submit the 

conflicting claims to two civil engineers, James Geddes and Nathan Roberts.9

Abert performed other services for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in subsequent years. 

Shortly before the line of the canal between Georgetown and Seneca Falls was opened to operation in the summer of 1831, an examination of the waterway was made by Abert and James Kearney at the request of the canal board. On June 13, the two engineers began their inspection, reporting favorably on the quality of construction completed and describing the existing condition 

along the waterway. The report, which is extant, is the earliest and generally most useful document that discusses in a comprehensive manner the problems encountered in the canal’s construction and the engineering technology applied to their solution.10

Throughout the following decade, Abert was consulted frequently by the canal company 

engineers on matters of design and construction. During this period, he served as a company director in 1833–34 and 1836. When tales were revived in 1838 of an earlier project to connect Baltimore and the Chesapeake & Ohio via a cross-cut canal, he was called to examine three possible 

routes for such a waterway—the Westminster, the Monocacy–Lingamore, and the Seneca. In his 

report in December 1838, he confirmed the conclusions of earlier surveys that had found all three 

routes to be impractical because of an insufficient water supply of the summit levels. At the same 

time, he reported the discovery of a fourth, from Seneca to the Patapsco River via Brookeville. In 

response to a request for a further study of the Brookville route, he reported in February 1839 that 

for the 213/4 mile summit level, the probable cost of construction would be $11, 570,000, a figure 

that ended all speculation about the connection at that time.11

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Because of his engineering skills and executive acumen, Abert was made assistant to the chief 

engineer in charge of the Topographical Bureau on March 19, 1829. Some two years later on June 

22, 1831, he was instrumental in having the bureau separated from the Engineer Department and 

made a distinct branch of the War Department.12 During most of the period 1832 through 1834, 

he served as U.S. Commissioner for Indian Affairs in conducting the removal of Indian tribes to 

lands west of the Mississippi River. His principal efforts during 1833 and 1834 were directed toward attempts to locate reservations and to certify contracts for the Creeks and Wyandottes.13

 

8

 The detailed estimates were: $8,177,081.05 for the eastern section, $10,028,122.86 for the middle section, 

and $4,170,223.78 for the western section, making a total of $22,375,427.69. 

9 Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, 1827, Appendix 13, 15, 82–87, and Forest G. Hill, Roads, 

Rails and Waterways: The Army Engineers and Early Transportation (Norman, 1957), 51–54. 10 Report of Col. John J. Abert and Col. James Kearney of the United States Topographical Engineers, 

Upon an Examination of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from Washington City to the “Point of Rocks;” 

Made by Order of the Secretary of War, at the Request of the Canal Company (Washington, 1831)1–24. 11 Report from J. J. Abert ,In Reference to the Canal to Connect the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal with the 

City of Baltimore (Washington, 1838), 1–42, the Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 

400, D 119, #, 82. 

12 William H. Holcombe, “Col. John James Abert,” in Professional Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Army and Engineer Department (1915), VII, 204–205. 13 See U.S., congress, Senate, Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, S. Doc. 512, 

23d Cong., 1st sess., 1833. 
16 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

From 1834 to 1861, as Chief of the Topographical Bureau, he was largely responsible for 

initiating and directing the topographic surveys of the United States, particularly in the West. To 

him fell the task of planning, organizing, and integrating the voluminous textual and cartographic 

products of these surveys, thereby placing him in the forefront of the American geographers of 

his time. His work was largely responsible for making the Topographical Bureau perhaps the 

most valuable repository of topographic description of the United States for this period. An act of 

Congress, approved July 7, 1838, elevated the Topographical Engineers to a staff corps of the 

army, and at that time he was appointed colonel, which rank he held until he was honorably retired from active duty on September 9, 1861.14

Abert had many professional affiliations aside from his duties with the Topographical 

Engineers. He was one of the founders and directors of the National Institute of Science in Washington, an organization that was a forerunner of the Smithsonian Institution.15 An ardent supporter of scientific and historical associations, he was a member of the Geographical Society of 

Paris, the Washington National Monument Society, and the Board of Visitors to the United States 

Military Academy (1842). He befriended foreign scientists, such as Joseph Nicolas Nicollet and 

John James Audubon when they experienced difficulties in America, and occasionally enlisted 

their services in the Topographical Bureau. He died at his residence in Washington, D.C., on 

January 27, 1863, at the age of 74.16

B. CHARLES ELLET, JR. (1810–1862) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

During the summer of 1838, Charles Ellet, Jr., was hired as a volunteer assistant rodman by the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company. During the summer and fall, he aided in the surveys preparatory to the placement of the canal under contract, taking field notes, drawing maps, and making computations. Because of his initiative, Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright on November 22 

appointed him Assistant Engineer of the Fifth Residency. He remained with the canal company 

until March 1830, when he resigned to continue his formal education in Paris. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years 

Born at Penn’s Manor in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on January 1, 1810, Charles Ellet, Jr. was 

the sixth o the fourteen children of Charles Ellet, an eccentric Quaker farmer, and Mary Israel, the 

daughter of the one-time sheriff in Philadelphia. His maternal grandfather was a descendent of a 

family of Jewish diamond cutters originating in Holland, while his paternal ancestors were the 

 

14 Cullum, Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy, 101–102, 

and Dictionary of American Biography, x1, 3. 15 Reply of Col. Abert and Mr. Markoe to the Hon. Mr. Tappan, of the United States Senate (Washington, 

1843), 1–18. 

16 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, January 28, 1863; Francis H. Herrick, Audubon the Naturalist

(2 vols., New York, 1917), II, 3–4, 64, 77, 155; and Dictionary of American Biography, XI, 3. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 17

descendents of Samuel Carpenter, who had been secretary to William Penn and subsequently 

governor of Pennsylvania.17

After attending the country grammar schools along with the other children of his family, 

Ellet was able to attend a day school in Philadelphia for several months. As a youth, he gave early 

evidence of intellectual development and mathematical talent. About the age of 14, he began his 

own self-education, hiding his books in his pillow and feigning sickness to gain time to read, and 

carrying his books with him during his farm field work. His father being opposed to his becoming 

an engineer, he left home at age 17 to serve for several months as a rodman on the survey then 

being conducted by Canvass White along the North Branch of the Susquehanna River, where he 

acquired the rudiments of his profession.18

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

During the summer of 1828, Ellet traveled to Maryland to begin work as a volunteer assistant on 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, arriving in time to witness the groundbreaking ceremonies at Little Falls on July 4.19 

While the board of directors relied heavily on experienced canal engineers from the 

North or those of foreign origin in making engineering appointments for the project, the rodmen 

were the principal exception to this policy. The directors accepted inexperienced applicants such 

as Ellet who were seeking a career in engineering. Some were appointed as apprentices and received their board and room, while others such as Ellet were only taken on as volunteer assistants 

without any fixed position or salary, thus making the canal a school in practical engineering.20

Throughout the summer and fall, Ellet did almost all the office work of his party, drawing the maps, making the computations, and walking from ten to twenty miles a day surveying the 

route. In recognition of his initiative and abilities, Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright on November 

22 appointed him to the position of Assistant Engineer of the Fifth Residency at an annual salary 

of $800 on the supposition that he was “t least twenty two years of age” and had had considerable 

experience in engineering. During the period of his work on the canal, he devoted his leisure 

hours to the study of foreign languages, several of which he mastered. He remained with the canal 

company until March 1830 when he resigned to take up formal studies in Paris.21

After nearly two years on the canal, Ellet left for France in the spring of 1830 to complete his education in Paris at the Ecole Polytechnique. He witnessed the July revolution, made 

friends with Lafayette, and traveling by foot, inspected English, French, and German engineering 

works.22

 

17 Herbert Pickens Gambrell, ed. Memoirs of Mary Israel Ellet (Doylestown, 1939), 15, 19, 28, and Charles 

Perrin Smith, Lineage of the Lloyd and Carpenter Family (Camden, 1870), 16–18, 64, 69–70, 78.) 18 Charles B. Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers of America (New York, 1871), 258. 

19 Ellet’s diary, January 3, 1853, quoted in Gene D. Lewis, Charles Ellet, Jr.: The Engineer As Individualist, 1810–1862 (Urbana, 1968), 14. 20 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A. 114–115, and Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great 

National Project (Baltimore, 1946), 62–63. Unless otherwise noted, all manuscript sources referred to in 

this chapter are located in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Records in the Department of the Interior files at 

the National Archives and are designated Record Group 79. [But such official support did not last. See 

Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 63, footnote 15: “In 1830, Judge Wright flatly vetoed President 

Mercer’s plan to abolish the position of volunteer rodman by making the incumbents all inspectors of masonry, a job for which they were utterly unqualified.” Wright to Mercer, February 24, 1830. –kg] 

21 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 258–259. 22 Dictionary of American Biography, III, 87, and Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 

259 
18 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

Upon his return from France in early 1832, the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company offered him his former position at a salary of $1,000 a year with the opportunity for promotion the 

next year to superintendent of a residency.23

In October 1832, he proposed to Congress a plan for the erection of a wire suspension 

bridge across the Potomac consisting of a 1,000-foot span, but the novel recommendation was 

rejected. The following summer, he was employed as an Assistant Engineer in the location of the 

western division of the Utica and Schenectady Railroad under William C. Young. In 1834 he conducted the first survey of the western division of the New York and Erie Railroad along with 

Benjamin Wright.24

Upon the recommendation of Wright, he was appointed assistant engineer of the James 

River and Kanawha Canal in June 1835. When Wright left full-time service with the canal the 

next year, Ellet became chief engineer, a job he held for nearly three years during which time the 

project was completed from Richmond to Lynchburg. While supervising the construction of the 

waterway, he made a survey for a ship canal from Richmond to Warwick and drew up a plan for 

the connection of the James River and Kanawha Improvement with tidewater.25

During his years with the James River and Kanawha Canal Company, he also wrote numerous pamphlets and reports on topics relative to the improvement and prosperity of the State of 

Virginia, especially advocating a continuous line of improvements from the Chesapeake Bay to 

the Ohio River.26

Ellet left the James River and Kanawha Canal in 1839 and returned to Philadelphia 

where he completed his An Essay on the Laws of Trade, a 283-page work devoted to the internal 

improvement in the United States. In the publication, he forecast sources and lines of trade, the 

tonnage and cost of transportation, the sources of capital, and the causes of the failure of transportation companies.27

During the next decade, Ellet was involved in a number of public improvement and private transportation projects. In 1840, he submitted to the St. Louis City Council a plan for a suspension bridge across the Mississippi River at that city.28

The following year he was employed to survey the city of Philadelphia and its surrounding environs. In 1842, he designed and constructed, at a cost of $35,000, the first important suspension bridge in the United States over the Schuylkill River at Fairmount.29

 

23 Mercer to Ellet, February 7, 1832, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. Available evidence seems to indicate that Ellet 

rejected the offer because of the financial plight of the canal company and the competition of the Baltimore 

& Ohio Railroad. Lewis, Charles Ellet, Jr., 26. 24 Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, II, 326. 25 Charles Ellet, Jr., Report on the Survey for a Ship Canal from Richmond to Warwick (Richmond, 1836), 

1–16, and Wayland Fuller Dunaway, History of the James River and Kanawha Company (New York, 

1922), 240 

26 Among these works, the most notable were: A Popular Exposition of the Incorrectness of the Tariffs of 

Toll in Use on the Public Improvements of the United States (Philadelphia, 1839); Report in Relation to the 

Water Power on the Line of the James River and Kanawha Canal (Richmond, 1839); and Report of the 

Chief Engineer on the Survey for the Extension of the James River and Kanawha Improvement from 

Lynchburg to the Ohio River (Richmond, 1838). 27 Charles Ellet, Jr., An Essay on the Laws of Trade (Richmond, 1839), 1–283. 28 Charles Ellet, Jr., Report and plan for a Wire Suspension Bridge: Proposed to be Constructed Across the 

Mississippi River at Saint Louis (Philadelphia, 1840) 1–58. 

29 Charles Ellet, Jr., A Popular Notice of Suspension Bridges, With a Brief Description of the Wire Bridge 

Across the Schuylkill at Fairmount (Philadelphia, 1843), 1–18. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 19

During 1846–47, he served as president of the Schuylkill Navigation Company, enlarging the channel of that important carrier of anthracite coal to a width of more than seventy feet 

and personally negotiating loans both at home and abroad for its reconstruction.30

In 1847, he left the presidency of the navigation company to design and build iron cable 

suspension bridges over the Niagara River, two miles below the falls; and over the Ohio at 

Wheeling. After he had erected a temporary bridge, the Niagara project was interrupted by court 

litigation and he withdrew his contract. His Wheeling Bridge, which was the completed in 1839, 

was 1,010 feet long—then the world’s longest span. While a court suit brought a decree of 

abatement, he saved this bridge by convincing Congress to declare it a post-route, only to witness 

its destruction by a heavy storm in 1854.31

For more than twenty-five years, he urged the improvement of Western rivers. The 

Smithsonian Institution published his Contributions to the Physical Geography of the United 

States in 1850. His investigations into the causes of floods undertaken for the War Department in 

1850–51 resulted in several reports and the publication in 1853 of his best known work, The Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. His plan for improving navigation and controlling floods or the principal western rivers by impounding surplus waters in upland reservoirs was considered to be the 

crowning conception of his professional career, but vigorous efforts to secure the necessary legislation to affect it failed.32

After brief service in laying out the western portion of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 

Ellet became chief engineer for the Pennsylvania Railroad at Greensburg, in 1851. The following 

year he submitted to the Georgetown authorities a second plan and report for a suspension bridge 

across the Potomac River.33

In 1853 he was appointed chief engineer of the Virginia Central Railroad, for which in 

1854 he built across the Blue Ridge a track of unprecedented curvature and grade.34 

Later in 1858 he served as an engineer on the Kanawha River improvement in Virginia.35

Visiting Europe during the Crimean War, Ellet urged Russia to use “ram-boats” in the relief of Sebastopol (a bold innovation in naval warfare), and later offered similar plans to the allies. Returning home, he urged his ram-boat scheme to several secretaries of the navy and widely 

circulated his Coast and Harbor Defences, or The Substitution of Steam Battering Rams for Ships 

of War (1855).36

When the Merrimac demonstrated the effectiveness of a ram in 1862, he was commissioned a colonel by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and assigned to protect the Mississippi 

 

30 Before becoming president of the Schuylkill Navigation Company, Ellet had written a pamphlet on the 

favorable possibilities for trade on the waterway. For more information on this topic, see hi The Position 

and Prospects on the Schuylkill Navigation Company (Philadelphia, 1834), 1–36. 31 Charles Ellet, Jr., The Wheeling Bridge (Philadelphia, 1852), 1–6; and Charles Ellet, Jr., Remarks Touching the Wheeling Bridge Suit, Addressed to the Hon. G. W. Thompson (Philadelphia, 1852), 1–24. 32 The Cyclopedia of American biography, II; Charles Ellet, Jr., Contributions to the Physical Geography of 

the United States (Washington, 1850), 1–65; Charles Ellet, Jr., The Mississippi & Ohio and Rivers (Philadelphia, 1853), 17–367; and Charles Ellet, Jr., Report on the Overflows of the Delta of the Mississippi

(Washington, 1852), 1–96. 

33 Charles Ellet, Jr., Report on a Suspension Bridge Across the Potomac, for Rail Road and Common 

Travel: Addressed to the Mayor and City Council of Georgetown, D.C. (Philadelphia, 1852), 1–36. 34 Dictionary of American Biography, III, 87; and Charles Ellet, Jr., The Mountain Top Track (Philadelphia, 

1856), 1–23. 

35 The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans, III; and Charles Ellet, Jr., Report 

on the Improvement of the Kanawha and Incidentally of the Ohio River By Means of Artificial Lakes

(Philadelphia, 1858), 1–125. 

36 Charles Ellett, Jr., Coast and Harbour Defences, or the Substitution of Steam Battering Rams for Ships of 

War (Philadelphia, 1855), 1–17. 
20 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

gunboat squadron against a fleet of Confederate rams. Hastily remodeling nine river boats on the 

Ohio River with heavy oak and railroad iron, he, with a volunteer crew, sank four Confederate 

boats near Memphis on June 5 and received the surrender of that city. Ellet, the only Union man 

injured in the battle, died as his boat touched shore at Cairo and his brother, Lieutenant-Colonel 

Alfred Washington Ellet, took command of the small fleet on June 21. Following services at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was buried in a nearby cemetery. His wife, Elvira, daughter 

of Judge William Daniel of Lynchburg, whom he had married in 1837, survived him by eight 

days.37

C. JAMES GEDDES. (1763–1838) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

James Geddes, an experienced engineer on the Erie, Champlain, and Ohio and Erie Canals, 

played a significant role in the design of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. In 1827, he, in association with Nathan S. Roberts, reviewed the estimates of the canal line for the secretary of War. The 

subsequent report, which estimated the cost of the canal to be considerably less than that proposed earlier by the U.S. Board of Engineers, enabled the project’s supporters to extract from 

Congress a $1,000,000 stock subscription and thereby provided impetus to the commencement of 

actual construction of the waterway. Later, after the formal organization of the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal, the board of directors adopted for the line of the canal the route surveyed by the U.S. 

Board of Engineers and by Geddes and Roberts. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years 

Born of Scottish ancestry near Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on July 22, 1763, James Geddes attended 

the public schools. As a young man he studied mathematics under a tutor and he studied languages on his own. In 1794 he moved to the vicinity of Syracuse, Onondaga County, New York, 

where he became one of the pioneers in the salt industry. The township of Geddes where he settled was named for him and remained his residence until his death on August 19, 1838, at the age 

of 75. In 1799 he was married to Lucy Jerome, daughter of Timothy Jerome of Fabius, New 

York. After studying law, he was admitted to the bar. In 1800 he was made a justice of the peace, 

and in 1809 he was appointed judge of the county court and of the court of common pleas. Becoming interested in public affairs, he was elected to the Assembly in 1804, the Thirteenth Congress, serving 1813–15, and again to the Assembly in 1822.38

Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

 

37 Joel T. Headley, Farragut and our Naval Commanders (New York, 1867), 209–223; Warren D. Crandall 

and Isaac D. Newell, History of the Ram Fleet and the Mississippi Marine Brigade... (St. Louis, 1907), 1–

28; and Washington Evening Star, June 23, 1862. 38 Biographical Dictionary of the American Congress, 1774–1971 (Washington, 1971), 993; Dictionary of 

American Biography, VII, 204–205; and Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 45. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 21

During his first term at Albany, Simon DeWitt, surveyor-general of New York, introduced Geddes to the possibility of constructing a canal from the Great Lakes to the Hudson River. Since the 

suggestion touched his imagination, he visited various sections of the state to secure information 

and launched a campaign, with the aid of DeWitt Clinton, to promote interest in the undertaking. 

When the state legislature appropriated $500 for a preliminary survey of the canal, the surveyorgeneral assigned the task to Geddes, although he was entirely without technical training, having 

used a level only on one previous occasion. The surveys he made in search of the most practicable route included: Oneida Lake to Lake Ontario where Salmon Creek enters it, down to Oswego 

River to Lake Ontario, the line from Lewiston to the navigable waters of the Niagara River above 

the falls, and from Buffalo east to the Seneca River. His report to the legislature, January 20, 

1809, established the fact that a canal could be constructed without major difficulty along a route 

essentially the same as that later adopted for the Erie Canal. 

When work on the Erie began in 1816, Geddes was engaged by the New York Canal 

commissioners as an engineer in charge of the section from the Seneca River to within eleven 

miles of the mouth of Tonawanda Creek. He remained on this section until 1818 when he was 

directed to superintend the location of the middle division between Rome and Utica. During this 

period, he made a remarkable test level between Rome and the eastern end of Oneida Lake, embracing nearly 100 miles of leveling. The difference at the junction in the levels was less than 1 1⁄2 

inches. In the summer of 1818, he was appointed by the Canal Commissioners as chief engineer 

of the Champlain Canal, commencing the final location of the work in September and continuing 

in charge of its construction until 1822.39

As a result of his work on the New York canals, Geddes was called by other states as 

well as by the federal government for assistance in promoting new waterways throughout the 

East. When the State of Ohio asked DeWitt Clinton in 1822 for the services of a good engineer, 

he recommended Geddes. Named chief engineer of the Ohio and Erie Canal that same year, he 

surveyed some 800 miles in less than eight months in the search for the most practicable route 

between the Ohio River and Lake Erie.40

The following year he went to Main to survey the route for the Cumberland and Oxford 

Canal, connecting tidewater with Sebago Pond.41

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

At the request of the Secretary of War, Geddes, along with Nathan S. Roberts, made a survey of 

the proposed line of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from Georgetown to Cumberland in 1827. As 

the survey and cost estimate for the waterway by the U.S. Board of Engineers two years before 

had received widespread criticism from the canal’s supporters, Geddes and Roberts were to review and revise the conflicting claims of the opposing sides. The two civil engineers completed 

their surveys in 1827 and reported in the same year that the canal could be constructed as far as 

Cumberland for approximately $4,500,000. This estimate was considerably less than the 

$8,200,000 proposed by the Board of Engineers for the same distance, and thus it enabled the ca-

 

39 Merwin S. Hawley, “The Erie Canal: Its Origin Considered,” Buffalo Historical Society Publications II 

(1880), 335–349; Henry Wayland Hill, “An Historical Review of Waterways and Canal Construction in 

New York State,” Ibid, XII (1908), 95–103; and Joshua V.H. Clark, Onondaga (2 vols., Syracuse, 1849), II, 

25ff. 

40 Canal Report, Made by James Geddes, Esq., The Engineer Employed by the State of Ohio (Columbus, 

1823), 1–14. 

41 The National Cyclopedia of American Biography, X, 264. 
22 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

nal project’s supporters to extract from Congress a pledge to subscribe to $1,000,000 of stock in 

the company, thereby hastening the actual commencement of construction.42

After the canal company was formally organized, June 20–23, 1828, one of the first decisions of the board of directors was to adopt for the line of the canal the route surveyed by the 

United States Engineers and by Geddes and Roberts along the north branch of the Potomac 

River.43

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Following the survey for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Geddes was employed in 1828 by the 

State of Pennsylvania on its canal system. That same year he declined an appointment by the 

United States Government to investigate the feasibility of a route between the Tennessee and 

Alabama Rivers in the States of Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia because of the distance from 

his home and ill health. In 1829 he terminated his professional career by reporting on the recently-completed Cumberland and Oxford Canal in Maine. 

His death occurred on August 19, 1838, at the age of 75, and he was buried in Oakwood 

Cemetery in Syracuse, New York. Although urged to do so by his colleagues, he left no collection of papers, saying, “I attach no importance to what I have done, having simply performed my 

duty; therefore I ask no higher place in the public estimation than should be spontaneously given 

to me.”44

D. WILLIAM RICH HUTTON. (1826–1901) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

William R. Hutton played a significant role in the restoration and improvement of the Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal as chief engineer in 1869–71 and consulting engineer in 1871–80. During the early 

1870s when the canal enjoyed five years of unprecedented financial profits, he submitted two reports to the canal board that served as a basis for a program to recondition the waterway. As a 

result of his efforts, the canal regained its full prism by 1874 and the strength of its banks had 

been increased to withstand damage from periodic flooding. Among other improvements made on 

the canal at his urging were the dredging of Rock Creek Basin, an experiment in macadamizing 

the towpath, and the restoration of the masonry structures. One of his most noteworthy achievements was the promotion and the design of the Georgetown incline as a means of alleviating the 

congestion on the Georgetown level. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

 

42 James Geddes and Nathan S. Roberts, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: Letter from the Secretary of War, 

Transmitting Estimates of the Cost of Making a Canal from Cumberland to Georgetown, March 10, 1828

(Washington, 1828), 1–100. 

43 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 8. 

44 Quoted in Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 45; Biographical Dictionary of the 

American Congress, 993; and Desmond Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering work in the United States,” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, XLI (1899), 611. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 23

Early Years 

Born in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 1826, William Rich Hutton was the son of James45

Hutton, a Navy department clerk, and Salome Rich. He was a descendent of John Hutton who had 

emigrated from Scotland to New York in the late seventeenth century. As a youth, he attended a 

private school in the District of Columbia taught by Mr. Abbott. Later, he studied mathematics, 

surveying, and drawing at the Benjamin Hollowell School in Alexandria, Virginia. In 1847, he 

was appointed as paymaster clerk in California and remained in that position until he returned to 

the Ease in 1853.46

Engineering Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Soon after his arrival in Washington, Hutton began his professional career in civil engineering by 

assisting General Montgomery C. Meigs in the construction of the Washington Aqueduct, carrying a large part of the water supply from the Great Falls of the Potomac to the city of Washington. 

This work involved not only the devising of methods to control the flow and distribution of the 

water, but also the design of the monumental bridge across Cabin John Branch which for some 

fifty years remained unsurpassed as the longest masonry arch in the world.47

In 1862–63, he served as chief engineer of the Annapolis Water works.48

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Hutton was associated with the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal during the most stable and prosperous 

periods of its history, serving as chief engineer in 1869–71 and consulting engineer in 1871–80. 

Familiar with the canal from his youth and from his work on the Washington Aqueduct, he 

played a significant role in the program of restoration and improvement of the waterway, particularly during the early 1870s when the canal enjoyed five years of unprecedented financial profits.49

Despite the repairs that had been made to the canal since the Civil War, there was still 

much to be done. Following an extensive survey of the canal, Hutton in 1871 recommended to the 

board of directors a thorough overhauling of the waterway, including repairs to locks, aqueducts, 

and the canal prism itself, at an estimated cost of $78,000.50

Following another Hutton report in August 1872 on the pressing need for renovation of 

the canal, a reconditioning program was begun that carried to completion the restoration of the 

 

45 Father’s name is John according to biographical information on the Baltimore Architects Foundation web 

site: www.baltimorearchitecture.org/bios/hutton_wr.html. According to that site during the period 1873–

1880 William Hutton apparently entered into a partnership with his brother, Major N. H. Hutton, (1834–

1907), a leading Baltimore architect. —kg 

46 American Society of Civil Engineers, Committee on History and Heritage of American Civil Engineering, ed., A Biographical Dictionary of American Civil Engineers (New York, 1972), 64–65. 47 Dictionary of American Biography, VI, 507. 48 American Society of Civil Engineers, Biographical Dictionary of American Civil Engineers, 64–65. 

49 The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans, V. 50 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L. 439, and Report of the Year 1870 (Annapolis, 

1871) 9. 
24 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

canal to its original operating condition.51 As a result of his efforts, the canal had regained its full 

prism by 1874, and the strength of its banks had so increased that a freshet which completely 

submerged the canal on the levels below Dams No. 4 and 5 in April of that year did not do appreciable damage.52

Among the other improvements made on the canal at Hutton’s urging were the partial 

macadamization of the towpath on the Monocacy Division, the dredging of the Rock Creek Basin, the tightening of the lock chambers, the installation of new lock gates, and the rebuilding of 

the parapets and trunks of the Seneca and Tonoloway Aqueducts.53

In addition to the work of repair and improvement, provision was made to collect materials at periodic locations along the canal in anticipation of future trouble, thereby helping to expedite the actual work of repair and to reduce the interruptions to navigation.54

Perhaps the most noteworthy project with which he was associated was the promotion of 

the design of the Georgetown Incline as a means of alleviating the congestion on the Georgetown 

level by providing canal barges with direct access to the Potomac above the Alexandria Aqueduct.55

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

When he terminated his duties with the canal as chief engineer in 1871, Hutton took employment 

as chief engineer of the Western Maryland Railway, serving in this capacity from 1871–74. It was 

during this period that the Chesapeake & Ohio, in an effort to promote the expansion of its coal 

trade, sought to facilitate the construction of this railroad from Baltimore to Big Pool on the Potomac, expecting to carry most of the railroad’s coal business between Big Pool terminus and 

Cumberland.56

From 1874 to 1878, he designed the first two locks and movable dams for the Kanawha 

River navigation in Virginia, receiving a diplome d’Honneur at the Paris Exposition in 1878 for 

his lock design.57

Hutton moved to New York City in 1880, and after a brief respite, he became a construction engineer on the New Croton Aqueduct in 1886. During 1886–87, he held a similar position 

with the Colorado Midland Railroad. From 1886–1889, he was chief engineer of the Washington 

Bridge over the Harlem River, and in 1889–91 he was chief engineer for the English syndicate 

that built the Hudson River Tunnel. In 1892, he was a member of a commission under the U.S. 

Board of Engineers concerned with obstructions in the Columbia River. His last major work was 

the drafting of plans for the Secretary of War for the proposed memorial bridge over the Potomac 

 

51 Report of W.R. Hutton, Chief Engineer, As To Condition of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, With Estimate of 

Cost of Extraordinary Repairs Required During the Current Year, August 14, 1872 (Annapolis, 1872), 4–

30. 

52 46th Annual Report (1874), C&O Canal, 11–12, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 154–155. 53 Report of W.R. Hutton, 1872, 4–30, and Forty-Second Annual Report (1870), C&O Co. 3–4. 54 Report of W.R. Hutton, 1879, 4–30, and Hutton to Clarke, August 3, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 55 Virtually the entire section of the William R. Hutton collection concerned with the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal is composed of correspondence, plans, and drawings for the Georgetown Incline. The collection is 

located in the Division of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, the National Museum of American History 

[named the National Museum of History and Technology until 1980], the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

56 45th Annual Report (1873), C&O Co., 16–17. 57 American Society of Civil Engineers, Biographical Dictionary of American Civil Engineers, 64–65 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 25

River between Washington and Arlington for which he received the second award of the four 

plans submitted. 

After a six-week illness, he died on December 11, 1901 at Woodlands in Montgomery 

County, Maryland, and was buried in the cemetery of the nearby St. Rose Catholic Church. His 

wife, Mary Ann, the daughter of Francis Clopper of Montgomery County, four daughters, and 

one son, survived him.58

During his long career, he had many prestigious professional associations. In 1873, he 

became a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers; in 1880, of the Societe des Ingenieurs Civils de France; and in 1890, of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Great Britain. In 

1891, he published his only book The Washington Bridge over the Harlem River, which traced 

the development of the design and construction of this famous structure.59

E. CHARLES FENTON MERCER. (1778–1858) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

Charles Fenton Mercer was active in the movement that resulted in the building of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and was for five years, 1828 to 1833, president of the company. An early 

advocate of internal improvements in his native Virginia, Mercer was elected to Congress in 1817 

and later became chairman of the House Committee on Roads and Canals. As the chairman of the 

central committee of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention that met in Washington in November 1823, he played a prominent role in organizing public opinion behind the proposed connection between the Potomac and the Ohio Rivers and the creation of organizations to give effect 

to this rising interest. 

When the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal company was formally organized at a meeting of 

the stockholders in Washington, June 20–23, 1828, Mercer was chosen the first president of the 

company. Though having no technical engineering training or experience, Mercer and the board 

of directors reserved to themselves the final decision on every question of design and construction 

no matter how specialized. Mercer frequently participated actively in the discussion of engineering technicalities, thus making himself of the most influential designers of the canal project in its 

early years. Throughout his tenure as president of the canal company, Mercer was a persistent 

advocate for “perfection” in construction, urging greater care and expenditure in construction in 

order to reduce subsequent repair and maintenance costs. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years 

Born at Fredericksburg, Virginia, on June 16, 1778, Charles Fenton Mercer was the youngest son 

of Eleanor Dick, daughter of Mayor Charles Dick of Fredericksburg, and James Mercer, a prominent lawyer who had risen to the position of judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals. Charles Fenton was a grandson of John Mercer of Marlborough, a wealthy Virginia lawyer who had immi-

 

58 Washington Evening Star, December 13, 1901. 

59 Appleton’s Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1901, VI, 438. 
26 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

grated to Stafford County from Dublin, Ireland, in 1720 at the age of 17. Prominent in colonial 

affairs, John Mercer had written and published the first abridgement of the laws of Virginia.60

Left an orphan at the age of 15, Charles Fenton entered the College of New Jersey (later 

changed to Princeton University) in 1795 and graduated in 1797 at the head of his class. In college he began his lifelong friendship with John Henry Hobart, a prominent bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and became a devout Episcopalian. From 1797 until 1802 he read law at 

Princeton and at Richmond. When war with France threatened in 1798, he sought commissions in 

the United States Army, appealing to family friend George Washington for assistance in obtaining them. However when the commissions were received—one as first lieutenant of the cavalry 

and the other as captain—he declined them since the threat had ceased.61

In 1802 he was licensed to practice law and soon afterward he went to England on business and also visited France. On his return to America, he settled on a large estate in the Bull Run 

Mountains at Aldie in Loudoun County, Virginia, and began the practice of his profession. He 

was never married.62

Mercer became a member of the Virginia House of Delegates in 1810 and served until he 

resigned in 1817 to enter Congress. While a member of the state legislature, he took a leading 

part in efforts to increase the banking capital of Virginia, to found a new bank, to promote the 

colonization in Africa of free Negroes from the United States, and to build roads and canals. He 

offered a bill to provide for a complete system of public education, from common-school to state 

university, which was defeated in the Senate in the spring of 1817 after having passed the 

House.63

He was also the author of the act by which a sword and pension were given to George 

Rogers Clark, the frontiersman and military leader who had won important victories against the 

British in the Old Northwest Territory during the American Revolution. During the War of 1812, 

Mercer was aide-de-camp to the governor and in command of the Second Virginia Brigade at 

Norfolk with the rank of brigadier-general.64

His interest in internal improvements began in 1812 when he acted with Chief Justice 

John Marshall and others as a commissioner appointed by the legislature to examine the Greenbrier and New Rivers, both sources of the Kanawha, and the headwaters of the James for the purpose of improving them for navigation and uniting them either by a railroad or by a continuous 

canal. 

That same year he submitted a series of resolutions to the legislature for the establishment of a general fund for the internal improvement of the rivers and roads of the State. At the 

close of the war, he revised the resolutions he had earlier submitted to create a Fund for Internal 

 

60 James Mercer Garnett, Biographical Sketch of Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer: 1778–1858 (Richmond, 

1911), 3–5. 

61 This has largely been rewritten based on Robert Allen Carter, Virginia Federalist in Dissent: A Life of 

Charles Fenton Mercer, doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1988, copy by UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI, 89–90. —kg 

62 Dictionary of American Biography, VI, 539. The Charles Fenton Mercer home at Aldie is still used as a 

private residence. It is located on U.S. 50, marked by a state sign noting Mercer’s accomplishments. 63 Throughout his political career, Mercer continued to press for a public education program. One of the 

most prominent speeches that he gave in behalf of his active interest in public education was A Discourse 

on Popular Education; Delivered in the Church at Princeton, the Evening before the Annual Commencement of the College of New Jersey, September 26, 1826 (Princeton, 1826). 64 The Cyclopedia of American Biography, IV. See also his Congressional bio at bio.congress.gov, which 

says: “During the War of 1812 [he] was appointed lieutenant colonel of a Virginia regiment and then major 

in command at Norfolk, Va.; inspector general in 1814; aide-de-camp to Governor Barbour and brigadier 

general in command of the Second Virginia Brigade.” 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 27

Improvement to consist of all the stocks of the State derived from banking operations and all future acquisitions from the same source. To administer the fund he recommended the establishment of a Board of Public Works that would be empowered to hire a civil engineer and to propose 

to the legislature measures of improvement that were deemed expedient to the State. When the 

Board of Public Works was approved in 1816, Mercer became a member along with former 

president Thomas Jefferson and later James Madison.65

Mercer’s enthusiasm for internal improvements, the suppression of the slave trade, and 

the colonization of free Negroes gave direction to his efforts when he became a member of the 

federal House of Representatives in 1817. He was chairman of the committees on roads and canal 

and on the District of Columbia.66 Though a member of the Federalist Party until its dissolution, 

and then a Whig, he was never an ardent party man. He enjoyed the friendship of Presidents 

James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, but disliked the policies and personalities of Presidents 

Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. One of his most famous addresses in Congress was delivered on January 26, 1819, in which he assailed Jackson’s course in the Seminole War.67

He was a strong Unionist but was alarmed at the rapidly growing power of the executive 

branch of government under Jackson and was opposed to the President’s control over federal patronage. He was a leader in the Virginia constitutional convention of 1829–30, in which he advocated manhood suffrage, equal representation, and the popular election of important officers. One 

of the originators of the plan for establishing the Free State of Liberia for American blacks, he 

became vice president of the Virginia Colonization Society in 1836.68

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

As one of the leading advocates of internal improvements in Congress, Mercer became active in 

the movement that resulted in the construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. His second 

speech in the House favoring the constitutionality of the power of the federal government to appropriate funds for internal improvements received wide attention and was later published as a 

pamphlet. When interest in opening the Potomac Valley as a route for western trade began to increase in the early 1820s, he became a leading voice in calling for the first Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal Convention to meet in Washington on November 5, 1823. Acting on behalf of a meeting he 

had convened earlier at Leesburg, Virginia, he invited delegates from Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

Virginia, and the three district cities to this convention to consider the expediency and practicality 

of improving the navigation of the Potomac and connecting it with the Ohio River at Pittsburgh. 

As chairman of the central committee, he exercised the guiding hand throughout the proceedings 

of the convention.69

 

65 Garnett, Biographical Sketch of C. F. Mercer, 7, 13–14. 66 He was initially a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia and later a member of and then, 

from 1831–39 (the 22nd through 25th Congresses), he was chair of the Committee on Roads and Canals.—

kg 

67 Annals of Congress, 15 Cong., 2 Sess., 1818, Cols. 797–831. Also see, Charles Fenton Mercer, Speech of 

the Hon. Mr. Mercer, in the House of Representatives, on the Seminole War (Washington, 1829), 1–33. 68 Biographical Dictionary of the American Congress, 1399; Dictionary of American Biography, VI, 539; 

and Matthew Carey, Letters on the Colonization Society...addressed to the Hon. C. F. Mercer (7th ed., 

Philadelphia, 1833) 5–32. 

69 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 414 to 

Accompany H.R. 94, 23d Cong., 1st sess., 1834, 4; U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, H. Rept. 47, 20th Cong., 1st sess., 1828, 7–10, 16–23; 

Proceedings of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention...1823...1826 (Washington, 1827), 1–4; and 
28 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

The primary functions of the convention were the organization of public opinion behind 

the proposed connection between the Potomac and the Ohio and the creation of organizations to 

give effect to this arouse interest. The physical achievements of the convention were simply the 

adoption of Mercer’s resolutions urging the connection with the West which read as follows: 

Whereas, a connection of the Atlantic and Western waters by a canal, leading from the 

seat of the National Government to the river Ohio, regarded as a local object, is one of 

the highest importance to the states immediately interested therein, and considered in a 

national view, is of unestimable [sic] consequences to the future union, security, and 

happiness of the United States. 

 Resolved, that it is expedient to substitute for the present defective navigation of 

the Potomac River, above tide-water, a navigable canal from Cumberland to the Coal 

Banks at the eastern base of the Alleghany, and to extend such canal as soon thereafter as 

practicable to the highest constant steamboat navigation of the Monongahela or Ohio 

River.70

At a second meeting of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention on December 6, 1826, Mercer 

reported the progress which the central committee, of which he was virtually the only acting 

member, had made during the preceding three years. He had procured the cooperation of the three 

district cities and the Potomac Company in the enlarged venture. Moreover, sixteen acts of legislation had been passed by the three states most directly involved, in a measure approved by President Monroe on March 3, 1825. 

Although the U.S. Board of Engineers had hurt the prospect for a congressional subscription to stock in the proposed canal by estimating the cost at $22,000,000, Mercer urged the delegates to support him in a two-fold course: to discredit the estimate of the Board of Engineers and 

to cause a new survey to be made to ascertain the true cost of the work. Through the efforts of 

Mercer and his supporters, the report of the government engineers was exhaustively examined 

and criticized by making comparisons with the actual cost of work don on the New York and 

Pennsylvania canals. 

Later, Mercer played a leading role in the effort to have President John Quincy Adam 

submit the conflicting estimates made by the convention and the Board of Engineers to a review 

and revision by experienced civil engineers. Adams agreed and appointed James Geddes and Nathan S. Roberts, both former engineers on the Erie Canal. They completed their surveys in 1827 

and reported that the canal could be constructed as far as Cumberland for approximately 

$4,500,000.71

Fortified with this estimate and reassured by the inaccuracy of the U.S. engineer’s report, 

the canal supporters led by Mercer opened subscription books on October 1, 1827. In May 1828, 

after a brief struggle, Mercer and his fellow protagonists in Congress secured the passage of an 

act subscribing $1,000,000 of the public funds to the stock of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company. The financial support of Congress triggered numerous celebrations throughout the Po-

 Abner Lacock, Great National Project: Proposed Connection of the Eastern and Western Waters, By a 

Communication through the Potomac Country (Washington, 1822), 1–38. 70 Proceedings of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention, 1823 and 1826, 4, and George Washington 

Ward, The Early Development of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Project (Baltimore, 1899), 50. 71 Report on the Committee on Roads and Canals, 1827, Appendix 13, 15, 82–87, and Documents Relating 

to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 1840, 13. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 29

tomac Valley, one of the most noteworthy being a banquet given at Leesburg in honor of Mercer 

by the citizen of Loudoun County.72

The formal organization of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company took place at a 

meeting of the stockholders in Washington, June 20–23, 1828. With the tacit approval of President Adams, Secretary of the Treasury Richard Rush, the proxy for the United States, placed 

Mercer’s name in nomination for president of the company and Mercer was duly elected, although a small minority of stockholders favored former Secretary of the Treasury Albert 

Gallatin.73

During the early years of canal construction, Mercer and the canal board of directors reserved to themselves the final decision on every question of design and construction despite their 

selection of tested engineers and their own inexperience in canal technology. One of the best examples of this meddling in the affairs of the engineers occurred in November 1828 when a detailed set of “Rules and Regulations for the Engineering Department” was issued, virtually forcing the Engineers to sublimate their own expertise to the wishes of the board.74

In addition, President Mercer frequently participated actively in the discussion of engineering technicalities, notably in the proper dimensions of the canal prism through Georgetown 

and through the narrow passes near Point of Rocks and in the proper procedures to be followed in 

excavating the channel through rocky terrain.75 Under such conditions, differences of opinion 

which arose between members of the engineering department were frequently carried over the 

head of Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright by appeals from ambitious underlings. 

The five-year tenure of Mercer as president of the canal company was clouded by his political battles with the Jacksonian Democrats in Congress. Desperate for increased funding and 

denied extensions of large-scale aid by Maryland, Virginia, and the district cities, the canal company turned to congress as the last available source of aid. The prospects of assistance from the 

federal government, however, were slight after the victory of Andrew Jackson in 1828. The record of the administration clearly indicated its hostility toward national support for internal improvements in general and for the Chesapeake & Ohio in particular. By 1832, the administration 

was actively interfering in company affairs, and eventually Congress refused to accede to any of 

Mercer’s petitions for further aid. 

As president of the canal company, Mercer was a persistent advocate of “perfection” in 

construction. He urged greater care and expenditure in construction regardless of financial considerations in order to reduce subsequent repair and maintenance costs. This attitude was exemplified by his rejection of composite locks, slackwater navigation, and reduction of the crosssection of the canal prism in difficult terrain as temporary expedients that were not fitting for a 

work of national importance. Regardless of its economic and technical soundness, the policy of 

insisting on perfection regardless of the cost—which was generally supported by the directorate—proved to be a politically disastrous course for the company in the 1830s and 1840s, and left 

the future success of the canal clouded by a staggering capitalization.76

 

72 Washington National Intelligencer, May 27, 1828; Charles Francis Adams, ed., Memoirs of John Quincy 

Adams (12 vols., Philadelphia, 1874–1877), VIII, 6; and Wilhelmus B. Bryan, A History of the National 

Capital (2 vols., New York, 1916), II, 111. 73 Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 1–6; and Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 8, 23–24, 26–27, 33–

34, 36–37. 

74 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 107, 109–110. Benjamin Wright, the wellknown canal engineer who had been actively associated with the building of the Erie, had been hired as 

chief engineer upon the recommendation of Mercer. 

75 Mercer to Wright, February 2, 1830, and Wright to Mercer, February 2 and 3, 1830, Ltrs. Recd. C&O 

Co. 

76 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 122–123. 
30 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

In an effort to win the favor of the national administration, the canal company consented 

in 1833 to the replacement of Mercer by ex-Secretary of War John Eaton, a friend of Andrew 

Jackson, and a principal in the Peggy Eaton affair. At the annual stockholders’ meeting in June of 

that year, the vote was 5,054 to 3,430 in favor of Eaton. However, 1,798 votes of Maryland and 

Georgetown were lost because of a division among the proxies. If cast for Mercer, as had been 

expected, they would have been sufficient to reelect him. As a final tribute to Mercer for his efforts on behalf of the canal, the stockholders later voted him a gift of $5,000.77

Discouraged by the obstacles to his efforts for the further development of internal improvements and for the gradual abolition of slavery and colonization of blacks, Mercer resigned 

from Congress on December 16, 1839.78

After spending several years working as a bank cashier in Tallahassee Florida, he became vice president of the National Society of Agriculture in 1842. He was an original grantee, 

partner, and agent of the Texas Association, a company which obtained a contract to settle colonists in Texas to receive pay from the Public in land. When the convention in 1845 declared colonization contracts unconstitutional, he and his associates brought suit to force payment, but the 

case was decided against them in the United States courts. In 1845 he published a vindictive 

pamphlet entitled “An Exposition of the Weakness and Inefficiency of the Government of the 

United States in North America.79

In 1847 Mercer built a house near Carrollton, Kentucky, which he made his home until 

1853. Disposing of his property there in that year, he traveled for three years through Europe, 

working in the interest of the abolition of the slave trade. Ill with cancer of the lip, he returned to 

Fairfax County, Virginia, where he was nursed by relatives until his death on May 4, 1858. Initially buried in Leesburg’s Episcopal Cemetery, his remains were later moved to Union Cemetery.80

F. NATHAN S. ROBERTS (1776–1852) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

Nathan S. Roberts, an experienced engineer on the Erie, Chesapeake and Delaware, Pennsylvania 

Main Line, and Chenango Canals, played a significant role in the design and construction of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from 1827 to 1830. In 1827 he, in association with James Geddes, reviewed the estimates of the canal line for the Secretary of War. The subsequent report, which estimated the cost of the canal to be considerably less than that proposed by the U.S. Board of Engineers, enabled the project’s supporters to elicit a $1,000,000 stock subscription from Congress 

and thereby provided impetus to the commencement of actual construction of the waterway. In 

December 1828 he became a member of the board of engineers, and, during the winter and 

spring, he, along with Benjamin Wright, completed the revision and location of the projected 

western section of the canal to Pittsburgh. In 1828 and 1829 he readied for construction the 12-

 

77 “Proceedings of the Stockholders,” A, 313; Niles’ Register, XLIV (June 22, 1833), 270–271; and Garnett, Biographical Sketch of C. F. Mercer, 19–20. 78 Charles Fenton Mercer, The Farewell Address of the Hon. C. F. Mercer to his Constituents (Washington, 

1839), 1–16. 

79 In 1863 this booklet was reprinted in London under the title The Weakness and Inefficiency of the Government of the United States of North America; By a Late American Statesman. 

80 Biographical Dictionary of the American Congress, 1899, and Dictionary of American Biography, VI, 

539. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 31

mile stretch of the canal between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. During the autumn and winter of 1830–31, he served in Washington as superintendent of the first division of the canal. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years 

Born on July 28, 1776, Nathan S. Roberts was the son of Abraham Roberts, a native of New 

Hampshire whose Puritan forefathers had emigrated from England to Plymouth Colony in 1640 

and settled in Auburn, Massachusetts. His grandfather, John Roberts, was slain in 1764 while 

serving as a soldier under Sir William Pepperell during the French and Indian War. As a young 

man, his father had gone to the West Indies and had acquired great wealth. Returning to America 

during the outbreak of the Revolution, he was captured by British cruisers, lost his fortune, and 

was forced to serve in the Royal Navy in several engagements against American vessels. Later he 

escaped and established his residence at Piles Grove, New Jersey, where Nathan was born.81

During his youth, Roberts aided in the support of his parents and younger brothers. After 

coming of age, he purchased 100 acres of new land in Vermont, where he began the cutting of 

timber, but he returned to Plainfield, New Jersey, and taught school in the winter. In 1803 he visited New York to examine some wild land that he had purchased in Oneida County. The following year he settled there and taught school at Oriskany until 1806, when he was appointed principal of the academy at Whitesboro. Here, on November 4, 1816, he married Lavinia, daughter of 

Ansel White and grand-daughter of Judge Hugh White, a pioneer settler of the region. That same 

year, he bought a farm in Lenox, Madison County, which was his home during the remainder of 

his life.82

Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

At the invitation of Benjamin Wright, Roberts began his career as a civil engineer on the Erie Canal in July 1816. His first job was to make a survey of the route of the middle section of the canal 

to Montezuma. He spent the winter of 1816–17 at Rome, preparing maps and profiles of the recently explored line. When the middle section was located and staked out the following spring, he 

was employed on it as an assistant engineer. In 1818 he was employed through the winter as a 

resident engineer in charge of the work from Rome to Syracuse, and in the spring was placed in 

charge of a party to locate the canal from Syracuse westward. Commencing on April 12, this location was completed to the Seneca River in July, and the work was contracted that summer. 

In 1819 he located the canal from the Seneca River to the village of Clyde, and during 

the winter of 1819–20, he drafted plans for the locks between Clyde and Rochester. The following spring he located the canal down the Clyde River Valley and through the Cayuga marshes on 

the line he had explored the previous fall. He continued in charge of this work until near its completion in 1822, when he was directed by the Canal Commissioners to supervise the construction 

of the locks at Lockport and the building of the western section of the canal between Lockport 

and Lake Erie. 

Roberts remained on the western section of the canal until its completion in 1825. He 

drafted the plan which was unanimously adopted for five pairs of locks at Lockport to overcome 

the barrier formed by a 60-foot rocky ridge—a more elaborate scheme of locks than had ever 

 

81 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Leaders, 109–110. 82 Dictionary of American Biography, XVI, 12. 
32 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

been constructed in America. Construction of the locks began in July 1823, and they were opened 

to navigation in October 1825. Throughout his life, he took pleasure in alluding to the locks as the 

greatest accomplishment of his professional career.83

Upon completion of the Erie, Roberts became a consulting engineer for the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal in 1826. In January, 1826, he was employed by the State of New York to 

survey and to report on a route for a ship canal around Niagara Falls. Then followed service as 

chief engineer of the western section of the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal extending between 

Pittsburgh and Kiskiminetas. During a visit home he made an investigation and report for the 

New York State Canal Board on the practicality of supplying the summit level of the projected 

Chenango Canal with water. 

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

At the request of the Secretary of War, Roberts and James Geddes conducted a survey of the proposed line of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in 1827. As the survey and estimated cost of the canal made by the U.S. board of Engineers in 1825 had aroused fierce opposition by supporters of 

the project, these two civil engineers were to review and revise the conflicting claims of the two 

parties in the dispute. They completed their surveys in 1827 and reported in the same year that the 

canal could be constructed as far as Cumberland for approximately $4,500,000. This estimate was 

considerably less than that proposed by the Board of Engineers, and it enable the canal project’s 

supporters to elicit a $1,000,000 stock subscription from Congress, thereby hastening the formal 

organization of the company and the actual commencement of construction.84

After the canal company was formally organized in June 1828, the board of directors 

adopted the route surveyed by the U.S. Board of Engineers and Roberts and Geddes along the 

north bank of the Potomac River for the line of the canal. Upon Wright’s invitation in December 

1828, Roberts became a member of the board of engineers to provide overall direction to the construction. During the winter and spring of 1828–29, he, along with Wright, completed the revision 

and location of the projected western section of the canal to Pittsburgh.85 

In 1828–29, he surveyed the twelve-mile stretch through the narrow passes between 

Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry, the area which was the focal point of the disputed right-of-way 

between the canal the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.86

During the autumn and winter of 1830–31 as canal officials were readying the line between Little Falls and Seneca Falls for operation, he served in Washington as superintendent of 

the first division of the canal.87

 

83 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 111–114; Dictionary of American Biography, 

XVI, 12; Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering Work,” 610, John A. Krout, “New York’s Early Engineers,” New 

York History, XXVI (1945), 272; and Noble Earl Whitford History of the Canal System of the State of New 

York Together with Brief Histories of the Canals of the United States and Canada (2 vols., Albany, 1906), 

I, 797–798. 

84 Geddes and Roberts, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: Letter from the Secretary of War, Transmitting Estimates of the Cost of Making a Canal from Cumberland to Georgetown, 1–100. 85 Nathan S. Roberts and Benjamin Wright, “Report and Letters from the Engineers Employed in the Revised Location of the Western Section of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: With Estimates of the Cost of the 

Same,” in First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co. 86 A complete Set of Maps, Drawings, and Tabular Statements; Relating to the Location of the Canal and 

Railroad, from the Point of Rocks to Harper’s Ferry...Done Under and Order of the Chancellor of Maryland...Nathan S. Roberts, Commissioner, on the Part of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (Georgetown, 1830), 1–56. 

87 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 1771–174. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 33

As the legal obstructions resulting form the dispute with the B&O Railroad were continuing to hamper construction, he requested a leave of absence from his employment with the canal 

company.88

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

After several more months rest at home, Roberts was appointed by the federal government to take 

charge of surveys for a ship canal around Muscle Shoals in the Tennessee River, Alabama. He 

held this position as chief engineer for two years. During this employment he was asked to take 

charge of the canal connecting the Mississippi River with Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans, but 

he refused because of poor health and returned home to New York.89

In the spring of 1835, he was employed by the New York State Canal Board, along with 

John B. Jervis and Holmes Hutchinson, to make a series of examinations and surveys preparatory 

to enlarging the Erie. Four years later, he was named chief engineer of the western section and 

began the enlargement of the canal between Rochester and Buffalo, rebuilding one tier of the 

locks at Lockport and extending the dimensions of the canal prism. In 1841, while still engaged in 

the completion of his last great work, the Rochester Aqueduct, he was removed from office for 

political reasons by the new Whig administration which had risen to power in New York the previous year. He now retired to his farm in Madison County, where he died on November 24, 

1852.90

G. BENJAMIN WRIGHT (1770–1842) 

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

Benjamin Wright, sometimes called the “Father of American Civil Engineering,” served as chief 

engineer on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from June 1828 to November 1830. In this position, he 

played a leading role in the design and construction of the waterway during its first years of existence. At Wright’s urging, the board of directors relied heavily upon the available supply of men 

experienced on Northern or foreign canals to oversee the construction. During the 1828–29, he, 

along with Nathan S. Roberts, collaborated in an extensive survey of the projected western extension of the canal to the Ohio River. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years 

Born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, on October 10, 1770, Benjamin Wright was the son of Ebenezer and Grace (Butler) Wright and a descendent of Thomas Wright, an early settler of Wethersfield. His father was a farmer of limited means and could only send his children to common 

 

88 Ibid, B, 295. 

89 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 116, and Dictionary of American Biography, 

XVI, 13. 

90 Alvin Fay Harlow, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era (New York, 1926), 301–302; 

Krout, “New York’s Early Engineers,” 273–274; and Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering Work,” 610. 
34 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

schools during the winter months. Throughout his youth, he took a deep interest in mathematics 

and surveying. At the age of 16, he went to reside with an uncle at Plymouth in Litchfield 

County, where he had access to the best books and instruments which could then be obtained by 

country surveyors. With his growing knowledge of surveying, he absorbed the spirit of westward 

migration that was then sweeping New England as many settlers were moving toward the fertile 

Mohawk and Genesee Valleys of western New York. In those areas, flattering inducements were 

held out to young men who were capable of surveying land and preparing title deeds. 

In 1789 Wright persuaded his father to move with his family to Fort Stanwix, now Rome, 

New York, which was then on the western border of settlement. For a short time, he assisted his 

father and brothers in clearing a field and erecting a long cabin. Soon he hired out as a surveyor, a 

job giving him access to the maps and drawing of very extensive tracts of land around Fort Stanwix. Originally, the surrounding area had been laid out in lots of 500 acres each. These he subdivided into such smaller lots as the settler purchased, which was rarely more than one-half or oneforth of the original lot. When not in the field, he devoted all his time to his studies, procuring 

from abroad the best books, maps, and instruments and patiently embodying his daily observations in topographical maps. His descriptions, estimates, and surveys became regarded as authoritative in boundary questions. Later, he would use his field notes and topographical information in 

locating the Erie Canal. Between 1792 and 1796, he laid out into farms more than 500,000 acres 

in Oneida and Oswego Counties.91

In 1798, Wright returned to Plymouth and on September 27 married Philomela Waterman, daughter of Simeon Waterman. They had nine children, eight of whom survived their parents. One son, Benjamin Hall Wright, was also a civil engineer and carried out some of the later 

projects on which his father had made reports.92

Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

As the Mohawk and Genesee Valleys developed into one of the most important agricultural sections in New York, Wright became interested in the problem of transporting surplus products to a 

market. Since roads were little better than trails and there seemed to be little hope of permanently 

improving them, he turned his attention to canals. In 1792 the Western Inland Lock Navigation 

Company had been formed and had completed some pioneer construction around Little Falls on 

the Mohawk River and thence from the river to Wood Creek at Fort Stanwix under an English 

engineer, William Weston. Several years after Weston’s return to Britain, it was determined to 

improve the navigation of Wood Creek by dams and locks, there being a descent of 24 feet in 

some six miles of difficult navigation. Since it would be expensive to bring Weston back for the 

examination and the leveling, the directors of the company turned to Wright to make a map and 

profile of Wood Creek. This was his first work as an engineer, and it led to further work for the 

company.93

Philip Schuyler, a prominent general during the American Revolution and the president 

of the company, was especially pleased with Wright’s work and in 1803 directed him to make a 

survey of Wood Creek from the point where the improvements ended down to Oneida Lake. Soon 

Schuyler had him survey some 100 miles of the Mohawk River from Fort Stanwix to 

 

91 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 48–50, and American Society of Civil Engineers, Biographical Dictionary of American Civil Engineers, 132–133. 

92 Dictionary of American Biography, XX, 544. 

93 Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering Work,” 608–609, American Society of Civil Engineers, Biographical 

Dictionary of American Civil Engineers, 132–133. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 35

Schenectady, “taking a regular traverse of the river, its windings, its breadth, the descent of each 

rapid, the descent between the rapids, the depth in each pool between rapids—at its lowest summer drought—the height of alluvial banks, and all other remarks and observations which he might 

think useful.” In addition, he was to propose his own plan for improving the Mohawk in as economical a manner as possible. Wright finished this project in 1803, recommending a series of 

dams, locks, short canals, and slackwater navigation pools. The financial problems of the company never permitted the construction of any portion of the work.94

In 1811 Wright was employed by the state canal commissioners of New York to make an 

examination of the north side of the Mohawk River from Rome to Waterford on the Hudson. The 

following year he was directed to examine the country from Seneca Lake to Rome and from 

thence on the south side of the Mohawk to Albany. His report of this survey, accompanied by 

maps and profiles, was well-received and served as a preliminary examination for the future construction of the Erie Canal.95

During this period, Wright became the agent of the land proprietors in whose serve he 

had made the most extensive surveys. He thus became a leading member of the community, was 

repeatedly elected to the state legislature, and in 1813 was appointed county judge.96

In 1815, upon the more effective organization of the New York State Canal Board, the 

work of constructing the Erie project was launched. In the months just after its organization, the 

Canal Board was divided over the question of sending abroad for a chief engineer. But the views 

of Joseph Ellicott and others in western New York prevailed and the work was entrusted to 

Wright and James Geddes, another local surveyor-judge-engineer. Prior to the actual beginning of 

work, the Erie Canal project was divided into three divisions: Wright was appointed as chief engineer and was to have charge over the middle section between the Seneca River and Rome, 

Geddes of the western to Lake Erie, and Charles C. Broadhead of the eastern to the Hudson 

River. The first ground was broken July 4, 1817, at Rome. As the construction of the canal progressed, another engineer, David Thomas, took over the work on the western section, Geddes 

turned to the problems of the Champlain Canal, and Wright, having completed the middle section, because responsible for the difficult eastern division.97

With his abilities as a surveyor, his practical knowledge of construction, and his capacity 

for leadership, Wright had a significant impact on the design of the Erie and on succeeding generations of American engineers. He singly was responsible for surveying and locating the middle 

section of the canal, and he collaborated with Canvass White, his able young principal assistant, 

in determining the location of the line on the eastern division. Although he did not draw any plans 

of importance, he was, according to one of his assistants John B. Jervis, “a very sagacious critic 

of any presented.”98

Wright and Geddes together solved the problem of securing an adequate flow of water 

for the western section of the canal by keeping the summit level from Buffalo to Lockport lower 

than the surface of Lake Erie. Among his chief structural engineering accomplishments was his 

supervision of the construction of the 801-foot aqueduct across the Genesee River at Rochester. 

 

94 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 52–53. 

95 Whitford, History of the Canal System of New York, I, 789. 96 Dictionary of American Biography, XX, 543, and Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 54. 97 William A. Bird, “New York State Early Transportation,” Buffalo Historical Society Publications, II 

(1880), 32; Merwin S. Hawley, “The Erie Canal: Its Origin, Its Resources, and Its Necessity,” Ibid, 305–

349; Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering Work,” 608; and Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 54–60, 68.

98 John B. Jervis, “A Memoir of American Engineering,” Transactions of the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, VI (1878), 42. 
36 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

To conciliate the critics of the canal project and to prepare the public mind to meet the vast expense of the works near the Cohoes, the Little Falls, the Genesee River, and Lockport, he successfully urged the Canal Board to begin the work on the middle section, building both east and west 

simultaneously through the least difficult and costly parts.99

During his years on the Erie Canal, Wright gathered around him a remarkable group of 

young men, most of whom afterwards occupied important positions in the engineering field. Canvass White was assigned the duty of designing the locks and other mechanical structures and also 

contributed the important discovery that hydraulic cement could be produced from a deposit near 

the line of the canal. John B. Jervis, another assistant, later became one of the foremost American 

civil engineers of pre-civil war days. David Stanhope Bates had charge of the difficult crossing at 

the Irondequoit Valley and Nathan S. Roberts supervised the construction of the elaborate set of 

double locks at Lockport. The Erie Canal was thus the great American engineering school of the 

early nineteenth century, and Wright, as the presiding genius of the undertaking, has fairly been 

called the “Father of American Engineering.”100 

The success of the Erie Canal awakened a spirit of internal improvement throughout the 

developing nation. Wright acted as consulting engineer on a number of canal projects during the 

last years of the Erie work—the Northampton and New Haven Canal in 1821, the Blackstone Canal in 1822, and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in 1823. On the Chesapeake and Delaware 

project, he was associated with Colonel Joseph D. Totten and General Simon Bernard of the U.S. 

Board of Engineers, and Canvass White in determining the line of the canal. In 1825, he became 

consulting engineer for the Delaware and Hudson Canal, an undertaking completed by his associate Jervis.101

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Resigning as chief engineer of the Erie in 1827 and the Chesapeake and Delaware in 1828, 

Wright accepted the invitation of Charles F. Mercer to become chief engineer of the Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal in the latter year. At Wright’s urging, the board of directors relied almost exclusively upon the available supply of men experienced on Northern or foreign canals. Among his 

former associates on other canal projects that were employed to fill key engineering positions on 

 

99 Krout, “New York’s Early Engineers,” 273–275, and Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 54–60. 100 Richard Shelton Kirby and Philip Gustave Lawson, The Early Years of Modern Civil Engineering (New 

Haven, 1932), 46–47, and Harlow, Old Towpaths, 295–307. Some years later in 1870, Benjamin Hall 

Wright, the son of Benjamin Wright, wrote a 13–page booklet entitled Origin of the Erie Canal Services of 

Benjamin Wright in which he outlined the prominent role his father had played in the conception, design, 

and construction of the Erie and the significant impact of his father’s work on subsequent American engineering. 101 Henry D. Gilpin to Joshua Gilpin, May 28–29, 1823, Henry Dilworth Gilpin Papers, Historical Society 

of the Delaware, Wilmington; William Meredith to John C. Calhoun, May 19, 1823, quoted in Hill, Roads, 

Rails, & Waterways, 30; The Act of Incorporation of the Farmington Canal Company, with the Reports of 

the Hon. Benjamin Wright and Andrew A. Bartow, esq., and of the Committee of the Legislature of Connecticut, on that Subject (New Haven, 1822) 10–15; Account of the Proposed canal from Worcester to 

Providence, Containing the Report of the Engineer, Together with Some Remarks Upon Inland Navigation

(Providence, 1825), 1–16; and Report of Messrs. Benj. Wright and J.L. Sullivan, Engineers, Engaged in the 

Survey of the Route of the Proposed Canal from the Hudson, to the Headwaters of the Lackawaxen River

(Philadelphia, 1824), 1–70. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 37

the Chesapeake & Ohio were John Martineau and Nathan S. Roberts, both of whom were appointed to the board of engineers to provide overall direction to the construction on the canal.102

During the first year of construction, Wright and Roberts collaborated in an extensive 

survey of the projected western section of the canal to Pittsburgh, revising the location and cost 

estimates that had been made by the U.S. Board of Engineers in 1825.103

After 21⁄2 years as chief engineer, Wright resigned in November 1830 and refused several 

offers to return to the canal. While it is difficult to state the precise reasons for his separation 

from the company, his correspondence and other available documentation indicate several probably causes. His correspondence reveals that he often resented the frequent participation of President Mercer and other members of the board of directors in the discussion of engineering technicalities despite their inexperience in such matters. Under such conditions, differences of opinion 

which arose between members of the engineering department were frequently carried over the 

head of the chief engineer by appeals to the board from disgruntled underlings. Thus, the design 

and construction of the canal was often hampered by fractious infighting.104

The legal dispute between the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company and the Baltimore & 

Ohio Railroad over the right-of-way through the narrow passes above Point of Rocks may also 

have been a factor in Wright’s decision to resign. Court injunctions prevented construction of the 

canal above Point of Rocks until 1832 by which time it was becoming apparent that the railroad 

would soon provide stiff competition to the financially hard-pressed canal company for the Potomac Valley trade.105 

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

When Wright terminated his association with the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, he desired to retire 

and be with his family which had already been removed to New York City. In 1832, he took an 

appointment as Street Commissioner in New York City, but he resigned at the end of the year 

because the work was confining and not suited to his interests. Soon he was appointed chief engineer of the Harlem Railroad Company, but he obtained leave of absence in the autumn of 1833 to 

become the consulting engineer on the St. Lawrence Ship Canal at Montreal. The following year 

he returned to Canada as the chief engineer on this canal and the consulting engineer on the Welland Canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario. During that year, he also was appointed by Governor 

Marcy of New York to survey the route for the New York and Erie Railroad under an appropriation from the State which duties occupied him intermittently for two years.106

During the years 1835 to 1839, Wright was engaged on several canal and railroad plans, 

but he remained principally in Virginia where he had been invited after the completion of the 

 

102 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 2, 114–115; Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 

16016; 1st Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., in ibid, A, 33, 48; and Documents relating to the Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal, 1840, 126–127. 103 Roberts and Wright, “Reports and Letters from the Engineers Employed in the Revised Location of the 

Section of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal,” in First Annual Report, (1829), C&O Co. 104 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A. 107, 109–110, and Wright to Mercer, February 

9 and 24, 1830, and Van Slyke to Mercer, February 27, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. For example, in 1830 

Wright vetoed Mercer’s plan to abolish the position of volunteer rodman by making the incumbents all 

inspectors of masonry, a job for which they were unqualified. 

105 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 122. 106 Whitford, History of the Canal System of New York, II, 1171–1172; Hugh G. J. Aitken, The Welland 

Canal Company: A Study in Canadian Enterprise (Cambridge, 1954), 100; Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering 

Work,”611; and Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 70–71. 
38 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

New York and Erie Railroad survey. Earlier in 1824, he had briefly served as a special commissioner in Virginia to expand the James River Canal and make an examination for a connection 

between the James and the Ohio Rivers via the Kanawha. With the establishment of the James 

River and Kanawha Company in 1835, he became chief engineer of the project.107

Following a short period in this position, Wright had his duties reduced to that of a consultant so that he could participate in other ventures. In 1835, he was called by the Cuban authorities to visit Havana and advise on a railroad from that city to the interior of the island. The preliminary surveys of this work were examined and approved by him, and its subsequent execution 

was carried out under the superintendence of his son, Benjamin Hall Wright, and Alfred Cruger, 

an experienced engineer who had been an assistant of Wright on the Chesapeake & Ohio. In 36, 

he became chief engineer of the Tioga and Chemung Railroad, and in 1837 a consultant on the 

Illinois and Michigan Canal. He spent his last days in New York City, dying there on August 24, 

1842, at the age of 72.108

 

107 First Annual Report of the President to the Stockholders of the James River and Kanawha Company

(Richmond, 1836), 11 

108 Informe Sobre El Camino do Hierro de Puerto—Principe a Nuevitas, par D. Benjamin H. Wright

(Puerto Principe, 1827), 1–12; Fitzgerald, “Early Engineering Work,” 611; Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil 

and Military Engineers, 71–72; and New York Tribune, August 25, 1842. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 39

III. DESIGNERS WITH PARTIAL BIOGRAPHIES 

A. ALFRED CRUGER 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years and Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

There is little biographical information on the early life or experience of Alfred Cruger. All that is 

known is that his residence was in New York and that he surveyed and reported on the proposed 

route for the Saugatuck and New Milford Canal in Connecticut in 1827. It is likely that he gained 

some experience on civil engineering on the Erie Canal, although his role would have been minor 

as no sources on that canal mention his name.109

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Cruger was appointed a resident engineer on the fifth residency (Monocacy River to Point of 

Rocks) of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in November 1828.110 Because of the dispute between 

the canal and the Baltimore & Ohio over the right-of-way above Point of Rocks, he was commissioned to assist Nathan S. Roberts in surveying the narrow passes from that point to Harpers 

Ferry.111 After leaving the employment of the canal company for a short period in 1831 to make 

surveys for the Leesburg and Snicker’s Gap Turnpike Company, he prepared plans and specifications for the Alexandria Aqueduct.112 During the spring of 1834, he made an extensive survey for 

the location of the canal between Dams Nos. 5–6, but because of the mounting obstacles to the 

construction of the waterway he soon resigned to pursue engineering opportunities elsewhere.113

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

There is little available data on the later engineering career of Cruger except for his activities in 

Cuba which extended at least from 1835–1842. Shortly after he left the canal, he traveled to Cuba 

where he convinced the local authorities that their island would receive great financial benefit 

from building a railroad connecting Havana with the interior of the island.114 In 1835 Benjamin 

Wright was called by the Cuban leaders to visit Havana and advise on the construction of such a 

railroad. After examining and approving the preliminary surveys for the work, he entrusted the 

superintendence of the project to his son, Benjamin Hall Wright, and Cruger, who remained on 

the project until at least 1842.115

 

109 Alfred Cruger, A Report of the Proposed Saugatuck and New Milford Canal (New York, 1827), 1–11, 

and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 114–115. 

110 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 114–115. 111 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 88 112 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C. 176. 113 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Accompany H.R. No. 94, 1834, 200–220, and Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, D, 72. 

114 Stuart, Lives and Works of Civil and Military Engineers, 72. 115 Informe Presentado a la Comision Directiva del Camino de Hierro de Guines, por el Ingeniero Principal Director del Mismo D. Alfredo Cruger, Sobre el Projects de Construccion y Presupuesto del Ramal de 
40 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

B. CHARLES B. FISK 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years and Experience Prior To Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Despite his substantial contribution to the engineering design of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 

Charles B. Fisk is a relative unknown among nineteenth century American civil engineers. An 

extensive survey of biographical sources, including the files of the Biographical Archive of 

American Civil Engineers at the Smithsonian Institution, failed to turn up any information concerning Fisk. Thus the available biographical data on this man is limited to the records of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio and the James River & Kanawha, the two canal companies by which he is 

known to have been employed. 

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

In November 1828, Fisk was appointed as an assistant engineer on the fourth residency (Seneca 

Creek to Monocacy River) of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. The only data on his background 

found in the canal company records is that his residence was located in Connecticut. It is likely 

that he was young and relatively inexperienced in civil engineering since the canal directors generally selected for assistant engineers promising youths who were seeking careers in that field. 

The intention of the directors in adopting such a policy was to promote interest in internal improvements in the South and to follow the example of the Erie Canal in using the construction of 

the waterway as a “school of engineering.”116

During the fall of 1833 when the financial plight of the company slowed construction 

operations on the canal, Fisk became the Superintendent of Repairs for the waterway between 

Dams Nos. 2 and 3. In April 1835, his duties as superintendent ceased, and he was advanced to 

equal rank with Thomas F. Purcell as resident engineer and given charge of the important third 

residency (the line between Dams Nos. 4 and 5) upon which all construction was then concentrated. He soon began to assume a prominent position among the canal company engineers, raising high the banner of perfection which former president Charles F. Mercer had carried so persistently, revising Alfred Cruger’s earlier survey and cost estimate for building the 27-mile line between Dams Nos. 5 and 6, and participating on a survey team to locate the final fifty miles of the 

waterway between Dam No. 5 and Cumberland.117 

 Dicho Camino, desde Onivican al Batalano, Impreso por Acuerdo do la Real Juata de Formento, de Agricultura y Comercio de la Isla de Cuba (Habana, 1836), 1–36, and Informe General del Ingeniero Director 

del Ferro-Carril de la Sabanilla, D. Alfredo Cruger, Presentado a la Junta Directors de la Empresa el 14 

de Febraro do 1842. 

116 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 114–115, and First Annual Report (1829), C&O 

Co., in Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 33, 48. Further evidence of his lack of experience before entering 

service on the C&O Canal was his employment as a rodman on the early survey teams locating he canal in 

October 1828. 

117 See the first interrogatory and answer on1 of Maryland, General Assembly, Joint Committee on Expenditures for Internal Improvements, Report of the Joint Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Expenditures of the State, in Works of Internal Improvement (Annapolis, 1836); Eighth Annual Report (1836), 

C&O Co., 2–4; Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), C&O Co., 84–85; Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, D, 311, 319; Fisk to Board of Directors, March 30, 1835, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 41

When talk revived of connecting Baltimore with the Chesapeake & Ohio via a cross-cut 

canal, Fisk, with George W. Hughes, a state engineer, surveyed three possible routes for such an 

undertaking in March 1837. After examining the Westminster, the Monocacy–Linganore, and the 

Seneca routes, they reported that all three were impracticable because of an insufficient water 

supply on the summit levels.118

Because of his initiative and engineering abilities, Fisk was appointed on April 12, 1837, 

as chief engineer, a position he held until September 1852 with the exception of a six-month period in 1840–41. Thus, he performed a significant role in directing the design and construction of 

the canal from Dam No. 5 to Cumberland. Throughout his employment on the canal, his efforts 

were repeatedly complicated by the financial plight of the canal company and the meddling of the 

Maryland legislature in the affairs of the canal company. 

His separation from the canal between October 1840 and April 1841 was partly the result 

of a disagreement with the canal directors over the policy of continuing construction on the basis 

of the unrestricted issuance of script and partly the result of the application of the spoils system in 

the operation of the canal. When the state authorities reorganized the canal board and launched a 

sweeping revival of the spoils system in June 1852, he resigned from his position three months 

later.119

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

There is little documentation concerning the later career of Fisk but a reference was found relating to his employment as an engineer for the James River and Kanawha Company in the fall of 

1854. On October 21 of that year, he made a report to the directors of the company recommending sluice navigation as the best method in the improvement of the Kanawha River.120

 At some point Fisk went to work for the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, as indicated in a 

important overview of his career on the C&O and his final years as an engineer. Written by James 

Worrall, a Pennsylvania engineer who worked briefly on the C&O as a young man, this account 

tell us that: 

Fisk came after Mr. Purcell on the C&O. He was a Connecticut man and a good engineer. 

He had a splendid corps—Elwood Morris, Gore, John A Byers, and others—but the canal 

was never finished and they had no great career. ...Fisk struggled along with the company, got poor with them, always respected but never adequately paid. The work was 

grand and his talents were worthy of it, but money was lacking. At length came up the 

Virginia railroad from Richmond to Ohio, afterwards called the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad. Fisk was made Chief Engineer. He planned the mountain crossings via White Sulphur Springs—masterly work, great location, and all that; but in the midst came 1861, all 

was thrown into pi. It broke Fisk’s heart; a fine intellect went down in disappointment. 

 Report of the Committee on the Location of the Canal from Dam No. 6 to Cumberland, October 9, 1835, 

Recd., C&O Co. 

118 Charles B. Fisk and George W. Hughes, Report on the Examination of Canal Routes from the Potomac 

River to the City of Baltimore (Annapolis, 1837), 1–56.

119 Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), C&O Co., 67; Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C&O Co., 9; Communication from the President of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Governor of Maryland

(Annapolis, 1842), 40–41; and Fisk to the Board of Directors, October 1, 1840, June 3, 1841, and September 27, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

120 Twentieth Annual Report of the President of the Stockholders of the James River and Kanawha Company (Richmond, 1854), 746–748. 
42 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

Had he remained at home amongst the Yankees where he was born he would have been a 

distinguished man and to some purpose. But he starved down there in an abnormal environment. The great storm was brewing. It had to come, and Fisk sunk before it. The 

Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad was not finished until after the war.121

C. JOHN MARTINEAU 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years and Experience Prior to Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

An examination of available source material failed to turn up significant biographical material on 

the background of John Martineau. The only information that could be found indicated that he 

had been a pupil of Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright during the construction of the Erie Canal. 

The available evidence indicates that he played a minor role in the construction of the Erie, because no sources on that canal mention his name. However, he must have impressed Wright for in 

early September 1828, he was named to the Board of Engineers of the Chesapeake & Ohio at the 

recommendation of his former mentor.122

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

It is apparent that Martineau was considered to be the junior member of the Board of Engineers 

because his salary was less than that of Benjamin Wright and Nathan S. Roberts. Throughout the 

summer and early fall, Martineau assisted his senior partners on the board in making the final location of the waterway from Little Falls to Seneca Falls preparatory to the initial letting of contracts. Later, he took a more direct role in the design of the canal, determining the final specification for Dams Nos. 1 and 2 and submitting the plan which was adopted for the construction of the 

early lockhouses. After survey the Monocacy River for the purpose of determining its utility as a 

feeder for the canal, he left the service of the company in June 1829 when the directors were 

forced to eliminate some engineering positions because of the continuing controversy with the 

Baltimore & Ohio.123

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

No readily-available information could be found relative to the subsequent engineering career of 

Martineau. 

 

121 Memoirs of Colonel James Worrall, Civil Engineer., American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 

1887; 57–58.

122 The Alexandria Gazette, September 13, 1828. 123 Mercer to Bryant, August 27, 1828, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co.; Martineau to Board of Directors, October 1, 

1828, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 48, 204–205, 

294. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

Unrau: 1. Designers 43

D. ELWOOD MORRIS 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years and Experience Prior To Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Little is known about the early life or engineering experience of Ellwood Morris prior to his employment on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. The only data that could be found for this period was 

that he was involved in making engineering surveys for the Winchester and Potomac Railroad in 

Virginia prior to obtaining a job on the canal.124

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

In 1835 Morris was employed as an assistant engineer by the canal company upon the recommendation of Fisk. It is apparent that Morris rose rapidly through the ranks of the canal engineers 

because he was promoted to Principal Assistant Engineer in 1838. During the next two years, he 

supervised the construction above Dam No. 6 until October 1840 when he was named chief engineer to replace Fisk who left the company following a dispute with the new canal board. Following another reorganization of the canal company management in April 1841, Morris terminated 

his duties with the company and was replaced by Fisk.125

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

There is little documentation for the later career of Morris except for the period 1851–61. In 

1851–52 he, along with Benjamin Henry Latrobe, made preliminary surveys for the Cincinnati, 

Hillsborough, and Parkersburg Railroad, the Ohio River Valley line that would ultimately form a 

key section of the route between Baltimore and St. Louis.126 Three years later in 1855, he surveyed the location for the Auburn, Pt. Clinton, and Allenton Railroad in northeastern Pennsylvania.127 In 1857 he witnessed and published an article on the new method recently invented by 

Colonel Franklin Hewson for constructing temporary railroad bridges.128 During the spring of 

1857, he made surveys for the proposed improvement of the Ohio River.129 In the spring of 1861 

just prior to the firing of Fort Sumter, he made surveys for the U.S. Army for the fortification of 

the North Carolina coast.130

 

124 Proceedings of the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, In special General Meeting Commencing on the 8th of March, and Continuing, by Adjournment, to the 3d of April 1841 (Washington, 1841), 13 

125 Ibid.; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 254, 257, 301–302, 308, 315; and Morris 

to Sprigg, April 7, 1841, and Fisk to President and Directors, April 29, 1841, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 126 Ellwood Morris, Reconnaissance Made for the Cincinnati, Hillsborough, and Parkersburg Railway...December 1851(Pittsburgh, 1852), 1–12, and Ellwood Morris, Report on the Preliminary Surveys 

Made for the Cincinnati, Hillsborough, and Parkersburg Railway (Cincinnati, 1852)1–48. 127 Ellwood Morris, Reconnaissance Made for the Auburn, Pt. Clinton, and Allentown Railroad...July 1855

(Pottsville, 1855), 1–22. 

128 Railroad Bridge Drill, or Arrangements for the Speedy Erection of Temporary Bridges on Railroads by 

Col. Franklin Hawson, Reported from Personal Inspection by Ellwood Morris (Philadelphia, 1857), 1–6 

129 Ellwood Morris, Treatise on the Improvement of the Ohio River...June 1857 (Pottsville, 1857), 1–32. 130 The War of the Rebellion (Washington, 1880–91), I, 51, 2. 
44 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 1. Designers 

E. THOMAS F. PURCELL 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Early Years and Experience Prior To Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

An extensive survey of biographical sources and newspaper accounts of the early phases of the 

organization of the canal company failed to turn up any information concerning Thomas F. Purcell prior to his service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. In the canal company records, it is 

noted that on November 22, 1828, he was formally appointed as a resident engineer on the first 

division and that his residence was in Virginia.131 As is the case for many of the resident and assistant engineers on the canal, Purcell probably had some limited surveying experience in his 

background. 

Service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

After a short leave of absence from the canal company in the late fall of 1828 when he made surveys for the Rappahannock Company in Virginia, Purcell returned to direct the operations from 

Rock Creek Basin to Lock No. 8. When the legal dispute with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 

was resolved in early 1832, he was placed in charge of the construction from Point of Rocks to 

Dam No. 4, and in the fall of 1833 he was given responsibility for the work above the latter point. 

During the summer of 1835, he led a survey party in revising the location of the projected waterway between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland. A series of clashes with Fisk over the plans for the 

canal prism, locks, and dams on this stretch of the canal led to Purcell’s bitter resignation in 

March 1836.132

Engineering Experience after Service 

On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Little information could be found on Purcell’s career after he left the C&O Canal. The only reference that could be located concerned his activities for the Jeffersonville and New Albany Canal 

Company in 1837–38. During that period he surveyed and reported on the practicability and 

probable cost of the construction of a navigable canal for steamboats around the falls of the Ohio 

on the Indiana side of the river.133

 

131 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 114–115 132 Proceedings of the President and Directors, C, 191, 246, 313, 400, E, 25, and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 62, 95–96, 114, 118. 133 See “Report...to the President and Directors of the Jeffersonville and New Albany Canal Company 

[Indiana]...January 8, 1838...by Thos. F. Purcell,” in An Act to Incorporate the Jeffersonville and New 

Albany Canal Company (Approved February 8, 1836). 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

2. 

THE ECONOMICS OF 

CONSTRUCTING 

THE C & O CANAL 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 47

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

CONTENTS 

I. EMERGENCE OF THE C&O CANAL PROJECT: 1822–1828 49 

II. DISMAL COMMENCEMENT OF THE C&O CANAL PROJECT: 1828–1834 57 

III. MARYLAND ASSUMES CONTROL OF THE GREAT NATIONAL 

 PROJECT: 1835–1842 80 

IV. THE BELATED COMPLETION OF THE C&O CANAL 

 TO CUMBERLAND: 1842–1951 93 

V. SUMMARY 105 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 49 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

I. EMERGENCE OF THE C&O CANAL 

PROJECT: 1822–1828 

The decline of the Potomac Company coincided with the dawn of the canal era in the United 

States. The age of simple river improvements had passed. In the nineteenth century attention 

turned to the feasibility of building permanent, artificial canals as an effective means of transportation. Canals combined the cheapness of water travel with the reliability of an independent waterway and the ease of a level, Stillwater route. Early efforts to enlist the support of the federal 

government of the various canal projects failed, and the states turned to their own resources. The 

commencement of the Erie Canal by the State of New York in 1817 marked the beginning of the 

active phase of the canal era. Pennsylvania followed with its main line of public works in 1826 as 

competition for the newly-completed Erie Canal. Ohio and other western states also began to participate in the canal-building race. In the 1820s Maryland and Virginia also began to lay plans for 

a canal to the west via the Potomac Valley.1

 Promoters of the schemes to replace the Potomac Company were able to draw several 

valuable lessons from the financial experiences of that enterprise. Thus they might avoid the pitfalls of the earlier undertaking while striving to attain the fruits of success which eluded it. The 

most obvious lesson was the need of adequate financial support for a renewed undertaking. A 

vitally necessary corollary to the acquisition of adequate funding would be successful integration 

of the interests of Virginia, Maryland, and the federal government in the new endeavor. 

 In the years following the War of 1812, a number of proposals were made to construct 

independent canals along the Potomac River in the attempt to develop a viable route to the West. 

While none of these early projects materialized, they were significant in that they all embodied 

plans to abandon river improvements for artificial canals. They also led in part to a searching investigation of the whole Potomac Company undertaking, particularly after an inquiry by the 

newly-created Virginia Board of Public Works in 1816 led to the discovery that despite the expenditure of large sums, the company had failed to fulfill the requirements of its charter.2

 Seeing the trend of public opinion and fearful of losing its vested rights, the Potomac 

Company formally requested a survey of its works in 1819. The State of Virginia authorized the 

Board of Public Works to conduct the inspection and to include a survey of the land between the 

Potomac and the southern branches of the Ohio for a possible connection of the two rivers. Thomas Moore, the engineer of the Board, made two examinations in 1820 and 1822. At the invitation of Virginia, the State of Maryland also sent and engineer, Isaac Briggs, to accompany Moore 

on his second trip. After the death of Moore during the second surveying expedition, Briggs completed the study under special authorization from the state of Virginia.3

 The two reports issued by Moore and Briggs on their surveys added impetus to the call 

for an artificial waterway from tidewater on the Potomac to Cumberland and of a further connection with the Ohio River. Moore’s report on the results of his first inspection confirmed the opinion that a connection between the two rivers was practicable, and estimated the cost of a canal 

along the Potomac from tidewater to Cumberland to be $1,114,300.4

 

1

 George Washington Ward, The Early Development of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Project (Baltimore, 

1899), 36, and George Rogers Taylor, The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860 (New York, 1951), 32–

48. 

2

 Proceedings of the President and Directors of the Potomac Company, B, 340, and Peyton to President and 

Directors, November 8, 1816, and Mason to Peyton, December 8, 1817, ibid, 340–350. 3

 Ward, Early Development of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 40–45, and Proceedings of the President and 

Directors of the Potomac Company, B, 440–441. 

4

 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, 

Rept. No. 90, 19th Cong., 2d sess., 1827, Appendix 3, 33–35. 
50 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

 In a more detailed report in December 1822, Briggs estimated the cost of an independent 

canal along the Potomac 30 feet wide at the surface, 20 feet wide at the bottom, and 3 feet deep, 

to be $1,578,954, or $8,676 per mile. If the average cost per mile were applied in exact proportion 

to a canal of the same dimensions as the Erie, Briggs noted that the cost would be $15,732 per 

mile, a sum that was approximately the same as that spent on those parts of the Erie where heavy 

excavation and extensive lockage were required.5

 Simultaneously with the surveys by Briggs and Moore, a joint commission, appointed by 

the States of Virginia and Maryland, was conducting an investigation of the financial affairs of 

the Potomac Company. In their report to the governors of their respective states in December 

1822, the commissioners found that the company had not only used all of its capital stock and 

collected tolls, but had incurred heavy debts which its resources would never enable it to discharge. From the commencement of operations in 1785 until August 1, 1822, the company had 

spent $729,387.29 on construction. The stock subscriptions to the company by the States of Virginia and Maryland and private investors amounted to $311,111.11, and beyond this sum the 

company had contracted loans totaling $175,886.59. Since August 1, 1799, the company had collected $221, 927.67 in tolls, but these revenues had been exhausted in the construction expenditures. The commissioners concluded that the enterprise would never be able to meet the terms of 

its charter to provide an effective navigation between tidewater on the Potomac and Cumberland 

by means of river improvements and skirting canals around the rapids.6

 After determining that the Potomac Company works were only providing an average annual navigation period of 45 days, the commissioners recommended the construction of the artificial waterway proposed by Briggs. The estimated cost of $1,578,954 should be divided by Virginia and Maryland, the money to be raised by 16 or 20 year loans. Once the loans were negotiated, the state legislature should open the books for individual subscriptions, the individuals to be 

entitled to the stock for which they subscribed provided they paid their annual interest on the 

amount to the state. All stock not sold in such manner should be held by the two states.7

 After these reports were made, the question arose as to how this improvement should be 

put into effect. There were two alternative choices: an additional subscription to the Potomac 

Company, or the creation of a new company to take over the rights and privileges of the old one. 

Although the officials of the existing company argued for the adoption of the former alternative, 

it was decided to create a new enterprise, designated as the Potomac Canal Company to indicate 

its purpose and distinguish it from the older organization. The Virginia Assembly passed an act of 

incorporation, February 22, 1823.8

 The act did not require the consent of Congress, but did stipulate that it must be confirmed by the State of Maryland to become operable. By its terms, Maryland was to subscribe 

$500,000, one third of its total capital. In Maryland, the act encountered the opposition of local 

interests, particularly the Baltimore merchants who saw the proposed canal as providing their 

competitors on the Potomac with the advantages of the western trade. At the public rally at the 

Baltimore Exchange on December 20, 1823, a major debate took place between Robert G. 

Harper, a former U.S. Senator, from Maryland representing the promoters of the canal, and 

George Winchester, a spokesman for the local business interests. Fearing that the projected canal 

 

5 Message of the Governor of Maryland, Communicating the Report of the Commissioners Appointed to 

Survey the River Potomac (Annapolis, 1822), Appendix, 77–84. 6 Letter from the Governor and Council of Maryland, Transmitting a Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Survey the River Potomac (Washington, 1823), 5–9, 25–29. 7 Ibid, 23–24. 8

 Annual Report (1823), Potomac Company, in Proceedings of the President and Directors of the Potomac 

Company, C, 14–15, and The Potomac Canal: Papers Relating to the Practicability, Expediency, and Cost 

of the Potomac Canal (Washington, 1823), Appendix, 30–39. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 51 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

might establish the District of Columbia as a rival market to their city, those attending the meeting unanimously adopted resolutions opposing Maryland’s subscription to the new company.9

Largely as a result of the outcome of this meeting, the bill failed to pass the Maryland legislature, 

and lacking the consent required, the Virginia act became inoperative.10 This ended the last attempt by Virginia and Maryland to effect a real improvement of the Potomac Valley route without federal support. 

 Nevertheless real progress had been made by 1823 in the effort to open the river as a 

route for western trade. The interest of the District cities and the States of Maryland and Virginia 

had been focused on the Potomac. A series of articles penned by Abner Lacock, a former U.S. 

Senator from Pennsylvania and internal improvements enthusiast, appeared in the Washington 

Intelligencer supporting the plans submitted by Moore and Briggs.11 Even Briggs wrote a lengthy 

article in the newspaper defending his proposal with the following statement: 

In consequence of the long and narrow form of Maryland, this proposed improvement 

will bring almost to our very doors, the cheapest, safest, and most perfect of all possible 

modes of conveying our produce to market; and of bringing home its returns. It 

will...establish the predominance of, the agricultural interest. The western parts of Pennsylvania, the northern parts of Virginia, the rich state of Ohio, & c. by making their channel of commerce, will pour countless treasures into the lap of Maryland, and, at the same 

time, enrich themselves; for the benefits of commerce must be reciprocal, otherwise it 

cannot flourish, and will soon cease to exist.12 

Numerous memorials from the inhabitants of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, were referred to the House Committee on the District of Columbia requesting that the federal government aid the improvement of the Potomac route, and the chairman of the committee, Charles F. 

Mercer, proposed legislation to that effect.13

 During the summer, James Shriver, a leading civil engineer and promoter of American 

canals, undertook a survey of the proposed route of the canal and later published his findings, 

concluding that a connection could be made from tidewater on the Potomac to Pittsburg on the 

Ohio for the sum of $5,566,564.14 

 In Congress, the friends of internal improvements were beginning to make headway in 

their campaign for federal support. The government appeared to be ready to undertake a general 

program of aid to public works. It was in this atmosphere that the first Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Convention met in Washington, November 6–8, 1823. 

 The convention assembled at the Capitol at the call of a meeting of the citizens of Loudoun County, Virginia. This earlier gathering had been held to discuss the proposals for the im-

 

9 Gen. Harpers’ Speech to the Citizens of Baltimore, on the Expediency of Promoting a Connexion Between 

the Ohio, at Pittsburgh, and the Waters of the Chesapeake, at Baltimore, by a canal through the District of 

Columbia, with His Reply to Some of the Objections of Mr. Winchester (Baltimore, 1824), 3, 62–63, 78. 10 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, to Accompany Bill 

H.R. No 94, H. Rept. 414, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., 1834, 4. 11 All of the newspaper articles were collected into a single volume: Abner Lacock, Great National Object: 

Proposed Connection of the Eastern and Western Waters by a Communication through the Potomac Country (Washington, 1822) 12 Washington National Intelligencer; July 12, 1822 [date in source is 1828, which appears to be an error]. 13 All of the petitions and the proposed legislation appear in Report of the Committee of the District of Columbia, May 3, 1822 (Washington, 1822). 14 James Shriver, An Account of Surveys and Examinations, with Remarks and Documents, Relative to 

Chesapeake & Ohio, and Ohio and Lake Erie Canals (Baltimore, 1824), 6-66. 
52 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

provement of the Potomac route after the Potomac Canal Company project proved abortive, and 

to expand the scope of the project to include a canal all the way to the Ohio River. It requested 

similar meetings in other counties to support the citizens of Loudoun in their appeal for a general 

convention. In response to this plea many counties in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania chose 

delegates to the conference. In addition to these representatives there were members of the District Cities and several unofficial guests from Ohio. Among the most important men present were: 

Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania; Bushrod C. Washington, Richard E. Byrd, and Charles F. Mercer of Virginia; Joseph Kent, Thomas Kennedy, and George C. Washington of Maryland; and 

Francis Scott Key, John Mason, and Thomas Corcoran of the District of Columbia. Governor Joseph Kent of Maryland, a long-time supporter of internal improvements, was the presiding officer 

of the convention, but Charles F. Mercer, United States Representative from Virginia who was 

serving on the Committee on the District of Columbia at that time,15 exercised the guiding hand 

as chairman of the influential Central Committee.16

 The primary functions of the convention were the mobilization of public opinion behind 

the proposed connection between the Potomac and the Ohio and the creation of organizations to 

give effect to this rising interest. Resolutions were adopted urging the connection with the West, 

and committees were named to formulate plans for the canal and to petition Congress and several 

states for consent and aid in the project. Relative to the financial arrangements for such an undertaking, the convention passed the following resolutions: 

That the most eligible mode of attaining this object will be by the incorporation of a joint 

stock company, empowered to cut the said Canal through the territory of the United 

States, in the District of Columbia, and of the States of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania...that...the completion of the Eastern section of the Canal...(tidewater to Cumberland)...be obtained through separate acts of the Governments and Corporations, of the 

states of Maryland and Virginia, of the United States, and of the three cities of the District of Columbia, a subscription to the amount, if necessary, of 2,750,000 dollars, in the 

following proportions, 2/11ths to be subscribed by the state of Maryland, 3/11ths by the 

state of Virginia, 4/11ths by the United States, and 2/11ths by the District cities, to be divided between them, according to an equitable ratio, to be fixed by themselves. In case a 

part of the sum aforesaid shall be subscribed by private individuals, in the mode provided 

by the act aforesaid, the several States and Corporations, within which such individual 

subscriptions are received, shall be requested to assume, as part of their aforesaid quotas, 

the amount of such subscription, under such security as they may deem expedient for the 

payment thereof, by the subscribers to them respectively: 

 That the Government of the United States be earnestly solicited to obtain the 

whole of this sum on loan, receivable in four annual installments, upon the issue of certificates of stock, bearing an annual interest not exceeding five per cent and irredeemable 

for thirty years, and to guarantee the repayment thereof on a specific pledge of the public 

lots in the City of Washington, of the United States stock in the Canal and the public 

faith: 

 That the first installment of the loan be made payable on the 1st of March, 1825, 

and the last on the 1st of March, 1829: 

 

15 Mercer was a member of the Committee on Roads and Canals in the 20th and 21st Congresses (March 4, 

1827–March 3, 1831); and chairman in the 22nd through the 25th Congresses (March 4, 1831–March 3, 

1839). 

16 House Report 414, 4 and Appendix A, 67–68, and Proceedings of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention (Washington, 1827), 1–6. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 53 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

 That the interest of each State and Corporation, upon its proportion of the said 

loan, be paid into the Treasury of the United States, according to the terms of the loan, 

and the principal sum at the expiration of thirty years, the period to be fixed for its redemption: 

 That, in the event of a refusal by the Government of the United States to negotiate the said loan, each State and Corporation shall provide the amount of its respective 

subscription, in such manner as may seem to it best.17

The success of the convention can best be measured by the course of events in the years immediately following. In his annual message in Congress in December 1823 President James Monroe 

referred to the convention’s activities and urged Congress to give favorable consideration to the 

project, if its constitutional scruples would permit. Taking a relatively strong stand in favor of 

national aid to internal improvement companies, he indicated that his personal constitutional 

qualms were satisfied by the belief that the government could assist improvement projects if the 

operation of these works was turned over to the states or to private companies after completion. 

Although real participation by the general government in internal improvement projects had to 

await the presidency of John Quincy Adams, the President’s message added momentum to the 

canal campaign.18

 There was other evidence of success that emanated from the canal convention. Congress 

responded to President Monroe’s message by providing $30,000 for a detailed survey of the proposed route by the United States Board of Engineers as part of a general program for studying 

possible routes for roads and canals “with a view to the transportation of the mail, the commercial 

intercourse, and military defense of the United States.”19 Upon receiving the memorial for an act 

of incorporation, the Virginia Assembly passed the necessary law on January 27, 1824.20

 After the opposition of Baltimore interests and the indifference of the southern and eastern counties of the state had been overcome, the Maryland Assembly confirmed the Virginia act 

of incorporation on January 31, 1825.21

 The petition to the Pennsylvania legislature failed both in 1824 and 1825, primarily because of the opposition of Philadelphia interests who were concerned that the canal would end the 

economic dependence of western Pennsylvania on their city.22

 The U.S. Board of Engineers made a preliminary report on February 14, 1825. The Board 

concurred in the opinion if Thomas Moore and Isaac Briggs that the connection between tidewater on the Potomac and the Ohio at Pittsburgh via the Youghiogheny or Monongahela by an artificial canal was practicable. Although the U.S. engineers did not have sufficient data to estimate 

the expense of the work, they concluded that the cost would not bear any comparison with the 

 

17 Proceedings of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention, 13–17, and U.S., Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 47, 20th Cong., 1st sess., 

1828, 10–14. 

18 James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (10 vols., Washington, 1896), II, 216. 

19 Proceedings of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention, 42. [Note: The $30,000 was to fund the General Survey Act of 1824 as a whole. See Forest G. Hill, Roads, Rails, & Waterways: The Army Engineers 

and Early Transportation, 47, University of Oklahoma Press, 1957—kg] 20 Act of State of Virginia, Acts of the States of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and of the Congress 

of the United States in relation to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal company (Washington, 1828)2–15. 

21 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1824), Ch. 79. 22 Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 

1946), 54. 
54 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

political, commercial, and military advantages it would afford to the nation. Furthermore, the engineers concluded that 

The obstacle to a communication by the Potomac route with the Western states, lessens to 

a point, compared with the greatness of the object, whether in a commercial or political 

relation to the prosperity of the country. In Europe, their canals, even those of Governments, have all some definite limited object of utility. But here it is not alone the distance—the elevation—the vast natural navigation to be connected, which constitutes the 

grandeur of the design; but the immense interests it combines into an harmonious national whole.23

The report appeared to assure the ultimate success of the project by removing all remaining 

doubts as to its practicability. Congress confirmed the act of the Virginia Assembly, chartering 

the canal company in a measure approved by President Monroe on March 3, 1825, the last day of 

his administration.24

 According to the terms of the charter, the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company was empowered to accept subscriptions for the purpose of financing the construction of an artificial waterway from tidewater on the Potomac in the District of Columbia to the highest point of permanent navigation on the Ohio River at Pittsburgh via the shortest possible route. The charter stipulated that the eastern section of the canal must be completed before the western section could be 

started. The act gave the canal company the power to condemn land and hold it in fee simple 

when used for canal purposes and granted it the right to use the water of the rivers for navigation 

purpose. The company was to be free forever from taxation. It must complete the entire project in 

twelve years. The dimensions of the waterway were to be at least 40 feet wide at the water surface, 28 feet wide at the bottom, and four feet deep. The use of injunctions was prohibited to allow the company officers to carry on their work with the least possible hindrance. The following 

year on February 26 Pennsylvania confirmed the charter with two principal reservations requiring 

the canal company to commence the construction of the western section within three years and to 

use Congressional funds equally for both eastern and western sections.25

 Now that the company had hurdled the legal obstacles to its final organizations, friends of 

the project promptly began the campaign to obtain public support with renewed confidence. 

 On October 23, 1826, however, three U.S. Topographical Engineers, and John L. Sullivan, made their full report, which President John Quincy Adams formally transmitted to Congress 

on December 7, 1826. The report supported the earlier declarations that the proposed connection 

of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers was physically practicable, but estimated the cost of the canal 

with the enlarged dimensions of 48 feet in width at the surface, 33 feet in width at the bottom, and 

5 feet in depth at $22,375,427.69. According to the report, the canal was to be divided into three 

sections: the eastern extending from Georgetown to Cumberland; the middle stretching from 

Cumberland to the mouth of the Casselman River on the Youghiogheny; and the western reaching 

 

23 Totten, Bernard, and Sullivan, to Macomb, February 3, 1825, Reports on Internal Improvements, 1823–

39, Records of the Chief of Engineers; Record Group 77, National Arch9ives, and Report of the Board of 

Engineers for Internal Improvements, As Communicated, by Message, from the President of the United 

States to Congress, February 14, 1825; and an Illustration of the Report by John L. Sullivan, A Member of 

the Board (Washington, 1825), 3–22. 24 Act of Congress, in U.S., Congress, Senate, Documents Relating to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, S. 

Doc. 610, 26th Cong., 1st sess., 1840, 13. 25 Act of Pennsylvania, Senate Document 610, 31–34. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 55 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

from there to Pittsburgh. The respective distances, elevation, and descent, lockage, and estimated 

cost of these sections was as follows26: 

SECTION DISTANCE ASCENT & NUMBER COST 

 MILES 

+ 

YARDS 

DESCENT—

Ft. 

OF 

LOCKS ESTIMATE 

Eastern 185 1078 578 74 $8,177,081.05

Middle 70 1010 1961 246 10,028,122.86

Western 85 348 619 78 4,170,223.78

341 676 3158 398 $22,375,427.69

The estimated cost of the canal dashed the hopes of canal supporters. They had been thinking in 

terms of a canal with the general dimensions that had been recommended earlier by Engineers 

Moore and Briggs at a cost of between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000. They now sent out a call for a 

second Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention to be held in Washington on December 5, 1826.27

 The principal task of the second assembling of the convention was to dispel the gloom 

which paralyzed the canal project’s supporters. To accomplish this purpose the delegates, among 

whom were Andrew Stewart of Pennsylvania, George Washington Parke Custis of Alexandria 

County, D.C., and Henry Clay of the District of Columbia in addition to the majority of those 

who had attended the earlier meeting, sought to discredit the estimate of the U.S. Board of Engineers and to cause a new survey to be made to determine the true cost of the work on the enlarged 

dimensions. The report of the government engineers was exhaustively examined and compared 

with the actual cost of constructing the Erie, the Pennsylvania Main Line, the Ohio and Erie, and 

the Delaware and Hudson Canals. A committee appointed at the opening session of the convention and chaired by Andrew Steward of Pennsylvania reported that the allowances for labor costs 

were much too high and that the estimates for masonry, walling, and excavation were generally 

double or triple the prices paid on other canals. The convention delegates concluded that the 

Georgetown–Cumberland section of the canal could be built for $5,273,283, and the entire canal 

from Georgetown to Pittsburgh for $13,768,152, without changing the dimensions or durability of 

the waterway.28

 At the same time, supporters of the canal in Congress urged President Adams to submit 

the conflicting estimates to a review by practical and experienced civil engineers. At the request 

of thirty-two members of Congress, the President appointed James Geddes and Nathan Roberts, 

both of whom had first gained renown as engineers on the Erie Canal and thereafter on the Ohio 

and Erie and Pennsylvania Main Line, to revise the estimates for the eastern section on the basis 

of actual wages and current prices for materials. They completed the surveys in 1827 and their 

report was submitted to Congress on March 10, 1828. In the document which was used as the 

primary source on which the initial stock subscriptions and early stages of construction were 

based, the two engineers applied their estimates to a canal of three different dimensions. The first 

plan was for a canal of 40 feet in width at the surface, 28 feet in width at the bottom, and 4 feet in 

depth. The second plan called for a canal based on the dimensions used by the U.S. Board of Engineers, while the third estimate was for an enlarged waterway of 60 feet in width at the surface, 

42 feet in width at the bottom, and 5 feet in depth. The estimates for these plans, including a ten 

 

26 U.S. Congress, House, Message of the President of the United States, Transmitting a Report from the 

Secretary of War with that of the Board of Engineers for Internal Improvement, on the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal, H. Doc. 10, 19th Cong., 2nd sess., 1826. 

27 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 55. 28 Proceedings of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Convention, 65–85. 
56 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

percent allowance for contingencies but excluding any allowance for the purchase or condemnation of land or water rights, were $4,008,005.28 or $21,461.87 per mile; $4,330,991.68 or 

$23.191.38 per mile; and $4,479,346.93 or $23,985.79 per mile respectively.29

 Fortified with this estimate, the canal supporters renewed their campaign to obtain federal 

and state funding for the project. The commissioners who had been appointed by the President of 

the United States and the Governors of Maryland and Virginia formally opened the books for the 

subscriptions of stock on October 1, 1827. In less than six weeks there had been subscribed more 

the $1,500,000.30

 This sum was sufficient, under the provisions of the charter, to permit the organization of 

the canal company, but this action was delayed until Congress should act. After a lengthy debate, 

the friends of the canal project in Congress secured the passage of an act on May 24 directing the 

Secretary of the Treasury to subscribe for 10,000 shares of stock of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company valued at $1,000,000. The act authorized the subscription to be paid out of the dividends accruing to the United States on account of the stock of the United States Bank.31 The subscription on the part of the United States fulfilled the condition of an earlier Maryland subscription of $500,000 to the stock of the canal company, and that act now became effective.32

 On the same day that it passed the subscription act, congress also approved an act providing its sanction to any subscriptions which had been or might be made to the stock of the canal 

company by the corporations of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria.33 Washington had 

already subscribed 10,000 shares and soon Georgetown and Alexandria each subscribed 2,500 

shares, thereby making a total investment of $1,500,000 in the new enterprise by these three debtridden cities. Shortly thereafter, Shepherdstown, Virginia, subscribed to $20,000 of the company 

stock.34 These sums, together with private investments totaling $588,400, insured the successful 

launching of the long-awaited national project.35

 The following month on June 20–23, the formal organization of the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal Company took place at a meeting of stockholders in the Washington City Hall, and the 

formal groundbreaking ceremonies were held near Little Falls on July 4.36

 

29 Geddes and Roberts to Macomb, February 23, 1828, Reports on Internal Improvements, 1823–39, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77, and U.S., Congress, House, Letter from the Secretary of 

War Transmitting Estimates of the Cost of Making a Canal from Cumberland to Georgetown, H. Doc. 192, 

20th Cong., 1st sess., 1828, 5–6, 98. 30 Richard W. Gill and John Johnson, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of 

Maryland (Baltimore, 1833), IV, 28–29, 57. 31 Act of congress, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company: Acts of the States of Virginia, Maryland, and 

Pennsylvania, and of the Congress of the United States, in Relation to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (Washington, 1828), 44–45, and Washington National Intelligencer, May 31, 1828. 32 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1827), Ch. 61. 33 Act of Congress, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company: Acts, 45–49. 34 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, with a 

Sketch of the Potomac Company, and a General Outline of the History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company (Frederick, 1851), 39–40, and Ordinances of the Corporation of Georgetown (Georgetown, 

1829), 19 

35 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 141, 20th

Cong., 1st sess., 1828, 50–59, and House Report 414,14. 36 Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 1–3, and Washington National Intelligencer, July 7, 1828. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 57 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

II. DISMAL COMMENCEMENT OF 

THE C&O CANAL PROJECT: 1828–1834 

During the early years of construction, the progress of the canal was repeatedly disrupted by 

problems growing out of the actual construction. These early trials of the canal project closely 

foreshadowed the future obstacles to its successful completion. The shortage of laborers was felt 

as soon as large-scale construction commenced a factor which caused the cost of wages to rise 

above earlier projections. Land disputes occupied much of the attention of the canal board as local landowners resisted the efforts of the company to keep costs at a minimum and sought instead 

to extract the maximum benefit from the loss of their lands. The late 1820s and early 1830s were 

also a period of rapid inflation, thereby contributing to the increase in costs of labor, land acquisition, and the supply and the transportation of construction materials. 

 As a result of these troubles, the canal company itself became involved in financial difficulties, a problem which it exacerbated by its own ill-advised enthusiasm. Among the actions of 

the board which illustrate the latter point were the decisions to build a canal with a much larger 

prism than had been proposed by most of the preliminary surveys and to purchase the strip of 

land between the canal and the river. 

 On top of these distractions, the company had to contend with a legal controversy growing out of a dispute with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company over the right of way above 

Point of Rocks and the hostility of the Jackson administration toward national support for internal 

improvements in general and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in particular. 

 As early as the spring of 1829, many of the contractors were in financial difficulty despite 

the fact that the canal company had allowed higher estimates in the letting of its early contracts 

than had been made by Geddes and Roberts in 1827. For example, the two civil engineers had 

estimated the cost of common excavation at eight cents per cubic yard while the contracts let for 

Sections Nos. 1–34 from Little Falls to Seneca Falls, permitted an average of 9 1/6 cents.37

 Before active construction operations resumed in the spring of 1830, Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright informed President Charles F. Mercer that “the truth is that we know the prices of 

these contractors are all very low, and that it yet remains doubtful whether they can sustain themselves.”38 He had made this statement after a general price increase of 25 percent had already 

been allowed, but the following month many of the lock contractors were again in financial distress. After Richard Holdsworth, the contractor for Aqueduct No. 1 and Locks Nos. 21, 23, and 

24, complained on March 24 that his inability to obtain adequate funds had forced him to the 

brink of bankruptcy, Wright informed Mercer that “painful and unpleasant as this statement of 

Mr. Holdsworth is, I believe there is too much truth in it and...I do no believe the others (lock 

contractors) are in any better situated than Holdsworth.”39

AMOUNT AND COST OF WORK DONE AS OF MAY 1, 1829 

• 450,263 cubic yards of earth, gravel, and clay excavated, comprehending loose stone, of a 

weight each less than what it would require two men to lift on a cart or wheelbarrow, at 

an average price per cubic yard, of 8 53/100¢ 

• 45,452 cubic yards of hard pan, at an average price, per cubic yard, of 21¢ 

 

37 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 230–231, and Niles’ Register, XXV (August 30, 

1828), 6. 

38 Wright to Mercer, February 9, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

39 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 202; B, 49; Wright to Mercer, March 25, 1830, 

Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Leckie to Wright, July 1830, W. Robert Leckie Papers, Duke University. 
58 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

• 14,437 cubic yards of rock quarried, at an average price, per cubic yard, of 28 35/100¢ 

• 43,930 cubic yards of rock blasted, at an average price per cubic yard, of 53¢ 

• 39,378 cubic yards of embankment, formed of earth from the canal excavations, at an average price, per cubic yard, of 10 76/100¢ 

• 52,352 cubic yards of embankment of earth not from the canal excavation, at an average 

price, per cubic yard, of 12 93/100¢ 

• 2,825 cubic yards of puddling, at an average price, per cubic yard, of 24 21/200¢ 

• 27,837 perches of 25 solid feet of external walling of rock excavated from the canal, at an 

average price per perch, of 54 82/100¢ 

• 2,066 perches of 25 solid feet of external walling of rock not excavated from the canal, at 

an average price, per perch, of 92 37/100¢ 

The extra work, so far, has not exceeded in cost $1,035, while the total expenditures on those 

items alone amount to $114,221.69 1⁄2. 

 The common average of every species of excavation including every variety of earth, 

hard pan, and rock, is, as far as the work has gone, 13.58 cents per cubic yard. 

 Of embankment, whether of materials obtained from within or without the canal, 12 cents 

per cubic yard. 

 Of external, vertical, and slope wall, constructed of rock from within or without the canal, 

57.42 cents per perch of twenty-five solid feet. 

—Excerpted from First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., 5–6 

Even if the estimated cost of labor had been high enough for the prevailing level of wages and 

prices in 1828, some difficulty would have arisen from the general inflation which followed. In 

the first year the costs of construction were above the estimates of Geddes and Roberts and payments for lumber, stone, provisions, and labor all exceeded contract figures.40

 The cost of water lime alone was nearly triple the original estimates. Contracts for some 

of the sections were not only relet but subdivided into as many as four parts in order to expedite 

their completion. Nearly all of the contracts for the locks had to be abandoned and relet several 

times, and one general increase of twenty-five per cent was granted.41 By 1832 the rate of wages 

was almost double that prevailing in 1828, having risen from a monthly average of $8–$10 to $–

$20.42 By early 1834, the price of common earth excavation had risen from 9 1/6¢ to 11¢ per cubic yard; the cost of blasted rock had increased from 53¢ to 60¢ per cubic yard; and the cost of 

quarried rock had skyrocketed from 28 30/100¢ to 60¢ per cubic yard.43 

 The blasting which was necessary because of the rocky nature of the ground resulted in a 

series of annoying accidents, including the damage of several buildings from the concussion of 

the explosions and flying rocks.44 To reduce the damage from this cause and to quiet the public 

outcry following such accidents, the canal board ordered the use of smaller charges and required 

that the blasting be covered with brush. The net result of this policy was more delay and increased 

expenses, in some cases nearly doubling the cost of certain sections.45

 

40 First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., 5–7. 41 Second Annual Report (1830), C&O Co., 6; First Annual Report (1829), 7–8, and Proceedings of the 

President and Board of Directors, A, 178. 

42 Mercer to Maury, November 18, 1828, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Fourth Annual Report (1832), C&O 

Co., 15. 

43 House Report 414,194. 

44 Balch to President and Directors, August 28, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board. 

45 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 87–88, 152, 191, 248, 257. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 59 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

 Company officials reported to Congress in 1834 that the difficult excavations above 

Georgetown were a leading cause of the increased cost of the canal: 

One cause of the higher price of the canal, below Seneca, should not be omitted. There 

was scarcely one-fourth of a mile of the entire line of 23 1⁄2 miles, in which large detached 

stone, of the description called boulders, and ridges or strata of rock, more or less solid, 

did not occur. Whole sections, therefore, computed at 8 cents the cubic yard, prior to their 

construction, cost twelve times that sum for their mere excavation. In the bottom lands 

this occurred, as well as on the levels of the table land elevated more than sixty feet 

above the river. In some places the rock at the bottom of the canal, as on the low grounds 

below Seneca, for two feet of its depth, cost for excavation $1.25 the cubic yard, though 

the prior estimate of the engineer comprehended no rock whatever....46

The weather was responsible for other costly delays in digging the canal prism. The winter of 

1838–29 was unusually severe, and the few contractors who had begun work during the fall were 

forced to suspend operations until spring.47 

 The freshets which occurred regularly in the spring and fall often filled the lock pits and 

portions of the canal trunk, further retarding the work and increasing the financial difficulties of 

the contractors as no provision had been made in the contracts for allowances to repair flood 

damage.48

 The high banks on the river side of the canal were another source of increased costs. Extensive dry masonry walls were needed to protect the canal from the action of the Potomac as described by U.S. Engineer William Gibbs McNeill in 1833: 

Controlled as the engineer necessarily was, in his location of the canal, by the rocky and 

precipitous cliffs which, to a great extent, are washed by the Potomac, while an unusual 

quantity of rock excavation, on the one hand, was unavoidable, on the other he has judiciously disposed of his materials in the construction of permanent walls for the protection 

of the canal against the otherwise resistless action of the river....49

Contractors resorted to various expedients to avoid disastrous losses. The responsible ones sought 

redress in petitions for the payment of increased allowances from the money that had been retained by the company from their monthly estimates, usually a sum amounting to 10 percent.50

Others sought to avoid losses by slipshod or fraudulent construction. On November 11, 1832, it 

was discovered that the contractors for Aqueduct No. 3 had instructed their stone cutters to scabble51 their sheeting in the “roughest possible manner” instead of close cutting as they were being 

paid for and to reduce the beds of the stones nine inches under the requirements of their contract. 

As a result of these operations, Inspector of Masonry, A. B. McFarland predicted that “we are 

going to have a ridiculous piece of masonry.”52

 

46 House Report 414,194–195. of Directors, A, 149. 

47 First Annual Report (1829), 5, 21–22. 48 Holdsworth and Isherwood to President and Directors, Sept. 24, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

49 Report of Captain Wm. G. McNeill on the Condition of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, December 1, 

1833 in House Report 414,144–145. 

50 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 388–389. 

51 To scabble is to work or dress stone roughly. 

52 McFarland to Ingle, November 11, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
60 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

 Earlier in May 1831 McFarland had reported on the fraudulent cost-saving building practices of Richard Holdsworth, the financially hard-pressed contractor for Aqueduct no. 1. During 

an inspection tour of the structure, he had detected: 

the sheeting of the arches laid nearly altogether without mortar, much of which is very 

deficient in beds, and as a substitute for mortar, the extrados of the sheeting are white 

washed with grout, with (the) pretension that the joints are perfectly filled. On a strict examination, however, this proves to be false. After removing this polish of grout, I discovered many vacuums below, which did not contain a particle of either grout or mortar, and 

in the spandrel and wing walls, depths of from 3 to 4 feet of the walls are laid up perfectly dry and grouted at the top, trusting for mere chance for it ever to reach the bottom.53

Still others absconded with the monthly payments on the estimates, leaving both laborers and 

creditors unpaid. This latter problem occurred as early as the winter of 1828–29, and it became a 

particularly acute problem over the next several years as financial conditions along the waterway 

continued to worsen.54

 On the whole, many of the contractors were financially ruined by their experiences on the 

canal, and few if any prospered from their connection with it. In his speech at the formal dedicatory ceremonies opening the canal to navigation at Cumberland on October 10, 1850, William 

Price, one of the canal company directors, best summed up the plight of the contractors as follows: 

Many of us were young when this great work was commenced, and we have lived to see 

its completion, only because Providence has prolonged our lives until our heads are grey. 

During this interval of four and twenty years, we have looked with eager anxiety to the 

progress of the work up the valley of the Potomac. That progress has been slow—often 

interrupted and full of vicissitudes....Thousands have been ruined by their connection 

with the work, and but few in this region have had cause to bless it.... 

 Go view those magnificent aqueducts, locks, and culverts of hewn stone...look at 

all these things, and then think how soon the fortunes of individuals embarked in the 

prosecution of such an enterprise would be swallowed up, leaving upon it but little more 

impression than the bubbles which now float upon its waters. It will not be deemed out of 

place, if I here express the hope that those, whose losses have been gains of the company, 

should not in the hour of its prosperity be forgotten.55

Perhaps, the major problem with which the company had to contend during the actual construction of the canal was the supply of labor. The scarcity of workers and the consequently high rate 

of wages threatened to upset all the calculations of the contractors. There were few laborers available in the largely agricultural valley itself, and few could be attracted to it because of the reputation of the Potomac for periodic Asiatic cholera epidemics during the hot, humid summer construction season and because of the construction of other internal improvements in the East, notable the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal. As a result of these 

 

53 Ibid, May 25, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

54 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 140, and W. Robert Leckie’s notes, dated May 

12, 1829, in his Diary and Account Book, 1828–1829, W. Robert Leckie Papers, Duke University. 

55 Cumberland Civilian, quoted in Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal, 13–131. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 61 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

recruitment problems, 2,113 men were working along the line of the canal in June 1829 while it 

was estimated that 6,000 were needed in order to complete the canal in the time specified in the 

contracts.56

 As wages continued to rise from an average of $8–$10 per month for common labor in 

November 1828 to $12–$13 per month in July 1829, the canal directors undertook to encourage 

the migration of workers from all parts of the United States and from various European countries, 

especially Great Britain, the German states, and the Netherlands.57 The experiment in using foreign laborers proved to be expensive and failed to solve the labor shortage in the long run.58 Nevertheless, the use of imported laborers succeeded in temporarily stabilizing the rate of wages on 

the canal, as the total work force on the line rose from a low of about 1,800 in the summer months 

to over 3,100 by November 1829.59

 Another major obstacle encountered in the construction of the canal was the high cost of 

land. Some of the landholders on the route over which the canal was to pass readily granted the 

company the title required, or at least rights to the use of the land. Many others obstructed the 

work and refused to surrender their property voluntarily in the hope of realizing great profits from 

forced sales. In his first annual report to the stockholders, on June 1, 1829, President Mercer 

stated: 

It was very soon apparent that the expectation of large indemnities had arisen among the 

proprietors of the ground and materials required for the canal, with the progress of the 

canal itself, and the certainty of its ultimate success. Efforts had been abortively made to 

profit by the uncertain hopes which preceded this state of absolute assurance. It was difficult to make them, with precision, as to the ground to be surrendered, because the final 

location of the canal, by the Engineer charged with it, remained uncertain until the moment o f contracting for its execution, and, even for some time after, so that promises, antecedently given, might be afterwards easily evaded. Some patriotic individuals, in the 

spirit of that provision of the charter of the company which now constitutes part of the 

standing law and usage of every State distinguished in the career of internal improvement, voluntarily surrendered their lands, without price, in the hope of aiding the company by the influence of their example. But the far greater number early indicated a disposition to exact prices for their property which left the President and Directors no alternative, but a resort to the process of condemnation, provided by the charter.60

The condemnation proceedings to which the canal directors resorted became more and more frequent as construction moved up the river and as speculation fever of the farmers rose. 

 Among those who resisted the condemnation efforts of the canal company were those 

who held out for the highest possible price, and those who would not sell at any price. The company records are filled with numerous instances where the land proprietors resisted the verdict of 

the juries, called for new trials, and attempted delaying tactics which raised their nuisance value. 

One such example was the lengthy negotiations and legal battle in the Montgomery County courts 

between the company and John P. C. Peter who owned some sixteen acres on the west side of 

 

56 First Annual Report (1829), 19–20, and Second Annual Report (1830), 5–6. 57 First Annual Report (1829), 21–22, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 140, 

153, 309. 

58 Washington Chronicle, October 24, 1829, and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 77–78. A more 

complete discussion of the labor force and its effect on the construction of the canal appears in Chapter VI 

of this Historic Resource Study. 

59 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 353–354. 

60 First Annual Report, 9–10. See also Hurd to Mercer, January 26, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
62 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

Seneca Creek. Two condemnation proceedings were held, each followed by appeals and counter 

suits, over a 21⁄2 year period before Peter accepted the second jury’s assessment and agreed to the 

execution of the deed.61

 Those who refused to sell at any price usually had motives in the background. For example, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the sole surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence 

and one of the founders of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, bushed aside all offers for a 

relatively small parcel of his 10,000-acre estate in Frederick County. It was he who had laid the 

cornerstone of the railroad at the corner of Pratt and Amity Streets in Baltimore on the same day 

as the canal’s groundbreaking ceremonies at Little Falls, saying: “I consider this among the most 

important acts of my life, second only to my signing of the Declaration of Independence, if second even to that.”62 He refused to accommodate the canal company, stressing the great inconveniences which his tenants would suffer during the construction operations; in return for this hardship to them, there was only the promise of increased land values for him if the canal were ever 

completed, a fact that he doubted.63 His principal concern, however, was the struggle then taking 

place between the two rival transportation lines for the right of way above Point of Rocks. 

 The decision to extend the canal from Little Falls to Rock Creek brought on renewed difficulties with land proprietors. Georgetown merchants were reluctant to see the canal extended 

below its initial terminus, which was favorable to the commercial position of their town. But representatives of Washington interests maintained that the canal must terminate where shipping facilities were available and insisted that nothing less than a site in Washington, for example, the 

mouth of Tiber Creek, from which the city could construct a cross-town canal to the Eastern 

Branch, would be acceptable.64

 Washington exerted great influence on the canal board by threatening to withhold payment on its $1,000,000 subscription to the company stock and by enlisting the support of Secretary of the Treasury Richard Rush. In the face of this overwhelming pressure, President Mercer 

and the stockholders agreed to Washington’s demands at a general meeting on September 17, 

1828.65 While the canal company averted potential financial disaster by acceding to the demands 

of Washington, it also stirred the resentment of Georgetown business interests66 because the new 

terminus paved the way for branch canals to Alexandria and Washington, their neighboring rivals 

for the commerce of the Potomac Valley. 

 The Merchants also dislike giving up what was and what promised to be valuable property in Georgetown. They were not satisfied that what they received then was a fair price in terms 

of the value the property might have if the town experienced the growth they anticipated. Thus, 

the awards for damages ran very high, and the company became embroiled in disputes with many 

of its early stockholders and supporters in Georgetown, including John Mason who had been an 

early advocate of the canal at the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Conventions; Francis Scott Key, who 

 

61 Reference Book Concerning Land Titles, 1829–68, C&O Co. 

62 Edward Hungerford, The Story of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (2 vols, New York, 1928), I, 44. 63 Carroll to Mercer, February 26, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 64 Washington National Intelligencer, September 10, 1828. 

65 Proceedings of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, and of the Corporations of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, in Relation to the Location of the Eastern Termination 

of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Washington, 1828), 1–31. Following the meeting, Mercer sought the 

counsel of Attorney General William Wirt whether the company charter permitted the extension of the canal. On October 9, 1828, Wirt replied that the legislative acts of Virginia, Maryland, and the United States 

were vague on this point. However, since all the acts specified that the canal was to terminate at tidewater 

in the District of Columbia, it was his opinion that the company could locate the termination of the waterway anywhere in the District. First Annual Report (1829), Appendix, XXXVI–XL. 66 Ordinances of the Corporation of Georgetown (Georgetown, 1830), 5 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 63 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

had attended the second convention and later rendered legal assistance to the company during the 

initial stages of its legal controversy with the railroad; and Walter Smith who served as one of the 

first directors of the company.67

 The canal board made several significant decisions during the first year of construction 

that increased the expenditures of the canal company beyond the original estimates. Although the 

1826 canal convention and the company’s charter called for a canal of 40 feet wide at the surface, 

28 feet wide at the bottom, and 4 feet deep, the U.S. Board of Engineers had recommended a waterway having the dimensions of 48, 33, and 5 feet respectively. However, when Geddes and 

Roberts reported that a canal 60 feet wide at the surface, 48 feet wide at the bottom, and 6 feet 

deep could be built for less than $5,000,000, the canal board decided to adopt the larger dimensions for the canal between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry because of the increased advantages 

attainable at what was projected as little additional cost. The greater size would give the canal a 

cross section of 306 square feet and a prism of 59,840 cubic yards as compared with 136 square 

feet and 25,595 5/9 cubic yards on the New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio canals whose general 

dimensions were 40 feet wide at the surface, 28 feet wide at the bottom, and 4 feet deep.68

 It was estimated that the increased prism would reduce water resistance to the equivalent 

of unimpeded sea navigation, and it was believed that much of the masonry would, the most expensive part of the construction, would be unaffected by the increase in size. On some sections, 

such as the Georgetown level, the larger dimensions would pay for themselves through the 

greater quantity of water which would be available for sale. The latter was dubious argument for 

the company did not have the right to sell water, and there was some doubt that the legislature 

would agree to it as a sizable block of Maryland citizens opposed the granting of such a privilege.69

 To men who were fully convinced of the practicability and certain success of this national 

project, these supposed advantages far outweighed the increased cost of construction with Geddes 

and Roberts had estimated as $2,523.92 per mile and which ultimately more than doubled during 

the construction period.70 It is interesting to note that by June 1830 when the rising cost of actual 

construction was beginning to surmount all of the original estimates, the board defended its initial 

enthusiasm for an enlarged canal by stating: 

If, in its plan, the Board have erred, it has arisen from their inability to forget, that a work 

destined to be the great central thoroughfare of so many States, and the firmest bond of 

their happy union, should be commensurate with its great end, and fulfill the wishes of 

the Government, Cities, and People, who have impressed upon it this high character.71

Another factor which increased the cost of building the canal was the directors’ decision to purchase the strip of land between the canal and the river. The directors were obsessed with the idea 

of eliminating the construction of bridges over the canal, because the structures would obstruct 

the navigation of steamboats which the board hoped to introduce and their construction would 

 

67 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors A, 59, 167, 182; and Second Annual Report, 11. For 

further information relative to the legal disputes between the canal company and these men, see Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company vs. Key, U.S. Reports, 3 Cranch C.C. 599; Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company vs. Mason, ibid, 4 Cranch C. C. 123; and Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company vs. Union Bank, Ibid, 4 

Cranch C. C. 75, 5 Cranch C.C. 509. 

68 First Annual Report, 9 

69 Ibid. 

70 Ibid, 8–15. 

71 Second Annual Report, 7. 
64 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

cost more than the land was worth at any fair estimate of its value.72 According to the company 

surveys, the entire quantity of land between the canal and the river from Georgetown to Point of 

Rocks did not exceed 1,300 acres of which more than 500 were reportedly inarable.73 The acquisition of this land was not strictly within the terms of the charter which allowed the condemnation 

of private property for canal purposes only, and the attempts to purchase this land led to further 

costly and lengthy legal battle. 

 The cumulative effect of greater allowances to contractors, increased labor costs, and 

higher land payments led the canal company to the end of its financial resources. The company 

had begun its operations with a subscribed capital of $3,608,400, a total nearly $900,000 less than 

the estimated cost of $4,479,346.93 for the eastern section by Geddes and Roberts. The canal 

board and the stockholders felt secure nevertheless in commencing work with the available resources, confidently expecting further aid from Congress and from the interested states, especially 

Virginia which had as yet made no subscription. However, their optimistic expectations for more 

subscriptions were not forthcoming at this time from either public or private sources. Appeals to 

Congress and the legislatures of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania proved futile, the most 

devastating blow to the company’s finances occurring in Virginia where the Assembly failed to 

enact a measure subscribing $400,000 to the enterprise.74 Thus, the canal company had to rely 

upon its existing resources for the prosecution of its work. 

 From the very beginning the directors encountered difficulties in securing the payment of 

the calls on the subscribed capital. Maryland insisted on paying part of its share in state bonds, a 

policy that the board was forced to accept because the railroad company had already agreed to it 

and because it was necessary to placate the canal’s enemies in the state legislature. The company 

had so little success in selling the bonds that it resorted to hypothecations, or pledges of personal 

property as collateral security, in order to obtain loans from the local banks.75

 The debt-ridden cities of the District of Columbia ran into trouble making payments on 

their subscriptions. Prior to their subscriptions to the canal company, the total indebtedness of the 

towns had been: Washington, $361,826; Georgetown, $155,149; and Alexandria, $277,776.76 To 

this had been added $1,000,000, $250,000, and $250,000 respectively. To secure funds to meet 

the calls on the canal stock, the local authorities in April 1829 appointed ex-Secretary of the 

Treasury Richard Rush to act as the agent of the district cities to negotiate a loan in Europe.77 After failing to secure a loan through the Barings and Rothschilds in London, Rush succeeded in 

obtaining the loan of $1,500,000 through the Dutch banking company of Daniel Crommelin & 

Sons in Amsterdam in November, 1829.78 The terms of the loan were as follows: 

 

72 Mercer to Lee, January 17, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Second Annual Report, 11. 73 First Annual Report, 15–16. 74 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Memorial of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company, H.Doc. 12, 20th Cong., 2d sess., 1828, 108; ibid, Memorial of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company, HY.Doc. 73, 20th Cong., 2d sess., 1829, 1–6; ibid, Committee on Internal Improvements, Memorial of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, H.Doc. 53, 21st Congress, 2d 

sess., 1830, 1–10; Memorial from the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Maryland Legislature 

(Annapolis, 1830); and First Annual Report (1829), 19. 75 Kent to Mercer, October 4, 1828, and Smith to Ingle, January 4, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 373, 377–378. 76 Wilhelmus B. Bryan, A History of the National Capital (1 vols., New York, 1916), II, 111. 77 Gales, Cox, and Mason to Ingham, April 1829, in Washington, D.C., Georgetown, and Alexandria Collection, Holland Loan, Library of congress, and Remarks on the Loan of a Million and a Half of Dollars, 

Proposed to be Raised by the City of Washington and the Towns of Georgetown and Alexandria, under an 

Act of the Congress of the United States (London, 1829), 1–45. 78 Niles’ Register, XXXVII (October 3, 1829, January 23, 1830) 83, 360. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 65 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

The said three thousand seven hundred and fifty bonds shall bear a fixed interest of five 

per cent per annum, upon their nominal capital of thousand guilders, Netherland currency 

each; the said interest will be payable in Amsterdam, at the counting house of the last underwritten, or of their successors, from six months to six months, say on the first January 

and the first July of each year; and when the said bonds therefore will be issued, there ill 

be added to them a set of half-yearly dividend warrants, each of twenty-five guilders, 

Netherland currency, payable in succession at the counting house of the last underwritten 

or of their cashiers, and the first of which dividend warrants will be payable first January, 

eighteen hundred thirty-one.79

During the early years of construction, the canal company also had the usual trouble with delinquent private stockholders and was forced to resort to threats and legal suits to obtain satisfaction.80 By June 1832, the canal board had issued calls for the payment of nearly sixty per cent of 

its capital stock, a fact which clearly demonstrated the potential financial difficulties of the company since the only portion of the waterway that had been completed and opened for navigation 

was the 22-mile section from Georgetown to Seneca.81

 As early as June 1829, the company officials realized that the higher costs would jeopardize the completion of the canal. This growing awareness was increasingly felt with the continuing 

difficulties in obtaining any new stock subscriptions. To offset this danger, the company hired 

Richard Rush, who was about to leave for London on behalf of the District cities, as its agent to 

open books in Europe to receive subscriptions up to $6,000,000 for the eastern section and 

$10,000,000 for the entire canal, but the attempt proved to be discouraging as no large subscriptions were forthcoming.82

 As the railroad injunction continued in effect, the expense of a large engineering staff 

became a great burden on the company’s financial condition. Accordingly the board released engineers as soon as they found positions elsewhere, reduced salaries, and eliminated some positions. The number of resident engineers was reduced from five to four in September 1829 and 

later to two in August 1830.83 When Chief Engineer Wright resigned his position with the canal 

company in the fall of 1830, the canal directors abolished the position of Chief Engineer, noting 

that there was little need to employ a person in that position with construction prevented above 

Point of Rocks.84 On April 1, 1831, after Nathan S. Roberts requested a leave of absence to return 

to his New York Home to regain his failing health, the board terminated his employment with the 

company and abolished his position for similar reasons.85

 

79 Letter and Accompanying Documents from the Hon. Richard Rush to Joseph Gales, Esq., Mayor of the 

City of Washington; Respecting the Loan of a Million and a Half Dollars, Negotiated by the Former, In 

Europe, for the said City and the Towns of Georgetown and Alexandria, under the Authority of an Act of 

Congress of the United States, Passed on the 24th of May, 1828 (Washington, 1830), 151. 80 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 291. 

81 Ringgold to Ingle, June 18, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Washington National Intelligencer, June 

29, 1830. 

82 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 82. 83 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 363, B, 173–174. 

84 Ibid, B, 172–173. 

85 Ibid, B. 295. 
66 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

 While not yet desperate, the financial condition of the company was rapidly deteriorating 

by 1832, a condition that was making some of its uneasy stockholders openly critical of company 

policies and forcing the canal directors to consider new initiatives to attract additional capital.86

 The greatest deterrent to the westward progress of the canal after 1828 was the existence 

of a series of injunctions prohibiting the extension of the waterway above Point of Rocks. These 

injunctions were in turn the cause of a protracted and costly legal struggle between the canal 

company and the railroad company which ultimately increased the cost of constructing the waterway and further burdened the deteriorating financial condition of the Chesapeake & Ohio. The 

question involved in the cases was a dispute over the right of prior location of the respective 

transportation projects in the Potomac Valley, a matter that was not fully settled until early 1832 

by the Maryland Court of Appeals.87

 The legal controversy between the rival internal improvement companies was the culmination of a clash of commercial interests that had been developing since the early 1820s between 

the businessmen of Baltimore and those of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. The Baltimore interests, originally active in support of the canal, lost their enthusiasm for the project as it 

became apparent that the canal, if built, would favor the development of the three District cities 

and as it became doubtful that the canal could be tapped far enough up the valley to allow Baltimore to share in its trade. Therefore, the Baltimore merchants adopted the proposal of building a 

railroad in February 1827 so that their city could compete with the commercial centers of New 

York and Philadelphia which were fed by the Erie and the Pennsylvania Main Line canals, respectively. On February 28, 1827, the charter of the railroad company was enacted into law, and 

after receiving stock subscriptions totaling $4,000,000, in just a few weeks, the company was organized on April 24.88

 Both enterprises ultimately chose the Potomac Valley as the route of their respective 

works. While the canal company was still struggling to get organized in the late spring of 1828, 

the Baltimore & Ohio sent surveyors ahead to locate its line and secure land waivers, especially 

in the narrow passes of the valley at which a conflict with the canal might be expected.89 To stop 

this usurpation of their rights, canal company stockholders applied to the Washington Country 

Court on June 10, 1828, and Judge Thomas Buchanan granted a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the railroad from acquiring land or rights of way along the projected route of the canal above 

Point of Rocks where it entered the valley.90

 The railroad company countered with three injunctions against the canal which it obtained from Maryland Chancellor Theodoric Bland of the Court of Chancery at Annapolis on 

June 23, 24, and 25. The first enjoined interference with contract rights acquired by the railroad 

from local landowners; the second enjoined interference with condemnation proceedings; the 

third protected such additional rights as the railroad had acquired by being the first to physically 

locate its projected route on the ground.91 

 The canal company protested to the Chancellor in a lengthy brief filed on May 16, 1829, 

that the conduct of the Baltimore & Ohio was an infringement on the canal’s chartered rights and 

 

86 A Candid Appeal to the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (Washington, 1832), 1–

5. 

87 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 83. 88 John E. Semmes, John H.B. Latrobe and his Times: 1803–1891 (Baltimore, 1917), 321–322; Hungerford, Story of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, I, 18–27; and Elihu S. Riley, A History of the General Assembly of Maryland, 1635–1904 (Baltimore, 1905) 334 

89 Second Annual Report of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company (1828), Appendix, 3–4. 

90 Gill and Johnson, Reports, IV, 36, and Second Annual Report (1830) 9. 

91 H.H. Walker Lewis, “The Great Case of the Canal vs. the Railroad”, Maryland Law Review, XIX (winter, 1959), 11, and Gill and Johnson, Reports, IV, 13–16. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 67 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

that the railroad officials had given the impression that their work would avoid the circuitous Potomac route for a more direct northwesterly course “straight across the mountains by means of 

inclined planes and stationary engines to Pittsburgh.”92

 The legal question involved was whether the Potomac Company’s rights inherited by the 

Chesapeake & Ohio were still valid or whether the Baltimore & Ohio had acquired them by virtue 

of its charter from the State of Maryland the first exercise of the rights of location. The real issue, 

however, was the political-economic one between the City of Baltimore and the District of Columbia’s three cities.93

 The rivalry for the trade of the Potomac Valley was perhaps summed up best in a caustic 

speech by Representative George E. Mitchell, a railroad supporter from Cecil County, Maryland, 

on the House floor on February 26, 1829: 

I do not include in this estimate the cost of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. This, if it 

benefits any, will benefit more particularly the non-slaveholding states of the west. For 

us, it might as well be in china. The engineers of the United States have estimated the 

cost of this work at twenty-two million, five hundred thousand dollars. Whence is this 

sum to come? From the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company? Who does not know that 

Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria are bankrupt? That the two last exhibit marks 

of decay? Who does not know that the company cannot sustain the expenditure, and that 

the burden must fall on the treasury of the United States? And that the states who can derive no early benefit from it will have to contribute most? Besides natural obstacles, almost insuperable, this canal, if ever completed, will have to contend against the competition of the Baltimore rail road—planned, and to be managed, by a company of individuals as distinguished for their activity, as for their capital—who have entered on their great 

work with the zeal which characterized the people of Baltimore—and who will have 

completed the road, and have it in full operation, pouring into their city the rich superabundance of the west, before this canal reaches the eastern base of the Alleghany. May 

success attend their undertaking.94

Throughout the legal struggle, the Baltimore & Ohio fought a delaying action in the courts, while 

its influence, and that of the city of Baltimore, had its effect in the Maryland General Assembly 

and in Congress. The Maryland legislature quickly became hostile to the canal company’s claims, 

choosing to look upon the railroad as a purely Maryland project deserving of the state’s protection.95

 In Congress the influence of the canal company through its president, Charles F. Mercer, 

who doubled as the chairman of the House committee on Roads and Canals, was checked by numerous petitions by the railroad and by the hostility of the Jacksonian Democrats to federally 

 

92 Gill and Johnson, Reports, IV, 32-33, 47; and U.S., Congress, House, Memorial of the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Company, H. Doc. 127, 20th Cong., 2d sess., 1829, 3 

93 The course of the controversy can be followed best in the series of letters apparently taken from the canal 

company’s files for the purpose of publication in Correspondence between the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company, In Relation to the Disputes between those Companies Concerning the Right of Way for 

their Respective Works along the Potomac River (Baltimore, 1830), 1–80. 

94 Niles’ Register, XXSXVI (March 21, 1829), 53. 

95 Lee to Mercer, February 15, 1829, and Ingle to Mercer, February 2, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and 

Report from the President of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Legislature of Maryland (Annapolis, 1831), 1–24. 
68 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

sponsored internal improvements.96 At the insistence of the railroad that both works be considered experiments until their relative merits had been tested, both companies became involved in 

periodically submitting lengthy reports concerning the historical advantages of railroads and canals in Europe and the United States.97

 In the meantime, the Baltimore & Ohio was constructing its road from Baltimore to Frederick and then south to Point of Rocks. While its resources were limited, it had an obvious advantage in that its road began operating as soon as it was completed.98 As the Court of Chancery 

showed little inclination of handing down an early verdict, the canal board soon became restless. 

The company had ample resources to undertake a large part of its intended work, and it was desirous of taking advantage of the relatively low prices for which the first contracts had been let.99

In addition, the line of the canal above Seneca Falls feeder was useless until the next feeder was 

reached at Harper’s Ferry.100 Added to this difficulty was the charter requirement that one hundred miles of the canal must be completed in five years.101

 Eventually the delay itself began to be costly, for after the canal was completed between 

tidewater at Georgetown and Seneca in the spring of 1831, the large staff of engineers represented 

a financial burden while construction came to a virtual halt. The aforementioned employment 

terminations of Chief Engineer Wright and Engineer Roberts and the subsequent elimination of 

their positions resulted in part from the construction delays caused by the legal battle with the 

railroad.102 Moreover in a period of rising costs for labor, materials, and land acquisition, every 

delay in construction meant increased costs when work would resume. 

 The court battle followed a lackadaisical course as both companies turned to the Court of 

Chancery to adjudicate their rival claims. After receiving supplemental written arguments on behalf of the canal by former Attorney General William Wirt and on behalf of the railroad by John 

H.B. Latrobe, Roger Brook Taney, and Reverdy Johnson, a recognized leader of the Maryland 

Bar, during the summer of 1829, Chancellor Bland refused the canal company’s motion to dissolve the injunctions against it on September 24.103 Denying that there was any inconsistency between this proceeding and the prior suit in the Washington County Court, he observed that the 

earlier case involved the assertion by the canal company of a general right of priority whereas the 

railroad was merely seeking to preserve the status quo with respect to specific contract and other 

rights. Since both companies were authorized to acquire land for their corporate purposes, he felt 

 

96 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 78 ff., and Niles’ Register, XXXVIII (March 13, 

1830) 62–63. 

97 Report from the President of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Legislature of Maryland,V–

VIII, and House Report 414,244–247. 

98 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 85. 99 Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 21. 

100 Second Annual Report (1830), 6. 101 Act of Congress, Senate Document 610, 13. 102 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 171–174, 259. 103 On November 22, 1828, the canal board had authorized President Mercer to employ William Wirt, the 

Attorney General of the United States, as an attorney for the canal company to assist Walter Jones in conducting the legal case with the railroad. See: Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 117. 

Although Wirt played a major role in the legal battle between the railroad and the canal, his personal papers, located at the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore and in the Manuscript Collections of the Library of Congress, offer little substantive material relative to his participation. The great majority of his 

papers consist of correspondence with his wife, his children, and other relatives. While the letters give 

glimpses into the everyday workings of government and court life, the information generally tends to be 

peripheral to the major issues with which he was involved. Wirt resigned his position as Attorney General 

when Andrew Jackson became President in 1829, at which time he moved to Baltimore to open a private 

law practice. See: William Wirt, Augments Delivered at Annapolis (Washington, 1830), 3–206. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 69 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

that the race should go to the diligent by stating: “Where two or more are allowed, by law, to purchase and acquire a title to lands...he who does the first requisite act for that purpose, shall not be 

hindered in his further progress....”104

 Commissions to take evidence were issued to determine on the ground which company 

was entitled to priority and the extent to which it could proceed without interference with the 

other. The last of the commissions to take evidence was returned on May 27, 1831, at which point 

the canal company refused to spend further money and time in conducting the tedious evidentiary 

surveys and threatened to proceed with its own construction above Point of Rocks. The Chancellor eventually determined that enough ground had been covered (in fact only the 12-mile stretch 

between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry had been surveyed for the commissions),105 AND ON 

November 9 the injunctions against the canal were made perpetual. Furthermore it was required 

to pay the costs of the suit, including the expenses of the additional surveys ordered by the Chancery Court. In making his decision, the Chancellor took the dubious position that this was not the 

proper time to consider the question of prior right.106

 Arguing that the continued existence of the canal company was at stake, Walter Jones on 

December 7 applied to the Maryland Court of Appeals on behalf of the canal board to advance 

their appeal of the Chancellor’s decision and hear it out of turn. The railroad opposed this move, 

stating that its senior counsel, Roger Brooke Taney, had recently been appointed U.S. Attorney 

General and would be unable to participate on such short notice. However, the canal company 

countered these objections by replying that its senior counsel, William Wirt, would also miss the 

trial because of a recent illness.107

 On December 10, the Court of Appeals advanced the case and set it for argument on December 19, later changing it to December 26. The case was argued before the Court from December 26, 1831, through January 2, 1832. The canal company was represented by Walter Jones and 

Alexander C. Magruder, later a judge of the Court, while the railroad was represented by Reverdy 

Johnson and the venerable Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster. Despite the absence of one of 

its members, the Court rendered its decision on January 4, reversing the decision of the Chancellor and confirming the canal company in its claim to the right of prior location by a vote of 3 to 

2.108

 In his opinion Chief Judge John Buchanan, who had presided over the original litigation 

in the Washington County Court when doing circuit duty, spoke for the majority that the canal 

company had the right of prior location because (1) the Potomac Company was entitled to priority 

and the Chesapeake & Ohio had succeeded to its rights and (2) the legislation chartering the canal 

company constituted a compact which would be impaired by the granting of any inconsistent 

rights to the railroad. Basing his reasoning on an 1819 Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice 

John Marshall declaring the sanctity of contract under the U.S. Constitution, he stated: 

And its charter, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4th Wheaton 518, being a contract between the 

states of Maryland, Virginia, and the Potomac Company, the obligation of which could 

not, without the assent of the corporation, be impaired, by any act of the legislature of ei-

 

104 Gill and Johnson, Reports, IV, 54. 105 A Complete Set of Maps, Drawings, and Tabular Statements, Relating to the Locations of the Canal and 

Railroad, from the Point of Rocks to Harper’s Ferry (Georgetown, 1830), 1–56. 106 Gill and Johnson, Reports, IV, 71. 107 Jones to Mercer, December 2, 1831, and Wirt to Mercer, December 25, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; 

and Magruder to Wirt, December 10, 1831, and Mercer to Ingle, January, 1833, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 108 Niles’ Register, XLII (august 11, 1832), 219; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 

48; and Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 196. 
70 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

ther of the States, nor the concurrent acts of both, consistently with the constitution of the 

United States, declaring that, no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contract, the chart4er of the Rail Road company, could not, without impairing the obligation 

of that contract, abolish, take away, or diminish the prior and paramount right of the Potomac Company, to select and appropriate by purchase or condemnation, and lands in the 

valley of the Potomac, for the route and site of a canal or canals, wherever it should think 

proper, along the borders of the river, either in terms, or by any construction of it, that 

would have authorized the Rail Road Company, to occupy any of the difficult passes, or 

other places along the river, for the route and site of the road, in such a manner, as either 

to exclude that company from a priority in the choice of a site or sites for the construction 

of the works authorized by its charter, or in any manner to restrict and circumscribe it, in 

the exercise of its prior right of election. But such an occupation of the Rail Road Company of the valley of the Potomac, would have been a violation of the vested corporate 

rights and privileges of the Potomac Company, and the charter of the Rail Road Company, in so far as it purports to be, or may be construed in derogation of those rights and 

privileges, is repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and void; there being no 

difference in principle, between a law, that in terms impairs the obligation of a contract, 

and one that produces the same effect, in the construction and practical execution of 

it....109

The successful termination of the controversy enabled the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to 

resume construction of its waterway between Seneca and Point of Rocks and to place under contract the work above the latter village. The directors wasted little time in following up their advantage and placing the entire 100 miles under contract. It was now a two-fold race as the five 

years allowed by the charter for the construction of the first 100 miles would expire in 1833 and 

the exhaustion of the company’s immediate financial resources was on the horizon. Within two 

months the 12-mile section of the canal between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry was let for 

contract, and during the spring and summer months canal officials let contracts to complete, with 

slackwater navigation at several points, approximately 117 miles of the canal all the way to Dam 

No. 5.110

 To convince those who were skeptical of its assertion that it had sufficient funds to complete the contract, the canal board commissioned a comprehensive review of its financial condition. On December 15, 1832, President Mercer issued a published report indicating that the total 

amount of available company resources amounted to $60,419.16 in cash, $1,233,393.25 in uncollected stock, and $31,500.00 in estimated tolls for the approaching boating season, making a total 

of $1,325,812.41. According to the company estimates, it would cost $341,998.47 to complete the 

canal below Harpers Ferry, and $925,645.75 to finish it from Harpers Ferry to Dam No. 5. Added 

to these outlays, was the sum of $20,000 to operate the company during the coming year, thus 

making the total expenditures of the company to be $1, 287,644.22. By these projections, the 

company would have a surplus of $38,168.19 when the canal was finished to Dam No. 5. Admittedly, this was a thin margin of capital, but Mercer was optimistic that this amount would be 

augmented by additional grants from the interested states, higher toll collections once the canal 

 

109 Gill and Johnson, Reports, IV, 108–110. The full text of the opinions rendered in the case may be found 

in ibid, IV, 71–164, 164–226. 

110 Fourth Annual Report (1832), C&O Co., 5–8. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 71 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

was opened to navigation for the 117 miles, and income from the sale of water power to manufacturers along the canal.111

 At the same time, the indication of approaching financial duress was manifested in the 

revival of the proposal to substitute slackwater for canal navigation. Simultaneously with the 

aforementioned report, Mercer also submitted a study recommending the construction of a series 

of three dams and three canals, together with 20 miles of slackwater navigation, between Dam 5 

and a point nine miles above Cumberland. According to the estimates of the company engineers, 

this plan would reduce the cost of the eastern section by over $500,000.112

 The resumption of construction brought a renewal of the grievances of earlier years. Masonry work fell far behind schedule as the problem of stone and cement supplies reappeared, and 

there were more reports of absconding contractors.113 Most serious of all, land costs continued 

high as the canal entered Washington County. The first land condemned was that of a bitter canal 

opponent, Gerard B. Wager, to whom very high damages were awarded thereby providing a discouraging precedent.114

 The determination of the local land proprietors to extract maximum profits from the canal 

company was further intensified by the high award in the condemnation of Casper Wever’s land. 

Wever, a civil engineer and an official of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, had purchased a 500-

acre tract of land in the vicinity of present-day Weverton for the purpose of building a manufacturing town.115 During the court proceedings, Wever traveled to Annapolis to obtain an injunction 

from Chancellor Bland to prevent construction of the canal on his land until he received full payment.116

 After some of the landowners resorted to injunctions to enforce prompt payment of their 

awards, the board announced its intention to advertise the renewal of negotiations with Virginia 

landholders to shift the canal to the south side of the Potomac, but the notice failed to have any 

appreciable effect.117

 The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad continued in active opposition to its arch rival, maintaining its agitation in the Maryland legislature and conducting a nuisance campaign in the Potomac 

Valley to hinder the progress of the canal. The purpose of this agitation was to stir up popular 

pressure to force joint construction of the two transportation systems.118 

 On top of the renewed construction difficulties, high land costs, and conflicts with the 

railroad, there was the disastrous epidemic of Asiatic cholera in the Potomac Valley during the 

summer of 1832.119 The canal project had been plagued from its inception by the annual “sickly” 

 

111 Two Reports of the President to the Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, On the Present State of the Finances of the Company, and An Extension of the Navigation of the Potomac to a Point 

Nine Miles Above the Town of Cumberland, On a Plan Consistent with the Present Charter (Washington, 

1832), 3–8. 

112 Ibid, 8–12. 113 McFarland to Mercer, November 5, 1832, and Purcell to President and Directors, August 24, 1833, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. 

114 Cruger to President and Director, August 3, 1832, and Mercer to Ingle, August 8, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., 

C&O Co. 

115 John Thomas Scharf, History of Western Maryland (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1882), II, 1285. 116 Price to Ingle, August 25, 1832, and Price to Mercer, November 4, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 117 Price to Ingle, August 25, 1832, November 8, 1833, and June 10, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 118 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 92–93, and Proceedings of the President and Directors of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, on the Proposition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, of 

the 19th day of January, 1832, for the Joint Construction of the Canal and Railroad.... (Washington, 1832), 

1–34. 

119 Niles’ Register, XLIII (September 22, 1832), 52. 
72 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

season in the Potomac Valley causing the exodus of company officials, contractors, and laborers, 

but the 1832 epidemic proved to be the most devastating to occur during the construction period.120 The epidemic spread along the entire line of construction from Point of Rocks to Williamsport causing immense suffering as described in the following account: 

As many as six persons are said to have been lying dead, at one time, in a single shantee, 

—while in others the dead and dying were mixed in awful confusion. Many had abandoned their employments and fled—and some of these were attacked on the roads, and 

died in the fence corners! The habits and exposures of these poor people fit them for the 

reception of the cholera, and their accommodations for the sick are wretched and scanty, 

indeed—for they are crowded in temporary sheds, and badly supplied even with the most 

common necessaries of life....121

Thus, the summer of 1832, the first one in which unrestricted construction was possible, witnessed a virtual suspension of work along the canal, and the opportunity to complete the first 100 

miles of the waterway by 1833 was gone. In fact so little progress was made on the canal that not 

even the twelve miles between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry were finished in 1832. 

 With the coming of cooler weather in autumn, work slowly resumed on the canal, but the 

harm had been done. As a result of the many hindrances to construction the cost of the work had 

risen sharply, and the westward progress of the canal had virtually halted. By the latter part of 

1832, the canal company was experiencing its first financial crisis. While it still possessed adequate resources on paper, it was having difficulty in securing the payment of its calls and consequently was becoming hard pressed for funds to push the construction. In June, President Mercer 

had sought unsuccessfully to obtain a $300,000 loan based on the pledge of company property.122

 In October and November he made futile efforts to secure loans from private banks in 

Washington, New York, and Philadelphia on the pledge of Washington and Georgetown stock. 

Concurrently, the board asked the Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland legislatures for additional subscriptions, but the requests were rejected.123 Pennsylvania had shown initial interest 

only in the western section of the canal and was now completing its own extensive system of public works.124 Virginia had failed to make any subscription to the Chesapeake & Ohio, principally 

because the canal was being built on the Maryland side of the Potomac and Virginia interests saw 

little advantage in supporting a transportation system that would render the commercial advantages of the Potomac trade on Washington and Georgetown. Furthermore, she was preparing to 

construct her own system of internal improvements connecting the Chesapeake Bay and the Ohio 

River via the James and Kanawha Rivers.125

 To add to the financial woes of the company, simultaneous notices arrived in November 

1832 from the Mayor of Washington indicating the city’s inability to meet the twenty-ninth installment, and from the Secretary of the Treasury refusing to make further payments for the 

United States until the District cities caught up with their payments. The canal board prepared to 

suspend operations above Harpers Ferry when Washington defaulted.126

 

120 House Report 414,237. 121 Ibid, XLIII (September 15, 1832), 44 122 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 174. 123 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 174, 240, 243–244; and Mercer to Ingle, October 8, 25, 26, 31, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

124 Niles’ Register, XL (April 9, 1831), 91. 125 Wayland Fuller Dunaway, History of the James River and Kanawha Company (New York, 1922), 48–

49, 123–162, 226–240. 

126 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 236–237, 290 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 73 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

 The canal company turned to the Maryland legislature for an extension of its charter and 

further large-scale aid. The general Assembly was decidedly hostile to the canal’s petitions, and 

responded with a memorial to the canal company requesting joint construction of the two works 

to Harpers Ferry as a favor to the State, a policy that the railroad had recommended since its defeat in the Court of Appeals.127 After a lengthy battle of proposals and counter-proposals over this 

issue, the Governor suggested that the state might force the canal to accommodate the railroad by 

withholding further financial aid.128 A Senate committee responded with a report recommending 

the refusal of an extension of the charter and stating that they regarded the railroad “as decidedly 

and unqualifiedly a Maryland work” and that they did “not regard the canal in this light.”129

 The last source of aid still available for the canal Company was congress, but the prospects of assistance from the federal government were slight after the emergence of the Jacksonian 

Democrats in 2828. The early record of the administration clearly indicated its hostility toward 

federal support for internal improvements in general and for the Chesapeake & Ohio in particular. 

When he vetoed the Maysville Road Bill in May 1830, Jackson not only negated the proposed 

highway from Maysville to Lexington in Kentucky because it was an intrastate project, but he 

also challenged the principle that internal improvements were a federal responsibility. “If it be the 

wish of the people that the construction of roads and canals should be conducted by the Federal 

Government,” he wrote, “it is not only highly expedient, but indispensably necessary, that a previous amendment to the Constitution, delegating the necessary power and defining and restricting 

its exercise with reference to the sovereignty of the States, should be made.”130

 An analysis of the position of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal indicates that it failed to 

meet either of the criteria set down by Jackson for internal improvements deserving of federal 

support. While it originally had been projected as a great national project to connect tidewater on 

the Potomac with Pittsburgh on the Ohio, it was becoming more obvious with each passing day 

that the canal would do well to reach Cumberland, thus remaining an intrastate project tapping the 

largely agricultural Potomac Valley trade for the benefit of Washington and Georgetown. As 

there was little enthusiasm for the Constitutional amendment recommended by Jackson, there was 

little hope of overcoming his neo-Jeffersonian and laissez faire attitude toward the question of 

federal support for internal improvements. 

 Furthermore, the particular bitterness with which the Jacksonians viewed the Chesapeake 

& Ohio may have stemmed in part from the personal animosity that existed between President 

Jackson and Charles F. Mercer. As a young Congressman in 1819, Mercer had delivered an address on the House floor assailing Jackson’s course in the Seminole War, a speech which Jackson—who was known to carry longstanding personal grudges—apparently never forgot.131

 As chairman of the House Committee on Roads and Canals, Mercer had enjoyed the 

friendship of Presidents Monroe and John Quincy Adams, both of whom had supported the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal project. Jackson, on the other hand, had been a bitter antagonist of 

Adams since he lost the presidential election to him in 1824, and Jackson was little interested in 

 

127 Proceedings of Directors, C, 108, and Report of the Committee Appointed on the 28th April, 1832, By the 

Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, On the Resolution of the General Assembly of 

Maryland, Relative to the Joint construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad, Between the “Point of Rocks” and Harper’s Ferry (Washington, 1832), 3–8. 128 Maryland House Journal, 1832, 23–24. 

129 Maryland Senate Journal, 1832, Appendix I, 4. 130 Richardson, Messages and Papers, II, 1341, and Journal of the House of Representatives of the United 

States, 21st Cong., 1st sess., 1829–30, 733–742. For more information on Jackson’s general attitude toward 

internal improvements see Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson (New York, 1966), 126, and Harold C. 

Syrett, Andrew Jackson: His Contribution to the American Tradition (Indianapolis, 1953), 135–154. 131 Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 2d sess., cols. 797-831 
74 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

bailing out a project that Adams had supported, particularly in the area of internal improvements.132

 These political rivalries and personal animosities were exacerbated after 1828 when Mercer, still holding his chairmanship of the House committee, as well as doubling as the canal president, became a persistent critic of the increasing power of the presidency and the spoils system 

under Jackson at the very time that he was coming into frequent conflict with the Jacksonians by 

his advocacy of federal support for internal improvements.133 Thus, Jackson and his supporters 

had particular disdain for the Chesapeake & Ohio and its president and consequently were not 

inclined to be receptive to its appeal for additional funding. 

 The actions of the Jacksonian Democrats in the early 1830s served to underline this policy of hostility toward federal support for internal improvements in general and for the Chesapeake & Ohio in particular. In December 1828 Jacksonians in Congress introduced a joint resolution against further aid to the Cumberland Road and opposing federal ownership of stock in private internal improvement companies.134 In June 1829, the new administration failed to send a 

representative to the first annual meeting of the canal company stockholders.135 

 On March 1, 1830, the House Committee on Internal Improvements recommended that 

no further aid be granted to the project until the relative value of canals and railroads was proved 

by trial, thereby taking the position that had been advocated by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 

and causing canal officials to spend a great deal of time in collecting and publishing data on the 

subject.136 

 The administration reversed its former policy of ignoring canal company meetings and 

actively interfered in company affairs at the second annual meeting of the company stockholders 

in June 1830 when Secretary of the Treasury Samuel D. Ingham nominated Commodore George 

Washington Rodgers, a respected naval hero and Jacksonian loyalist, to replace Mercer.137 Although Mercer was reelected by a margin of 5,831 to 3,531, the Jacksonians again tried to dislodge him at the 1832 annual meeting.138 

 Meanwhile Congress refused to accede to any of the canal company’s petitions for further aid.139 Finally, in a desperate effort to win the favor of the national administration, the canal 

company consented in June 1833, by a highly-contested vote of 5,054 to 3,430, to the replacement of Mercer by ex-Secretary of War John Eaton, a friend of Jackson from Tennessee and a 

 

132 Remini, Andrew Jackson, 125–126. 133 James Mercer Garnett, Biographical Sketch of Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer: 1778–1858 (Richmond, 

1911), 3–15, and Dictionary of American Biography, VI, 539. 134 U.S., Congress, Senate, Joint Resolution for the Care and Preservation of the Cumberland Road, and of 

Other Roads Made or To Be Made by the Federal Government within the Different States, S. Doc. 6, 20th

Cong., 2d sess., 1828. 

135 Mercer to Ingle, September 1, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 136 U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Internal Improvement, Report of the Committee on Internal Improvement, to Which Were Referred Sundry Petitions, Praying for an Appropriation to the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Company, to be expended on the Western Side of the Mountains, H. Rept. 280, 21st Cong., 1st

sess., 1830, 1. 

137 Washington National Intelligencer, June 14, 1830. 138 Boteler to Mercer, July 28, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

139 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Memorial of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company, H. Doc. 73, 20th Cong., 2d sess., 1829, 1–2; ibid, Memorial of Stockholders, & c. in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, H. Doc. 120, 20th Cong., 2d sess., 1829, 1–4; ibid, Memorial of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, H. Doc. 127, 20th Cong. 2d sess., 1829, 1–3; ibid, Committee of Internal 

Improvements, Memorial of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, H. 

Doc. 53, 21st Cong., 2d sess., 1830, 1–10; and ibid, Committee for the District of Columbia, Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Co., H. Doc. 93, 22d Cong., 2d sess., 1833, 1-13. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 75 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

principal in the well-publicized Peggy Eaton affair.140 Fortified by this concession, the canal 

board memorialized Congress in the spring of 1834 for a further subscription by submitting a 

lengthy report describing the historical development, the progress of the construction, and numerous problems of the canal project.141 Notwithstanding the influence of the new president and the 

support of Mercer, who still remained as the chairman of the House Committee on Roads and 

Canals, Congress refused further aid to the company. 

 Failing to secure relief from the federal government, the canal directors belatedly sought 

to make peace with Maryland. A subscription by Virginia for $250,000 in February 1833 was too 

small and too encumbered with stipulations concerning its use to provide any real assistance as 

the canal board agreed to apply some $80,000 of the amount subscribed to the construction of 

several river locks that would provide access to the canal for boats crossing the Potomac from the 

Virginia shore.142

 Therefore in February 1833, even before the bill providing for the Virginia subscription 

passed, the directors indicated their willingness to compromise their differences with the state and 

railroad, a move undoubtedly prompted in part by the railroad company’s petition to Congress in 

that month requesting that the financial relief sought by the District cities be denied.143

 In March, the legislature passed an act proposing an arrangement in which the state, the 

canal, and the railroad could all participate.144 According to the bill, which required the approval 

of both companies to become operable, the railroad company was to subscribe to $266,000 to the 

stock of the canal company in return for permission to construct its tracks from Point of Rocks to 

Harpers Ferry. This subscription covered the costs of extending the railway to Harpers Ferry on 

the right-of-way of between 20 and 30 feet in width. The canal company would undertake the 

actual location and construction of both lines through the 4.1 miles of difficult passes where both 

works came together. For its part, the railroad would agree not to use the Maryland side of the 

river above Harpers Ferry until the canal was completed to Cumberland or before 1840 if the canal had not been completed by that time. The legislature offered, as its part, to pass two acts, long 

the subject of dispute between it and the canal, when the railroad reached Harpers Ferry. These 

would permit the canal board to sell surplus water and to commence the western section before 

completing the canal to Cumberland.145

 After the railroad signified its consent to some conditions designed by the canal company 

to protect its rights, the Chesapeake & Ohio formally accepted the Maryland act on May 9.146 The 

acceptance of the compromise did not mark the end of the trouble between the railroad and the 

 

140 Washington National Intelligencer, June 7, 1833, and Niles’ Register, XLIV (June 22, 1833), 270–271. 141 Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 320–321; Eaton to Price, January 3, 1834, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co.; Sixth 

Annual 

142 Richmond Compiler quoted in Niles’ Register, XLIV (April 27, 1833), 132; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C. 282–283; and Report on a Survey and Estimate for the Improvement of the 

Navigation of Goose Creek, Little River, and Beaver Dam in Loudoun County, Va. (Washington, 1832), 3–

6. 

143 U.S., Congress, House, Memorial of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, H. Doc. 113, 22nd Cong., 

2d sess., 1833, 1-0, and Niles’ Register, XLII (August 18, 1832), 441–442. 144 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1833), Ch. 291, 

Fifth Annual Report (1833), C&O Co., l2–15; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 

312. 

145 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 312, 341–342; Hungerford, Story of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, I, 137–141; and Semomes, Latrobe and His Times, 341. 146 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 268–269, and Washington National Intelligencer, May 10, 1833. 
76 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

canal, but there did follow a brief period of cooperation that seemed to brighten the prospects for 

both companies.147

 After the compromise of 1833, the canal company again turned to Virginia and Maryland 

for aid in the solution of its financial problems. In June 1833 it estimated that it would cost 

$1,106,000 to complete the navigation to Dam No. 5, while its resources to meet that sum 

amounted to $1,295,104.54, leaving only the small sum of $189,104.54 to be applied to the future 

extension of the canal.148 The appeal to Virginia was unsuccessful, but the Maryland General Assembly voted an additional subscription of $125,000 in March 1834.149 By the summer of 1834, 

the financial condition of the canal company was again desperate.150

COST OF EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT 

 FOR CANAL PRISM - MAY 1, 1833 

Cu.Yds. Average per Yd. 

Grubbing $22,545.00

Earth 5,006,642.00 610,475.76 12 19/100

Rock 907,698.00 599,003.65 65 99/100

Slate 8,150.00 1,841.00 22 59/100

Embankment from canal 1,017,809.00 124,382.23 12 22/100

Embankment not from canal 1,866,120.00 382,210.34 20 48/100

Puddling 134,709.00 30,273.75

Per Perch 

Perches of stone pd.for as excavation 387,008.00 196,180.01 50 69/100

Perches of stone not pd.for as excavation 25,085.00 24,530.00 97 79/100

Extras 49,364.13

TOTAL $2,040,805.87

Of the total sum, $1,619,625.65 had been done, and $421,180.22 still needed to be done. 

Excerpted from House Report 414,26 

The Financial statement presented to the annual meeting of the stockholders in June showed that 

the company had already spent $4,062,991.25. The available resources of the company totaled 

$439,912, but approximately $547,563 were needed to complete the work under contract to Dam 

No. 5, leaving a deficit of $107,651. Accordingly, President Eaton informed the stockholders: 

During the past twelve months, nothing has transpired to give any lively encouragement 

to the future progress and final completion of this important work. An embarrassed state 

of its finances has kept the officers, who have been engaged in superintending its affairs, 

under constant perplexity, and apprehension for its success; and with every practiced effort, they have been barely able to get on with its operation to the present time....The entire deficiency, over and above all the available means possessed by the company, it is 

 

147 Extracts from the Proceedings of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal Company Respecting the Joint Construction of a Canal and Railroad Along 1–45; Fifth Annual Report (1833), 9, 15; and Frederick Town Herald, May 11, 1833. 148 Fifth Annual Report (1833), 6. 

149 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1834), ch. 241. 150 Williamsport Banner, July 12, 1834. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 77 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

believed, will not fall short of two hundred and forty or two hundred and fifty thousand 

dollars (when repairs and cost increases were counted).151

The deteriorating financial condition of the canal company was further aggravated by the monetary policies of the Jackson Administration. As a result of this continuing war against the Second 

Bank of the United States, the President in 1833 had forced the removal of the federal deposits 

from its vaults, distributing them among a select group of “pet banks.” Excessive retrenchment by 

the bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, created a financial depression in 1834.152

COST OF CANAL CONSTRUCTION 

FROM ROCK CREEK BASIN 

 TO DAM NO. 5 - MARCH 1, 1834 

Sections $2,152,878.98

Locks 534,382.18

Lockhouses 21,725.22

Bridges and Aqueducts 291,014.75

Culverts 204,072.78

WasteWeirs 22,020.35

Dams and Feeders 209,891.00

TOTAL $3,435,985.26

Excerpted from House Report 414,187 

Under the existing tight money market, the canal company could not convert $218,750 in Washington and Georgetown six percent bonds into money without taking a serious loss. The hard 

times also made it impossible for the company to collect $100,000 from the $250,000 due in 

March from the stockholders. Without any hope of obtaining substantial accretions to its resources, the canal directors determined: 

To issue promissory notes of five, ten, and twenty dollars, payable one year after date, 

with four per cent interest; and for the redemption of which, stocks of the State of Maryland, and of the corporations of Washington and Georgetown, will be placed in the hands 

of Phineas Janney, John P. Van Ness, and William Price, as trustees, to an amount 

($150,000) greater than it is proposed to issue notes; with authority in the trust to sell the 

stocks, and apply the proceeds to the payment of the notes when at maturity.153

Once the decision had been made to issue canal script, the canal board renewed its efforts to secure bank loans. In mid-September, the Bank of the United States advanced $200,000 to the company and the boar immediately placed advertisements in the Potomac Valley newspapers to attract several hundred additional hands to complete the canal to Dam No. 5.154

 

151 Sixth Annual Report (1834), C&O Co., 3–4, 6–7. 152 John Spencer Bassett, The Life of Andrew Jackson (Rev. ed., New York, 1967), 631–655, and Glydon 

G. Van Deuser, The Jacksonian Era, 1824–1848 (New York, 1959), 80–83. 153 Niles’ Register, XLVI (May 3, 1834), 149; Williamsport Banner, quoted in Niles’ Register, XLIV (April 

26, 1834), 133; and Sixth Annual Report (1834), 3–4. 154 Niles’ Register, XLVII (September 20, 1834, October 4, 1834); Proceedings of the President and Board 

of Directors, D 159; and Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 368. 
78 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

 Encouraged by this unexpected aid, the canal directors again directed appeals for additional funds to congress and the interested states in late 1834. They were supported in their petitions by the Internal Improvement Convention which met in Baltimore on December 8–10, 1834. 

The meeting assembled at the call of an earlier gathering at the Allegany Court House in Cumberland on October 18, at which supporters of the waterway in the western Maryland counties had 

urged further assistance for the project so that it could be completed to Cumberland.155 About 200 

representatives from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the District cities attended the 

convention.156

 Ostensibly called not only to consider measures “as should seem most likely to cause the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to be soon finished,” but also to undertake plans for other internal improvements “of a national character” to “advance the welfare to Maryland, and her sister states,” 

the convention devoted its time almost exclusively to the problems of the waterway. The convention selected as its chairman, George Corbin Washington, a grandnephew of George Washington, 

Harvard-educated lawyer, and former Maryland Congressman who had been elected the third 

president of the canal company in June 1834.157

 Among the important actions of the convention were the formal approval of memorials to 

the House of Representatives, the Mayor and City of Council of Baltimore, and the Virginia, 

Maryland, and Pennsylvania legislatures for more aid.158 Two significant reports were submitted 

by committees appointed by the convention. One, by the principal committee headed by expresident Mercer, examined the probably cost and time of completing the canal, and the other, 

chaired by Pennsylvania Congressman Andrew Stewart, reviewed the expected trade and revenue 

of the canal when it would reach Cumberland.159

 The Mercer committee report noted the amount and quality of work already done on the 

canal and the work remaining to be done. Concerning the finances needed to complete the eastern 

section of the waterway, the report concluded: 

The completion of these works is expected to carry the total cost of the eastern section of 

the canal to the amount of very near $6,500,000. Of this sum, the first 107 miles with its 

appendages, will continue 4 1⁄2 millions. This last sum allows $25,640 per mile, for each 

mile of the 78; and is believe to be sufficient; as well from the a reference to the actual 

cost of a large portion of the canal, above and below Williamsport, as from a survey and 

working estimate of the 25 1⁄2 miles immediately below the Great Cacapon; at which 

point, it is contemplated to erect the next or sixth dam, across the Potomac. The total cost 

of these 26 1⁄2 miles, it is confidently believed, will not exceed $600,000. So that, of the 

two millions, $1,400,000 will be applicable to the construction of 51 1⁄2 miles above Cacapon; which allows about $17,184 per mile for the portion of the eastern section. 

Altogether the report estimated that it would cost approximately $14,500,000 to complete the canal to Pittsburgh.160

 The Stewart committee report studied the sources of trade of the canal when it would be 

completed to Cumberland. In glowing terms, it expressed the firm conviction that the Chesapeake 

 

155 Journal of the Internal Improvement Convention Which Assembled in the City of Baltimore, On the 8th

Day of December, 1834 (Baltimore, 1835), 3–7. 156 Ibid, 7–10. 157 Niles’ Register, XLVI (July 5, 1834), 326. 158 Journal of the Internal Improvement Convention, 27–44, 73–93, and Niles’ Register, XLVII (December 

13, 1834, January 1, 1835), 233, 308–310. 

159 Journal of the Internal Improvement Convention, 45–72. 160 Ibid, 58–63. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 79 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

& Ohio Canal will afford a more profitable investment of funds, than any similar work of internal 

improvement in the United States, possessing as it does, advantages in reference to climate, distance, structure, and sources of revenue, decidedly superior to any other, constructed or contemplated.” The sources of revenue named by the report were coal, lumber, lime, iron, fish, agricultural produce, merchandise, and water power rentals, all of which would “force it (the canal) onward to its completion” to the Ohio River.161 

 Reassured by the convention reports and enthused over the prospects of a “geometrical 

increase of business” once the waterway reached Cumberland, the convention adjourned to press 

its quest for aid. 

 Once again the efforts were made to obtain the assistance of the United States. Despite 

the favorable recommendation of the House Committee on Roads and Canals, Congress again 

refused to grant the requested aid. After this rebuff to their petition, the canal supporters confirmed their efforts to obtain $500,000 from the dividend of the Second Bank of the United 

States, in return for which sum the company offered perpetual release from tolls for government 

business on the waterway. When this proposal failed to pass the Senate, it became clear to all 

concerned that the federal government had renounced all interest in the project.162

 The failure of Congress to assume the support of the canal company placed the future of 

the work in the hands of the District cities and the interested states. The former were debt-ridden 

and incapable of rendering further aid, and the latter, except Maryland, were no longer interested. 

Supporters of the canal in the Virginia Assembly introduced a bill to guarantee a loan of 

$500,000 for the canal company in return for a mortgage of canal property to the state, but after 

passage in the lower house, the proposal was defeated by one vote in the Senate when it was 

called up during the absence of several known friends of the canal.163 The canal was thus forced 

to rely solely upon the support of the state of Maryland. 

 

161 Ibid, 45–47, and Niles’ Register, XLVII (January 17, 1835), 330, 341–344. 162 Washington to Colston, January 31, 1835, Ltrs., Sent, C&O Co., and Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 

365–370. 

163 Niles’ Register, XLVII (February 21, 1835), 428; XLVIII (March 7, 1835), 2; and Richmond Compiler

quoted in Niles’ Register, XLVIII (March 14, 1835), 18. 
80 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

III. MARYLAND ASSUMES CONTROL OF 

THE GREAT NATIONAL PROJECT: 1835–1842 

The canal company vigorously pressed the Maryland General Assembly to pass a bill authorizing 

a loan of the entire $2,000,000 required to complete the canal to Cumberland. The campaign to 

acquire the loan was aided by the memorial of the politically impressive Internal Improvement 

Convention and the personal lobbying efforts of President Washington and certain influential 

members of the assembly.164 After considerable debate, the Maryland legislature passed the act in 

March 1835 authorizing the loan, with members from Baltimore and the Eastern Shore supporting 

it as well as the canal supporters from the western counties.165

 Apparently, two arguments had a great effect in winning support for the measure. It was 

widely believed that the future revenues of the canal, as outlined in the report of Andrew Stewart 

to the Internal Improvement Convention, would provide sizeable financial returns to the state in 

later years. To foster this hope, the pro-canal delegates, encouraged by President Washington, 

proposed to give the counties for educational purposes all receipts over the amount necessary to 

provide a sinking fund to redeem the debt.166 The members were also afraid of the consequences 

of the concurrent deliberations in the Virginia legislature concerning the mortgage of the canal to 

that state for only $500,000, a sum clearly inadequate to complete it to Cumberland.167

 The act provided for the payment of $600,000 on June 20, 1835, and $200,000 on October 1, 1835, $200,000 on January 1, 1836, and four quarterly installments of $250,000 each on 

the first of April, July, October, 1835, and January 1837. Upon the unanimous recommendation 

of the canal directors, the company stockholders formally accepted the load and authorized the 

mortgage at a special meeting on April 22.168

 In reporting the $2,000,000 loan, the Niles Register editorialized that 

They cannot but congratulate the stockholders and the community upon the prospects 

which the act of Maryland affords of speedily realizing the sanguine anticipations in 

which they have long indulged for the completion of this great work of internal improvement.169

During the ensuing months, the canal company had little trouble in obtaining the money for the 

bonds issued to pay the loan as financial conditions both on the domestic and European scenes 

 

164 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 83–84, 165; and Memorial to the General Assembly of Maryland in Behalf of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1835), 3–12. 165 Ibid, 265; Washington to Ingle, March 1, 1835, Stewart to Ingle, March 6, 1835, and Nesbit to Washington, April 8, 1835, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of 

Maryland (Annapolis, 1835), ch. 241; on Internal Improvement Maryland, General Assembly, House of 

Delegates, Committees Report to the Committee on Internal Improvement to which Was Referred the Memorial of a Convention of Citizens of the States of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Ohio, and of the 

District of Columbia, Invoking Further Aid to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Annapolis, 1835), 1–7, and 

Ibid, Committee on Ways and Means, To Whom Was Referred the Bill Reported by the Committee on the 

Internal Improvement, to Provide for the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland

(Annapolis, 1835), 1–8. 

166 Washington to Ingle, March 1, 1835, Ltrs. Recd. C&O Co. 167 Ingle to Barnard, March 6, 1835, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 168 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, 283; Report of the President and Directors of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, to the Stockholders, Specially Concerned in General Meeting April 

22, 1835 (Washington, 1835), 3–8; and Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 376–377. 

169 Niles’ Register, XLVIII (April 25, 1835), 129. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 81 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

were favorable to the disposal of the state bonds at a premium. Anxious to avoid speculation on 

future sales, the directors offered the bonds as a block and accepted the bid of a Baltimore house 

to take the bonds at a premium of $15.40 per $100.170 A further indication of Maryland’s interest 

in the completion of the eastern section was its decision as a one-sixth bondholder to forego dividends, thereby repaying her own loan to that extent.171

 Upon receipt of the first installment of the $2,000,000 loan in June 1835, the company 

liquidated its entire debt of $559,771.05, retires its canal script, and resumed the construction of 

the waterway above Dam No. 5 with increased vigor.172 However, the continued high cost of land 

and labor during the inflationary cycle of the 1830s, and increased construction difficulties in the 

upper Potomac Valley soon forced the actual cost of the canal far above the estimates which were 

the basis of the $2,000,000 loan. There were at least five factors that played a direct role in increasing the cost of construction, thus hindering the rapid completion of the work. 

 First, the work on the sections above Dam No. 5 proved more difficult and costly than 

had been anticipated in part because Charles B. Fisk, an assistant engineer who in May was 

placed in charge of the important new third residency on which all construction was then concentrated, again raised high the banner of perfection which former President Mercer had carried as 

persistently during the early years of the canal project. On March 30, 1835, he wrote to the canal 

board with apparently little knowledge of, or concern for, financial considerations, proposing a 

revision of building procedures in extending the canal and urging greater care and expenditure in 

construction in order to reduce subsequent repair and maintenance costs.173

 Regardless of its economic or technical soundness, this plan proved to be politically disastrous course for the company in the 1830s and 1840s, leaving the future success of the canal 

clouded by a staggering capitalization, and in June 1837 it reiterated its insistence on perfection 

for the work above Dam No. 5 and rejected all proposals for expedients in construction: 

In the location and construction of the canal above Dam no. 5, as well as that designed 

from Cacapon to Cumberland, the Board has acted on the principal that temporary works 

and expedients, to hasten the opening of the navigation to the coal region, cannot accomplish the object for which this magnificent improvement was designed, and would prove 

a failure alike discreditable to its projectors and managers, as well as to the community 

concerned; neither would the interests of the stockholders have been consulted by a plan 

of operation looking only to saving in cost and time. False and imperfect construction and 

location would necessarily induce frequent costly repairs, amounting eventually to more 

than the first cost of a perfect work; and as to time, much more would be lost than gained, 

from the repeated and vexatious interruptions to trade, of breaches in the embankments, 

and failures in the masonry. Whilst, on the one hand, the Board has been actuated by the 

most scrupulous regard to the proper and judicious application of the funds of the company, on the other hand, they have endeavored to avoid false motions of economy in the 

construction of the work which is not designed to subserve the purposes of the present 

day or century, but is to endure for all time.174

 

170 White to Washington, April 11, 1835, and Maclubin to Washington, June 5, 1835, Ltrs. Reed, C&O Co. 171 Proceedings of Stockholder, A, 371. 172 Maryland, General Assembly, Joint Committee on Expenditures for Internal Improvement, Report of the 

Joint Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Expenditures of the State, In Works of Internal Improvement

(Annapolis, 1836), 4, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 342. 173 Fish to President and Directors, March 30, 1835, Ltrs. Reed, C&O Co.; Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, 311, 319. 

174 Ninth Annual Report (1837), C&O Co., 6–7. 
82 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

The influence of such ideas by Fish would continue to affect the canal construction as he was 

promoted to chief engineer on April 12, 1837, and remained in that position, with the exception 

of a brief period in 1840–41, until 1852. 

 Second, construction costs increased because of the stone in the upper Potomac Valley. 

Contrary to earlier reports, new ground surveys by Resident Engineer Thomas F. Purcell and Superintendent of Masonry A. B. McFarland found a large part of the strata to be composed of normally friable red sandstone, much of it already rotten. Good supplies of limestone were discovered at scattered points on both sides of the river, notably near the mouth of the Great Cacapon on 

the Virginia side and at Town Hill on the Maryland side. But many of the deposits were at some 

distance from the projected line of the canal, thereby increasing transportation costs to move the 

materials to the construction site.175 

 Third, land damages added to the increasing expense of construction. Landholders in 

Washington and Allegany Counties continued to demand the highest possible prices, and juries in 

both jurisdictions continued to exact full satisfaction. Land costs averaged $2,290 per mile, more 

than double the estimates of 1834, ranging from 2 1⁄2 to 25 times the company’s original estimated 

costs. The general attitude of the Jacksonian-oriented western Maryland farmers appeared to be 

best summed up in the words of one of the proprietor’s lawyers when he stated that “this great 

wealthy foreign Company should not be permitted to trespass upon the farmer without being 

made to pay ample for it.”176

 Fourth, the rise in construction costs was affected by the labor and provisions price increases of the 1830s. With resumption of large-scale operations the shortage of workers again 

became critical. To relieve this condition, A. B. McFarland went to New York and Philadelphia 

in early 1837 to recruit additional hands, as many other public works in the East had already been 

forced to suspend operations because of spiraling inflation.177 Despite his efforts, the level of 

wages on the canal, which had averaged $5 to $10 per month on 1828, rose to nearly $35 per 

month.178

 The contractors were experiencing severe financial problems by the summer of 1836. As 

a result, the canal board ratified a series of estimated increases among which were included an 8 

per cent increase in the estimates for eighteen contractors between Dams No. 5 and 6 in August 

1836, a further advance of $106,808 to the contractors on the same stretch of the canal in February 1837, and 30 per cent increase over January 1836 prices for the estimates on the “50-mile section” between the Cacapon River and Cumberland in August 1837.179 Many contracts were abandoned and relet for increases of from 25 to 40 per cent.180

 The steady rise in prices was also evidenced in a report in April 1838 which revealed that 

the following construction items had increased as follows within a five-month span: 

Excavation from 11 and 14 cents to 20 cents a cubic yard 

Puddling from 10 to 30 cents a cubic yard 

 

175 Purcell to Board of Directors, May 26, 1835, and McFarland to Bender, January 2, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., 

C&O Co. 

176 Price and Merrick to President and Directors, July 23, 1835; and Bender to President and Directors, August 10, 1835, and May 7, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

177 Tenth Annual Report (1838), C&O Co., Appendix 1, 22, and Proceedings of Stockholder, B, 81. 178 G.M. and R.W. Watkins to President and Directors, February 15, 1837, and Fish to Bender, August 3, 

1837, Ltrs., Recd., C&O Co. 

179 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 126–127, 129; Fish to Bender, August 23, 1836, 

August 3, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer; and Report of the Committee of Directors, February 4, 1837, 

Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

180 Tenth Annual Report (1838), Appendix 3, 25 ff. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 83 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

Walling from 45 cents to 75 cents a perch 

Embankment from excavation from 18 cents to 30 cents a cubic yard181

Fifth, the adoption of the Paw Paw tunnel and deep cuts contributed to the increased costs of construction. One of the most expensive projects on the entire line, it was the proudest achievement 

of the company and its contractor, Lee Montgomery, a hard-working Methodist minister, was 

treated with greater deference by the canal directors than most other contractors. The importance 

of keeping the work moving on the heavy sections to prevent undue delay in the completion of 

the canal insured him of their continued financial assistance and by 1842 the company had paid 

over $616,478.65 for this partially-completed structure, a sum that was about 75 percent above 

earlier contract estimates.182

 The escalation in land, labor, and construction costs soon forced the actual cost of the 

canal far above the estimates which were the basis of the $2,000,000 loan. In 1834, Engineer Alfred Cruger had allowed $663,676 for the construction of the 27 miles between Dam No. 5 and 

the Cacapon River.183 Fisk revised this figure in June 1835 on the basis of work actually done, 

raising it to $1,022,534, and in June 1836 another revision raised the cost to $2,427,497.184 

 As a result of these developments, the resources of the company were inadequate for the 

job, and the canal board began curtaining its operations in January 1836 by suspending the letting 

of contracts and condemnation of land above the Cacapon.185 As it had so many times in the past, 

the canal company again petitioned the District cities and the Virginia and Maryland legislature 

for further aid.186 

 The bankrupt District cities were in no position to offer assistance, their predicted declaration of foreclosure being prevented only by the assumption of their debts by the federal government in May 1836.187 The petition to the Virginia Assembly produced a bill for an additional 

subscription to the company, but opposition from the James River and Kanawha Company prevented its passage.188 When the company requested an additional $2,500,000 from the Maryland 

General Assembly, there was widespread support for the canal’s appeal. The suspension of the 

work above the Cacapon in January 1836 was a serious blow to the Cumberland businessman as 

described in the Niles’ Register: 

The stoppage of the work on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal has caused a very considerable panic in Cumberland. Two hours after the arrival of the news, the price of produce 

came down at least 10 percent. Business still continues to be dull; our principal streets 

presenting an unusual barrenness; the merchant is idle; and the mechanic slow in the 

transaction of his business; the speculator is cut to the quick; and those who engaged to 

pay high rents on account of the prospects of the canal, have been suddenly and seriously 

 

181 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 389–390. 182 Bender to President and Directors, August 30, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, E, 384; and Ledger Book A, C&O Co. 

183 The survey by Cruger is printed in its entirety in House Report 414, 200–220. 184 Eighth Annual Report (1836), C&O Co., 3–4. 185 Ingle to Bender, January 9, 16, 1836, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Bender to Ingle, January 19, 1836, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. 

186 Memorial of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal company to the Honorable 

the General Assembly of Maryland, January 27, 1836 (Washington, 1836), 1–16. 187 Proceedings of the President and Board of directors, E, 66. Also see, U.S., Congress, Senate, Memorial 

of the Corporation of Georgetown, D.C., Praying to be Relieved from Pecuniary Embarrassments by Congress, S. Doc. 48, 24th Cong., 1st sess., 136, 1–3. 188 Sherrard to Hinderson, March 19, 1836, Ltrs. Recd, C&O Co. 
84 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

disappointed. Indeed, the citizens of the town generally, and the farmers for many miles 

round, have great cause to regret this temporary suspension. 

 The proceeding has startled everybody. For after the great liberality of the legislature, in granting two millions, no one expected such a result. It was believed that the 

work would be very nearly completed at least....189

The popularity of the waterway had grown as it advanced westward and became an increasingly 

important factor in the projected regional economy. Town meetings, such as one held at Cumberland, passed resolutions urging the legislature to grant further aid.190 The chances of the company’s success in obtaining the increased aid were enhanced by the simultaneous need of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad for further assistance and an internal improvements fever that was 

sweeping the state. 

 Despite these favorable circumstances, there was strong opposition in the Assembly to 

large appropriations for public works. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Joint committee on Expenditures for Internal Improvement and the House Committee on Ways and Means, the 

bill providing $8,000,000 for various state canal and railroad projects failed to pass the House of 

Delegates by a vote of 35 to 34 on March 31, 1836.191 Following the vote, the Assembly adjourned until May 4, when a special session would take up the proposal after the Maryland citizens had had an opportunity to discuss it. 

 The pro-internal improvements forces sponsored a series of rallies climaxed on May 2 by 

a mass meeting in Baltimore, attended by representatives from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.192 The rally adopted resolutions urging the state to: 

1. complete the public works; 

2. secure control of the Chesapeake & Ohio; 

3. bring its trade to Baltimore by means of the long-discussed Maryland Cross-Cut Canal; 

4. permit the extension of the Baltimore & Ohio to the west through Maryland; 

5. encourage the development of local railroads, such as the Eastern Shore Railroad, in 

other parts of the state.193

The special session that met in Annapolis on May 20, 1836, referred the question of the condition 

of state finances and public works to the Joint Committee on Internal Improvements. Badly divided over this critical issue, the committee issued two separate reports. The majority noted that 

the exhausted condition of the state finances would not permit large expenditures for public 

works, and, at any rate, there was insufficient information on which to base major decisions on 

the proposed construction on the Baltimore & Ohio, the Maryland Cross-Cut Canal, and the Eastern Shore Railroad. The members could see no reason for extending the Chesapeake & Ohio if its 

 

189 Niles’ Register, XLIX (February 20, 1836), 426. 

190 William H. Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland (Washington, 1878), 338–339. 

191 Report of the Joint Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Expenditures of the State, 3–4, “Report of 

the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Delegates, on the Subject of the Finances and Internal 

Improvements,” March 9, 1836, in A Short History of the Public Debt of Maryland (Baltimore, 1844), Appendix K, 52–62. 

192 A Short History of the Public Debt of Maryland, 23–25. 

193 “Address of the City of Baltimore to the People of Maryland,” April 12, 1836, in Ibid, Appendix, 68-72, 

and Journal of the Internal Improvement Convention, May 2, 1836,” in Ibid, 27–30. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 85 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

terminus was to remain in Georgetown, and they found it difficult to see the need for extending 

both the canal and the railroad if one were more advantageous than the other.194

 On the other hand, the minority report, written by Joseph Merrick, a long-time canal supporter who had helped engineer the 1834 and 1835 subscriptions through the Assembly, rejected 

the retrenchment policy of the majority. It urged the passage of the Eight Million Bill as a logical 

culmination of the state’s efforts to acquire a share of the western trade and as a measure to provide for the future stability of the treasury.195

 The Assembly paid little heed to the warnings of the majority report and adopted the 

views of the minority. The House of Delegates passed the internal improvements bill on June 3 

by a vote of 48 to 39, and the Senate passed it the following day by a vote of 11 to 2. The act provided for the subscription of $8,000,000 to various internal improvement companies: 

• $3,000,000 each to the Chesapeake & Ohio and the Baltimore & Ohio; 

• $1,000,000 to the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad; 

• $500,000 to the Maryland Canal Company for a branch canal from the Chesapeake & 

Ohio to Baltimore; 

• And $250,000 each to the Annapolis and Elkridge Railroad and the Eastern Shore 

Railroad. 

Before any payments would be made on the two major subscriptions, the Maryland Canal Company must be organized with sufficient funds to insure the construction of its work. The Baltimore & Ohio was released from the prohibition against extending its line in Maryland beyond 

Harpers Ferry before 1840. As had been the case in earlier subscriptions, the loans were in the 

form of state bonds.196

 The citizens of Baltimore were delighted by the passage of the law. All the important 

provisions of the bill appeared to promote the commercial interests of their city over those of the 

District cities. Accordingly, a public meeting was held at the Exchange at which resolutions were 

unanimously adopted “for a public dinner—an exhibition of fires works—a salute of 100 guns—

the ringing of bells of all the churches, engine houses, and other institutions—and the general 

display of the flags of the shipping and public buildings.”197 The celebrations were complemented 

by a report of the Baltimore Common Council urging both the railroad and canal companies to 

come to an agreement over any disputes which might arise between them and encouraging the 

efforts being taken to organize the Maryland Canal Company.198

 The canal company and the District cities, particularly the Corporation of Washington, 

reacted with some displeasure to the Eight Million Dollar Bill. Their major objections centered on 

the provision of the act which required the Maryland Canal Company to construct a waterway by 

the “most northern practicable route,” as the condition upon which the appropriation to the 

Chesapeake & Ohio depended and on the provision permitting the Baltimore & Ohio to extend its 

 

194 “Majority Report of the Joint Committee of Both Branches of the Legislature, Appointed to Investigate 

the Subject of Internal Improvement,” in Ibid, 33–38. 

195 “Minority Report of the Joint Committee of Both Branches of the Legislature, Appointed to Investigate 

the Subject of Internal Improvement,” in Ibid, 39 

196 Eighth Annual Report (1836), C&O Co., 6. For more information on the Maryland Crosscut Canal, see 

Walter S. Sanderlin, “The Maryland Canal Project—An Episode in the History of Maryland’s Internal Improvements,” Maryland Historical Magazine, XLI (March, 1946), 51–65. 

197 Report to the Stockholders on the completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad to Cumberland, 62–

63. 

198 Baltimore, Common Council, Joint Committee on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Report, Presented by 

Mr. Maury (Baltimore, 1836), 1–6. 
86 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

line in Maryland above Harpers Ferry. Furthermore, by accepting the $3,000,000 subscription, 

the company would fall under the control of the State of Maryland, a long-standing ally of the 

railroad.199

 Nevertheless, the provisions of the act were carried out in a relatively short time. The 

Chesapeake & Ohio and the Baltimore & Ohio reached an agreement on July 28 over the settlement of the disputes that might arise between the two companies. On the same day, the canal 

stockholders accepted the Maryland act by a vote of 4,101 to 2,333, the Corporation of Georgetown and Alexandria and the State of Maryland voting in the affirmative and the Corporation of 

Washington in the negative.200

 Promoters of the cross-cut canal project obtained subscriptions from the Baltimore Citizenry and organized the company, despite the fact that earlier surveys by U.S. Engineer William 

Howard had shown the only practicable route for such a canal to lie through the District of Columbia.201 The subscriptions to the Baltimore & Ohio and the Chesapeake & Ohio were then released from the legal restrictions of the act, and the State of Maryland, as a result of its 1834, 

1835, and 1836 subscriptions, gained control of the company and a mortgage on its property. After this date, canal affairs were dominated by the state, and the future of the waterway was inseparably tied to the desires of the state.202

 Although the $3,000,000 subscription appeared to assure the successful completion of the 

canal’s construction, the company found itself in a precarious financial situation almost immediately. Three principal causes contributed to the desperate financial condition of the company: the 

monetary policies of the Jackson Administration that led to the severe economic Panic of 1837, 

the depression in England which brought a curtailment in the European money markets, and the 

political maneuvering by opponents of public works in Annapolis. 

 During his battle against the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson and his advisers 

gradually developed a theory of business cycles, in which paper money was the villain that 

caused alternated periods of inflation and depression. If the circulation of paper could be restricted and the proportion of gold and silver to paper increased, the cycle, and especially the ruinous inflation that was then occurring, could be brought under some measure of control. Wage 

earners and small farmers, the two groups that Jackson had championed as the epitome of the 

“common man,” would then receive some protection from periodic disaster.203

 When his efforts to persuade Congress to enact legislation limiting the circulation of bank 

votes failed, Jackson applied his hard-money tendencies to the sale of public lands. During the 

highly-inflationary mid-1830s, the purchase of public lands thereby fueling the uncontrolled inflation of the period increased by leaps and bounds. The banks, particularly in the West, had extended their loans beyond all reason, as much of the payment for government lands consisted of 

nothing more than paper of state banks, paper that was loaned out, returned to the banks, and 

again loaned out in a vicious cycle. Partly as a result of his concept of a sound currency and partly 

due to the public outcries against the land speculators, Jackson issued the Specie Circular on July 

 

199 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, 63, 

Washington, D.C., Council, Joint Committee on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal; Report (Washington, 

1836), 1–6; and Report of the General Committee of the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company, Presented July 18, 1836 (Washington, 1836), 3–8. 200 Proceedings of Stockholders, B, 40–49; and Niles’ Register, L (August 6, 13, 1836), 377. 201 U.S., Congress, House, Letter of the Secretary of War, J. Barlow, Transmitting a Report of the Engineer 

on the Survey of a Route for the Proposed Canal to Connect the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal with Baltimore, 

H. Doc. 58, 20th Cong., 1st sess., 1825, 6–8. 202 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 111–112. 203 Marquis James, Andrew Jackson: Portrait of a President (Indianapolis, 1937), 414, 426, 439–441. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 87 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

11, 1836, prohibiting all federal government receivers of public money from accepting anything 

but specie in payment for the public lands.204

 By the spring, the measure had created a demand for specie that many of the banks could 

not meet. Gold and silver were drained from the East to the West, making money very tight on 

the eastern seaboard. Western banks were forced to curtail their discounts, and bank failures in 

the West spread to the East, gripping the entire country in a sudden financial panic. Finding it 

virtually impossible to conduct its business in the specie shortage, the canal company resorted to 

the issue of change notes on June 20.205

 The grave economic situation in America was worsened by a depression in England. To 

weather its crisis, the British government lowered the price of cotton from 17 1⁄2 to 13 1⁄2 cents, 

thereby undercutting the American cotton manufacturing industry. London investors also started a 

drain of specie from the United States as they began curtailing their commitments in North America.206

 Against the background of national and international economic instability, the canal 

company had trouble from the start in obtaining the bonds issued by Maryland to cover the 

$3,000,000 subscription on the proceeds from the sale. First, there were delays in putting the law 

into effect as a result of a major political battle between the decreasing tobacco-raising and slaveholding counties of southern Maryland and the rapidly growing city and environs of Baltimore 

over the system of representation in Annapolis, a vicious conflict that led to constitutional 

amendments providing for the popular election of the governor and state senators, the abolition of 

the Governor’s Council, and a slight increase in the representation of the city of Baltimore and 

the more populous counties.207

 These political distractions caused the postponement of the appointment of state commissioners to negotiate the sale of the bonds until December 1836. One of the commissioners left 

immediately for London, but the other two remained in Maryland until the following spring.208

By the end of March 1837, the directors, desperate for cash, decided to purchase the bonds on 

behalf of the company, and a provisional contract was drawn up accordingly.209 When the commissioners failed to negotiate the sale of the bonds for the required 20 percent premium by December 1837, the board determined to undertake the task on the same terms.210 

 By this time more trouble was brewing for the canal company in Annapolis, as some 

members of the General Assembly had lost their enthusiasm for internal improvements as a result 

of the depression and the opponents of public works were demanding a reduction of governmental expenses and a limitation of the power of the General Assembly to contract debts.211 After a 

considerable debate, during which time the legislature debated the repeal of the Eight Million 

 

204 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, 104–105, and American State Papers, Public Land (8 vols., Washington, 

1832–61), VIII, 910. 

205 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, 116, and Niles’ Register, LII (July 1, 1837), 273. 206 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, 116–117. 207 John Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day (3 vols., Baltimore, 1879), III, 192–196. 

208 Proceedings of Stockholders, B, 79, and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, 75–76.

209 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 226; Proceedings of the Stockholders, B, 75; 

and Buchanan to Washington, March 7, 15, April 16, May 16, 1837, George Corbin Washington Papers, 

Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. 

210 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, 75–76. 211 Richard Walsh and William Lloyd Fox, Maryland: A History, 1632–1974 (Baltimore, 1974), 278–292. 
88 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

Dollar Act and the withholding of bonds not already issued, the Assembly finally confirmed the 

bond issue in March 1838 and placed the certificates in the company’s hands.212

 The canal board divided the bonds into equal sums for sale in the United States and in 

Europe. There soon proved to be no market for the bonds either here or overseas because of the 

tightness of the financial communities after the economic depression. Accordingly, on the advice 

of their agents in London, both the railroad and canal companies prevailed upon the Maryland 

legislature to convert the bonds to 5 percent sterling, the canal company coupling with its request 

a petition for an additional $1,375,000 subscription.213 After another debate on the advisability of 

refusing all further aid to the canal project, the Assembly in April 1839 consented to the company’s requests.214 

 The company was released from the provisions of the 1836 act requiring state commissioners to negotiate the sale of the bonds at a 20 percent premium. Instead, the commissioners of 

loans was authorized to issue to the canal company five percent sterling bonds amounting to 

$3,200,000 in lieu of the $2,500,000 of six percent certificates which had been delivered to the 

company and $500,000 of six percent certifications which had been retained by the treasurer of 

Maryland as security for the payment of the premium. In return the company was required to redeem the six percents by a substitution of the five percents, where the former had been hypothecated, and return the entire amount to the state to be cancelled.215 At the same time it subscribed 

an additional $1,375,000 to the canal stock, a loan that was the result of an admission as early as 

1838 that because of the difficult construction and high building costs, $1,500,000 more would be 

needed above all available resources, to complete the waterway.216

 During these lengthy negotiations, the canal company resorted to several temporary arrangements to keep the work going. Among these activities were the institution of suits against 

delinquent stockholders to force full payment, the shifting of their funds to specie-paying banks, 

and the procurement of loans from local banks on the pledge of Washington and Georgetown 

bonds. At first the efforts were successful only in Baltimore and Washington, but in November 

the Second Bank of the United States in Philadelphia granted a loan of $50,000 on the pledge of 

Washington stock. After that the company secured loans in the District of Columbia and in Baltimore amounting to over $300,000 by June 1838.217

 

212 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 380–381; Tenth Annual Report (1838), C&O 

Co., 3, 11; and Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 

1837), R68. 

213 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 388; Tenth Annual Report (1838), 11; Report to 

the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio to Cumberland, 78–80, and Communication 

from George C. Washington, President of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in Answer to the Report 

Made to the House of Delegates, By the Chairman of the Committee on Internal Improvements, in Relation 

to Said Company (Annapolis, 1839), 1–22. In his report, Washington reported that the current estimated 

cost to complete the canal from Dam No. 5 to Cumberland was $6,080,657, up 71 percent from the January 

1836 estimate of $3,560,619. 

214 Baltimore Sun, March 14, 1839; and Acts Relating to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Passed 

by the General Assembly of Maryland, at December Session, 1838, 1–6. 215 “Report of the Committee on Ways and Means in Reference to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 

March 14, 1839,” A Short History of the Public Debt of Maryland, Appendix P, 76–78, and Laws Made and 

Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1838), ch. 386. 216 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1838), ch. 395; 

Baltimore Sun, April 6, 7, 1839; Proceedings of Stockholders, B, 188–189; and Washington to Ingle, February 5, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

217 Ingle to Schley, February 28, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co.; and Proceedings of the President and Board of 

Directors, E, 223–334, 337, 346, 360, 370, 429–430; Niles’ Register, LVII (October 5, 1839), 81. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 89 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

 Another temporary expedient was the renewed issuance of canal script. On June 29, 

1837, the directors adopted this course of action but limited the issue to notes of less than $5.00 in 

value.218 However, three months later, they began to issue larger notes of $5, $10, and $20 denominations and periodically expanded the script printing during the following year, until by May 

1838, $376,513.50 in canal notes had been issued and $50,000 more had been authorized but not 

yet issued. Thus, what had started as a stop-gap measure became a regular practice with dangerous potentialities.219

 The temporary measures were taken to enable the company to continue construction operations while it negotiated for the sale of the state bonds in England. Shortly after the Assembly 

confirmed the bond issue, the directors appointed George Peabody as their agent in England to 

effect the sale. Although Auguste Belmont, the New York agent for Rothschild and Son, of London, offered to purchase $1,500,000 of the 6 percent bonds, on May 1838, no bids were forthcoming which met the 20 percent premium required by the company’s contract with the state.220

Therefore the board decided to seek loans from banks on the pledge of the bonds while awaiting 

an improvement in the money markets. In a frenzy of hypothecation without effective safeguards, 

the board floated loans both in the United States and England on the pledge of Maryland bonds at 

85. An example of such loan policies appeared in an advertisement in the Baltimore Sun on September 28, 1839: 

Public sale of six percent State of Maryland stock or bonds. By virtue of an agreement 

between the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company and the Commercial and Farmers Bank 

of Baltimore, and as authorized thereby, there will be offered at public auction at the Exchange, in the city of Baltimore, on Wednesday, the 9th of October, 1839, at 1 o’clock 

P.M. for cash, eight bonds of six percent loan of the state of Maryland Nos. 93 to 100 inclusive, for the sum of five thousand dollars each, amounting in the whole to forty thousand dollars with interest from the first of April 1838.221

By January 1, 1839, banks in the United States had loaned $490,000 and those in England, 

$1,258,925.08, including exchange differences.222 After the substitution of 5 percent sterling for 6 

percent dollar bonds had been effected and an additional subscription of $1,375,000 obtained, the 

company floated loans in America, bringing the total here to $1,110,000.223 The wholesale hypothecation of Maryland bonds at 85 to secure loans totaling $2,368,925.08 put the canal company in an unpopular position. The directors’ policy undermined the states’ credit at home and 

abroad and threatened disaster to the company finances. The actions of the board were roundly 

criticized in the Assembly and the Committee on Ways and Means conducted a detailed investigation of the embarrassing conduct of canal affairs.224

 The General condemnation of the directors’ practices and the election of a Democrat, 

William Grason, in 1838 in the first popular election for Governor of the state enabled him to use 

influence in June 1839 to remove President Washington and the other members of the Whigdominated canal board and appoint Democratic officials in their place.225

 

218 Niles Register, LII (July 1, 1837), 237, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E. 268. 

219 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 298–299, 317, 426. 220 Ibid, E, 391–392, 410. 221 Baltimore Sun, September 28, 1839. 222 Eleventh Annual Report (1839), C&O Co., Appendix 1, 23. 223 Ibid, 12 224 “Report of the Committee on Ways and Means in Reference to the Chesapeake & Ohio Company, 

March 14, 1839,” A short History of the Public Debt of Maryland, Appendix P, 76–78. 225 Baltimore Sun, January 9, 1839, and Washington to Peabody, March 5, 1839, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
90 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

 The principal problem facing the new president, Francis Thomas, a five-term Jacksonian 

loyalist in Congress from Western Maryland, and the new directors in June 1839 was the liquidation of the staggering debt, while simultaneously finding some means of pushing the construction 

of the canal to a successful conclusion or suspending all operations. For several months Thomas 

personally negotiated for the liquidation of the debt, first making an agreement with the Baltimore & Ohio to cooperate in the sale of bonds to maintain the state’s credit and prevent sacrifices.226

 However as its creditors were pressing for payment and threatening to effect a forced sale 

of the bonds hypothecated to them, the canal company was forced to sell its bonds immediately in 

New York, Baltimore, Washington, and London.227 The total loss for the company on the 

$4,065,444.42 of bonds sold was $1,048,022.09, or nearly 26 percent of the par value.228 Despite 

a report by the Committee on Ways and Means finding these actions to be precipitous blunders, 

the National Intelligencer was able to report in January 1840: 

It is a gratification to us to be able to state...that information has been received by letters 

from long...of the sale of a sufficient amount of Maryland state five per cent bonds issued in behalf of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (added to the sales of said 

bonds made by the directors in this country) to pay all the old debts of the company to 

banks and bankers in the United States and in Europe, and leave a surplus for the redemption of the company’s script (notes) now in circulation.229

Although the entire debt of the company arising from the hypothecation of the 5 percent bonds 

had been liquidated, the directors were still faced with the exhaustion of canal finances. To forestall this possibility, they authorized, on September 15, 1839, the issuance of $300,000 more in 

canal script and established a trust fund of 5 percent Maryland bonds to redeem the script as it 

was received for tolls and rents.230 Insisting that they did not want to issue the notes except in dire 

necessity, the board suspended the issuance of the notes in April 1840 but resumed the practice in 

June with an issue of over $500,000 to pay the estimate of work done rather than abandon construction.231

 The experiment with paper money again involved the company in legal and financial entanglement as disagreements with the trustees over the conduct of their affairs and the misappropriation of the trust fund led to a protracted legal controversy, a consequence of which was that 

over 80 percent of the latter issue was never redeemed.232 Under the Thomas regime, the company continued to press the work on the unfinished portion of the canal above Dam No. 6. On the 

strength of its decision to issue script, the board relet abandoned contracts in December 1839.233

 

226 McLane to Thomas, July 4, 1839; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 95–96; and 

Baltimore American, September 15, 1841. 227 Thomas to Peabody, July 18, 1839, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 228 Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), C&O Co., 27, and Baltimore American, September 11, 1841. 

229 Washington National Intelligencer, January 9, 1840. 230 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 108, 150–151. 231 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 233–234. 232 Letter of John Gittings to the Stockholder of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (Baltimore, 1843), 

1–19 

233 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 137–138. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 91 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company's Script 

 Issues: 1834-1841 

When 

Issued Amount Redeemed Outstanding Dec. 31, 1850 

1834 $128,705.00 $128,155.00 $550.00 

1837-38 418,000.00 410,706.25 7,293.75 

1839 300,000.00 294,270.00 5,730.00 

1840-41 555,400.00 110,970.00 444,430.00 

$1,402,105.00 $944,101.25 $458,003.75 

Source Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland,86

The board also made another application to the General Assembly on February 10, 1840, for further aid. According to the current engineers’ estimates the canal from Dam No. 6 to Cumberland 

would cost $4,440,350 when it was completed. Of this sum $2,303,128 had been spent as of 

January 1, 1840. The company’s available resources, consisting primarily of Maryland 5 percent 

bonds, totaled $1,489,571, but its liabilities amounted to $1,244,555, leaving a balance of 

$245,016.234

 Despite the rejection of this request by the General Assembly in the spring of 1840,235 the 

directors pushed the work rather than suspend operations, disperse the labor force of some 2,000, 

and sacrifice $150,000 worth of property, the sale of which it was thought would bring only 50 

percent of its value. By continuing construction, the directors could also take advantage of the 

falling price of labor as the depressed economy had occasioned an average decrease in wages 

from $1.25 to $.871⁄2 per day during the past year.236

 The determination to continue construction of the waterway on the basis of the issuance 

of canal script was accompanied by the first large turnover of canal employees, a turn of events 

occasioned in part by a disagreement with the new policies and in part by the effect of the spoils 

system in the operation of the canal. Many old and reliable officials were dismissed or voluntarily 

retired, including Clerk John P. Ingle, Treasurer Thomas Filleboun, Chief Engineer Charles B. 

Fisk, and several divisional superintendents.237 Beset by unfavorable publicity arising from the 

disgruntled comments of the ousted officials in the newspapers, inquiries by the new legislature 

concerning the directors’ conduct of canal affairs, and the near exhaustion of the trust fund, the 

board reversed its former policy in March 1841, forbade the issuance of more script until means 

 

234 Report from the Committee on Internal Improvement Transmitting a Communication from Francis Thomas President of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, to the Governor of Maryland (Annapolis, 

1840), 1–76. 

235 Maryland, General Assembly, House of Delegates, Committee on Internal Improvement, A Report in 

Part from the Committee on Internal Improvement (Annapolis, 1840), 1–18, and Ibid, Report from the 

Committee on Internal Improvement, Transmitting a communication from Francis Thomas (Annapolis, 

1840) 1–76. 

236 Twelfth Annual Report (1840), C&O Co., 6; proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 

185–186, and Proceedings of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, in 

Relation to the Present Condition of the Work on the Line of the Canal; and the Report of the Chief Engineer on the Consequences of a Suspension of the Work (Washington, 1840), 4–6. 237 Niles’ Register, LVIII (July 13, 1840), 308, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 

246, 256–257, 259. 
92 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

were provided to repay it, and prepared to suspend operations when the Assembly adjourned 

without providing effective aid.238 Despite the criticism of the canal board’s policies, the Assembly had passed a bill granting $2,000,000 in bonds to the company on the condition that the Cumberland coal mine owners would guarantee to pay the state $200,000 a year beginning six months 

after the completion of the waterway, but the latter had refused and the bill lapsed.239

 In April 1841, the State of Maryland, as the controlling stockholders, ousted the Thomas 

directorate and installed a predominantly Whig board headed by Michael C. Sprigg as president. 

The new board proceeded to reform canal affairs by reinstating some of the old officials, forbidding company officers to interfere in state politics, continuing the edict against the issuance of 

script, and ordering that tolls be paid one-third in current money after August.240

[Anomalous citation appears on a page by itself in the Unrau text at this point: Committee on Internal Improvements, Report of the Committee on Internal Improvements on the Condition of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Annapolis, 1841),1–27; and ibid; Minority Report of the Committee 

on Internal Improvement on the subject of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal.] 

With the canal company finances near total collapse, they authorized final suspensions in August, 

although they later agreed to accept drafts on the company by the contractors in order to encourage them to continue the work on their own until further aid was forthcoming. An order requiring 

the payment of tolls in cash after April 1, 1842, ended the period of disastrous financial experiments.241

 Work on the canal continued haphazardly for several more months, and then it too came 

to an end, not to resume on a large scale until November 1847.242

 

238 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 279, 284, 297; Maryland, General Assembly, 

House of Delegates, 171A. 

239 Baltimore American, April 12, 1841, and January 14, 1842, and Niles’ Register, LX (April 10, 1841), 

89. 

240 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 301–301, 308, 315, 359. 241 Ibid, F, 377–378, 381. 242 Fisk to Board of Directors, December 1, 1842, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 93 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

IV. THE BELATED COMPLETION 

OF THE C&O CANAL TO CUMBERLAND: 1842–1851 

When construction came to a halt following the exhaustion of the company’s immediate financial 

resources, the State of Maryland the canal company directorate reviewed the condition of the project. The waterway was open to navigation as far as Dam No. 6, a distance of approximately 135 

miles above Georgetown. Of the 50 miles above the Cacapon River, all but 18 miles in scattered 

sections were finished, but these uncompleted miles included the costly tunnel and deep cuts as 

well as expensive masonry works in a region lacking good building stone. By May 1841, 

$10,275,034.98 had been applied to the construction of the canal, and $1,735,849.72 had gone 

into interest and losses.243 The time limit of twelve years allowed by the charter for the completion of the eastern section had expired in 1840, but none of the parties to the charter had raised the 

question of forfeiture.244

 The future success of the canal was clouded by the fact that the frontier had moved far to 

the West during the last decade and other established transportation lines were carrying the Ohio 

Valley trade, a development that would be more forcefully driven home by the completion of the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad to Cumberland in 1842. 

 The financial condition of the canal company by January 1842 was almost entirely helpless. In that month President Sprigg reported that the unfinished portion of the canal would cost 

nearly $1,545,000. The present debt of the company was $1,196,000 above all means, most of 

which were unavailable. Many of the company’s resources were tied up in the few remaining 5 

percent bonds it owned which had been deposited with the Barings in London, in January 1840. 

The tolls that had been collected on the navigable portion of the canal in 1841 amounted to only 

$52,500. Included in its debts was $521,339.25 in outstanding script. Present subscriptions to the 

capital stock of the company amounted to $8,359,400, of which $151,891.64 was unpaid and all 

but about $50,000 of this latter figure was lost. The State of Maryland still had a subscription of 

$163,724.44 to shares of stock in the former Potomac Company, and the Chesapeake & Ohio remained in debt to the state for the $2,000,000 loan in 1835. As a result, the state had mortgages 

upon the entire property of the company.245

 The satisfactory sale and disposal of the 5 percent bonds in the hands of the Barings continued to be a primary goal of the canal company. There was no market for them because of the 

depression in England, but the situation was aggravated after Maryland failed to meet the semiannual interest payment on them beginning July 1, 1841.246 Earlier in 1839 the Barings had 

agreed to accept the drafts of the company for amounts up to $200,000 providing not more than 

$30,000 were drawn a month, but after slightly over $30,000 had been advanced by December 

1842, the Barings, hard pressed by the lingering tightness in the British money market, demanded 

some payment on the advances. If this was not forthcoming, they threatened to sell the bonds at 

market prices or purchase them in themselves at 50 percent, terms which the canal board flatly 

rejected.247

 To counter the announcement of the Barings, the canal directors recommended that the 

coupons for 1841 and 1842, the receipt of which had been authorized in payment of state taxes by 

 

243 Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), C&O Co., 28. 244 Coale to Price, December 8, 1843, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 245 Communication from the President of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Governor of 

Maryland, December Session, 1841 (Annapolis, 1842), 1–67, and Niles’ Register, LXI (January 29, 1842), 

352. 

246 Turner to Barings, January 10, 1843, and Turner to Ward, April 17, 1843, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 247 Barings to Peabody, November 27, December 6, 1839, quoted in Turner to Barings, January 10, 1843, 

Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
94 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

the Maryland General Assembly, be detached and sold to pay the interest due on the advanced 

made by the Barings. After the Barings consented to the sale of the coupons for July 1842, the 

canal board offered to settle the whole affair.248 It proposed to sell the Barings at 65 all bonds 

necessary to repay the advances made and to allow the Barings to take at 85 all coupons necessary to pay the interest due on the drafts paid. The Barings promptly accepted this offer in November 1845.249 The following March the transaction was formally completed when the Barings 

transferred the remaining bonds, comprising $15,500 5 percent Maryland bonds with coupons of 

July 1, 1844, from the other bonds to the canal company.250

 Meanwhile, the State of Maryland had taken steps to compel the canal company to improve its financial condition. In the spring of 1842, the Assembly ordered the sale of all property 

owned by the company not strictly used for construction. The directors were to receive canal 

script and other evidences of company debts in payment of the land.251 After Chief Engineer Fisk 

reported on a detailed survey of the entire line of the canal on July 20, the board ordered the required sales which were finally completed during the spring of 1844. The proceeds of the sales, 

considerably less than the cost of the lands to the canal company, amounted to $25,938, a pittance 

even when reckoned in depreciated canal script.252

 Plans for the completion of the canal went on apace during the early 1840s as the canal 

company made repeated efforts to obtain adequate funding to finish the work. During the suspension of the work there were three principal plans advanced to accomplish this purpose. 

• First, there was an attempt to secure the transfer of Chesapeake & Ohio stock held by the 

United States to the State of Maryland in return for a guarantee by the State to complete 

the eastern section of the canal. 

• Second, there was a proposal to sell the state’s interest in the canal to parties that would 

undertake the task of finishing the work. 

• Third, an attempt was made to wave the state’s prior liens on the canal revenues and 

permit the canal company to issue its own bonds to pay for the completion of the work. 

The earliest form which the proposals to finish the canal took was the attempt to secure the transfer of Chesapeake & Ohio stock held by the United States to the State of Maryland. The federal 

government possessed $2,500,000 of the stock, including its own commitment for $1,000,000 and 

the subscriptions of the bankrupt District cities for $1,500,000. In return for the transfer of the 

stock, the State of Maryland offered a guarantee to complete the eastern section of the canal, a 

recommendation first made at the Assembly’s Committee on Ways and Means, March 19, 1839, 

and later incorporated in the bill providing $1,375,000 for the canal.253 Petitions to that effect 

were presented to Congress by Maryland Governor William Grason in 1840, Vermont Senator 

Samuel S. Phelps in 1840, the Maryland legislature in 1843–44, and Indiana Representative 

Robert D. Owen in 1844.254

 

248 Turner to Ward, April 17, 1843, and Coale to Latrobe, September 30, 1843, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

249 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 119–120. 250 Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), C&O Co., 19–20. 251 Ibid, 18. 252 Fisk to President and Directors, July 20, 1842, and Ingle to Coale, June 11, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 253 “Report of the Committee on Ways and Means, March 19, 1839,” A Short History of the Public Debt of 

Maryland, Appendix P, 76–78; Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland

(Annapolis, 1838), ch. 386; and Baltimore Sun, April 7, 1839. 254 U.S. Congress, House, Message on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from President Van Buren, Transmitting a Letter of the Maryland Governor, William Grason, on the Transfer of Stock in the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Company< H. Doc. 90, 26th Cong., 1st sess., 1840; Ibid, Senate, Report of Senate S.S. Phelps on 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 95 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

 These petitions were supported by memorials from Maryland citizens, the most noteworthy of which was submitted by Allegany County in April 1843, and vigorously opposed by the 

District cities in two particularly strongly-worded statements in March and December 1840.255

 After the senate passed a joint resolution providing for the transfer of the stock to the 

State of Maryland and the District cities on July 20, 1842, a committee of the city of Washington 

effectively denounced what it termed the selfish attitude of the State of Maryland towards the canal in a report that appeared to prevent passage of the resolution in the House.256 The report stated 

in part: 

Coupled with the act (of 1839) authorizing this last subscription, was a direction to the 

Governor to ask of Congress a surrender to the State of the $2,500,000 of stock, originally subscribed by the United States, and the Corporation of Washington, Georgetown, 

and Alexandria; and if granted, the State pledged herself to buy out all individual stockholders at 50 per cent. But on the 23rd of February, 1841 (fifteen days after the Senate of 

the United States had passed a resolution giving her the said $2,500,000 of stock, and had 

sent it to the House of Representatives for concurrence and when it was expected that the 

House would also pass it), a bill was introduced into the Senate of Maryland, and instantly passed both branches of the legislature, quietly revoking this obligation to which 

she had pledged herself to Congress to pay the private stockholders 50 percent.257

Supporters of the transfer were unable to secure agreement in Congress on the resolutions providing for the transfer. Additional resolutions were introduced in either the House or the Senate annually from 1840 to 1844, but neither chamber could find grounds to approve the other’s version.258 The best chance for Congressional approval of the transfer came in 1842 when on July 20 

the Senate passed a joint resolution providing for the transfer of the stock to the State of Maryland and the District cities, on the condition that Maryland would agree not to foreclose its mortgage.259

 The District cities promptly consented to this solution, but at the same time condemned 

the passage of the aforementioned bill by the Maryland General Assembly revoking the state’s 

 the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company Stock, S. Doc. 63, 26th Cong., 2d sess., 1841; Ibid, House Resolution of the Maryland Legislature for the Transfer of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company Stock by the 

United States to Maryland, H Doc. 71, 27th Cong., 3d sess., 1843; Ibid, House Report of Representative 

Owen on the Transfer of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company Stock, H Rept. 56, 28th Cong., 1st sess., 1844; 

Ibid, House Resolution of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company Stock to Maryland, H. Doc. 227, 28th

Cong., 1st sess., 1844. 255 U.S., Congress, House, Memorial of the Citizens of Allegany County for the Surrender of the United 

States Stock in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to Maryland, H. Doc. 202, 27th Cong., 2d sess., 

1843; Ibid, Senate, Memorial of the City of Washington Against the Transfer of Stock Held by the United 

States in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, S. Doc. 277, 26th Cong., 1st sess., 1840; and ibid, Senate, 

Memorial of the City of Washington Against the Transfer of Stock of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal company, S. Doc. 30, 26th Cong., 2d sess., 1840. 256 Niles’ Register, LXII (July 23, 1842) 257 The committee of the Corporation of Washington Appointed to Demonstrate Against the Surrender to 

the State of Maryland of the Stock Held by that Corporation in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Washington, 1842), 1. 

258 Niles’ Register, LVIII (July 18, 25, 1840); Ibid, LIX (January 16, February 13, 1841), 156, 233, 251, 

283, 379; Ibid, LXII (May 7, June 11, June 18, July 2, August 13, 1842), 156, 233, 251, 283, 379; Ibid, 

LXV (December 23, 1843, Feb. 17, 1844), 271, 396; Ibid, LXVI (March 2, 9, April 20, 1844), 12–13, 17, 

126; and Ibid, LXVII (December 21, 1844), 254. 

259 Ibid, LXII (July 23, 1842), 334. 
96 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

pledge to pay the private stockholders 50 percent for their holdings.260 Maryland insisted, however, that it must receive the stock before it would borrow further to complete the work, asserting 

that its position was based on the premise that the United States was responsible for the increased 

size and cost of the canal and therefore obligated to assist the state by assuming the expense of its 

completion, by direct relief, or by the transfer of the stock in its hands.261 Because of the intransigence of Maryland, coupled with the apparent lack of unanimity in Congress and the seeming 

indifference of the canal company, efforts were dropped after 1844 to effect the stock transfer.262

 A second scheme advanced to provide for the completion of the canal was the proposal to 

sell the state’s interest in the canal to parties that would undertake the task of finishing the 

work.263 Proposed even before the failure of the efforts to secure the stock transfer, this plan 

sought to connect the settlement of canal affairs with the solution of Maryland’s financial problems. After the Whigs succeeded in breaking a Democratic filibuster, the General Assembly in 

March 1843 passed a bill setting the price for the state’s interest in the canal at $5,000,000 in state 

bonds.264

 However, the difficulties and uncertainties of completing the waterway were so great that 

no interest was shown in the sale. In the absence of any offers, the canal company undertook in 

1844 to sell itself to prospective purchasers, arguing that $5,000,000 in Maryland bonds at the 

current depreciated value of 621⁄2 would be a bargain.265 The company, in a comic opera episode, 

even contemplated buying itself from the state by offering canal bonds to Maryland for 

$5,000,000, presumably to be exchanged by the state for its own bonds.266

 A third proposal to complete the canal called for the state to waive its prior liens on canal 

revenues and permit the company to issue its own bonds to pay for the completion of the work. 

Like all the other projects designed to complete the eastern section of the canal, this plan was bitterly opposed by the Baltimore & Ohio and the City of Baltimore. This battle was graphically 

portrayed in an exchange of letters between “Delta” and “Maryland” in the Baltimore Sun and the 

Baltimore American ruing January–March 1841, for and against the completion of the canal respectively.267 The proposal was also criticized because it did not provide relief for the financial 

condition of the state, a problem that made it appear to be a last-ditch effort to save the waterway. 

 The first attempt was made during the December session to the General Assembly in 

1841. Disagreement between the House of Delegates and the Senate prevented the passage of the 

bill and provoked the following remonstrance in Niles’ Register: 

 

260 Ibid, LXIII (January 21, 1843), 336; U.S., Congress, Senate, Memorial of Georgetown Approving the 

Transfer of United States Stock in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to Maryland and the District of 

Columbia Cities, S. Doc. 343, 27th Cong., 2d sess., 1842; and Ibid, Senate, Resolution of Alexandria Approving the Transfer of the Stock of the United States in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to Maryland and the District of Columbia Cities, S. Doc. 344, 27th Cong., 2d sess., 1842. 261 Niles’ Register, LXVI (March 2, 1844), 12, and Speech of John M.S. Cousin, Esq., in the House of Delegates of Maryland, on the Preamble in the Resolution, Introduced by Him, on the Subject of Relief to the 

States, by the Issue of Two Hundred Millions of government Stock, Based Upon a Pledge of the Proceeds of 

Public Lands, Delivered Jan. 31st, & Feb. 1st, 1843 (Annapolis, 1843), 5–28. 262 Coale to Young, December 13, 1843, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 263 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 11. 264 Baltimore American, March 9, 10, 13, 15, 1843; and Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of 

the state of Maryland (Annapolis, 1842), ch. 301. 265 Coale to Ward, March 14, 1844, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 266 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 40. 267 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 145, and Delta: Or What Ought the State to Do with the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1841), 1–47. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 97 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

The unfortunate disagreement between the two houses of the legislature of Maryland, in 

relation to amendments to the bill for completing this stupendous work to the coal and 

iron regions of Allegany county, which alone can bring the work into profitable operation, will have the inevitable effect of suspending all operations for the year, and leave 

the unfinished work to certain dilapidation, the contracts subject to expensive litigation, 

and the state saddled with the interest occurring upon seven millions of dollars invested 

in the undertaking,—and this is the more to be regretted, because the bill contemplated no 

new demand upon the treasury, arrangements having been negotiated by which it is understood that capitalists, contractors, and engineers would undertake to finish the work to 

the mines, provided the state would agree to postpone its preference to the proceeds of 

the canal until the claims for advances now require to complete it, shall be satisfied.268

The legislature’s inaction raised such an uproar in the Western counties that large meetings convened and sent appeals to Governor Francis Thomas to call a special session of the Assembly.269

 The attempt was renewed in the December session 1842, with its proponents again advancing the often-used argument that “completion of the public works was forever to exonerate” 

the citizens of Maryland “from taxation on their or any other account.” According to the supporters of the plan, the bill would allow the canal company to pay its “own way” and “never take one 

dollar out of the State Treasury.”270 Despite the pressure brought to bear for the bill, the enemies 

of the canal succeeded in defeating it a second time. Concerning this second defeat of the plan, 

Niles’ Register remarked: 

This most splendid and amongst the most promising and important of all the canals in 

this country seems fated to have to encounter every species of the stock that can be conceived....Fated as we have been, to listen week after week to long labored speeches, and 

to watch, session after session, the under currents, of unnumerable little interests, each 

tugging as if for life, to accomplish its own design, without hardly for a moment regarding the public interest,—we grow almost sick at the contemplation of new difficulties and 

provoking obstacles to the progress of the work.... 

 The proposition to waive the lien of the state in favor of contractors who would 

undertake to finish the canal, was very earnestly debated in the legislature both last session and the session before, but did not prevail. The canal has been at a stand still, until 

the state either determines with its own resources or credit, to finish the work, or otherwise consent to forgo its liens in favor of whoever will, with their own resources, finish 

it. The actual opponents of the canal, of which there is a party (Democrats) in the state, 

sorry we are to say, throw their weight first in one and then in the other scale, and thereby 

prevent either expedient from being adopted.271

After a summer that saw increased agitation for a solution to the stalemate, the proposal to waive 

the state lien was re-introduced in the 1843 December session of the Assembly. The bill provided 

for the redemption of the existing script and certificates of indebtedness, principal, and interest by 

an issue of $100 six percent bonds of the company redeemable in twenty years. In return the state 

would surrender its liens against the canal, or it would permit the work to be paid for in company 

stock. 

 

268 Niles’ Register, LXII (March 26, 1842), 52. 

269 Ibid. 270 A Short History of the Public Debt of Maryland, 48. 271 Niles’ Register, LXIV (August 12, 1843), 372–373. 
98 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

 Opponents of the canal also inserted a provision authorizing a slackwater navigation to 

the mouth of the Savage River to be paid for by the issuance of 6 percent bonds redeemable in 

thirty years out of a sinking fund based on the revenue derived from that portion of the work. The 

latter provision stirred a serious controversy over the bill for the canal to Cumberland among 

those who were unalterably opposed to any further westward expansion.272 Both the Whig and 

Democratic Party conventions in Frederick County came out in support of the measure. In his 

annual message to the legislature in December 1843, Governor Thomas observed that 

Whatever may be the opinions entertained, as to the policy of undertaking this great enterprize, with the means of Maryland almost alone, there ought to be now no diversity of 

sentiment, as to the justice and patriotism of essaying, to open a Canal communication 

from Cumberland to Tide Water.273

Opponents of the bill, principally the Baltimore & Ohio interests, used two persuasive arguments 

in the attempt to prevent the extension of the canal. First, the railroad already had been completed 

to Cumberland in 1842. Second, the canal and railroad companies had reached an agreement on 

September 21, 1843, whereby the latter would transport coal from Cumberland to the Canal at 

Dam No. 6, at 2 cents a ton per mile, providing that the amount of coal so carried would not interfere with its own business or require a material increase in facilities. Thus, the Baltimore & Ohio 

interests urged the Assembly to make this agreement permanent, that the railroad act as a feeder 

for the canal, thereby dispensing with the need for the completion of the waterway to Cumberland.274

 The proponents of the bill, led by Delegate John Johnson of Anne Arundel County and 

canal company President James M. Coale, attempted to offset the effect of the railroad’s arguments. In a major speech before the House of Delegates on February 27–28, Johnson urged that 

the canal’s completion be funded from the future revenues of the waterway.275

 President Coale made a thorough analysis of the whole question in a special report to the 

stockholders on November 16, 1843, which gained widespread publicity in the coming months. 

The decisive point of the report was his calculation of the amount of trade required to pay to the 

state annual occurring interest of $382,500 on the bonds it had issued for the canal: 

Taking it for granted—and we have no doubt of the fact—that the revenues from the 

other trade on the canal, intermediate and ascending, will hereafter be sufficient to pay 

expenses and keep the canal in repair and that the State of Maryland must look to the tolls 

from the coal trade as the means of enabling the Company to pay the interest on the 

State’s investments, and the inquiry presents itself as to the amount of towage of that description that will be required for the purpose, from the point in question. 

 From the depot at Dam No. 6 to Georgetown is 136 miles. The toll, at half a cent 

per ton per mile, with the usual boat duty, amounts to 73 7/10 cents per ton for said distance. To pay, therefore, $382,500 per annum, will require the transportation of 518,996 

tons per annum, or 1,730 tons per day, allowing 300 days to a navigable year. The tonnage of the coal cars on the railroad is at present only five tons, but we understand that 

 

272 Ibid, LXV (February 3, 1844), 368. 273 Ibid, LXV (September 9, December 30, 1843), 19, 276. 274 Coale to Ward, March 14, 1844, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co.; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 97–100, 115; and Proceedings of Stockholders, C, 192–193. 275 Speech of John Johnson, Esq., on the Bill to Provide for Completing the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

from the Revenues of the Work (Annapolis, 1844), 1–19. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 99 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

the Company contemplates running cars which will carry six tons. To transport the requisite quantity, then, will require 289 cars to be running daily; and they can make but one 

trip per day. To keep up a constant trade, the same number must every day be at the 

mines or at Cumberland, receiving their loads, making in all 578 cars. Supposing 13 cars 

to be drawn by each locomotive and there would have to be 22 trains daily running on a 

single track between Cumberland and Dam No. 6—a distance of 45 miles! Clearly, the 

Railroad Company could not support the coal trade to this extent.276

The bill was defeated in the House of Delegates early in March 1844 by a vote of 42 to 35.277

 A modified bill to accomplish the same purpose also lost out shortly therefore despite a 

mass meeting held by friends of the canal at the Allegany Court House in Cumberland to which 

“every man (who) is alive and well” was to attend to determine “the course necessary to be pursued by the people of Alleghany in the present crisis.”278 Ironically the canal company 

had enough influence in the Assembly to bring about the defeat in the same session of bills sponsored by the Baltimore & Ohio interests providing for the reduction of fares on the Washington 

branch of the railroad and for the extension of the main line west of Cumberland.279

 During the protracted battle in Annapolis over the proposal to waive the state’s prior lien, 

the directors prepared for the resumption of construction by soliciting contracts in the fall of 1841 

and in each of the following two years in anticipation of aid from the Maryland legislature.280 All 

the bids were conditioned on the waiver of Maryland’s claims, except for the Letson-Rutter proposal in April 1843 which the directors rejected because of some undesirable conditions in its 

terms.281 The board also sent inquiries to England concerning the availability of funds to complete its work if the state waiver became law.282

 Despairing of aid from the Maryland legislature, the directors again appealed unsuccessfully to Congress, recommending an additional subscription of $2,500,000 or the setting aside of 

2,000,000 acres of public land for the canal, as was proposed in pending legislation providing aid 

for the Illinois and Indiana canals. 

 As a result of the controversy over the Letson-Rutter contract proposal, the board on May 

4, 1843, established the terms under which the contract for the completion of the canal would be 

negotiated. The contractors were to receive canal company bonds maturing in twenty years, bearing 6 percent interest payable every six months. Work was to begin in sixty days and the canal 

should be completed in two years. The maximum price at which the instrument would be negotiated was the $1,545,000 estimate made by Chief Engineer Fisk in 1842. The canal company 

would provide as security for the repayment of the bonds a pledge of all revenue, subject to existing mortgages, the latter phrase contingent on the state’s willingness to waive its prior liens.283

 At the urging of President Coale, the canal board devoted much of its attention to the task 

of securing legislature approval of the state waiver in the 1844 December session. There was considerable political excitement during 1844, which was both a national and state election year. 

Two major issues in the state campaign were the related questions of the state credit and the com-

 

276 Special Report of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, to the Stockholders on the Subject of Completing the Canal to Cumberland (Washington, 1843), 9–10. 277 Niles’ Register, LXVI (March 9, 1844), 17. 278 Niles’ Register, LXVI (March 16, 1844), 38; and Cumberland Civilian, March 14, 1844. 

279 Niles’ Register, LXVI (March 16, 1844), 38 280 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors 281 Ibid, G, 16, 37–39, 72–73, 75–87, and Proceedings of Stockholders, C, 153–161. For more information 

on the ill-fated Letson-Rutter proposal, see Sanderlin, Great National Project, 148–150. 282 Coale to Peabody, August 23, 1843, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 283 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 38–40. 
100 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

pletion of the canal. On the whole, the election results were favorable to both issues, as the Whig 

governor-elect Thomas G. Pratt and many members of the new Assembly proved to be friendly to 

the waterway.284

 Encouraged by the political changes at Annapolis, proponents of the canal introduced a 

bill in the new legislature to provide for the state lien. After a long and fractious fight, the canal 

bill and a stamp act to provide effective means of meeting the interest on the state debt, after being initially defeated, were reconsidered and passed in the crucial House of Delegates by the thin 

margin of 38 to 37.285 The provisions of the important canal law were as follows: 

1. The canal company was authorized to issue $1,700,000 of preferred construction bonds 

on the mortgage of its revenue. 

2. The bonds were to be in $100 denominations, leaving 6 percent interest, and redeemable 

within 35 years. 

3. The bonds could not be sold until the company received guarantees from the Alleghany 

coal companies for 195,000 tons of trade annually for five years commencing six moths 

after the completion of the canal to Cumberland. 

4. The state’s previous liens on the canal were waived in favor of the bonds.286

The passage of the two bills triggered the expected responses, with Western Maryland and the 

District cities celebrating the victory by staging gala parades, setting off large quantities of fireworks, and firing numerous canon while the furious city of Baltimore angrily demanded a redistribution of seats in the House of Delegates giving it greater representation and called for the repeal of both acts.287 

 President Coale and the canal board hastened to secure the required guarantees and to 

insure the full benefits of the act.288 Coale went to Boston and New York to confer with officials 

of the Cumberland coal companies.289 While in the east, an article reputedly inspired from Baltimore was published in the New York Herald casting great doubt on the value of the canal. It exaggerated the duration of enforced suspension of navigation during the winter months, and it emphasized the more frequent handling and transshipment of coal via the canal route and the greater 

damage to the coal. The canal president refuted these arguments, but the effect of their publication among financial interests in New York was undoubtedly harmful.290 His attempts to submit 

the guarantees was further undermined by a resolution of the Baltimore City Council directing the 

 

284 A Short History of the Public Debt of Maryland;49–50, and Mandeville to Price, October 5, 1844, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. 

285 Niles’ Register, LXVII (February 22, 1845), 400; Ibid, LXVIII (March 8, 1845), 16; and Communication from the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Governor of Maryland, January 15, 1845 (Annapolis, 1845), 1–35. 286 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1844), ch. 281; 

and Niles’ Register, LXVIII (March 15, 1845), 23–24. A mortgage according to the provisions of the sixth 

section of the act was executed on June 6, 1848. 

287 Niles’ Register, LXVIII (March 15, 1845), 23; and A Short History of the Public Debt of Maryland, 49, 

84. 

288 Special Report of the President and directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Submitting 

Certain Acts for the Acceptance of the Stockholders, 1845; Together with the Proceedings of the Stockholder Thereon (Washington, 1845), 1–26, and Niles Register, LXVIII (May 3, 1845), 132. 

289 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 228. 

290 Coale to Allen, May 13, 1845, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 101 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

railroad to run its trains into the city with coal and iron ore and to lay tracks to a new depot on the 

south side of the Dam No. 6 basin where boats could dock free of port charges.291

 At the same time, the board conducted an extensive correspondence throughout the 

spring of 1845 in its efforts to assure the guarantees. Many supporters of the canal participated in 

the campaign, holding public meetings and giving spirited addresses “to enlist confidence in the 

completion of the work.” The Corporation of Alexandria passed an ordinance to indemnify any of 

their citizens that signed the guarantee bonds.292

 As a result of these efforts, twenty-eight instruments, including both personal and corporate ones, were signed and delivered by mid-July for a total of 225,000 tons, an amount which 

included bonds guarantying 30,000 tons if it were necessary to fill out the total required. Governor Pratt formally accepted the guarantees and certified his approval in August 1845.293

 After the guarantees were approved, the canal board made plans to let the contract. On 

September 23, 1845, the directors accepted the offer of Walter Gwynn, William Thompson, 

James Hunter, and Walter Cunningham. The state agents promptly gave their approval and the 

contract was drawn up and executed. The additional mortgage to the State of Maryland, required 

by the legislature as security for the payment of the loan made in 1834, was also drawn up and 

executed on January 5, 1846.294 By the terms of the contract, Gwynn and Company agreed to: 

1. Provide the materials of the required quality in workmanlike manner according to the 

modified December 1, 1842, plan and specifications drawn up by Chief Engineer Fisk. 

2. Commence the work within thirty days and complete the canal by November 1, 1847. 

3. Raise $100,000 to help the company pay its contingent expenses. 

4. Cash the bonds of the canal company at par, paying the interest on them until January 1, 

1848. 

The price to be paid for the work was set at $1,625,000 in 6 percent canal bonds payable within 

35 years.295

 Work resumed on the canal within the specified 30-day time period. All the sections were 

sublet in mid-October, and the contractors placed a token force on the line by November 1, pending the successful negotiation for the necessary funds to finance large-scale construction.296 The 

initial optimism engendered by the resumption of construction was echoed in a Niles’ Register

editorial that “Day is dawning again after a long gloomy night.”297 By May 1, 1846, however, the 

work done amount to only $55,384 and the work force had dwindled from some 300 to only 10 in 

June.298

 The economic uncertainties caused by the outbreak of hostilities between the United 

States and Mexico on April 25, 1846, prevented any successful negotiations to acquire the necessary funding, and the negotiations totally collapsed in July when a $10,000,000 loan was floated 

 

291 Niles’ Register, LXVIII (April 12, 1845), 85. 

292 Ibid.

293 Proceedings of Stockholders, C, 497; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 288, 

Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), C&O Co., 4–5; and Niles’ Register, LXVIII (August 2, 1845), 341. 

294 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 317–318, 320–323, 353–354. 

295 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 8–9. 

296 Niles’ Register, LXIX (October 25, November 29, 1845), 128, 198; and Eighteenth Annual report

(1846), 10–11. 

297 Niles’ Register, LXIX (November 8, 1845), 147. 

298 Eighteenth Annual report (1846), 25; and Fisk to President and Directors, June 25, 1846, Ltrs. Recd. 

C&O Co. 
102 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

by Congress to finance the war, thereby drawing off most of the available money.299 Work on the 

canal ceased entirely that month and remained suspended through most of 1847. 

 The negotiations for the sale of the bonds had been under way since before the formal 

signing of the contract in September 1845. Efforts by the company itself and by Senator Daniel 

Webster, who as Secretary of State in the Harrison and Tyler administrations had made influential 

contacts in London, to effect a loan in England, failed in September 1845 when the Barings, undoubtedly influenced by the mounting tensions between the United States and Mexico over the 

American annexation of Texas, declined to take any part in it.300

 Subsequent attempts to complete the necessary arrangements were progressing in the 

spring of 1846 when all efforts to interest London merchants failed with the outbreak of the 

Mexican War. The attitude of the Barings also was influenced by a report made at their request by 

William H. Swift and Nathan Hale in 1846, estimating the cost of completing the canal to Cumberland, the prospects of income to be derived from the coal trade once it was finished, and the 

comparison of transportation costs on the waterway and railroad.301 The contractors then turned 

to American banking interests in New York, the District of Columbia, and Richmond for assistance, but these arrangements failed in July 1846 largely as the result of the federal monetary efforts to finance the war.302

 As the tight money market eased somewhat in the spring of 1847, negotiations with the 

American capitalists resumed. By this time, several events had measurably improved the prospects affecting the sale of the bonds. On March 8, Maryland had shored up the credit of both the 

state and the canal company by making provision for the payment of the arrears of its debt and for 

prompt payment of the semi-annual interest in the future.303 That same day the Virginia Assembly had authorized the state treasurer to guarantee $300,000 of the canal bonds.304 The corporation of Georgetown and Washington had authorized the loan of $25,000 and $50,000, respectively to the contractors in exchange for the canal bonds, while the citizens of Alexandria took up 

a private subscription for $25,000 for the same purpose.305

 Tentative arrangements made in Boston on May 11, provided for the distribution of the 

entire estimated sum of $1,100,000 cash needed to finish the canal among: 

 Virginia $300,000 

 The District cities $100,000 

 Boston interests $200,000 

 The Barings $300,000 

 The contractors $200,000306

The negotiations were temporarily threatened by the withdrawal of the Barings because of a sudden growing tightness in the European money market, the rapid rise in the rate of interest charged 

by the Bank of England, and increasing apprehension of a large reduction of bullion and specie 

 

299 Justin Smith, The War with Mexico (2 vol., New York, 1919), II, 258–259; Cox to Coale, July 10, 1846, 

Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 443. 

300 Ibid, G, 311; and Karl Jack Bauer, The Mexican War: 1846–1848 (New York, 1974), 3–11. 301 William H. Swift and Nathan Hale, Report on the Present State of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Boston, 1846), 1–99. 

302 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 11. 303 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), 4–5. 304 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, 106. 305 Ibid. 306 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), C&O Co., 4–5, and Niles’ Register, LXXII (May 22, 1847), 179. The 

actual estimated sum was $1,172,116. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 103 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

by British banks. [A note appears at this point to “insert p. 213a,” which is missing] However, it 

was fully expected that the rapid increase in the supply of money here would enable American 

bankers to make up the difference.307

 The negotiations were finally carried to a successful conclusion by Nathan Hale and John 

Davis of Massachusetts and Horatio Allen of New York, acting as agents for the contractors. The 

Board drew up and executed the mortgage of the canal’s revenues in the fall of 1847. It named 

Phineas Janney of Alexandria, W.W. Corcoran of Washington, David Henshaw, and George 

Morey of Boston, and Horatio Allen of New York, as representatives of the twenty-nine capitalists in New York, Boston, and Washington who had undertaken the sale of the bonds. Their withdrawal was influenced also by the opinion of their Boston agent that the canal could not be completed for the proposed $1,100,000 and that it is unlikely that the waterway could dispose of all of 

its authorized 1844 bonds without serious loss.308

 By the terms of the final agreement, the capitalists agreed to take $500,000 of the bonds 

and the subcontractors $200,000, in addition to the $400,000 already pledged by the State of Virginia and the District Cities. The aggregate sum of these bonds and pledges sufficient, according 

to current estimates, for all the incidental expenses for engineering, salaries, damages for land, 

right of way, and interest on the bonds. In addition, the amount of $192,000 was left over and 

placed in the hands of the trustees to cover any deficit. The optimism created by this agreement 

was reflected by the National Intelligencer on October 5: 

We may therefore with entire confidence congratulate our fellow citizens of this District 

and of the states of Maryland and Virginia, not only them, but the country at large, that 

the managers of this important work have at length surmounted all the difficulties which 

have so long arrested it and that there is every prospect of its early completion to Cumberland.309

Active operations on the canal between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland resumed on November 18, 

1847, under a modified contract. The old firm, Gwynn & Co., was reorganized as Gwyn and 

Cunningham retired. The remaining partners, Hunter and Thompson, continued with the addition 

of a third partner, Thomas G. Harris of Washington County, Maryland. The terms of the contract 

provided that the new firm, Hunter, Harris & Co., would receive no money until the canal was 

completed to Cumberland. The deadline for the completion of the work was set at October 1, 

1849. Prices in the new contract were not to exceed the 1845 allowances by more than 121⁄2 percent.310

 To speed the work and reduce the cost of construction, the canal board incorporated in 

the contract some changes in the construction plans including the adoption of the composite plan 

for Locks Nos. 58–71 and the postponement of building lockhouses and of arching the Paw Paw 

Tunnel until after the canal was formally opened to Cumberland.311

 With the resumption of construction, many of the old problems returned to hinder the 

progress of the work. Among the major obstacles to the work were the sickness and the scarcity 

of available laborers, the slow sale of the bonds, and the excess of costs over estimates. In spite of 

 

307 Niles’ Register, LXXII (July 10, 1847), 293, and Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C&O Co., 3–5. 308 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, 106–

107. 

309 Washington National Intelligencer, October 5, 1847; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 92, 94–96; and Twentieth Annual Report (1848), 5–6. 310 Twentieth Annual Report, 7–8, and Washington National Intelligencer, October 5, 1847. 311 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 285. 
104 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

these distractions, however, the force employed on the line increased to 1,447 men and 594 work 

animals by May 1849.312

 The difficulties experienced by the contractors in selling their bonds brought their financial trouble to a head on March 11, 1850. Work was suspended for several days, and the workers, 

who had been unpaid for some time, threatened violence unless they received their paychecks. 

The trustees, Davis, Hale, and Allen, took over the contract of assignment from Hunter, Harris & 

Co., and resumed work. The date for the completion of the canal was extended to July 1 and then 

August 1.313

 These arrangements proved to be futile, for on July 15 the trustees’ resources were exhausted and work again stopped. The canal board declared the contract abandoned two days later 

and negotiated a new one on July 18 with Michael Byrne, a Frederick County contractor who had 

done considerable work on the canal in the 1830s. Under this contract, Byrne was provided with 

$3,000 cash and $21,000 in bonds.314

 By October 10, 1850, the work had progressed so that the “50-mile section” between the 

Cacapon River and Cumberland was formally opened to navigation. Gala ceremonies were held 

in Cumberland on that date celebrating the events with numerous speakers extolling the economic 

importance of the canal to the nation and more particularly to the State of Maryland. Two weeks 

later the Frederick Examiner commented that: 

We earnestly hope and feel persuaded that these expectations will not be long before 

Maryland can hold her head proudly up and say—I am out of debt, and prosperity is before me. I now take rank with the proudest of the Sister States of this glorious confederacy.315

After more than twenty-two years of alternating optimism and despair, the eastern portion of the 

waterway was completed nine years after the railroad had reached Cumberland and two years 

before it reached the Ohio River at Wheeling. 

 

312 Ibid, 14, 274–275; Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), C&O Co., 3–7, 24–25; and Application of 

Hunter, Harris & Co. to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company for Relief (Baltimore, 1853), 1–45. 313 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 349, 365; and Twenty-Second Annual Report

(1850), C&O Co., 5–7. 

314 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 369–372. 315 Frederick Examiner, October 23, 1850. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 105 

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics 

V. SUMMARY 

Altogether the construction of the canal cost $11,071,075.21 or $59,618.61 per mile.316 This large 

expenditure compares favorably with the original estimate for the canal by the U.S. Board of Engineers in 1826, but it compares rather poorly with the original estimate made by Geddes and 

Roberts. The estimate by the Board of Engineers for a canal 48 feet wide at the surface, 33 feet 

wide at the bottom, and 5 feet deep, extending from Georgetown to Cumberland was 

$8,177,081.05, or $43,963 per mile. However, this estimate made no allowance for land purchases, engineering expenses, or other contingencies, with the exception of a provision of 

$157,161 for fencing. Thus when the actual cost of land purchases ($424,723.91), engineering 

expenses ($429,845.94), incidental damages ($28,870.09), and company salaries (approximately 

$80,000) were added to the estimate, the total was $983,359.99 after subtracting the fencing provision. Comparing this figure with the actual cost of the canal, one finds that the cost over-run 

was $2,087,816.22, or 18.9 percent, a statistic that could easily be justified by the rising inflation 

of the period.317

 On the other hand, a comparison of the actual cost of the canal with the 1827 estimate by 

Geddes and Roberts, on which the original stock subscription and construction operations were 

based, demonstrates the faulty financial presumptions under which the project was undertaken. 

The two civil engineers estimated that a canal 60 feet in width at the surface, 42 feet in width at 

the bottom, and 5 feet in depth extending from Georgetown to Cumberland would cost 

$4,479,346.93 or $23,985.79 per mile. Their estimate, like that of the Board of Engineers, did not 

contain any allowances for the purchase or condemnation of land, but, unlike the earlier estimate, 

it did include a ten percent allowance for contingencies. When the actual cost of land purchases, 

engineering expenses, incidental damages and company salaries is added to, the eastern section 

total is $5,412,786.87, a figure that includes the ten percent contingency allowance. Comparing 

this amount with the actual cost of the canal, one finds that the cost over-run was $5,658, 389.34, 

or 51.1 percent.318

 This study of the financial origins, planning, and organization of the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal Company offers many clues as to the successes and failures of the waterway project. The 

various attempts to improve the Potomac River route as a channel for trade between the western 

hinterlands and the eastern seaboard originated in the rivalry between the merchants and capitalists of the eastern seaports. While the western merchants and farmers generally supported the canal proposals, the impetus and the capital, came from eastern sources, thereby reflecting the contemporary faith of eastern finances in the profit-making potential of this East–West transportation 

route in the period of American economic expansion after the War of 1812. Yet private support 

was insufficient for the realization of the projected improvement from Georgetown to Pittsburgh, 

 

316 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland 112–

113. This sum was the figure given by President Coale to the stockholders on February 27, 1851, in his 

report on the completion of the canal. It does not include interest or repair costs. The interest on the capital 

stock and bonds borrowed by the company greatly enlarged this sum. As the company continually faced 

financial hardship, it generally was in arrears on its interest payments. For example, the unpaid interest on 

the Maryland stock and bonds amounted to $14,344,495 by May 1877, in Arthur Pue Gorman’s scrapbooks, the Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. See also, Baltimore 

Gazette, June 1872, in Ibid. [Note that “the aggregate length of the lines of the Baltimore & Ohio in 1850, 

including the Washington branch, and the extensions in Virginia, was 208 miles, which had cost 

$15,243,426.” This represents a cost of $73,285.70. See ch. 20, Development of Transportation Systems in 

the United States by J.L. Ringwalt—Editor of Railway World—1888.—kg] 317 Ibid, 112–113. 318 House Document 192, 5–6, 98. 
106 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 2. Construction Economics

and from the very inception of the Chesapeake & Ohio, its promoters sought state and federal 

government subscriptions. Along with these subscriptions went active participation in, and control of the enterprise by the governments concerned, a seeming anomaly in the legendary age of 

laissez faire. 

 The experiences of the canal company during years of construction reflected the general 

pattern of the history of other American canals. Formally inaugurating its project with federal and 

state financial assistance, the company plunged into the race for the western waters in competition with rival works in the neighboring states and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in the same 

state. Its rapid progress was interrupted by a series of obstacles arising form the undertaking of 

such an extensive work in a thinly populated and rugged river valley with insufficient engineering 

expertise. Unexpected obstacles in excavation, the shortage of good building materials, the absence of an adequate labor force, widespread ill health during the summer construction season, 

disputes with local proprietors over land purchase, and trouble with contractors over rising costs, 

delayed the progress and increased the cost of the project. 

 These problems were exacerbated by the canal board’s decision to build a 60-foot wide 

waterway, the general inflation and national economic cycles of the period, the difficulties in securing adequate funds on a continuing basis, the attitude of the Jackson Administration toward 

federal support of internal improvement projects, and the injection of Maryland state politics into 

canal affairs. The period of actual construction was thus characterized by alternating cycles of 

optimism and pessimism similar to those on other public works of the period. 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

3. 

LABOR FORCE 

OF THE C&O CANAL: 

1828–1850 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 109 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

CONTENTS 

I. A TIME OF EXPERIMENT: 1828–1831 111 

II. A TIME OF TROUBLE: 1832–1842 123 

III. A TIME OF RELATIVE CALM: 1847–1850 139 

EPILOGUE 

 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN 

 IMMIGRANTS TO BUILD THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL AND 

 THE RISE OF POLITICAL NATIVISM IN MARYLAND: 1829–1862 142 

APPENDIXES 

 A TREATY OF PEACE SIGNED AT WILLIAMSPORT 

 JANUARY 27, 1834, BETWEEN THE CORKONIANS 

 AND THE LONGFORDS 149 

 B: REPORT OF CHARLES B. FISK, FEBRUARY 1838, 

 REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LABOR 

 DISORDERS AND THE COST OF THE CANAL 150 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 111 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

I. A TIME OF EXPERIMENT: 1812–1831 

When the actual digging of the canal commenced in the autumn of 1828, the main problem facing 

the company was the supply of labor. The scarcity of workers and the consequently high rate of 

wages threatened and upset all the financial calculations of the contractors. There were few laborers available in the largely agricultural valley itself, and few could be attracted to it because of the 

reputation of the Potomac for ill health during the long hot and humid summer and because of the 

construction of other railroads and the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal. Added to these considerations was the competition for workers between the railroad and the canal, with the farmers at harvest time, and among contractors themselves as a result of undertaking the construction of 48 

miles of waterway to Point of Rocks within one year. The consequence of this scarcity was that 

labor costs were unexpectedly high and the average ability of the workers apparently rather low.1

 The poor quality of the work performed by many of the laborers is graphically portrayed 

in the field notes of W. Robert Leckie, the newly-appointed inspector of masonry, during the 

spring of 1829. At one of the stone quar4ries being opened for use on the canal, he found the 

quarry and stonecutters so inexperienced that he “gave directions to have some clay joints cut off 

some of the stones, made a drawing of lewis and lewising tools, and gave also a drawing of a 

mallet and a description of the tools necessary to make them.” The quality of the walls of the 

lockhouse at Lock No. 26 was “not good.” Here he observed that both: 

Contractors and masons seem totally ignorant of what they should know, have neither 

skills nor tools to work with, everything done carelessly, and no attention paid to the mixing of the mortar.2

Following another inspection tour of the masonry works on the canal in August, he informed 

Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright that: 

The prospects of this important branch (masonry) are truly appalling. There are scarcely 

and masons on the line and the most of the small number are laborers totally ignorant of 

masonry, and who ought never be permitted to spoil such an important work.3

Despite the low assessment of the workers’ capabilities by Leckie, not one of those laboring on 

the line of the canal were so ill-prepared. For example, contractor Mowry of Section No. 9, informed the company in July 1829 that he would bring an 

Experienced “canaller” to direct his work, who has been on the Eire and the Union, Susquehanna Division, and who is now collecting a set of his old hands, and will bring 

houses (horses), wagons, tools, and men to the C&OI Canal.4

 

1 First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., 19; Second Annual Report (1830), C&O Co., 5–6; Baltimore & 

Ohio Railroad (2 Vols., New York, 1928), I, 118–120. 2

 Diary and Account Book, 1828–1829 (April 11 and May 12, 1829), W. Robert Leckie Papers, Duke University Library. 

3

 Leckie to Wright, August 21, 1829, Leckie Papers 

4

 Mowry to Mercer, July 9, 1829, Ltrs. Recd. C&O Co., Records of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Record Group 79, National Archives. (Unless otherwise noted, all document sources used in this 

chapter are located in this collection.) 
112 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

Mounting wages proved inadequate to overcome the scarcity of workers in the Potomac Valley. 

Wages averaged $8 to $10 a month for common labor in November 1828, and continued to rise to 

$12 and $13 a month by mid-summer of the following year.5

 A. W. Campbell, the contractor for Sections Nos. 30–31, complained in August 1829 that 

the rapid escalation in wages would bring on 

an average of 12 9/10 dollars per month, which is equal to 46 1⁄2 cents per day. The board 

of the hands then at 1 50/100 dollars per week amounts to .25 cents for each working day. 

To this sum I add 5 cents for the board of men wet days and parts of days that their board 

is more than the proportion of work. The whiskey consumed is worth 4 cents per day. 

The use of barrows, picks, and shovels at the very low estimate is worth 6 cents. To this 

add a reasonable sum for superintendence and the expense of building, say 10 cents of the 

amount will stand thus: 

 For labor 461⁄2 cents per day 

 For board 30 cents per day 

 For whiskey 4 cents per day 

 For use of tools 6 cents per day 

 For superintendence 

 and buildings 10 cents per day 

 961⁄2 cents per day6

Yet despite this wage increase, inspector of masonry Leckie reluctantly reported in the spring of 

1829 that there were only “about 50 stonecutters on the line.” This deficiency was critical when 

one compared it with the number of stonecutters needed to complete the canal within the time 

limits set by company charter, for example, Leckie noted: 

There are in the Monocacy Aqueduct 160,000 feet of cutting which dissected into 180 

parts the working days in 6 months would be 900 feet per day, and supposing every 

stonecutter to cut 8 feet per day it would require 112 stonecutters 6 months to do it. 

 The Seneca Aqueduct if built of cut stone would require 16 stonecutters 6 

months. There is 6,000 feet in a lock of [text missing] per day it will require 6 men 6 

months to cut a lock.7

During the same period, Leckie also complained that the scarcity of masonry on the line was hindering construction. He informed Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright that there were fewer than 

fifty masons on the line, a fact that would make it difficult to complete the canal on schedule. 

Again using the locks and the Monocacy and Seneca Aqueducts as examples, he observed: 

Eight masons may set a lock in 40 days. There are in the Monocacy Aqueduct 11,000 

perches and supposing each mason to lay three perches per day it would require 20 masons 6 months to lay it. Seneca Aqueduct would require 5 masons 6 months to lay it.8

 

5

 Mercer to Richards, July 8, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of 

Directors, A, 140, 309. 

6

 Campbell to Mercer, August 30, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

7

 Diary and Account book, 1828–29 (May 26 and April 23, 1829), Leckie Papers. 

8

 Diary and Account Book, 1828–29 (March 1829), and Leckie to Wright, August 21, 1829, Leckie Papers. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 113 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

The board also took special note of the labor shortage and its effects on the construction of the 

canal in its first annual report to the stockholders in June 1829. According to the last weekly labor 

reports taken during the previous month the “number of hands, consisting of men and boys engaged on the works of the canal, was 2,113, of which 2,000 were men and the residue boys.” 

However the directors estimated that the “number necessary to complete the canal under contract, 

in the time specified in the several contracts, cannot be short of 6,000.”9

 In desperation the canal company turned to various devices to relieve the labor shortage. 

As early as November 1828, the board had undertaken, through special agents and extensive correspondence, to encourage the migration of workers from all parts of the United States and from 

various European countries, especially Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands.10 The company inserted advertisements in the newspaper of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and Amsterdam, offering 

prospective workers meat three times a day, plenty of bread and vegetables, a reasonable allowance of liquor, and $8, $10, and $12 a month wages. Mercer estimated 2,000 or 3,000 were 

needed.11 Supporters of the canal project in Congress even petitioned for the use of troops in the 

construction of the proposed tunnel on the mountain section through the Alleghenies, the most 

formidable undertaking of the projected connection between the Potomac and the Ohio.12

 The efforts of the directors to secure an adequate number of workers at low wages led to 

a reversion to the colonial practice of using indentured servants. On January 31, 1829 the board 

authorized President Charles f. Mercer to make an agreement with Henry Richards, a Welshman 

formerly employed on the Erie and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canals.13 Richards was to be 

the agent of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in Great Britain and was to recruit laborers 

to work on the line. The board also continued for a short period to negotiate for workers from the 

British Isles. In its general instructions to Maury and Richards in July, the company offered to 

pay all costs of transportation in return for the indentures of the immigrants for three months, 

each month computed at 26 working days. The directors requested that the workers be sent out in 

time to arrive between late September or early October. In this way they would avoid the “sickly” 

season and yet have three months of good working weather before winter. Quarrymen, stone cutters, and masons were most in demand for they were badly needed to stimulate the lagging masonry work, a fact demonstrated two months earlier when instructions were given by Mercer “to 

engage the services of 300 stone cutters and masons from Europe.” The board discouraged the 

enlistment of farmers and if they came, required them to pay their own way and to find their own 

accommodations on the line.14

 The detailed instructions to Richards included seven stipulations. 

1. Upon his arrival in Britain he was to cooperate in every way with Maury. 

2. He was to engage the services of English, Welsh, and Scottish laborers accustomed to 

digging. 

3. Common laborers must sign obligations requiring three months’ labor, while masons 

were to sign indentures for two months’ service. 

 

9 First Annual Report (1829), 19–20. 10 Mercer to Cope, November 18, 1828; and Mercer to Barbour, November 18, 1828, Ltrs. Sent C&O Co., 

and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 105. 11 Mercer to Maury, November 18, 1828, Ltrs. Sent C&O Co.; and Tear to Mercer, January 12, 1829, Ltrs. 

Recd. C&O Co. 

12 Second Annual Report (1830), 25–27. 13 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 153, 175. 

14 Mercer to Maury, July 8, 1829, and Mercer to Richards, July 8, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 226. 
114 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

4. Any advances beyond the cost of transportation were to be repaid at the rate of $8 a 

month for common laborers and $15 a month for masons. 

5. They were to receive the same subsistence as the other workers, but were to be 

boarded free of charge. 

6. If necessary, Richards was authorized to offer wages as high as $10 a month for 

common laborers and $20 a month for masons and stone cutters. 

7. Finally, the men so transported were to work on the canal for one year after the termination of their indentures at the prevailing rate of wages or at the stipulated rate, 

whichever the laborer in question desires. No contracts were to be made to extend 

beyond December 1, 1830.15

The mission of Richards on behalf of the canal company came at a most opportune time for the 

latter’s purpose. Britain was in the midst of complex economic and social change, accompanied 

by unemployment, high prices, and unrest among the working classes. The effect of the Napoleonic Wars had stimulated British agriculture and given her a monopoly of the world carrying 

trade. The inevitable dislocation caused by rapid economic expansion produced sporadic riots and 

social discontent. The unrest was further fueled as farming and shipping slowly lost their wartime 

advantages. Demobilization as well as mechanization caused unemployment, and new jobs did 

not materialize in time to absorb surplus labor. Furthermore the antique borough system [somewhat analogous to U.S. legislative districts] left many fast-growing areas underrepresented in parliament. At the same time taxes were high for rich and poor alike because of the costs of the wars. 

In addition, the mounting cost of poor relief, borne by local property taxes, added to this tax load, 

while high prices and massive indirect taxation burdened the poor. Erratic fluctuation in production, wages, and prices, as well as import and exports, contributed to the social unrest. The instability in society was aggravated by a rapid population growth, the consequences of which included an enlarged labor force that outgrew the expanding economy and problems of urban life, 

housing, poverty, and crime. In London and the burgeoning industrial centers of northern Britain—Manchester, Birmingham, and Glasgow—organizations formed to angrily protest against 

the great variety of national ills, their memories of the French Revolution kept fresh and fired by 

agitators such as Henry Hunt. These working class and radical movements for political and economic reform to correct the inequities of British society were generally repressed with the aid of 

the military, the banning of public assemblies and the suspension of habeus corpus. Under these 

conditions, the Irish, Welsh, and English workers in the mines, mills, and factories were receptive 

to the terms offered by the Chesapeake and Ohio agent.

16

 While Richards was conducting his recruitment activities the board also took steps in July 

1829 to attract additional workers to the Potomac Valley from other parts of the United States. 

The directors ordered that President Mercer be authorized 

To draw for and advance such sum of money as might be found necessary to pay the expense of transporting to the line of the canal, such number of laborers as the contractors 

will oblige themselves to employ, on the terms to be prescribed by the President.17

 

15 Instructions to Richards, July 8, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

16 Walter Phelps Hall and William Stearns Davis, Course of Europe Since Waterloo (New York, 1951), 47–

56. 

17 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 309. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 115 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

The following month the board approved the expenditure of $975 for the transportation of laborers from New York under the direction of Joel Crittenden, on of the company agents in that 

state.18

 Meanwhile Richards began sending the British laborers to America in August. The first 

group of about 320 workers crossed the Atlantic in the Pioneer, the Julian, and the Boston. Concerning the immigrants that he was sending, Richards wrote: 

I have been very careful to select men of good character, steady, and industrious...Some 

few Irishmen are among them but all these have worked some time in England & 

amongst Englishmen and are good workmen and peaceable. 

 There are a great many miners and colliers chiefly in the Boston. The masons and 

quarry men have been selected from the quarries rail roads and canals in the different 

countries of England and Wales. 

 ...Some few of the men are rather small and young—but most of these, if you 

think it is required, will serve for the longer time. 

 According to your first instructions the men have agreed to work in lieu of their 

passage—the stone cutters, and masons and some blacksmiths & carpenters for three 

months, the laborers agree to work four months....The instructions received yesterday 

[missing text] shorter say 2 months for masons and 3 months for others, but as I shall be 

able to engage men on the same terms as before, I shall continue to do so leaving it to you 

to shorten their time after they arrive if you think proper. And this will perhaps be more 

satisfactory to the men themselves, who will think it a great favor. 

 I have sent as few women and children as possible and those only the families of 

good workmen. I will send no more if I can possibly avoid it. 

 ...I have sent with each vessel a careful and trusty man...(who will) see the 

workmen delivered to you.19

Another large contingent of laborers came over on the Nimrod.

20 Although Rice requested further 

instructions and authority to hire a thousand laborers, the group of 176 sent over on the Shenandoah which arrived late in October, was the last.21

 The trip across the Atlantic was a harrowing affair for both the immigrants and their 

overseers. The latter were responsible for the safe delivery of the hands assigned to them and for 

the distribution of rations on board ship. On both counts they gained the hatred of the laborers. 

They differed widely in character, some being described as wretched, ignorant, and terrified men, 

and others as proud, arrogant, and disdainful of the workers.22 The experience of the bosses was 

quite similar. The daily distribution of bread and meat often brought tempers to a boiling point as 

the immigrants complained of favoritism, (short) weight, and inedible provisions. At times they 

appealed to the ship captains, who invariably washed their hands of the quarrels and sometimes 

 

18 Ibid, A, 331, 337. 

19 Richards to President and Directors, August 21, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., quoted Walter S. Sanderlin, 

The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1946), 73–74. 20 Boteler and Reynolds to Ingle, November 1839, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

21 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 380, and Ingle to Janney, October 26, 1829, Ltrs. 

Sent, C&O Co. 

22 Powell to President and Directors, November 18, 1829; and Gill to President and Directors, November 

18, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
116 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

urged the men to take matters into their own hands. Although the overseers were subjected to a 

constant stream of threats and abuse, all of them survived the journey.23

 The company directed its agents to send the laborers to either Alexandria or Georgetown, 

fearing that if the men landed at another port, they might be diverted to some of the other internal 

improvement projects in the East. On their arrival they were assigned to directors Walter Smith at 

Georgetown and Phineas Janney at Alexandria.24

 The latter paid the marine insurance on them, and completed arrangements for them to be 

housed in one large building in Alexandria.25 They were then placed under supervision of a superintendent of imported laborers, one of the assistant engineers assigned to that duty, and those 

among them who were sick received medical attention from Dr. Joshua Riley prior to commencing work.26 As the charges for the medical services were chargeable to the sick themselves, he 

was asked to reduce the charges in some degree to the ability of the workers to pay for such services. Subsequently they were turned over to the contractors and their indentures delinquent up to 

the latter upon receipt and upon the assumption of responsibility for the cost of transportation, a 

sum set at $32 per man by the board in September.27 The contractors called the roll to have the 

indentures acknowledge by the laborer. If any of them refused they were [missing text].28

 The experiences of the contractors with the immigrants varied widely, probably according to the character of the workers and the treatment given them. The 5 or 8 laborers and quarrymen assigned to Henry Boteler and George F. Reynolds, the proprietors of the Potomac Mill near 

Shepherdstown, were entirely satisfactory, although the mill owners attempted to reduce labor 

costs by paying wages below the $10 per month average for the canal and by failing to provide 

even a limited supply of clothing.29 The men were described as lacking skills and initiative.30 

 Some of the laborers had real grievances in the treatment they received at the hands of the 

contractors. Those working for M. S. Wines left him and returned to Washington. They consented 

to resume work only on certain conditions that were agreed upon by their leaders and company 

officials. The demands they made were 

That they shall have as soon as it can be made so, a tight house with comfortable lodgings, as tight and comfortable as common board can make it; a sufficient supply of good 

bread, and meat, with such other things as are customary for laboring men, and these prepared in a cleanly manner; that their baggage shall be sent after them...and lastly that you 

(Wines) will open an account with each man and charge him with his passage over, and 

 

23 Powell to President and Directors, November 18, 1829, Gill to President and Directors, November 1829, 

and Jones to President and Directors, November 18, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 24 Mercer to Maury, July 8, 1829, and Mercer to Richards, July 8, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 380. 

25 Ingle to Riley, October 21, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Watts to President and Directors, November 

4, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

26 Ingel to Riley, October 21, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and watts to President and Directors, November 

4, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

27 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 364. 

28 Mercer to Ingle, September 30, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

29 Ingle to Boteler and Reynolds, October 22, and November 19, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Boteler 

and Reynolds to Ingle, November 5, 1829, Ltrs. Recd, C&O Co. Clerk Ingle also assigned a woman and 

child to Boteler and Reynolds to serve as a cook and clothes washer as the shanties along the line were too 

uncomfortable for women and children. The company continued to urge Boteller and Reynolds to accept 

more women and children as they had better housing facilities than were found elsewhere on the line. 

30 Diary and Account Book, 1829–1830, November 18, 1829, Leckie Papers. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 117 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

with all other expenses incurred for him and credit him for his work at the customary 

price of labor until the account shall be given up to him. 

In return the company promised that if Wines failed to live up to these conditions it would transfer them to another section. In notifying the contractor of these conditions, company John P. Ingle 

reminded Wines that: 

We should make some allowance for men in a strange country who have probably lived 

tolerably well at home and humanity requires that we should do all that is reasonable to 

make them contented. With kind treatment I really believe that everyone one of your men 

will faithfully serve you.31

These terms soon were ordered to apply to the entire line of the canal by the director, and Ingle 

was directed to go up the line and to investigate the complaints so generally made.32

 One of the cases found by Ingle where friction between the contractors and the immigrants had led to a work stoppage was settled by a special meeting of the board with the disputing 

parties. It was agreed that the thirteen laborers who had left the line would return to work [missing text] paying the approved workmen and mechanics $1.12 1⁄2 per day and the others according 

to merit down to $1 each besides their board. Thus the stage was set for still higher wages along 

the canal in the hope that this would avert further turmoil.33

 Many of the dissatisfied workers were not so patient or conscientious. Some deserted the 

line of the canal and disappeared into the neighboring countryside. At first the board dealt leniently with the runaways that were captured and imprisoned, releasing them from jail on the promise that they would return to the canal.34 The directors believed at this time that the grievances 

would be correct and the men retained. As they continued to abscond, the board began to lose 

faith in their good intentions and ordered effective steps taken to apprehend them.35 

 When it was reported that some of the men fled to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the 

directors appealed directly to the President of the rival work not to hire the immigrants that had 

been brought to the Potomac Valley by the Canal Company.36 Failing to receive full satisfaction 

from the railroad, the board ordered the preparation of a resume of the laws relative to indentured 

servants to be printed for distribution to the foreign laborers.37

 Following a report in late October that 23 runaways had been caught and that many others had absconded, the board ordered that “immediate steps be taken to apprehend those now absent.”38 One of the principal consequences of the company’s policy of taking a hard line against 

the apprehended runaways was a series of costly trials. On October 24, the Washington Chronicle

reported that a number of such laborers had been brought before Judge Cranch in the District of 

Columbia court on a writ of habeas corpus. The workers had refused to comply with their contracts on the ground that they could not make themselves slaves and were under no obligation to 

serve the company. Hence they had left the line of the canal, only to be captured and imprisoned. 

The judge, at the urging of the company counsel, “wholly subverted” these “new-fangled notions 

 

31 Ingle to Wines, October 3, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Cao. 

32 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 367. 

33 Proceedings of the President and Board of directors, A, 376. 

34 Ibid, A, 367–368 

35 Ibid, A. 379 

36 Jones to President and Directors, October 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, A, 369, 377. 

37 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 378. 

38 Ibid, A, 379. 
118 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

of American liberty” by sending the workers back to prison until they were willing to comply 

with the terms of their contracts.39

 The series of trials in Baltimore where the company caught up with a large number of 

laborers and prosecuted them as runaways and debtors, proved to be a costly failure. Baltimore 

was hostile to the claims of the company, and the workers received the sympathetic assistance of 

lawyers, merchants, and tavern keepers who had been influenced by the emerging Jacksonian political philosophy. On one occasion in late October when agents of the canal company were about 

to take 20 captured runaways from Baltimore to Washington by steamboat, an innkeeper named 

Fox and an attorney named David Stewart informed the men that “they were of right perfectly 

free and therefore unlawfully arrested.” After hearing this language, the workers “united in an 

effort and succeeded in an escape.” Accordingly, the board ordered director Janney to consult 

with William Wirt, the former U.S. Attorney General who had set up a private practice in Baltimore shortly after leaving the government, concerning “the subject of prosecuting to the utmost 

rigor of the law this Mr. Stewart, Mr. Fox, and many others who may have aided in the escape of 

the men.” The board was anxious that the escapees be captured, imprisoned as runaways, and 

prosecuted “in the hope that the question may be at once settled in Baltimore as it has been here 

(in Washington) on a writ of habeas corpus.” If they did not act immediately, the board figured 

that Baltimore would become a haven for the runaways. The board settled on this procedure as it 

gave them a greater chance for success. Furthermore, a favorable decision in such a case would 

allow the canal company to hold the men to bail for their performance of their contract or to sue 

the men for their passage money.40

 When Wirt reported that it would be difficult to prosecute Fox and Stewart, the canal 

board determined only to take the eleven runaways that had been captured to trial on a writ of 

habeas corpus. In early November the City Court of Baltimore ruled that the agreements between 

the company and the workers were not of a master-servant character, but were merely contracts 

for work. The men were freed, though subject to damages and costs. The company could still sue 

for debts, and for a short period the directors considered suing each of the men for the cost of 

their transportation or for the value of their services under the terms of the indentures which were 

computed at $50 for a common laborer and $75 for a mason. 

 It soon became evident that if such suits were filed, the immigrants could plead bankruptcy and either get off entirely or be sent to jail at the company’s expense. In a jury trial there 

was always the possibility they might argue that the company had first broken the contract by 

providing inadequate or rotten food supplies on the voyage from Britain. With this argument, no 

court in Baltimore would convict them, especially when it might be composed of railroad men 

looking for workers themselves. In view of this unpromising prospect, the cases were dropped.41

 An unhappy sequel to the Baltimore case occurred when the City Court attempted to 

charge the canal company for arresting and imprisoning the eleven runaways. Although canal 

agents assisted in locating and arresting the workers, the company was charged the full amount by 

law for taking the men into custody. Among the charges were items for the hire and the refreshment of the horses used by the court employees to arrest the men. Furthermore, the company was 

billed for the jail and tavern expenses of the men while they were awaiting trial.42

 The immigrants who remained on the line, servants and freemen alike, suffered greatly 

from ill-health due to the rigors of the work and unhealthy atmosphere of the Potomac Valley. As 

early as August, 1829, sickness along the line of the canal forced many engineers as well as con-

 

39 [citation missing] 

40 Ingle to Janney, October 26, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

41 Ingle to Wirt, October 29, November 6, 1829, and Ingle to Glenn, April, 1830, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

42 Ingle to Glen, November 17, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 119 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

tractors and laborers to cease their work, thus causing the first of many health-related work slowdowns.43 

 During the following two months, the sick and destitute workers poured into Georgetown 

in ever-increasing numbers. By October they were being picked up off the streets of the town, 

sick and starving. [missing text] time, 126 had been cared for by the city authorities, and John 

Little, Trustee for the city of Georgetown, and John Brigum, Overseer of Poor, complained that 

these people were not Georgetown’s poor and should be the responsibility of the canal company.44 Accordingly, the canal board appropriated $150 for the care of the sick workers.45

 In some cases the board agreed to pay for the care of entire families that had been imported. For example, the directors paid $9 per week for Evan, an “aged and infirm man” and his 

family only two of whom were capable of performing any work.46 

 The influx increased as winter approached, some finding their way to Washington where 

they were cared for by the city poor house and by private charity.47 The miserable conditions of 

the laborers and the dismal tales of their treatment aroused city officials such as Washington 

Mayor Joseph Gales and humanitarian groups such as the Society of the sons of St. George, to 

well publicized attacks, thereby obliging the company to take official notice of the accusations 

and defend itself.48 To counter some of the mounting criticism, the board in April 1830 appropriated an additional $117.45 to Georgetown and $267.45 to Washington for the medical care given 

the workers.49

 The canal company was further put on the defensive by foreign visitors to Washington 

who observed the plight of the Irish immigrant workers and described their impressions in published journals of their travels. One of the most scathing indictments of the company’s mistreatment of its imported workers was written by Frances Milton Trollope, and English lady who 

spent the summer of 1830 in the Potomac Valley. Her condemnation of the canal company’s labor policy was published in her Domestic Manners of the Americans (1832): 

I have elsewhere stated my doubts if the laboring poor of our country mend their condition by emigrating to the United States, but it was not till the opportunity which a vicinity 

to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal gave me, of knowing what their situation was after making the change, that I became fully aware how little it was to be desired for them. Of the 

white laborers on this canal, the great majority are Irishmen; their wages are from ten to 

fifteen dollars a month, with a miserable lodging, and the large allowance of whiskey. It 

 

43 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 335. 

44 Little to President and Directors, October 13, 1829, enclosing the report of John Brigum, October 10, 

1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

45 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 380–381. 

46 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 399. The directors, angered that such a man was 

permitted to emigrate to the Potomac Valley, order that Evan be discharged from his indenture and that 

expenses incurred in caring for him be charged to Richards. 47 Whitwell to Mercer, March 9, 1830, enclosing the report of John McNerhany, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. Under the leadership of John McLeod, an Irish schoolmaster in the city, a group founded by the Washington 

Relief Society in 1830 to help the “indigent and disabled emigrants” and other distressed people who were 

unable to receive medical care or other treatment at city almshouse. In one winter, the organization boarded 

forty people in private homes or taverns, and in 1833 it opened an infirmary for destitute foreigners. Constance McLaughlin Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 1800–1878, (2 vols; Princeton, 1962), I, 133–

134. 

48 Gales to Ingle, February 8, 1830, and Lenox and Herring to Ingle, February 17, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O 

Co. 

49 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 65. 
120 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

is by means of this hateful poison that they are tempted, and indeed enabled for a time to 

stand the broiling heat of the sun in a most noxious climate: for through such, close to the 

romantic but unwholesome Potomac, the line of the canal has hitherto run. The situation 

of these poor strangers, when they sink at last in “the fever,” which sooner or later is sure 

to overtake them, is dreadful. There is a strong feeling against the Irish in every part of 

the Union, but they will do twice as much work as a Negro, and therefore they are employed. When they fall sick, they may, and must look with envy on the slaves around 

them; for they are cared for; they are watched and physicked, as a valuable horse is 

watched and physicked: not so with the Irishman: he is literally thrown on one side, and a 

new comer takes his place. Details of their sufferings, and unheeded death, too painful to 

dwell upon, often reached us; on one occasion a farmer calling at the house, told the family that a poor man, apparently in a dying condition, was lying beside a little brook at the 

distance of a quarter of a mile. The spot was immediately visited by some of the family, 

and there in truth lay a poor creature, who was already past the power of speaking; he 

was conveyed to the house, and expired during the night. By inquiring at the canal, it was 

found that he was an Irish laborer, who having fallen sick, and spent his last cent, had left 

the stifling shantee where he lay, in the desperate attempt of finding his way to Washington, with what hope I know not. He did not appear above twenty, and as I looked on his 

pale young face, which even in death expressed suffering, I thought that perhaps he had 

left a mother and a home to seek wealth in America. I saw him buried under a group of 

locust trees, his very name unknown to those who laid him there, but the attendance of 

the whole family at the grave gave a sort of decency to his funeral, which rarely, in that 

country, honors the poor relics of British dust: but no clergyman attended, no prayer was 

said, no bell was tolled; these, indeed, are ceremonies unthought of, and in fact, unattainable without much expense, at such a distance from a town; had the poor youth been an 

American, he would have been laid in the earth in the same unceremonious manner. But 

had this poor Irish lad fallen sick in equal poverty and destitution among his own people, 

he would have found a blanket to wrap his shivering limbs and a kindred hand to close 

his eyes. 

Trollope concluded her cryptic observations on American immigrant labor practices in general 

and those of the canal company in particular by stating: 

The poor of Great Britain, whom distress or a spirit of enterprise tempt to try another 

land, ought, for many reasons, to repair to Canada; there they would meet co-operation 

and sympathy, instead of malice, hatred, and all uncharitableness.50

The use of imported laborers succeeded in temporarily stabilizing and lowering the rate of wages 

on the canal.51 The total working force on the line rose from a low of 1,600 or 2,000 in midsummer to over 3,100 in November, 1829.52 In the long run, however, the experiment was a failure and the difficulty of enforcing the terms of the contracts in the hostile atmosphere of the Jacksonian Era led to its suspension. The entanglements in law suits, in poor house claims, and in unfavorable notoriety, more than offset the immediate advantages. Even the statistics indicating a 

substantial rise in the labor force late in 1829 fails to prove the success of the experiment, for 

 

50 James E. Mooney, ed. Domestic Manners of the Americans by Francis Milton Trollope (Barre, 1969), 

229–230. 

51 Second Annual Report (1830), 5–6. 52 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 352. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 121 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

there was a suspension of work on the Pennsylvania Main Line and Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canals which might have caused migration to the Potomac Valley.53

 Before the lessons of the episode had been learned, the directors at the urging of President Mercer, considered the purchase of 100 black slaves for the use of the company.54 In taking 

this step, as in the case of the indentured servants, the board was following the example of the 

Potomac Company, despite the warning of the unfortunate results of the earlier experiments. As it 

would be necessary to instruct the slaves in the art of cutting stone and construction masonry, the 

directors took no action to carry out the recommendation. When a proposal to purchase 350 

slaves came up before the annual meeting of the company stockholders in June 1830, it was decisively defeated.55 By that time the company, believing the results were not commensurate with 

the effort, had given up on all schemes to provide cheap labor for the contractors.56

 Aided in part by the completion of work on the Pennsylvania Main Line and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canals, the canal board had less difficulty in obtaining an adequate labor 

force in 1830. By May of that year some 6,000 workers and 700 horses were engaged on the line. 

However, as the legal controversy with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad restricted construction 

above Point of Rocks and discouraged progress above Seneca Creek by preventing the building of 

the planned feeder at Harpers Ferry, far fewer laborers were needed in late 1830 and 1831. By 

mid-December 1830, there were 2,205 men and 379 horses engaged on the line.57 By May 1831, 

the force working on the line of the canal had been reduced further to 1,326 men and 276 

horses.58

 As construction advanced, the canal directors were occupied with a series of problems 

related to the labor force. The presence of so large a body of laborers on such an extended line of 

the Potomac Valley created problems of morale and coordination. The annual sickly season continued to take its toll among the laborers and engineers alike, delaying construction and indirectly 

forcing wages up to unexpected levels.59 

 Compensation to laborers who had been injured in work-related accidents became an 

item of financial concern to the directors, thereby forcing them to encourage the contractors to 

take greater safety precautions when undertaking dangerous work such as blasting. One of the 

first of these cases was that of John Stubblefield, a free black, who was awarded a $2 monthly 

stipend for one year by the board after he lost his left arm while blasting rocks on the line in December 1828.60

 Other petitions for aid from disabled workers soon were making their way to the board, 

including an appeal by Felix O’Neal, an Irish immigrant who had suffered a broken thigh bone 

and an injured hand while blasting on Section A in Georgetown.61 The company also took steps 

to protect itself against liabilities when the worker on several different sections applied in February 1830 for the distribution of assessments made for work done in the month prior to the death of 

 

53 Ibid, A., 353–354 

54 Ibid, A, 310 

55 Second Annual Report (1830), 28 56 All told, the company spent $37,300.54 on the recruitment, passage, and superintendence of the immigrants. Ledger A, C&O Co., 79. For his services in recruiting the laborers, Richards was paid $605.61. Ibid, 

78. 

57 Frederick Town Herald, January 15, 1831. 58 Third Annual report (1831), C&O Co. 4 

59 Second Annual Report (1830), 25. 60 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 149. 

61 O’Neal to President and Directors, April 13, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. The board later agreed to pay 

O’Neal $5 per month for five months. 
122 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

one contractor and for the work done in the month prior to the abandonment of a contract by another.62

 Some of the most important problems of morale among the labor force centered on such 

diverse considerations as communications, recreational diversion, and domestic home life. To 

solve the communication problem, a new postal route was established in the winter of 1828 with 

its own offices scattered along the canal. In September 1839, service was upgraded so that the 

mail was delivered twice daily along the line of the canal by horseback. By the following year, 

there were eight offices on the waterway at the following locations: Magazine, Section No. 8, 

Bear Island, Clementon, Seneca Mill, Edward’s Ferry, Conrad’s Ferry, Mouth of Monocacy, and 

Catoctin. In most cases, the contractor on the section was appointed the postmaster, on President 

Mercer’s recommendation, but several were nearby landowners appointed on the recommendation of their Congressman.63

 A critical problem facing the director was that of diversion or recreation. In the absence 

of other sources of amusement, drinking became almost the sole outlet for the workers.64 Furthermore, many of the workers who were expected to put in long hours six days a week, ignored 

company regulations and insisted on taking an extended vacation over the Christmas holiday season to spend time with their families.65 The board, after considerable prodding, also took steps in 

October 1829 to boost the morale of those workers who had brought their families with them 

from Europe. To meet the demands of rising inflation, the directors on October 12 increased the 

weekly allotment to $2.25 for board to each imported laborer. Furthermore, the workers having 

families were allowed an additional sum of 50 centers per week, thereby changing the company 

policies forbidding any aid for families coming with the recruits.66

 Later, on December 2, the board determined to permit the foreign laborers who had 

brought families to receive and apply to their own board and wishing bills their earnings until 

April 1, 1830, after which time they were to use a portion of their earnings to repay the company 

for their passage and expenses. At the same time, any boys that Richards had recruited were discharged from their indentures and their expenses charged to his personal account.67

 The company, anxious to rebut the charges of mistreating the immigrants, undertook the 

care of those imported families where a death made it difficult for the laborer to continue his 

work. One such case was that of John Wiley whose wife died several months after arriving on the 

line, leaving three children. Seeking to help the man care for his children, the board granted him a 

discharge from his indenture and authorized the contractors to pay him any wages he might have 

earned above the expenses of his passage. Within several weeks, Wiley abandoned the children 

and the directors determined to provide for the three children. As the directors had warned Richards not to send families, they charged the expenses to his personal account.68

 

62 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 28. 

63 Nelson to Mercer, September 28, 1829; Gardner to Mercer, September 29, 1829; and Hobbie to Mercer, 

February 19, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

64 Watts to President and Directors, December 9, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 65 Owens to Board of Directors, December 9, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 66 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 374. 

67 Ibid, A, 410–411, and Ingle to Powell, December 8, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

68 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 395, 424, and Ingle to Ford and Chapman, November 19, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 123 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

II. A TIME OF TROUBLE: 1832–1842 

The decade of construction from 1832 to 1842, which saw the completion of the canal to Dam 

No. 6 above Hancock, was a period marked by severe cholera epidemics among the workers and 

a series of labor disturbances often accompanied by violence. As a consequence, the construction 

of the waterway was hampered and the cost of the work rose sharply, thereby complicating the 

financial and legal problems of the canal company. 

 The canal project had been plagued from its inception by the annual “sickly” season in 

the Potomac Valley, giving the region a reputation as an unhealthy area. In a report to the House 

Committee on Roads and canals in 1834, the canal board described the problem and the popular 

beliefs as to its causes: 

The autumnal diseases of the Potomac are by no means common to the whole river, 

which below tide water, as at Georgetown, is remarkable for the salubrity of its climate in 

autumn as well as at other seasons. Above tide water, which reaches three miles above 

Georgetown, and below Harpers Ferry, the banks of the Potomac are unhealthy from the 

last of July until the first hard frost of autumn, their inhabitants being subject for that period to intermittent, and agues and fevers, as on the Susquehanna and Juniata, and it is believed for the same reason, the great breadth of those rivers in proportion to the depth of 

their volume of water when reduced by autumnal droughts. 

 One peculiarity is common to those rivers: it is the growth of several species of 

grass from their bottoms, the stems and blade of which attain, by the first hot weather of 

August, a considerable height and float on the surface of the water. Where this is shoal, 

and warmed by the action of the autumnal sun, this grass early undergoes a fermentation 

and decomposition, and emits an offensive odor, very perceptible by travelers who ford 

the river at night in the last of August, and throughout the month of September when the 

air is damp and still. May not this effluvia be the cause of the ill healthy of adjacent 

shored: In deep water, as opposite to Georgetown and Alexandria, and for the considerable distance above and below these towns, this grass does not appear on the surface of 

the Potomac, nor does it at Harper’s Ferry, in consequence of the rapidity of the current, 

nor opposite to Shepherdstown, where a dam erected immediately below that town has 

deepened the water opposite to it.69

So firmly had these ideas become established in the minds of the valley inhabitants that there was 

usually a noticeable slacking of work on the canal during the summer months as company officials, contractors, and laborers left the region? 

 The inhabitants of the Potomac Valley were frightened perhaps more from the onslaught 

of cholera epidemics than any other disease because of its “fearful suddenness,” its dreadful pain, 

and its “sudden termination.” The afflicted patient 

would feel an uneasiness of the bowels with great heat and intense thirst; then would follow a feeling of heaviness and weakness, an almost total suspension of the pulse with a 

low, weak, and very plaintive voice; then the ‘rice water’ discharge would take place, 

violent vomiting, oppression of the stomach and an impeded respiration. The circulation 

of the blood became exceedingly sluggish, the forehead, tongue, and extremities became 

 

69 U.S., Congress, House, committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 414, 23d 

Cong., 1st sess., 1834, Appendix U, 237. 
124 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

very cold. Cramps occurred in the legs, toes, and hands; the face of the patient became 

livid and cadaverous and the body presented a mottled appearance. 

 These symptoms were quickly succeeded by the final stage, which was a complete collapse of the whole system, greatly resembling the appearance of death, which 

quickly succeeded. The patient sometimes died in a tranquil stupor and sometimes in violent spasms and in great distress. The different stages of the disease followed each other 

occasionally with such rapidity that death occurred in a few hours after the appearance of 

the first symptom...The most popular treatment at first was hot applications, mustard 

plasters, calomel, and opium.70

The canal company resorted to unusual precautions to offset the threat of the “sickly” season and 

to keep the work going when construction commenced above Point of Rocks following the successful resolution of the legal conflict with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in January 1832. The 

safeguards provided were the customary ones, but the attempt to prevent the effects of illness 

among the laborers was unprecedented on the canal. The board resolved to engage a physician to 

inspect the workers’ shanties along the canal from July to October, to recommend measures for 

the health of the contractors and laborers, and to acquire and prescribe medicines for the sick.71

The office of Superintendent was created to let all the contracts above Point of Rocks and to provide “for the removal of the sick and then supply with such necessaries, hospital stores, and comfort, as their condition may need.”72

 In July, the directors relinquished the condition contained in the recently-let contracts 

prohibiting the contractors from providing spirituous liquors to the hands employed by them.73

 When cholera first appeared among the workers near Harpers Ferry in August, the board 

authorized President Mercer to rent a suitable building near that town to be used as a hospital and 

appropriated the sum of $500 for the workers who would get the disease. As the cholera spread 

toward Point of Rocks, the board in early September authorized Mercer to provide for a second 

hospital near that village. Provision was to be made with both the contractors and the laborers to 

share the expenses of these hospitals with the company.74

 In addition, steps were taken by the board to comply with a request from the Corporation 

of Georgetown that the water be drawn off that portion of the canal in the town at least once a 

week during the summer months as a sanitary measure. 

 By publicizing these measures for the care and prevention of sickness, the company 

sought to encourage workers and contractors alike to stay on the job, and perhaps to attract laborers from other public work.75

 

70 Thomas J. C. Williams, History of Washington County (2 vols., Hagerstown, 1906), 221–222. According 

to Sanderlin, Great National Project, 93: “Officials of the Department of Health of the District of Columbia believe that the illnesses described were probably of various origins, coinciding in occurrence.” Waterborne diseases such as typhoid and paratyphoid may have been the most prevalent. Insect-borne fevers undoubtedly accounted for many more. Dysentery from several causes and possibly milk-borne diseases seem 

best to fit the other symptoms described. On top of these were all the other human illnesses which when 

occurring in the sickly season, were attributed to the river. The occurrence of the water-borne and pestborne diseases in late August and September coincided with the mosquito season in the Potomac Valley 

and the peak of the warm water period in the stream (at which time water-borne diseases are most potent.” 71 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, c, 174–174. 

72 Ibid, 175 

73 Ibid, C, 186 

74 Ibid, C, 212–214 

75 Ibid, C, 212 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 125 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 Despite all the precautions, the summer of 1832 proved to be the most disastrous to the 

health of the workers. Late in August, Asiatic cholera, which had gradually been spreading south 

from Montreal, made its appearance on the line near Harpers Ferry. The plague, soon popularly 

called the “the pestilence,” spread rapidly down to Point of Rocks, causing a suspension of work 

on many sections as fear spread through the ranks of the labor force.76

 Niles’ Register described in ghastly terms the panic and confusion caused by the epidemic in the vicinity of Harpers Ferry: 

The cholera has raged dreadfully among the laborers on the Ohio & Chesapeake canal, in 

the neighborhood of Harper’s Ferry. As many as six persons are said to have been lying 

dead, at one time, in a single shanty,—while in others the dead and the dying were mixed 

in awful confusion. Many had abandoned their employments and fled—and some of 

these were attached on the roads, and died in the fence corners! The habits and exposures 

of these poor people fit them for the reception of the cholera, and their accommodations 

for the sick and wretched and scanty, indeed-for they are crowded in temporary sheds, 

and badly supplied even with the most common necessaries of life. The laborers are 

chiefly Irishmen.77

After a hasty inspection of the Harpers Ferry—Point of Rocks area, President Mercer informed 

the directors that the panic had resulted in the dispersal of the terrified laborers. Accordingly, he 

observed: 

If the Board but imagine the panic produced by a mans turning black and dying in twenty 

four hours in the very room where his comrades are to sleep or to dine they will readily 

conceive the utility of separating the sick, dying and dead from the living.78

The cholera gradually spread up the river to the west of Harpers Ferry toward Sharpsburg and 

Shepherdstown. As it advanced, the same reports of the suspension of work and the panic of the 

laborers accompanied it. From Shepherdstown Henry Boteler, the proprietor of the Potomac Mill 

wrote: 

Before this letter reaches Washington, the whole line of canal from the point of rocks to 

WmsPort will be abandoned by the Contractors and Laborers—The Cholera has appeared 

amongst them, and had proved fatal in almost every case. There has been upwards of 30 

deaths nearly opposite to us since Friday last, and the poor Exiles of Erin are flying in 

every direction...it is candidly my opinion, that by the last of this week you will not have 

a working man on the whole line.79

Similar scenes of suffering and panic were described by the company’s counsel in Frederick: 

 

76 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 221, and Rush to President and Directors, August 5, 18) 

Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. The cholera soon spread down the Potomac Valley to Washington where the Board 

of Health blamed the epidemic chiefly on the “large number of foreign emigrants...employed on the public 

works. Most of these were from Germany and Ireland, men who neither understood our language, nor were 

accustomed to our climate, habits and mode of living.” Green, Washington: Village and Capital, I, 135. 77 Niles’ Register, XLIII (September 15, 1832), 44. 

78 Mercer to Ingle, September 3, 1832, quoted in Sanderlin, Great National Project, 95. 

79 Boteler to Ingle, September 4, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., quoted in Sanderlin, Great National Project, 

95. 
126 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

They have since been suffering great mortality west of Harpers Ferry, [& c] fear that 

work is by this time suspended. The poor creatures, after seeing a few sudden & awful 

deaths amongst their friends, straggled off in all directions through the country; but for 

very many of them the panic came too late. They are dying in all parts of Washington 

County at the distance of 5 to 15 miles from the river. I myself saw numbers of them in 

carts & on foot making their way towards Pennsylvania.80

The scenes of suffering and death caused both anguish and alarm to the inhabitants of the valley, 

Engineer Thomas F. Purcell writing from Sharpsburg, described some of the occurrences of “inhuman outrage” as follows: 

Men deserted by their friends or comrades have been left to die in the fields, the highways, or in the neighboring barns & stables: in some instances, as I have been told; when 

the disease has attacked them, the invalid has been enticed from the shantee & left to die 

under the shade of some tree. 

 Excited by the sufferings of the miserable victims of this disease; the citizens of 

this place have ministered to their wants, and sought to sooth their dying moments; but 

unfortunately for the cause of humanity, nearly every person who has been with the dead 

bodies or has assisted in burying them have paid the forfeit with their lives: and now it is 

scarcely possible to get the dead buried.81

During the first week of September the dead bodies of four canal workers were brought to 

Hagerstown to be buried in the only Roman Catholic cemetery in Washington County. Terrified 

by the spreading plague, the citizenry protests against bringing the dead within the town limits 

and the civic authorities passed ordinances forbidding the entry of any sick or dead canal workers 

for hospital care or internment. To aid the helpless workers, Father Timothy Ryan, the priest in 

charge of St. Mary’s Church, in cooperation with Engineer Alfred Cruger of the canal company 

took steps to provide a burying aground near the canal.82

 By late September the epidemic had reached its peak, but the laborers were still suffering 

and dying. Niles’ Register reported that: 

The disease yet prevails severely on the line or in the neighborhood of the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal, about Harper’s Ferry, & c. and at Sharpsburg, MD. The panic was awful, 

and the sufferings of the people, chiefly newly arrived foreigners, exceedingly stressing. 

The bodies of many laid on the roads unburied for days—being abandoned by their late 

relatives or associates.83

As the epidemic spread, the canal company adopted measures to care for the sick and to calm the 

panic. President Mercer made an effort to lease an abandoned mill owned by Caspar Wever near 

Lock No. 31 to be used as a hospital.84

 

80 Price to Ingle, September 5, 1832, quoted in Sanderlin, Great National Project, 95. 

81 Purcell to President and Directors, September 11, 1832, quoted in Sanderlin, Great National Project, 95–

96. 

82 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 222. 

83 Niles’ Register, XLIII (September 22, 1832), 52. 

84 Mercer to Wever, September 11, 1832, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 127 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 Wever, a longtime foe of the company, offered exorbitant terms of $350 per year, a rate 

double that when the long vacant mill had last been rented, plus all damages awarded by his 

agents upon examination after the mill would be relinquished85

 The terms were so repulsive that they did not receive consideration.86

 Two make-shift hospitals were finally established in some cabins rented near Harpers 

Ferry and in a large shanty at Section No. 112 just above Dam No. 3. Another was contemplated 

at Point of Rocks, while these temporary quarters left much to be desired, the permanent hospital 

at Harpers Ferry was not established until late in September.87 

 Even then the accommodations were not very elaborate, for as late as August 27, Mercer 

thought that it would only be necessary to purchase 

some hundred feet of plank for bunks and some blankets and sacks for straw and as few 

and as cheap articles for the Hospital as possible and place it in the charge of a physician 

of this place (Harpers Ferry) after engaging one or two nurses to attend the sick...88

The method by which the hospital was supported was a form of group insurance that the directorate had attempted unsuccessfully to introduce earlier in 1830.89 

 Each of the workers contributed 25 cents per month for the doctor’s fees and the maintenance of the hospital.90

 This system had worked successfully before on the James River Canal, but, as could be 

expected, it worked only as long as the fear of sickness was sufficiently great to cause the men to 

consent to the deduction from their wages. With the arrival of cooler weather and the disappearance of the cholera, the workers refused to approve further deductions and the program was discontinued. The following spring the hospital services were terminated and the equipment sold.91

 Beginning in 1832, reports of unrest among the workers on the line appear in the company records. In that year the cause of the disturbance was an ill-advised attempt to enforce the 

prohibition of the use of spirituous liquors by the workers. In an effort to forestall the rioting and 

loss of time which resulted from excessive drinking, the directors ordered the enforcement of the 

condition contained in all contracts above Point of Rocks prohibiting the distribution of liquor to 

the workers. At the same time, President Mercer unsuccessfully sought to secure the passage of a 

law by the Maryland Assembly prohibiting the sale of liquor within two or three miles of the canal in Frederick, Washington, and Allegany Counties.92 

 The company had considerable difficulty enforcing its prohibition in the absence of supporting Maryland laws, as the contractors continually faced trouble with shopkeepers along the 

line who maintained grog shops or surreptitiously sold liquor to the men. Upon the report of Engineer Alfred Cruger that the enforcement of the prohibition was having the opposite effect from 

that intended, the directors repealed it.93

 

85 Wever to Mercer, September 13, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 86 Mercer to Smith, September 24, 1832, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

87 Mercer to Smith, September 24, 1832, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Rush to President and Directors August 

5, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

88 Mercer to Ingle, August 27, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

89 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 49, 72. 

90 Mercer to Ingle, September 3, 1832; Mercer to Smith, September 24, 1832; and Rush to President and 

Directors, August 5, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

91 Mercer to Ingle, September 3, 1832, and Rush to President and Directors, August 5, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., 

C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 263. 

92 Mercer to Ingle, January 23, 1832, Ltrs. Rec., C&O Co. 

93 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 185–186. 
128 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 Drunkenness had actually increased during the period of prohibition as the men, deprived 

of a steady supply of spirits during the day, drank excessive quantities of alcohol at neighboring 

grog shops in the evening. The intoxicated men rioted throughout most of the night, and morning 

found many of them lying on the ground where they had fallen exhausted, unfit for work that 

day.94

 The laboring force was the cause of anxiety on the part of the directors for other reasons. 

For one thing there was the continued demand for more men, especially skilled masons and 

stonecutters. Mercer carried the search for hands as far north as Philadelphia on one of his trips to 

secure funds for the company. In the fall of that year, Mercer reported that he had hired eight men 

there. The terms which cost the company $130, included the advance of transportation money, the 

promise of bonus and the guarantee of work until December 10, 1832, at fair wages.95

 Despite all the hindrance to the recruitment of laborers, the company had 4,700 men and 

1,000 horses working on the line by May 1833.96 

 In the summer of 1833, there was another outbreak of the cholera sickness on a less serious scale. This time it broke out among the workers near Williamsport in July. After ten men died 

in one day, the symptoms of panic and threatened dispersal of the workers reappearance. The unrest spread to the neighboring village of Hagerstown because so many of the Irish workers were 

brought there for interment in the Catholic cemetery. Fear in the town increased as the death 

among the workers multiplied and at least one afflicted laborer came to the hamlet for treatment 

and died.97

 A town meeting was held at which civic leaders expressed fear for the health and trade of 

the community. The town, the company, and the local Catholic parish took steps to provide other 

cemeteries closer to the line, thereby reducing the time lost from work during the solemnity and 

revelry of a funeral and removing the threat to the safety of the villagers.98

 The directors rejected the recommendation of Engineer Thomas F. Purcell to purchase 

suitable lots for cemeteries, “considering it to be without the line of their duty.” Instead they authorized the engineers “to use any waste ground owned by the Canal Company for the interment 

of persons dying upon the works of the Company.”99

 When the board refused to take further action to help the sick workers, Father Ryan, of 

St. Mary’s Church in Hagerstown, established a burying ground and a hospital in a log house on 

the “Friend” farm along the Clear Spring road near Williamsport.100 

 The epidemic gradually retraced its previous course down the river to Harpers Ferry and 

then disappeared. 

 

94 Cruger to President and Directors, July 7, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

95 Mercer to Ingle, October 8, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Ledger A, C&O Co., 79. 

96 Mercer to Purcell, May 9, 1833, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. Of this force, 2,700 men and 655 horses were engaged between Harpers Ferry and Dam No. 5. Fifth Annual Report (1833), C&O Co., 3. 

97 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 223. 

98 “Resolutions of a Public Meeting in Hagerstown July 27, 1833,” in Williams, Price, and Beatty to Purcell, July 31, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Purcell to President and Directors, August 1, 1833, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. 

99 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 409. At least four such burying grounds were 

established pursuant to the Board’s directive Williamsport Cemetery, just above the canal on a small hill in 

the town; Cacapon Cemetery, downstream from the mouth of the Cacapon River (between what are now 

the Western Maryland Railroad tracks and the canal; Paw Paw Cemetery, near the present intersection of 

Md. 51 and the canal next to the river; and Purslane Cemetery, at the upstream side of the mouth of 

Purslane Run. Edward McMillan Larrabee, “A Survey of histories and Prehistoric Archeological Sites 

Along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Monument 1961–1962” (NPS Mss., 1962), 34, 41–42. 

100 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 480. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 129 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 In 1834 and 1835 open warfare broke out between two long feuding rival factions of the 

Irish workers—the Corkonians and the Longfords, sometime called Fardowners—during the idle 

winter months.101 

 The first encounter in January 1834 was the result of a fight between on of the Corkonians and one of the Longfords named John Irons, the latter man being beaten badly that he soon 

died. The fight had been triggered by the long-threatened effort on the part of the rival factions to 

oust adherents of the other from the line of the canal, an event which would have led presumably 

to an increased rate of wages for those remaining. The skirmish between the Corkonians, who 

were working near Dam No. 5 above Williamsport, and the Fardowners from the vicinity of Dam 

No. 4, below the town, resulted in several deaths and many wounded in the clash before two 

companies of the Hagerstown Volunteers arrived on the scene to restore order. The following day 

the militia returned to Hagerstown with 34 prisoners who were sent to jail.102 

 After the battle there was general demoralization among the workmen, and the countryside took on the appearance of an armed camp. Within a week, a band of Corkonians “committed 

excesses” above Williamsport, and some of their number attempted to enter the town. However, 

they were met on the Conococheague Aqueduct by an opposing party of Irishmen in the town and 

driven back. In this affray one man was seriously beaten and wounded. The citizens of the town 

quickly took up arms and “soon put themselves in military order” for the protection of their 

homes and remained on patrol at the aqueduct “for the balance of the day, and the greater part of 

the night” to keep the warring factions apart.103

 Notwithstanding these preventative measures a major battle erupted the following day 

January 24. A party of 300 Longfords, armed with guns, clubs and helves, were permitted to cross 

the aqueduct and march up to Dam No. 5, when they announced that their intentions were merely 

to make a show of force. Farther up the line they were joined by 300 to 400 more who had apparently crossed the Conococheague behind the town. In a field on a hill-top just above Middlekauff’s Mill near Dam Mill near Dam No. 5, they met about 300 Corkonians armed with “military weapons.” Accepting a challenge, the Longfords charged up the hill amid an exchange of 

volley that killed a number of men. Soon the Corkonians fell back and fled before the superior 

forces of the Longfords. A merciless pursuit took place until nightfall, and many of the fugitives 

that were over taken were savagely put to death. Later five men were found in one place with bullets through their heads. In addition, the bodies of other dead and wounded were strewn in every 

direction. All of the casualties were reported to have been of the Corkonian faction. About 10 

o’clock that night the victorious Longfords marched back through Williamsport, disbanded, and 

returned to their shanties below the town.104 

 

101 The Corkonians had emigrated from Cork, Ireland’s largest county which included much of the rugged 

southern coast. The seat of the county was the city of Cork, an emerging manufacturing and commercial 

center and the main seaport and the largest city on the southern coast. The Longfords emigrated from the 

county of Longford, a western county of the province of Leinster in north central Ireland. Located just east 

of the Shannon River, the county was largely agricultural hay and potatoes being its principal crops, with a 

few small industries in the towns of Longford, Granard, Ballymahon, and Edgeworthstown. Longford’s 

land was poor, and much of the surface was under peat. Thus, it became one of the least populated regions 

of Ireland as a result of heavy emigration, especially after the partial failure of the potato crop in 1817, 

1821, 1822, and 1829. Carl Wittke, the Irish in America (Baton Rouge, 1956), 3–12. 

102 Niles’ Register, XLV (January 25, 1834), 366; Purcell to Ingle, January 23, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., 

and Williams, History of Washington County, I, 223. 

103 Williamsport Banner, January 18, 1834, quoted in Niles’ Register, XLV (February 1, 1834) 382, and 

Williams, History of Washington County, I, 223–224. 

104 Williamsport Banner, January 18, 1834, in Niles’ Register, XLV (February 1, 1834), 382. 
130 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 The following day Colonel William H. Fitzhugh, the Washington County sheriff, arrived 

in Williamsport in command of two volunteer companies from Hagerstown, and one of the leading rioters was arrested. Shortly thereafter two companies of local militias, named the Williamsport Rifleman and the Clearspring Riflemen, were organized. But these forces were deemed insufficient for the emergency. An urgent request was sent to Washington to ask for federal troops. 

At the same time, deputations were sent out by the Williamsport civic leaders to the Corkonians 

and the Longfords to bring the leaders of the two factions together and effect reconciliation. 

About sunset on January 17, representatives of the two Irish factions met with the town leaders at 

Lyles’ Tavern. A treaty of peace was prepared by the magistrates under the direction of General 

Otho Williams which the Irishmen signed.105 

 The town authorities warned the immigrants that if either side violated the agreement the 

citizens and the militia would unite with the other faction to drive the offender out of Washington 

County. 

 The Williamsport citizenry took other precautions to preserve the peace. One company of 

horse and two companies of infantry were organized. When word was received that a force of 100 

armed Corkonians had passed Harpers Ferry and were on their way to reinforce their friends at 

Dam No., 5, the militia leaders were dispatched to meet the party near Dam No., 4. After hearing 

of the peace treaty, the Corkonians disbanded, surrendered their arms and returned to their work 

down the river. The forty prisoners in the Hagerstown jail were then released upon their own recognizance under the terms of the treaty.106

 In the meantime on January 28, Dr. John O. Wharton, one of the representatives from 

Washington County in the Maryland House of Delegates, introduced a resolution asking the 

President of the United States to order out a sufficient number of troops to preserve the peace at 

Williamsport. The resolution passed the House, but the Senate substituted a resolution of its own 

authorizing the Governor to call out the state militia. Although the Senate’s version was quickly 

accepted by the House, President Andrew Jackson had already issued orders to send two companies of the 1st regiment of the U.S., Cavalry stationed at Fort McHenry to proceed to the canal. 

Arriving via the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the federal force remained along the line of the waterway for several months.107

 The presence of the feral troops triggered a lively debate among the officers of the canal 

company. John Eaton, the newly-elected company president, urged that the company to take advantage of the situation and discharge the trouble makers.108

 This recommendation however was rejected by the directors because there was continual 

shortage of laborers and the likelihood that such an attempt would produce more violence. 

 Hostilities occurred briefly during February 1835 near Galloway’s Mill. This time the 

workers on Sections Nos. 166 and 170–172 struck for higher wages and they made attempts to 

prevent all the laborers along the line from working. After a riot erupted, a “troop of horse, and 

company of riflemen” was dispatched from Hagerstown and “reduced the rioters to order and 

drove them away.” The altercation, which had delayed the completion of the four sections by 

some fifteen days, so disgusted the editors of the Hagerstown Torchlight that they concluded their 

 

105 Niles’ Register, XLV (February 8, 1834), 399. A copy of the treaty may be seen in Appendix A. 106 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 224. 107 Niles’ Register, XLV (February 1, 1834), 382–383 Washington National Intelligences, January 30, 

1834; and Williams, History of Washington County I, 224–225. According to Carl Wittke in his The Irish 

in America, 36, this was the first time that “President Jackson called out federal troops “in” a labor dispute.” 

108 Eaton to Janney, Smith, and Gunton, January 31, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 131 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

report by stating: “To refuse such persons employment is the surest way to check a riotous 

spirit.”109

 The company again attempted to eliminate drunkenness along the line in the summer of 

1835 by placing provisions in the contracts for the work between Dams Nos. 5 and 6 prohibiting 

the contractors form giving liquor to the workers. As the “sickly” season approached, however, 

the board temporarily suspended the prohibition at the request of John Gorman, the contract for 

Sections Nos. 247–248 and Culvert No. 190. The prohibition was to be dispensed with for the 

duration of the “sickly” season in those cases where a contractor obtained a certificate from a 

reputable physician that the use of spirituous liquors was necessary to the health of his hands.110 

 The construction of the canal above Dam No. 5 was marred by recurring strike and 

clashes among the workers. In January 1836, violence flared between the Corkonians and the 

Longfords near Clear Spring. Two shanties were burned and several men were severely wounded 

in the encounter. It was said that the rival camps feared each other so much that they posed 

guards at night “with as much vigilance as would two threatening armies.” In reporting the incident, the Hagerstown Torchlight urged the public authorities to “keep a close eye upon them 

(Irish), or much blood may yet be shed before spring, when their attention to their work will keep 

them from committing acts of violence on each other.” The newspaper concluded its remarks by 

saying that “Thus are the ancient feuds of these foreign disturbing the peace of the country, and 

making life insecure.”111 

 In 1836 violence occurred for the first time during the working months. The cause of 

these later disturbances appears to have been primarily economic. The faltering national economy 

as a result of the Jacksonian economic policies was beginning to produce widespread unemployment and consequently lower wages. Competition for the available jobs and for higher wages for 

found expression in the driving off of rivals and the creation of a scarcity of labor. Disturbances 

occurred all along the line, but the principal outbreak took place in April at Sections Nos. 229–

230 about one mile below Lock No. 51. Here G.M. and R.W. Watkins had a large (under paid) 

force “principally of Dutch and country borns.” These laborers were attacked by a party of Irish 

and beaten and dispersed with such ferocity that the contractors still had been unable to collect a 

work force ten months later.112

 Lee Montgomery, the tunnel contractor, was better able to keep his men on the job and 

maintain order among them. The canal commissioner explained this as follows: 

Our Methodist parson-contractor upon being asked how he escaped, replied that his men 

were generally picked men, and had provided themselves, he believed, with some guns 

and few Little Sticks, and it was supposed they would use them rather than be intruded 

on, the rioters thought it best not to stop as they were passing by—The truth is that in a 

good cause few men would probably use a “Little Stick” more effectively than himself, 

although he would pay at the same time against being obliged to “hold them uneasy.”113

The unrest continued throughout the summer and into the fall. Several of the contractors as well 

as some non-striking workmen were threatened. Beatings, vandalism, and other forms of physical 

violence were the common methods of punishment to those who defied the “desperadoes.” Canal 

 

109 Hagerstown Torchlight quoted in Niles’ Register, XLVII (February 21, 1835), 429, and Proceedings of 

the Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 234, 256–257. 

110 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 403. 111 Hagerstown Torchlight quoted in Niles’ Register, XLIX (January 16, 1836), 337. 112 [citation missing] 113 Bender to Ingle, May 8, 1836, quoted in Sandelin, Great National Project, 119. 
132 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

officials attributed the disturbances to the activities of a secret terrorist society from New York 

with branches in many states—probably an early labor union or Irish fraternal organization. As 

evidence of this charge was a placard that company men had taken from the door of a shanty near 

the tunnel. So great was the fear of those punished that none dared testify against their tormentors. While work on the canal gradually slowed because of the rising incidence of mob rule, the 

directors began to gather evidence for submission to the Governor of Maryland.114

 When work resumed on the canal in March 1837, the directors determined to relive the 

labor shortage for recruiting workers from the depression-ridden cities of the Northeast. Accordingly, Superintendent of Masonry Alexander B. McFarland was authorized to journey to Philadelphia and New York to induce hands to come to the canal. However, remembering their past 

difficulties with contract labor and uncertain of how the national economic downturn would affect the finances of the canal company, the director instructed him “not to bind the Company to 

the payment of any money to men who may come on to the work, nor as security for the payment 

of wages.” The following month when Chief Engineer Charles B. Fisk requested permission to 

employ an agent in New York City to send hands to the line of the canal, the board refused to act 

other than to make arrangements for such an agent “if it should hereafter be found necessary to 

appoint one.”115

The economic plight of the nation forced the suspension of many internal improvement 

projects during 1837. The resulting layoffs of large numbers of workers made it easier for the 

Chesapeake & Ohio, which was continuing its sporadic construction operations with the aid of 

loans from the State of Maryland, to recruit additional laborers. Yet despite the influx of new 

workers, it was reported that the level of wages on the canal rose to $1.18 3⁄4 and $1.20 a day.116

Because of its own financial difficulties the company in late 1837 suspended construction 

above the Cacapon River (except for the heaviest sections and the masonry) and concentrated its 

operations on completing the waterway below that point. This curtailment in activities raised 

fears among company officials that they would lose some of the workers who had been employed 

above the Cacapon to the James River and the Kanawha Canal in Virginia. As these laborers, 

some of whom had come well-recommended from Philadelphia and New York, would be needed 

when additional funds were available to resume full-scale construction, Superintendent of Masonry McFarland urged Chief Engineer Fisk to consider some inducements to keep these reputable workers on the line. Since ten of them had the finances to engage in contracts, steps were 

taken to offer them contracts for the construction of the remaining culvers below the Cacapon.117

 New outbreaks of rioting occurred in 1837 and 1838 among the Irish workers. In May 

and June 1837, the Paw Paw Tunnel was the site of disturbances, which were repeated in February and June of 1838. Here Parson Montgomery was working with his picked crew, augmented 

by laborers imported from England to increasing his force and to resist the strikers. Notwithstanding the efforts of the contracts the Irish succeeded in getting control of the work and bringing operations to a halt by commencing a “reign of terror.” After surveying the situation in early June 

1838, Engineer Ellwood Morris reported to Chief Engineer Fisk: 

Some scoundrels on Montgomery’s Job (tunnel) whose names I cannot discover have 

taken up (recently) the plan of hammering all new comers. On the night of the 8th, 2 very 

 

114 Bender to Washington, November 17, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, E, 172. 

115 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 215, 244. 116 Fisk to Bender, August 3, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer, and Ninth Annual Report (1837), C&O Co., 

9–10. 

117 McFarland to Fisk, December 7, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 133 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

steady & excellent miners who had been expressly written for by Montgomery & who 

had not been one week on the work, were assailed at midnight as they ascended from the 

lower workings (they being on the night shift) & on stepping from the bucket were 

knocked down & beaten with clubs. 

 One of them the doctor told me yesterday had his thigh badly fractured. The 

other is very badly bruised. 

 The attacking force, I learn form inquiring were 20 to 40 in number armed with 

shillelaghs. 

 On the night of the 9th, some others of the shaft workmen were beaten & on Sunday last there was a mob fight in Athys Hollow.118

Four days later on June 14, Morris informed Fisk of the increasingly dangerous situation at Paw 

Paw Tunnel. On further examination he had found 

that the miner (Richardson) who was beaten at the shafts and had his thigh broken, is a 

boss, & what may appear singular on this work, he is started to have been a faithful one. 

There is every reason to believe from a variety of indirect information which I have become possessed of, that there is a regular conspiracy, embracing nearly all the men at the 

Tunnel; which has for its object to make time & get wages, without furnishing the usual 

equivalent in labor. Succeeding in this they seem to contemplate preserving so desirable a 

state of things to themselves, by either preventing the coming or instantly driving off, 

every man disposed to do a days work as well as every boss who seems inclined to exact 

it. 

 To attain this end they will doubtless take life itself if their brutal beatings should 

fail. 

 One of the best bosses now on the work (Williams) who is driving the bottoming, 

has received a solemn warning that he must decamp or take the usual consequences, this 

man has been disposed to do Montgomery justice; but he now stands in this position—he 

must either decamp, risk his life, or resort to the alternative which seems so well understood on this work.... 

 I find that of the 40 men who came over with Evans but 2 are left on the work, 

the rest have been driven away in part by their own interests in part by flogging & in part 

by threatening, but the two last are the chief causes....119

Again the company was partly to blame for its own misfortunes, for it had refused to press the 

cases against several of the trouble makers at the tunnel after they had been arrested for pulling 

down shanties in broad daylight. The other workers gained the impression that the company was 

unwilling to bear the expense of the trial and punishment of the terrorists.120 

 There were other disorders along the line of the canal in 1838, the most notable occurring 

at Oldtown on New Year’s Day and at Prather’s Neck in May. The fracas at Oldtown occurred 

when a large party of men working at the tunnel raided the village and nearly destroyed a tavern 

owned by Nicholas Ryan. Reacting quickly, Sheriff Thomas Dowden summoned the Cumberland 

Guards and other citizens to serve as a posse, but when they arrived at Oldtown the Irish had already left. Several ringleaders were arrested and jailed to see what effect that action would have 

on the others. Apparently it made little impression in the face of the continued uneasiness among 

 

118 Morris to Fisk, June 10, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

119 Ibid, June 14, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 120 Fisk to Bender, May 15, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Commissioner. 
134 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

the workers. They resorted to burning shanties in order to bring pressure to bear on contractors 

and to drive away German laborers and newcomers to the line whose presence threatened to reduce the jobs of the Irish and thus force down wages. As the troubles continued, a company of 

riflemen was organized in Cumberland, and the Governor of Maryland sent to the city 189 muskets and 120 rifles to arm the militia.121

 In May 1838 violence occurred at Prather’s Neck where the laborers “insisted” upon destroying the work they had done, since they were to receive no pay for it.122 

 The trouble was caused by the fact that David Lyles, the contractor for Sections Nos. 

205–206, was engaged in a controversy with the company over the completion of his contract 

and, meanwhile, had refused to pay the wages of the laborers working on these sections. The 

company had made partial payment of the laborers’ wages from $4,000 of money that had been 

withheld from Lyles’ for the performance of his contract but refused to do more.123 

 Faced with the destruction of their works, the company asked the local militia to protect 

canal property, but the directors were embarrassed by the reluctance of the citizenry to turn out. 

The latter pointed out that both the state and the company had refused to pay their expenses last 

time. Besides many of them were convinced the company was partly to blame for withholding 

large sums from the contractors in such critical times.124 

 Some of the members of the local militia “positively refused to turn out while some 

went” so far as to declare, that if they did they would “fight for the Irish.”125

 Nevertheless, after the company promised to pay all the expenses, two companies of militia from Hagerstown and one from Smithsburg marched to the line, seized 140 kegs of gunpowder from the relatively quiet workers, and returned them to Hagerstown where they were stored 

on the courthouse lot in the center of town. Militia officers described the workers and their families as being “in suffering and deplorable condition” but determined to prevent work from being 

done until they were paid.126

 They rejected an offer of 25 cents on the dollar and held fast to their positions. The local 

inhabitants assured them that they were in the right and supplied them with provisions on 

credit.127

 Throughout the spring of 1838, there were repeated occurrences of work slowdown along 

the line of the canal, confirming in the minds [?] of the directors that there was a general conspiracy afloat. It was reported by Assistant Engineer Henry M. Dungan that 

It is of little use to blow the horn either in the mornings or after meals, as the men take 

their own time to come out on the work & I really do not think it would be safe for me to 

attempt to urge them to their duty.... 

 

121 Fisk to Washington, February 5, 1838, Ltrs., Sent, Chief Engineer, and Will H. Lowdermil History of 

Cumberland (Washington, 1878), 342. 

122 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 233. 123 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 397–398, 400–404, 408–409, and Ingle to Fisk, 

May 9, 1838, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

124 Price to Washington, May 11, 1838, and Williams to Washington, May 16, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 125 Williams to Washington, May 16, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 126 Williams to Washington, May 17 and 18, 1833 Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. On December 19, 1838, the directors authorized the payment of $231.99 to the militia of Washington County for their services in quieting 

the disorders of Prather’s Neck in May. At the same time, they authorized the payment of $42.62 to the 

militia for their services in 1837. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 52. 127 Fisk to Ingle, May 19, 1838; Fillebrown to Ingle, May 19, 1838; and Williams to Washington May 24, 

1838; Ltrs Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 135 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

A contractor wrote that his men had “flogged off one of his best bosses if not the very best.” The 

only reason he could ascertain for the beating was that the boss had “endeavored to get there to 

work as men usually do.”128

 Prompted by a report submitted by Fisk in which he blamed much of the escalating cost 

of building the canal to the continuing labor disorders, the board finally took the long delayed 

steps to curb the violence and remove the troublemakers in the summer of 1838.129

 A renewal of strife at the tunnel provided the opportunity for a series of decisive actions 

by the directors. Upon the recommendation of Montgomery and the concurrence of Fisk, the 

board on June 28 issued the following order: 

Whereas from representations made to the Board, that the laborers at the tunnel are in 

such a state of disorganization and insubordination that the work cannot be conducted 

without ruinous consequences to the Contractor; it is therefore ordered that the Contractor 

be and he is hereby authorized to discharge immediately all the hands now employed at 

the work on the tunnel, and to suspend said work until the further orders of the Board.130

In addition, the directors took steps toward the dismissal and black-listing of troublesome workers 

all along the line.131

On July 18, the directors formally resolved 

that the President of this company be and he is hereby authorized to direct the discharge 

of all disorderly men employed on the line of the Canal, and to forbid their employment 

hereafter, and to enable him to carry said order into effect, he is authorized to draw upon 

the Commissioner for the amount of wages due and necessary to be paid to the men so 

discharged which amount shall be charged to the contractors respectively, and that he be 

authorized to make the arrangements requisite to insure the application of the money for 

the object indicated.132 

Accordingly on August 1, some 130 men were discharged and blacklisted, most from the Oldtown Deepcut and the Paw Paw Tunnel.133

Violence along the line of the canal subsided until October 30. On that day John Burbridge, who lived near the canal in the vicinity of Evitts Creek, was nearly beaten to death by a 

party of Irish workers. Two companies of militia under Captain King and Haller proceeded to the 

 

128 Morris to Fisk, June 16, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

129 The portion of Fisk’s report that deals with the relationship of the escalating cost of building the canal 

and the labor disorders on the line may be seen in Appendix B. The report had been submitted to the Committee of Ways and Means of the Maryland House of Delegates in February 5, 1838, but it was also included as part of the company’s annual report in June 1838. Tenth Annual report (1838), C&O Co., 27. 

130 Montgomery to Fisk, June 23, 1838, and Washington to Montgomery, June 28, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief 

Engineer. 

131 Nisbet to Randolph, July 7, 1838, and Anonymous to Fisk, September 8, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

132 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 466. 133 Notice signed by C.B. Fisk, dated Chief Engineer’s Office August 1, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

The blacklist, which came into general use in the United States after the Panic of 1837, was used as a 

weapon by employers to keep active labor organizers or those sympathetic to trade unionism from employment. Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morris, Labor’s Untold Story (3d. ed., New York, 1975) 
136 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

canal where the men were working and arrested thirty suspects. The laborers were taken to the 

Cumberland jail for the hearing.134

There were no more incidents of violence among the 2,500 to 3,000 laborers on the canal 

until August and September 1839. At that time rioting broke out near Little Orleans, between 

Hancock and Cumberland. Determined to exterminate the Dutch whose general determination is 

to learn the line, “a large band of Irish attacked a group of Dutch workers on Section No. 281 on 

August 11: 

At an early hour on Sunday morning 11 inst. ninety one men from Watkins and the adjoining sections, while all the men on Section No. 281 were rapt in sleep attacked each 

shantee, and as the inmates attempted to escape were met by his armed band of outlawed 

desperadoes. Several succeeded in making their escape by swimming the river, & one 

while in the water was shot at twice, the last ball lodging in his arm. 

They also carried off whatever they could find of value by examining the men’s trunks 

after forcing the locks. The property taken away was in cash one hundred and ten dollars, 

also three pistols, one gun and articles of clothing. Their intention was also to attack the 

Dutch on Sec. No. 280 but the day being too far advanced that was deferred. 

Altogether there were 14 German casualties the most severe being a laborer almost beaten to 

death and one who was almost roasted alive. Most of the remaining Dutch workers on the line 

fled to Virginia fearing to return “not knowing at what hour they may be attacked.”135

 The unrest occasioned by the violence affected the surrounding countryside. The lives 

and property of citizens and contracts were “so utterly at the mercy of the ruffian that not one of 

the people within their ranks was willing to give information or even to be seen communicating 

with the troops.” Furthermore, there were reports that a “regular organization among the laborers 

was forming.” It was reported that the Irish possessed about “50 stand of arms” and that recently 

they had procured “50 large duck guns from Baltimore.” There were also reports that numerous 

copies “of printed passwords and counters had been found,” thereby fueling speculation that a 

large conspiracy was developing.136

 Two days after the attack near Little Orleans the militia of Washington and Allegany 

Counties was called out to suppress the violence. A force of some 80 men moved from Cumberland under the command of Colonel Thruston and arrived at Little Orleans where they found “all 

laborers at work, without any suspicion of his approach.” Thruston “captured all the men on the 

section, picked out such as could be identified as rioters, disarmed them all, destroyed the arms, 

and moved up the line. As they proceeded, the militiamen searched for concealed arms and pursued those that fled. Some ten men were shot and severely wounded. Those who attempted to 

escape across the Potomac were fired upon by the Cumberland Riflemen as they swam and as 

they clambered up the banks on the opposite shore, and there were reports of several casualties. 

Joined by several companies of cavalry, Thruston’s increased force of 150 men proceeded to destroy some 50 shanties and shops, to burn 60 barrels of whiskey, to capture 120 guns and pistols, 

and to arrest 26 prominent leaders who were taken to the Cumberland jail. About $700 worth of 

firearms that were purchased for the rioter were intercepted by the troops. The militia was actively engaged for five days during which the soldiers marched 81 miles. The Baltimore Sun appeared to represent the vies of most valley residents when it observed that the “proceedings of the 

 

134 Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, 344. 135 Coote to Fisk, August 12, 1839 Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer; Niles’ Register, LVII (September 1839), 

37; and Eleventh Annual Report (1839), C&O Co., p ( ) 

136 Niles’ Register, LVII (September 14, 1839), 37. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 137 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

troops seem harsh, but are not so viewed by those whose situation has made them acquainted with 

past acts of violence, and the immanency of future danger.”137

 Seeking to capitalize on the growing resentment of the local populace toward the lawlessness of the Irish, the company determined to prosecute those in the Cumberland jail to the full 

extent of the law. In well-publicized cases that extended from October 13 to 29, all but two of the 

Irish were convicted. One of the key prosecution witnesses was Thomas Conley, who had served 

temporarily since August as a Superintendent of Sections and may have played the dual role of 

labor spy. Those found guilty received fines and prison terms in the state penitentiary ranging 

from one to eighteen years.138

 In the wake of violence, agent of the Chesapeake & Ohio and the Baltimore & Ohio 

agreed in October to take united action to regulate the rate of wages and preserve order among the 

workmen in the Potomac Valley. According to the terms of the agreement, the resident engineers 

on both lines would collect the names of men discharged by the contractors on a monthly basis. A 

general blacklist would be compiled from these lists and from 150 to 300 copies would be distributed to each contractor and resident engineer on the canal and railroad. In this way it was 

hoped that all troublesome workers would be driven out of the valley.139

 Throughout the fall working season, both canal and railroad officials worked hard to implement the agreement, and the results were on the whole satisfactory.140

 Nevertheless, the Irish workers were not ready to admit defeat. A large party formed between Hancock and Little Orleans, and it was reported that this band possessed 500 stands of 

arms. Sometime during October, a shipment of 500 additional duck guns arrived from Baltimore 

to reinforce the large cache of weapons that the Irish held. As news of the gun-running operations 

spread through Washington and Allegany Counties, there was general alarm and widespread fear. 

On October 14, a number of the contract petitioned the board to exert pressure on the Governor of 

Maryland to station a military force along the line of the canal to preserve peace among the 

workmen and to protect the waterway from destruction.141

 A recurrence of the riot at Little Orleans on November 9 brought harsh retaliation similar 

to that of the preceding summer. This militia was summoned as quickly as possible, and three 

companies were soon on the scene—the Cumberland Riflemen under General Thruston, the Clear 

Spring Cavalry under Major Barnes, and the Smithsburg Company under Captain Hollings. Many 

of the rioters were arrested and their arms taken from them, thereby restoring order and ending 

the threat of armed rebellion.142 

 The drastic actions of the militia are the protests of some local residents who had not participated in the riots but whose property was destroyed. Apparently, the property of some innocent individuals was damaged when they refused, out of fear of reprisals by the Irish marauders, 

to cooperate with the militia in their search for the ringleaders and the hidden caches of weapons 

 

137 Ibid, and Baltimore Sun, September 4, 1833 138 Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, 344 and Byers to Fisk, November 12, 1839, Ltrs Recd., Chief Engineer. The canal company used an early form of labor spy in suppressing labor outbreaks among the 

workers in 1839. James Finney received $100 for his “services”. Proceedings of the President and Board of 

Directors, F, 405. Labor spies did not come into general use until the 1870s and the 1880s when strikes in 

the burgeoning American industries made the hiring of such individuals big business. Soyer and Morais, 

Labor’s Untold Story, 50 

139 Latrobe to Fisk, October 5, 1839, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 140 Byers to Fisk, November 8, 1839, and Patterson to Fisk, November 14, 1839, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

141 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 233, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 113. 

142 Williams, History of Washington County, 233. 
138 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

of the rioters. Accordingly, a local man named McLaughlin, brought suit in the U.S. Circuit Court 

at Baltimore against Thruston, Hollingsworth, and Charles B. Fisk, chief engineer on the canal. 

After a lengthy trial, the defendants were found guilty of exceeding their authority and acting illegally. A judgment of $2,337—was rendered against them, and, after the state legislature refused 

to pay the sum, the canal company agreed to reimburse the men for the bill.143

 There were no further outbreaks of violence on the canal after November 1839. The end 

of large-scale disorders was due in part to the harsh retaliatory tactics of the militia and the use of 

blacklists and labor spying by the canal company. Moreover, the worsening state of the nation 

economy weakened the workers’ ability to resist.144

 Construction on the canal continued sporadically from the fall of 1839 until the spring of 

1842 when the faltering finances of the company finally brought all operations on the waterway 

to a halt. As the company faced the dismal prospect of curtailing its operations, canal officials 

increasingly blamed the escalating cost of labor as one of the leading causes of increasing the cost 

of construction above the original estimate. In August 1839, the General Committee of the Stockholders reported that: 

 The actual cost of common labor to contractors during the last year had been $1.371⁄2 per 

diem, including the usual allowances. Add a fair profit to the contractor, and we have the daily 

cost to the company $1.50. Until within the last 3 1⁄2 years, it did not exceed $1.145 

 The following year in June the board made the same point in its annual report to the 

company stockholders: 

Whilst the first 1071⁄2 miles of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal was being constructed, the 

average price of labor was less than ninety cents per day, and the total cost of that whole 

work, extending from the basin at Georgetown to dam No. 5 was $4,776,118. The Canal 

Company have already expended, since prices appreciated, on the 761⁄2 miles west of dam 

No. 5 $4,162,000. And would have had to expend but for the depreciation of labor and 

produce to complete the same $2,152,663–$6,314,663. Making a difference of 

$1,538,545 in the cost of 761⁄2 over and above the cost of 1071⁄2 of Canal.146

 

143 Ibid, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 410–411. 144 Walter S. Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac River Valley (Washington, 1952), 74. 145 Report of the General Committee of the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company 

(Washington, 1839), 30. 

146 Twelfth Annual Report (1840), C&O Co., 4. Although building operations were somewhat curtailed, 

there were still 1,902 workers on the line in May 1840. Ibid, 7. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 139 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

III. A TIME OF RELATIVE CALM: 1847–1850 

When work on the canal resumed November 1847 under a contract with Hunter Harris & Co., 

many of the old labor problems returned to hinder construction. Sickness and the scarcity of 

workers appear to have been the major problems facing the company in this period. President 

James M. Coale reported to the stockholders in June 1849 that: 

We are constrained to say, that during the year 1848, the force employed on the line was 

not as large as was desirable, although urgent appeals were made for its increase. It is 

true, that, for a part of the time, severe sickness prevailed among the laborers, and it was 

difficult to procure additional hands or even to retain those employed; but we think, that 

in the Spring months, and in the Fall after the frosts had produced a return of a healthy 

atmosphere, a larger force, than the one engaged, might reasonably have been expected.147 

In spite of these distractions, however, the force employed on the line increased to 1,447 men and 

594 horses, mules, and oxen in May 1849.148

 Throughout the year 1849, the lack of sufficient labor force continued to hamper construction. This problem was the result of two ever-present difficulties—the financial troubles of 

the contractors and to attract workers to the Potomac Valley. By the end of the “sickly” season in 

late September, the number of workers had been reduced by more than one-half. It was estimated 

that 146 masons, 46 bricklayers, and 971 laborers were needed to complete the canal by December according to the term of the contract with Hunter, Harris & Co. However, there were only 60 

masons, 18 bricklayers, and 458 laborers at work on the line. Furthermore, there were not enough 

quarrymen to keep the 60 masons working much longer. Of the 55 carpenters that it was estimated were needed, there were only a handful at work.149

 While there were no reported outbreaks of violence on the canal during the last years of 

construction, the company took an increasingly hard line against those workers who were performing poorly. There were several instances in 1849 when the company discharged “poor quality” laborers. In October three such men were fired—Francis Crawford, a mason at Culvert No. 

211, Patrick Connelly, a brick sorter at the tunnel, and Enos Belt, a boss at Locks Nos. 62, 63 l/3, 

64 2/3, and 66.150

 The following month, four workers, who had been part of a large group of men recruited 

in New York to make bricks at Paw Paw Tunnel, were removed from the payroll. The four workers—Patrick Lully, a packer [?], and George Brice, John Glassgow, and James Lynch all brick-

 

147 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), C&O Co., 5, and Fisk to Trustees, March 29, 1848, Ltrs. Recd. 

Chief Engineer. 

148 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), 6–7. The number of men and work animals on the line was broken 

down into the following categories: 77 bosses, 39 blacksmiths, 54 carpenters, 75 drillers and blasters, 107 

quarrymen, 59 stonecutters, 73 masons, 112 mason’s tenders, 6 brick molders, 50 others engaged in making 

bricks, 16 bricklayers, 19 bricklayer’s tenders, and 760 laborers. In addition, there were 233 drivers, 562 

horses, 26 mules, and 6 oxen. The transportation vehicles and machinery in use was categorized as follows: 

285 carts, 20 scoops, 13 ploughs, 11 two-horse wagons, 3 three-horse wagons, 28 four-horse wagons, 1 sixhorse wagon, 5 one-horse railroad cars, 14 two-horse railroad cars, 10 three-horse railroad cars, 14 drags, 4 

brick-molding machines, and numerous cranes. Fisk to President and Directors, June 2, 1849, in TwentyFirst Annual Report (1849), Appendix A, 24. 

149 Fisk to Trustees, October 8, 1849, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 150 Dungan to Fisk, October 16, 1849, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 
140 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

layers—were said to be the work of a poor contingent of men at the tunnel. Hence they were singled out to serve as examples for the rest of the workers at Paw Paw.151

 In March 1850, the financial difficulty of Hunter, Harris & Co. came to a head when they 

were unable to pay the workers on the line. There was suspension of work for several days, and 

the restless laborers threatened violence as they had been unpaid for some time. Nathan Hale, one 

of the agents and attorneys of the contractors, proceeded immediately to Cumberland and the 

other points along the line where the workers were gathering and succeeded in making arrangements with them for their wages. The laborers resumed operations, and Hunter, Harris & Co. assigned their contract to their trustees, the aforementioned Hale, John Davis and Horatio Allen, for 

the completion of the work.152

 When work on the canal resumed under the new financial arrangement, the company 

faced a critical labor shortage. In early June, President Coale informed the company stockholders: 

The force at present employed on the line of the work, consists of 37 Bosses, 7 Blacksmiths, 70 Carpenters, 22 Quarrymen, 10 Stone-cutters, 20 Masons, 33 Mason Tenders, 

and 414 laborers, making the aggregate of all classes 613 men. 

There are also 104 Drivers and 215 Horses, together with the requisite carts, wagons, & 

c., for such numbers. The Chief Engineer is of opinion that it will be necessary for the 

contracts and assignees to increase the above mentioned force about fifty per cent, to enable them to complete the Canal for the admission of the water from Cumberland to Dam 

No. 6 by the first of July, and that with the present force it may be done by the middle of 

that month.153

During the summer of 1850, the final disruption of construction occurred. On July 18, the director 

negotiated a new contract with Michael Byrne, one of the major contractors in Frederick County 

who had constructed a number of works on the canal, and work was soon resumed. Construction 

proceeded without incident until the formal opening of the canal on October 10, 1850.154

 At the inaugural ceremonies at Cumberland on that date, one of the two long speeches of 

welcome and eulogy was given by William Price, a citizen of Cumberland who had long been 

associated with the company. In his remarks, he reminded his listeners of the difficulties that had 

attended the construction of the waterway and of the sacrifices of those who had built it. His summary of the trials experienced by those who had constructed the canal is perhaps the most enduring epitaph ever uttered on their behalf: 

Many of us were young when this great work was commenced, and we have lived to see 

its completion, only because Providence has prolonged our lives until our heads are gray. 

During this interval of four and twenty years, we have looked with eager anxiety to the 

progress of the work up the valley of the Potomac. That progress has been slow—often 

interrupted and full of vicissitudes. At times the spectacle of thousands of busy workmen 

has animated the line of the work, when, to al human calculation, no cause was likely to 

intervene to prevent its early completion. But when we have turned to look at the scene 

again, it was all changed; contractors and laborers had departed and the stillness of deso-

 

151 Dungan to Fisk, November 24 and 28, 1849, and McFarland to Fisk, November 27, 1849, Ltrs. Recd., 

Chief Engineer. 

152 Twenty-Second Annual Report (1850), C&O Co. 6–7 153 Ibid, 4. 154 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), 110–111. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 141 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

lation reigned in their place. Thousands have been ruined by their connection with the 

work, and but few in this region have had cause to bless it. 

Go view those magnificent aqueducts, locks and culverts, of hewn stone—those 

huge embankments, on which you may journey for days down the river; go view the great 

tunnel passing three fifths of a mile through rock, and arched with brick, its eastern portal 

opening upon a thorough-cut almost equal in magnitude to the tunnel itself. Look at the 

vessels lying in the basin, ready to commence the work of transportation, and large 

enough to navigate the Atlantic,—look at all these things, and then think how soon the 

fortunes of individuals embarked in the prosecution of such an enterprise would be swallowed up, leaving upon it but little more impression than the bubbles which now float 

upon its waters. It will not be deemed out of place, if I here express the hope that those 

whose losses have been gains of the company, should not in the hour of its prosperity be 

forgotten.155

 

155 Cumberland Civilian, quoted in Report on the Completion of the Chesapeake& Ohio Canal, 130–131. 
142 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

EPILOGUE 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS 

TO BUILD THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL AND THE RISE 

OF POLITICAL NATIVISM IN MARYLAND: 1829–1862. 

The influx of foreign immigrants into the State of Maryland to provide a cheap pool of labor for 

the construction of its internal improvements projects had a profound impact on the social, religious, and political institutions of its people. This was particularly true of the largely Roman 

Catholic Irish workers who began to immigrate to the state in 1829–1830 to work on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Despite an early colonial history of religious toleration and a continuing high proportion of Catholics in the population, Maryland proved 

to be no more immune to religious and national prejudice than any other state during the three 

decades of the ante-bellum period. Prompted by the accelerated immigration of the Irish and 

Germans after 1845, nativism—best defined as “intense opposition to an internal minority on 

grounds of its foreign connections”156—erupted into a political movement in the New England, 

mid-Atlantic, and Border States during the 1850s. Maryland, where the nativist tradition had been 

a latent force since the 1830s when the first waves of immigrants had arrived, emerged in the 

mid-1850s as one of the leading states in the political nativist movement157 

 As the earliest election successes of the nativist movement in Maryland occurred in the 

Potomac Valley towns of Hagerstown and Cumberland in 1854, it can be conjectured that the 

importation of foreigners by the canal company to build its works served as one of the earliest 

and most important episodes in the long chain of events that led to the formation of a political 

nativist movement in the state.158

 The source of discontent which led to the formation of a political force, commonly 

known as the Know-Nothings but officially named the American Party, were related to the ultraconservative sentiments of a nation caught up in the sweeping institutional changes of the antebellum period.159

The sources of discontent in Maryland were similar to those of the country as a whole. 

Native Marylanders despaired of the influx of foreigners particularly as the state was caught up in 

the accelerated rush of Irish and German immigrants who came to America in the late 1840s and 

early 1850s in response to famine and political unrest in their homelands. During these years, the 

foreign-born population of Maryland increased from 7 percent in 1840 to 12 percent in 1850, and 

the numbers kept climbing until 77,529 foreign-born persons lived in the state in 1860, comprising 15 percent of the total white population.160 

 The problem of the immigrants went beyond their numbers to the unwillingness of many 

of them to assimilate quickly, the political and economic radicalism of some of their leaders’ the 

ease with which political machines often engineered them into voting in blocks, and the competition they presented to the American labor market. Distrust of the immigrants was closely linked 

to fear of Roman Catholicism the principal question in Maryland on this point being the loyalty or 

patriotism of the Catholics since they owed allegiance to the foreign hierarchy through their 

church. Distraught over the moral and social climate of the urban, industrial society that they saw 

 

156 John Higham, Strangers in the Land (New Brunswick, 1955), 4. 157 Mary St. Patrick McConville, Political Nativism in the State of Maryland (Washington 1928), is the best 

reference to Maryland nativism prior to 1850. 

158 Lawrence Frederick Schmeckebier, History of the Know-Nothing Party in Maryland (Baltimore, 1899), 

17. 

159 Richard Walsh and William Lloyd Fox, Maryland A History, 1632–1974 (Baltimore, 1974), 304–305. 160 William J. Evitts, A Matter of Allegiances: Maryland from 1850 to 1861 (Baltimore, 1974), 68. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 143 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

emerging around them, many old-line Americans blamed the sudden increase in crime pauperism, 

insanity, and drunkenness on the new immigrants. Perhaps, the greatest concern of the KnowNothings was for the preservation of the Union as founded by the revolutionary generation. By 

returning to the “simpler politics” and the “purer precepts” of the Founding Fathers, the nation 

could overcome its social breakdown and political malaise.161

“Heed the warnings of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson,” said the Hagerstown 

Herald and Torch, “and...inscribe the soul-stirring motto upon the Star-Spangled Banner—

Americans shall Rule America.”162

 They hoped to cleanse politics of its demagoguery and corruption by extending the period 

of naturalization and electing qualified, statesmen like candidates to office.163

 Traces of anti-Irish sentiments in Maryland and particularly in the Potomac Valley were 

manifested almost as soon as the first Irish workers arrived in mid-1829 [?] to work on the canal. 

The attitudes of some canal company officials undoubtedly represented the feelings of some of 

the valley residents. One of the overseers who was sent out with a boatload of immigrants to 

America referred to them as “clowns,” “brutes,” and “frauds.”164

Clerk John P. Ingle described the newly-arrived immigrants as “plagues.”165

 Anti-Irish sentiment in Maryland and particularly in the Potomac Valley was very much 

on the mind of the English woman Francis Milton Trollope after she visited the line of the canal 

in the summer of 1830. Although she had had doubts that emigration to American would improve 

the living standards of e Irish, it was not until her examination of the squalid living conditions of 

the Irish on the line of the canal that she “became fully aware how little it was to be desired for 

them.” During her stay in America she found “a strong feeling against the Irish in every part of 

the Union.” Moreover, she “heard vehement complaints, and constantly met the same in the 

newspapers” of a practice “stated to be very generally adopted in Britain of sending out cargoes 

of parish paupers to the United States.” These sentiments were particularly pronounced in Maryland newspapers. One such article told “of a cargo of aged paupers just arrived from England,” 

with the remark “John Bull has squeezed the orange, and now insolent casts the skin in our 

faces.” Such a feeling she declared, demonstrated “that these unfortunates are not likely to meet 

much kindness or sympathy in sickness, or in suffering of any kind.” Stating that all—inquiries 

into the matter had failed to substantiate the newspaper charges, she observed: 

All I could ascertain was, that many English and Irish poor arrived yearly in the United 

States, with no other resources than what their labour furnished...It is generally acknowledge that the suffering among our labouring classes arises from the excess of our population; and it is impossible to see such a country as Canada, is extent, its fertility, its fine 

climate, and know that it is British ground, without feeling equal sorrow and astonishment that it is not made the means of relief.166

Mrs. Trollope was particularly incensed by the emerging anti-Irish customs already emerging in 

the Potomac Valley. An example of such a practice in Hagerstown and other communities was 

the “suspension,” on the eve of St. Patrick’s Day, in some conspicuous place, of a dummy figure, 

popularly denominated a ‘Paddy’ with the view of annoying the Irish residents of the town and 

 

161 Ibid, 67–80. 162 Quoted in Walsh and Fox, Maryland: A History, 30. 163 Bernard C. Steiner, Citizenship and Suffrage in Maryland (Baltimore, 1895), 29–47. 164 Gill to President and Directors, November 18, 1839, Ltrs. Rec., C&O Co. 165 Ingle to Janney, October 26, 1829, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 166 Mooney, ed., Domestic Manners of the Americans, 229–231. 
144 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

vicinity. On numerous occasions, this practice provoked serious disturbances, but it continued to 

be condoned by the civil authorities.167

 The arrival of large numbers of immigrants, particularly the Catholic Irish [....?] beliefs, 

disturbed the social tranquility of the Potomac Valley which up to this time had been characterized by its largely agricultural pursuits and its predominantly Protestant German and Scotch Irish 

community.168

 The presence of large numbers of persons in crowded and filthy temporary quarters 

brought increasing health problems to the valley. During the major cholera epidemics of 1832 and 

1833, fears that the sickness would spread from the workers to the local inhabitants led to town 

ordinances, such as those in Hagerstown, which prevented the stricken workers form entering the 

town limit for medical treatment and which permitted Catholic Irish workers who died to be buried only in cemeteries along the canal and away from inhabited areas.169

In addition, the existence of so many rough and tumble, unassimilated laborers in a limited area raised the question of the maintenance of law and order. Drunken brawls accompanying 

all night drinking bouts alarmed the valley.170

The clashes between the Irish factions in the winter months of 1834, 1835, and 1836 terrified citizens in the neighborhood form Williamsport to Clear Spring.171 

The rising nativist sentiment in the valley could be seen in the Hagerstown Torch Light 

comments on the January 1836 riot near Clear Spring: 

The public authorities should keep a close eye upon them (the Irish), or much blood may 

yet be shed before spring, when their attention to their work will keep them from committing acts of violence on each other. Thus are the ancient feuds of these foreigners, disturbing the peace o the country, and making life insecure.172

The later disputes between the workers and the canal company in 1837, 1838, and 1839, at Paw 

Paw Tunnel, Old Town, and Little Orleans intensified the growing anti-foreign feeling in the valley by bringing the local inhabitants of the area into the difficult positions of militia, arbiters, and 

innocent victims.173

 Nativist sentiment in Maryland erupted into a “Native American” party in Baltimore in 

1844 and 1845.174

 However, after receiving only 9 percent of the vote in Baltimore city elections in 1845, 

nativism left politics and went underground. Between 1845 and 1852 the nativism faith throughout the state was kept alive by fraternal orders carrying names like the United Sons of America, 

the Order of United Americans, and the Union of American Mechanics. Because their lodges 

were secret societies, no accurate estimate of their strength exists. By the early 1850s, however, 

these societies were certainly well attended.175

 

167 John Thomas Scharf, History of Western Maryland (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1882), II, 1067. 168 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac River Valley, 89. 

169 Purcell to Eaton, June 24, 1833, and Stewart to Ingle, July 10, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 170 Cruger to President and Directors, July 7, 1832,—Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Lowdermilk, History of 

Cumberland, 342. 171 Williams, History of Washington County, I, 223–224; Niles’ Register, XLV (January 25, 1834, and February 1, 1834), 336, 382–383; ibid, XLVII (January 16, 1836), 337. 

172 Hagerstown Torch Light, quoted in Niles’ Register XLIX (January 16, 1836), 337. 173 Price to Washington, May 11, 1838; Williams to Washington, May 16, 17, 18, 1838; Fisk to Ingle, May 

19, 1838; and Fillebrown to Ingle, May 19, 1839; Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

174 Benjamin Tuska, Know-Nothingism in Baltimore, 1854–1860 (New York, 1930), 2. 175 Evitts, Matter of Allegiances, 64. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 145 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 By 1853 the nativist societies had reversed their policy, as their numbers and influence 

warranted a more active pursuit of their principles. Their interest in politics was accentuated during this period by the statewide controversy over the Kerney School Bill, which would have provided public funds for parochial schools and the visit of the Papal legate Bedini to the United 

States and Baltimore.176

 At first, the various Maryland nativist societies merged into one large body called the 

Order of the Star Spangled Banner or, more commonly, the Know-Nothing Order.177

Order retained secrecy, and members swore oaths to protect the American nation and the ideals it 

stood for from all subversion. In August 1853 the Order staged its first public demonstration in an 

effort to influence the House of Delegates election in Baltimore. Then in the spring of 1854, the 

Order scored its first political victories in the municipal elections of the western Maryland communities of Hagerstown and Cumberland. In both elections, all the candidates which the Order 

had secretly endorsed were swept into office.178 

 By fall 1854 the Know-Nothing movement had gained considerable momentum throughout Maryland. In Baltimore Samuel Hinks, the nativist candidate was elected by a margin of 

2,744 votes, and the American Party also elected fourteen members to the upper chamber and 

eight to the lower chamber, thus gaining control over the city council.179

 In the following year Americans added to their successes by expanding their political 

base to include victories in Annapolis and Williamsport.180

 In the wake of the Whig Party’s demise and with these nativist successes in Maryland 

and other victories in such states as Massachusetts and Delaware, the Americans threatened to 

become the second major national party. When the party’s national council met in Philadelphia in 

1855, it threw off the mantle of secrecy which had surrounded its activities and drew up a public 

platform of principles which stressed unionism, nationalism, and political reform. Among the 

planks in the platform were calls for: (1) a revision of state and national laws regulating immigration and the settlement of foreigners; (2) laws prohibiting the immigration of felons and paupers: 

(3) the repeal of laws allowing un-naturalized foreigners to vote or own land; (4) an end to corrupt political bossism, particularly as it related to the efforts to get the foreign minorities to vote 

as a block, and (5) resistance to the aggressive and corrupt policies of the Roman Catholic 

Church.181 

 By 1855 the emerging Know-Nothing movement had great appeal to the Protestant middle class in Maryland, and for its leadership it began to draw heavily on the upper-middle class 

business community. The organization was ready to make its assault on the state offices, and it 

did very well in the fall elections of 1855. Hinks won re-election as mayor in Baltimore by over 

3,700 votes and the Americans retained control of the upper chamber of the city council. In November Know-Nothing William Purcell won the comptrollership; carrying twelve of Maryland’s 

 

176 Schmeckebier, History of the Know-Nothing Party in Maryland, 15–17. 177 Walsh and Fox, Maryland: A History, 311. Some nativists also temporarily cooperated with the Maine 

Law temperance movement, which was a political force advocating a state prohibition law similar to that 

passed by the State of Maine. The temperance movement also had nativist overtones, as it was basically a 

reaction by the old-line Marylanders of the corrupting influence of the temperance movement, which had 

built a program in Maryland by 1853, was the product of anti-saloon agitation which had begun in the 

1830s shortly after the first waves of Irish began to immigrate to the state. 

178 Schmeckebier, History of the Know-Nothing Party in Maryland, 17. 

179 John Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day (3 Vols., Baltimore, 1879), III, 2. 

180 Walsh and Fox, Maryland: A history, 312. 181 John Denig, The Know-Nothing Manual (Harrisburg, 1855), 1–64. 
146 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

twenty-one counties plus Baltimore. The nativists elected one-half of the commissioners of Public 

works and filled all three available judgeships. Know-Nothing Daniel McPhail won the state lottery commissioner’s job. Of the six Maryland Congressmen elected, four were Know-Nothings, 

one was an independent Whig, and one was an independent Democrat. Henry W. Hoffman, the 

American candidate from the Fifth Congressional District, won handily with a 749 majority, his 

most concentrated support coming particularly from Frederick and Washington Counties. Led by 

a sweep of Baltimore then House of Delegates seats, the Know-Nothings gained a 54 to 17 advantage over the Democrats in the lower chamber, while the makeup of the eleven State Senators 

elected consisted of 8 Know-Nothings, 2 Democrats, and 1 Whig. The know-Nothings had come 

a long way since their first cautious entry into politics two years earlier by capturing 51 percent of 

the state’s vote.182

The Western Maryland counties played a significant role in the election of the American candidates to the state office in 1855. While Montgomery and Allegany Counties did not give the majority of their votes to Know-Nothing candidates, the total Know-Nothing vote in those two jurisdictions was nevertheless 49.6 and 49.1 percent respectively. On the other hand, Washington and 

Frederick Counties were in the Know-Nothing column giving 50.8 to 55.8 percent of their vote 

respectively to American candidates.183

With a series of brilliant successes in the 1855 elections, Maryland Know-Nothings 

looked optimistically towards the 1856 presidential election. However, schism over slavery and 

defections within the party’s ranks over the issue fatally sapped the movement’s strength on the 

national level. The only state that the American standard-bearer Millard Fillmore carried in that 

year was Maryland. Gaining more votes in the state than the Americans had in 1855, Fillmore 

won 55 percent of the electorate and carried fifteen of the twenty-one counties plus Baltimore. In 

Western Maryland, he carried Montgomery County (51.8%), Frederick County (53%) and Washington County (50.4%), losing only Allegany County (46.3%).184

Although the national American Party’s demise quickly came the following year, it temporarily remained a viable political coalition in Maryland. After a spirited campaign, the American Thomas Hicks was elected governor in November 1857, getting 54.9 percent of the state vote. 

The Know-Nothings carried the other state offices, elected four Congressmen out of six, and continued their control of the state legislature. Yet the 1857 election marked the first obvious defect 

from the party, and the losses were nowhere more noticeable than in western Maryland. All four 

of the western counties gave a lesser percentage of the vote to Hicks than they had to Fillmore. 

Montgomery County’s support dropped from 51.8 to 48 percent, Frederick from 53 to 51.3 percent, Washington from 50.4 to 50.2 percent, and Allegany from 46.3 to 43.6 percent. The American candidate, Henry W. Hoffman, who had won handily in 1855, now was defeated by the Democrat, Col. Jacob Kumkel, by 168 votes. These trends, coupled with a collapse national organization, were ominous signs for the American in Maryland.185

 

182 Evitts, Matter of Allegiances, 80–88 183 Thomas J.C. Williams, History of Frederick County, Maryland (Baltimore, 1910), 287–297; ibid, History of Washington County, 274–275; James Walter Thomas and Thomas J.C. Williams, History of Alleghany County, Maryland (Cumberland, 1923), 258; and Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland 383–385. 184 Evitts, Matter of Allegiances, 100–101. In municipal elections in Baltimore in September, the American 

Thomas Swann was elected as mayor, and of the Know-Nothings won control of the lower chamber of the 

city council while splitting the upper chamber evenly with the Democrats. 185 Walsh and Fox, Maryland: A History, 319–326, and Evitts, Matter of Allegiances, 106–107. The year 

1859 also marked the election to Congress of Alexander Robinson Boteler, a member of an old-line Virginia family in Shepherdstown, Virginia. Active in the Whig Party during the late 1840s and early 1850s, 

he joined the American Party in the middle of the latter decade. He represented the Harpers Ferry District 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 147 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 While the Americans attempted to straddle the slavery issue, the Democrats, as the 

champions of Southern rights benefited from the growing sectional cleavage and especially from 

the widespread fear produced by John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry. In the 1859 elections, they 

nearly swept up all the state offices. In addition, they carried three of six congressional seats (including Western Maryland Fifth District), and won control of the House of Delegates, 45 to 29, 

and the Senate, 12 to 10. Only the comptrollership was kept in American hands, but that victory 

was achieved by a violence-studded campaign that produced a 12, 783—vote majority in Baltimore. By the following year as events were leading inexorably toward civil war, the KnowNothings were in total eclipse in the state, particularly after a crushing defeat in the Baltimore 

mayoralty race.186 

 in Congress under the American Party label from 1857 until Virginia seceded from the Union in the spring 

of 1861, at which time he accepted appointment to the Confederate Provisional Congress in Montgomery, 

Alabama. Misc. Mss., Scrapbook I, Alexander Robinson Boteler Papers, Duke University Library and Ezra 

J. Warner And W. Buck Yearns, Biographical Register of the Confederate Congress (Baton Rouge, 1975), 

25–26. 

186 Schmeckebier, History of the Know-Nothing Party in Maryland, 99–115. 
148 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 149 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

APPENDIX A 

The following is a copy of the treaty of peace made and concluded at Williamsport, on the 27th

day of January, 1834, between the Corkonians and Longford men, the two contending parties of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal laborers. 

Whereas great commotions and divers riotous acts have resulted from certain misunderstandings 

and alleged grievances, mutually urged by two parties of laborers and mechanics, engaged on the 

line of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, and natives of Ireland; the one commonly known as the 

Longford men, the other as the Corkonians; and whereas it has been found that these riotous acts 

are calculated to disturb the public peace, without being in the least degree beneficial to the parties opposed to each other, but on the contrary are production of great injury and distress to the 

workmen and their families. 

 Therefore, we, the undersigned, representatives of each party, have agreed to, and do 

pledge ourselves to support and carry into effect the following terms of the agreement: 

We agree, for ourselves, that we will not, either individually or collectively, interrupt or suffer to 

be interrupted in our presence, any person engaged on the line of the canal for or on account of a 

local difference or national prejudice, and that we will use our influence to destroy all these matters of difference growing out of this distinction of parties, known as Corkonians and Longfords; 

and we further agree and pledge ourselves in the most solemn manner, to inform on and bring to 

justice, any person or persons who may break the pledge contained in this agreement, either by 

interrupting any person passing along or near the line of the canal, or by secretly counseling or 

assisting any person or persons who may endeavor to excite riotous conduct among the above 

parties; and we further bind ourselves to the State of Maryland, each in the sum of twenty dollars, 

to keep the peace towards the citizens of the state. In witness thereof, we have hereunto signed 

our names, at Williamsport, this twenty-seventh day of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-four. 

Timothy Kelly 

William O’Brien 

Michael Collins 

John Bernes 

Thomas Bennett 

Michael Driscoll 

Jeremiah Donovan 

John Namack 

Garret Donahue 

Patrick McDonald 

James Slaman 

John O’Brien 

Edward Farrell 

Thomas Hill 

Michael Tracy 

Thomas Mackey 

James Riley 

Daniel Murrey 

Murty Dempsey 

James Carroll 

Thomas Cunningham 

Bathu S. McDade 

James Clarke 

Michael Kain 

Pat Purell 

William Moloney 

Wm. Brown 

Peter Conner 

Signed before us, two justices of the peace, in and for Washington County and the State of Maryland this 27th day of January, 1834 

Charles Heseltine 

William Boullt1

 

1 Excerpted from Niles’ Register, XLV (February 8, 1834), 399.
150 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

APPENDIX B 

REPORT OF CHARLES B. FISK, FEBRUARY 5, 1838, REGARDING 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LABOR DISORDERS AND COST OF THE CANAL 

In this connection, I will briefly allude to a very important cause of the great cost of work on our 

canal; one that has no reference to change of times, or the cost of provisions. I know not that a 

more appropriate occasion than this can be selected for the purpose, inasmuch as the influence of 

this cause, to which I am about to refer, has been more severely felt on the “7 1⁄2 miles” than hitherto, and will continue to be felt, perhaps, in a still greater degree in our progress towards Cumberland, unless legislative action shall be efficiently exerted to prevent it. 

 Not one individual of the large body of Irish laborers along the line of the canal dares 

testify against another of their number in a court of justice. A murder may be committed—a hundred of them may witness it—and yet not one person can be found who knows anything about it. 

The remark upon all this, by the citizens of the State, is very apt to be, that these men do not interfere with the inhabitants; that their quarrels are among themselves, or between the two parties into 

which they are divided. Grant, for the moment, that their quarrels are among themselves. Who 

feel the consequences? The company, and, as a stockholder, the State. Let me mention a few 

facts. I have known a contractor on the “27 1⁄2 miles” forced to give up his contract, his shanties 

burned, and death threatened, if he could be caught, simply because the engineer, as he had a 

right to do under the contract, had discharged from the line some notoriously worthless and disorderly men; and the contractor was suspected of having given information to the engineer. 

 Again: at the time of our greatest pressure for mechanics, several excellent masons, perfect strangers to all on the line, were induced to go up to the neighborhood of Hancock. They 

worked for one day, but were given to understand that they must not remain. They, in consequence, immediately returned to Washington. 

 Such are not solitary and rare occurrences. Many, and many, and many an instance have I 

known, in which quiet, peaceable, orderly, and well-disposed persons, from among the Irish laborers have been driven off from our canal, by their countrymen, simply from unwillingness to 

submit to the dictation of a tyrannical, secret, party organization, which, for the last two years, 

has been entirely beyond the read of all law, all authority. 

 True it is, these persons elsewhere have their quarrels and disputes among themselves; 

but they have rarely, as has been the case with us, been permitted to act with that organization as 

a body, that enables them to control the operations of a whole work. 

 The consequences of such a state of things will at once suggest themselves to everyone 

who reflects on the subject. Mechanics out of employ elsewhere often refuse to come upon our 

work for no other reason, than that the laws of the State afford them no protection when upon it. 

Other works, in other states, where the laws are respected, have a comparatively quiet and orderly 

body of laborers; the worthless leave them, and congregate, of course, where they will be least 

subject to the restraints of law. 

 But it is not the case, as admitted for the moment, that the quarrels of these persons are 

confined to themselves. I have known instances in which native citizens, laboring upon the “27 1⁄2 

miles” of canal, have been driven away from it, and repeatedly have German laborers been forced 

to quit the line. 

 This state of things, alone, I know has been very instrumental in keeping up the high 

prices of labor upon our canal. Its effects are felt in several ways. It keeps down the supply of 

labor below the demand. It gives us an inferior class of workmen. And afraid to give them directions contrary to their will, the contractor is sometimes, to all intents and purposes, under their 

control. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 151 

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 

 Notwithstanding all this, there are upon our canal many well-disposed and quiet laborers. 

Yet, although they may even be a majority in point of numbers, they are still under the control of 

that secret organization of which I have spoken. To these well-disposed persons I feel that I shall 

do a service, if by any means I can be instrumental, in the least, in inducing an action, by the 

competent authority that shall enforce quiet and good order upon our work. It is practicable; and 

recent movements on the part of the authorities of Washington and Allegany counties show that 

they have a willingness and disposition to give their aid. I will refer to a late occurrence. 

 Having been regardless of all civil authority on the “27 1⁄2 miles” of the canal, along the 

narrow territory of the State of Maryland (at one point less than two miles in width), the idea at 

last became prevalent among the laborers, that in the mountains of Allegany County no force, in 

support of the laws of the State, could be brought to bear upon them. They conducted themselves 

accordingly. At length, upon the occurrence of an outrage, or rather of several—tearing down 

buildings and threatening lives, in one day, at Oldtown, in presence of many of the inhabitants, by 

upwards of four hundred men, who had come more than twelve miles for the purpose. The sheriff 

of the county, with a military force from Cumberland and other parts of the county, together with 

citizens from Virginia, assembled, arrested ten of the ringleaders, and have them now in jail 

awaiting their trial. The effect of this movement by the authorities of Allegany county, so far as 

we can judge in the short time that has since elapsed has been and will be of great service, and 

has satisfied me, in addition to previous observations, that provision be made by the Legislature 

that shall cause the laws of the State to be respected; and if so, one of the great difficulties we 

have to encounter for the last two years, in obtaining a sufficiency of laborers, will be done away. 

There will be a great improvement in the character of the line; and, as a necessary consequence, 

we shall do our work at less cost. So firmly convinced am I of good effect of the recent exercise 

of civil authority in Allegany county, that I have little doubt, should, unfortunately, our present 

embarrassments end in a total suspension of our work, we shall have much less to fear than we 

otherwise would have from the laborers who will be thrown out of employ. Indeed, had this authority not been exercised, I do not believe we should have escaped thus long from acts of violence on the part of the laborers, from want of confidence caused by the inability of the company, 

for the last two months, promptly to meet its engagements. 

 If the work should be entirely suspended, it can hardly be supposed that 3,000 laborers 

will quietly disperse—suddenly thrown out of employment, with money due to them, and many 

of them without the means of taking them elsewhere—especially little accustomed as they are to 

the restraints of law.2

 

2

 Excerpted from Tenth Annual Report (1838), C&O Co., 27–29 
152 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 3. Labor Force: 1828–1850 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

4. 

STONE QUARRIES 

AND MILLS 

ASSOCIATED WITH THE 

CONSTRUCTION 

OF THE C & O CANAL 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 155 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

CONTENTS 

I. STONE QUARRIES 157 

A. U.S. BOARD OF ENGINEERS SURVEY: 1824–1826 157 

B. GEDDES AND ROBERTS SURVEY: 1827 157 

C. STONE QUARRIES USED TO BUILD CANAL STRUCTURES 158 

II. MILLS 164 

A. STONE CUTTING MILLS: 164 

 SENECA RED SANDSTONE QUARRIES AND 

 THE SENECA STONE MILL 164 

B. CEMENT MILLS: 165 

1. POTOMAC MILL, SHEPHERDSTOWN 165 

2. TUSCARORA MILL 167 

3. HOOKS MILL 168 

4. SHAFER’S CEMENT MILL—ROUND TOP CEMENT COMPANY 169 

5. LEOPARD’S MILL 170 

6. LYNN MILL, CUMBERLAND 170 

7. IMPORTED CEMENT FROM NEW YORK AND ENGLAND 172 

C. SAW MILLS: 173 

 GREAT FALLS SAWMILL, MATILDAVILLE 173 

D. BRICK KILNS: 174 

 PAW PAW TUNNEL BRICK MAKING 174 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 157 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

I. STONE QUARRIES 

A. U. S. BOARD OF ENGINEERS SURVEY: 1824–1826 

When the U.S. Board of Engineers made their examination of the proposed route for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, they made a cursory survey of the surrounding lands to locate building materials. While their efforts to find building stone were negligible, they indicated that “along the 

whole line of the canal, good building stone will be easily procured.” On the eastern section from 

Cumberland to Hancock, the banks of the Potomac were “formed of a variety of rocks, chiefly 

sandstone, schists, slates.” On the Virginia side between these two towns, limestone was “found 

above the mouth of the South Branch.” From Hancock down to Georgetown, the banks of the 

river presented “masses of limestone, sandstone and slate rocks.” Although there was an abundant 

quantity of good building stone, the engineers reported that in some cases the stone would have to 

be transported to construction sites that were a distance away from the quarries, because there 

were some stretches along the route that contained almost no stone. The means of transportation 

would vary according to local circumstances. Among the modes of transportation they envisioned 

were boating, land carriage and inclined planes. 

 Concerning hydraulic lime, the engineers reported that lime abounded from Hancock to 

Great Falls, but it was “of a doubtful quality.” In fact, it was their opinion that there was “very 

little hope” of finding “water lime of any kind” from Georgetown to Pittsburgh. Accordingly, 

they recommended the importation of the best hydraulic lime available. Considering the importance of the durability of the work, they urged, “that the distance of transportation and the expense attending it, ought not, in this case, to be taken too much into consideration.”1

B. GEDDES AND ROBERTS SURVEY: 1827 

During their survey of the canal route between Cumberland and tidewater in 1827, the two civil 

engineers, Geddes and Roberts, noted the location of the principal sources of available building 

materials along the line of the waterway. While they did not make an exhaustive survey of these 

sources, they did point out where the best stone quarries could be found and where there was lime 

for hydraulic mortar. 

 On the route between Cumberland and South Branch, Geddes and Roberts found that 

“stone for building locks, and for culverts and other necessary purposes, is very good, and found, 

generally, convenient to each place where it may be wanted.” However, good cutting stone suitable for lock sills, hollow quoins, and face work was not so abundant. Lime and other materials 

for the locks could be obtained at reasonable prices in Cumberland. A cement mill some 4 1⁄2 

miles from the Potomac produced lime at a cost of 10 cents per barrel and delivered it for 2 1⁄2 

cents per bushel. 

 The engineers made very little comment on the availability of good building stone on the 

portion of the waterway between South Branch and Licking Creek. The only such references 

made were that there was an abundance of limestone about one-third mile above the mouth of the 

Cacapon River and about four miles west of Hancock. At the latter point, there were lime kilns 

producing water cement. 

 From Licking Creek to Conococheague Creek, the engineers observed that the “locks and 

other stone work can be built very reasonably” because “lime and stone, and other materials, are 

 

1

 U.S., Congress, House, Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting a Report from the Secretary of 

War with that of the Board of Engineers for Internal Improvement, Concerning the Proposed Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Exec. Doc. 10, 19th Cong., 2nd sess., 1826, 26–28. 
158 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

in abundance, and convenient.” Among the best locations of prospective limestone quarries were 

those about one mile west of North Mountain, near Charles Mill, and about three miles west of 

Williamsport. 

 Between Conococheague and Antietam Creeks, the engineers reported that there was a 

large quantity of good building limestone near Galoway’s Mill and just below Shepherdstown. 

Over the distance from Antietam Creek to the Monocacy River, the engineers apparently found 

no prospective sources for building materials for none were reported. 

 Passing down the Monocacy River, Geddes and Roberts noted that there was a large 

quantity of limestone some four miles east of its mouth. Within another mile, there was a marble 

quarry where stone for the columns of the U. S. Capitol was obtained. Just above the mouth of 

Seneca Creek was the Seneca Red Sandstone Quarries, which had been in operation for more than 

50 years. Some four miles below Great Falls was a stone quarry that would be of use to the canal. 

About one mile above the head of the old locks on the Little Falls Skirting Canal, there was a 

granite quarry.2

C. STONE QUARRIES USED TO BUILD CANAL STRUCTURES 

During the period of construction, numerous stone quarries were opened throughout the Potomac 

Valley for the masonry works on the canal. In some cases, the quarries were already in existence 

prior to 1828. An effort has been made in this section to list the various quarries from which stone 

was obtained to build the individual masonry structures. 

1. Tidelock and Locks Nos. 1–4: These five structures were built of Aquia Creek freestone. The 

backing of the walls of the tidelock, as well as that of Locks Nos. 1–4, was composed of 

granite, probably boated down the river from a quarry one-half mile from Lock No. 7.3

2. Georgetown Stone Bridges: The five stone bridges carrying streets across the canal in 

Georgetown were built of Aquia Creek freestone.4

3. Locks Nos. 5–6: The hammer dressed stone for the lower six feet of these two locks was obtained from a quarry less than one mile away. The cut stone, which comprised the rest of the 

locks, was from Aquia Creek.5

4. Lock No. 7: This lock was built of granite, except the coping, which was of Aquia Creek 

freestone. The granite was obtained from a quarry near Section No. 4 within one-eighth of a 

mile of the lock. This was the quarry referred to in the Geddes and Roberts report, indicating 

that it was in existence prior to the construction of the canal.6

5. Lock No. 8: This structure was built of Seneca Creek Red Sandstone, boated down the Potomac from the quarries just above the mouth of Seneca creek, some 14 1⁄2 miles upstream.7

6. Lock No. 9: This lock was built of granite, except the coping, which was of Aquia Creek 

freestone and a few feet of ashlar, which were of Seneca Creek Red Sandstone. The granite, 

 

2

 U.S., Congress, House, Letter from the Secretary of War, Transmitting Estimates of the Cost of Making a Canal from 

Cumberland to Georgetown, H. Doc. 192, 20th Cong., 1st sess., 1828, 15, 30, 46, 58, 64, 87, 94 and 99. 3 Report of Col. John J. Abert and Col. James Kearney, of the United States Topographical Engineers, Upon an Examination of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from Washington City to the “Point of Rocks” (Washington, 1831), in 

U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canal, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 414, 23rd Cong., 1st sess., 

1834, 89–91; and Ibid, 158. 4 Abert and Kearney Report, in House Report 414, 90–91. 5 House Report 414, 158. 6 Ibid, and Diary and Account Book, 1828–29, W. Robert Leckie Papers, Duke University Library. 7 House Report 414, 158. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 159 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

obtained from the quarry near Lock No. 7, was transported by wagon approximately 13⁄4 

mile.8

7. Lock No. 10: This lock was built entirely of granite. Approximately one-half of the stone was 

obtained from the quarry near Lock No. 7, while the remaining portion was transported overland from a quarry four miles inland.9

8. Lock No. 11: The front ranges of this lock were Seneca Creek Red Sandstone, boated down 

the Potomac River some 14 miles. Its backing of rubble granite was probably obtained from 

the quarry near Lock No. 7.10

9. Lock No. 12: This lock was built entirely of granite obtained from the quarry near Lock No. 

7. The stone was transported overland some 2 1/3 miles.11

10. Lock No. 13: This lock was built of granite from the country quarry referred to at Lock No. 

10. The stone was transported overland some 4 1/3 miles. The coping and hollow quoins 

were of Seneca Creek Red Sandstone.12

11. Lock No. 14: This lock was built entirely of granite of which one-half was transported overland from the country quarry referred to at Lock No. 10 and the remainder was boated down 

the Potomac from a quarry near Great Falls some five miles upstream.13

12. Locks Nos. 15–20: These locks were all built of Seneca Creek Red Sandstone boated down 

the Potomac River some nine miles.14

13. Locks Nos. 21–24 and Guard Lock No. 2: These locks were all built of Seneca Creek Red 

Sandstone. The stone for Lock No. 21 was boated down the Potomac some 6 1/3 miles. The 

stone for Lock No. 22 was partially boated down the Potomac 3 1⁄4 miles. The stone for the 

other structures was hauled overland.15

14. Aqueduct No. 1: This aqueduct was built entirely of Seneca Creek Red Sandstone obtained 

from the nearby quarries some 200 yards away.16

15. Lock No. 25: This lock was built of Seneca Creek red sandstone and boated up the Potomac 

River some 8 1⁄2 miles.17

16. Lock No. 26: This lock was built of Seneca Creek red sandstone boated up the Potomac some 

16 2/3 miles and transported overland 1/3 mile.18

17. Lock No. 27: This lock was built primarily of red sandstone boated some five miles down the 

Potomac from a quarry near the river about 2 1⁄2 miles below Point of Rocks. Stone for the 

coping was taken from Lee’s quarry near Seneca. A few feet of ashlar were transported overland by railroad from the white granite quarry at Sugarloaf Mountain some 21⁄2 miles away.19

18. Lock No. 28: One-seventh of the stone for this lock was brought 46 miles over the Baltimore 

& Ohio Railroad (at six cents per ton per mile) from the granite quarries on the Patapsco 

River near Ellicott City to Point of Rocks. From there, it was transported by wagon nearly 

 

8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Abert and Kearney Report, in House Report 414, 95; and Ibid, p.159. 11 House Report 414, 159. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Abert and Kearney Report, in House Report 414, 98–99. 17 House Report 414, 159. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 
160 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

one mile to the lock. The remaining six-sevenths of the stone was transported in wagons from 

a quarry of hard white flint stone in Virginia, four miles distant.20

19. Aqueduct No. 2: This aqueduct was built of white granite obtained from the quarries on 

Sugarloaf Mountain less than three miles away. Having a dull white color, the stone split and 

hammered well, was fine grained, and considered to be very durable. A temporary railroad 

was constructed to the quarry.21

20. Lock No. 29: Two-thirds of the stone for this lock was obtained from the granite quarries on 

the Patapsco River near Ellicott City. The stone was transported over the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad to Point of Rocks from where it was taken by wagon some 2 2/3 miles to the lock. 

The remaining third of the face stone was obtained from the hard white flint stone quarry in 

Virginia referred to at Lock No. 28.22

21. Aqueduct No. 3: The face stone above the tops of the piers of this structure was obtained 

from the granite quarries on the Patapsco River near Ellicott City and transported 46 miles 

over the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad to Point of Rocks. From there, stone was taken by 

wagon to the aqueduct three miles distant. The masonry below the tops of the piers was of 

stone boated down the Potomac some seven miles from a quarry opposite Short Hill near 

Lock No. 31. This quarry was on the land of Casper Wever, a former employee of the federal 

government and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, who had purchased 500 acres on the site of 

what is now Weverton to establish a manufacturing town patterned after the plan of Lowell, 

Massachusetts.23

22. Lock No. 30: One-seventh of the stone for this lock was obtained from the granite quarries on 

the Patapsco River near Ellicott City and transported over the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

One-seventh of the stone was found in various small quarries in the vicinity of the lock. The 

remaining five-sevenths of the stone was boated up the Potomac River some 32 1⁄2 miles from 

the Seneca Creek red sandstone quarries.24

23. Lock No. 31: Stone for this lock was obtained from three sources. Some stone was obtained 

from the hard white flint stone quarry in Virginia referred to at Locks Nos. 28 and 29. Some 

stone was quarried within one-half mile of the lock on land owned by Casper Wever. The 

remaining stone was obtained from a granite quarry in Virginia. The latter was transported 

one mile overland and 11⁄2 miles by water.25

24. Lock No. 32: One-fifth of the stone for this lock was obtained from the granite quarry in Virginia referred to at Lock No. 31. The transportation of this stone was by wagon for a distance 

of two miles, which included the crossing of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. Four-fifths 

of the stone was obtained from different limestone quarries up the Potomac, varying in distance from two to 12 miles. The of the quarries that were most likely used were Knotts 

Quarry on the Virginia shore about 1/3 mile above Lock No. 37, a limestone quarry near the 

canal 1 3⁄4 mile below Lock No. 37, a quarry one-half mile from Lock No. 37 in Maryland, 

and a limestone quarry on the Virginia shore opposite Lock No. 38. The stone from these 

 

20 Ibid. 21 Abert and Kearney Report, in House Report 414, 101–102. 22 House Report 414I, 160. 23 Report of Captain Wm. G. McNeill on the Condition of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Dec. 1, 1833, in House Report 414, 149; John Thomas Scharf, A History of Western Maryland (3 Vols., Philadelphia, 1882), Vol. II, 1285;John 

R. Miele, The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: A Physical History (NPS Mss., 1968), 133–135; Thomas F. Hahn, Towpath 

Guide to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Section Two (York, 1972), 56–57; and Langley to Mercer, Oct. 28, 1828, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. 

24 House Report 414, 160. 25 Ibid. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 161 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

three quarries was boated down the river to Harpers Ferry and then taken by wagon the last 

mile to the lock.26

25. Lock No. 33: this lock was built mostly of granite from the Virginia quarry referred to at 

Locks Nos. 31 and 32. The stone was transported in wagons for a distance of 11⁄2 miles, 

which included the crossing of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. A small portion of the 

stone was from a quarry in Maryland one mile away.27

26. Lock No. 34: This lock was built of limestone from Knotts Quarry on the Virginia side of the 

Potomac River about 1/3 mile above Lock No. 37. The stone was boated down the river some 

five miles to Dam No. 3 and then wagoned about 3⁄4 mile to the lock.28

27. Locks Nos. 35–36: These two locks were built of limestone from Knotts Quarry on the Virginia side of the Potomac about 1/3 mile above lock No. 37. The stone was boated down the 

river some five miles to the lock.29

28. Lock No. 37: This lock was built of limestone obtained from a quarry in Maryland about onehalf mile away and transported by wagon to the site.30

29. Aqueduct No. 4: This aqueduct was built of limestone obtained from a quarry neat Antietam 

Village about 3⁄4 of a mile distant. It is probable that the quarry was located on the Virginia 

side of the river.31

30. Lock No. 38: This lock was built of limestone obtained from a quarry directly opposite on the 

Virginia shore of the Potomac just below Shepherdstown.32

31. Lock No. 39: This lock was built of limestone obtained from a quarry in Virginia one mile 

distant. It could not be determined from the available records if this quarry was the same as 

that referred to at Lock No. 38.33

32. Lock No. 40: This lock was built of limestone obtained from a quarry about one-half mile 

distant.34

33. Dam No. 4, Guard Lock No. 4 and Locks Nos. 41–41: Available documentation does not 

indicate the precise location of the quarries from which stone was obtained for the rubble masonry of the Maryland abutment of the dam and guard lock or for the hammered masonry of 

the lock. Since these works are located in a heavy limestone area, it can be assumed that such 

stone was procured from nearby quarries or boated across the Potomac from quarries on 

Opequon Creek in Virginia.35

34. Lock No. 43: This lock was built of limestone from a quarry three miles distant on the Maryland side of the river. The stone was carried overland by wagon to the site.36

35. Lock No. 44 and Aqueduct No. 5: The lock and aqueduct were built of a “compact blue lime 

stone, of excellent quality, transported from almost exhaustless quarries within three miles” 

of the aqueduct. The quarry, then known as High Rock Quarry, was located 2 1⁄2 miles west 

 

26 Ibid, and Thomas F. Hahn, Towpath Guide to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Section three (York, 1972), 13, 16, and 

28. 

27 House Report 414 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Report of McNeill, in House Report 414, 149–150; and Purcell to president and Directors, Jun. 8, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., 

C&O Co. 

32 House Report 414, 161. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 
162 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

of the aqueduct on the berm side of the canal. Still in active operation, the quarry is now 

called Pinesburg Quarry.37

36. Dam No. 5, Guard Lock No. 5 and Locks Nos. 45–50: The dam abutments and the seven lock 

structures were built of Conococheague limestone obtained from a quarry within 200 feet of 

the pool behind the dam known as Prathers Neck quarry. The stone was taken by wagon to 

the individual construction sites, all of which were within two miles.38

37. Aqueduct No. 6: This aqueduct was built of Tonoloway gray limestone obtained from a 

quarry one-half mile north on the banks of Licking Creek. Stone for the sheeting was boated 

up the Potomac River some 7 1⁄2 miles from the limestone quarry at Prathers Neck.39

38. Locks Nos. 51–52 and Aqueduct No. 7: These three structures were built of limestone obtained from Hart’s Quarry on the Little Tonoloway “in the rear of Hancock” about two miles 

from the aqueduct. The stone was transported most of the distance over the Cumberland 

Road (National Road).40

39. Lock No. 53: This lock was built of sandstone taken from quarries about three miles distant 

and transported overland by wagon.41

40. Locks Nos. 54–55: These locks were constructed of limestone, portions of which were 

probably obtained from a Virginia quarry within one mile of Dam No. 6 and from Hart’s 

Quarry on the Little Tonoloway near Hancock.42

41. Dam No. 6: The Virginia abutment of the dam was constructed of limestone from a Virginia 

quarry about one mile distant. The Maryland abutment was built of sandstone from several 

quarries in Maryland within the distance of one mile.43

42. Guard Lock No. 6: This lock was built of sandstone obtained from the Maryland quarries 

referred to at Dam No. 6.44

43. Lock No. 56: This lock was built of limestone, portions of which were obtained from the 

Virginia quarries about one mile from Dam No. 6 and from Hart’s Quarry on the Little 

Tonoloway near Hancock.45

44. Aqueduct No. 8: The cut stone for the arch, the inside of the parapets, the coping, and the 

water table of the aqueduct were obtained from the limestone quarry in Virginia about one 

mile from Dam No. 6. The remainder of the stone was procured from several sandstone quarries a short distance across the Potomac on Sideling Hill Mountain.46

45. Lock No. 57: This lock was built of limestone obtained from a quarry in Virginia about one 

mile from Dam No. 6 and Hart’s Quarry on the Little Tonoloway near Hancock.47

46. Aqueduct No. 9: This aqueduct was built chiefly of hard sandstone obtained from three quarries on Sideling Hill Mountain on the Virginia side of the Potomac, some 2 1/3 to 3 1/8 miles 

distant. The stone was hauled down to the river by wagon, boated across the Potomac to the 

“river road,” and then carried overland for one mile by wagon.48

 

37 Ibid; Report of McNeill, in House Report 414, 150–151; and Hahn, Towpath Guide, Section Three, 51, 54. 38 Fisk to Board of Directors, June 16, 1835, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

39 Ibid; and Thomas F. Hahn, Towpath Guide to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Section Four (York), 9 40 Report of the General Committee of the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (Washington, 

1839), 9; and Fisk to Board of Directors, June 16, 1835, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 41 Report of the General Committee of the Stockholders, 1839, 10. 42 Ibid, 11–13. 43 Ibid, 11. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid, 12–13. 46 Ibid, 13; and Harlan D. Unrau, Single-Span Aqueducts, Historic Structures Report (NPS Mss., 1974), 52, 54–55. 47 Ibid. 48 Byers to Fisk, Dec. 10, 1838, Ltrs Recd., Chief Engineer. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 163 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

47. Locks Nos. 58–66: Stone for these composite locks was quarried in at least four different 

locations. The cut stone was quarried at Hart’s Quarry on the Little Tonoloway near Hancock 

and boated up the Potomac over distances ranging between 19 1⁄2 and 30 1⁄2 miles. The remainder of the stone for the locks was quarried at (1) Twiggs Hollow just above Lock No. 

61; (2) Purslane Mountain, about three miles from a point on the Virginia shore opposite 

Tunnel Hollow; and (3) Sideling Hill, some four miles from the mouth of Tunnel Hollow.49

48. Locks Nos. 67–68 and Aqueduct No. 10: These structures were built principally of limestone 

obtained from quarries on Town Hill on the Virginia side of the Potomac opposite the aqueduct, and from Hatch’s Quarry at the mouth of South Branch.50

49. Locks Nos. 69–71: These three composite locks were built of limestone obtained from quarries on Warrior Mountain near the banks of the Potomac on the Virginia side of the river. Located just below and opposite to Oldtown, the quarries were about 1 1⁄2 miles distant from 

Alum Hill.51

50. Locks Nos. 72–75 and Aqueduct No. 11: these five structures were built of limestone obtained principally from a quarry located some 11⁄2 miles up Evitts Creek from the aqueduct. 

The stone was “a compact limestone, or rather marble, in some parts densely filled with marine shells.” When polished, the limestone presented “a very interesting object” and was 

“admirably adapted for ornamental work.” The limestone was brought from the quarry to the 

aqueduct by a temporary wooden railroad and was taken by wagon from the aqueduct to the 

four locks below, all of which were between five to six miles distant.52

 

49 Lambie to Fisk, Feb. 28, 1839, Ltrs. Recd., Prin. Asst. Eng.; Fisk to President and Directors, May 27, 1839, Ltrs 

Sent, Chief Engineer; McFarland to Fisk, Sep. 11, 1839, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer; and Fisk to Board of Directors, 

Sep. 25, 1839, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

50 McFarland to Bender, Jan. 2, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., Commissioner; and Morris to Fisk, Apr. 18, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief 

Engineer. 

51 Purcell to Ingle, May 26, 1835, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; Fisk to Sheriff of Hampshire County, Sep. 20, 1838, Ltrs. 

Sent, Chief Engineer; and McFarland to Fisk, Sep. 21, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 52 Report of the General Committee of the Stockholders, 1839, 19–20. 
164 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

II. MILLS 

A. STONE CUTTING MILLS 

SENECA RED SANDSTONE QUARRIES 

AND THE SENECA STONE MILL 

The Seneca Red Sandstone quarries, located on the high bluffs on the berm side of the 

canal turning basin just west of the mouth of Seneca Creek, were a widely used source of 

building stone from the late-eighteenth century until the mid-nineteenth century. This deposit, which underlies most of western Montgomery County, is Triassic Age and is part 

of a larger formation that runs erratically from Connecticut to the Carolinas. The stone, 

having a color that varied from a light reddish brown to a deep chocolate brown, was 

known in the building trade as “Seneca Red Stone.”53

 The texture of the Seneca Red Stone was exceptionally good. It was very fine 

grained and uniform and held up very well when exposed to the weather. One of its 

unique and valuable features was the ease with which it was carved and chiseled when it 

was first quarried. It was then quite soft and could be easily cut. Its fine and uniform texture made it very suitable for delicate carving. After exposure to the weather, the stone 

became hard, and as a result, remained well preserved over the years.54

 The first use of Seneca Red Stone is not known, but it is known that it was used 

prior to the American Revolution.55 The Seneca quarries supplied stone for the locks of 

the Potomac Company around Great Falls and for Aqueduct No. 1 and Locks Nos. 8, 9, 

11, and 15–27 of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal.56 The stone was used in the construction 

of many houses and government buildings in Baltimore and Washington, among the most 

famous of which is the original Smithsonian Institution building on the Mall built in 

1847.57

 On the berm side of the canal turning basin just below the quarries was a stone 

mill that was built about 1837 to cut and dress the Seneca Red Stone for shipment by the 

Seneca Sandstone Company. Saws and polishers were powered by a water turbine fed by 

canal water diverted into a mill race. Gondolas pulled by mules and pushed by men carried the large stone blocks along narrow gauge rails to the mill. The large blocks were 

shaped by hammer and stone chisels before they were cut by tempered steel saws, six feet 

long, eight inches wide and 3/8 inch thick. An overhead pipe dripped water on the saws 

to keep the toothless blades cool. Progress was considered good if a saw cut one inch in a 

three-foot square block one foot thick per hour. For stone polishing, the cut stone was 

placed on a circular disk, which revolved from a belt attached to the water-driven shaft. 

Barriers around the disk kept the stone from being ejected by centrifugal force. By 1900, 

 

53 Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources, State of Maryland, Geography and Geology of Maryland (Baltimore, 1957), 122; and Nancy Rosselli, Robert Roselli, and Edwin F. Wesely, Seneca Sandstone Biking Trail, Sugarloaf Regional Trails, 1976. 

54 Maryland Geological Survey (Baltimore, 1906), Vol. VI, 186; and Miele, Physical History, 124–125. 55 Maryland Geological Survey, 185. 56 Geology of Maryland, 123; and House Report 414, 158–159. 57 Miele, Physical History, 125. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 165 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

the better quality Seneca Red Stone had been cut, the lower quality stone tending to flake 

and shatter. 

 As on of the major stone-cutting mills in the lower Potomac Valley, the mill cut 

red and gray sandstone boated from as far away as Goose Creek and Whites Ferry. In addition to the red sandstone used in the original Smithsonian building, stone cut at the Seneca mill was used in the construction of the old Congressional Library, the U. S. Capitol, and the Washington Monument.58

B. CEMENT MILLS 

1. POTOMAC MILL, SHEPHERDSTOWN 

As events were leading to the commencement of construction operations on the canal, Henry Boteler of Shepherdstown informed the waterway’s chief supporter, Congressman Charles F. Mercer, in January 1828 that he had found large quantities of gray limestone that produced water lime 

near his flour mill on the banks of the Potomac some 240 yards upstream from Pack Horse Ford. 

The stone was visible on the surface of the ground as well as to a considerable depth below the 

surface. The hill where the stone had been found was some “200 feet high, and near half a mile 

around its base.” The stone was easily accessible and could “be quarried with more facility than 

the common limestone.” 

 Based on his experience, Boteler reported that he had prepared a mortar from the stone, 

which had hardened in water in a short time and had become “impervious.” In preparing the stone 

for use, it required “only one-third of the time allotted to the burning of lime.” Consequently, it 

needed “only a third of the wood necessary for calcining lime.” He had found the stone to be 

harder than plaster of Paris, and, therefore, it could not be broken and ground to a powder as easily as gypsum. Accordingly, he was sending three specimens of the water lime, one in its natural 

state, one after burning, and one after calcining, together with “a small ball of the water lime, 

hardened to its present consistency in water, for a period of 48 hours.”59

 During the years 1828–29, Boteler and his associate, George F. Reynolds, were persuaded by canal company officials to convert a part of their prosperous flour mill to the manufacture of hydraulic cement.60 By 1829, the flour mill was describe as “one of the finest manufacturing mills in America,” producing 100 barrels of flour per day. 

 The mill was known as the Potomac Mill, later becoming the Potomac Cement Company.61 The kiln, which Boteler and Reynolds built, was composed of 500 perches of stone and 

26,000 bricks, and its total capacity was 1,625 bushels. Because the mill was able to grind about 

2,000 bushels of lime per week, the canal company authorized the construction of a cement warehouse nearby to store the cement, until it was called for by the contractors.62

 

58 Thomas F. Hahn, Towpath Guide to the C&O Canal, Section Two (York, 1971), 5–9. 

59 Boteler to Mercer, Jan 14 and 22, 1828, in U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 141, 20th Cong. 1st sess., 1828, 38–39. 60 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A. 195–196; and Leckie to President and Directors, Mar. 9, 10, 

29, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. Available documentation does not indicate the date of the construction of the flour 

mill. By 1829, the flour mill was described as “one of the finest manufacturing mills in America,” producing 100 barrels of flour per day. Leckie to President and Directors, Mar. 10, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 61 Millard K. Bushong, Historic Jefferson County (Boyce, 1972), 4. 62 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 276; and Diary and Account Book, 1828–29, W. Robert 

Leckie Papers, Duke University Library. 
166 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

 Throughout the early period of construction, the company engineers experimented with 

the Shepherdstown lime and with limestone from other points in the Potomac Valley to find a 

high quality hydraulic mortar. More than 85 experiments were conducted with the Shepherdstown 

lime under the direction of Superintendent of Masonry Alexander B. McFarland for this purpose, 

using various hydrates, mixtures and burning times. Experiments were also made with limestone 

from Goose Creek, the Leesburg vicinity and Tuscarora Creek. It was finally determined during 

the spring of 1829 that the Shepherdstown cement was best because there would “be no danger 

whatever of its slaking or loosing its adhesion or bond.”63 In the course of their surveys, canal 

officials discovered a better grade blue lime some 500 feet from the kiln and adapted it for use on 

the waterway.64 Accordingly, Boteler and Reynolds built two kilns near the blue stone deposit for 

its manufacture into lime.65 By June 27, McFarland reported that one kiln was producing “extremely well” while the other was still being used for experimentation.66

 By the summer of 1829, Boteler and Reynolds had their cement operations in full gear. 

On August 7th the canal company signed a contract purchasing 80,000 bushels of cement at 19 

cents per bushel, the whole of which was to be delivered by May 15, 1830.67

 Later in the fall, the company signed four separate contracts with Henry Strider, Joseph 

Hollman, Jacob Fouke and John Strider to transport the cement from Shepherdstown to the various construction sites below Seneca Creek at one-third cent per bushel per mile.68 On January 28, 

1830, a second contract was signed with Boteler and Reynolds to supply the line of the canal with 

60,000 bushels of cement by September 1.69 When work on the line above Point of Rocks began 

in 1832 following the resolution of the legal conflict with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, an 

agreement was made in May whereby Boteler and Reynolds would supply an unspecified quantity of cement to the contractors beyond the limits of the existing contracts at 20 cents per 

bushel.70 The Potomac Mill was superseded by Shafer’s Cement Mill at Round Top Hill as the 

principal supplier of cement to the canal company in the fall of 1838. By that time, it had provided more than 150,000 bushels of cement for use in the construction of the waterway at a cost 

of $32,909.42.71

 The mill continued to play a significant role in the economic activity of the Shepherdstown vicinity. By 1861, it was owned by Alexander Boteler, a former Whig congressman who 

had recently been elected to serve in the Confederate Congress and who had recently entered the 

Confederate Army as an officer.72 During the military activity that occurred in and around Shepherdstown in September 1861, Boteler’s home as well as the mill and the bridge across the Poto-

 

63 McFarland to Leckie, Mar. 31 and Apr. 18, 1829, Leckie Papers; and Proceedings of the President and Board of 

Directors, A, 184. 64 Leckie to President and Directors, May 11, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Proceedings of the President and Board 

of Directors, A, 195–196. 65 Diary and Account Book, 1828–29, Leckie Papers. A diagram showing the location of the mill, the kilns and the lime 

supply was prepared on March 19, by Inspector of Masonry W. Robert Leckie. 66 McFarland to President and Directors, Jun 27, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

67 Contracts for Furnishing Hydraulic Cement, Leckie Papers; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 320. 68 Contracts of Transporting Cement, and Contract [between] Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company and Jacob Fouke, 

October 22, 1829, Leckie Papers. Generally the canal company supplied the bags, boxes and boat covers for the cement, but the transporting contractors were allowed two cents per bushel if they supplied these items on their own. 69 Contracts for Furnishing Hydraulic Cement, Leckie Papers. 70 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 140. 71 Ledger A, C&O Co. 157–175. From November 1835 to June 1828, George F. Reynolds was the sole owner and operator of the Potomac Mill. Ibid, 157; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 407. 72 Shepherdstown Register, July 16, 1914; and Aug. 21, 1924, in Scrapbook I, Alexander Robinson Boteler papers, 

Duke University. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 167 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

mac, were destroyed by Federal troops. The mill was rebuilt after the Civil War and continued to 

operate until the end of the nineteenth century.73

 Closely associated with the Potomac Mill was the dam, popularly called Boteler’s Dam, 

across the Potomac that provided power for its operation. The impounded water formed a slackwater that occasioned the construction of a river lock to provide access to the canal from the river, 

thereby making it possible for the canal company to tap a lucrative Virginia trade. When the dam 

was destroyed, apparently by the 1889 flood, the slackwater was eliminated and the value of the 

river lock was negated. Its reason for existence gone, the lock was filled in and incorporated into 

the towpath bank of the canal prism.74

2. TUSCARORA MILL 

During the spring of 1829, Inspector of Masonry, W. Robert Leckie and his associate, James Alcott on New York, discovered a large quantity of stone “exactly like hydrate of lime about onethird of a mile” above the Tuscarora Mill on the creek of that name running through the estate of 

Charles Carroll of Carrollton in Frederick County.75 Within a week, Leckie and Alcott were conducting experiments with the lime to test its binding qualities under water. Although the lime 

slaked in the early experiments, the two men continued making various mixtures until June when 

they made a cement that would set in water. Leckie was convinced that the Tuscarora Cement was 

equal to the blue hydrate of lime at Shepherdstown and was better than the general run of Parker 

Roman Cement.76

 In June 1829, Leckie and Alcott agreed to take out a patent for the discovery and the 

manufacture of the hydraulic lime, the profits from its sale to be equally divided.77 A draft of the 

letter that was sent to Secretary of State Martin Van Buren requesting the patent described the 

mineral content of the lime and the formula for preparing the cement. The letter read as follows: 

The mineral from which the cement is made is of several varieties and is an argillaceous 

ferruginous limestone found in the county of Frederick and state of Maryland; and in the 

county of Loudoun and state of Virginia. Our variety is a Camelottie meaguse limestone 

with alternate streaks of light blue and yellow gray: the other is a laminated light blue 

meaguse limestone with small chimney specks. Both effervesce slightly with acids, and 

the color where calcined is of a cream colored yellow, but not always the same, some 

parts being of a lighter and some of a darker color, it is found in ledges and in some 

places at the surface of the ground.... 

 It contains carbonic acid, lime, water, sibix, aluminum and oxide of iron. 

 Preparation of the cement—the stone is first calcined 40 or 54 hours, then ground 

to a powder, and mixed with clean sand in the preparations of from one-third to onehalf—adding as much water as will make it into a proper consistency for use.78

Apparently the patent was approved by August, for in that month Leckie informed Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright that his Tuscarora Cement was as good as the Shepherdstown blue lime. 

Accordingly, he requested that the canal company make arrangements to manufacture the Tus-

 

73 John F. Luzader, Historic Sites, Shepherdstown, W. Va. (NPS Mss., 1962) 21. 74 Ibid. 75 Apr. 12, 1829, Diary and Account Book, 1828-29, Leckie Papers 76 McFarland to Leckie, Apr. 18, 1829, and June 25, 1829, Diary and Account Book, 1828-29, Leckie Papers. 77 Agreement, James Alcott and Robert Leckie, June 26, 1829, Leckie Papers 78 Draft, Leckie and Alcott to Sec. Of St. [Van Buren], June 25, 1829, Leckie Papers 
168 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

carora Cement on a large scale by constructing a draw kiln near the Tuscarora Mill that would 

contain 700 bushels.79

 Although there is no documentary evidence as to the structures that were built near the 

Tuscarora Mill, the cement was soon being manufactured in large quantities. On February 3, 

1830, the canal company signed a contract with Messrs. Brackett and Guy, the mill operators, to 

supply the line of the canal with 40,000 bushels of cement at 20 cents per 70 pound bushel. The 

cement was to be delivered by June 1, 1830.80

 Despite the opposition of some canal officials to the use of the Tuscarora Cement on the 

canal, it began to be widely used as a supplement to the Shepherdstown lime, because there was 

frequently a shortage of the latter. 

 In June 1830, it was found that the quality of the Tuscarora Cement was too poor to be 

used on the canal. Accordingly, the board ordered the mill to be closed until the quality of the 

water lime could be improved by the use of coal in place of wood in the calcining process. No 

further use of the cement already manufactured was to be made on those parts of the masonry 

works that would be exposed to injury.81

 At the recommendation of Engineer Alfred Cruger and Leckie, the board ordered the reactivatation of the mill in July. Henceforth, each kiln of lime that was burned would be tested before being shipped to the contractors.82

 The canal company determined to contract for the unexpired seven-year lease of the mill 

by the Crommelin family in September 1832. At the same time. The board decided to procure by 

purchase or condemnation the land required for conducting a feeder from the dam and head race 

of the mill to the canal. While there is no record as to the final result of the negotiations leading to 

these two transactions, the mill continued to supply the canal with cement until the discovery of 

hydraulic lime at Round Top Hill.83 During the more than six years that the Tuscarora Mill produced cement for the waterway, it supplied nearly 20,000 bushels of lime at a cost to the canal 

company of $4,088.17.84

3. HOOKS MILL 

During the early 1830s, James Hook was associated with both Bracket and Guy at the Tuscarora 

Mill and Boteler and Reynolds at the Potomac Mill.85 Sometime during the spring or summer of 

1835, Hook established a mill on the Virginia side of the Potomac across from Hancock. Commencing in the fall of that year, he began supplying cement to the line of the canal. After two 

years of operating the mill, a period during which his business suffered because of the low level 

of the Potomac in the summer months, Hook died in August or September 1837. At that time, the 

canal company signed a contract with George Shafer, who had been operating a mill at Funkstown, paying him $300 to rent Hooks Mill and furnish cement to the contractors according to the 

provisions of Hooks uncompleted contract.86 Hooks Mill continued to produce cement for the 

canal until the construction of Shafer’s Cement Mill at Round Top Hill, some three miles west of 

 

79 Leckie to Wright, Aug. 21, 1829, Leckie Papers. 80 Contracts for Furnishing Hydraulic Cement, Leckie Papers. In March 1830, the canal company awarded $100 to 

Alcott for his services in locating the Tuscarora water lime. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 

37–38.

81 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 125. 82 Ibid, 146 83 Ibid, C, 125; E, 62. 84 Ledger A, C&O Co., 172–173. 

85 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 143; D, 407. 86 Fisk to Byrnes, Sep. 7, 1838, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 169 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

Hancock. Altogether, Hooks Mill supplied nearly 31,000 bushels of cement for the construction 

of the canal.87

4. SHAFER’S CEMENT MILL—ROUND TOP CEMENT COMPANY 

In 1837, as the trunk of the canal was being excavated at Round Top Hill, it was discovered that 

the layers of “argillo-magnesian limestone” which cropped out in several places along the north 

bank of the Potomac had a “hydraulic character.” The strata of rock were “exceedingly crooked 

and tortuous, bending up and down, and doubling upon each other in a very singular and complex 

manner,” thus “forming a series of arches and counter-arches and concentrating a large quantity 

of the stone within easy and convenient reach.” The aggregate thickness of the rock strata varied 

from eight to 12 feet. There were six distinct rock outcrops of the hydraulic stone exposed to view 

on the slope of the hill within a distance of about 200 yards along the canal.88

 After the discovery of the rock, the canal company entered into a contract with George 

Shafer to rent Hooks Mill across the river from Hancock to grind the cement.89 In May 1838, a 

contract was signed with Shafer to supply cement to the line of the canal from Dam No. 6 to the 

upper end of Paw Paw Tunnel.90 At the same time, the board confirmed an agreement with Shafer 

authorizing him to build a mill on the berm side of the canal at Round Top Hill, some three miles 

west of Hancock. The canal company agreed to pay for the construction of the mills foundation 

and to rent the mill and the necessary water power for its operation to him for a period of 10 

years. In addition, the company agreed to rent the land and stone quarries at Round Top Hill to 

him for the same period of time.91

 By the spring of 1843, Shafer had supplied the canal company with some 80,000 bushels 

of hydraulic lime at a cost of $20,507.86.92 Apparently, the mill was heavily damaged during the 

heavy spring freshet in 1843, because the board granted Shafer permission on June 6 of that year 

to transport toll-free upon the canal all the materials needed for its reconstruction.93 When largescale construction operations resumed on the canal in 1847, the contractors negotiated a contract 

with Shafer to deliver 120,000 bushels of cement to the line at a rate of 12,000 bushels per month 

if required, and the delivery began in early April 1848.94

 Shafer continued to manufacture hydraulic lime under the brand name “Shafer Cement” 

until 1863. In that year, Robert Bridges and Charles W. Henderson purchased the mill and renamed the enterprise the Round Top Hydraulic Cement Company.95 By 1882, the firm had grown 

 

87 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 449; E, 62, 139; and Ledger A, C&O Co., 154. 88 Thomas J. C. Williams, A History of Washington County, Maryland, From the Earliest Settlements to the Present 

Time (2 Vols., Hagerstown, 1906), Vol. I, 372. 

89 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 488. Shafer had supplied hydraulic cement to the line of the 

canal from a small mill at Funktown since June 1835. No documentation could be found regarding the construction or 

operation of this mill. Ibid, D, 392; E, 1, 12; and McFarland to Bender, Feb. 10, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., Commissioner. 

90 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 421. 

91 Ibid, E, 483–485. 

92 Ledger A, C&O Co., 152–153. 

93 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 45–46. 

94 Davis, Hale and Allen to President and Directors, Apr. 11, 1848, in Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C&O Co., 16–

21. 

95 Williams, A History of Washington County, Vol. I, 372. Bridges, the son of a Scotch immigrant and a long-time resident of Hancock, formed a business partnership with Henderson in 1850 that lasted some 48 years. His other business 

interests included the Berkeley Sand Company, located near Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, which manufactured 

glass sand, extensive farm holdings near Hagerstown, and timber and coal lands in West Virginia. In addition to his 

business interests, he served as a school commissioner in Washington County for many years; and in 1890, he was 

appointed as one of the receiver for the bankrupt canal company. Ibid, Vol. II, 1064–1065. Henderson, born in 

Bladensburg, Maryland, and raised in Berkeley County, Virginia, was a stockholder in many local banks and devoted 
170 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

into one of the most important business enterprises of Washington County, employing 75 to 100 

men. An adjacent cooper shop, where the barrels were produced in which the cement was 

shipped, employed 16 to 20 men. 

 The rock from which the cement was made was mined out of five tunnels in Round Top 

Hill, two of the tunnels running entirely through the hill. The stone was burned at the mill in eight 

kilns, each 21 feet deep and 10 feet in diameter at the base. The total daily capacity of the eight 

kilns was about 320 barrels of cement each weighting 300 pounds, or about 2,200 barrels per 

week. The mill that ground the cement was driven by “an overshot water-wheel, sixteen feet in 

diameter and sixteen feet width of breast, with buckets thirteen inched in depth.” Water for turning the wheel was supplied by the canal. The grinding of the stone was accomplished by four 

pairs of French burrstones, each five feet in diameter. The total capacity of these grindstones was 

somewhat more than 400 bushels of cement in 24 hours. After the cement was packed in barrels, 

it was taken across the Potomac by cable and then shipped either east or west on the Baltimore 

and Ohio Railroad. The firm had about 300 acres on the West Virginia shore where there were 

located a warehouse for the deposit of the cement prior to shipment and switches that connected 

with the main tracks of the railroad. The canal was also used to ship the cement and to receive 

coal from the Allegany County mines for the mill’s operation.96

 As the Round Top Hydraulic Cement Company prospered, agency offices were established in the principal population centers of the Potomac Valley. One of the most important of 

these was operated by J. G. and J. M. Waters at 26 High Street fronting immediately on the canal 

in Georgetown. The business was located in one of the oldest commission houses in the city, having been established just prior to the Civil War by George Waters.97

5. LEOPARD’S MILL 

A mill operated by Jacob Leopard was located near Lock No. 53 some 2 1⁄2 miles west of Round

Top Hill.98 The canal company purchased cement from Leopard on an irregular basis to supplement the company supply whenever Shafer’s or Lynn’s cement mills were unable to meet the 

needs of the canal contractors.99 In November 1839, Leopard sued the canal company in the 

Washington County courts to obtain compensation for damage done to his mill and property by 

the construction of the canal. The case dragged through the courts for some five years before the 

two parties agreed to an out-of-court settlement in December 1844.100

6. LYNN MILL, CUMBERLAND 

In 1836, a cement mill was built on the banks of Wills Creek in Cumberland to produce the well 

known cement that carried the brand “Lynn Cement” and later “Cumberland Cement.” The mill 

was probably built by John Galloway Lynn, the son of Captain David Lynn who had located at 

Cumberland before the outbreak of the American Revolution. John Galloway also built the Poto-

 most of his attention to the mercantile side of business. His son, Raymond, purchased the holdings of Bridges in the 

Round Top Hydraulic Cement Company in 1903 after the plant burned. Ibid, Vol. II, 887–888. 96 John Thomas Scharf, A History of Western Maryland (2 Vols., Philadelphia, 1882), Vol. II, 1256 97 T. H. S. Boyd, The History of Montgomery County, Maryland, From its earliest Settlement in 1650 to 1879 (Clarksburg, 1879), 153. 

98 Thomas F. Hahn, Towpath Guide to the C&O Canal, Section Four (York, 1973), 22. 99 Fisk to Lynn, Sep. 18, 1838, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

100 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 122; G, 214. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 171 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

mac or Lynn Wharf on the Cumberland Basin above Dam No. 8 and operated it for many years 

for loading coal into canal boats to be transported down the waterway.101

 As construction of the canal progressed above Dam No. 6, surveys were taken in the upper Potomac Valley to find new sources of hydraulic lime. On one of the surveys, it was discovered that “water lime” or “cement” rock cropped out in the northern part of Cumberland on the 

west bank of Wills Creek. Here the cement beds were folded and well exposed, allowing convenient access to the rock along the strike. The cement rock proper occurred in beds that varied in 

thickness from six to 17 feet. Quarrying operations were soon begun by the Lynn-owned Cumberland Hydraulic Cement and Manufacturing Company, and a mill was built on the banks of the 

creek near the quarries.102

 The Lynn Mill had a peak capacity of producing 350 bushels of cement per week, a sum 

that was increased to 500 in 1848. After grinding 1,400 barrels of cement, the “midlings” were 

ground over to reduce the substance to powder form. The latter process generally required 36 

hours to complete. The mill wheel was 16 feet high and was operated by water from Wills 

Creek.103

 As early as September 1836, the Lynns offered to manufacture cement for the canal company.104 Although the board took no action on this proposal, another offer by the Lynns in May 

1838 to supply cement to the line between Paw Paw Tunnel and Cumberland led to an agreement 

the following month.105 According to the contract, Lynn was to furnish 21,000 bushels of cement 

at 25 cents per bushel. Some of the cement was to be shipped to canal warehouses at Town Creek 

and Lock No. 67 for storage.106 By May 1841, the Lynn Mill had supplied 50,394.14 bushels of 

cement to the company at a cost of $16,803.07.107

 Charles Locker was operating the mill in the spring of 1848 when construction was resumed on the canal. A contract was signed whereby he agreed to supply the contractors with 

60,000 bushels of cement at a rate of 6,000 bushels per month, if required. It was reported that the 

mill was full of cement and that delivery of articles to the line had begun in early April.108

 The hydraulic cement manufactured at the mill received the commendation of noted engineers throughout the years, including Benjamin H. Latrobe, Charles P. Manning and Major 

Henry Brewerton. The cement was known “for the energy of its action” and for the fact that it 

would “bear a greater admixture of sand than any other natural cement.” In the 1870s, a test comparing the relative strengths of the major cements in use in the United States revealed that “Cumberland Cement” was second only to English Portland Cement in the number of pounds it could 

sustain.109 The cement mill continued to flourish into the 20th century.110

 

101 James W. Thomas and Thomas J. C. Williams, History of Allegany County, Maryland (2 Vols., Cumberland, 1923), 

784. 

102 Maryland Geological Survey, Allegany County (Baltimore, 1900), 185–186. Later in 1839, four additional cement 

quarries were discovered in the vicinity of Cumberland. Two quarries were located in the Little Bedford Valley about 

3⁄4 mile and 11⁄4 mile back from North Mountain—both being an extension of the vein Lynn was using. A third quarry 

was 1⁄4 mile above Lynn’s Backingstone Quarry and 1⁄4 mile from the river on the hill side—also an extension southward of Lynn’s vein. A fourth quarry was found about 21⁄2 miles up from the mouth of North Branch. McFarland to 

Fisk, Aug. 8, 1839, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

103 Bryan to Fisk, Nov. 10, 1848, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 104 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 135. 105 Ibid, 421, 451. 106 Fisk to President and Directors, June 25, 1838, and Fisk to Morris, Sep. 4, 1838, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer. 107 Ledger A, C&O Co., 154. 108 Davis, Hale and Allen to president and Directors, Apr 11, 1848, in Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C&O Co., 16–

21. 

109 C. J. Orick, comp., The Mineral Resources and Manufacturing Facilities of the City of Cumberland, MD (Cumberland, 1875), 23–24. 
172 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

7. IMPORTED CEMENT FROM NEW YORK AND ENGLAND 

Most of the cement used in the construction of the canal until the establishment of Shafer’s Cement Mill at Round Top Hill in 1838 was produced at the Potomac Mill. However, the presence 

of large deposits of limestone did not insure that sufficient quantities of high-grade cement could 

be supplied to the contractors to fill their needs at all times. The Potomac Mill was creating a new 

industry in the region, necessitating an inevitable period of experimentation as a new science was 

being learned the hard way. This experimentation continued throughout the early construction 

period, and the lime, which the contractors received, was not always the high quality that was 

desired.111 Furthermore, the capacity of the kilns was limited and often insufficient to supply 

heavy seasonal demands, thus frequently hindering progress on the masonry works.112

 The problem of an adequate supply of high-grade lime continued to plague the directors 

throughout the early construction period. To fill the gaps in the local supply, the board imported 

large quantities of cement from New York and England. The earliest importation of cement occurred in November 1828 when the directors purchased 500 barrels of Parker’s Roman Cement.113 During the summer of 1829, the first season of full-scale operations, the canal board ordered that until good Shepherdstown cement was produced, the contractors were to use Roman 

Cement with Thomaston lime for backing.114 Because the amount of Parker’s Roman Cement on 

hand was insufficient to meet the needs of the contractors, the board purchased 332 barrels of 

Watts Roman Cement from a firm in Liverpool. The cement was to be shipped on the brig Caledonia bound for Baltimore, the insurance the company was forced to pay amounted to 

$1,770.67.115 Since the company was in desperate need of cement, the board at the same time 

bought 50 casks of Rosendale water cement from Ulster County, New York, already on the 

Georgetown wharves and placed orders for 200 more.116

 The canal company records are filled with references to further purchases of Rosendale 

or New York cement until September 1833. Altogether nearly 10,000 barrels, weighing 335 to 

 110 Maryland Geological Survey, Allegany County, 185–186. 111 McFarland to Ingle, May 29, 1829, and McFarland to Leckie, July 23, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Ingle to 

Boteler and Reynolds, Apr. 22, 1830, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 112 Leckie to President and Directors, July 22, 1829, Wright to President and Directors, Mar 23, 1830; and Leckie to 

Cruger and President and Directors, July 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Ingle to McFarland, Jan 8, 1830; and Mercer 

to Boteler and Reynolds, May 5, 1830, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

113 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 105. In 1796, Joseph Parker patented the so-called Roman 

Cement, the process consisting of a conversion by calcinations and pulverization of the nodules, or clay balls, found in 

the London clays. Henry Reid, The Science and Art of the Manufacture of Portland Cement (London, 1877), 29. For a 

description of the composition and the process of making Parker’s Roman Cement see Appendix B. 114 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 278 115 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 287. 116 Ibid, 283. Rock suitable for the manufacture of natural cement was first discovered in America in 1819 by Canvass 

White in Madison County, New York, during his service as an engineer on the Erie Canal. During the construction of 

the Delaware and Hudson Canal in 1825, natural cement rock was found near the Ulster County communities of High 

Falls and Rosendale, New York, and soon a large mill was erected at the latter town to produce Rosendale or New 

York water cement. Strictly speaking, natural, Roman, and Rosendale cements all belong to one class, their compositions and the process of their manufacture being similar. Natural or Rosendale cement was somewhat similar to hydraulic lime. Instead of slaking with water, however, after burning it was pulverized, exposed to the air to season, and marketed in powdered form. Instead of having a loss on ignition of 8 to 21 percent as in hydraulic limes, this loss was less 

than 5 percent and the resulting cement was considered to be much stronger. Richard K. Meade, Manufacture of Cement (Scranton, 1922), 3, 32; and Christopher Roberts, The Middlesex Canal (Cambridge, 1938), 99 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 173 

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, & Kilns 

350 pounds each, of the New York cement was purchased by the board for use on the canal at a 

cost of $24,307.03.117

C. SAW MILLS 

GREAT FALLS SAWMILL, MATILDAVILLE 

As construction on the canal commenced in the fall of 1828, the directors determined to 

build a sawmill near the waterway. In early September, a site was chosen at Matildaville 

on the Virginia side of the river near Great Falls; and Thomas Fairfax, on whose land the 

site was located, granted permission for the construction of the mill.118 It was to be operated by water from the Potomac Company’s skirting canal around the falls. In late September, the directors authorized the construction of the sawmill “for the purpose of supplying timber, scantling and plank, where deemed expedient, to the canal.”119 By early 

November, a contract had been let to William Apsey and work had begun under the direction of Superintendent of Wood Work Hezekiah Langley.120 Because of the extended illness of the contractor, the mill was not completed until April 1830 at a cost of 

$2,445.92.121

 The sawmill was built on a plan similar to that of Lewis Wernwag at Harpers 

Ferry with one saw and a machine for drawing the logs out of the water. At its peak capacity, the mill could cut 2,000 to 3,000 feet of “4 by 4” plank per day.122

 During the construction of the sawmill, the canal company commissioned two 

surveys for the best supplies of timber in the Potomac Valley. Large quantities of good 

locust timber were in the Shenandoah and Opequon Valleys of Jefferson and Loudoun 

Counties in Virginia and the upper part of Frederick and the lower part of Washington 

Counties in Maryland. The Cacapon River Valley was also found to possess good stands 

of yellow pine, walnut, chestnut and white oak. The small locust, cedar, chestnut, white 

oak and black walnut trees that were in the path of the canal were considered to be sufficient for making fence posts and railing.123

 In February 1831, the company leased the sawmill to George W. Smoot of Alexandria for five years at a yearly rental fee of $150.124 When the Chesapeake & Ohio was 

opened between Georgetown and Seneca later in the year, the board solicited bids for the 

removal of the sawmill to an undetermined site on the new waterway. The expense of 

moving the mill would be repaid by allowing the mover to use the mill. Until a contract 

 

117 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 408, 418; B, 28, 38, 51, 67, 143, 236; and Ledger A, C&O 

Co., 178–180. 

118 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 57. 

119 Ibid, 84. 120 Ibid, 394–395. 121 Ibid, B, 31, 54, 64; and Ledger A, C&O Co., 180. 122 Langley to Mercer, Oct. 28, 1828, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 123 Langley to Mercer, Oct. 28, 29, 1828; and Naylor to Mercer, Sep 30, 1828, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 124 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 266. 
174 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 4. Quarries, Mills, and Kilns 

was let for the move, all detachable parts of the mill were to be stored in the company 

warehouse in Georgetown for safekeeping.125

 Although there is no available documentation concerning the relocation of the 

sawmill, there is evidence that Smoot took the canal company to court over this change in 

location. After a lengthy battle, the marshal of the District of Columbia in October 1835 

ruled against Smoot by confirming the right of the canal company to break its rental 

agreement and to dispose of its property.126

 There is no evidence that the canal company established other sawmills along the 

line of the canal during the construction period. Apparently, as the work progressed up 

the Potomac Valley, the timber products were supplied by mills in the area such as Lewis 

Wernwag’s mill at Harpers ferry, Jacob Miller’s mill about two-thirds of a mile below 

Pack Horse Ford, William Naylor’s mill at the junction of the Cacapon and the Potomac 

and Young’s sawmill at Cumberland. As the construction work progressed, the company 

increasingly began also to contract with individuals, such as Captain William Easby of 

Washington, for the manufacture, delivery and installation of lock gates and other timberrelated products.127

D. BRICK KILNS 

PAW PAW TUNNEL BRICK MAKING 

Lee Montgomery, the contractor for Paw Paw Tunnel, began making bricks for the arching of the 

tunnel in 1837 or 1838. He used local building materials and a portable brick-making machine 

obtained in Baltimore. His kiln probably was located at the upstream end of the field adjacent to 

the canal section superintendent’s house, because recent bulldozing at that location has revealed a 

large quantity of cinders and coal. In the spring of 1838, it was reported that Montgomery’s 

bricks were of poor quality, and consequently, many of them were never used.128

 When work resumed on the canal in November 1847 under the new contract with Hunter, 

Harris & Co., the work on the tunnel was subcontracted to McCullough & Day. Mr. Campbell, 

one of the workers of the latter firm, was assigned the task of making bricks for the tunnel arch. 

Upon examination, it was found that the excavation material from Section No. 311 at the upper 

end of the tunnel could be used for brick clay. Further examination of the ground indicated that 

there were sufficient quantities of clay within one-half mile of the upper portal of the tunnel to 

produce the 5,800,000 bricks required to arch the structure.129

 To insure against future problems in producing good brick, Chief Engineer Fisk hired 

James McFarland to tour Hudson River Valley and to learn the mode of making bricks, the types 

of machinery used to mix and mould the clay, and the process of burning the bricks. This information was given to Campbell and presumably put to use.130

 

125 Ibid, C, 21. 126 Ibid, D, 415. 127 Naylor to Mercer, Sep 30, 1828, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; Miller to President and Board of Directors, May 1, 1863, 

Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 215; Fisk to Easby, Aug 2, 15, 1838, 

Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co.; and Young to Fisk, Sep 28, 1848, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 128 Morris to Fisk, Mar 16, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer, and Hahn, Towpath Guide, Section Four, 45. 

129 Morris to Fisk, Jun 5, 1839, and Dungan to Fisk, July 30, 1849, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 130 McFarland to Fisk, Feb 11, 1848, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

5. 

A CHRONOLOGICAL 

DESCRIPTION OF THE 

CONSTRUCTION 

OF THE C & O CANAL: 

1828–1850 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 177 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

CONTENTS 

I. GENERAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE CONSTUCTION 

 OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1828–1850 179 

 1828 179 

 1829 185 

 1830 190 

 1831 193 

 1832 196 

 1833 201 

 1834 203 

 1835 205 

 1836 209 

 1837 213 

 1838 215 

 1839 217 

 1840 219 

 1841 221 

 1843: Alexandria Canal Opened 221 

 1842–1847 221 

 1847 222 

 1848 222 

 1849 224 

 1850 224 

 1851 226 

II. CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGIES OF MAJOR STRUCTURES 227 

A. LIFT LOCKS 227 

B. TIDE LOCKS 237 

C. RIVER LOCKS 238 

D. GUARD LOCKS 238 

E. AQUEDUCTS 239 

F. DAMS 241 

G. LOCKHOUSES 242 

H. STOP LOCKS (STOP GATES) 249 

I. FEEDERS 250 

J. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES 251 

APPENDIXES 253 

A. PRESIDENT JOHN QUINCY ADAMS’S REMINISCENCES OF THE 

 CANAL GROUND-BREAKING CEREMONIES ON JULY 4, 1828 253 

B. DESCRIPTION OF THE SEAL OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO 

 CANAL COMPANY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1828 254 

C. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR 34 SECTIONS BETWEEN 

 LITTLE FALLS AND SENECA FALLS, AUGUST 20, 1828 255 
178 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

D. CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS BETWEEN SENECA FALLS 

 AND POINT OF ROCKS, AND FOR MASONRY WORK BETWEEN 

 LITTLE FALLS AND POINT OF ROCKS, OCTOBER 25, 1828 256 

E. LIST OF ENGINEERS APPOINTED ON THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE 

 CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, NOVEMBER 22, 1828 257 

F. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR WORK ON THE CANAL BETWEEN 

 ROCK CREEK AND LITTLE FALLS, DECEMBER 10, 1828 258 

G. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR LOCKHOUSES, DECEMBER 11, 1828 259 

H. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR RELET LOCKS, MARCH 14, 1829 260 

I. LIST OF LOCK TENDERS AND LOCATION OF LOCKHOUSES 

 FROM LITTLE FALLS TO SENECA FALLS, AUGUST 7, 1830 261 

J. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS FROM POINT OF ROCKS 

 TO HARPERS FERRY, MARCH 14, 1832 262 

K. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS NOS. 113–117 

 (DAMS NOS. 3–4), JUNE 2, 1832 263 

L. LIST OF MASONRY STRUCTURES AND DIFFICULT SECTIONS 

 BETWEEN DAM NO. 5 AND THE CACAPON RIVER LET FOR 

 CONTRACT, JULY 3, 1835 264 

M. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS BETWEEN DAM NO. 5 

 AND THE CACAPON RIVER, FEBRUARY 10, 1836 265 

N. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR 54 SECTIONS AND 4 LOCKS 

 BETWEEN DAM NO. 6 AND CUMBERLAND, SEPTEMBER 27, 1837 266 

O. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR MASONRY WORK BETWEEN 

 DAM NO. 6 AND CUMBERLAND, SEPTEMBER 29, 1837 267 

P. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR AQUEDUCT NO. 9 AND 17 SECTIONS 

 LET UNDER APRIL 2 ORDER OF THE BOARD, MAY 23, 1838 268 

Q. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR LOCKS NOS. 57–67 AND CULVERTS 

 NOS. 204, 210, 219–220, 225, AND 229 LET UNDER APRIL 2 ORDER 

 OF THE BOARD, MAY 24, 1838 269 

R. LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS BETWEEN DAM 

 NO. 6 AND CUMBERLAND, APRIL 11, 1848 270 

S. LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR CULVERTS BETWEEN DAM NO. 6 

 AND CUMBERLAND, APRIL 11, 1848 271 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 179 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

I. GENERAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE CONSTUCTION 

 OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1828–1850

1828 

June 23: President Charles F. Mercer was authorized by the canal board to engage Benjamin 

Wright as chief engineer of the canal company. Additional surveyors and engineers were to be 

hired to aid Wright in preparing an unspecified section of the canal for immediate excavation.1

June 24: The company clerk was ordered to proceed immediately along both shores of the Potomac River between Seneca Creek and Cumberland for the purpose of obtaining land for the location of the canal. He was also authorized to purchase land on which was located materials for the 

construction of the waterway.2

June 24: Since the company stockholders and the citizens of the District of Columbia wanted the 

construction of the canal to commence on July 4, the canal board determined the work with the 

city authorities toward this goal. Following the passage of a resolution by the Washington Board 

of Aldermen and Common Council on July 1, the canal directors agreed to begin the excavation 

of the waterway with appropriate ceremonies on July 4, near the Powder Magazine at the head of 

Little Falls.3

June 26: President Mercer informed the canal board that notice had been served upon him on June 

24 “of an injunction granted by Theodore Bland, Chancellor of the State of Maryland, at the suit 

of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company.” This injunction prevented the construction of the 

canal above Point of Rocks. The canal board, upon learning of this legal ploy by the railroad, resolved to engage Walter Jones, a local attorney, as counsel for the canal company and to hire additional legal counsel in Frederick, Maryland, to look after their interests. Later, on July 10, the 

board voted to retain Francis Scott Key, a lawyer in Georgetown, as an assistant counsel in the 

case.4

June 26: The canal board voted unanimously to adopt the route for the canal surveyed by the U. 

S. Board of Engineers and by James Geddes and Nathan S. Roberts along the north bank of the 

Potomac River below Cumberland.5

July 2: The canal board determined to take immediate steps to secure conveyances of land to the 

canal company in the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania for the commencement of the western 

section of the waterway between Cumberland and Pittsburgh as surveyed by the U. S. Board of 

Engineers in 1824–25. Andrew Stewart, a director of the company, was authorized to effect these 

land conveyances and, if necessary, to initiate condemnation proceedings under the state laws.6

July 4: On this date, groundbreaking ceremonies for the canal were held near the Powder Magazine at the head of Little Falls. To add to the significance of the occasion, the board invited Presi-

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 2. 2 Ibid, 6. 3 Ibid, 5, 9. 4 Ibid, 8, 21. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid, 10. 
180 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

dent John Quincy Adams to attend the ceremonies and to turn the first spadeful of earth. Many 

representatives of official Washington and of the foreign delegations were among the dignitaries 

present at the ceremonies. After breakfasting in Georgetown, the directors and their guests proceeded up the river about five miles in boats especially provided for the occasion. They disembarked at the foot of Little Falls and went directly to the Powder Magazine at the head of the falls. 

 After a number of short speeches, President Adams gave his blessing to the undertaking 

by emphasizing the national character of the work. At the conclusion of his address, he took the 

spade and began to break the ground. Unfortunately, his spade struck a root and his effort was 

foiled. After a second failure, Adams took off his coat, again took up the shovel, and with the 

cheers of the audience finally succeeded in breaking the ground. The members of the official 

party returned to Georgetown where they partook of a lavish dinner. The affair was a huge success, focusing public attention on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal as a national work and overshadowed the inaugural ceremonies of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in Baltimore on the same 

day.7

July 5: The directors authorized President Mercer to employ several principal engineers and a 

number of assistant engineers to survey and prepare for placing under contract the eastern section 

of the canal from Little Falls to Cumberland. 

 The board resolved that public notice should be given that proposals for the excavation, 

embankment and walling of the canal prism between Little Falls and Great Falls would be received at the C&O Canal Company office on August 14–16. Similar notice was also to be given 

that proposals for building from 18 to 20 locks and the masonry structures on this section of the 

canal were to be received October 1–20. 

 Immediate steps were authorized to locate the most convenient points along the Potomac 

River at which suitable stone could be obtained for the construction of the masonry works on the 

waterway. Similar inquires were to be made where suitable lime could be found near the river for 

making hydraulic cement. If necessary, a sum of $20 was to be offered as a reward to anyone who 

could discover large quantities of this material near the line of the canal.8

July 19: Chief Engineer Wright informed the board that the line of the canal from Great Falls to 

Seneca Creek was under survey and would be prepared for letting out contracts for the embankment, excavation and walling of the canal prism August 14–16. Proposals for the five locks and 

other masonry structures on this subdivision would be received October 1–20.9

July 30: After considerable pressure from the stockholders and citizens in Washington had been 

brought to bear on the directors to locate the eastern terminus of the canal in the District of Columbia, the board decided to hold a general meeting in the Washington City Hall on September 

10 to resolve the question. Clerk John P. Ingle was instructed to place weekly notices of the meeting in the Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser, the Baltimore American, the Virginia Free 

and the Washington National Intelligencer. Two weeks later on August 9, the board appointed a 

 

7

 Washington National Intelligencer, July 7, 1828, and Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A 

History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1946), 59–60. See Appendix A for President John 

Quincy Adams' reminiscences of the ground-breaking ceremonies which are excerpted from Memoirs of 

John Quincy Adams, Vol. 8, 49–50. The use of the Fourth of July for the formal inauguration of internal 

improvements projects was a common practice in those years. For example, the Erie Canal began construction on July 4, 1817. 

8 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 11–13. 9 Ibid, 24–25. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 181 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

committee to consult with Attorney General William Wirt and members of Congress concerning 

the position the canal company should take at the general meeting.10

August 2: The board determined that President Mercer should direct the preparation, printing and 

distribution of proposals for the prospective contractors who were ready to bid for the excavation, 

embankment and walling of the canal prism. On August 9, Mercer submitted a printed form of the 

proposals; and on August 18, he submitted a second printed form of the contracts for work on the 

canal.11

July 10: Six newspapers were selected by the board to be used for advertising purposes by the 

canal. The newspapers were: the Washington National Intelligencer, Alexandria Gazette, Virginia Free Press (Charleston), Hagerstown Herald, Cumberland Advocate, and Pennsylvania 

Democrat (Uniontown).12

August 9: The board voted to give public notice that proposals would be received between October 15–20 for the entire section of the canal between Seneca Creek and Point of Rocks, a distance 

of about 27 miles. Bid would be accepted for the sections, socks, aqueduct and culverts on that 

stretch of the line. The forms for the proposals were to be ready for distribution by October 1. The 

letting of these contracts was to be published in all the newspapers of the counties bordering on 

the Potomac and in the Winchester papers, in addition to those that had been selected on July 

10.13 

August 20: After examining 462 proposals submitted by some 100 contractors, the board let contracts for the 34 sections between Little Falls and Seneca Creek. Most of the successful bidders 

had prior experience in the construction of canals in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut 

and Canada, New York and Pennsylvania men secured 18 of the contracts, amounting to 

$160,000 of a total of $218,000 let.14

August 21: The canal company formally accepted the Potomac Company’s surrender and conveyance “of all its rights and privileges.”15

August 23: The board took action to organize its corps of engineers to direct the operations on the 

canal. The Board of Engineers was to consist of Chief Engineer Wright assisted by two directors, 

positions to be offered to Nathan S. Roberts and John Martineau. In addition, President Mercer 

was authorized to employ the number of resident and assistant engineers, rodmen and axemen 

that the Board of Engineers would require. 

 On this date, the Board of Engineers was also directed to survey and estimate the cost of 

building a feeder from the Monocacy River to the line of the canal.16

August 30: Upon the petition of several contractors, the board ordered that building materials and 

provisions for the contractors would be allowed to pass through the old Potomac Company locks 

 

10 Ibid, 31–32, 35–37. 11 Ibid, 34, 35, 40. 12 Ibid, 22. 13 Ibid, 37–38. 14 Ibid, 41–43, and Sanderlin, The Great National project, 67–68. 15 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 43–44. 16 Ibid, 47–49, 54–55. Roberts and Martineau later accepted the positions offered to them. 
182 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

at Little Falls and Great Falls without payment of toll charges. The move was made to hasten 

construction and lessen the impact of rising building costs. 

 The directors also instructed the Board of Engineers to construct a road or pathway along 

the line of the canal at the expense of the company. 

 Phineas Janney, a director of the company, was appointed to obtain Thomas Fairfax’s 

consent for the construction of a saw mill at Great Falls for the use of the company. On September 3, Janney reported that Fairfax had given his consent.17

September 3: The canal company adopted an official seal commemorating the purposes of the 

waterway. Designed by Benjamin Chambers, the brass seal was to be impressed on all contracts 

of the company accompanied by the signature of the president or the director acting in his place.18

September 10: On this date, a general meeting of the stockholders of the canal company convened 

to determine the location of the eastern terminus of the waterway. President Mercer, on behalf of 

the directors, recommended to the stockholders that if Attorney General Wirt found that the company charter gave the authority for such action that the canal be extended from Little Falls to 

Rock Creek along the line surveyed by Wright and Martineau in August. When the Corporation 

of Washington built a basin at the mouth of Tiber Creek, the company would extend the canal to 

that point unless the corporation wished to construct the extension. A request would be made to 

Congress to aid the company in extending the canal to the Navy Yard and to Alexandria via an 

aqueduct across the Potomac, the northern abutment of which would be built by the company. 

The stockholders promptly agreed to the recommendation as it offered a compromise between 

those who desired the eastern terminus at Little Falls and those who wanted the company to extend its works to the Eastern Branch (Anacostia River).19

September 19: The board passed five resolutions relative to the construction of the canal: (1) each 

lock chamber was to be 15 feet wide in the clear so they would correspond with the locks on the 

canals in New York, Ohio and Western Pennsylvania; (2) the canal between its eastern terminus 

and the Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry was to be six feet deep; (3) suitable places were to be 

selected for the immediate construction of as many lock-keepers’ houses along the line of the canal as were needed by the Corps of Engineers in superintending its construction; (4) when the 

specifications for the October lettings were prepared, they were to be printed and distributed 

among the prospective contractors; and (5) the Board of Engineers was directed to locate and 

prepare for contract the portion of the canal between Little Falls and Rock Creek, including the 

basin at the latter location. As a part of this operation, the engineers were to report the plan and 

estimate of a road to replace the public highway which would be destroyed by the construction of 

this section of the canal.20

September 27: The board determined that proposals be received at the next letting for double and 

single locks and that the directors retain the alternative of adopting either plan. The board of en-

 

17 Ibid, pp.53–54, 56–67. This saw mill was located at Matildaville on the Virginia side of the river and was 

contracted to William Apsey. See Ibid, B, 452; and Apsey to Mercer, June 17 and July 18, 1829, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. 

18 Ibid, 63–64. For a description of the seal, see Appendix B. 

19 Ibid, 76–78; Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 23–32; Proceedings of the President and Directors of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and of the Corporations of Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria, in 

Relation to the Location of the Eastern Termination of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Washington, 1828), 

1–15. 

20 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 80–82. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 183 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

gineers was ordered to report on the relative cost and advantages of building single and double 

locks on the canal from its eastern terminus to the Shenandoah. 

 Walter Smith, one of the company directors, was authorized to speed the commencement 

of operations on the canal by making private contracts for the satisfaction of landowners through 

whose property the line of the canal would pass between Rock Creek and Seneca Creek. When he 

could not arrive at an agreement with the proprietor, he was to submit the case to outside arbitration. Where private contracts could be consummated by purchasing outright the right of the 

owner in the lot or part of the lot of the tract to be acquired, he was to do so for the benefit of the 

company. 

 The directors voted to appoint a superintendent of stone work and a superintendent of 

wood work to each division of the canal. These individuals would be treated as engineers and 

would work under the direction of the board of engineers. 

 President Mercer was instructed to have the superintendent of wood work construct a saw 

mill at Matildaville near the Great Falls on the Virginia side of the Potomac. The saw mill was to 

supply locust timber for the lock gates and scantling and plank to the contractors as needed during 

the construction of the waterway.21

October 16: Attorney General William Wirt submitted to President Mercer his legal opinion on 

the question of whether the canal company’s charter permitted the extension of the waterway to 

Rock Creek. According to his understanding of the legislative acts of Virginia and Maryland and 

the company charter, the precise location of the canal’s eastern termination was not defined. 

However, since the documents specified that the terminus of the canal was to be at tidewater in 

the District of Columbia, the company could legally locate its terminus anywhere in the District.22

October 18: The directors resolved that the portion of the canal between Rock Creek and Little 

Falls be placed under contract when Chief Engineer Wright reported that the company engineers 

had completed their surveys. The Seneca and Monocacy feeders and Dams Nos. 1 and 2 also 

were to be let for contract at his discretion. The time for this letting was subsequently fixed by 

Wright for December 4.23

October 21–25: After traveling up the canal from Georgetown and holding a three-day meeting at 

Leesburg, Virginia, President Mercer and the board of directors let 50 sections of the line from 

Seneca Creek to Point of Rocks and much of the masonry work between Little Falls and Point of 

Rocks. There were 1,308 proposals for these contracts. The work that was let included Sections 

Nos. 35–84, Locks Nos. 5–27, Aqueduct No. 1 and Culverts Nos. 10–12 and 17.24

October 31: The board accepted a proposal by Hovey and Hitchcock to construct Aqueduct No. 2

across the Monocacy.25

November 15: As there was an apparent labor shortage in the Potomac Valley, the board voted 

to begin advertising its need for workers in Europe. 

 

21 Ibid, 82–84. 22 Ibid, 89. 23 Ibid, 92. 24 Ibid, 93–98; and Sanderlin, The Great National project, 68. See Appendix D for a list of the contractors. 25 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 100. 
184 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

 The directors determined to send a proposal to the authorities in Frederick that the company would convert the contemplated Monocacy feeder into a navigable canal provided the city 

and county would build an extension to the town. 

 The board decided that it was expedient to substitute ferries for bridges and fords across 

the canal. A petition was to be drawn up and presented to the Maryland legislature to authorize 

such substitution wherever the canal passed through the territory of that State. To achieve this 

goal with the least inconvenience to the landowners along the Potomac, the board wanted the 

State to grant it authority to acquire all the property between the canal and the river.26

November 22: The board organized the canal line and made assignments of the engineers to the 

administrative divisions of the canal. The directors divided the entire canal into three parts: eastern, middle and western. Inasmuch as the chapter required that construction begin to the east, that 

leg of the canal was subdivided into three parts of 120 sections each. The average section was 

half a mile in length, and twenty sections generally formed a residency. 

 A list of rules and regulations to govern the administration of the engineering corps was 

adopted and published. The engineer corps was divided into five grades: chief engineer, board of 

engineers, resident engineers, assistant engineers and rodmen. The board of engineers consisted 

of three members, each of whom also had charge of one division of the eastern section. The engineer in charge of the first division was automatically chief engineer.27

November 22: The board determined to stimulate the pride of the contractors in their work on 

the canal by announcing that rewards were to be given for quality construction. The rewards to be 

issued were as follows: (1) a silver cup valued at $50 for the best constructed lock on the first division completed within the specified time limit of the contracts; (2) a silver medal valued at $10 

for the best constructed culvert of any letting; (3) a silver medal valued at $20 for the best portion 

of slope or vertical walling consisting of at least 500 perches of stone on a residency; (4) a silver 

medal valued at $30 for the best executed section of the first division; (5) a silver medal valued at 

$20 for the first section to be completed in any given letting; and (6) a silver medal valued at $10 

for the greatest sum of common excavation done on any section in a given month.28

November 22: President Mercer informed the board that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad had 

advertised to contract for the construction of their line across the right-of-way of the canal at 

Point of Rocks. Accordingly, the directors authorized him to apply for an injunction to prevent 

any further proceedings in the contemplated letting of such contracts. Mercer was also given 

permission to employ former Attorney General William Wirt as an attorney of the company to 

assist Walter Jones in conducting the legal suits between the two companies.29

November 29: Chief Engineer Wright submitted specifications for the pier at the Rock Creek 

Basin, the dams, the locks and the bridges. Accordingly, Clerk Ingle was ordered to print these 

documents for distribution.30

 

26 Ibid, 104–105. Wilson M. C. Fairfax and Alfred Cruger were directed to survey all the land between the 

projected canal line and the river from Georgetown to Harpers Ferry preparatory to the land acquisition 

program. 

27 First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., in Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 48; and Proceedings of the 

President and Board of Directors, A, 107–115. See Appendix E for a list of the engineers on the first division of the canal. 

28 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 115–116. 

29 Ibid, 117. 30 Ibid, 119. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 185 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

November 29: When the board received word that the authorities at Frederick would not build a 

navigable canal to the contemplated feeder on the Monocacy River, they resolved to drop plans 

temporarily for the proposed feeder.31

December 3: The board agreed to advertise for the delivery to the company’s saw mill at Great 

Falls of a large quantity of rough timber. The timber was to be used for sawed post and rail fences 

and for the posts and crossbars of the lock gates.32

December 10: After considering a number of proposals at the Engineer’s Office in Georgetown, 

the board let contracts for the five miles between Rock Creek and Little Falls. This work included 

Sections A–H, Locks Nos. 1–4, Dams Nos. 1–2, bridges Nos. 1–2, seven culverts, and the pier, 

waste weir and tide lock at the Rock Creek Basin33. 

December 11: Chief Engineer Wright reported to the board on the number and location of the 

lockkeepers’ houses necessary for the accommodation of the Resident Engineers. The board then 

accepted the bids for 12 lockhouses.34

1829 

January 7: The board authorized President Mercer to commence advertisements in Virginia for 

the purpose of attracting laborers to the canal.35

January 21: The directors resolved to receive proposals for the supply of locust timber for the 

lock gates.36

January 31: To alleviate the continuing labor shortage along the line of the canal, the board authorized President Mercer to make an arrangement with Henry Richards, a Welshman formerly 

employed on the Erie and Chesapeake and Delaware Canals, to serve as the agent of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in Great Britain and to secure laborers to work on the project. The 

board also continued to negotiate for workers from the British Isles through James Maury, the 

American consul at Liverpool. On March 6, an agreement was made with Richards, and he was 

soon sent to England to recruit laborers in cooperation with Maury.37

March 6: Because of the continuing intransigence of many landowners along the line of the canal 

to surrender their properties to the company, the board ordered that condemnation proceedings be 

initiated to acquire the necessary land for the canal’s right-of-way between Rock Creek and Point 

of Rocks. A jury was to be called for this purpose on March 24.38

 

31 Ibid, 119. 32 Ibid, 123. 33 Ibid, 127. See Appendix F for a list of the contractors for this work. 34 Ibid, 129. See Appendix G for a list of the contractors for the lockhouses. 35 Ibid, 140. 36 Ibid, 146. 37 Ibid, 153, 175; Mercer to Maury, March 7 and July 8, 1829 and Mercer to Richards, July 8, 1829, Ltrs. 

Sent, C&O Co. 

38 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 175. 
186 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

March 14: Earlier on February 28, President Mercer had informed the directors that the contracts 

for Locks Nos. 5–8; 12; 15–18; 19–20; 23–24 and 26 had been abandoned. Accordingly, the 

board accepted new proposals to construct the locks, and on March 14, declared new contracts. 

The guard lock and feeder at Seneca Falls also were contracted to the firm of Holdsworth and 

Isherwood.39

March 17: The directors authorized Inspector of Masonry Alexander B. McFarland to make a 

contract with Boteler and Reynolds, who owned the Potomac Mills at Shepherdstown, for the 

delivery of 50,000 bushels of water lime to the canal works at 17 cents per bushel. Stone of a 

suitable quality for hydraulic lime had been discovered near Shepherdstown, on the Virginia side 

of the river, early in 1828, and a mill and kiln had been erected to grind and burn the lime.40

March 18: At a special meeting of the board, President Mercer announced that a suit brought by 

John Mason et al. of Georgetown to prevent the extension of the canal through Georgetown had 

been dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the work on the canal between Little Falls and 

Rock Creek had been suspended pending the outcome of the suit, work on this portion of the waterway was to be rushed to completion.41

March 18: The directors decided that the plan of the canal should be changed so “as to form a 

berm bank...not exceeding forty feet in width” wherever the Chief Engineer recommended such a 

modification. Later on April 22, the board directed that the width of the canal prism be reduced in 

order to add six feet to the breadth of the berm bank between Georgetown and Little Falls. This 

berm was to serve as a new roadway between these two points, replacing the road which had been 

destroyed by the line of the canal.42

March 18: The board accepted the proposal submitted by James O’Brien for the construction of 

Lockhouse No. 6.43

April 4: As early as the spring of 1829, the company realized that the rising construction costs 

would jeopardize the completion of its work. To offset this danger and to increase the subscriptions to the level necessary to finish the canal, the board, on April 4, constituted Richard Rush as 

the agent of the company to open books in Europe to receive subscriptions up to $6,000,000 for 

the eastern section and $10,000,000 for the entire canal.44

April 8: Inspector of Masonry McFarland informed the board that he had discovered a blue hydrate of lime about 100 yards from the Potomac Mills in Shepherdstown. Because he considered 

this stone to be superior to that for which the company had contracted, the board ordered him to 

extend the existing contract with Boteler and Reynolds to 100,000 bushels of hydraulic cement 

using the blue stone.45

 

39 Ibid, 178–179. See Appendix H for a list of the contractors for the relet locks. The locks were relet generally at prices 25 percent above those in the original contracts. 40 Ibid, 181; and Boteler to Mercer, January 14 and 22, 1828, in U.S. , Congress, House, Committee on 

Roads and Canals, Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, H. Report 141, 20th Congress, 1st Session, 1828, Appendix 4, 38–39. 

41 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 182. 42 Ibid, 183–184, 204, 215. John W. Baker built the new road along Sections C. F. 43 Ibid, 186–187. 44 Ibid, 190–191, and First Annual report (1829), C&O Co., in Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 50. 45 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 195–196. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 187 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

April 8: By the early spring of 1829, many contractors were facing financial hardship resulting 

from the rising cost of construction materials and labor. To prevent the bankruptcy of capable 

contractors who were willing to continue their operations, the board authorized President Mercer 

to provide additional compensation to them. This authority was given at first only for the lock 

contractors but was later extended to those on the aqueducts and sections.46

April 25: The board was informed that the local jury had completed the condemnation of land 

required for the construction of the canal through Georgetown to the Montgomery County line at 

a sum of $30,000. The board accepted the verdicts and appropriated the funds. The board also 

decided to sell the buildings and other improvements on the line of the canal in Georgetown at a 

public sale after five-days notice had been given in the Georgetown Columbian.

47

April 25: Apparently the Potomac Mills were not supplying the canal works with sufficient quantities of water lime, because on this date, Chief Engineer Wright was ordered to purchase 4,000 

bushels “of the best New York water lime.”48

April 29: Despite delays caused by the legal dispute with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the canal board began early preparations to extend their line up the Potomac Valley above Point of 

Rocks. On this date, Resident Engineer Alfred Cruger submitted to the board his plans, profiles 

and field notes from his recent survey of the line between Point of Rocks and Williamsport.49

May 20: The directors ordered the company engineers to build a berm bank or roadway 30 feet 

wide on each side of Rock Creek Basin.50

May 20: President Mercer was authorized to engage the services of 300 stonecutters and masons 

from Europe. He was also directed to make loans to the contractors to enable them to transport 

additional stonecutters and masons from other parts of the United States. Later, on June 10, he 

was instructed to provide for the importation of common laborers from Europe.51

June 1: The President and directors informed the canal company stockholders that the line of the 

canal between Rock Creek and Point of Rocks was under contract. This 48–mile distance included 92 sections, two aqueducts, about 60 culverts, two dams, 27 locks, 17 lockhouses and several basins. The contractors had commenced operations on 73 sections prior to May 1 and on the 

remaining sections after that date. Section No. 78, the first to be completed, had been constructed 

between January 15 and May 6. The previous winter had been so severe that the contractors who 

had begun construction after the August letting were no further ahead in their operations than 

those who had elected to begin after the arrival of spring. The contractors for the masonry works 

were generally further behind on their operations than were those for the excavation. The board 

had enlarged the general dimensions of the canal to 60 feet wide at the surface, 42 feet wide at the 

bottom, and six feet in depth to improve the course of the waterway at little additional cost. The 

enlarged dimensions, which were to apply to the canal between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry, 

 

46 Ibid, 196, 202, 205. 47 Ibid, 209. 48 Ibid, 209. 

49 Ibid, 213. 50 Ibid, 228. 51 Ibid, 226, 284. 
188 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

had been prompted partially by the conditions attached to the Congressional subscription to canal 

company stock and partially by the intention of the board to provide water power to Georgetown 

manufacturers.52

June 6: At the urging of Alexander B. McFarland, the newly appointed Superintendent of Cement 

at Shepherdstown, the board ordered that a cement house be built near the Potomac Mills to protect the hydraulic lime until it was needed on the canal. The sum of $350 was appropriated for 

this purpose.53

June 8: The directors ordered Chief Engineer Wright to supply the contractors on the first and 

second residencies with adequate supplies of Roman cement. Thomaston lime was to be used as a 

cement for backing. These arrangements were to last until sufficient quantities of good water lime 

could be procured from Shepherdstown.54

June 10: The board authorized the purchase of locust and heart pine for the construction of lock 

gates. Nathaniel Billington’s proposal for locust timber was accepted at 39 cents per cubic foot, 

and James Campbell’s proposal to supply best heart pine in 2-inch plank was approved at $1.621⁄2 

per 100 feet, board measure.55

July 1: It was reported to the board that Messrs. R. and H. Fowler of New York, subcontractors 

under Hurd, Canfield & Co., had completed Section No. 78. As this was the first section to be 

completed on the canal, the Fowlers were entitled to a $20 silver medal. However, at their request, the board gave them $20 in cash in lieu of the medal.56

July 15: The problems caused by the continuing labor shortage in the Potomac Valley and by the 

stalemated legal dispute with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad were much in evidence at the 

board’s meeting on this date. President Mercer was directed to pay the expense of transporting 

workers from New York to the line of the canal. However, when Mercer recommended the purchase of 100 slaves who were to be instructed in the art of stonecutting and masonry, the board 

refused to support him. As a result of the work already executed and of the controversy with the 

railroad, the directors reduced the number of residencies from five to four and determined to terminate the services of an unspecified number of engineers.57

August 5: Upon the recommendation of Chief Engineer Wright, the board approved the use of 

cast iron paddle gates for the locks. Patented by John F. King of Washington, the lower lock gates 

were each to have two paddles, 2 feet by 18 inches and weighing about 160 to 180 pounds.58

 The board was informed by Inspector of Masonry Robert Leckie that James O’Brien recently had completed Lockhouse No. 5. This was the first such structure on the canal to be fin-

 

52 First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., in Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 242–

244; 256–257; 267–268. 

53 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 276. 54 Ibid, 278. Two days later, the directors purchased 50 casks of New York water cement already in 

Georgetown and ordered 200 more for immediate delivery. 

55 Ibid, 284. 56 Ibid, 298. 57 Ibid, 308–310; 363. 58 Ibid, 318; Wright to President and Directors, July 30, 1829; and King to President and Directors, August 

7, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. Earlier, the plan for the lower lock gates consisted of six wooden paddle 

gates opening from lateral culverts. Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 19. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 189 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

ished. According to Leckie, O’Brien was an excellent stone mason and had made one of the best 

stone jobs on the entire line.59

 The board directed Inspector of Masonry Leckie to provide for the construction of suitable buildings along the line of the canal for storing cement.60

August 19: The directors appointed a committee to draw up a contract with O. H. Dibble for excavating and walling the Rock Creek Basin. After several weeks of negotiations, the signed contract was presented to the board and was promptly approved.61

August 26: It was reported to the board that work all along the line of construction was halted 

because of sickness. Because many of the engineers and contractors were away from the canal, 

the board was unable to push the work.62

September 11: Plagued by the late summer sickness and the rapidly rising cost of construction 

materials, many contractors had suspended their operations. In an effort to get the work resumed, 

the board voted to inform the contractors that it would consider as abandoned all works not under 

operation by October 5.63

September 24: The first flood to affect construction of the canal occurred in early August. The 

areas hardest hit by the freshet were Little Falls, Great Falls and Seneca. The contracts had not 

provided for additional compensation to cover damages from flooding during construction, the 

contractors began requesting supplemental aid to cover their losses.64

September 25: President Mercer informed the board that he had let the contracts for all the culverts, “except such as were before specially let,” to two firms. The culverts below Seneca Creek 

were contracted to McCord & Mowry, while those above that point were let to Albert Hovey.65

September 29: C. K. Gardner of the U. S. Post Office Department notified President Mercer that 

seven post offices had been established along the canal during the winter of 1828–1829 for the 

convenience of canal officials and contractors. It is apparent that this had been accomplished after 

the canal company had put pressure on the postal service to do so. The canal company evidently 

felt that by providing mail service along the line of construction, faster and more effective communication could be had, which in turn would facilitate construction. The seven locations were as 

follows: Powder Magazine at Little Falls, Bear Island, Clementon, Seneca Mills, Conrad’s Ferry, 

Mouth of Monocacy and Catoctin. Additional post offices would be established at other locations 

 

59 O'Brien to President and Directors, August 5, 1829; and Leckie to president and Directors, August 2, 

1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

60 Proceedings of the President Board of Directors, A, 318–319. 61 Ibid, 321, 331. 62 Ibid, 335. 63 Ibid, 346. An inspection tour by President Mercer in mid-September revealed that there were at work on 

the canal about 1,600 hands, the lowest number of laborers since the commencement of construction. The 

greatest number of workers was on the stretch between Little Falls and Georgetown, where the epidemic 

had not spread. The area most affected by the spread of the disease was the line between Seneca and Edward's Ferry. Ibid, 353. 64 Holdsworth and Isherwood to president and Directors, September 24, 1829, and Wright to Mercer, October 3, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 320–321. 65 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 357. 
190 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

if they were at least four miles apart. Beginning immediately, the mail was to be delivered twice 

daily along the canal by horseback.66

October 6: Throughout the fall, the problems associated with importing foreign workers troubled 

the canal company. On October 6, the board directed Clerk Ingle to arrange for the release from 

prison of those imported laborers who had been incarcerated as “absconding servants” on the 

condition that they promised to return to the canal works. The following week on October 12, the 

directors learned that many of the imported laborers had run away and gained employment with 

the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, while others had fled to Baltimore to seek the protection of the 

law. On October 21, Dr. John Little, a Trustee of the Poor in Georgetown, informed the board that 

126 workmen from the canal had come destitute and sick to that town. Later, in early November, 

the company caught up with many of the deserters and prosecuted them as runaways and debtors.67

November 7: Chief Engineer Wright submitted a plan for waste weirs along with a list of the 

number to be built below Seneca Creek. The board approved his report and ordered Clerk Ingle to 

advertise on the company’s office door for the letting of the necessary contracts.68

1830 

January 13 

The directors notified the contractors on the line from Rock Creek to Seneca that their contracts 

had expired on December 31. However, as satisfactory progress had been made on most of the 

works, they agreed to set June 1 as the date when all work should be completed to Seneca Falls. 

The exceptions to this general extension were the heavy embankments requiring time to settle and 

the culverts. The former were to be completed by May 15 and the latter by April 15. Each contractor would be required to augment his work force to insure that his work would be finished 

within the specified time.69

January 29: The board ordered that a contract be negotiated with Boteler and Reynolds for the 

supply of 60,000 bushels of Shepherdstown cement in addition to the quantity previously authorized. All of the cement was to be delivered prior to September 1. While the terms of the contract 

would be the same as earlier ones, the company would pay an additional one cent per bushel for 

the lime that was delivered before June 1.70

January 29: President Mercer and Chief Engineer Wright were authorized to contract for the construction of waste weirs between Georgetown and Seneca Creek.71

 

66 Gardner to Mercer, September 29, 1829, and Nelson to Mercer, September 28, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O 

Co. Later on February 19, 1930, two more post offices were established at Section No. 8 and Edward's 

Ferry. 

67 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 368, 374, 377–381, 389; Wirt to Ingle, October 

28 and November 4, 1829; and Little to President and Directors, October 13, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; 

and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 74–78. 68 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 390. 69 Ibid, B, 8–9. 70 Ibid, 16–17. 71 Ibid, 18. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 191 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

February 3: The board directed President Mercer to contract with Brackett and Guy for the purchase of 40,000 bushels of water lime at 20 cents per bushel of 70 pounds. The cement was to be 

delivered by June 1 from their mill on the manor of Charles Carroll of Carrollton at Tuscarora 

near the Monocacy River.72

February 5: The directors ordered that public notice be given that bids for the construction of the 

culverts between Seneca and Point of Rocks and of Lock No. 25 would be accepted until February 24. The resident engineers were instructed to report those sections above Seneca that had been 

abandoned and to arrange for their reletting as soon as possible.73

February 12: Apparently, the canal company was still having difficulty in acquiring a sufficient 

supply of hydraulic lime, for on this date Clerk Ingle was instructed to advertise for the purchase 

of 20,000 bushels of New York water cement to be delivered at Georgetown in April.74

February 19: President Mercer was authorized to make a contract for raising the upper chamber 

and gates of the Old Potomac Company locks at Little Falls to adapt them for use with the increased depth on the new canal. The Little Falls Skirting Canal, which had been converted into a 

feeder for the Chesapeake & Ohio, had been four feet deep. To insure the new canal of an adequate supply of water, the old canal had been increased to a depth of six feet.75

March 3: Chief Engineer Wright was authorized to use Bradford Seymour’s patent cast iron lattice gates for one of the locks as an experiment. Already in use on the Erie, Pennsylvania and 

Ohio Canals, the gates were later installed in the lower gates of Locks Nos. 26–27.76

May 31: The board ordered Chief Engineer Wright to prepare an estimate and specification for 

the northern abutment of the Alexandria Aqueduct prior to making a contract for its construction. 

Later on October 23, he submitted a design for the abutment to the directors. At that time, they 

instructed him to make a further study of its cost and to determine the expediency of immediate 

construction.77

June 7: The president and directors reported to the second annual meeting of the stockholders that 

they expected to bring into use “twenty of the new locks, and the entire canal, from Seneca to the 

old locks below Little Falls, by the next fourth of July.” Although the original intention had been 

to complete the section by December 31, 1829, the company officials were encouraged that the 

works had been completed in “little more than eighteen months from the actual commencement” 

of the canal. 

 This good news was counterbalanced by the continuing controversy with the Baltimore & 

Ohio Railroad. After failing to quash the injunction in legal proceedings at Annapolis in August,

1829, the board had reduced the number of engineers and suspended the operations above Seneca, 

except for those on Aqueducts Nos. 1 and 2 and several difficult sections. They had made provision to relet the contracts for those masonry works above Seneca that had been abandoned but 

 

72 Ibid, 21. The contract was confirmed on February 19. Later on June 16, the directors discontinued this 

contract until the quality of the cement could be improved. 

73 Ibid, 23. 74 Ibid, 25. 75 Ibid, 27. 76 Ibid, 34–35. 77 Ibid, 87, 208. 
192 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

with the stipulation that no cement would be supplied until the work below Seneca was finished.78

June 12: William Archer, who had been appointed by the stockholders to report on the progress 

of the construction in Georgetown, stated that work there was advancing. The Rock Creek Basin 

was progressing to rapid completion under the supervision of Chief Engineer Wright. The locks 

and bridges in Georgetown were nearly done as was the portion of the canal between the Foundry 

and the Market House. A short section of the canal above Georgetown had been filled with water, 

and the embankments had withstood the pressure of the water very well.79

June 25: After examining the canal from Little Falls to Seneca Creek, the directors determined 

not to water the canal on July 4 as had been discussed earlier except for certain sections that had 

been completed. Since the work was nearly finished on this section, the contractors were ordered 

to have their operations done by August 1. Two days earlier, the board extended the time for 

completion of the Georgetown level to September 25.80

July 24: The board authorized President Mercer to enlarge the lockkeepers’ houses at Locks Nos. 

20 and 23, provided the cost of the former did not exceed $1,300 and that of the latter $1,000. 

The company’s shanties near Little Falls were to be taken down and the materials used to enclose 

the grounds around the two lockhouses.81

August 7: The directors ordered the engineers to advise the contractors that water would be admitted into the canal between Dams Nos. 1 and 2 on September 25. At the same time, lockkeepers 

were appointed for this portion of the canal.82

August 18: Clerk Ingle reported to the board that he had directed W. W. Fenlon to contract with 

Paterson, Wolcott & to paint some of the completed lock gates for the sum of $25 per lock.83

August 21: When the Alexandria Canal Company requested the services of an engineer to survey 

the route of its waterway, the board recommended that Chief Engineer Wright perform this job. 

Soon after submitting a design for the northern abutment of the Potomac Aqueduct on October 

23, Wright left the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and moved to New York City. On November 20, 

the directors selected Nathan S. Roberts to aid in the location of the Alexandria Canal whenever 

his services were needed.84

August 30: Benjamin Wright tendered his resignation from the office of chief engineer to become 

effective October 1. His stated reason for resigning was due to the fact that difficulties with the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad would hold up active construction operations above Seneca for the 

foreseeable future. The board accepted his resignation and agreed to abolish the position of chief 

 

78 Second Annual Report (1830), C&O Co., in Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 97–

98. 

79 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 119–121. 80 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 128–130. 81 Ibid, 148. 82 Ibid, 156–159. See Appendix I for a list of the lockkeepers and the location of the lockhouses. 83 Fenlon to Ingle, August 18, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. This price covered the cost of two common 

coats of paint. 

84 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 167, 208, 224. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 193 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

engineer when Section A, the Rock Creek Basin and Georgetown tidelock were completed.85

Other engineering positions were to be eliminated also. After that time, there would be only two 

residencies covering the line between Georgetown and Point of Rocks: the first would extend 

from the tide lock to Section No. 40, and the second thence to Point of Rocks. The office of the 

first resident engineer, Thomas F. Purcell, would be near Seneca Creek, while the office of the 

second resident engineer, Daniel Van Slyke, who would double as superintendent of the canal, 

would be located near the mouth of the Monocacy River.86

September 25: The board determined that “suitable provision be made for passing horses and foot 

passengers across the locks from the towing path to the lockkeepers’ houses in such manner as 

not to obstruct the navigation of the canal.” The bridge across the canal at Little Falls was to be 

elevated so as not to hinder canal navigation.87

October 2: Before the canal was opened to regular navigation, experiments were made to test its 

capability of holding water and handling boats. Thus, the first recorded boat passed from Little 

Falls to Seneca on October 1. That night, a breach occurred in an embankment near the lower end 

of Section No. 15. Accordingly, the board ordered the construction of a wall, three feet high and 

eighteen inches thick, on the river side of the high embankment on Sections Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 

18. The experiment also revealed the need for flumes around the locks, the directors instructed 

Superintendent Van Slyke to construct a flume around one lock to test its ability to handle the 

flow of water.88

November 26: In a supplementary report to the company stockholders, President Mercer observed 

that numerous boats had navigated the distance between Dams Nos. 1 and 2. Work on the 

Georgetown level was nearly done, with only a little masonry and embanking remaining to be 

done. Only several months’ work would complete the canal to Point of Rocks with the exception 

of Aqueducts Nos. 1 and 2, Lock No. 24, and Dam No. 2. These structures would require from six 

to 12 months of labor. To permit navigation to Harpers Ferry, the board was considering a plan to 

feed the canal at Point of Rocks and from thence extend a slackwater navigation to the Shenandoah River.89

1831 

January 4: Apparently, the canal was still only in partial use, for on this date, the board decided to 

suspend navigation on the canal until February 15 so that work on Sections Nos. 13 and 14 could 

be completed.90

March 19: Superintendent Van Slyke on April 2 informed Mercer that the canal between Little 

Falls and Seneca Falls had been opened to navigation on this date. During the first two weeks of 

navigation, the canal had been thronged with boats. Because it was difficult to preserve order 

among the boatmen, he recommended that navigation regulations be adopted and enforced. Later, 

on July 16, a list of regulations was drawn up and published.91

 

85 Ibid, 170. 86 Ibid, 171–174. Wright finally left the service of the company on November 13. 87 Ibid, 189. 88 Ibid, 191–192; and Van Slyke to President and Directors, October 2, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

89 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 231–135. 

90 Ibid, 250 

91 Van Slyke to Mercer, April 2, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
194 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

April 1: When Nathan S. Roberts asked for a temporary leave of absence, the board instructed 

President Mercer to inform him that the legal obstructions to the extension of the canal above 

Point of Rocks made it necessary for them to abolish his engineering position on the second division of the waterway.92

April 29: Prior to the introduction of water in the canal, the practice of the canal company had 

been to manure the banks and plant grass and trees on them. It was thought that these practices 

gave the banks greater strength and stability. On this date, the board ordered the suspension of 

these activities on the unfinished line above Seneca. Apparently, investigation of the operable 

waterway below that point had revealed the destructive tendencies of these earlier methods.93

May 6: President Mercer was authorized to request from the Secretary of War that several members of the U. S. Topographical Engineers examine the canal and report on its present condition, 

the adequacy of its plan, and the execution of its construction. Later on May 20, Colonel John J. 

Abert informed Mercer that he and Colonel James Kearney would undertake the examination in 

June.94

May 27: Following an inspection tour of the canal from Georgetown to Point of Rocks by the directors, they made several decisions affecting the lock bridges, the lock gates and the lock flumes. 

A pivot bridge for wagons and carriages was to be built over Lock No. 13, and broad planks were 

to be substituted for the plank and timber that had been thrown across the locks so as to enable 

the lockkeepers to discharge their duties more promptly. As an experiment in facilitating the filling of the locks, a small sluice gate operated by a lever was to be constructed around all the locks; 

the flumes were to be as far from the lock chamber as practicable, their bottoms were to be five 

feet above the bottom of the canal, and each was to have sills and gates.95

June 6: The president and directors reported to the third annual meeting of the company stockholders that early in the spring the navigation had been extended one mile below Little Falls and 

more recently one mile further to within sight of Georgetown. A packet boat carrying United 

States mail was already making daily trips to Seneca from where two public stage lines took the 

mail and passengers to Leesburg, Virginia via Edward’s Ferry. The canal works in Georgetown 

were nearly completed, and it was anticipated that boats would pass through the tide lock by July 

4. 

 The president and directors gave the stockholders a brief resume of the state of the unfinished line of the canal above Seneca. Locks Nos. 24 and 25 were nearly completed while the 

foundations of Locks Nos. 26 and 27 had been laid. Aqueduct No. 1 was nearing completion, but 

Aqueduct No. 2 which had been let to three different contractors was not expected to be finished 

until November. The culverts were in varying stages of construction, but all of them were expected to be finished by mid-September. Most of the sections were done, and the remainder could 

be completed within 90 days. 

 

92 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 295. 

93 Ibid, 309. 

94 Ibid, 311, 319. 

95 Ibid, 324–325. Later on June 10, the board ordered that pivot bridges be constructed over Locks Nos. 26 

and 27 and that ferries be provided in all other places where the company had been bound by agreement or 

by jury verdict to do so. It had been the original intention of the board to build as few bridges as possible 

and to provide access across the canal by ferries. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 195 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

 Because the controversy with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad still prevented construction 

above Point of Rocks, three plans had been advanced for watering the 26 miles above Seneca. 

The plans, none of which had yet been adopted, included the use of the Monocacy River as a 

feeder, the construction of a dam below Point of Rocks, and the combined introduction of the 

Tuscarora, Little Monocacy and several lesser streams into the canal as feeders.96

June 10: The board took measures to protect the recently completed embankments from slippage. 

Where the embankments showed tendencies of washing, the directors ordered that back drains be 

constructed to catty off the water from the towpath and berm. In addition, the directors, reversing 

an earlier stand, voted to cover the bank slopes with manure or enriched soil and plant grass seed 

on the embankments.97

June 11: The directors authorized Clerk Ingle to arrange for the printing of 500 copies of the Albert and Kearney report on their recent examination of the canal. In their investigation of the canal, the two topographical engineers commented favorably upon the plan and the construction of 

the canal. The report is perhaps the earliest comprehensive examination of the engineering technology employed in the design and construction of the waterway. On this date, Abert was elected 

to a one-year term as a director of the canal company, thereby providing the company with the 

services of a well-known engineer.98

July 16: President Mercer submitted to the board the “Regulations for Navigating the Canal.” After reviewing the rules, the directors approved them and ordered them to be printed and distributed. Six days later, the board formally announced that the canal “between the Seneca feeder and 

the wooden stock next above the foundry and the bridges and roadways within that distance, be 

declared open and free for trade and passing, subject to the Regulations of the Company.”99

July 25: The canal company stockholders passed the following resolution relative to the extension 

of their works from the Rock Creek Basin to the mouth of Tiber Creek: 

Whereas the Corporation of Washington have purchased the Washington Canal and have 

advertised for proposals for excavating and completing the same, and whereas that part of 

said canal, from the mouth of the Tiber to 6th Street West is to form a basin for the reception of the waters of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal; Therefore Resolved, That the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, be instructed to commence that part of the said Canal extending from the Basin at Rock Creek to the mouth of 

the Tiber to prosecute the same simultaneously with the work on said basin, provided the 

said President and Directors shall be satisfied upon a full consideration of all circumstances, be of opinion, that is properly chargeable to the said Corporation.100

August 12: Resident Engineer Purcell was directed to survey and locate the extension of the canal 

from the Rock Creek Basin to Tiber Creek. The extension was to be forty feet wide at the surface 

and six feet deep and its sides were to be dry-walled.101

 

96 Third Annual Report (1831), C&O Co., 334–339. 97 Ibid, 383–384. 

98 Ibid, B, 386–387, and U. S. , Congress, House, Committee on Roads and Canal, Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal, H. Report 414 to accompany H. R. 94, 23rd Congress, 1st Session, 1834, 88–105. 99 Ibid, B, 410–419, 432. 100 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 186–187. 101 Proceedings of the Stockholders, B, 439 
196 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

September 16: The board passed two measures relating to the canal in Georgetown. First, a 20-

foot wide berm was to be built along the lower side of the canal between High and Frederick 

Streets. Second, in order to restore the 20-foot wide public highway on the upper side of the canal 

between High and Congress Street, condemnation proceedings were to be initiated to acquire title 

to the necessary properties. The proprietors were to be given the right to restore the buildings on 

the condemned property if they so desired.102

September 19: Resident Engineer Purcell informed the board that the canal through Georgetown 

had been watered. At the conclusion of their meeting, the directors embarked on their packet boat, 

the “C. F. Mercer,” and passed through Locks Nos. 1–4 and landed on the pier at the Rock Creek 

Basin.103

October 28: The board ordered that proposals be received for removing the saw mill at Matildaville to a more suitable site on the Maryland side of the Potomac. All moveable parts of the saw 

mill were to be stored temporarily at the canal company store house in Georgetown for safekeeping.104

November 15: Resident Engineer Purcell reported to the board on his survey of extending the canal from the Rock Creek Basin to Tiber Creek. His report included “an experimental survey of 

the same thro’ the 26th Street West.” After considering the merits of his survey, the directors ordered Purcell to make another examination for the canal extension “through Virginia Avenue by 

tunneling where necessary—the tunnel to be protected by a brick arch.” A letter from the Mayor 

of Washington was also read to the board giving notice that the City of Washington would not 

pay its $1,000,000 stock subscription to the C&O Canal Company until the Washington Canal 

was built. Accordingly, the directors ordered Clerk Ingle to inform the mayor that the extension 

would be placed under contract.105

December 17: After further surveys by Purcell and consultation with Abert, the board adopted a 

plan for the extension of the canal from the Rock Creek Basin to 17th Street. Purcell was ordered 

to locate the extension of the line and prepare specifications for the work. When this was done, 

Clerk Ingle was to advertise for job bids which would be received until December 12.106

1832 

January 7: President Mercer informed the board that the Maryland Court of Appeals, by a vote of 

3 to 2, had confirmed the canal company in its claim to the right of prior location vis a vis the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in the disputed passes above Point of Rocks. In making this decision, 

the judges reversed the decision of the Chancellor, who in the September, 1831 term had released 

the railroad from the injunctions against it and made those against the canal permanent. The decision had a significant affect on the canal because it opened the way for construction above Point 

of Rocks. 

 

102 Ibid, C, 2–3. 103 Ibid, 5. 104 Ibid, p.21. 105 Ibid, p.26. 106 Ibid, 31, 38, 40, 42. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 197 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

 The directors immediately took steps to commence operations from Point of Rocks to 

Dam No. 4 above Williamsport. Public notice was to be given that the 12-mile stretch of the canal 

to Dam No. 3 at Harpers Ferry would be let in “convenient sections” at Harpers Ferry on February 23. At the same time, it was to be announced that the portion of the canal between Dams Nos. 

3 and 4 would be let at Shepherdstown on April 4. This construction would allow the canal company to meet the terms of its charter which called for the building of 100 miles of waterway by 

1833 

 Engineers Purcell and Cruger were commissioned to locate the line all the way to Williamsport. They were to prepare for contract those sections which involved heavy embankments, 

steep side cutting, deep cutting and rock excavation by the aforementioned dates. In their preparations, they were to adhere to the plan of the canal already constructed as far as Harpers Ferry, but 

from that point, the canal was to be only 50 feet wide.107

January 14: Upon their receipt of the official copy of the decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the board determined that contracts would be let on February 23 for the 12 miles between 

Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. At the same time, the directors authorized President Mercer to 

make contracts for the two miles immediately above Point of Rocks without the usual public advertisement. The two miles included some of the narrowest of the disputed passes, and the directors were eager to occupy the most favorable location for their waterway.108

January 21: After considering the various proposals for extending the canal from the Rock Creek 

Basin to 17th Street, the board accepted the offer of John Carothers for Section I and the bid of J. 

W. Baker for Section K. The contractors were prohibited from sand blasting during the excavation operations, and they were liable for all damages done by their rock blasting.109

February 4: President Mercer informed the board that he had let contracts for Sections Nos. 85–

89 pursuant to their order of January 14. Sections Nos. 85–86 were let to Hoffman and Lyles and 

Sections Nos. 87–89 to Williams and Dawes.110

February 4: The board unanimously voted to construct a lock at 17th Street in Washington to provide access for boats between the Washington branch canal and the Potomac River via Tiber 

Creek. That same day, a proposal by C. T. Le Baron and I. G. Camp was accepted for the construction of the lock. The contract called for a granite lock; but later, on April 30, the contract was 

changed to a lock of cut sandstone.111

 

107 Ibid, 48–49; Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 196; Fourth Annual Report ( 1832), C&O Co., in Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 200; and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 90–91. Apparently, contracts for masonry were not included in this letting, for in separate actions of the board it was determined to 

let contracts for Dam No. 3 and Aqueduct No. 3 on February 1 and to postpone the contracting for locks 

pending a study of the merits of filling the locks with water through lateral culverts and through the lock 

gate valves. 

108 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 52–53; and Mercer to Cruger and Purcell, 

January 23, 1832, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

109 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 56. The two sections were to be built according 

to the same dimensions of the canal through Georgetown, and both sides of the prism were to be protected 

by a vertical wall where it was practicable. 

110 Ibid, 63; and Ledger A, 1828–1841, 360, 362, 364, 366, 368. 111 Ibid, 63–64; 130. 
198 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

February 25: The board let contracts for the construction of Dam No. 3 and Aqueduct No. 3. The 

proposal of William Easby was accepted for the dam, while that of Tracy and Douglas was approved for the aqueduct.112

March 10: The board adopted the specifications for the locks and culverts between Point of Rocks 

and Harpers Ferry. The time set for receiving proposals for these structures was set at March 14. 

 The directors also ordered that the towpath in Georgetown between Congress Street and 

the west side of Frederick Street “be widened where practicable and where necessary.” A wall 

was to be erected on the margin of the towpath to prevent slides.113

March 14: The directors took under consideration the proposals and declared contracts for Sections No. 90–112, covering the distance between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. A contract 

was also let to Lewis Wernwag for the construction of Guard Lock No. 3. The contractors were to 

commence these works immediately and complete them by December 1.114

March 17: On this date, the board let the contracts for the locks and culverts between Point of 

Rocks and Harpers Ferry. The following contractors’ proposals were accepted for the locks: Nos. 

30–31 to Obediah Gordon, No. 32 to Lewis Wernwag, No. 33 to James O’Brien, and Nos. 34–35 

to Henry Smith. The following contractors’ proposals for the culverts were accepted: Nos. 75–79 

to Dawes & Williams, Nos. 80–83 to James O’Brien, Nos. 84–87, 89 to Watson, Tainter & Co., 

and Nos. 88, 90–94 to the John Hay Co.115

March 31: The board entered into an agreement with H. B. Richards to quarry and lay stone coping on the front of the Rock Creek Pier and on the towpath wall in Georgetown.116

May 7: After receiving word from Resident Engineer Purcell that some 22 miles of the line above 

Harpers Ferry had been located, the directors resolved to receive job proposals for the construction of Sections Nos. 113–156 until May 30. The contracts for the 44 sections between Harpers 

Ferry and Dam No. 4 would be let on June 2 and those for the masonry works at a later time.117 

May 15: Upon the recommendation of President Mercer, the board ordered the company engineers to locate and to prepare for contract the portion of the canal between Dam No. 4 and Licking Creek.118

May 31: The question of constructing the Alexandria Aqueduct continued in a stalemate in the 

face of opposition by Georgetown merchants and the indifference of the C&O Canal Company. 

As the site for its northern abutment still had not been chosen, the board ordered Purcell to determine its location in conjunction with the chief engineer of the Alexandria Canal Company. Later, 

on June 7, Alfred Cruger and Wilson M. C. Fairfax were appointed to assist Purcell. On June 23, 

the board directed Cruger to prepare a plan, specification and preliminary cost estimate for the 

 

112 Ibid, 78. Later, the contract with Easby was abrogated when the board decided to use the Government 

Dam for its water supply. 

113 Ibid, 99. 114 Ibid, 104–105. A list of the contractors for these sections may be seen in Appendix J. 115 Ibid, 109. 116 Ibid, 117–118. 117 Ibid, 136–137. 118 Ibid, 139. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 199 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

construction of the abutment. Two weeks later, on July 7, Purcell notified the directors that the 

site for the abutment had been selected.119

June 2: The board let contracts for Sections Nos. 113–157, covering the distance between Dams 

Nos. 3 and 4. The directors also accepted the following bids for some of the masonry work: Lock 

No. 36 to Fries and McDonnell, Lock No. 39 to Wilson and Bryan, and Culverts Nos. 95–99 to 

Tracy and Douglas.120

June 4: The president and directors reported to the fourth annual meeting of the company stockholders that great strides had been made to execute the construction of the canal since the favorable decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the line of the canal between Seneca and point of Rocks, on which operations generally had been suspended because of the lack 

of water from the proposed Dam No. 3, was nearly completed. The chief structure still to be finished was Aqueduct No. 2, but it was anticipated that the structure would be completed before the 

recently contracted works above Point of Rocks were ready for the admission of water.121

June 5: The board let contracts for the construction of Aqueduct No. 4 and the culverts between 

Harpers Ferry and Dam No. 4. The contract for Antietam Aqueduct was let to Gibson, Noonan, 

Medler & Fresh & Co. The contractors whose proposals for the culverts were accepted are as follows: Nos. 100–104, 106–107, 113–118 to Gibson, Noonan, Medler & Fresh & Co.; No. 105 to 

Moore and Temple; Nos. 108–110, 112 to George W. Hunter; and No. 111 to J. P. and J. Dougherty.122

June 7: The proposal of Joseph Hollman was accepted for the construction of Dam No. 4. After 

some modifications in their original bids, Gibson, Noonan, Medler & Fresh & Co. was given the 

contracts for Locks Nos. 37–38.123

June 23: The canal directors began to face two serious obstacles to the further progress of the canal: the five years allowed by the charter for the construction of the first 100 miles would expire 

in 1833, and the approaching exhaustion of the company’s immediate financial resources. Accordingly, the board urged the engineers to consider the following temporary expedients in building the canal above Point of Rocks: deferring the construction of a dam at Harpers Ferry; substituting a suspension aqueduct with a wooden trunk for the proposed stone aqueduct across the Antietam; reducing the width of the canal to 20 feet and the depth to five feet on those sections requiring heavy excavation; dispensing with the coping of the culverts, aqueducts and locks except 

that required for hanging the lock gates; and slackwater navigation at various points. 

 The board also determined to hire two individuals who would expedite the construction. 

To prevent a serious work stoppage during the approaching “sickly season,” a physician would be 

employed to inspect the line of the canal from July to October. His duties were to commence an 

investigation of the living conditions in and around the workers’ shanties, to submit a list of recommendations to protect the health of the canal company personnel, contractors and laborers, and 

to insure an adequate supply of medicine for the workers. 

 

119 Ibid, 157, 165, 176, 184. 120 Ibid, 159–161. A list of the contractors for Sections Nos. 113–157 may be seen in Appendix K. 121 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 224. 122 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 163. 123 Ibid, 165. 
200 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

 A superintendent of construction would be appointed to oversee the work above Point of 

Rocks. This man would henceforth make all contracts and inspect the works in progress subject to 

the general direction of the board. He was also to provide for the care of the sick in his jurisdiction.124

July 2: At the recommendation of the resident engineers, the board ordered that where it was expedient, hammer-dressed face work should be substituted for cut-stone face work on the masonry 

structures above Point of Rocks as a means of lowering construction expenses.125

July 17: The directors determined to let contracts for the portion of the canal from Sections Nos. 

173–203 on August 23. The line of the canal immediately above Dam No. 4, comprising Sections 

Nos. 158–172, was to be designed for slackwater navigation and would not be let for construction 

until after the first 100 miles of the canal were completed. In this way, the canal company would 

meet the terms of its charter.126

August 18: At the recommendation of John J. Abert, the board determined to dispense with the 

construction of Dam No. 3. Instead, the company engineers were directed to make arrangements 

to use the water backed by the government dam at Harpers Ferry. Accordingly, a head gate or 

guard lock was designed for such a connection between the dam and the canal, and the contract 

for the work was let to Fries and McDonnell.127

August 25: The board approved the plan of a bridge and stop gate to be constructed on Section K 

at G Street in Washington. The proposal of Michael Corcoran was accepted for the masonry and 

that of Gideon Davis for the iron railing.128

August 25: The board let contracts for the sections, locks, culverts and aqueducts between Section 

No. 173 and Dam No. 5. William and Michael Byrne and Paul Provest were given contracts for 

Sections Nos. 173 and 187–200, Locks Nos. 43–44, Culverts Nos. 120 and 129–135, Aqueduct 

No. 5 and Dam No. 5. The other contractors whose proposals were accepted were as follows: No. 

174, C. and M. Offutt and R. Anderson; No. 175, Philip Mays & Co.; No. 176, Patrick Kenney; 

No. 180, Chamberlain and Brown; No. 181, Monegan and Breslin; No. 182, Watkins and Magruder; No. 183, Polly and Draper; No. 184, James Gibbs; No. 185, Adam Young; and No. 186, 

P. Donovan. The contracts for all these structures specified that the work was to be completed 

within 12 months. At the same time, a private contract was entered into with Gibson, Noonan & 

Fresh for the construction of Lock No. 40, the letting of which had been suspended temporarily in 

June.129

August 31: The summer of 1832—the first in which unrestricted construction was possible—

proved the most disastrous to the workers. Late in August, Asiatic cholera made its appearance on 

the line near Harpers Ferry, and it gradually spread westward to Williamsport. As a result of the 

plague, work was suspended on many of the sections, and fear spread rapidly among the workers. 

Despite the attempts by the company to aid the victims, many laborers died and many others fled 

 

124 Ibid, 174–175. 125 Ibid, 179. 126 Ibid, 181–182, 189. 127 Ibid, 191–192, 207. 128 Ibid, 209. 

129 Ibid, 209–211. Some time later, Sections Nos. 201 and 202 were let to the firm of William and Michael 

Byrne and Paul Provest. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 201 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

the line of the canal in panic. By the early winter months when the epidemic began to subside, the 

westward progress of the waterway had all but halted.130

November 3: Despite the disruption to construction caused by the Asiatic cholera epidemic, the 

board continued to press for the completion of the waterway between Point of Rocks and Harpers 

Ferry. The directors voted to give discretion to President Mercer and the resident engineers to 

raise the prices for the unfinished masonry on that stretch of the canal as an incentive for the rapid 

completion of the works. In the future, no monthly estimates were to be made above Harpers 

Ferry that was under contract to a firm that had suspended work below that town.131

1833 

February 23: President Mercer announced to the board that the General Assembly of Virginia had 

passed an act directing the State to purchase 2,500 shares of canal company stock. In return, the 

company on March 1 agreed to appropriate $80,000 for the construction of outlet locks to permit 

boats to pass to and from the river. The locks were to be located at the mouth of Goose Creek, the 

ferry at Shepherdstown, and the mouth of Opequon Creek. The locks were to be completed by 

November 1, 1835.132

April 20: The contract for the construction of Lock No. 45 was let to Byrne, Lathrop and Provest. 

The portion of the lock that would be underwater when Dam No. 5 was completed was to be constructed immediately. When the dam was finished, operations on the lock would resume so that it 

could be used as a means of passing boats from the slackwater pool behind the dam to the canal 

prism.133

May 4: The board authorized President Mercer to request the Secretary of the Treasury to order 

an inspection of the canal. During the current month, the directors anticipated that the canal below Harpers Ferry would be watered. In addition to the 64 miles of completed waterway, 38 miles 

were under contract.134

May 9: After a lengthy battle between the railroad and canal companies over the joint construction of their works between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry, an agreement was reached in 

which the state as well as the companies would participate. In return for permission to construct 

its tracks between the two towns, the railroad company subscribed to $266,000 of canal stock. 

The canal company undertook the grading of 4.1 miles of roadbed at the narrow pass where both 

works came together. As its part, the legislature offered to pass two acts, long the subject of dispute between it and the canal, when the railroad reached Harpers Ferry. These gave the canal 

 

130 Ibid, 212, 214–215; Charles N. Rush to president and Directors, August 5, 1832; Mercer to Ingle, September 3, 1832; Boteler to Ingle, September 4, 1832; B. price to Ingle, September 5, 1832; Purcell to President and Directors, September 11, 1832; and Rush to President and Directors, August 5, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., 

C&O Co.; and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 93–97. 131 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 233. Later the board agreed to divide the sections in this area among several contractors in order to expedite the work. 

132 Ibid, 288, 293. 133 Ibid, 313, 322. 134 Ibid, 336. On June 5, Mercer was informed that Captain William Gibbs McNeill of the U.S. Topographical Engineers had been assigned to conduct the survey. 
202 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

permission to sell surplus water and to begin the western section before completing the eastern 

part of the work.135

May 29–30: During an inspection tour of the canal from Georgetown to Williamsport, the directors made numerous decisions relative to the construction of the canal. At Shepherdstown on May 

29, they let contracts for grading the 4.1 miles of railroad bed between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. The first two miles below the Harpers Ferry Bridge were assigned to Thomas MacCubbin, the first 1-1/20 miles at the lower end of Point of Rocks were given to Hollman and Lyles, 

and the remaining portion at the upper end of Point of Rocks was let to Hugh Stewart. The contract for the Shepherdstown River Lock was given to John Cameron. 

 At Williamsport on the 30th, the directors determined that the canal under construction 

there be extended to the rock cliffs above the Galloway Mill. The outlet locks under construction 

above the mouth of the Opequon were to be transferred to the lower end of the extension. A towpath was to be constructed along the margin of the slackwater pool behind Dam No. 4 to facilitate 

navigation.136

June 3: The president and directors reported to the fifth annual meeting of the stockholders that 

the construction of the waterway had been impeded greatly by the cholera epidemic. However, 

the masonry between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry was expected to be completed within 

several days, and it was anticipated that the canal between the later town and Seneca would be 

watered by July1. Operations above Harpers Ferry had resumed on an active scale in April with 

an average force of 2,700 laborers and 655 work animals and a weekly use of 7,000 pounds of 

gunpowder.137

 June 5: The board ordered that the wrought iron paddle gate made by William Easby for Guard 

Lock No. 3 should be used in a lift lock to test its practicality.138

June 28: A contract was let to J. and A Provest to build Sections Nos. 165–172. This work was to 

be completed by March 1, 1834.139

August 20: The board approved a specification drawn up by Engineer Purcell for the towpath 

along the slackwater above Dam No. 4. The towpath, comprising Section Nos. 157–165, would 

stretch from the Dam to Lock No. 41. Accordingly, the directors ordered that a contract be made 

immediately to execute the work.140

November 1: Charles B. Fisk, superintendent of the canal between Dams Nos. 2 and 3, reported 

to the board that water had been admitted into the canal at Harpers Ferry and that it had reached 

nearly to Seneca.141

 

135 Laws and Resolutions Relating to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Washington, 1855), 42–48; Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 268–274; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 312, 

340–346, 350–351. 

136 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 357–360. 137 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 276–277. 138 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 370. 

139 Ibid, 392. 140 Ibid, 419; and Ledger A, 1828–1841, 505. A contract for the work was let shortly thereafter to Midler & 

Co., but the firm formally relinquished its contract on January 15, 1834. 

141 Ibid, D, 3. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 203 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

November 15: Engineer Purcell reported to the board on the best means of providing for the Potomac River trade above Dam No. 5 prior to the completion of the canal below that point. After 

studying the possible alternatives, he concluded that a temporary lock around the south wing of 

the dam was most appropriate. The board accepted his recommendation and ordered him to draw 

up plans and specifications for a lock to be built of wood, or wood and stone combined. When he 

had determined which plan was best suited to the interests of the company, he was to let a contract for its construction to Stoughton & McGinley.142

November 22: Engineer Cruger was ordered to lead a group of company engineers in locating and 

estimating the cost of the canal from Dam No. 5 to Hancock on the Maryland shore of the Potomac River. At the same time, he was to examine the Virginia shore of the river between those two 

points and compare the costs of building the canal on the two side of the river.143

December 9: On this date, the report of Captain William Gibbs McNeill was read to the directors. 

At the request of the board, he had been assigned by the Secretary of War in June to survey the 

completed and unfinished portions of the canal from Georgetown to Dam No. 5. At the time of 

his survey, the line to Point of Rocks was ready for the admission of water except for several 

places where slight problems needed repairs. McNeill, as had Abert and Kearney several years 

before, commented favorably upon the quality of construction that he found.144

1834 

January 6: The board ordered Clerk Ingle to arrange with the contractors employed on the line of 

the canal above Dam No. 4 for the temporary suspension of their work with the exception of the 

lock around Dam No. 5. If the contractors wished to continue their operations, they would have to 

accept payment with the stocks of the Corporations of Washington and Georgetown held by the 

canal company or with interest-bearing company bonds.145

January 18–24: Open warfare broke out between rival factions of the Irish laborers during the idle 

winter months. A preliminary skirmish took place between the Corkonians, who were working 

near Dam No. 5, above Williamsport, and the Longfords, or Fardowners, from the vicinity of 

Dam No. 4, below the town. Several were killed in the clash before the militia arrived on the 

scene to restore order. Despite the efforts of local citizen patrols, the Corkonians broke loose 

again in a few days, committing various acts of violence on the line. On January 24, some 700 

Longfords met a force of 300 Corkonians on a hilltop near Dam No. 5. At least five Corkonians 

were killed in the short, pitched battle and many more in the woods during the flight that followed. After the victorious Longfords returned to their shanties at Williamsport, the local militia 

kept order until two companies of U. S. Troops arrived from Fort McHenry146

 

142 Ibid, 13, 22. The lock was completed by May 2, 1834, and it was rebuilt by Wilcox and Stoughton in 

September 1834. 

143 Ibid, 18. 144 Ibid, 29; and Report 414, pp.141–157. 145 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 39. 146 Niles' Register, Vol. XLV (January 25, 1834), 336; Ibid, Vol. XLV (February 1, 1834), 382–383; and 

Purcell to Ingle, January 23, 1834; Raton to Janney, Smith and Gunton, January 31, 1834; and Purcell to 

President and Directors, January 29, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
204 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

February 7: The canal directors agreed to construct and pay for the culverts that “were necessary 

on that part of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad” which was to be graduated by the canal company.147

March 18: Superintendent Fisk informed the directors that it would be necessary to build several 

waste weirs on the line of the canal above Harpers Ferry now about to be opened to navigation. 

The board authorized the construction of those waste weirs that were indispensable to the security 

of the canal and that would be easily let for contract.148

April 11: Engineer Cruger submitted his report on the survey of the line of the canal between 

Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River. Because the canal company finances were desperate, the report was filed away for future consideration.149

April 17: The canal company reported to the House Committee on Roads and Canals that 64 

miles of the canal, stretching from Georgetown to Harpers Ferry, had been completed in October 

1833. On the remaining portion of the canal under contract, only one lock and Aqueduct No. 4 

remained to be finished, to complete the line to Dam No. 4. The distance between Dams Nos. 4 

and 5 would be completed by the fall of 1834 as the majority of the work on this portion of the 

line was already done. As of March 1, the sum of $3,547,661.50 had been spent on building the 

canal.150

May 3: The contractors building the railroad for the canal company above Point of Rocks applied 

for ant extension of time in which to complete their contracts. Because the railroad consented to 

the time extension, the canal board directed that the contracts should be completed by July 1, 

1834.151

June 2: The president and directors informed the sixth annual meeting of the company stockholders that operations on the canal during the preceding 12 months had been hampered by the desperate state of the company’s finances. At that time, the canal had been completed to Dam No. 4, 

some 86 miles west of Washington. In addition, 20 miles of the canal above that point were 

nearly done, but work on this stretch had been suspended temporarily until more funds became 

available. The railroad above Point of Rocks, which the canal company had agreed to build, 

would be completed in July with funds supplied by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company.152

September 18: The board appointed Directors John J. Abert and William Gunton to proceed to 

Williamsport for the purpose of putting under contract all work necessary to complete the canal to 

Dam No. 5. On October 1, the two men reported that the principal obstacle to the achievement of 

this objective had been the abandonment of Sections Nos. 165–172 by J. & A. Provest. Accordingly, the sections had been relet to the subcontractors of the Provests with the stipulation that the 

work be done by March 1, 1835. The contracts for Culverts Nos. 118 and 119 were also let, the 

former to William Broun and the latter to Slayman & Donley. After an inspection of the ground 

 

147 Ibid, 47. 148 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 56. 

149 Ibid, 72. 150 Report 414, 16, 187. 151 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 85. 152 Sixth Annual Report (1834), C&O Co., 3–5. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 205 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

between Dams Nos. 4 and 5, the two directors urged the board to erect a stop gate at the upper 

end of the heavy work above Williamsport.153

October 18: The directors instructed Engineer Fisk to have the canal correctly measured from the 

tide lock at Georgetown to Shepherdstown. Stones or locust posts were to be placed on the berm 

side of the canal at intervals of one mile, designating the distance from the eastern terminus.154

December 3: Engineer Purcell notified the directors that water had been admitted into the canal at 

Dam No. 4. Thus it was necessary to provide for lockkeepers, the board authorized Fisk to take 

charge of the newly opened section of the canal, to appoint temporary lock operators, and to erect 

shanties for their accommodation.155

1835 

January 21: Charles B. Fisk requested and received permission from the board to build three 

waste weirs on the recently completed section of the canal between Shepherdstown and Dam No. 

4.156

February 25: The board moved to extend the date of completion of Sections Nos. 166, 170, 171 

and 172 to March 15 because the Irish laborers on these sections had struck recently for higher 

wages. The strike had delayed operations on these sections, the last to be finished before the canal 

could be watered between Dams Nos. 4 and 5.157

March 20: The board was informed that the Maryland legislature had passed an act authorizing a 

loan of $2,000,000 to the canal company to complete the waterway to Cumberland. At a meeting 

of the company stockholders on April 22, the company formally accepted the loan.158

April 1: The board ordered Fisk to make immediate arrangements to revise the location of the line 

of the canal from Dam No. 5 to the Cacapon River that had been made in the spring of 1834 by 

Alfred Cruger. This stretch of the waterway was to be prepared for contract, although Fisk was 

instructed to designate which sections could be deferred temporarily.159

April 22: President George C. Washington informed the stockholders that since their June 1834 

meeting, navigation had been opened 48 miles above Harpers Ferry. The canal was now open for 

a distance of 110 miles above Washington, in addition to an eight-to-ten-mile slackwater navigation above Dam No. 5.160

 

153 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 161, 166–168. The contract for the stop gate 

was let to E. & J. Stake on November 12, 1834. 

154 Ibid, 175. 155 Ibid, 199. 156 Ibid, 224. The contract for these three structures was let to John Cameron; they were completed in late 

April. 

157 Ibid, 234, 254–257; and Hagerstown Torchlight quoted in Niles' Register, Vol. XLVII (February 25, 

1835), 429. 

158 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 363–378; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, 

D, pp.261, 265, 281–183. 

159 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 269–270. 160 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 368. 
206 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

April 29: Upon the acceptance of the $2,000,000 loan from the State of Maryland, the board appointed a committee to report on a plan to extend the canal from Dam No. 5 to Cumberland. In 

their first report on this date, the committee urged that this part of the canal be placed under the 

immediate superintendence of a commissioner to be appointed by the board. The work had 

moved so far westward that it was no longer possible for the directors, meeting in Washington, to 

maintain adequate control of operations. The commissioner, according to the committee, should 

have authority over lesser officials, land acquisition, company property utilization, and reletting 

abandoned contracts. After some discussion, the board accepted the committee’s proposals and 

appointed one of its own members, George Bender, to fill the office of commissioner.161

April 29: In an effort to reduce construction expenses, the board resorted to building small, temporary lockhouses. On this date, Josephus Beall was paid for the building of three such structures. 

During the fall and winter of 1834–35, Isaac Williams also built four temporary lockhouses at 

Locks Nos. 28, 29 34 and 37.162

May 25: The board directed Engineer Purcell to examine and locate the line of the canal from the 

South Branch to Cumberland. The work was to be prepared for contract as soon as possible. Following this location, he was to locate the line from the Cacapon River to the South Branch.163

May 25: The board let a contract to Joseph Hollman to construct a flume around Lock No. 44 and 

a “suitable” brick or stone lockkeepers house near the lock. He also was given the privilege of 

constructing, at his own expense, a dry dock for the repair of boats. As part of the contract, Hollman was appointed lockkeeper at an annual salary of $150, and he agreed to pay an annual rent of 

$150 for the use of surplus water at the lock.164

May 27: Following negotiations with Alexandria Canal Company, the board appointed Captain 

William Turnbull to superintend the construction of the northern abutment of the Potomac Aqueduct. Preparatory to letting of a contract for the work, Turnbull was instructed to prepare a plan, 

specification and cost estimate for the structure.165

June 1: President George C. Washington informed the seventh annual meeting of the company 

stockholders that the $2,000,000 loan from the State of Maryland in March had afforded “the 

means for a spirited prosecution of the eastern section” and had strongly fortified “our belief in 

the ultimate connection with the Western waters.” According to the president, a continuous canal 

was “now opened for navigation for the distance of one hundred and ten miles, from the basin in 

Washington to Dam No. 5, with the exception of about three miles of slack water above Dam No. 

4, along Galloway’s cliffs, where it is designed to construct a towpath, using the river (having a 

depth of from ten to fifteen feet) in place of a canal.” During the past 12 months, the canal between Dams Nos. 4 and 5 had been finished and opened to navigation. 

 The board, anxious to begin construction above Dam No. 5, had sent out two surveying 

parties after the $2,000,000 loan. One group, led by Resident Engineer Fisk, was currently preparing the line between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River for contracting, while a small party, 

under Resident Engineer Purcell, was surveying the line from the South Branch to Cumberland. 

 

161 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 270, 294–301. 162 Ibid, 301; and Articles of Agreement with Isaac Williams, October 2, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 163 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 311, 318–319. 164 Ibid, 314. 165 Ibid, 320. Turnbull submitted the requested documents on August 5. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 207 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

As soon as the necessary arrangements could be made, the line between the Cacapon and South 

Branch would be made. During the summer, the board intended to let contracts for the masonry 

structures and the sections requiring heavy excavation. Since there was a lack of good building 

stone in the upper Potomac Valley, the board suggested the construction of temporary wooden 

locks where it was necessary.166

June 1: The board took several steps to expedite the future work on the canal above Dam No. 5. 

Contracts were ratified with James Hook of Hancock and George Reynolds of Cumberland to 

supply the line with hydraulic cement. A storehouse was to be built at McCoys Ferry to receive 

the cement, and Commissioner Bender was authorized to contract for the transportation of the 

cement to that point.167

June 17: A committee of the board was authorized to contract “for the construction of a Stop Gate 

at or near the site of the late temporary lock on Sect. D and also for the rubble stone wall proposed for the security of the embankment of Section B, both above and below the foundry.168

June 17: The board ordered Clerk Ingle to advertise for proposals for the construction of those 

sections, locks, aqueducts, culverts and dams between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon that Resident 

Engineer Fisk certified as being ready for contract. The rime line for completion of the masonry 

was set at October 1, 1836, and that for the rest of the work at November 1, 1836.169

July 3: After examining the proposals for the masonry structures and difficult sections between 

Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River, the board let a large number of contracts.170

July 8–22: During this period, the board examined the entire line of the canal from Georgetown to 

Cumberland. Among the most significant decisions that the directors made were the following: 

(1) A site was chosen for the Goose Creek River Lock as required by the 1833 act passed 

by the Virginia legislature. Resident Engineer Fisk was directed to prepare a plan and 

cost estimate preparatory to placing the lock under contract; 

(2) Upon finding that Sections Nos. 167–168 were located too close to the river, the directors ordered that new section be formed farther from the water provided that the additional land could be obtained at a reasonable cost; 

(3) The directors instructed Purcell to ascertain the best route for the canal and Dam No. 

8 in the vicinity of Cumberland. Although somewhat undecided, they were inclined to 

pass the canal behind the town of Wills Creek, the shortest line to the west.171

August 5: The board directed that mile posts be erected on the towpath side of the recently 

opened portion of the canal. 

 

166 Seventh Annual Report (1835), C&O Co., 3–11. 167 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 324. On June 10, a contract was let to George 

Shafer, a Williamsport water lime manufacturer, to supply additional cement to the line. 

168 Ibid, 342. A contract for the stop gate was let to William Easby in August and the structure was completed in the spring of 1837. 

169 Ibid, 341. 170 Ibid, 360–362. Ibid, 9. 171 Ibid, 363–371. 
208 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

 The board approved a proposal by William Easby to construct the gates and other woodwork for the stop lock about to be constructed on Section C. Easby was also to build gates and 

other woodwork for the waste weir to be constructed at the Old Locks near Little Falls.172

September 2: The board accepted the bid of Michael Byrne to construct the river lock at Edward’s 

Ferry and specified that the work was to be done by June 1, 1836. The proposal of John Cameron 

was approved for the building of Culverts Nos. 183–186. 

 The board ordered the division superintendents to determine the proper sites for lockhouses to be built along the canal. The locations of the houses were to be chosen having reference 

to the construction of flumes and the use of water power. Clerk Ingle was directed to advertise for 

proposals to build the lockhouses and to fence in the attached grounds.173

October 21: Periodically, the board let contracts for additional sections above Dam No. 5. On this 

date, the directors approved the bid of Enos Childs for Section No. 208, and later, on January 20, 

1836, that of R. W. Watkins for Section No. 231.174

November 5: The discussion over the route of the waterway at Cumberland was long and heated. 

The directors were at first inclined to pass the canal behind the town of Wills Creek, the shortest 

line to the west. Upon receiving repeated protests from the local citizens and an offer of the city 

to waive all claims to property damages, the directors on this date reconsidered their plans and 

adopted a low-level route along the river into the center of the town.175

November 11: The board ordered that proposals would be received until December 21 for constructing the dams, the masonry, and the difficult sections of the line of the canal between the Cacapon River and Cumberland. Bids were also to be received for the northern abutment of the Potomac Aqueduct. The date for receiving the proposals was later extended to January 6.176

December 4: Resident Engineer Fisk was authorized to prepare for contract those sections (excluding sections of light excavation) between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon that he considered it 

expedient to let.177

December 21: Purcell and Fisk recommended to the board that slackwater navigation be employed from Dam No. 5 to Lock No. 45. The directors accepted their report and ordered that this 

section of the canal be constructed according to the plans which they submitted.178

December 21: Upon the recommendation of Fisk, the board determined to build a tunnel about 

3,000 feet long on the line below South Branch. The tunnel was to have a height above the water 

 

172 Ibid, 373, 377. 173 Ibid, 394–395. 174 Ibid, 416; E., 10. 175 Report of the Committee on the Location of the Canal from Dam No. 6 to Cumberland, October 9, 1835, 

Ltrs, Recd., C&O Co.; Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 417–421; Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, D, 423–424; Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 114–115. Earlier, the board had 

decided to omit the construction of Dam No. 7 after considering several sites for its location near the mouth 

of the South Branch. 

176 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 427, 434. Difficult sections were defined as 

those that would cost over $10,000 to construct. 

177 Ibid, 436. 178 Ibid, 442–443. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 209 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

line equal to the elevation of the permanent bridges on the canal. Fisk was directed to submit 

plans and estimates for the work.179

1836 

January 16: On January 9, Fisk informed the directors that the current estimated cost of the line 

from Dam No. 5 to Cumberland was much greater than any former estimates. Accordingly, the 

board appointed a committee to consider what work below the Cacapon not then under contract 

should be let and what structures above that point should be placed under contract. Upon the recommendation of Fisk, the board determined to let contracts for all those sections not then under 

contracts below the Cacapon River. All work above that river was to be suspended with the exception of Sections Nos. 333–334 (deep cut at Oldtown), Locks Nos. 54–55, and Paw Paw Tunnel. After considering the proposals already received for the work above the Cacapon, the board 

accepted the bid of William Woodburn for Sections Nos. 333–334 and that of Henry Smith for 

Locks Nos. 54–55.180

January 20: On the recommendation of Resident Engineer Fisk, the board ordered that a lockkeeper’s house be constructed near the site of Locks Nos. 62–66. When it was completed, the 

house was to be used by the engineer supervising the construction of Paw Paw Tunnel.181

February 10: Resident Engineer Fisk submitted to the board a plan and specification for the Paw 

Paw Tunnel and an improved specification of lockhouses. Both plans were adopted by the board. 

The latter plan was to be used for all the lockhouses that would be built except for one at Prathers 

Neck and one near the tunnel, both of which were to have dimensions of 30 by 22 feet and modified floor plans.182

February 10: The board considered the proposals for the sections between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River that were not under contract. On this date, the directors accepted bids for 34 sections.183

March 15: After considering the proposals received for the construction of Paw Paw Tunnel, the 

board accepted the bid of Lee Montgomery providing that the conditions of the contract, which 

still had to be drawn, were agreeable to the interests of the canal company.184

March 23: Two contracts were let on this date for masonry work between Dams Nos. 5 and 6. 

Henry Smith was given the contracts for the construction of a lockhouse at Lock No. 54 and of 

Culvert No. 198 on Section No. 258.185

March 30: The board received word that Thornton G. Bradley had offered to build the large lockhouse for Locks Nos. 62–66 at the site of Paw Paw Tunnel for $1,275. The directors voted to of-

 

179 Ibid, 443. 180 Ibid, E, 2–6. 181 Ibid, 9. 182 Ibid, 18. 183 Ibid, 18–19. A list of the contractors for Sections Between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River may be 

seen in Appendix M. 

184 Ibid, 29. On April 6, the contract was written with the stipulation that the tunnel be completed by July 1, 

1838. 

185 Ibid, 32. 
210 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

fer contracts to Bradley for both the large lockhouses at Prathers Neck and at the tunnel for 

$1,200 each. They also determined to let contracts for the standard-sized lockhouses for $950 

each.186

April 20: The board ordered the division superintendents to enclose the one-acre lots around the 

lockhouses with post and rail fences where the land for such purposes had been acquired by the 

canal company.187

April 27: The board formally accepted a new seal for the canal company. The seal incorporated 

scenes from industry, agriculture and shipping with a canal shown as the connecting link binding 

these sectors of the economy together. The motto inscribed around the edge of the seal was the 

fitting Latin phrase, “Esto Perpetua Perservando.”188

May 4: Since many of the contractors were being forced to abandon their contracts because of the 

rising costs of construction and labor, the board became alarmed that construction on the canal 

might soon come to a standstill. Accordingly, the board agreed to adopt a new policy that when a 

contract was one-half completed, the contractor would be paid one-fourth of the retained money 

on his contract then in the hands of the canal company. When three-fourths of the contract was 

completed, all but ten percent of the retained money would be returned to the contractor.189

May 21: The board let contracts for 10 permanent lockhouses to three contractors. Contracts for 

lockhouses at Locks Nos. 28, 29 and 34 were let to Michael Foley, provided that one house be 

finished by the fall. John G. Grove was awarded contracts for six houses at $950 each, with the 

proviso that they were all to be enclosed and have their floors laid before1837. The bid of Jonah 

Hood to build houses at Locks Nos. 35–36 was also accepted.190

May 27: The board let contracts for four culverts to two contractors: G. M. Watkins was given the 

contract for Culvert No. 162, while John Bain received the contracts for Culverts Nos. 160, 164 

and 166, the latter two having been abandoned by James Lonergan.191

June 4: A major flood struck the canal in late May and early June, causing great damage to the 

canal below Dam No. 5 and hampering operations above that point. Navigation from Georgetown 

to Harpers Ferry was not restored until mid-June and from Harpers Ferry to Dam No. 5 until early 

July.192

June 8: President George C. Washington informed the directors that the Maryland legislature had 

passed an act four days earlier authorizing a state subscription of $3,000,000 to the stock of the 

canal company. The act was a comprehensive bill authorizing the expenditure of $8,000,000 to 

various internal improvements in the State.193

 

186 Ibid, 36. 187 Ibid, 47. 188 Ibid, 49. 

189 Ibid, 53–54. 

190 Ibid, 63. 

191 Ibid, 66. 

192 Ibid, 70–71, 77, 89. 

193 Ibid, 72, 81, 88. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 211 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

June 15: President Washington reported to the eighth annual meeting of the company stockholders that during the preceding year, the line of the canal between Dams Nos. 5 and 6 had been put 

under contract. Some sections were completed already, while others were nearly done. Paw Paw 

Tunnel and the deep cut at Oldtown, both requiring longer periods for their construction than any 

other works above the Cacapon, also had been placed under contract. While the work was progressing, the scarcity of laborers had prevented the work from progressing as rapidly as the board 

had wished.194

June 20: The board let contracts to John Moore to construct Culverts Nos. 147–148 and 151–

152.195

June 20: The board authorized Resident Engineer Fisk to accept the Maryland governor’s appointment to survey the country between the canal and Baltimore to determine the best location 

for a connecting cross-cut canal. 

 The board confirmed contracts that the commissioner had made with Michael Byrne Co. 

for the construction of Locks Nos. 45–46 and 48–50.196

July 29: The directors let three contracts, the most important of which was for the construction of 

a towpath along the slackwater from Dam No. 4 to Lock No. 41. The board had adopted such a 

plan on April 14 and had accepted the specification for the work drawn up by Fisk on June 29. 

The contract was given to Joseph Hollman. 

 The other contracts let by the board were as follows: Stop Gate in Maryland abutment to 

Dam No. 4 to G. W. Rogers; waste on Section No. 243 to Daniel K. Cahoon; and Culvert No. 188 

to G. W. Higgins.197

August 10: The board let a contract to Thomas M. McCubbin for constructing a waste weir on 

Section No. 207.198

August 17: The board made three decisions concerning the construction of the canal: (1) mile 

posts were to be placed along the waterway above Harpers Ferry in the same manner as they were 

below; (2) The number of each lock and the elevation above tidewater were to be painted on the 

balance beams of the lower lock gates; and (3) the Williamsport Basin was to be walled as soon 

as the town council provided a conveyance for the wash of Potomac Street into Conococheague 

Creek.199

August 18: Upon the recommendation of Resident Engineer Fisk, the board adopted the use of 

“radiating shear paddle gates” in the locks between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River. A contract 

was let to Daniel Rodgers for finishing 10 sets of gates at $366 each. The gates were to be made 

at the Smith & Co. Foundry in Alexandria, Virginia.200

August 20: Mindful of the dire straits of the contractors caused by rapidly rising costs of labor 

and materials, the board authorized Resident Engineer Fisk to recommend measures to prevent 

 

194 Eighth Annual Report (1836), C&O Co., 8. 

195 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 78. 

196 Ibid, 76. 

197 Ibid, 41, 84–85, 115, 123. 

198 Ibid, 118. 

199 Ibid, 122–123. 200 Ibid, 124. 
212 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

the continued abandonment of contracts. Fisk responded with a proposal to increase the estimates 

of 18 contractors by about eight percent, and the board quickly adopted the recommendation. 

Later, in February 1837, a directors’ committee recommended a further advance of $106,808 to 

the contractors on the 27 miles. In August 1837, Fisk made out estimates for the 50 miles above 

Cacapon at a 30 percent increase over January 1836 prices.201

August 25: The board had intended originally to build a feeder canal from the Cacapon River to 

the waterway, but it finally determined upon the construction of Dam No. 6near the mouth of the 

river. On this date, the board approved the plan and specification for the dam and its abutments 

and accompanying guard lock submitted by Fisk. 

 At the recommendation of Superintendent Elgin, the board let a contract to Jonah Hood 

for the construction of a lockhouse at Lock No. 32. So that the structure could be built at its approved location, Fisk was authorized to alter either the plan or size of the house. 

 Fisk was directed to employ temporary assistants to prepare the land on the line of the 

canal from the Cacapon River to the South Branch for jury condemnation or acquisition by the 

canal company.202

September 6: The board let contracts to Henry Wade for the construction of Culverts Nos. 144 

and 145.

203

September 14: After considering the proposals for the construction of the Dam No. 6 complex, 

the board accepted the proposal of Joseph Hollman and George Reynolds for the dam and that of 

George Weaver for the dam abutments and guard lock.204

September 21: The board let a contract to John Seales to construct a waste weir on Section No. 

203 just above Dam No. 5.205

September 26: The board determined to purchase a house and Lot No. 3 in Berlin (now Brunswick) for use as a lockhouse at Lock No. 30. The directors agreed to pay Robert Kimble, the 

owner, the sum of $1,050 plus additional money to cover the cost of recent repairs to the 

house.206

October 14: The board let a contract to William Brown for the construction of Waste Weir No. 

55.207

November 9: The board let a contract to Harvey Cogsil for constructing Waste Weir No. 59.208

November 16: The board let a contract to George W. Higgins for constructing Culvert No. 188.209

 

201 Ibid, 126–127, 129; Fisk to Bender, August 22, 1836 and August 3, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer; 

Ingle to Henderson, January 4, 1837, and Ingle to Bender, February 9, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and 

Report of the Committee to the Directors, February 4, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 202 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 130–131. 203 Ibid, 137. 204 Ibid, 141–142. 205 Ibid, 144. Available documentation indicates that this waste weir was identified as Waste No. 51. 206 Ibid, 121–122, 146. 207 Ibid, 156. 208 Ibid, 167. 

209 Ibid, 168. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 213 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

November 23: Commissioner Bender informed the board that labor disorders at Paw Paw Tunnel 

had hampered operations on that structure. The trouble had included beatings, destruction of 

property, and other forms of physical violence. He attributed the disturbances to the activities of a 

secret terrorist society from New York—probably an early labor union or Irish fraternal organization.210

December 7: The board authorized the construction of lockhouses at Tide Lock B (presently at 

the corner of 17th Street and Constitution Avenue) and at Lock No. 16. 

December 28: The board approved a specification for the post and rail fence to be constructed on 

the towpath at various points between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. Accordingly, the directors ordered that proposals be invited immediately for the construction of the fence.211

1837 

January 4: To prevent future damage to the Nolands Ferry vicinity from high water, the board 

authorized Superintendent Elgin to construct a waste weir near the foot of Lock No. 28 and to 

place in charge of the lockkeeper of Lock No. 27 a double set of stop planks for use at Monocacy 

Aqueduct.212

February 15: Superintendent Elgin was authorized to let contracts to Elisha Howard and John 

Hoskinson to build a post and rail fence along the line of the canal at various points between 

Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry. As part of the agreement between the canal company and the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad resulting from the Maryland Act of 1836 to promote internal improvements, the railroad paid $2,723 to the canal for the erection of the fence.213

March 1: When operations on the canal resumed, the construction was threatened by a critical 

labor shortage. Accordingly, the board sent Superintendent of Masonry McFarland to Philadelphia and New York to induce workers to come to the canal. However, he was instructed not to 

bind the canal company to any payment of funds to those who agreed to work on the waterway.214

April 1: To avoid the difficulties to construction, which had been experienced by the erection of 

Dam Nos. 4 and 5 and the consequent backing of water for miles, the board let a contract to John 

Cameron for the construction of Aqueduct No. 8. The contract was approved with the proviso that 

it could be terminated when the abutments had been built one foot above the apex of Dam No. 

6.215

April 12: The canal board was anxious to begin operations on the 50 miles between Dam No. 6 

and Cumberland, Chief Engineer Fisk was directed to report by May 10 on those sections, locks, 

aqueducts, culverts and dams which were ready for contract.216

 

210 Ibid, 172; and Bender to Washington, November 17, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 211 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 133, 179, 185. 212 Ibid, 189. 213 Ibid, 166, 173–175, 185, 209. 214 Ibid, 215. 215 Ibid, 230. 216 Ibid, 233–234. On this date, Fisk had his position title changed from Resident Engineer to Chief Engineer. 
214 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

May 3: The board let a contract to William W. Warrington for the construction of all culverts between Dam No. 6 and Aqueduct No. 8. The contract permitted the canal company to terminate the 

agreement once the work was built one foot above the comb of Dam No. 6.217

May 3: The board let a contract to James A. Foster to construct a lockhouse at Lock No. 33.218

May 10: The board authorized Commissioner Bender to accept proposals for the construction of 

lockhouses required on the line of the canal under contract between Dams Nos. 5 and 6. The price 

of the structures was not to exceed $950.219

May 17: The canal board authorized Commissioner Bender to accept proposals for the two large 

lockhouses at Prathers Neck and at Paw Paw Tunnel. The prices for the structures were not to 

exceed $1,250 each, and their dimensions were to be those adopted in February, 1836.220

May 26: The board let a contract to James Ellis to build Waste Weir No. 62 on Section No. 

243.221

June 7: The board let a contract to William Broun for constructing a stop gate and bridge on Section No. 213.222

June 12: The board let a contract to John Seale for constructing a towpath along the slackwater 

from Dam No. 5 to Lock No. 45.223

June 12: President George C. Washington reported to the ninth annual meeting of the stockholders that the works on the canal had been “prosecuted with all possible vigor” during the past year. 

However, the construction had been hampered by the rising cost of construction and the competition for labor as a result of the numerous internal improvements under construction in the east. 

The 27-mile line between Dam No. 5 and 6 was still under construction, and the Paw Paw Tunnel 

and deep cut at Oldtown were underway. Under a provision of the law of the State of Virginia 

making a subscription of $250,000 to the stock of the canal company, two outlet locks had been 

built at Edwards Ferry and near the junction of the Shenandoah and the Potomac Rivers. Since 

the last annual meeting, the towpath for the slackwater pool behind Dam No. 4 had been put under contract; two miles of it were finished and in use, and the remaining 1-1/4 miles would be 

completed during the summer. Excellent progress had been made on Dam No. 6. To avoid the 

difficulties in construction which had been experienced by the erection of Dams Nos. 4 and 5 and 

the consequent backing of water for miles, the board had placed under contract the section above 

Dam No. 6, Aqueduct No. 8, and the culverts that opened into the pool. Many of the engineers 

were at work locating the line from the Cacapon to Cumberland so that by August 1 contracts for 

 

217 Ibid, 250. On June 19, the contract was reassigned to Robert Taylor prior to the commencement of construction. 

218 Ibid, 245–250. 

219 Ibid, 256. 220 Ibid, 259. 221 Ibid, 264–265. 222 Ibid, 213. 223 Ibid, 276. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 215 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

the entire line between the latter and the Narrows could be let. Below the Narrows, the masonry 

works and the difficult sections would also be let.224

June 23: The board let a contract to Michael Byrne for the construction of a double square drain. 

The structure is identified as No. 138, indicating that it may have been numbered consecutively 

with the culverts.225

July 19: It was reported to the board that a lockhouse had been completed at Guard Lock No. 5 by 

George Fagen. This indicates that the contract, which did not appear in the written proceedings of 

the directors, probably had been let some time during the early spring.226

July 19: Clerk Ingle submitted to the board a revised form for contracts to be used in the approaching letting. This form was the printed 1837 specifications and contracts, many of which 

remain extant.227

July 24: The board let contracts for the construction of four lockhouses. The proposal of James A. 

Foster for a house 20-by-32 feet at Lock No. 38 was accepted, while the bids of Jesse Schofield 

for standard-size houses at Locks Nos. 46, 51 and 53 were approved.228

September 20: In order to construct the sections immediately above Dam No. 6 before the structure’s backwater would affect them, the board let contracts for Sections Nos. 263–264 to John H. 

Mann and for Sections Nos. 265–266 to Barnard Groman.229

September 27: The board let contracts for the construction of 54 sections and four locks between 

Dam No. 6 and Cumberland. The sections were to be completed by December 15, 1839, and the 

locks by November 1, 1839.230

September 29: The board let contracts for the construction of Aqueducts Nos. 9–11, Locks Nos. 

56–66 and 69–72, Dam No. 8, and Guard Lock No. 8. In addition, a contract was let to Timothy 

Cunningham to build a stop gate on Section No. 217.231

October 4: The board let a contract to E. M. Gatton for the construction of Culvert No. 213.232

November 15: Superintendent Elgin was authorized to construct a waste weir immediately below 

Lock No. 30.233

1838 

 

224 Ninth Annual Report (1837), C&O Co., 3–15. 225 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 282. 226 Ibid, 293. 227 Ibid. 228 Ibid, 295. 

229 Ibid, 315–316. 230 Ibid, 317–319. A list of the contractors may be seen in Appendix N. 231 Ibid, 320–321. A list of the contractors for these works may be seen in Appendix O. 232 Ibid, 324. 233 Ibid, 336. 
216 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

January 24: The board let three contracts for protection walls at various points along the canal. 

Enos Childs was to build rubble masonry walls at both ends of Aqueduct No. 6; Andrew Small 

was to build a rubble masonry wall from Aqueduct No. 7 to Lock No. 52; and John Bain was to 

build a dry wall to buttress the turnpike on Section No. 226.234

April 2: Clerk Ingle was ordered to advertise for proposals for the construction of those sections 

and masonry structures which were let in September 1837 but which had not been placed under 

formal contract. All the culverts from Dam No. 6 to Cumberland were also to be advertised for 

bids.235

May 18: The board reorganized the corps of engineers in order to expedite the work on the canal 

above Dam No. 6. Between the Cacapon River and Cumberland, there were to be four divisions, 

each under the supervision of a principal assistant. The first division extended from Dam No. 6 to 

Section No. 287 with John A. Byers in charge; the second division, covering Sections Nos. 288–

323, was placed under Ellwood Morris; the third division, comprising Section Nos. 324–349, was 

assigned to Charles H. Randolph; and the fourth division, from Section No. 350 to Cumberland, 

was put in charge of Joshua Gore.236

May 23: The board confirmed a contract that had been negotiated with George Shafer to supply 

cement from his newly opened mill at Roundtop Hill to the line of the canal between Dam No. 6 

and the upper end of Paw Paw Tunnel. At the same meeting, the board authorized Chief Engineer 

Fisk to negotiate a contract with James C. Lynn to supply cement from his mill at Cumberland to 

the works above the tunnel.237

 The board considered the proposals that had been received under their order of April 2 

and accepted bids for 17 sections and Aqueduct No. 9.238

May 24: The board considered additional proposals that had been received under their order of 

April 2 and accepted offers for Locks Nos. 57–67 and Culverts Nos. 204, 210, 219–220, 225 and 

229.239

May 30: The board let a contract to Michael Byrne for the construction of five cement houses 

along the line of construction.240

June 4: President George C. Washington informed the tenth annual meeting of the company 

stockholders that the delay in putting into effect the June 1836 act by the Maryland legislature 

authorizing the subscription of $3,000,000 to the stock of the company had hampered operations 

on the canal during the preceding months. Other factors which had prevented the canal between 

Dams Nos. 5 and 6 from being opened to navigation on June 1 as had been anticipated were the 

extremely high water which suspended work on Dam No. 6 in the spring, the labor strife at 

 

234 Ibid, 359. 235 Ibid, 382. 236 Ibid, 412–415. 237 Ibid, 421–422. The board confirmed a contract with Lynn on June 28. 238 Ibid, 423. A list of the contractors for these works may be seen in Appendix P. 

239 Ibid, 424–425. Evidently, the canal company was having difficulty in getting bids for the culverts above 

Dam No. 6 because the board authorized Fisk to accept proposals for the remaining culverts at prices not 

exceeding ten percent above his cost estimates. A list of the contractors for these works may be seen in 

Appendix Q. 

240 Ibid, 428. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 217 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Prather’s Neck which had led to a work stoppage, and the abandonment and reletting of numerous 

contracts for increases of from 25 to 40 percent. Despite these problems, the line between the two 

dams would be opened to navigation during the summer. Anxious to complete the canal to Cumberland, the heaviest sections and the aqueducts above the Cacapon had been placed under contract in September.241

September 25: The board let contracts to George G. Johnson for the construction of Culverts Nos. 

234–241.242

July 4: Despite all the financial reverses of the canal company, the board still had not given up the 

idea of constructing the canal all the way to Pittsburg. Accordingly, Chief Engineer Fisk was directed to begin locating the line of the canal in Will’s Creek Valley and on any other part of the 

“Summit Section” where it was likely that there would be competition for the right-of-way between the canal and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.243

July 18: The board authorized President Washington to initiate a policy of discharging disorderly 

men employed along the canal. Furthermore, he was to take steps to prevent their reemployment 

on the canal in the future. In this way, the directors attempted to expedite the work by eliminating 

the periodic labor strife which had hampered operations on the canal.244

July 18: Upon the recommendations of Chief Engineer Fisk, the board let the following contracts 

for the construction of culverts: James Brownlie, No. 206 on Section No. 283; No. 207 on Section 

No. 286; No. 208 on Section No. 291; John Riley, No. 209 on Section No. 296; John Waldron, 

No. 211 on Section No. 311; John Lobdell, No. 215 on Section No. 322; Robert McGregor, No. 

216 on Section No. 330, No. 217 on Section No. 331; Robert McGregor, No. 216 on Section No. 

330, No. 217 on Section No. 331; Patrick Crowley, Nos. 226–228 on Section No342; and William Lockwood, No. 232 on Section No. 347, No. 233 on Section Nor 348.245

September 28: The board let a contract to John Bain for constructing a stop gate on Section No. 

228.246

October 17: Chief Engineer Fisk presented to the board a proposal from William Easby for completing the lock gates abandoned by Thornton C. Bradley and for several towpath bridges and 

gates for waste weirs and lock flumes. The proposal was accepted.247

1839 

January 5: Chief Engineer Fisk informed the board that the line of the canal between Dams Nos. 5 

and 6 was nearly ready to be watered. Accordingly, the board appointed John G. Stone to be superintendent of the new division.248

 

241 Tenth Annual Report (1838), C&O Co., 3, 9, 12, 25. 242 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 446. 243 Ibid, 456. 244 Ibid, 466. 245 Ibid, 467. 246 Ibid, 498. 247 Ibid, 507–508. 248 Ibid, F, 3–4. 
218 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

January 5: In an effort to economize and to hurry construction, the board began a policy of dispensing with certain culverts and other structures that were not deemed important to the construction of the canal. One of the first of the previously contracted culverts to be disposed of in such a 

manner was Culvert No. 146.249

March: The Alexandria Canal Company offered to contract for the construction of that part of the 

northern abutment of the Potomac Aqueduct which the C and O had agreed to fund. The board 

accepted this offer and authorized the letting of a contract.250

April 17: Superintendent Stone informed the board that water had been admitted into the canal 

between Dams Nos. 5 and 6. President Washington nominated, and the board approved, the following men to be lock tenders: Philip Trammel for Locks Nos. 45–46; Daniel Brewer for Locks 

Nos. 47–50; Henry Rowland for Locks Nos. 51–52; Hugh Connor for Lock No. 53; and James 

Neal for Guard Lock No. 6.251

May 15: Upon the recommendation of Chief Engineer Fisk, the board agreed to dispense with the 

construction of Culverts Nos. 202 1⁄2, 203, 205, 209, 213, 214, 219, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 229 

and 232. Because the canal finances were approaching exhaustion, this measure was taken as a 

step toward economy.252

June 3: President Washington informed the eleventh annual meeting of the company stockholders 

that construction was progressing as rapidly as possible. The entire line of the canal from Georgetown to Dam No. 6, embracing 135 miles, was open to navigation, the 27 1⁄2-mile distance between Dams Nos. 5 and 6 having been watered early in April. This portion of the canal was completed with the exception of three lockhouses, the graveling of Dam No. 6, and some comparatively light work. 

 The line above the Cacapon River had been progressing with a force varying from 2,500 

to 3,000 laborers. A number of sections were completed, and most of the heavy sections were 

nearly finished. It was intended by the board to let the abandoned sections and masonry as well as 

the previously uncontracted works in the near future to insure that the canal would be finished to 

Cumberland within two years. Good progress had been made on the tunnel, having two-thirds of 

its length already bored.253

August 5: The canal company stockholders considered and adopted a special report by its general 

committee relative to the condition of the canal from Georgetown to Cumberland. During the latter part of June, the general committee and several company officials had traveled the entire 

length of the canal, and the report included their observations on both the finished and unfinished 

portions of the waterway. On the 50 miles above Dam No. 6, there were under contract (including 

those already completed) 59 sections, 17 locks, 3 aqueducts, 13 culverts, 1 dam and guard lock, 

and 1 tunnel. In addition, the following had once been under contract but subsequently abandoned 

and not relet: 6 sections, 5 locks, 1 aqueduct, 9 culverts, and 1 lockhouse. Of the work that had 

never been under contract, there were: 34 sections, 7 culverts, 12 lockhouses, 16 wastes and 

waste weirs, 9 bridges and 4 stop gates. Nearly one-third of the work on the canal above the Ca-

 

249 Ibid, 5. 250 Ibid, 29. 251 Ibid, 38. 252 Ibid, 56. 253 Eleventh Annual Report (1839), C&O Co., in Proceedings of the Stockholders, B, 210–214. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 219 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

capon was completed, with the distance of about 15 miles at either end approximately one year 

ahead of the middle portion.254

September 25: The canal company was facing a complex two-fold problem in the summer and 

fall of 1839—that of liquidating its staggering debt and of finding some means to push the construction of the canal to a successful conclusion. The alternative was to suspend all operations 

until adequate funding could be obtained. On this date, the board initiated a new policy by authorizing the issuance of $200,000 in canal scrip and by establishing a trust fund of five percent 

Maryland bonds to redeem the scrip as it was received for tolls and rents, This policy was employed regularly until construction was suspended in 1841.255

October 14: Upon the recommendation of Chief Engineer Fisk, the board ordered President Francis Thomas to proceed to the canal and make arrangements with some of the contractors to suspend the construction of those works which could be delayed without serious injury to the ultimate completion of the waterway. Thomas was authorized to take further steps to reduce the expenditures of the company. 

 At the same time, the board received word from a number of contractors requesting that a 

military force be kept in the vicinity of the canal to preserve peace among the laborers. The board 

authorized the president to forward this request to the Governor of Maryland.256

December 21: After Chief Engineer Fisk reported that the following works were still unfinished 

and that their contracts had expired, the board declared the contracts to be abandoned: Sections 

Nos. 262, 264, 265, 269, 272, 293, 296, 297, 317, 318, 321, 329, 342, 347, 348, 350, 361, 367; 

Dam No. 8; Aqueducts Nos. 9 and 11; Locks Nos. 54, 56, 58, 72, 73, 74; and Culverts Nos. 206, 

234–241. The board was willing to continue the construction of Sections Nos. 137–318, Aqueduct No 11 and Locks Nos. 72–74 providing satisfactory arrangements could be made with the 

contractors. Fisk was authorized to negotiate with the contractors for Sections Nos. 268, 279, 294, 

320 and 324 for the suspension of their works.257

1840 

February 27: The board approved modified contracts let to George Hoblitzell, William P. Sterritt 

and James Brounlie to recommence work on Section No. 367, Dam No. 8 and Culvert No. 206, 

respectively.258

May 27: The board let a contract to Lewis Wernwag for the construction of a pivot bridge at 

Nolands Ferry, which the directors had ordered to be built in February.259

 

254 Report of the General Committee of the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, August 5, 1839 (Washington, 1839), 22–23. 255 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 108, 120–121, 132; and Thomas to Pinckney, 

November 1, 1839, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

256 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 112–113. 257 Ibid, 137–138. Arrangements were made on January 22, 1840, to continue work on Sections Nos. 293 

and 329 and Lock No. 72, the modified contracts calling for completion date by May or June, 1841. On 

January 23, 1840, the board agreed to a modified contract for the continuation of work on Sections Nos. 

152–154; 156–157. 

258 Ibid, 177. 

259 Ibid, 215–216. 
220 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

June 2: The president and directors reported to the twelfth annual meeting of the company stockholders that rising construction costs and deteriorating finances had caused a virtual suspension of 

operations on the “fifty-mile” section of the canal above Dam No. 6. Generally, the sections were 

far ahead of the masonry. Of the 99 sections on this line, 29 were completed, 18 were nearly finished, 17 were partially done but no longer under contract, and 35 had never been under contract. 

The masonry was largely suspended except for the 10 miles immediately above Dam No. 6 and 

the 10 immediately below Cumberland: of the 22 locks, five were nearly completed, materials 

had been prepared for five others, and 12 were not under contract; of the 30 culverts, five were 

finished, six others had been commenced, and nineteen were not under contract; of the four aqueducts, two were nearly done while two had hardly been started and were not presently under contract. Dam No. 8 and Guard Lock No. 8 at Cumberland were more than half done. However, none 

of the bridges, wastes, or waste weirs had been placed under contract. Within days, the heading of 

the Paw Paw Tunnel would be excavated from end to end while the lower half of the excavation 

was nearly one-third done.260

July 17: Chief Engineer Fisk notified Clement Cox, chairman of the committee of the stockholders, that work on the canal above Dam No. 6 was continuing at a spasmodic pace. Three thousand 

men were needed in constant employment to complete the waterway in two years, but only onehalf that number was on the line. The masonry structures were about one year behind the sections, 

and the labor force was largely deficient in mechanics that were able to do masonry work. Of the 

masonry that was done, most was confined to the two ends of the line, leaving an intermediate 

distance of nearly 30 miles with its masonry scarcely begun. 

 From Dam No. 6 to the lower end of Seven-Mile Bottom, the sections were 80 percent 

done, and the five locks, two aqueducts, and five culverts about 50 percent completed. Between 

Seven-Mile Bottom and a point opposite the mouth of the South Branch, the sections were 40 

percent completed, the Paw Paw Tunnel over 60 percent, and the nine locks, one aqueduct, and 

seven culverts less than 10 percent. On the next nine miles up to the lower entrance of The Narrows, the sections were over 60 percent completed, and the four locks and eleven culverts less 

than one percent. The sections on the remaining 10-1⁄2 miles to Cumberland were nearly 75 percent done, while the four locks, one aqueduct, seven culverts and Dam No. 8 complex were over 

60 percent finished. The fifteen lockhouses and the numerous bridges and waste structures on the 

“fifty-mile” section were not presently under contract and were less than five percent done.261

July 19: Accompanying the board’s determination to continue construction on the basis of the 

unrestricted issuance of scrip was the first large turnover of canal employees. This was partly the 

result of a disagreement with the new policies and partly the effect of the application of the spoils 

system in the operation of the canal. Many old and reliable officials were dismissed or voluntarily 

retired, including the clerk, the treasurer, Chief Engineer Fisk, and several division superintendents. Some of the ousted officials carried into the newspapers their opposition to the directorate, 

thereby further undermining public confidence in the canal project. The board met sporadically 

throughout the summer and fall, and construction continued at a spasmodic pace.262

 

260 Twelfth Annual report (1840), C&O Co., 13–15. 261 Fisk to Cox, July 17, 1840, in Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), C&O Co., 52–61. 262 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 246, 256–257, 259; and Ingle to President and 

Directors, June 10, 1840; Fisk to President and Directors, October 1, 1840; and Morris to Thomas, December 4, 1840, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 221 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

September 26: President Thomas informed the board that the following works were the only ones 

in progress: 2 aqueducts, 1 culvert, 5 locks, 15 sections, 1 tunnel, 1 dam and the Deep Cut. Of 

these works, 8 sections, 1 culvert, 5 locks and 1 aqueduct were nearly completed. Accordingly, he 

recommended that several engineering positions be abolished as soon as Sections Nos. 268, 274–

275, 279, 281, 312, 320 and 367, the culvert, Aqueduct No. 11, and Locks Nos. 55, 72 and 73 

were completed.263

1841 

March 16: When the Maryland Legislature adjourned in March without providing effective aid to 

the canal and with the trust fund near exhaustion, the board reversed its former policy by forbidding the issuance of more scrip until means were provided to repay it and by preparing to suspend 

operations.264

June 7: The board of directors informed the thirteenth annual meeting of the canal company 

stockholders that operations had nearly ceased on the waterway. Between 600 and 700 laborers 

were at work on seven sections, the tunnel, and Aqueduct No. 11. The contractors and workers 

were totally without money and were virtually destitute of credit. Unless the company bonds 

could be marketed in Europe or the Maryland Legislature provided effective aid, construction 

would be suspended. During the past year, approximately $467,000 worth of work had been done, 

but more then $1,600,000 still remained.265

August 7: When the board was informed that State of Maryland would not provide effective aid 

for the completion of the canal, it was determined to suspend operations indefinitely. The directors instructed the clerk to notify the contractors to stop their work and the chief engineer to 

commence making final estimates. At the same time, they agreed to accept drafts on the company 

by the contractors in order to encourage them to continue the work on their own until further aid 

was forthcoming. Work on the canal continued spasmodically a little longer and then it came to 

an end.266

1843: Alexandria Canal Opened 

December 2: The Potomac Aqueduct was formally opened for use 10 years after work was begun 

on the Virginia side. The northern abutment which the canal company had paid for was completed in 1841. The entire structure had been built under the direction of Major William Turnbull 

of the U.S. Topographical Engineers. 

1842–1847 

Construction on the canal remained at a standstill until late 1845 while canal officials sought adequate funding to complete the canal. After attempting a number of schemes, friends of the canal 

induced the Maryland Legislature in March, 1845, to pass a canal bill authorizing the company to 

issue $1,700,000 of preferred construction bonds on the mortgage of its revenue when it received 

 

263 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 256–257. 264 Ibid, 297. 265 Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), C&O Co., 9, 61–63. 266 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 377–378, 381; Fisk to President and Directors, 

December 1, 1842, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; and Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), C&O Co., 3. 
222 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

guaranties from interested coal companies for 195,000 tons of coal annually for five years. Following the approval of the guaranties by the Governor of Maryland in August 1845, the board on 

September 23 let a contract to Walter Gwynn, William Thompson, James Hunter and Walter 

Cunningham to complete the canal. By the terms of the contract, Messrs. Gwynn and Company 

agreed to provide the materials of the required quality according to the specifications of the chief 

engineer, to begin work in 30 days, and to complete the canal by November 1, 1847. 

 Gwynn and Company sublet all the sections in October 1845, and the contractors placed 

a token force on the line by November 1, pending successful negotiations for the necessary funding to finance large-scale construction. Conditions resulting from the Mexican War and the inability of canal officials to negotiate the sale of the bonds hampered the work. By May 1, 1846, 

the work done amounted to only $55,384, and by July, work on the canal had ceased entirely. 

 Following another year of negotiations, an agreement was reached whereby a group of 29 

capitalists in New York, Boston and Washington took $500,000 of the bonds, the subcontractors 

$200,000, the Commonwealth of Virginia $300,000, and the District cities $100,000. Work was 

resumed on November 18, 1847, under a modified contract. The old company was reorganized 

and a new one succeeded to its contract with the canal board. Gwynn and Cunningham retired, 

but the remaining partners, Hunter and Thompson, continued, with the addition of a third partner, 

Thomas Harris.267

1847 

December 8: The board approved a contract that President James M. Coale had negotiated with 

Owen Ardinger to construct a dry dock on the berm side of the canal near Williamsport. At the 

same time, the directors authorized Coale to grant permission to qualified persons who submitted 

requests for the right to build dry docks along the canal. All the dry docks were to be constructed 

under the direction of the chief engineer or the division superintendents.268

1848 

April 11: John Davis, Nathan Hale and Horatio Allen, trustees of the parties that furnished the

funds for the canal’s completion and agents of Hunter, Harris & Co. informed the board that work 

was underway on the “fifty-mile” section. From Dam No. 6 to Cumberland, there were 84 sections, 16 locks, 1 dam, 3 aqueducts, 23 culverts, 10 waste weirs, 8 road bridges and ferries, 17 

lockhouses and 2 stop gates. For administrative purposes, the 84 sections were divided into three 

classes: (1) 30 were finished before the work stoppage in 1841; (2) six were nearly finished and 

required final dressing work; and (3) 48 were hardly commenced. The first two classes comprised 

the heavy sections, and the contractors had placed their remaining work under the supervision of 

three work parties. The 48 sections in the third class were light sections and had been put under 

 

267 Niles' Register, Vol. LXVIII (March 8, 1845), 16; Ibid, Vol. LXVIII (March 15, 1845), 23–24; Ibid,

Vol. LXXII (October 25, 1845), 128; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 317–318, 

320–323, 353–354, 443; Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), C&O Co., 8–11; Twentieth Annual Report

(1848), C&O Co., 7–8; and Fisk to President and Directors, June 25, 1846; and C. Cox to Coale, July 10, 

1846, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. During the interim of construction, the board had adopted various economy 

measures to facilitate the construction of the canal, including the substitution of Kyanized wood for stone in 

the locks, and the postponement of building lockhouses and arching the tunnel until after the canal was 

opened to Cumberland Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 157. 268 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 112. Earlier on October 2, the board had authorized John Moore, the lock tender at Georgetown, to construct a dry dock for the repair of boats near 

Lock No. 1. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 223 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

subcontractors.269 Work had been commenced on all of these sections except Nos. 295–296, 314 

and 321, and preparations were nearly ready to begin on these. Within two months, it was anticipated that six-to-eight of these sections would be completed, at which time the laborers would be 

transferred to other sections still in progress. 

 Paw Paw Tunnel, located between Sections Nos. 299 and 311, had been contracted to 

McCullough & Day. 

 Arrangements had been made to complete the lift locks as follows: Locks Nos. 54 and 56 

(masonry) to Moyle, Randal & Jones; Lock No. 58 (masonry) still not let; Locks Nos. 59–61 

(composite) to Ritner & Co.; Locks Nos. 62–66 (composite) to Buell & Watt; Lock No. 67 (composite) to William P. Sterritt; and Locks Mos. 68–71 (masonry) to Fallan and Ambrose. The 

weigh lock at Cumberland was still not under contract. 

 The foundation of Dam No. 8 had been laid up to low water. Nearly one-fourth of the 

stone required for the dam was prepared and most of the timber was cut and delivered. The structure was under contract to William Lockwood. 

 Of the 23 culverts, 18 were let to contractors. The five remaining culverts were located 

between Section No. 352 and Cumberland and were about one-half completed. When the other 

masonry was more advanced, these culverts would be put under contract. 

 Three of the ten wastes and waste weirs had been put under contract to the following persons: one on Section No. 258 to Moyal, Randal and Jones; one on Section No. 320 to R. Sims and 

Co.; and one on Aqueduct No. 10 to Hunter, Harris and Co. 

 Three aqueducts were still not finished. Aqueduct No. 8 needed less than 300 perches of 

rubble masonry, a task apparently assigned to the Hunter, Harris and Co. construction team. The 

completion of Aqueduct No. 9 had been subcontracted to Thomas Bell who was expected to 

commence laying the arch within three weeks. Aqueduct No. 10, which had only one abutment 

laid, was assigned to the Hunter, Harris and Co. construction team. 

 Hunter, Harris and Co. made arrangements to furnish the cement required for the masonry works. They had contracted with George Shafer at the Round Top Cement Mill to burn, 

grind and deliver 12,000 bushels per month for 10 months, and with Charles Locker at Cumberland for 6,000 bushels per month for 10 months.270

June 5: President Coale reported to the twentieth annual meeting of the canal company stockholders that work on the waterway was progressing rapidly. It was anticipated that the canal would be 

completed to Cumberland before October 1, 1849, the date limited by the contract.271

October 10: To facilitate the construction of the waterway and to reduce the time and cost of 

completing the canal, the board determined to build Locks Nos. 68–71 on the composite plan and 

dispense with the erection of a bridge, forebay and Culvert No. 218 near Oldtown.272

December 8: The board authorized John G. Stone, Superintendent of the Third Division, to build 

a lockhouse on the company’s land at Lock No. 44 at as low a rate as practicable.273

 

269 Twentieth Annual Report (1847), C&O Co., Appendix D, 17–18. 270 Ibid, 16–21. 271 Ibid, 8–9. 272 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 214–216. 273 Ibid, 228. 
224 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

1849 

June 4: Chief Engineer Fisk reported to the twenty-first annual Meeting of the canal company 

stockholders the construction was progressing at such a pace that it would probably be completed 

by December 10. To back his optimistic prediction, he submitted a list of work done and work to 

be done as follows: 

WORK 

DONE 

WORK TO 

BE DONE TOTAL 

Sections $297,385 $172,586 $469,971 

Tunnel and its Deep Cuts 86,081 91,919 178,000 

Composite & Masonry Locks 74,308 153,523 227,831 

Aqueducts 30,337 41,370 71,707 

Culverts 63,423 58,250 121,673 

Wastes and Waste Weirs 2,283 39,703 41,986 

Lockhouses, Bridges, Roads & Ferries 6,375 16,629 23,004 

Dam No. 8 and Guard Lock No. 8 16,757 5,043 21,800 

Miscellaneous --- 16,746 16,746 

Cement Transportation 6,010 13,001 19,011 

Weigh Lock and House --- 18,500 18,500 

Totals $583,209 $638,070 $1,221,279 

As of May 25, the following numbers and classes of workers were employed on the line of the 

canal: 77 bosses, 39 blacksmiths, 54 carpenters, 75 drillers and blasters, 107 quarrymen, 59 

stonecutters, 73 masons, 112 mason tenders, 6 brick molders, 50 brick makers, 16 bricklayers, 19 

bricklayer tenders and 760 laborers. The total number of all classes of laborers and workmen was 

1,447. There were also 233 drivers, 562 horses, 26 mules, and 6 oxen employed to drive and to 

work 285 carts, 20 scoops, 13 ploughs, 11 two-horse wagons, 3 three-horse wagons, 29 fourhorse wagons, 1 six-horse wagon, 5 one-horse railroad cars, 14 two-horse railroad cars, 10 threehorse railroad cars, 14 drags, 4 brick-molding machines, and numerous cranes. 

 To facilitate the construction and reduce the cost of completing the canal, it had been determined to build Locks Nos. 68–71 on the composite plan and dispense with the erection of a 

bridge, forebay and Culvert No. 218 near Oldtown.274

September 27: The board extended the date for the completion of the canal after Hunter, Harris 

and Co. informed the directors that they were unable to finish construction in the specified time. 

Among the problems which had slowed their operations were the sickness and scarcity of workers 

and the ever-present financial troubles resulting from the slow sale of bonds and the excess of 

costs over estimates.275

1850 

January 28: The Virginia and Maryland Bridge Company requested permission to build a bridge 

across the canal at Shepherdstown opposite the bridge they were then building across the Potomac River. Upon the recommendation of Chief Engineer Fisk, the board offered to contribute 

$1,000 toward the construction of the bridge over the canal provided that the bridge company 

 

274 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), C&O Co., Appendix A, 23–27. 275 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 274–275; 300–301. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 225 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

agreed to build it according to Fisk’s specifications and to keep it in repair when it was completed.276

January 28: To speed the work and to reduce the cost of construction, Chief Engineer Fisk recommended that locust timber be substituted for stone in the coping of the towpath in the Paw Paw 

Tunnel. Anxious to economize and to see the work completed, the board adopted this measure.277

March 21: The board again took a step to save time and money in finishing the canal by ordering 

that the coping of the composite locks be changed from stone to wood.278

April 17: Troubles came to a head when the financial difficulties of Hunter, Harris and Co. 

brought about a suspension of the work for several days and the threat of violence. The workers, 

who had been unpaid for some time, were demanding satisfaction. The trustees, Davis, Hale and 

Allen, took over the contract on assignment from Hunter, Harris and Co. and resumed work. The 

date for the completion of the canal was extended to July 1 and then to August 1.279

June 3: President James M. Coale informed the twenty-second annual meeting of the canal company stockholders that water would be admitted into the first 10 miles of the canal between Cumberland and Lock No. 72 early the following week. With the present labor force at work on the 

canal, it was anticipated that the canal could be watered down to Dam No. 6 by mid-July. The 

current estimate of the chief engineer was that $49,227 worth of work needed to be done, and of 

this sum $9,000 could be executed after the admission of water. The labor force at work on the 

line at present consisted of 37 bosses, 7 blacksmiths, 70 carpenters, 22 quarrymen, 10 stonecutters, 20 masons, 33 mason tenders, and 414 laborers, making a total of 613 men. There were also 

104 drivers, 215 horses, 147 carts, 14 two-horse railroad cars, 4 three-horse railroad cars and numerous wagons. 

 In order to hurry the work to completion, various steps had been taken to reduce the time 

and cost of construction. On one hand, there had been a substitution in the composite plan, for the 

masonry, in the construction of five lift locks, and of wooden, for stone coping, to a considerable 

extent upon the composite locks, the Paw Paw Tunnel towpath, and several wastes. On the other 

hand, numerous works had dispensed with, including two culverts, one bridge, one forebay, one 

stone and one wooden waste weir, and one lockhouse.280

June 25: The board determined to dispense with building the weigh lock at Cumberland until after 

the canal was completed.281

July 17–18: The resources of the trustees, Davis, Hale and Allen, were exhausted by mid-July and 

work again stopped. The board promptly declared the contract abandoned and negotiated a new 

one with Michael Byrne providing for the completion of the canal for $3,000 cash and $21,000 in 

bonds.282

 

276 Ibid, 323. 277 Ibid, 324–325. 278 Ibid, 341–342. 

279 Ibid, 349, 365; and Twenty-Second Annual Report (1850), C&O Co., 6–7. 280 Twenty-Second Annual Report (1850), C&O Co., 3–4, 13–15. 281 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 364. 282 Ibid, 369–372. 
226 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

October 10: The eastern section of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, the only part ever to be completed, was formally opened to trade at Cumberland. Following gala ceremonies at the basin, a 

procession of canal boats proceeded down the waterway toward Georgetown. After 22 years of 

intermittent enthusiasm and despair, the canal was navigable to Cumberland.283

November 27: The board ordered that a marble slab or block be placed “in a conspicuous position 

in the masonry of, or on the line of the canal” with the names of the president, directors, officers, 

state agents and the date of completion. The monument, a short obelisk, was built near the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge over the canal in Georgetown.284

1851 

February 27: The president and directors reported to a special meeting of the canal company 

stockholders that Byrne had progressed with his operations to the point that, on October 10, the 

canal had been opened for navigation to Cumberland. Some light work still remained to be done 

which did not interfere with the passage of boats, and he had continued to press forward with the 

work through the winter. On February 17, the final payment was made to him pursuant to the 

provisions of his contract. This date marked, in a technical sense, the formal completion of the 

canal to Cumberland. 

 The canal, built at a total cost of $11,071,176.21, or $59,618.61 per mile was described as 

follows in the report: 

 The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, between Georgetown and Cumberland, lies on the north, 

or Maryland side, of the river, with the advantages of a southern exposure, and pursues the immediate valley of the Potomac throughout its whole length, except at a point called Paw Paw 

Bend, about 27 miles below Cumberland, where it passes through the mountain by a tunnel 3,118 

feet in length, and lined and arched with brick laid in cement, by which, about six miles, in distance, have been saved. From the Rock Creek Basin in Georgetown, where it first reaches tidewater, to the basin at Cumberland, is one hundred and eighty-four and four-tenths miles, and the total rise from the level of mid-tide, at Georgetown, to the Cumberland basin, is 609.7 feet. This 

ascent is overcome by 74 lift locks, and a tide lock that connects Rock Creek Basin with the Potomac River. At the terminus of the extension of the canal, at the mouth of the Tiber in the city of 

Washington, is another tide lock, which connects it with the Potomac River, and also with Washington city canal. The latter canal passes entirely through the city, and terminates on the eastern 

branch near the navy yard. From a point about a mile west of Rock Creek Basin, the Alexandria 

Canal, seven miles in length, diverges from the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, crosses the Potomac 

River by an aqueduct 1600 feet long, and connects with tidewater at Alexandria. The Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal is constructed for a depth of six feet throughout. From Georgetown to Harpers 

Ferry, 60 miles—it is 60 feet wide at the surface, and 42 feet at the bottom. From Harpers Ferry 

to Dam No. 5, 47 miles, the width of the surface is 50 feet, and at the bottom 32 feet, and from 

Dam No. 5 to Cumberland, 771⁄2 miles, the surface width is 54 feet, and the bottom 30 feet. The 

average lift of the locks a little exceeds 8 feet. They are 100 feet long and 15 feet wide, in the 

clear, and are capable of passing boats carrying 120 tones (of 2,240 lbs.). 

 The present supply of water for the canal is drawn entirely from the Potomac. For this 

purpose, dams have been constructed across the river at seven different points.285

 

283 Ibid, 379–380; Cumberland Civilian, October, 1850; and Georgetown Advocate, October 15, 1850. 284 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 384. 285 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, with a 

Sketch of the Potomac Company, and a General Outline of the History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Co., From Its Origin to February, 1851. . . Made February 27th, 1851 (Frederick, 1851), 111–112. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 227 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

II. INDIVIDUAL CHRONOLOGIES OF THE CONSTRUCTION 

 OF MAJOR STRUCTURES ON THE CANAL: 1828–1850 

A. LIFT LOCKS 

Locks Nos. 1–4: Section A 

December 10, 1828: Contract let to Dibble, Beaumont and McCord. 

June–July, 1829: Work commenced on locks. 

April, 1831: Work completed on locks. 

Cost: $34,052.08 

Locks Nos. 5–6: Section No. 1 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Bennett and Brackett. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 

May, 1829: Work commenced on locks. 

September, 1830: Work completed on locks. 

Cost: $18,985.67 

Lock No. 7: Section No. 4 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Brackett and Hovey. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Fenlon and Bosteder, 

April, 1829: Work recommenced on lock. 

September, 1829: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,493.43 

Lock No. 8: Section No. 7 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Brackett and Hovey. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 

April, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

July, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,043.14 

Lock No. 9: Section No. 8 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to W. W. Fenlon and Co. 

February, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

September, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,540.98 

Lock No. 10: Section No. 8 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Kavenaugh, Knox, Hale and Nichols. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

March 3, 1830: Contract abandoned. 

March, 1830: Contract relet to Douglas and Small. 

March, 1830: Work recommenced on lock. 

August–September, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,729.22 
228 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Lock No. 11: Section No. 8 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Kavenaugh, Knox, Hale and Nichols. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

July, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,089.18 

Lock No. 12: Section No. 9 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to J. and J. Maynard. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Fenlon and Bosteder. 

August, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,650.31 

Lock No. 13: Section No. 9 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Patrick Donnelly. 

December, 1829: Contract let to Charles Mowry. 

December, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

September, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,300.81 

Lock No. 14: Section No. 9 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Patrick Donnelly. 

June, 1829: Contract relet to Wood and Kendall. 

June, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

September, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,673.87 

Lock No. 15: Section No. 17 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to J. and J. Maynard. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 

April, 1829: Work recommenced on lock. 

July, 1829: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,349.83 

Lock No. 16: Section No. 17 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to J. and J. Maynard. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 

April, 1829: Work recommenced on lock. 

July, 1829: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,001.78 

Lock No. 17: Section No. 18 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Henry and Roberts. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 229 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

April, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

July, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,941.81 

Lock No. 18: Section No. 18 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to J. and J. Maynard. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 

April, 1829: Work recommenced on lock. 

July, 1830: Work completed on lock.] 

Cost: $9,383.61 

Lock No. 19: Section No. 18 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to J. and J. Maynard. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Fenlon and Bosteder. 

November, 1829: Work recommenced on lock. 

October–November, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,139.11 

Lock No. 20: Section No. 18 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to J. and J. Maynard. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co. 

April, 1829: Work recommenced on lock. 

July, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,355.52 

Lock No. 21: Section No. 23 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Holdsworth and Isherwood. 

July, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

October 12, 1829: Contract relinquished. 

October 21, 1829: Contract relet to Richard Gorsline. 

October, 1830: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $8,327.76 

Lock No. 22: Section No. 29 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Kenney and Roberts. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to F. C. Clopper. 

April, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

May, 1831: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $7,969.28 

Lock No. 23: Section No. 34 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Kenney and Roberts. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Holdsworth and Isherwood. 
230 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

June, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

January, 1831: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $8,912.80 

Lock No. 24: Section No. 35 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Holdsworth and Isherwood. 

March, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

May 5, 1830: Contract assigned to Richard Holdsworth. 

March, 1832: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $8,886.88 

Lock No. 25: Section No. 51 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Lafferty and Boland. 

July, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

January–February, 1830: Contract abandoned. 

April 21, 1830: Contract relet to James Stewart. 

June, 1830: Work recommenced on lock. 

October, 1831: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $11,191.64 

Lock No. 26: Section No. 68 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Amos Johnson. 

March 14, 1829: Contract relet to Abram Knapp and Co.; 

 firm subcontracted lock to Stewart and Douglas 

January, 1831: Work commenced on lock. 

July–August, 1832: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,376.30 

Lock No. 27: Section No. 72 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Lafferty and Boland. 

January, 1829: Work commenced on lock. 

February, 1830: Contract abandoned. 

February 12, 1830: Contract relet to D. Canfield. 

November 26, 1830: Contract relet to Andrew Small. 

March, 1831: Work recommenced on lock. 

June, 1832: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $11,323.75 

Lock No. 28: Section No. 87 

March 24, 1832: Contract let to J. B. and D. K. Cahoon. 

May, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

July, 1832: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,734.55 

Lock No. 29: Section No. 90 

March 17, 1832: Contract let to J. B. and D. K. Cahoon. 

May, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

August 18, 1832: Contract abandoned. 

August 25, 1832: Contract relet to Littlejohn and Thompson. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 231 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

November, 1833: Contract abandoned and work recommenced by canal company. 

April, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,457.05 

Lock No. 30: Section No. 98 

March 14, 1832: Contract let to Obadiah Gordon 

June, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

July, 1832: Contract abandoned. 

August – September, 1832: Contract relet to Andrew Small. 

October, 1832: Work recommenced on lock. 

October, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $11,694.51 

Lock No. 31: Section No. 104 

March 17, 1832: Contract let to Obadiah Gordon. 

May, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

December 31, 1832: Contract abandoned. 

January, 1833: Contract relet to John M. Moore. 

January, 1833: Work recommenced on lock. 

September, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $16,085.49 

Lock No. 32: Section No. 108 

March 17, 1832: Contract let to Lewis Wernwag. 

September, 1832: Contract assigned to John Hay. 

September, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

January 18, 1833: Contract abandoned and construction assigned to Charles B. Fisk, 

with John Hay as principal builder. 

February, 1833: Contract relet to Gibson and Co.; firm subcontracted lock to Littlejohn and Co. 

February, 1833: Work recommenced on lock. 

July, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $11,298.85 

Lock No. 33: Section No. 109 

March 17, 1832: Contract let to James O'Brien. 

April – May, 1832: Contract relet to Lewis Wernwag. 

June, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

September, 1832: Contract abandoned. 

September, 1832: Contract relet to Littlejohn and Co. 

September, 1832: Work recommenced on lock. 

September, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $20,728.05 

Lock No. 34: Section No. 111 

March 17, 1832: Contract let to Henry Smith. 

April 21, 1832: Contract relet to Fries and McDonnell. 

May, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

November, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,282.66 
232 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Lock No. 35: Section No. 112 

March 17, 1832: Contract let to Henry Smith. 

April 21, 1832: Contract relet to Fries and McDonnell. 

June, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

October, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,809.19 

Lock No. 36: Section No. 112 

June 2, 1832: Contract let to Fries and McDonnell. 

July, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

November, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,659.80 

Lock No. 37: Section No. 122 

June 7, 1832: Contract let to Gilson, Noonan, Midler and Fresh and Co. 

September, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

August, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $11,453.13 

Lock No. 38: Section No. 133 

June 7, 1832: Contract let to Gilson, Noonan, Midler and Fresh and Co. 

September, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

September, 1833: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $7,725.85 

Lock No. 39: Section No. 135 

June 2, 1832: Contract let to Wilson and Bryan. 

July 17, 1832: Contract abandoned. 

August 25, 1832: Contract relet to Gilson and Co. 

January, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

April, 1833: Contract abandoned. 

June 17, 1833: Contract relet to Jacob and Alexander Provest. 

September, 1833: Work recommenced on lock. 

September, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,265.00 

Lock No. 40: Section No. 146 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Gibson, Noonan and Fresh. 

January, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

June–July, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,202.00 

Lock No. 41: Section No. 166 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Michael Byrne and Co. 

January, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

November–December, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,930.66 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 233 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Lock No. 42: Section No. 167 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Michael Byrne and Co, 

February, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

November–December, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $8,349.96 

Lock No. 43: Section No. 173 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Michael Byrne and Co. 

February, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

January, 1835: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $9,634.40 

Lock No. 44: Section No. 187 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Michael Byrne and Co. 

September, 1832: Work commenced on lock. 

November, 1834: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,485.82 

Lock No. 45: Section No. 202 

April 20, 1833: Contract let to Byrne, Lathrop and Provest to construct lock below water line. 

June, 1833: Work commenced on lock. 

November, 1834: Work completed under contract. 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to W. Morrow to complete lock. 

February 2, 1836: Contract abandoned. 

June 20, 1836: Contract relet to Michael Byrne and Co. 

August, 1836: Work recommenced on lock. 

November, 1836: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $12,488.81 

Lock No. 46: Section No. 203 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to John C. Lissig. 

February 2, 1836: Contract abandoned. 

June 20, 1836: Contract relet to Michael Byrne and Co. 

November, 1836: Work commenced on lock. 

May, 1838: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $12,964.00 

Lock No. 47: Section No. 206 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Daniel K. Cahoon. 

January, 1836: Work commenced on lock. 

November, 1837: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $10,546.05 

Lock No. 48: Section No. 208 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Daniel K. Cahoon 

December 9, 1835: Contract abandoned. 

June 20, 1836: Contract relet to Michael Byrne. 

January, 1837: Work commenced on lock. 

May, 1838: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $13,232.82 
234 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Lock No. 49: Section No. 208 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Daniel K. Cahoon. 

December 9, 1835: Contract abandoned. 

June 20, 1836: Contract relet to Michael Byrne. 

January, 1837: Work commenced on lock. 

May, 1838: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $17,365.28 

Lock No. 50: Section No. 208 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Daniel K. Cahoon. 

December 9, 1835: Contract abandoned. 

June 20, 1836: Contract relet to Michael Byrne. 

April, 1837: Work commenced on lock. 

May, 1838: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $13,783.30 

Lock No. 51: Section No. 234 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Robert Brown. 

January, 1836: Work commenced on lock. 

August 9, 1837: Contract abandoned. 

December 6, 1837: Contract relet to William Storey. 

December, 1837: Work recommenced on lock. 

April, 1838: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $16,257.24 

Lock No. 52: Section No. 234 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Robert Brown. 

January, 1836: Work commenced on lock. 

August 9, 1837: Contract abandoned. 

August 23, 1837: Modified contract relet to Robert Brown. 

November, 1837: Work recommenced on lock. 

April, 1839: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $15,191.61 

Lock No. 53: Section No. 249 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Patrick McGinley. 

September, 1835: Work commenced on lock. 

January, 1836: Work stopped on lock. 

March 15, 1836: Contract assigned to Thomas Fealey. 

March, 1836: Work recommenced on lock. 

January, 1837: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $11,387.62 

Lock No. 54: Section No. 258 

January 16, 1836: Contract let to Henry Smith. 

May 1836: Work commenced on lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 235 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

No further work done on this lock until work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At the 

time of its abandonment, the lock was 40 percent completed at a cost of $6,066.43. When work 

resumed in 1847, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock to Moyle, Randal and Jones for 

its completion. 

1848–49: Work completed on lock. 

Lock No. 55: Section No. 258 

January 16, 1836: Contract let to Henry Smith. 

November, 1836: Work commenced on lock. 

October, 1840: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $13,621.54 

Lock No. 56: Section No. 262 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to John Cameron. 

March, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

No further work was done on this lock until work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At 

the time of its abandonment, the lock was 50 percent completed; at a cost of $9,475.09. When 

work resumed in 1847, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock to Moyle, Randal and 

Jones for its completion. 

1848–49: Work completed on lock. 

Lock No. 57: Section No. 267 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to W. C. Steedman. 

May 24, 1838: Contract relet to James Wherry. 

August, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

March, 1840: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $17,774.39 

Lock No. 58: Section No. 276 (Composite Lock) 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to W. C. Steedman. 

May 24, 1838: Contract relet to James Wherry. 

August, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

No further work was done on this lock until work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At 

the time of its abandonment, the lock was 40 percent completed; at a cost of $8,922.16. When 

work resumed in 1847, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock to an unnamed firm 

(according to available canal company records) for its completion. 

1848–50: Work completed on lock. 

Locks Nos. 59–66: Sections Nos. 282–299 (Composite Locks) 

September 29, 1837: Contract for Lock No. 59 let to Edward H. Fielding. 

September 29, 1837: Contract for Locks Nos. 60–66 let to Michael Byrne. 

November, 1838: Work commenced on locks. 

December 28, 1839: Work suspended on locks. 

September, 1845: Contract let to Gwinn and Co.; 

 subcontracted to Marcellus Ritner and Co. 

April, 1846: Work recommenced on locks. 

April–May, 1846: Contract abandoned. 
236 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

November, 1847: Contract let to Hunter, Harris and Co.; Locks Nos. 59–61 were subcontracted 

to Ritner and Co.; and Locks Nos. 62–66 were subcontracted to Buell and Watt. 

November, 1847: Work recommenced on locks. 

June–July, 1850: Contract abandoned. 

July, 1850: Contract relet to Michael Byrne. 

July, 1850: Work recommenced on lock. 

August, 1850: Work completed on Locks Nos. 61–66. 

September, 1850: Work completed on Locks Nos. 59–60. 

Lock No. 67: Section No. 322 (Composite Lock) 

May 24, 1838: Contract let to Joshua Lobdell. 

August, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

November 28, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

No further work was done on this lock until work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At 

the time of its abandonment, the lock was barely begun; only $740.56 worth of work had 

been done on it. When work resumed in 1847, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock 

to William P. Sterritt for its completion. 

1848–50: Work completed on the lock. 

Lock No. 68: Section No. 329 (Composite Lock) 

September 27, 1837: Contract let to Robert McCoy. 

May 16, 1838: Contract assigned to J. Noble Nisbet. 

November 14, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

No work had done on this lock at the time of its abandonment, and nothing was done on it until 

work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At that time, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock to Fallan and Ambrose for its completion. 

1849–50: Work completed on lock. 

Lock No. 69: Section No. 331 (Composite Lock) 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to William Pratt. 

April, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

July 18, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

No further work was done on this lock until work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At 

the time of its abandonment, this lock was barely begun; only $759.12 worth of work had 

been done on it. When work resumed in 1847, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock 

to Fallan and Ambrose for its completion. 

1849–50: Work completed on lock. 

Lock No. 70: Section No. 332 (Composite Lock) 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to William Pratt. 

July 18, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

No work had done on this lock at the time of its abandonment, and nothing was done on it until 

work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At that time, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock to Fallan and Ambrose for its completion. 

1849–50: Work completed on the lock. 

Lock No. 71: Section No. 332 (Composite Lock) 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to William Pratt. 

July 18, 1838: Contract abandoned. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 237 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

No work had done on this lock at the time of its abandonment, and nothing was done on it until 

work resumed on the canal in November, 1847. At that time, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted this lock to Fallan and Ambrose for its completion. 

1849–50: Work completed on lock. 

Lock No. 72: Section No. 347 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to G. W. Henry. 

September 7, 1838: Contract relet to Thomas N. MacCubbin. 

February, 1839: Work commenced on lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

January 22, 1840: Modified contract relet to Thomas N. MacCubbin. 

November, 1841: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $20,853.85 

Lock No. 73: Section No. 350 

September 27, 1837: Contract let to George G. Johnson. 

August, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

January 23, 1840: Modified contract relet to George G. Johnson. 

December, 1840: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $18,209.04 

Lock No. 74: Section No. 350 

September 27, 1837: Contract let to George G. Johnson. 

April, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

January 23, 1840: Modified contract relet to George G. Johnson. 

March, 1841: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $20,547.35 

Lock No. 75: Section No. 350 

September 27, 1837: Contract let to George G. Johnson. 

March, 1838: Work commenced on lock. 

August, 1840: Work completed on lock. 

Cost: $18,007.50 

B. TIDE LOCKS 

Tide Lock A: Section A 

December 10, 1828: Contract let to Dibble, Beaumont and McCord. 

April, 1830: Construction commenced on tide lock. 

April, 1831: Construction completed on tide lock. 

Cost: $16,620.42 

Tide Lock B: Section I 

February 4, 1832: Contract let to C. F. LeBaron and I. G. Camp. 

April, 1832: Work commenced on tide lock. 

December 1, 1832: Contract abandoned. 
238 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

December, 1832: Work recommenced on tide lock with company hands. 

September, 1834: Work completed on tide lock. 

Cost: $10,105.30 

C. RIVER LOCKS 

Edward's Ferry River Lock: Section No. 51 

September 2, 1835: Contract let to Michael Byrne. 

October, 1835: Work commenced on outlet lock. 

November, 1838: Work completed on outlet lock. 

Cost: $19,174.08 

Shenandoah River Lock: Section No. 109 

July–August, 1832: Contract let to Littlejohn and Co. 

September, 1832: Work commenced on outlet lock. 

June, 1833: Work completed on outlet lock. 

Cost: $12,544.00 

Shepherdstown River Lock: Section No. 133 

May 20, 1833: Contract let to John Cameron. 

July, 1833: Work commenced on outlet lock. 

January, 1835: Work completed on outlet lock. 

Cost: $15,244.41 

D. GUARD LOCKS 

Guard Lock No. 1: Section G–H 

The water from the pool behind Dam No. 1 was let into the canal by means of a feeder and guard 

lock. These structures had been part of the Potomac Company's Little Falls Skirting Canal and 

were adapted for use by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal at a cost of $3,197.82. 

Guard Lock No. 2: Section No. 34 

March 14, 1829: Contract let to Holdsworth and Isherwood. 

June, 1829: Work commenced on guard lock. 

November, 1830: Work completed on guard lock. 

Cost: $7,338.99 

Guard Lock No. 3: Section No. 112 

August 18, 1832: Contract let to Fries and McDonnell. 

August, 1832: Work commenced on guard lock. 

August–September, 1833: Work completed on guard lock. 

Cost: $7,120.75 

Guard Lock No. 4: Section No. 156 

March 4, 1833: Contract let to Joseph Hollman. 

April, 1833: Construction commenced on guard lock. 

April, 1834: Construction completed on guard lock. 

Cost: $8,720.81 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 239 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Guard Lock No. 5: Section No. 202 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Michael Byrne and Co. 

March, 1833: Work commenced on guard lock. 

January, 1835: Work completed on guard lock. 

Cost: $8,428.31 

Guard Lock No. 6: Section No. 258 

September 14, 1836: Contract let to George Weaver. 

October, 1836: Work commenced on guard lock. 

September–October, 1838: Work completed on guard lock. 

Cost: $46,548.58 (includes Dam No. 6 abutments) 

Guard Lock No. 8: Section No. 367 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to William P. Sterritt and William Lockwood. 

May, 1838: Work commenced on guard lock. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

February 27, 1840: Contract relet to William P. Sterritt. 

February, 1840: Work recommenced on guard lock. 

Early 1842: Work suspended. 

November, 1847: Contract let to Hunter, Harris and Co. to finish canal; 

 Subcontract to William Lockwood in December, 1847. 

April–May, 1848: Work recommenced on guard lock. 

April–May, 1850: Work completed on guard lock. 

Cost: $79,992.99 (includes Dam No. 8; 1842 assessment) 

E. AQUEDUCTS 

Aqueduct No. 1 [Seneca Aqueduct]: Section No. 35 

October 25, 1828: Contract let to Holdsworth and Isherwood. 

July, 1829: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

March–April, 1832: Work completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $24,340.25 

Aqueduct No. 2 [Monocacy Aqueduct]: Section No. 73 

August 20, 1828: Contract let to Hovey and Legg; on October 31, Hitchcock was substituted for 

Legg. 

March, 1829: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

December, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

December 9, 1829: Contract relet to Asher P. Osborn. 

August 7, 1830: Contract assigned to Byrne and LeBaron. 

May, 1833: Work completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $128,859.23 

Aqueduct No. 3 [Catoctin Aqueduct]: Section No. 91 

February 25, 1832: Contract let to Tracy and Douglas. 

April, 1832: Construction commenced on aqueduct. 

February, 1834: Construction completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $33,325.92 
240 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Aqueduct No. 4 [Antietam Aqueduct]: Section No. 126 

June 5, 1832: Contract let to Gibson, Noonan, Midler and Fresh and Co. 

October, 1832: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

April, 1835: Work completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $24,337.33 

Aqueduct No. 5 [Conococheague Aqueduct]: Section No. 188 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Michael Byrne and Co. 

February, 1833: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

October–November, 1835: Work completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $43,283.78 

Aqueduct No. 6 [Licking Creek Aqueduct]: Section No. 222 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Richard Holdsworth. 

September, 1835: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

February 24, 1837: Contract reassigned to Enos Childs after death of Holdsworth. 

October 25, 1837: Contract abandoned. 

November 8, 1837: Contract reassigned to Enos Childs. 

May, 1838: Work completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $48,023.45 

Aqueduct No. 7 [Tonoloway Aqueduct]: Section No. 235 

July 3, 1835: Contract let to Robert Brown. 

September, 1835: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

June, 1839: Work completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $48,423.10 

Aqueduct No. 8 [Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct]: Section No. 263 

April 1, 1837: Contract let to John Cameron. 

April, 1837: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

May–June, 1840: Work completed on aqueduct to the point that a final estimate was paid. 

November, 1847: Hunter, Harris and Co. let subcontract to Gonder, Brayton and Co.; 

 subcontract assigned to Fraser and Co. 

Spring, 1850: Finishing touches put on aqueduct. 

Cost: $39,050.07 (1840 final estimate) 

Aqueduct No. 9 [Fifteen Mile Creek Aqueduct]: Section No. 271 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to William Pratt. 

May 23, 1838: Contract relet to Enos Childs. 

September, 1838: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

July 23, 1840: Contract let to George S. marsh. 

July, 1840: Work recommenced on aqueduct. 

April, 1842: Contract abandoned. 

November, 1847: Hunter, Harris and Co. let a subcontract to Gonder, Brayton and Co.; 

 subcontract to Thomas Bell. 

March–April, 1848: Construction recommenced on aqueduct. 

Summer, 1850: Construction completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $28,119.51 (1842 assessment) 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 241 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Aqueduct No. 10 [Town Creek Aqueduct]: Section No. 323 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to Frederick Pratt. 

April, 1838: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

November 14, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

November, 1847: Hunter, Harris and Co. recommence work on aqueduct. 

Summer, 1850: Construction completed on aqueduct. 

Cost: $3,747.89 (1838 assessment) 

Aqueduct No. 11 [Evitts Creek Aqueduct]: Section No. 360 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to George G. Johnson. 

February, 1838: Work commenced on aqueduct. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

January 23, 1840: Modified contract relet to George G. Johnson. 

October, 1841: Work completed on aqueduct to the point that a final estimate was paid. 

November, 1847: Contract let to Hunter, Harris and Co. 

Spring, 1850: Finishing touches put on aqueduct. 

Cost: $45,986.00 (1841 assessment) 

F. DAMS 

Dam No. 1: Section No. 1 

December 10, 1828: Contract let to Dibble, Beaumont and McCord. 

June, 1829: Construction commenced on dam. 

May 19, 1830: Contract terminated when dam was completed to Snake Island. 

March 11, 1831: Contract relet to Samuel Goodrich to finish dam to Virginia shore. 

Spring, 1831: Work recommenced on dam. 

Spring, 1831: Contract abandoned. 

June, 1831: Work recommenced on dam under Superintendent John Y. Young and company 

hands. 

April, 1832: Work completed on dam from Snake Island to Virginia shore. 

Cost: $37,091.30 

Dam No. 2: Section No. 34 

December 10, 1828: Contract let to Dibble, Beaumont and McCord. 

July, 1829: Construction commenced on dam. 

May 19, 1830: Contract terminated. 

August 7, 1830: Contract relet to Obediah Gordon; he was aided by Elias Gumaer. 

August, 1830: Work recommenced on dam. 

October, 1831: Work completed on dam. 

Cost: $26,978.95 

Dam No. 3: Section No. 109 

Dam No. 3 was neither constructed nor owned by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. It 

was built by the United States Government to supply water power to the musket factory of 

the United States Amory at Harpers Ferry. Two dams, built in 1799 and 1809, preceded the 

government dam used by the canal company. 

July, 1820: Contract let to John Lowstetter. 

1821: Work completed on government dam. 
242 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Dam No. 4: Section No. 156 

June 7, 1832: Contract let to Joseph Hollman. 

September, 1832: Work commenced on dam. 

June, 1835: Work completed on dam. 

Cost: $50,803.17 

Dam No. 5: Section No. 202 

August 25, 1832: Contract let to Byrnes and Co. 

March, 1833: Work commenced on dam. 

December, 1834: Work completed on dam. 

Cost: $47,088.67 

Dam No. 6: Section No. 258 

September 14, 1836: Contract let to Joseph Hollman and George Reynolds; 

 contract for abutments let to George Weaver. 

October, 1836: Construction commenced on abutments. 

March, 1837: Construction commenced on dam. 

August–September, 1838: Construction completed on abutments. 

September 7, 1838: Contract for dam abandoned. 

September, 1838: Work recommenced on dam with company hands under Superintendent John 

R. Young. 

February, 1839: Work completed on dam. 

Cost: $102,390.75 (including abutments and guard lock) 

Dam No. 8: Section No. 367 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to William P. Sterritt and William lockwood. 

May, 1835: Construction commenced on dam. 

December 28, 1839: Contract abandoned. 

February 27, 1840: Contract relet to William P. Sterritt. 

February, 1840: Work recommenced on dam. 

Early 1842: Work suspended. 

November, 1847: Contract let to Hunter, Harris and Co. to finish canal; subcontract for Dam No. 

8 let to William Lockwood in December, 1847. 

April–May, 1848: Work recommenced on dam. 

April–May, 1850: Work completed on dam. 

Cost: $72,992.99 (includes Guard Lock No. 8; 1842 assessment) 

G. LOCKHOUSES 

Lockhouses for Locks Nos. 1–4: Section A 

Canal company records are not clear about the lockhouses in Georgetown, but they appear to indicate that there were two or three structures serving this purpose. A canal company ledger covering the period 1828–1841 seems to indicate that there were at least two lockhouses on Section A. 

There are no dates, contractors or cost estimates for these houses; thus, it might be deduced that 

the canal company adapted existing structures for use as lockhouses in Georgetown. Locust–post 

fences were built around these two structures in the spring of 1831 by James Hook, at a cost of 

$174.90. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 243 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

 The same ledger indicates that a lockhouse (other canal documents identify this structure 

as Lockhouse No. 2) was located on Section A between Locks Nos. 2 and 3. The work done on 

this structure was done in the spring of 1830 and of 1831 at a cost of $120.02. Because the average cost of a lockhouse was over $700, it can be assumed that this lockhouse was also an existing 

structure adopted for use by a lock tender. Most of this work was ascribed to Michael Corcoran. 

Lockhouses for Locks Nos. 5–6: Section 1 

(Canal company records identify these as Lockhouses Nos. 3–4, respectively) 

December 11, 1828: Contract for Lockhouse No. 4 let to Thomas and Munroe. 

Spring, 1829: Contract for Lockhouse No. 3 let and contract for Lockhouse No. 4 relet to Richard Grosline. 

May 1829: Work commenced on lockhouses. 

September 1829: Work completed on lockhouses. 

Cost: $1,432.03 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 7: Section No. 4 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 5) 

March 28, 1829: Contract let to James O'Brien 

May 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July 1829: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $720.00 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 8: Section No. 7 (Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse 

No. 6) 

Spring, 1829: Contract let to Thornhill and McKennie. 

June, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

May, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $785.75 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 9–10: Section No. 8 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 7) 

August 20, 1828: Contract let to Henry B. Richards. 

December, 1828: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

Spring, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

Spring, 1830: Contract relet to W. W. Fenlon and Co. 

April, 1830: Work recommenced on lockhouse. 

May, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $774.73 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 11: Section No. 8 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 8) 

September 11, 1828: Contract let to Morgan Kavenaugh and Co. 

May, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

March, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $789.25 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 12–14: Section No. 9 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to J. W. Maynard. 

Spring, 1829: Contract relet to Thornhill and McKennie. 

June, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 
244 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

May, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $836.74 

Lockhouse for Locks No. 15–16: Section No. 17 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 10) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to J. W. Maynard. 

Summer, 1829: Contract relet to Pine, Crown and Darlington. 

Spring, 1830: Contract relet to Robert Warfield. 

June, 1830: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

June, 1831: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $818.25 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 16: Section No. 17 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 16) 

June 7, 1837: Board authorized Superintendent John Y. Young to build lockhouse. 

CA. spring, 1838: Work commenced on lockhouse with company hands. 

April, 1839: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $892.16 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 17–18: Section No. 18 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 11) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to J. W. Maynard. 

December 2, 1829: Contract relet to Pine, Crown and Darlington. 

December, 1839: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

August, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost $749.00 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 19–20: Section No. 18 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 12) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to J. W. Maynard. 

December 2, 1829: Contract relet to Pine, Crown and Darlington. 

December, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

March, 1831: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $739.00 

Soon after its completion, Lockhouse No. 12 was enlarged, remodeled and named Crommelin 

House. 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 21: Section No. 23 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 13) 

December 2, 1829: Contract let to Pine, Crown and Darlington. 

Spring, 1831: Contract relet to Henry B. Richards. 

May, 1831: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

August, 1832: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: &765.00 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 22: Section No. 29 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 14) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to Wines, Brackett and Wines; company later reorganized under 

Ruben Brackett. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 245 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

October, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

April, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $853.20 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 23 and Guard Lock No. 2: Section No. 34 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 15) 

November, 1829: Contract let to Charles Shepherd. 

Summer, 1830: Contract relet to Thomas and Munroe. 

Fall, 1830: Contract relet to Mathias Duffie (contract let to Obediah Gordon to build basement). 

October, 1830: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

Cost: $958.49 

Soon after its completion, Lockhouse No. 15 was enlarged, remodeled and named Rushville 

House. 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 24: Section No. 35 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 16) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to Holdsworth and Isherwood. 

November, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

April, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,066.25 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 25: Section No. 51 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 17) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to Thomas and Munroe. 

November, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

March, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $903.00 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 26: Section No. 68 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 18) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to Thomas and Munroe. 

June, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

January, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $849.00 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 27: Section No. 72 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 19) 

December 11, 1828: Contract let to Thomas and Munroe. 

June, 1829: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

June, 1830: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $893.25 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 28: Section No. 87 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 28) 

May 21, 1836: Contract let to Michael Foley. 

June, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

May, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $983.16 
246 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 29: Section No. 89 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 29) 

May 21, 1836: Contract let to Michael Foley. 

June, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

May, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $947.98 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 30: Section No. 98 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 30) 

August 16, 1836: Board authorized Superintendent William S. Elgin to purchase a house and Lot 

No. 3 in Berlin (now Brunswick) for use as the lockhouse at Lock No. 30; selling price – 

$1,050; owner – Robert Kemble. 

September 26, 1836: Board authorized Elgin to pay Kemble additional sum for repairs recently 

made to the house. 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 31: Section No. 104 

(Canal company records identify this as Lockhouse No. 23) 

May 24, 1833: Contract let to Peter G. Mathias. 

May, 1833: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

August, 1833: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,031.40 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 32: Section No. 108 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 32) 

August 24, 1836: Contract let to Jonah Hood. 

September, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

April, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,169.45 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 33: Section No. 109 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 33) 

Spring, 1837: Contract let to James A Foster. 

May, 1837: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,035.60 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 34: Section No. 111 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock No. 34) 

May 21, 1836: Contract let to Michael Foley. 

June, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

October, 1836: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $999.62 

Lockhouse for Locks No. 35–36 and Guard Lock No. 3: Section No. 112 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Locks 35 and 36 and Guard Lock No. 3) 

May 21, 1836: Contract let to Jonah Hood. 

August, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

April, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,074.25 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 247 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 37: Section No. 122 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 37) 

Spring, 1836: Contract let to James and Baker. 

May 21, 1836: Contract relet to John D. Grove. 

August, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost $981.25 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 38: Section No. 133 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 38) 

July 24, 1837: Contract let to James A. Foster. 

September, 1837: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

September, 1838: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,530.34 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 39: Section No. 135 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 39) 

Spring, 1836: Contract let to Jams and Baker. 

May 21, 1836: Contract relet to John D. Grove. 

August, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,259.73 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 40: Section No. 146 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 40) 

Spring, 1836: Contract let to James and Baker. 

May 21, 1836: Contract relet to John D. Grove. 

October, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,029.18 

Lockhouse for Guard Lock No. 4: Section No. 156 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Guard Lock No. 4) 

Spring, 1836: Contract let to James and Baker. 

May 21, 1836: Contract relet to John D. Grove. 

December, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,056.14 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 41–62: Section No. 173 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Locks 41 and 42) 

Spring, 1836: Contract let to James and Baker. 

May 21, 1836: Contract relet to John D. Grove. 

August, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,005.92 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 43: Section No. 173 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 43) 
248 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

Spring, 1836: Contract let to James and Baker. 

May 21, 1836: Contract relet to John D. Grove. 

August, 1836: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $980.74 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 44: Section No. 187 

(Canal company records identify this as house for Lock No. 44) 

Spring, 1835–– Contract let to Joseph Hollman. 

June, 1845: Board authorized Superintendent John G. Stone to build lockhouse. 

Summer–fall, 1845: Lockhouse built by company hands under supervision of Stone. 

Cost: Approximately $300 

Lockhouse for Guard Lock No. 5: Section No. 202 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Guard Lock No. 5) 

Spring, 1837: Contract let to George Fagen. 

Summer, 1837: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

June, 1837: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,058.50 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 45–46: Section No. 203 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 49) 

Spring, 1837: Contract let to Jesse Schofield. 

Summer, 1837: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

June, 1839: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,109.80 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 47–50: Section No. 206 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 49) 

Spring, 1837: Contract let to Jesse Schofield. 

August, 1837: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

February, 1839: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,447.50 

Lockhouse for Locks Nos. 51–52: Section No. 233 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 51) 

July 25, 1837: Contract let to Jesse Schofield. 

September, 1837: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

December 26, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

May 15, 1839: Contract relet to John W. Beideman. 

June, 1839: Work recommenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1840: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $1,016.60 

Lockhouse for Lock No. 53: Section No. 253 

(Canal company records identify this as house to Lock 53) 

July 24, 1837: Contract let to Jessie Schofield. 

December 26, 1838: Contract abandoned. 

May 15, 1839: Contract relet to John W. Beideman. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 249 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

July, 1839: Work commenced on lockhouse. 

July, 1840: Work completed on lockhouse. 

Cost: $975.00 

Lockhouse for Locks No. 54–55 and Guard Lock No. 6: Section No. 259 

(Canal company records identify this as house at Dam No. 6) 

Canal company records appear to indicate that a temporary shanty was built near Guard Lock No. 

6 by company hands during the fall of 1840 to house the lock tender for Locks Nos. 54–55 

and Guard Lock No. 6. It is also possible that a nearby building may have been adapted for 

use as a lockhouse. The sum of $30 was expended on December 31, 1842 for this purpose. 

While the canal company records are not clear, company engineers apparently built a larger structure to serve as a lockhouse for these locks during 1849–1850. There is no indication that any 

work was done on the lockhouse, and the contract was declared abandoned on May 11, 1839. 

Canal company records indicate that a contract for the construction of a lockhouse at Lock No. 54 

was let to Henry Smith on March 23, 1836. There is no indication that any work was done on 

the lockhouse, and the contract was declared abandoned on May 11, 1839. 

Lockhouses for Locks No. 56–75 

(Canal company records identify these as Lockhouses at the following locks: Nos. 56, 57, 58, 59, 

60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75 and Guard Lock No. 8) 

When work resumed on the "fifty–mile" section of the canal on November 18, 1847, Hunter, Harris and Co. subcontracted for the construction of these lockhouses. Canal company records do 

not indicate the names of the subcontractors, the dates of construction, or the building costs. 

The records indicate that not all of these lockhouses were completed by October 10, 1850, 

when the canal was formally opened to navigation. It may be assumed that they were completed during the following year. 

H. STOP LOCKS (STOP GATES) 

Stop Lock: Section C 

August 5, 1835: Contract let to William Easby. 

August, 1835: Work commenced on stop lock. 

March–April, 1837: Work completed on stop lock. 

Cost: $4,375.36 

Stop Gate: Section No. 38 

Resident Engineer Charles B. Fisk apparently directed the construction of this stop gate between 

March, 1835 and March, 1836. Company laborers were used for the work. 

Cost: $122.43 

Stop Gate: Section No. 156 

July 29, 1836: Board authorized George W. Rodger, a company employee, to build the structure. 

December, 1837: Work commenced on stop gate. 

April, 1839: Work completed on stop gate. 

Cost: $5,375.48 

Stop Gate: Section No. 195 

November 12, 1834: Contract let to Eli and J. S. Stake. 
250 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

November, 1834: Work commenced on stop gate. 

May, 1835: Work completed on stop gate. 

Cost: $585.12 

Stop Gate: Section No. 209 

June 25, 1838: Contract let to Philip Gormley. 

July, 1838: Work commenced on stop gate. 

June, 1839: Work completed on stop gate. 

Cost: $4,399.98 

Stop Gate: Section No. 213 

June 7, 1837: Contract let to William Brown. 

June, 1837: Work commenced on stop gate. 

July, 1838: Work completed on stop gate. 

Cost: $2,490.70 

Stop Gate: Section No. 217 

September 29, 1837: Contract let to Timothy Cunningham. 

June, 1838: Work commenced on stop gate. 

February, 1839: Work completed on stop gate. 

Cost: $3,720.20 (including adjacent waste weir) 

Stop Gate: Section No. 228 

September 28, 1838: Contract let to John Bain. 

October, 1838: Work commenced on stop gate. 

June, 1839: Work completed on stop gate. 

Cost: $2,439.29 

I. FEEDERS 

Rocky Run Feeder: Section No. 9 

Spring, 1830: Contract let to John Seale. 

June, 1830: Work commenced and completed on feeder. 

Cost: $198.60 

Great Falls Feeder: Section No. 18 

June 4, 1830: Contract let to Bargy and Guy. 

May, 1830: Work commenced on feeder. 

April, 1831: Work completed on feeder. 

Cost: $2,110.45 

Tuscarora Feeder: Section No. 78 

February 6, 1833 – Contract let to Stephen Sands. 

February, 1833: Work commenced on feeder. 

November, 1833: Work completed on feeder. 

Cost: $3,151.69 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 251 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

J. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES 

Paw Paw Tunnel: Sections Nos. 309–310 

March 15, 1836: Contract let to Lee Montgomery. 

June, 1836: Work commenced on tunnel. 

November, 1841: Work suspended on tunnel. 

November, 1848: Contract let to Hunter, Harris and Co. to complete the canal; subcontract to 

finish tunnel let to McCulloch and Day. 

1850: Work completed on tunnel (except for brick lining which was completed after the canal 

was opened to navigation). 

Cost: $616,478.65 (includes adjoining deep cuts; 1841 assessment) 

Broad Run Trunk: Section No. 53 

(Canal company records identify this structure as Culvert No 441⁄2 ) 

October 1, 1829: Contract let to Albert Hovey. 

Winter, 1829: Contract abandoned. 

Summer, 1830: Contract relet to James Costigan. 

October, 1830: Work commenced on culvert. 

March, 1831: Contract abandoned. 

March 11, 1831: Contract relet to Bargey and Roach. 

November, 1831: Contract recommenced on culvert. 

August, 1832: Contract abandoned. 

Fall, 1832: Contract relet to Thomas Walter. 

December, 1832: Work recommenced on culvert. 

May, 1833: Work completed on culvert. 

Cost: $[not provided] 

Note: Culvert No 441⁄2 was washed out in a flood of 1846, and was replaced by a wooden trunk as 

a temporary expedient. By 1856, the structure had deteriorated to a point where maintenance 

was no longer feasible. At this time, it was decided to rebuild the structure as a wooden 

trunk; and aside from routine repairs, no major work appears to have been done on the structure between 1857 and 1924. 

Rock Creek Basin: Section A 

(Including mole, basin, causeway and waste weir) 

December 10, 1828: Contract let to Dibble, Beaumont and McCord. 

May, 1829: Work commenced on basin and related structures. 

October, 1831: Work completed on basin and related structures. 

Cost: $69,567.20 

Towpath for Big Slackwater: Sections Nos. 157–166 

July 29, 1836: Contract let to Joseph Hollman. 

August 17, 1836: John D. Grove became partner of Hollman. 

September, 1836: Work commenced on towpath. 

December, 1838: Work completed on towpath. 

Cost: $31,416.36 

Towpath for Little Slackwater: Section No. 203 

June 12, 1837: Contract let to John Seale. 

November, 1837: Work commenced on towpath. 
252 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

April, 1839: Work completed on towpath. 

Cost $8,204.40 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 253 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX A

PRESIDENT JOHN QUINCY ADAMS’S REMINISCENCES 

OF CANAL GROUND-BREAKING CEREMONIES, ON JULY 4, 1828. 

“4th, Independence Day. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal commenced. Between seven and eight this 

morning, I went with my son John to the Union Hotel, at Georgetown, where were assembling the 

President and Directors of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company; the Mayors and Committees of the corporations of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria; the heads of Departments, 

foreign Ministers, and a few other invited persons. About eight o’clock a procession was formed, 

preceded by a band of music, to the wharf, where we embarked in the steamboat Surprise; followed by two others, we proceeded to the entrance of the Potomac Canal, and up that in canalboats to its head—near which, just within the bounds of the State of Maryland, was the spot selected for breaking the ground. The President of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, with 

a very short address, delivered to me the spade, with which I broke the ground, addressing the 

surrounding auditory, consisting perhaps of two thousand persons. It happened that at the first 

stroke of the spade it met immediately under the surface a large stump of a tree; after repeating 

the stroke three or four times without making any impression, I threw off my coat, and, resuming 

the spade, raised a shovelful of the earth, at which a general shout burst forth from the surrounding multitude, and I completed my address, which occupied about fifteen minutes. The President 

and Directors of the Canal, the Mayors and Committees of the three Corporations, the heads of 

Departments, members of Congress, and others, followed, and shoveled up a wheelbarrow-full of 

earth. Mr. Gales, the Mayor of Washington, read also a short address, and was answered extemporaneously by Andrew Stewart, the Director of the Company from Pennsylvania. After a short 

repose under a tent on the banks of the canal, we returned by the canal-boats to the landing, and 

thence in the steamboat, where, as we re-descended the Potomac, the company partook of a light 

collation upon the deck. I was asked for a toast, and gave, ‘The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal: perseverance.’ Mr. Mercer and Mr. Rush also gave toasts. 

 “About half-past two I was landed by Davidson’s wharf, where my carriage was waiting, 

and, after taking Mr. Rush home, I returned to mine. The Marshals of the day escorted me home 

on horseback, came in and took a glass of wine, and took leave with my thanks for their attentions. The day was uncommonly cool for the season, with a fresh breeze, and towards evening 

there was a gentle shower. The exertion of speaking in the open air made me hoarse, and with the 

anxiety, more oppressive than it should have been, to get well through the day, exhausted and 

fatigued me, so that I was disqualified for thought or action the remainder of the day. As has happened to me whenever I have had a part to perform in the presence of multitudes, I got through 

awkwardly, but without gross and palpable failure. The incident that chiefly relieved me was the 

obstacle of the stump, which met and resisted the spade, and my casting off my coat to overcome 

the resistance. It struck the eye and fancy of the spectators more than all the flowers of rhetoric in 

my speech, and diverted their attention from the stammering and hesitation of a deficient memory. Mr. Vaughan, Chevalier Bangeman Huygens, Barons Krudener and Stackelberg, and several 

other members of the Corps Diplomatique were present, and thought it, perhaps, a strange part for 

a President of the United States to perform. 

 Governor Kent, of Maryland, was there, as one of the directors of the company, and 

compared the ceremony to that said to be annually observed in China.”1

 

1 Excerpted from Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Vol. 8, 49–50.
254 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX B 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SEAL OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL COMPANY, 

SEPTEMBER 3, 1828: 

“In diameter two inches and seven twentieths of an inch, its surface quartered and having in one 

quarter a Loom in operation with a weaver seated at it; in another quarter a Man ploughing with a 

single horse; and in a third quarter two boats underway, one drawn by a horse, the other impelled 

by steam, & on the fourth quarter a ship under full sail; the said devices being designed to denote 

Agriculture, Manufactures, Internal and External Commerce. Over the seal as a Crest two clasped 

hands with the motto, “Esto Perpetua”, illustrative of the union of the Eastern and Western waters, to be accomplished by the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal; and below a Mountain, perforated by 

a Tunnel, with the motto “Perseverando”, indicating the manner of effecting this Union, and the 

long continued labor which it may require. Around the quartering of the field, are the words 

“Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company.”1

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 63.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 255 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX C 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR 34 SECTIONS 

BETWEEN LITTLE FALLS AND SENECA FALLS, AUGUST 20, 18281

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

1 A. B. Hovey & Co. 18 Daniel Renner 

2 Daniel Bussard 19 Joseph H. Bradley 

3 Daniel Bussard 20 James C. Lackland 

4 John W. Baker 21 Thomas Crown 

5 Daniel Bussard 22 John Farqurharson & Co. 

6 Wathen and Underwood 23 Henry Smith 

7 Clark & Clements 24 William Scott 

8 W. W. Fenlon & Co. 25 Arnold T. Winsor 

9 Daniel Bussard 26 Callen & Clements 

10 Daniel Bussard 27 James O'Reilly 

11 David Bussard 28 Washburn, Gustin & Bond 

12 George Ketchum 29 Rubin Bracket & Co. 

13 Thomas B. Tripp 30 H. W. Campbell 

14 W. W. Fenlon & Co. 31 H. W. Campbell 

15 Parmencies Asams 32 A. B. Hovey & Co. 

16 Luke Hitchcock 33 A. H. Millard 

17 Henry Smith 34 H. W. Campbell 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 41–41. 
256 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX D 

CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS BETWEEN SENECA FALLS AND POINT OF ROCKS 

AND FOR MASONRY WORK BETWEEN LITTLE FALLS AND POINT OF ROCKS, 

OCTOBER 25, 1828:1

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

35 Knapp & Co. 60 McIntosh & Co. 

36 Knapp & Co. 61 Richard Cromwell 

37 Knapp & Co. 62 Richard Cromwell 

38 Knapp & Co. 63 Darrow & Whitmore 

39 Crown & Lanham 64 Darrow & Whitmore 

40 Thomas Crown 65 McIntosh & Bennett 

41 Plater & Helm 66 A. H. Millerd 

42 Plater & Helm 67 R. Brackett & Co. 

43 Plater & Helm 68 R. Brackett & Co. 

44 Plater & Helm 69 R. Brackett & Co. 

45 Plater & Helm 70 R. Brackett & Co. 

46 Plater & Helm 71 T. McIntosh & Co. 

47 Thomas Crown 72 ( ) 

48 Thomas Crown 73 J. Hurd & Co. 

49 Higgins & Owens 74 Donley & Co. 

50 Higgins & Owens 75 McIntosh & Bennett 

51 Higgins & Owens 76 McIntosh & Bennett 

52 Higgins & Owens 77 Donley & Co. 

53 ( ) 78 J. Hurd & Co. 

54 J. Costigan 79 J. Hurd & Co. 

55 Garey Hickman 80 J. Hurd & Co. 

56 T. Gatton & Co. 81 J. Hurd & Co. 

57 H. W. Campbell 82 J. Hurd & Co. 

58 T. H. McCubbin 83 J. Hurd & Co. 

59 W. A. Nichols & Co. 84 Walter B. Kemp 

Lock Contractor Lock Contractor 

5 Bennett & Brackett 17 Kenny & Roberts 

6 Bennett & Brackett 18 J. & J. Maynard 

7 Brackett & Hovey 19 J. & J. Maynard 

8 Brackett & Hovey 20 J. & J. Maynard 

9 W. W. Fenlon & Co. 21 Holdsworth & Isherwood 

10 Hale & Nichols 22 Kenny & Roberts 

11 Kavenaugh & Knox 23 Kenny & Roberts 

12 J. & J. Maynard 24 Holdsworth & Isherwood 

13 Patrick Donnelly 25 Lafferty & Boland 

14 Patrick Donnelly 26 Amos Johnson 

15 J. & J. Maynard 27 Lafferty & Boland 

16 J. & J. Maynard 

AQUEDUCT NO. 1 Holdsworth & Isherwood 

CULVERTS NOS. 10–12, 17 W. W. Fenlon & Co. 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 93–98 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 257 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX E 

LIST OF ENGINEERS APPOINTED ON THE FIRST DIVISION 

OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, NOVEMBER 22, 18281

The distribution of the engineers on the first division of the canal was as follows: 

(a) to the first residency, covering the line from the eastern termination of the canal through Section No. 6, were assigned Thomas F. Purcell, resident engineer, Charles D. Ward, assistant 

engineer, Peter Von Smith, rodman, and Randolph Coyle, volunteer rodman; 

(b) to the second residency, covering Sections Nos. 7–18, were assigned Daniel Van Slyke, resident engineer, Herman Boye, assistant engineer, and James Mears, Jr., rodman; 

(c) to the third residency, covering Sections Nos. 19–38, were assigned W. M. C. Fairfax, resident 

engineer, William Beckwith, assistant engineer, R. J. Bowie, rodman, and Thomas H. 

DeWitt, volunteer rodman; 

(d) to the fourth residency, covering Sections Nos. 39–64, were assigned Erastus Hurd, resident 

engineer, Charles B. Fisk, assistant engineer, and L. G. Davis, rodman; and 

(e) to the fifth residency, covering Sections Nos. 65–84, were assigned Alfred Cruger, resident 

engineer, Charles Ellet, assistant engineer, and William Wallack, rodman. 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 107–115. 
258 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX F 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR WORK ON CANAL 

BETWEEN ROCK CREEK AND LITTLE FALLS, DECEMBER 10, 18281

Section Contractor 

A Issac McCord & Co. 

B John Baker 

C B. J. Forrest & Co. 

D B. J. Forrest & Co. 

E B. J. Forrest & Co. 

F B. J. Forrest & Co. 

G Hewes, Lewis & Hewes 

H Hewes, Lewis & Hewes 

Dam Contractor 

1 Issac McCord & Co. 

2 Issac McCord & Co. 

Bridge Contractor 

1 Issac McCord & Co. 

2 Issac McCord & Co. 

Lock Contractor 

1 Issac McCord & Co. 

2∗ Issac McCord & Co. 

3∗ Issac McCord & Co. 

4∗ Issac McCord & Co. 

∗ with bridges 

Culvert Contractor 

E B. S. Forrest & Co. 

F B. S. Forrest & Co. 

G B. S. Forrest & Co. 

H B. S. Forrest & Co. 

I B. S. Forrest & Co. 

K Hewes, Lewis & Hewes 

L Hewes, Lewis & Hewes 

Pier, Waster Weir and Tide Lock at Rock Creek Basin—Isaac McCord & Co. 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 127. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 259 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX G 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR LOCKHOUSES, DECEMBER 11, 18281

House Contractor 

4 Thomas & Munroe 

7 Richards & Kavenaugh 

8 M. Kavenaugh & Co. 

9 J. W. Maynard 

10 J. W. Maynard 

11 J. W. Maynard 

12 J. W. Maynard 

14 Wines, Bracker & Wines 

16 Holdsworth & Isherwood 

17 Thomas & Munroe 

18 Thomas & Munroe 

19 Thomas & Munroe 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Diredctor, A, 129. 
260 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX H 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR RELET LOCKS, MARCH 14, 18291

Lock Contractor 

5 A. Knapp & Co. 

6 A. Knapp & Co. 

7 Fenlon & Bosteder 

8 A. Knapp & Co. 

12 Fenlon & Bosteder 

15 A. Knapp & Co. 

16 A. Knapp & Co. 

17 A. Knapp & Co. 

18 A. Knapp & Co. 

19 Fenlon & Bosteder 

20 A. Knapp & Co. 

22 F. C. Clopper 

23 Holdsworth & Isherwood 

26 A. Knapp & Co. 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 178. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 261 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX I 

LIST OF LOCK TENDERS AND LOCATION OF LOCKHOUSES 

FROM LITTLE FALLS TO SENECA FALLS, AUGUST 7, 18301

Lock Lockhouse Section Lock Keeper 

5 3 1 Mr. Whalen 

6 4 1 William Connor 

7 5 4 Robert Brooke 

8 6 7 Solomon Drew 

9&10 7 8 Thomas Burgess 

11 8 8 Mr. Edmonston 

12, 13 & 14 9 9 Charles L. Sears 

15 & 16 10 17 (No name given) 

17 & 18 11 18 William Roberts 

19 & 20 12 18 William Roberts 

21 13 23 Mr. Fuller 

22 14 29 Mr. Wright 

23 15 34 Lewis Sewell 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 157–159. Later on November 20, W. W. Fenlon 

was selected as lock-keeper of Locks Nos. 19 and 20 with general supervision of Locks Nos. 15–18. 
262 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX J 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS FROM 

POINT OF ROCKS TO HARPERS FERRY, MARCH 14, 18321

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

90 Williams & Dawes 102 Offutt & Stone 

91 Kemp G. Carter 103 Judson C. Pumphoy 

92 Fred Bryan 104 L. F. & J. Pumphrey 

93 Hawley & Campbell 105 L. F. & J. Pumphrey 

94 O'Neill & Lanaghan 106 Pat McLaughlin 

95 Ennis, Grimes & Ennis 107 Andrew Clements 

96 Bers & Hyde 108 James Collan 

97 Zach & Siatton 109 T. & S. McCoy 

98 Watkins & Gatton 110 Bernard Collins 

99 Lemuel Offutt 111 H. A. & J. Stewart 

100 T. S. & G. M. Watkins 112 Henry Smith 

101 Stephen Sands 

 

1

 Ledger A, 1828–1841, 370–414. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 263 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX K 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS NOS. 113–117 

(DAMS NOS. 3–4), JUNE 2, 1832.1

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

113 John Noonan 136 Stephen Sands 

114 J. & B. Gorman 137 Stephen Sands 

115 William Harte 138 Frink, Hubbard & Co. 

116 Samuel Miller 139 Frink, Hubbard & Co. 

117 Morris & Nurray 140 J. P. & J. Dougherty 

118 James & Fresh 141 Joshua Jamison 

119 Sullivan & Mahorney 142 Josephus Beall 

120 Sherlock & Gene 143 Gatton & Watkins 

121 Dolan & Harford 144 A. & T. N. Clements 

122 William Pollock 145 A. & T. N. Clements 

123 Tenning Dodge 146 G. M. & R. W. Watkins 

124 John Noonan 147 John Stocksdale 

125 Sherlock & Gene 148 Enos Childs 

126 William Eldridge & Co. 149 Josephus Beall 

127 Stephan Sands 150 Offutt & Maccubbins 

128 Stephan Sands 151 Offutt & Maccubbins 

129 Z. & E. M. Gatton 152 Offutt & Maccubbins 

130 Z. & E. M. Gatton 153 Seale & Curran 

131 Gatton & Watkins 154 Gorman, Conolly & 

132 Gatton & Watkins 155 Kennedy & O'Neill 

133 Simon Dwyer 156 Kennedy & O'Neill 

134 Seale & Curran 157 Thomas Heunessey 

135 Charles H. McCann 

 

1

 Ledger A, 1828–1841, 416–504. 
264 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX L 

LIST OF MASONRY STRUCTURES AND DIFFICULT SECTIONS BETWEEN DAM NO. 5 

AND THE CACAPON RIVER LET FOR CONTRACT, JULY 3, 18351

Aqueduct Contractor 

6 Richard Holdsworth 

7 Robert Brown 

Lock Contractor Lock Contractor 

45 W. Morrow 49 Daniel K. Cahoon 

46 I. C. Lissig 50 Daniel K. Cahoon 

47 Daniel K. Cahoon 51 Robert Brown 

48 Daniel K. Cahoon 52 Robert Brown 

53 Patrick McGinley

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

203 John Seale 226 James Lonergan 

204 John Seale 229 R. W. Watkins 

205 David Lyles 230 R. W. Watkins 

206 David Lyles 235 Samuel S. Piddle 

207 Thomas M. McCubbin 236 James Ryan 

209 Michael McMahon 237 Samuel S. Piddle 

222 Lee Montgomery 243 Daniel C. Cahoon 

225 Anthony Loftus 244 Daniel K. Cahoon 

247 John Gorman 252 Bernard Gorman 

248 John Gorman 255 Thomas Barr 

Culvert Contractor Culvert Contractor 

137 John Lambie 173 Michael Smith 

138 David Lyles 174 Michael Smith 

139 David Lyles 175 Michael Smith 

140 James J. McElhery 176 James Ryan 

141 Daniel K. Cahoon 177 E. H. Fielding 

142 James J. McElhery 178 E. H. Fielding 

143 James J. McElhery 179 E. H. Fielding 

158 Lee Montgomery 180 E. H. Fielding 

159 Lee Montgomery 181 E. H. Fielding 

163 Anthony Loftus 182 E. H. Fielding 

164 James Lonergan 189 Daniel K. Cahoon 

165 James Lonergan 190 John Gorman 

166 James Lonergan 191 John Gorman 

167 James Lonergan 192 William Brown 

168 Michael Smith 193 William Brown 

169 Michael Smith 194 John Lambie 

170 Michael Smith 195 Daniel K. Cahoon 

171 R. M. Watkins 196 John Lambie 

172 Michael Smith 197 Daniel K. Cahoon 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 360–362. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 265 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX M 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS BETWEEN DAM NO. 5 

AND THE CACAPON RIVER, FEBRUARY 10, 18361

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

210 George Young 233 P. McGirk 

211 P. Driskell 234 M. Mulhollon 

212 John Moore 238 W. Story 

213 G. S. Marsh 239 W. Story 

214 G. S. Marsh 240 S. Nichols 

215 G. S. Marsh 241 G. Magruder 

216 G. S. Marsh 242 W. Blakely 

217 G. M. Watkins 245 G. W. Higgins 

218 John Moore 246 E. M. Gatton 

219 G. S. Marsh 249 Patrick Crowley 

220 G. S. Marsh 250 Patrick Crowley 

221 G. S. Marsh 251 Patrick Crowley 

223 Lee Montgomery 253 Patrick Crowley 

224 G. M. Watkins 254 T. Gealey 

227 Jonah Hood 256 J. O. Hearn 

228 Jonah Hood 257 J. Hynes 

232 P. McGirk 258 Henry Smith 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 18–19. 
266 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX N 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR 54 SECTIONS AND 4 LOCKS 

BETWEEN DAM NO. 6 AND CUMBERLAND, SEPTEMBER 27, 18371

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

262 John O'Neill 320 Casper Dull 

269 John O'Neill 321 E. Y. Bright 

270 George D. Jorman 322 Nahum Starr 

271 John Bevans 323 Wells Hatch 

272 John Kirkwood 329 Robert McCoy 

273 Martin Phelan 335 George W. Henry 

274 J. Ferguson 336 Isaiah Frost 

275 Zenus Barnum 341 George W. Henry 

276 Zenus Barnum 342 Anson Bangs 

278 Peter Bargey 343 Anson Bangs 

279 Joseph Miller 344 R. Worthington 

280 George Grier 347 W. P. Sterritt 

281 Harvey Hackley 348 W. P. Sterritt 

292 Robert L. Patterson 349 George Grier 

293 Robert L. Patterson 350 George W. Johnson 

294 Harvey Hackley 351 George G. Johnson 

297 R. H. Bangs 352 Dennis Dougherty 

312 Bernard O'Friel 353 Patrick Driskell 

313 John Waldron 354 Henry McCurdy 

317 George Murray 355 Henry McCurdy 

318 Patrick McEvoy 356 Patrick Hagan 

319 E. M. Gatton 357 W. P. Sterritt 

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

358 George Grier 363 Simon Nicholls 

359 Henry McCurdy 364 Clark Burnham 

360 Thomas M. McCubbin 365 Charles Murray 

361 John Dougherty 366 H. Devine 

362 Simon Nicholls 367 H. Devine 

Lock Contractor Lock Contractor 

68 Robert McCoy 74 George G. Johnson 

73 George G. Johnson 75 George G. Johnson 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 317–319. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 267 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX O 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR MASONRY WORK BETWEEN DAM NO. 6 

AND CUMBERLAND, SEPTEMBER 29, 18371

Aqueducts Contractor 

9 Frederick Pratt 

10 Frederick Pratt 

11 George G. Johnson 

Lock Contractors Lock Contractors 

56 John Cameron 63 Michael Byrne 

57 W. C. Steedman 64 Michael Byrne 

58 W. C. Steedman 65 Michael Byrne 

59 Edward H. Fielding 66 Michael Byrne 

60 Michael Byrne 69 William Pratt 

61 Michael Byrne 70 William Pratt 

62 Michael Byrne 71 William Pratt 

72 G. W. Henry 

Dam No. 8 and Guard lock No. 8—Sterritt & Lockwood 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 320–321. 
268 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX P 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR AQUEDUCT NO. 9 AND 17 SECTIONS 

LET UNDER APRIL 2 ORDER OF THE BOARD, MAY 23, 18381

AQUEDUCT NO. 9—Enos Childs 

Section Contractor 

270 John O. Hearn 

272 Enos Childs 

274 Patrick Gormly 

279 S. A. Leckey 

294 McLean Moore 

297 J. S. Thompson 

317 Selah Chamberlain 

318 Patrick Hagan 

319 Wells Hatch 

342 Patrick Crowley 

344 J. Dilley 

351 J. Harris 

353 George Hoblitzell 

356 George Hoblitzell 

363 William Story 

364 L. Gatton 

365 Edward Doyle 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 269 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX Q 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR LOCKS NOS. 57–67 

AND CULVERTS NOS. 204, 210, 219–220, 225, AND 229 

LET UNDER APRIL 2 ORDER OF THE BOARD, MAY 24, 18381

Lock Contractor 

57–58 James Wherry 

59–66 Michael Byrne 

67 J. Lobdell 

Culvert Contractor 

204 C. B. Ford 

210 John Reiley 

219 Everitt & Dilley 

220 Everitt & Dilley 

225 G. W. Henry 

229 John Reiley 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 425. At a later unspecified time, Lock No. 68 

was let to J. N. Nesbett. 
270 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX R 

LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS FOR SECTIONS BETWEEN 

DAM NO. 6 AND CUMBERLAND, APRIL 11, 18481

Section Contractor Section Contractor 

260 Ignatius Renner 315 John Kelley 

261 Ignatius Renner 316 Andrew McMahon 

264 William Whitman 321 Dr. Fitzpatrick 

269 William Whitman 324–328 Everitt & Dilley 

272 Thomas Bell 329 John Eggert 

277 William Whitman 330–332 Fraser & Co. 

282–291 Ritner & Co. 337–338 John Waldron 

295–296 Henry Gallagher 339–342 W. W. Buel & Co. 

298–299 Buel & Watt 345 John McManus 

311–312 McCullough & Day 346 John McQuard 

313 Thomas Sims 347–348 Sterritt & Humber 

314 John Eggert 351–352 Sterritt & Humber 

 

1 Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C & O Co., Appendix D, 17–18. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 271 

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 

APPENDIX S 

LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR CULVERTS BETWEEN 

DAM NO. 6 AND CUMBERLAND, APRIL 11, 18481

Culvert Section Contractor 

202 262 Moyal, Randal & Co. 

204 277 Moyal, Randal & Co. 

206 283 Ritner & Co. 

207 285 Ritner & Co. 

208 291 Ritner & Co. 

210 296 Henry Gallagher 

211 313 R. Sims & Co. 

212 316 R. Sims & Co. 

215 322 Sterrtt & Co. 

216 330 Bruce & Haughey 

217 331 Bruce & Haughey 

218 332 Bruce & Haughey 

221 337 Bruce & Haughey 

223 339 Bruce & Haughey 

224 340 Bruce & Haughey 

228 342 Bruce & Haughey 

230 345 Bruce & Haughey 

231 346 Bruce & Haughey 

 

1 Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C & O Co., Appendix D, 12. 
272 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 5. Construction Chronology: 1824–1850 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

6. 

FLOODS ON THE 

C & O CANAL 

1829–1936 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 275 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION 277 

II. THE FLOODS, 1829–1889 277 

 AUGUST 1829 277 

 SEPTEMBER 1829 277 

 FEBRUARY 1831 278 

 JANUARY 1832 278 

 JANUARY 1834 278 

 JUNE 1836 279 

 APRIL 1843 282 

 AUGUST 1843 283 

 SEPTEMBER 1843 283 

 MARCH 1846 287 

 JULY 1846 288 

 OCTOBER 1847 289 

 APRIL 1852 290 

 AUGUST 1855 295 

 WINTER 1855–56 295 

 FEBRUARY–MAY 1857 295 

 APRIL 1859 296 

 SEPTEMBER 1859 296 

 NOVEMBER 1860 296 

 APRIL 1861 297 

 JULY 1861 298 

 APRIL–MAY 1862 298 

 JUNE–JULY 1862 300 

 APRIL 1864 300 

 MARCH 1865 301 

 OCTOBER 1866 301 

 SPRING 1868 301 

 SEPTEMBER 1870 302 

 AUGUST 1872 303 

 FEBRUARY 1873 303 

 AUGUST 1873 303 

 APRIL 1874 304 

 JULY–AUGUST 1875 304 

 NOVEMBER 1877 304 

 JUNE 1884 308 

 APRIL–MAY 1886 308 

 MAY–JUNE 1889 311 

III. THE FLOODS, 1897–1936 317 

1897, 1902, 1907, 1914 317 

MARCH 1924 317 

MARCH 1936 318 
276 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

IV. CONCLUSION 322 

III. APPENDIXES 323 

A. DESCRIPTION OF NOVEMBER 1877 FLOOD AT CUMBERLAND 323 

B. DESCRIPTION OF NOVEMBER 1877 FLOOD IN WASHINGTON 

 COUNTY 324 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 277 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

I. INTRODUCTION 

An effort has been made in this chapter to examine the major water and ice freshets that struck 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from 1828 to 1936. The focus for this chapter has been an examination of the causes and extent of the freshets, as well as the damage inflicted on the canal by 

them and the consequent repairs effected on the waterway. Although some portion of the canal 

was adversely affected by high water virtually every year, this chapter consist of descriptions of 

those floods which were considered as significant in the company records and in contemporary 

newspaper accounts. 

II: THE FLOODS 1829–1889 

AUGUST 1829 

The first recorded instance when a freshet affected the construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal occurred in August 1829. Early that month, high water caused by heavy rains in the Potomac Valley did considerable damage to the embankment and locks of the old Potomac Company 

skirting canal still operating around Little Falls. As the locks and canal were no longer operable, 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal directors learned that persons passing the locks at Great Falls were 

refusing to pay any tolls. In an effort to restore quickly the commercial usefulness of a canal 

around Little Falls, the board established a committee headed by Walter Smith to rush the construction of the nearby section of the new canal. Isaac Leach and Company, the contractor on 

Section F, agreed to complete his works by October 1, 1829, if he were paid more. Goodrich and 

Company, the contractor for Sections G and H, agreed to a similar modification in its contract. 

Accordingly, Smith was able to report to the board on August 12 that he had arranged “to expedite the completion of that part of the Canal alongside of the old Canal and which was carried 

away in many places.”1

Although there is no map showing the locations of Sections F, G and H, documentary 

evidence appears to indicate that they were the westernmost sections of the eight constructed between Rock Creek and Little Falls. As such they probably included the feeder portion extending 

out to the river at High Island. The sketchy evidence suggests that the old canal washed out between High Island and present Lock No. 5, because the skirting canal turned inland between those 

two points and the distance between the canal and the river was narrowest in that distance. In this 

case, the probable solution was to enlarge the old canal below present Lock No. 5 and bypass the 

feeder washout by completing the new channel above the lock. Regardless of what actually was 

done, documentary evidence indicates that the work required no more land than was contained in 

the 180-foot wide strip of Potomac Company land in that vicinity.2

SEPTEMBER 1829 

A freshet occurred in the Potomac during September 1829. The principal damage to the canal 

works under construction was at Locks Nos. 21 and 23 where the pits were filled with water. As 

the contracts that had been let for the locks did not contain provisions for additional allowances to 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 320–321, 325. 2

 Steven H. Lewis, Stabilization Study: Little Falls Skirting Canal, Maryland and District of Columbia, 

(NPS Mss., 1966), 13–14. 
278 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

cover bailing out flood water, Holdsworth and Isherwood, the contractors for the locks, requested, 

unsuccessfully, such aid.3

FEBRUARY 1831 

A heavy freshet struck the newly-completed portion of the canal between Georgetown and Seneca in mid-February 1831 just six weeks before its formal opening to navigation. The flood, 

which was described as “extraordinary,” did little or no damage to the canal where the water had 

“been admitted or retained in the Canal to an elevation as great as that in the river.” The only 

level on the waterway to be damaged was that “immediately below the Seneca Guard Lock” 

where “a disaster of some moment” had occurred. The most significant damage was to the culvert 

below the guard lock which was broken apart by the force of the water.4

JANUARY 1832 

In January 1832 a heavy ice freshet struck the canal, concentrating most of its fury on the Dam 

No. 1 complex. According to canal officials, the “accumulation of ice” was “unparalleled” as it 

reached in some places the height of forty feet above tidewater. During the afternoon of January 

10, the ice carried away the guard gate on the Little Falls feeder. A temporary guard gate was installed immediately, but the ice again forced open the gate that night. At the same time, the ice 

“was flushed over the towpath into the canal at the powder mill on the Little Falls branch. The 

Little Falls Bridge, which carried a public road over the canal and which was high enough to allow passengers to remain on the top deck of packets using the waterway, was destroyed. At the 

Peak of the freshet, the water in the canal was near the top of the banks and the ice was several 

feet higher, but the prism, with one exception, was not damaged. Just as canal officials were preparing to cut away the towpath near the waste weir below Lock No. 5 to prevent further damage, 

the ice bored a channel through the canal embankments near where the Little Falls Bridge had 

stood.5

 When the ice freshet subsided, canal officials found that Dam No. 1 had received extensive damage. The completed portion of the dam between the Maryland shore and Snake Island 

was nearly destroyed, and the partially-completed section of the dam between Snake Island and 

the Virginia shore was in need of heavy repairs. Later on July 5, the board authorized canal Superintendent J. Y. Young to repair the structure. The part of the dam between Snake Island and 

the Maryland shore was “to be rebuilt after the manner of its late construction.” This work entailed the reconstruction of the 855-foot arched dam built of loose rubble stone and brush held in 

place by wood cribbing. The partially-finished portion of the dam between the island and the Virginia shore was “to be restored by the use of stone and brush” prior to its completion. Along with 

these repairs, the board also directed Young “immediately hang up the new Gate at Guard Gate 

No. 1”6

JANUARY 1834 

In mid-January 1834 a heavy ice freshet struck the Potomac Valley centering primarily on that 

portion of the canal between Shepherdstown and Four Locks. At its peak on January 14, the ice 

 

3

 Holdsworth and Isherwood to President and Directors, September 24, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

4

..VanSlyke to Mercer, February 24, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

5

 .Purcell to Mercer, January 11, 1832, and Lockland to President and Directors, May 10, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., 

C & O Co. 

6

 .Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 182–184. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 279 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

caused the Potomac River to rise 16 feet in about 12 hours. The ice was “piled” to a height of 

about 30 feet and 4 miles in length above Dam No. 4. Two bridges across the river near Williamsport were carried away, but there was no reported damage either to the canal trunk or to 

Dam Nos. 4 and 5, which were both only partially completed. At Dam No. 4, Joseph Hollman, 

the contractor, lost his boats and some loose lumber. However, the dam, which was then constructed to a height of 21 feet and which was only partly planked on its top, was not injured. Optimistically, Engineer Thomas F. Purcell noted that: 

It is impossible that these dams can ever again be exposed to so severe a trial, as that to 

which they were subjected by the ice freshet of yesterday; and they stand uninjured, a 

striking refutation of the position assumed as the result of experience on the works made 

by the State of Pennsylvania, that dams across rivers, to supply canals with water, were 

insecure & could not be made to stand.7

JUNE 1836 

During the spring of 1836, the Potomac Valley experienced “an almost unprecedented season of 

wet weather.” In early June, six days of continuous rain swelled the courses of the Potomac’s 

tributaries and caused the highest freshet in the river since 1810.8

 On the completed portion of the 

canal, the most extensive damage occurred at Dam No. 4 and Harpers Ferry and from Seneca to 

Little Falls. Considerable injury was inflicted on the canal embankments still under construction 

below the Cacapon River.9

 The course of the 1836 freshet is interesting to follow through the canal company papers 

and local newspapers as it was the most severe flood to strike the Potomac Valley since the commencement of construction on the canal. In its early stages, fears were aroused concerning the 

durability of the canal works and the wisdom of building it along the banks of the river. But when 

navigation was restored along the line within three weeks, the early doubts disappeared as canal 

officials became even more obsessed with the idea that the canal was immune from all but periodic minor injury from even the heaviest freshets of the river. 

 On June 1, Superintendent J. Y. Young of the Georgetown Division reported to the board

the sudden 3-foot rise in the Potomac below Seneca was largely the result of the heavy inflow of 

water from the swollen Shenandoah at Harpers Ferry. At that point, the Potomac above the town 

had risen very little. While little damage had as yet been reported on his division, he noted that 

the outer side of the heavy embankment on Section No. 11 between Locks Nos. 14 and 15 had 

slipped. Accordingly, he had ordered his hands to withdraw the water from that level of the canal 

to ease the pressure on the remaining embankment.10

 

7

 Purcell to Ingle, January 15, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

8

 .The only major flood to strike the Potomac Valley in the years 1800–28 occurred in Washington County 

on November 10, 1810. The flood centered around Williamsport where the Potomac and Conococheague 

Creek rose to unprecedented heights inundating much of the town and the surrounding countryside. A 

bridge that had just been built across the creek at the town was swept away as were Towson’s Warehouse 

and quantities of tar and coal. The flood caused little, if any, damage to the Potomac Company works. As 

this flood was the highest-known freshet to hit the valley in the years prior to the construction of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, company engineers generally attempted to construct the waterway above its 

high-water levels. Thus, they apparently were convinced that they had taken the necessary precautions to 

protect the new canal from the ravages of the river. John Thomas Scharf, History of Western Maryland (2 

Vol., Philadelphia, 1882), Vol. II, 1201. 

9 Alexandria Gazette, June 8, 1836. 10 Young to Ingle, June 1, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
280 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

 That the Potomac continued its sudden rise was attested to by Superintendent Young’s 

report to company officials the following day. By that time water was passing over the towpath 

below Lock Nos. 5, 7 and 8, and it had completely covered the abutments of Dam No. 1. The deterioration of the embankment on Section No. 11 had increased and new reports indicated that the 

slippage had extended to Section No. 10.11

 On June 3 the Alexandria Gazette reported that the “uncommonly high” water had destroyed part of the Potomac Bridge. About 20 or 30 yards beyond the draw, on the Virginia side, 

the structure had been swept away. Despite the high water, the works at the Potomac Aqueduct, 

then under construction, were all safe.12

 As the swollen Shenandoah continued to pour its water into the Potomac, the Harpers 

Ferry vicinity suffered extensive flooding. By June 3 the lower portion of the town was inundated, and residents living near the banks of the river were moving to higher ground.13

 After a personal examination of his division, Superintendent Young reported on June 4 

concerning the damage between Georgetown and Seneca. Over this 22-mile distance there were 

six extensive breaches in the waterway. On Section E (just below Little Falls), 5 (above Lock No. 

7), 18 (near Crommelin House), and 23 (near Lock No. 22), water had passed from the canal 

through common earth embankments. In addition, two large breaches had developed when water 

ran over the Muddy Branch Culvert and the culvert next above it. The six breaches averaged from 

100 to 150 feet in length and from 4 to 10 feet below the bottom of the prism. The water from the 

river passed over the embankments into the canal on Sections G (near Guard Lock No. 1), 7 (near 

Lock No. 8), 22 (below Lock No. 21), 29 (near Lock No. 22), and 34 (near Lock No. 23). At Section G the canal embankment was not injured, but at the remaining points the top of the embankments was cut away from 1 to 5 feet in depth and from 200 to 400 yards in length, leaving them 

in “an uneven ragged state.” The earth removed from the embankments was deposited in the 

trunk, thereby creating large sand and gravel bars. With the exception of some dry masonry walls, 

he was certain that all the masonry works were secure.14

 Along with his report on the damage done to the Georgetown Division, Young informed 

the board concerning his efforts to repair the canal. He already had his hands making temporary 

dams around the breaches to force the water through the various nearby waste weirs. In addition, 

he had sent several messengers out into the surrounding countryside to recruit additional workers 

and carts to haul materials and to collect provisions. He estimated that 20 men and 12 carts would 

be needed to repair each large breach and 10 men to remove each deposit from the canal trunk. 

The repairs would take two weeks after which the navigation could be restored. Mr. McNear, an 

experienced workman in Georgetown who had a force of carts and hands on the city streets, had 

been hired to make the repairs on Section E.15

 Although the damage done to the canal between Harpers Ferry and Seneca was not so 

extensive as that on the Georgetown Division, there were several places over this distance that 

were hard-hit.16 At Harpers Ferry the feeder was filled with sand, gravel and earth as a result of 

 

11 Ibid, June 2, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 12 Alexandria Gazette, June 3, 1836. 13 Ibid, June 9, 1836. 14 Young to Ingle, June 4, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Later on July 28, Young modified this latter assertion in his report by informing the directors that the stone portion of Dam No. 1 between Snake Island and 

the Maryland shore had been severely damaged. The tumbling waste between the mouth of the Little Falls 

Feeder and Guard Gate No. 1 was also injured. The cost or repairing these structures, together with added 

protection walls and embankments, was estimated to be $1,500. Young to Board of Directors, July 28, 

1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

15 Young to Ingle, June 4, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

16 Ingle to Elgin, June 4, 1836, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 281 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

several breaks in the levels above it and of the washing of the embankments at Lock Nos. 35 and 

36. A series of breaches in the canal embankments occurred between Edwards Ferry and Seneca, 

the most serious of which took place on Section No. 40 (some 21⁄2 miles above Seneca Creek). At 

various points on the 38-mile distance between Dams Nos. 3 and 2, the high water had washed 

badly the surface of the towpath and left it in a ragged condition.17

 Because of the limited damage to his division of the canal between Harpers Ferry and 

Seneca, Superintendent W. S. Elgin was able to report on June 10 that his portion of the waterway 

was ready for the readmittance of water. All the breaches had been repaired and the embankments 

raised enough to admit 41⁄2 feet of water.18

 Above Harpers Ferry the only significant damage to the completed portion of the canal 

occurred at Dam No. 4. A serious breach of undetermined extent took place requiring several 

weeks of repair.19

 On the portion of the canal between the Cacapon River and Dam No. 5, then under construction, there were two points where the high water damaged the canal works. On Section Nos. 

247 (below Lock No. 53) and 252 (between Locks Nos. 53 and 54), the earthen embankments 

were heavily washed as the level of the river reached the height of the top of the canal. On the 

former, 1,700 cubic yards of material were washed away, while on the latter 4,100 cubic yards 

were swept away. It was estimated that it would require the labor of 20 horses and carts and 15 

hands for two months to repair the damage on Section No. 252 alone. The embankment material 

on Section No. 247 was replaced with earth brought to the canal from a point 1/3 of a mile distant 

at a cost of nearly $500, while the material for the embankment on section No. 252 was brought 

from a point less than 1⁄4 of a mile distant at a cost of nearly $950. As the losses in both cases put 

the respective contractors in desperate financial straits, the canal company agreed to pay for the 

repairs although it was not bound to do so by the previsions of the contracts.20

 Repairs to the completed portion of the waterway proceeded at a rapid pace. On June 20, 

Superintendent Young reported that navigation had been restored from Georgetown to Harpers 

Ferry. Several weeks later on July 6, Superintendent George W. Rogers informed the board that 

the line between Harpers Ferry and Dam No. 5 was ready for the admission of water.21

 Despite the damage to the canal from the freshet, canal officials were relieved that the 

injuries were not as great as had first been feared.22 The optimism that this realization produced 

was evident in the comments of President George C. Washington to the company stockholders in 

June 1836: 

No interruption of any consequence to the navigation has occurred, until the recent 

freshet, which raised the waters of the Potomac to an unprecedented height, and carried 

off some of our embankments. Great apprehension was entertained of extensive and serious injury, but we are happy to state that the damage is not so great as we had feared. 

Had the board ever doubted the expediency of the location adopted by Mr. Fisk, those 

doubts would have been wholly dissipated by the results of the recent freshet, as the chief 

injury sustained by the canal has been at points where it approximates too closely the 

 

17 Elgin to Washington, June 10 & 13, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

18 Ibid, June 10, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

19 Alexandria Gazette, June 8, 1836, and Elgin to Washington, June 13, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. No 

details concerning the breach at Dam No. 4 could be found in the company records. See John F. Luzader, 

Dam No. 4, Historic Structure Survey (NPS Mss, 1964), 17. 20 Gorman to President and Directors, June 15, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Fisk to Bender, June 20, 

1836, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 89. 21 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 77, 89. 22 Alexandria Gazette, June 13, 1836. 
282 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

river line. The new locations have been made with the view of placing the canal above 

any rise of the river, and consequently, its entire security. The economy of such locations 

is evident, both in the permanency of the work, and the assurance of an uninterrupted 

navigation...The strength of the masonry, and its admirable construction, were fully tested 

by the recent freshet; and not withstanding the immense pressure on the aqueducts and 

other masonry, none have been injured.23

APRIL 1843 

In mid-April 1843 the highest freshet since the commencement of the canal struck the Potomac 

Valley. Occasioned by the rapid melting of heavy snow in the western Maryland mountains, the 

flood caused destruction to the waterway primarily between Edwards Ferry and Georgetown. On 

April 18 and 19 the high water in the river ran over all the “low levels” on the Georgetown Division, opening one or more breaches on each of them. In most cases the water passed into the canal 

at the high or upper end of the levels and out by the breaches below. Precautionary measures were 

taken by cutting the embankments at points where the least damage would take place.24

 Although the damage west of Edwards Ferry was not as severe, the canal between Dams 

Nos. 4 and 6 was washed in many places by the flood waters which covered portions of this distance by as much as three feet.25 Four miles below Williamsport, the top of the bank and berm 

sides of a culvert were “carried away to the bottom of the canal.”26 Embankments at several other 

nearby culverts were washed down also. At its peak, the flood water rose to a height of “six 

inches over the abutment of Dam No. 5,” causing three breaches in the level below. The towpath 

at the dam was “washed away to within 2 ft. of bottom, about 200 ft. in length.”27

 When the freshet subsided, Chief Engineer Fisk surveyed the damage to the canal and 

estimated that it would cost $20,000 to place the waterway below the Cacapon River in the condition that it had been before the freshet. To merely restore navigation, it would take two weeks to 

repair the Georgetown Level and that portion of the canal above Edwards Ferry, while it would 

require three weeks to repair the line between Little Falls and Edwards Ferry. The total cost of the 

immediate repairs needed was estimated to be $10,000.28

 As the financial condition of the company was desperate, canal officials negotiated a 

$10,000 loan from three banks in the District of Columbia in May to pay for the immediate repairs. The loan, which was secured by two-thirds of the tolls and water rents collected by the 

company until the loan was paid, was acquired as follows: Farmer’s and Mechanic’s Bank of 

Georgetown, $5,000; Bank of Metropolis, $2,500; and Bank of Washington, $2,500.29

 Portions of the canal were reopened to navigation on May 2, and the entire waterway on 

May 6. Later in July, traffic was suspended for 22 days while work was undertaken to remove the 

sand bars in the canal prism that had been left in the wake of the freshet.30

 

23 Eighth Annual Report (1836), C & O Co., 8. 24 Young to Turner, April 19, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

25 Fisk to Coale, September, 17, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 26 Stone to Fisk, April 20, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

27 Ibid, April 20, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 28 Fisk to Ingle, April 20, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

29 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 25–26; and Fifteenth Annual Report (1843), C 

& O Co., 3–4. 

30 Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), 21, 40–41. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 283 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

AUGUST 1843 

Extraordinary heavy rains struck several parts of the Potomac Valley in August 1843 causing 

several streams passing under the canal “to rise to a height unprecedented within the memory of 

man.” The two streams where the heaviest flooding occurred were Tonoloway Creek at Hancock 

and the Monocacy River. The water of the later overflowed the canal and caused high water to 

plague the canal all the way down to Edwards Ferry. The flooding at the two areas caused extensive washing of the towpath and heavy erosion of the canal embankments, but no serious 

breaches were reported.31

SEPTEMBER 1843 

After several days of heavy rain throughout the Potomac Valley in mid-September 1843, a flood 

of greater proportions than the April freshet struck the canal. Damage was extensive all along the 

line from Georgetown to Dam No. 6, then the western termination of the canal, but the lower portions of the waterway suffered most. As the embankments damaged by the April freshet had not 

yet been raised to their full height and completed, navigation was now suspended for one month 

and repairs totaling $30,000 in addition to the amount still unexpended from the April $20,000 

estimate were made to restore the waterway to the condition that it had been in before the spring 

freshet.32

 On September 19 and 21, Superintendent Young reported on the damage to the canal on 

his division from Georgetown to Lock No. 26. The Georgetown level had suffered two large 

breaches—one near Pointers and the other opposite the Alexandria Aqueduct quarry. The estimated cost of repairing the two breaches was $2,500. From the Alexandria Aqueduct to Dam No. 

1 the canal banks had been washed considerably, particularly above the Powder Magazine. Near 

the dam there was another serious breach and the banks were washed badly. About one-third of 

the Lockhouse at Lock No. 6 had been carried away, and he assumed that it would go entirely. 

Above Lock No. 7 there were two breaks, and the embankment below Lock No. 8 was heavily 

injured where the river overflowed it. The damage on the levels between Lock Nos. 6, 7 and 8 

was similar to those caused by previous floods but was far more extensive. On the “log wall” 

level between Locks Nos. 14 and 15, there was a considerable slide on the riverside of the towpath embankment. Below Great Falls the river reached the top of the high embankment walls and 

washed out the filling, and the water poured into the canal below Lock No. 16. Taking immediate 

precautionary measures to prevent the loss of the heavy embankment, Young had cut the banks, 

thereby minimizing the damage to that level. Above Lock No. 20 there was a breach, and the 

banks above Lock No. 21 were severely washed. There were two breaches and a similar wash just 

below Lock No. 22. Between this lock and the Seneca Feeder, there were two breaches at Long 

Acre, and the whole bank was nearly carried away for a distance of 300 yards in length at the 

point of rocks just below Lock No. 23. It was the most damaged level on the canal below Seneca 

except for that at Georgetown, and he feared that it would be difficult to procure the needed materials for its repair. From Guard Lock No. 2 to Great Falls, the canal had been covered with water 

from 2 to 6 feet deep, the marks of which he had directed to be made permanent all along the line. 

 Between Seneca and Edwards ferry there were two spots where the freshet had inflicted 

heavy damage on the canal. About two-thirds of the barrel of the Beaver Dam Culvert was 

washed away on its riverside along with about 200 feet of embankment on each side of the canal. 

Although he had cut the embankment to protect the culvert, the water at Edwards Ferry had cov-

 

31 Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), 40. 32 Fisk to Coale, September 17, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
284 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

ered the canal to a depth of 4 or 5 feet. In addition there were three breaches in the canal banks 

between Locks Nos. 25 and 26. The banks in many places above Seneca had been torn by the water flowing over the towpath, but no masonry works, other than the Beaver Dam Culvert, has 

been damaged. 

 Young estimated that the cost of repairs to his division would total more than $9,000. 

From Georgetown to Lock No. 8 the repairs would cost $4,000, from Lock No. 8 to Seneca 

$3,000, and from Seneca to Edwards Ferry $2,300. However, these estimates did not include the 

raising of the towpath where it was “washed off at a point above high water in the canal,” nor did 

it include the masonry repairs on the Beaver Dam Culvert. 

 Above Edwards Ferry the canal also suffered damage, although it was not as extensive as 

the lower portion of the line. The high water caused “east berm corner” of the Little Monocacy 

Culvert to settle. The abutment was almost entirely undermined and the “upper wall & all the 

paving” were gone as that the water stood “nearly 4 feet under the culvert.” Part of the abutment 

wall at the upper berm corner had also fallen down.33

 From Point of Rocks to Dam No. 4, the damage was double to that inflicted on the waterway by the April freshet. At Harpers Ferry the water was 2 to 3 feet higher than in April and at 

Taylor’s Landing it was 21⁄2 feet higher. The embankments adjacent to the Shenandoah River 

Lock were washed severely, and one of the gates of the lock was torn out. One of the company’s 

house boats near Harpers Ferry was washed over the towpath and lost along with a large supply 

of tools and provisions. The high water passed around the abutments of Dam No. 4, causing a 

breach and a severe washing of the adjacent embankment.34

 Between Dams Nos. 4 and 5 there were numerous breaks in the canal, but none were very 

serious in extent and none were below the bottom of the trunk. Most of the damage on this distance resulted from the towpath being washed into either the river or the canal, and in the latter 

case forming bars that needed to be removed. 

 The canal above Dam No. 5 experienced about the same amount of damage as it had earlier in April despite the fact that the height of the water was generally at least three feet lower. 

Some of the sheeting on Dam No. 5 was washed off. There were two serious breaks between 

Hancock and Dam No. 6, one at Roundtop Cement Mill and the other just below Lock No. 53. 

The embankments below Dam No. 6 had been strengthened with an outer layer of stone rip-rap 

the previous summer, and this work was credited with protecting the towpath and the canal trunk 

below from further injury. Had all the breaks caused by the April freshet been repaired in such a 

manner on the portions of the line, Superintendent John G. Stone of the Third Division reported 

that “the damage would have been but a trifling in comparison to what they are now.”35

 After receiving the reports of damage all along the canal, Chief Engineer Fisk informed 

company president James M. Coale on September 17 that the total cost of repairs would be about 

$30,000 and that navigation would be suspended for 30 days. This sum would be in addition to 

the unexpended portion of the $20,000 estimate of repairs from the April freshet. However, he 

urged the president not to be merely satisfied with repairs but to order further precautionary work 

to protect the waterway from even higher freshets in the future.36

 As soon as the flood waters subsided below Little Falls, the residents of Georgetown 

pressed canal officials to repair the Georgetown Level immediately. Many of the citizenry were 

alarmed because the water had poured over the canal banks and inundated sections of the town, 

 

33 Elgin to Fisk, October 1, 1843, and Eldridge to Fisk, October 18, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

34 Elgin to Coale, September 23, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

35 Stone to Fisk, September 19 and October 23, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 36 Fisk to Coale, September 17, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. As the company funds were low, the banks in 

Frederick granted a substantial loan for the emergency repairs. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 285 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

thereby increasing the chances of an outbreak of cholera. The milling interests were also interested in a prompt restoration of their water supply. Accordingly, canal officials determined to 

commence repairs on the Georgetown to Little Falls section of the waterway on September 19 

and to construct an undetermined number of badly needed waste weirs in the area to prevent future disasters.37 To fund these repairs the Georgetown millers loaned the sum of $3,000 to the 

company, and the loans pledged the water rents of the company in the District of Columbia as 

collateral.38

 Repairs all along the line of the canal were commenced as soon as the high water subsided. Superintendent Young informed the board on September 21 that he already had a large 

force working at the Beaver Dam Culvert. It was his intention to raise the embankments below 

Edwards Ferry only “above the water mark” in order to restore navigation within thirty days. After the canal was reopened for trade, the embankments could be raised by crews working from 

boats.39

 Repair crews were also at work on the canal upstream within several days. Superintendent Stone informed the board on September 19 that his repair force was on the job above Dam 

No. 4. As they would have to boat material some distance until the canal navigation was restored, 

the work would take longer than it had in April.40 By September 26 Superintendent Elgin reported that he had two large repair crews working on his division: one at Harpers Ferry consisting 

of 70 men and 17 horses and carts, and one at Crowley’s consisting of 144 men and 34 horses and 

carts.41 The canal was repaired to the extent that navigation was restored from Edwards Ferry to 

Dam No. 6 on October 17 and from Georgetown to Edwards Ferry on November 8.42

 Despite the resumption of navigation, the canal was still not in the operating condition 

that it had been before the April freshet. Further, the devastating floods of 1843 had called into 

question the security of the entire waterway and its capability of withstanding future freshets. Accordingly, canal officials carefully examined their work during the winter of 1843–44 and determined to commence a program of thorough repair and long-range improvements during the next 

year. 

 Examples of thorough repair were such efforts as those at the Little Monocacy Culvert 

and at the Shenandoah River Lock. At the former, a new foundation and new abutment walls 

were constructed to not only repair the flood damage but also to give the structure additional 

strength to withstand future freshets.43

 At the Shenandoah River Locks, the board determined to raise the river end of the structure and to elevate the adjacent canal embankment. This work was an effort to prevent future 

breaches in an area that had experienced serious injuries and to protect the line below from the 

repeated damage inflicted upon it by water overflowing the banks at this spot. The repairs on this 

portion of the waterway were completed during the spring of 1845.44

 

37 Ingle to Coale, September 18, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

38 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 113–114. 

39 Young to Coale, September 21, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

40 Stone to Fisk, September 19, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

41 Elgin to Fisk, September 26, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

42 Niles’ Register, LXV (October 14, 1843), 112; Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 230–232; and Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), 40–41. During the completion of repairs below Edwards Ferry, the navigation 

was reopened for light boats along the river between the river locks at Seneca and Edwards Ferry for some 

15 days to bypass the heavy breach at the Beaver Dam Culvert. 43 Eldridge to Fisk, October 18, 1843, and Elgin to Fisk, November 28, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 

44 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), C & O Co., 17–18. 
286 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

 The most extensive long-range improvements to be made on the canal were those on the 

Georgetown Level. After an examination of the area by Chief Engineer Fisk in the spring of 

1844, the stockholders were informed on June 3 that: 

It appears that the length of the level, including that part of the feeder from the Potomac 

lying below the guard gates, which is connected with it, is 4 2/3 miles. Of this distance, 

three-fifths of a mile below the guard gates is usually overflowed by heavy freshets. This 

occurred twice last year, viz: in April and September. At the last-mentioned freshet, the 

water ran over the towpath in places to the depth of four feet. Whenever such an inundation from the river takes place, breaches must inevitably occur lower down, by which the 

surplus water which has entered the canal returns to its natural channel. Such breaches, 

owing to the great height of the canal, upon that part of it, above the level of the river, are 

generally very heavy. As a protection against these river freshets it will be necessary, as 

soon as adequate means (for which we are now negotiating) can be obtained, to raise the 

part of the towpath liable to overflow, and also the feeder bank below the guard gates, at 

least one foot above the highest water mark hitherto known in the Potomac; or, in other 

words, about one foot higher than the rise of the last September freshet. This, with a tumbling waste 500 feet long on the towpath side of the canal, near the fourth milestone, and 

some few other repairs of minor importance, it is thought would oppose an effectual barrier against the inroads of the river at all times hereafter, and would amply compensate 

the Company for the cost of the outlay, in the savings from breaches, in the course of 

three or four years. The repairs of the breaches on this level in 1842 was $2,242 and in 

1843, $4,053. The proposed improvements, if they had been constructed in time, would 

have saved all this expense. The entire cost of making them is estimated by the Chief Engineer at about $9,000, including the reconstruction of the bridge over the canal [just east 

of the Market] in Georgetown, which is imperatively called for...45

After the report was considered, the company agreed to the Chief Engineer’s recommendations 

provided that the Corporation of Georgetown would make available a $10,000 loan upon a pledge 

of the company’s water rents in the District of Columbia.46 When Georgetown demanded “a deed 

of Mortgage” on canal company property for the security of the loan, the board rejected the loan 

offer and the negotiations for the loan were terminated.47 Accordingly, the board, aware of the 

financial limitations of the company authorized the construction of a tumbling waste that in the 

opinion of President Coale and Chief Engineer Fisk “may be necessary to secure the said portion 

of the canal from damage by the usual river freshets & overflow from the Falls Branch.” The directors also authorized the construction of such improvements “as may be necessary” to the security of this level, with the funding for such projects to come from company finances.48

 On November 4, 1844, the improvements to the Georgetown Level began when a contract for the waste weir and spillway at Falls Branch was awarded to Roberts and Cleveland.49

The improvements continued through the winter and into the following spring. The progress of 

the work was described by President Coale on January 15, 1845: 

 

45 Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), 17–18. 46 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C & O Co., 154, 163. 47 “A Resolution to Authorize a Loan of Money to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company”. August 3, 

1844, Ordinances of the Corporation of Georgetown (Georgetown, 1846), 13–14, and Proceedings of the 

President and Board of Directors, G, 190, 196. 48 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 196–197. 

49 Ibid, G, 201. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 287 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

The Board have caused some improvements to be made on that part of the line, and have 

contracted for others, which are now in progress, and will be completed during the winter. The improvements finished are, the tightening of the Little Falls feeder, by which that 

level is supplied with water, and the raising of the guard banks of the canal at such points 

as are most exposed to the overflow of the river. The improvement in progress is the construction of a tumbling waste, two hundred and fifty feet long in the clear which is 

thought will hereafter furnish a sufficient security against breaches on that portion of the 

Canal in ordinary freshets. The Board have only been deterred from making this improvement ...by the limited extent of their means...50

On April 30, 1845, the improvements on the Georgetown Level were completed when the board 

passed a final estimate for the tumbling waste, a structure which cost $1,908.75.51

MARCH 1846 

The first of two major floods in 1846 struck the Potomac Valley in March. The water rose to 

within 4 feet of the September 1843 flood, but the breaches were “not generally of a serious nature.” The heaviest damage was inflicted on the line between Dams Nos. 4 and 5. About 80 feet 

of Dam No. 4 was carried away by the swollen river. The gates of Locks Nos. 41–44 were either 

broken or washed out, and some 50 to 60 feet of the sheeting on Dam No. 5 was swept off. 

 As soon as the flood waters subsided, the few minor breaches in the canal banks between 

the two dams were repaired. The damage at Dam No. 4 did not interrupt navigation for long as 

there was a plentiful supply of water in the river during the normally dry summer months, and the 

remaining portion of the dam was able to divert a sufficient quantity of water into the canal for 

operating purposes. Restoration work on the dam was still in progress in early July when another 

heavy freshet occurred. 

 The damage caused to Locks Nos. 41–44 by the freshet and the frequent breaking of the 

lock-gates during the day-to-day operations of the canal brought about a slight modification in the 

construction of the gates. In accordance with instructions issued by Chief Engineer Fisk the new 

gates had cast iron frames with arms that were framed “with a shoulder of 2 inches on the upper 

side.” This improvement, it was thought, would prevent the “breaking of the tendons of the 

arms.” 

 At Dam No. 5 improvements were commenced to prevent the structure and the canal below it from suffering more extensive damage in future floods. It was estimated that if the river 

had risen one foot higher at the dam, the entire length of the towpath down to Lock No. 44, which 

was rebuilt the previous year, would have been carried away. Accordingly, operations were begun 

to raise the towpath below the dam and protect it with stone. Plans were made also to raise the 

coping of Guard Lock No. 5 some three feet and to install a new set of gates of appropriate size. 

In this manner it was hoped that the structure would “effectually keep out the water of the highest 

freshet.” As was the case with Dam No. 4, these repairs and improvements were still in progress 

when another freshet struck the canal in early July.52

 

50 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 17–18. 51 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 248. 52 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), C & O Co., 6–7; Niles’ Register, LXX (March 28, 1846), 64; and 

Stone to Fisk, March 21, 1846, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 
288 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

JULY 1846 

The second major freshet of 1846 struck the canal in July. At its peak the height of the flood waters was 31⁄2 feet lower than that of the September 1843 freshet below Seneca and 14 inches lower 

at Harpers Ferry. Farther up the river from Williamsport to Dam No. 4 the water was higher than 

it had been in the 1843 freshet. Despite the height of the water, the flood did only about onefourth as much damage as had the 1843 freshet, due mainly to the improvements that had been 

made to the line during the succeeding years. 

 A review of the damage inflicted upon the canal by the freshet demonstrates the value of 

the improvements that had been made since 1843. One breach occurred in the Rock Creek Basin, 

and about 10 others were reported on the line from Georgetown to the Monocacy River. The line 

from Lock No. 8 to Seneca sustained little damage owing to the embankments that had been 

raised in many places where less freshets had overflowed the banks in previous years. The tumbling waste that had been built at Falls Branch in 1844–45 was credited with saving the Georgetown Level from damage. While none of the masonry works on this portion of the canal were 

heavily damaged, several locks near Georgetown suffered from the high water and required renovation or considerable repairs. 

 The only serious problem below the Monocacy was at Broad Run where the high water 

entirely destroyed the two-arch (16-foot span each) culvert. The arches and the abutments were 

carried away entirely, and the whole width of the canal for a distance of about 70 feet at the culvert was washed out. 

 The 18-mile section of the canal from the Monocacy to Harpers Ferry was uninjured primarily because of the improvements that had been made at the Shenandoah River Lock. About 

the only serious damage to be reported above Harpers Ferry was at Dam No. 4 and the level below it. The repairs on the dam from the March freshet, which were nearly completed, were 

washed away, and the breach in the structure was widened. The guard bank at the dam suffered 

$1,000 in damage as it was not high enough to keep the river out of the company works. The 

damage below the dam resulted primarily from the fact that the stop plank was not put in the stop 

lock early enough to prevent an overflow of the canal banks.53

 After surveying the damage, Chief Engineer Fisk and Superintendent Elgin on July 8 informed President Coale that it would cost about $8,000 to restore the canal for navigation purposes. Trade could be resumed in three weeks because many of the breaks had occurred near 

places where materials were conveniently located for repairs. The only two problems spots were 

at the Rock Creek Basin and the Broad Run Culvert. At the former, a narrow bank could be put in 

quickly so that the water could be admitted before more extreme work was undertaken. At the 

latter, a temporary wooden tank costing in excess of $2,000 would be thrown over new wing 

walls that were to be constructed of stone salvaged from the wrecked culvert so that navigation 

could be resumed quickly. While these temporary repairs would permit an early resumption of 

boat navigation, the two officials recommended that an additional $10,000 be expended over the 

next several months “on work rendered necessary by the late freshets and on the breach in the 

dam.”54

 Despite a shortage of laborers for the repair crews, the job of restoring the canal to operating condition began as soon as the high waters subsided. Navigation was resumed by August 1, 

but the major repairs at Dam No. 4 continued until June 1847. Because of the depressed condition 

of the company’s finances, nothing was done to renovate the deteriorating locks near Georgetown 

 

53 Fisk to Coale, July 6 and 8, 1846, and Elgin to Coale, July 2 and 8, 1846, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and 

Coale to Fisk, July 5, 1846, Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer. 54 Fisk to Coale, July 8, 1846, and Elgin to Coale, July 8 and August 18, 1846, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 289 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

or to reconstruct the Broad Run Culvert. All told the company had spent $21,327.76 by June 1847 

to repair the damage caused by the freshets of March and July 1846.55

OCTOBER 1847 

In October 1847 a major flood struck the eastern United States causing particularly heavy damage 

in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland. In Ohio the Ohio and Erie and the Miami and Erie 

Canals were considerably damaged, while in Pennsylvania the Main Line Canal in the Juniata 

Valley was severely injured. The James River and Kanawha Canal in Virginia was damaged also 

by the raging flood waters. While the railroads in all of these states were disrupted by the high 

water, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad appears to have suffered most, particularly on its 40-mile 

route between Baltimore and Washington.56

 The Potomac Valley was not spared from the full effects of the storm as the river surpassed all previous high water marks. John Thomas Scharf one of the most well-known Maryland 

historians described the flood as a “fearful freshet” in which “bridges were swept away, gardens 

washed out, and buildings damaged.”57 While the Chesapeake & Ohio suffered less damage in 

proportion to its length and resumed navigation earlier than did the other canals in the surrounding states, it nevertheless experienced considerable damage that curtailed its operations for more 

than two months and cost $48,201.56 to repair.58

 The Potomac River began rising on October 7 and alarm soon spread throughout the valley. The following day Superintendent Elgin at Harpers Ferry reported that the river was already 

near the height of the highest freshet in 1846 and from all appearances he was certain that it 

would soon be “the highest water ever known in this River.”59 Later the same day Superintendent 

Stone at Clear Spring observed that the water was “20 inches higher than it ever has been since I 

have been on the canal” and the water was still rising. He noted that new gates had been placed in 

Guard Lock No. 5 only ten days before, which was fortunate for the company as the old gates 

would not have withstood the freshet.60 By October 9 Elgin was informing canal officials that 

“we have had the highest freshet in the Potomac that I have ever seen” and that the canal at Harpers Ferry was still submerged under water. 61 On the 9th Superintendent John Lambie at Georgetown also notified the board that the water, which had been rising for 31⁄2 days, was 12 to 15 

inches higher than the previous high water mark set by the September 1843 freshet and still rising.62

 Although there were numerous breaches in the canal banks all along the canal, the most 

critical damage to the waterway was concentrated in the following areas: Lock No. 7 to Widewater; the levels above Great Falls; Point of Rocks to Dam No. 4; and the vicinity of Dam No. 5. On 

the Georgetown Division there were two large breaches, one above Lock No. 7 and the other at 

the high wall near Widewater. At the latter, more than 200 feet of the wall had collapsed. There 

was some damage done to the Georgetown Level, and there were a series of minor breaches on 

every level above Great Falls.63

 

55 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), 6, 8. 56 Niles’ Register, LXXIII (October 16, 1847), 112, and Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C & O Co., 11–

12. 

57 Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 560. 58 Twentieth Annual Report (1848), 11–12, 28, and Niles’ Register, LXXIII (October 16, 1847), 112. 

59 Elgin to Coale, October 8, 1847, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

60 Elgin to Coale, October 8, 1947, Ltrs Recd., C & O Co. 

61 Stone to Coale, October 9, 1847, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co 

62 Lambie to Coale, October 9, 1847, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

63 Ibid. 
290 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

 Farther up the valley there were between 8 to 10 large breaches on the line from Point of 

Rocks to Dam No. 4. At the dam itself, the damage was much greater than that caused by the 

1843 floods and the flood waters rose three feet above the previous high water mark. The entire 

cross guard bank between the stop lock and the dam abutment was carried away, thereby allowing 

the river to run around the Maryland abutment and the guard lock. The main guard bank had also 

been damaged, causing Superintendent Elgin to conclude that it would cost more than $5,000 to 

restore the area. There was a heavy breach about one-half mile below the dam where the water 

that was running around the dam abutment was re-entering the river. Accordingly, efforts were 

made, even before the flood waters subsided, to stop the water from running around the dam 

abutment.64

 Above Dam No. 4 there was no serious damage done at any one place, but there were 

injuries to almost every level. The towpath was washed in many places and there were numerous 

small breaches in it. The only damage to the masonry occurred where the water carried away the 

berm end of a culvert and about 30 perches of the Virginia abutment of Dam No. 5 at which point 

the water had risen to 31⁄2 feet above any freshet since 1828. The culvert would require repairs 

before the readmission of the water, but the work on the abutment could be postponed. Some of 

the older lock gates were broken, but they could be mended to handle the boat traffic until the 

winter. The rest of the season this portion of the canal would have only 3 to 31⁄2 feet of water and 

it would take until the following spring to have the banks fully restored to their proper height.65

 Once the damage had been assessed, company officials reported that navigation would be 

restored in one month at a cost of $20,000. With the aid of various banks, repair work was begun 

immediately. Additional work crews and horses were hired and a company agent was dispatched 

to Baltimore to purchase tools as there was a shortage of such items in some parts of the valley. 

New freshets in November and December delayed the repairs so that the navigation was not reopened until mid-December below Harpers Ferry and the full canal to Dam No. 6 was not ready 

for operations until February 15, 1848. By that time $48,201.56 had been spent to restore the waterway.66

APRIL 1852 

The worst flood in the history of the Potomac to that date, devastated the entire line in April 1852. 

The flood was as great a surprise to the canal board as it was a disaster to the waterway itself. In 

1849–50 the directors, with the aid of $200,000 of repair bonds from the State of Virginia, had 

renovated the canal from Georgetown to Dam No. 6, raising the embankments at the most exposed places above the level of the highest freshets in the history of the valley.67 They based their 

 

64 Elgin to Fisk, October 10, 1847, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

65 Stone to Coale, October 10 and 12, 1847, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

66 Ibid, and Twentieth Annual Report (1848), 11–12, 28. As had been the case after earlier floods, the company attempted to make some improvements that would protect the canal from damage by even higher 

freshets. Such was the case at Dam No. 5 where in January and February 1848 the Virginia abutment was 

not only repaired but operations were commenced also to raise it. The work on this improvement included 

87 perches of masonry, 1900 perches of dry wall, and 9,700 cubic yards of embankment and its total cost 

was $6,790.50. Stone to Fisk, and Stone to Coale, December 27, 1848, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 67 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 127, 251–257, and Twenty-Second Annual Report (1850), 7–9. This renovation effort was not performed as a result of any one particular flood but rather 

as a response to the general disrepair of the canal caused by the series of floods in the 1840s, the temporary 

stop-gap measures taken to resume navigation after each freshet, and the lack of thorough annual maintenance work by the financially-strapped company. As such the major 1849–50 renovation effort will be con-
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 291 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

action on the levels attained in the flood of 1847, which had been the worst since 1784 when operations on the Potomac Company Canals were commenced. The precautions proved to be in vain 

for in April 1852, six consecutive days of heavy rain caused the river to rise six feet higher at 

most point below Cumberland than the levels attained in 1847. At Great Falls it reached the unprecedented height of 64 feet. Had the crest been only two or three feet lower, the waterway 

might have escaped serious injury. As it was, by the time the work of restoration was completed 

the cost of repairs amounted to nearly $100,00068 The canal itself was weakened by the disaster 

but the effect on its trade and its financial condition was even more serious, as company officials 

admitted later to stockholders in June 1855: 

The disaster occasioned by the flood in the spring of 1852, was very detrimental to the interests of the company, in causing not only a large debt, and heavy expenses in repairing 

the canal, and the loss of three or four months revenues during the suspension of navigation that year, but had a still more unfavorable influence by the loss of confidence in the 

stability and reliability of the work as a means of transportation.69

The first intimation of the approaching disaster occurred at Cumberland on April 18 after a heavy 

thunderstorm and two days of pouring rain. Both Wills Creek and the Potomac overflowed their 

banks, the latter rising higher than it ever had since 1816. The water passed into the canal basin 

around the outlet locks and flooded Ward’s boat yard and the wharves and warehouses around 

Shriver’s Basin. The water broke through a wall separating Bruce’s and Brengle’s warehouses on 

Canal Street and a considerable portion of the town was inundated, including the tracks of the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.70

 That same day the Potomac overflowed its banks at Williamsport causing widespread 

flooding and destruction. The water covered the towpath to a depth of 12 feet and several company houses and canal boats were swept down the river. According to reports in the Alexandria 

Gazette

Car loads of flour, stacks of grain, shanties, trees, logs and timber were seen whirling 

through the angry waters in rapid succession. The mill of Messrs. Van Lear was submerged nearly to the roof, and their loss in flour and wheat is from $5,000 to $10,000.71

The following day, Superintendent Elgin voiced his fears that the continuing rain was bringing 

the highest freshet ever seen in the Potomac Valley. The water had risen 31⁄2 feet since dawn, and 

at mid-morning it was rising one foot per hour.72

 By the 21st, Superintendent Elgin had examined the canal from Harpers Ferry to the 

Monocacy River. He found that the canal had been considerably injured with several large 

breaches between Dam No. 3 and Point of Rocks. It appeared that the canal suffered most wherever there was a curve in its passage through the narrow passes over this distance. At Harpers 

Ferry the Government Dam had been submerged in water up to fifteen feet in depth (some 5 to 6 

feet higher than in 1847) and the river had broken through the embankments around the Maryland 

 sidered as one of the highlights of the company maintenance efforts in a later chapter of this Historic Resource Study. 

68 Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), C & O Co., 3–4; Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (1853), C & O Co., 

3; and Alexandria Gazette, April 22, 1852. 69 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), C & O Co. 70 William Harrison Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, Maryland (Washington, D.C., 1878), 375. 71 Alexandria Gazette, April 23 and 27, 1852. 72 Elgin to Ringgold, April 19, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
292 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

abutment. In returning to the river channel, the water passed over and through the towpath above 

Lock No. 34 causing damage greater than that done by the 1847 freshet. The level above Lock 

No. 33 also had experienced more extensive damage and several warehouses and a number of 

canal boats in the vicinity of the lock had been swept away. From Point of Rocks to the Monocacy River, he found the damage quite light compared to what he had expected and generally less 

than in 1847. In his opinion $6,000 would be needed to restore the 20 miles below Dam No. 3 for 

the readmission of 4 to 5 feet of water for navigation.73

 On the 22nd reports began reaching canal officials concerning the heavy drainage to the 

canal between Georgetown and Great Falls. Along the canal in Georgetown many of the wharves 

and warehouses with their stores of flour, lumber, coal and firewood were destroyed. Both the 

Little Falls Bridge and the Long Bridge were washed away.74 On the Georgetown Level there 

were four large breaks in the canal banks—a 300-foot cut at the waste weir near the site of the 

Little Falls Bridge a 70-foot breach about 600 yards below Gillhouses’, and two smaller breaks 

just below Lock No. 5. Between Lock No. 5 and Widewater there were two breaches—a 30-foot 

cut at the Powder Magazine and a 100-yard break commencing at Lock No. 7 and extending to 

the small culvert next above it. On the Widewater level there were two serious breaks in the log 

wall at the lower end of Bear Island where the high embankment connected the island with the 

mainland. The most critical of these occurred at the same location as the large break in the 1847 

freshet. It was 500 feet long, of which 200 feet were swept out to the bottom of the canal. The 

remaining 300 feet were so badly damaged the removal down to the foundation was necessary. It 

was estimated that it would take up to $10,000 and two months to repair this one break alone. 

About 100 yards above this break there was a 75-foot cut, and because of continuing water seepage there was fear that the two breaches would unite. Some 81⁄2 miles above Great Falls there 

were two small breaks that were close to each other—one 20 feet long and the other 40 feet. 

There was a breach, 130 feet wide and 8 feet deep, in the embankment of the berm side of Guard 

Lock No. 2. Another breach, 30 feet wide and 6 feet deep, took place across the towpath about 60 

feet west of the guard lock. All told, the lower 22 miles of the canal suffered the most destruction 

from the floods as they had many times before.75

 Between April 22 and 29 various reports of the damage caused by the flood above Harpers Ferry reached company officials. From Dam No. 3 to Dam No. 4 the damage was generally 

similar to that experienced in 1847, the most critical breach occurring at the latter site where the 

river broke over the guard bank and around the Maryland abutment. The canal embankments 

were washed heavily at a few points between Dams Nos. 4 and 5, but the damage was generally 

less than in 1847. There were numerous small breaches in the canal embankments between Dams 

Nos. 5 and 6 but none were serious. Nearly all the filling in Dam No. 5 was washed out. At Dam 

No. 6 the river broke through the earthen embankment around the Virginia abutment, making a 

deep breach about 2 feet in length which was sufficient to pass all the water of the normal flow of 

the river. 

 From the Cacapon to Town Creek there were eight levels which had been injured. On 

each of these, there was generally one and in some cases two or three small openings in the towpath near the head of the level through which the water passed into the canal and a breach at the 

lower end where the water passed through the embankment back in the river. At some points the 

towpath was left in a ragged state, and at a few places the prism was partially filled by silt deposits. The most serious breach on this section of the waterway was on the lower end of the level 

 

73 Elgin to Ringgold, April 21, 1852, (two letters), Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

74 Alexandria Gazette, April 22, 1852. 75 Page to Ringgold, April 22, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Elgin to Fisk, April 25, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., 

Chief Engineer; and Alexandria Gazette, April 23 and 26, 1852. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 293 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

near a waste weir just above Lock No. 66 where some 10,000 cubic yards of embankment had 

been washed out, thus submerging the upper end of the Paw Paw Tunnel Lock. Here the drainage 

was partially attributable to a berm bank that had been built near the waste weir on Section No. 

312 causing a revised curve in the line. A second trouble spot was just below the Town Creek 

Aqueduct where a culvert had given way, causing a cut through both canal banks some 40 feet 

wide and down to about 3 feet above the bottom of the prism. On the 21 miles from Town Creek 

to Cumberland there was no damage to the canal banks or to the masonry.76

 After reviewing the wreckage to the canal, Engineer and General Superintendent Fisk 

reported that it would cost $80,000 to repair the line. Of this sum, $25,000 was needed for the 22 

miles below Seneca alone. It would take about 10 weeks before navigation could be resumed in 

early August. In repairing the waterway he recommended that the breaches at the head of the levels be closed first “as we may have another freshet before the opening at the foot of the levels can 

be repaired.” Hoping to dispel some of the gloom that pervaded the company, he noted that:] 

It is proper that I should state that if the late freshet had been no higher than that of 1847, 

which did damage to an amount not less than $50,000, the canal, in consequence of work 

done since to guard against freshet of that height, would have sustained very little injury, 

and the navigation would have been interrupted for but a very short time thereby. The canal may therefore be considered as having been placed in a condition almost entirely safe 

against all freshets, except such, judging from the past, as may occur not oftener than 

every 50 years.77

A large force was soon put to work on the repairs, and company officials commenced efforts to 

secure loans from local banks and town along the line to finance the restoration. By June 16 the 

company had received $77k900 in pledges from Corporations of Georgetown and Alexandria, 

banks in the District cities and Cumberland, water renters in Georgetown, and individuals in 

Cumberland. In addition, William W. Corcoran and George Washington Riggs promised to provide the company with a personal loan of $5,000 if it was needed to complete the work.78 The 

loans were advanced to the company on the pledge of its future revenue subject to existing priorities.79

LOANS TO REPAIR 1852 FLOOD DAMAGE80

Corporation of Georgetown $30,000 

Corporation of Alexandria 10,000 

Bank of the Metropolis 10,000 

Patriotic Bank 5,000 

Bank of Commerce, Georgetown 2,500 

 

76 Dungan to Brengle, April 22, 1852, and Fisk to Board of Directors, April 29, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C & O 

Co., Fisk to Dungan, April 23, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer, Stone to Fisk, June 13, 14 and 19, 1852, 

Ltrs. Recd., Chief Engineer and Alexandria Gazette, April 27, 1852. 77 Fisk to Board of Directors, April 29, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Also see Fisk to Dungan, April 23, 

1852, Ltrs. Sent, Chief Engineer. 

78 Ringgold to Chairman, Committee of Georgetown Corporation, June 16, 1852, and Grason to Corcoran, 

July 19, 1852, Ltrs. Sent., C & O Co.; Dangerfield to Ringgold, May 10, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; and 

An Ordinance Providing Aid Towards the Repairs of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, May 7, 1852, in Ordinances of the Corporation of Georgetown (Georgetown, 1852), 9–10. A statistical breakdown of the loans 

may be seen on the above table. 

79 Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), C & O Co., 4. 80 Ringgold to Chairman, Committee of Georgetown Corporation, June 16, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
294 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

Far Branch Bank, Alexandria 5,000 

Bank of the Old Dominion 5,000 

Exchange Bank 5,000 

Water Renters, Georgetown 2,000 

Individuals and Bank Loan, Cumberland 3,400

$77,900 

While the repairs were in progress, Chief Engineer Fisk successfully urged the board not only to 

effect the repairs but also to make additional improvements at five locations where more than half 

of the entire flood damage had occurred. The five points were located below Great Falls, and Seneca Falls and at Dams Nos. 3, 4 and 6. The purpose of the improvements, which would push the 

total cost of repairing the waterway to nearly $100,000, was to make these points covering a distance of less than six miles of the waterway “safe against a freshet as high as the recent one.”81

 Good progress was made on the restoration of the waterway, and navigation was resumed 

in late July.82 The repairs and the more permanent improvements, not all of which were completed when the water was readmitted to the canal, cost $100,000.83 Among the additional improvements that were made was “the substitution of a heavy wall of masonry for the embankment 

carried away at Dam No. 6”84 and the construction of a new guard bank from Guard Lock No. 3 

to Lock No. 36 that was several feet higher than the 1852 freshet.85 The guard bank below Great 

Falls, Dam No. 2, and Dam No. 4 had also been raised to heights exceeding that of the flood. 

New waste weirs were built on all the canal levels that were subject to overflow by high water in 

the river, and some of the older wastes were extended in length to accommodate more water. The 

cross-section of a portion of Dam No. 5 was changed so as to “free it from the effects of reaction 

during freshets, by which it has heretofore been very much injured.”86

 At the annual meeting of the company stockholders on June 6, 1853, Engineer and General Superintendent Thomas L. Patterson attempted to present an optimistic view of the repairs 

effected after the freshet. Among other comments, he observed that: 

It is the subject of congratulation ...that a freshet six feet higher than any ever known attempted to be guarded against, should have done, comparatively, so little damage, cannot 

fail to give well founded confidence in the security of the Canal, when it is considered, 

that the points where two thirds of the damage was sustained, have been rendered secure 

against even a higher freshet...It is not probable ...that the navigation would be obstructed for more than a few days by any freshet not higher than that of last year.87

Nevertheless, the disaster not only weakened the canal but also had a detrimental effect on its 

trade and it financial condition. In fact the flood repairs caused a financial panic among the company officials, forcing them to suspend payment of the semi-annual interest on the construction 

loans which had been issued for repairs to the canal below Dam No. 6 in 1849.88

 

81 Fisk to President and Directors, June 5, 1852, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Twenty-Fourth Annual Report

(1852), 13. 

82 Ringgold to O’Neal, December 16, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 83 Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (1853), C & O Co., 3. 84 Ibid, 8–9. The stone was quarried in Morgan County, Virginia, and transported to the canal on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

85 Fisk to Elgin, May 5, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. The work comprised 1,083 perches of stone wall. 

86 Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (1853), 8–9. 87 Ibid. 88 Frederick Examiner, June 30, 1852. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 295 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

AUGUST 1855 

On the night of August 1, 1855, a flash flood struck the canal in the vicinity of Dam No. 4 washing out a road culvert and causing a partial suspension of navigation for three or four weeks.89

WINTER 1855–56 

During the winter of 1855–56, several ice freshets swept down the Potomac, causing some damage to the rubble stone dams at Little Falls and Seneca Falls and the masonry dam at Cumberland. 

Accordingly, the two lower dams were repaired and a temporary plank structure was put at Dam 

No. 8 to prevent it from further injury while permanent restoration work was underway.90

FEBRUARY–MAY 1857 

Periodic droughts in the dry summer months coupled with the almost continual leaking of Dams 

Nos. 4 and 5 had curtailed boat navigation on the canal since the 1830s. When another drought in 

August 1856 brought a renewal of complaints of low water in the canal below the two dams, the 

company determined to put an end to the nuisance permanently by replacing them with mew tight 

masonry dams. Contracts were let for Dam No. 4 in October 1856 and for Dam No. 5 in January 

1857.91

 No sooner were the new dams contracted for than a series of four successive freshets 

roared down the valley between February and May 1857, suspending navigation for more than 

three months. In February the severe winter weather suddenly warmed, causing “an Ice Freshet 

such as had not for very many years, if ever, occurred before.” Dams Nos. 4 and 5, which had 

been decaying for some years, gave way, the former being badly damaged and the latter having 

500 feet totally swept off its foundation from the Virginia abutment to the more recently repaired 

portal on the Maryland side. During the next two months a large force completed the repairs on 

Dam No. 4, which consisted of building temporary cribs to close the gap, filling them with stone, 

and covering them with wooden sheeting. On April 12 just as the repair crews were preparing to 

fill the temporary cribs at Dam No. 5, a second freshet occurred, carrying away the short crib 

connecting the main crib and the old dam. This work previously had been thought to be secure, 

but the foundation proved to be defective. Repairs on Dam No. 5 had again reached an advanced 

stage and were within a few days of completion on May 4, when the river rose for a third time 

and poured over the dam. Although workmen waged a four-day struggle to save the structure, the 

torrent carried off some 200 feet of the repairs that had been made and weakened what was left. 

At Dam No. 4 about sixty feet of the old structure were swept away. The repairs were promptly 

resumed in the hope that navigation could be restored by June 1, but a fourth freshet in mid-May 

delayed repairs on Dam No. 5 for several days and tore a hole in Dam No. 4. Finally in mid-June 

boat navigation was resumes, and the construction of the masonry dams commenced in earnest.92

 The disasters of 1857 all but wrecked the company financially. It had never been in better 

than a precarious condition since the completion of the waterway. Debts had continued to pile up 

during the previous decade to add to the already staggering burden of acceptance, balances due, 

 

89 Washington Evening Star, August 2 and 7, 1855, and Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1856), C&O Co., 8. 

90 Stake to Board of Directors, June 11, 1856, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

91 Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1856), 3–4; Twenty-Ninth Annual Report (1857), C & O Co., 9, 11; and 

Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 298–299, 316. 

92 Washington Evening Star, May 7, 1857; Twenty-Ninth Annual Report (1857), 12–13; and Thirtieth Annual Report (1858), C & O Co., 3–4, 59–63. 
296 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

scrip, state loan and the repair bills after the floods of 1847 and 1852. Thus, company officials 

felt compelled to offer to the stockholders the following explanation for their actions during the 

disastrous spring of 1857: 

These repeated frustrations of the confident hopes of the restoration of navigation at the 

periods indicated, involving as each did a large additional expenditure for further efforts 

at repair, have severely taxed the patience and feelings of the Board, as well as of all 

those parties anxiously awaiting the event, but it was plain that no course remained other 

than to continue to labor—to wait patiently till the Destroyer had passed, and then to survey calmly and carefully the ravages which marked his desolating course, and lose no 

time from vigorous efforts to blot out those ravages in useless regrets and complainings.93

APRIL 1859 

A high freshet struck the canal in the vicinity of Williamsport in April 1859. The flood greatly 

damaged the partially completed new masonry Dam No. 4. As the old dam just upstream from the 

new construction site was still in place, timber falling over it hit the uncompleted masonry dam, 

knocking out a great deal of stone work.94

SEPTEMBER 1859 

A sudden freshet in the Potomac in Williamsport County again struck the canal in September 

1859, causing considerable damage to the partially-built new masonry Dam No. 4 and to the level 

below Shepherdstown. The high water seriously injured the new 175-foot masonry portion of the 

Virginia abutment of the dam, removing parts of both the front and the back of the structure. A 

temporary crib was erected in front of the damaged portion of the dam and a contract was let to 

Lewis Stanhope on October 28 to construct a permanent crib at that point and fill the space between the old and new dams with stone. These repairs progressed slowly as they were interrupted 

by two periods of high water in March and April 1860.95

NOVEMBER 1860 

Heavy rains over the Potomac Valley in November 1860 caused the river to rise rapidly. The 

river reached its peak at Williamsport where its height was measured at 29 feet above normal. 

The curbing at Dam No. 6 was injured, and a 25-foot section of the masonry abutment on the 

Virginia side of Dam No. 5 was swept away. Except for a blunder on the part of the Superintendent of the Antietam Division in failing to put a stop plank in the stop lock near Dam No. 4, damage from the high water would not have been great. However, considerable destruction was done 

to the guard lock and towpath below the dam, and the Marsh Run Culvert was washed out. Some 

sections of the canal were filled with silt deposits and debris. On the Georgetown Division the 

only reported damage occurred at Lock No. 21 where the walls had partially collapsed.96

 

93 Twenty-Ninth Annual Report (1857), 12–13. 

94 Thirty-First Annual Report (1859), C & O Co., 6. 

95 Thirty-Second Annual Report (1860), C & O Co., 7, 16–17, and Stone to President and Directors, 

Sept. 28, 1859, Stone to Ringgold, March 22, 1860, and Stake to Ringgold, April 10, 1860, Ltrs. Recd., C 

& O Co. 

96 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), C & O Co., 3, 8–9; Charleton to Board of Directors, November 7, 

1860, Fitzpatrick to Ringgold, November 6, 1860, and Stake to Board of Directors, November 13, 1860, 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 297 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

 The canal navigation was shut down for three weeks while temporary repairs were made. 

When the canal was drained for the winter in late December, more permanent repairs were made 

to restore the canal to its operating condition before the freshet. General Superintendent A. K. 

Stake turned his men to Lock No. 21, giving it a new foundation, replacing the lost masonry and 

strengthening its supporting embankments. The guard lock and towpath below Dam No. 4 were 

restored, the wooden trunk over Marsh Run was replaced by a stone culvert, the missing masonry 

in the Virginia abutment of Dam No. 5 was filled with stone from a nearby quarry, and the curbing at Dam No. 6 was reinforced. Debris and silt deposits were removed from the trunk all along 

the line. As a result of these efforts, the company looked forward to a prosperous boating season 

in 1861 despite the looming clouds of the Civil War.97

APRIL 1861 

Torrential rains drenched the entire watershed of the Potomac Valley beginning on April 12, 

1861. The following day H. D. Carleton, the company’s agent at Cumberland, reported that “the 

Potomac is very high. A measurement showed that the river stage was within ten inches of being 

as high as it had been in the previous November. All that he saw satisfied Carleton that the canal 

would suffer considerable damage unless the river had crested.98

 Reports in the Washington Evening Star of the same date voiced similar fears for the 

lower portion of the canal. Already the water had passed over the towpath of the Cabin John 

Level and there was a break in the canal embankments on the Eight Mile Level above Seneca 

which would interrupt navigation for at least two weeks.99

 The Potomac continued to surge upward. Upon the upper portion of the canal, it reached 

a height only exceeded by the great flood of 1852. At Georgetown most of the wharves along the 

waterway were soon flooded. Measures were taken at once by General Superintendent Stake to 

repair the damage. After checking with his division superintendent, Stake discovered that destruction to canal property had been “very much aggravated by the unprotected condition of the embankments near the feeder at Dam No. 4.” A number of washes and breaches had occurred on the 

Cumberland, Hancock, Williamsport and Antietam Divisions, while additional cribbing was required at Dam No. 5. At South Branch the steam pumps were out of order and covered with mud 

and debris. Damage to the Monocacy and Georgetown Divisions was not as significant as had 

been feared.100

 Two factors retarded the work of the repair crews. One of these, the straightened financial 

condition of the company, was to be expected. The other, the secession of Virginia from the Union on April 17, was not. Upon adoption of the Seneca Ordinance by the Virginia Convention, 

Confederate militia converged on Harpers Ferry, eager to seize the arms and machinery at the 

United States Armory and Arsenal. Unable to capture their objective before it was fired by the 

retreating Federal troops, the Rebel army used the area as a concentration point where untrained 

 Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; and Edwin C. Bearss, War Comes to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, “ West Virginia History” , XXIX (April, 1968), 153. 

97 Ringgold to Colston, December 15, 1860, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co., and Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), 

9–10, 14. 

98 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), 10, and Carleton to Ringgold, April 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 99 Washington Evening Star, April 13, 1861. 100 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), 10; Washington Evening Star, April 15 and 17, 1861; Bearss, War 

Comes to the Canal, 154; and Lowe to Spates, June 7, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
298 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

volunteers were organized into a fighting force by Colonel Thomas J. Jackson. Troops were sent 

across the Potomac into Maryland, occupying Point of Rocks and Maryland Heights.101

 Despite the presence of the Confederates around Harpers Ferry, progress in effecting repairs of the flood damage was reported by the division superintendent. Water was back in the entire line by May 14, but the activities of the Virginia militia at Harpers Ferry, Point of Rocks and 

Alexandria made the coal shippers hesitant to use the waterway until the military situation was 

clarified.102

JULY 1861 

Heavy rains at the beginning of July 1861 caused new damage to the canal. Although Union advances in the Potomac Valley had compelled the Confederates to pull back from the river, the 

repair crews did not want to take any chances. General Superintendent Stake complained that the 

Rebels seemed determined to oppose any navigation on the canal, and it was “impolitic if not 

dangerous to attempt repairs.” Consequently, the repair of sections that could be attended to without risk would be pushed. 

 Work was to be commenced on July 8, and Stake estimated that it would require eight to 

ten days to restore navigation. As the regular work crews that resided along the line of the canal 

had left, the company would be forced to transport men, supplies and provisions into the areas 

needing repairs. Stake’s fears that the canal would be subjected to damage by marauding soldiers 

as long as the Union and Confederate armies confronted each other along the Potomac were 

heightened as he prepared to send the repair crews when he was warned of a threat by the Rebels 

to “below down Dam No. 6.” At the same time a Union officer warned that no repairs should be 

made to Dam No. 1. If the warning was not heeded, he would have his men destroy the dam. The 

hazards of repairing the canal were increased by the almost daily habit of roving Confederate 

bands shooting across the Potomac toward the canal at numerous points along the river.103

 Despite the hindrances to the work crews, all of the repairs on the canal were finished by 

July 20, except those at Edwards Ferry, a culvert three miles above Paw Paw Tunnel, and the 

Oldtown Deep Cut. While the last repairs were underway, the U. S. Government dispatched a 

company of troops to Hancock to protect the waterway from Williamsport to Cumberland. The 

repairs at Edwards Ferry were completed quickly thereafter, but it took an 80-man crew with 20 

horses and carts some 25 days to restore navigation at the large breach near the aforementioned 

culvert and the heavy rock slide at the Oldtown Deep Cut. On august 26 water was readmitted to 

this section, and the canal was again operable from Cumberland to Georgetown.104

APRIL–MAY 1862 

During the last week of April 1862 torrential rains drenched the Potomac Valley. The river and its 

tributaries rose rapidly, and heavy damage was caused before the river crested at Dam No. 4. Two 

residents of Williamsport complained bitterly that this was the 

 

101 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies

(Washington, 1880–1900), Series I, Vol. II, 809–810. 

102 Spates to Ringgold, May 6 and 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Thirty-Fourth Annual Report

(1862), C & O Co., 3. 

103 Stake to Spates, July 6, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 104 Spates to Ringgold, July 20 and 24, August 1, 13 and 25, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Available documentation does not provide information relative to the precise identification of the culvert. It is likely, however, that it was located in the vicinity where Little Cacapon River empties into the Potomac. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 299 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

7th high water within the last 18 months. After every high water, we have had the unwelcome and astonishing news that the plank at the stop lock at Dam No. 4 had either not 

been put in, or if put in had gone out. Invariably has this been the case for the last 18 

months or two years. The last high water proves that with all the sad experience for that 

length of time with a cost of not less than $50,000 to the canal but no improvement has 

been made, for the report is now that several of the plank gave way, and the rushing water has done its usual work of in some places filling up and others sweeping away the 

embankment.105

Company officials estimated that it would take two weeks to restore navigation. However, critics 

led by A. C. Greene, a company director and an agent for the Borden Mining Company, observed 

that the time lost would be closer to one month. Such disasters, it was charged, had cost the canal 

its flour trade, two-thirds of which had been taken over by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Millers had complained that no reliance could be placed on the canal for ten days at a time, and they 

had been compelled to seek a more reliable mode of transportation than the canal.106

 When the full report of the damage caused by the freshet reached Cumberland, Greene 

exploded: 

The concurrence of circumstances against the resumption of canal trade this spring are 

positively infernal. Not only is the Canal deprived of revenue, but the trade itself is imperiled by the untoward events. I have great fears that the largest and most important 

buyers of coal will despair of getting anything from us this year. 

At the time of the difficulties there were at Dam No. 4 some 1,800 tons of coal afloat and enroute 

to Georgetown. Greene trusted that every effort would be made to restore navigation as soon as 

possible, as much depended on the boatmen’s ability to deliver the coal in early May.107

 Accordingly, the superintendents of the Williamsport and Antietam Divisions pushed 

their repair crews hard to shore up the damaged embankments and clear out the obstructions. 

Continued rains added to their difficulties, but by May 8 water was readmitted to these divisions 

from the feeders at Dams Nos. 3 and 4, and the entire canal was again open to navigation.108

 Traffic on the canal increased rapidly, but on the night of May 14 heavy rains fell on the 

upper reaches of the Potomac’s watershed, causing a rapid rise on the river above Dam No. 5. 

The work programmed to repair the damage inflicted on the dam by General Jackson’s Confederates in December 1861 had not been completed, and considerable damage was done to that structure by the high water. The news dismayed the Cumberland coal shippers, and President Spates 

rushed to the scene of the latest disaster. Encouraged by his presence, the work crews were able 

to effect temporary repairs and prevent any interruption to navigation at this critical period.109

 On June 2 President Spates informed the company stockholders that: 

The frequent and heavy rains for some months past have kept the river very high and several breaches in the banks of the Canal have caused interruptions to the navigation, which 

have, however, been repaired as soon as circumstances would admit, and the Canal may 

now be deemed in fair navigable condition, but for the want of adequate means to make 

 

105 Embey and Son to Dellinger, April 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 106 Greene to Ringgold, April 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 107 Ibid, April 29, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 108 Spates to Ringgold, May 2, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

109 Greene to Ringgold, May 15, 1862, Ltrs, Recd., C & O Co. 
300 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

durable improvements and repairs at Dam No. 5; the guard lock at Dam No. 4, and some 

other points requiring considerable expenditures, we cannot be assured of uninterrupted 

navigation...110

JUNE–JULY 1862 

Heavy rains in the first days of June 1862 caused the Potomac River to reach flood stage. On June 

2 a break occurred in the canal near the Antietam Ironworks. The break was so sudden that a 

work scow was swept through the breach and smashed. First reports indicated that it would take 

six to eight days to repair the break, but President Spates urged the division superintendent to turn 

out as large a force as possible, including available boatmen, and to institute round-the-clock 

working parties.111

 On the night of June 4 the railroad bridge at Harpers Ferry was swept away, thus severing 

the Potomac Valley line of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.112 The following day the rains ceased 

and the river fell. 

 A. C. Greene on June 12 and 21 urged President Spates to rush the repairs on the Antietam Division because the damage to the Baltimore & Ohio and Confederate demolitions at Martinsburg had cut off all transportation of coal from Cumberland to the District cities. It was imperative that coal shipments be resumed as soon as possible on the canal so that demands could 

be met. Flood damage to the Pennsylvania rail network could be expected to throw upon the 

Cumberland coalfields a heavy demand and it was of great importance that the waterway be ready 

to grasp the opportunity. He trusted that attention was also being given to Dam No. 5 where, 

unless a close check was kept on the pool, there would be insufficient water for navigation now 

that the rains had ceased.113

 By late June construction crews had a new railroad bridge in operation across the Potomac at Harpers Ferry and the canal above that town was being watered. However, full navigation 

on the waterway was not restored, because work had dragged at Dam No. 5 and the pool backed 

up by that structure was too low to supply water to the sections of the waterway between Dams 

Nos. 4 and 5. A heavy rain on the night of July 1 eased this problem but created another, as “a 

good amount of sand was washed back into the canal at Dam No. 4,” and a breach was opened in 

the canal embankments above Hancock.114

 Work on getting a suitable depth of water in the canal throughout its length continued to 

drag. However, President Spates reported on July 24 that the breach above Hancock had been 

repaired and that work on Dam No. 5 was also progressing satisfactorily. Boats laden with coal 

were now able for the first time since July 2 to make the run from Cumberland to Georgetown.115

APRIL 1864 

Heavy rains in scattered parts of the Potomac Valley in early April 1864 caused some flood damage to the canal, particularly on the Monocacy and Williamsport Divisions. On the former, a 

heavy earth and rock slide occurred near the Marble Quarry about one mile below Lock No. 26. 

 

110 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), 6. 111 Benton to Ringgold, June 3, 1862, and Spates to Ringgold, June 4, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 112 War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XII, pt. 3, 304, 323, 342, 361 and 362 113 Greene to Ringgold, June 12 and 21, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Edwin C. Bearss, 1862 Brings 

Hard Times to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, “ West Virginia History,” Vol. XXX (January, 1969), 445. 114 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1862), 8, and Greene to Ringgold, July 2, 1862, and Benton to Ringgold, 

July 2, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

115 Apates to Ringgold, July 24, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 301 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

The level was drained and the rock blasted into powder and removed with wheelbarrows. Although the high water had covered most of the towpath from Seneca creek to Lock No. 26, the 

canal banks were not washed badly “to stop navigation.” As a number of lock gates and balance 

beams had been broken, a large quantity of timber was purchased at Orleans and Harpers Ferry 

for repairs. Since the damage was generally light, the division was “in good boating order” within 

a week.116

 On the Williamsport Division the only damage suffered by the canal was the number of 

sand bars washed into the trunk by the high water. Although the flood waters had covered the 

towpath on the slackwater behind Dam No. 4 for an unheard of 15 days, the banks had not been 

significantly washed. Accordingly, the division was ready for navigation within five days.117

MARCH 1865 

In March 1865 the Potomac Valley was struck by a heavy flood caused by the simultaneous 

breaking up of the ice flows in the river and considerable downpours of rain. The canal banks and 

the towpath were washed in many places, but, with the exception of some logs being removed 

from the cribs on the Virginia side of Dam No. 5, there were no serious breaches or injuries to the 

masonry work. After quick remedial repairs, the canal was ready for navigation about March 

20.118

OCTOBER 1866 

When the Civil War ended in spring 1865, the company resumed operations to complete the new 

masonry Dam No. 5. By the fall of 1866 one section of sixty feet of masonry was completed and 

a coffer dam was prepared for a second section of equal length, which was expected to be completed before freezing temperatures arrived. However, a severe freshet in October 1866 carried 

off the coffer dam and partially injured the completed 60-foot masonry section. The continued 

high water in the river and lateness of the season prevented the resumption of the work until the 

spring and summer of 1867. 

 Optimistically, the board of directors reported to the company stockholders in June 1867 

that: 

The Canal, it is believed, is now in better condition, and more durable than at any former 

period, and in evidence of it, but slight damages have been sustained by several unusually 

heavy floods in the river during the past two years [March 1865 and October 1866], and 

in no previous years has the navigation been so regular or as briefly interrupted from 

breaches or other casualties, or repaired in less time, or at less cost.119

SPRING 1868 

Two heavy freshets struck the canal during the spring of 1868 causing extensive damage. The 

first of three, an ice freshet which cannot be precisely dated due to the limitations of the available 

documentation, wrecked particular havoc on Dam Nos. 1 and 2 and the Rock Creek Basin. While 

 

116 George W. Spates to Alfred Spates, April 16 and 19, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 117 Masters to Ringgold, April 13, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 118 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), C & O Co., 3; Masters to Board of Directors, March 2, 1865, Ltrs. 

Recd., C & O Co.; and Hagerstown Mail, February 25, 1865. 

119 Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), C & O Co., 5–6. 
302 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

Dam No. 1 and the basin were heavily injured, the chief damage to the canal works was experienced at Dam No. 2 where one-half of the structure was torn away entirely. Repairs to these 

structures continued until mid-July, but canal workmen effected temporary works at these points 

to permit the entire length of the waterway to be opened for navigation about April 1.120

 The canal continued to operate until May 15 when a sudden rise in the river overflowed 

the waterway “in some places for a great distance, damaging culverts and towpath in many 

places, to such an extent, as to delay navigation for eight or ten days.” Available documentation 

does not offer more detailed information on the specific sites of major damage or on the repairs 

effected.121

SEPTEMBER 1870 

A major freshet, known generally as the “Shenandoah Flood of 1870,” struck the Potomac Valley 

below Harpers Ferry on September 30 and suspended navigation on the canal until mid-October. 

The most significant damage to the waterway occurred between Sandy Hook and Lock No. 33 at 

Harpers Ferry. Here a breach 850 feet in length was opened in the canal embankment, and the 

“sea wall” which supported the towpath was greatly undermined. The surface of the towpath between Harpers Ferry and the Monocacy River was severely washed. On the Nine-Mile Level 

south of the Monocacy, there were five small breaches and the towpath as well as the berm bank 

was considerably cut down by washing from the river. The Eight-Mile Level between Edwards 

Ferry and Seneca suffered three serious breaches on the towpath and two on the berm banks. 

 The Georgetown Division below Seneca also received great damage. The towpath from 

Seneca Creek to Great Falls was heavily washed, and a considerable breach was opened in the 

canal bank about three-fourths of a mile below Seneca. One-fourth of a mile below Great Falls 

there was a breach 86 feet long and 36 feet deep. Near Seven Locks, some five miles below Great 

Falls, there were two breaches. The towpath near the Cabin John Culvert was cut down three feet 

in height for a distance of 800 feet by the rampaging water. There was a 176-foot breach in the 

canal just above Little Falls, and at Lock No. 5 the towpath was washed off to a depth of three 

feet below its normal grade for nearly 1,760 yards. The guard bank at Dam No. 1 lost nearly six 

feet of its height for a distance of 450 feet. The towpath near the Chain Bridge was reduced some 

two feet in height for nearly 1,000 feet. Three miles west of Georgetown the height of the freshet 

made it necessary for canal officials to cut the embankments in order to protect the high banks 

and walls of the waterway in the vicinity of the town. This preventative measure, however, created a breach of some 360 feet in length which “cut out some 12 feet below bottom.” 

 Aside from the devastation visited upon the canal prism, the flood damaged ten locks to a 

greater or lesser degree. The following points of injury were specifically cited by company officials: Lock No. 16, one gate and three balance beams broken and washed away; Lock No. 20, two 

balance beams broken; Lock No. 22, one gate and three balance beams broken; Lock No. 25, one 

balance beam broken; Lock No. 27, coping removed and filing behind embankment walls washed 

out; Lock No. 29, one gate swept away; Lock No. 30, flume destroyed; Lock No. 31, chamber 

filled with eight feet of sand; Lock No. 32, coping and filling behind both chamber side walls 

washed away; and Lock No. 33, coping and filing behind chamber walls on towpath side heavily 

damaged. 

 As it was late in the boating season, the canal company was anxious to have the waterway repaired as quickly as possible. Accordingly, a large number of laborers were recruited, and 

by October 9, 1.080 men and 200 horses and carts were working day and night between Harpers 

 

120 Mans to President and Directors, July 11, 1868, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 121 Fortieth Annual Report (1868), C & O Co., 7. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 303 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

Ferry and Georgetown. The workers were paid $2 per day plus board, and the price paid for the 

use of the horses and carts was $3 per day each. 

 In preparing the canal for the readmission of the water, the work force repaired the canal 

embankments, replaced the missing coping, gates and wall backing at the locks, and restored the 

surface of the towpath to its operating grade. In addition, the men relaid the masonry “sea wall” 

between Sandy Hook and Lock No. 33 and restored the guard bank at Dam No. 2. Altogether the 

men repaired breaches and raised the towpath and berm banks of the canal trunk for a total length 

of 4,218 feet with an average height of seven feet and an average width of twelve feet. The canal 

was ready for the readmission of water on October 11 and navigation was restored four days later. 

After the resumption of boating, many of the workers stayed on the line to complete the more 

lengthy repairs.122

AUGUST 1872 

Heavy rain on the night of August 29, 1872, in Washington, D.C., caused Rock Creek to rise suddenly. The rush of water from the creek caused eight boats that were moored in the Rock Creek 

Basin either to be thrust on top of the dam at the mouth of the creek or to be broken and sunk. 

Five of the barges, three of which were loaded with stone, were sent down crashing on top of the 

dam. Of the remaining three, one, which was loaded with stone, was broken in half, and two were 

sunk. The following day the five boats that were left perched on the dam by the high water were 

removed without serious injury occurring either to the dam or to the boats. On August 31, the water was drawn off the creek to permit the salvage of the broken and sunken barges.123

FEBRUARY 1873 

A heavy ice freshet along the entire length of the river, from Cumberland to Georgetown, in February 1873 raised fears among canal officials that the company dams would be greatly damaged. 

When the ice had passed off it was found that none of the “permanent” dams had suffered serious 

injury. However, President Arthur P. Gorman reported to the directors that the freshet has “nearly 

demolished Dams Nos. 1 & 2 which are merely dikes of loose stone.” The dams would require 

“extensive repairs to enable us to keep up a proper supply of water from Seneca to Georgetown.”124 Apparently, repair crews had raised the dams to such a height as would provide sufficient water for the canal’s operation as the entire length of the waterway was opened for navigation in April.125

AUGUST 1873 

The freshet of August 1873, taking place in the middle of five years of almost unprecedented 

profits for the company, showed the precarious nature of the canal’s prosperity. A flash flood following fourteen days of rain so swelled the smaller tributaries of the Potomac that the culverts 

under the canal were not able to pass the miniature rivers. Many of them were washed out by the 

 

122 Clarke to Board of Directors, September 30, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Apparently, some of the repairs were never fully completed. For instance, Chief Engineer William A. Hutton reported on August 1, 

1872, that as the damage to the guard bank below Lock No. 6 caused by the Shenandoah Flood of 1870 had 

not been fully repaired it “ should be made up to its full height without delay.” Report of W. R. Hutton, 

Chief Engineer, As to Condition of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Annapolis, 1872), 22. 123 Mans to Gorman, August 30, September 3, 1872, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 124 Gorman to Board of Directors, March 10, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 125 Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O Co., 10–11. 
304 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

torrents. The total destruction was the greatest experienced by the canal from natural causes since 

1852, and it was the first time that the canal was damaged so severely by the numerous mountain 

streams that passed under it to the river. 

 The most serious damages sustained by the waterway occurred on the Antietam and 

Monocacy Divisions. On the former, in addition to the flood damage, two breaches were opened 

in the canal banks that were caused by leaks in the limestone region which had existed since the 

trunk was constructed. The leaks had given similar trouble in the past, and the heavy rains had 

weakened the banks to such an extent that they gave way to the undermining leaks. 

 Within a few hours after the flash flood, several hundred additional men were recruited to 

repair the damage. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad aided the canal company by providing extra 

trains to transport the men and the necessary materials to the damaged parts of the work. Repairs 

were delayed and in some cases undone by a succession of storms which struck them while in an 

exposed stage of construction. However, the damage was so far repaired as to pass boats on August 26 less than one month since the flood had suspended the navigation. All told, the company 

spent nearly $25,000 to repair the flood damage and lost some $50,000 in revenue from tolls.126

APRIL 1874 

During the month of April 1874 heavy rains in the Potomac Valley caused a greater rise in the 

river than had occurred for many years. The water entirely submerged the canal below Dams Nos. 

4 and 5 and at various points on the Monocacy Division. However, the system of general improvements on the canal directed by Chief Engineer Hutton since 1871 had made the waterway’s 

embankments so “solid” and “permanent” that the high water passed off without doing serious 

injury. Navigation was delayed for several days to effect minor unspecified repairs.127

JULY–AUGUST 1875 

Continuous rains in July and August 1875 caused considerable damage to the canal. Although no 

serious breach occurred to suspend the navigation, the banks of the waterway were washed severely and the trunk filled with sand silt. A portion of the dam at the mouth of Rock Creek was 

destroyed, and one boat loaded with coal was swept over it and sunk in the Potomac. The dam 

was reconstructed, and a steam dredge was used to clean out the prism from Georgetown to Seneca. Navigation was continued while the repairs were in progress. All told, the company spent 

some $3,000 on the flood repairs. Again the company officials, as they had the previous year, 

credited their general improvement program “that no greater loss was sustained by the unprecedented rains of July & August.”128

NOVEMBER 1877 

Following five days of heavy rain, another great flood swept down the Potomac Valley on November 24, 1877. This one was the worst in 150 years of the recorded history of the region. In its 

wake it left the canal almost a total wreck and brought trade to an end for the season. The crest of 

the flood was generally two feet higher than the previous record established in 1852, but at South 

Branch the freshet’s peak was six feet higher. At Great Falls, the water ran over the high guard 

 

126 Gorman to Board of Directors, September 10, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 124–127; and Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1877), C & O Co., 4, 28. 127 Gorman to Board of Directors, April 15, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, M, 154–157. 128 Gorman to Board of Directors, September 14, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 305 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

bank, the top of which was about 70 feet above the usual low water mark of the river. Damage 

was scattered all along the line, but the middle section, because of the extremely high rise of the 

Antietam and the Conococheague, suffered the most. All along the line, quantities of repair materials, stores and cargoes were lost.129

 Within two weeks after the flood waters subsided, the canal board had received numerous 

reports of the extensive damage inflicted on the waterway. On the line extending from Cumberland to Hancock, there were fifteen breaks in the canal banks, the towpath was virtually destroyed, and many of the locks were injured. Of the fifteen breaks, the most serious occurred at 

Hancock where there was a 70 to 80-foot-long breach extending down to the bottom of the canal. 

Both of the abutments at Dam No. 6 were slightly damaged, but the injuries were not so great as 

had been feared. Some of the shorter levels were filled with silt and debris from one to three feet 

in depth, and many boats had been grounded or sunk during the storm.130

 From Hancock to Lock No. 41 at the head of Big Slackwater, the canal banks suffered 

innumerable washes. As had been the case above Hancock, some of the shorter levels were filled 

with silt and debris. The most serious damage to this part of the line occurred at Dam No. 5 where 

both abutments were heavily injured and on the Seven mile Level near Williamsport, where the 

embankment was washed away entirely for a considerable distance. All told, President Gorman 

informed the board that it would cost $38,850 to repair the 96-mile section of canal from Cumberland to Big Slackwater.131

 The greatest single point of destruction took place at Dam No. 4, the 720-foot-wide and 

22-foot-high structure that company officials had considered to be one of the most substantial 

masonry dams in the nation when it was completed in 1861. It had given way even before the 

flood waters reached their crest. Nearly 200 feet in length near the center of the dam had been 

swept away, thus permitting the entire flow of the river to pass through the aperture. Officials 

were shocked by the destruction here as the dam had been “thoroughly sheathed and backed.” As 

the water had risen, it had swept over the entire guard bank (11⁄4 miles long and 19 feet height), 

causing extensive damage to it. At the lower end of the bank, the rushing water had carried away 

that portion of the bank between the stop lock and the dam abutment. It was estimated that it 

would cost $37,000 to repair the dam, its abutments, and the guard bank.132

 From Dam No. 4 to the mouth of Seneca Creek, a distance of 67 miles, the canal was utterly devastated. In many places, the towpath and the retaining walls were damaged badly, and 

the canal was filled with mud and debris. There were several breaks in the embankments in the 

vicinity of Antietam Creek, which had risen eight to ten feet above its previous high-water mark. 

At Harpers Ferry, where the river had risen to a height of 26 feet above its ordinary height, the 

guard bank at the feeder was washed away entirely for a distance of one-half mile. The guard lock 

and the feeder were entirely filled with mud, gravel and sand. Locks Nos. 32 and 33 were almost 

totally destroyed, the stone work being torn up and washed out except for the heavy retaining 

 

129 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 3, 9. The flood in the Potomac Valley was part of an extended storm system that struck all along the East Coast of the United States, inflicting heavy losses in 

property and causing numerous deaths in its wake. It was in this storm that the U. S. steamer “ Huron” was 

lost on the North Carolina coast with about 100 of her officers and crew. Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1202. 130 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 11–12; and Baltimore Sun, November 30, 

1877. In his History of Western Maryland, Scharf describes the situation at Cumberland during the flood, a 

copy of which may be seen in Appendix A. 

131 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 11–12, and Baltimore Sun, November 30, 

1877. In his History of Washington County, Scharf describes the course of events at Williamsport and 

throughout Washington County during the flood, a copy of which may be seen in Appendix B. 

132 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 12–14. 
306 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

walls at the former and the inner facings of the latter. The gates of both locks were carried away 

and washed down the canal for more than a mile. Above Lock No. 33 the heavy embankments 

were washed away down to the bottom of the trunk for a distance of 100 yards, and below it the 

towpath and “sea wall” were wholly destroyed for more than 2,000 feet. The company shops at 

Sandy Hook were carried away, along with 12,000 feet of lumber. Between Sandy Hook and the 

Monocacy River there was “scarcely a vestige of the towpath, and large sections of the bank” 

were “washed bodily out into the river.” The damage to the canal on the 20-mile stretch from the 

Monocacy to Seneca was less severe than any other portion of the waterway. All told, it was estimated that it would cost $92,518 to repair the canal from Dam No. 4 to Seneca (exclusive of 

Dam No. 4 itself).133

 On the 22 miles below Seneca the canal was also hard-hit by the flood. Four canal boats 

were swept into the river along with numerous small houses and sheds along this part of the line. 

Lock No. 23 was severely damaged as its wing walls were carried away and its main walls partially collapsed. This level was seriously injured; its towpath and berm banks were washed, its 

retaining walls were destroyed, and it prism was filled with mud. Between Lock No. 23 and Little 

Falls there were a great number of breaks, and much of the masonry and towpath were battered. 

One part of the most serious breaks occurred at the “Log Wall,” a large portion of the wall being 

swept away. At Lock No. 5 there were a great many breaks, and much of the masonry and towpath were bettered. Below the lock the towpath was considerably washed all the way to Chain 

bridge, and there was a large break below the bridge. The towpath had been cut for a distance of 

80 feet in length above Edes Mill so as to prevent a more serious break and possibly great property loss at Georgetown, but in passing out the trunk the water carried out a large portion of the 

towpath embankment and puddling of the prism. It was estimated that it would cost $32,000 to 

repair the 22-mile section of the canal above Georgetown, thereby making the total amount of 

estimated repairs on the canal to be $200,368.134

 The work of restoration began immediately. Repairs began on the Georgetown Level on 

November 26 so that the Georgetown millers would have their necessary supply of water. Under 

the direction of Stephen Gambrill, a large force of hands had the water restored to that level by 

December 20. In early December Superintendent Fletchall was placed in charge of a large crew 

assigned to the repair of the canal between Locks No. 5 and 23, with Assistant Superintendent J. 

R. Mans on the work near Seneca. Superintendent J. J. Moore was instructed to supply 200 laborers and as many stone masons and horses and carts as were needed to repair the guard banks at 

Dams Nos. 3 and 4. Superintendent Stanhope, an experienced dam builder, was given charge over 

that portion of the canal between Dams Nos. 4 and 6, and by December 12 he already had a large 

number of men “employed getting logs to construct cribs” for Dam No. 4. In addition he was ordered to hire sixty men to repair Dam nos. 5 and 6. Asa Williams, the collector at Cumberland, 

was charged with repairing the canal from the Cacapon River to Cumberland, and he soon had 

100 men at work on the line. As an economy measure the company suspended all lock-keepers, 

collectors and other officials, but most of them probably found employment directing and making 

repairs.135

 All winter long the work continued as rapidly as possible. Aided in part by mild temperatures and the absence of high water and ice flows, the repairs progressed faster than had been ex-

 

133 Baltimore Sun, November 29, 1877; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 12–13; 

Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1201–1202; and Report of the Standing Committee . . . in the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Investigation (Annapolis, 1889), 223. 134 Washington Evening Star, November 26, 1877; Baltimore Sun, November 29, 1877; and Proceedings of 

the President and Board of Directors. N, 13–14. All the records and books in the Georgetown Collectors 

Office were destroyed by the flood. Fawcett to Moore, March 2, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

135 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, p.114 and Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 9–10. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 307 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

pected. All available company resources were used, augmented by loans totaling $70,000 from 

various banks in Washington, Baltimore and Cumberland, loans of $10,000 each from the Maryland, American, Consolidation and Borden Coal Companies and a personal loan of $5,000 from 

President Gorman.136

 In addition to these loans President Gorman went to the state legislature for help. By the 

terms of an earlier court decision, Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company, the right of the company to issue bonds for repairs on a pledge of its revenues was recognized as legally unrestricted. To insure a market for the bonds, however, it was deemed necessary to limit the right to a sum that might be reasonably repaid.137 Upon the request of the canal 

company, the legislature passed an act in February 1878, specifically waiving the state’s prior lien 

on canal property for repair bonds up to $500,000 in amount. The additional pledge of property 

for the repayment of the bonds was considered necessary to strengthen the market value of the 

issue. At first the directors authorized the sale of only $125,000 of the bonds to pay for the repair 

costs, for these obligations were not subject to cancellation before maturity.138

 By April 10, 1878, it was reported that the repairs had been substantially completed and 

that navigation would be resumed on the 15th, only one month later than usual. Although the repairs to the masonry at Dam No. 4 could not be carried out until the stone was quarried, a temporary crib work had been built that would keep up the navigation for the coming season. Much of 

the canal had been reexcavated, and the “sea wall” at the Shenandoah River Lock had been replaced. At many points the towpath had been rebuilt, and all of the numerous lock gates that had 

been swept away were replaced. Since all of the towpath bridges on the canal had been lost, they 

too had been reconstructed. Many of the injured locks still needed to be renovated, but temporary 

repairs had been made to make them serve their purpose for one more boating season. Much still 

needed to be done to strengthen the embankments and improve the towpath surface, but the waterway was in good enough condition to resume the navigation.139

 The magnificent effort already had cost the company $153,923.70 by April 30, and the 

total cost of all permanent repairs had been revised upward to between $225,000 and $250,000. 

Yet President Gorman was pleased to report on May 15 that the “canal is now in as good condition, or better than it has been for many years past.” He allowed that “the embankments and masonry, while in fair condition are not as substantial as they were prior to the flood” and that 

“much remains to be done to strengthen and complete the work. However, this could “be more 

economically done during the current year with the regular and a few extra repair hands.”140

 The flood repairs continued into the year 1879. By January 1, the expenditures for such 

work totaled $199,190.46. Later on June 2, the stockholders were informed that all the repairs had 

been completed except for the breach at Dam No. 4. Not only had “the work been placed in as 

good a condition as it was prior to the damage,” but at several points where the greatest destruction had occurred such as at Harpers Ferry, “extensive improvements have been made by raising 

 

136 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 17–20, 68; Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 11; 

and Gorman to Board of Directors, May 15, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

137 Baltimore Sun, January 28, 1878. 138 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1878), Ch. 58; 

Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 20–23, 26–27, 300; and Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 302–303. 

139 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 17–20, 66–68 and Fiftieth Annual Report

(1878), 10. 

140 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, p.23, and Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 

pp.10–11. 
308 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

the towpath and constructing high retaining walls so as to prevent damage from like freshets 

hereafter.”141

 Finally on June 7, 1880, the board of directors was able to report to the stockholders that 

every part of the canal “which was damaged by the flood of November, 1877, has been thoroughly repaired and strengthened.” The canal was “now unquestionably in better condition than it 

has been at any time since 1860,” and its navigation was “now more reliable than it has been at 

any time since it was constructed.” All told, the repairs had cost the company $238,500.21, and 

had left it saddled with a debt of $196,463.96.142

JUNE 1884 

The canal company was subjected to heavy financial losses occasioned in June 1884 by one of the 

heaviest freshets that ever struck Washington County. The waterway from Hancock to Harpers 

Ferry sustained extensive damage, but available documentation does not specify the particular 

points of injury or the repairs effected. Additional hands were employed to make the necessary 

repairs, and the waterway was reopened to trade within one week.143

APRIL–MAY 1886 

Three freshets within a period of six weeks in April and May of 1886 left the canal in a fearful 

state of disrepair and the company finances in a precarious position bordering on bankruptcy. On 

April 1, a flood swept down the entire length of the upper Potomac Valley, tearing a great hole in 

Dam No. 6, and generally wreaking havoc along the waterway. Four days later, another freshet 

widened the gap in the dam and added to the destruction of the canal proper.144

 After the flood waters subsided, the board ordered that a complete report of the damage 

and recommended repairs be made by Stephen Gambrill, the company treasurer, and G. W. 

Smith, a well-known Potomac Valley civil engineer. On April 22, the two men reported to the 

board concerning the damage they had found, some of the repairs that were already underway, 

and recommendations for the reconstruction of Dam No. 6. On the Georgetown Level there were 

two extensive sand bars in the canal prism near Chain Bridge that were already being removed 

with a steam dredge by George Latchford and his 12-man crew. The slope walls of Locks Nos. 1–

4 had been heavily washed. At the upper end of the level above Lock No. 5 the towpath was 

washed away almost entirely for a distance of 200 yards, with much of the sand, gravel, and dirt 

now filling that portion of the trunk. Just above Lock No. 6 there was a break in the towpath 44 

feet long and 12 feet deep, and the towpath surface on this level was washed severely for a distance of one-half mile. There were 26 men and 6 carts repairing the damage on this level. On the 

Cabin John Level the tumbling waste was half gone and the towpath badly damaged. Fourteen 

men were reconstructing the portion of the waste that had been swept away and bringing the towpath up to its operating grade. The level above Great Falls was damaged severely; there was a 

large leak at the waste weir, nearly all of the towpath on the level was carried away to a depth of 

from three to five feet, and there were two small breaks in the embankments extending down to 

the bottom of the trunk. Thirty men and nine carts were at work on these repairs under the direc-

 

141 Fifty-First Annual Report (1879), C & O Co., 9. 142 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 8 and 10. On March 18, 1879, a contract was let to 

Lewis Stanhope to reconstruct Dam No. 4, and operations were completed on October 10. Report on Committee on Construction of Dam No. 4, September 27, 1879, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 143 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 272–273. 144 Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), C & O Co., 5–6; Washington Evening Star, April 2, 1886; and Thomas J. C. Williams, History of Frederick County, Maryland (2 Vols., Frederick, 1910), Vol. I, 395. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 309 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

tion of Superintendent Elgin. Lock No. 21 had been undermined and its walls endangered. On the 

Three-Mile Level above Lock No. 21 there was a break on the towpath near the culvert thirty feet 

long and extending to the bottom of the trunk. The culvert was somewhat damaged, and the towpath near Lock No. 22 was washed away. On these repairs Elgin had 100 men at work under the 

direction of Lockkeeper Pennifield. The towpath below Seneca was considerably washed. 

 The towpath on the Eight- and Nine-Mile Levels above Seneca were washed severely in 

many places, and repairs were proceeding with a work crew of eighteen men under the direction 

of Messrs. Collier and Reneberger. From the Monocacy River to Harpers Ferry, the towpath was 

torn and battered in many places. On the Four Mile Level above Harpers Ferry there were heavy 

washes on the towpath, two small breaches, and several sand bars. Forty men and sixteen carts 

were at work on this section under Mr. Drenner. A serious 50-foot break near the tumbling wash 

on the Mountain Lock Level had taken place, and the canal for a distance of 120 yards was filled 

to a depth of two feet with sand, silt and debris. There were two more fills at Shepherdstown and 

at a point just below the river lock, both of which were 150 yards in length and 2 feet in depth. 

Just above the river lock the canal was filled with silt to a depth of three feet for a distance of 150 

yards, and the towpath on the One-Mile Level was damaged seriously. On the Five-Mile Level 

above Lock No. 39 there were four specific problem areas: a break 40 feet long and several feet 

below the canal bottom; a fill 180 feet long and 2 feet deep; a small break at the foot of Lock no. 

41; and the severe washing of the towpath face all along the level. Eighty men and 32 carts were 

at work on this section under the superintendence of Mr. Morrow. On the level above Lock No. 

40 there was a break just above the lock some 40 feet long and extending to the bottom of the 

trunk, a sand bar 100 yards long and two feet deep, and three fills each 300 yards long and 3 feet 

deep. In addition, the entire length of the towpath on this level was washed to a depth of one to 

two feet. Sixty-four men and nineteen carts under the direction of Mr. Burgan were at work on 

these repairs. 

 From the head of Big Slackwater to Williamsport the towpath was considerably damaged 

in many places and there were two small breaks. Making these repairs were twenty-two men and 

one cart. On the Williamsport Level (above Lock No. 44) there was a break some 30 feet long 

and extending 3 feet below the bottom of the canal at Cruger’s Warehouse. The towpath was torn 

up badly near Miller’s Bend for a distance of over one mile, the trunk was filled with deposits 

from one to three feet deep, and a waste weir was washed out. On the Two-Mile Level below 

Four Locks the towpath was damaged greatly and there were several leaks. Forty-three men and 

eighteen carts under Mr. Masters were at work on these repairs. Damages to the Fourteen-Mile 

Level above Four Locks included heavy washes along the towpath at Little Pool and two breaks 

at that point, one of 40 feet in length at its foot and one of smaller extent at its head. On the Hancock Level (above Lock No. 52) the upper portion was filled to a depth of several feet for a considerable distance, much of the towpath surface was swept away, and two breaks were found near 

the Round Top Cement Mill, one of which was nearly 60 feet long and several feet below the bottom of the trunk. The Four Mile Level from Sir Johns Run to Dam No. 6 suffered greater damage 

than it had in 1877. Among its significant injuries were the following: the towpath on its upper 

portion for a distance of one mile was almost entirely washed away; similar damages were inflicted on the level’s lower one-quarter mile; the trunk was filled to an average depth of two feet 

for almost half its length; and the berm bank and the balance of the towpath were damaged in 

many places. A crew of 62 men and 22 carts under the superintendence of Mr. Sterling was handling the repairs from Little Pool to Sir Johns Run. 

 The damage at Dam No. 6 was so extensive as to require a total reconstruction of the 

structure at a cost of $50,000, although outside estimates had ranged as high as $119,000. Some 

175 feet of the 475-foot structure had been carried away, and the remaining 183 feet on the Virginia side of the river was almost a total wreck. The 117 feet still standing on the Maryland side, 
310 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

which had been partially rebuilt in 1884, was rotten, its timber above the waterline almost entirely 

gone, and its stone held in place only by the sheathing. If the dam were rebuilt as recommended, 

it should be made with sawed white oak and not hewn timber as had been done on the old structure. It should also be filled with broken stone instead of the field stone or the smoothly-worn 

rock excavated from the river bottom, both of which had been used on the old structure and both 

of which had been the cause of so much leakage through it. 

 Part of the chamber walls of Locks Nos. 56 and 57 had yielded, and the lower towpath 

wing walls and hollow quoins of Lock No. 56 had settled. On the Tunnel Level the embankments 

were washed badly, and there was a heavy land slide on the berm side. There was also a large 

slide in the cut below the Tunnel, and the One-Mile Level below Paw Paw Tunnel was heavily 

washed. Twelve men under Mr. Kelly were effecting repairs in this vicinity. At the head of the 

Four-Mile Level near Lock No. 61 a waste weir was swept away, and the towpath was carried out 

to a depth of two to four feet. On the Seven-Mile Bottom above Lock No. 71 one-half mile of the 

towpath was carried away to a depth of two to four feet. There was a break in the canal banks at 

Burns Hollow some 40 feet in length and 3 feet in depth. The towpath was damaged, and there 

was a considerable fill in the prism. A force of 50 men and 20 carts under Messrs. Hottenhouser 

and Young were at work making these repairs.145

 On May 9 a third flood struck the Potomac Valley, causing further destruction to the canal and retarding the repairs that were in progress. The most significant damage resulting from 

this freshet occurred at Dam No. 6 where an additional 62 feet were added to the gaping hole in 

the structure.146

 To meet the costs of the restoration of the canal after the floods of 1886, the company 

began to sell the remaining repair bonds of 1878 without restraint. On April 22, it ordered the 

firm of Robert T. Baldwin, or his assignees, Robert A. Garrett and Sons, to exercise the option to 

purchase $71,000 of the bonds at 80.147 This transaction, along with an earlier sale of $189,000 of 

the bonds at 86 to the same firm in September 1885, ultimately gave control of the bonds to the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.148 John Hambleton and Company bought $75,000 of the bonds in 

August 1887 at 78, and the final sale, at the end of the year, was for $38,000 at 76.149 By that time 

a total of $498,000 of the bonds had been sold.150

 The bonds were particularly desirable, for they carried a preferred mortgage on the physical property of the canal. By the mid-1880s the administration of the canal under its present management was believed by many to be of short duration. In the reorganization that would follow its 

bankruptcy, the waterway would probably be sold. Hence the bonds were a good investment. 

Railroad companies, particularly the Baltimore & Ohio and the West Virginia Central, eyed the 

canal right of way as a possible roadbed, and thus were especially interested for the control of the 

1878 bonds could force the sale of the canal in the bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, the two 

railroad companies and their agents began buying up the bonds, but when the West Virginia interests discovered that the Baltimore & Ohio already possessed a majority they suspended their 

purchases.151

 The canal was repaired so that the waterway was again in limited operation by early June, 

although much of the more substantial masonry work was postponed until the coming winter 

 

145 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 329–332. Also see Fifty-Eighth Annual Report

(1886), C & O Co., 15–17, 23–26. 

146 Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), 25. 147 Proceedings of the President and board of Directors, N, 332–333. 148 Ibid., N, 317–319, and Washington Evening Star, June 6, 1889. 

149 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 338–339, 344, 348–349. 150 Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), 6. 151 Washington Evening Star, June 6, 1889. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 311 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

months. The most complex repair work was at Dam No. 6. After considering the plans and specifications for the total reconstruction of the dam submitted by Robert M. Martin, the Water Engineer of the City of Baltimore, it was determined that the structure should merely be repaired by 

company laborers under the supervision of canal engineers. The operations on the dam were 

completed in the latter part of the summer at a cost of nearly $45,000.152

MAY–JUNE 1889 

Between May 30 and June 1, 1889, a titanic flood swept the Potomac, the crest of which was 

higher than any ever before recorded in the history of the valley. On the upper Potomac in Maryland, there were 50 lives lost and more than $2,000,000 worth of property was destroyed. The 

devastation left in the wake of the flood was described graphically in Appletons’ Annual Cyclopedia and Register (1889): 

There was not a mountain or rivulet in the western part of the State which was not transformed into a freshet. Scores of villages, some of them containing important manufactories, were inundated, and thousands of acres of farm lands were laid waste. The loss by 

ruined bridges, washouts and land slides of the Western Division of the Baltimore & 

Ohio road reached more than half a million dollars.... The Western Maryland Railroad 

and its connecting lines, the Baltimore and Harrisburg and the Cumberland Valley roads 

were extensively damaged by washouts and destruction of bridges over a length of about 

sixty miles. Hundreds of square miles in the vicinity of Hagerstown and Shippensburg 

and in the Cumberland valley were submerged and many thousand cattle drowned. The 

overflow of the Monocacy and its branches at the mountain town of Frederick was the 

cause of widespread havoc in the city and the surrounding farming region. The water rose 

thirty feet above its level at the railroad bridge, and most of the city was submerged. The 

loss in Frederick County was about $300,000. At Williamsport the railroads were entirely 

washed away, and the new iron bridge over the Potomac totally destroyed....On the Shenandoah and Potomac near Harpers Ferry hundreds of houses were swept away by the 

wrath of the waters, which came roaring down through the narrow gorges forty feet in 

height....Along the South Mountains in Washington and Allegheny counties the havoc 

was great and the loss of life considerable, and $100,000 worth of property was swept 

away at Point of Rocks. All the bridges of Frederick County...were destroyed.153

The flood began with a disturbance that was described as a cyclone which entered the valley near 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, and crossed the river a few miles above Williamsport before crossing back into West Virginia at Falling Waters.154 It was followed by heavy rains which swelled 

the Potomac until it poured over its banks. At Cumberland the water rose both in the main river 

and in Wills Creek until it completely submerged the land between them. At Hancock, it reached 

a point three feet above previous records set in 1877. At Williamsport, the crest was 44-1/3 feet 

above the low-water mark, 71⁄2 feet above 1877 levels. The junction of the Potomac and the 

Conococheague was described as a huge lake, and Aqueduct No. 5 was out of sight. At Harpers 

Ferry, it rose to the height of 34 feet above the low-water stage and 21 feet above the towpath. At 

its peak, the water was 2.8 feet above the Baltimore & Ohio rails on the Harpers Ferry Bridge and 

 

152 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 335–336, 338. 153 Appletons’ Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1889 (New York, 1890), 

531–532. 

154 Washington Evening Star, June 1, 1889. 
312 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

6.8 feet higher than the 1877 freshet. Just below Harpers Ferry at Sandy Hook, the water reached 

a point 8 feet higher than the railroad tracks which were 17 feet above the canal itself.155

 On the lower portion of the canal the river also reached new heights. At Great Falls, the 

river rose 16 feet above the top surface of the coping on the dam and 4 feet higher than in the 

1877 freshet. At Chain Bridge where strong southeasterly winds made the tides unusually high, it 

was 43.3 feet above tide level. Further down the canal, the river reached 19.5 feet and 13.3 feet at 

the Potomac Aqueduct and Easby’s Wharf in Georgetown respectively. At the latter location, the 

crest was three feet above the level of the 1877 flood. In the District of Columbia the river remained within 3 feet of its maximum height for a period of 24 hours and within 6 feet of it for 

about 30 hours.156

 The damage caused by the rampaging river was fully as impressive as the record heights 

established by the flood. The canal below Harpers Ferry was especially hard-hit. It was reported 

to be: 

One of the peculiarities of the freshet of 1889 was that the stone-work of the walls, &c., 

is more generally involved than on any previous occasion of the kind. The telephone 

wires have been swept away ...and every bridge for which the canal company is responsible is down.157

The flood waters carried away canal boats, teams and cargoes, destroying 176 barges or depositing them crazily along both sides of the valley.158 The swirling current also damaged mills, warehouses and wharf facilities along the canal and at Georgetown.159

 Within ten days the canal board received extensive reports on the damage done to the 

waterway by Superintendent Ed Mulvaney and J. P. Biser. The two men noted that Rock Creek 

Dam had been destroyed. Its wing walls had been washed out, and a hole 125 feet wide had been 

torn in its center. The 15-foot-high, 5-foot-wide protecting wall from the dam to a point 700 feet 

up Rock Creek was largely decimated. The mole and the towpath at the basin were washed badly, 

and the basin itself was filled with some 1,200 cubic yards of deposit. The steam dredge and all 

the scows on the Georgetown Level were gone. One-half mile above the Georgetown Tidelock, 

there was a breach in the canal banks 125 feet long and 11 feet below the bottom of the trunk. 

Opposite to Little Falls Church there was a break 200 feet long and 12 feet below the canal bottom; below Chain Bridge there was a break 600 feet long and 4 feet below the canal bottom. 

From the latter westward for 1,000 feet the towpath was deeply washed. At Chain Bridge there 

was a break 100 feet long and 12 feet deep, and from the bridge to Lock No. 5 the towpath was 

 

155 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 256; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Report, H. Doc. 687, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, 1950, 56; and U.S. Geological Survey, The Potomac River Basin (Washington, 1907), 181–182. Numerous newspaper accounts also tell the 

story of the flood. Among the most important are Cumberland Evening Times, May 30, June 1, 1889; Frederick Examiner, June 5, 1889; and Hagerstown Mail, June 7, 1889. 156 U.S. Geological Survey, Potomac River Basin, 181–182, and Washington Evening Star, June 1, 1889. 

At its maximum height, the mean velocity of the water in the river at the Potomac Aqueduct was 12.4 feet 

per second. It was estimated that the discharge of the river at Chain Bridge reached a peak of 470,000 second-feet and that the discharge of Rock Creek reached a peak of nearly 25,000 second-feet. 157 Cumberland Evening Times, June 11, 1889, quoted in Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 257. 158 Washington Evening Star, June 1 and 3, 1889, and Report of Ed Mulvaney and S. D. Young to Board of 

Public Works, Washington County, May 13, 1890, C & O Canal Company Records, Receivership Papers, 

Washington County (MD) Courthouse. Of the 176 boats, 156 were loaded with coal, 11 with lime and 

stone and 9 with grain. 

159 Washington Evening Star, June 1 and 3, 1889. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 313 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

washed to a depth of 21⁄2 feet. At Lock No. 5 220 feet of coping was carried away, and the entire 

backing behind the lock walls was ripped out. The flume was washed out as wide and deep as the 

canal itself and the gates damaged. The guard bank, the feeder, and the feeder gates were badly 

injured. The height of Dam No. 1 had been reduced by 18 inches. Near Lock No. 5 the waybill 

office was swept away and the lockhouse partially damaged. 

 The towpath between Locks Nos. 5 and 7 was heavily washed, and Locks Nos. 6–8 were 

nearly destroyed, their lockhouses washed out, and their gates carried away. Cabin John Culvert 

was damaged, but the majority of the Seven Locks area was unhurt. On the “Log Wall Level” 

there was a break near the clubhouse 150 feet long and 30 feet deep, and the 60-foot-high retaining wall on the river side had been carried away. Some 300 yards above this break at the mouth of 

Widewater there was a break 500 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 32 feet deep, and the 60-foot-high 

retaining wall was gone. To repair this one breach it was estimated that 160,000 cartloads of material would be required for filling. Just above this break were three separate breaches: one 325 

feet long, 40 feet wide and 6 feet below the canal bottom; one 180 feet long and 30 feet deep; one 

80 feet long and 20 feet deep; and one 310 feet long and 10 feet deep. The Log Wall Bridge was 

gone, and the 20-foot-wall supporting the towpath was washed away for the distance of 1,000 

yards. 

 At Locks Nos. 15 and 16 the stone lockhouses were swept away, as were the coping, 

backing, gates and flume of the two locks. The stop lock above Lock No. 16 had been wrecked 

and its embankment damaged. Locks Nos. 17–19 were considerably injured along with their 

flumes, and the lockhouse at Lock No. 17 was gone while that at Lock No. 18 was partially standing. Nearly every house between the canal and the river from Chain Bridge to Great Falls had 

been swept away; the only structure still standing in that area was the Sycamore Island Clubhouse. 

 The damage to the canal at Great Falls included a break 50 feet long and 3 feet below the 

bottom. Some 300 yards above this spot, there were two large breaks—one 250 feet long and the 

other 300 feet long and 8 feet deep. More than 2 feet were washed off the towpath for a distance 

of 2 miles. 

 Locks Nos. 23 and 24 were badly washed, and approximately 3,000 perches of stone in 

Dam No. 2 had been swept away. Opposite to the Seneca Red Stone Quarry just above Seneca 

Creek there was a break in the towpath and berm 150 feet long and 4 feet below the bottom. In 

the vicinity of Horse Pen Culvert there were two large deposits of mud and debris in the trunk, 

one of 5,000 cubic yards and the other of 1,200. 

 At Edwards Ferry the pivot bridge and the company carpenter shop were gone and a 

loaded barge was lying across Lock No. 25. Just above the ferry another road bridge was swept 

away. Near the Haunted House there was a break 20 feet long and 4 feet deep. The east end of 

Aqueduct No. 2 had a break 40 feet long, and the horse dredge at that location had been carried 

away. There were heavy bars in the levels between Locks Nos. 24 and 25, 25 and 26, and 27 and 

28. 

 From Point of Rocks to Weverton, the locks and lockhouses were slightly damaged and 

numerous bars were filling the prism. Lock No. 31 was nearly destroyed and just above it there 

was a 50-foot-wide break. The towpath from Weverton to Sandy Hook was badly damaged. At 

Sandy Hook the entire cluster of company buildings—carpenter shop, blacksmith shop, sheds, 

cart houses, storehouses and dwelling house—were carried away along with a number of lock 

gates, carts and tools. Lock No. 32 was carried away except for its chamber walls, and its flume 

was washed out. From the Lock to above the Harpers Ferry Bridge the towpath and heavy river 

walls were destroyed for the distance of one mile, the river and canal being one body of water for 

the majority of this length. The Shenandoah River Lock was totally destroyed. The company 

boarding house, the lockhouse and the storehouse near Lock No. 33 were all carried away. Locks 
314 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

Nos. 34–36 were all badly injured, and the entire towpath between Locks Nos. 33–36 was washed 

out. Guard Lock No. 3 was filled with stone and gravel, and the guard banks at Dam No. 3 were 

badly damaged. Above Lock No. 36 there was a break 125 feet long and 8 feet below the bottom. 

 The chamber of Lock No. 37 was filled with mud, and a large culvert nearby was entirely 

gone. In addition there were many washes and bars between Lock No. 36 and the Shepherdstown 

River Lock. The carpenter shop with its stores of lumber and lock gates at Shepherdstown was 

swept away. Above Shepherdstown the face and top of Lock No. 39 were damaged, and there 

was a 50-foot-long break on the level between Locks Nos. 39 and 40. 

 At Lock No. 40 the gates were gone, the backing was washed out, the chamber was filled 

with 3 feet of mud, and the recently-built lockhouse was swept away. On the same level the company boarding house and other buildings were gone. There was a break on the feeder level below 

Dam No. 4 some 60 feet long and 8 feet below the bottom. At Guard Lock No. 4, the gates were 

gone, the backing was washed out, the chamber was filled with mud, and the new lockhouse was 

swept away. The stop lock and the nearby lockhouse were entirely gone. In the protection banks 

between the stop lock and the Dam No. 4 feeder, there were 10 breaks totaling 1,260 feet in 

length, 37 feet in width, and 11 feet in depth. The gates and lockhouse at Lock No. 42 were destroyed. In the vicinity of Opequon Creek midway between Locks Nos. 42 and 43 there was a 

break 75 feet long and the towpath was washed 21⁄2 feet for the distance of one mile. All along 

this level there were heavy deposits of sand in the trunk. 

 On the level below Lock No. 44 the towpath was damaged and there was considerable 

filling in the canal. The towpath on nearly all of the Williamsport Level was badly washed, and 

the towpath bank at the town had a slip on its river side about 100 feet long and 20 feet wide. Almost one-half of the slope had been carried away, and the banks were cracked for several hundred 

feet above the slip. Much of the town had been under water including the canal basin and Aqueduct No. 5, but the company works generally had survived. 

 Lock No. 45 received considerable damage, and between Locks Nos. 46 and 47 the towpath was washed from 1 to 4 feet for the distance of one mile. Much material was deposited in the 

canal trunk on this level. Between Four Locks and Hancock the towpath was washed to depths up 

to 4 feet for the distance of several miles. Below Aqueduct No. 6 there was a 100-foot-long break. 

There was a breach 100 feet long and 6 feet below the bottom in the vicinity of Fort Frederick, 

and below Big Pool there was a similar 100-foot-long break. On the Hancock Level the towpath 

was badly washed for half its length. Lock No. 53 was damaged badly and its adjacent lockhouse 

washed away. On the level above the lock the towpath was nearly swept away. The sheathing was 

torn from the old part of Dam No. 6 for a considerable distance, and about 100 feet of the cribs on 

the new dam just below it were gone. The gates of Lock No. 55 and Guard Lock No. 6 were injured severely. 

 At Sideling Hill Creek the towpath was carried away for a mile and deposited in the canal. There was a 60-foot-long break in the towpath near Aqueduct No. 8 and another 50-foot 

break at Lock No. 56. The towpath on the Little Orleans Level was damaged greatly, and there 

was a 100-foot break below Aqueduct No. 9. Above Little Orleans the towpath was washed 

badly, and the trunk was filled for 200 yards by slips from the mountain side and by 4 large trees. 

When the obstruction was cleared, thousands of cubic yards of additional material would slide 

down. Below Paw Paw Tunnel virtually 3 miles of the towpath has been washed into the canal. 

Between the tunnel and Town Creek there were two 100-foot breaks in the towpath. The wooden 

trunk and culvert at Aqueduct No. 10 were gone. 

 Above Town Creek there was little significant damage to the waterway except for three 

breaks and some heavy silt deposits in the prism. Near Kelly’s Road Culvert (some 4 miles above 

Lock No. 71) there was a 60-foot breach, and the canal was filled with mud. On the level above 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 315 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

Lock No. 75 there were two smaller cuts in the banks. There was no significant damage reported 

at Cumberland.160

 Preliminary reports estimated the damage to the canal at from $500,000 to $1,000,000.161

These early estimates were soon reduced officially to $250,000 or $300,000 in a special report to 

the Washington County Court by President Stephen Gambrill on June 13.162 However, when the 

canal company admitted that it could not raise the necessary funds for the restoration of the waterway the stage was set for the canal to go into a receivership with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad emerging as the majority owner of both the 1878 and the 1844 bonds, thereby giving it control of the preferred mortgages on the physical property and the revenues of the canal. 

 While a final determination was pending in the Washington County Court on the precise 

nature of the receivership, a contract was let on June 20 to George W. Cissell, Arthur B. Crossley, 

Robert B. Tenney, W. H. Burr and F. L. Moore to restore the Georgetown Level. Fearful of the 

ruinous economic consequences to their businesses if their source of water was not quickly restored, these four millers agreed to advance $16,000 to the company for the repairs, the loan to be 

repaid out of rents under existing water leases.163 Among the terms of the contract were the following: 

The said parties of the first part [the Georgetown millers] do covenant and agree with the 

party of the second part [the C&O Co.], that they will rebuild and put in good condition 

and repair all that part of the canal ... which lies between Lock No. 4 and Lock No. 5 including the Feeder Lock & Gate, and the Feeder itself ...rebuild the guard bank at said 

Feeder, to its original height and width, rebuild the tow-path, with good material with 

banks properly sloped on either side and worked up in the bottom, whenever there is new 

work on said banks, so that a perfect connection may be formed between said new & old 

work, having along the center of said bank, whenever made from the bottom of the 

breaks and washouts to the top of said towpath a core of not less than six feet in width 

made of good clay; the sides of said towpath next to the water of said Canal to be paved 

with large flat stones closely laid together whenever the breaks and washes go through 

the banks of the Canal, and the side next to the river to be well rip rapped with stones 

wherever the breaks and washes so through the banks of the Canal; and generally to restore said part of said canal to the condition in which it was before the freshets of May & 

June, 1889, that is to say, with sufficient water to float loaded boats to the coal wharves. 

 The parties of the first part covenant and agree that whenever it shall be necessary they will rebuild and make watertight, with good cement and stone all culverts along 

said level.164

The repairs were effected by August 1, and water was readmitted into the Georgetown Level to 

provide the mills with their necessary supply of water.165

 Similar work was done locally on the Williamsport and Cumberland Levels while the 

courts determined the legal framework of the receivership. On March 3, 1890, the Washington 

 

160 Baltimore Sun, June 11, 1889; Washington Evening Star, June 1 and 3, 1889; Proceedings of the president and Board of Directors, N, 415; and Report of Mulvaney and Young to Board of Public Works, May 

13, 1890, Receivership Papers. 

161 Washington Evening Star, June 3 and 4, 1889. 162 Special Report to the President and Directors, June 13, 1889, in Circuit Court for Washington County, 

George S. Brown, et. al. vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company (Equity No. 4191), 9. 163 Washington Evening Star, June 4, 4 & 8, 1889. 164 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 415–418. 165 Ibid., N, 418–419. 
316 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

County Court appointed receivers, and on June 9, these individuals filed optimistic estimates that 

the total cost of restoration would be $268,698, including the repairs already effected.166

 Following the legal proceedings, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad undertook the restoration of the waterway. The actual work of repair, which commenced in the autumn of 1890, took 

much longer and was more expensive than had been anticipated. At least part of the additional 

cost of the work was due to the delay in beginning repairs as “it was found that the eighteen 

months during which the canal was practically abandoned and dried out had added much to the 

damage caused by the flood of 1889, and had also weakened the canal at points untouched by the 

flood.”167 Water was not readmitted into the entire length of the canal until August 1891, and traffic did not begin to move on the waterway until September 1. However, repairs continued to be 

made until the spring of 1893 when the trustees announced that the “canal is now in better condition as a waterway than ever before in its history.” The canal had a 6-foot depth throughout its 

length, and “as a consequence the average loading of the boats was heavier during the last boating 

season [1893] than ever before.” The total cost of the restoration of the canal was $430,764.43, all 

of which had to be borrowed from outside sources.168

ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF REPAIRS OF 1889 FLOOD DAMAGE 

From Cumberland to Dam No. 6 $10,988.00 

Repair to Dam No. 6 10,850.00 

From Dam No. 6 to Lock No. 44 6,140.00 

From Lock No. 44 to Dam No. 4 2,688.00 

From Dam No. 4 to Lock No. 36 37,116.00 

From Lock No. 36 to Lock No.32 22,503.00 

From Lock No. 32 to Lock No. 20 9,511.00 

From Lock No. 20 to Lock No. 15 8,694.00 

From Lock No. 15 to Lock No. 14 37,057.00 

From Lock No. 14 to D. C. Line 4,638.00

$150,185.00 

20% Contingencies 30,033.00 

Cost of lumber, carpenters work, lock houses, repairing locks, 

flumes, waste weirs, lock gates and other wooden structures 45,000.00 

Repairs to canal in District of Columbia 15,000.00 

Repairs to Cumberland wharf 1,000.00 

Repairs to telephone line 7,500.00 

Contingencies 20,000.00

$268,698.00 

 

166 2nd Report of Receivers, June 9, 1890, in Brown et al. vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 111–

133. A copy of the breakdown of the cost of restoring the waterway may be seen on page 45. 

167 Report of Trustees, January 30, 1894, in the State of Maryland vs. John K. Cowen et al., Trustees, June 

17, 1896, Maryland Reports (1896), LXXXIII, 552–553. 168 Ibid. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 317 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

III: THE FLOODS: 1897–1936 

1897, 1902, 1907, 1914 

In his The Great National Project, Walter S. Sanderlin writes that after 1889 freshets occurred 

with depressing regularity, the most serious ones in 1897, 1902, 1907 and 1914.” Using George 

Nicolson, the General Manager and Superintendent of the canal from 1891 to 1938, as his source, 

Sanderlin further elaborates that: 

The work of repair and restoration went on unceasingly. As soon as the rough spots from 

one freshet were smoothed out, another would bring in new bars, cause new breaches and 

wash the towpath again. None of the floods, however, was so disastrous that the railroad 

hesitated to repair the damage, and none approached the proportions of the freshets of 

1877 and 1889.169

MARCH 1924 

On March 29, 1924, the first major flood in 35 years swept down the Potomac Valley and 

wrecked the canal. Melting snow and heavy rains caused the Potomac and its tributaries, especially the Shenandoah, to rise and overflow their banks. For the first time in the history of the valley, newspaper editorials placed partial blame for the flood on the heavy timber cutting that had 

greatly denuded the Allegheny Mountain watershed in western Maryland. A brief cold snap, 

highlighted by a 10-inch snowfall in the upper valley, momentarily halted the rise of the Potomac 

on March 30, and even reversed it. The next day the river rose again, but by that time the threat of 

a major disaster similar to that of 1889 was past, as much of the run-off had occurred. A survey of 

the damage in the valley revealed that the flood was not nearly so serious as had been feared. The 

freshet, which centered its destruction primarily in the upper reaches of the valley, was of short 

duration and caused comparatively slight damage outside the canal.170

 Heavy rains at Cumberland on March 29 swelled the Potomac River and Wills Creek so 

that the two mounted at a rate of 30 inches an hour to levels approaching the record crest of 1889. 

The water continued to rise until nearly one-half of the city was under 15 to 20 feet of water by 

the following day. Just east of the Western Maryland Railroad station the river crumbled away the 

embankment separating it from the canal and washed away some $50,000 worth of timber from 

the Cessna Lumber Company southward toward the canal basin in Shantytown. The wharves at 

the basin were partially destroyed, and the canal banks greatly washed. When the flood waters 

began to fall much of the town, along with the canal, were left lying under a deposit of mud up to 

2 feet deep. All told, Cumberland, the worst-hit town in the valley, suffered a property loss of 

some $3,000,000.171

 

169 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 276. 170 Frank Moore Colby and Herbert Treadwell Wade, eds., The New International Year Book (New York, 

1925), 249. Local newspaper accounts also described the general nature and extent of the flood, among the 

most important of which were the Hagerstown Daily Mail, March 29 & 31, 1924, and the Hagerstown 

Morning Herald, April 1 & 3, 1924. 171 The Washington Post, March 30 & 31, 1924, Washington Evening Star, March 29, 30 & 31, 1924. The 

Baltimore & Ohio and the Western Maryland Railroads suffered extensive losses to their lines in Cumberland and in the region to the west. All of the railroad bridges across the Potomac between Cumberland and 

Westernport were swept away. Some 26 miles of track belonging to the Baltimore & Ohio were uprooted 

while the Western Maryland lost 40 carloads of freight. Many of the mines in the Georges Creek coal region were forced to close. 
318 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

 Tremendous damage also occurred at Hancock where the canal and three-fourths of the 

town was wholly or partially submerged by the water. All the railroad and canal bridges in the 

vicinity were destroyed, and the canal banks and masonry were badly washed.172

 At Williamsport the river reached a point 28 feet above normal, seven feet below the 

peak of the 1889 flood. Although no major injuries were inflicted on Dams Nos. 4 and 5, the Potomac Edison Company’s substations at both points were put out of commission as was the main 

plant at Williamsport. The water covered the entire length of the canal trunk on the Williamsport 

Division, obliterating the banks and tearing the masonry.173

 Despite the high water, the lower valley communities escaped serious damage. However, 

the canal was not so fortunate as many miles of its banks and its masonry were badly washed, 

particularly below the Shenandoah and the Monocacy, both of which rose some 20 feet above 

normal. At Little Falls the crashing waves of the river reached a height of 20 feet, opening a 50-

foot-long and 12-foot-deep gap in the canal banks at Dam No. 1 and causing one breach below 

the dam and another at Guard Lock No. 1. At Washington, the river crested 8 feet above the normal high tide level, but there was no flooding in the city.174

 The flood of 1924 provided the opportunity for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad to relieve 

itself of the expense of operating the canal. The receivers made no effort to restore the canal beyond the Georgetown Level. So that the Georgetown millers could quickly have their necessary 

supply of water restored, a contract was let to the Vang Construction Company on April 1 to repair the 50-foot cut at Dam No. 1, while canal workmen closed the breaches below the dam and at 

the guard lock.175

 Aside from these repairs, the receivers authorized enough restoration work in the years 

1924-26 to protect what was left of the waterway and to enable them to assert that the canal could 

quickly be put into navigable condition if sufficient business was presented to warrant the effort.176 The canal was left a wreck, but technically a going concern in which the water rents received from the Georgetown manufacturers paid the expenses of the small operating staff. The 

court accepted the position of the receivers, and ruled that the canal had not forfeited its rights by 

non-operation, but that the other aspect of its business, the maintenance of a canal for navigation 

purposes, was merely suspended temporarily in the absence of remunerative business. 

MARCH 1936 

A sudden thaw in the wintry temperatures throughout the eastern United States from Maryland to 

the Canadian border in mid-March 1936 led to the heaviest flood in the recorded history of the 

Potomac Valley. While the loss of life was comparatively slight, numerous buildings, roads and 

bridges were destroyed. The Potomac not only flooded its upper reaches to epic proportions, but 

for the first time in living memory, it went out of its banks along its southern border and caused 

extensive damage almost down to the Atlantic.177

 The flood surpassed all previous high-water marks in the Potomac Valley. In Georgetown 

the river crested seven inches higher than it had in 1889 and at Little Falls it was one foot higher. 

At Seneca the crest was nine inches higher than in 1889. The flood covered the canal at Point of 

Rocks to a depth of 17 feet for a period of 54 hours, both of which statistics exceeded those of 

 

172 Washington Evening Star, March 31, 1924. 173 Ibid. 174 The Washington Post, April 1, 1924; Washington Evening Star, March 31 and April 2, 1924; Colby and 

Wade, New International Year Book, 249; and Frederick Post, April 1 & 2, 1924. 175 Washington Evening Star, April 2, 1924. 176 Reports of Trustees for 1924, 1925 and 1926m Receivership Papers. 177 Frank H. Vizetelly, ed., The New International Year Book (New York, 1937), 432. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 319 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

1889. At Harpers Ferry the water rose to an elevation of 21 feet above the towpath, a similar 

height to that attained in 1889. The canal at Shepherdstown was inundated for 62 hours, and at its 

peak the flood reached an elevation of 22 feet above the towpath, a height exceeding the 1889 

figure by five feet. In the vicinity of Four Locks, the river rose 10 feet above its 1889 crest. At 

Hancock the river covered the towpath to a depth of some 7 to 8 feet for a period of 24 hours, 

while the peak of the flood at Cumberland covered the canal with 3 to 4 feet of water for 12 

hours.178

 The heavy flood wrecked havoc on the now-deserted canal and left it in the dilapidated 

condition in which it was found when the federal government acquired it two years later. A survey of the flood damage follows: 

1. On the Georgetown Level, the banks washed and the prism was heavily silted. 

2. Much of Dam No. 1 was destroyed down to its foundation, and the feeder was 

filled with trees, debris and silt. 

3. There is no available documentation relative to the damage between Lock No. 5 

and Seneca Creek. 

4. There were two breaks on the Eight Mile Level above Lock No. 24, one of 

which was just above Aqueduct No. 1 and the other near the Beaver Dam Culvert. 

5. The abutments of the bridge across the canal at Noland’s Ferry were washed into 

the trunk. 

6. The company house and all outbuildings at Point of Rocks were swept away. 

7. The bridge across Lock No. 30 at Brunswick was washed out. 

8. There was a small washout at Sandy Hook. The blacksmith shop at that place 

was entirely gone, and the carpenter shop was partially destroyed. The machinery 

had been saved out of the latter shop. 

9. The level between Locks, Nos. 32 and 33 was utterly devastated. The guard 

wall, bank and towpath for 200 to 300 feet below the Harpers Ferry Bridge was 

badly washed, and there was much torn stonework lying in the trunk. 

10. At Lock no. 33, the brick lockhouse which had withstood the 1889 flood was destroyed. The lock chamber walls were heavily damaged, the filling around the 

lock was washed out, and the gates were swept away. 

11. The towpath between Locks Nos. 33 and 34 was not badly damaged, but the 

trunk was filled with mud, debris and gravel. At Lock No. 34 the gates were 

washed out and the brick lockhouse was destroyed. Below the lock the guard 

bank was heavily washed. 

12. The level between Locks Nos. 34 and 35 was heavily damaged. A considerable 

portion of Dam No. 3 was gone. At the feeder there were two breaches in the 

guard bank, the largest of which was 40 feet long and 25 feet deep. The top of 

the guard bank was badly washed, and many perches of stone from the wall next 

to the river and the breaks in the guard bank had been deposited in the feeder. 

The towpath was left in a ragged condition for several hundred feet below the 

dam. The section of the canal between Lock No. 34 and Dam No. 3 was filled 

with rock, mud and debris. 

13. Little damage was inflicted on the canal from Lock No. 36 to Shepherdstown, 

except for some injuries to the lock gates. However, all the river bridges at 

Shepherdstown were washed out, and the bridge over the canal there was carried 

 

178 House Document 687, 56, 58 and Index to Correspondence, Office of Trustees. 
320 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

downstream and lodged in the river lock. The upper gates of the river lock were 

still good, but one of the lower ones had been washed out. The lockhouse at 

Lock No. 38 was partially destroyed when a heavy drift knocked in its northwest 

corner. 

14. Between Shepherdstown and Dam No. 4 all the buildings along the line of the 

canal were swept away, including the lockhouse at Lock No. 40. 

15. Dam No. 4 received serious damage during the flood. Earlier on February 27 an 

ice drift had carried away a section of the dam near the Maryland abutment. The 

March flood widened the break, and when the water subsided it was found that 

the gap started at a point about 45 feet from the Maryland abutment and averaged 55 feet in width. The guard bank at the dam was little damaged, but the 

cross bank at the nearby stop lock was more seriously affected. Both approaches 

to Guard Lock No. 4 were destroyed. The lockhouse at Lock No. 41, which had 

withstood the 1889 freshet, was swept away. 

16. Extensive damage was caused by the flood at Williamsport. The carpenter shop 

was pushed down across the flume at Lock No. 44, and its floor had dropped 

out. The nearby corn shed had collapsed. All canal buildings, except for one old 

company house, were gone. The lockhouse at Lock No. 44 had been under water 

to within three feet of its eaves, but it was still standing. Just below the town, the 

house at Lock No. 43 and the Falling Waters Bridge were gone. 

17. Between Williamsport and Dam No. 5 there were no washouts, and the former 

company house on this level survived the storm. There was a large quantity of 

sand in the trunk at Miller’s Bend, and the bridge at Dam no. 5 was swept away. 

18. From Dam No. 5 to Big Pool there was considerable damage to the canal. The 

mule crossover bridge at Lock No. 46 was knocked into the trunk below. At 

Lock No. 47 the lockhouse, which had withstood the 1889 freshet, was destroyed. 

19. At Big Pool there were three large breaks in the embankments: one was 4 feet 

deep and 10 feet long near the railroad bridge; a second was from 1 to 5 feet 

deep from the waste way to the foot of the pool; and a third extended for a length 

of 35 feet and a depth of 10 feet around the stop lock. 

20. The wooden trunk that had been placed on Aqueduct No. 6 in the 1870s was 

nearly gone. 

21. The canal was heavily damaged in the vicinity of Round Top Cement Mill. 

There was one breach about 30 feet long and 3 to 4 feet below the bottom. 

Nearly two feet was washed off the towpath for a considerable distance. 

22. Approximately, one-half of Dam No, 6 was gone, while the sheeting of the remaining half was carried away. The lockhouses at Locks Nos. 53 and 55 were 

destroyed. 

23. The mule [s/b pedestrian?] bridge near Aqueduct No. 8 [Sideling Hill] was carried away, as was the berm side of the aqueduct itself. 

24. From Aqueduct No. 8 to Town Creek, the lockhouses at Locks Nos. 58, 59, 60, 

61 and 67, which had survived the 1889 freshet, were gone. The top of the towpath near the railroad bridge above Paw Paw Tunnel was washed off to a depth 

of two feet for a distance of 100 yards. The trunk on this section was filled with 

a sand bar three feet deep and 250 feet long. Some of the masonry on Aqueduct 

No. 10 was torn off and carried away. 

25. From Town Creek to Lock No. 72, there was considerable damage. The lockhouse at Lock No. 68 was undermined, and the chamber of Lock No. 71 and a 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 321 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

nearby waste weir were clogged with debris. There were two large breaks; one 

was 30 feet long and 8 feet below the trunk bottom, while the other was 25 feet 

long and 4 feet deep. The top of the towpath at Spring Gap was badly washed. 

The approach to the Patterson Creek Bridge was washed away to a depth of six 

feet for a distance of 25 feet. The pump house just below Lock No. 72 had 

bulged out toward the canal. 

26. Between Lock No. 75 and Cumberland, there were three heavy washes of the 

towpath in the vicinity of Wiley Ford Bridge, covering a total of 350 feet and 

varying from two to three feet in depth. There was one small break, some 20 feet 

wide and 2 feet below the bottom, at the head of Dougherty’s Widewater. The 

lockhouse at Lock No. 75 lost much of its foundation, and a combined culvertwaste weir 11⁄2 miles below Evitts Creek was choked with debris. The old stop 

lock below the Cumberland Basin was undermined by a 15-foot-wide and 3-

foot-deep washout on its towpath side. The concrete slab below Dam No. 8 was 

partially removed.179

Some repairs were effected on the canal after the flood waters subsided. The loose stone 

and rubble dam at Little Falls was restored so that the Georgetown business interests 

would have their necessary water supply. In addition the banks of the Georgetown Level 

were renovated, and trees, debris and mud were removed from the Little Falls Feeder. All 

told, these repairs were completed by early December at a cost of $25,460.05.180

 In the spring of 1936 the Potomac Edison Company was requested by the canal 

trustees to let a contract and to supervise the work of repairing Dam No. 4.181 The firm 

of Sanderson and Porter commenced the work on July 13. Among the repairs that were 

effected was the use of 595 cubic yards of “High-Early Strength” cement to close the 

break and the construction of a concrete cap-piece with a curved top over the entire dam. 

The latter project, which required 730 cubic yards of cement, was built to provide “a 

stream-lined effect” that would “discharge flood waters faster and back up flood waters 

less than the old angular ice-guards.”182

 

179 Wine to Nicolson, March 19 and April 10, 1936, Burgan to Nicolson, March 21, 24 & 30, 1936, Shivas 

to Nicolson, March 22, 1936, Everitts to Nicolson, March 25, 1936, Fisher to Nicolson, March 25, 1936, 

Sterling to Nicolson, [ca. March 30, 1936], and Anonymous Report to [Nicolson], [ca. April 1, 1936], Ltrs. 

Recd., Office of Trustees; Nicolson to Horton, December 19, 1936, and Nicolson to Preston, December 4, 

1936, Ltrs. Sent, Office of Trustees; and Martin J. Urner, Report on 1936 Repairs and Improvements at 

Dam No. 4, December 10, 1936 (Misc. Mss., Office of Trustees). 180 Nicolson to Preston, December 4, 1936, Ltrs. Sent, Office of Trustees. 181 The cause of the break in the dam was attributed to two theories. One theory was that the break started at 

the bottom of the dam. This idea was supported by the fact that the greatest amount of leakage had been at 

the section which failed for years and some subsidence at this point had been apparent. The second theory, 

which held that the break started at the top of the dam, was supported by three facts: a floating tree had 

been seen carrying away part of the structure’s crest; the February drift ice had removed some of the timber 

ice guards; and the solid rock ledge under the dam showed no signs of scarring or undermining. Since the 

masonry had been laid with soft lime mortar and the interior consisted of weaker rubble masonry, it was 

determined that the second theory was more plausible. Urner, Report on 1936 Repairs and Improvements at 

Dam No. 4, (Misc. Mss., Office of Trustees). 182 Ibid. 
322 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

IV. CONCLUSION 

One of the principal reasons for the collapse of the canal was the recurrence of great floods which 

repeatedly wrecked the waterway. The forces of nature were continually at work tearing down the 

physical fabric of the waterway and interfering with its trade. Despite the fact that most of the 

canal was in the flood plain of the Potomac, approximately 90 percent of it was built above the 

normal annual high-water level of the river. Yet a heavy rain or a small freshet at any time was 

likely to wash sand bars into the waterway, cause land or rock slides, undermine culverts, and 

cause breaches in the embankments. The canal company was never able to cope effectively with 

these natural occurrences. The most careful and expensive preparations would be undone in several days by a freak storm or by an abnormal rise in the river caused by melting snow, thawing 

ice, or heavy rain. 

 The worst of all the destructive forces of nature were the periodic Floods in the Potomac 

Valley. As the area became deforested and more and more ground was cleared for cultivation and 

settlement, the run-off became greater and swifter. Simultaneously, the Potomac was filling up as 

a result of the silt deposits in its bed, and the canal and the railroads were encroaching on the river 

channel at many points, particularly at the narrow passes of the stream. As a result of these developments, the major floods in the valley occurred more frequently, reached increasingly higher 

levels, and caused greater destructiveness. This emerging pattern can be seen in the substantial 

freshets of 1836, 1843, 1846, 1847, 1852, 1857, 1861, 1862, 1865, 1866, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1877, 

1886 and 1889.Repairs and improvements to the waterway based on the experience of earlier disasters proved insufficient to withstand the ever higher crests that swept down the river. Particularly was this true at those places along the canal that proved to be most susceptible to the ravages 

of the river—Dam No. 6, Dam No. 5, Williamsport, Dam No. 4, Shepherdstown, Harpers Ferry, 

Sandy Hook, Point of Rocks, Edwards Ferry, Dam No. 2, Great Falls, Widewater, Dam No. 1 and 

Rock Creek Basin. On top of everything else, the floods were completely irregular and unpredictable. 

 The great floods of 1877, 1886 and 1889 occurred at a most inopportune time. The canal 

company was hard pressed financially; it was meeting the most severe competition in its history 

from the railroads; and it faced the necessity of undertaking an extensive program of improvements. The floods struck the waterway a heavy blow on all three points. They reduced company 

income and increased expenses, rendered its transportation services highly irregular and unreliable, and forced the suspension of the program of improvements. The canal never recovered. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 323 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

APPENDIX A 

DESCRIPTION OF NOVEMBER 1877 FLOOD AT CUMBERLAND 

“The effects of the storm of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th of November, 1877, were more severe in Cumberland than ever before known, except perhaps in 1810....The one great point of interest and 

occasion of alarm, however, was the canal-bank at the foot of Canal Street. About an hour after 

the great rise in Will’s Creek water was noticed trickling through the bank, and at once measures 

were taken to stop the leak, but little success attended the efforts at first. Finally, after a short 

consultation, it was decided to use a different method to secure the bank, which proved successful 

and allayed the growing excitement of the people. The extent of the averted disaster may be 

imagined when it is known that the surface of the water, which was within a few inches of the top 

of the bank, was nearly on a level with the pavement in front of the Ocean City Hotel. The west 

side of Will’s Creek was inundated by the waters of the Potomac, which was higher than ever 

before known. In South Cumberland many houses were inundated with from six inches to three 

feet of water...The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad sustained great damages, their wires being torn 

down for miles, trestles washed out and bridges destroyed, which caused a delay of trains for several days. The Cumberland and Pennsylvania also suffered heavy loss. A number of trestles between Ocean and Westernport were washed out, and the tracks badly damaged in some places. 

The business of the inundated portion of Cumberland was suspended until the waters subsided.”1

 

1

 Excerpted from Scharf, History of Western Maryland, 

 Vol. II, 1390. 
324 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

APPENDIX B 

DESCRIPTION OF NOVEMBER 1877 FLOOD IN WASHINGTON COUNTY 

The water in the Potomac during the great flood of 1852, according to a mark at Embrey’s warehouse in Williamsport, was three-quarters of an inch higher than the flood of 1877 reached, but 

this mark is not looked upon as accurate, and according to all other marks the water rose higher in 

the latter year than in the former. Along the entire line of the river great damage was done; not 

only fencing, grain, hay, fodder, stock and lumber being swept away, but several houses, and 

quite a number of stables, hog-pens, chicken-coops and different sorts of outhouses were seen 

passing down the river at Williamsport and other points. Many visitors from Hagerstown and the 

surrounding country were in Williamsport on Sunday, viewing the surging river and watching the 

debris brought down with the flood. At Embrey’s and Cushwa’s warehouse the damage was but 

slight, but Mr. S. Culbertson, on the west side of the Conococheague, lost between forty and sixty 

thousand feet of lumber. 

 At the junction of the Conococheague and the Potomac there was a vast lake, covering 

canal, aqueduct and everything except the tops of the trees. Ardinger’s mill was in the middle of 

the Conococheague, and the water was pouring into the windows of the upper story, leaving but a 

few feet of the stone walls visible between the waters and the eaves of the roof. The stone bridge 

at this point and the aqueduct on the canal were submerged, but not materially injured. The most 

serious damage near Williamsport was the injury done to the Cumberland Valley Railroad 

Bridge. The superstructure of this costly work went about five o’clock on Sunday afternoon. Its 

danger was appreciated, and six car-loads of coal, railroad and pig iron were sent out from 

Hagerstown to hold down the capping of the bridge and track. T. J. Nill, the agent there, accompanied the train, and it was run to the Virginia side, which was in greatest danger, and there stationed. But a slight space remained between the surface of the stream and the track on the bridge, 

so that its destruction by the heavy bodies coming down the stream was inevitable. Three canalboats in turn, which had broken loose from Williamsport, struck the bridge. Two passed under 

and went down the stream, while the other blocked the stream. Then came an immense float of 

drift-wood, which cut off a large willow tree as with a knife, and, striking the bridge with a concussion which sounded like a discharge of artillery, and was heard in Williamsport, bore off with 

it the whole superstructure save only that which spanned the canal, and the canal-boat which was 

held in suspense was thus released and went down the stream with the moving mass. At this juncture it was Mr. Nill’s good fortune to escape in a manner that may be termed miraculous. He was 

the last upon the bridge, some fifteen or twenty men having just left it, when he saw the impending danger and started in a run for the Maryland side. The first concussion knocked his feet from 

under him and he fell; but recovering just as the portion of the bridge behind him was swept 

away, and whilst that upon which he ran was coiling up and moving under his feet, he succeeded 

in reaching the shore uninjured, and almost at the instant the bridge disappeared. The leading officials of the road, President Kennedy, General Superintendent Lull and General Agent Boyd 

were all present on the bridge a few minutes before it went down, with fifteen or twenty other 

persons. A little engine had been trying to haul out the canal-boat that had lodged to the Virginia 

shore, but without effect. Col. Kennedy and Col. Lull had walked off towards the Maryland side, 

leaving Gen. Boyd and Mr. Nill. The former started a few minutes before the latter, and was 

about fifty yards ahead of him when he saw the drift approaching and started in the manner above 

described. 

 Only a small portion of the fine “Dam No. 4,” the best on the river, having cost almost a 

half-million dollars, was washed away. This dam was between the Cumberland Valley bridge and 

the Shepherdstown bridge, one span of which was washed away. This span was one of four, each 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 325 

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

one hundred and fifty feet long, and was secured and made fast some distance below. A canalboat loaded with coal, belonging to George McCann, was the first to strike this bridge, and was 

followed by two others, which were empty, belonging to Lawson Poffenberger and Mr. Boyer. 

 These were the first boats to strike the Harper’s Ferry iron bridge, which was supposed 

for some time to have been in great danger, but withstood the terrific shocks and pressure brought 

against it in a wonderful manner, it having been struck by no less than fifteen canal-boats, besides 

the Powell’s Bend bridge, houses, logs and all kind of floating missiles. Mr. Ways, agent of the 

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, stated that but a single span of the bridge—that over the 

current—was affected, and that only in the bending of some of the irons. 

 The damage to the canal was very great, causing the suspension of its operation for the 

season. The locks at Harper’s Ferry and several other locks were washed out and greatly damaged. From Sandy Hook past Harper’s Ferry, a distance of four miles, the tow-path was wholly 

destroyed. 

 In places the bed of the canal was filled with mud, and all the locks were choked up with 

accumulations of various kinds. The canal company’s buildings were all of them either damaged 

or washed away, and the total injury to the property of the company amounted to five hundred 

thousand dollars. The only fatal disaster in Washington County was the drowning of Charles Little, of Hancock, which took place Saturday evening below Dam No. 4, below Williamsport. Mr. 

Little, who was a boatman, was proceeding up the canal. When the water got deep on the towpath his driver refused to go any further. Mr. Little got on one of the mules to drive. In a short 

time the current was too strong, the mules were swept down in the flood, and Mr. Little was 

drowned. The two mules scrambled to the bank, some distance below, and were saved. 

 At Powell’s Bend, opposite Falling Waters, the dwelling-house of Andrew Pope, a well 

known farmer of that neighborhood, was taken up, carried away, and deposited upon the land of 

one of his neighbors. David Straw, of the same vicinity, lost a corn-crib. Mrs. Louisa Davis, another neighbor, lost seventy-five barrels of corn, a buggy, sleigh and other articles. The house of 

John Snyder, a small building, was carried away, as also was a small house owned by John H. 

Gattrell, and occupied by a man named Price. Mr. Gattrell’s saw-mill was also injured, and was 

moved four inches. Everything between the canal and the river, from Williamsport to Hancock, 

that could be carried off by the storm was swept away, and the canal and railroad were greatly 

damaged. The upper part of Hancock was under water, and along the flats and slopes beyond that 

town many houses were swept away. All the bridges between Hancock and Indian Spring on the 

turnpike were carried off or rendered impassable. The Antietam rose to a point higher than was 

ever before known. Bridges were destroyed all along the line of the creek—among them the one 

at the Forks, midway between Leitersburg and Waynesboro, Pa., and the one at the Little Antietam, near Hartle’s. Among the numerous losses suffered along this stream were the washing 

away of Mr. Walter’s stable, the partial destruction of Fisby M. Stouffer’s saw-mill, and the 

washing away of outhouses, fences, etc. The substantial bridge over the Antietam on the National 

road was not injured, but the other bridge, built by the county over this stream at Funkstown, was 

materially damaged. At Rose’s paper-mill, an old frame structure sixty feet long, used as a 

bleach-house, was washed away. 

 At the Roxbury mill the whole dam was swept away and the stone bridge injured. A portion of the dam at Myer’s mill was also destroyed. The Antietam Iron Works, at which every 

preparation had been made by the Messrs. Ahl for starting work, were damaged to the extent of 

several thousand dollars, about eight hundred tons of coke having been washed away. The Conococheague, like the Antietam, rose to a higher point than had ever been reached before, but except 
326 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 6. Floods 1829–1936 

the damage done at Williamsport no great loss was suffered, the principal injury being the washing away of fences and fodder, and the submerging of the lower stories of buildings.2

 

2

 Excerpted from Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1201–1202. 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

7. 

BOATS AND 

NAVIGATION 

REGULATIONS 

ON THE C & O CANAL 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 329

Unrau: 7. Boats & Navigation Regulations 

CONTENTS 

I. BOATS ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1830–1924 331 

 A. C&O CANAL BOATS: 1830–1850 331 

1. SEARCH FOR A SUITABLE BOAT 331 

2. TYPE OF BOATS THAT NAVIGATED THE CANAL 336 

3. FORMAL COMMENCEMENT AND OPERATION 

 OF PACKET SERVICE 337 

4. RENEWED INTEREST IN STEAM NAVIGATION 341 

5. PROVISIONS FOR THE REPAIR OF BOATS 345 

 B. C&O CANAL BOATS: 1851–1889 346 

 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL 346 

 2. TOPICS OF SPECIAL CONCERN 356 

 C. C&O CANAL BOATS: 1889–1924 361 

 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL 361 

 2. GOVERNMENT OWNED COAL BARGES DURING 

 WORLD WAR I 363 

II. REGULATIONS FOR NAVIGATING THE CHESAPEAKE 

 & OHIO CANAL: 1830–1924 364 

 A. REGULATIONS FOR 1830–1835 364 

 B. REGULATIONS FOR 1835–1850 372 

 C. REGULATIONS FOR 1851–1889 377 

 D. REGULATIONS FOR 1889–1924 398 

APPENDIXES 399 

 A. SIDE VIEW AND PLAN OF THE SWIFT 399 

 B. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF THE SWIFT, JULY 9, 1830 400 

 C. SIDE VIEW AND PLAN OF THE LORD DUNDAS IRON TWIN BOAT 403 

 D. PLAN AND DRAWING OF THE CYCLOPS 404 

 E. DRAWINGS OF AN IRON STEAMBOAT 405 

 F. DRAWINGS OF A CANAL STEAMER 406 

 G. SPECIFICATION OF A LIGHT IRON PASSAGE BOAT 407 

 H. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTS ON THE NAVIGATION OF THE 

 CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL BY STEAMBOAT LEWIS, 

 SEPTEMBER 22, 1883 411 
330 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 

 Unrau: 7. Boats & Navigation Regulations 

I. EXTRACT FROM AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

 OF MARYLAND DECEMBER 1831 420 

 J. ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED JULY 14, 1882 422 

 K. DRAWINGS OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL FREIGHTER 423 

 L. ACCOUNT OF LIFE ON A CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL BOAT 424 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 331 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

I. BOATS ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1830–1924 

A. BOATS ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1830–1850 

1. SEARCH FOR A SUITABLE BOAT DESIGN 

The first reference to boats in the canal company records occurred on June 26, 1828, about one 

week before the groundbreaking ceremonies. On that date, the canal board determined that a boat 

be provided with suitable furniture and awnings to facilitate the survey and location of 

the line of the proposed canal, and for the use of the President and Directors and the 

Chief Engineer and his Assistants in the execution and superintendence of the said canal 

Walter Smith, one of the directors, was authorized to contract for such a boat and to provide for 

its safekeeping and maintenance.1

At the first annual meeting of the company stockholders in June 1829, President Mercer 

implied that the board had agreed upon the minimum dimensions for the canal boats. The general 

plan of the boats was to be similar to that used for the craft on the Erie and the Ohio and Erie Canals. They were to be at least 131⁄2 feet wide and have a draft of 3 feet. The prow of the boats was 

to be rectangular, and the sides and the bottom of the boat were to conform accordingly, thus 

making the cross-section of the vessel 40.5 square feet. The rate of traveling speed was to be approximately 21⁄2 miles per hour. 

Beyond these practical considerations, Mercer voiced the dreams of the board that 

Should the confident hope inspired by intelligence, recently received from the canals of 

Europe, as well as of the United States, be confirmed, and it be found practicable to substitute, on this canal, the application of steam, for animal labor, as its propelling power, 

its...surface will favor alike economy of transportation and the comfort of the traveler...Boats of elevated cabins and double decks, propelled by steam; well countervail, by 

a velocity of seven or eight miles an hour, the transient suspension of their motion by the 

locks; and by supplying the wants of every description of passengers, will afford at the 

same time, cheap accommodation to the needy and multiplied enjoyments to the rich.2

The canal company records are silent on the subject of boats until February 3, 1830, when Chief 

Engineer Benjamin Wright submitted his recommendations for a boat design to President Charles 

F. Mercer. Wright suggested that the boats should be 90 feet long and 14 1⁄2 feet wide, as this 

would be the maximum size of craft that could take advantage of the canal’s lock chambers (100 

feet long and 15 feet wide). The boats should have a draft of 5 feet to take advantage of the 6-foot 

depth of the waterway. Such a boat would displace water equal to 5,460 cubic feet or 152 tons 

and 820 pounds. Since the boats would weigh approximately 22 tons and 820 pounds when they 

were empty, the design would permit the boats to carry a maximum cargo of 130 tons. When the 

canal was in full operation, he was certain that the draft of the boats could be increased slightly so 

that they could carry cargoes of up to 150 tons. Despite the fact that he submitted a sketch (no 

 

1 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 7. It is probable that the packet Charles F. Mercer, completed two years later, was the boat acquired pursuant to this action of the board. On September 21, 1830, William 

Easby, a well-known boat builder in Washington, sent a bill for the construction of the Charles F. Mercer to the company the details of which may be seen on page 8. Easby to Mercer, September 21, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 2 First Annual Report (1829), C&O Co., 12–18, 16. 
332 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

longer extant) to accompany his recommended boat design, Wright concluded that he did not 

wish to be misunderstood that he approved of this design as the most economical for use on the 

canal. On the contrary, he was convinced that boats carrying from 50 to 70 tons would be the best 

size for canal navigation, a notion no doubt emanating from his experiences on the Erie and 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canals. 

Wright went on to discuss the design and velocity of passenger boats. Such craft would 

not vary much in their cross sections from that of the cargo-carrying boats. However they should 

be built lighter and have 6 to 8 inches more keel. They should be built so as not to draw more 

than 10 inches of water exclusive of the keel, and they should have sharper bows and cleaner runs 

in the stern. Four horses could pull these packets at a speed of 7 miles per hour, or three horses 

could pull them at a velocity of 6 miles per hour. Passage through a lock for such a boat should 

average between 2 to 3 minutes. While a small steam engine could be placed in the boats with a 

wheel in the stern to increase the velocity, he was certain that this was not practicable since the 

engine would take up considerable space and would create too much heat in warm weather for the 

comfort of the passengers.3

On February 5 the board ordered Clerk John P. Ingle to advertise for a boat design 

“suited to the navigation of the Canal both with and without steam power.” Proposals were also to 

be solicited for constructing the boats and a suitable steam engine.4

Within three weeks the Baltimore firm of Alexander Cummins and Andrew Armstrong 

made an offer to build boats and steam engines for the canal company. Cummins and Armstrong 

recently had constructed two boats having dimensions of 90 feet in length, 15 feet beam, 3 feet 

hold, and 8 to 10 inches draft for the Citizen’s Canal Line between Baltimore and Philadelphia. 

As the boats were still at their plant, they invited the company officials to make a personal inspection of their craft.5

Apparently, the canal officials were not interested in the offer of Cummins and Armstrong because the company records reveal no further communication relative to their proposal. 

Later on March 13, the directors authorized President Mercer to request Commodore John Rodgers to submit a plan for a canal boat.6

By early October 1830 the board was anxious to complete its search for an acceptable 

boat design as the canal between Little Falls and Seneca Falls was about to be opened for navigation. One boat (of undetermined description) traversed this entire distance on an experimental run 

on October 1.7

 Three days later the board, having heard that a passenger boat called the Swift had 

been constructed on the Forth and Clyde Canal in Scotland which was faster and yet less injurious 

to the canal banks than the boats commonly in use, appointed Phineas Janney, one of the direc-

 

3

 Wright to Mercer, February 3, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

4 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, p.23. 5

 Cummins and Armstrong to Ingle, February 25, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 6

 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 43. Born at Lower Susquehanna Ferry (now Havre de 

Grace), Maryland in 1773, Rodgers was the son of a Scottish emigrant who served as an officer in the Maryland militia 

during the Revolution. After spending eleven years in the merchant service, President John Adams appointed him second lieutenant on board the Constellation on March 8, 1798, during the naval war with France. He participated in the 

wars with the Barbary pirates from 1802 to 1806, and as a result of a war-scare growing out of the affair involving the 

Chesapeake and the Leopard, he was placed in command of the New York flotilla and naval station in July 1807. In the 

War of 1812 he was the ranking officer in active service, and he took part in cruises extending to the east coast of Spain 

and in the defense of Washington and Baltimore. In 1815 President James Madison appointed him to head the newly 

created Board of Navy Commissioners, authorized by Congress to administer the navy material. Six years later he became the senior officer of the navy and in 1823 he served for a time as secretary of the navy ad interim. He remained a 

commissioner until 1837 when he resigned because of ill health, partly the result of a cholera attack. Dictionary of 

American Biography, Vol. XVI, 75–77. There is no record of whether Rodgers submitted the requested sketch. If it was 

sent to the board, the drawing and other pertinent material is no longer extant. 7

 Van Slyke to Board of Directors, October 2, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 333 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

tors, to determine if this were true. Should he find the rumor to be correct, he was to obtain drawings and specifications of the boat so that it could be built for use on the canal.8

Upon examination of the available information on the Swift, Janney found that the boat 

was 60 feet long, 8 feet 6 inches wide, twin built, and fitted to carry 50 to 60 passengers. The 

width of its center trough (extending longitudinally down the middle of the boat) was 2 feet 6 

inches at the low, 22 inches at amidships, and 3 feet 6 inches at the stern. It was gig-built, light 

timbered, and weighed about 2,700 pounds. 

Janney also acquired a copy of the book Remarks on Canal Navigation (1831) by William Fairbairn, a Scottish engineer involved with Thomas Grahame in experiments testing the 

seaworthiness of the Swift on its maiden voyage between Glasgow and Edinburgh on July 7–9, 

1830. According to Fairbairn, the Swift averaged 6 to 12 miles per hour on its 113-mile journey. 

Furthermore, it appeared that 

when she moved through the water, at the rate of six or seven miles per hour, there was a 

great swell or wave constantly in her front, and she was followed by a strong surge or 

wave, bearing against the bank of the canal. At these times, the hauling rope was tight, 

and the horses appeared to be distressed. But as the speed was increased, the wave or 

swelling of water in her front sunk down; and when the speed came to be about nine 

miles per hour, the swell entirely disappeared; the waters in her front became smooth and 

level; the hauling rope slackened; and the horses seemed easy, and little or no surge was 

to be seen on the banks behind the vessel. 

There appears, therefore, no reason to fear, that the banks of canals can ever be 

hurt, by increasing the speed of boats to the utmost attainable height. . .9

The results of Janney’s research on the Swift apparently impressed the company officials. In the 

Third Annual Report of the company in June 1831, President Mercer quoted extensively from 

Fairbairn’s observations, and in a special report to Congress relative to the progress of the canal 

submitted on April 17, 1834, Mercer again devoted considerable space to the experiments made 

on British canals.10

While Janney was conducting his study of the Scottish experiments, the canal between 

Locks Nos. 5 and 23 rapidly became a busy thoroughfare. By mid-November 1830, it was reported that numerous boats had passed over this distance.11 The following month it was reported 

that 45 boats passed through Locks Nos. 17–20 in one day.12 While there is no available information concerning the physical description of these boats, it can be assumed that they were of various types and sizes. 

During this period the directors undertook an experiment to see how quickly a boat could 

pass through the locks. It was found that the fastest passage through a lock took 21⁄2 minutes, 

while the average time was slightly less than 3 minutes. The boat used for the experiment was 75 

feet long and 11 feet 8 inches wide.13

 

8 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 194–195. 

9 William Fairbairn, Remarks on Canal Navigation (London, 1831), 25–27, 88. A copy of the side view and plan of the 

Swift may be seen in Appendix A, and a copy of the experimental results during the trip of the Swift may be seen in 

Appendix B. 

10 Third Annual Report (1831), C&O Co., in Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 152–159, and U. S., Congress, 

House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, H. Rept. 414, 23 Cong., 1st Sess., 1834, 377–

378. 

11 Second Annual Report (1830), C&O Co., 32. 

12 Frederick Town Herald, January 15, 1831. 

13 Niles’ Register, Vol. XXXIX (November 27, 1830), 8. 
334 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Early in the spring of 1831 the canal navigation was opened one mile below Lock No. 5 

and within two months it was further extended another mile, thus permitting navigation within 

several hundred yards of the boundary of Georgetown. Soon a “passage boat” was carrying 

United States mail daily between Georgetown and Seneca “in connection with two lines of public 

stages, which pass over to Leesburg, in Virginia, crossing the Potomac, at Edward’s Ferry.”14

Sometime during the spring of 1831 a packet service was begun on the canal between 

Little Falls and Seneca Falls. In May two articles appeared in the National Intelligencer and 

Niles’ Register describing the packet boat and the trip up the canal to Great Falls as follows: 

It is not easy to imagine a more delightful excursion for pleasure at this season of the 

year, than that in the canal packet boat to the falls, or even to Seneca. The boat is very 

handsomely fitted and furnished for the service it is employed in....The hands at some of 

the locks are not as dexterous in the management of them, perhaps, as longer practice will 

make them. The passenger who is not on his guard, may chance thus to get a jolt or two; 

but as this involves no danger he will not regard it. The bridges over the canal are few; 

and a moderate inclination of the body enables those who stand on the roof, (or deck), of 

the boat to pass under them; whilst those who remain in the cabin are as much at ease and 

as comfortable as if they were in their parlors or drawing rooms at home. The packet-boat 

is drawn by three horses, at the rate of six miles an hour whilst in motion. The passage of 

the locks of course causes some detention, but we made the whole passage to the falls, 

with about seventy persons on board, in less than four hours.15

At the third annual meeting of the stockholders in June 1831 the General Committee was authorized to “enquire into the practicability and expediency of introducing a steam boat navigation” on 

the canal and on the Potomac River.16 While the canal company records do not indicate the reasons that this decision was made, similar experiments were already underway on other American 

canals and Fairbairn’s book on canal navigation probably was a factor as he described four experimental steam-powered canal boats either already operating or under construction for use on 

the Forth and Clyde Canal. His descriptions of the four models were as follows: 

TWIN STEAM BOAT 

Whole length—68 feet 

Breadth on beam—11 feet, 6 inches 

Depth—4 feet, 6 inches 

Width of tunnel or wheel-trough—3 feet, 10 inches. This wheel-trough extends longitudinally down the middle of the boat;—it is made wider at each end, in order to facilitate the supply and escapement of water from the paddle wheel. 

Depth of tunnel—3 feet, 6 inches 

Steam engine—10 horses’ power, which it is intended shall give from 50 to 60 strokes, or 

thereabouts, per minute. 

Diameter of paddle wheel—9 feet 

Whole weight, including engine, paddle-wheel, & c.—7 tons, 16 cwt. 

Draft of water—16 inches. 

 

14 Third Annual Report (1831), C&O Co., 5. 15 Washington National Intelligencer quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. XL (May 21, 1831), 206. 16 Third Annual Report (1831), in Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 179. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 335 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

CYCLOPS 

Whole length—68 feet 

Breadth on beam—15 feet, 6 inches 

Depth—about 7 feet, 3 inches from the keel to the deck 

Weight, including engine, boiler, fittings, & c.—about 38 tons 

Steam engine—14 horses’ power 

Plan—American, based on steam boat plying Mississippi River at New Orleans 

Draft of water—4 feet, 6 inches aft and 1 1⁄2 inches forward (when lightly loaded) 

IRON STEAM BOAT 

Whole length—68 feet 

Breadth on beam—15 feet 

Depth from keel to deck—8 feet 

Steam engine—24 horses’ power, having two cylinders on the locomotive principle: paddle wheels, each 11 feet diameter, and 3 feet wide 

Weight, including paddle wheels, engine, & c.—22 tons, 12 cwt., 9 lbs. 

Carrying cargo—50 tons 

Draft of water—3 feet, 9 inches 

Material—strong iron ribs and plate sheeting about 1/4 inch thick 

CANAL STEAMER 

Whole length—88 feet 

Breadth of beam—20 feet 

Depth from keel to deck—9 feet 

Steam engine (high pressure)—60 horses’ power, having two cylinders as per plan 

Paddle-wheels—12 feet diameter each and 4 feet wide 

Whole weight, including steam engine, paddle wheels, rigging, stores, & c.—46 tons, 4 

cwt., 3 qrs. 

Carrying cargo—116 tons 

Draft of water—4 feet, 6 inches.17

Although the stockholders’ General Committee investigated the possibilities of introducing steam 

navigation on the waterway, the directors disapproved of the idea. On July 16, 1831, the board 

adopted regulations for the navigation of the canal which specifically excluded the use of steam 

boats on the waterway by stating that “every boat or float, navigating the Canal after the 15th day 

of August next, shall be propelled by a towing line drawn by men or horses.”18

BILL FOR CONSTRUCTING THE CHARLES F. MERCER 

Labor, 588 days work $747.30 

Lumber, knees, etc. 441.00 

Hardware 125.00 

Painting 219.00 

Smiths bills 48.94 

Freight of timber in from Alexandria 12.00 

 

17 Fairbairn, Remarks on Canal Navigation, 31, 89–93. Copies of drawings of the four boats may be seen in Appendices C, D, E, and E-1 respectively.

18 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 410.
336 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Sundries 12.45 

Superintendence 147.00

 $1,752.69 

The Charles F. Mercer was later leased to W. W. Fenlon to use as a packet. Fenlon was appointed lock tender at Locks Nos. 19–20, and he later operated Crommelin House as a tavernhotel for tourists.19 

2. TYPE OF BOATS THAT NAVIGATED CANAL 

There are no drawings, specifications, or detailed descriptions of the early boats that plied the 

canal. However, a general picture of the various craft can be gathered from the regulations established by the board, numerous complaints of violations of those rules, and, in a few cases, brief 

newspaper and periodical account. 

According to the regulations for navigating the canal adopted by the board on July 16, 

1831, all boats or floats were to be propelled by a towing line drawn by men or horses. They were 

to be furnished with strapping or snubbing lines for passage through the locks without damaging 

them. Iron shod or sharp-pointed setting poles were not to be used in navigation. Boats traveling 

at night were required to have a light on the bow and rafts, gondolas, or scows were to have the 

light at the forward end of the bow. Square-headed or sharp-covered boats, such as scows and 

gondolas, were to have a semicircular platform firmly fastened upon each end so as to save other 

craft and the canal prism and masonry from injury by contact with the corners. The rudders on the 

boat were to be constructed in such a manner that they would not interfere with or cut the towing 

rope of a passing boat. No raft or tow of timber was to consist of more than eight cribs; if they 

were comprised of more than one crib, they were to be joined so that they could conform to the 

curvatures of the canal banks and could glide past them without rubbing.20

In addition to the by-laws concerning the design and operation of the boats on the canal, 

the directors classified the craft into four general categories. These boat classifications were as 

follows: 

1. Packet boats—designed for passenger transportation only 

2. Freight boats—designed for passage and freight 

3. Scows—large, flat-bottomed boats having broad square ends 

4. Gondolas—long, narrow, flat-bottomed boats with a high prow and stern.21

Despite the passage of the regulations and the lengthy search of the board to find suitable designs 

for boats, the quality of the boats operating on the canal quickly became a point of particular 

grievance to the company officials. No one appeared to be willing or able to undertake to fulfill 

the directors’ dreams of steamers and double-decked packets plying the waterway at speeds up to 

8 miles per hour.22 In fact, the boatmen were reluctant to meet even the minimum requirements of 

the regulations. Complaints were frequently made of iron-shod boats, leaky scows, drifting rafts, 

and sunken wrecks obstructing navigation.23 By the enforcement of the regulations, the provision 

of drydocks, the assessment of fines, and by other devices the company sought to drive undesir-

 

19 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 455; C, p.7. 20 Ibid, B, 410–419. 21 Ibid. 22 First Annual Report (1829), 16. 23 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 30, and Young to Ingle, October 25, 1838, and Stone to 

Ringgold, June 6, 1847. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 337 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

able craft off the waterway and to encourage the construction of new and larger boats. In this they 

were partly successful, assisted by the growing demands of the trade, as the size of the boats increased steadily. The directors also levied a rate discrimination of 100 percent against rafts in 

April 1835.24

By the spring of 1835 larger and better-built boats were plying the canal. On April 11, 

1835, the Williamsport Banner reported that the “first regularly formed boat, which has entered 

the canal at its head (Dam No. 5),” had arrived in the basin there. Named the Lady Washington, it 

had a capacity of some 800 barrels of flour. The boat was a “handsomely decorated and ‘trim 

built’ craft, with a cabin roof of white with red hangings painted upon it.”25

In May 1835 the canal company determined to solicit plans for building boats and scows 

that were needed on the canal. One of the results of this effort was a specification for scows, 

which appears in the company records of 1836.26 Nevertheless, the lumber trade and the incidental trade of the farmers, who built their own craft designed to last for only one trip (usually to be 

sold at Georgetown for firewood), made the struggle for better boats a never ending one.27

SPECIFICATION FOR A SCOW 

Length 80 ft., breadth at bottom 13 1⁄2, at top 14 ft., depth 40 inches from out to out sides 

7 1⁄2 inches thick at bottom 4 1⁄2 at top and not exceeding two pieces in depth or two in 

length of yellow heart pine. 

18 floor timbers, 4 x 6 inches white oak 

2 head pieces 10 by 10 inches white oak 

3 Kelsons 6 x 8 inches white oak 

3 deck stringers 6 by 8 inches white oak supported by stanchions 

18 knees on each side 6 inches by 8 of white oak 

Deck and bottom of 2 inch yellow pine 

Plates of iron 4 in. by 3/8 on the rakes each plate 9 feet in length 

The rake 6 feet measured horizontally 

The deck to raise in the center 3 inches 

5 inch spikes—3 to be used at each end of each plank 

and 2 at each intermediate support 

The four angles of the boat to be well braced 

A sufficient pump.” 

The whole to be done in a workmanlike manner and to be completed and delivered in the 

basin of Rock Creek on or before the day of 1836. 

3. FORMAL COMMENCEMENT AND OPERATION OF PACKET SERVICE 

Although packet service had been commenced on the canal in the spring of 1831, it was not until 

July of that year that formal authority was granted for such an operation. On July 1, 1831, permis-

 

24 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D. 284–285. 25 Williamsport Banner, April 11, 1835. 26 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 307–308, 320–321. A copy of this specification may be 

seen on the following page. 

27 Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (Baltimore 1946), 

187–188.
338 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

sion was granted to the proprietors of the packet boats, George Washington and Tyber, to navigate the canal subject to the charges and regulations of the company.28 As part of the regulations 

for navigating the canal passed by the board on July 16 Rule 27 made the following stipulations 

for packet service: 

No boat shall be used as a Packet Boat on said Canal, unless specially licensed therefore, 

which license shall give to the said Boat the privilege of carrying passengers to and from 

any point on said Canal, between the Basin at Georgetown (water was not admitted into 

the canal through Georgetown to Rock Creek Basin until September 19) and Rushville: 

and the owner or master of said Packet Boat shall pay for every trip up or down between 

said Basin and Rushville, or any intermediate points, the sum of one dollar and fifty 

cents, which sum shall be paid weekly to such Collector as may be authorized to receive 

the same, and on any failure to pay the said sum, or fraudulent return by the owner, master, or other person having charge of the said Boat, of the number of voyages made in the 

week by said Boat, its license shall be forfeited.29

Ten days later the board authorized Clerk Ingle to grant licenses to W. W. Fenlon, L. M. Offutt, 

and Charles Embrey, the owners or operators of the packet boats Charles Fenton Mercer, George 

Washington and Lafayette, respectively. At the same time, the Collector of Tolls at Little Falls 

was authorized to collect tolls from all packets plying the waterway.30 

Advertisements in Georgetown newspapers indicate that great efforts were made by the 

packet proprietors to commence an active excursion business. One such advertisement inserted in 

the Columbian Gazette by L. M. Offutt noted that the George Washington made daily runs from 

Frederick Street Bridge in Georgetown to Great Falls, leaving the former at 8:00 a. m. and returning “at, or before sunset.” The fare was 50 cents per passenger for a round trip, and the excursion 

included dinner at Crommelin House. 

An advertisement inserted in the same newspaper by Thomas Thorpe the agent for the 

Lafayette, informed the readers that the packet would accommodate 100 people without crowding 

and afforded room for twenty couples “in a cotillion at a time.” The boat made runs between 

Georgetown and Great Falls for the fare of $1.00 per passenger. Dinner could be purchased on 

board, the excursion parties could provide their own food, or dinner could be eaten at Crommelin 

House.31

Although there are few eye-witness accounts of the packet trips to Great Falls by passengers or crew, one such glimpse does appear in the writings of Edward Thomas Cole, an Englishman who visited the Potomac Valley during the summer of 1832. Describing his excursion up the 

canal on one of the daily packets, he wrote that 

the traveling was most delightful. I was the only passenger, and there was a neat, wellfurnished cabin about 50 feet long by 14 broad. We were drawn by three horses at the 

rate of five miles an hour, a huge negro riding on the beast, and driving the other horses 

before him with a long whip, which he flourished and cracked most adroitly.32

 

28 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 402. 29 Ibid, B, 416–417. 30 Ibid, B, 434. 31 Georgetown Columbian Gazette, July 3, 21, 1832. 32 Edward Thomas Cole, A Subaltern’s Furlough: Descriptive of Scenes in Various Parts of the United States, Upper 

and Lower Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, During the Summer and Autumn of 1832 (London, 1833), 115–

116. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 339 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

There are no records indicating the number of passengers actually carried on the packets, but 

there is evidence that the packet trade was generally unprofitable. On September 16, 1831, the toll 

on packet boats was reduced to $1.00 per trip as a means of encouraging the languishing service.33 The following summer on July 3, the Columbian Gazette reported that the Lafayette would 

be sold at public auction after July 4.34 On July 21 the last advertisement, which was greatly reduced in size compared to earlier entries, appeared in the Columbian Gazette for the George 

Washington.

35 Only the Charles F. Mercer appears to have continued operating as a packet, but 

as there is no available documentation on its service it is impossible to assess its profitability.36

After a period of time in which the packet service on the canal nearly came to an end, 

William Easby on April 27, 1833, sent a proposal to the company for the construction of a sheetiron packet. The proposal was referred to Directors John J. Abert and William Gunton, and they 

promptly requested information from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, which was 

experimenting with such a boat on its waterway.37 Apparently, the directors were satisfied with 

the experimental results on the Chesapeake and Delaware, because, when Easby submitted a second proposal to the board on September 13 to build a sheet-iron packet, Gunton and Walter 

Smith, a fellow director, were authorized to negotiate a contract for its construction.38 Another 

reason for their acceptance of Easby’s proposal at this time was the fact that water would be admitted to the canal between Dams Nos. 2 and 3 by November 1, and they were anxious to have a 

packet service established between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry by the spring of 1834.39

While Easby was building the packet at his boatyard in Washington, company officials 

made the necessary arrangements for the passenger service. On November 22 Gunton and Smith 

were authorized to purchase the furnishing for the boat, and President John H. Eaton was requested to engage the necessary drivers and horses to propel the craft.40 In March 1834 the 

packet, which was named The President, was delivered to the company at a cost of $1,400.41

Although there are no extant drawings or plans of this packet, it is possible that Easby 

was influenced by the design of a light iron passage boat used for experiments on the Forth and 

Clyde Canal by Sir John Benjamin MacNeill in the spring of 1833.42 While the assertion cannot 

be proved, it can be documented that MacNeill’s work was widely-read by canal men in America 

and that the Chesapeake and Ohio officials gave great prominence to his observations on the most 

effective design and velocity of canal boats.43

After several months of operation, the canal company, which was rapidly approaching 

bankruptcy, determined to sell the packet and six horses to James B. Wager for $1,600 and to 

grant him toll-free privileges on the canal until December.44 Apparently, the sale was never made 

because on June 16, 1835, the directors ordered that the “Iron Boat belonging to the Company be 

 

33 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors. 34 Georgetown Columbian Gazette, July 3, 1832. On January 12, 1833, the canal company purchased the Lafayette for 

$300 and fitted it for the accommodation of hands employed under the Superintendent of the Canal. Proceedings of the 

President and Board of Directors, C, 263, 264, 278. 35 Georgetown Columbian Gazette, July 21, 1832. 36 Ingle to Offutt, March 22, 1834, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

37 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 331, 336. 38 Ibid, C, 426. 39 Ibid, D, 3. 40 Ibid, D, 20. 41 Ibid, D, 55, and Ingle to Offutt, March 22, 1834, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. Approximately 2 1⁄2 tons of iron were used in 

the construction of the packet. 

42 Sir John Benjamin MacNeill, Canal Navigation, On the Resistance of Water to the Passage of Boats Upon Canals 

and Other Bodies of Water (London, 1833). A copy of the specification used to construct the light iron boat may be 

seen in Appendix F. 

43 House Report 414, 318–378. 

44 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 109. 
340 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

put in order for use; and, that $50 be advanced to William Easby on that account.”45 After being 

refitted, the iron packet failed to turn a profit and on December 11, 1836, the board ordered that it 

be sold at a price of not less than $200. In turn, the vessel was offered to Easby for $300, but 

when he demurred, it was recommended that it be sold to Hugh Smith who would melt the sheet 

iron and produce lock gate castings for the company.46

Despite the unprofitability of a regular passenger service, the canal company continued to 

promote such an operation by periodically taking government officials on well-publicized excursions from Georgetown to Great Falls, Seneca and Harpers Ferry. These trips were usually taken 

on the Charles F. Mercer, which apparently by this time had been reacquired from W. W. Fenlon. 

One such occasion took place in early August 1835 when President Andrew Jackson and a company of fifty people were the guests of the canal board. The party left Georgetown at 8:30 a.m., 

the U. S. Marine Band serenading the group on board. After reaching Seneca, the party ate dinner 

on the boat—a “sumptuous” meal consisting of “a great variety of good things, embracing an 

abundance of the choicest luxuries of the season, and a generous supply of capital wines and beverages. After dinner the guests retired on deck, and as they approached Georgetown the ladies 

honored the men “with their company in the pleasing amusements of the dance.”47 A similar junket was taken in the spring of 1836 when the directors sponsored a trip for a number of Congressmen from Georgetown to Harpers Ferry at a cost of more than $1,700.48

During the summer of 1835 the canal company made another attempt to commence a 

packet operation on the waterway. A committee was formed to study the matter on July 2, and the 

following day it submitted to the directors the form of a contract which it proposed be used to 

enter into an agreement with a private company for the operation of a packet service. The directors adopted the recommendation and authorized the committee to negotiate such a contract for 

one year.49 On September 11 an agreement was made with O. M. Linthicum, president of the recently organized Georgetown Canal Packet Company, to operate daily packets between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry for one year free of tolls.50

The packet service appears to have prospered under the new arrangement. On October 10 

a new contract was signed with the packet company extending the service to Shepherdstown.51

With the coming of cooler weather, Linthicum on October 30 requested and received permission 

to reduce the number of trips from one per day to three per week until March 1, 1836.52 Despite 

its success, the packet company reported that it was forced to operate on a “strict economy” in 

order to turn a profit.53

During the summer of 1836 packet service was extended from Shepherdstown to Williamsport by a new packet company operated by Joseph Hollman, the contractor for Dam No. 4. 

On June 20 an agreement was signed granting Hollman the same privileges that had been pro-

 

45 Ibid, D, 339 46 Ibid, E, 180, and Ingle to Smith, December 16, 1836, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 47 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVIII (August 15, 1835), 431. 48 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 43, 63, 181. 49 Ibid, D, 358. 50 Ibid, D, 398. 51 Ibid, D, 410–411. 52 Ibid, D, 419. 53 Linthicum to Board of Directors, June 29, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. The profit margin was so stringent that even 

the officers of the packet company were denied free passage. Thus, when the lockkeepers of the canal company began 

to abuse their privileges and demand free passage on the packets while on private business, Linthicum complained to 

the directors that his profits were strained severely by such practices. Accordingly, the board on July 6 ordered that the 

lockkeepers could not obtain free passage on the packets unless they had papers from their divisional superintendent 

that they were on official company business. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 87. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 341 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

vided in the contract with the Georgetown Packet Company. The agreement was to extend until 

the end of the calendar year.54

The canal company became dissatisfied with the quality of the boats employed by the 

Georgetown Packet Company during the summer of 1836. On October 14 when the packet company applied to the board for an extension of its one-year contract the request was referred to a 

special committee consisting of President George C. Washington and Directors Thomas Carbery 

and Phineas Janney. These men were authorized “to make arrangements for the employment of 

boats better suited for the purposes of packets, than those heretofore used by this Packet Company are.”55

When negotiations broke down over the matter of improving the quality of the packet 

boats, the Georgetown Packet Company on January 14, 1837, requested an extension of its privilege to navigate the canal free of tolls until another company could be formed to operate the 

packet service on the waterway, but there is no record of any response from the company.56 More 

than two years later on November 2, 1839, the board granted permission to A. Himrickhouse to 

navigate the canal free of toll for the period of one year with a passenger boat carrying the U. S. 

Mail.57

4. RENEWED INTEREST IN STEAM NAVIGATION 

Although the canal board earlier had rejected the use of steamboats on the waterway, the widespread publicity given to experiments with steam navigation on the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal in September 1833 by Alexander Dallas Bache, professor of Natural Philosophy and 

Chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania, brought forth renewed interest in the introduction of 

steam navigation on the Chesapeake and Ohio. Using a canal boat that had originally plied upon 

the Schuylkill and had a reputation for “quickness,” and a steam engine and accessories supplied 

by the firm of Rush & Muhlenburg, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company carried on a 

series of experiments under the direction of Bache to test the validity of Fairbairn’s assertions in 

his Remarks on Canal Navigation. Bache described the dimensions of the experimental steamboat 

as follows: 

A canal boat, which had originally plied upon the Schuylkill, and been noted as a quick 

boat, was altered, under the direction of the President of the Chesapeake and Delaware 

Canal Company, (Robt. M. Lewis, Esq.) so as to increase the length, and to give greater 

sharpness to the bow, as well as to reduce the bottom to a regular and gently swelling 

curved surface, from the stem and stern, without any internal flexures. The length of the 

boat was thus made eighty feet, the length of the false bow, in the direction of the axis of 

the boat, being seven and a half feet; the width of the boat was ten feet; the draught, when 

light, twelve inches, and with a load of forty tons, fourteen inches, exclusive of the keel. 

The alterations were made under the direction of Mr. James Rush, of the firm of Rush 

and Muhlenburg, and the engine, paddle wheels, & c. put in under his charge; from him I 

obtained the details just given, and those which follow, in relation to the boat and engine. 

The engine was the result of an exchange, which enabled the experiment to be 

made with economy; it proved, however, to be much too small for the purposes in view. 

The diameter of the cylinder was eight and a half inches, and the length of stroke two and 

a half feet, the pressure of the steam with which it was supplied was about 140 lbs.; 150 

 

54 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 77. 55 Ibid, E, 152. 56 Ibid, E, 292. 57 Ibid, F, 115.
342 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

lbs. to the square inch, on the safety valve, being the maximum pressure. The steam was 

cut off at half stroke and the escape steam served to heat, in part, the water, which was 

thrown into the boiler. The nominal power of the engine was ten horses; but with a mean 

effective pressure, during the stroke, of 80 lbs. per square inch, an estimate probably not 

far from the truth if the pressure within the boiler was correctly stated, and supposing 

thirty-five double strokes to be made in a minute, the power would be more than double 

the nominal amount. The boiler was a vertical cylinder, six feet in length, and three feet 

in interior diameter, containing one hundred and twenty draught tubes from an inch and a 

half to two inches in diameter, and thirty inches in length, the tubes uniting above in a 

wide chimney. It appeared by the experiments that this boiler was competent to keep up a 

supply of steam for about thirty-five double strokes of the engine per minute. The paddle 

wheels were placed at the sides of the boat, and between one-third and one-half of the 

length of the boat from the bow; the wheels were eight feet two inches in exterior diameter, and four and a half feet wide; the buckets were six inches deep, and made of cast 

iron. The weight of the boiler was stated to be 2214 lbs., and of the wheels about one 

ton.58 

Three conditions were tested during the September trials: use of the steamboat alone, use of the 

steamboat in towing light passenger barges, and use of the steamboat in towing heavily laden 

freight vessels. While care was taken to obtain accurate figures concerning the speed and engine 

capabilities of the boat, the greatest interest was in observing the effects of high-speed travel on 

the canal banks. Bache observed that the wake from passenger barges being towed by horses was 

at least three times as great as that produced by the steamboat. In using the steamboat alone, the 

wave created by the bow was disposed of by the paddle wheels; in towing barges, the barges 

themselves effectively disposed of the remaining swell created by the towboat. Speeds of up to 7 

and 8 miles per hour were “attained by even this imperfect model” steamboat, which used an engine too small and weak for the vessel on which it was mounted. The speeds compared favorably 

with those produced by the work of eight horses. Bache concluded that the experiments “go far to 

remove, entirely” any doubts concerning the advantageous application of steam on the larger canals and that steam power may be substituted for horse towing with great savings to the canal, 

particularly at high velocity.59 

Within six months after the publication of Bache’s report the Chesapeake and Ohio directors received three proposals for the building of steam packet boats to ply the canal. On June 20, 

1834, the firm of Phillips and Delin submitted a model of such a vessel, but after a quick review 

of the proposal, the directors voted to table the matter temporarily.60 Later on December 3, the 

board received two proposals to build steamboats for canal navigation from Jacob Morgan and A. 

H. Brown, the latter apparently having had some experience in the development of steam navigation on the Farmington Canal in Connecticut.61 After President Washington had obtained favorable information from the Farmington Canal Company concerning the results of steamboat navigation on its waterway, the board passed the following resolution on January 13, 1835: 

 

58 Experiments Made on the Navigation of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal by Steam, Reported by A. D. Backe

(Philadelphia, 1834), 2. 

59 Ibid, 2–13. A copy of the text of Backe’s observations and conclusions on the various experiments may be seen in 

Appendix G. Also see Ralph D. Gray, The National Waterway: A History of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 

1769–1965 (Urbana, 1967), 85–87. 60 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 110–112. 61 Ibid, D, 198. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 343 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

that for the purpose of encouraging the use of Steam as a moving power upon the Canal, 

the right to navigate the same for one year free of tolls will be granted to the first Steam 

Packet Boat which shall within twelve months from this date be placed upon the Canal 

and run daily at a speed not less than eight miles per hour, without injury to the Banks of 

the Canal, and shall in all other respects conform to the regulations for navigating the 

same. 

The resolution was ordered to be published in the National Intelligencer.

62

Near the end of January, Asa Waters sent to the board a proposal to put a steamboat on 

the canal according to the terms of the published resolution. Several days later, however, Waters 

requested that the directors modify their propositions by designating a specific day on which they 

would make their choice from the various steamboats built for the canal navigation.63 Accordingly, the board modified its resolution 

to grant the free use of the Canal for one year, to the best Steam Packet Boat which shall 

be upon the Canal on the 1st day of August next, the speed of which shall not be less than 

8 miles per hour, without injury to the Banks of the Canal. In deciding upon the Boat, 

which may be entitled to the privilege hereby granted, its capacity and suitableness for 

the purposes of a Packet Boat will be considered, as well as its speed. 

All steamboats with a velocity of 8 miles per hour would be able to navigate the canal free of tolls 

until August 1 provided that they did not injure the canal banks.64

There is no documentation in the company records to indicate subsequent developments 

relative to the introduction of steam power on the waterway during the remainder of 1835 and 

1836. The financial difficulties of the company, the growing nationwide economic malaise, and 

the poor agricultural harvests in the Potomac Valley during these years undoubtedly all played a 

part in preventing the introduction of steam power on the canal. The next discussion of the subject occurred in February 1837 when the board considered the use of steam power to tow barges 

through Big Slackwater above Dam No. 4. However, the continual cost of repair, which they felt 

such an operation would necessitate, induced the directors to build a permanent towpath along the 

pool “which, in the end, it is believed, will be found decidedly the most economical improvement.”65

Experiments with the English-built iron screw-propelled steamer Robert F. Stockton on 

the Delaware and Raritan Canal in the spring of 1839 again excited the interest of the board in 

introducing steam navigation to their waterway. In 1836 John Ericson, a Swedish engineer living 

in England, had invented and patented the screw propeller, which revolutionized navigation. In 

1837 he had built a steam vessel having twin screw propellers, which on trial towed the American 

packet-ship Toronto at the speed of five miles per hour on the Thames River. At the order of 

Robert F. Stockton, the president of the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company and the son of a 

signer of the Declaration of Independence, Ericson in 1838 constructed the iron screw-steamer 

which crossed the Atlantic under canvas in 1839 to be used on the waterway to tow 60-ton coal 

 

62 Ibid, D, 220. 63 Ibid, D, 228–229. 64 Ibid, D, 229. Two weeks later on February 18, the board adopted new regulations for navigating the canal. The new 

rules, which specifically allowed the introduction of steam power on the canal. Ibid, D, 240. 65 Washington to Veazey, February 4, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
344 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

barges from Bordentown, New Jersey to New York City. Thus, the steamboat became “the first 

screw-propeller ship operated for utilitarian purposes on American waters.”66

The board authorized the president to obtain such information on the Robert F. Stockton 

as he could relative to its dimensions, speed, and cost.67 However, the approaching collapse of the 

company finances again thwarted any serious initiatives to inaugurate steam power on the canal. 

During the spring of 1842 the board granted permission to William Easby to operate a 

“newly invented steam passenger boat, of his own construction” free from tolls until January 1, 

1844. The only two conditions to the agreement were that he pay the usual tolls for the transportation of freight and that the canal banks were not to suffer from abrasion. In June the company 

stockholders were told that the boat was nearly completed and would soon be ready for service. 

President Michael C. Sprigg voiced the hope that during the summer or early fall “a safe, pleasant, and cheap mode of conveyance will be afforded to those who may desire to pass between 

Hancock and the District, or to the intermediate places.”68

In December 1842 the board again consulted with Ericson as to the estimated cost of 

transporting coal from Cumberland to Washington on screw-propelled steamboats.69 In reply, he 

stated that his repeated trials with sixteen propeller-driven steamboats (probably on the Delaware 

and Raritan Canal) had shown that the most economical mode of conveyance was that of towing 

one freight barge with a steamer, both vessels carrying approximately the same amount of goods. 

Accordingly, the basis for his estimate was 200 tons of coal nearly equally divided on the two 

boats–a safe supposition since the steam machinery and propellers weighed seven tons and the 

consumption of fuel for a round-trip would be twelve tons. The cost for the two vessels would be 

$4,000–$2,000 for the steam machinery and $1,000 for each boat. The monthly expenses for such 

an operation would be: 

Wear and tear and interest on capital $88 

Wages and maintenance of crews 220 

Fuel consumption—48 tons of coal 

 (24 mooring days at 2 tons per day) at $1 per ton 48 

Oil, lamp, and tallow for machinery __10

 $366 

As five years’ experience had shown that the most economical speed was three miles per hour he 

calculated only four round-trips carrying 200 tons per trip each month. Thus, the cost of transportation would amount to less than 46 cents per ton.70

In the spring of 1843 the board again attempted to take steps to stimulate steam navigation on the canal. On May 3 a resolution was passed 

 

66 Appletons’ Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. II, 364; Crawford Clark Madeira, Jr., The Delaware and Raritan 

Canal (East Orange, 1941), 40–41; and Richard F. Veit, The Old Canals of New Jersey (Little Falls, 1963), 71. The 

steamboat operated on the Delaware and Raritan Canal for 25 years. 67 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 67. 68 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), C&O Co., 5. 69 Ericson had come to the United States in November 1839, and in 1841, he had furnished to the U. S. Navy the designs for the screw warship Princeton, the first vessel having its propelling machinery below the water-line out of the 

reach of enemy gunners. During the construction of the Princeton, he built and furnished numerous steam propelled 

vessels for carrying freight on the American Rivers and canals. Appletons’ Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. II, 

364. 

70 Ericson to Board of Directors, December 30, 1842, in Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), C&O Co., 26–27. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 345 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

That any one packet boat propelled by steam in such manner as in the opinion of the 

President & Ch. Engineer shall not be injurious to the Canal shall pass over the Canal 

free till the lst day of January 1845. 

The only condition was that the operations of the steamboats would pay the ordinary tolls on all 

freight with the exception of the passengers and their luggage.71

From the available documentation it does not appear that regular steam navigation was 

commenced on the canal until the late 1840s. On October 2 of that year Samuel W. Dewey was 

granted permission to run a line of steam packets for passenger service toll-free for a two-year 

period provided that the operation was begun within one year and that the boats would obey the 

designated speed limits.72 In December 1849 the board authorized Lemuel Williams to operate 

steamboats on the canal for the purpose of towing freight boats. The steam tugs and their necessary fuel were to be toll-free so long as they did not weaken the canal banks. The tugboats were to 

be constructed upon a plan similar to the Virginia on which the directors recently had taken an 

experimental cruise.73 By May 1850 N. S. Denny & Co. was operating a fleet of steam tugboats 

on the canal – a development which posed problems for the company as some of the bridges over 

the waterway did not permit the 12 1⁄2 foot clearance required for the passage of the tugs.74

5. PROVISIONS FOR THE REPAIR OF BOATS 

Soon after the first portion of the canal was opened to navigation between Little Falls and Seneca 

Falls, the canal company began to discuss ways in which it could encourage the repair of boats on 

the waterway. After considerable debate, the board in July 1831 submitted the question of building a drydock along the canal for this purpose to a committee headed by the noted military engineer John J. Abert.75 The following month the committee reported its conclusion that the construction of a drydock was “inexpedient,” and the board took no further action. 

While the company records indicate little about the subject, it is apparent that the problem of repairing boats continued to keep the question of building drydocks before the board. On 

May 30, 1833, it was determined that the resident engineers select a suitable spot on each residency for a drydock and recommend a plan for their construction.76

While the locations of these drydocks and their construction plans could not be found, the 

physical remains of one on the berm side of the canal next to Lock No. 35 provides a general picture of their plan of design and method of operation. Several masonry supports in an elongated pit 

paralleled the lock. At the upper end, it was connected with the canal, and at its lower end there 

was a waste structure. When a boat floated in over the supports, the water could be drained 

through the waste structure.77

No mention of drydocks was found in the canal records again until October 1847. At that 

time the board authorized John Moore, the lock tender at Georgetown, to build such a structure 

near Lock No. 1 under the direction of the chief engineer. Moore was to operate the drydock at 

“the pleasure of the board” with 30 days’ notice required for the abrogation of the lease.78

 

71 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 31. 72 Ibid, H, 83. 73 Ibid, H, 319. 74 Ibid, H, 353. 75 Ibid, B, 29. 76 Ibid, C, 361. 77 John P. Miele, “The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal: A Physical History” (NPS Mss., 1968), 120. 78 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 81–82. 
346 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

During the following month, permission was granted to Owen Ardinger to construct a 

drydock on the berm side of the canal near Williamsport. Accordingly, the company president 

was authorized henceforth to allow qualified persons to build drydocks on the berm side of the 

waterway. The construction of the drydocks was to be monitored by the chief engineer or the division superintendent.79

B. BOATS ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1851–1889 

Research on the canal boats during the period 1851–1889 has turned up much interesting information. For the purposes of clarity, the data has been divided into two sections – general descriptive material and topics of special concern to the canal company such as the promotion of steamers and packets on the waterway and the steps taken to keep the boats in repair. 

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL 

a. First Boats on the Completed Waterway 

Following the ceremonies at Cumberland on October 10, 1850, formally opening the canal to 

navigation, a procession of boats proceeded down the canal. The distinguished visitors, canal 

company officials, and prominent citizens embarked on the canal packet Jenny Lind and the canal 

boat C. B. Fisk, both of which had been fitted specially for the occasion. Behind these boats was 

another barge on which rode the Eckhart Light Artillery with a battery of two field pieces. At the 

rear of the procession were five coal boats – the Southampton, Elizabeth, Ohio, and Delaware

belonging to the Merchants’ Line of McKaig and Agnew of Cumberland, and the Freeman Rawdon belonging to Ward’s Cumberland Line, a New York based company. The coal boats were 

loaded with some 411 tons of coal destined for Georgetown and Alexandria and some 80 tons 

destined for Williamsport. This towage was reported to exceed the total amount of coal carried on 

the Lehigh Navigation Canal during its first year of operation, and canal officials congratulated 

themselves for this accomplishment.80 After stopping at a spring ten miles east of Cumberland 

and partaking of a large dinner on board the Jenny Lind and the C. B. Fisk, the party returned to 

Cumberland while the coal boats continued on their way to the East. 

Of the five boats, the Elizabeth went only to Williamsport, the Southampton and the 

Freeman Rawdon reached Alexandria, and the Delaware and the Ohio got stuck above Dam No. 

6, because of the low level of water in the canal. The latter drew 4 feet with their load, instead of 

31⁄2, which would have passed. The Freeman Rawdon won the race with the Southampton, reaching Washington about 6 p. m., on October 17. Horses and mules were requisitioned along the way 

to maintain the speed, and the boats arrived within a short time of each other. 

At the same time that these boats were descending the waterway, a number of barges 

commenced the journey up the canal from the District cities. Ten empty boats were launched 

from Georgetown and two loaded vessels embarked from Alexandria and proceeded to Cumberland as quickly as the water would permit.81

 

79 Ibid, H, 112. 80 Frederick Examiner, October 23, 1850. 81 Georgetown Advocate, October 15, 19, 22, 1850; Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake 

and Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), 137; and Elgin to Coale, October 18, 1850, and Fisk to Coale, October 20, 1850, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 347 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

b. Regulations Established Governing the Classification and Construction of Boats 

Upon the completion of the canal to Cumberland, the board issued a new set of regulations to 

govern the classification and equipment of the boats plying the waterway. These rules were 

largely a confirmation of the existing regulations, modified and brought up to date by the lessons 

of the first revisions. The new rules went into effect on April 1, 1851. 

The regulations divided the boats on the canal into seven categories: 

Class A—“Decked boats of substantial build, carrying one hundred tons and upwards” 

Class B—“Boats of similar construction, carrying less than one hundred tons” 

Class C—“Boats not decked, of substantial build, carrying one hundred tons and upwards” 

Class D—“Boats of similar construction, carrying less than one hundred tons” 

Class E—“Long boats and scows, decked or not decked, of substantial build” 

Class F—“Gondolas and other floats designed for temporary use” 

Packets—“Boats used chiefly for the transportation of passengers” 

The new set of regulations also established standards relative to the form, equipment, fixtures, 

and condition of the boats navigating the canal. These requirements, beginning with number 13, 

were as follows:82

13. No boat or float of any kind, except gondolas passing along the Canal for the first 

time and rafts, shall navigate or be moved on the Canal, unless the bow of said boat or 

float be firmly and permanently constructed, and so curved, that the versed sine or depth 

of the curve shall not be less than one fourth of the cord or width of the boat or float. 

PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

14. No boat or float, strapped or faced with iron on the front part of the stern, or 

other prominent part or parts of the bow or sides thereof, shall navigate, or be moved on 

the Canal, unless there shall be suspended, and thoroughly secured in front of the stern or 

other prominent part or parts of the bow or on its sides,–in such manner as effectually to 

prevent such iron facing strap or straps thereof from striking upon or against any lock, 

lock gate, guard gate, bridge or other work or device appertaining to the Canal,–a good 

and sufficient fender or fenders, composed of rope or rope yarn, at least six inches in diameter,–PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

15. No boat shall navigate or be moved on the Canal, without a guard or plate of 

iron, firmly attached to the keel and extending back under the rudder, or some other permanent device, that shall cover and secure the opening between the keel or stern post and 

the rudder, so as effectually to prevent the tow-rope of any other boat or float from entering said opening. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

16. No boat, except scows and gondolas shall navigate or be moved on the Canal, 

without a knife or sharp metallic instrument, so affixed upon its bow, as to cut apart any 

tow-rope, which otherwise might pass over such bow. PENALTY for a violation of this 

regulation, five dollars. 

 

82 By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations: In Force on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 1st April 1851 (Baltimore, 1894), 4–

9. 
348 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

17. No boat or float shall navigate or be moved on the Canal, without two good and 

sufficient snubbing lines. PENALTY for violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

18. No boat shall navigate or be moved on the Canal, at night, without a conspicuous 

light on its bow; and no raft shall navigate or be moved on the Canal, at night, without a 

conspicuous light on the forward end of the same; and every raft moored or tied up, shall, 

at all times during the night, have a conspicuous light at each end of each tow, near the 

outer corners thereof. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation, five dollars. 

19. No boat or float shall navigate the Canal, that shall be in a leaky condition, and 

that cannot safely be used for the purposes of navigation. 

20. No boat, except a gondola, shall navigate the Canal, which has not its name, and 

its hailing place corresponding with its boat’s register then in force, and the letter or name 

of its class and the number of the said boat’s register distinctly painted, in letters and figures of at least four inches in height, on both sides of said boat,–and on some permanent 

part thereof, so high above the water that they may be plainly seen from either bank of 

the Canal. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

21. No boat, except those belonging to class F., shall navigate the Canal, unless distinctly marked on each side–at the bow, stern and amidships–so as to show accurately the 

draft of such boat in feet and inches, at the bow, stern and amidships–when empty, and 

when partially or fully loaded–and every owner or master of such boat who shall neglect 

or refuse to comply with this regulation, and every owner or master of a boat that is erroneously or falsely marked at the bow, stern or amidships, shall be subject be a PENALTY 

of ten dollars. 

22. No raft or tow of timber or plank, on the Canal, shall exceed in length ninety 

feet–and no raft or tow of timber or plank shall approach any other raft or tow of timber 

or plank, nearer than thirty rods, unless for the purpose of passing, or be moored nearer 

than thirty rods to any other raft or tow of timber or plank previously moored. The first 

and leading crib in every raft or tow of timber or plank shall have the outer edge of the 

forward end of every outside stick or plank rounded. And no transverse stick or plank 

shall extend within one inch of the outer edge of the outside stick or plank of such crib. 

Every violation, of either of the provisions of this regulation, shall subject the owner, person or persons having charge of such tow or raft, to a PENALTY of five dollars. 

23. Each and every time, on different days, that any boat or float shall be found navigating the Canal in violation of any of the provisions of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 

19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd regulations, or that any raft shall be found lying by and moored at 

night, without lights, as required by the 18th regulation, shall be considered a distinct offence. 

24. Each Superintendent, Collector, acting Collector, Inspector, or Lock-keeper, on 

the Canal, is hereby authorized to determine whether the requirements of the 13th, 14th, 

15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd regulations, are fully complied with, in the 

case of any boat or float, the owner or master of which is applying for a way-bill for the 

said boat or float, or for a permit for it to navigate the Canal, or having obtained a way-
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 349 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

bill or a permit, is proceeding with the said boat or float on its voyage;–and each and 

every of them, if such requirements are not fully complied with, are hereby authorized 

and required not to issue such way-bill or permit, or, if the boat or float, having obtained 

a way-bill or permit is on its voyage, to detain the said boat or float and stop its further 

progress, until all the requirements aforesaid are complied with, and all penalties incurred 

in consequence of their not having been, are satisfied and paid. Provided however, that 

the owner or master of any boat, considered unsafe and unfit for use, under the 19th regulation, by either of the above mentioned officers of the Company, shall have the right to 

call upon an experienced boat builder or master, who with another to be appointed by the 

said officer,—and a third to be selected by the two thus appointed, in case of a disagreement,—may make a survey of the boat or float aforesaid,—and upon the decision of a 

majority of the three being made and communicated in writing to the said officer, if adverse to his opinion, a way-bill or permit, as the case may be, shall be granted, or the boat 

or float allowed to proceed on its voyage, but otherwise not.83

c. First Registration of Boats under the New Regulations 

Throughout the first year of operation on the completed waterway, a total of 223 boats were registered under the new regulations.84 The breakdown of this total by classification was as follows: 

Class A 9

Class B 49

Class C 108

Class D 41

Class E 10

Class F 6

Packets 1

Although it has been generally assumed that the canal boats for this period had fairly standard 

dimensions, the 1851 registration books detailing the dimensions of the vessels into classes of 

craft on the canal were as follows: 

Class A—length (minimum of 76 feet, 9 inches; maximum of 92 feet); width (minimum 

of 14 feet; maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 10 inches; 

maximum of 14 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 4 feet; maximum of 6 feet). 

Class B—length (minimum of 70 feet; maximum of 90 feet); width (minimum of 11 feet, 

9 inches; maximum of 14 feet, 7 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 10 inches; 

maximum of 18 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 3 feet; maximum of 4 feet, 6 

inches). 

Class C—length (minimum of 86 feet; maximum of 92 feet); width (minimum of 13 feet, 

6 inches; maximum of 14 feet, 7 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 8 inches; 

maximum of 18 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 4 feet; maximum of 6 feet). 

 

83 By-Laws, Rules and Regulations; In Force on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 1st April 1851 (Baltimore, 1894), 4–

9. 

84 This total includes the cancellation and reregistration of 16 boats for various reasons, thus making the actual number 

of boats plying the canal at 207. It is estimated that about 140 of these boats were new, the majority of which were 

Class A or C involved in the carrying of coal. 
350 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Class D—length (minimum of 66 feet, 7 inches; maximum of 90 feet); width (minimum 

of 10 feet, 8 inches; maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 6 

inches; maximum of 4 feet, 2 inches). 

Class E—length (minimum of 58 feet, 10 inches; maximum of 85 feet, 4 inches); width 

(minimum of 13 feet, 4 inches; maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 10 inches; maximum of 12 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 2 feet, 9 

inches; maximum of 4 feet, 6 inches. 

Class F—length (minimum of 71 feet, 4 inches; maximum of 85 feet); width (minimum 

of 9 feet, 1 inch; maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 11⁄2 

inches; maximum of 6 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 10 inches; maximum of 3 

feet, 6 inches).85 

d. Capacity of Early Boats on the Completed Waterway 

In April 1851 the first general descriptions of the boats on the canal appears in the company records. As some of the levels only had a depth of five feet of water, the boats were drawing an average of 4 feet, thereby permitting the largest boats to carry from 100 to 110 tons (of 2,240 

pounds) of coal. Within a month the draft of the boats was to be increased to 4 feet, 3 inches, and 

by 1852 the average draft was expected to be 4 feet, 6 inches, thus allowing the largest boats to 

carry cargoes of up to 120 tons. The average cost of the canal boats was estimated at $1,200.86 

At the end of the first boating season following the completion of the canal to Cumberland, the company reported to the Maryland Secretary of State concerning the state of the navigation. Among other items, the company clerk noted that the number of boats navigating the canal 

was 205 of which about 140 were engaged in the coal trade. The majority of these boats were 

“new and built expressly for coal transportation.” They were generally capable of transporting 

upwards of 100 tons, and when the level of the water in the canal would permit the average tonnage of the boats would increase to more than 120.87

e. Increase of Boats on the Canal 

Trade began on the completed waterway with a severe shortage of boats. During the boating season of 1851 the company reported that the inadequate number of boats was hurting the prospects 

of an extended coal business. The board observed wistfully that 

we cannot but repeat the hope, that from the high rates of transportation paid, and the 

constant occupation which may be given, strong inducements will exist with capitalists to 

engage in boating; and that before the close of the present year, a much larger number 

may be added.88

In the succeeding years, the number of boats navigating the canal continued to increase. By the 

end of the 1852 boating season, 237 boats were registered for transportation on the waterway. Of 

this total, about 61 were new and 160 were engaged in the coal trade and the majority were capa-

 

85 Record of Boat Registrations, 1851–74, C&O Co. 

86 Ringgold to Barnes, April 23, 1851, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Twenty-Third Annual Report (1851), C&O Co., 5, 8. 87 Ringgold to O’Neal, December 26, 1851, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

88 Twenty-Third Annual Report (1851), 8. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 351 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

ble of carrying between 100 and 130 tons. The coal boats averaged two full round trips on the 

waterway per month.89

In May 1854 it was reported that 290 boats were registered for navigation on the canal, of 

which about 200 were engaged in the coal trade. Although few boats had been added on the canal 

during the previous year, the board reported that the prospects for boat-building during the present boating season were encouraging.90

The following year in June the company stockholders were informed that 323 boats were 

registered for service on the canal. About 200 were engaged in the coal trade with capacities 

ranging from 110 to 125 tons each.91

During the next year 20 new boats were put into service on the canal, thus bringing the 

total registered to 343. However, it was observed by company officials that this figure did not 

represent the actual number of boats in “active and efficient service.” Many boats had decayed or 

had become otherwise unserviceable and had been withdrawn from the canal. Others, which had 

required repairs, had not been put into active service because the severe winter had prevented 

their refitting. Thus, only about 250 boats were in active service. Since the board asserted that it 

was powerless to increase the number of boats, it depended on “individual enterprise” to supply 

“these means of transportation.”92

There was a tremendous increase in boat-building along the canal beginning in the winter 

of 1856–57 and continuing through the summer of 1858. The surge was primarily the result of the 

company’s decision to replace with substantial masonry structures Dams Nos. 4 and 5, which had 

been unable to supply adequate amounts of water to the canal for years because of chronic leaking. More than 100 new boats were ready for the spring boating season in 1857. During the next 

twelve months the board observed that new boats were “multiplying daily, one single gentleman 

having already invested in building boats near $100,000, and intending to build at his own yard 5 

new boats monthly” throughout the summer of 1858. Furthermore, others were operating on a 

smaller scale all along the canal “actively engaged in building new boats.” Optimistically the directors noted that 

steady, enterprising, and valuable men of small means along the entire line, who could 

procure horses and equipments for the boats,—a class of men of the highest value to the 

successful development of the energies which have too long lain hidden in the bosom of 

this work, but which were and are beginning to be aroused,—were in anxious inquiry for 

Boats, by the conduct of which they would enrich themselves, and the builders, with unerring certainty, the navigation being regular and uninterrupted. 93

In the spirit of expansion, the board purchased a number of boats from the recently-enlarged Erie 

Canal during the winter of 1857–58 to engage in the Cumberland coal trade.94

f. Description of Ante-Bellum Canal Boats 

Few descriptions of the physical make-up of the boats plying the canal after 1850 have survived. 

However, there is one account written by an unemployed New England man who, during the 

 

89 Ringgold to Eachus, April 22 and November 9, 1852, and Ringgold to O’Neal, December 16, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, C&O 

Co., and Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), C&O Co., 12. 90 Ringgold to Eachus, May 10, 1854, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

91 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), C&O Co., 14. 92 Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1856), C&O Co. 8–9 93 Twenty-Ninth Annual Report (1857), C&O Co, 12, 19. 94 Ringgold to Shaw, May 29, 1858, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
352 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

summer of 1850, made a round-trip voyage on the canal from Cumberland to Georgetown and on 

to Alexandria and return. In an anonymous manuscript, which has been edited by Ella E. Clark 

and Thomas F. Hahn and printed under the title Life On The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 1859 

(1975), the writer made some interesting observations on the canal boats [See Appendix K]. 

g. Canal Boats during the Civil War 

During the Civil War, great destruction was wrought upon the canal and its trade. The boats received their share of damage as the federal government seized about 100 for the defense of Washington and boat-burning and mule-stealing became regular practices along the canal. 

In March and April 1862, during the panic accompanying the specter of the Merrimac 

running wild on the Potomac and bombarding Washington, the government seized the boats and 

took some 60 of them to Georgetown where they were held for use in case of emergency. About 

36 of these vessels were moved down the river for possible use in heading off a Southern attack 

coming up the Potomac, and 8 of them were filled with stone and sunk to block the channel of the 

river. The remaining 40 boats were used by officers of the Union army to transport government 

stores from various points on the canal to Alexandria.95

When the shipment of the government stores to Alexandria was completed in April, the 

40 canal boats were released to their owners. The remaining 60 boats that were held in Georgetown and those taken down the river remained in government hands for a longer period, and 

many of them were never returned to the canal. Thus, the board announced in June that the number of boats “now serviceable for the coal trade, inclusive of some recently built, and others now 

building was about 150.”96 Later, however, in October 1862 and in June and July 1863 more of 

the boats were seized by the government for briefer periods during General Robert E. Lee’s two 

invasions of Maryland.97

Boat-burning and mule-stealing became regular occurrences by June 1863. A number of 

boats were destroyed on the Williamsport and Hancock Divisions during Lee’s second invasion 

of Maryland during that summer.98 In 1864, other raids by Early, Mosby, and White, in July, August, and September, respectively, caused widespread damage to the canal and its boats, some 60 

of which were burned during Early’s raid alone.99 By this time, even the threat or rumor of a raid 

was sufficient to send the boatmen scurrying for shelter.100

h. Resurgence of Navigation on the Canal 

In the years following the Civil War, the canal was gradually restored and commerce, sparked by 

the heavy demand for the Cumberland coal, soon improved over pre-war levels. By June 1870, 

395 boats were engaged in the coal trade.101 In fact the commerce on the canal prospered to such 

a degree in the early 1870s that one of the officers of the Maryland Free Stone Company, the firm 

that operated the Seneca Quarries, complained in June 1871 that the Georgetown level was so 

clogged with boats as to stop “navigation almost entirely.” On the morning of June 14 he had 

counted ten tiers of boats three abreast, twenty tiers two abreast, and two tiers four abreast.102

 

95 Greene to Ringgold, March 24, April 11 and 16, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

96 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1864), C&O Co., 3–6. 97 Washington Evening Star, July 15, 1863. 98 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 366. 99 Ibid, K, 385, 398, 429, and Walter S. Sanderlin, “The Vicissitudes of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal During the 

Civil War,” Journal of Southern History, Vol. XI (February, 1945). 100 Greene to Spates, September 29, 1864, and Spates to Ringgold, October 16, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 101 Clarke to Weber, June 20, 1870, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 102 Hayden to Clark, June 14, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 353 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

During the winter of 1871–72, 60 new boats were built along the canal, thus bringing the 

carrying capacity of the boats plying the waterway to 1,000,000 tons of coal in an 8-month boating season of uninterrupted navigation.103 The great increase of the coal trade was demonstrated 

in an October 1872 Cumberland News article comparing the volume of traffic on the waterway 

for the current boating season up to October 16 with that of the corresponding period of the 1867 

season as follows: 

 Boats Cleared Tons Shipped Ave. Tonnage of ( ) 

1872 6,351 697, 036.15 109.24 

1867 3,346 361,501.08 108.10 1⁄2 

Increase 3,005 335,535.07 1.13 1⁄2 104

The following winter in February 1873 the Williamsport Pilot reported that there were 400 boats 

in constant operation on the canal during the boating season, requiring employment of 2,000 

mules.105 In 1873 canal officials reported that the coal companies built 91 new boats at Cumberland and put them into service, increasing the number of vessels navigating the canal to about 500 

with an average capacity of 112 tons.106 One boat passed over the entire line in 1873 carrying 131 

tons of coal.107 The following year the stockholders were informed that 79 boats were built in 

Cumberland alone and that the average annual tonnage of the vessels plying the waterway had 

risen to 1131⁄2 as a result of the continuing improvements along the line.108

During the years 1873–74, the canal company surveyed the condition of the boats on the 

waterway and reregistered them on a new list. As this reregistration coincides with the peak years 

of the canal trade, it is interesting to look at its listings closely. Its value is enhanced by the fact 

that it is the last register of boats extant in the company records that indicates the classification 

and dimensions of each vessel. 

According to the 1873–74 register, there were 539 boats operating on the canal. The 

boats were divided into the following classifications as established by the 1851 regulations: 

Class A 110 

Class B 56 

Class C 358 

Class D 14 

Class E 1 

The register listed the dimensions of the boats, which indicated the great disparity in the sizes of 

the vessels. The dimensions of the various classes of craft were as follows: 

Class A—length (minimum of 89 feet; maximum of 92 feet); width (minimum of 14 feet; 

maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 11 inches; maximum of 

18 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 4 feet, 6 inches; maximum of 4 feet, 9 

inches). 

 

103 Forty-Fourth Annual Report (1872), C&O Co., 8. 104 Cumberland News, October 18, 1872, in Arthur P. Gorman Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 105 Williamsport Pilot, February 8, 1873. The mules consumed some 25,000 barrels of corn, 3,840 bushels of oats, and 

several thousands tons of hay that year at a cost of nearly $60,000. 

106 Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), C&O Co., 14. 107 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 114. 108 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), C&O Co., 9–37. 
354 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Class B—length (minimum of 50 feet; maximum of 90 feet); width (minimum of 13 feet, 

4 inches; maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 10 inches; 

maximum of 18 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 2 feet, 6 inches; maximum of 4 

feet, 9 inches). 

Class C—length (minimum of 88 feet; maximum of 96 feet); width (minimum of 14 feet; 

maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 10 inches; maximum of 

18 inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 4 feet, 6 inches; maximum of 4 feet, 9 

inches). 

Class D—length (minimum of 75 feet; maximum of 90 feet); width (minimum of 14 feet; 

maximum of 14 feet, 6 inches); draft when empty (minimum of 8 inches; maximum of 14 

inches); draft when loaded (minimum of 3 feet; maximum of 4 feet, 6 inches). 

The one boat in Class E was 90 feet in length, 14 feet, 2 inches in width, and had a draft of 1 foot 

when empty and 2 feet, 6 inches when loaded. 

Two boats in Class C were described as scows, one of which was 59 feet in length and 

the other 65 feet. Both were 14 feet wide and had a draft of 9 inches when empty. One had a draft 

of 2 feet, 6 inches when loaded and the other 3 feet, 6 inches. 

The ownership of the boat demonstrates the tremendous influence of the coal trade on the 

canal commerce. While almost all the boats registered in 1851 had been owned by individual 

owners, nearly one-fourth of the boats on the 1873–74 list were owned by the coal companies. 

The companies who owned boats were as follows: 

Class A Class B Class C Class D Scows 

American Coal Co. 24 8 46 

Consolidated Coal Co. 18 10 27 

Borden Mining Co. 1 

Maryland Free Stone Co. 9 

Washington Blue Stone Co. 1 2 

Potomac Cement Co. 1 109

i. Declining Years of the Canal Trade 

In the latter 1870s trade on the canal declined appreciably. From a peak of 973,805 tons carried 

on the waterway in 1875, the total tonnage was reduced to 662,508 three years later. Thus, it is 

not surprising to find that the register of boats for that year listed a total of only 391 vessels as 

operating on the waterway. Reflecting the fact that about 95 percent of the trade consisted of the 

movement of coal was the register’s listing 283 boats as employed by the coal companies. The 

breakdown of this figure was as follows: 

CUMBERLAND COAL COMPANIES 

American Coal Company 62 boats 

Borden Company 49 boats 

 

109 Record of Boat Registrations, 1851 – 74, C & O Co. Many of the remaining boats that were individually owned 

were employed by the coal companies. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 355 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Consolidated Coal Company 39 boats 

Maryland Coal Company 38 boats 

New Central Coal Company 44 boats 

Hampshire Coal Company 28 boats 

Blaen Avon Coal Company 14 boats 

WILLIAMSPORT COAL COMPANIES 

Steffy & Findlay Company 5 boats 

Embrey & Cushwa Company 4 boats 

Of the remaining 108 boats on the canal, 8 were listed as grain boats, 1 as a brick boat, and 1 as a 

limestone boat. The other 91 were classified as “outside boats” presumably for the use of general 

trade. 

The 1878 register of boats is a valuable document as it is the only extant list that gives the 

name of the firm that built the boats and the year in which they were built. The names of the boat 

builders, almost all of which were based in Cumberland, were as follows: 

Doener and Bender 76 boats 

Weld and Sheridan 52 boats 

William Young 62 boats 

 Frederick Mertens 141 boats 

B. Mitchell 2 boats 

Consolidation Coal Company 39 boats 

R. & M. Coulehan 11 boats 

 Issac Gruber 7 boats 

Unnamed (Built at Tidewater) 1 boat 

The breakdown of the boats by the year in which they were built is as follows: 

1868 6 boats 

1869 23 boats 

1870 32 boats 

1871 82 boats (including 4 rebuilt) 

1872 67 boats (including 5 rebuilt) 

1873 58 boats (including 2 rebuilt) 

1874 80 boats (including 1 rebuilt) 

1875 25 boats (including 2 rebuilt) 

1876 13 boats 

1877 5 boats 

Sixteen of the boats were listed as steamers.110

The years between 1878 and 1889 were a time of declining trade and financial stress for 

the canal company. Although the average tonnage carried per boat rose to 114 during the 1880 

boating season as a result of improvements to the waterway after the 1877 flood, the total amount 

of goods passing up and down the waterway continued to decline. The series of heavy floods in 

 

110 Register of Boats Employed on the Canal, January 1, 1878, C&O Co. 
356 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

the 1880s climaxed by the titanic freshet in 1889 marked the final phase of canal operations before it went into a receivership.111

2. TOPICS OF SPECIAL CONCERN 

a. Promotion of Steam Packet Service 

The promotion of steam packet service became a topic of special concern to the canal company 

after the completion of the waterway to Cumberland. On July 9, 1851, the directors granted permission to W. R. L. Ward, the operator of the New York-based Cumberland Line, to run a steam 

packet boat on the canal free of tolls. The conditions that Ward accepted as his part of the bargain 

were: (1) the General Superintendent would monitor the craft for signs of damage to the canal 

resulting from the speed of the boat and would accordingly prescribe the rate of speed of the vessel; (2) all articles carried on the boat, other than its fixtures and furniture, would be subject to the 

established toll rates; and (3) company packages and officers would be transported on the regular 

trips of the vessel free of charge.112

Some two months later on September 22 the board authorized the firm of Reeside and 

Lynn to run two or three packets on the canal between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry free of toll 

for a period of two years. If the firm desired, the board determined to extend the privilege to Williamsport. Although Ward strenuously objected to the agreement with Reeside and Lynn, the directors were convinced that competing packets would reduce the cost of passenger service and 

thus promote the packet business.113

The packet service provided by Reeside and Lynn apparently did not survive because 

there is no information on their subsequent affairs. Accordingly, the board restored competition to 

the Ward passenger service on June 4, 1853, by granting permission to Volney Pursell to run the 

steam packet Congress on the canal free of toll subject to the same terms that had been given to 

Ward.114

In 1855 the canal board created some controversy by attempting to regulate the sale of 

liquor on the Congress. On April 5 the sale of all intoxicating beverages was prohibited. The following month the prohibition was modified “to extend only to persons employed on the canal.” In 

September a complaint from Captain Montgomery C. Meigs stating that “disorder was frequently 

produced among (his) laborers employed on the Washington Aqueduct in consequence of their 

obtaining liquor from the packet boat Congress” led the directors to ban entirely the sale of liquor 

on the vessel. If the order was not complied with immediately, the Congress would be refused 

permission to navigate the canal.115

The company records reveal little about the status of the steam packet service between 

1855 and 1858. The only two references to packet that could be found reported serious accidents. 

On July 14, 1855, a packet collided with a freight boat and sunk.116 Some three years later on 

June 4, 1858, two packets owned by John Moore and W. H. Ritter collided causing extensive 

damage to both vessels.117

Other than these two references the company records reveal little about the operation of 

packet service on the canal until March 1859. At that time W. H. Ritter and B. F. Wells were 

 

111 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C&O Co., 14–15. 112 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 466. 113 Ibid, H, 476–477. 114 Ibid, I, 27. 115 Ibid, I, 169, 204. 116 Ibid, I, 193. 117 Ibid, K, 32. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 357 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

given permission to run steam packets on the canal between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry free 

of toll. The boats were to operate on alternate days, and they were to yield the right-of-way to 

passing freight boats.118

The board permitted the licensing of a steamboat for the transportation of both passengers 

and freight for the first time in April 1860. The boat Flying Cloud, owned by John Moore, was to 

operate subject to the conditions “heretofore imposed on packet boats.” Later in June 1862 Moore 

received a new license for the Flying Cloud to transport passengers and light freight, provided the 

boat did not exceed a speed of five miles per hour and that it paid the regular tolls.119

Disturbed by the findings that the propelling of the steam packets were causing damage 

to the canal banks, the board revised its policies relative to packet boats on several occasions in 

1860. On August 15 the directors determined to prohibit the passage of steam packets on the canal after September 1. However, a petition signed by numerous parties in Georgetown and all 

along the canal caused them to modify their stand. On September 6, the directors agreed to the 

continuation of steam packet service provided that “such boats shall not draw more than three feet 

of water, shall not be propelled at a greater speed than four miles per hour, shall have no preference over freight boats in passing the locks, and shall be subject to the payment of tolls provided 

by the existing toll rates.” In October an exception was made for the Antelope which was permitted to travel at a rate of 5 miles per hour.120

During the months immediately following the end of the Civil War, there was renewed 

interest in the establishment of steam packet service on the canal. In July John Moore received 

permission to operate the George Washington for the conveyance of passengers and light freight 

at the rate of 4 cents per mile for the boat and the regular tolls on the freight. The boat was not to 

receive any other privileges, and its maximum speed was not to exceed 5 miles per hour. Similar 

authorization was given to Charles H. Merrill and W. H. Ritter to operate the steam packet Minnesota between Georgetown and Harpers Ferry in April 1866. A third packet, operated by John 

Weinlrod for the transportation of freight and passengers, was authorized by the board in September 1865, but as it was propeller-driven its speed was limited to a maximum of 4 miles per 

hour.121 In the winter of 1865–66, the company commissioned the construction of a steam excursion board, called the Washington, for the use of the president and directors. The expense of such 

an undertaking appears to have triggered some controversy because one company official wrote 

that “from my experience in Canal traveling, I incline to think, after the novelty is over, there will 

be no great desire for many excursions by the Prest. & directors. In this fast age canal travel has 

in a measure become obsolete.”122 Such a forecast was fulfilled in the case of the regular steam 

packets because there was no passenger service on the canal by the spring of 1867.123 Evidence 

that the packet service was losing out to the Baltimore & Ohio could be seen in the company decision in August 1871 to refit a former passenger steamer lying “idle and decaying” at Cumberland as a boarding boat for the canal repair crews.124

From a cursory review of the canal company records, it appears that there was no further 

regular packet service on the canal after this period. In the 1870s Howard A. Garrett, the operator 

 

118 Ibid, K, 90–91, 93. Ritter operated a horse-drawn packet for more than a month before his new steam packet was 

ready, thus causing irritation to Wells who had his steam packet Antelope ready for operation when the contracts were 

signed. 

119 Ibid, K, pp.167–168, 299. 120 Ibid, K, 208–209, 213–214, 216, and Ringgold to Soper, August 25, 1860, and Ringgold to Dodge, August 27, 1860, 

Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 

121 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 434, 448, 483. 122 Greene to Ringgold, December 1, 1865, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 461, 520. 123 Ringgold to Newson, May 21, 1867, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 124 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 435–436. 
358 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

of Great Falls Tavern, took “pleasure parties” from Georgetown to his hotel several times a week, 

but he borrowed the canal paymaster’s boat to do so.125 In August 1878 Edwin Reeside contracted to carry the U. S. Mail from Washington to Point of Rocks on a steam packet for a period 

of three years, but there is no evidence that passenger service was connected with his operation.126

b. Steam-Operated Freight Boats 

One of the dreams of the canal’s founders was the introduction of steam-operated freight boats on 

the waterway that would not injure its banks. In October 1857 J. L. Cathcart of Washington informed the board that he had constructed a steam propeller for the transportation of coal which 

would not cause abrasion to the canal prism. Although the board refused his request to let the boat 

operate at half-toll, it did encourage him to experiment with the vessel on the canal.127 Again in 

April 1862 the directors granted permission to J. E. Reeside to use steam-propelled boats for the 

transportation of coal at the established toll rates provided the experiment would not damage the 

canal banks.128 Apparent from the company records that neither of these two experiments was 

successful. 

In April 1871 Chief Engineer William R. Hutton submitted to the board a new scheme for 

steam navigation on the canal devised by John W. Duval, a blacksmith and wheelwright in 

Georgetown. Under this plan, the boat would carry “two wheels which can be raised & lowered.” 

The one near the stern would serve as a guide wheel to keep the boat on a wooden rail which 

would run along the side of the canal on short posts. The other wheel would serve as a driving 

wheel, “working on a cranked axle” and “revolved by a small steam engine.” To avoid being 

lifted off the track and to procure the required degree of traction, the wheels would be kept down 

“by the pressure of steam in a piston working in a cylinder connection with the boiler.”129

During the 1870s the number of steamers plying the canal increased slowly. In 1873 one 

steamer was built to navigate the canal, and three more were constructed the following year. The 

1875 boating season saw at least five new steam-driven coal boats were introduced on the canal. 

Among the most successful of these was the Ludlow Patten built by William Young and employed by the Borden Coal Company. It was the first coal boat to leave Cumberland for Georgetown at the commencement of the canal navigation that year. At the end of the season the company officials recommended it as the most efficient and seaworthy steam-propelled coal boat to 

navigate the canal to date.130

In the winter and spring of 1875–76 the canal board took further steps to encourage the 

use of steamboats in the canal trade. H. Ashton Ramsay, a builder of iron ships and marine engines and boilers in Baltimore, was commissioned to build a model “iron screw steamer” which 

the directors chose to name the Maryland. The boat, which entered service on the canal some 

time in June, had an iron hull, two decks, and a skylight.131

The number of steamers on the canal continued to mount as four were built in 1876 and 

three more in 1877, making a total of sixteen by 1878. The register of boats in the latter year 

listed the owners, builders, and employers of the steamers as follows: 

 

125 Garrett to Gorman, April 22, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 126 Reeside to President and Board of Directors, August 11, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 127 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 385–386. 128 Ibid, K, 287–288. 129 Hutton to Clarke, April 20, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 130 Webber to Fawcett, April 1, 1875, and Pearce to Fawcett, February 26, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 131 Hutton to Gorman, January 26, March 29, May 24, 26, June 28, July 11, August 24, 30, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 359 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Owners Cowden and Sons 1 

 John Gorman 1 

 William G. Hassett & Bro. 2 

 Weld & Sheridan 5 

 Benjamin Mitchell 1 

 Patrick Ganly 1 

 Paul & Sinclair 1 

 Doener & Bender 4 

Builders William Young 4 

 Weld & Sheridan 6 

 R. & M. Coulehan 2 

 Doener & Bender 4 

Employers Borden Coal Company 4 

 Maryland Coal Company 7 

 New Central Coal Company 1 

 General Trade 4132

The number of steamboats carrying coal on the canal increased to 19 by 1879. In that year the 

steamers made a total of 272 trips on the waterway transporting 26,428.19 tons. Thus, the average 

number of trips for each steamer during the boating season was about 14 while the average tonnage carried per trip was 97.16.133 Regular steamboat operation continued thereafter until 1889. 

 STEAMERS—1879 

 TONS CWT TRIPS

Star 1 1,678 4 17 

Star 2 1,515 16 16 

Star 3 1,958 17 20 

Star 4 1,642 11 17 

Star 5 1,793 19 18 

Star 6 1,427 9 15 

Star 7 788 6 8 

H. G. Wagner 815 15 8 

Arcturus 2,058 14 22 

A. Lovell 1,897 11 19 

New Era 1, 469 14 15 

Regulus 1,839 0 19 

Antares 669 18 7 

F. L. Moore 1,554 18 16 

L. Patton 1,048 6 11 

T. Venners 1,086 6 11 

Hancock 693 14 7 

H. J. Weld 662 2 7 

T. H. Paul _1,827 _19 _19

 26,428 219 272 

 

132 Register of Boats Employed On the Canal, January 1, 1878, C&O Co. 133 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C&O Co., 28. A summary of the number of trips and total tonnage carried by 

each steamer may be seen on the following page. During the same year, the total number of trips, the total tonnage, and 

the average tonnage per trip for coal boats pulled by animal-power was 4,425; 496,475.03; and 112.17 respectively.
360 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

c. Double Boats 

Faced with the growing competition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the canal company began 

a series of improvements to the waterway to increase its carrying capacity. In 1875 the board announced its intention of doubling the length of the locks so that “double boats” transporting up to 

250 tons could ply the waterway. The “double boats,” which in reality were two canal boats fastened together, would reduce the cost of freight by nearly 50 percent at little increase of power. 

Thus, the boat owners and operators would receive a better margin of profit, the cost of transportation would favorably compete with that of the railroad, and the company could charge tolls that 

would produce enough revenue to cancel its debts. Various experiments were undertaken, including one by the Maryland Coal Company, to test the ability of the mules to pull two boats, but the 

dreams of the company were soon dashed by the major floods of 1877, 1886, and 1889, and the 

accompanying financial reverses.134

d. Provisions for Repair of Canal Boats 

During the period 1851 to 1889 the canal company made greater provision for the repair of the 

craft plying the waterway than it had in earlier years. At various times the board established 

committees to examine all the boats being loaded to see if they were fit for navigation.135 At other 

times the directors ordered the re-registration of all the boats on the canal, a process which meant 

that the boats would have to be examined and their dimensions taken before receiving a new license to navigate the canal.136 If the boats did not meet the standards established by the company 

regulations they had to be repaired in the drydocks along the canal or in the small boat yards 

along the canal such as those at Georgetown, Weverton, and Hancock.137 When the boats required a major refitting the task of rebuilding was usually done at the larger boat yards in Cumberland. In addition, vessels that were damaged in accidents on the canal were generally taken to 

the nearest drydock for repairs. 

After the completion of the canal to Cumberland, the board made provision for the construction and lease of drydocks along the waterway. The forms were to be executed by the parties 

then holding grants from the company as well as for those who would apply for such privileges in 

the future. The authority to grant permission for the building of such structures was given to the 

chief engineer subject to the approval of the directors.138

During the 1851–89 period, there were at least six drydocks built along the line of the canal. Their locations and dates were as follows: 

1. Locks Nos. 45–46—On September 14, 1854, Lewis G. Stanhope was granted permission to construct a drydock at Locks Nos. 45–46.139

2. Lock No. 30—Thomas Hassett was given permission on September 7, 1855, to build a 

drydock near Lock No. 47. Later in March 1864, the board granted him a 10-year “privilege” to continue the operation of this drydock.140

 

134 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), C&O Co., 16–17; Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C&O Co., 15–16; and 

Grason to Gorman, June 12, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 135 Mulvany to Gorman, June 28, 1872, and Resley to Gorman, March 7, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 136 The registration process was ordered by the board on at least five occasions during the period from 1851 to 1889. 137 Mitchell to President and Directors, October 29, 1875, and Moore to Gorman, August 31, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., C&O 

Co. 

138 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 434. 139 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 480. 140 Ibid, K, 375. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 361 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

3. Lock No. 44—On May 5, 1862, Charles Embrey & Son were granted the right to build 

a drydock above Lock No. 44 under the direction of the Superintendent of the Williamsport Division. The drydock was located on private property at the mouth of a ravine 

which had been depositing sediment into the canal for years. Accordingly, they were 

permitted to run a trunk under the canal to carry off the water from the ravine as well as 

the drydock.141

4. Lock No. 14—On April 29, 1864, John Ellis was given permission to construct a drydock above Lock No. 14 under the supervision of the Superintendent of the Georgetown 

Division.142

5. Edward’s Ferry Basin—In November 1872 the board directed the Superintendent of 

the Monocacy Division to build a drydock at Edward’s Ferry for a sum not to exceed 

$100. After its construction, the drydock was rented to Colonel E. V. White of White’s 

Ferry.143

6. Lock No. 10—A letter from Richard M. Minnis to the canal president on November 

10, 1875, refers to the operation of a drydock “in the rear” of Lock No. 10. There is no 

other information in the company records relative to its construction.144

C. BOATS ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 1889–1924 

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL 

There is little documentary information on the boats plying the canal during the receivership period. In 1902 the Canal Towage Company was organized to provide economy and regularity in 

the runs of the waterway. Sponsored by the Consolidation Coal Company and the canal receivers, 

this company supplied the boats, teams, and equipment, and established a regular schedule for the 

boatmen to follow. It also cut freight rates and controlled the distribution of cargoes. Boats were 

numbered instead of named, and they became more uniform and utilitarian. Traffic on the canal 

became regularized on a time-table basis.145

In a National Park Service report prepared in 1939–40 by Thomas C. Vint, Chief of Planning of the Branch of Plans and Design, the methods used to build the boats for the Canal Towage Company were described. All of the barges 

were built in Cumberland by local boatwrights who were so familiar through experience 

with the job that they used no plans or drawings. Their only guides were a set of sheetmetal templates for the big uprights at the end of the boats. These timbers established the 

curves at bow and stern and the planking at these points was 11⁄2" oak, steamed and bent 

to fit. The rest of the structure was of straight lumber, generally Georgia pine. The seven 

longitudinal heels were three 6" by 6" members and 4" x 6" members. The bottom plank-

 

141 Ibid, K, 291–292. 142 Ibid, K, 391. 143 White to President and Directors, November 21, 1872, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 144 Minnis to Gorman, November 10, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 145 Washington Evening Star, July 11, 1905. 
362 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

ing nailed transversely under the keels was of 3" lumber, dressed to an even thickness, 

and the inner planking which constituted the floor of the cargo holds, was of 2" stuff.146

In an interview with National Park Service officials in January 1939, George L. Nicholson, the 

general manager of the canal from 1891 to 1938, elaborated on the average dimensions of the 

boats during the receivership period. The barges were 14 feet, 6 inches in the beam and 93 feet in 

total length. The straight sides of the boats were 85 feet long to the points where they tapered to 

the bow and stern. Their hulls were 7 feet deep and their draft when fully loaded was 5 feet, 3 

inches. 

The boats had a cabin, 12 feet by 14 feet, on the stern, under which was a 3-foot space 

which was filled with coal. In the center of the boat there was another cabin, about 6 feet by 6 

feet, called the hay house, where the hay was kept and where the crew slept. The mules, usually 4 

or 5 (2 large and 3 smaller ones), were kept in the bow of the boat. The tow rope was 9/16-inch 

Plymouth rope and generally about 225 feet long. The boats usually carried some 115 gross tons. 

After the 1889 flood no packet or passenger boats operated on the canal, and there were few motorboats most of which were privately-owned pleasure craft.147

One other source, that of a field survey made by the Monthly Labor Review in 1921, 

gives some general details relative to the physical make-up of the canal boats during the receivership period and the procedures used to operate them. While the dimensions given in this report 

differ somewhat from those provided by Nicholson, the report nevertheless provides a clearer 

picture of the compartments on deck. The report states: 

The average size of the cabins on the boats of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal was 10 by 

12 feet. All cabins had two bunks, one set into the inner wall of the main cabin and the 

other located in the so-called stateroom, which was partitioned off from the main cabin 

by a diagonal wall. These bunks were 36 inches wide, sufficient space for one person but 

ordinarily occupied by two. In addition to the cabin bunks, the feed box extending across 

the deck at the center of the boat was ordinarily used for sleeping purposes. This box was 

4 feet wide and 4 feet high.... 

Relative to the operation of the canal boats, it was noted that two procedures were involved–

driving the mules and steering the boat. The mules were harnessed tandem to two long ropes or 

“lines” attached to the bow of the boat. From two to five mules were used in “spells,” two or 

three mules being stabled in the fore cabin at rest while the other pulled the boat. The boat hands 

took turns at driving, either walking beside the mules or riding the leader. 

Steering the boat was accomplished by means of the “stick.” This controlled the rudder 

and could be guided by the pilot sitting or standing against it. As there was virtually no current to 

change the direction of the boat, the operation was simple unless the boat was heavily loaded.148

 

146 Thomas O. Vint, Outline Report of Architectural Work on the Restoration of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal for 

Recreational Use, Georgetown D. C. To Seneca, Md. (NPS Mss., (1939–40)), 13–14. Much of Vint’s research on the 

boat was gathered from measurements he made in the late 1930s of the only surviving canal boat then stuck in the mud 

near Hancock. A copy of the drawings of this boat from Vint’s report may be seen in Appendix J. 147 Statement of George L. Nicholson, January 25, 1939, Misc. NPS Mss. An account of a trip down the canal in a privately-owned motorboat may be seen in John P. Cowan, Sometub’s Cruise on the C&O Canal (Pittsburgh, 1916), 5–44. 148 Ethel M. Springer, “Canal Boat Children,” Children’s Bureau, U. S. Department of Agriculture, reprinted from 

Monthly Labor Review (Washington, 1923), 5–9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 363 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

2. GOVERNMENT-OWNED COAL BARGES DURING WORLD WAR I 

During the spring of 1918 the Washington Evening Star and several citizens’ groups in the Potomac Valley advocated government control of the canal as a means of increasing coal shipments to 

Washington and thereby relieving congestion on the railroads. The proposal was endorsed by an 

Inland Waterways Commission survey ordered by William Gibbs McAdoo, who had been appointed as director general of the railroads and coastwise and intercoastal shipping when they 

were temporarily nationalized on January 1, 1918. The commission entered into an agreement 

with the Canal Towage Company to increase the delivery of coal to the boats and to facilitate the 

unloading of the coal at Washington and at government stations along the Potomac River. Later 

the government entered into a contract with the company guaranteeing it against loss in operation. 

It was determined that the government would supply ten new coal barges to supplement the 80 

vessels then employed by the company in the coal trade. 

The ten government coal barges were constructed at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The 

vessels were towed from that place by way of Albemarle Sound to Norfolk and from thence up 

Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac. Five of the boats arrived in Washington in late September and 

the remaining five in early October. There is no information on the dimensions, capacity, or 

physical description of these boats.149 

 

149 Washington Evening Star, September 26, 1918 
364 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

II. REGULATIONS FOR NAVIGATING THE 

 CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1830–1924 

A. REGULATIONS 1830–1835 

Just prior to the opening of the canal between Little Falls and Seneca Falls in November 

1830, the board determined to adopt a “system of rules for the government of toll collectors and the protection of their works, as well as for the regulation of boats.” Accordingly, the directors authorized Clerk Ingle to write to Silas Conduct, president of the Morris Canal and Banking Company that operated the Morris Canal, Edward Everett, a Massachusetts legislator active in the promotion of his state’s canals, Gideon Tomlinson, 

Governor of the State of Connecticut, Horatio Seymour, a New York State Canal Commissioner, and Samuel Fleuding, treasurer of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company. 

Ingle was to request from these men copies of laws passed by their States relative to police powers on their canals and of regulations passed by the various canal companies under their jurisdiction.150

After receiving the replies to these inquiries, the board immediately noticed that 

its company charter contained “no express provision” giving it the authority to establish 

by-laws, rules and regulations for the preservation of the works on the canal, and the policing of its navigation. Apparently, the framers of the company charter had overlooked 

this important item as all the other canal companies had such a provision in their charters 

authorizing them to pass and enforce regulations “in subordination to the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, and of the several States in which they exist, and are required to act.”151 Thus, the directors on October 19 authorized President Mercer to present memorials to the Maryland General Assembly and the U. S. Congress requesting the 

enactment of such laws “as shall be calculated to establish a suitable police on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, and to protect from injury the rights and interests of the Company 

in their works and other property.”152 Despite the entreaties of Mercer neither legislative 

body enacted the proposed legislation that year. 

Through the winter months of 1830–31, President Mercer drafted several regulations “for registering all the boats as they may enter the Canal at Seneca” and “for prohibiting the use of poles pointed with iron, in navigating the Canal.” On March 25, 1831, the 

board adopted these rules with some modifications and ordered them to be printed.153

On April 2, 1831, Daniel Van Slyke, the newly-appointed Superintendent of the 

Canal, reported to President Mercer that the canal had been thronged with boats since it 

was opened to navigation on March 19. Canal officials had experienced great difficulty in 

preserving order among the boatmen “who in striving to push forward for a preference in 

passing the several locks are sometimes disposed to injure each others boats as a means 

of carrying their point.” Such an incident had taken place at one of the locks on Section 

 

150 Ingle to Conduct, Ibid. to Everett, Ibid. to Tomlinson, Ibid. to Seymour, and Ibid. to Fleuding, October 5, 1830, Ltrs. 

Sent, C&O Co. 

151 Third Annual Report (1831), in Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 173. 152 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 206. 153 Ibid, B, 290. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 365 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

No. 9 (Locks Nos. 12, 13, or 14) the previous week when a “strongly constructed boat ran 

her bow against a gondola loaded with flour, and so much injured her as to render it necessary to transship the load.” Since fifteen or twenty boats frequently arrived at a lock 

within thirty minutes, it was important that the board, formulate and publish regulations 

governing the lock tender and the order in which boats would be permitted to pass the 

locks.154

The board responded to this request on May 6 by authorizing Mercer “to prepare 

and cause to be published, a code of, regulations for the government of the lock keepers, 

boat-men, packet owners, and others having business on the canal.”155 On July 16 he 

submitted a draft of the regulations for navigating the canal, and after making some 

amendments, the board adopted them and ordered them to be printed for distribution.156

Included in the regulations was a stipulation that all craft on the waterway must be 

propelled by a towing line drawn by men and horses. Other provisions required that care 

be taken at all times to prevent injury to the canal and to those navigating it. The regulations prohibited the use of iron-tipped poles and forbade the operation of pointed boats 

and craft with iron-shod corners. Traffic was to keep to the right in passing, and a system 

of preference was established to facilitate navigation boats had the right of way over 

rafts, descending boats over ascending craft, packets over freight boats at all times, and 

packets carrying the mail over all others. Vessels traveling at night were required to have 

a light on the bow. Due notice must be given upon approaching a lock to permit the tender to open the gates, and only if the latter failed to do his duty was the boatmen to lock 

his own craft through. Boats were to tie up only on the berm side of the canal to prevent 

interference with traffic on the towpath. All craft must be registered and plainly marked 

on both sides with name, number, and marks denoting the draft of the vessel.157

 The text of the “Regulations for Navigating the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal” was 

as follows:158

July 16, 1831 

REGULATIONS FOR NAVIGATING THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

1st Every Boat or Float, navigating the Canal after the 15th day of August next, shall 

be propelled by a towing line drawn by men or horses, and shall be moreover 

furnished with strapping or snubbing lines for passing through the locks of the 

Canal without injury to the same. 

2nd No Boat or Float shall, under any circumstances, use any iron shod or sharp 

pointed setting pole on the Canal. 

3rd No Boat or Float shall forcibly strike, or violently rub against any other boat, or 

against the banks, locks, aqueducts, inside walls, or wastes, or bridges of the Canal. 

 

154 Van Slyke to Mercer, April 2, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 155 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 314. 156 Ibid, B, 410 157 Ibid, B, 410–419. 158 Ibid. 
366 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

4th No Boat or Float shall be permitted to pass along the Canal at night, unless with a 

conspicuous light on its bow; in case of rafts, gondolas, or scows, such light shall 

be at the forward end thereof. 

5th No Boat or Float shall unnecessarily lie by, or be moored opposite to any 

waste, or within 150 yards of any Lock, or in any short basin or pool between two locks 

6th When any owner, master, or other person having charge of any boat or float, designs to leave the same, for any time, in any other part of the Canal, he shall give 

notice of such intention to the Lock-keeper, in whose district the boat or float is 

to remain, and before he leaves his boat or float, he shall moor it along the berm, 

or side of the Canal opposite the towing path; and there, so secure it, as that it 

may, under no circumstances, lie across the Canal so as to obstruct, impede, or 

delay the passage of any other boat or float, along the same. And so, in like manner, when a boat or float, shall stop for the night, or lie by on account of high 

winds, or for any other transient or accidental cause, the owner, master, or other 

person having charge thereof, shall moor it securely against the berm of the Canal, or side opposite the towing path. Under no circumstances whatever, shall any 

boat or other floating thing, lie fastened to, or moored along the tow path of the 

Canal; nor shall the owner, master, or other person or persons, having charge 

thereof, encamp upon the towpath, or drive stakes into the top or slopes thereof, 

or place stones thereon, or kindle fires upon the same; or in any way or manner, 

obstruct or incommode the free and common use of the Canal by day or night. 

7th Any boat or float left unmoored in the Canal, without any information 

thereof having been given by its owner or master, or other person having 

charge thereof, to the Lock-keeper of the District, in which such boat or 

float may be found, shall be considered as abandoned by the owner, master, or other person having had charge of the same; and if sunk in the Canal, or found floating loosely thereon, shall, by the Lock-keeper aforesaid, 

or some person duly authorized by him, be removed from the Canal as a 

nuisance, and the cost of removing the same, shall be chargeable to the 

owner of such boat or float; and in no case, shall the Lock-keeper be required to make sale thereof, or be held accountable for preserving the 

same, from farther injury by reason of the neglect of the owner. 

8th No carcass, or dead animal, or putrid substance of any kind, be thrown into the 

Canal, or into any basin or feeder connected therewith. 

9th Square headed or sharp covered boats, such as scows and gondolas, shall each 

have a semicircular platform, firmly fastened upon each end thereof, so as to save 

other boats or floats, and the banks and locks of the Canal, from injury by contact 

with either of the corners thereof; and no such boat, without such provision, shall, 

after the first day of October next, be allowed to enter the Canal, or to pass 

through any lock upon the same. 

10th Every Boat or Float shall have its rudder so constructed, as not to catch, interfere 

with, or cut the tow-rope of a passing boat. 

11th No raft or tow of timber passing on the Canal, shall consist of more than eight 

cribs, and when consisting of more than one, they shall be so united, as to conform readily to the curvatures of the Canal banks, and to glide by the same without rubbing against them. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 367 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

12th All Boats or Floats descending the Canal, shall have a right to keep the towpath 

side thereof. 

13th When any Boat or Float ascending the Canal, shall be about to meet another, it shall be the duty of the owner, master, or other person navigating 

or having charge thereof, to turn from the towing-path, so as to allow 

room for the descending boat to pass with ease; provided, however, that 

Packets or Boats, constructed exclusively for the conveyance of passengers, shall, until otherwise ordered, have the right to keep the towing-path 

side, both in ascending and descending the Canal. A boat authorized to 

carry the United States Mail, shall have preference of all others. All boats 

shall have preference to rafts. 

14th When the owner, master, or other person having charge of any Boat or Float, 

shall perceive, or be told, or apprised by sounding a horn or by any other signal, 

that a packet boat, following him can, from its speed, pass him, and is desirous to 

do so, he shall turn his boat from the tow-path side of the Canal, and give way to 

the swifter moving boat to pass by, unless he be at such time within 150 yards of 

some Lock, in which case, if entitled to no preference, on any other score, the 

hinder shall wait, till the other shall pass the Lock: and all rafts shall, in like 

manner, give place to freight boats. 

15th The passing of one boat by another, shall be effected by checking the boat bound 

by the preceding rules, to give way, as soon as she has opened a passage for the 

other, so as that the tow-line may sink to the bottom of the Canal, the boat entitled to pass shall float over the tow-line. 

16th No Boat or Float, unless specially licensed to travel with greater speed, shall 

move on the Canal where its banks are not of rock on both sides, or not paved or 

walled on both sides, so as to guard them from abrasion, with a velocity exceeding four miles an hour. 

17th In case of any breach or leak through the Canal banks, or of the apprehension of 

one, the several boats or floats, which may be near the place of danger, shall take 

such position in the Canal, as the Superintendent, or Officer, or Engineer, or 

Lock-keeper of the Company, or other person charged to repair or guard against 

such breach or leak may direct. 

18th In all cases, boats engaged in repairing the Canal, shall have preference of all 

other boats, if their use at the time require it. 

19th In approaching a Lock, the boat which first arrives within 150 yards thereof, not 

being in any lock shall have a preference, and if several boats arrive at or near the 

same time, within that distance of any lock, they shall have a right to pass in the 

order of their arrival within that distance; provided, that if two boats, at or very 

near the same moment, approach from above, and below, within such distance of 

any lock, the descending boat shall have the preference if the lock be at such 

time, full of water; if empty, the ascending boat; and one boat having passed 

from above through a lock, another boat from below shall have liberty to pass up, 

before another boat be admitted from above, and vice versa, except, that packet 

boats shall have preference of freight boats, and a boat carrying the United States 

Mail, of all others. 

20th The preference granted to packet boats, by the preceding regulations, shall not 

extend to such as are less than 60 feet long. 
368 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

21st All boats arriving within 150 yards of any lock, shall have preference of such 

parts of rafts as shall remain, after one or more cribs or parts of the same raft 

shall have already passed through any lock. 

22nd Every owner, master, or other person having charge of any boat, in approaching a 

lock, by night, shall, for ten minutes, if necessary, give signal of his approach, by 

blowing a horn or knocking at the Lock-keeper’s door, and if in that time, or after 

such knocking, the Lock-keeper shall not appear or answer, such owner, master, 

or other person, may proceed to let himself through the Lock, taking care to close 

the head-gates of the lock after passing, and to leave the paddle gates of the culverts as he found them: and no person, other than the Lock-keeper, or one acting 

under his authority, or with his consent shall open or shut any guard or lock gate, 

or handle or turn any paddle gate, but under the circumstances above stated; and 

at all times, for any damage to the Canal or its works, resulting from the violation 

of this rule, the offender shall be held personally responsible. 

23rd Every Boat or Float which shall not avail itself of the first title it acquires to pass 

through any lock, shall lose its preference, thereat, till all the boats awaiting a 

passage through the same, in the same direction, shall have passed. 

24th In approaching a Lock, the owner, master, or other person having charge of any 

boat or float, shall slacken his speed, at such distance therefrom as the Locktender or any person, acting by his authority, shall direct; and take care to enter 

the Lock without injury thereto. 

25th In passing the Lock he shall fasten the bow and stern snubbing lines of his boat, 

to the strapping posts, on the proper side of the lock, until the lock is filled or 

emptied as the case may be, and in all other respects, he shall use his strapping 

ropes according to the instructions of the Lock-keeper, and tow his boat into or 

out of the lock, at such time, and in such manner as the Lock-keeper may direct. 

He shall especially make use of all possible diligence to go out of the lock, when 

the gates shall have been opened for his departure, so as to occasion no unnecessary delay to other boats, waiting to pass the same lock, or any other lock in 

charge of the same Lock-keeper. 

26th Every breach or violation of any of the preceding regulations, by the owner, master, or other person having charge of any Boat or Float, shall be reported by the 

Lock-keeper, or any other person having cognizance thereof, to the Register at 

Rushville, or to the Collector at or near Georgetown, or to the Superintendent of 

the Canal, or to some other Officer of the Company, together with the number of 

the Boat, and the name of the owner, master, or person having charge of the same 

for the time being; and from the occurrence of such breach or violation of any of 

the said Rules, such boat shall be excluded from the navigation of the Canal, until 

it otherwise be adjudged and ordered by the President and Directors of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company. 

27th No Boat shall be used as a Packet Boat on said Canal, unless specially licensed 

therefore, which license shall give to the said Boat the privilege of carrying passengers to and from any point on said Canal, between the Basin at Georgetown 

and Rushville: and the owner or master of said Packet Boat shall pay for every 

trip up or down between said Basin and Rushville: or any intermediate points, the 

sum of one dollar and fifty cents, which sum shall be paid weekly to such Collector as may be authorized to receive the same, and on any failure to pay the said 

sum, or fraudulent return by the owner, master, or other person having charge of 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 369 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

the said Boat, of the number of voyages made in the week by said Boat, its license shall be forfeited. 

28th The tolls upon laden boats shall remain as heretofore, until otherwise ordered. 

29th After the lst day of August next, there shall be charged, for every empty freight 

boat, passing the Guard lock at Rushville, with a view of descending the Canal, 

the sum of one dollar, and, the same for every empty boat entering the Canal at 

the old locks below the Little Falls, or passing by the same up the new Canal. 

The same sum shall be paid for every boat having cargo, the toll upon which 

shall not amount to one dollar. 

30th There shall be a book kept by the Register at Rushville, in which shall be entered 

the number, owner’s name, and place of abode, length, breadth, and draft of water, of every Boat or Float navigating the Canal, except such Boat or Float as 

shall enter the Canal from above Seneca, without designing to return. 

31st Preparatory to numbering the boats, a classification of them shall be made under 

the following denominations: Packet Boats, or Boats designed for passengers exclusively, Freight boats, Boats for passage and freight, Scows and Gondolas. The 

boats of each class or denomination, shall be numbered as they arrive at the 

Guard Lock, from 1 upwards. 

32nd The number of each boat shall correspond with the number by which it is entered 

in the Register, and be inscribed on both sides of the boat, in figures not less than 

three inches long, near the stern thereof, so high above water that, as the boat 

navigates the Canal, the number may at all times be plainly discerned from either 

bank. 

33rd On numbering and entering each boat, the Register shall issue, according to such 

printed form as may be prescribed, to the owner, master, or other person having 

charge thereof, a certificate, to be called the Boat’s Register, which shall contain 

the number and description of the boat, and shall correspond with the entry 

thereof. 

34th After the 15th day of August next, no Boat required to be numbered by the preceding regulations, shall be permitted to enter the Canal, or to pass through any 

Lock thereof, which has not been duly numbered and registered, or of which the 

owner, master, or other person having charge thereof, shall refuse to show the 

Boat’s Register to any District Lock-keeper who may demand sight thereof: Provided, That any boat ascending the Canal for the first time, need not be so numbered until it shall have reached Rushville; but in lieu of a register, such boat 

shall be provided with a certificate from the Collector at or near Georgetown, or 

from the first District Lock-keeper, by whose lock it may pass, that it is on its 

first voyage up or down the Canal. 

35th No owner, master, or other person shall alter the number of any boat, without the 

express permission in writing of the Register; and, on the sale or transfer of any 

boat from one owner to another, notice thereof shall be given when the boat next 

enters the Guard Lock at Rushville, to the Register, by whom a Record of such 

sale or transfer shall be made in the Register opposite to the number and description of the boat. 

36th On the destruction or accidental loss of any Boat which has been numbered and 

registered, the number of such boat may be given to any boat not hitherto numbered and registered, and a new certificate issued to the owner thereof, if requested. 
370 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

37th On satisfactory proof to the Register, that the certificate of any boat’s register has 

been unintentionally destroyed, or accidentally lost, he shall renew the name, on 

application of the owner, master, or other person having charge of such boat. 

38th Every Boat or Float duly registered, which, in descending the Potomac to Rushville, is not provided with wooden pointed setting poles, shall be entitled to receive of the Register, in exchange for its iron shod poles, an equal number of 

wooden pointed setting poles, for its voyage down and up the Canal, and shall 

have its iron shod poles returned, on delivering up those which it had received in 

exchange therefore; and for any poles so supplied, and which may have been lost, 

the Register shall demand and receive the cost thereof. No Boat or Float shall be 

permitted to enter the Canal, until she shall have delivered up all iron shod poles 

which she may have on board.159

At the same time the Board adopted a set of rules to govern the toll collectors along the canal in 

the execution of their duties. These regulations were as follows: 

Whenever a descending Boat or Float applies for admission into the Canal, through the 

Guard Lock at Rushville, the Register and Lock-keeper thereat shall see that such boat or 

float is equipped as the general regulations respecting the navigation of the Canal require, 

and if not registered, shall see that such boat or float, if designed for a regular trader, is 

duly numbered and registered before it proceeds on its voyage. Having discharged this 

duty, the Register shall next inspect the cargo, and make out and sign a faithful list 

thereof, to be called a way bill, according to such printed form as may be supplied to him. 

This way bill he shall deliver to the owner, master, or other person having charge of such 

boat or float, before he enters the Guard Lock. The several way bills shall be numbered in 

the order in which they are issued. Of every such way bill, he shall at the same time make 

a brief entry in a book to be kept by him for that purpose, and ruled in columns, according to such stated forms as he may be instructed to use; which columns shall comprehend 

the number and date of the way bill, the number and class of the boat or float, the contents of her cargo, her destination, and the name of the owner, master or other person 

having charge thereof. 

 The owner, master or other person, in proceeding to his destination, shall deliver 

up this way bill to the Collector at or near Georgetown, if the destination of the boat or 

float be to or below the same; if to a point above, to the District Lock-keeper next above 

the part of the Canal to which his cargo is destined; and shall pay to the Collector, or to 

such District Lock-keeper, as the case may be, the toll chargeable on such boat. 

 Every such way bill shall be forwarded to the Company’s Office in Washington, 

at the end of the month in which it is received, accompanied by an account of the tolls received thereon, the amount of which shall be forthwith deposited in Bank to the credit of 

the Company. 

 If any boat within this Canal shall proceed from one place to another thereon, 

above the Collector’s office in Georgetown, and below Rushville, this owner, master or 

other person having charge thereof, shall receive a permit to proceed to his destination, 

from the first District Lock-keeper by whose lock he first passes, and shall pay his toll to 

the District Lock-keeper by whose house he last passes. Forms of such permits shall be 

supplied the Lock-keepers, and shall be filled up with the supposed tonnage of the boat, 

 

159 Ibid.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 371 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

and the distance between it place of departure and destination, and the amount of toll 

chargeable thereon. 

 Every owner, master or other person having charge of any boat or float which 

may offer to pass any lock, may be required by the District Lock-keeper, or his assistant, 

to produce the boat’s register and way bill or permit, or if his boat shall have commenced 

her voyage below Rushville, the state the place or places at which he took in his cargo, if 

he has any, and his destination, and shall pay a toll thereon according to the distance he 

has navigated the Canal. 

 Every owner, master or person having charge of any boat or float, who shall refuse either to show any Lock-keeper demanding sight thereof, his register, bill of lading, 

or permit, or being without either to state from whence he began his voyage, or took in, 

or increased his cargo, shall be refused a passage through the Lock at which such demand 

is made. 

 Each Lock-keeper shall monthly report the date of passage, number or description, owner’s name, destination and cargo, of every boat or float which shall pass through 

his Lock without the bill of lading, and shall render in his monthly accounts and deposit 

in Bank to the credit of the Company, such sums as he may collect as tolls thereon.160

Less than one week later on July 22 the board ordered that the canal “between the Seneca feeder 

and the wooden lock next above the foundry and the bridges and road ways within that distance” 

be officially “declared open and free for trade and passing, subject to the Regulations of the 

Company.”161

It is apparent from a perusal of the canal company records that there was widespread disregard of the new regulations on the canal by the boatmen. By November the directors had received numerous reports that the trunk was obstructed in various places by sunken or broken 

gondolas, boats, and lumber and that many of the boatmen were still propelling their boats with 

poles. Accordingly, the board directed Superintendent Van Slyke to require that the lock- keepers 

strictly enforce the regulations governing the use of poles and the design of the boats. The company engineers were authorized also to report any infringement of the company’s navigation 

rules. Henceforth, the use of poles, except for passing the locks, would be prohibited entirely.162

As the company was experiencing great difficulty in enforcing its navigation by-laws, the 

board in early December reported the matter to the General Committee of the Stockholders. After 

some deliberation, the committee on December 6 determined to repeat the earlier attempt to obtain authority to establish a system of police for the preservation of the canal. Accordingly, memorials were sent to the Maryland General Assembly and the U. S. Congress requesting that the 

charter be amended to provide for such a police authority.163

This time the canal company was successful in obtaining from these two bodies laws 

amending the canal charter to provide for the desired police authority. During the 1831 December 

session, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill providing for the following: (1) any person 

found guilty of injuring, impairing, or destroying any of the property or works of the company 

was to be taken before a local justice of the peace and was to be made subject to a fine not exceeding $50 payable to the company or he was to be indicted by a county court and, upon conviction, punished by incarceration or fine or both; (2) the company was empowered to pass by-laws 

for the exercise of the powers vested in it by its charter provided the regulations did not prevent 

 

160 Ibid, B, 419– 421. 161 Ibid, B, 432. 162 Ibid, C, 30. 163 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 194. 
372 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

the proprietors through whose land the canal passed from having convenient access to the canal 

or from crossing the waterway according to agreements already made with the company (violations of the by-laws were to be punished by $5 fines); and (3) the company was given authority to 

prescribe the physical dimensions and equipment of the boats using the canal and to order offending boats to leave the waterway through any of the outlet locks.164 An Act of Congress passed on 

July 14, 1832, gave the assent of the United States to the Maryland act.165

During the years 1832–33, the canal board passed various resolutions relative to the navigation rules on the canal. While they all consisted of changes in the regulations adopted earlier, 

their general intent was to promote the efficiency of navigation and the preservation of the canal. 

On March 24, 1832, it was determined that no boat cargoes could be deposited nearer than eight 

feet to the margin of the Rock Creek Basin and that no sand could be deposited on either side of 

the basin below Lock No. 1. It was decided also to discourage the accumulation of commodities 

on the margin of the basin by requiring that the same rate of toll, which was paid on the goods for 

admission into the basin, be paid each day after the first day of unloading.166

On June 4, 1833, the board took steps to force the lock tenders to enforce the company 

regulations more stringently. After this date, they would be held responsible for any damage done 

to the locks under their care by boats “violently” entering the chambers or by boatmen using ironpointed poles, unless in each case of damage the number, description, and captain of the boat was 

reported to the Collector in Georgetown before the craft returned through the lock. The lockkeepers would be held responsible for any injury done to the lock gates or masonry unless they 

made a similar report. If the lock tenders failed to provide such information, the cost of repairing 

the damage would be deducted from their wages the following month. To make this provision 

effective, the canal superintendent was to certify that the locks were in good order each month 

before the salaries of the lock keepers were paid.167

In late June 1833 the board decided to have the lock tenders enforce its earlier prohibition 

from navigation of all square-headed or sharp-covered scows that did not have a semicircular 

platform firmly fastened upon each end. For an undetermined reason, gondolas were excepted 

from this rule, although they had been included under it since 1831.168

B. REGULATIONS FOR 1835–1850 

As the canal was about to be opened to navigation as far west as Dam No. 5, the directors 

felt that a revised code of regulations should be adopted to govern navigation on the waterway. Accordingly, an updated set of by-laws was approved on February 18, 1835, to 

supersede the regulations approved in July 1831 and their subsequent amendments. The 

only significant change was in Rule 1, which now made provision for the operation of 

steam boats on the canal. These revised by-laws were to continue in effect until 1851 

when a new code was drawn up after the canal was completed to Cumberland. 

The 1835 rules for navigation were as follows: 

February 18, 1835 

 

164 Laws Made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1831), Ch. 297. A copy of 

excerpts from this law may be seen in Appendix H. 

165 Act of Congress, July 14, 1832. A copy of this act may be seen in Appendix I. 166 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 112. 167 Ibid, C, 368–369. 168 Ibid, C, 392. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 373 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

BY-LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS FOR NAVIGATING THE 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 

1st Every boat or float navigating the Canal, and not specially licensed to 

move by paddle wheels, shall be propelled by a towing line, drawn by men 

or horses, and all boats and floats shall be moreover, furnished with strapping or snubbing lines for passing through the locks of the Canal, without 

injury to the same. 

2nd No boat or float shall, under any circumstance, use any iron-shod or sharp 

pointed settling pole on the Canal; nor shall they be allowed to pass any lock till 

all such have been deposited with the lock keeper, whose duty it shall be safely to 

keep the same, and return them to the master of such boat upon her return. 

3rd Square headed or sharp cornered boats, such as scows and gondolas, shall each 

have a semicircular platform, firmly fastened upon each end thereof, so as to save 

other boats or floats, and the banks and locks of the Canal, from injury by contact 

with either of the corners thereof; and every boat or float shall have its rudder so 

constructed as not to catch, interfere with, or cut the tow-rope of a passing boat. 

All boats or floats not conforming to these three rules, shall be proceeded 

against as provided for by the act of Maryland, hereto annexed. (Appended act–Extract from an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, entitled “An act further to amend the act incorporating the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Company,” passed at the December session, 1831.) 

4th Every boat, gondola, and scow, navigating the Canal, must be named or numbered, and such name or number must be inscribed, by the direction and at the 

expense of those who are interested in her, with oil paint, in letters or figures, not 

less than three inches long, on both sides of such boat, gondola, or scow, and on 

some permanent part thereof, so high above water that it may be plainly seen 

from either bank of the Canal; and such name, together with the description of 

boat, (i.e. whether packet boat, freight boat, gondola, or scow,) must be inserted 

in her register, or license, and way-bills, or permit, and be entered in the records 

and returns of the collectors: provided, however that, in the first voyage down, if 

the owners or master shall have found it inconvenient to have had such name inscribed, the boat may be permitted to pass, designating her in her way-bill, &c. as 

a new boat; but after arriving at her destination, she shall not be permitted to return until her name has been inscribed as above directed; and provided, also, that, 

where the same name or number shall have been given to two or more boats of 

the same description, the one which has been most recently so named or brought 

on to the Canal shall be required to have the name so altered, or a number added 

thereto, as to easily distinguish it from the previous one. 

5th No raft or tow of timber passing on the Canal shall consist of more than eight 

cribs, and when consisting of more than one, they shall be so united as to conform readily to the curvatures of the Canal banks, and to glide by the same without rubbing against them. 

6th No boat or float shall forcibly strike or violently rub against any other boat, or 

against the banks, locks, aqueducts, inside walls, or wastes, or bridges of the Canal. 
374 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

7th No boat or float shall be permitted to pass along the Canal at night, unless with a 

conspicuous light on its bow; in case of rafts, gondolas, or scows, such lights 

shall be at the forward end thereof. 

8th No boat or float shall unnecessarily lie by or be moored opposite to any waste, or 

within one hundred and fifty yards of any lock, or in any short basin or pool between two locks. 

9th When any owner, master, or other person having charge of any boat or float, designs to leave the same for any time in any other part of the Canal, he shall give 

notice of such intention to the nearest lock-keeper; and, before he leaves his boat 

or float, he shall moor it along the berm or side of the Canal opposite the towingpath, and there so secure it that no part of it shall be more than one-third of the 

width of the Canal from the berm-bank; and, in like manner, when a boat or float 

shall stop for the night, or lie by on account of high winds, or for any other transient or accidental cause, the owner, master, or other person having charge 

thereof, shall moor it securely along the berm side of the Canal. 

10th Under no circumstances whatever shall any boat, or other floating thing, lie fastened to or moored along the tow-path of the Canal; nor shall the owner, master, 

or other person or persons having charge thereof, encamp upon the tow-path, or 

drive stakes into the top or slopes thereof, or place stones thereon, or kindle fires 

upon the same, or in any way or manner obstruct or incommode the free and 

common use of the Canal by day or night 

11th No carcass, or dead animal, or putrid substance of any kind, shall be thrown into 

the Canal, or into any basin or feeder connected therewith, or be put upon or left 

on either bank of the Canal, or upon any part of the Canal property, so as to be 

offensive to travelers or others; and in the event of such being left, it shall be the 

duty of the lock-keeper nearest thereto to have it forthwith removed, and to endeavor to obtain such evidence as may lead to the conviction of the offender. 

12th Whenever any superintendent or lock-keeper shall find any boat or float moored 

or fastened in any manner to the tow-path side of the Canal, or so moored or fastened in the Canal, or to the berm side thereof, that any part of such boat or float 

shall be more than one-third of the width of the then water surface of the Canal 

from the berm-bank, he shall forthwith direct the person or persons in charge of it 

to prevent its continuing so to lie. And if the person or persons in charge of such 

boat or float shall refuse or neglect to remove the same, he or they shall be proceeded against according to law; but if no person be found on board, or near at 

hand, in charge of such boat or float, the superintendent or lock-keeper shall 

cause it to be removed, and secured as near to the nearest lock-house as conveniently may be; and when the person claiming to be the master or owner thereof, 

or to be acting in behalf of the master or owner, shall apply for the repossession 

of it, it shall be delivered to him; but if he do not at the same time pay the expense of so removing and securing it, a prosecution shall ensue for the violation 

of these by-laws. 

13th Whenever a superintendent or lock-keeper shall find any boat, float, or other substance, floating loose upon, or sunk in the Canal, or any of its basins, ponds, or 

feeders, the owner of which is unknown, or, if known, neglects or refuses, after 

reasonable notice, to remove the same, such superintendent or lock-keeper shall 

cause it to be broken up and removed from the Canal. 

14th All boats and floats descending the Canal shall have the right to keep the towpath side thereof; and when any ascending boat or float is about to meet a de-
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 375 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

scending one, it shall be the duty of the owner, master, or other person navigating 

or having charge thereof, to turn from the towing-path, so as to allow room for 

the descending boat to pass with ease; provided, however, that licensed packet 

boats shall, until otherwise ordered, have the right to keep the towing-path side, 

both in ascending and descending the Canal, with this exception: that when two 

such licensed packet boats meet, the ascending one shall lose its right to the towing-path side for the time occupied in passing such other packet boat. 

15th Rafts shall, in all cases, give place for boats of all descriptions to pass between 

them and the towing-path; and in like manner all boats moved by steam power, 

or any other means than by a towing line, whether they be packet boats or not, 

shall in all cases give place for boats or floats moved by a towing line to pass between them and the tow-path 

16th When the owner, master, or other person having charge of any boat or float, shall 

perceive, or be told, or apprized by sounding a horn, or by any other signal, that a 

packet or other boat following him can, from its speed, pass him, and is desirous 

to do so, he shall turn his boat from the tow-path side of the Canal, and give way 

to the swifter moving boat to pass by, unless at the time of such signal he be 

within three hundred yards of the next lock ahead of him. 

17th The passing of one boat by another shall be effected by checking the boat bound 

by the preceding rules to give way, as soon as she has opened a passage for the 

other, so as that the tow-line may sink to the bottom of the Canal, and boat entitled to pass may float over it. 

18th In case of any breach or leak through the Canal banks, or of the apprehension of 

one, the several boats or floats, which may be near the place of danger, shall take 

such position in the Canal, as the superintendent, or officer, or engineer, or lockkeeper of the company, or other person charged to repair or guard against such 

breach or leak, may direct. 

19th In all cases, boats engaged in repairing the Canal shall have preference of all 

other boats, if their use at the time require it. 

20th If several boats are approaching a lock at the same time, from the same direction, 

the one which first arrives within one hundred and fifty yards thereof shall be entitled to pass through it first, and the others in the order of their arrival, within 

said distance of one hundred and fifty yards; provided, however, that if there be 

one or more packet boats among them, such packet boars shall be passed in preference to all others, except the one that may be in the lock at the time when such 

packet or packets arrive within the one hundred and fifty yards; and after such 

packet or packets shall have passed, the others will resume the order of their 

passing as before. In like manner, freight boats, gondolas, and scows, shall have a 

preference over rafts, and such parts of rafts, as remain after one or more cribs of 

the same raft shall have passed. 

21st In all the short levels, to wit, between locks 1 and 4, between locks 9 and 14, between locks 15 and 20, between locks 35 and 36, and between locks 41 and 43, 

all freight boats, gondolas, scows, or rafts, passing in the same direction with a 

packet boat or boats, shall give way for such packet or packets to enter the lock at 

the end of such level, except the freight boat or other craft that may be in such 

lock at the time when the gates of the lock at the other end of the level are opening to pass such packet out; in which case such freight boat or other craft shall be 

passed through the lock it may have so entered, and wait in the next level (if it be 
376 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

one of the short ones above referred to) till such packet or packets shall have 

passed her. 

22nd The preference granted to packet boats by any of the preceding rules shall not extend to such as are less than sixty feet long; and no boat shall be deemed to be a 

packet, within the meaning of these rules, until she shall have obtained a license 

as such, signed by the President and Clerk of the Company, nor after such license 

shall have been annulled by a vote of the President and Directors, at some legal 

meeting of the Board. 

23rd If two or more licensed packets approach a lock at the same time, from the same 

direction, the one which first arrives within one hundred and fifty yards of the 

same shall pass first, and the other or others in the order of their arrival within 

that distance. And in this and the three preceding rules, no distinction shall be 

made whether the boats be moved by a towing line, steam power, or other means. 

24th If boats or other craft are approaching a lock from above and below at the same 

time, the descending one, which, by the foregoing rules, would have the right to 

pass, were they all bound in the same direction, shall be passed first, whatever 

may be the distance at which she is first discovered, if the lock be full of water, 

and it is the opinion of the lock-keeper, judging from her speed, that the water 

cannot be drawn off before she will have reached the lock, and, in like manner, 

the ascending one shall be passed first, if the lock be empty, and it is the opinion 

of the lock-keeper that it cannot be filled before such ascending one will have 

reached it. 

25th No boat or float shall pass in any degree the walls of a lock, above or below its 

gates, until directed by the lock-keeper so to do; nor shall it take or keep a position, contrary to the orders of the lock-keeper, so as to prevent another from 

freely passing out or in. The Seneca aqueduct must be considered as forming part 

of the walls of the lock with which its connected, so far as relates to this rule. 

26th In all questions as to a boat or float being in a lock, it shall be held that if any part 

of it shall have passed the extreme end of the walls of such lock, in its regular 

turn, and with the consent of the lock-keeper, then it is in the lock, within the 

meaning of the foregoing rules, but not otherwise. In like manner, a boat or float 

shall be considered as within one hundred and fifty yards of a lock, if the bow of 

it shall have passed the mark indicating that distance, but not otherwise. 

27th In all cases when there are several boats, or other craft, waiting near a lock to 

pass in both directions, so soon as one of them shall have been passed down, 

agreeable to the foregoing rules, the ascending one, entitled to enter, shall be 

passed up, if ready, and if not, then the next in order that is ready, before another 

from above shall be passed down; and in like manner, if an ascending boat, or 

other craft, shall have passed first, a descending one, if ready, shall be passed 

down before another shall pass up. 

28th Every boat or float which shall not avail itself of the first title it acquires to pass 

through any lock, shall lose its preference thereat, till all those have passed which 

were, at the time of such neglect, awaiting a passage through the same, in the 

same direction. 

29th It is made the duty of every lock-keeper to remove into his lock-house before going to bed, the cranks, or handles, by which the paddle gates of every lock in his 

charge are turned, so that no person but himself, or one acting under his authority, can turn any such gates. And it is further hereby made the duty of every lockkeeper, at any hour of the night, upon being apprized of the wish of any boat or 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 377 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

boats to pass, either by the blowing of a horn, knocking at his door, or other signal, to rise and pass such boat or boats, or have it done by some one acting under 

his authority. 

30th Every owner, master, or other person having charge of any boat or float which 

may offer to pass any lock, by night or by day, may be required by the lockkeeper or his assistant to produce the boat’s register and way-bill or permit; and 

if such owner, master, or other person having charge, shall refuse either to show 

to the lock-keeper demanding sight thereof his register, bill of lading, or permit, 

or, being without either, to state from whence he began his voyage, or took in or 

increased his cargo, he shall be refused a passage through the lock at which such 

demand is made. 

31st In approaching a lock, the owner, master, or other person having charge of any 

boat or float, shall slacken his speed, at such distance therefrom as the lockkeeper, or any person acting by his authority, shall direct; and take care to enter 

the lock without injury thereto. 

32nd In passing the lock he shall fasten the bow and stern snubbing lines of his boat, to 

the strapping posts, on the proper side of the lock, until the lock is filled or emptied, as the case may be; and in all other respects he shall use his strapping ropes 

according to the instructions of the lock-keeper, and tow his boat into or out of 

the lock, at such time, and in such manner, as the lock-keeper may direct. He 

shall especially make use of all possible diligence to go out of the lock, when the 

gates shall have been opened for his departure, so as to occasion no unnecessary 

delay to other boats waiting to pass the same lock, or any other lock in charge of 

the same lock-keeper. 

33rd No cart, wagon, or wheel carriage of any description, shall travel upon, or be 

permitted to use, the towpath bank, or berm-bank of the Canal, except in crossing 

them, in the shortest convenient direction, at some authorized ferry. 

34th It is hereby made the duty of every lock-keeper to note, or bear in mind, every 

breach or violation of any of the preceding rules, so as to be able to give testimony in the case, whenever legally required to do so; and also to report all such 

breaches and violations to the superintendent. 

35th All rules and regulations heretofore made, so far as they conflict with the foregoing rules, regulations, or by-laws, are hereby repealed. 

Enacted by the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, at a 

meeting of the Board, this 18th day of February 1835.169

Between 1835 and 1850 the company records show virtually no changes in these regulations. 

However, a federal law passed in February 1839 did affect the boats on the canal. From that time 

all boats weighing in excess of five tons were to be licensed by the Collector of the Port of 

Georgetown.170

C. REGULATIONS FOR 1851–1889 

After the completion of the waterway to Cumberland in 1850, the company prepared to 

 

169 Ibid, D, 240–252. 170 Ibid, F, 25. 
378 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

enter a new phase of its existence. Among other activities, the directors issued a new set 

of resolutions to govern navigation on the canal.171 These rules were largely a confirmation of the existing regulations, modified and brought up to date by the lessons of the first 

revisions. The regulations were printed on sheet paper to be posted in all of the offices of 

the collectors and lock-keepers along the line. They were also published in pamphlet 

form with other regulations concerning the administration of the company for the canal 

officials located on the line of the canal.172

The new regulations, which went into effect on April 1, 1851, were as follows: 

DEFINITIONS and EXPLANATIONS 

of certain terms and words used in these regulations. 

1. The term “float” as used in these regulations, shall be construed to embrace 

every boat, vessel, scow, gondola, raft or floating thing, navigated or moved on the Canal, by, or under the direction and charge of any person or persons; and the term "master," as so used, shall be construed to apply to every person having for the time, the 

charge, control, or direction of any such float. 

2. The term “manifest,” as used in these regulations, shall be construed to mean a 

just and true statement and account or bill of all the property constituting the lading of 

any boat or float, at the time of its clearance, made out in such form, and containing such 

information in relation to the said lading, as shall from time to time be prescribed and required by the Company,—signed by the consignor or consignors of said lading, and by 

the master of the said boat or float, and also verified by the oath of the said master. 

3. The term “way-bill,” as used in these regulations, shall be construed to mean a 

certificate made out and signed by someone of the Collectors or acting Collectors on the 

Canal, that the boat or float named therein, has been duly and properly CLEARED for a 

voyage on the Canal, and containing a statement and account of the property on board of 

such boat or float at the time and place of clearance,—and the term “permit,” as so used, 

shall be construed to mean a certificate, given in certain cases, under these regulations,—

signed by a Collector, acting Collector or Lock-keeper, stating that the boat or float 

named therein, has permission to pass on the Canal for the distance specified therein, 

without a way-bill. 

4. The term “boat’s register,” as used in these regulations, shall be construed to 

mean a register signed by the Clerk of the Company, containing the name or names of the 

owner or owners of the boat or float; and his or their respective places of abode; its class 

and hailing place; and also, its length, breadth, light draft, and draft with a maximum 

load,—and authorizing the said boat or float to navigate the Canal, under and in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Company. 

5. The words “first offence,” “second offence,” and “subsequent offence,” in the 

48th and 58th regulations, shall be construed as meaning the first, second, or subsequent, 

as the case may be, like offence, of the person, at the time, master of the boat or float referred to in those regulations, respectively, during the whole period, he may have been 

employed as a master of a boat or float navigating the Canal—although during that period, he may, at different times, have been master of several different boats or floats: and 

the said words, in the 73rd, 74th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th and 86th regulations, shall be 

 

171 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 407–414, 431–434. 172 Ringgold to Bryan, February 21, 1851, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 379 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

construed as meaning the first, second, or subsequent, as the case may be, like offence, of 

the owner or owners, or of the master of the boat or float referred to in these regulations, 

respectively, during the period that the said boat or float may have been the property of 

the said owner or owners, and been commanded by the said master. 

In regard to the DRAFT and SPEED of Boats and Floats. 

 25. No boat drawing more water, than shall from time to time be prescribed by 

the Canal Board or by the General Superintendent, shall navigate the Canal; and it shall 

be the duty of every Collector, acting Collector, Superintendent and Inspector, to cause 

every boat found, at any point on the Canal, violating this regulation, to be forthwith so 

far unloaded as to bring it within the prescribed limit: and in every case where a boat is so 

unloaded, the fact shall be entered on its way-bill or permit by the said Collector, acting 

Collector, Superintendent or Inspector, with a statement of the portion of its cargo taken 

off, and if by reason of any subsequent addition to its cargo the draft of such boat shall be 

found to exceed that prescribed as aforesaid, its master or owner shall be subject to a 

PENALTY of ten dollars, to be imposed and collected by any and every Superintendent, 

Collector, acting Collector and Inspector, who shall at different times and places detect 

such overdraft;—and it shall be the duty of every such officer, to gauge any boat or float, 

whose draft, he has reason to believe, is not correctly shown by the marks on its bow, 

stern and amidships, required by the 21st regulation. If the owner or master of any boat or 

float, shall refuse or not permit the said boat or float to be thus gauged, he shall be subject 

to a PENALTY of twenty dollars. 

 26. No boat or float, except Packet boats, licensed as such, shall move on the Canal faster than at the rate of four miles an hour. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

 27. No Packet boat shall move on the Canal faster than at the rate prescribed in 

its license. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

PASSING of one Boat or Float, by another, 

whether moving in the same or in opposite directions. 

28. Whenever any boat or float shall approach within the distance of fifty feet of 

any other boat or float, which shall, at the time, be moving in the same direction and at a 

less speed than at the rate of four miles per hour, it shall be the duty of the forward boat 

or float, except at points where there is not sufficient width for boats to pass, or within 

one hundred and fifty yards of a lock or of the tunnel, to turn from the towing path and 

give to the rear boat or float every practicable facility for passing; and to stop whenever it 

shall be necessary, until the rear boat or float shall have passed. PENALTY for a violation 

of this regulation, five dollars. 

29. Whenever any boat or float shall meet with any other boat or float, it shall be 

the duty of the master of the descending boat or float to turn out to the tow-path side, and 

of the ascending boat or float to turn out to the berm side, so that the former, where the 

Canal does not exceed fifty feet in width on its surface, shall be wholly on the tow-path 

side, and the latter, wholly on the berm side of the center of the Canal; and along those 

parts of the Canal that exceed fifty feet in width on its surface, and in the slack water 

above Guard locks No. 4 and 5, the ascending boat or float shall turn out sufficiently 

from the tow-path to allow the descending boat or float to pass with ease and safety between it and the tow-path; Provided, however, that licensed packet boats, ascending the 
380 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Canal, meeting descending boats or floats that are not licensed packet boats, shall have 

the right to keep the towing path side, in passing;—and provided, also, that rafts shall, in 

all cases, whether descending or ascending, the Canal, give place for boats and every 

other description of floats to pass, between them and the tow-path. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation, five dollars. 

30. Whenever any boats or floats moving in opposite directions, approach a place 

in the Canal which is less than thirty feet wide on its surface, or which will not safely 

permit their passing, it shall be the duty of the master of the boat or float ascending the 

Canal, to stop at such distance from such narrow place as may be convenient for the descending boat or float to pass through such narrow place, and there to wait until such passage is effected: Provided, however that a descending boat or float, that is not a licensed 

packet boat which is about thus to meet an ascending licensed packet boat, shall stop and 

give place for the said licensed packet boat, first to pass through the said narrow place;–

and, provided, also, that descending rafts shall, in all such cases, stop and give place for 

boats and every other description of ascending floats first to pass through the same. 

PENALTY for a violation of either of the above provisions of this regulation, five dollars. 

Regulations in regard to the order in which boats or floats, moving in opposite directions, shall pass through the Tunnel, will be, from time to time, presented by the Canal 

Board or General Superintendent, and shall be complied with, under a PENALTY of ten 

dollars, for each violation of either of their provisions. 

31. Whenever two boats or floats moving in opposite directions, approach each 

other, in the vicinity of a raft, in such manner that they would, if both should continue 

their headway, meet by the side of such raft, the boat or float which is going in the same 

direction as the raft, shall stop until the boat or float going in the opposite direction shall 

pass such raft. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

32. The passing of one boat or float by another, whether moving in the same or in 

opposite directions, shall be effected in the manner usual upon Canals,–and so that the 

boat or float entitled by these regulations to a passage next the tow-path, and the horses 

or mules by which it is towed, shall pass, with ease and safety and without detention, 

over the tow line of the other. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

 Order in which Boats and Floats 

 SHALL PASS THROUGH Locks. 

33. Any descending boat or float which has arrived within one hundred and fifty 

yards of a lock, the upper gates of which are open,–or any ascending boat or float which 

has arrived within one hundred and fifty yards of a lock, the lower gates of which are 

open, shall be permitted to pass such lock before any boat or float not on the same level; 

Provided, however, that no ascending raft, the upper end of which has not already passed 

the lower gates of the lock, shall thus be permitted to pass, while a licensed packet boat is 

awaiting a passage in the opposite direction. 

34. If two or more boats or floats are awaiting a passage in the same direction 

through any lock, they shall be permitted to pass such lock in the order in which they arrived within one hundred and fifty yards of it; Provided, however, that no boat or float 

that is not a licensed packet boat, the bow of which has not already passed the extreme 

end of the walls of the lock, shall thus be permitted to pass, while a licensed packet boat 

is awaiting a passage in the same direction. 

35. In all the short levels; to wit, between locks 1 and 4, between locks 9 and 11, 

between locks 12 and 14, between locks 15 and 20, between locks 35 and 36, between 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 381 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

locks 41 and 42, between locks 45 and 46, between locks 47 and 50, between locks 54 

and 55, between locks 63 1/3 and 66, and between locks 73 and 75, all freight boats or 

other craft, passing in the same direction with a packet boat or boats, shall give way for 

such packet or packets to enter the lock at the end of such level, except the freight boat or 

other craft, the bow of which has already passed the extreme end of the walls of such 

lock, at the time when the gates of the lock at the other end of the level are opening to 

pass such packet out; in which case, such freight boat or other craft shall be passed 

through the said lock, and wait in the next level, (if it be one of the short ones above referred to,) till such packet or packets shall have passed it. 

36. Every boat or float which shall not promptly avail itself of the preference it 

may have over other boats or floats to pass through any lock, shall lose such preference, 

till all those have passed which were, at the time of such neglect, awaiting a passage 

through the lock, in the same direction. 

37. The General Superintendent of the Canal may, however, whenever and for 

such length of time, as in his opinion it may be advisable and necessary, with a view to 

the saving of water upon any part of the Canal, suspend the four preceding regulations 

and temporarily prescribe such other, in lieu thereof, during such period of suspension, as 

he may deem necessary. 

38. All questions that shall arise among the masters or persons in charge of two 

or more boats or floats, at any lock, as to which, under these regulations, shall be first entitled to pass, shall be determined by the lock-keeper, or any other agent having at the 

time charge of such lock, and such boats or floats shall be passed in the order in which 

such lock-keeper or other agent shall direct. 

 RELATIVE TO the PASSING OF BOATS 

 AND FLOATS THROUGH LOCKS 

39. No boat or float shall enter any lock without the permission of the lockkeeper, or other agent at the time having charge of such lock, nor take or keep a position 

contrary to the orders of the lock-keeper, or said agent, so as to prevent another boat or 

float from freely passing out or in. The Seneca aqueduct will be considered as forming 

part of the walls of the lock with which it is connected, so far as relates to this rule. And 

no master of any such boat or float, or person assisting him in the management thereof, 

shall open either of the large gates of a lock, or either of its paddle gates, without the 

permission of the lock-keeper. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of 

this regulation, five dollars. 

40. It shall be the duty of every lock-keeper, at any hour of the day or night, upon 

being apprized of the wish of the master of any boat or float to pass such boat or float 

through the lock of which he has charge, either by the blowing of a horn, knocking at his 

door, or other signal, to pass such boat or float, if entitled to a passage under these regulations, or have it done by some one acting under his authority. 

41. Every master of any boat or float who may desire a passage, for such boat or 

float, through any lock, may be required by the lock-keeper, or his assistant, to produce 

the boat’s register and way-bill or permit; and if such master shall refuse to show to the 

lock-keeper, demanding sight thereof, said register and way-bill, or permit, or either of 

them, a passage, for such boat or float, through the lock shall be refused. PENALTY for 

every such refusal, although the register and way-bill, or permit, may be subsequently 

shown to the lock-keeper or his assistant, and the boat passed.–five dollars. 
382 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

42. Every master of any boat or float who may desire with such boat or float to 

pass any lock, who shall be without a register and way-bill or permit, or without either, 

shall be refused a passage for such boat or float through the said lock, until such register 

and way-bill or permit, or either, as the case may be, shall have been obtained at the place 

or places prescribed by these regulations. 

43. In approaching a lock, the master of any boat or float, shall slacken its speed, 

at such distance therefrom as the lock-keeper, or any person acting by his authority, shall 

direct; and, if such boat or float is ascending the Canal, it shall enter the lock, without 

striking or running against the upper gates of the lock,–or if descending the Canal, without striking or running against the lower gates. PENALTY for a violation of either of the 

provisions of this regulation. five dollars. 

44. The snubbing lines of every boat or float, while passing a lock, shall be secured to the snubbing post alongside of the lock, and be used in such manner as the lockkeeper or his assistant may direct; and the boat shall be towed into and out of the lock, at 

such times, and in such manner, as the lock-keeper may direct;–Provided, however, that 

the use of the snubbing lines while passing a lock, may be dispensed with, if there is attached to the boat or float any device or contrivance that will, in the opinion of the lockkeeper, if properly used, prevent the lock, its gates and fixtures from being injured,–in 

which case the said device or contrivance shall be used as the lock-keeper or his assistant 

may direct. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation, five

dollars. 

45. There shall be no unreasonable or unnecessary delay of a boat or float in a 

lock, or in entering or leaving a lock; and every boat or float which shall not be towed 

into a lock or out of it, when other boats or floats are in waiting to pass said lock, shall be 

considered as having violated this regulation. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

46. Any master, or person for the time, in charge of any boat or float, who shall 

enter, or permit any other person or persons to enter, any lock, with such boat or float, 

when forbid by the lock-keeper or his assistant; or if such boat or float has entered any 

lock, who shall pass, or permit any other person or persons to pass, with the same, through 

such lock, when forbid by the lock-keeper or his assistant; or of which is thus forbidden, to 

be immediately withdrawn from the lock, shall be subject to a PENALTY of twenty dollars. 

 AT WHAT PLACES Boats and Floats may 

 STOP, LIE BY OR BE MOORED. 

47. No boat or float shall unnecessarily stop, lie by, or be moored, within twenty 

rods of any waste or waste-weir, except in a basin,–or in the Tunnel, or in any aqueduct, 

or in any lock, or in any part of the Canal where the width of water surface, when the Canal is full, is less than forty feet,–or within twenty rods of any lock, except in a basin,–or 

in either of the short levels between locks No. 1 and 4, between locks No. 9 and 10, between locks No. 12 and 14, between locks No. 15 and 20, between locks No. 35 and 36, 

between locks No. 41 and 42, between locks No. 45 and 46, between locks No 47 and 50, 

between locks No. 51 and 52, between locks No. 54 and 55, between locks No. 63 1/3 

and 66, and between locks No. 73 and 75. PENALTY for violating this regulation, by 

stopping, lying by or mooring in the Tunnel or in any lock or aqueduct, twenty dollars,–or 

if at any of the other places above enumerated, five dollars. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 383 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

48. Under no circumstances whatever shall any boat or float, or other floating 

thing, lie fastened to or be moored along the tow-path of the Canal, nor shall the owner, 

master, or other person or persons having charge thereof, encamp upon the tow-path, or 

drive stakes into the top or slopes thereof, or place stones or kindle fires thereon, feed 

their horses or mules upon the tow-path, or in any way or manner obstruct or incommode 

the free and common use of the Canal and its tow-path by day or night. PENALTY for a 

violation of this regulation–for the first offence five dollars, and for any subsequent offence, twenty dollars. 

49. No person or persons shall, without the permission in writing, of a Superintendent, Collector, acting Collector or Inspector, moor a boat or float in the Canal for a 

longer period than four days, unless in a basin, or where the Canal has a width at water 

surface, when full, of not less than sixty feet: In Georgetown no boat or float shall be 

moored in the Canal except in a basin, for a longer period than is reasonable for discharging or taking in the load of such boat or float, without a written permission from the Superintendent, or in his absence of the Collector or Inspector:–And in all cases, when 

moored for the purpose of loading or unloading, or of stopping for the night, or for feeding their horses or mules or for any cause whatever,–every boat and float shall be so secured along the berm side of the Canal, in places permitted by the preceding regulations–

that no part of them shall be more than one-third of the width of the Canal from the berm 

bank. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation, ten dollars. 

50. It shall be the duty of every Collector, acting Collector or Inspector, and if 

there be no Collector, acting Collector or Inspector present, of every Superintendent, 

wherever in the opinion of such officer it shall be necessary, to assign berths as far as 

practicable to all boats when loading, unloading or stopping at any landing place on the 

Canal and in its basins. And every master, owner or person having charge of a boat, who 

shall refuse or neglect promptly to comply with directions given by a Collector, Inspector 

or Superintendent, in this regard, or any person or persons other than those in charge of 

said boat, who shall forcibly remove or attempt to remove the same from the berth assigned it by either of said officers, without his permission, shall be subject to a PENALTY of not less than five nor more than twenty dollars,–at the discretion of the Collector, acting Collector, Inspector or Superintendent aforesaid. 

 Relative to Boats and Floats, when there is a BREACH or LEAK, 

 or SUSPENSION OF THE NAVIGATION, &c, or where REPAIRS are making. 

51. In case of any breach or leak through the Canal banks, or of the apprehension 

of a breach, or in case of a suspension of the navigation, upon any part of the Canal, from 

any cause,–or when the Canal is filling with water,–the Superintendent, Collector or lockkeeper, or other person charged to repair or guard against such breach or leak,–or to restore the navigation,–or to attend to such filling of the Canal with water,–shall have the 

right to direct the boats or floats which may be near such breach, leak or place of suspension of navigation,–or which in his opinion may obstruct the filling of the Canal with water, to lie in such places and to be moved backward or forward on the Canal as he shall 

think most advisable and proper, and a refusal or neglect to comply promptly with his directions in this respect, shall be considered a violation of this regulation. PENALTY for a 

violation of this regulation, ten dollars. 

52. In all cases, boats engaged in repairing the Canal shall have preference of all 

other boats or floats in passing along the line of the Canal, or through its guard and lift 

locks, if in the opinion of the person or persons in charge of those boats, their use, at the 
384 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

time, require such preference,–and any person or persons who shall prevent, in any case, 

any such boat, from having such preference, shall be considered as having violated this 

regulation. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, five dollars. 

 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS in relation to Boats and Floats. 

53. No boat or float shall, under any circumstances, except in the Rock Creek, 

Wills Creek and North Branch basins, and along the slack water above Dams No. 4 and 

5.–use any iron or metallic-shod or sharp-pointed setting pole on the Canal,–and except at 

the places above named, no such pole shall be kept on deck or within convenient reach of 

those managing the said boat or float. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation, five dollars. 

54. No boat or float shall forcibly strike or violently rub against the banks, inside 

walls, wastes, waste-weirs, bridges, stop-locks, aqueducts, or tunnel of the Canal, or 

against any of its stop, guard or lift locks; and every boat or float shall be conducted into, 

through and out of every guard or lift lock on the Canal, in a careful manner, so as to do 

no injury to such lock, its gates or any of its fixtures. PENALTY for a violation of either 

of the provisions of this regulation, five dollars. 

55. The master of any boat or float who shall, at any time, with such boat 

or float, either carelessly or by design, strike, rub, or run against any other boat or 

float, in such manner as to sink, disable or injure such boat or float, or force it 

with violence against the bank or side of the Canal, shall,–if such other boat or 

float is, at the time, moving on the Canal or lying by, as the case may be, in strict 

conformity with these regulations,–be subject to a PENALTY of not less than

five, nor more than twenty dollars, at the discretion of the Superintendent in 

charge of the portion of the Canal on which the offence is committed. 

56. Whenever a boat or float, or several boats or floats, are stopped at any place 

on the Canal, awaiting a passage through a lock, or in consequence of a breach or leak in 

the Canal, or any interruption to the navigation from any cause, no boat or float, subsequently arriving at such place, shall pass by, or shall lie alongside of any one of those that 

previously arrived. The master of any boat or float, who shall violate either of the provisions of this regulation, shall be subject to a PENALTY of five dollars. 

57. The horse or horses, mule or mules, of any boat or float navigating the Canal, 

shall not pass over a tow-path bridge faster than in a walk,–nor shall they be passed into 

or out of any boat or float over or upon the walls or sides of any lock or aqueduct. PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, three dollars. 

58. No hay, straw, manure or litter of any kind shall be discharged or thrown, 

from any boat or float, into the Canal, or upon either of its banks or any of its works.–

PENALTY for a violation of this regulation, for the first offence, five dollars, and for any 

subsequent offence, ten dollars. 

 Miscellaneous Provisions to 

 GUARD AGAINST INTERRUPTION TO THE NAVIGATION and INJURY TO 

 THE CANAL. 

59. The FERRY BOAT, at an authorized ferry on the Canal, when not in actual 

use, shall be secured, at each end, in either the tow-path or berm ferry recess, in such 

manner, that no part or either end of it, shall project into the Canal, outside of such re-
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 385 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

cess; and such boat shall not be used for the purpose of crossing the Canal at any other 

place, or lie by or be moored, except in one of the said recesses. For each violation of either of the above provisions of this regulation, the owner or owners of such ferry boat,–if 

the offence is committed by him or them, or by a person or persons in his or their employ, 

or with his or their consent and permission,–shall be subject to a PENALTY of five dollars; but if any other person or persons without the authority of the said owner or owners, 

shall use the said ferry boat, at any place not permitted by this regulation, or shall cause 

any part or either end of it, to project outside of the recess in the manner above prohibited, he or they shall be subject to a PENALTY of ten dollars. 

60. The PIVOT OR MOVEABLE BRIDGES that have been constructed at several of the locks on the Canal, shall be under the charge and control of the lock-keepers, 

respectively, at those locks, and shall be attended to and kept by the said lock-keepers, in 

such manner as will best promote public convenience, in the case of bridges constructed 

for the accommodation of public roads,–or the convenience of the person or persons for 

whose use they were intended, in the case of bridges constructed for the accommodation 

of individuals,–and, at the same time, in each case, to prevent interruption to the navigation of the Canal,–and any person or persons, who shall move or turn either one of the 

aforesaid bridges, when forbid by the lock-keeper in charge thereof,–or any person or 

persons, not entitled to use the same, who shall move or turn either one of the said 

bridges intended for the use of individuals, shall be subject to a PENALTY five dollars. 

61. Whenever a Superintendent, Collector or Lock-keeper shall find any boat, 

float, raft, timber or other substance floating loose upon or sunk in the Canal or any of its 

basins, ponds, feeders or other works,–the owner of which is unknown, or if known, does 

not reside within the County in which the said boat, float, raft, timber or other substance 

is floating or sunk, or if known and a resident of the County, shall neglect, after notice, 

forthwith to remove the same,–such Superintendent, Collector or Lock-keeper shall cause 

the same to be broken up and removed from the said Canal, its basins, ponds, feeders or 

other works–and the materials of the broken boat, float, raft, timber or other substance so 

broken up and removed, shall be forfeited to and become the property of the Canal Company. 

62. No persons, or persons shall place on the towing path or berm bank, or in the 

Canal or any of its feeders or basins, or on any of the banks of its feeders or basins, logs, 

timber or other materials, without the permission in writing of a Superintendent; and 

every violation of this regulation shall subject such person or persons to a PENALTY of

ten dollars. 

63. No person or persons shall, without the permission in writing of a Superintendent, roll or draw, from or into the Canal, its feeders or basins, over the side of any 

lock or aqueduct, or over any structure of masonry or timber, or over the side of any embankment,–except at regularly established landing places or wharves, any log, timber or 

other material; and every violation of this regulation shall subject every such person or 

persons to a PENALTY of ten dollars. 

64. No person or persons shall drive a cart, wagon or wheel carriage of any description, nor lead or drive any horse, mule, ox or other animal, except for the purpose of 

towing boats or floats, upon the tow-path or berm bank of the Canal, except in crossing 

them, in the shortest convenient direction, at some authorized ferry nor shall any person 

or persons, except an officer or agent of the Company, ride any horse or mule, along or 

upon the tow-path in the Tunnel, or along or upon the tow-path in the Deep Cuts adjoining the Tunnel, that is not, at the time, employed in towing some boat or float. PEN-
386 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

ALTY for a violation of this regulation, for the first offence, five dollars,–and for any 

subsequent offence, ten dollars. 

65. Any person who shall put or leave, or cause to be put or left, any disabled 

animal or any carcass, dead animal, or putrid substance of any kind, into the Canal, or 

into any basin or feeder connected therewith, or upon either bank of the Canal, or upon 

any part of the Canal property, shall pay the expense of removing the same and, in addition, be subject to a PENALTY of ten dollars. 

66. Any person or persons, who shall throw or place, or cause to be thrown or 

placed, stones, gravel, earth, or any other substance or materials whatever, into the Canal, 

its feeders, basins, or other works, or upon the tow-path of the Canal, shall pay the expense of removing the same and, in addition, be subject to a PENALTY of not less than 

five, nor more than twenty dollars, at the discretion of the Superintendent in charge of the 

portion of the Canal on which the offence is committed. 

67. Any person or persons, who shall carelessly or neglectfully, by any means 

whatever, injure, impair, break or destroy any part of the Canal or any part of its feeders, 

dams, locks, aqueducts, wastes, waste-weirs, culverts, walls, embankments, bridges, 

buildings or other works of the said Canal, such person or persons shall each of them pay 

a FINE of five dollars,–and any one or more of them shall also be liable to pay a sum 

equal to the damage sustained by said Company by such injury. 

68. Any person or persons, who shall willfully or maliciously, open or close any

waste gate, or any gate or wicket of any lock on the Canal or on any of its feeders, or 

shall, willfully or maliciously, by any means whatever, injure, impair, break or destroy 

any part of the Canal, or any part of its feeders, dams, locks, aqueducts, wastes, wasteweirs, culverts, walls, embankments, bridges, buildings or other works, of the said Canal, 

such person or persons, so offending, shall for every such offence, forfeit and pay to the 

said Canal Company at FINE of twenty dollars,–and any one or more of them shall also 

be liable to pay a sum equal to the damage sustained by said Company by such injury;–

and as, by law, every such offender will be subject to indictment in the Court of the 

County in which the offence shall be committed, and upon conviction, to imprisonment 

for a term not exceeding six months, in the discretion of the Court,–it is hereby made the 

duty of any Superintendent or Collector on the Canal, who shall know from his own observation, or have good cause to believe, that such offence has been committed, to do 

whatever may be necessary to bring the same to the notice of the Grand Jury of the 

County. 

 INSPECTORS to be regarded as ASSISTANTS OF THE COLLECTORS 

69. The Inspector or Inspectors at any place on the Canal, will be considered, under these regulations, as an assistant or as assistants of the Collector at 

that place, and every act done by such Inspector or Inspectors,–under special or 

general directions from such Collector, given for the purpose of carrying into effect and enforcing these regulations, so far as it is the duty of the said Collector to 

carry into effect and to enforce the same,–shall be considered and regarded, under 

these regulations, as the act of the said Collector. 

 Which Lock-keepers are also ACTING COLLECTORS. 

70. The Lock-keepers at tide lock B., at locks No. 5, No. 21, No. 23, and the Se-
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 387 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

neca guard lock adjoining, at lock No. 25, and Edward’s Ferry outlet lock, at locks No. 

26, No. 28 and No. 30, at lock No. 36 and Guard lock adjoining, at lock No. 37, at lock 

No. 38 and Shepherdstown outlet lock, at locks No. 40, No. 42, No. 46, No. 51, No. 54 

and Guard lock No. 6, at locks No. 57, No. 60, No. 66, No. 70, and No. 75, shall also be 

acting Collectors, under these regulations, and as such shall perform the duties required 

of acting Collectors by these regulations; and in the performance of these duties, they 

shall have all the right, control and authority, that they would have, and may do all the 

acts, that they might do, were they Collectors. 

 ARRANGEMENT of Cargoes consisting of 

 ARTICLES PAYING DIFFERENT RATES OF TOLL 

71. Where any boat, scow or other craft, navigating the Canal, shall be laden with 

articles paying different rates of toll, or with articles some of which shall be chargeable 

with toll by weight, and others by measure or count, it shall be the duty of the master or 

owner, so to arrange the said lading that the several Collectors, acting Collectors, and Inspectors on the Canal, can conveniently examine and inspect the same. And if not so arranged, the master or owner shall, at his own expense, on the request of any Collector, 

acting Collector, or Inspector, unload in whole or in part the said cargo, so as to furnish 

all the necessary information for the purposes of imposing tolls or detecting or preventing 

frauds. And in case of the neglect or refusal of any master or owner to comply with this 

regulation, the whole cargo of such boat, scow or craft, shall be charged with toll at the 

rate of those articles on board paying the highest rate of toll. 

 In regard to WAY-BILLS, PERMITS AND MANIFESTS. 

72. No boat or float shall be permitted to pass on the Canal, unless the master 

thereof shall first have obtained a way-bill therefore, for the voyage then making or about 

to be made, from the proper Collector or acting Collector of tolls on said Canal, except in 

the cases hereinafter particularly specified. 

73. The way-bill for each voyage shall be obtained from the Collector or acting 

Collector, whose office is kept nearest to the place at which the voyage is commenced, 

provided there be such an office within one mile of such place. If there be no such office 

within one mile of the place at which the voyage is commenced, the way-bill for such 

voyage shall be obtained from the Collector or acting Collector at whose office the boat 

or float shall first arrive in the course of the voyage; and such boat or float shall be permitted to proceed from the place where the voyage was commenced to such office, and 

no further, without a way-bill; provided, however, that if there be any lock or locks 

through which such boat or float must pass on its way to the said office, a permit must be 

obtained from the keeper of the lock first arrived at, allowing the boat or float to proceed, 

as above without a way-bill; which permit must be delivered over and surrendered to the 

Collector or acting Collector from whom the way-bill is obtained,–and unless such permit 

shall have been obtained, or, if obtained, unless it is delivered as above, such Collector or 

acting Collector shall refuse to make out a way-bill for the said boat or float, and shall 

stop the further passage of the same, until a PENALTY of five dollars for the first offence, or twenty dollars for any subsequent offence, shall have been paid by the owner or 

master for the violation of this regulation. 

74. If there be no Collector or acting Collector, whose office is within one mile 

of the place where the voyage is commenced,–nor within one mile of the place where the 
388 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

same shall terminate,–nor at any intermediate place,–the master of the boat or float shall, 

within ten days after the termination of such voyage, exhibit a manifest, verified by his 

oath, of the lading transported on board of such boat or float, at any time during such 

voyage, to the Collector or acting Collector whose office shall be nearest to the place 

where such voyage terminated, or, if more convenient, to the one whose office shall be 

nearest to the place where the voyage commenced, and shall pay to such Collector or acting Collector the tolls due on such boat or float and lading; provided, however, that if 

there be any lock or locks through which the said boat or float shall pass on its voyage, a 

manifest shall be exhibited to the keeper of the first lock passed through, by the master, 

of the lading then on board of his boat or float, and a permit be obtained from the said 

Lock-keeper allowing the boat to proceed on such voyage; which permit shall be delivered to the Collector or acting Collector aforesaid, at the time of delivering the manifest 

and paying the tolls as above required, and every master who shall neglect to obtain such 

permit, or, if obtained to deliver over the same to the said Collector or acting Collector, 

shall be liable to a PENALTY for a first offence of five dollars, and of twenty dollars for 

any subsequent offence, or if he shall neglect to exhibit such manifest, under oath, to the 

Collector or acting Collector and to pay such tolls, within the period above limited,–he 

shall be liable to a PENALTY of twenty-five dollars. 

75. Every master of a boat or float applying to any Collector or acting Collector 

for a way-bill, shall exhibit to him a manifest of the cargo on board of such boat or float,–

containing first the name of each place on the Canal where any portion of such property 

was shipped, and the place for which it is intended to be cleared, specifying the portion 

shipped at each of such places, and the portion intended to be cleared to each place, second a statement of the weight of all articles of such property on which toll is to be 

charged by weight, of the number of articles on which toll is to be charged by number, 

and of the feet of each article on which toll is to be charged by the foot; and third, a 

specification of the weight, number or quantity of each article or of the articles on which 

one rate of toll is to be charged, and which is to be transported to one place; separately 

from other articles on which a different rate of toll is to be charged or which is to be 

transported to a different place. 

76. If any property or lading shall be received on board of any boat or float, during any voyage, after such boat or float shall have proceeded one mile from the place at 

which the way-bill was obtained, or shall have proceeded one mile from the place at 

which, as hereinafter provided,–an addition or endorsement shall have been made to, or 

upon the said way-bill by any Collector or acting Collector, a manifest thereof, to be 

called manifest No. 2, or No. 3, &c., as the case may be, conforming in all respects to the 

requirements hereinbefore stated, in regard to the making out of manifests, shall be exhibited to the Collector or acting Collector, whose office shall be next in order, in the 

course of the voyage, to the place where such property or lading was received on board,–

and until the said manifest No. 2 or No. 3, &c., as the case may be, shall have been thus 

exhibited, and a statement of the property or lading taken on board of the boat or float, 

since its way-bill was obtained, or the last preceding addition, made thereto by some Collector or acting Collector, shall have been added to the said way-bill by such Collector or 

acting Collector,–the said boat or float shall not proceed on its voyage, under a PENALTY of twenty-five dollars. 

77. Every master of a boat or float navigating the Canal, who shall deliver any article mentioned in its manifest or way-bill at a place beyond that to which such article 

shall have been cleared, and shall not promptly report the fact to the Collector or acting 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 389 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Collector, whose office is nearest to the place where such article is delivered, and pay the 

toll thereon, shall be subject to a PENALTY of twenty-five dollars. 

78. If in unloading any boat or float, it shall be discovered that the cargo, in consequence of any unintentional error, exceeds the quantity stated in its manifest or manifests, it shall be the duty of the master of such boat or float, immediately to report such 

excess, and pay the lawful toll thereon, to the Collector or acting Collector at the place 

where such error may be discovered, if there be any such at the place; and if there be no 

Collector or acting Collector at such place, to the next Collector or acting Collector, at or 

near whose office the boat shall arrive after the discovery of such error, under a PENALTY of twenty-five dollars. 

79. Every master of any boat or float shall exhibit its way-bill and manifest or 

manifests,–first, to the Collector or acting Collector, whose office shall be next in order, 

in the course of the voyage to the place where the way-bill was obtained;–second, to the 

Collector or acting Collector at the place where an portion of the cargo shall be unloaded, 

or any additional cargo received; and if there be no Collector or acting Collector at such 

place, to the Collector or acting Collector whose office shall be next in order in the 

course of the voyage; and third, to every other Collector or acting Collector who shall 

demand that said way-bill and manifest or manifests shall be exhibited to him. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation for which a penalty is 

not provided by some other of these regulations, twenty-five dollars. 

80. No boat or float shall proceed, upon the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, beyond 

the place to which it shall be cleared, named in its way-bill or permit, under a PENALTY 

of five dollars for the first offence, and twenty dollars for any subsequent offence. 

81. Upon the arrival of any boat or float, in the course of its voyage, at a place 

where a portion only of its cargo is to be unloaded, such portion of the cargo shall not be 

unloaded, until the master of the said boat or float shall have exhibited its way-bill and 

manifest or manifests to the Collector or acting Collector, at or within one mile of such 

place, and shall have paid the toll that may then be due thereon,–nor after such portion of 

the cargo is unloaded, shall the said boat or boat proceed on its voyage until the said Collector or acting Collector shall have endorsed on the way-bill, what portion of the cargo 

has thus been unloaded–but if there be no Collector or acting Collector at or within one 

mile of the place, such portion of the cargo may be unloaded, if the toll thereon shall have 

been previously paid,–but in that case, the master of the boat or float shall report the fact 

to the Collector or acting Collector whose office shall be next in order in the course of the 

voyage, and exhibit to him such evidence as shall satisfy him, that such portion of the 

cargo has been unloaded,–and until this shall have been done, and the said Collector or 

acting Collector shall have endorsed upon the way-bill what portion of the cargo has been 

thus unloaded, the said boat or float shall not proceed on its voyage. PENALTY for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation, for the first offence, five dollars, and 

for any subsequent offence, twenty dollars. 

82. Upon the arrival of any boat or float at its destination, or at a place where its 

master desires with such boat or float to leave the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and enter 

upon any other Canal or the Potomac river,–the said master shall exhibit his manifest or 

manifests, and shall deliver his way-bill, to the Collector or acting Collector, if there be 

one, whose office is at or within one mile of such place,–and shall pay to him the toll that 

may then be due on the said boat or float and its cargo, before any portion of the cargo 

shall be unloaded, or before the said boat or float shall thus leave the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal and enter upon any other Canal or the Potomac river. PENALTY for a violation of 
390 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

this regulation, for the first offence, five dollars, for the second offence, twenty-five dollars, and for any subsequent offence, fifty dollars. 

83. If there be no Collector or acting Collector, whose office is at or within one

mile of the place to which a boat or float is cleared, or at which its master desires, with it, 

to leave the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and enter upon any other Canal or the Potomac 

river, the said master shall exhibit his manifest or manifests, and deliver his way-bill,–and 

shall pay the tolls that may then be due on his boat or float and its cargo, for the voyage 

then making, to the last Collector or acting Collector whose office shall be passed by the 

boat or float, in the order of the voyage,–and shall thereupon receive a permit from such 

Collector or acting Collector, to proceed to the place to which the boat or float is 

cleared,–and until such permit is given, the boat or float shall not proceed on its voyage 

under a PENALTY of twenty-five dollars for the first offence, and of fifty dollars for any 

subsequent offence. And the said permit shall be returned and delivered, by the said master, to the Collector or acting Collector from whom it was obtained, within ten days after 

the said boat or float arrives at its destination, upon the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, or 

leaves the said Canal as aforesaid; or whenever the said boat or float shall next again pass 

the office of the said Collector or acting Collector, if within the said ten days,–under a 

PENALTY, for the first offence, of five and of ten dollars for any subsequent offence. 

84. A permit, instead of a way-bill, shall be issued by a Collector or acting Collector to any boat or float, provided the voyage for which such permit is issued, shall not 

extend to, nor within a mile of any place on the Canal where there is a Collector’s or acting Collector’s office,–but not until a manifest shall have been exhibited to him of the 

cargo then on board of the said boat or float, nor until all the tolls chargeable on the said 

boat or float for such voyage shall have been paid,–and the said permit shall be returned 

and delivered, by the master, to the Collector or acting Collector from whom it was obtained, within ten days after the said boat or float shall have arrived at its destination 

upon the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, or shall have left the said Canal as aforesaid,–or 

whenever the said boat or float shall next again pass the office of the said Collector or 

acting Collector, if within the said ten days,–under a PENALTY, for the first offence, of 

five dollars, and of ten dollars for every subsequent offence. 

85. In all cases in which permits are given, by any Collector or acting Collector, 

for a boat or float to proceed beyond the office of such Collector or acting Collector, the 

master of such boat or float shall, whenever any addition is made to its cargo after the 

permit is obtained, note the same upon the permit, in such manner and with such particularity, that the toll chargeable thereon can be accurately ascertained, and shall pay the toll 

on such addition, to the Collector or acting Collector from whom the permit was obtained, upon returning and delivering to him the said permit, as above required–which 

endorsement by him upon the permit he shall verify by his oath–under a PENALTY of 

twenty-five dollars for a violation of either of the provisions of this regulation. 

86. Boats and floats, regularly and constantly employed in the transportation, 

upon the Canal, of articles or property of but one description, in each direction, between 

two points or places not exceeding ten miles apart,–and between which points or places 

there is not more than one Collector’s or acting Collector’s office, may, at the discretion 

of the Collector or acting Collector, be allowed thus to navigate the Canal without a permit for each voyage,–but, in lieu thereof, with a permit for such period, not exceeding 

one month, as the Collector or acting Collector may think most advisable;–and in such 

case each cargo of the said boat or float shall be subject to inspection, the same as though 

a permit for each voyage, were given;–and at the expiration of the period for which the 

permit was obtained, the owner or master of the said boat or float shall deliver, to the said 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 391 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Collector or acting Collector, a statement of the number of voyages made during such period, and a manifest of the cargo of the said boat or float carried each voyage, both of 

which shall be verified by the oath of the said owner or master,–and shall pay the tolls 

that may then be due on the said boat, and its cargoes,–and until such permit, statement, 

and manifest shall have been delivered and the said tolls paid,–the said boat or float shall 

not be permitted to navigate the Canal,–and unless such delivery and payment shall be 

made within two days after the expiration of the said period, the said owner or master 

shall be subject to a PENALTY of twenty-five dollars, for the first offence, and of fifty 

dollars for every subsequent offence. 

87. In every case in which the manifest or manifests and the way-bill of any boat 

or float shall, under these regulations, be exhibited, or the way bill delivered to any Collector or acting Collector;–the said Collector or acting Collector, shall make such examinations and comparisons of the said manifest or manifests, way-bill and cargo as may be 

sufficient to satisfy him whether the said cargo has been accurately entered in the said 

way-bill,–and if it has not been, he shall make the necessary corrections in the way-bill; 

and if such boat or float, not having arrived at its destination, shall proceed on its voyage, 

or unload any portion of its cargo,–or having arrived at its destination, shall unload the 

whole or any portion of its cargo, before such examinations and comparisons are made, 

the owner or master of the boat or float shall be subject to the same penalty as if the said 

manifest or manifests and way-bill had never been exhibited or delivered to the aforesaid 

Collector or acting Collector. 

88. Whenever a difference shall arise between a Collector or acting Collector and 

the master of any boat or float, as to the amount of tolls chargeable on the lading of such 

boat or float, the Collector or acting Collector shall detain the boat or float, and the articles in regard to which the difference has arisen, and shall weigh, count or measure the 

said articles, as the case may require;–and if it shall be ascertained that the weight, number or quantity of the said articles exceeds the amount stated in the manifest or manifests 

of the boat or float, the Collector or acting Collector shall charge toll according to the 

weight, number or quantity thus ascertained, and the master shall pay to the Collector or 

acting Collector the expense of such weighing, counting or measuring,–and for such expense the said articles, and the boat or float containing them, as well as the master and the 

owner of the said boat or float shall severally be liable. 

89. If the master of any boat or float shall, upon any voyage of such boat or float, 

use, or attempt to use for that voyage, a way-bill or permit given for any preceding voyage, or the way-bill or permit of any other boat or float,–or a false way-bill or permit,–or 

shall exhibit to any Collector or acting Collector a false manifest, he shall be subject to a 

PENALTY of FIFTY dollars. 

In regard to the PAYMENT OF TOLLS, PENALTIES, &c. 

90. The full amount of toll chargeable on any boat or float, and on each and every 

article of property which shall be on board thereof, or constitute any float, at the time application is made to any Collector or acting Collector for a way-bill, and on each and 

every article which would enter into the way-bill, shall be paid to such Collector or acting 

Collector, before he shall issue a way-bill for such boat or float, in all cases in which he 

shall know, or have reason to believe, that the owner or owners, or the master of the said 

boat or float,–has or have, either as the owner or owners of the said boat or float, or of 

any other boat or float,–or as the master of the said boat or float, or any other boat or 

float,–within one year immediately preceding, rendered himself or themselves liable for 
392 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

any penalty under these regulations, exceeding five dollars, in amount, for any single offence,–but otherwise the said Collector or acting Collector may, at his discretion, issue a 

way-bill and allow the said boat or float to proceed to its destination and pay the tolls, at 

the place or places, in such cases, designated and required by these regulations:–

provided, however, that in no case, shall a new way-bill be issued, by any Collector or 

acting Collector, for any boat or float,–until all arrearages of tolls and all penalties and 

expenses of the kind mentioned in the 88th regulation, so far as known to him, for which 

such boat or float is liable, shall be paid. 

91. And, in like manner, shall no endorsement on the way-bill of any boat or float 

be made by any Collector or acting Collector, of the addition to the cargo of any boat or 

float, while on its voyage, until the tolls thereon have been paid,–unless in such cases, as 

the Collector or acting Collector would be permitted, by the last regulation, to issue a 

way-bill,–if a way-bill was applied for, instead of an endorsement upon the way-bill, by 

the owner or master of such boat or float. 

92. Upon the arrival of any boat or float at the place where the toll, upon the said 

boat or float and its cargo, or any part of its cargo, must, under these regulations, be paid, 

when not paid in advance; or where any balance, due on the said toll, arising from an error in any previous calculation of it or from any other cause, must be paid,–if such payment be refused or not promptly made, any Collector or acting Collector of tolls, in the 

employment of the Company, may seize such boat or float, or the produce or other articles composing or which had composed, in whole or in part, the cargo of said boat or 

float, wherever found, and sell the same, or so much thereof as he may deem expedient, 

at auction, for cash; and the proceeds, of such sale or sales, shall be applied to the payment of the amount due the Company, as aforesaid, and all the expenses of seizure and 

sale; and the balance, if any, shall be paid over to the person or persons who had charge 

or possession of the property that may be thus sold, at the time of the seizure thereof. 

 LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY FOR THE PAYMENT OF TOLLS, 

 PENALTIES, &c. 

93. The person or persons specified in the boat’s register of any boat or float, as 

the owner or owners thereof, shall in all cases be deemed in law the true owner or owners 

thereof, and to all intents and purposes he or they shall be liable as such, and the said boat 

or float be subject to execution, as his or their property, as regards the collection and enforcement of tolls and penalties, under these regulations. 

94. The master, and the owner or part owner of any boat or float, on the Canal, 

and likewise the boat or float itself, shall severally be liable for the payment of all penalties and forfeitures incurred, and all damages which may accrue, in consequence of the 

violation of any of the provisions of these regulations, by the master or the owner or part 

owner thereof, or by any boatman, or other person assisting in the navigation or management of such boat or float at the time of such violation; and also for the payment of tolls 

chargeable on the said boat or float or chargeable on any property transported on boat 

thereof; and every such boat or float may, at the discretion of the General Superintendent, 

or any Collector or acting Collector of tolls or Superintendent, be prevented from navigating said Canal until such penalty, forfeiture, damages, toll, and costs accrued in prosecuting therefore, shall be duly paid. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 393 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

CANAL OFFICERS MUST ENFORCE THESE REGULATIONS 

95. Superintendents, Collectors, acting Collectors, Inspectors and Lock-keepers, are 

hereby required on every violation of the above regulations, known to them, or brought to 

their notice, to make an entry of the nature of every offence, the names of the offenders, 

the time and place where the offence was committed, and the names of witnesses: And it 

is further strictly enjoined on each of the above officers, to carry these regulations into 

full effect. 

AUTHORITY OF CANAL OFFICERS TO SUE FOR PENALTIES 

1st—SUPERINTENDENTS. 

96. Each Superintendent of repairs upon the Canal, is hereby authorized, to prosecute in 

the name of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, for any penalty incurred by the violation of any or either of the following regulations,–to wit– Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 

53,54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 80 and 89; and shall prosecute for 

all such penalties whenever such Superintendent shall know from his own observation, or 

have good cause to believe, that any of the said penalties have been incurred. 

2nd—COLLECTORS. 

97. Each Collector upon the Canal, is hereby authorized, to prosecute in the name of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, for any penalty incurred by the violation of any or 

either of the following regulations,–to wit–Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 22, 25, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89; and shall prosecute for all such penalties whenever 

such Collector shall know from his own observation, or have good cause to believe, that 

any of the said penalties have been incurred. 

3rd—ACTING COLLECTORS. 

98. Each acting Collector upon the Canal is hereby authorized, to prosecute in the name 

of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, for any penalty incurred by the violation of 

any or either of the following regulations,–to wit– Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 22, 25, 49, 50, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89; and 

shall prosecute for all such penalties whenever such acting Collector shall know from his 

own observation, or have good cause to believe, that any of the said penalties have been 

incurred. 

4th—LOCK-KEEPERS 

99. Each Lock-keeper upon the Canal, is hereby authorized, to prosecute in the name of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, for any penalty incurred by the violation of any 

or either of the following regulations,–to wit–Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 

22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 

58, 60 and 89; and shall prosecute for all such penalties whenever such Lock-keeper shall 
394 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

know from his own observation, or have good cause to believe, that any of the said penalties have been incurred. 

100. These by-laws, rules, and regulations, shall take effect and be in full force and operation, from and after the 1st day of April 1851 inclusive; and all existing by-laws, rules, 

and regulations, so far as they conflict therewith, shall, from and after said time, be held 

and considered as, and are hereby, repealed. 

101. These by-laws, rules, and regulations, certified to by the Clerk of the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Company, shall be printed, and a copy thereof shall be set up for public inspection, for at least ten days prior to the 1st day of April 1851, at some one of the Collector’s offices, or some one of the lock-houses, on the said Canal, in each County in the 

State of Maryland, through which the Canal passes,–and also at the Collector’s office, at 

Georgetown, in the District of Columbia.173

In June 1851 President Samuel Sprigg reported satisfaction with the operation of the new 

regulations in spite of the opposition of some of the unruly boatmen. The rules already 

had brought “beneficial results” in the preservation of the works of the company,” thus 

“producing a degree of order and regularity on the part of those navigating the canal, 

which has heretofore not existed.” Company officials were certain that 

all well-disposed persons engaged in navigating the canal, regard these regulations as wholesome and necessary, acting both as a protection to the works of the 

company, insuring more regularity, and less frequent interruptions to the navigation of the canal, and, at the same time, preventing collisions with some of the 

boatmen, who have hitherto been disorderly.174

The regulations established in 1851 remained in effect until 1889 with some periodic 

modifications or additions. The changes were made whenever the board felt that circumstances warranted a revision. Among the most significant changes in the regulations were 

the following: 

 1. April 3, 1856—The privileges granted to packet boats in Regulations Nos. 30 

and 34 were revised insofar as they applied to descending boats loaded and under headway. All such boats were henceforth to be upon an equal footing with packets relative to 

all cases referred to in the aforementioned rules.175 

 2. April 15, 1858—The board adopted an order directing that when passing, all 

ascending freight boats take the towpath side of the canal and all descending boats take

the berm side. After only three weeks, this new directive was rescinded on May 5.176

 2A. May 7, 1858—The board directed that all boats ascending and descending the canal between Georgetown and Cumberland be required to prepay 

 

173 By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations; In Force on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 1st April 1851 3–4, 9–33. 174 Twenty-Third Annual Report (1851), C&O Co., 3–4. During the first three months in which the rules were in effect, 

the amount of fines had totaled $60. 

175 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 251–252. 176 Ibid, K, 14, 19. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 395 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

their boat tolls.177

 3. May 3, 1859—Approximately one year before this date the board had ordered 

that boats could not operate on the canal on Sundays. Under considerable pressure by the 

boatmen and other company officials, the order was repealed on this date, thereby reopening the canal to traffic seven days a week. 178

 4. November 4, 1860—The board determined to suspend that portion of Regulation No. 47 that applied to the short levels between Locks Nos. 1–4 in Georgetown. 

Boats were to be permitted to load or to unload cargoes in those levels provided that they 

did not interfere with the free navigation of the canal.179

 5. November 14, 1860—A new rule was passed regulating the payment of tolls 

when a boat did not pass any locks. The rule, which was to take effect immediately, was 

as follows: 

Any boat or float navigating the Canal where there is no lock to pass to its 

destination, and the owner or other person having charge of the same, shall 

refuse to pay the toll, when such payment shall be demanded by the proper 

officers, shall on the requisition of said officer tie up the same at such 

place as said officer shall direct, and so remain until the tolls due thereon 

shall be paid, and on refusal of such owner, or other person having charge 

of the boat or float, or the removal of said boat or float after being tied up 

until the tolls and fines thereon be paid, shall be subject to a penalty for 

the first offence of $20, and for each subsequent offence by the same party 

of $50.180

6. October 12, 1869—April 15, 1873—During this period, the canal company again experimented with a Sabbath law–adopting and repealing the order prohibiting Sunday runs 

on several occasions. In October 1866 the board received a memorial from Charles Embrey and other boatmen from the vicinity of Williamsport asking that the Sunday trade be 

suspended on the waterway. The board rejected the request because the Sunday law 

passed in 1858 had proven to be a failure. After a one-year trial, the directors had repealed that law “at the instance both of parties navigating the Canal and of residents near 

the Canal, complaining of riots and depredations committed by boatmen congregating together.”181

Nothing more was done about the question of Sunday navigation until September 8, 

1869, when representatives of the Sabbath Association of Maryland appeared before the 

board and submitted a number of petitions favoring the suspension of the Sabbath trade. 

The board appointed a committee headed by President Josiah Gordon to study the matter 

and to make a recommendation. On October 12 the directors, after having received the 

committee’s report urging the passage of a Sunday prohibition, divided evenly by a 3 to 3 

vote on a motion to table the subject. President Gordon cast a negative vote against the 

motion after which the following order was adopted: 

 

177 Ringgold to Hollingsworth and Shaw, May 7, 1858, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 178 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 104. 179 Ibid, K, 227. 180 Ibid, K, 227–228. 181 Ibid, K, 518. 
396 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

that from and after the first day of November 1869 no trade or traffic will be allowed on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal on the Sabbath day, and that the Lockkeepers be required to close their Locks at 12 o’clock on Saturday night, and open 

them at 12 o’clock on Sunday night.182

Beginning in the spring of 1870 the canal board experienced great difficulty in enforcing 

the Sunday rule. Because of widespread disregard for the law, the board on May 6 voted 

to remit the fines imposed during the months of March and April “except ten dollars on 

each boat.” Since the fine for breaking the Sabbath law was only $5, this action by the 

board indicates that many of the boatmen were disobeying the law on a frequent basis. 

The defiant behavior on the part of some of the unruly boatmen caused the board to rescind the Sunday law on October 12, 1870. However an order prohibiting Sunday navigation was put into effect again on August 1, 1871, only to be repealed on August 16.183

After this series of events, the stockholders took up the question of Sunday navigation at their annual meeting in June 1872. They passed a resolution to have the Sunday 

law strictly enforced on the canal, and the board dutifully issued such a directive in September. Following a number of incidents arising from the renewed prohibition, the problem was referred to Walter S. Cox, the company counsel. It was his opinion that the canal 

was “declared to be a public highway” and he could not “see why the Company would 

have any more control over its use on Sunday than a Turnpike Company would over the 

use of its road.” Thereafter, the company officials “indefinitely postponed” the consideration of a Sunday prohibition on canal trade, the earlier directive was repealed, and the 

question was never seriously discussed again.184

 7. SPRING 1870—Prior to the commencement of the 1870 boating season Chief 

Engineer Hutton sent a circular to the superintendents on the line, urging them to enforce 

strictly all the regulations for the navigation of the waterway. In the circular he announced one change in the by-laws. That section of Regulation No. 57, which prohibited 

the changing of mule teams while a boat was in a lock chamber, was to be suspended 

providing that such an action did not cause delays in the navigation.185

 8. May 23, 1870—As the number of boats plying the canal increased, the 

Georgetown Level became particularly crowded. Accordingly, the board, under the authority of Regulation No. 50 of the By-Laws, drew up additional rules to govern the 

navigation and the loading and unloading procedures on this section of the waterway. The 

new regulations were as follows: 

Boats consigned to points on this level will, on arriving, take position at 

the upper end of the line of waiting boats, and retain the same until notified by the Harbor Master to proceed to their respective places of discharge, but no boat shall lie nearer above the Alexandria Aqueduct than 

one hundred yards. 

 

182 Ibid, L, 193, 196, 209–210. 183 Ibid, L, 317, 369, 422, 435–436, and Anon. To Gordon, May 19, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 184 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 57, 105–106. 185 Circular to Superintendents, (Spring), 1870, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 397 

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

 Superintendents of Coal Wharves and other Consignees shall notify the Harbor Master what boats they wish to unload, and shall promptly 

discharge the same on their arrival at the wharf. 

 Boats shall not lie two or more abreast, at any point on this level, 

without express permission of the Harbor Master or Superintendent. When 

in position they must be moored close to the bank or wall, both head and 

stern. 

 No boat shall attempt to pass another moving in the same direction, 

below the upper end of the line of waiting boats. 

 When boats moving in opposite directions approach the wharf next 

above Frederick street bridge, while a boat is lying at that wharf, it shall be 

the duty of the Master of the ascending boat to stop below the bridge until 

the descending boat shall have passed.186

9. April 10, 1872– The great increase in canal trade during the early 1870s resulted in frequent and lengthy delays at the Paw Paw Tunnel while the boats 

awaited their turn to enter the narrow passage. There were two proposals, for the 

solution of this problem one for a system of signals to show when the boats might 

enter and the other for the assignment of a watchman to direct traffic.187 On 

March 22, 1871, Chief Engineer Hutton submitted to the board recommendations 

for regulations to govern the navigation through the tunnel, and the directors 

adopted these proposed rules with little modification on April 10, 1872.188 The 

new regulations were as follows: 

1st A watchman will be stationed at the west end of the tunnel, both night and day. 

2nd No ascending boat shall enter the tunnel at the East end when a flag is shown at 

the west end in daytime, or a light at night. 

3rd When there are no signals shows at the west end of the tunnel, ascending 

boats have the right to enter at the east end and pass through. 

4th All descending boats shall enter the tunnel at the west end and pass through or 

stop, as the watchman shall direct. 

5th It shall be the duty of the Watchman, when ascending boats have been waiting at 

the east end of the tunnel two hours, to stop the descending boats at the west end 

and remove his signal and give the ascending boat or boats the right to pass 

through. 

6th When the descending boats have been waiting at the west end of the tunnel, one 

and a half hours, it shall be the duty of the Watchman to show his signals and 

give the descending boats the right to pass through. 

7th When from any cause of detention a large number of boats may have collected at 

the tunnel, they shall pass through in sections, as the watchman shall direct. 

8th If from any cause boats meet in the tunnel or create a jam, they shall move or 

pull, as the watchman shall direct. 

 

186 “Regulations for the Georgetown Level,” May 23, 1870, broadside in Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 187 Report for the Year 1870 (Frederick, 1871), 7–8. 188 Hutton to Clarke, March 22, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
398 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Penalty for a violation of either of the provisions of these regulations, Ten Dollars.189

D. REGULATIONS FOR 1889–1924 

There is no available information regarding the regulations for navigating the canal during the receivership period. It is presumed that most or all of the regulations of the 1851–

1889 period remained in effect. 

 

189 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 399 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX A 

SIDE VIEW AND PLAN OF THE SWIFT.

1

Is a side view and plan of the experimental Boat “Swift;” her dimensions are as under: 

Whole length, 60 feet. 

Breadth on beam, 8 feet 6 inches. 

Width of centre trough (extending longitudinally down the middle of the boat) 2 feet 6 

inches at the bow, 22 inches at midship, and 3 feet 6 inches at the stern. 

The Swift is gig-built, light timbered, and weighs about 27 cwt. 

[IMAGE NOT INCLUDED] 

 

1 William Fairbain, Remarks on canal navigation, illustrative of the advantages of the use of steam, as a moving power 

on canal: etc. (Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831), 88 and Plate I. 
400 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX B 

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF THE SWIFT, JULY 9, 18302

Note of a series of experiments, made on the Forth of Clyde Canal, 

with Mr. Graham’s Twin Boat Swift, Friday, July 9, 1830 

All trips: 

One mile in length; canal’s average width 63 feet.and average depth 9 ft.9in. 

No. of 

experiments 

Weight of 

boat and 

cargo 

Draught of water, 

in inches 

No. of 

horses 

Time Miles 

per 

hour 

Force of 

traction 

in lbs 

Remarks 

Cwr.qrs.lbs. Bow Stern Mean Min Sec 

1 116 1 14 141⁄2 161⁄2 151⁄2 2 14 28 4.14 54.40 Against the wind, 

light breeze 

2 116 1 14 141⁄2 161⁄2 151⁄2 2 14 15 4.21 34.00 With the wind 

3 116 1 14 141⁄2 161⁄2 151⁄2 2 9 45 6.15 128.70 Against the wind; a 

ripple was observed 

rising at the bows 

and extending to the 

banks on each side 

of the canal. 

4 116 1 14 141⁄2 161⁄2 151⁄2 2 9 35 6.26 93.80 With the wind, 

ripple the same. 

5 116 1 14 141⁄2 161⁄2 151⁄2 2 8 35 7.50 207.50 Against the wind, 

with a slight surge at 

stern. 

6 116 1 14 151⁄2 161⁄2 16 2 7 50 7.65 202.35 With the wind, 

surge the same. 

7 116 1 14 16 16 16 2 7 29 8.01 264.30 Against the wind, 

the surge a little 

increased. 

8 116 1 14 16 16 16 2 6 28 9.27 272.20 With the wind, 

surge the same. 

9 116 1 14 141⁄2 151⁄2 15 2 7 22 8.14 266.50 No sensible 

difference in surge. 

10 116 1 14 141⁄2 151⁄2 15 2 7 35 7.91 243.20 Wind nearly subsided, surge the 

same. 

11 116 1 14 141⁄2 151⁄2 15 2 7 6 8.45 328.00 Rather more surge 

at stern. 

12 116 1 14 141⁄2 151⁄2 15 2 7 17 8.23 298.00 Rather more surge 

at stern. 

13* 116 1 14 141⁄2 151⁄2 15 4 4 52 12.32 410.00 Surge decreased. 

14 61 2 7 7 9 8 4 4 16 14.06 352.06 In this experiment 

the surge was 

greatly diminished, 

a rippling wave only 

seen at the stern, 

and not the least 

surge in front of the 

boat. 

Temperature 50o *The mercury stood fixed in this experiment at 410 pounds 

 

2 House Project 414, 377–378. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 401 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

Note of experiments, made with the Twin Boat 

on the Monkland Canal, on the 12th of July, 1830 

All trips: 1⁄4 mile in length; canal’s average width 40 ft. and average depth 5 ft. 4 in. 

No. of 

experiments 

Weight of 

boat and 

cargo 

Draught of water, 

in inches 

No. of 

horses 

Time Miles 

per 

hour 

Force 

of 

traction 

in lbs 

Remarks 

Cwr.qrs.lbs. Bow Stern Mean Min Sec

1 108 2 21 141⁄2 16 151⁄2 3 3 5 4.86 72.0 With the 

wind and 

no surge 

2 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 3 7 4.81 92.0 Against 

the wind, 

no surge. 

3 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 2 23 6.29 191.3 With the 

wind, a 

slight 

surge. 

4 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 2 26 6.16 219.3 Rather 

more 

wind 

ahead, 

with a 

slight 

surge at 

stern. 

5 108 2 21 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 2 11 6.87 389.0 With the 

wind, 

same 

swell. 

6 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 1 57 7.69 368.1 Against 

the wind, 

a swell 

in front 

and 

stern, 

rolling 

over the 

banks of 

the 

canal. 

7 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 1 21 11.11 420.0 With the 

wind, no

surge. 
402 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

8 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 1 14 12.16 446.9 No 

surge, 

wind 

subsided.

9 108 2 24 141⁄2 16 151⁄4 3 1 12 12.50 439.3 No wind 

and no 

surge. 

10 57 2 9 The draught not 

measured 

3 1 9 13.04 390.0 Light 

breeze 

ahead, 

no surge; 

a part of 

the cargo 

removed 

from the 

boat. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 403 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX C 

SIDE VIEW AND PLAN OF THE LORD DUNDAS IRON TWIN BOAT. 

Represents a side view and plan of the “Lord Dundas” Iron Twin Boat; it will not be necessary 

here to give the dimensions, as a detached account of her length, breadth, weight, &c. is given in 

the 6th page of this work: suffice it to observe, that she is constructed of exceedingly light 

material, the plates or sheeting of the iron ribs being under l/16 of an inch in thickness, and her 

whole weight, exclusive of the steam engine, paddle-wheel, &c. not exceeding two and a half 

tons.3

[IMAGE NOT INCLUDED] 

 

3 William Fairbain, Remarks on canal navigation, illustrative of the advantages of the use of steam, as a moving power 

on canal: etc. (Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831), 88 and Plate I. 
404 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX D 

PLAN AND DRAWING OF THE CYCLOPS4

Conveys nearly a correct representation of the Cyclops now plying on the Forth and Clyde Canal, 

to Alloa, on the Firth of Forth: this vessel has a fourteen horses’ power steam engine, placed in 

the position A, near the stern; it gives motion to the paddle-wheel, by the connecting rod B: the 

boiler C is fixed on the opposite side of the engine, and is so arranged as to give room for the man 

to fire, and space for a sufficient quantity of coal to last the voyage. This boat is built on the 

American plan, and works, with great steadiness in the canal, at four miles an hour; her 

dimensions are as follow: 

Whole length, 68 feet. 

Breadth on beam, 15 feet 6 inches. 

Depth, about 7 feet 3 inches from the keel to the deck. 

Weight, including engine, boiler, fittings, &c. about 38 tons. 

On examining the side view of the Cyclops, it will be seen that her water lines are shown, 

First, as represented by the line a, when light; that is, with no cargo except a sufficient 

quantity of water in the boiler, and two tons of coals on board, when her draught was 4 feet 6 

inches, aft, and 1 1⁄2 inch forward. 

Second, by the line b, with a cargo of 20 tons 3 qrs. 17lbs. her draught being, in this 

instance, 4 feet aft, and 2 feet 6 inches forward. The loading on this occasion was improperly 

disposed. 

Third, by the line c, with a cargo of 29 tons 3 cwt. 3 qrs. 17 lbs. her draught, in this case, 

being 3 feet 9 inches aft, and 3 feet 6 inches forward. 

It has already been remarked by Mr. Grahame, that a cargo, or not a cargo, makes little 

difference to the Cyclops, as her speed is neither increased, nor much diminished by the change; 

this, no doubt, is owing to the weight of the engine, boiler, paddle-wheel, &c. raising the bow, 

and bearing down the stern, when she is light, and sinking the paddle-wheel to a depth that must 

rather churn the water, than produce an effective impulse, as may be seen by the variation of the 

water lines a, b, c, which sufficiently illustrates this part of the subject. 

[IMAGE NOT INCLUDED] 

 

4 William Fairbain, Remarks on canal navigation, illustrative of the advantages of the use of steam, as a moving power 

on canal: etc. (Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831), 89-90 and Plate III. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 405 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX E 

DRAWINGS OF AN IRON STEAMBOAT5

Represents a side view and plan of the improved iron steam boat, now building for the Forth and 

Clyde Canal Company: this vessel is intended for the double purpose, of navigating the canal, and 

the adjoining coasts; the following are her dimensions: 

Whole length, 68 feet. 

Breadth on beam, 15 feet 

Depth from the keel to the deck, 8 feet. 

Steam engine 24 horses’ power, having two cylinders on the locomotive principle: paddle 

wheels, each 11 feet diameter, and 3 feet wide. 

Computed weight of boat, paddle-wheels, engine, &c. 

Tons. Cwt. Qrs. Lbs.

Boat, 10 5 2 0 

Engine, 6 2 0 0 

Machinery, 2 18 2 9 

Rigging; stores, &c. _3 _6 0 0

Total weight, 22 12 0 9 

This vessel will contain a cargo of 50 tons, on a draught of water of about 3 feet 9 inches; she will 

be constructed of the best material, with strong iron ribs, and plate sheeting about 1⁄4 inch thick. 

The same objection may be urged against this boat as the Cyclops, so far as respects her water 

lines, which, from the position of the steam engine, paddle-wheels, &c. must cause her to hang 

much by the stern; this objection is of no moment, as vessels of this description seldom sail 

without some loading; and, at all times, there is the power to trim the cargo, so as to give her the 

proper bearing in the water. I therefore deem the weight of machinery at the stern of less 

consequence, than the loss of power and inconvenience of conveying the motion from the engine 

(if placed nearer the bows) to the wheels, in that position: besides, placing the engine nearer the 

middle of the hold, would in a great measure destroy valuable stowage, and materially limit her 

carrying capacity. 

 

5 William Fairbain, Remarks on canal navigation, illustrative of the advantages of the use of steam, as a moving power 

on canal: etc. (Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831), 90-91 and Plate IV. 
406 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX F 

DRAWINGS OF CANAL STEAMER6

Is a side view and plan of a Canal Steamer, calculated for sea voyages, and a direct 

communication with the internal parts of the country, through canals constructed for the 

admission of such vessels: it will be seen, that a part of the side of the boat is supposed to be cut 

out, for the purpose of representing a sectional view of her steam engine, paddle-wheels, boiler, 

&c. A slight glance at the plate will show, that the wheels are advanced nearer midship; that 

considerable care is taken to occupy as little space as possible in the vessel; that the whole 

machinery is exceedingly compact, and takes up no more of the vessel’s stowage than 21 feet in 

length, including space for firing, and room to stop and start the engine. The paddle-wheels are 

placed in the position H, to obviate the apprehended danger and difficulty of working them 

advantageously at sea, and also, to retain them as near the stern as possible, on account of saving 

the vessel’s bearings, and allowing a free discharge from the wheels when her portcullises are 

down, which would always be the case in passing through the canal. 

The dimensions are as under, viz: 

Whole length, 88 feet 

Breadth on beam, 20 feet 

Depth from the keel to the deck, 9 feet. 

Steam engine (high pressure) 60 horses’ power, having two cylinders as per plan. 

Paddle-wheels, 12 feet diameter each, and 4 feet wide. 

Computed Weight. 

 Tons. Cwt. Qrs. Lbs.

Boat, composed of strong- ribbed iron 

and plates, 1/16 inch thick 21 14 3 0 

Steam-engine, boiler, &c. 12 10 0 0 

Paddle-wheels, &c. 3 10 0 0 

Riggs, stores, &c. 8 10 0 0

Total weight Tons. 46 4 3 0 

Carrying power, draught of water, &c. will be: 

Burthen Drought of Water, 

Tons. Feet. In. 

When light, including engines and coals 

under forecastle, equal to cargo of 10 2 0 

With a cargo of 48 3 0 

With a cargo of 92 4 0 

With a cargo of 116 4 6 

So that a full cargo of 116 tons would give a draught of water, four feet six inches, which I 

apprehend is not too much for most canals communicating with the different sea ports on the 

coast. 

 

6 William Fairbain, Remarks on canal navigation, illustrative of the advantages of the use of steam, as a 

moving power on canal: etc. (Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831), 92–93 and Plate V. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 407 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX G 

SPECIFICATIONS OF A LIGHT IRON PASSAGE BOAT 

Specification of a light iron passage boat, such as ply on the summit level of the Forth and Clyde 

Canal, between Port Dundas and Windford, and such as was used in the experiments detailed in 

the foregoing paper. 

Feet 

Extreme length, 70 

Extreme breadth 5 1⁄2 

The iron of the very best manufacture. 

The body plates, in particular, must be free from rust, cracks, blisters, and roughness of 

every description. The whole of the iron must be coated with linseed oil, previous to its being 

used. And the boat must be built under cover, so that the work may be kept dry until the boat is 

finished. 

 Although not shown on the plan, the said boat (plate IV.) has a hollow keel, so as to 

prevent the lodgement of water beneath the floor, between the ribs. The stem and stern shall 

consist of bars of iron, six inches in breadth and a quarter of an inch thick, which are hammered 

flat at the lower part to the breadth and thickness of the keel-plate, to which they are scarfed and 

secured with clench rivets. 

As stated above, the keel-plates are formed hollow, and consist of hoop iron, six inches in 

breadth, and one-eighth of an inch in thickness. To which a wood keel, of Memel plank, fifty feet 

in length, nine inches in depth, three inches in thickness next the bottom of the boat, and an inch 

and a half at the lower edge, tapered off to nothing at each end, must be secured to the keel-plates 

with glands an inch and a half in breadth, and a quarter of an inch thick, sunk flush into the keel, 

and screwed inside at the distance of three and a half inches apart. 

The ribs shall consist of T and angle iron, and placed alternately at the distance of twelve 

inches from each other, and extending from gunwale to gunwale, after being bent to suit the 

curved form of the vessel, two rows of holes are punched on the flat side of the angle and T ribs 

to secure the body plate, and holes at convenient distances are punched through the upright flange 

to secure the false ribs for the inside lining. 

The body plates must consist of the best double-rolled No. 16 sheet-iron, two and a half 

lbs. per superficial foot, and these sheets are in lengths of eight and ten feet. The first range of 

bottom plates, which join the hollow keel, eight feet in length and twenty-four inches in breadth; 

the next two ranges on each side, which form the bilge, ten feet in length by twelve inches in 

breadth; and the range next gunwale, ten feet in length by eighteen inches in breadth. Particular 

attention is requisite, both with the view to the strength and appearance of the boat, that the whole 

of the body plates be run in fair sheer lines from stem to stern, and that the lower edge of each 

succeeding length or range of plates cover the upper edge of their accompanying ones three 

quarters of an inch, so that the boat in every respect may have the appearance of being clencher 

built. 

The butts, or end joints of the plates, must be kept smooth, and meet on the centre of the 

T rib, and the joints of each succeeding plate be so shifted as to meet on the T rib nearest the 

centre of its accompanying ones. It must, however, be expressly understood, that, previous to any 

of the plates being riveted, thin stripe of cotton cloth, dipped in white-lead paint, be put in 

between the overlaps of the edge joint, and between the ribs and the end joints, so as to prevent 

leakage and corrosion. The whole end and edge joints must be secured with countersunk rivets, 

made from a three-sixteenth of an inch bore, placed at the distance of three-fourths of an inch 
408 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

from centre to centre, and made from the best charcoal rivet iron; the rivets, except those for 

securing the end joints, must be placed two inches distant from each other; and the whole, as 

stated above, be countersunk, and kept as smooth as possible. 

Plates, six inches in breadth and one-eighth of an inch in thickness, to be placed on each 

side along the bilge, over the body plates, where they are most exposed to injury when taking on 

board and landing passengers, which will extend from the round of the entry, at the bow, to the 

commencement of the run or exit, at the stern; and is secured to the ribs and body plates with 

countersunk rivets, placed at the distance of three inches apart; but before they are secured, both 

the bilge plates and body plates must be properly coated with white-lead paint, and a ply of 

sheathing, dipped in the same, put in between. 

One and a quarter inch of angle bars extend from stem to stern, to form the gunwale, to 

which welts or wood mouldings are secured; and another, of the same dimensions, to be placed 

seven inches below the gunwale, to which the wood belting, three inches thick, and four inches 

deep round off, is to be secured. 

The boat is framed and moulded, and in every respect formed exactly and agreeably to 

the plan, and the work must be done in a substantial and workmanlike manner. 

Specification of the Carpenter and Joiner Work 

 of such a Light Iron Canal Passage Boat

The length of the boat, as specified, at seventy feet in length, five feet six inches in breadth, and 

two feet six inches in depth. It is divided in the following manner, viz 

Fore deck 4 feet in length. 

Fore sheets According to the number of the travellers intended 

Space for steerage cabin and principal cabin, &c. 

After sheets for.[?] 

After deck 4 feet. 

The false ribs for securing the inside lining consist of willow timber, one inch in breadth, and 

seven-eighths of an inch in deepness, which must be free from knots and shakes, so that they may 

bend easily after being stoved to the curved form of the boat, to which they are secured with nails, 

riveted to the upright flange of the ribs. 

The sea-crofts, fore and aft, must extend from the stem and stern to the end of the cabins, 

and be four inches in breadth, and two inches in thickness, of the best Memel plank; which is kept 

flush with the gunwale inside, and secured with three-eights of an inch rivets, one throughout 

each rib. 

Two timber heads on each side, near the bow and stern, are laced in the most convenient 

situation for mooring the boat, and secured with glands fixed with clenched rivets, so that the 

timber heads may be taken out and replaced, when found necessary; to consist of solid oak 

timber, five inches in breadth, two inch thick, one foot in length below the gunwale, and seven 

inches above. 

The beams which support the deck, fore and aft, consist of oak plank two inches thick, 

three inches deep in the centre, and two inches deep at each end, with a curve of half an inch to 

the foot in length; and they are secured with a sheet-iron plate the to gunwale, angle iron, and sea 

-croft. 

The gunwale or covering boards should consist of the best Memel fir plank, one inch in 

thickness, which extends from stem to stern; the cover is secured to the gunwale flange and wele, 

that forms a moulding round the same. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 409 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

The ends and divisions of the cabins should consist of Memel plank, two and a half 

inches in breadth, and one inch and three -fourths thick, which will form diagonal frames, for the 

purpose of strengthening the boat, so as to resist external pressures. The said frames must be 

lined at the ends of the cabins outside, with the best half-inch American yellow pine plank. The 

framing in the inside of the cabins may be lined as may be approved of. 

The sleepers, for support of the flooring, should be two inches deep, by one inch and a 

quarter thick, placed and fitted to each alternate rib, and fixed to the upright flange with rivet 

nails. The flooring should consist of the best yellow pine plank, one inch thick, and not to exceed 

six inches in breath, which must be properly cleaned, ploughed, and feathered. 

The height of the cabins, from the top of the floor to the lower part of the beams, six feet 

at the centre, and the heights of the sides above the level of the floor will be five feet under the 

beams; consequently, the beams will have a curve of twelve inches. 

The standards or stancheons of the sides of the cabins should consist of the best white 

American oak, one inch thick, and one a and a half broad at the gunwale, and one inch in breadth 

at the top of the cabin, and placed at each alternate rib, to which it is secured; the distance being 

twenty-four inches from centre to centre. The top gunwale, for the support of the roof, to be 

made of the best Memel fir or red pine, free of blemish or knots, and extend the whole length of 

the cabin, two and a half inches deep outside; the upper edge is bevelled to suit the curve of the 

beams, and two inches in thickness, mitered to fit the tenure of the standard, having a projection 

for a head, and thickness of outside lining. 

The beams, as stated above, to have a curve of twelve inches, to consist of the best clean 

ash timber, an inch and a half in breadth, by one inch in depth, the lower part rounded to a half 

circle, and is placed at the distance of two feet from centre to centre, dove-tailed and secured to 

he gunwale with screw-nails; and a framing of iron wire gauze, well painted, shall be made to 

connect them, so that the top may form one solid connected form from end to end. 

A stringer extends the whole length of the cabins, in the centre, to support the roof, which 

is let in, and bound to the diagonal frames, the upper edge kept flush with the top of the curve, 

consisting of clean solid white Quebec oak timber, three inches in depth by an inch and a half 

thick; into which the beams are let nearly in the whole depth, and made exactly for the top 

covering. 

The space outside of the cabin, fore and aft, must be lined from the floor to the gunwale 

with five-eights of an inch red pine boards, and seated in the usual form; the tops seven-eights of 

an inch thick, with round supports and cross bearers, with two front rails, two and a half inches in 

breadth, beaded, and let in flush with the bottom and top of the supports or feet. 

In order that the boat may be kept as light as possible in the fittings-up, there should be 

no inside lining of wood from the floor up; consequently, the whole seatings in the cabins must 

have fronts supported with brackets; these brackets to be secured to a stringer, fixed to the sides 

of the boat the whole lengths of the cabin, three inches in breadth, by an inch and a quarter thick, 

to which the brackets are let in flush, and nailed to it and the floor. The seats in the principal 

cabin to be sixteen inches in height, so as to allow cushions two inches thick and eighteen inches 

in breadth; the back to be one inch lower than the front, which is considered an improvement as a 

comfortable seat; the seats in the principal cabin may consist of cane, light wood, or lacing, as 

may be approved of; the fronts consisting of the best American yellow pine five-eights boards. 

The seats in the steerage, eighteen inches in height, by fourteen inches in breadth, and fixed with 

brackets in the same manner as the principal cabin, and be seven-eights of an inch in thickness. 

The outside lining between the gunwale and top of the cabins should consist of the best 

yellow pine half-inch boards, well seasoned, free of knots, sound, and properly cleaned, 

ploughed, and feathered. The first board will extend the whole length of the cabins, eights inches 

in breadth, nearly joined to the coverings boards; thin fitters being fitted between the standards or 
410 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

stauncheons, and laid in white-lead paint, so as to be water-tight, and fixed to the side standards 

with springs. 

The space between the standards being twenty-four inches from centre to centre, it is 

proposed that light windows, or patent gauze wire, shall be place in every alternate space, so as 

the passengers may have a view of the country without being under the necessity of removing to 

the outside. These windows and frames should be made as light as possible, and made to slide or 

fold, as may be considered most convenient. 

The inside lining, from the seats up, and between the windows, should consist of oilcloth, fixed and finished with heads and facings. 

The top or cover of the cabins to consist of oil-cloth, which must be perfectly water-tight, 

and fixed to the beams, top gunwales, and ends of the cabin, with a moulding. It will be 

necessary to have a thin sheet of plate-iron for the funnels, so as to prevent any danger from the 

heat of the stoves during the winter. 

The outside doors should consist of red pine plank, one inch and a quarter thick, bound 

and pannelled, to be hung with neat light bats and bands, have good five-inch rimmed locks, brass 

mounted, to open out in two halves, and to have small brass slip bolts at top and bottom. The 

doors in the divisions to have check locks, and hung with five inch edge hinges. 

The inside doors should consist of the best yellow pine plank, one and one-eighth inch 

thick, and twenty-two inches in breadth, and finished with facings. 

That the whole of the inside, previous to the joiner work being commenced should have 

two coats of good lead-color paint; and the whole of the iron-work on the outside, as well as the 

wood-work in the outside and inside, should have three coats of paint of different colors, and 

finished in a sufficient and workmanlike manner. 

House Report 414, 367–37 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 411 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX H 

Journal of the Experiments on the Navigation of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal by the 

Steam-boat Lewis, September 22nd, 1853. 

FIRST EXPERIMENT 

The steam-boat towing one of the barges, for passengers, used upon the canal. 

Length of barge 90 feet, breadth of beam 19 feet, draught, when light 23 inches, 

including the keel, which is 11 inches; draught, with the ordinary number of passengers, 55 

inches.* Awning of the barge up. 

The barge 15 feet in rear of the steam-boat. 

Twenty-eight persons in the steam-boat; seven in the barge. 

Time of 

passing 

the points 

Remarks

Width 

Waterway

Dist. 

Bet. 

Sta. 

Time bet. 

Stations 

Rate/ 

Hr. Ratio* Points at 

which the 

observations 

were made Hr Min Sec 

RPM

Barge in 

tow 

Yds Yds Min Sec Miles

Post 300 

yds. east of 

Delaware 

bridge 

8 14 45 371⁄2 Wind 

strong in 

favor 

26 2/3 

Middle of 

Delaware 

bridge 

8 16 35 Steam 

shut off, 

in part, 

30 sec. 

in order 

to pass 

the 

bridge. 

302 

Post 330 

yds. west of 

Delaware 

bridge 

302 

Mile post 

No. 1 

8 20 30 341⁄2 59 385 2 08 6.16 .61

About the 

half mile 

8 36 

Mile post 

No. 2 

8 30 40 1 min. 

30 

seconds 

lost. 

26 2/3 1770 8 40 6.96 .65

Mean 6.56 .63

Return 

trip with 

barge 
412 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Mile post 

No. 2 

8 40 38 39 Wind 

brisk, 

adverse 

26 2/3 

351⁄2 Wind on 

bow for 

about 

half a 

mile 

311⁄2 and 

directly

ahead 

the other 

half 

Mile post 

No. 1 

8 53 00 311⁄2 Close to 

bank, no 

wash 

59 1770 12 22 4.88 .48

Post 300 

yds. west of 

Delaware 

bridge 

8 56 05 33 30 feet 

from

bank 

56 385 3 05 4.26 .44

Middle of 

Delaware 

bridge 

8 58 32 Steam, 

in part, 

shut off 

for 20 

sec. 

302 2 27 

Post 300 

yds. east of 

Delaware 

bridge 

9 00 57 311⁄2 26 2/3 302 2 25 

Post 300 

yds. west of 

Delaware 

bridge 

9 04 20 33 26 2/3 471 3 23 4.74 .49

Mean 4.63 .47

• Ratio of velocity of boat to velocity of wheel. 

Mean rate of boats, wind in favour 6.56 miles Relative rates 

Mean rate of boats, wind adverse 4.63 miles 1.417 to 1 

 Mean 5.59 miles 

Greatest rate of boats, wind in favour 6.96 miles. Relative rates 

Greatest rate of boats, wind adverse 4.88 miles. 1.426 to 1 

Mean ratio of velocity of boat to velocity of wheel, wind in favour, .63 

Mean ratio of velocity of boat to velocity of wheel, wind adverse .46

 Mean .55 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 413 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

SECOND EXPERIMENT 

The steam-boat, with thirteen persons on board. 

Time of 

Observation Remarks 

Width of 

Waterway

Dist. 

Bet. 

Sta 

Time 

bet. 

Stations 

Rate/ 

Hr. Points at 

which the 

observations 

were made H. M. S. 

RPM

Steam-boat 

alone 

Yds Yds M. S. Miles

Ratio*

Post 300 yds 

W of Del. 

Lock 

9 12 35 39 Wind as in 

1st exp’t 

Post 300 yds 

E of Del. 

Bridge 

9 14 35 39 Faster than 

boat and in

favour 

26 2/3 471 2 00 8.03 .71 

Middle of 

Delaware 

bridge 

9 16 00 Steam shut 

off, in part, 

for 20 

seconds 

26 2/3 302 

Post 300 yds 

W of Del 

bridge 

9 17 32 371⁄2 More wash 

than in 

first exp’t 

but still 

harmless 

56 302 

Mile post 

No. 1 

9 19 20 371⁄2 59 385 1 48 7.29 .67 

Mile post 

No. 2 

9 26 30 39 59 1770 7 10 8.42 .77 

Mile post 

No. 3 

9 34 09 371⁄2 55 1768 7 39 7.88 .72 

Mile post 

No. 4 

9 41 50 371⁄2 176 1755 7 41 7.79 .71 

Post 300 yds 

E of Penna. 

lock 

9 43 30 44 1 40 

Post 300 yds 

W of Penna. 

lock 

9 58 08 275 15 22 

Mile post 

No. 5 

10 00 50 39 

Pass Penna 

lock, wind 

slower 

than 

boat just at 

a point 

opposite 

the bow 

190 2 42 
414 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

Mile post 

No. 6 

10 08 13 371⁄2 was 

measured 

upon a 

stick, and 

found to be 

about 1 

inch. 

Canal 9 to 

10 feet 

deep; pond 

800 ft. 

wide. 

Exp’t not 

precise. 

132 1764 7 23 8.14 .73 

After passing mile post No. 6 a sloop was attached by tow lines to the steam-boat; the burthen of 

the sloop was forty-four tons, the actual load being fifty tons of anthracite, and the draught sixtytwo inches exclusive of the keel. The helmsman of both the steam-boat and the sloop, not 

understanding the management of their respective vessels, in the new circumstances in which 

they were placed, there was so much sheering in one direction and another, that it was deemed 

expedient to cast off the tow lines, on the approach of the passenger barge which appeared in 

sight. The speed was estimated differently at from three to four miles per hour, but the checks, 

which it constantly met with, rendered any accuracy of estimate out of the question. The 

passenger barge, towed by eleven horses, now passed, and the steam-boat followed; part of the 

experiment, which follows, was made in the shallower end of a former mill-pond, and the other 

through about one quarter of a mile of the deep cut. 

Time of 

observation 

Remarks Width 

Waterway

Dist. 

Bet. 

Sta. 

Time 

bet. 

Stations

Rate/ 

Hr. 

Points at 

which 

observations 

were made H. M. S. 

RPM 

Steam-boat 

alone 

Yds Yds M. S. Miles 

Ratio*

Mile post 

No. 7 10 34 52 37 210 

Mile post 

No. 8 10 42 57 36 

From the 

bottom of 

the 

Depression 

to the top of 

the swell 

created by 

the barge, 

was, at the 

lowest, 

3.5 feet; the 

same height 

for the swell 

of the boat 

was 1 foot, 

at the most.

26 2/3 1736 8 05 7.41 .70 

Mean 7.85 .71 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 415 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

Time of 

observation Remarks 

Width 

Waterway

Dist. 

Bet. 

Sta. 

Time 

bet. 

Stations 

Rate/ 

Hr. Points at 

which 

observations 

were made H. M. S. 

RPM

Steam-boat 

alone 

Yds Yds M. S. Miles

Ratio*

Mile post 

No. 7 

11 23 30 371⁄2 Light wind 

ahead 

270 

Mile post 

No. 6 

11 31 42 35 Wind 

strengthens

132 1769 8 12 7.36 .70 

Mile post 

No. 5 

11 39 53 371⁄2 190 1764 8 11 7.35 .68 

Post 300 yds 

W of Penna 

lock 

11 43 52 371⁄2 275 3 59 

Pennsylvania 

lock 

11 50 20 In lock and 

going 

300 yds 

6 28 

Post 307 yds 

E of Penna. 

Lock 

11 52 18 33 44 1 58 

Mile post 

No. 4 

11 54 10 341⁄2 176 1 52 

Mile post 

No. 3 

12 02 20 55 1755 8 10 7.33 .3 

Mile post 

No. 2 

12 10 18 351⁄2 59 1768 7 58 7.56 .74 

Mile post 

No. 1 

12 17 55 59 1770 7 35 7.92 .77 

Post 300 yds 

W of Del 

bridge 

12 19 40 56 385 1 45 7.50 

Middle of 

Delaware 

bridge 

12 21 05 Steam 

slack 

26 2/3 302 1 24 

Post 300 yds 

E of Del 

bridge 

12 22 57 341⁄2 26 2/3 302 1 52 

Post 300 yds 

W of Del 

bridge 

12 25 15 33 471 2 18 6.98 .70 

Mean 7.43 .72 

Mean velocity of steam-boat, wind in favour 7.85 miles per hour Relative rates 

Mean velocity of steam-boat, wind adverse 7.43 miles per hour 1.055 to 1 

 Mean 7.64 

Greatest vel. of steam-boat, wind in favor 8.42 miles per hour Relative rates 

Greatest vel. of steam-boat, wind adverse 7.92 miles per hour 1.068 to 1 

Mean ratio of velocity of boat to velocity of wheel, wind in favour, .71 

Mean ratio of velocity of boat to velocity of wheel, wind adverse, .72 
416 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

THIRD EXPERIMENT 

Steam-boat towing a freight barge of twenty-five tons burthen, loaded with from fifteen to 

eighteen tons of merchandise, and drawing two and a half feet of water. 

Wind very light, in favour of the boat. 

Time of 

observation 

Width 

Waterway

Dist. 

Bet. 

Sta. 

Time 

bet. 

Stations

Rate/ 

Hr. 

Points at 

which 

observations 

were made H. M. S. 

RPM Remarks 

Yds Yds M. S. Miles 

Ratio*

Post 300 yds 

W of 

Delaware lock 

12 40 34 34 Towing a 

freight 

barge 

Post 300 yds E 

of Delaware 

bridge 

12 43 31 34 26 2/3 471 2 57 5.44 .55 

Middle of 

Delaware 

bridge 

12 45 25 Steam 

slacked 

for 20 

sec 

26 2/3 

Post 300 yds 

W of 

Delaware 

bridge 

12 47 18 341⁄2 56 

Mile post No. 

1 

12 49 22 35 59 385 2 04 6.36 .62 

Mean 5.95 .58 

The passenger barge from the west appearing in sight, the freight barge was disengaged, and the 

boat put about. At the first part of this experiment there was a difficulty encountered similar to 

that noticed in the case of the attempt to tow the sloop, but less in degree; it resulted from the 

inexperience of the helmsman of the barge, and as soon as he had been directed how to steer, and 

followed the directions, there was no further trouble from this source. 

FOURTH EXPERIMENT 

Steam-boat alone, returning in rear of the passenger barge drawn by seven horses. 

Light wind ahead. 

Time of 

observation 

Width 

Waterway

Dist. 

Bet. 

Sta. 

Time 

bet. 

Stations

Rate/ 

Hr. Points at which 

observations 

were made H. M. S. 

RPM Remarks

Yds Yds M. S. Miles 

Ratio*

Mile post No. 1 12 58 45 Steamboat 

alone 

59 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 417 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

Post 300 yds W 

of Delaware 

bridge 

1 00 40 56 385 1 55 6.84 

Delaware 

bridge 

1 02 00 26 2/3 302 1 20 7.74 

Post 300 yds E 

of Delaware 

bridge 

1 03 32 26 2/3 302 1 32 6.63 

The barge had seven horses, which of course were fatigued, for which circumstance allowance 

must be made; there was, however, no point of time in which the steam-boat could not have 

passed the barge after it had come up to it and, in fact, during part of the last 500 yards, and after 

passing the 500 yards post the steam was slackened occasionally, to keep from running too close 

to the barge. 

Summary of the Average Results 

Mean velocity Mile per 

Hour 

Mean 

Ratio* Remarks Avg. RPM 

Steam boat alone 7.64 .71 A mile in 7 min and 7/8 36.9 

With passenger barge in tow 5.59 .55 34.7 

With freight barge in tow 5.95 .58 No exp’t against the wind 35.1 

*Mean Ratio of velocity of boat to velocity of water. 

In these experiments, at the highest rate of motion obtained, there was no swell produced in the 

straight parts of the canal, which would have been likely to injure the banks although not 

specially protected. The wave from the bow of the boat, owing to the peculiar form of that part, 

fell in with the wheels, and was disposed of by them; while the lean form of the stern brought 

together the waves produced by the wheels, which, therefore, spread very little, if at all, in a 

lateral direction, that is, towards the banks, being directed towards the tow-path only in parts of 

the curved portions of the canal. When the barge was in tow, and with the more rapid rate then 

assumed, nearly seven miles per hour, there was no perceptible swell behind the barge, the swell 

from the wheels not appearing after meeting the bow of the barge. There was no obvious change 

in the character of the swell at low and high velocities, but the experiments did not permit 

numerical accuracy upon this point. 

At the time when the heights of the wave from the barge and from the steam-boat are 

noted in the remarks, the barge was so far before the boat that the latter was free from any effect 

produced by the swell of the former. It was in the deep cut, and the bow of the barge was 

elevated, and the stern depressed, mounting an inclined plane, while, besides the wave which 

preceded the bow, a destructive surge followed sweeping above the stoning of the banks of the 

tow-path. The wave from the steam-boat was included within the limits comprising only a portion 

of the cover of the banks, and did not break with the violence necessary to carry away the soil and 

pebbles from behind the stones. 

The boat suffered no sensible retardation in passing into the deep cut, for, in the latter 

part of the second experiment, with thirty-six and thirty-seven revolutions, the speed was about 

seven and a half miles per hour, while in the wider portions, with thirty-seven and a half, the 

speed was about seven miles and three-quarters. The same conclusion is to be drawn by 

comparing these results with those obtained in the Schuylkill; in fact, the average speed with a 
418 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

given number of revolutions upon the canal, rather exceeds that with the same number upon the 

river. 

he want in power of the engine prevented the experiments from being conclusive in 

relation to towing, with high rates of motion, though they seem to indicate greater advantages 

from towing, at rapid rates, than in moving with the boat alone. That the speeds attained by even 

this imperfect model, compare with those which the labour of eight horses is capable of 

producing, appears by the annexed memorandum received from the captain of one of the 

passenger barges which passes daily through the canal on the line from Philadelphia to Baltimore. 

Min Sec MPH 

From the 11th to the 10th mile post 9 40 6.02 

 10th 9th 10 00 6.00 

 9th 8th 9 00 6.67 

 8th 7th 8 40 6.92 

 7th 6th 7 55 7.58 

 6th 5th 7 20 8.18 

 5th 4th 13 50 Includes lockage

 4th 3rd 8 38 7.02 

 3rd 2nd 8 20 7.20 

 2nd 1st 7 20 8.18 

 1st 0th 8 58 6.69 

The average speed is about nine minutes to the mile, and two hours are required to pass the 

canal.” 

While then it would seem to be an easy matter to exceed the average speed, which is 

attainable in towing by horses, the swell produced by one and by the other mode of conveyance 

are not comparable with each other. 

A review of the experiments leads me to the conclusion indicated in the commencement 

of this article, namely, that steam power may be substituted for the present method of towing by 

horses on large canals, with great advantage to the canal, particularly at high velocities. 

There was no opportunity on this occasion to examine into the cost of this mode of 

transportation, by ascertaining the amount of fuel consumed in the different trips; this point was 

investigated, and a further trial in towing heavy vessels was made by Caleb Newbold, Esq. As the 

results will serve to render my statements more full, I subjoin them. 

Hrs Min MPH

1st Expt Steamboat alone, 

St. Georges to Delaware City (4.25 miles) 0 33 7.75 

2nd Exp’t Steamboat alone, 

Delaware City to Chesapeake 1 55 6.91 

3rd Exp’t Steamboat alone, 

Chesapeake to Delaware City 1 50 7.23 

“In both of the last experiments the steam was slackened off repeatedly to accommodate vessels; 

the time given is exclusive of six minutes for lockage. The most rapid rates of motion were one 

mile in six minutes and twenty seconds, (9.48 miles per hour,) and one mile in six minutes and 

thirty seconds (9.23 miles per hour.) The greatest number of revolutions made in one minute by 

the wheels was forty-two. 575 lbs of pine wood, of fair good quality, (about one-fifth of a cord,) 

were consumed in keeping up the steam for one hour and fifty minutes. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 419 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

“4th. Experiment.” Delaware City to St. Georges, towing the schooner William and 

George, of 451⁄2 tons burthen, empty, fifty-six minutes, (rate 4.5 miles per hour.) 

“5th. Experiment. St. Georges to Delaware City, towing the sloop Martha and Elizabeth, 

of 59 tons, clump built, heavily laden; drawing six feet of water; one hour and two minutes, (rate 

4.1 miles per hour.) Part of the way there was a fair wind, and part of the way a strong side wind, 

which, owing to the want of keel of the steam-boat, pressed it somewhat on the tow path. The 

vessel is one of the heaviest towers of her class. No difficulty in steering, nor any embarrassment 

from sheering.” 

Experiments Made On the Navigation of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal By Steam, 

Reported by A. D. Bache (Philadelphia, 1834), 4-13. 
420 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX I 

EXTRACT FROM AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

OF MARYLAND, DECEMBER 1831 

Extract from an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, entitled “An act further to amend the 

act incorporating the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company,” passed at the December session, 

1831.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That if any person or persons shall willfully, 

by any means whatever, injure, impair, or destroy, any part of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, or 

any part of its feeders, dams, locks, aqueducts, culverts, walls, embankments, bridges, buildings, 

or other works now constructed, or which may hereafter be constructed, by the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal Company, under the several acts incorporating the said Canal Company, or 

amendatory thereof, or supplementary thereto, such person or persons so offending shall each of 

them, for every such offence, forfeit and pay to the said Canal Company a sum not exceeding

fifty dollars, recoverable by action of debt before any justice of the peace in and for the county 

wherein the offence shall be committed, reserving to the parties the right of appeal from the 

decision of the said justice of the peace to the county court in the county in which judgment may 

be had; or every such offender shall be subject to indictment in the court of the county in which 

the offence shall be committed, and, upon conviction of such offence, shall be punished by fine or 

imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court. 

2. And be it enacted, That the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company, or a majority of them, acting in behalf of the said Company, shall be, and they are 

hereby, authorized and empowered, from time to time, to pass all by-laws which may be 

necessary for the exercise of the powers vested in said Company by the several acts incorporating 

the same, or amendatory thereof, or supplementary thereto: Provided, always, That such by-laws 

shall not be contrary to the laws of this State, or of the United States, or of the States in which 

they operate, and that the said Company shall not be authorized, by any such by-laws or 

regulations, to prevent the proprietor or proprietors of any lands through which the said canal, 

dams, basins, feeders, or other appurtenant works may be constructed, from joining or connecting 

with the said works any fence or wall which shall not be found to injure the work aforesaid; nor 

to prohibit the aforesaid proprietor or proprietors from having access to the said Canal and its 

appurtenant works, at the most convenient place and from crossing and recrossing the same at 

their discretion, in any of the modes hitherto agreed upon by the said Company; Provided, in 

doing so, they do not impede the navigation, or injure the said works. And if any person or 

persons shall willfully offend against any such by-laws, after a copy thereof shall have been set 

up for public inspection at each of the toll-houses on the canal, such person or persons, so 

offending, shall each of them, for every such offence, forfeit and pay to the said Company the 

sum of five dollars, to be recovered in the name of the said Company before any justice of the 

peace for the county wherein the offence may be committed. 

 3. And be it enacted, That the said President and Directors or a majority of them, acting in 

behalf of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, may prescribe the form, dimensions, and 

equipment of the boats and floats to be used upon the canal, with a view to prevent accidental 

injury to them, or to the works of the canal, in passing each other, or in passing by or through any 

of the works; and if the owner, captain, or other person, having charge of any boat or float, shall 

negligently violate, or refuse to comply with any such regulation, the President and Directors may 

require the owner, captain, or other person having charge thereof, to withdraw his said boat or 

float from the canal, by some one of the outlets thereof; or, in the event of his failure to do so, on 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 421 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

reasonable notice, may order the same to be broken up and removed from the canal, or any of its 

basins, ponds, feeders, or other works, and in like manner may be broken up and removed from 

the canal, or any of its basins, ponds, or feeders, any boat or float, or other substance, floating 

loose upon, or sunk therein, the owner of which is unknown, or, if known, neglects or refuses, 

after reasonable notice to remove the same; and the materials of the broken boat, float, or other 

substance, so broken up and removed, shall be the property of the Canal Company, and be 

applied to defray the cost of breaking up and removing such nuisance. 
422 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX J 

Act of Congress, approved July 14, 1852 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, That the assent of the United States be, and the same is hereby, given to an 

act of the General Assembly of Maryland, entitled “An act further to amend the act incorporating 

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,” which passed the General Assembly of Maryland at 

December session one thousand and eight hundred and thirty-one: Provided, That nothing therein 

contained shall be construed to impair any right possessed by the said company to the passage of 

said act, nor to authorize any individual to obstruct the said canal, along the berm bank, or other 

land for the construction and use thereof, nor to prevent Superintendent, or officers of said 

company, from up and down the said canal.... 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 423 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX K 

DRAWINGS OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL FREIGHTER 

Vint, Outline Report of Architectural Work, 70 
424 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 

APPENDIX L 

ACCOUNT OF LIFE ON A CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL BOAT 

There were two kinds of boats on the canal, one of very primitive shape, being nearly the shape of 

an oblong box with great square ends. These boats would carry large loads but were slow sailors, 

as the water made a great resistance to the flat end in front and did not leave the boat easily at the 

stern. There were very few of these boats left and those that were painted at all were covered with 

a coat of coal tar. The other boats had their ends molded and formed the same as a ship, making 

as fine lines as was consistent with the load they were to carry and the slow speed they sailed. All 

the new boats were built at Cumberland where they had a miniature ship yard employing the 

various mechanics as ship carpenters, smiths, painter and caulkers to be found in large shipyards. 

A boat is divided into three compartments; the center was left open except for a narrow 

walk around the edge and formed the hold where the freight is stored. Over this were placed 

removable hatches making a watertight covering. At each end of the boat is a cabin with a roof 

raised about three feet above the deck. The front one is used for a stable and the rear one is 

divided into a stateroom with berths and cooking galley. The cabin was not so wide as the boat 

above the deck leaving foot ways, on each side. Behind the rear cabin was the tiller deck from 

which the cabin stairs went down, and under it a kind of cockpit, about four feet high, where Pic 

and his boy slept and no place could suit them better as it was the hottest and least ventilated part 

of the boat. 

When the boat was loaded, the water came within a foot of the deck, but when it was 

light it just skimmed over the water not drawing more than one or two feet and would be almost 

unmanageable outside of the canal as it had no keel to prevent it from drifting with the wind. 

There were some three or four hundred boats on the canal and [they] were of all ages and in every 

stage of repair from those that were bright and shiny to those that you could not tell what was the 

color of the last coat of paint. A hundred or more of these boats were brought from the Erie 

Canal, when that was enlarged, by the canal companies who now own nearly all the boats, the 

boatmen furnishing teams and outfit, receiving so much a ton for hauling the coal, paying their 

own expenses and the toll on the empty boat back to Cumberland. The cost of a new boat was 

from twelve to fifteen hundred dollars. 

I was not long on board before I was given a lesson in boat steering, Pic keeping watch 

with a hand ready to grasp the tiller if by some mischance the boat should get the advantage of 

me and try to run ashore. Boat steering is very simple; you stand with one arm over the tiller and 

sight across the bow of the boat; then pull or push according to the direction you wish it to go, but 

it requires constant attention and the steersman has to be constantly on the watch for the slightest 

deviation from the direct line and immediately overcome it by moving the rudder. This soon 

becomes instinctive, like steering a bicycle, and requires but little exertion but sometimes, by 

carelessness or otherwise, and you often feel that it was mere wantonness on the part of the boat, 

it will take a start for one side and, do the best you can it will hardly escape striking the bank, 

when over it will go to the other side and just miss grounding there, back and forth it will go half 

a dozen times before you get it calmed down to straight ahead then perhaps for miles it will not 

deviate a foot from the right direction. This erratic steering reduces the speed of the boat and adds 

to the pull of the mules, besides, there was the danger of running the boat aground or in some 

places of bumping a hole in the bottom on a ledge. 

The connection between the mules and the boat is the tow-line, a strong rope three 

fourths of an inch in diameter and near a hundred feet long, which was fastened to an eye bolt on 

one side near the middle of the boat, and as this was near the pivot point on which the boat turned 

and drew nearly straight ahead, it had but little effect on the steering. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 425 

Unrau: 7.Boats and Navigation 

In canal language the mules were geared together and not harnessed. The mule gearing 

was of the simplest description possible consisting of a bridle and breastplate with a strap around 

the body to keep it in place. The traces were chains that hooked into rings on the mule in the rear 

with spread sticks between each mule and one where the chains came together at the towline. 

When we had all four mules hitched tandem they formed a straight line between two long chains 

that were nearly as rigid as wooden poles, the spread sticks keeping the chains a sufficient 

distance apart as not to chafe them. It took no little power to start a boat loaded with one hundred 

and twenty tons of coal drawing five feet of water for a standstill and get it up to speed of two 

miles per hour. A quick pull of a hundred horses would have little effect except to break the towline, yet a boy ten years old could start the boat by making a long steady pull; after awhile he 

would feel it yield and perhaps in three or five minutes could make a single step, then another 

until the boat would move at a slow but steady speed according to the strength of the boy. In the 

same way the well trained mule could draw the tow-line tight and make an easy pull leaning 

against their breastplates until the boat began to move, then step after step until the boat was up to 

speed and all day they seemed to be resting on their breastplates and stopping only to keep from 

falling forward. 

At night, or when we stopped to feed, the boat was hauled up to the shore and made fast, 

the mules ungeared and the feed trough brought out. This was about a yard long and large enough 

to hold two buckets of corn in the ear and had but two legs, a tree, post or fence serving for the 

others, being fastened to it by a rope which passed through two holes in the back. This made the 

trough a fixture that could not be tipped over or run away with. 

We are sailing on and on making from a mile and three fourths to two miles an hour 

according to the number of mules in use at a time; occasionally we meet a boat going up the canal 

some of whose crews saluted Capt. Coss or Pic but most of them passed silently by. Some of the 

boats were drawn by a single mule others had what was once a horse, still others had two or 

more, but none had a better team than ours. We saw very few boats going in our direction either 

on the down or return trip except when we tied up to the bank, for the rate of speed was so near 

the same in all of the boats that the time spent in passing a lock would keep them separate until 

they came to the next and only on long levels could one gain enough to pass another. We were 

tied up to no particular hours and lived in Arcadian simplicity. We rose with the early morning 

light, fed the mules, and when they had eaten their breakfast a pair was hitched up and we started 

on our day’s journey driving them about four hours when they were changed for the other pair; at 

the end of the next four hours they were again changed, and so on making four shifts and sailing 

from sixteen to eighteen hours a day, the Capt. Pic and myself taking turns at the rudder while the 

two boys changed off from time to time and occasionally Pic and myself would drive for an hour 

or two, walking for exercise; the boys usually rode the rear mule.7

 

7 Excerpt from: Ella B. Clark and Thomas F. Hahn, eds., Life on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: 1859 (New York, 

1975), 12–15 
426 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 7. Boats and Navigation 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

8. 

COMMERCE ON THE 

C & O CANAL 

1830–1924 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 429 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

CONTENTS 

I. COMMERCE ON THE C & O CANAL: 1830–1850 431 

 A. TARRIFS OF TOLL: 1830–1850 431 

 B. ANALYSIS OF CANAL TRADE DURING THE 

 CONSTRUCTION YEARS: 1830–1850 437 

 C. ENCOURAGEMENT OF TRADE ON THE CANAL: 1830-1850 452 

 D. COMPETITION WITH THE B&O RAILROAD: 1830–1850 453 

II. COMMERCE ON THE C & O CANAL: 1851–1889 457 

 A. TARRIFS OF TOLL: 1851–1889 457 

 B. IRREGULAR UPWARD COURSE OF CANAL TRADE: 1851–1860 463 

 C. DECLINING TRADE ON THE CANAL DURING THE CIVIL 

 WAR 1861-1865 471 

D. RESURGENCE OF THE CANAL TRADE IN THE POSTWAR 

 ERA: 1866-1869 475 

 E. THE GOLDEN YEARS OF CANAL TRADE, 1870–1875 478 

 F. DECLINING YEARS OF THE CANAL TRADE: 1876–1889 486 

III. COMMERCE ON THE C & O CANAL: 1891-1924 496 

 A. RESUMPTION OF TRADE: 1891–1894 496 

 B. CORPORATE DEVICES TO OPERATE THE CANAL 497 

 C. EVALUATION OF CANAL TRADE: 1891–1924 498 

 D. POSSIBILITY OF TRADE AFTER 1924 499 

APPENDIXES 501 

A. ASCENDING AND DESCENDING TRADE: 1831–1850 501 

B. ASCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 513 

C. DESCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 517 

D. TOLLS COLLECTED 1830–1850 521 

E. TOLLS COLLECTED 1851–1889 522 

F. TOLLS COLLECTED 1891–1924 523 

G. CANAL TRADE 1850–1876 524 

H. CANAL TRADE 1850–1876 525 

I. CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1872 & 1874 526 

J. CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1872 & 1874 527 

K. CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1877 528 

L. CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE:1879–1888 529 

M. CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1870–1888 533 

N. CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1879–1889 534 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 431 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

I. COMMERCE ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1830–1850 

The commerce on the canal during the years 1830 to 1850 was almost wholly the transportation 

of agricultural produce, the least majority of which descended the waterway from the fertile farmlands of Montgomery, Frederick and Washington Counties. As long as this continued, the company was barely able to meet expenses, and all hopes of the promoters had to be expressed in 

terms of future prospects. The canal board preferred to point to the great lumber and coal resources of the upper valley and the valuable trade to and from the West, which would boost the 

canal’s profits once the waterway was completed to Cumberland. When comparisons had to be 

made with other canals, the directors used the successful Erie and British waterways as the measure of the future prospects of their canal. In the second annual report to the stockholders in June 

1830, President Charles B. Mercer voiced these sentiments: 

Two commodities alone, coal and iron, the transportation of which supplies the chief 

source of revenue to the most profitable Canals of Scotland and England, are found in inexhaustible quantities near the very line of the latter Canal (Chesapeake & Ohio), while 

they have not yet been discovered, to any very great extent, if at all, on the Erie Canal of 

New York. The mineral productions of a country whose surface is comparatively flat and 

unbroken, cannot be expected to rival, in variety or quantity, those of a region so diversified by mountains and valleys, as the country watered by the Potomac, the Youghioghany 

and their tributary streams; some of which, like the Shenandoah and the Monongahela, 

surpass, themselves, in the actual length of their practical navigation.1

Nevertheless the company did not ignore the river trade, keeping the Potomac Company’s locks 

and canals in repair and operation until its own works were completed.2

A. TARIFFS OF TOLL, 1830–1850 

On October 10, 1830, some three weeks before the canal between Lock Nos. 5 and 23 were 

opened to navigation, the board fixed the tariffs of tolls at the same rate as the Potomac Company 

had charged at Great Falls.3

These tolls were as follows: 

ARTICLE UNIT TOLL 

Domestic spirits Hogshead 1/6 

Tobacco Hogshead 1/0 

Linseed oil Cask 1/3 

Wheat, peas, beans, flax seed Bushel 0/1⁄2 

Corn Bushel 0/1⁄4 

Flour Barrel 0/3 

Beef Barrel 0/4 

 

1 Second Annual Report (1830), C & O Canal Co., 15. 2 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 312–313, 342, B, 30. 3 Ibid, B, 194. As early as August 21, 1828, the canal board had voted to continue the tariff of tolls previously established by the Potomac Company on all of the locks and skirting canals that were still in operation. The only modifications in those rates were those made to help the contractors building the Chesapeake & Ohio. On August 21, it was 

determined that granite stone could be taken through the Little Falls locks at 3 cents per perch. After much pressure 

from the contractors, the board on August 30 decided to allow all building materials and provisions to pass the old Potomac Company locks and canals free of charge. Ibid, A, 44–45, 54. 
432 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Pork Barrel 0/6 

Hemp, flax, potash Ton 2/6 

Mfd. Iron; copper, lead, etc. (ores) Ton 2/0 

Iron ores and stone Ton 0/5 

Lime Bushel 1/3 

Coal Chaldron 0/5 

Staves (hhds. And bbls.) Hundred 0/21⁄4, 0/11⁄2 

Plank Hundred feet 0/10 

Timber Hundred feet 0/51⁄2 

Packaged goods Hundred weight 0/11⁄2 

Boats Each (except empties returned) 2/64

Although a committee was appointed to consider a modification of the tariffs of tolls on December 21, 1831, little was done until the spring of 1834 when the canal was opened to Harpers 

Ferry.5

 April 4, the board established the first comprehensive rates of tolls. These rates were as 

follows: 

Toll, per mile 

ARTICLE UNIT, per ton of 1st15 

mi. 

thereafter 

Tobacco 2 hogsheads 2¢ 

Wheat, corn, meal, rye chop, flax seed, 

clover seed 40 bushels 2¢ 

Oats 80 bushels 2¢ 

Mill Offal 100 bushels 2¢ 

Flour 10 bushels 2¢ 

Potatoes 35 bushels 2¢ 

Salt 35 bushels 2¢ 

Apples 12 bushels 2¢ 

Cider, ale, beer 8 barrels 2¢ 

Whiskey, pork 7 barrels or 2 hogsheads 2¢ 

Hammered, Rolled iron 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

Steel, lead, other metals 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

Bacon 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

Slaughtered hogs, other meat 2,240 pounds 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Livestock 30 sheep, 15 hogs or 3 cattle 2¢ 2¢ 

Shad, herring 600 shad or 4,000 herring 2¢ 1¢ 

Oysters 4,000 or 28 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Salted or pickled beef, pork, fish 71⁄2 barrels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Ale, beer, cider 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads 2¢ 2¢ 

Whisky, Domestic spirits 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads 2¢ 2¢ 

Wine, Foreign spirits 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads 2¢ 2¢ 

 

4

 U.S. Congress, Senate, Documents Relating to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, S. Doc. 610, 26th Congress, 1st Session, 

1840, 80–81, 105–106. 

5 Ibid, C, 17, and Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVI (April 19, 1834), 119. The only two changes in the toll schedule recorded 

between 1831 and 1834 occurred in October 1831. The toll on stone was set at 1 cent a perch per mile, while the rate on 

empty freight boats or scows ascending the canal was put at 5 cents a mile. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 433 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Salt 45 bushels, fine or 38 bushels,

coarse 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Plaster (stone) 2,240 pounds 11⁄2¢ 1¢ 

Plaster (ground) 28 bushels 11⁄2¢ 1¢ 

Grind Stones, Mill Stones 15 cubic feet 2¢ 2¢ 

French Burrs (in blocks) 15 cubic feet 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Bricks, tiles, roofing slates 500 bricks or tiles, 800 slates 1¢ 1¢ 

Coal 28 bushels 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Hay, straw 2,240 pounds 2¢ 1¢ 

Pig, cast and bar iron 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

All other articles 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

In addition to these rates for articles, tolls were also levied on the boats that plied the canal. Boats 

or scows, either empty or having cargos on which tolls amounted to less than 5 cents per mile, 

were to be charged at the rate of 5 cents per mile for the first 15 miles and 3 cents per mile for 

any additional distance. Boats used principally for passenger transportation were to pay 10 cents 

per mile for the first 15 miles and 8 cents per mile thereafter. The tolls on the packets included the 

toll on the passengers and their baggage, but all other merchandise was to be charged the established rates. 

 These toll rates applied to both the use of the canal and that of the river from Dam No. 1 

to Dam No. 3. For the privilege of navigating the river above Harpers Ferry, the old Potomac 

Company tolls were to be charged.6

 The year 1835 saw a revised list of changes put into effect. On January 28 the board extended the 1834 rate of tolls to that portion of the canal between Harpers Ferry and Dam No. 5.7

Shortly thereafter a committee was appointed to revise the tariff of tolls, and their recommendations were adopted with some modifications by the directors on April 23. 8

The new toll rates, 

which were to take effect on July 1, were as follows: 

Toll, per mile 

ARTICLE UNIT, Per ton of 1st 15 mi. Thereafter

Wheat, Rye, Barley, Buckwheat, Indian 

Corn 

40 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Flour 101⁄2 barrels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Corn Meal 45 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Bran, Shorts, Mill Offal 100 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Oats, Corn on Ear 80 bushels 2¢ 2¢ 

Tobacco, unmanufactured 21⁄2 hogsheads 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Flax, Seed, Grass Seeds 40 bushels 2¢ 2¢ 

Dried Apples, Peaches 45 bushels 2¢ 2¢ 

Apples, Peaches, not dried 40 bushels or 14 barrels 2¢ 2¢ 

Potatoes, Turnips 40 bushels 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Hemp, Flax 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

Hay, Straw 2,240 pounds 2¢ 1¢ 

Firewood (in boats) Cord of 128 cu. Ft. 11⁄2¢ 1⁄2¢ 

 

6 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 67–69. 7 Ibid, D, 226. 8 Ibid, D, 279, 284. 
434 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Bark (in boats) Cord of 128 cu. Ft. 2¢ 3⁄4¢ 

Wood, Bark (in rafts) Cord of 128 cu. Ft 4¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Boards, Plank (in boats) 1,000 feet b.m. 2¢ 1¢ 

Plaster 28 bushels 11⁄2¢ 1¢ 

Fish 7 barrels 2¢ 1¢ 

Wood Coed of 128 cu. Ft. 2¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Bark (tanners) Cord of 128 cu. Ft. 3¢ 1¢ 

Lumber, Plank (in boats) 1,000 feet b.m. 2¢ 1¢ 

Lumber, Square timber (in boats) 70 cubic feet 2¢ 1¢ 

Shingles (in boats) 3,000 cubic feet 2¢ 1¢ 

Staves and Headings (in boats) 1,000 cubic feet 2¢ 1¢ 

Barrels, Hogsheads (in boats) 500 cubic feet 2¢ 1¢ 

Above five items if in rafts 2¢ 2¢ 

Charcoal and Coke 56 bushels 2¢ 1¢ 

In addition to these rates, tolls were to be charged on various types of boats. Packet or pleasure 

boats used chiefly for the transportation of people were to pay 8 cents per mile for the first 15 

miles and 4 cents per mile thereafter. This rate included the baggage of the passengers, but all 

other articles on these boats would be charged the established tolls. All other vessels plying the 

waterway–freight boats, gondolas, scows–were to pay, in addition to the established tolls, 4 cents 

per mile for the first 15 miles and 2 cents per mile thereafter.9

 The 1835 toll rates were the first to require ratification by commissioners appointed by 

the State of Maryland. The commission had been established pursuant to a resolution passed by 

the General Assembly during the 1834 December Session “regulating the tolls of the Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal Company and of the Baltimore and Susquehanna Rail Road Companies’.” Accordingly, the new rates were submitted to the commissioners who quickly approved them.10

 Several weeks before the new rates were to take effect, John P. Smart, who owned a mill 

in Virginia, complained against the company policy of charging for the use of the Potomac between his mill and Guard Lock No. 2. After discussing the matter, the board on June 15 determined that after July 1 no tolls would be charged for the use of the river. The only two exceptions 

to this ruling were: (1) the improved 31⁄2-mile pool where slackwater navigation in the Potomac 

bed was technically a part of the canal above Dam No. 4 and (2) instances where boats using the 

river passed guard or river locks through which they could enter the canal. In the case of the latter, the same toll would be charged for the use of the river as was established for the use of the 

corresponding portion of the canal. If the navigation of the waterway was ever suspended, no tolls 

were to be charged for boats using the river opposite the obstructed portion of the canal.11

 Another major revision in the tariff of tolls occurred on March 15, 1841 when the directors raised the charges on the major agricultural products and provisions to a flat 2 cents a ton per 

mile. The tariff on coal and lime remained at 1 cent a ton per mile. The new rates, which were to 

take effect on April 30, were as follows: 

Toll, per mile 

ARTICLE UNIT, Per ton of 1st 15 mi. Thereafter 

Wheat, Rye, Barley, Buckwheat, 40 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

 

9 Ibid, D, 284–286. 10 Ibid, D, 287. 11 Ingle to O’Reilly et al., June 26, 1835, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 333–334. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 435 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Indian Corn 

Flour 101⁄2 barrels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Corn Meal 45 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Bran, Shorts, Mill Offal 100 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Tobacco (unmanufactured) 21⁄2 hogsheads 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Potatoes, Turnips 40 bushels 2¢ 2¢ 

Hay, Straw 2,240 pounds 2¢ 2¢ 

Mineral Coal 28 bushels 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Lime 28 bushels 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Timber, Round or square (in boats) 50 cubic feet 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Shingles, Plasterer’s Laths (in boats) 3,000 shingles or 5,000 laths 2¢ 1¢ 

Staves, Headings (in boats) 1,000 barrels or 500 hogsheads 2¢ 1¢ 

Hoop Poles (in boats) 1,000 barrels or 500 hogsheads 2¢ 1¢ 

Fence Rails, Posts (in boats) 1,000 barrels or 500 hogsheads 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Above 5 items in rafts Double the rate for those in boats 

Charcoal and Coke 56 bushels 2¢ 1¢ 

Stone (rough) Perch of 25 cu. Ft. 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Limestone Perch of 25 cu. Ft. 1/3¢ 1/3¢ 

Marble, Other stone (wrought or cut) 15 cubic feet 2¢ 2¢ 

Iron Ore, Other metallic ore 2,240 pounds 1⁄2¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Pig, Scrap iron 2,240 pounds 1¢ 1¢ 

Iron castings 2,240 pounds 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

With the exception of these changes, the tariff approved in 1835 was to remain in effect.12

 In an effort to spur trade, the directors reduced the tolls on plaster and coal in April 1842. 

The rate for plaster was reduced from 2 cents a ton per mile to 11⁄2 cents a ton per mile for the first 

20 miles and to 1 cent a ton per mile for the remaining distance. The charges on coal were reduced from 1 cent to 2/3 cent a ton per mile. The toll on coal was lowered as a result of the lower 

rates on coal on the Pennsylvania canals and the relatively cheap price of coal from Richmond, 

Virginia, that had recently appeared for sale in the District cities.13

 In May 1843 the canal board received a series of reports concerning the advantages to 

trade on the waterway that would be gained by a reduction of the 1841 modifications back to the 

approximate levels of 1835. A major stimulus to such a reduction was the increasing competition 

of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, which had been completed to Cumberland in 1842. Accordingly, a revised tariff of tolls was approved by the board and the Maryland commissioners. The 

new rates, which went into effect on June 20, were as follows: 

Toll, per mile 

ARTICLE UNIT, Per ton of 1st 20 mi. Thereafter

Flour 10 barrels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Wheat, Rye, Barley, Buckwheat 40 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Flax Seeds, Grass Seeds 40 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Indian Corn 40 bushels 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Corn Meal 45 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Dried Apples, Peaches 45 bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

 

12 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 295–296. 13 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), C & O Co., 5. 
436 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Apples, Peaches (not dried) 40 bushels or 14 barrels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Tobacco (unmanufactured) 21⁄2 hogsheads 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Hemp, Flax 2,240 pounds 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Bacon 2,240 pounds 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Hammered, Rolled Iron, Steel, 

Lead, Metals 2,240 pounds 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Marble, Stone (wrought or cut) 15 cubic feet 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Grind Stones, Mill Stones 15 cubic feet 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Livestock 30 sheep, 15 hogs or 3 cattle 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Pleasure Carriages, Horses 2 2-wheeled, 1 4-wheeled, or 2 

horses 

2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Window Glass 2,800 feet 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Furniture 100 cubic feet of space occupied 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Ale, Beer, Cider, Whiskey, Domestic Spirits 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Wine, Foreign Spirits 220 gallons 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Salted, Pickled Beef, Pork, Fish 8 Barrels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Oysters 4,000 or 28 Bushels 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Potatoes, Turnips 40 bushels 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Bran, Shorts, Mill Offal 100 bushels 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Slaughtered Hogs, Meats 2,240 pounds 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Iron Castings, Bloom Iron 2,240 pounds 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

French Burrs (in blocks) 15 cubic feet 11⁄2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

Oats, Corn in ear 80 bushels 2¢ 1¢ 

Hay, Straw 2,240 pounds 2¢ 1¢ 

Shad, Herrings 600 shad or 4,000 Herrings 2¢ 1¢ 

Salt 45 bushels (fine) or 

32 bushels (coarse) 11⁄2¢ 1¢ 

Plaster 2,240 pounds (stone) or 

28 bushels (ground) Free Free 

Bricks, Tiles, Roofing Slates 500 Bricks or tiles, 

or 800 Slates 1¢ 1¢ 

Carts, Wagons, Plows 2 carts, 1 wagon or 10 ploughs 1¢ 1¢ 

Ice 2,240 pounds 1¢ 1¢ 

Pig, Scrap Iron 2,240 pounds 1¢ 1¢ 

Lime 28 bushels 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Timber (round or square), in 

Boats 70 cubic feet 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Fence Rails, Posts, in Boats 100 Rails or posts 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Rough Stone (except Limestone) Perch of 25 cubic feet 1¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Bark, in Boats Cord of 128 cubic feet 1¢ 3⁄4¢ 

Boards and Plank, in Boats 1,000 feet, B.M. 1¢ 3⁄4¢ 

Shingles, Plasterer’s Laths, in 

Boats 3,000 shingles or 5,000 laths 1¢ 3⁄4¢ 

Staves and Heading, in Boats 1,000 barrels or 500 Hogsheads 1¢ 3⁄4¢ 

Hoop poles, in Boats 1,000 1¢ 3⁄4¢ 

Charcoal, Coke 56 bushels 1¢ 3⁄4¢ 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 437 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Firewood, in Boats Cord of 128 cubic feet 1¢ 1⁄4¢ 

Iron Ore, Metallic Ores 2,240 pounds 1⁄2¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Mineral Coal 28 bushels 1⁄2¢ 1⁄2¢ 

Limestone Perch of 25 cubic feet 1⁄4¢ 1⁄4¢ 

Dry Goods, Groceries, Crockery, 

Glassware, Sundries 

8 barrels, 4 Tierces, 2 hogsheads 

or 40 cubic feet in bundles, bales, 

crates or boxes 2¢ 11⁄2¢ 

In addition to these rates, packets and pleasure boats used chiefly for the transportation of passengers were to be charged 8 cents per mile for the first 20 miles and 4 cents for any additional 

miles, the toll covering all passengers and their customary baggage. Freight boats, gondolas and 

scows were to pay 4 cents per mile for the first 20 miles and 2 cents per mile thereafter. Timber, 

fence rails, posts, bark, boards, plank, shingles, lath, staves and heading, hoop-poles and firewood, when transported in rafts, were to pay double the rates as when carried in boats.14

 The tariff of tolls, which took effect on June 20, 1843, remained in effect with some 

slight modifications (which will be cited later in this chapter) until after the canal was opened to 

Cumberland in October 1850. 

B. ANALYSIS OF CANAL TRADE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION YEARS, 1830–1850 

The agricultural nature of canal trade, which was indicated by the toll schedules and testified to 

by the company officials, was also demonstrated by the annual analysis of trade on the waterway 

as well as by newspaper and periodical accounts. Throughout the 20-year period from the opening of the canal between Little Falls and Seneca Falls in November 1830 until its final completion 

to Cumberland in October 1850 the chief articles transported were flour, wheat, corn and other 

agricultural products. Lumber, lime, stone and some coal were also shipped in varying quantities. 

Although consistent and detailed listings did not begin until 1842, by which time the canal had 

already reached Dam No. 6, the extant company records and other accounts are sufficient to establish the fact that the canal was heavily dependent on the agricultural production of the Potomac Valley for its trade during the construction period.15

 Trade grew slowly before the canal was completed to Cumberland in 1850. After the initial enthusiasm of 1831, the total business on the canal decreased the following year and remained 

stationary until 1837. Beginning in 1838 the pace of trade increased annually, doubling within 

four years to over 60,000 tons in 1841. Thereafter commerce leveled off and fluctuated irregularly about the new level. In the four years prior to the completion of the canal, business on the 

waterway again increased to 71,440 tons in 1847, 86,436 tons in 1848, 102,041 tons in 1849 and 

101,950 tons in 1850. During the late 1840s, the ascending trade accounted for some 16 to 23 

percent of the annual commerce on the waterway, while the descending trade comprised some 77 

to 84 percent.16

 

14 Fifteenth Annual Report (1843), C & O Co., 13–14. 15 For a copy of the available listings of ascending and descending trade on the canal from 1831 to 1850, see Appendix 

A. It is interesting to note that in 1851 the company destroyed waybills and toll returns for the period prior to 1847, 

inasmuch as the accounts were closed and the papers were “of no value for future reference.” Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 449. 16 See Appendices A and D. 
438 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

1831 

Almost as soon as the canal was opened to navigation between Locks Nos. 5 and 23, numerous 

boats, filled with agricultural produce, began plying the waterway. The Frederick Town Herald

reported on January 15, 1831: 

Very recently forty-five boats passed through the locks (Nos. 15–20) of the 17th and 18th

sections in one day, laden with more than 6,000 barrels of flour, part of which descended 

by the Shenandoah, from Port Republic, a point within 20 miles of Stanton, the geographical center of Virginia; and another from Williamsport, in Maryland, 100 miles 

above the District of Columbia; and wood, for fuel, has already been brought down the 

canal a distance of 16 miles, from above the Great Falls of the Potomac.17

Within ten days after the canal was watered to within a few hundred yards above the Georgetown 

boundary in March 1831 some 30,000 barrels of flour “with much other merchandise” had descended the waterway.18 According to various accounts, the original reason for the heavy movement of flour from Seneca to Georgetown was that the cost for its transportation had dropped 

from $1 to 30 cents a barrel by January 13 and to 7 cents a barrel, including tolls, by early 

April.19 From March 21 to May 14, it was reported that 83,106 barrels of flour descended the canal, and from June 1 to the close of navigation in November the total was 71,172.20

 An analysis of the ascending and descending trade from June 1 until the close of navigation in November demonstrates the almost total dependence of the canal on the agricultural produce of the Potomac Valley during its first full year of operation. Among the major products 

brought down the canal during this 6-month period were the following: 

Flour 71,172 barrels

Bran, Shorts, etc. 10,003 bushels

Wheat 4,745 bushels

Corn 2,145 bushels

Hemp and Flax 5,240 pounds

Hogs 5,000 pounds

Lard and butter 2,460 pounds

Bacon 1,700 pounds

Whiskey 1,472 barrels

Leather 7,790 pounds

Coal 906 bushels

On the other hand, the only products listed for the ascending trade were: 

Fish 183 barrels

Salt 901 bushels

Plaster 511⁄2 tons

 

17 Frederick Town Herald, January 15, 1831. 18 Niles’ Register, Vol. XL (April 9, 1831), 95. 

19 Lee to Mercer, Jan. 13, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Niles’ Register, Vol. XL (April 9, 1831), 91. 20 Niles’ Register, Vol. XL (July 2, 1831), 307, and Fourth Annual Report (1832), C & O Co., Appendix B, 20 ff. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 439 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

The heavy dependence of the canal upon its descending agricultural trade for revenue would remain a consistent factor in the commerce of the waterway until its completion to Cumberland in 

1850.21

1832 

The year 1832 witnessed a continuation of the heavy transportation of flour down the waterway 

that for the year was $32,992.66, a sum that would not be reached again until 1838.22 Moreover, 

the board was encouraged by a report that the proprietor of a Georgetown lumber mill was preparing 10,000 cords of wood above Great Falls to be taken down the canal. It was predicted that 

this shipment of wood on the waterway would be the harbinger of a new flourishing trade.23 During the month between February 12 when the navigation was resumed and March 10, 27,638 barrels and 194 half barrels of flour had been unloaded in Georgetown.24 By May 31 the total number of barrels of flour received at Rock Creek Basin had risen to 91,224.25

 The listings for the ascending and descending trade on the canal again showed the large 

volume of agricultural produce traveling down the canal and the relatively light commerce moving up the waterway. The principal products descending the canal between February 12 and May 

31 (the only extant records for the year) were as follows: 

Flour 91,224 bushels

Bacon 82,500 pounds

Bran, Shorts, etc. 9,002 bushels

Lard and butter 11,121 pounds

Hemp and Flax 8,900 pounds

Wheat 8,093 bushels

Corn 1,745 bushels

Whiskey 1,631 barrels

Rye and Chop 1,281 bushels

Stone 5,377 perches

Again, as in 1831, only three articles were listed for the ascending trade: 

Fish 1,023 barrels

Salt 705 bushels 

Plaster 305 3⁄4 tons 

Although the statistics for the ascending trade show that they accounted for a very small proportion of the total commerce, there was some encouragement in that the amounts of fish and plaster 

shipped up the canal increased six-fold while that of salt decreased by some 20 percent.26 All 

 

21 Fourth Annual Report (1832), Appendix B, 20 ff. 22 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), 

Appendix K, 152. 

23 Proceeding of the Stockholders, A, 177. 24 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLII (March 31, 1832), 82. 25 Fourth Annual Report (1832), Appendix B, 20 ff 26 Ibid. 
440 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

told, the initial enthusiasm of 1831 declined somewhat as the total amount of tolls collected fell 

some $8,000 to $24,986.02.27

1833 

There are no statistics available concerning the amount of articles carried in the ascending or descending trade on the canal for the year 1833. However, according to the Georgetown Gazette on 

May 24, 1833, there was a brisk trade on the waterway: 

It is with real pleasure we announce that the canal and locks, as far as the eye can reach 

from Georgetown towards Crommelin, is literally covered with boats as close as they can 

stow, filled with flour and other produce. Not less then 15,000 barrels passed through the 

locks into the basin yesterday, more than 150 boats it is said, were above the town, coming down.28

Despite this early report of optimism, the canal trade for the entire year was greatly reduced as 

evidenced by the decline in tolls from $24,976.02 in 1832 to $16,663.49 in 1833.29 This decline 

in trade was due partially to the obstruction of the Potomac navigation by the works above Harpers Ferry, but, more importantly, it was the result of a poor wheat crop in the valley. Recognizing 

the intimate relationship between canal trade and local agricultural prosperity, the board warned 

the stockholders in June 1833 that: 

The revenue of the canal, like the commerce of the District of Columbia, will be ever 

subject to such fluctuation, till its tonnage rests on a foundation less mutable, than the 

wheat crops of the upper country, a single agricultural product, subject to annual variations of quality as well as quantity, with the change of the seasons. 

In the minds of the company officials such problems would be solved when the canal reached the 

rich coalfields and vast timberlands of western Maryland.30

1834 

There are no statistics available concerning the amount of commodities carried on the ascending 

or descending trade of the canal for 1834. However, the amount of tolls collected rose from 

$16,663.49 in 1833 to $20,131.62 in 1834, indicating some improvement in commerce but still 

well below the peak year of 1831 when $32,992.66 had been collected. The increase of trade in 

1834 can be partially attributed to the formal opening of the canal to Harpers Ferry in November 

1833, thus permitting the waterway to tap the commerce of the Shenandoah Valley. Despite the 

slight improvement in trade the directors were disappointed as they had expected a great increase 

of trade once the canal reached Harpers Ferry.31

 

27 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 28 Georgetown Gazette, May 24, 1833. 

29 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 30 Fifth Annual Report (1833), C & O Co., 10–11. There are no statistics available for the amount of articles carried in 

the ascending or descending trade of the canal from 1833 to 1841. 

31 Sixth Annual Report (1834), C & O Co., 3–5; Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix 

K, 152; and Niles’ Register, Vol. XLV (November 23, 1833), 199.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 441 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

1835 

The year 1835 witnessed both encouraging and discouraging prospects for the canal trade. In 

April the waterway was opened to Dam No. 5, and it was reported that the Williamsport Basin 

was crowded “with boats, arks, &c. laden with coal and flour.”32 By mid-April it was observed 

that business on the canal was thriving, the first boat having arrived at Rock Creek Basin loaded 

with 359 barrels.33 In late April it was noted that the canal was in excellent navigable order all the 

way to Dam No. 5 and already sixty boats had passed through Lock No. 43 on their way down the 

canal.34

 The canal board exhibited a new mood of optimism at the annual stockholders’ meeting 

in June when it discussed the increasing prospects for trade. They noted that the 

evidence of increasing trade are daily multiplying, and from sources which have heretofore, been alien to us. Already have the agricultural products and manufactured iron of 

Pennsylvania been brought to the canal at Williamsport, as the readiest and cheapest 

mode of conveyance to ports for transshipment to Eastern markets. 

Coal properties in Allegany County were already rising in price in anticipation of the canal reaching Cumberland. When the waterway reached Cacapon River, it would be able to tap one of the 

heaviest timbered areas on the Potomac. In addition to these sources of descending trade was the 

prospect of the increasing demand for fish, gypsum and salt in the upper valley that would boost 

the ascending trade.35

 Despite these encouraging prospects, the increase in trade was limited by a poor grain 

harvest in the Potomac Valley. Accordingly, the total amount of tolls collected rose only by some 

$6,400 to $26,568.15, still well below the peak year of 1831.36

1836 

Trade on the canal during 1836 rose slightly as the amount of tolls collected increased to 

$28,769.33.37 When navigation opened in spring the descending flour trade was brisk. In the first 

week of April, 8,106 barrels of flour descended the canal and the average daily tolls were reported to be $800.38 However, the worst grain harvest in the Potomac Valley in many years that 

summer again curtailed the growth of commerce on the waterway. In a special report to Governor 

Thomas W. Veazey on February 4, 1837, President George C. Washington wrote: 

The unprecedented failure of the agricultural products of the two years, 1835 and 1836, 

especially so the last has had a corresponding influence on the revenue of the canal derived from tolls. Until the final completion of the canal to Cumberland, when the vast and 

inexhaustible resources of that mineral region are brought into action, its chief reliance 

for revenue is to be derived from the products of the rich agricultural country bordering 

the Potomac and its tributaries.39

 

32 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVIII (April 11, 1835), 89. 33 Ibid, Vol. XLVIII (April 18, 1835), 113. 34 Ibid, Vol. XLVIII (April 25, 1835), 134. 35 Seventh Annual Report (1835), C & O Co., 10. 36 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 37 Ibid, and Eighth Annual Report (1836), C & O Co., 8. 38 Niles’ Register Vol. L (April 16, 1836), 113. 

39 Washington to Veazey, Feb. 4, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co.. Also see Ninth Annual Report (1837), C & O Co., 10. 
442 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

1837 

The directors looked forward to a more profitable year of trade on the canal in 1837. The river 

locks at Edward’s Ferry and opposite the mouth of Goose Creek were completed during the 

summer, this giving canal officials the hope that they could tap the trade of Loudoun County, 

Virginia, which bordered the Potomac for some 40 miles.40 However, another poor grain harvest 

in the valley curtailed canal commerce for the third consecutive year; and the tolls collected fell 

some $2,000 to $26,702.49.41 Accordingly, President Washington again informed Governor 

Veazey on December 23 that there had been no material change in the toll receipts of the company since the previous year: 

their increase being as yet chiefly dependent on agricultural products, which for the past 

two years have failed to a lamentable degree throughout the whole extent of country bordering on the Potomac and its tributaries. These, and the various other articles for transportation on the canal, are considered as only auxiliary to the main source of revenue to 

be derived from the mineral regions of Maryland and Virginia...42

1838 

The year marked an upswing in canal trade as the result of an “unusually fine” and “abundant 

harvest” of grain crops throughout the Potomac Valley. The tolls collected by the company increased by over $8,000 to $34,958.55. Thus, commerce on the waterway showed a healthy upsurge of activity despite the nationwide economic dislocation caused by the Panic of 1837.43

1839 

The company officials looked forward to a prosperous business year on the canal in 1839. The 

section of the waterway between Dams No. 5 and 6 was opened to navigation in the spring. It was 

expected that this opening would produce a significant rise in both the ascending and descending 

trade since the new section connected with the National Road at Hancock. Furthermore, coal 

could be brought down the river to Dam No. 6 from where it could be loaded on to canal barges 

and taken down to the District cities.44

 During the early spring there was both good and bad news relative to the expansion of 

canal trade. In late April it was reported that already 

several boats, freighted with potatoes, fish, salt and other merchandise, from the District 

(of Columbia) have passed through this one hundred and thirty seven miles of canal, to 

points on the river above the 6th dam. 

At the same time it was observed that the water in the river was at such an unusually low level 

between Cumberland and Hancock that 

 

40 Ninth Annual Report (1837), 4. 41 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 42 Tenth Annual Report (1838), C & O Co., 7. 43 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152, and Tenth Annual Report (1838), 12–

13. 

44 Tenth Annual Report (1838), 13. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 443 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

out of the seven coal boats which have left Cumberland lately, during a small rise in the 

river, but three reached the canal, the others being lost.45

The board of directors informed the stockholders in June of the encouraging trade prospects of 

the canal. The amount of tolls collected was up over 25 percent over the previous year, and improvements could be seen in the number and size of the boats plying the waterway. New sources 

of trade were being developed which would enhance the canal revenues. Nevertheless, the company would be unable to show a profit until the canal reached the main source from which its 

prosperity was to be derived–the coal and iron of Allegany County.46

 A series of serious breaches in the canal banks between Harpers Ferry and Shepherdstown in November hampered canal trade in the waning months of the year and led to widespread 

discussion in the Potomac Valley newspapers on the unreliability of the waterway as an effective 

transportation line. The Williamsport Banner reported in mid-November that during the interruption in navigation considerable quantities of flour and produce had been arriving at the basin 

there, which were destined for Baltimore and Washington as soon as the breach was repaired.47

The following week the Georgetown Advocate informed its readers that when the canal had been 

rewatered between Dams Nos. 3 and 4 after the breach had been repaired it had given way again. 

Thus, the agricultural produce, which had accumulated at Williamsport, would not be able to 

reach the District cities before ice closed the canal for the winter.48

 Despite the loss of revenue from these breaches, the canal trade had its best year to date. 

The tolls collected amounted to $47,865.94, a sum exceeding the previous year’s high by nearly 

$13,000.49

1840 

The year 1840 marked a downturn in the volume of canal trade. The navigation was again disrupted for a long period in mid-summer by breaches in the lime sink areas at Prather’s Neck and 

at a point four miles below Hancock. Consequently, the amount of tolls collected decreased some 

$4,000 to $43,808.02.50

1841 

The year 1841 saw a slight increase in trade on the canal, although a portion of the increased 

revenues from tolls could be attributed to the new tariff which went into effect on May 1 raising 

the charges of the major agricultural products and provisions to a flat 2 cents a ton per mile. This 

rate increase, which had been prompted by similar increases by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 

compensated for the relatively light grain harvests during the summer and the lingering sluggishness in the national economy. The total amount of tolls collected for the year amounted to 

$57,012.29, or an increase of more than $13,000 over the previous year.51

 

45 Washington National Intelligencer, Vol. LVI (April 27, 1839), 131–132. 46 Eleventh Annual Report (1839), C & O Co., 7. 47 Williamsport Banner quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. LVII (November 16, 1839), 180. 48 Georgetown Advocate quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. LVII (November 23, 1839), 201. 

49 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152 50 Twelfth Annual Report (1840), C & O Co., 8, and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152 

51 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), C & O Co., 19–20, and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152 
444 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

1842 

Because of another light grain harvest in the valley and the continuing economic problems of the 

nation, canal trade declined slightly in 1842 as the amount of tolls collected dipped approximately 

$1,000 to $56,005.80. A secondary and yet significant cause of the slump in trade was the continuing effort of the Baltimore & Ohio to monopolize the flour trade.52 The listings for the ascending and descending trade on the canal, the first such yearly statistics available since those of 

1832, reveal that the canal remained heavily dependent on the transportation of agricultural products for its revenues, although coal and lumber made up a greater proportion of the downstream 

trade than they had in 1832. The principal articles of the descending trade were as follows: 

Flour 151,966 barrels 

Wheat 214,569 bushels 

Corn and Oats 59,199 bushels 

Mill Offal 46,472 bushels 

Coal 111,293 bushels 

Lumber 916,184 feet, board measure

On the other hand, the only two articles listed for the ascending trade were: 

Plaster 3,206 tons 

Salted fish 5,294 barrels53

 

1843 

The forecast of a good grain harvest throughout the Potomac Valley in 1843 led company officials to predict a banner year for canal trade with estimates of toll revenues ranging as high as 

$80,000. However, the failure of the harvest to reach its expectations, the lowering of the tariff of 

tolls on most agricultural products in response to the Baltimore & Ohio’s lower rates, and the 

suspension of navigation for more than six weeks following two heavy floods in April and September combined to reduce toll revenues nearly 20 percent from the previous year to 

$44,540.51.54

 An analysis of the descending and ascending trade for the year shows little deviation 

from the previously established patterns. The principal articles in the descending trade were: 

Flour 156,242 barrels 

Wheat 142,785 bushels 

Corn 167,326 bushels 

Oats 38,930 bushels 

Corn Meal 18,942 bushels 

Mill Offal 49,642 bushels 

Pork 50,324 pounds 

Lumber 500,000 feet, board measure

 

52 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842). C & O Co., 4 and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, 

Appendix K, 152. 

53 Fifteenth Annual Report (1843), C & O Co., 11. 54 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), 4; Fifteenth Annual Report (1843), 13–14; Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), C & O 

Co., 39–44; and Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 230–232. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 445 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

The only three articles listed for the ascending trade were: 

Salted Fish 3,533 barrels

Salt 1,240 tons 

Plaster 4,259 tons55

1844 

Canal officials looked forward to a promising year for the canal trade in 1844. Large quantities of 

flour and other agricultural produce had accumulated in warehouses all along the line during the 

one-month suspension of navigation following the mid-September 1843 flood, and it was expected that considerable revenue would be made when these articles were shipped downstream 

the following spring. It was also felt that the trade of the canal would be enhanced by the spring 

of the Potomac Aqueduct and the Alexandria Canal to navigation in December 1843.56

 The volume of commerce on the canal did increase by nearly 20 percent for the year with 

the amount of tolls collected raising some $8,000 to $52,674.24. The descending trade again reflected the canal’s heavy dependence on the agricultural production and the timber resources of 

the valley, the principal articles being: 

Flour 172,796 barrels 

Wheat 199,620 bushels 

Corn 173,023 bushels 

Oats 39,000 bushels 

Bran, Mill Offal 76,683 bushels 

Corn Meal 15,631 bushels 

Lumber 1,000,000 feet, board measure 

As in previous years, the only three articles listed as passing up the canal in quantity were: 

Salted Fish 2,075 barrels

Salt 1,295 tons 

Plaster 4,838 tons57

From the record it is apparent that one of the most significant factors in the increase of commerce 

on the canal during 1844 was the expansion of the descending flour trade. The total number of 

barrels for this product increased by more than 16,000 over that of 1843. Canal officials attributed 

this increase to the fact that the farmers and millers of the southwestern counties of Pennsylvania 

had found that the canal afforded them the cheapest and most convenient transportation line to the 

eastern markets and had consequently adopted it.58

Arrivals and Departures of Boats from Georgetown January 1843 to May 1844:59

 

55 Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 305, 385. 56 Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 232–233. 57 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), C & O Co., 32–33, and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 58 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 20–21. 

59 Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 379. 
446 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Boat Arrivals and Departures 1843 1844 

January 31 48

February 3 12

March 247 665

April 152 98

May 371 391

June 365

July 146

August 191

September 91

October 70

November 459

December 355 ____ 

2,484 1,214

Total in first 5 months of 1843: -804

Increase: 410

1845 

The year 1845 saw a slight decrease of trade on the canal, as the revenue collected from the toll 

charges declined some $800 to $51,810.70. It is interesting to note that this decline in traffic on 

the canal took place despite optimistic reports in the Williamsport Banner that trade was very 

heavy during the year. On November 1 the Banner reported that 

the trade of that part of the Canal, which is completed, never before was so brisk. Immense quantities of flour, grain and other kinds of produce have been collected in our 

town, and are now ready for transportation to the District Cities. This, we understand too, 

is the case at other points along the line of the Canal. Within the last week or two, an unusually large number of boats has passed down the Canal.60

Flour 170,464 barrels 

Wheat 299,607 bushels 

Corn 126,799 bushels 

Oats 35,464 bushels 

Mill Offal 38,575 bushels 

Corn Meal 16,327 bushels 

Pork 15,250 pounds 

Lumber 508,083 feet, board measure

Stone 12,060 perches 

The ascending trade, the records for which were the most complete to date, apparently improved 

somewhat over the totals for the previous year. The principal products transported up the canal 

were: 

 

60 Niles’ Register, Vol. LXIX (November 8, 1845), 147. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 447 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Salted Fish 4,569 barrels 

Salt 1,265 tons 

Plaster 4,721 tons 

Lumber 820,000 feet, board measure

Potatoes 2,511 bushels 

Bricks 118,225 units 

Wheat 1,708 bushels 

Oysters 1,351 bushels61

1846 

Trade on the canal in 1845 showed a slight improvement over that of 1845 as the revenue from 

tolls rose some $1,500 to $53,357.24. For the first time since the opening of navigation, the company kept separate statistics relative to the tolls for the ascending and descending trade. The total 

of the former was $6,078.81 while that of the latter was $47,278.38.62 

 Traffic on the canal was heavy during the first four months of the year, the $10,058.64 

collected in tolls for April being the highest total for any month in the history of the waterway. 

The upturn in canal business was primarily the result of a bumper harvest in the Potomac Valley 

the previous year and the continuing increase in trade from the southwestern counties of Pennsylvania.63

 The expansion of trade in the early months of the year was sustained until July when a 

major flood struck the valley, wrecking destruction on the summer grain crops and suspending 

navigation for a considerable period. Despite the problems posed by the flood, the canal flour 

trade increased by over 25 percent to 234,539 barrels, the largest quantity ever transported in one 

year on the waterway. However, the number of bushels of corn and corn meal carried down the 

canal were considerably reduced, the totals for the former being 126,799 in 1845 and 30,005 in 

1846 while those of the latter were 16,327 and 8,437 respectively. Canal officials attributed much 

of this as a result of the greater demand for these products in Baltimore than in the District cities. 

The shipping industry in Baltimore had reached unprecedented heights within the past year, as 

evidenced by the fact that the Baltimore shippers had even imported corn from New York to fill 

their cargo needs for exportation to Europe.64

 All told the ascending trade comprised the equivalent of 10.986 tons while the amount of 

descending trade was 49,161 tons. The principal articles moving up the canal were: 

Salted Fish 3,475 barrels 

Plaster 3,839 tons 

Lumber 1,061,855 feet, board measure 

Coal 1,003 tons 

Potatoes 1,526 bushels 

 

61 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), C & O Co., 38–39, and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. The reason that more complete records for canal trade are available for the period from 1845 on 

is that on August 13, 1845, the board ordered the company clerk to keep “a book in which he shall make a regular 

monthly entry of the articles transported on the Canal – designating where they are loaded, where unloaded and the 

quantity of each kind, under their respective heads, -- the said entries to be made from the 1st of January 1845.” Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 293. 62 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 63 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 22. 64 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), C & O Co., 7–8. 
448 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Bricks 440,996 units 

Bacon 5,700 pounds 

Lard and Butter 64,960 pounds 

The principal articles in the descending trade were: 

Flour 234,539 barrels 

Wheat 264,115 bushels 

Corn 30,005 bushels 

Oats 30,047 bushels 

Mill Offal 63,486 bushels 

Bacon and Pork 27,047 pounds 

Lumber 2,851,541 feet, board measure

Bricks 17,500 units 

Shingles, Staves, Laths, etc. 297,025 units65

1847 

The early months of 1847 appeared to auger a banner year for canal trade. The amount of tolls 

collected through May 31 was $30,331.85 or $7,295.80 more than the corresponding period for 

the previous year. The corn trade, which had declined in 1846, was again active, as 16,351 bushels, or five times the quantity shipped for that entire year, had already passed down the canal by 

June 1. Accordingly, company officials informed the stockholders that unless there was a poor 

grain harvest in northwestern Virginia, western Maryland and southwestern Pennsylvania, there 

was “just cause to expect that our revenues this year will much exceed the receipts of any former 

year.”66

 The expectations of the company officials were again thwarted by the highest flood in the 

history of the Potomac Valley in early October. The consequent damage to the canal and the surrounding countryside severely affected the overall statistics for the canal trade. The ascending 

trade increased by nearly 2,000 tons to 12,809, and the descending trade increased by some 9,000 

tons to 58,631. However, there was not a corresponding increase in the revenue from tolls as the 

average distance of transportation was less in 1847 than in 1846 and a large portion of the tonnage increase comprised articles on which small rates of toll were charged. In actual fact, the ascending tolls amounted to $6,774.80 while the descending tolls were $45,665.55. The combined 

total of the revenues collected from tolls was $52,440.35, a decrease of some $900 from 1846.67

The principal articles in the ascending trade were: 

Salted Fish 3,723 barrels 

Plaster 3,829 tons 

Lumber 770,300 feet, board measure

Coal 1,687 tons 

Potatoes 1,112 bushels 

 

65 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846) 66 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), 10, 48. 67 Proceedings of the Stockholders, D, 122–123, and Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 449 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Bricks 178,000 units 

Mill Offal 3,362 bushels 

Iron Ore 3,009 tons 

Bacon 9,300 pounds 

The bulk of the descending trade consisted of the following articles: 

Flour 176,789 barrels 

Wheat 235,212 bushels 

Corn 238,216 bushels 

Oats 32,035 bushels 

Corn Meal 17,958 bushels 

Mill Offal 87,644 bushels 

Bacon and Pork 26,965 pounds 

Lumber 1,583,600 feet, board measure 

Nails 11,892 kegs 

Bricks 45,500 units 

Shingles, Staves, Laths, Hoop Poles 955,525 units68

1848 

The year 1848 saw an increase of trade over the totals of 1847 of 14,996 tons and $1,705.86 in 

revenues from tolls. The ascending tonnage increased to 16,439 while that of the descending trade 

rose to 69,997. The ascending tolls increased to $8,405.40 while those of the descending trade 

rose to $45,740.81, providing a total revenue of $54,146.21. A significant portion of the increased 

tonnage of the descending trade was the increase in the amount of flour transported totaling 

40,332 barrels over the quantity shipped in 1847. The increase in the revenue did not attain a corresponding ratio with the enlarged tonnage as the average distance of transportation was less than 

in 1848 and the greater portion of the increase of tonnage consisted of articles on which small 

rates of toll were charged.69

The principal products of the ascending trade were: 

Salted Fish 3,477 barrels 

Salt 2,133 tons 

Plaster 7,310 tons 

Lumber 1,391,000 feet, board measure

Iron Ore 2,575 tons 

Oysters 4,700 bushels 

Bricks 22,000 units 

The primary articles of the descending trade were: 

Flour 217,112 barrels 

Wheat 220,025 bushels 

 

68 Proceedings of the Stockholders, D, 122–123. 69 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), C & O Co., 14. 
450 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Corn 144,103 bushels 

Oats 12,959 bushels 

Mill Offal 77,553 bushels 

Limestone 10,030 perches 

Lumber 2,080,600 feet, board measure 

Bricks 10,000 units 

Shingles, Staves, Laths, Hoop Poles 993,100 units70

1849 

The year 1849 witnessed a significant rise in canal trade both in tonnage carried and toll revenues 

collected. The ascending tonnage increased from 16,439 in 1848 to 20,778, while that of the descending tonnage rose from 69,997 to 81,263. The combined totals of the ascending and descending trade amounted to 102,041 tons, an increase of 15,601 tons over the tonnage of 1848. The 

tolls collected from the ascending trade were $9,188.84 while those from the descending trade 

were $52,634.33, thus providing the company with $61,823.17 in toll revenues. This sum, which 

was some $7,600 over the 1848 total, was the largest amount ever collected in a single year to 

date by the company.71

The principal products of the ascending trade were: 

Salted Fish 3,995 barrels 

Salt 2,019 tons 

Plaster 6,599 tons 

Coal 1,236 tons 

Coke 2,854 tons 

Lumber 1,617,000 feet, board measure

Iron Ore 4,025 tons 

Bricks 42,000 units 

The major articles in the descending trade of the canal were: 

Flour 236,620 bushels 

Wheat 240,073 bushels 

Corn 244,281 bushels 

Oats 13,200 bushels 

Mill Offal 45,423 bushels 

Apples 12,970 bushels 

Stone (rough) 17,750 perches 

Lumber 1,560,956 feet, board measure 

Bricks 39,000 units 

Shingles, Staves, Laths, Hoop Poles 783,800 units72

 

70 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), 32–33. 71 Twenty-Second Annual Report (1850), C & O Co., 10–11, 23. 72 Ibid, 23–24. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 451 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

1850 

Trade on the canal in 1850 showed little change from the previous year despite the continuance of 

agricultural prosperity in the valley and the formal opening of navigation to Cumberland on October 10. The repairs to the waterway below Dam No. 6 had restored the capacity of the canal to 

its original intended dimensions, thereby allowing the boats to carry heavier cargoes. During the 

spring, a single boat had descended the canal from Dam No. 4 to Georgetown with 1,110 barrels 

of flour (equivalent to 105 tons of 2,240 pounds), making it the largest cargo to pass down the 

canal since the heavy floods of the mid-1840s had battered the waterway.73

 The trade statistics for the year show mixed results when compared with those of 1849. 

The ascending tonnage increased by nearly 2,500 tons to 23,261, while the descending tonnage 

was reduced by nearly the same amount to 78,689. Thus, the aggregate trade on the waterway 

was 91 tons less than 1849. 

 While the tonnage was somewhat lower than the previous year, the amount of tolls collected increased some $2,600 to $64,442.03. The amount of toll revenue for the ascending trade 

rose some $400 over the 1849 totals to $9,628.21 while that of the descending trade increased by 

nearly $2,200 to $54,813.81. The increase in the descending trade tolls was primarily the result of 

the shipment of 7,171 tons of coal down the canal from Cumberland after October 10. Consequently, the company officials informed the stockholders in February 1851 of the bright future 

prospects of the coal trade on the revenues of the company: 

As the Canal is now opened to the coal region the future annual statements of the Company will present much larger results. 

 The prospect of a large and augmenting coal trade by the Canal is of the most 

flattering character. An immense amount of capital has been invested in the coal mines, 

principally by parties residing in New York and Boston, who will consequently have a 

strong and direct interest in introducing the Cumberland coal into the markets of these 

two great and thriving cities where such vast quantities may be consumed, and railroads 

connecting the mines with the Basins of the Canal at Cumberland have already been constructed at a considerable cost, which are capable of bringing down about a million of 

tons per annum. The capacity of these connections may be increased to any desirable extent. The only present subject of regret is the want of a due supply of Cars for the connecting railroads, and of Boats for the canal. These deficiencies, from present indications, 

will soon be remedied. A number of Boats were constructed during the past winter, and 

all the Boat yards are now busily engaged in increasing the supply. But the preparations 

for the commencement of the trade, limited as they appeared, were more advanced upon 

this canal than upon other similar improvements, at the time of their completion. More 

coal started down the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal on the first day of the opening, than was 

transported on the Lehigh navigation, upon which the Anthracite coal trade of Pennsylvania was commenced on the year 1820 during the first year of its operations. In that year 

only 365 tons were carried down from the Lehigh mines to Philadelphia, and we are informed in a history of the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company published by the order 

of the Board of Managers of the Company in 1840, that “this quantity completely stocked 

the market and was with difficulty disposed of during the year.” The quantity of coal 

which started down the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal from Cumberland on the 10th of October last, the day of the opening of the navigation, was 491 tons. The whole quantity that 

passed down from the 10th of October to the 21st of December 1850 was 7,171 tons. The 

 

73 Ibid, 9–10. 
452 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

whole quantity transported on the Schuylkill navigation in 1825, the first year of its operation, was only 6,500 tons, and this was the whole quantity sent down from the Schuylkill coal region during that year. In the year 1849 there were sent to market from that region 3,203,462 tons of coal, and it was scarcely sufficient to supply the demand. When 

the Lehigh navigation was opened the use of coal was comparatively unknown in the 

United States. Now it is one of the common necessaries of life in the cities of the Atlantic, and its consumption for Steam vessels, Railroad Locomotives and manufacturing 

purposes, is large and constantly increasing. The Cumberland coal, therefore, whatever 

quantities of it may be thrown into the markets, will not have to labor under the disadvantages which attended the first introduction of the Anthracite, and its superiority to the latter will, we believe, at once give it the command of the markets. If sold at reasonable 

rates, the consumption will only be limited by the extent of the supply. 

The principal products in the ascending trade were as follows: 

Fish, Salted and Fresh 758 tons 

Groceries 643 tons 

Salt 1,607 tons

Lumber, Laths, Palings, Shingles, Hoop-Poles 1,249 tons

Ore 7,455 tons

Coal 1,783 tons

Coke 2,205 tons

Plaster 5,334 tons

The principal articles in the descending trade were as follows: 

Flour 27,120 tons 

Wheat 5,318 tons 

Corn 1,726 tons 

Lumber, Laths, Palings, Shingles, Stoves, Hoop-Poles 2,765 tons 

Iron, Pig and Scrap 1,196 tons 

Coal 7,956 tons 

Wood 4,275 tons 

Stone, rough (perches) 13,303 tons 

Limestone 10,234 tons74

C. ENCOURAGEMENT OF TRADE ON THE CANAL: 1830–1850 

On the whole, the problem of developing business for the canal was not clearly or fully recognized during the period until 1850. The directors tended to look upon their work as a magnificent 

enterprise to which trade would naturally be attracted. They conceived their task to be mainly the 

construction and maintenance of the waterway. Thus the efforts of the board to increase canal 

trade were haphazard. 

 

74 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix A, 6–7; C, pp.141–143; & K, 153. In 1850 the 

company began a new system of calculating its ascending and descending trade in terms of tons rather than the various 

kinds of units that had been used from 1830 to 1849. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 453 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

 In March 1833 the board refused the request of the Alexandria Canal Company to transport stone for the construction of the Potomac Aqueduct toll-free on the canal even though it was 

widely recognized that the completion of the structure would provide a valuable outlet market for 

the waterway.75 As was seen in the preceding chapter, the board sought to encourage the development of passenger travel, packet service, boat-building and steamboat passage, but they did 

nothing to establish and operate a freight line for the company. Throughout the period, the company spent large sums on dredges, ice-breakers and repair gangs to keep the canal open for navigation, but forbade its employees to have any connections with individuals or businesses operating boats on the canal.76 Despite the heavy dependence of the canal on the descending flour trade, 

the directors generally placed their hopes for the continuing expansion of this business in “the 

proper encouragement on the part of purchasers or commission merchants” in Georgetown.77

They manipulated the toll tariffs of 1841 and 1843 so as to compete with the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad for business, but made little effort to control all the charges of transportation, such as 

freights and wharfage.78 Recognizing the intimate relationship between canal trade and local agricultural prosperity, the board on October 10, 1848, reduced charges on bones and bone dust for 

fertilizers, in cooperation with the Virginia Society for the Advancement of Agriculture, in order 

to help increase the productively of the soil and thus indirectly stimulate trade.79 Later, on March 

1, 1849, the toll rates were reduced to 1⁄4 cent a ton per mile on guano, ashes, plaster of paris, 

pondrel, resats, lime, chemical salts and oyster shells for the same purpose, but at the same time 

the directors refused to have any connection with the business of transporting these products.80

 Throughout the 1830s and 1840s while the canal board was pursuing this uneven approach to the stimulation of trade, it frequently cited the value to the State of New York of the 

Erie Canal in terms of the trade it produced for the state as much as the profits earned by the canal 

itself. Subsequently after 1850 the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company reversed itself on most of 

these points and took a more active approach to the stimulation of trade. 

D. COMPETITION WITH THE B & O RAILROAD, 1830–1850 

Two factors tended to discourage the growth of trade between 1830 and 1850. One was the interruptions to navigation due to breaches and floods, both of which subjects [are] covered elsewhere 

in this Historic Resource Study. The other was the competition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 

for the flour and coal trade, the two main present and prospective sources of canal revenue. 

 The struggle for the lucrative Shenandoah flour trade at Harpers Ferry involved considerable maneuvering between the canal and the railroad.81 Until May 1, 1841, the charges by rail 

from Harpers Ferry to Baltimore, a distance of 82 miles, were 34 cents a barrel plus 3 cents for 

 

75 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 299. Aside from the short-sightedness of the directors, this 

decision also reflected the opposition of the Georgetown merchants who feared the loss of trade to Alexandria with the 

completion of the Potomac Aqueduct. 

76 Ibid, B, 410–419; D, 240–252, 440. 77 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), 7–8. 78 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 295–296; H, 163; and Fifteenth Annual Report (1843), 13–

14. 

79 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 214. 80 Ibid, H, 238–239. 81 It is interesting to note that the canal directors had scoffed at the threat of the railroad to its flour trade in the early 

1830s. In June 1832, the stockholders had been told: The spectacle which has recently been presented, of a single horse 

of moderate size and strength, drawing 512 barrels of flour, in a heavy boat with apparent ease, a distance of 22 miles, 

through twenty-three locks, in a single day, is calculated, of itself, to countervail the numerous theories of utility of 

railroads, by which the public mind has been perplexed. Fourth Annual Report (1832), 18. 
454 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

receiving and delivery fees. On May 10 the railroad raised the rate to 50 cents a barrel, including 

handling. It then petitioned the state legislature to compel the canal company to raise its toll to a 

“profitable rate,” and the canal obliged by raising its charges without awaiting the action of the 

General Assembly. Within a month, on June 3, the railroad reduced its rates to 34 cents a barrel, 

including handling. As the charges from Frederick to Baltimore at the time were said to be 30 

cents, the additional charge for the 21 miles from Frederick to Harpers Ferry was only 4 cents. 

Between June and December 1841, the flour trade on the canal from Harpers Ferry fell off 4,411 

barrels as compared to the 1840 figures: 

1840 1841 

June 6,362 2,695 

July 2,649 702 

August 1,889 747 

September 777 1,821 

October 1,331 2,239 

November 1,298 1,661 

December 933 963 

15,239 10,828

A large amount of this decrease was attributed to the actions of the railroad company.82

In October 1844 the railroad again reduced its rates on the transportation of flour by 25 

percent. Within the month, the citizens of Alexandria complained of the loss of the Harpers Ferry 

flour trade to the Baltimore millers. They sent two of their representatives, Robert H. Miller and 

Thomas M. McCubbin, to urge the canal board to consider some remedial action.83 At the same 

time, the railroad accused the canal company of charging so little for the toll on flour that it could 

not make a profit and therefore of cheating the railroad and the City of Baltimore.84

 The canal company sought to settle the unrest of the merchants in the District cities and 

to answer the charges of the railroad by devoting a large portion of their annual reports of 1845, 

1846 and 1847 to the problem. The tolls that the canal had charged on flour throughout this period were as follows: 

1835–1842: 2 cents a barrel per mile for the first 15 miles and 1 1⁄2 cents thereafter. 

1842–1843: 2 cents a barrel per mile flat rate. 

1843–1847: 2 cents a barrel per mile for the first 20 miles and 1 1⁄2 cents thereafter. 

These tolls were much higher than that charged for the transportation of flour on the New York 

canals and the Susquehanna and Tidewater canal. Despite the high rates, however, the volume of 

the flour trade on the canal had increased each year irregardless [of] the attempts of the railroad to 

lure away the flour trade at Harpers Ferry. The number of barrels transported on the canal from 

1842 to 1846 had grown as follows: 

 

82 Elgin to Ingle, Dec. 23, 1841, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. In July 1841 the railroad also attempted to lure the plaster trade 

away from the canal by reducing its charges from $2.40 to $2.00 per ton from Baltimore to Harpers Ferry. Later the 

railroad permitted all plaster that was to be transferred to the Winchester and Potomac Railroad to pass over its line free 

of any toll. 

83 Resolutions Adopted by Citizens of Alexandria, October 14, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 84 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 14–19. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 455 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

1842 151,966 barrels 

1843 156,242 barrels 

1844 172,464 barrels 

1845 170,464 barrels 

1846 234,539 barrels 

The canal board attributed much of this increase to the fact that the farmers of the southwestern 

Pennsylvania counties had begun to use the waterway as the cheapest outlet for their products to 

the eastern markets. The directors used these statistics to back up their argument that the railroad 

was totally unable to compete with the canal upon equal terms in the transportation of heavy 

freight. As a consequence, they saw little reason for reducing the charges on the item from which 

they gained the largest portion of their revenue.85

 The struggle for the Cumberland coal trade, which began in the 1840s ultimately proved 

to be the decisive factor in the course of canal trade and prosperity. From December 1843 until 

March 1845, the railroad and the canal cooperated in the handling of the lucrative business. According to their agreement the railroad which had reached Cumberland in 1842, undertook to 

carry all the coal offered for shipment via the waterway over its own tracks to the western terminus of the canal at Dam No. 6. The coal was to be carried by the Baltimore & Ohio at the special 

rate of 2 cents a ton per mile providing the trade did not interfere with the general business of the 

railroad and did not require a considerable increase in the amount of rail equipment on the line.86

 Canal officials looked forward to the operation of this arrangement in the spring of 1884. 

Anxious to gain increased revenues from the coal trade, the board established a toll on its transportation of 7/10 cent a ton per mile, the same rate as charged on the Schuylkill Navigation Canal 

in Pennsylvania. However, by June 1 only 549 tons of coal had been transported on the canal below Dam No. 6. The tardiness of the coal operators to take advantage of the new agreement was 

attributed “to the expectation of the usual spring freshets, by which means they have heretofore 

been in the habit of bringing down their coal from Cumberland to Dam No. 6 by the natural 

channel of the river.” During the late spring and early summer, the coal companies began to 

transport larger quantities of coal from the Georges Creek mines to Cumberland and soon the railroad was delivering the product to the canal at Dam No. 6. In mid-June it was reported that five 

boats were active in the canal coal trade and that the canal company revenues derived from the 

commerce amounted to $250 per week. The future prospects of the coal trade looked even more 

promising when it was announced that the firm of Atkinson and Templemen had contracted with 

the federal government for the delivery of 40,000 tons of coal to the District of Columbia.87 By 

the end of the year, some 40,000 tons of coal had been delivered to the canal basin at Cumberland 

by the railroad.88

 The passage of the canal bill by the Maryland General Assembly in March 1845 whereby 

the company was permitted to issue $1,700,000 of preferred construction bonds on the mortgage 

of its revenues in order to finance the construction of the remaining 50 miles of the waterway to 

Cumberland brought an abrupt end to this arrangement.89 The railroad and its ally, the City of 

 

85 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 21–21; Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 14–19; and Nineteenth Annual Report

(1847), 7–8. 

86 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 97–100, 15; Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 192–302; 

McLane to Coale, Sept. 17, 1843, Ltrs, Recd., C & O Co.; Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 5–7, 24–26; and Special 

Report of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, to the Stockholders, on the Subject 

of Completing the Canal to Cumberland, Nov. 16, 1843 (Washington, 1843), 1–59. 87 Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 306–307, 315–316; and Niles’ Register, Vol. LXVI (June 22, 1844), 272. 88 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 6. 

89 Niles’ Register, Vol. LXVIII (March 8, 1845), 16 and Ibid, Vol. LXVIII (March 15, 1845), 23–24. 
456 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

Baltimore, began a large-scale assault on the trade of its competitor, which threatened to deprive 

the latter of all possible chance of success, even before it was completed. 

 The City of Baltimore aided the efforts of the railroad by passing a city ordinance in 

April 1845 awarding the railroad to run its trains into the city with coal, iron ore, &c. The ordinance also permitted the railroad to lay tracks to a new depot on the south side of Baltimore Harbor where vessels could dock free of charges, which had been in effect up to this time. The city 

council also urged the railroad to lower the price of bringing the coal and iron ore from western 

Maryland to Baltimore “to a mere nominal sum” to defy the competition of the canal.90

 The railroad abruptly terminated its agreement for the transportation of coal from Cumberland to Dam No. 6. The rates were raised to 4 cents a ton per mile for coal and 6 cents for iron. 

The excuse given by railroad President Louis McLane for the action was, curiously enough, that 

the amount of business was “so inconsiderable as scarcely to authorize a longer continuance of 

our preparation for its accommodation at present rates.” Besides the railroad was making plans 

for a more extensive trade to Baltimore, which was more important to his company.91 The canal 

company refused to recognize the abrogation as an act in good faith, but, other than sending a 

resolution to that effect to the railroad, made no sustained protest.92 President Coale observed in 

the reply to McLane that whether: 

The reasons given in your letter are sufficient to authorize a departure from the arrangement entered into between the two Companies in Sept. 1843, & whether the interests of 

“the public generally” will be subserved by the imposition of a prohibitory tariff between 

Cumberland and Dam No. 6, are questions upon which I think impartial men will differ 

with you.93

The action of the railroad totally stopped the transportation of coal from Cumberland to Dam No. 

6. In June 1845 the canal stockholders were informed that the coal trade had not materialized as 

expected due to the discriminatory rate charges of the railroad.94

 The following year the directors reported that no coal had been transshipped to the canal 

at Dam No. 6 by the railroad during the preceding year.95

 After several years, the canal board determined to take steps to compete with the 

railroad for the Cumberland coal trade. On March 1, 1849 the toll on coal was reduced 

from 7/10 cent a ton per mile to 1⁄2 cent a ton per mile for the first twenty miles and to 

4/10 cent a ton per mile thereafter. However, the board could do little else until the waterway was completed to Cumberland.96 

 

90 Niles’ Register, Vol. LXVIII (April 12, 1845), 85. 

91 McLane to Coale, May 7, 1845, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

92 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 252–253. 

93 Coale to McLane, May 9, 1845, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

94 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 21–22. 

95 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 12. 96 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 239. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 457 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

II. COMMERCE ON THE 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1851–1889 

A. TARIFFS OF TOLL, 1851–1889 

Upon the completion of the canal to Cumberland, the board took under consideration revision of 

the existing toll rates. As coal soon became the principal article of trade, the charges on that 

product became the chief source of canal revenue. The directors offered to fix the toll on coal and 

coke at 2 mills a ton per mile, if the owners of the Maryland Mining Company, the Washington 

Coal Company, the Allegany Company and the Frostburg Coal Company would guarantee to ship 

300,000 tons in 1851 and 600,000 tons in 1852 via the canal.97 When the coal companies indicated that they were unable to make the necessary guarantees, the board made another offer to 

reduce the toll on coal and coke to the same level provided the coal companies would promise to 

ship 500,000 tons between July 1, 1851 and July 1, 1852.98 Again the companies were unable to 

take advantage of the offer, and the toll remained at 1⁄4 cent a ton per mile.99 Other preliminary 

modifications of the existing charges, adopted on February 28, 1851, affected a variety of agricultural and non-farm products: 

• Hogs Slaughtered, Bacon & Other Meats–2 cents a ton per mile. 

• Whisky and Other Domestic Spirits; Fish, fresh and salted–2 cents a ton per mile for 

the first 20 miles and 1 cent a ton per mile thereafter. 

• Salt–1 cent a ton per mile for the first 20 miles and 3⁄4 cent a ton per mile thereafter. 

• Fire Brick–1 cent a ton per mile for the first 20 miles and 1⁄2 cent a ton per mile thereafter. 

• Bricks and Ice–1 cent a ton per mile for the first 20 miles and 1⁄4 cent a ton per mile 

thereafter. 

• Sand, Gravel, Clay, Earth and Paving Stones–1⁄4 cent a ton per mile.100

These early rate changes continued the downward trend of tolls on the 1840s and anticipated the 

general reductions, which were incorporated in the revised list. The new permanent schedule 

went into effect on July 1, 1851. It divided all articles transported on the canal into six classes. 

Reductions below the series established in 1835 ranged from 25 to 75 percent, the greatest decrease being that in the toll on coal. The classes and their charges were as follows: 

Class I (at a rate of 2 cents a ton per mile for the first 20 miles, and 1 cent a ton per mile 

thereafter). 

1. Ale, beer, cider per ton of 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads. 

2. Beef, pork (salted and pickled) per ton of 8 barrels. 

3. Dried apples, peaches per ton of 45 bushels. 

4. Fresh apples, peaches per ton of 40 bushels or 14 barrels. 

5. Barley, buckwheat, corn, flax, grain, seeds, rye, wheat per ton of 40 bushels. 

6. Corn on the ear per ton of 80 bushels. 

 

97 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 387–388. 

98 Ibid, H, 404. 99 Proceedings of the Stockholders, D, 412 – 413. 100 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 423–424. 
458 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

7. Corn meal per ton of 45 bushels or 10 barrels. 

8. Dry goods, groceries, glass, and crockery ware per ton of 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads in 

bundles, bales, crates or boxes of 40 cubic feet. 

9. Flour per ton of 10 barrels. 

10. Fish (salted and fresh) per ton of 3 barrels salted, 600 shad or 4,000 herring. 

11. Furniture, empty carts per ton of 100 cubic feet or space occupied. 

12. Grindstones, millstones, marble, cut and wrought stone per ton of 15 cubic feet. 

13. Hemp, flax per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

14. Slaughtered hogs, bacon, and other meats per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

15. Iron hammered and rolled steel, lead, other metals per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

16. Livestock per ton of 30 sheep, 15 hogs, or 3 cattle. 

17. Nails per ton of 20 kegs. 

18. Pleasure carriages, horses per ton of 2 2-wheeled, 1 4-wheeled, 2 horses, or 2 buggies 

and 1 horse cart. 

19. Tobacco unmanufactured per ton of 2 hogsheads. 

20. Wine, foreign spirits per ton of 220 gallons. 

21. Window glass per ton of 2,800 feet. 

22. Whisky, domestic spirits per ton of 8 barrels or 2 hogsheads. 

23. Sundries per ton ascertained by measurement. 

Class II. (at a rate of 1 cent per ton per mile). 

24. Bran, shorts, mill offal per ton of 100 bushels 

25. Carts, wagons, ploughs per ton of 2 carts, 1 wagon, or 10 ploughs. 

26. Boards, plank in boats per ton of 1,000 feet, board measure. 

27. Shingles, laths per ton of 3,000 shingles or 5,000 laths. 

28. Staves, heading per ton of 1,000 barrels or 500 Hogsheads. 

29. Hoop-poles per ton of 1,000 barrels or 750 hogsheads. 

30. Charcoal per ton of 56 bushels. 

31. Hay, straw per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

32. Potatoes, turnips per ton of 40 bushels. 

33. Oats per ton of 70 bushels. 

34. Oysters per ton of 28 bushels or 4,000. 

35. Slate for roofing, tiles per ton of 800 slated and 500 tiles. 

Class III (at a rate of 1 cent a ton per mile for the first 20 miles and 3⁄4 cent a ton per mile 

thereafter). 

36. Salt per ton of 45 bushels fine, 32 bushels coarse or 10 sacks. 

Class IV (at a rate of 1 cent a ton per mile for the first 20 miles and 1⁄2 cent a ton per mile 

thereafter). 

37. Fire bricks per ton of 500 bricks. 

38. Iron castings, bloom, railroad iron per ton of 2,240 pounds 

39. Lime, cement per ton of 28 bushels or 7 barrels. 

40. Rough stone other than prepared limestone per ton of 25 cubic feet. 

41. Rails, fence posts in boats per ton of 180 rails or posts. 

42. Timber round or square per ton of 70 cubic feet. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 459 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Class V. (at a rate of 1 cent a ton per mile for the first 20 miles and 1⁄4 cent a ton per mile 

thereafter). 

43. Bricks per ton of 500 bricks. 

44. Ice per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

45. Iron (pig and scrap) per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

46. Bark in boats per cord of 128 cubic feet or ground bark per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

47. Firewood in boats per chord of 128 cubic feet. 

Class VI. (at a rate of 1⁄4 cent a ton per mile). 

48. Mineral coal per ton of 2,240 pounds or 28 bushels. 

49. Coke per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

50. Ore, iron, metals per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

51. Ashes, bone dust, guano, plaster of paris, powdered lime for manure, oyster shells, 

manures per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

52. Sand, gravel, clay, earth, paving stones per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

53. Limestone per perch of 25 cubic feet. 

Packet boats, pleasure boats, or boats used chiefly for the transportation of persons including all passengers and their customary baggage (all other articles to be charged at established rates)–8 cents per mile for the first 20 miles and 4 cents per mile thereafter. 

Freight boats, gondolas, scows, and other craft–4 cents per mile for the first 20 miles and 

2 cents per mile thereafter. 

Timber, fence rails, posts, boards, plank, shingles, laths, staves, heading, hoop-poles, and 

firewood when transported in rafts pay double the tolls as when carried in boats. 

Toll charged for 1 mile when distance less than 1 mile; over 1 mile, fraction rounded off 

to nearest whole mile.101

 

 There appeared to be general satisfaction with the new toll rates. At their annual meeting 

in June 1852 the stockholders were informed that the tariff 

has had a beneficial effect, not only in maintaining the trade already established upon the 

canal; but in opening new sources from which produce is drawn; in conciliating the good 

feelings of the transporters; and in increasing the revenues of the Company, by the augmented transportation upon the canal.102

There were some modifications of these schedules in the course of the first decade. In an effort to 

encourage boat-building and indirectly to stimulate the lagging coal trade, the company again 

offered in 1852 to reduce the toll on coal and coke to 2 mills a ton per mile as soon as 100 new 

 

101 Ibid, H, 449–453. 102 Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), C & O Co. 7. 
460 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

first-class boats were registered.103 This condition was not fulfilled, however and the charges remained the same. 

 On January 8, 1857, a Committee on Revision of Toll made some recommendations to 

the board concerning some slight changes within and between toll classifications. Accordingly, 

the directors adopted new rates, which were to take effect on July 1. The changes (which follow) 

shifted salt from Class III to Class IV rates, corn and fish from Class I to Class II, and wood 

products from Class II to Class V: 

 Corn on the ear - 1¢ a ton per mile 

Fish, salted and fresh (per ton of 8 barrels salted, 800 shad or 5,000 herring) - 1¢ a ton per 

mile 

Salt (per ton of 45 bushels fine, 32 bushels coarse, or 10 sacks) - 1¢ a ton per mile for the 

first 20 miles and 1⁄2¢ a ton per mile thereafter 

Boards, planks, shingles, laths, staves, headings, hoop-poles, - (in boats) 1¢ a ton per mile 

for the first 20 miles and 1⁄4¢ a ton per mile thereafter 

Limestone (per perch of 25 cubic feet) - 1⁄4¢ a perch per mile up to 64 miles and 16¢ a 

perch for all distances thereafter 

Lime and Cement (per ton of 28 bushels or 7 barrels) - 1¢ a ton per mile for the first 20 

miles and 1⁄2¢ a ton per mile thereafter for distances up to 80 miles; 50¢ per ton for all distances thereafter.104

There were two changes in the toll rates between 1857 and the outbreak of the Civil War. In June 

1858 the board lowered the rates on railroad iron from Class IV to Class V.105 in an effort to 

stimulate trade on the eve of the Civil War, the board on September 1, 1860, reduced rates on all 

commodities in Class I to the level of those in Class II.106

 After 1860 there were no comprehensive changes made in the tariff of tolls. With several 

exceptions, all the revisions were those in the toll on coal, the product which produced up to 95 

percent of the canal’s annual revenues. The toll changes on products other than coal were: 

1. Leather and hides–On August 10, 1869 the toll on these articles was reduced to $1.15 

per ton for the entire 184 miles. The rate was proportioned for shorter distances.107

2. Ice–On March 24, 1870 the board reduced the toll on ice to 30 cents per ton for the 

entire 185 miles. Shorter distances were to be charged proportionately.108

3. Stone–On June 3, 1870 the rate on all stone transported on the canal was set at 1⁄4 cent 

a ton per mile.109

4. Grain and Flour–On May 17, 1876 the toll on these products was reduced to 3⁄4 cent a 

ton per mile from points between Williamsport and Weverton to Washington. This 

action was taken to aid canal shippers in their competition with the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad for the agricultural trade of the Potomac Valley.110

 

103 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 570. 104 Ibid, I, 333. 105 Ibid, K, p.35. 106 Ibid, K, 209, and Ringgold to Soper, August 25, 1860, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 107 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 185. 108 Ibid, L, 294. 

109 Ibid, L, 321. 110 Ibid, M, 255, 258. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 461 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Between 1863 an 1889 there were some nineteen revisions in the toll on coal. The rate of 1⁄4 cent a 

ton per mile established in 1851 was equal to about 46 cents for the 185 miles from Cumberland 

to Georgetown. The following list details the changes made in this rate: 

1. April 10, 1863: The board raised the toll on coal to 5/16 cent a ton per mile until November 1. The additional revenue from this temporary rate hike was to compensate for 

the interruption of trade and the damage to the canal caused by the Civil War.111

2. April 15, 1864: The toll on coal was increased to 3/8 cent a ton per mile after May 1.112

3. July 28, 1864: On the recommendation of the Board of Public Works of the State of 

Maryland, the board increased the toll on coal to 1⁄2 cent a ton per mile after August 1.113

4. September 5, 1866: The toll on coal was reduced to 4 mills a ton per mile after September 15.114

5. February 15, 1867: The toll on coal and coke was further reduced to 3 4/5 mills a ton 

per mile after March 1.115

6. March 26, 1868: At the urging of an Allegany County citizens committee, the board 

reduced the rate on coal to 1⁄4 cent a ton per mile after April 1. The directors were forced 

to make this reduction because of the depressed coal trade, the high rates charged for 

wharfage at Cumberland and Georgetown, and the declining market value of coal in the 

District cities. Although the Board of Public Works failed to ratify this action, the canal 

company began to charge the lower rate in an effort to prevent the loss of its coal trade to 

the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.116

7. February 13, 1873: The toll on coal was raised 5 cents per ton to a total of 51 cents for 

the entire distance from Cumberland to Georgetown. The additional revenue from this action was needed to finance the program of improvements on the waterway.117

8. April 6, 1875: The board reduced the toll on coal to 43 cents per ton plus 5 cents for 

wharfage at Cumberland. For the first time the board adopted a system of rebates 

amounting to 5 to 10 cents per ton on the published rates for coal companies shipping 

large quantities of coal on the canal. This action was taken to maintain the position of the 

canal in the coal trade vis-à-vis the railroad.118

 

111 Ibid, K, 329 – 330 112 Ibid, K, 382. 113 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), C & O Co., 6. 114 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 511. 115 Ibid, L, 10. 116 Fortieth Annual Report (1868), C & O Co., 5–6, and Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O Co., 23–24. 117 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 94; Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 10–11; and Cumberland Times, May 31, 1873, in Arthur Pue Gorman Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 118 Cumberland Daily Times, March 20, 1875, in Gorman Collection, and Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), C & O 

Co., 39–44. 
462 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

9. April 18, 1876: The nationwide depression reached the canal in 1876 and forced the directors to reduce the toll on coal to 41 cents per ton (plus 5 cents wharfage). The rebate 

system of 5 to 10 cents per ton remained in effect for large shippers.119

10. April 10, 1877: The year 1877 promised little improvement in canal trade or revenue 

since the country was still in the grip of the depression and a rate war between the canal 

and the railroad was in the offing. Accordingly, the board reduced the toll on the coal to 

33 cents per ton (plus 3 cents wharfage). The rebate system of 5 to 10 cents per ton for 

large shippers remained in effect.120

11. August 21, 1877: To keep in competition with the railroad, the board further reduced 

the tolls on coal to 22 cents per ton (plus 3 cents for wharfage) after September 1. Because the rates were so ruinously low already, the rebate system was withdrawn.121

12. April 10, 1878: Prospects for a marked recovery appeared to be slight as business remained generally depressed and coal prices continued their deflationary tendency. However, the state legislature came to the aid of the canal in 1878 by passing an act curbing 

the competitive practices of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. On the strength of this act 

the canal board raised tolls from 22 cents to 36 cents per ton from Cumberland to 

Georgetown and wharfage charges from 3 cents to 4 cents. At the same time, the board 

restored the rebate system for large shippers.122

13. April 14, 1880: The efforts of the canal company to come to terms with its competitors involved both force and compromise. In 1880 it voluntarily cooperated with the Baltimore & Ohio and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to fix charges on the coal trade 

at profitable levels. This arrangement enabled the board to raise the toll on coal to 51 

cents per ton from Cumberland to Georgetown (plus 4 cents wharfage). The rebate system remained in effect for large coal shippers.123

14. June 13, 1883: In the face of renewed bitter competition among the coal carriers, 

Messrs. Winship, Martens, Agnew and Hassett petitioned the board to reduce the rate on 

coal. Accordingly, the toll on coal was lowered to 36 cents per ton (plus 4 cents 

wharfage). The rebate system was maintained for large shippers as a further hedge 

against the inroads of the Railroad on the canal coal trade.124

15. April 10, 1884: Upon the petition of a large delegation of Cumberland boat owners 

and captains and coal shippers, the board reduced the toll on coal to 33 cents per ton from 

Cumberland to Georgetown (plus 3 cents wharfage). At the same time, the rebate system 

was repealed.125

 

119 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 255. 120 “Draft of Resolution,” 1877, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co.; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 296; 

and Gorman to Garrett, April 10, 1877, Ltrs. Sent, Gorman Collection. 121 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 4. 122 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 11–12, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 20. 123 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 101–102. 124 Ibid, N, 220. 125 Ibid, N, 251. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 463 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

16. February 6, 1885: In the face of the continuing cutthroat competition of the Baltimore 

& Ohio Railroad, the board reduced the toll on coal to 22 cents per ton (plus 4 cents 

wharfage).126

17. March 4, 1887: The board raised the toll on coal to 36 cents per ton from Cumberland 

to Georgetown (plus 4 cents wharfage).127

18. April 27, 1887: Following the protests of the large Cumberland coal companies to the 

board’s action on March 4, a revised set of tolls was established on coal. For the first time 

the directors made a distinction in toll charges between coal destined for the District cities in which there would be less rivalry and that which was intended for transshipment to 

other Eastern markets. The board fixed the rate for the latter at 30 cents per ton (plus 4 

cents for wharfage) from Cumberland to Georgetown while locally-consumed coal paid 

36 cents per ton (plus 4 cents wharfage).128

19. February 14, 1888: The board raised the toll on coal destined for the District cities to 

40 cents per ton (plus 4 cents wharfage) in order to produce increased revenue. At the 

same time, it left the rate on coal for the coastwise trade at the same level as the previous 

year.129

B. IRREGULAR UPWARD COURSE OF CANAL TRADE, 1851–1860 

When the canal was completed to Cumberland, canal officials, as well as many Potomac Valley 

residents, eagerly anticipated a new era of prosperity. At the ceremonies in Cumberland formally 

opening the canal to navigation on October 10, 1850, William Price, a long-time promoter of the 

waterway, voiced the expectation by observing: 

The capacity of the canal is practically unlimited. All the coal companies have their railroads and other means of shipment upon the canal, completed. With such a staple and 

such an avenue to market, what is to limit the emoluments of the work? Coal, however, is 

but one item of its trade. And when we look to the agricultural products of Western 

Maryland, and of the contiguous portions of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and after all this, 

add to the account, the ascending trade, consisting of the merchandize for the supply of 

the territory already indicated, and a share of that destined for the west, it is no exaggeration to say, that, the work will in due time pay off its own debt and leave the state in possession of a permanent fund, adequate to all her financial wants.130

Several weeks later the publishers of the Frederick Examiner commented that 

we earnestly hope and feel persuaded, these expectations will be more than realized. If 

so, it will not be long before Maryland can hold her head proudly up and say - I am out of 

 

126 Ibid, N, 308. 127 Ibid, N, 356. 128 Ibid, N, 360. 

129 Ibid, N, 372, and Sixty-First Annual Report (1889), C & O Co., 7. 130 Cumberland Civilian quoted in Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, 131. 
464 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

debt, and prosperity is before me. I now take rank with the proudest of the Sister States of 

this glorious confederacy.131

Total Tonnage and Toll Revenue 

The glowing expectations of rapid commercial growth and immediate economic prosperity were 

not realized in the 1850s. During this period the canal trade followed an irregularly upward 

course. Tonnage doubled between 1850 and 1851, soaring to 203,893 tons. Thereafter it moved to 

new peaks in cycles of two- and three-year duration. The following list illustrates this point: 

TONNAGE TOLLS

1851 203,893 $110,504.43 

1852 167,595 92,248.90 

1853 270,705 145,100.54 

1854 235,923 119,306.03 

1855 283,252 138,675.84 

1856 287.836 153,051.56 

1857 196,525 94,802.37 

1858 353,588 171,085.97 

1859 359,716 189,134.57 

1860 344,532 132182,343.86

Ascending and Descending Trade 

A breakdown of the total tonnage into the two categories of ascending and descending trade reveals that the amount of articles transported up the canal during the 1850s varied between some 2 

and 10 percent of the total canal business. Accordingly, the tonnage moving down the waterway 

varied between some 90 to 98 percent of the aggregate commerce on the canal. The following list 

illustrates this point: 

ASCENDING DESCENDING TOTAL

1851 22,951 180,942 203,893 

1852 16,226 151,369 167,595 

1853 21,495 249,210 270,705 

1854 18,724 217,199 235,923 

1855 24,839 287,836 283,252 

1856 15,028 272,808 287,836 

1857 21,152 175,373 196,525 

1858 29,396 324,192 353,588 

1859 8,630 351,086 359,716 

1860 9,999 334,533 133344,532 

Principal Articles of Ascending and Descending Trade 

 

131 Frederick Examiner, October 23, 1850. 132 See Appendices R and G. 133 See Appendices B and C. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 465 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

An examination of the ascending and descending trade statistics provides an interesting study of 

the principal articles transported on the canal in each of these categories. The chief items in the 

ascending trade throughout the decade were fish (salt and fresh), groceries, salt, lumber, plaster, 

ore and manures. The main articles transported in the descending commerce were coal, coke, pig 

iron, lumber, flour, wheat, corn and offal. The following list amplifies this subject: 

ASCENDING TRADE 

FISH GROCERIES SALT LUMBER PLASTER ORE MANURES TOTAL 

1851 1,335 642 2,263 1,534 6,560 5,239 1,079 22,951 

1852 455 402 2,851 1,484 5,489 2,715 1,325 16,226 

1853 1,387 658 2,433 1,983 6,390 5,074 1,410 21,495 

1854 1,054 543 1,852 1,494 3,298 5,220 3,302 18,724 

1855 981 473 2,342 1,748 3,774 3,721 3,031 24,839 

1856 960 356 1,762 1,679 2,276 3,903 2,297 15,028 

1857 490 195 1,539 1,366 2,136 3,069 1,300 21,152 

1858 217 178 1,945 884 2,813 190 1,504 29,396 

1859 248 220 1,556 947 2,735 0 1,739 8,630 

1860 322 74 1,385 853 2,741 0 1,898 1349,999 

DESCENDING TRADE 

FLOUR WHEAT CORN OFFAL 

LUMBER PIG 

IRON COAL COKE TOTAL 

1851 27,761 6,861 5,783 994 2,736 910 82,690 1,161 180,942 

1852 26,755 9,805 4,755 832 2,640 1,650 63,289 2,346 151,369 

1853 25,602 9,906 8,327 1,131 3,606 2,418 151,959 4,593 249,210 

1854 15,643 5,417 2,618 538 2,588 201 145,319 3,633 217,199 

1855 14,240 6,986 628 388 3,051 2,505 188,029 3,060 258,413 

1856 14,853 9,017 6,893 425 3,209 2,541 205,568 3,110 287,836 

1857 10,967 3,750 5,592 288 1,847 1,212 125,526 2,045 175,373 

1858 11,007 4,402 6,275 549 2,669 933 254,684 0 324,192 

1859 12,106 5,531 4,931 391 2,810 967 300,743 0 351,086 

1860 11,087 5,452 3,048 518 2,593 96 283,249 1350 344,533 

Factors Influencing the Expansion of Canal Trade 

Despite the overall expansion of canal trade during the 1850s the fluctuations experienced in its 

development were discouraging at best. There were three principal causes for the indifferent 

course of canal prosperity during the decade: (1) the frequent interruptions of navigation due to 

floods, breaches and droughts; (2) the disappointing volume of coal shipped via the canal during 

the early 1850s; and (3) the poor agricultural harvests in the Potomac Valley. Throughout the 

decade these problems were exacerbated by the competition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

 The irregular course of canal fortunes was largely the result of the unreliability of the canal as a carrier. In 1851, the first full year of operation of the entire canal, there were slight interruptions to the trade as a result of breaches and low water.136 During the first six weeks of the 

boating season in 1852 the canal trade flourished as 37,621 tons of goods passed over the water-

 

134 See Appendix B. 135 See Appendix C. 136 Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), 6. 
466 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

way. However, the highest flood in the history of the canal struck the valley in April and navigation was not restored until the end of July. Several breaches in the canal embankments occurred 

in August and September interrupting navigation for another month.137 During the period from 

June 1853 to June 1854 the progress of the canal trade was checked considerably by an obstruction at Dam No. 5.138 A severe drought between Cumberland and Dam No. 6 during the summer 

months of 1854 suspended the coal trade for eight weeks.139 Navigation was again suspended for 

nearly four weeks in August 1855 when a road culvert was undermined and carried away following a heavy rain.140 A heavy ice freshet in the spring of 1857 caused extensive damage to Dams 

Nos. 4 and 4, suspending traffic on the canal for several months.141 Rock slides in the deep cut 

below Paw Paw Tunnel in November 1857 and the spring of 1858 stopped navigation for more 

than two months.142 Two freshets in April and September 1859 caused serious breaches in Dam 

No. 4, thus limiting the extent of boat traffic that season.143

 The volume of coal shipped via the canal proved to be disappointing in the early years of 

the decade. At the inaugural ceremonies at Cumberland on October 10, 1850, President James M. 

Coale stated: 

The canal commences its operations under flattering auspices. The circumstances which 

surround and attend the opening [of] navigation, are of the most favorable character. 

Unlike other works, constructed with a view principally to the coal trade, it is not required to await the slow process of preliminary preparations...The coal mines have been 

opened, the laborers have been gathered, facilities of connection with the canal basin, 

have been constructed, and the coal trade of Allegany is already considerably advanced. 

Little more is necessary, than for it to turn to its appropriate channel - the canal - and go 

on increasing.144

This theme was amplified in a report to the stockholders in February 1851 in which it was stated 

that the canal was “destined to be the carrier of the coal and iron and other articles of heavy burden” in the Potomac Valley. The coal mines west of Cumberland were connected with the canal 

basin at Cumberland by two railroad lines, one belonging to the Maryland Mining Company extending into Braddock’s Run Valley and the other to the Mount Savage Iron Company passing 

through Jenning’s Run Valley. These two lines were considered to be capable of bringing more 

than 1,000,000 tons of coal to the canal annually. Projects were underway to increase the means 

of transportation between the mines and the canal and it was expected that within several years 

the coal trade would produce prosperity to the waterway.145

 The canal board announced in February 1851 that the coal trade promised to be a profitable one that year. During the fall and winter of 1850 and 1851 the canal directors observed that 

the price of Cumberland coal had greatly increased after the opening of the entire length of the 

canal. Large sales of coal had recently been negotiated by the Allegany County coal companies. 

 

137 Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (1853), C& O Co., 3–4, and Ringgold to O'Neal, Dec. 16, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 138 Twenty-Sixth Annual Report (1854), C & O Co., 7–8. 

139 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), C & O Co., 5–6. 140 Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 6–7. 141 Ibid, E, 59 142 Ibid, E, 62–63. 143 Thirty-Second Annual Report (1860), C & O Co., 7, 16–17. 144 Cumberland Civilian quoted in Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, 135. 145 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal (1851), 121, 126–127. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 467 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

A heavy concentration of capital, primarily from the Eastern seaboard, had been invested in the 

western Maryland coal industry.146

However, the promising coal trade did not materialize as expected. By June the directors 

reported to the stockholders that the canal trade 

during the present season compares very favorably with any former year, in the leading 

articles of transportation (flour, wheat, corn and coal); but we regret to say in the article 

of coal, there has so far, been less transported, than we were induced to expect from the 

representatives of the various mining companies.. 

Although 20,319 tons of coal had been transported on the canal between January 1 and May 31 

compared to 807 tons over the same period the previous year, the amount was well below the figure for which the directors had hoped. The reasons for the faltering coal trade were attributed to 

(1) the shortage of boats of which there were only 140, (2) the efforts of the coal companies to 

pressure the board into lowering the rate on coal to 25 cents a ton before committing the transportation of their product to the waterway, and (3) the competition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.147

During the last six months of 1851 the coal trade increased, making a total of 82,799 tons 

for the year. Some 65 new boats were put on the canal during this period, increasing the number 

of craft on the waterway to 205 of which about 140 were involved in the transportation of coal. 

The board rejected all pressures to reduce its tolls on coal–(1/4 cent a ton per mile–aggregate toll 

461⁄4 cents a ton from Cumberland to Georgetown)–stating that its rates were the lowest on any 

American waterway. 

For its part, the Baltimore & Ohio was attempting to undercut the canal’s attempt to attract the Cumberland coal trade by reducing its charges on transporting coal from the latter city to 

tidewater from $2.57 per ton in October 1850 to $1.75 by the spring of 1852. When these figures 

were compared with the canal’s tolls on coal and on the boats (4 cents per mile for the first 20 

miles, 2 cents per mile thereafter, making a total of $4.10), the railroad had a decided advantage. 

Thus, the amount of coal shipped over the railroad in 1851 was 174,701 tons or more than double 

that of the canal.148

The directors looked forward to a banner year in the coal trade in 1852 as executives of 

the Cumberland mining concerns indicated that they intended to ship 300,000 tons on the waterway. However, the heavy flood in April ended these expectations, and the coal companies made 

arrangements to ship their product on the railroad. As a result, the amount of coal transported on 

the canal declined to 65,719 tons while that on the railroad increased to 268,459 tons.149

Despite the disappointment in the development of the coal trade the directors continued 

to exude optimism in their reports to the stockholders. In June 1853 the board observed that the 

mining companies in Allegany County were rapidly extending their operations in working the 

mines and providing railroad cars, canal boats and sea vessels to transport their coal to the eastern 

seaboard and to foreign markets. Thus, within three years, the board expected the canal coal trade 

to reach its long-predicted potential.150

Within a year this optimistic forecast was partially negated by a two-month strike at the 

mines in the spring of 1854. Moreover, a series of breaches, droughts and freshets convinced 

 

146 Ibid, 126–127. 147 Twenty-Third Annual Report (1851), 7 – 8. 148 Proceedings of the stockholders, D, 431–432, and Ringgold to O’Neal, Dec. 26, 1851, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

149 Ringgold to O’Neal, Dec. 16, 1852, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co., and Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (1853), 3–4. 150 Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (1853), 7–8. 
468 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

many of the mine operators of the unreliability of the canal as a carrier and accordingly transferred their business to the railroad. The tonnage of coal carried over the two lines from 1853 to 

1856 demonstrates the pace at which the railroad was outdistancing the canal for the Cumberland 

coal trade: 

B. & O. RR. C. & O. Canal TOTAL 

1853 376,219 157,760 533,979 

1854 503,836 155,845 659,681 

1855 478,486 183,786 662,272 

1856 502,330 204,120 706,450151

Gradually, the canal directors lost their earlier optimism and their reports to the stockholders became both more realistic and more desperate. In 1855 they complained that the shortage of coal 

boats and the interruptions to navigation had placed the waterway at a great disadvantage with the 

railroad in the competition for the coal trade. Moreover, 

On the completion of the canal to Cumberland, with a view of establishing the coal trade 

as early as practicable on a solid basis, the toll upon coal was put at a lower rate than that 

charged upon any other work, with assurances from those representing the coal interests, 

that an early, large and yearly increasing transportation of coal could be relied upon; 

these promises have been delusive. Although the rate of toll remains still at this low rate, 

which at the time it was fixed, was regarded only as a temporary measure, to aid in establishing the trade so firmly that it would in a short period admit of higher rates being 

charged, it has been without effect; and until the trade can be so established, it is not 

deemed advisable to advance the rates.152

The following year the directors pointedly stated that the success of the company was “dependent 

upon the coal trade from the Allegany region, and until this be developed to a much greater extent 

than it has yet been, we cannot anticipate any material amendment of its finances.” What particularly alarmed the directors was that the railroad had nearly doubled its coal tonnage since 1852 

despite raising its freight prices from $1.75 to $2.75 per ton from Cumberland to Baltimore. At 

the same time the canal’s coal tonnage had risen slightly although its toll and freight charges had 

declined to $1.81 per ton from Cumberland to tidewater. The only explanation for such a course 

of events was the unreliability of the canal navigation.153

 After the flood of 1857 drove the canal’s coal trade to a six-year low, the demand for coal 

in the District cities in 1858–60 produced a sharp increase in the tonnage on the canal. The total 

amount of coal carried on the railroad and the canal during this period was as follows: 

B. & O. RR. C. & O. Canal TOTAL 

1857 465,912 116,574 582,486 

1858 395,405 254,251 649,656 

1859 426,512 297,842 724,354 

 

151 Twenty-Sixth Annual Report (1854), 7–8; Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), 5–6, 10, 13–14 & Appendix H. 152 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), 13. 153 Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1856), in Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 7–8, 14–15, 21–22, and Twenty-Ninth 

Annual Report (1857), C & O Co., 7–9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 469 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

1860 493,031 295,878 788,909154

Poor crops in the Potomac Valley and the competition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad were all 

responsible for the irregular trade on the canal during the 1850s. During the middle years of the 

decade droughts during the summer growing season resulted in severe wheat, corn and grain crop 

losses to valley farmers. Thus, the canal’s descending trade in flour, wheat and corn–the three 

staples of its agricultural commerce–declined by almost half in 1854 and 1855: 

Flour Wheat Corn 

1851 25,761 6,861 5,783

1852 26,755 9,805 4,755

1853 25,602 9,966 8,327

1854 15,643 5,417 2,618

1855 14,240 6,986 628 

The canal did not regain its pre-1854 totals in the descending agricultural trade during the remainder of the decade as the railroad reduced its rates on these articles to accommodate Baltimore’s burgeoning milling industry, the majority of which products were designed for foreign 

export. The irregular course of the descending agricultural trade from 1856 to 1860 was as follows: 

Flour Wheat Corn 

1856 14,853 9,017 6,893 

1857 10,967 3,750 5,592 

1858 11,007 4,402 6,275 

1859 12,106 5,531 4,931 

1860 11,087 5,452 3,048155

Efforts to Stimulate Trade during the 1850s 

During the first decade after the completion of the canal to Cumberland, the board tried various 

ways of stimulating commerce. In 1851 they granted permission to the G. L. Thompson Company 

and others for the construction of basins on the towpath side of the Georgetown Level to encourage the development of transfer facilities there. This decision, which aided private parties “to ascertain the best and most convenient mode of handling and unloading or transshipping coal upon 

its arrival at tidewater,” was made subject to five conditions: 

1. The quantity of water used was not to exceed the amount used in the normal locking 

from the canal into the river and back 

2. The works constructed were to be substantial, permanent, and watertight. 

3. Moveable bridges were to be built across the entrance to the basins so that navigation 

on the canal would not be interrupted by the absence of a continuous towpath. When 

boats entered or exited from the basins, they were not to interrupt canal traffic for 

more than four minutes. 

 

154 See Appendix H. 155 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), 10, 13–14; Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1856), in Proceedings of the 

Stockholders, E, 7; and Appendix C. 
470 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

4. All plans for the basins were to be approved by the chief engineer. 

5. If the agreement were violated or if the basins were abandoned, the works were to be 

removed and the towpath restored at the expense of the owner. 

As the first sites for these experimental basins, the directors allowed the interested parties to use 

the College Run vicinity and several small pieces of ground above the Potomac Aqueduct.156

 Following the decline of trade in the middle of the decade, the directors initiated a series 

of changes to stimulate business on the waterway in 1856. They requested the Alexandria Canal 

Company to keep its locks open later in the evening, until 8 p.m.157 Packets were deprived of 

their right-of-way over loaded freight boats descending the canal in order to reduce the delays in 

the passage of trade on the canal.158

 The late spring of 1856 saw the successful completion of a major undertaking along the 

banks of the canal in western Georgetown, which was designed to improve the shipping facilities. 

After nearly four years of agitation by Georgetown business leaders and negotiations between 

property owners and the canal company, the towpath between Frederick (present day 34th) and 

Warren (present day 37th) Streets was changed from the southern to the northern side of the canal. 

A new towpath bridge was constructed across the canal above the aqueduct near Warren Street 

over which the mules and drivers could pass from the upper to the lower towpath. This move left 

the lower bank free fro the construction of sorely-needed unloading facilities, including basins, 

wharves and railway chutes connecting directly with the riverfront.159

 To augment the small coal trade the canal company in June 1856 directed the Baltimore 

& Ohio Railroad to permit the construction of a spur from Cumberland Coal and Iron Company’s 

railroad across the tracks of the former to a projected wharf on the canal. This procedure had been 

provided for in a contract between the two companies in 1851 by which the canal company permitted the railroad to effect a connection at Cumberland with the western section of its main line. 

In return, the railroad agreed to allow its tracks to be crossed by other railroads seeking to reach 

the canal basin at Cumberland from the mines in the Frostburg, Georges Creek and Savage River 

districts of western Maryland, when so requested by the canal directors.160

 The board also considered several proposals for the improvement of the canal itself to 

facilitate the expansion of trade. Among the most important of these were plans for raising the 

Georgetown bridges to accommodate the larger vessels on the waterway, the installation of a 

steam pump near the mouth of the South Branch (the original site for feeder Dam No. 7, which 

had never been built), for the repair or replacement of Dams Nos. 1–5, all of which were leaking 

badly, and for the renovation of the Washington branch.161 Because of financial difficulties, natural disasters and the Civil War, most of these projects were delayed or forgotten. The raising of 

the Georgetown bridges was not completed until 1867. A steam pump was erected at the mouth 

of South Branch in 1856, but it failed to relieve entirely the summer water shortages on the canal 

 

156 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 416–429. Agreements were made with Alexander C. Ray 

in August 1855, James R. Wilson in June 1858 and W. A. Bradley in June 1859 to build such basins in Georgetown for 

the unloading of coal. Ibid, I, 194–195; K, 39, 111. 157 Ibid, I, 248. 158 Ibid, I, 251–252. 

159 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, p.252, and Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 11–12. 160 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, pp.267–268. The Baltimore and Ohio had agreed to this 

arrangement in 1851 because the approval of the canal company to its line in Cumberland was necessary in view of the 

decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals in 1832 sustaining the claim of the canal company to the right of prior location of its waterway in the Potomac Valley. 

161 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 453; Proceedings of the Stockholders, D, 411; TwentyFourth Annual Report (1852), 4–6; Twenty-sixth Annual Report (1854), 5–6; and Twenty-Seventh Annual Report

(1855), 4–5, 7. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 471 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

between Cumberland and Dam No. 6. Some fruitless efforts were made to tighten Dams Nos. 1–

3, and Dams Nos. 4 and 5 were replaced by masonry structures in the late 1860s. The Washington 

branch was never restored, but instead deteriorated into a cesspool of filth. 

C. DECLINING TRADE ON THE CANAL DURING THE CIVIL WAR 1861–1865 

The outbreak of the Civil War in April 1861 came at a time when the fortunes of the waterway 

appeared to be approaching their lowest point. As a result of the secession of Virginia, the canal 

found itself on the border between the Union and the Confederacy, in the path of the marauding 

armies. During the first two or three years of the conflict, its trade was greatly reduced and its 

works alternately occupied and/or destroyed by the opposing forces. Furthermore, the war adversely affected the canal trade by destroying or curtailing its markets and damaging many mills 

along its course. The condition of the company and its properties materially deteriorated from 

even their gloomy pre-war status. Only toward the end of the war when interference with navigation declined did its trade and financial status improve.162

 The hostilities had an adverse effect on the canal trade through the destruction of its markets outside the Potomac Valley as well as through the damage to the mills along its course. The 

existence of a state of war reduced the coastal trade, which had created some of the demand for 

canal coal. As part of the Union’s Southern blockade policy, the Treasury Department announced 

in April 1862 that henceforth the coastwise shipment of coal would be restricted to the region 

north of the mouth of the Delaware River. This was a heavy blow to the fortunes of the canal as 

two of the better markets for its coal were South America and the British West Indies.163 In the 

area above the mouth of the Delaware, the Cumberland coal faced severe competition from the 

Pennsylvania Broad Top coal, on which the Pennsylvania Central Railroad already had reduced 

its charges by 30 cents per ton.164 The institution of the Potomac blockade by federal forces also 

handicapped the coastal trade of canal coal from the port of Georgetown.165 The subsequent releasing of the shipping restrictions were welcomed in April 1862 when the Treasury modified its 

prohibition to read “ports north of Cape St. Rogue, South America, and west of that longitude.”166

The canal officers were further heartened when the blockade of the Potomac was withdrawn in 

the same month when fears of a Southern invasion up the river had subsided.167

 The effect of the war on some of the mills along the canal can be seen in the experiences 

of the Potomac Cotton Foundry in Georgetown and Jacob Miller’s above Antietam Creek. The 

former, a large cotton factory and a user of water power from the canal, was cut off from its supply of raw material and forced to close down in 1861. The reasons given for the shut-down were 

high wages, high prices, scarcity of raw cotton, lack of markets for finished goods and ruined 

credit.168 The latter was caught in the ebb and flow of military operations and forced to stop operations in the fall of 1862. The mill was occupied by troops in the spring of that year, and after 

that it was idled because of the lack of water power from the damaged canal from July 1 to 12, for 

twelve days in August, and from September 14 on. During the last period of suspension, the mill 

 

162 Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1946), 

212–222. A more complete treatment of the canal during the Civil War will be the subject of a later chapter in this Historic Resource Study. 

163 Washington National Intelligencer, Apr. 21, 1862, and Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O Co., 16. 164 Greene to Ringgold, Apr. 11, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 165 Washington Evening Star, May 2, 1861. 166 Washington National Intelligencer, Apr. 21, 1862 167 Ibid. 168 Williamson and Company to President and Directors, June 20, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
472 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

was again occupied by troops, first as a hospital after the Battle of Antietam and then as a picket’s 

rendezvous. When the soldiers moved out, they left the mill a wreck, taking everything moveable 

with them and destroying what they could not carry off.169

 The effect of the restrictions and destructions of the war on the business of the canal was 

almost disastrous. Military operations resulted in the virtual extinction of canal trade from late 

April to early August 1861, causing the company president to report that there was “comparatively no business on the canal before September.”170 The lack of trade can be graphically seen 

when the tolls received for this period are compared with those of the previous year: 

1860 1861 

May $19,214.19 $657.36 

June 18,529.60 206.27 

July 23,051.10 16.94 

August171 23,005.02 2,444.07 

September and October, generally the most active months for the canal, showed only a slight revival but they were still well below prewar levels: 

1860 1861 

September $33,084.04 $10,509.22 

October172 32,547.54 17,793.22 

All told the year 1861 was a disaster when its total trade was compared with that of the previous 

year. The total tonnage and tolls for the two years were as follows: 

1860 1861 

ASCENDING 9,999 tons 3,250 tons 

DESCENDING 334,533 tons 144,814 tons 

TOTAL 344,532 tons 148,064 tons 

TOLLS173 $182,343.86 $70,566.99 

 

From a business standpoint, the following year 1862 was on the whole even worse. Although 

there was no single month as poor as May, June or July 1861, between the seizure of the canal 

boats in the spring and the rebel raids in the summer and fall, no month witnessed a satisfactory 

amount of business. Up until May 31 only 25,259 tons of coal had been [shipped and the tolls] 

collected were only $18,449.86, both of which statistics did not comprise one prosperous month 

of trade.174 So complete was the severance of trade that in August an agent of one of the coal 

companies and a director of the canal wrote, “There has been no real through navigation on the 

canal this year.”175 The invasion of Lee in September and October ruined the trade on the canal 

 

169 Miller to President and Directors, May 1, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 170 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), C & O Co., 3. 171 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), C & O Co., Appendix C, 14, and Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), C & O 

Co., Appendix B, 9. 

172 Ibid. 173 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), C & O Co., 8. 174 Ibid, 3–6. 175 Greene to Ringgold, Aug. 11, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 473 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

for these months and the tolls fell to $5,282.48 and $538.78 respectively.176 The total tonnage 

carried on the waterway for the year was 126,793 (ascending 2,603; descending 124,190) and the 

total tolls collected were $63,985.85 both of which figures were the lowest since the canal had 

been completed to Cumberland.177

 There was a revival of trade on the canal in 1863 as military movements in the area 

caused fewer interruptions to the navigation than in the two proceeding years. The canal’s recovery, however, was set back by rebel activity from mid-June to late August during the Gettysburg 

campaign of the Army of Northern Virginia. July of that year was the worst single month of canal 

navigation since July 1861 as a mere $480.06 in tolls were collected.178 Besides this interference, 

there were no other major interruptions and the ascending tonnage rose by more than 10 percent 

to 2,936 tons, the descending tonnage more than doubled to 262,911 and the total tonnage increased to 265,847. The revenue from tolls for the [year] rose by more than $90,000 to 

$154,928.26. Had it not been for the interruptions of the Gettysburg campaign, the toll revenues 

would have superceded the total of any previous year.179

 An active trade began on the canal in the spring of 1864, giving promise of the best year 

in the waterway’s history. The coal trade was so prosperous that the company was confident 

enough to raise the toll on coal from 3/8 cent to 1⁄2 cent a ton per mile in July. However, Early’s 

raid that month, followed by Mosby’s and White’s incursions in August and September, severely 

curtailed the volume of commerce on the canal for the normally most profitable months of the 

year. The month of August saw no through navigation at all, and the $398.80 in tolls collected 

gave the canal its new low for a single month since July 1861.180 Nevertheless, the business on 

the canal for the year was the best to date as the total tonnage rose to 290,772 tons and the 

amount of tolls received increased to $225,897.34.181

 Canal officials looked forward to a banner year in trade in 1865 because of the lessening 

of tensions in the Potomac Valley and the quantity of products at Cumberland ready to be 

shipped. Although heavy ice on the western levels delayed the commencement of navigation until 

April and a partial suspension in coal shipments reduced the tonnage in May and June by nearly 

one-half, commerce was active for the rest of the year with only several minor interruptions. The 

problems in the coal market were the result of the high rates previously paid for mining and 

transportation, which the coal companies were unable to continue, and the miners and transporters were unwilling to reduce. Up until May 31 the amount of coal shipped was only 61,677 tons 

compared to 101,390 tons for the same period in 1864. Nevertheless, the brisk business, which 

followed the settlement of the controversy more than made up for the loss as the total tonnage of 

coal in 1865 reached a high of 340,736 tons, compared with 260,368 tons the previous year. All 

told the total tonnage and the tolls collected reached new highs of 372,335 tons and $346,165.47, 

respectively.182

 Perhaps the most severe set-back in business experienced by the canal due at least in part 

to the irregularity of navigation during the war was the loss of more than half of its share of the 

flour trade. Complaining that they could not rely on the canal for even a 10-day period, many of 

the valley mill operators turned to the more dependable railroad.183 Despite the determined effort 

 

176 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), C & O Co., 6. 177 See Appendices B, C and E. 178 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report (1864), C & O Co., Appendix B, 10. 

179 Ibid, 3, 8. 180 Washington Evening Star, Aug. 22, Sept. 13, 1864 and Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), C & O Co., 6, 10. 181 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), C & O Co., 3. 182 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), 3, 6–7; Hagerstown Mail, Feb. 25, 1865; and Ringgold to Greene, Dec. 1, 

1865, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

183 Embry and Son to Dellinger, April 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
474 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

of the railroad to lure the flour trade away from the canal in the 1840s, the flour trade had continued to be one of the larger though erratic sources of canal revenue. From 14,880 tons in 1843, it 

rose to 25,761 tons in 1851 and fell to 11,087 tons in 1860. In 1861 it dropped to 7,067 tons, and 

after a slight recovery in 1862 (7,340 tons) and 1863 (8,566 tons), it declined to 5,962 tons and 

5,383 tons in 1864 and 1865, respectively.184

 Despite the troubles in the early years, the canal was an important transportation agency 

during the war. Between raids and repairs the canal provided invaluable service for the Union, 

hauling troops and supplies, particularly coal, which the government hoarded.185 The amount of 

coal transported on the waterway during the hostilities were as follows: 

1861 119,893 tons 

1862 94,819 tons 

1863 229,416 tons 

1864 260,368 tons 

1865186 340,736 tons 

The canal provided the sole direct link between Washington and Harpers Ferry for the transportation of men and materials to that important post, as well as other points in the Potomac Valley. 

Summary of Canal Trade during the Civil War 

The bleakness of the early years of the conflict was largely reversed toward the end of the struggle. Despite continuing raids and occupation, business on the canal began to revive in 1863 and 

improved steadily until the end of the war. The trade statistics for the war period were: 

ASCENDING DESCENDING TOTAL 

1861 3,250 144,814 148,064 

1862 2,603 124,190 126,793 

1863 2,936 262,911 265,847 

1864 1,891 288,881 290,772 

1865187 2,707 369,628 372,335 

The principal products of the ascending and descending trade were: 

ASCENDING 

FISH FLOUR SALT LUMBER PLASTER MANURES 

1861 139 674 604 143 856 643 

1862 162 33 478 131 274 1,029 

1863 200 21 535 102 574 632 

1864 110 49 545 207 382 477 

1865 104 100 498 543 664 647 

 

184 Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), Appendix No. 11, 46; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), Appendix B, 26; 

Twenty-Third Annual Report (1861), Appendix C, 16; Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), Appendix B, 11; ThirtySeventh Annual Report (1865), Appendix B, 12; and Thirty-Eighth Annual Report (1866), Appendix C, 15. 185 Washington National Intelligencer, Mar. 10, 1862, and Washington Evening Star, Sept. 12, 1862. 186 See Appendix C. 187 See Appendix B & C. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 475 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

DESCENDING 

FLOUR WHEAT CORN MILL OFFAL LIMESTONE 

1861 7,067 4,286 1,941 520 642 

1862 7,340 6,640 1,027 534 1,936 

1863 8,566 9,014 1,789 395 4,650 

1864 5,962 6,168 1,914 254 4,727 

1865 5,383 5,700 775 250 6,386 

DESCENDING CONTINUED188

LUMBER ROUGH STONE LIME, CEMENT COAL WOOD

1861 1,994 2,852 467 119,893 3,773 

1862 1,693 760 49 94,819 8,025 

1863 1,403 19 794 229,416 4,513 

1864 1,248 390 601 260,368 3,888 

1865 1,216 2,900 1,004 340,736 3,971 

The improvement in business was paralleled by increasing revenues. The general inflationary 

tendency of prices toward the end of the war also permitted the toll on coal to be raised from 1⁄4 

cent a ton per mile to 5/16 cent a ton in April 1863, to 3/8 cent a ton in April 1864 and finally to 

1⁄2 cent a ton in July 1864.189 Annual revenues during the war soared from lows of $70,566.99 in 

1861 and $63,985.85 in 1862 to $154,928.26 in 1863, $225,897.34 in 1864, and $346,165.47 in 

1865.190

D. RESURGENCE OF THE CANAL TRADE IN THE POSTWAR ERA: 1866–1869 

Factors Influencing the Development of Trade 

The canal emerged from the war on both a somber note and a hopeful one. The waterway itself 

had suffered great physical damage from the activities of the opposing armies. Furthermore, the 

federal government continued to occupy the Potomac Aqueduct and a portion of the Rock Creek 

Mole until 1868 to the detriment of the canal’s business.191 On the other hand, the company’s 

finances had improved as a result of the revival of trade after 1863. Bankruptcy no longer threatened the immediate operation of the waterway, and the improved commercial and financial status 

of the company made it possible to undertake necessary and long-delayed repairs and improvements. 

 The physical condition of the canal in 1865 was much worse than it had been before the 

war. Despite growing trade and revenues and some increase in repair expenditures toward the end 

of the conflict, the waterway had been largely neglected. In addition to the destruction of its 

works in the war it had not received the attention required for normal maintenance. Only the most 

necessary repairs had been made, and then usually in a hasty and slip-shod fashion.192 The general state of deterioration of the canal was described as follows to the stockholders in June 1869: 

 

188 See Appendix C. 

189 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 329, 382, 395. 

190 See Appendix G. 

191 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 511; L, 56; Moore to Ringgold, May 28, 1866; and Godey 

to Ringgold, Jan. 10, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

192 Manning to President and Directors, May 31, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
476 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

During the last ten years little or nothing had been done toward repairing and improving 

lock-houses, culverts, aqueducts, locks, lock-gates and waste weirs of the Company; 

many of them had become entirely unfit for use and were becoming worthless, rendering 

it absolutely essential to the requirements of the Company to have them repaired ...193

The restoration and improvement of the canal began almost immediately after the conclusion of 

the war.194 Construction of the masonry dams replacing the old structures at Dam Nos. 4 and 5 

were resumed and were completed by the end of the decade. The company finally came to an 

agreement with the corporate authorities of Georgetown concerning the manner of raising the 

bridges over the canal, and the new structures were completed in 1867 by Duvall and Company at 

a cost of $31,000.195 Rock Creek was dredged, the tumbling dam at its mouth was restored, and 

the outlet lock repaired in 1867 by the firm of Deeter and Maynard at a cost of $9,000 in anticipation of the resumption of trade through Georgetown.196

 While the main concern of the board during the postwar era was to restore the canal to a 

good navigable condition, it also took several steps to stimulate commerce. In January 1866 the 

directors ordered the removal of coal unloading platforms, built by the Cumberland Coal and Iron 

Company and the Borden Mining Company, which extended 10 feet over the berm of the prism 

and hence restricted navigation in Georgetown.197 To encourage the expansion of the coal trade, 

company ground at strategic points along the canal was rented to the Cumberland shippers for use 

as coal yards and storage facilities.198 Because of the seven-fold growth of the trade in rough 

stone during the period, permission was granted in February 1869 to the Maryland Free Stone 

Mining and Manufacturing Company for the construction of a wharf on Rock Creek below K 

Street.199 As the expanding coal trade necessitated greater loading facilities at Cumberland, the 

board in February 1869 made provision for the construction of a new wharf, an adjacent water 

course, and a new railroad line from the Mount Savage Railroad to the wharf.200

 The postwar years also had their difficulties. Heavy freshets occurred in the Potomac 

Valley in 1866 and 1868, the former sweeping away 60 feet of the temporary coffer Dam No. 5 

and the latter carrying off one-half of Dam No. 1.201 The end of the war also brought a decline in 

trade as the demand for coal lessened from the wartime peaks. At the same time wage disputes 

occurred between the miners and the coal companies, interfering with the coal trade in April 

1866.202 In the face of the deflationary tendency of coal prices and the decreasing demand for that 

product, the board reduced the tolls by some 24 percent to 3.8 mills per ton (or from 92 cents to 

62.29 cents per ton from Cumberland to Georgetown) in September 1866, and back to 1⁄4 cent a 

ton per mile (or 461⁄4 cents per ton from Cumberland to Georgetown) in March 1868. Had the 

company not made these reductions, it would have lost its share of the Cumberland coal trade, 

which varied between 31 and 39 percent of the total during the period, to the Baltimore & Ohio 

 

193 Forty-First Annual Report (1869), C & O Co., 4–5. 

194 Manning to President and Directors, Feb. 1, May 31, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

195 Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 5. 

196 Thirty-Eighth Annual Report (1866), 4–5; Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 5.; Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, K, 491–492; and Fortieth Annual Report (1868), C & O Co., 4–5. 

197 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 471, 479. 

198 Ringgold to Hassett, Nov. 15, 1867, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

199 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 139. 200 Spates to President and Directors of Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Feb. 5, 1869, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 201 Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 5 and Mans to President and Directors, July 11, 1868, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 202 Thirty-Eighth Annual Report (1866), 3, 5; Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 3; Manning to Ringgold, Apr. 22, 

1866, and Greene to Ringgold, April 27, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 477 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

whose rate-cutting practices were causing great concern to canal officials.203 The interference of 

local political influence by the state Democratic Party machine also returned after the war with no 

less than four changes in canal administration occurring between 1865 and 1870. 

Total Tonnage and Toll Revenues 

Despite unsettled trade conditions, political interference, and the appropriation of large amounts 

for the restoration and improvement of the waterway, the financial condition of the company continued to improve. As a result of the statewide industrial and commercial boom, canal trade recovered quickly from each setback, rising to a new high each year and nearly doubling over the 4-

year period. The total tonnage and receipts from toll collections for the period were: 

TONNAGE TOLLS 

1866 383,408 $355,660.76 

1867 521,402 374,932.75 

1868 552,987 276,978.71 

1869204 723,938 368,483.42 

Ascending and Descending Trade 

A breakdown of the total tonnage into the two categories of ascending and descending trade reveals that the amount of articles transported up the canal during the postwar years comprised less 

than 2 percent of the total canal trade. Accordingly, the tonnage moving down the waterway 

amounted to more than 98 percent of the aggregate commerce on the canal. The following list 

illustrates this point: 

ASCENDING DESCENDING TOTAL 

1866 6,658 376,750 383,408 

1867 10,160 511,242 521,402 

1868 10,479 541,508 552,987 

1869205 14,238 709,700 723,938 

Principal Articles of Ascending and Descending Trade 

An examination of the principal articles in the ascending and descending trade of the postwar 

years provides an interesting study. The chief items in the ascending trade throughout the period 

were fish (salted and fresh), flour, salt, lumber, ore, plaster and manures. The most important of 

these products was ore, which made up nearly 40 percent of the ascending trade of the 4-year period. The primary articles of the descending trade were flour, wheat, corn, lumber, pig and scrap 

iron, bricks, rough stone, lime cement, coal, bark, wood and limestone. The most important of 

these articles was coal, which comprised between 89 and 95 percent of the annual total tonnage. 

The following list illustrates these facts: 

ASCENDING TRADE 

 

203 Hagerstown Mail, Mar. 1, 1867; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 511; L, 82, 89; ThirtyNinth Annual Report (1867), 6; and Fortieth Annual Report (1868), 5–6. 204 See Appendices F and G. 205 See Appendices B and C. 
478 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

FISH FLOUR SALT LUMBER ORE PLASTER MANURES TOTAL 

1866 172 361 873 607 2,478 682 1,062 6,658 

1867 277 128 794 705 5,067 1,328 959 10,160 

1868 240 131 1,362 975 2,618 1,181 1,845 10,479 

1869 297 158 1,280 1,923 7,000 792 1,476 14,238206

DESCENDING TRADE 

FLOUR WHEAT CORN LUMBER

PIG & 

SCRAP 

IRON BRICKS

ROUGH 

STONE 

1866 2,620 4,946 6,307 1,852 612 240 589 

1867 3,058 9,510 10,794 3,051 1,785 404 2,970 

1868 2,120 9,164 5,502 2,936 2,225 3,057 4,503 

1869 2,220 15,147 2,339 1,097 3,782 1,145 4,161 

DESCENDING TRADE CONTINUED 

LIME 

CEMENT 

COAL BARK WOOD LIME 

STONE 

TOTAL 

1866 2,080 344,160 1,115 2,900 7,845 376,750 

1867 3,143 458,009 705 1,931 10,091 511,242 

1868 1,975 484,849 900 2,016 16,148 541,508 

1869 1,985 661,828 1,104 2,492 11,204 709,700207

E. THE GOLDEN YEARS OF CANAL TRADE, 1870–1875 

Factors Influencing the Development of Trade 

The burgeoning industrial and commercial expansion of the state and nation in the early 1870s 

provided the most stable and prosperous period in the history of the waterway. The company enjoyed unprecedented financial profits, and for the first time the waterway gave promise of fulfilling the hopes of its promoters. The canal board continued the program of restoration and improvement, fostered the growth of trade to record levels, and continued payments on the longterm debts of the company. 

 Despite the repairs already made, there was still much to be done. Chief Engineer William R. Hutton recommended a thorough overhauling of the canal at an estimated cost of $78,000 

in 1871, including repairs to locks, aqueducts, culverts and the prism itself.208 By 1874, many of 

the canal’s masonry structures had been repaired, the waterway had regained its full prism, and 

the strength of its banks had so increased that an April flood which completely submerged the 

canal on the levels below Dams Nos. 4 and 5 did no appreciable damage.209 The extent of canal 

improvements was at least partially reflected in the increased tonnage carried by the freight boats. 

The annual average rose from 1091⁄2 tons in 1872 to 112 in 1873 and to 1131⁄2 tons in 1874.210

 

206 See Appendix B 207 See Appendix C. 208 Report by W. R. Hutton, Chief Engineer, As to Condition of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Annapolis, 1872), 3–30. 

209 Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), C & O Co., 11–12, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 

154–155. 

210 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), C & O Co., 8–9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 479 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

 Trade continued to improve somewhat irregularly in the first two years of the decade. 

From a total of 723,938 tons in 1869, commerce on the waterway fell off by nearly 9 percent to 

661,772 tons in 1870, but soared by more than 46 percent to a record peak of 968,827 tons in 

1871.211 The Shenandoah flood in October 1870, a strike of boatmen and dock laborers at Cumberland in 1871, and a four-month drought in the same year, which reduced the average tonnage 

of boats from 110–115 to 85–90 tons, did not appreciably interfere with the expanding prosperity 

of the waterway.212 Business was so active in 1871 and 1872 that canal shippers found it difficult 

to obtain enough coasting vessels to load coal at Georgetown. Stocks piled up on wharves forcing 

a deliberate curtailment of shipments over the canal.213

 The method of expediting trade on the Georgetown level soon became the major obstacle 

to the continued growth of business. Uploading and transfer facilities were unable to handle the 

increasing tonnage, which was brought to them. Nearly all the shipments from Cumberland were 

carried as far down as the Potomac Aqueduct, and two-thirds of them were unloaded on the overburdened wharves in Georgetown. As a result, boats experienced annoying and costly delays as 

they lined up in the canal to await their turn to unload and canal employees began to complain 

that it was almost impossible to maintain order.214 [The Georgetown] level posed other problems 

in that the canal was not wide enough to accommodate the ordinary traffic to and from the Rock 

Creek Basin and the Potomac Aqueduct and the clamoring boatmen awaiting access to the coal 

wharves. Particularly serious was the congestion on the waterway between the aqueduct and Market Street where the coal boats waiting in line got in the way of the grain boats heading for the 

large flour mills in that vicinity.215 In June it was reported that the large number of boats on the 

level had nearly stopped navigation as there was at one time “ten tiers of boats three abreast–20 

tiers two abreast” and in several instances “4 boats abreast.”216 President James C. Clarke summarized conditions in the following words in December 1871: 

As it is now, it is not infrequently the case that from sixty to eighty boats have to lie 

along the Canal bank singly, so as to allow sufficient room in the Canal for boats to pass 

in opposite directions. Often a string of loaded boats from half a mile to a mile in length 

is seen lying above the Collector’s Office in Georgetown, waiting their turn to get to the 

wharves to discharge their cargoes.217

At the same time the tremendous increase in the number of boats arriving at Georgetown brought 

to a head another problem that had plagued the canal company. Private wharf owners, allowed to 

operate unregulated along the banks of the canal in Georgetown, were extracting exorbitant 

wharfage fees from canal boats. This practice represented a direct threat to the attempts by the 

company to regulate freight rates effectively.218

 Accordingly, the board determined to build a new outlet above Georgetown because it 

would reduce the congestion by discharging boats above the city while at the same time freeing 

 

211 See Appendix 212 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 365, 426–427; and Report of the President for the Year 

1871 (1871), C & O Co., 5. 213 Report for the Year 1871 (1871), 5 and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 14. 214 Hutton to Clarke, Mar. 31, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 215 Forty-Second Annual Report (1870), C & O Co., 35–36. 216 Hayden to Clarke, June 14, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 217 Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 187–188. 218 Cumberland Daily News, Mar. 2, 1875, in Gorman Collection. 
480 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

canal boats from the grip of private wharf owners. The outlet would give canal boats access to the 

Potomac, where they would be towed to any number of river points below Georgetown.219

 In response to the board’s decision to build an outlet, H. H. Dodge, a local politician and 

president of the Potomac Lock and Dock Company, advised the directors that he would construct 

an outlet lock and lease it to the company for a sum sufficient to assure a fair return on his investment. Dodge’s proposal was accepted by the board, and on May 10, 1872, a contract for the 

construction of the outlet was signed.220 When the board realized that an outlet lock capable of 

lowering canal boats between the waterway and the river would require more water than was often available on the Georgetown Level, they shifted their plans. Upon the recommendation of 

Chief Engineer Hutton, the directors ordered that instead of an outlet lock, an inclined plane similar to those on the Monkland Canal in Scotland and on the Morris Canal in New Jersey be constructed. The desired change was made in the contract with the Potomac Lock and Dock Company, and the construction of the incline was begun during the spring of 1875.221

 With the help of the canal improvements and despite periodic interruptions to the navigation, trade continued at a high level between 1872 and 1875. At first it fell off slightly from the 

record peak of 1871 because the suspension of operations in the Pennsylvania mines that year had 

created an unusual demand for Cumberland coal which could not be expected to continue when 

the mines reopened.222 But the canal trade quickly recovered and in 1875 reached an all-time 

high. Company statistics show a decline to 973,805 tons in 1875.223 In the latter year, the canal 

achieved its highest monthly tonnage total in May when more than 121,000 tons of coal were 

shipped.224

 During this period the board discovered a new source of business in the gas coal trade. As 

several large companies in western Pennsylvania indicated their interest in sending large shipments of this product to Washington via the Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad and the canal, 

the board granted rebates to encourage the development of this new trade. In 1874 the drawback 

was 5 cents a ton for 50,000 tons or more, and in 1875 it was 5 cents a ton for 100,000 tons or 

more and 6 cents for 200,000 tons or more. The gas coal trade rose rapidly from an average of 

less than 3,000 tons in 1870–72 to nearly 16,000 tons in 1873 and to more than 65,000 tons in 

1874. However, it declined almost as rapidly as it had developed, decreasing by some 40,000 tons 

alone in 1875, because of the excessive amount of sulfur in the West Virginia gas coal and the 

strict inspection standards in the District of Columbia. For the remainder of the decade an annual 

average of some 22,000 tons of Youghioghany gas coal passed down the waterway.225

 It is interesting to note that commerce flourished on the canal during the period from 

1872 to 1875 despite a score of incidents that disrupted trade for brief periods. A shortage [of] 

coasting vessels in the spring of 1872 led to the piling up of coal on the Georgetown and Alexandria wharves and thus to a curtailment of the coal trade.226 A severe drought in the Potomac Valley during August, September and October followed by an early winter in 1872, which forced the 

 

219 Harold Skramstad, “The Georgetown Canal Incline” Technology and Culture, Chapt. X, Oct. 1969, 550–551. 220 Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 187, 198–199, 215–222, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 19–24. 221 Skranstad, Georgetown Canal Incline, 552 – 554, and Dodge to Gorman, June 29, 1876, William R. Hutton Papers, 

Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution. 

222 Cumberland News, July 1872, in Gorman Collection. 223 See Appendix. 224 Weber to Gorman, June 1, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 225 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 151–152, 206; Bartol to Gorman, April 3, 1878, Ltrs 

Recd., C & O Co.; Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 16–17; Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 9–10; and Fiftieth 

Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 24. 226 Forty-Fourth Annual Report (1872), C & O Co., 9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 481 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

canal to close on December1, hampered operations for the year.227 A fire in the Borden Mining 

Company shaft in the Cumberland coal fields in March, strikes by the Boatmen’s Benevolent Society in Cumberland and by the western Maryland miners in March and April protesting a 5-cent 

per ton rate increase on coal as well as a reduction in boating charge and a decrease in the shipments of the Consolidation Coal Company which generally accounted for one-fourth of the canal 

coal trade hindered the progress of commerce in 1873.228

A late-summer drought at Cumberland followed by a flash food in September 1873, 

which caused the greatest destruction to the canal from natural causes since 1852, suspended 

navigation for nearly one month.229 Also in November 1873 an epidemic stripped the boats of 

their crews for a brief period and was responsible for the loss of many canal mules.230 In March 

and April of 1874 heavy rains forced the swollen river to overflow the canal banks below Dams 

Nos. 4 and 5 and on the Monocacy Division.231 Trainmen on the Cumberland and Pennsylvania 

Railroad went on strike in August 1874, briefly stopping that vital link in the transportation between the coal mines and the canal. At about the same time, the Boatmen’s Benevolent Society, 

which had grown to an active membership of 324 and which controlled 374 boats, again struck, 

demanding $1.35 a ton freight rates from Cumberland to Georgetown. Canal traffic was virtually 

stopped for one month before the company, fearing that the mining companies would turn their 

shipments over to the Baltimore & Ohio, employed police and strike-breakers to bring the boatmen to terms.232 The commerce on the canal in 1875 was affected by the nationwide economic 

depression which had grown steadily worse since 1873, unsettled freight rates and heavy ice on 

the Potomac until March thus causing large amounts of coal to be piled up at Georgetown and 

Alexandria.233

 Both the coal companies and the canal board undertook to encourage the increasing trade. 

The former added numerous new boats to the canal during the period, thus increasing the number 

of vessels plying the waterway to 539 with an average capacity of 112 tons by 1874.234 In 1878, 

sixteen steamers were operating on the canal realizing for the first time the great dream of the 

canal’s founders.235

 The canal company, as its part, helped to speed the flow of navigation by abolishing the 

sporadically enforced Sabbath Law prohibiting Sunday runs and adopting rules for the [movement] of traffic on the Georgetown Level and at the Paw Paw Tunnel.236 Amid reports of the continuing congestion at the Georgetown Tidelock, the directors tried to rush the construction of the 

inclined plane.237 When the financial stringency in the nation postponed even the commencement 

of this work, the board purchased a steam dredge for $10,000 in 1873 and cleaned out the Rock 

Creek Basin, removing nearly 58,000 tons of sand and mud within two years.238 The additional 

 

227 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 53–54, 62, 68–69, and Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873) 3 228 President, Boatmen’s Benevolent Society to Gorman, Jan. 1, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Williamsport Pilot, Jan. 

11, 1873, in Gorman Collection; Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 3; and Report of President to Board of Directors, 

May 13, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

229 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 124, 127; and Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), p.11 230 Williamsport Pilot, Dec. 21, 1872, in Gorman Collection. 231 Report of President to Board of Directors, March and April 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 232 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 173, 176–177, 180–185; and Cumberland Times, Jan. 23, 

1875, in Gorman Collection. 

233 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 19–21. 234 Record of Boat Registrations, 1851 – 74, C & O Co. 235 Register of Boats Employed on the Canal, January 1, 1878, C & O Co. 236 Report for the Year 1870 (1870), 7–8 and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 57, 106. 237 Morgan to Gorman, May 1, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 238 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 133, 163; Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), 12; and 

Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 8. 
482 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

room in the basin came none too soon for in July 1874 it was reported that because of a large 

breach on the Alexandria Canal 840 boats had been locked from the basin into the river in one 

month.239 Permission was granted to some of the Cumberland coal operators, such as the Baltimore and Borden Coal Company, the New Central Coal Company and the Georges Creek and 

Cumberland Coal Company, to enlarge and improve their basins and wharves in Georgetown to 

accommodate the growing coal trade.240 Arrangements were made with the Consolidation Coal 

Company for increased accommodations at its wharf in Cumberland.241 To promote the continued 

expansion of trade in both agricultural produce and coal, the canal company sought to facilitate 

the construction of the Cumberland Valley Railroad, a short line which ultimately extended from 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Winchester, Virginia crossing the canal at Powell’s Bend just below 

Williamsport, and the Western Maryland Railroad, which was to connect Baltimore with the canal at Big Pool.242 Over the winter of 1874–75, the company leased the Lynn-owned Potomac 

Wharf at Cumberland for a period of two years, thus putting it in a position to reduce the exorbitant wharf charges in that town.243

Mounting Profits 

As trade increased, company income and profits also mounted. Receipts from tolls collected, Ascending and Descending, during the 1870 to 1875 period were as follows: 

1870 $342,644.40 

1871 485,019.65 

1872 459,654.59 

1873 482,528.57 

1874 500,416.24 

1875244 458,534.66 

The income rose accordingly from some $109,000 in 1870 to a peak of over $290,000 in 1874.245

The board applied the excess of revenues over current expenses to the task of restoration and improvement and to the payment of the back interest on the repair bonds of 1849 and the preferred 

construction bonds of 1844. Of the $200,000 repair bonds, $199,000 had been paid off with interest by 1873. By December 1875 the board had paid off 19 coupons, representing 91⁄2 years interest, amounting to $902,457.66.246 The financial condition and reputation of the canal rose perceptibly throughout the period. 

Program Of Improvements Recommended As Answer To Railroad Competition 

 

239 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 173. 240 Hutton to Gorman, July 18, Aug. 19, 1876; Fletcher to Gorman, Feb. 5, 1875; and Report of President, to Board of 

Directors, Jun. 16, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 216–217; 

Forty-Fourth Annual Report (1872), 7–8; and Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 3–4, 8–9. 241 Ibid, M, 160, 168–170. 242 Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 16–17; Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), 18; and Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, M, 469–470. 243 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 19–21. 244 See Appendix 245 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 309. 246 Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 8, and Forty-Eighth Annual Report (1876), 10. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 483 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Despite the prosperity of the canal and the substantial improvements already made, President Arthur P. Gorman recommended in 1875 the continuation of the general program to modernize the 

canal as a carrier and establish more firmly its future as a transportation line. The Baltimore & 

Ohio was in the process of completing its third rail line between Baltimore and Cumberland, and 

it would soon be able to transport coal for less than 1 cent a ton per mile. This together with the 

superior facilities of the Port of Baltimore, as compared with those at Georgetown and Alexandria, for the purpose of transshipment to northern ports, would soon force the canal to make corresponding reductions in cost and improved facilities. Moreover, within the past four years, another competing line had been built to the Cumberland coal fields by the Pennsylvania Railroad 

Company. As the owner of the Pennsylvania canal system, the railroad was contemplating the 

enlargement of its waterways to within 80 miles of the Allegany County mines and the construction of a line to connect the coal fields with their canal system. When this transportation line 

would be completed, much of the coal trade of the canal and Baltimore & Ohio would be diverted 

from Maryland to Philadelphia and New York.247

 To enable the Chesapeake and Ohio to [meet] this challenge by the railroads, Gorman 

proposed that four necessary improvements be made to the canal. They were: (1) the restoration 

of the prism so that the average tonnage of the boats could be increased to 120 tons; (2) the control of the amount of terminal charges by the canal company; (3) the procurement of such control 

as to enable the canal company to fix and maintain a uniform rate of freight charges and (4) the 

enlargement of the locks so as to increase the capacity of double boats to 250 tons.248

Competition with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad for the Canal Trade 

The insistence on continued efforts to improve the canal’s position as a transportation line was 

not premature, even in the peak year of 1875. The threat of a rate war among the competing coal 

carriers was always present although there had been none for some years. Since 1870, new markets for the Cumberland coal had opened in South America, the West Indies, and the transAtlantic trade, thus allowing each of the coal carriers to expand their tonnage without overt competitive tactics. Between 1870 and 1872 the total output of the Cumberland mines had grown 

from 1,717,075 tons to 2,355,471 tons, an increase abetted by the high price of English coal and 

the widespread recognition that the Maryland soft coal was superior to other kinds for the generation of steam.249 Accordingly, the coal tonnage on the canal had risen at an irregular pace from 

604,137 tons in 1870 to 850,339 tons in 1871 and to 816,103 tons in 1872.250 Canal officials were 

pleased with the promise of a growing coal trade, and their optimism for the future growth of the 

trade was shown by their decision in February 1873 to increase the rate on coal some 5 cents to a 

total of 51 cents per ton from Cumberland to Georgetown in order to finance the program of canal 

improvements. Thus, the cost of transporting a ton of coal over the entire length of the canal was 

$2.181⁄2 (including tolls, 51 cents; wharfage at Cumberland, 5 cents; freight charges, $1.35; 

wharfage at Georgetown, 25 cents; commission, 21⁄2 cents). This compared favorably with the 

sum of $2.73, which it cost to transport a ton of coal over the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad from 

Cumberland to Baltimore.251 As a result of the nationwide depression, the total amount of the 

Cumberland coal trade and the volume of coal shipped via the Baltimore & Ohio and the Penn-

 

247 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 14–15. 248 Ibid, 16–17. 

249 Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 16–17. 250 See Appendix H; Williamsport Pilot, Dec. 21, 1872, and Cumberland News, Oct. 18, 1872, in Gorman Collection; 

and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 391. 251 Cumberland Times, May 31, 1873, in Gorman Collection, and Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), 25–26. 
484 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

sylvania Railroads fell off as early as 1874. However, the canal’s trade continued to improve as 

the following statistics indicate: 

C&O Co. B&O RR Pa. RR Co. TOTAL 

1870 604,137 1,112,938 ------ 1,717,075 

1871 850,339 1,494,814 ------ 2,345,153 

1872 816,103 1,517,347 22,021 2,355,471 

1873 778,802 1,780,710 114,589 2,674,101 

1874 767,064 1,576,160 67,671 2,410,895 

1875 879,838 1,302,237 160,698 2,342,773252

To compensate for its losses and to regain its share of the coal trade [lost to the] canal since 1850, 

the Baltimore & Ohio triggered a rate war by reducing its charges on coal to $2.45 per ton early 

in 1875.253 Although this still left the canal with a slight advantage, of 31⁄2 cents per ton to tidewater, the fact that coal shipped by railroad sold for between 15 and 20 cents more per ton than that 

transported by water, together with the greater efficiency of the railroad, made it mandatory for 

the board to lower its rates. Accordingly, the directors on January 13, 1875, ordered a general 

reduction of charges, including tolls, wharfage and freights in order to maintain its position in the 

trade. Over-all charges were reduced 22 cents: tolls, 8 cents; freight, 10 cents; and wharfage, 4 

cents. Rebates of 5 to 10 cents per ton were also made available to large shippers.254 The board 

was put under pressure to lower the rates still further by up to 10 cents per ton by three citizen’s 

groups in Cumberland, Hancock and Sharpsburg but the requests were turned down.255 As a result of the cutbacks, coal tonnage on the waterway increased greatly in 1875 to 879,838 tons from 

778,802 tons in 1873 and 767,064 tons in 1974, but the canal revenues from tolls declined from 

$500,416.24 in the peak year of 1874 to $458,534.66 in 1875.256

Total Tonnage and Toll Revenues 

The total tonnage and toll revenues for the 1870–75 period were: 

TONNAGE TOLLS 

1870 661,772 $342,644.40

1871 968,827 485,019.65 

1872 923,581 459,654.59 

1873 845,248 482,528.57 

1874 909,959 500,416.24 

1875257 973,805 458,534.66 

 

252 See Appendix H, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 210–202. 253 Cumberland Daily Times, March 20, 1875, in Gorman Collection. 254 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 210–211; Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 19–21; 

and Cumberland Times, Mar. 1873, in Gorman Collection. Coal shipped by railroad sold at a better price, because it 

tended to be less broken than that shipped by canal. 

255 Petitions to the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, March 3, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C 

& O Co. 

256 See Appendices E and G. 257 See Appendix G. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 485 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Ascending and Descending Trade 

A breakdown of the total tonnage into the two categories of ascending and descending trade reveals that the amount of articles transported up the canal during the 1870–75 period comprised 

between some 1–2 percent of the total canal trade. Accordingly, the tonnage moving down the 

waterway amounted to some 98–99 percent of the aggregate commerce on the canal. The following list illustrates this point: 

ASCENDING DESCENDING TOTAL 

1870 12,719 649,053 661,772 

1871 18,552 950,275 968,827 

1872 20,060 903,521 923,581 

1873 16,271 828,977 845,248 

1874 13,978 895,981 909,959 

1875 10,338 963,467 973,805258

Principal Articles of Ascending and Descending Trade 

An examination of the principal articles in the ascending and descending trade of the 1870–75 

period provides some insight into the cargos that were passing over the waterway during its peak 

years. The chief items in the ascending trade throughout the period were hay, salt, lumber, ore, 

plaster, manures and sand. The most important of these articles was ore, which made up nearly 47 

percent of the ascending trade of the 6-year period. The primary products of the descending trade 

were flour, wheat, corn, lumber, pig and scrap iron, bricks, rough stone, lime cement, coal, wood 

and limestone. The most important of these articles was coal, which comprised between some 89 

and 96 percent of the annual descending trade and between some 87 and 92 percent of the yearly 

total tonnage. The following list illustrates these facts: 

ASCENDING TRADE259

HAY SALT LUMBER ORE PLASTER MANURES SAND TOTAL 

1870 4 1,296 933 5,801 879 913 867 12,719 

1871 45 2,043 1,929 8,960 943 1,780 672 18,552 

1872 1,418 1,014 1,028 11,090 379 1,482 1,484 20,060 

1873 690 1,906 1,147 8,458 1,610 418 414 16,271 

1874 235 1,157 627 6,380 1,883 1,552 694 13,978 

1875 77 1,194 443 2,560 2,075 1,633 295 5,443 

 

258 See Appendices B and C. 

259 See Appendix B. 
486 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

DESCENDING TRADE260

FLOUR WHEAT CORN LUMBER 

PIG, SCRAP 

IRON BRICKS 

1870 1,845 11,710 2,929 968 1,833 4,073 

1871 2,025 14,369 5,005 2,410 4,247 23,840 

1872 980 8,416 3,844 1,761 3,730 12,308 

1873 1,744 8,569 3,285 1,582 1,874 4,086 

1874 1,526 9,780 5,312 1,102 3,053 1,303 

1875 1,000 8,894 3,553 1,270 669 2,456 

DESCENDING TRADE CONTINUED 

ROUGH 

STONE LIME COAL WOOD 

LIME 

STONE TOTAL 

1870 4,133 608 696,707 2,289 10,451 649,053 

1871 15,177 9,473 848,199 3,635 14,145 950,275 

1872 31,243 4,970 814,335 2,499 12,916 903,521 

1873 15,994 4,700 796,717 4,336 12,868 828,977 

1874 12,146 5,602 836,996 1,349 13,666 895,981 

1875 11,462 7,596 904,898 1,077 14,559 933,533 

F. THE DECLINING YEARS OF CANAL TRADE, 1876–1889 

Factors Influencing the Development of Canal Trade 

 

In 1876 the great nationwide depression, which had affected many parts of the country since the 

Panic of 1873, finally reached the canal. Trade fell off sharply to 709,130 tons (of which the coal 

trade consisted of 654,409 tons), and the revenue from tolls plummeted to $290,274.39. That part 

of the trade which was retained was kept only by lowering the rates of tolls and wharfage from 51 

cents to 46 cents per ton from Cumberland to Georgetown in April as a direct response to the Baltimore & Ohio’s reduction of its charges from $2.30 per ton to $2.02 per ton to Baltimore.261 In 

addition to this reduction, the board adopted a system of drawbacks on published rates for coal 

companies shipping large quantities of coal via the canal, and rebates were quickly granted to the 

Consolidation Coal Company and the Maryland Mining Company.262 Gorman succinctly identified the causes of the downturn in company affairs when he noted in June 1876: 

The continued depression in all branches of industry has so lessened the demand for coal 

as to seriously affect our business. The depression has also induced the shippers of coal 

from other regions and transportation lines leading to tidewater, to reduce the price of 

coal at commercial centers, so that (a) large reduction in prices was necessary in Cumberland coal.263

In an effort to compete with other carriers for the declining trade, the board authorized the president to reduce tolls on all commodities at competing points on the canal to whatever rates were 

 

260 See Appendix C. 261 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 255; Forty-Eighth Annual Report (1876), C & O Co., 10; 

Cumberland Civilian, Apr. 29, 1877, in Gorman Collection. 262 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 246. 263 Forty-Eighth Annual Report (1876), C & O Co., 10. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 487 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

necessary to retain the trade. As the Baltimore & Ohio had reduced its charges on flour by 4 cents 

a bushel from Harpers Ferry to Baltimore, President Gorman lowered the toll on flour from 1 cent 

to 3⁄4 cent a ton per mile from all competing points between Williamsport and Weverton.264 In an 

attempt to reduce the cost of canal coal and to stimulate trade, Gorman secured the passage of a 

law by the Maryland General Assembly to compel the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad, 

which carried most of the coal from western Maryland mines to the canal at Cumberland, to reduce its charges from 3 cents to 2 cents a ton per mile.265 The railroad resisted the move, however, and the reduction did not take effect until the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the validity 

of the law in May 1877.266 The board directed surveys to be made up the north branch of the Potomac in December 1876 with the view of establishing a direct connection between the canal basin at Cumberland and the coal fields either by extending the canal to the mouth of the Savage 

River or construction a new rail line to the vicinity around George’s Creek, the Savage River and 

Laurel Run.267

 Despite all efforts to stimulate trade, reduce charges and provide direct connections with 

the mines, the coal trade, as well as the total trade, on the waterway continued to drop as the production of the Cumberland region declined markedly. This dismal state of affairs was summarized in the June 1877 annual report to the stockholders: 

The business from the Maryland coal region during the year (1876) has proved one of the 

most unsatisfactory in its history. The decrease in the number of tons of coal shipped 

from this region to tidewater amounts to 507,692 tons, equal to a decrease of twenty-one 

(21) percent, as compared with 1875.268

The decrease in trade and the reduction [in] tolls caused canal revenues from that source to fall 

some $268,000 from the 1875 level to $290,274.39. Company profits also fell some $149,000 

from the 1875 figures to $67,144.40.269 Most of the canal improvements, which had been projected or were in progress, were suspended. The company, however, did lease for 25 years at a 

cost of $15,000 a year the Georgetown Incline Plane, which was finally completed in June 

1876.270 Ironically, by the time the incline was put into operation, the decline of commerce had 

relieved the canal of the immediate need for it. The directors authorized the payment of only one 

coupon (that for July 1864) on the construction bonds in 1876.271

1877 

Trade on the canal faced even more critical challenges in 1877 as the nation remained in the grip 

of the depression and a rate war among the transportation lines was in the offing. The Baltimore 

& Ohio reduced its charges 22 cents below the published rate of $2.03 for 1876. Canal officials 

 

264 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 255, 258, and Cockrell and Engle to Gorman, Jan. 26, and 

Mar. 9, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

265 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 239. 266 Forty-Ninth Annual Report (1877), C & O Co., p.3, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 

296. 

267 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 283, and Hamill, Bannon and Farrands to Gorman, 

Jan. 9, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. The committee that carried out the study recommended the construction of a direct 

rail line connection. 268 Forty-Ninth Annual Report (1877), 3. 

269 Ibid, 4. 270 Ibid, 9. 271 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 281. This coupon was the last ever paid. 
488 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

were informed that the railroad had offered rebates of 18 to 20 cents in 1876.272 The desperate 

situation of the canal was graphically described in November of that year by a holder of some 

canal construction bonds living in Philadelphia. In a letter to the company, he observed: 

From what I see in the Cumberland papers I should judge that the canal will before long 

be available only as a nice swimming place for ducks and geese, & possibly a source of 

motive power to grist mills. It would seem that the Balt. & Ohio R.R. is going to gobble 

up all your business...273

The distressing news came to them in the spring of 1877 when officials of the American Coal, 

Maryland Coal and the Borden Mining Companies informed them that the railroad was offering 

similar private drawbacks of up to 20 cents per ton to those who were willing to guarantee a 

shipment of 35,000 tons for the year.274 Although the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad 

finally reduced its charges to 2 cents a ton per mile, the competition of the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad interests and the Pennsylvania Clearfield anthracite coal was so great that the canal 

board decided on April 10 that it would be impossible to make any profit on the coal trade that 

year, and that the important thing was to hold the trade which the waterway already had.275

Thereupon the board, charging that the railroad had violated its earlier agreement with the canal 

to provide for uniform and moderate rates, plunged into the thick of the rate war.276 It reduced 

tolls twice in the course of the year from 41 cents per ton to 33 cents on April 10 and to 22 cents 

on August 21.277

 The troubles of the canal in 1877 were complicated by a boatmen’s strike from June 21 to 

August 20. Trade came to a virtual standstill during this period as the striking boatmen hindered 

traffic all along the line and tied up their barges on the first level west of Seneca to await some 

redress from their grievances. By the time that the strike ended, many of the canal shippers had 

made other arrangements with the railroad for the transportation of their business for the rest of 

the year.278

 The last of the series of misfortunes, which befell the canal in 1877, occurred on November 24 when the worst flood in 150 years of the recorded history of the region swept down the 

Potomac Valley. The canal was left almost a total wreck and trade was brought to an end for the 

season. In all there had been only 161 days of navigation during the year, and the total trade on 

the waterway had fallen to 627,913 tons (of which 603,096 tons was coal) and the toll revenues to 

$187,756.66.279 Despite the decline in trade on the canal, the board took some pride in the fact 

that the waterway carried only 102,707 tons of coal less than did the Baltimore & Ohio. Statistical 

charts relative to the coal company shipments and the destination of the coal cargoes may be seen 

on the following tables: 

 

272 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 293–294. 273 Harris to Fawcett, Nov. 23, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 274 Borden to Gorman, Mar. 26, 1877; Lloyd to Gorman, Mar. 28, 1877; and Loveridge to Gorman, Apr. 7, 1877, Ltrs. 

Recd., C & O Co. 

275 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 293–296. 276 Gorman to Garrett, Mar. 31, 1877, in Ibid, M, 295–296. An excellent summary of the canal – railroad rate war may 

be found in the New York Herald, Apr. 6, 1877, and the New York Times, Apr. 20, 1877. 277 Ibid, N, 4; Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 6; and Gorman to Garrett, Apr. 10, 1877, Ltrs. Sent, in Gorman Collection. 

278 Stanhope to Gorman, July 1, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 3, 6. 

279 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 3–4, 9–10.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 489 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

POINTS TO WHICH COAL WAS SHIPPED - 1877 

TONNAGE 

Georgetown 563,907.04 

Williamsport 36,272.06 

Hancock 881.03 

Harpers Ferry 764.16 

Shepherdstown 515.10 

Berlin (Brunswick) 326.08 

Knoxville 117.01 

Mercerville 112.09 

Sharpsburg 103.16 

Seneca 73.02 

Two Locks 22.19 

Total280 603,096.14 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE — 1877 

Company 

To B&O 

Railroad 

To C&O 

Canal 

To Pa. 

Railroad Local Total 

Consolidation Coal Co. 201,390 125,633 352 21,010 348,385 

New Central Coal Co. 64,688 128,055 152,312 983 346,038 

Georges Creek Coal & Iron Co. 120,683 870 121,553 

Maryland Coal Co. 18,350 101,193 1,000 120,543 

American Coal Co. 24,816 92,043 25 550 117,434 

Borden Mining & Coal Co. 5,986 71,526 18,052 2,343 97,907 

Atlantic & Georges Coal Co. 92,736 3,475 96,211 

Hampshire & Baltimore Coal Co. 55,360 34,966 1,190 91,516 

Potomac Coal Co. 63,399 260 63,659 

Canton Coal Co. 48,812 60 224 49,096 

Franklin Mines 45,220 45,220 

Piedmont Coal & Iron Co. 35,123 83 500 35,706 

Blaen Avon Mining Co. 560 31,580 1,629 33,769 

Union Mining Co. 880 2,360 3,240 

Georges Creek Mining Co. 1,725 1,725 

Canton Mine 1,212 1,212 

Georges Creek Valley Mine 1,122 1,122 

TOTALS281 782,065 584,996 170,884 36,394 1,574,339 

When the canal reopened for trade on April 15, 1878 prospects for a recovery appeared to be 

slight. Business remained generally depressed, and coal prices continued their deflationary tendency. The price of a ton of coal on board vessels at Georgetown, which had been $4.65 in 1872, 

fell to $2.60 in 1878. The tolls, which had amounted to 12 percent of the value of coal transported 

on the canal in 1872, totaled 151⁄2 percent of its value by early 1879, thus preventing canal officials from raising rates.282 Under these conditions trade remained slow, and revenues had little 

opportunity to rise. In an effort to end the ruinous rate war, the canal company enlisted the assistance of the Maryland General Assembly to bring the Baltimore & Ohio to accept a compromise. 

The legislature came to the aid of the canal as hostility toward the railroad had been growing in 

 

280 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 24. 281 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878) 282 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), 6–7. 
490 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

the state since the local elections in 1875 during which the railroad had cast off its allegiance to 

the Democratic Party, dominated by Gorman.283 In 1878 it passed an act curbing the competitive 

practices of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.284 On the strength of this act the two companies 

reached a toll rate agreement whereby the railroad lowered its rates west of Cumberland and 

promised not to increase its charges east of that town while the canal raised its tolls on coal from 

22 cents to 40 cents a ton from Cumberland to Georgetown.285 As a result of this agreement and 

an increase of some 105,000 tons in the total coal production of the western Maryland mines, 

trade on the canal increased slightly to 662,508 tons (of which 630,290 tons were coal) and toll 

revenues increased greatly to $282,181.18.286

Attempts to Improve Canal as Coal Carrier 

Meanwhile the company turned to other means of improving its position as a carrier. At least four 

courses of action were possible: (1) to secure an independent connection with the coal fields; (2) 

to gain control of freight rates on the canal; (3) to reduce operating expenses; and (4) to make 

further agreements with its competitors. All four ways were tried during 1879 and 1880. 

 The object of securing an independent connection with the coal fields was to reduce the 

cost of transportation for the coal companies and to [rid] the canal of its dependence on the Baltimore & Ohio and its subsidiaries. The company made arrangements with the owners of the 

Davis mine in West Virginia in 1879 for the transportation of coal from that mine.287 It sought to 

facilitate the construction of two independent railroad connections with the canal at Cumberland 

by invoking the agreement of 1881 to compel the Baltimore & Ohio to permit the railroads to 

cross its tracks. Among these were the Georges Creek and Cumberland Railroad, which proposed 

to build a line all the way down the Potomac to the coal basin, and the Pennsylvania Railroad. 

Two other roads, the West Virginia Central and Pittsburgh and the Potomac and Piedmont, agreed 

to build short feeder lines to the Baltimore & Ohio tracks on the promise of special rates from the 

canal for coal shipped over it.288

 The purpose of gaining control of freight rates on the canal was to reduce the profits of 

the various agencies involved in canal transportation so as to [help] the company to reduce overall charges while maintaining a profitable rate of tolls. In this regard, the company achieved success in an assault on the owners of the wharves at Cumberland and Georgetown. The wharf owners, who had invested some $300,000 in their facilities, received handsome annual returns, which 

had reached a peak of $344,000 in 1874.289 At the same time, their charges were so high that they 

forced the canal board to reduce its rates on the coal trade in order to compete with the railroads 

for business. The low rate of tolls, on the other hand, did not produce enough revenue to pay anything on the great investment of capital in the company. The board dredged to Rock Creek Basin 

and made improvements to the tidelock and incline in order to make the river bank available for 

wharf facilities, thus seeking to force wharfage fees at Georgetown down to a fair level. At Cumberland, the company renewed its lease of the Potomac Wharf from the Consolidation Coal Company and cut rates until others were forced to reduce theirs.290 On January 1, 1879 it purchased 

the Basin Wharf, the largest such facility at Cumberland, from William Walsh and Thomas J. 

 

283 Frederick Examiner, Feb. 27, and Mar. 3, 1878. 284 Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1878), Ch. 155. 285 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 11–12, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 20, 24. 286 Fifty-First Annual Report (1879), C & O Co., 5–6. 287 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 12. 288 Ibid, 12–13, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 99–100, 102–103, 112 

289 Cumberland Daily News, Mar. 2, 1875, and Anon. Report, h. d. in Gorman Collection. 

290 Graham to Gorman, Jan. 5, and Feb. 28, 1877, and Hicks to Gorman, Apr. 20, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 491 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

McKaig for $100,000, and thereby secured a permanent control over wharfage at the western 

terminus of the canal.291

 The company attempted to reduce its own operating expenses by initiating cost-savings 

improvements that would permit a lower toll rate but which would still leave the canal a profit. 

One improvement completed and in operation by October 1879, was the installation of a 3-station 

telephone line, the longest single circuit in existence at the time, along the waterway so located as 

to be within easy reach of any point on the canal.292 The telephone system provided for more effective communication both for canal employees as well as shippers and permitted the company 

to reduce its maintenance staff, thus providing for an annual savings of nearly $12,000. Another 

proposed improvement was the lengthening of at least 27 locks by 10 feet each, but only 14 had 

been extended by 1882, thereby denying to the coal shippers the anticipated advantages of operating larger boats.293

 The efforts of the canal company to come to terms with its competitors resulted in a compromise settlement with the Baltimore & Ohio and the Pennsylvania Railroad Companies in April 

1880. It voluntarily cooperated with the two rail lines to fix charges on the coal trade at profitable 

levels. The arrangement attracted the attention of the West Virginia coal operators located west of 

Piedmont, thus opening up a new source for the canal trade. The contract enabled the board to 

raise canal tolls on coal to 51 cents per ton from Cumberland to Georgetown.294

Hindrances to Canal Trade 

The attempts of the board to improve the position of the canal as a transportation line were hindered by many obstructions. A miner’s strike from September 4 to October 8, 1879, followed by 

a serious drought, which limited the carrying capacity of the boats to 80 tons, caused an estimated 

loss of 100,000 tons of commerce that year.295 In 1880 there were several short strikes in the 

mines and coal feeder railways. An 8-week strike of boatmen led by those employed by the Borden Mining Company interfered with navigation from late June to late August, causing a drop in 

trade from an average of 21,374 tons to 13,--- tons a week.296 Hardly was the strike settled, than 

the river lock at Rock Creek Basin gave way and was abandoned.297 In the same year Daniel K. 

Stewart, a holder of some of the repair bonds of 1878 that had been issued to repair the flood 

damage to the canal, challenged the right of the company to sell the bonds to raise funds for 

lengthening the locks.298 After the company had won a doubtful victory in the Stewart case, Governor Hamilton, a political foe of President Gorman, expressed his doubts about the legality of 

using the bonds for that purpose, thereby ruining the market for the bonds and bringing the improvements to a halt.299 Meanwhile the Georges Creek and Cumberland Railroad was having 

trouble securing the necessary permission to cross the Baltimore & Ohio tracks to the canal basin, 

thus depriving the waterway of its much-needed independent connection with the mine fields as 

late as 1881.300 Another severe drought in August and September of the same year so reduced the 

water in the river and in the canal that boats having a 41⁄2 foot draft, could be passed only in fleets 

 

291 Fifty-First Annual Report (1879), 10. 

292 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 94–97, and Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), 11. 

293 Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 353–355. 

294 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 101–102, and Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), 12. 

295 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 6. 

296 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 117–118. 

297 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 119, and Fifty-Third Annual Report (1881, 8. 

298 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 10. 

299 Fifty-Fourth Annual Report (1882), C & O Co., 21 300 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 148–149, and Fifty-Fourth Annual Report (1882), 7. 
492 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

every six or eight days by means of collecting the water at the upstream dams and then passing it 

through the canal along with the boats down to the lower levels.301 Finally in 1882 another 

lengthy strike occurred among the coal miners lasting from April until August during which there 

was little trade on the canal. By the time the miners agreed to resume their work, there were only 

three months of active navigation remaining and many of the boatmen had left the canal and disposed of their crews and stock. The lack of trade also ended any hopes by the board to further the 

program of canal improvements and of lengthening the locks (14 of which had been completed).302

 During the decade from 1879 to 1888, the canal went into a period of decline from which 

it never emerged. Under the continuing depressed state of trade, there was little the officials could 

do to put the waterway back on its feet, and it became scarcely possible to keep the canal in shape 

for navigation. The dilemma faced by the board was that the canal could not be maintained or 

improved unless additional funds were spent on it and these funds could not be raised unless the 

canal was improved so as to keep pace with the increasing facilities of the competing railroads.303

Thus, the last decade of its independent existence was one of trade stagnation, financial depression, physical deterioration, political interference and outside intrigue. 

 The business on the waterway by this time was almost totally dependent on the demand 

for coal. In view of the continued depression in industry, this demand remained relatively stagnant during the early years of the decade. The competition of the great railroad lines, which had 

reduced the cost of its services by making improvements in its equipment whereby one locomotive could haul three times the number of cars as before, also acted to keep the coal shipments on 

the canal at a minimum.304 In 1884 the canal’s business was curtailed by the efforts of the leading 

Cumberland coal companies to force the board to lower its charges by arguing that such a course 

of action was needed because of the decline in popularity of Cumberland coal, the growing demand for anthracite, the greater handling and breakage of canal-shipped coal, the obsolescence of 

the port at Georgetown, and the dependence of the canal on the coal trade.305 The general paralysis of business, continuing freight wars between the railroads, and strikes in the coal fields led to 

the suspension of navigation for four of the first six months of 1885.306 A prolonged general 

strike by the miners beginning in March 1886 had a similar effect that year.307 Natural disasters 

continued to plague the canal as a heavy freshet struck Washington County in July 1884 and three 

floods in April and May 1886 virtually destroyed Dam No. 6.308

The Coal Trade: 1879–1888 

The general stagnation of the canal’s trade was clearly reflected in the annual canal tonnage and 

toll revenue figures from 1879 to 1888. The statistics are as follows: 

 

301 Fifty-Fourth Annual Report (1882), C & O Co. 15 302 Fifty-Fourth Annual Report (1882), 9 and Fifty-Fifth Annual Report (1883) C & O Co. 7–8. 303 Fifty-Eighth Annual Report (1886), C & O Co. 5. 304 Fifty-Eighth Annual Report (1886), C & O Co. 6–7. 305 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 260, and Borden to Gorman, Apr. 1, 1878, Loveridge to 

Gorman, Apr. 1, 1878, Loveridge to Gorman, Apr. 15, 1878 and Reppelier to Gorman, Apr. 19, 27, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., 

C & O Co. 

306 Fifty-Seventh Annual Report (1885), C & O Co. 6–7 307 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 328 308 Ibid, N, 273, 329–331, and Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), C & O Co. 5–6. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 493 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

COAL TONNAGE TOLLS 

1879 522,904 $234,976.52

1880 615,423 361,757.68 

1881 521,189 284,435.59 

1882 316,648 143,730.76 

1883 708,465 284,234.00 

1884 378,352 135,693.59 

1885 398,012 106,940.39 

1886 295,415 81,718.73 

1887 277,688 110,667.83 

1888309 286,813 121,218.25 

Canal revenues declined irregularly in the face of the bitter competition among the coal carriers. 

The directors lowered canal tolls from 51 cents in 1880 to 36 cents in June 1883, to 33 cents in 

April 1884, and finally to 22 cents in February 1885 in order to offset the reductions in charges 

by the railroads and to stimulate trade.310 In 1885 the Baltimore & Ohio was carrying coal to deep 

water docks at Locust Point in Baltimore Harbor for $1,30 a ton and frequently for as low as 

$1.00 a ton whereas as late as 1865 it had charged $5.58 a ton. This reduction in charges had been 

made possible by the use of steel tracks, heavy locomotives and enlarged cars. On the other hand, 

the capacity of the canal boats–112 tons–was the same as it had been in 1852 and the number of 

men and mules required to operate the boats was the same as it had been in 1852 and the number 

of men and mules required to operate the boats was the same as it had been since 1830.311

 The decline in revenue made the financial position of the debt-ridden, outdated canal, 

very precarious. If the interest on the repair bonds went unpaid for more than two years, the 

bondholders could obtain a foreclosure according to the decision of the U. S. Circuit Court in 

1886. On the other hand, if the canal’s income were used to pay this interest, the company would 

not have the funds to make the improvements necessary to enable the waterway to compete with 

the low freight charges of the railroads and thereby to obtain the money to repay the loans.312

 To resolve this financial dilemma as well as it was able, the company resorted to several 

devices. First, it cut the ordinary expenses of operation by reducing salaries, discharging laborers 

and abolishing staff offices between 1882 and 1884.313 Second, the company applied its economy 

measures to the work of maintenance and improvement, authorizing only the most essential repairs to the waterway and suspending work on the comprehensive program of improvements laid 

down by the Gorman administration in the early 1870s.314

 About the only hopeful sign in the otherwise bleak records of the 1880s was the completion of the Piedmont and Cumberland Railroad in 1886. An independent connection with the 

West Virginia coal fields had at last been realized, as this railroad had built its line down the Potomac Valley to the south of the Baltimore & Ohio. This course of action had been taken to circumvent the necessity of obtaining a permit from that road to cross its tracks to reach the Cumberland basin.315 The ill-fated Cumberland and Georges Creek Railroad had been blocked this 

 

309 See Appendix E and N. After 1878, the company only maintained tonnage statistics for the coal trade. 310 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 220, 251 and 308. 311 Fifty-Eighth Annual Report (1886), 9. 312 Ibid, 8–10. 313 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 189–190, 214, 246, 257–258, 267–268, 274 and 276. 314 Fifty-Seventh Annual Report (1885), 5–6, 9–10. 315 Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), 11. 
494 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

way for many years, and as late as April 1888, was still urging the canal company to compel the 

Baltimore & Ohio to permit the crossing it wished.316 The Piedmont and Cumberland Railroad 

approached the basin from the other direction and easily gained the consent of the canal board to 

build its tracks across the waterway to a connection with the basin wharf.317

 The canal company received considerably less benefit from the completion of the two 

feeder lines to the Baltimore & Ohio, although their completion had been encouraged by the 

board’s promise in 1880 to grant special rates for coal shipped over it from these lines. In 1882 

the West Virginia Central and Pittsburgh Railroad was completed from a point near Bloomington 

on the Baltimore & Ohio trunk to Fairfax Stone at the Elk Garden coal fields some 13 miles distant. Soon 800 tons of coal were being shipped over this line per day, and it was expected by the 

canal board to become one of the largest carriers of the Cumberland coal.318 At about the same 

time the Potomac and Piedmont Railroad completed its line from a point between Piedmont and 

Bloomington up the North Branch some 11 miles to the Big Vein at the Elk Garden coal fields.319

Both these lines undoubtedly contributed to the increase of the canal trade to over 707,000 tons in 

1883, but the freight wars, miners’ strikes and general stagnation of business caused their contribution to the canal’s coal trade to decline markedly after that. 

 One other bright spot in the otherwise bleak coal trade during the 1880s was the emergence of Williamsport as an important coal shipping point. The amount of coal shipped to that 

town increased sharply in 1883 from a previous annual average tonnage of 37,000 tons to nearly 

63,000 tons. The two coal companies whose shipments accounted for much of this increase were 

the Consolidation Coal Company and the National Coal Company. In 1884 more than 76,000 

tons of coal were shipped to that town. Despite the continuing decline in the overall coal trade on 

the canal, the amount transported to Williamsport remained at a high level, falling somewhat to 

55,000 and 53,000 tons in 1885 and 1886 but then rising to more than 72,000 tons in 1888.320

 The financial condition of the company improved somewhat in 1887 and 1888. Coal tonnage declined but slightly from 295,415 tons in 1886 to 277,688 tons in 1887 and 286,183 tons in 

1888. On the strength of higher tolls, revenues from that source actually increased from 

$81,718.73 in 1886 to $110,667.83 in 1887 and $121,218.27 in 1888.321 For the first time the 

board made a distinction in toll charges between coal destined for the District cities market in 

which there would be less rivalry and that which was intended for transshipment to Eastern markets. The directors fixed the rate for the latter at 30 cents a ton from Cumberland to Georgetown 

while locally consumed coal paid 36 cents a ton in 1887 and 44 cents a ton in 1888.322 This strategy to top the coastwise coal trade came to naught because of a great shortage of coasting vessels 

at Georgetown. The shippers at that port had been outmaneuvered by their counterparts at Philadelphia, Newport News and Norfolk in contracting for the available coasting ships. The canal 

directors estimated that this problem had deprived them of 100,000 tons of coal trade.323

 Even had the canal been able to reach tonnage expectations, the tolls and the quantity of 

trade still would have been too low to produce revenues or profits on the scale of those in the 

prosperous early 1870s. The company continued to have insufficient funds for the ordinary expenses of operating the waterway and for the payment of interest on the repair bonds.324

 

316 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 376. 317 Ibid, N, 345–346. 318 Fifty-Fourth Annual Report (1882), 9–10. 

319 Ibid. 320 Fifty-Sixth Annual Report (1884), 16–17 and Appendix L. 321 See Appendix R. 322 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 360, 372. 323 Sixty-First Annual Report (1889), C & O Co., 7. 324 Ibid, N, 392. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 495 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

End of the Canal as an Independent Carrier 

The year 1889 witnessed a series of problems that ended the independent existence of the canal. 

A large break in the limestone region above Shepherdstown on March 24 delayed navigation for 

ten days. This was followed on April 2 by a heavy rock slide at the deep cut near the lower end of 

Paw Paw Tunnel that suspended navigation of 16 days. As a result, only 55,887 tons of coal (producing $20,500.34 in toll revenue) had been transported by May 30, when the highest flood in the 

history of the valley swept down the Potomac and left the canal a total wreck.325 Because of the 

extensive destruction to the waterway, navigation was suspended for more than two years. 

 

325 Sixty-Second Annual Report (1890), in Receivership Papers, Washington County Courthouse, Hagerstown 
496 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

III: COMMERCE ON THE 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL: 1891–1924 

A. RESUMPTION OF TRADE: 1891–1894 

After the canal had been left idle in disrepair for more than a year after the titanic flood of 1889, 

an effort was made to ascertain if there was any reason to repair the waterway. As part of this 

program, the Cumberland coal companies were approached as to their interest in shipping coal on 

the canal if it was restored. In response, four companies indicated that they would ship a total of 

450,000 tons of coal annually for a period of four years after the canal was reopened. The companies and their promised shipments were as follows: 

 

Consolidation Coal Company 200,000

Georges Creek Coal & Iron Company 150,000

Barton & Georges Creek Valley Company 50,000

Big Vein Coal Company 50,000

450,000

The promises were made on the condition that: (1) the tolls from Cumberland to Georgetown 

would not exceed 40 cents per ton with a rebate of 10 cents per ton for coal shipped in the coastwise trade; (2) the wharfage and shipping charges at Cumberland would not exceed 4 cents per 

ton; and (3) boat freight from Cumberland to Georgetown would not exceed 65 cents. If the railroads raised their rates, the canal would also be allowed to do so, but if the canal navigation was 

interrupted the coal companies would reduce their shipments proportionately. Some of the companies, which had formerly made heavy coal shipments on the canal, such as the West Virginia 

Central and Pittsburgh Railroad, refused to make any promises.326

 When the canal was reopened for business on September 1891, commerce recovered 

quickly, but was unable to expand beyond the low averages of the 1880s. The prolonged suspension of navigation had caused many boatmen to leave the valley or turn to other occupations, and 

the port facilities at Georgetown had deteriorated. While the rate of tolls established for the coal 

trade was that which the Cumberland coal companies had urged in June 1890, the charges were 

not likely to divert much of the trade from the Baltimore & Ohio to the waterway. Moreover, the 

low toll charges did not attract enough business to meet expenses. Thus, the canal never operated 

at profitable levels after 1891.327

 The coal tonnages on the waterway in the first three years after navigation resumed never 

reached the totals promised by the Cumberland coal companies in June 1890. The totals for this 

period were: 

COAL TONNAGE TOLL REVENUES

1891 50,533.14

1892 265,799.08 $135,979.89

1893328 336,295.11 130,923.35

 

326 Fourth Report of District Receivers, June 25, 1890, Receivership Papers. 327 Report of Trustees, Jan. 30, 1894, in Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company vs. Western Maryland Railway Company, 

Jan. 18, 1904, Maryland Court of Appeals, 109–112. 

328 Hagerstown Daily Herald and Torch Light, June 21, 1894, Receivership Papers. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 497 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

B. CORPORATE DEVICES TO OPERATE THE CANAL 

To enable the canal to show a profit as a court order had required, the railroad company resorted 

to a shadow corporation in January 1894 for the operation of the waterway. The trustees organized the Chesapeake & Ohio Transportation Company as a corporation under the Maryland laws. 

In return for the latter’s guarantee to keep the canal in navigable condition, the transportation 

company agreed to provide the necessary boats to carry the trade offered and guaranteed an annual profit of $100,000. The trustees retained the right to let similar contracts to other companies 

if the need arose.329

 In 1902 the receivers and the Consolidation Coal Company took another step towards the 

improvement of service and the efficiency of navigation by organizing the Canal Towage Company. The primary function of this enterprise was to provide economy and regularity to the operation of the waterway. To accomplish this the company supplied the boats, teams and equipment 

and established a regular schedule of runs. It also cut the freight rates and controlled the distribution of cargoes. For all practical purposes, this concern drove the last remaining independent 

boatmen off the canal since they could not compete with the company and its sponsors.330 A comparison of receipts and expenses of independent boatmen before the organization of the Canal 

Towage Company and the boats operated by that company clearly demonstrates the relative disadvantage of the independent boatmen. A copy of this balance sheet follows: 

TOTAL COAL TONNAGES & TOLL REVENUES COLLECTED: 1894–1924331

BALANCE SHEET (PER TRIP) 

INDEPENDENT BOATMEN CANAL TOWAGE COMPANY 

Receipts Receipts

90 tons @ 65¢ a ton = $58.50 90 tons @ 45¢ a ton = $40.50

Expenses Expenses

Boat Rent $15.00 Way Bills $4.80

Mule Hire 16.00 Feed 5.00

Way Bills 4.80 $9.80

Feed 5.00

$40.80

Profit $17.70 Profit $30.70

There are few statistics relative to the progress of canal trade from 1894 to 1924. The available 

figures show the steady decline of the waterway as a coal carrier and transportation agency. The 

coal tonnage and toll revenues for this period are: 

COAL TONNAGE TOLLS 

1894 Unavailable $117,622.29 

1895 Unavailable 116.728.40 

1896–1905 Unavailable Unavailable 

1906 Unavailable 59,840.01 

1907 (approx.) 203,000 64,425.92 

 

329 Report of Trustees, Apr. 6, 1901, in Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company vs. Western Maryland Railway Company, 

114–116, 129. 

330 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 269–270, and Washington Evening Star, July 11, 1905. 331 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 270. 
498 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

1908 (approx.) 190,000 62,094.16 

1909 183,694 59,105.66 

1910 170,444 52,965.37 

1911 166,463 43,924.73 

1912 172,556 41,644.24 

1913 176,491 41,407.71 

1914 171,062 42,236.97 

1915 173,997 41,271.46 

1916 158,036 38,956.77 

1917 151,667 40,545.74 

1918 138,087 71,404.43 

1919 133,529 47,346.95 

1920 127,871 62,102.38 

1921 66,477 42,017.33 

1922 Unavailable 3,435.18 

1923 56,404 31,899.32 

1924332 Unavailable 1,215.60 

C. EVALUATION OF CANAL TRADE: 1891–1924 

The chief articles in the canal trade during the receivership period were coal and West Virginia 

limestone. Lesser amounts of wood, bark, lumber, pulpwood, railroad ties, sand and flour were 

transported on the waterway.333 Of these commodities, the most important was coal, which accounted for almost the entire business on the waterway. In fact there apparently were no statistics 

kept for the trade other than those for coal. Most of the coal mined during this period came from 

the Georges Creek region near Frostburg between Piedmont and Cumberland.334 The Consolidation Coal Company, owned by the Baltimore & Ohio, supplied over 99 percent of the business. 

The former transported the coal from its mines to its own wharf at the canal basin in Cumberland 

over the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad, also owned by the Baltimore & Ohio. It shipped 

the coal down the canal in its own fleet of boats, operated by the Canal Towage Company. Thus, 

in effect, the trade on the waterway in the receivership period was limited primarily to that supplied by the Baltimore & Ohio interests for consumption in the local market. 

 During World War I the canal carried coal for the government proving grounds at Indian 

Head, Maryland, some 30 miles down the Potomac from Washington. The canal was nationalized 

on January 1, 1918, and placed under the Inland Waterways Commission, which operated the 

railroads and the coastwise and intercoastal shipping during the war emergency. The commission 

entered into an agreement with the Canal Towage Company to increase the delivery of coal to the 

boats and to facilitate the unloading of the coal at Washington and at government stations along 

the Potomac River. For the first time tugs regularly hauled canal boats with their coal cargoes up 

and down the river below tidewater. It is interesting to note that the war brought a revival of 

 

332 See Appendix 333 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company Papers, 1891–1923, Duke University Library, Durham, North Carolina. Also 

see, Waybills (Manifests of Whole Cargo) Issued at Georgetown, 1893–1919, and Daily Reports of Boats and Cargos 

Arriving and Clearing and Daily Exhibits of Business Transacted, May–July and September, 1923, Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal Company Records, Record Group 79, National Archives. 

334 Interview of George L. Nicholson, January 25, 1939, Misc. NPS Mss. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 499 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

many of the same problems that had plagued canal trade during the Civil War–strikes, increasing 

wages for the boatmen and lock tenders, and draft-related manpower shortages.335

 At no time during the receivership period did the amount of trade on the canal justify the 

continued operation of the waterway. In fact, the commerce continued to decline despite the 

growth of the Washington metropolitan area and the demands of the world war. Among the most 

important reasons for this decline were: 

1. Lack of aggressive leadership. 

2. Obsolescence of the waterway as a transportation line, of Georgetown as a port, and 

of the Potomac River as a channel for competitive trade. 

3. Irregularity of navigation. 

4. Competition of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

5. Interference of navigation by the freshets of 1897, 1902, 1907 and 1914, and by occasional breaches, particularly in the lime sinks of the upper valley.336

The steady decline in the canal trade during the receivership period was also a reflection of the

fact that the Cumberland coal region, which had often been described as inexhaustible, was almost worked out. The production of the Maryland coal reached a peak in 1907 with 5,532,628 

tons, but after that the trend went downward to 4,065,239 tons in 1920 and 3,078,353 tons in 

1926. Along with the reduction in coal production went a disastrous decline in the price of the 

coal and hence its overall value. In 1920 coal sold for $4.63 per ton at the mines, thereby making 

the net value of the Maryland coal $18,822,057, whereas six years later the price had decreased to 

$2.21 per ton, thus reducing the value of the entire Maryland coal production to $6,800,000. The 

miners’ strike of 1922, which was a response to the steady trend downward of employment in the 

western Maryland mines from the peak year in 1912 when some 6,162 had worked there, was 

further evidence of the declining productivity of the mines. The strike itself was a virtual deathblow to the coal fields and the canal alike.337

D. POSSIBILITY OF TRADE AFTER 1924 

The flood in the spring of 1924 provided the opportunity for the railroad to relieve itself 

of the expense of operating the canal. The receivers made little effort to restore the canal 

beyond the Georgetown Level. They authorized only enough repairs to protect what was 

left of the wrecked waterway and to enable them to assert that the canal could quickly be 

put into navigable condition if sufficient business was presented to warrant the effort. The 

canal was left a wreck, but technically arousing concern in which the water rents received 

from the Georgetown mills paid the expenses of a skeleton operating staff. For a brief 

period in 1928–29 the trustees considered opening the canal between Cumberland and 

Williamsport, and in the latter year even had studies made of the cost of such a resumption and of the amount of coal that would be needed to be shipped to justify the necessary 

expenditures for restoration. However, negotiations with the Cumberland coal companies 

 

335 Washington Evening Star, September 26, 1918. 336 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 272. 337 Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Maryland, Coal in the Maryland Economy: 1736–1965

(College Park, 1953), 2–5. 
500 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924 

proved futile, and efforts to resume navigation on the canal ceased with the onset of the 

Great Depression.338

 

338 Report of Trustees, 1922, 1923 and 1924; 1925 and 1926; 1927; 1928; 1930 and 1931, in Receivership Papers. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 501 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX A 

ASCENDING AND DESCENDING TRADE: 1831–1850 

1831 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Fish Barrels 183 

Salt Barrels 901 

Plaster Tons 511⁄2 

Sundries Variety of articles 

DESCENDING 

Tobacco Hogsheads 30 

Wheat Bushels 4,745 

Flour Barrels 71,172 

Bran, Shorts, etc. Bushels 10,003 

Rye and Chop Bushels 446 

Corn Bushels 2,145 

Corn Meal Bushels 300 

Flax and Seed Bushels 0 

Oil Barrels 1 

Hemp, Flax Pounds 5,240 

Whiskey Barrels 1,472 

Hogs Pounds 5,000 

Bacon Pounds 1,700 

Lard and Butter Pounds 2,460 

Leather Pounds 7,790 

Cement Barrels 6 

Stone Perches 32 

Coal Bushels 906 

Iron-Pig, Bar & Castings Tons 74 

Wood Cord 0 

Sundries 6,000 stand of arms1

1832 

(Statistics available only for February 12 to May 31) 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Fish Barrels 1,023 

Salt Bushels 705 

Plaster Tons 3053⁄4 

 

1 Fourth Annual Report (1832), Appendix B, 20ff. 
502 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Sundries Variety of articles 

DESCENDING 

Tobacco Hogsheads 0

Wheat Bushels 8,093

Flour Barrels 91,224

Bran, Shorts Bushels 9,002

Rye and Chop Bushels 1,281

Corn Bushels 1,745

Corn Meal Bushels 0

Flax, Seed Bushels Oats 50 

Flax 10

Oil Barrels 2

Hemp, Flax Pounds 8,900

Whisky Barrels 1,631

Hogs Pounds 9,058

Bacon Pounds 82,500

Lard and Butter Pounds 11,121

Leather Pounds 0

Cement Bushels 15

Stone Perches 5,377

Coal Bushels 300

Iron-Pig, Bar and Castings Tons 21

Wood Cords 1,407

Sundries2 0

[Transcribers Note: There are no entries for 1833 to 1841, see footnote 30, page 11] 

1842 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Salted Fish Barrels 5,294

Plaster Tons 3,206

Sundries Large quantities of salt, 

fresh fish, lumber, laths 

Shingles and groceries 

DESCENDING

Wheat Bushels 214,569

Flour Barrels 151,966

Corn and Oats Bushels 59,199

Mill Offal Bushels 46,472

Coal Bushels 111,293

Lumber Feet, B.M. 916,184

 

2 Fourth Annual Report (1832), Appendix B, 20ff. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 503 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Wood Cords 4,279

Whisky Barrels 1,772

Pig Iron Tons 710

Limestone Perches 2,933

Sundries Large quantities of apples, 

butter, lard, pork, lime, 

cement, barrel and hogshead 

staves.3

1843 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Salted Fish Barrels 3,533 

Salt Tons 1,240 

Plaster Tons 4,259 

Sundries Quantities of fish in bulk, 

lumber and groceries. 

DESCENDING 

Wheat Bushels 142,785 

Flour Barrels 156,242 

Corn Bushels 167,326 

Oats Bushels 38,930 

Corn Meal Bushels 18,942 

Mill Offal Bushels 49,672 

Whisky Barrels 3,398 

Limestone Perches 2,897 

Iron Ore Tons 411 

Bituminous Coal Tons 2,108 

Wood and Bark Cords 5,435 

Pork Pounds 50,324 

Lumber Feet, B.M. 500,000 

Sundries Hay, Straw, Fence Rails, Fruit4

1844 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Salted Fish Barrels 2,075 

Salt Tons 1,295 

Plaster Tons 4,838 

 

3 Fifteenth Annual Report (1843), 11. 4 Sixteenth Annual Report (1844), 46. 
504 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Sundries Considerable quantities of 

fruit, potatoes, turnips, 

hay, straw, shingles, laths, 

coopers’ stuff and groceries 

DESCENDING 

Wheat Bushels 199,620

Flour Barrels 172,796

Whiskey Barrels 4,811

Corn Bushels 173,023

Oats Bushels 39,000

Corn Meal Bushels 15,631

Bran, Mill Offal Bushels 76,683

Wood Cords 6,802

Lime Tons 1,118

Limestone Perches 6,127

Coal Tons 4,871

Pig Iron Tons 443

Lumber Feet, B.M. Approx. 1,000,000

Sundries Considerable quantities of fruit, 

potatoes, turnips, hay straw, 

shingles, laths, coopers’ stuff 

and groceries.5

1845 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL

Salted Fish Barrels 4,569

Salt Tons 1,265

Plaster Tons 4,721

Lumber Feet, B.M. 820,000

Shad & Herring (fresh) Tons 635

Coal Tons 332

Flour Barrels 102

Whiskey Barrels 141

Lime Tons 21

Potatoes Bushels 2,511

Iron Tons 54

Bricks Number 118,225

Wheat Bushels 1,708

Flax, Seed Bushels 21

Oysters Bushels 1,351

Oats Bushels 80

Apples Bushels 22

 

5 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 32–33. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 505 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Sundries Tons 589

DESCENDING 

Wheat Bushels 299,607

Flour Barrels 170,464

Corn Bushels 126,799

Oats Bushels 35,464

Corn Meal Bushels 16,327

Mill Offal Bushels 38,575

Whiskey Barrels 5,396

Apples Bushels 2,685

Lime Tons 1,115

Limestone Perches 2,996

Pork Pounds 15,250

Bacon Pounds 547

Lard and Butter Pounds 5,771

Coal, Bituminous Tons 2,376

Iron Tons 515

Wood Cords 5,411

Flax, Seed Bushels 2,577

Cement Tons 42

Lumber Feet, B.M. 508,083

Potatoes Bushels 1,115

Stone Perches 12,0606

1846 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Salted Fish Barrels 3,475 

Salt Tons 950 

Plaster Tons 3,839 

Lumber Feet, B.M. 1,061,855 

Shad & Herrings (fresh) Tons 406 

Coal Tons 1,003 

Flour Barrels 133 

Whiskey Barrels 20 

Lime Tons 41 

Potatoes Bushels 1,526 

Iron Tons 361 

Bricks Number 440,946 

Flax, Seed Bushels 19 

Oysters Bushels 598 

Corn Bushels 677 

 

6 Eighteenth Annual Report (1846), 38–39. 
506 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Mill Offal Bushels 707

Wood, Bark Cords 90

Cement Tons 17

Iron Ore Tons 410

Bacon Pounds 5,700

Lard and Butter Pounds 64,960

Nails Kegs 128

Tobacco Hogsheads 52

Rails Rails 887

Sundries Tons 1,265

Equivalent to 10,986 tons. 

1846 (Continued) 

DESCENDING UNITS TOTAL 

Wheat Bushels 264,115

Flour Barrels 234,539

Corn Bushels 30,005

Oats Bushels 30,047

Rye Bushels 501

Corn Meal Bushels 8,437

Mill Offal Bushels 63,486

Apples Bushels 8,158

Whiskey Barrels 1,952

Lime Tons 958

Limestone Perches 3,316

Stone Perches 117

Bacon and Pork Pounds 27,047

Lard and Butter Pounds 4,257

Bituminous Coal Tons 1,952

Iron Tons 376

Iron Ore Tons 298

Wood Cords 4,999

Bark Tons 286

Lumber Feet, B.M. 2,851,541

Flax, Seed Bushels 393

Potatoes Bushels 3,021

Nails Kegs 4,739

Cement Barrels 1,105

Hay Tons 109

Bricks Number 17,500

Rails Number 7,378

Shingles, Staves, Laths Number 297,025

Tobacco Hogsheads 92

Sundries Tons 3627

 

7 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), 21–22. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 507 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Descending: Equivalent to 49,161 tons 

Ascending: Equivalent to 10,986 tons 

Total: 60,147 tons 

1847 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL

Salted Fish Barrels 3,732

Salt Tons 988

Plaster Tons 3,829

Lumber Feet, B.M. 770,300

Shad, Herring (fresh) Tons 626

Coal Tons 1,687

Flour Barrels 115

Whiskey Barrels 11

Lime Tons 19

Potatoes Bushels 1,112

Iron Tons 104

Bricks Tons 178,000

Flax, Seeds Bushels 112

Oysters Bushels 919

Corn Meal Bushels 464

Mill Offal Bushels 3,362

Wood, Bark Cords 72

Iron Ore Tons 3,009

Bacon Pounds 9,300

Nails Kegs 202

Round Timber Tons 212

Dry Goods, Groceries 

Sundries Tons 924

Equivalent to 12,809 tons 

1847 (Continued) 

DESCENDING UNITS TOTAL 

Wheat Bushels 235,212

Flour Barrels 176,789

Corn Bushels 238,216

Oats Bushels 32,035

Rye Bushels 5,108

Corn Meal Bushels 17,958

Mill Offal Bushels 87,644

Apples Bushels 1,833

Whiskey Barrels 1,867

Lime Tons 1,180

Limestone Perches 5,499
508 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Wrought Stone Perches 5,656

Bacon, Pork Pounds 26,965

Butter, Lard Pounds 2,843

Coal Tons 2,170

Iron Tons 1,078

Wood Cords 5,450

Bark Cords 954

Lumber Feet, B. M. 1,583,600

Flax, Seeds Bushels 1,197

Potatoes Bushels 2,459

Nails Kegs 11,892

Cement Barrels 2,800

Hay Tons 195

Bricks Tons 45,500

Round Timber Tons 107

Shingles, Staves, 

Laths, Hoop-Poles Tons 955,525

Tobacco Hogsheads 103

Sundries Tons 5268

Descending: Equivalent to 58,631 tons 

Ascending: Equivalent to 12,809 tons 

Total: 71,440 tons 

1848 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Salted Fish Barrels 3,477

Salt Tons 2,133

Plaster Tons 7,310

Coal Tons 880

Shad, Herring (fresh) Tons 535

Lumber Feet, B.M. 1,391,000

Lime Tons 61

Iron Tons 41

Iron Ore Tons 2,575

Flour Barrels 155

Potatoes Bushels 856

Corn Meal Bushels 59

Mill Offal Bushels 278

Oysters Bushels 4,700

Bricks Number 22,000

Dry Goods, Groceries, 

Sundries Tons 1,010

Equivalent to 16,439 tons 

 

8 Twentieth Annual Report (1848), 25, 26. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 509 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

1848 (Continued) 

DESCENDING UNITS TOTAL 

Wheat Bushels 220,025

Flour Barrels 217,112

Corn Bushels 144,103

Corn Meal Bushels 7,266

Rye Bushels 360

Oats Bushels 12,959

Mill Offal Bushels 77,553

Flax, Seed Bushels 852

Potatoes Bushels 2,135

Apples Bushels 7,776

Whiskey Barrels 2,213

Cement Barrels 1,744

Limestone Perches 10,030

Rough Stone Perches 8,879

Lime Tons 1,366

Coal Tons 3,284

Iron Tons 559

Iron Ore Tons 63

Hay Tons 95

Nails Kegs 8,358

Tobacco Hogsheads 38

Wood Cords 6,904

Bark Cords 1,364

Lumber Feet, B.M. 2,080,600

Shingles, Staves, 

Laths, Hoop-Poles Number 993,100

Rails Number 5,425

Round Timber Tons 227

Bricks Number 10,000

Sundries Tons 6859

Descending: Equivalent to 69,997 tons 

Ascending: Equivalent to 16,439 tons 

Total: 86,436 tons 

1849 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Salted Fish Barrels 3,995 

Salt Tons 2,019 

Plaster Tons 6,599 

 

9 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), 32–33. 
510 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Coal Tons 1,236

Coke Tons 2,854

Shad and Herring Tons 434

Lime and Cement Tons 140

Iron Ore Tons 4,025

Manures Tons 324

Bricks Number 42,000

Lumber Feet, B.M. 1,617,000

Dry Goods, Groceries, 

Sundries Tons 946

Equivalent to 20,778 tons 

1849 (Continued) 

DESCENDING UNITS TOTAL 

Wheat Bushels 240,073

Flour Barrels 236,620

Corn Bushels 244,281

Corn Meal Bushels 7,225

Rye Bushels 1,795

Oats Bushels 13,200

Mill Offal Bushels 45,423

Flax, Seed Bushels 1,643

Potatoes Bushels 1,440

Apples Bushels 12,970

Whiskey Barrels 2,674

Cement Barrels 1,382

Limestone Perches 8,662

Stone (rough) Perches 17,750

Lime Tons 723

Coal, Bituminous Tons 5,224

Iron Tons 1,351

Hay Tons 147

Tobacco Hogsheads 200

Nails Kegs 3,682

Wood Cords 5,083

Bark Cords 1,076

Lumber Feet, B.M. 1,560,956

Shingles, Staves, 

Laths, Hoop-Poles Number 783,800

Rails Number 3,906

Bricks Number 39,000

Manures Tons 324

Sundries Tons 74710

Descending: Equivalent to 81,263 tons 

 

10 Twenty-Second Annual Report (1850), 23–24. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 511 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Ascending: Equivalent to 20,778 tons 

Total: 102,041 tons 

1850 

ASCENDING 

ARTICLE UNIT TOTAL 

Ale, Beer, Cider Tons 11 

Liquors, Wines Tons 45 

Fish, Salted & Fresh Tons 758 

Flour, Meal, Grains, Seeds Tons 89 

Bacon, Meats Tons 15 

Furniture, Empty Barrels Tons 238 

Horses, Livestock Tons 1 

Wrought Stone Tons 56 

Hardware, Nails, Wrought Iron Tons 85 

Tar, Pitch, Rosin Tons 18 

Dry Goods Tons 66 

Groceries Tons 643 

Mill Offal Tons 18 

Potatoes, Turnips Tons 142 

Wagons, Carts, Plows Tons 5 

Iron Castings, Bloom Iron Tons 43 

Oysters Tons 61 

Salt Tons 1,607 

Lumber, Laths, Palings, 

Shingles, Hoop-Poles Tons 1,249 

Pig and Scrap Iron Tons 157 

Slates, Tiles Tons 65 

Bricks Tons 61 

Lime, Cement Tons 121 

Rough Stone Perches 19 

Rails, Posts, Timber Tons 12 

Ore Tons 7,455 

Coal Tons 1,783 

Coke Tons 2,205 

Wood Cords 85 

Plaster Tons 5,334 

Manures Tons 561 

Sundries Tons 253

23,261 

1850 (Continued) 

DESCENDING UNITS TOTAL 

Flour Tons 27,120 

Corn Meal, Chop Tons 72 
512 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

Wheat Tons 5,318

Corn Tons 1,726

Rye, Grain, Seeds Tons 18

Apples, Fruit Tons 80

Ale, Beer, Cider, Vinegar Tons 4

Whiskey Tons 412

Tobacco Tons 28

Flax, Hemp, Sumac Tons 1

Bacon, Meats Tons 11

Butter, Lard Tons 21

Furniture, Empty Barrels Tons 54

Wrought Mill, Grindstones Tons 3

Nails Tons 601

Livestock Tons 2

Mill Offal Tons 720

Potatoes, Turnips Tons 24

Bloom, Cast Iron Tons 65

Hay, Straw Tons 233

Oats Tons 166

Lumber, Laths, Palings, 

Staves, Hoop-Poles Tons 2,765

Pig, Scrap Iron Tons 1,196

Bricks Tons 15

Rough Stone Perches 13,303

Lime, Cement Tons 982

Rails, Posts, Timber Tons 108

Coal Tons 7,956

Bark Cords 711

Wood Cords 4,275

Manures Tons 339

Limestone Perches 10,234

Sundries11 Tons 126

Descending: Equivalent to 78,689 tons 

Ascending: Equivalent to 23,261 tons 

Total: 101,950 t 

 

11 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal (1851), 141–142 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 513 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX B 

ASCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 

1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 

1 Ale, 

Beer,

Cider 

33 4 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Liquors, 

Wines 

214 84 62 52 55 58 28 71 36 17 22 

3 Fish, salt 

& fresh 

1,335 455 1,387 1,054 981 960 490 217 248 322 139 

4 Flour, 

meal, 

grains, 

seeds 

204 137 99 316 613 252 362 244 508 942 674 

5 Bacon, 

meats 

28 14 17 16 25 8 8 0 0 0 0 

6 Furniture,

empty 

barrels 

268 270 326 145 201 161 177 82 43 48 69 

7 Horses, 

livestock 

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 Wrought 

stone 

164 38 34 2 14 0 5 398 41 0 0 

9 Hardware, 

wrought 

iron, 

nails 

171 199 132 49 65 82 32 29 4 0 0 

10 Tar, 

pitch, 

rosin 

27 26 14 14 12 0 0 4 3 0 

11 Dry 

goods 

199 80 79 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

12 Groceries 642 402 658 543 473 356 195 178 220 74 58 

13 Mill 

offal 

2 0 0 0 37 10 8 0 0 0 0 

14 Potatoes, 

turnips 

45 48 63 40 45 19 10 38 37 7 0 

15 Wagons, 

carts, 

plows 

18 5 23 19 11 0 3 0 0 0 0 

16 Iron 

castings, 

bloom 

iron 

65 8 28 43 47 140 22 0 11 67 15 

17 Oysters 63 53 53 9 58 16 18 39 38 6 0 

18 Hay, 

straw, 

oats 

10 41 0 4 11 0 0 16 0 0 7 

19 Salt 2,263 2,851 2,433 1,852 2,342 1,762 1,539 1,945 1,556 1,385 604 

20 Lumber, 

laths,

palings, 

etc. 

1,534 1,484 1,983 1,494 1,748 1,679 1,366 884 947 853 143 
514 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

21 Pig and 

scrap 

iron 

295 51 48 309 20 151 584 0 0 0 0 

22 Slates, 

tiles 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23 Bricks 167 46 435 72 4,629 138 4,827 2,833 40 455 0 

24 Lime, 

cement 

130 18 156 51 436 37 2,050 8,344 59 758 0 

25 Rough 

stone 

(perches) 

119 0 0 20 110 0 0 1,433 0 95 0 

26 Rails, 

posts, 

timber 

144 20 0 9 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 

27 Ore 5,239 2,715 5,074 5,220 3,721 3,903 3,069 190 0 0 0 

28 Coal 109 206 238 467 241 135 183 670 326 235 0 

29 Coke 955 0 0 145 160 0 340 0 0 0 0 

1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 

30 Bark 

(cords) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

31 Wood 

(cords) 

32 75 140 0 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 

32 Plaster 6,567 5,489 6,390 3,298 3,774 2,276 2,136 2,813 2,735 2,241 856 

33 Manures 1,079 1,325 1,410 3,302 3,031 2,297 1,300 1,504 1,739 1,898 643 

34 Sand 630 0 0 0 1,831 527 2,323 7,365 0 417 0 

35 Hides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

36 Ashes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

37 Timber 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

38 Sundries 198 82 227 74 93 22 27 103 38 76 20 

39 TOTAL 22,951 16,226 21,495 18,724 24,839 15,028 21,152 29,396 8,630 9,899 3,250 

 ASCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 (Continued) 

1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 

1 Ale, Beer, 

Cider 

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 57 18 22 9 

2 Liquors, 

Wines 

8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 Fish, salt & 

fresh 

162 200 110 104 172 277 240 297 169 305 250 

4 Flour, 

meal, 

grains, 

seeds 

33 21 49 100 361 128 131 158 122 149 209 

5 Bacon, 

meats 

0 0 0 0 0 0 50 15 28 14 5 

6 Furniture, 

empty barrels 

118 39 17 47 100 139 173 91 184 523 270 

7 Horses, 

livestock 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 

8 Wrought 

stone 

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 5 84 90 

9 Hardware, 

wrought 

iron, nails 

0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 24 21 164 

10 Tar, pitch, 

rosin 

0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 8 28 2 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 515 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

11 Dry goods 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 193 266 258 223 

12 Groceries 166 46 5 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 17 

13 Mill offal 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 24 8 46 23 

14 Potatoes, 

turnips 

9 46 0 0 0 0 6 4 4 0 0 

15 Wagons, 

carts, plows 

0 0 0 0 0 0 172 97 41 34 17 

16 Iron castings, bloom 

iron 

0 38 0 0 0 0 24 479 115 27 7 

17 Oysters 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 3 4 9 

18 Hay, straw, 

oats 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 45 1,418 

19 Salt 478 535 545 498 873 794 1,362 1,280 1,296 2,043 1,014 

20 Lumber, 

laths, palings, etc. 

131 102 207 543 607 705 975 1,923 933 1,929 1,028 

21 Pig and 

scrap iron 

0 354 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 6 18 

22 Slates, tiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23 Bricks 0 50 24 0 6 146 28 18 96 201 67 

24 Lime, cement 81 25 19 0 51 50 126 90 43 49 34 

25 Rough 

stone 

(perches) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 

26 Rails, 

posts, timber 

0 0 0 0 0 0 19 8 9 37 2 

27 Ore 0 0 0 0 2,478 5,067 2,618 7,000 5,801 8,960 11,090 

28 Coal 61 80 10 0 90 147 120 262 177 192 233 

29 Coke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 

1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 

30 Bark 

(cords) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

31 Wood 

(cords) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 171 298 0 0 70 

32 Plaster 274 574 382 664 682 1,328 1,181 792 879 943 379 

33 Manures 1,029 632 477 647 1,062 959 1,845 1,476 913 1,780 1,482 

34 Sand 0 80 0 0 0 0 234 1,164 867 672 1,484 

35 Hides 0 0 0 0 0 234 396 345 528 2 0 

36 Ashes 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 91 0 99 428 

37 Timber 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 4 153 22 3 

38 Sundries & 

Ice 

53 94 46 104 166 186 30 29 22 53 13 

39 TOTAL 2,603 2,936 1,891 2,707 6,648 10,160 10,479 14,238 12,719 18,552 20,060 

ASCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 (Continued) 

1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878

1 Ale, Beer, Cider 22 3 3 7 

2 Liquors, Wines 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Fish, salt & fresh 245 149 51 44 54 13

4 Flour, meal, grains, seeds 126 90 475 235 

5 Bacon, meats 1 6 5 5 

6 Furniture, empty barrels 255 260 283 221 
516 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

7 Horses, livestock 0 0 2 4

8 Wrought stone 3 0 8 3

9 Hardware, wrought iron, nails 1 1 7 13

10 Tar, pitch, rosin 0 43 1 0

11 Dry goods 236 169 169 97

12 Groceries 0 0 0 0

13 Mill offal 20 6 31 4

14 Potatoes, turnips 0 0 0 0

15 Wagons, carts, plows 13 6 10 16

16 Iron castings, bloom iron 0 4 0 0

17 Oysters 6 9 6 2

18 Hay, straw, oats 690 235 77 364

19 Salt 1,906 1,157 1,164 790 711 791 

20 Lumber, laths, palings, etc. 1,147 627 443 347

21 Pig and scrap iron 23 10 0 2

22 Slates, tiles 0 5 52 1

23 Bricks 162 149 14 46

24 Lime, cement 47 29 121 157

25 Rough stone (perches) 0 30 9 14

26 Rails, posts, timber 50 29 25 65

27 Ore 8,458 6,380 2,560 0

28 Coal 280 295 241 530

29 Coke 0 0 0 12

30 Bark (cords) 0 0 4 0

1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 

31 Wood (cords) 0 25 55 64

32 Plaster 1,610 1,883 2,075 2,484 4,975 3,446 

33 Manures 418 1,552 1,633 1,981 1,219 2,511 

34 Sand 414 694 295 4

35 Ice & Hides 0 75 416 26

36 Corn, (in ear) 119 31 20 2

37 Apples, Melons, etc. 0 14 51 6

38 Sundries 19 12 32 162

39 TOTAL 16,271 13,978 10,338 7,711 6,959 6,76112

 

12 Annual Reports, Statements of Articles Transported, 1850–78, C & O Co 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 517 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX C 

 

DESCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 

1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 

1 Flour 25,761 26,755 25,602 15,643 14,240 14,853 10,967 11,007 12,106 11,087 

2 Corn 

Meal, 

Chop 

317 199 204 136 33 41 95 68 79 31 

3 Wheat 6,861 9,805 9,966 5,417 6,986 9,017 3,750 4,402 5,531 5,452 

4 Corn 5,783 4,755 8,327 2,618 628 6,893 5,592 6,275 4,931 3,048 

5 Rye, 

grains, 

seeds 

111 98 111 39 12 58 10 329 79 35 

6 Apples, 

fruit 

29 99 68 18 55 615 71 20 5 0 

7 Ale, 

beer,

cider, 

vinegar 

4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

8 Whiskey 432 450 326 250 133 242 248 293 160 51 

9 Tobacco 44 25 56 11 2 3 0 3 12 11 

10 Flax, 

hemp. 

Sumac 

14 13 14 10 1 0 0 25 24 0 

11 Bacon, 

meats 

84 25 96 13 77 66 0 29 0 0 

12 Butter, 

lard 

12 21 31 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 

13 Furniture,

empty 

barrels 

297 199 349 297 295 414 82 92 99 150 

14 Wrought 

mill, 

grindstones 1 0 3 1 3 120 0 0 0 0 

15 Wrought 

iron, 

hardware 25 7 4 4 11 0 0 0 742 0 

16 Nails 645 108 159 56 0 0 00 0 0 0 

17 Livestock 8 0 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 

18 Mill 

offal 

994 832 1,131 533 388 425 288 549 391 518 

19 Potatoes, 

turnips 114 27 66 71 2 0 21 22 12 12 

20 Bloom, 

cast iron 4 8 94 68 9 43 8 561 0 1,266 

21 Hay, 

straw 

276 143 470 318 226 104 137 102 253 227 

22 Oats 262 116 113 77 77 158 160 228 261 205 

23 Lumber, 

laths,

palings, 

2,736 2,640 3,606 2,588 3,051 3,209 1,847 2.669 2,810 0 
518 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

24 Charcoal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

25 Pig, 

scrap 

iron 

910 1,650 2,418 201 2,505 2,541 1,212 372 225 50 

26 Bricks 48 277 95 2,094 1,771 727 842 434 1,934 1,346 

27 Rough 

stone 

(perches) 31,856 20,136 12,109 13,709 17,722 7,608 4,890 10,171 1,727 8,030 

28 Lime, 

cement 

1,312 1,112 2,223 2,313 2,141 1,379 1,618 2,293 558 679 

29 Rails, 

posts, 

timber 287 268 238 117 124 107 236 75 10 23 

1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 

30 Ore 37 0 1,098 2,485 365 0 0 0 0 0 

31 Coal 82,690 63,289 151,959 145,319 188,029 205,568 123,526 254,684 300,743 283,249 

32 Coke 1,161 2,346 4,593 3,633 3,060 3,110 2,045 0 0 0 

33 Bark 

(cords) 

940 679 1,429 1,667 1,467 1,921 1,361 869 1,351 1,728 

34 Wood 

(cords) 

4,776 4,308 3,927 3,018 3,820 3,657 3,266 2,921 3,488 2,671 

35 Manures 448 206 576 255 509 342 0 84 0 321 

36 Limestone 

(perches) 

11,501 10,260 17,176 13,500 10,007 9,057 11,367 13,149 13,424 11,425 

37 Sand 0 207 427 555 533 464 2,306 12,388 0 95 

38 Sundries 162 290 146 138 107 66 27 78 131 84 

39 Descending 

TOTAL 

180,942 151,369 249,210 217,199 258,413 272,808 175,373 324,192 351,086 334,533 

Ascending 

TOTAL 

22,951 16,226 21,495 18,724 24,839 15,028 21,152 29,396 8,630 9,999 

Aggregate 

TOTAL 

203,893 167,595 270,705 235,923 283,252 287,836 196,525 353,588 359,716 344,532 

DESCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 (Continued) 

1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 

1 Flour 7,067 7,340 8,566 5,962 5,383 2,620 3,058 2,120 2,220 

2 Corn Meal, 

Chop 

89 0 35 90 69 106 1,008 205 71 

3 Wheat 4,286 6,640 9,014 6,168 5,700 4,946 9,510 9,164 15,147 

4 Corn 1,941 1,027 1,789 1,914 775 6,307 10,794 5,502 2,339 

5 Rye, grains, 

seeds 

14 23 6 6 0 0 29 41 43 

6 Apples, fruit 0 0 0 34 0 322 0 7 130 

7 Ale, beer, 

cider, vinegar 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 

8 Whiskey 24 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

9 Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 

10 Flax, hemp. 

Sumac 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 

11 Bacon, meats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 

12 Butter, lard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 

13 Furniture, 

empty barrels 

29 60 104 158 0 0 0 29 23 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 519 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

14 Wrought mill, 

grindstones 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15 Wrought iron, 

hardware 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

16 Nails 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

17 Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 

18 Mill offal 520 534 395 254 250 228 217 211 205 

19 Potatoes, 

turnips 

0 0 7 53 0 0 0 64 0 

20 Bloom, cast 

iron 

0 0 0 0 0 17 0 46 0 

21 Hay, straw 236 175 165 417 265 221 35 42 12 

22 Oats 205 40 44 623 87 162 162 92 99 

23 Lumber, 

laths, palings, 

1,994 1,693 1,403 1,248 1,216 3051 2,936 1,097 

24 Charcoal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 26 

25 Pig, scrap 

iron 

50 0 1,103 237 292 612 1,785 2,225 3,782 

26 Bricks 72 499 87 378 0 340 404 3,057 1,145 

27 Rough stone 

(perches) 

2,852 760 19 390 2,900 589 2,970 4,503 4,161 

28 Lime, cement 467 49 794 601 1,004 2,080 3,143 1,975 1,985 

29 Rails, posts, 

timber 

35 15 80 93 0 0 0 131 54 

1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 

30 Ore 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 2,236 360 

31 Coal 119,893 94,819 229,416 260,368 340,736 344,160 458,009 484,849 661,828 

32 Coke 0 0 0 0 0 359 0 0 0 

33 Bark (cords) 97 335 647 837 544 1,115 705 980 1,104 

34 Wood (cords) 3,773 8,025 4,513 3,888 3,971 2,900 1,931 2,016 2,492 

35 Manures 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 

36 Limestone 

(perches) 

642 1,936 4,650 4,727 6,386 7,845 10,091 16,148 11,204 

37 Sand 416 0 0 315 0 0 4,208 2,265 40 

38 Sundries & 

Ice 

53 182 74 120 50 28 90 552 190 

39 Descending 

TOTAL 

144,814 124,190 262,911 288,881 369,628 376,750 511,242 541,508 709,700 

Ascending 

TOTAL 

8,250 2,603 2,936 1,891 2,707 6,658 10,160 10,479 14,238 

Aggregate 

TOTAL 

148,064 126,793 265,847 290,772 372,335 383,408 521,402 552,987 723,938 

DESCENDING TRADE: 1851–1878 (Continued) 

1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 

1 Flour 1,845 2,025 980 1,744 1,526 1,000 734 519 634 

2 Corn Meal & 

Chop 

299 108 177 4 4 19 291 

3 Wheat 11,710 14,369 8,416 8,569 9,780 8,894 11,754 10,048 14,005 

4 Corn 2,929 5,005 3,844 3,285 5,312 3,553 6,723 5,382 2,489 

5 Rye, grains, 

seeds 

58 62 197 67 107 73 166 

6 Apples, fruit 102 74 135 46 24 56 11 

7 Ale, beer, 

cider, vinegar 

13 5 31 4 39 10 6 

8 Whiskey 17 14 2 0 0 0 0 

9 Tobacco 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 
520 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

10 Flax, hemp. 

Sumac 

81 158 136 11 111 289 208 

11 Bacon & 

other meats 

0 10 5 1 6 0 1 

12 Butter, lard 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 

13 Furniture, 

empty barrels 

22 76 79 57 41 147 32 

14 Wrought mill, 

grindstones 

20 252 361 0 1,601 700 0 

15 Wrought iron, 

hardware 

1 4 59 0 5 2 1 

16 Nails 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

17 Livestock 0 3 9 1 5 30 19 

18 Mill offal 254 239 75 390 233 70 157 

19 Potatoes, 

turnips 

8 23 6 0 0 0 31 

20 Iron, bloom 

and cast 

3 10 27 20 4 14 17 

21 Hay, straw 67 220 235 192 215 153 127 

22 Oats 196 109 27 74 67 25 52 

23 Lumber, 

laths, palings, 

968 2,410 1,761 1,582 1,102 1,270 1,696 353 1,665 

24 Charcoal, Ice, 

Fire Clay 

74 1,200 1,850 26 0 39 0 

25 Iron, pig & 

scrap 

1,833 4,247 3,730 1,874 3,053 669 172 

26 Sand 245 751 142 

27 Bricks 4,073 23,840 12,308 4,086 1,303 2,456 0 

28 Rough stone 

(perches) 

4,133 15,177 31,243 15,994 12,146 11,462 6,416 4,357 1,364 

29 Lime, cement 608 9,473 4,970 4,700 5,602 7,596 1,533 4,478 12,151 

1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 

30 Rails, posts, 

timber 

0 75 618 237 87 319 1,751 

31 Wagons, 

Coke, Ice 

0 1 0 0 60 2.965 438 

32 Coal 696,707 848.199 814,335 796,717 836,996 904,898 654,409 623,096 630,292 

33 Plaster, Coal 

Anthracite 

0 70 102 10 152 

34 Bark (cords) 161 4,501 1,370 434 275 462 0 

35 Wood (cords) 2,289 3,635 2,499 4,336 1,349 1,077 292 

36 Manures 0 30 51 145 1,198 44 1,008 

37 Limestone 

(perches) 

10,451 14,145 12,916 12,868 13,666 14,559 28 

38 Leather or 

Ore 

82 4 64 200 0 253 13,191 

39 Sundries 25 250 42 55 69 90 

40 Descending 

TOTAL 

649,053 950,275 903,521 864,359 895,981 963,467 701,419

Ascending 

TOTAL 

12,719 18,552 20,060 16,271 13,978 10,338 7,711 6,959 6,761

Aggregate 

TOTAL 

661,772 968,827 923,581 880,630 909,959 973,805 709,130 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 521 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX D 

TOLLS COLLECTED 1830–1850 

TOLLS COLLECTED ON POTOMAC RIVER AND POTOMAC COMPANY WORKS 

JUNE 1828 TO OCTOBER 31, 1830 $33,281.26 

OCTOBER 31, 1830 TO DECEMBER 31, 1830 142.61 

TOTAL $33,423.87 

TOLLS COLLECTED ON CHESAPEAKE & OHIOCANAL 

ASCENDING DESCENDING TOTAL 

1830 $2,044.36 

1831 32,992.66 

1832 24,976.02 

1833 16,663.49 

1834 20,131.62 

1835 26,568.15 

1836 28,769.33 

1837 26,702.49 

1838 34,958.55 

1839 47,865.94 

1840 43,808.02 

1841 57,012.29 

1842 56,005.80 

1843 44,540.51 

1844 52,674.24 

1845 51,810.70 

184613 $6,078.81 $47,278.38 53,357.19 

1847 6,774.80 45,665.55 52,440.35 

1848 8,405.40 45,740.81 54,146.21 

1849 9,188.84 52,634.33 61,823.17 

185014 9,628.21 54,813.81 64,442.02

$853,733.11 

 

13 Prior to 1846, the tolls from the ascending and descending trade were not kept separately. 

14 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal, Appendix K, 152. 
522 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX E 

TOLLS COLLECTED 1851–1889 

ASCENDING DESCENDING TOTAL

1851 $14,499.67 $96,004.76 $110,504.43

1852 10,846.14 81,402.76 92,248.90

1853 15,430.73 129,669.81 145,100.54

1854 12,906.48 106,399.55 119,306.03

1855 15,528.17 123,147.67 138,675.84

1856 14,306.70 138,744.66 153,051.36

1857 8,664.16 86,138.21 94,802.37

1858 171,084.91

1859 189,134.57

1860 182,343.86

1861 5,234.27 65,332.72 70,566.99

1862 63,985.85

1863 154,928.26

1864 10,690.09 215,207.25 225,897.34

1865 14,531.52 331,633.95 346,165.47

1866 15,085.78 340,574.98 355,660.76

1867 20,541.44 354,391.31 374,932.75

1868 21,717.54 255,261.17 276,978.71

1869 368,483.42

1870 342,644.40

1871 37,029.86 447,989.79 485,019.65

1872 34,646.37 424,988.22 459,654.59

1873 482,528.57

1874 33,690.82 466,725.42 500,416.24

1875 458,534.66

1876 290,274.39

1877 13,272.57 174,484.09 187,756.66

1878 14,861.98 267,319.20 282,181.18

1879 12,640.22 222,330.30 234,970.52

1880 361,757.68

1881 12,446.01 271,989.58 284,435.59

1882 7,511.84 136,218.92 143,730.76

1883 15,975.03 269,058.97 284,234.00

1884 8,249.06 127,444.53 135,693.59

1885 9,561.14 97,379.25 106,940.39

1886 7,057.92 74,660.81 81,718.73

1887 110,667.83

1888 6,609.17 114,609.08 121,218.25

188915 20,500.34

 

15 Annual Reports 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 523 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX F 

TOLLS COLLECTED 1891–1924 

1891 

1892 $135,979.89

1893 130,923.35

1894 117,622.29

1895 116,728.40

1896–190516

1906 59,840.01

1907 64,425.92

1908 62,094.16

1909 59,105.66

1910 52,965.37

1911 77,527.55

1912 41,644.24

1913 41,407.71

1914 42,236.97

1915 41,271.46

1916 38,956.77

1917 40,545.74

1918 71,404.43

1919 47,346.95

1920 62,102.38

1921 42,017.33

1922 3,435.18

1923 31,899.32

192417 1,215.60

 

16 No statistics available on tolls received. 

17 Tolls are given after deduction for rebates. 

Source: Reports of Trustees, Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 308. 
524 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX G: 

CANAL TRADE 1850–1876 

TOTAL 

TONNAGE

ASCENDING 

TONNAGE

DESCENDING 

TONNAGE

AVERAGE 

DISTANCE OF 

ARTICLES 

TRANSPORTED

AVERAGE 

TOLL 

PAID 

PER MILE

TOTAL 

TOLLS

1850 101,950 23,261 78,689 56 Miles 1.128 $34,442

1851 203,893 22,951 180,942 102.20 0.542 110,504.43

1852 167,595 16,226 151,369 102.50 0.554 92,248.90

1853 270,705 21,495 249,210 127.67 0.536 145,100.54

1854 235,923 18,724 217,199 132.00 0.557 119,306.03

1855 283,252 24,839 258,413 137.00 0.489 138,675.84

1856 287,836 15,028 272,808 147.50 0.566 153,051.36

1857 196,525 21,152 175,373 132.50 0.482 94,802.37

1858 353,588 29,396 324,192 133.50 0.484 171,084.91

1859 359,716 8,630 351,086 163.50 0.315 189,134.57

1860 344,532 9,999 334,533 160.00 0.315 182,343.86

1861 148,064 8,250 144,814 147.25 0.310 70,566.99

1862 126,793 2,603 124,190 147.00 0.343 63,985.85

1863 265,847 2,936 262,911 166.00 0.350 154,928.26

1864 290,772 1,891 288,881 165.00 0.452 225,897.37

1865 372,335 2,707 369,628 171.00 0.554 346,165.47

1866 383,408 6,658 376,750 169.00 0.550 355,660.76

1867 521,402 10,160 511,242 167.00 0.430 374,932.75

1868 552,987 10,479 541,508 163.00 0.320 276,978.71

1869 723,938 14,238 709,700 163.00 0.320 368,483.42

1870 661,772 12,719 649,053 161.00 0.320 342,644.40

1871 968,827 18,552 950,275 161.00 0.310 485,019.65

1872 923,581 20,060 903,521 162.00 0.307 459,654.59

1873 880,630 16,271 864,359 163.00 0.337 482,528.57

1874 909,959 13,978 895,981 165.00 0.333 500,416.24

1875 973,805 10,338 963,464 164.00 0.287 458,534.66

1876 709,130 7,711 701,419 163.00 0.239 18290,274.39

 

18 Statements of Articles Transported, 1850–76, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 525 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX H: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1842–1877 

FROSTBURG 

REGION 

PIEDMONT 

REGION 

VIA B&O 

R.R. 

VIA C&O 

CANAL 

VIA PA. 

R.R. TOTAL 

1842 1,708 1,708 1,708

1843 10,082 10,082 10,082

1844 14,890 14,890 14,890

1845 24,653 24,653 24,653

1846 29,995 29,995 29,795

1847 52,940 52,940 52,940

1848 79,571 79,571 79,571

1849 142,449 142,449 142,449

1850 196,848 192,806 4,042 196,848

1851 257,679 174,701 82,978 257,679

1852 334,178 268,459 65,719 334,178

1853 460,254 73,725 376,219 157,760 533,979

1854 478,378 181,303 503,836 155,845 659,681

1855 369,457 292,915 478,486 183,786 662,272

1856 394,475 311,975 502,330 204,120 706,450

1857 278,490 303,996 465,912 116,574 582,486

1858 368,278 281,378 395,405 254,251 649,656

1859 418,680 305,674 426,512 297,842 724,354

1860 447,047 341,862 493,031 295,878 788,909

1861 147,460 122,214 172,075 97,599 269,674

1862 211,425 106,109 218,950 98,684 317,634

1863 445,675 302,670 531,553 216,792 748,345

1864 613,444 44,552 399,354 258,642 657,996

1865 832,150 71,345 560,293 343,202 903,495

1866 988,467 90,964 736,153 343,178 1,079,331

1867 1,121,290 72,532 735,669 458,153 1,193,822

1868 1,241,785 88,658 848,118 482,325 1,330,443

1869 1,798,945 83,724 1,230,518 653,151 1,882,669

1870 1,628,052 89,02319 1,112,938 604,137 1,717,075

1871 2,167,482 177,681 1,494,814 850,339 2,345,153

1872 2,148,666 206,805 1,517,347 816,103 22,021 2,355,471

1873 2,492,716 181,375 1,745,429 778,802 114,589 2,674,101

1874 2,243,754 166,636 1,576,160 767,064 67,671 2,410,895

1875 2,188,436 154,337 1,392,237 879,838 160,698 2,342,773

1876 1,718,853 116,228 1,032,285 632,440 131,866 1,835,081

1877 1,574,339 818,45920 584,996 170,884 1,574,339

27,323,253 4,167,52321 20,739,908 10,683,240 667,729 32,090,877

 

19 From 1870, this figure includes coal mined in West Virginia 

20 This figure includes 36,394 tons used on the line of the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad and its 

branches and at Cumberland and Piedmont. Also, 94,362 tons were used by the B & O Railroad in its locomotive rolling mills, etc. 
526 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX I: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1872, 1873, 1874 & 1875 

SHIPMENTS BY CUMBERLAND COAL COMPANIES 

187222 187323 187424 187525

Firebricks 459 19 39 

Lumber 208 268 382 

Other Articles 97 46 34 

American Coal Company 127,740 129,387 122,649 122,612 

Borden Company 107,436 109,788 111,443 182,092 

Consolidated Coal Company 215,804 96,244 135,619 171,905 

George’s Creek Coal & Iron Co. 40,751 40,667 38,624 24,223 

Hampshire & Baltimore Coal Co. 41,218 54,043 52,908 53,645 

Maryland Company 60,632 110,663 157,104 195,890 

New Central Company 145,976 156,340 100,179 93,036 

Keystone Coal Company 4,849

Blaen Avon Company 35,916 34,074 

Atlantic Coal Company 12,060 1,413 

Individuals 64,988 100,703

Gas Coal Company 65,642 25,904 

TOTAL 805,309 797,838 836,997 905,249 

 21 Of this sum, 35,149 tons of coal were shipped to the canal via Piedmont and the B & O Railroad. 

22 Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), Table M 23 Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), Table H 24 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), Table H 25 Forty-Eighth Annual Report (1876), Table H 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 527 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX J: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1872, 1873, 1874 & 1875 

POINTS TO WHICH COAL SHIPMENTS WERE MADE 

187226 187327 187428 187529

Georgetown 786,951 763,403 794,241 858,673 

Point of Rocks & Knoxville 589 598 304 417 

Harpers Ferry 507 534 1,013 782 

Antietam 10,043 4,371 6,204 1,451 

Shepherdstown 3,011 3,186 2,301 1,337 

Williamsport 9,599 22,367 29,395 39,435 

Hancock 1,789 1,701 1,345 1,180 

Berlin (Brunswick) 243 209 318 106 

Monocacy & Other Points 487 227 

Oldtown & Sharpsburg 331 211 167 244 

Mercerville & Falling Waters 327 343 710 211 

Four Locks (and Two Locks) 481 724 549 450 

White’s & Conrad’s Ferry 185 328 271 

Noland’s Ferry 117 

TOTAL 814,358 797,838 836,997 904,784 

 

26 Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), Table M 27 Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), Table H 28 Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), Table H 

29 Forty-Eighth Annual Report (1876), Table H 
528 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX K: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1877 

GENERAL COAL SHIPMENTS–1877 

TONNAGE

Fire Bricks 827.17

Lumber 291.00

Other Articles 171.10

American Company 92,044.05

Borden Company 70,542.12

Consolidated Coal Company 125,183.04

New Central Company 127,068.14

Maryland Company 99,796.13

Hampshire and Baltimore Coal Company 34,132.18

Blaen Avon Company 31,647.04

Gas Coal 22,681.04

TOTAL30 603,096.14

 

30 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), 24. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 529 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX L: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1879–1888 

DESTINATIONS OF COAL SHIPMENTS 

TO: 

Georgetown 

1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

American 

Coal Company 

67,805 87,276 39,201 37,71

7 

89,516 31,38

5 

1,141 

Borden Mining Company 83,551 98,918 104,49

7 

37,86

6 

71,194 49,39

3 

68,05

7 

44,83

6 

28,94

2 

17,279 

Blaen Avon 

Coal Co. 

35,129 43,694 23,817 7,012 58,185 306 232 426 

Consolidation Coal 

Co. 

111,23

2 

132,13

3 

137,09

3 

59,89

1 

109,87

1 

90,13

3 

71,75

7 

66,45

8 

78,13

6 

73,371 

Georges 

Creek Coal 

14,284 38,116 37,324 14,65

4 

92,541 62,87

6 

93,18

9 

67,93

8 

84,83

1 

106,18

3 

Gas Coal 

Company 

22,584 3,067 17,62

3 

Hampshire 

& Balt. Coal 

15,145 3,138 14,335 

Keystone 

Coal Company 

1,745 561 404 

Maryland 

Coal Company 

43,274 88,204 41,093 38,06

8 

121,91

6 

25,73

9 

71,75

4 

46,85

2 

2,561 

New Central 

Coal Co. 

90,243 67,722 60,986 33,36

6 

32,716 468 352 

“Gas,” Sinclair Company 6,561 8,731 

Gaston Coal 

Company 

3,947 4,288 4,001 3,926 780 3,199 2,208 

Despard 

Coal Company 

1,485 1,548 1,501 1,482 1,528 2,061 1,841 227 

Elk Garden 

Company 

350 6,773 

Piedmont 

Coal & Iron 

5,755 926 474 

Buffalo Valley Company 2,252 

Cumberland 

& Elk Lick 

3,487 

National 

Coal Company 

3,295 13,731 4,905 219 
530 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

WV Central 

& Pittsburgh 

12,013 12,21

3 

20,422 

Pennsylvania Gas 

Co. 

16,907 16,27

4 

13,87

6 

4146 

Rafferty Gas 

Company 

7,386 4,137 

Bigley 

“Gas” Company 

4,909 8,841 776 

Youghiogha

ny Gas Co. 

3,478 3,869 3,806 

Beverly Gas 

Company 

1,138 225 

Charles Garden Company 14,491 

TOTALS 484,99

6 

577,30

5 

477,42

3 

273,83

3 

639,79

9 

296,31

6 

339,69

0 

239,51

8 

201,47

2 

211,32

5 

TO: Williamsport 

1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Borden 

Mining & 

Coal Co. 

16,824 1,302 413 117 336 111 114 111 

Blaen Avon 

Coal Company 

781 1,253 112 159 

Consolidation Coal 

Company 

14,987 25,812 35,378 36,279 54,504 56,387 45,042 47,278 62,160 51,264 

Gas Coal 

Co. 

217 316 

Hampshire 

& Balt. 

Coal Co. 

220 

Maryland 

Coal Co. 

2,728 3,832 1,784 

New Central Coal 

Co. 

104 

Cumberland & Elk 

Lick Co. 

339 365 

Gas Coal 

Co. 

344 227 

Piedmont 

Coal & Iron 

Co. 

2,991 

American 

Coal Co. 

116 4,424 4,599 5,603 1,916 

Georges 

Creek Coal 

452 5,192 443 439 225 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 531 

Unrau: 8. Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

& Iron Co. 

Newburgh 

& Orrel 

Gas Co. 

118 228 105 

National 

Coal Co. 

7,152 15,397 645 

Elk Garden 

Co. 

8,474 20,502 

TOTALS 35,760 33,003 38,109 39,981 62,951 78,425 55,479 53,325 73,105 72,104 

TO: Hancock 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Borden Mining & Coal 

Co. 

308 228 542 110 104 310 1,258 

Blaen Avon Coal Co. 338 59 62 105 230 

Consolidation Coal Co. 772 438 757 667 225 545 328 159 112 

Keystone Coal Company 84 

American Coal Co. 117 427 317 543 620 624 114 

Maryland Coal Co. 98 218 

Cumberland & Elk Lick 

Co. 

117 

New Central Coal Co. 125 

National Coal Co. 115 115 113 320 113 

Piedmont Coal & Iron 

Co. 

90 

Georges Creek Coal & 

Iron Co. 

109 118 552 519 950 

Elk Garden Co. 518 652 

TOTALS 1,418 811 1,577 1,095 1,424 1,438 1,832 1,576 2,053 2,023 

TO: Harpers Ferry 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Consolidation Coal Co. 331 222 180 

Piedmont Coal & Iron 

Co. 

329 

Hampshire & Balt. Coal 

Co. 

432 

Borden Mining & Coal 

Co. 

81 24 

George’s Creek Coal & 

Iron Co 

121 

American Coal Co. 333 225 112 

TOTALS 763 552 180 0 81 0 333 24 346 112 

TO: Shepherdstown 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Blaen Avon Coal Company 52 327 216 

Consolidation Coal 

Company 

423 1550 2,180 540 559 561 458 535 431 565 

Piedmont Coal & Iron 

Co. 

215 

Maryland Coal Company 108 108 

Borden Mining & Coal 

Co. 

99 
532 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

New Central Coal 

Company 

227 110 

American Coal Company 215 1,686 2,297 113 

National Coal Company 226 337 102 102 

Elk Garden Company 99 236 

Georges Creek Coal & 

Iron Co. 

114 111 180 334 

Keystone Coal Company 210 

TOTALS 584 2,429 2,390 982 2,583 3,502 572 750 711 1,136 

TO: Four Locks 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Borden Mining & Coal 

Co. 

333 

Consolidation Coal Co. 93 

New Central Coal Co. 113 

TOTALS 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TO: Conrad’s Ferry 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Blaen Avon Coal Co. 315 

Maryland Coal Co. 101 

TOTALS 416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TO: Berlin (Brunswick) 

1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Consolidation Coal Co. 182 325 303 180 

Big Vein (Pa.) 92 

Piedmont Coal & Iron 

Co. 

109 

National Coal Co. 105 118 

TOTALS 182 325 505 180 105 118 0 0 0 0 

TO: White’s Ferry 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Blaen Avon Coal Co. 305 646 207 

National Coal Co. 227 267 341 

TOTALS 0 305 646 227 474 341 0 0 0 0 

TO: Knoxville 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

New Central Coal Co. 116 355 112 

Consolidation Coal Co. 123 118 

Piedmont Coal & Iron 

Co. 

110 116 

TOTALS 0 350 355 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TO: Point of Rocks 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 

Blaen Avon Coal Co. 106 220 

National Coal Co. 101 103 

George’s Creek Coal Co 110 

TOTALS31 0 0 0 0 106 101 103 220 0 110 

 

31 Data derived from Fifty-Second, Fifty-Third, Fifty-Fourth, Fifty-Fifth, Fifty-Sixth, Fifty-Seventh, FiftyEighth, Fifty-Ninth, Sixtieth and Sixty-First Annual Reports. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 533 

Unrau: Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX M: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1870–1888 

NUMBER OF BOATS CLEARED WITH COAL FROM PORT OF CUMBERLAND 

BOATS TONNAGE

AVERAGE 

PER BOAT

1870 5,537 606,707 109 

1871 7,801 848,200 108 

1872 7,412 814,365 109 

1873 7,126 797,838 112 

1874 7,378 836,997 113 

1875 7,995 904,898 113 

1876 5,700 654,409 114 

1877 5,380 603,096 112 

1878 5,525 630,293 114 

1879 4,627 522,904 113 

1880 5,464 615,423 112 

1881 4,667 521,189 111 

1882 2,803 316,648 113 

1883 6,283 707,466 112 

1884 3,378 378,352 112 

1885 3,559 398,012 111 

1886 2,699 295,415 109 

1887 2,538 277,688 109 

1888 2,518 286,813 11432

 

32 Sixty-First Annual Report (1889), 23 
534 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

 Unrau: Commerce on C & O Canal: 1830–1924

APPENDIX N: 

CUMBERLAND COAL TRADE: 1879–1889 

COAL TONNAGE TOTALS: 1879–1889 

TONNAGE

1879 522,904

1880 615,423

1881 521,189

1882 316,648

1883 707,468

1884 378,352

1885 398,012

1886 295,415

1887 277,688

1888 286,183

188933 57,079

NOTE: The canal company kept statistics only for the coal tonnage after 1878. 

 

33 SOURCE: Annual Reports, Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 308. 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

9. 

MANAGEMENT OF 

MAINTENANCE 

OPERATIONS ON 

THE C & O CANAL 

1830–1924 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 537 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

CONTENTS 

I. FIRST PROVISIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF 

 CANAL MAINTENANCE: 1830 539 

II. FIRST FORMAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR 

 MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE: 1831 540 

III. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MANAGEMENT DIVISIONS 

 TO ACCOMMODATE WESTWARD EXPANSION OF THE 

 CANAL: 2833–1839 545 

IV. POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND THE MANAGEMENT OF 

 CANAL MAINTENANCE: 1840–1841 546 

V. FLUCTUATION IN MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE 548 

VI. ADOPTION OF NEW BY-LAWS AND ORGANIZATIONAL 

 ALIGNMENT TO MANAGE MAINTENANCE ON THE 

 COMPLETED CANAL: 1850–1851 550 

VII. POLITICAL INFLUENCE DISRUPTS EFFICIENCY OF 

 MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE 556 

VIII. MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE UNDER 

 THE HEGEMONY OF THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 1867–1889 568 

IX. MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE DURING 

 THE RECEIVERSHIP PERIOD: 1889–1934 585 

X. RESUMPTION OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE PERFORMED 

 BY CANAL COMPANY CREWS 587 

APPENDIXES 589 

A. PROPERTY ON AND ABOUT THE 2ND DIVISION HOUSEBOAT, 

 AUGUST 1870 589 

B. TOOLS, BOATS, AND MATERIALS ON THE SENECA DIVISION, 

 AUGUST 1870 590 

C. REPORT ON CANAL TELEPHONE LINE, SEPTEMBER 27, 1879 591 

D. REPORT ON CANAL TELEPHONE LINE, NOVEMBER 1, 1879 592 

E. EMPLOYEES JULY 1, 1839 595 

F. OFFICERS FEBRUARY 1, 1840 599 
538 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

G. OFFICERS, ENGINEERS, AND AGENTS APRIL 2, 1841 602 

H. OFFICERS JUNE 1, 1841 604 

I. OFFICERS, ENGINEERS, AND AGENTS JANUARY 1, 1842 607 

J. OFFICERS MAY 31, 1842 609 

K. OFFICERS MAY 31, 1845 611 

L. OFFICERS DECEMBER 31, 1846 614 

M. OFFICERS DECEMBER 31, 1848 617 

N. OFFICERS DECEMBER 31, 1850 620 

O. PRESIDENTS, DIRECTORS, AND CHIEF OFFICERS 

 FROM JUNE 1828 TO FEBRUARY 27, 1851 623 

P. LIST OF CANAL POSITIONS, APRIL 1884 625 

Q. LIST OF CANAL POSITIONS, FEBRUARY 1885 629 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 539 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

I. FIRST PROVISIONS FOR MANAGEMENT 

OF CANAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES: 1830 

In November 1830 the first portion of the canal between Dams Nos. 1 and 2 was opened to navigation.1

 On October 1 the management of the operation and maintenance of this stretch of the 

canal, as well as the superintendence of the construction of the line between the tidelock at 

Georgetown and Dam No. 1 and between Seneca and Point of Rocks was divided into two residencies, each in the charge of an engineer.2

 The 1st Residency stretched from the eastern terminus 

of the waterway to Section No. 40 (about 21⁄2 miles above Seneca) and the 2nd Residency covered 

the remainder of the canal to Section No. 84 at Point of Rocks. Thomas Purcell, the resident engineer of the 1st Residency, had his headquarters near Dam No. 2, while Daniel Van Slyke, the resident engineer of the 2nd Residency had his office near Aqueduct No. 2. In addition to his other 

duties, Van Slyke was named as the first superintendent of the canal with supervisory responsibility over all the newly-designated lock tenders between Dams Nos. 1 and 2.3

 The responsibilities of the superintendent and the lock-keepers during the early period of 

navigation apparently were never formally spelled out. The only description of their duties appears in the form of an order in the Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors on November 20, 1830: 

That each Lock-Keeper be supplied with such tools as may be necessary for the preservation and repair of that portion of the Canal under his care: that receipts be taken from the 

Lock-Keepers for the tools delivered to them, to be filed with the Clerk of the Company; 

and that the Superintendent make monthly report to the Board of the condition of all such 

tools and the condition of the Lock-Keeper's houses and other property of the Company 

under his inspection: And it was further ordered, that an inventory be made of all tools 

etc. now belonging to the Company, from which to supply the Lock-Keepers as far as 

practicable.4

 

1 Second Annual Report (1830), C & O Co., 32, and Third Annual Report (1831), C & O Co., 4–5. 2

 Benjamin Wright, the chief engineer of the canal company since its formation in 1828, resigned his position on October 1, primarily because the legal difficulties with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad would prevent active engineering operations above Point of Rocks for an indefinite period. His position was abolished and was replaced by the two residencies. As part of the reorganization, the former 1st and 2nd Residencies were combined into the new 1st Residency while the former 3rd, 4th and 5th Residencies were united 

into the new 2nd Residency. The reorganization was ordered by the board of directors as a means of reducing the engineering staff and company payroll costs pending a final resolution of the legal conflict with the 

railroad. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 171–173. 3 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 173–174. 4 Ibid, B, 225. While there is little information on the specific maintenance duties of the lock tenders, there 

is some indication that the navigable portion of the waterway was divided into “lock-keeper districts.” For 

instance, the directors on July 1, 1831, extended the “authority of the District Lock-keeper at Rushville” so 

“as to enable him to regulate under the authority of the Superintendent, at the levels between Locks Nos. 21 

and 22.” Ibid, B, 397. 
540 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

II: FIRST FORMAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES 

FOR MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES: 1831 

The absence of formally defined regulations for the navigation and the management of the line of 

the canal soon presented serious problems to Superintendent Van Slyke and the lock tenders. On 

April 2, 1831, Van Slyke reported to the directors on the chaotic state of operations on the waterway: 

The canal has been so thronged with boats since the opening of the navigation on the 19th

March last that it is with great difficulty we have been able to preserve order among the 

Boatmen, who in striving to push forward for a preference in passing the several locks are 

sometimes disposed to injure each others boats as a means of carrying their point....It 

would seem important that some rule be adopted by the Board to govern the Lock Keepers, so that the boats may pass the locks by turn as they arrive, as it frequently occurs that 

fifteen or twenty boats arrive at a lock within half an hour. Hence the contention for tight 

of preference, which I believe would be allayed if it was known that they must be permitted to pass only by turn as they arrive.5

After discussing the remarks by Van Slyke, the directors on May 6 authorized President Charles 

F. Mercer “to prepare and cause to be published, a code of Regulations for the government of the 

lock-keepers, boat-men, packet owners and others having business on the Canal.”6

 On July 16 the 

board amended and approved the “Regulations for Navigating the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal,” 

the “Rules for the Collection of Tolls on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal,” and the “Distribution of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal for the Purposes of Navigation, Inspection, and Repairs, into Lockkeepers Districts,” all of which Mercer had submitted7

 The latter set of regulations not only defined the location of the lock-tenders’ districts but it also provided the first formally-written description of their duties as follows: 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION, INSPECTION, 

AND REPAIRS, INTO LOCK KEEPERS DISTRICTS. 

The first Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the eastern termination of the Canal in 

Washington, to the waste weir next above the old locks at the Little Falls of Potomac, and 

shall include the basin between Georgetown and Washington, as well as those locks. 

The second Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the first, as high up as to include the waste weir next above the United States powder magazine, and shall also include the dam and feeder at the Little Falls. 

The third Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the second, to the lower end 

of the external slope of protection wall next above the culvert over Cabin John Run. 

The fourth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the third district, to the first 

culvert above his dwelling house. 

The fifth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the fourth, to the waste weir 

through the berm of the canal next below the entrance of the Rocky Run Feeder. 

 

5

 Van Slyke to Mercer, April 2, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 6 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 314. 7 Ibid, B, 410–428. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 541 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

The sixth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the fifth, to the lower end of 

the first high vertical protection wall above, and shall embrace Rock Run Dam and 

Feeder. 

The seventh Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the sixth to the lower end 

of the first external slope or protection wall above the Great Falls of Potomac. 

The eighth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the seventh, to the first high 

bluff above the culvert over Watt’s branch. 

 The ninth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the eighth, to the lower end 

of the first external slope or protection wall above the culvert over Muddy Branch. 

The tenth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the ninth, to the upper end of 

the external slope or protection wall next above the Seneca Aqueduct. 

The Lock-keeper of the First District will have charge of the Tide lock, the four 

lift locks next above the same, and the locks at the Little Falls, with three assistants, one 

of whom shall live at the lock house near the old locks and attend the same. 

The Lock-keeper of the second District will have charge of two locks, with one 

assistant, who shall live at the lock house, which he himself does not occupy. 

The Lock-keeper of the fifth District will have charge of three locks, with one assistant, who shall live at the lock house which he himself does not occupy. 

The Lock-keeper of the sixth District will have charge of three locks, with one 

assistant. 

The Lock-keeper of the seventh District will have charge of six locks, with two 

assistants, one of whom shall live at the lowest lock house on the District, and the other at 

the lock house next to his own. 

The Lock-keeper of the tenth District will have charge of the Seneca Guard, and 

two lift locks, and be required to keep one assistant till the Canal above Seneca be 

brought into use, and after that, two assistants; one of whom shall live at the lock house 

near the Seneca Aqueduct. 

The Several District Lock-keepers, and their assistants, will have charge of all the 

Company’s works and property of every description within, or appertaining to the part of 

the Canal within their respective districts, and will be held responsible for the due care 

and preservation thereof, from all damages, trespasses, and injuries, and for keeping in 

order the grounds, fences, &c. about their locks and houses. 

The District lock-keepers will appoint, and pay their own assistants; they will 

themselves be appointed by the President of the Company, on his nomination, approved 

by the Board of Directors, and will be removable at his discretion, or that of any two Directors of the Board, in the absence of the President. 

All orders will be given them, either by, or through the President of the Company, the Superintendent of repairs, or some equally authorized officer, or engineer of the 

Company, and they will be held responsible for the prompt, diligent, and faithful execution thereof. 

Their ordinary standing duties will be as follows: 

To attend constantly and diligently by day and night, to the filling and emptying 

of the lock or locks, within their respective districts, and the passage of all boats or floats, 

through the same, according the general regulations of the President and Directors, and to 

such further or particular instructions as they may hereafter receive, in relation thereto. 

They shall never absent themselves from their districts, but by special leave of 

the President of the Company, or of the Superintendent of repairs, except in cases of unavoidable necessity and in cases of this description they shall always leave some safe and 

trusty substitute to supply their places until their return. 
542 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

The District Lock-keepers, are constituted inspectors of the Canal, and it various 

appurtenances, and of the Company’s grounds and property within their respective districts. As such, they are required personally to examine or ascertain, by their assistants, 

the actual condition of all the works and property of the Company within their respective 

districts, once at least in every week; and when practicable, once at least every other day. 

In doing so, they shall carefully examine the several locks, aqueducts, culverts, waste 

weirs, bridges, dams, embankments, slopes, and walls committed to their care; and once 

every month they shall report in writing, to the Board, through the Superintendent of repairs, the condition of the same, and the number of visits they have made; if any damage 

or injury has been sustained by any of the said works since the last monthly report, the 

nature, extent, and scope thereof, and of any to be apprehended, the grounds of such apprehension. 

If a District Lock-keeper shall, at any time, discover, that any of the works on the 

Canal, within his district, are out of repair, he shall immediately report the fact in person 

or by express, which, for that purpose, he is authorized to hire, to the Superintendent of 

repairs, and if from the nature of the repairs required, or of the damage apprehended, time 

be not allowed without farther injury to the Canal or its appurtenances, to wait the orders 

of the Superintendent, the Lock-keeper shall consider himself empowered, and he is required, at the cost of the Company, to take immediate steps, in the absence of the Superintendent, to repair the injury which has happened, or to prevent that which is apprehended. Of all expenses so incurred by him, for the benefit of the Company, he shall keep 

a fair account, a copy of which, he shall hand over to the Superintendent, as soon as his 

presence shall enable him to take charge of such repairs, the Superintendent shall repay to 

the Lock-keeper, the sums so expended. All such accounts shall be settled as soon as 

practicable, after they arise, and, at least, once in every month. 

No Lock-keeper shall be entitled to receive his monthly pay, who shall have an 

unsettled account with the Company. 

The District Lock-keepers shall be bound, if required, to provide by themselves, 

or their assistants, accommodation and subsistence, at a reasonable rate, not to exceed a 

given sum per week, for the Superintendent, and such hands or laborers as may be engaged in such repairs, or on any improvements upon, or alterations of the Canal. 

Each Lock-keeper and Lock-keeper’s assistant shall be furnished with 2 wheelborrows, 3 shovels, a pick and a crow-bar, to be used in the improvement and repair of 

the Canal, whensoever required, and shall be held responsible for the good order and safe 

keeping of the same; and each District Lock-keeper, in his monthly return to the board, 

shall state the number and condition of the tools within his District. 

In addition to his monthly pay, each District Lock-keeper, shall be entitled to an 

enclosed lot, near his house. 

Every Lock-keeper shall be at liberty, subject to the restraints and regulations of 

the existing laws, to accommodate the boatmen, and other travelers at his lock house, 

provided that under no circumstances whatever, shall any Lock-keeper, or his assistant, 

be allowed to sell or to supply on any terms, to any boatmen, traveler, or other person, 

any spirituous, or intoxicating liquor, or to allow the use or consumption of any such liquor within or upon his premises, unless particularly authorized so to do by the President 

and Directors of the Company; and for any violation of this rule, the offender shall be 

immediately discharged from the service of the Company. 

In like manner any District or Assistant Lock-keeper, who shall at any time be 

found in a state of intoxication, shall be forthwith discharged. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 543 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Every District Lock-keeper, and his assistant, shall afford to the boatmen and all 

other persons navigating the canal, every aid and accommodation in his power, while he 

duly enforces the regulations for the protection of the Canal and its works–he shall instruct the boatmen how to navigate the Canal, to the best advantage, and especially to 

what part of their boat they should attach their tow or tracking line; how to track it with 

most comfort to themselves, and especially the manner of entering and passing out of the 

locks, and the use of their bow and stern strapping or snubbing ropes. 

Every District Lock-keeper having reason to suspect a boat or float to have increased her cargo subsequent to the date of her waybill, is authorized to call upon the 

owner, master, or other person having charge of said boat or float for a sight of his waybill, to compare with the actual cargo of such boat, and if any augmentation of such cargo 

shall appear to have been made, subsequently to the date of the permit or waybill, to endorse a notice hereof, on such waybill, for the information of the Collector, and the other 

Lock-keepers. 

All boats or floats left by their owners, or such persons as may have had charge 

thereof, either sunk in the canal or loosely floating thereupon, and all floating logs, 

planks or branches of trees, as well as other nuisances within the Canal, the Lock-keeper 

of the district within which the same may be, shall promptly cause to be removed or 

abated. 

Every District Lock-keeper is required to pay particular attention to the orders 

regulating the height of water in the several levels between the locks of his district; and 

the Lock-keepers of the eighth and ninth districts, may be required to receive their orders 

through the Lock-keepers of the seventh or of the tenth district; and in like manner those 

of the second, third, and fourth, through the Lock-keepers of the first or fifth district. 

In all cases, where practicable, the various levels shall be regulated by the use of 

the wastes and feeders of the Canal, reserving the side culverts and paddle gates of the 

locks for their appropriate use – that of filling and emptying the locks when required by 

the passage of boats. 

Each District Lock-keeper shall see that obvious and suitable marks, by description stones or boards, be kept up, above and below each lock, to denote where a boat approaching the same, shall slacken its speed or await its turn for entering the Lock, if other 

boats have a right to precede it. 

No Lock-keeper is authorized to practice himself, or to countenance others, in resisting, by violence, except in self-defense, any outrageous or disorderly conduct on the 

canal, but he shall take, at the cost of the Company, prompt measures to suppress and 

punish the same, by the judicial tribunals having cognizance thereof.8

Although there was no mention of repair work crews in the company regulations, such laborers 

were hired on an “as-needed basis” and placed under the direction of the superintendent. One of 

the earliest extant payrolls in the canal company records indicates that during the period from 

February 1 to March 1, 1832, 137 laborers were making improvements and repairing breaches, 

embankments and culverts on the navigable portion of the canal preparatory to its opening for 

boats in the spring. The number of days worked by the men varied from 1 to 261⁄4 days during that 

month at wages varying between 25 cents and $1 a day. Some 2331⁄2 “man-days” of work were 

performed by the hands boarded by the company on its “boarding-house” boat. The men who 

 

8 Ibid, B, 422 - 428. On July 22, 1831, the canal from Dam No. 1 to Dam No. 2 was declared “open and free for trade 

and passing, subject to the Regulations of the Company.” Water was not admitted into the canal all the way to the 

Georgetown tidelock until September 19, 1831. Ibid, B, 432, C, 5. 
544 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

were boarded at the expense of the company received 40 cents or less per day, while the remainder of the men who supplied their own board and lodging were paid 65 cents or more per day.9

 On March 24 Superintendent James C. Lackland, who had replaced the sickly Van Slyke 

on July 1, 1831, was authorized by the directors to perform two duties to upgrade the effectiveness of the regular maintenance activities on the canal. The two assignments were as follows: 

That the Superintendent do examine the several lock-keepers with a view to ascertain 

those that are acquainted with the extent of their respective districts and the various duties 

required of them, by the printed or other regulations, and orders of the President and Directors; and that he report to the President of the Company, the name of every lockkeeper, whom he shall find, upon examination, to be ignorant of his duty or in any way 

negligent or remiss in its performance; that he especially instruct the said lock-keepers to 

inspect, as required, the embankments on both sides of the Canal, within their respective 

districts in order to ascertain whether any leak exists or is threatened in any part thereof; 

whether any muskrats have made lodgments therein, and if any, the entrance of their 

habitations; and that he instruct them in their daily or weekly inspections, and take special care in his own, to pass thro’ the several viaducts or culverts of the canal within their 

district and under his superintendence . . . or . . . by looking thro’ the same, whether any 

leak exists thereon, and that, where any such leaks are discovered, they be promptly 

stopped, or effectual measures be taken to prevent their enlargement.. . . 

 That a reward of 25 cents be paid by the superintendent, and charged by him in 

his periodical settlement of accounts, for every muskrat, which he shall have satisfactory 

evidence has been killed on the Canal, in the embankments thereof or on the river side 

adjacent thereto.10

Preventive maintenance became an issue in June 1833 when the board ordered Superintendent 

William H. Bryan to inform the lock-keepers that they were to enforce rigidly the regulations 

prohibiting the navigation of iron-pointed scows and the use of iron-pointed poles.11 In the future, 

each tender would be responsible for the damage done to his locks by such boats and poles unless 

it could be proven that an effort had been made to enforce the regulations or that violations had 

been reported immediately to the Collector at Georgetown. Unless such efforts could be proven, 

the cost of repairs to the locks could be deducted from the monthly wages of the lock-keepers. To 

give effect to this provision, the superintendent was directed to certify that the locks were in good 

order each month before the tenders were paid.12

 

9 Miscellaneous Accounts and Other Records Concerning Construction and Maintenance, 1828–1882, C & 

O Co. There is no documentary information on the “boarding House” boat. However, the board purchased 

the Lafayette from Charles Embrey of Williamsport for $300 in January 1833. The Lafayette was fitted for 

the accommodation of hands employed by the canal superintendent. Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, C, 263–264, 278. 10 Ibid, B, 393, 454, C, 111–112. A similar effort to pay bounties for muskrats killed along the canal was 

revived for a short period in 1870. 

11 On June 1, 1832m John Y. Young was appointed as superintendent of the canal at a salary of $750 per 

year in place of Lackland who was retiring because of ill health. Sometime early in 1833, William H. Bryan 

superseded Young as superintendent. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 139, 154, 

357. 

12 Ibid, C, 368–369, 392. Later in June 1836, the board directed the superintendent to notify the lock tenders that they would be held responsible for all damages to their districts which resulted from the neglect of 

duty. Ibid, E, 69. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 545 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

III. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MANAGEMENT DIVISIONS TO 

ACCOMMODATE WESTWARD EXPANSION OF CANAL: 1833–1839. 

In October 1833 the board took steps to provide for the supervision of the new section of the Canal between Dams Nos. 2 and 3 which was to be watered later in the month. Charles B. Fisk, 

who had been employed as an engineer on the waterway since September 30, 1828, was appointed as the superintendent for the division at a salary of $500 in addition to his pay as an engineer.13

 The years between 1834 and 1835 witnessed significant progress in the construction of 

the waterway and the consequent realignment of management responsibilities for the maintenance 

of the canal. After Tidelock B was completed in September 1834, the First Lock-Keeper's District was extended to include the entire portion of the canal works from that lock the Little Falls. 

This stretch of the canal was placed under the responsibility of the tender at Locks Nos. 1–4 who 

was also serving as the Collector of Tolls at Georgetown. He was to employ assistant lock tenders to operate the locks and to make the necessary inspections and repairs of the line.14

 In December 1834 the canal between Dams Nos. 3 and 4 was completed and watered. To 

provide for the supervision of this line of the canal the board extended the authority of Fisk's superintendence to include the newly-opened portions. His first duties were to appoint temporary 

lock-keepers and to erect shanties in which they could live.15 

 The canal between Dams Nos. 4 and 5 was opened to navigation by early July 1835 when 

the board of directors proceeded up the canal in their iron 0packet to examine the status of the 

completed and projected portions of the waterway. While they were in Williamsport on July 13, 

the directors appointed George W. Rodgers as the assistant engineer and superintendent of the 

canal from Harpers Ferry to Dam No. 5 at a salary of $1,000 per year. At the same time, the portion of the canal below Dam No. 3 was divided into two superintendencies. John Y. Young was 

to oversee the waterway from Georgetown to Edwards Ferry, while William S. Elgin was to be 

responsible for the line between Edwards ferry and Dam No. 3.16

 In April 1839 the section of the canal between Dams Nos. 5 and 6 was completed and 

watered. This section of the waterway was established as the fourth division with John G. Stone 

as superintendent. At this time new salary scales were adopted whereby Young and Elgin received an annual salary of $1,000 while Rogers and Stone were paid $1,200.17

 

13 Ibid, C, 436, D, 1. 14 Ibid, D, 181. 15 Ibid, D, 199. 16 Ibid, D, 366, E, 161. 17 Ibid, F, 38, and Twelfth Annual Report (1840), C & O Co., 38–39. In April 1837 Fisk had been promoted 

to Chief Engineer with supervisory responsibilities over both the construction engineers and the division 

superintendents. 
546 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

IV. POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND THE MANAGEMENT 

OF CANAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES: 1840–1841 

A disputed contest in Maryland state politics erupted in 1837 and 1838 between the rising Democrats and the entrenched Whig coalition that had been in power, with a few exceptions, for 

many years. The political unrest resulted in constitutional amendments providing for the popular 

election of the governor and the Senate and abolition of the Governor's Council. The electoral 

reforms paved the way for the election of William Grason as the first Democratic governor in 

1838. The momentum gained by the Democrats in his election enabled them to win a majority in 

the House of Delegates the following year.18

 The new Grason administration in Annapolis soon took steps to apply the Jacksonianinspired spoils system to the operation of the canal. In the first large turnover of company employees, many long-time and reliable Whig-appointed officials were dismissed or voluntarily retired under pressure and were replaced by generally less-experienced and more politically motivated Democrats. In June 1839, the respected George C. Washington, who had been president of 

the company since 1834 and had done much to promote additional subscriptions to canal stock by 

the state legislature, was replaced by Francis Thomas, Jr., who had been a Democratic Congressman since 1831 from Frederick County and was destined to succeed Grason as governor of the 

State in 1841.19 Following an abortive attempt to move the company headquarters to Baltimore in 

June 1839, the board of directors ordered it removal to Frederick in June 1840.20 Among the canal officials who were fired or resigned between May and November 1840 were the following: 

May 7—Joseph Hollman replaces John G. Stone as Superintendent of 4th Division. 

May 7—William Mathews replaces William H, Bryan as Commissioner. 

July 9—John D. Grove replaces George W. Rodgers as Superintendent of 3rd Division. 

July 9—John P. Ingle resigns as Clerk and is replaced by Thomas Turner. 

Sep. 17—William O'Neale replaces William S. Elgin as Superintendent of 2nd Division. 

Sep. 26—Chief Engineer and Principal Assistant Engineer positions combined and filled 

by Ellwood Morris; Charles B. Fisk fired. 

 Nov. 14—Samuel Lyles replaces Robert Barnard as Treasurer and Accountant. 

Nov. 14—Edward Shriver replaces Thomas Fillebroun, Jr., as Assistant Clerk. 

Nov. 14—Ezra Houck appointed Collector General to supervise all toll collectors.21

The wholesale changes attracted considerable public notice as the ousted officials carried into the 

newspapers their opposition to the directorate and other observers expressed their opinions on the 

separations. In commenting on the resignation of Clerk John P. Ingle, the National Intelligencer

observed: 

 

18 Richard Walsh and William Lloyd Fox, eds., Maryland: A History, 1632–1974 (Baltimore, 1974), 

279–280. 

19 Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 347–348; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 75–76; Niles' Register, (LVIII (July 4, 1840), 278–281; and Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1971 (Washington, 1971), 1805, 1886. Under the direction of Thomas, it was determined to continue construction of the hard-pressed waterway on the basis of the unrestricted issuance of 

scrip. The decision was highly unpopular with the fiscal conservatism of the Whig-appointed officials and 

thus played a role in some of the resignations. 

20 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 76, 82, 234. 21 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 246–247, 256–257, 259–260, and Ingle to 

Stone, May 7, 1840, Ingle to Bryan, May 7, 1840, Turner to Schnebly, August 12, 1840, and Turner to Elgin and to O'Neale, September 17, 1840, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 547 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

The company will miss the services of Mr. Ingle much, especially if it is intended, as 

some suppose, to force also the other experienced officers of the company out of its service.22

After the Whigs won a majority of seats in the House of Delegates in the 1840 elections, the new 

legislature demanded explanations of the canal board's conduct of company affairs.23 Following 

the release of a report by President Thomas to Governor Grason in which it was admitted that 

some canal officials had been removed for "political opinion's sake," the stockholders met on 

April 2, 1841, to oust the directorate. A special stockholder's committee reported that from all 

available evidence it was: 

satisfied that very valuable and faithful officers have been removed from the service of 

the Company, and, in some cases, men not competent to perform the duties have been 

appointed in their places, to the serious injury of the best interests of the Company.24

As the controlling stockholder, the State of Maryland on April 2 replaced the Thomas-led board 

with a predominantly Whig directorate headed by Michael S. Sprigg who had held a variety of 

company offices in previous years.25 The new board proceeded to reinstate as many of the old 

officials as were still available and to reform canal affairs. Among the returning officials were 

William S. Elgin, George W. Rodgers, and John C. Stone as Superintendents of the 2nd, 3rd, and 

4th Divisions, respectively, and Charles B. Fisk as Chief Engineer, along with ten of his former 

assistants.26 A resolution was adopted forbidding company officials from interfering in politics, 

and a copy of the resolution was sent to every one of the nearly 60 permanent canal employees.27

 

22 Washington National Intelligencer quoted in Niles' Register, LVIII (July 18, 1840), 308. 23 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 279, 284. 24 Proceedings of the Stockholders, B, 417–419. 25 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 301–302. 26 Turner to O'Neale, Elgin, Hollman, Stone, Grove, and Rodgers, April 15, 1841, Ltrs. Sent, C & O 

Co. and Morris to Sprigg, April 7, 1841, and Fisk to President and Directors, April 29, 1841, Ltrs. Recd., C 

& O Co. 

27 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 315. 
548 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

V. FLUCTUATIONS IN MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE 

ACTIVITIES DUE TO DESPERATE COMPANY FINANCES: 1842–1850 

By 1842 the financial condition of the canal company was desperate and construction between 

Dam No. 6 and Cumberland had cone to a halt.28 Accordingly, steps were taken to reduce the 

number of canal employees and management positions and the company's overhead costs to operate and maintain the waterway. One scheme that was attempted in December 1842 by Superintendent Young was in an effort to reduce repair costs on the 1st Division was that of contracting 

for the hire of Negro slave work gangs.29 In June 1843 the board of directors instructed Young to 

reside at Seneca and to function as the tender at Lock No. 23 and Guard Lock No. 2 in addition to 

his supervisory duties.30

 Upon the recommendation of Chief Engineer Fisk, the board of directors on May 25, 

1844, reduced the number of divisions on the navigable portion of the canal from four to three. 

The new divisional alignment was as follows: 

1st Division—Eastern terminus to Edwards Ferry River Lock—32 miles—John Y. Young, 

Superintendent 

2nd Division—Lock No. 25 to 500 feet above head of Guard Lock No. 4—54.8 miles—

William S. Elgin, Superintendent. 

3rd Division—Point 500 feet above head of Guard Lock No. 4 to current western terminus 

at Dam No. 6—48.5 miles—John G. Stone, Superintendent. 

The superintendents, each of whom received an annual salary of $800, were directly responsible 

for the supervision of the collectors, lock tenders and repair crews on their divisions.31

 Another reduction in the number of divisions was made in June 1845 following the resignation of Superintendent Young. At first, the directors agreed to reduce the length of the 1st Division only to cover the distance from the eastern terminus to and including the Little Falls Feeder 

and Guard Lock No. 1. John Moore, the newly appointed superintendent of this division, would 

receive $60 per year. The canal from Guard Lock No. 1 to the Edwards Ferry River Lock would 

be added to the 2nd Division under Elgin for which increased responsibility he would receive an 

additional annual stipend of $300. When Moore declined the offered position "at the compensation fixed," the entire 1st and 2nd Divisions were combined under Elgin for which service he was 

to be paid $1,200 per year.32 This arrangement, according to the report of President James M. 

Coale, reduced the operating expenses of the waterway and provided for more "efficient attention 

to the canal and its works."33

 A special committee of the stockholders issued a report in July 1846 on the inadequacies 

of the system of managing the operation and maintenance of the canal. Recently, there had been 

numerous complaints about the incompetency and neglect of some of the lock-keepers that was 

contributing to the detention of trade and the necessity for costly repairs at various places. The 

committee conceded that the 135-mile length of the canal was difficult to supervise. It noted the 

widely-held belief that many grievances were kept quiet because the local people tended to frown 

on informers. As the board was far away from the canal and only met monthly, the investigations 

 

28 Niles' Register, LVX (September 9, 1843), 19 and Ibid, LXII (March 26, 1842), 52. 

29 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 513. 30 Ibid, G, 44. At the same time, Superintendent George W. Rodgers was ordered to reside in Williamsport 

“or at some other more central part of his division, but upon the line of the canal.” 31 Ibid, G, 165 and Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), C & O Co., 9–10. 32 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 244–245, 249. 33 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), 4. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 549 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

of reported problems often took place long after the fact and allowed the tender to cover their actions. Moreover, the lock-keepers generally refused to cooperate with or respect the superintendents who had little authority to enforce their orders. To alleviate these problems, the committee 

recommended that the tenders be made directly responsible to the superintendents who would in 

turn be held accountable for all negligence and dereliction of duty. The number of divisional superintendents should be increased to three, and they should be placed under the direction of the 

chief engineer who would assume the title of general superintendent.34

 Some portions of the committee's report were adopted by the board in December 1846 

when Chief Engineer Fisk was ordered to lay the canal out into three divisions. In February 1847 

the directors approved Fisk's divisional boundaries as follows: 

1st Division—Tidelock B at the mouth of Tyber Creek in Washington to and including 

the Dam No. 2 complex. 

2nd Division—Dam No. 2 complex to near and above Guard Lock No. 4. 

3rd Division—Near and above Guard Lock No. 4 to Dam No. 6. 

John Lambie, a highly-recommended citizen of Washington County was appointed as Superintendent of the 1st Division at an annual salary of $700, while Elgin and Stone were retained on the 

2nd and 3rd Divisions, respectively, each at annual salaries of $900.35

 President Coale explained the recent changes in canal management to the stockholders in 

June 1847 by observing: 

The past year...has been one of peculiar trial to the Company and of labor and anxiety to 

the subordinate officers on the several divisions of the line. In no former year in the recollection of any one connected with the Company have so many freshets occurred and of 

such general magnitude. Admonished by its results, and with a view of guarding the Canal against injury by every reasonable precaution which it is in our power to provide, the 

Board...laid off the line into three divisions, in such a manner as in their opinion would 

be best calculated to insure the utmost amount of personal supervision on the part of the 

Superintendents. . .36

 

34 Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 592–594. 35 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 475–477, H, 1–2. In August 1847 the company 

headquarters was moved back to Frederick from Cumberland where it had been located for several years. 

This more central location would be more convenient and accessible to all portions of the navigable portion 

of the canal, and thus would provide for more efficient management of the line. Ibid, H, 18–19, 67, 69. 36 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), C & O Co., 6–7. 
550 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

VI. ADOPTION OF NEW BY-LAWS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT 

TO MANAGE MAINTENANCE ON THE COMPLETED CANAL: 1850–1851 

The construction of the canal between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland was completed in the fall of 

1850. On October 10 festive ceremonies were held at Cumberland to formally open trade on the 

waterway to that city. From that date until the winter weather closed the canal to navigation for 

the season, the recently-completed portion of the waterway was designated as the 4th Division. 

Fifteen tenders were appointed to operate the locks on the division, but no superintendent was 

named.37

 In November 1850 the board of directors adopted a six-division alignment for the “superintendence of the repairs” which was to take effect on January 1, 1851. The names and boundaries of the divisions, which were laid out by Chief Engineer Fisk, were as follows: 

1st—Georgetown Division—Eastern terminus to Seneca Feeder, inclusive. 

2nd—Monocacy Division—Above Seneca Feeder to Dam No. 3 Feeder, inclusive. 

3rd—Antietam Division—Above Dam No. 3 Feeder to point 500 feet above Guard Lock 

No. 4. 

4th—Williamsport Division—Point 500 feet above Guard Lock No. 4 to first stop lock 

below Licking Creek. 

5th—Hancock Division—Above first stop lock below Licking Creek to Lock No. 59. 

6th—Cumberland Division—Above Lock No. 59 to western terminus at Cumberland.38

On April 1, 1851, new “by-laws, rules, and regulations” for the officers of the company were put 

into effect by the board. According to the by-laws, the officers connected with the management 

and preservation of the canal and the collection of tolls were as follows: 

 1. General Superintendent 

 2. Superintendent of Repairs 

 3. Lock-keepers 

 4. Collectors 

 5. Acting Collectors 

 6. Inspectors 

The by-laws included general regulations and position descriptions for the officers which remained in effect with slight modifications until 1889 when the canal went into a receivership: 

GENERAL REGULATIONS 

103. They shall give their personal and constant attention to the duties of their respective 

offices, and shall not be directly or indirectly concerned in any store, shop, or other trading establishment for the purchase or sale of spirits, produce, merchandise, or property of 

any description, on or near the line of the Canal, or have directly or indirectly an interest 

 

37 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), 140. 

38 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 391–391. Later, the following individuals were 

named as the division superintendents: John Lambie, Georgetown; William S, Elgin, Monocacy; Levin 

Benton, Antietam; John G. Stone, Williamsport; Overton G. Lowe, Hancock; and Henry M. Dungan, Cumberland. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 551 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

in any boat running upon the Canal, or have any other employment or occupation without 

the special permission of the President and Directors; under the penalty of being dismissed from service. 

104. It shall be their duty to preserve and take care of all books, papers, vouchers, maps, 

documents, instruments, tools, and other property of the Company, which may come into 

their possession; and every such officer or agent, leaving the service of the Company, 

shall surrender up and deliver over to his successor, or other person duly authorized to receive the same, all the books, papers, vouchers, maps, documents and instruments pertaining to his office and all other things whatever, the property of the Company, which 

may be in his control. 

105. No officer of the Canal shall either directly or indirectly be interested in any contract 

for labor, materials, provisions, implements, or other thing connected with the construction, improvements, repairs or expenses of the Canal or its appurtenant works; and no officer shall either directly or indirectly derive any benefit from the annual expenditures on 

the Canal beyond his established compensation. 

GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT 

106. The General Superintendent shall have the general management and direction of all 

repairs and improvements of the Canal, that may, that from time to time, be required. He 

shall give general directions and instructions to the Superintendents of repairs, in regard 

to the manner of making and carrying on the ordinary repairs, and special directions and 

instructions in regard to all those not of an ordinary character, and in regard to all improvements. 

107. He shall, so far as practicable, personally examine all breaches,—particularly those 

that will take more than one week for their repair,—and shall give special directions and 

instructions to the Superintendents of repairs in regard to the manner in which they shall 

be repaired. 

108. He shall, as often as practicable, examine the accounts of the Superintendents of repairs, to ascertain whether economy is observed in the doing of the work entrusted to 

their management; and may, if he think it advisable, at any time, require that their accounts and vouchers for disbursements shall be transmitted through him, to the Canal office. 

109. He may, if he think it advisable, require that all reports and returns made by any or 

all of the Superintendents of repairs to the office of the Company, shall be transmitted 

through hi8n; and in like manner that all communications to them, from the office of the 

Company, shall be transmitted through him. 

110. He may, if he deem it necessary, suspend any Superintendent or Lock-keeper and 

fill the vacancy thereby created, until the next meeting of the President and Directors, at 

which time, he shall report to the said President and Directors, such suspension and temporary appointment, with his reasons therefore and the facts of the case. 
552 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

111. In the case of the death, resignation or removal of any Superintendent or Lockkeeper, he shall nominate for appointment by the President and Directors, some suitable 

person to fill the vacancy; and, if he deem it necessary, may temporarily fill the vacancy 

until such appointment is made. 

112. He shall personally inspect and examine the Canal and all its structures, every six 

months, and, also, after any high fresh in the Potomac that does serious injury to the Canal; and shall, after every such inspection and examination, make a full report thereof to 

the President and Directors. 

113. He shall, in his semi-annual reports, required by the last regulation, sum up and classify the expenses and cost of maintenance of the Canal, during the six months next preceding, shall give a condensed account of the operations in his department since the last 

preceding semi-annual report, and shall recommend whatever he may think necessary to 

promote the interest of the Company so far as it is dependent upon the condition in which 

the Canal is kept. 

114. He shall, from time to time, make such other reports, and shall perform such other 

duties as the President and Directors may require and prescribe. 

SUPERINTENDENTS OF REPAIRS 

115. It shall be the duty of each Superintendent of repairs, under general or special directions and instructions from the General Superintendent, to superintend and direct the repairs and improvements of the Canal on his division, and to do every thing in his power 

to preserve said Canal, and the works connected therewith, from injury, and to keep them 

in a good state and condition; for which purpose he shall be allowed such bosses or foremen, removable at his pleasure, each with such force of laborers, and governed by such 

regulations, as the General Superintendent may prescribe; and he is particularly charged 

with the duty of seeing that the bosses or foremen and laborers under his charge shall be 

diligent and faithful in the performance of their respective duties to the Company. 

116. He shall have charge of all the boats, horses, tools, implements, and other personal 

property of the Company on his division, and shall cause all such property, not in use, to 

be kept in a place of safety; and at the close of each quarter shall return, through the General Superintendent, to the office of the Company, to be placed on file, an inventory of all 

such property under his charge. 

117. He shall purchase, under such regulations as the General Superintendent may deem 

proper and prescribe, provisions, materials, implements and tools, needed for the execution and prosecution of the work under his charge. 

118. He shall visit the whole length of his division as often as the General Superintendent

may require; and shall keep the General Superintendent constantly informed, of the state 

and condition of the line under his charge, and of all other matters under his superintendence; and at the close of each quarter, and oftener if required, he shall make report to the 

General Superintendent, of the state and condition of the Canal under his charge, and its 

appurtenant works, as also of the houses and enclosures of the lock-keepers; including in 

such report what injuries the Canal has sustained since the last preceding report and the 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 553 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

cases thereof; what measures he may have taken or may think necessary to guard against 

similar injuries in future; what depredations or encroachments may have been committed 

on the Canal or its works or other property of the Company; and such other information 

as he may consider important to its interests. 

119. On the occurrence, on his division, of any breach in the Canal, or other injury to its 

works, suspending the navigation, he shall immediately proceed to the same, remain 

thereat, and superintend the repairs thereof, until the navigation shall be restored. He 

shall, also, as soon as practicable, and from time to time as he may be able, report to the 

General Superintendent, in writing, the occurrence of such breach or injury, with the 

place, time, causes, extent, and descriptions thereof, the means adopted or proposed to be 

adopted by him for repairing the same, the time which will probably be occupied by such 

repairs, their probable cost, and all other information in his power relative to that subject, 

which may be useful or interesting. He shall also apprise the several Collectors of such 

breach or other injury, and of the time at which the navigation will probably be restored; 

and shall send similar information to the office of the Company. 

120. He shall superintend and direct the Lock-keepers, on his division, in the performance of their duties, and report the misconduct of any Lock-keeper to the General Superintendent. 

121. He shall by the 20th of each month send, in such form as shall be prescribed, through 

the General Superintendent, to the Clerk of the Company, an estimate of the probable 

amount of the expenses of the month, on his division, for repairs and maintenance of the 

Canal. 

122. He shall, by the 20th of each month, send to the Treasurer of the Company, his account of payments for the preceding month accompanied by the requisite vouchers. 

123. He shall, under no circumstances whatever, take a receipt for labor done, services 

performed, or materials, provisions, implements, or tools purchased for the Company, 

unless the money for the same shall have been actually paid. 

124. He shall, by the 10th of each month, send to the Clerk of the Company, through the 

General Superintendent, a statement of the fines imposed on his division, during the preceding month. In this statement shall be fully and particularly given and set forth, in each 

case, the name or names of the person or persons on whom the fine was imposed; the nature of the offence; by whom the fine was imposed; and whether the same has been paid 

or not; and if the offence was committed by the owner or master of any boat or float, or 

by any person employed thereon or assisting in the management thereof, the name of 

such boat or float shall also be given. 

125. He shall, at the close of each month, obtain from the acting Collectors on his division, and from such Collectors as he may be instructed to do, accurate returns of all waybills and permits issued and received by them during the month,—also, the way-bills and 

permits received,—and shall transmit the said returns and the said way-bills and permits 

received, to the Clerk of the Company, by the 10th of the succeeding month. 
554 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

126. The money that he shall receive under the 135th, 154th and 155th regulations, for fines 

imposed and tolls collected,—also that he may himself receive for fines imposed, shall be 

held in such manner or deposited in such place to the credit of the Company, as may be 

from time to time directed and prescribed. 

127. The Superintendent of repairs shall perform such other duties in addition to those already enumerated, as the President and Directors or General Superintendent shall from 

time to time assign to them. 

LOCK-KEEPERS 

128. It shall be the duty of all lock-keepers to make a daily and particular inspection of 

the locks under their charge, and of any other works which they may be directed, by order 

of the General Superintendent or of the Superintendent of repairs on whose division they 

are, to attend to; and to prevent by all lawful means within their power, any injury to said 

locks or other works, from carelessness of boatmen or from malicious or disorderly persons. 

129. They shall use their utmost exertions to keep the said locks or other works in the 

best possible order, and in case of any accident or injury to them, or to the Canal in the 

vicinity of their stations, requiring immediate attention, they shall take the necessary 

measures to remedy the same and to prevent further injury; and in the meantime to send 

the earliest intelligence thereof to the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the Canal. 

130. It shall be their duty, at all hours, by night as well as by day, unless otherwise ordered by the General Superintendent or Superintendent of repairs on that part of the Canal, to pass all boats and floats presenting themselves at their locks, and entitled to pass 

the same under the regulations of the Company. 

131. They shall not permit the boatmen to pass their boats or floats through any lock, except in the presence and under the direction of the keeper thereof or his assistant. 

132. The Lock-keepers shall not absent themselves from their locks, on any occasion, 

without leave from the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the Canal. They shall reside in the houses provided for them, at their respective stations; and shall be charged 

with the care and preservation of their respective houses and of the enclosures attached 

thereto; and also any property of the Company that may be put in their keeping by the 

General Superintendent or the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the Canal; and for 

any injury to the said house or enclosures or the said property, if occasioned by their neglect or carelessness, they shall be, respectively, liable. 

133. Lock-keepers, when repairs are making in the neighborhood of their locks, at points 

where, and at times when, there is difficulty in obtaining board and lodging for those persons employed upon such repairs, shall afford such accommodation, in the way of boarding and lodging, the whole or in part of the said persons, at fair and usual rates, as in the 

opinion of the Superintendent of repairs of that part of the Canal, he can reasonably and 

with propriety be asked and required to afford. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 555 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

134. Although, under these regulations, the Lock-keepers are, in many cases, authorized 

to impose fines; yet, except in cases of emergency, it is desired that they should forthwith 

report each violation of a regulation to the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the 

Canal, with all the facts in the case, in order that the fine may be imposed by the said Superintendent; and that such other measures in relation to the said violation may be taken 

as in the judgment of the said Superintendent may be thought necessary. 

135. All fines imposed by Lock-keepers shall be forthwith reported to the Superintendent 

of repairs on that part of the Canal; and all monies received by them for fines imposed by 

them shall be immediately paid over to the said Superintendent. 

136. Any Lock-keeper who shall knowingly permit a boat to pass his lock in violation of 

any provision of these regulations; or who shall himself neglect or refuse to comply 

promptly, with any one of such of these regulations as prescribes his duties, either towards the Company or those engaged in boating on the Canal, shall be forthwith suspended from duty by the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the Canal, on his becoming cognizant of the facts; and a report of the case shall be immediately made to the 

General Superintendent, by the said Superintendent, for his action thereon; and in the 

meantime the said Superintendent may appoint some person to fill, temporarily, the vacancy thus created. 

137. Every Lock-keeper shall perform such other duties connected with the Canal, as the 

General Superintendent may from time to time require of him.39

In June 1851 the stockholders were informed about the early operation of the management of the 

canal under the new divisional alignment and the by-laws by President Sprigg as follows: 

In conformity to the recommendation contained in a resolution passed at your last meeting, the board have appointed Charles B. Fisk, Esq., general superintendent of the canal, 

and has conferred upon him such authority over the subordinate officers on the line of the 

canal, as will, it is believed, give an efficient organization to this important branch of the 

service. In this connection, we would also state, that we have adopted a system of bylaws, rules, and regulations for the government, and prescribing the duties of the various 

officers connected with the management and preservation of the canal, and the collection 

of tolls. We have every reason to believe, as far as we can judge, from the short period 

which has elapsed since the by-laws of the company went into operation on the first of 

April last, that very beneficial results have, and will attend them; in the preservation of 

the works of the company, in securing a proper vigilance and subordination on the part of 

the officers on the line of the canal, and producing a degree of order and regularity on the 

part of those navigating the canal, which has heretofore not existed. . . 40

 

39 By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations; In Force on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 1st April 1851 (Baltimore, 

1894), 33–39. Since the duties of the collectors, acting collectors, and inspectors pertain more directly to 

the regulation of trade on the canal, their positions descriptions may be found in Chapter XII of this study. 40 Twenty-Third Annual Report (1851), C & O Co., 3–4. In June 1851 it was determined to move the company headquarters from Frederick to the Washington City Hall. After the new office was established, the 

books and papers of the company were “simplified and arranged with such order and method, as have not 

before existed,” thus affording efficient reference to the affairs of the company and eliminating many of its 

earlier cumbersome management difficulties. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 

448–449, and Twenty-Fourth Annual Report (1852), C & O Co., 19. 
556 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

VII. POLITICAL INFLUENCE DISRUPTS EFFICIENCY 

OF MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE: 1852–1867 

Hard on the heels of the destruction wrought by the April 1852 flood there was an equally devastating assault on the fortunes of the canal by political interference in its management and operation. In 1851 the Democrats had capitalized on the reapportioned legislative structure provided by 

the new constitution adopted that year to win decisive control over the General Assembly for the 

first time. At the annual meeting in June 1852, the controlling stockholder, the State of Maryland, 

acting through its representatives appointed a new administration for the company headed by exDemocratic Governor William Grason as president. The dominance of the state in company affairs meant, in effect, that the political party in power in Maryland also controlled the selection of 

the canal board and indirectly the many subordinates on the line, thereby making the canal positions objects of party patronage. Canal positions had been used for party purposes once before in 

the early 1840s at which time there had been two successive sweeps of office, as the Democrats 

installed its political friends in 1840 and the Whigs promptly reinstated the older officials when 

they returned to power the following year. Thereafter, there had been no large-scale interference 

until 1851, primarily because the Whigs had maintained majorities in the General Assembly for 

most of this period while the Democrats had controlled the governorship except for an interlude 

in 1844–47. Now that the Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches of the 

state government, the Grason administration proceeded to revive the spoils system in the management of the canal, reaching all the way down to the lock-tenders and the repair crew bosses in 

the thoroughness of its sweep.41

 As had been the case in the early 1840s many of the older and experienced canal officials 

were replaced by generally less competent political appointees. All of the division superintendents were fired with the exception of John Lambie of the Georgetown Division. The new superintendents were as follows: 

 Monocacy Division—William O’Neal, Jr. 

 Antietam Division—Charles Clarke 

 Williamsport Division—Benjamin F. Hollman 

 Hancock Division—James Condy 

 Cumberland Division—William P. Sterritt 

In addition, the collectors at Williamsport and Cumberland were relieved of their jobs while the 

collector at Georgetown resigned. Perhaps, the most significant resignation was that of General 

Superintendent Fisk, who had served the company for some 24 years in a variety of engineering 

positions. In his stead, the board appointed Thomas L. Patterson at an annual salary of $1,800.42

 Thereafter, more or less complete reorganizations reflecting the unsettled conditions in 

Maryland politics, occurred regularly until 1867 when the Democrats emerged as the dominant 

party of the state. As new boards succeeded the old ones, they promptly replaced their political 

enemies with party favorites. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the canal. The serious effects which the continued political interference had on the operation and the maintenance of 

the canal was later graphically described by a group of disgruntled bondholders in 1881: 

In such way money was raised for completion of the Canal in 1850 [repair bonds of 

1844], more than thirty years ago. And for two or three years the interest on the Bonds 

 

41 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 280, 295–297, 301, and Sanderlin, Great National Project, 208–209. 42 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 537–541, 550–552, 556. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 557 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

was promptly and punctually paid: a fact which was calculated to allay any anxiety that 

may have prevailed in the premises, and to appreciate the value of the Bonds on the markets. 

The canal was thus under a stable, anti-political, and very able management, no 

changes having been made in its executives for seven years. But about this time the state 

made a change in the canal management, giving it into the hands of a political administration instead of the stable business control which had lifted it from the lowest stages of 

depression in 1840–1, 2 and 3, to completion and apparent prosperity in 1850. 

Therefore [after 1850] as the State administration changed, so did the management of the canal, until about 1870, when it was ascertained that during the twenty years 

preceding there had been a dozen different administrations and executive heads in the 

management of this once popular and magnificent State Work. As an inevitable consequence of this too much-management the canal became a magnificent failure; transportation was uncertain; the big ditch was gradually filling up; the culverts were dilapidated; 

interest on the bonds was unpaid and largely in arrears; and the bonds themselves sunk in 

the market to a point below sale or quotation. . . . the State. . . by virtue of her ownership 

of five Eights of the Capital Stock, has had . . . the Exclusive Management, and has absolutely shaped and controlled the policy of the Company. 

Administrating its affairs by officers chosen by her; changing those officers with 

every change of her politics; removing one year officials who had just begun to be familiar with the duties and responsibilities of their position . . . it is no wonder this Enterprise 

has languished. . . . Without a fixed and Stable policy; without a Corps of trained and Experienced officers; without Judicious and systematic Economy, paralyzed by perpetual 

Changes in its administration; the victim of abuses, Mismanagement and lavish Expenditures; its power and influence Constantly used in the Service of [the] political organization which, for the time, appointed its officers and regulated its direction. . . 43

In the autumn of 1853 the Democratic candidate for Governor, T. Watkins Ligon, was elected to 

replace the outgoing Democrat, Enoch Louis Lowe, while the Whigs recaptured both houses of 

the state legislature. As a result of these political developments, Samuel Hambleton was installed 

as the new canal president in June 1854 in place of Grason. The new board instituted several 

changes in the management of the line during the following year. In June 1855 the new management policies were explained to the stockholders: 

Rigid rules were prescribed for the conduct of the superintendents upon the line of the 

canal. Weekly reports were required of them upon their respective divisions, which have 

since been regularly made to the office at this place [Washington]. Monthly reports were 

also enforced from the general superintendent; the good results of both which requirements have been manifested. 

The Board deeming the continuance of the office of Engineer of the Company, at 

a salary of $1,800 per annum, an unnecessary expense, as no repairs or construction requiring scientific plans and estimates were within the present means of the Company, 

abolished this office and substituted that of General Superintendent, with a salary of 

$1,200 per annum, in its stead. The good results of this policy have been manifested to 

the Board. They secured the services of Mr. A. K. Stake upon the canal, whose practical 

 

43 “Memorial of Certain Bondholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to the Board of Public 

Works of Maryland,” Fifty-Third Annual Meeting (1881), and Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 340–

341, 343. 
558 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

knowledge of the canal, having been engaged upon it in various capacities for many 

years; his untiring energy in the service of the Company, passing twice a month over the 

greater part of the line, and his regular monthly reports in writing of its condition, were 

found to be far preferable to the results of the former office of Engineer. A rigid system 

of economy was ordered and enforced.44

As part of the effort to reduce operating costs, the board recommended that the division superintendents sell the house boats which were used to lodge the repair crews and make arrangements 

for “room and board” for the men at lockhouses or private dwellings along the waterway. When it 

was found that such arrangements were difficult to make, the directors withdrew the recommendation.45

 On June 30, 1855, the Hambleton board ordered a small reorganization of personnel. The 

following officers and individuals were involved: 

 DIVISION SUPERINTENDENTS 

 Antietam—Charles Clarke replaced by Levin Benton 

 Williamsport—Henry Artz replaced by Lewis G. Stanhope 

 Hancock—James Condy replaced by Denton Jacques 

 Cumberland—Asahel William replaced by Lloyd Lowe 

 COLLECTOR OF TOLLS 

 Williamsport—Charles Embry replaced by Ellie Stake 

 Hancock—David E. Price replaced by Henry Wells.46

Next the Hambleton board turned its attention to a reorganization of the company office. The 

separate offices of clerk and treasurer were combined, and an assistant clerk was hired in the 

place of an accountant whose office had been combined formerly with that of treasurer. These 

changes reportedly contributed to the efficient management of the company and provided an annual savings of $300 in overhead expenses. 

 The stockholders were informed in June 1856 concerning the beneficial results of the 

newly-created office of clerk and treasurer held by W. S. Ringgold: 

As the affairs of the Company are now necessarily managed by a President and Board of 

Directors who meet monthly, much of the responsibility devolves upon this confidential 

officer, in the intermediate periods of meeting; great familiarity with the past records and 

affairs of the Company, with its present condition and resources; with the routine of duty 

and reports from superintendents and employees on the line of the canal; prompt intelligent and vigorous action is required, in the absence of the President and Directors, and 

other reasons readily suggesting themselves, will show the high qualities required on this 

officer. 

 The insuring to the Company increased usefulness and devotion in this office on 

the part of the present Clerk and Treasurer, alone swayed the Board in the change of organization above mentioned. 

The stockholders were also told of the valuable service of General Superintendent Stake: 

 

44 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), C & O Co., 3–4. 45 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 103–104. 46 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 181. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 559 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

I [Hambleton] feel it a duty to bear testimony to the great energy and devotion of the 

general Superintendent of the canal to the duties of his station; his great familiarity with 

every department of the work, resulting from his long previous business connections with 

it;—his industry and known intelligence;—his special weekly personal attendance on the 

line to his duties;—his regular and accurate reports, have all been a source of great satisfaction to the Board for the past two years.47

As a result of the statewide elections in the autumn of 1855, the American Party, which was the 

offspring of the nativist Know Nothing Movement, gained control of the House of Delegates and 

had sufficient strength, with the cooperation from a few of the sympathetic Whig holdovers, to 

organize the Senate as well.48 The victorious Americans proceeded to remove the Hambleton 

board in June 1856 and replace it with a new set of directors headed by William P. Maulsby as 

president. Within a month the new board ordered a thorough reorganization of both the management of the line and the company office. The six divisions were reduced to four, and the general 

superintendent and the division superintendents were replaced by new appointees. Moreover, the 

authority of the general superintendent was diminished to the extent that the division superintendents were made directly responsible to the directors. The boundaries and superintendents of the 

four new divisions were: 

Georgetown Division: Eastern terminus to Conrad’s Ferry; James P. Wade, Superintendent. 

Monocacy Division: Conrad’s Ferry to Dam No. 4; Charles Clarke, Superintendent 

Hancock Division: Dam No. 4 to Dam No.6; Denton Oliver, Superintendent 

Cumberland Division: Dam No. 6 to Dam No. 8; Richard M. Sprigg, Superintendent 

Dewalt Stottlemeyer was named as the new general superintendent.49

President Maulsby presented the rationale for this reorganization to the annual meeting of the 

stockholders in June 1857. According to his report, when the board had been selected in the previous June 

it adopted the conclusion that the true policy . . . was to reduce, as far as possible, the 

number of officers on the line of the Canal, and to require from those remaining increased 

activity and attention. . . It was thought that the entire time and attention of the six Division Superintendents had not been occupied, and perhaps could not be profitably occupied, in the discharge of their official duties, and it was deemed wise, so to apportion the 

number to the duties to be discharged, as to leave to the incumbents no unoccupied time. 

Accordingly the Board determined to reduce the number from six to four, reserving for 

the future action a further reduction, if experience should demonstrate its propriety. 

Maulsby went on to cite the reasons for diminishing the authority of the general superintendent 

and making the division superintendents directly responsible to the board by observing that the 

several grades of officers, and consequent degrees of responsibility each to the other, actually interfered with, rather than promoted, the prompt and efficient making such repairs 

 

47 Twenty-Eighth Annual Report (1856), C & O Co., 11–12. 48 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 314–315. 

49 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 277–283. 
560 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

as are constantly needed to keep the Canal in order, and which to be effectual must be, 

when needed, quickly done.—The work actually done on the line is by, and under the 

immediate supervision of, the Bosses. These being responsible to, must wait form in theory at least, and too frequently in practice when not really necessary, the directions of the 

Division Superintendent. The Division Superintendent, being responsible to the General 

Superintendent, and not amenable for a failure to make repairs, except such as, and when, 

ordered by the General Superintendent, might wait for the directions of that officer; and 

thus it did occur that the whole trade on the Canal, at a period not remote, was suspended 

for several days because of the breaking of the beam of a Lock-gate, which might have 

been repaired in a few hours; (the means being offered by a gentleman residing adjacent 

to the spot,) but was not done until the employees of the several grades could meet and 

consult each other, and obtain the authority, professed at all events to be, deemed requisite. This circumstance is mentioned but as an instance illustrating too general a habit. 

The members of the Board saw, on their own inspection, that repairs were not made with 

the promptness which they deemed due to the interests dependent on the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal, and in their attempts to trace out the cause they found themselves involved in 

a maze of uncertainty, the ultimate responsibility generally resting where a charge of 

manifest negligence could not well be sustained against the individual officer, altho’ the 

interests mentioned were not the less sorely suffering; and by the way of relieving the difficulty, to an extent at least, they abolished the office of General Superintendent, thus 

making the Division Superintendent responsible directly to the Board. An incidental result of this action has been a saving to the Company of Three Thousand Two Hundred 

and Fifty Dollars—Two Division Superintendents at $900.00 each, and the General Superintendent at $1200.00 for salary and $250.00 an allowance made by a former board for 

his traveling expenses—although the primary object in this reduction of officers was, not 

a reduction of expenses, but a promotion of efficiency. So well satisfied had the Board 

been with the effect of its action in this respect, that whatever change shall hereafter be 

made should, in its opinion, consist in further reduction of the number of Superintendents, and if need be an increase of salaries to those retained, rather than in an increase in 

the number of officers. A regulation heretofore adopted prohibits any Superintendent 

from engaging in or attending to any other occupation whatever; and although the present 

Board has earnestly striven to enforce it, and although it believes that it has succeeded to 

some greater extent than was the case prior to its efforts, yet it thinks with regret that the 

success has not been perfect, and that efforts to that end should not be surceased until 

they shall have attained perfect success. The mighty interests, connected with and dependent on the management of the Canal, demand that each individual, who shall consent 

to take on himself a part of so weighty a responsibility, shall surrender to the duty each 

mental and physical energy with which he may be endowed, and that a dereliction of duty 

in this regard can hardly be too harshly characterized. 

Maulsby concluded his remarks on the new management apparatus of the company by describing 

the changes in the central office: 

The Board felt itself constrained by the supposed requirement of the intent of the Charter 

of the Company to rescind the action of its Predecessors, and to separate the discharge of 

the duties of Treasurer from those of the Clerk, and accordingly elected Samuel M. Magraw Esq., Treasurer, and re-elected W. S. Ringgold Esq., Clerk. It was at the same time 

felt that the change could not with propriety be accomplished at an increased cost to the 

Company, in its then and now financial condition, and accordingly the salaries lately paid 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 561 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

to the Clerk and Treasurer, and a subordinate Clerk—$2800.00—were divided, and 

$1400.00 fixed as the salary of each officer, Clerk and Treasurer. In this connection the 

Board asks leave to say, that such increase in the net revenues of the Company at no distant period is anticipated, as will justify the payment to the Clerk of a salary better apportioned to the labor, skill and devotion which the invaluable officer now occupying that 

position, daily brings to the complete discharge of the duties imposed upon him.50

In the hotly-contested statewide elections in the fall of 1857 the American Party maintained its 

control of the state legislature and its nominee for Governor, Thomas H. Hicks, won the statehouse.51 On March 18, 1858, the canal company stockholders met and, at the direction of the 

Hicks administration, elected a new board of directors headed by Lawrence J. Brengle as president.52 The new board quickly set to work reorganizing the management of the company. The 

office of engineer was abolished and replaced by the office of engineer and general manager with 

an annual salary of $1,500. John G. Stone, a former division superintendent, was appointed to fill 

the position. The old six-division alignment was restored and most of the former superintendents 

were returned to their positions: 

Georgetown Division: Eastern terminus to Seneca Feeder; Horace Benton, Superintendent 

Monocacy Division: Seneca Feeder to Dam No. 3 Feeder; Silas Browning, Superintendent 

Antietam Division: Dam No. 3 Feeder to Guard Lock No. 4; Levin Benton, Superintendent 

Williamsport Division: Guard Lock No. 4 to Guard Lock No. 5; Andrew M. Stake, Superintendent 

Hancock Division: Guard Lock No. 5 to foot of Lock No. 58; Lewis G. Stanhope, Superintendent 

Cumberland Division: Lock No. 58 to Western Terminus; Lloyd Lowe, Superintendent. 

The board approved the following resolution relative to the duties and performance of the division superintendents and the general superintendent: 

That it shall be the duty of the division Superintendents to devote their whole time, and 

give their undivided attention to the care and management of their respective divisions; 

and that it be the duty of the General Superintendent to see that they comply with the 

provisions of this order. 

Among other personnel changes were the appointment of three new collectors at Williamsport, 

Hancock and Cumberland, and a new Inspector of Cargos at Georgetown, and 44 new lock tenders. The old office of treasurer and accountant was reestablished and given to Henry W. Hoff-

 

50 Twenty-Ninth Annual Report (1857), C & O Co., 3–5. 51 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 324–326. 52 Since the election of a new board was usually held at the annual meeting of stockholders in June, 

Maulsby complained that the election was illegal and that his board should be entitled to hold office until 

June. He submitted the question to the company counsel for a legal opinion but was overruled. Angered by 

his abrupt dismissal, Maulsby locked the vault containing the books and papers of the company and locked 

the door to his office and took the possession of the keys. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 1–4. 
562 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

man, an American Party Congressman from Western Maryland who had just been defeated in his 

bid for reelection.53

 In June 1858 President Brengle reported to the stockholders concerning the recent 

changes in the management of the canal: 

The [Maulsby] board immediately preceding the present board, on assuming the direction 

of the affairs of the Company, proceeded at once to change the organization which had 

existed on the line of the Canal since its completion to Cumberland, by removing, in the 

first place the General Superintendent and all six division Superintendents, who were all 

experienced, well tried men, and had long been connected with the Canal; then, reduced 

the Superintendencies from six to four, and appointed a General Superintendent and four 

division Superintendents, to these responsible positions, who, with a single exception, 

had hitherto never been connected with the Canal, and as we are informed, had no experience or knowledge of such duties as pertained to their stations. 

In a few months thereafter, the office of General Superintendent was abolished, 

thus leaving the whole line of the Canal of 186 miles under the direction of four division 

Superintendents, without experience themselves, without the immediate direction and 

control of an experienced head, and with no general system of management. To this mistaken policy chiefly, we think, can be attributed the disasters which have occurred [at 

Dams Nos. 4–5]. 

The present board, believing that past experience justified the course, have restored the former organization of the line of the Canal, by establishing six divisions; and 

with two exceptions have appointed the former experienced Superintendents of divisions. 

We have also appointed John G. Stone, Esq., Engineer and General Superintendent, who 

was long connected with the canal in former years; and it is believed from his experience, 

energy and capacity, that he will render very efficient services in this station. 

With this organization on the line of the Canal, it is confidently hoped that renewed energy, vigor and economy, will be experienced in the management of the work, 

and that it will result in a more reliable, and less interrupted navigation of the Canal, than 

has existed for the past two years.54

Capitalizing on the collapse of the American Party and utilizing the heightened negrophobia following John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry, the Democrats secured control of the Maryland 

General Assembly in the November 1859 elections.55 At a special meeting of the canal stockholders in May 1860 a new board of directors was selected with James Fitzpatrick as president. 

The following day ex-American Party Congressman Hoffman resigned from his position as treasurer and accountant and was replaced by John M. Miller. 

 A committee composed of the president and three of the newly-elected directors was 

asked to review the management system of the canal and to make recommendations for its improvement. In its report on May 16 the committee observed: 

that in their judgment the existing arrangement of six superintendents having control and 

management has proved utterly inefficient and unworthy of further reliance. Therefore 

they would respectfully recommend that the entire line of the canal be divided into sixteen supervisorships in distance regulated as nearly as possible to the condition of the ca-

 

53 Ibid, K, 1–10, 13–16, 18–19. 54 Thirteenth-Annual Report (1858), C & O Co., 3–4. 55 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 329–330. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 563 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

nal at the several points along its entire length; and that on each of such divisions one supervisor be employed at fifty dollars per month, and that each supervisor shall be subject 

to, and under the control of the President and Directors...and the General Superintendent 

in the employment of the Company....56

The canal board quickly adopted the recommendations contained in the report with several accompanying amendments. The number of supervisorships was increased to eighteen and the salaries of the supervisors were raised to $55 per month. The directors then proceeded to fire and 

abolish the positions of the six division superintendents and their repair crews bosses, after which 

the eighteen supervisors were appointed to districts whose boundaries were determined by General Superintendent Stake: 

Isaac R. Maus—Tidelock B to Magazine 

Joshua W. Offutt—Magazine to Lock No. 22 

George W. Spates—Lock No. 22 to Edwards Ferry 

John A. Dade—Edwards Ferry to Monocacy Basin 

John Short—Monocacy Basin to Berlin 

John T. O’Bryne—Berlin to Dam No. 3 

P. C. Savin—Dam No. 3 to Aqueduct No. 4 

Lawson Puffenberger—Aqueduct No. 4 to Lock No. 40 

George W. Grove—Lock No. 40 to Guard Lock No. 4 

W. P. McCardell—Guard Lock No. 4 to Lock No. 44 

Thomas Charlton—Lock No. 44 to Lock No 45 (including dam and feeder) 

Emanuel Tice—Lock No. 45 to Aqueduct No. 6 

B. B. Boatman—Aqueduct No. 6 to Lock No. 53 

Lawrence Murray—Lock No. 53 to Dam No, 6 

John McLaughlin—Dam No. 6 to Lock No. 61 

Frederick Kasekamp—Lock No. 61 to Lock No. 67 

Thomas Sammon—Lock No. 67 to Lock No. 73 

David Wineow—Lock No. 73 to Cumberland 

Among the other personnel changes were the appointment of new employees to fill the following 

positions: inspector of cargos at Georgetown; watch at Paw Paw Tunnel; collectors at Georgetown, Williamsport, Hancock and Cumberland; 47 lock tenders; superintendent of boats at 

Georgetown; and paymaster.57

 President Fitzpatrick offered a lengthy rationale for the new system of management to the 

stockholders at their annual meeting in June, 1860: 

 

56 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 177–178, 183. Under the Brengle administration, the canal company had experienced such desperate financial problems that it had been forced to pay 

the lock tenders and repair crews with certificates of indebtedness. So serious was the financial condition of 

the company that even President Brengle went unpaid for a period of months. Ibid, K, 147–148, 219. 57 Ibid, K, 182–186, 192–195, and Thirty-Second Annual Report (1860), C & O Co., 16–19. Before the 

eighteen new supervisors began their work on June 1, General Superintendent Stake provided them with 

general instructions which required them 

to devote their entire time and attention to the Canal, to prevent breaches or other interruptions, if 

possible, to repair them promptly, assist each other promptly, carry out the By-Laws, send information about interruptions to the different Collector's Offices, and pay strict attention to the portion of Canal under their charge, rtc. 
564 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

The present Board of Directors, deeply impressed with the magnitude of the trust confided to their charge, and anxious to realize the just expectations of all persons connected 

in interest with the prosperity of the Canal, to prevent in future those disastrous interruptions of its navigation, which have prostrated the business of important portions of the 

State, and to restore confidence to all great interests involved in its fate, gave their earliest attention, at their very first meeting, to the whole system of management heretofore 

adopted on it, and made such alterations, as in their judgment, will remove evils that have 

been so deeply felt and so justly complained of . 

They have reduced the management to a rigid, responsible, practical and economical system. They have abolished the offices of Division Superintendents, which they 

considered were disbursing agents, and substituted for them, eighteen Bosses or Supervisors, each of whom will have charge of a certain number of miles, ranging in extent according to the condition of the work, as some parts of the Canal require more vigilance 

and labor to repair and preserve it in navigable order for five miles, than other parts will 

be for fifteen. The Board retained the office of General Superintendent, and that officer, 

who is familiar with the condition and wants of every mile of the Canal, will assign their 

respective divisions to the eighteen Supervisors, but no distance will exceed fifteen miles. 

Under the old system of Superintendents, there were sixteen Bosses, who received liberal 

pay and who really discharged all the valuable and responsible duties on their respective 

divisions. By abolishing the Superintendents and elevating the Bosses to power and direct 

responsibility, the valuable part of the old system is developed into the most efficient usefulness. 

The Board entertains well grounded confidence, that the operation of this system, 

which went into effect on the first instant [June], will prove beneficial to the work and to 

all persons interested in its prosperity. By it the entire Canal is placed under the daily personal examination of vigilant officers who have been selected with reference to their industry and fitness, and whose duty it will be to take charge of the men employed under 

them, labor with them, and give their whole time and undivided attention to that part of 

the work allotted to their respective care and supervision. Each of them will be immediately responsible to the Board for the condition of his division, the whole of which he can 

examine every day in person, and prevent, by timely attention, those breaks which have 

so frequently occurred from neglect and the absence of that watchfulness, which should 

guard every portion of a work, upon the uninterrupted navigation of which the welfare of 

so many depends. It will be strongly impressed upon them, that negligence, incompetency or dereliction of duty, will be promptly visited with the forfeiture of their places, 

and that no man will remain in the service, who will not give practical proofs of his competency and fidelity in the discharge of the duties, which, by accepting the position, he 

assumed to perform. The interests involved are too numerous and important to admit the 

idea of retaining men in places who are not willing and able to labor skillfully and untiringly to establish and maintain its prosperity and usefulness on a permanent basis. 

While this alteration is confidently expected to introduce vigor and promptness in 

the working of the Canal, no additional expense had been incurred in its adoption. 

Six Superintendents received each $900 per year, $5,400 

Sixteen Bosses under them received each $450 per year $7,200 

$12,600 

Eighteen Supervisors will now receive $660 per year $11,880 

Showing difference in favor of the new system of: $720 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 565 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

To this must be added the salary of a paymaster [James Condy], whose duty will be to 

pass over the entire line monthly and pay off all the employees of the Company and take 

their receipts in person. The Board considers the appointment of a paymaster indispensable to the perfection and accuracy of the system they are endeavoring to inaugurate. For 

many and obvious reasons the paying department of the service should be distinct and 

separate from those who control the labor and provide the necessary supplies of various 

materials. The Supervisors will have but one duty to perform—the preserve their respective divisions in navigable and good repair, and from that, nothing but unavoidable casualties will excuse them.58

The statewide elections in the fall of 1861 were held under the cloud of the Civil War. The Union 

Party, in its own right but fortified by the presence of the Federal military, won large majorities in 

both houses of the General Assembly as well as the governorship with Augustus W. Bradford as 

candidate. The election was significant in that it virtually ended any hope for pro-Southern elements to gain control in the state.59

 The state Unionist forces lost little time in reorganizing the management machinery and 

personnel of the canal company. On January 30, 1862, Alfred Spates, a rising Allegany County 

Democrat who had been elected as president of the company the previous year, was reconfirmed 

in his office.60 At a board meeting on February 12 the directors abolished the fourteen supervisorships and determined to restore the former six division management system. The new divisions 

and superintendents were: 

Georgetown Division: Tidelock B to Lock No. 23 (inclusive); Horace Benton, Superintendent 

Monocacy Division: Lock No. 23 to Guard Lock No. 3 (inclusive); John Caneron, Superintendent 

Antietam Division: Guard Lock No. 3 to Guard Lock No. 4 (inclusive); Levin Benton, 

Superintendent 

Williamsport Division: Guard Lock No. 4 to Guard Lock No. 5 (inclusive); Jacob B. 

Masters, Superintendent 

Hancock Division: Guard Lock No. 5 to Guard Lock No. 6 (inclusive); Thomas Hassett, 

Superintendent 

Cumberland Division: Guard Lock No. 6 to Guard Lock No. 8 (inclusive); Lloyd Lowe, 

Superintendent 

Other changes were also made in the management and personnel of the company. The office of 

treasurer and accountant was abolished and replaced by the combination of the offices of clerk 

and treasurer into one position and an assistant clerk. The four collectors at Georgetown, Williamsport, Hancock and Cumberland were replaced , and 21 new lock tenders were appointed.61

 

58 Thirty-Second Annual Report (1860), 3–5. Later in December 1860, the supervisorships of John Short, 

George W. Grove, Emanuel Trice and Thomas Sammon were abolished and incorporated into the fourteen 

remaining subdivisions. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 232. 

59 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 354–355. 60 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 250–253. Immediately following the election of 

Spates, General Superintendent Stake had resigned his position. Ringgold to Stake, July 10, 1861, Ltrs. 

Sent, C & O Co. 

61 . Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 272–277, 282. Apparently the position of general superintendent was not filled; thus, the division superintendents were directly responsible to the board. 
566 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

 President Spates notified the stockholders in June 1862 that the former system of management had been restored to the canal. His justification for the reorganization was as follows: 

Two years ago a change was made in the supervision of the line of the canal, by the appointment of eighteen supervisors and a paymaster, in place of six superintendents of divisions as had previously existed (with occasional change in the number,) since the canal 

was opened for navigation. It was supposed that this would be more efficient and less expensive than the former system. After a brief trial it was found otherwise, and that a divided responsibility, want of regularity and system, without satisfactory checks and responsibility for payments made, rendered the change not only less efficient and satisfactory, but more expensive. The present Board have therefore restored the former system of 

management by the appointment of six experienced and efficient superintendents of divisions, who will make the disbursements on the line of the Canal under proper regulations, 

and thus dispense with a paymaster. Some other changes in the emphasis of the Company 

have been made, without detriment to the efficiency of the service, and by these various 

reforms, effecting an annual reduction in the expenses of the Company of about $8,000.62

After receiving reports that some superintendents were neglecting their duties, the board established a new policy to govern their conduct. In December 1862 the following order was approved 

and distributed to each superintendent: 

That the several Supts. of the Canal be required to conform themselves strictly to the 

rules and regulations of the Company, that said Supts. be required to pass over the entire 

length of their respective divisions at least once a week, and to report to the Clerk of the 

Company, and also to the Collectors of Tolls at Georgetown and Cumberland, whenever 

any interruptions of the navigation shall occur, and how long such interruption will continue; that they also be required to make monthly reports to the Board of the conditions of 

their respective divisions, and that any carelessness on their part in the performance of 

these duties will be deemed cause for their removal from office.63

In the elections held in the fall of 1864, the Unionist coalition, dominated by its Radical wing 

since 1862, maintained control of the state legislature. Nevertheless, the emergence of a powerful 

Conservative force within the coalition was manifested by the election of Thomas Swann as governor. Encouraged by the gubernatorial victory, the Conservatives began a campaign to wrest 

control of the Unionist movement from the Radicals. With the collapse of the Confederacy in 

April 1865, the Radicals were left in a state of disarray as support for the war, which had been a 

cohesive core for the Union Party, was now gone and could no longer be used to submerge divisive issues in the coalition.64

 At the annual meeting of the stockholders in July 1865 the Swann administration pushed 

through the election of Jacob Snively as company president in place of Alfred Spates.65 The new 

president and directors appear to have made few alterations in the system of management of the 

 

62 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), C & O Co., 5. 63 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 315. In April 1864 the board authorized salary 

increases for the division superintendents, repair crew bosses and lock tenders. The superintendents' annual 

pay was set at $1,000, while the monthly wages of the bosses were put at $45. In October 1864 the superintendent of the Georgetown Division was authorized to hire a harbor master for the regulation of boats in 

Georgetown at a monthly salary of $45. Ibid, K, 383, 402. 64 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 381–382. 65 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 431. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 567 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

canal. One change that was made was the reestablishment of the position of engineer and general 

superintendent in December 1865. To this position the directors named Charles P. Manning, a 

noted civil engineer who had earlier been employed to examine and report on the condition of the 

canal and the repairs and improvements needed to restore it to its prewar operating condition.66 In 

November 1866 John Cameron was removed as superintendent of the Georgetown Division and 

replaced by Isaac R. Maus.67

 

66 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 465. Later in September 1866, the board dispensed with the services of Manning and again abolished the position. Ringgold to Manning, September 

10, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

67 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 526. 
568 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

VIII.: MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

UNDER THE HEGEMONY OF THE STATE DEMOCATIC PARTY: 1867–1889 

By 1867 Maryland’s period of “Self-Reconstruction” has come to an end and a more stable party 

alignment had emerged. In that year the ascendant Democrats pushed through the adoption of a 

state constitution and captured control of the governorship and the state legislature. Out of the 

political flux of the previous fifteen years, the Democrats—now augmented by Conservative Unionists, new voters, and returning veterans—became the dominant party in Maryland and would 

remain so into the twentieth century. Hence the canal management was no longer subject to the 

political whims resulting from the frequent shifts of power in Annapolis but was solely an instrument of Democratic patronage in Western Maryland.68

 In August 1867, several months prior to the November elections, the company stockholders elected Alfred Spates, a long-time Democrat, to a second term as canal president as support 

for Jacob Snively, who had replaced Spates in 1865, had evaporated along with the Unionist 

cause. The new Spates administration made few changes in the overall machinery or personnel in 

the management of the waterway. The only significant change occurred in July 1868 when the 

number of divisions was increased from six to seven by the creation of a new Seneca Division out 

of portions of the Georgetown and Monocacy Divisions as follows: 

 Georgetown Division: Tidelock B to Lock No. 21 (inclusive) 

 Seneca Division: Lock No. 21 to Lock No. 26 (inclusive) 

 Monocacy Division: Lock No. 26 to Dam No. 3 (inclusive) 

George W. Spates and Amos Thomas were appointed as the new superintendents of the Seneca 

and Monocacy Divisions, respectively.69

 Following reports of financial embezzlement and other fiscal irregularities on the part of 

President Alfred Spates and Superintendent George W. Spates, the stockholders elected Josiah 

Gordon to the company presidency in June 1869. Upon the recommendation of Arthur Pue Gorman, a rising political star in the emerging Democratic machine in Annapolis who was serving his 

first year in office both as a member of the canal board and the House of Delegates, the directors 

employed William R. Hutton, a well-known civil engineer, to serve as the canal’s engineer and 

general superintendent and Sydney I. Wailes as paymaster. The latter was hired to breakup the 

reported corrupt system of money management that had been perpetrated by several division superintendents under the Spates presidency. An investigation revealed how the former officials had 

embezzled large sums of company funds for their own purposes: 

The time of the laborers and mechanics, under the system of working on the Canal, was 

kept by the bosses, and returned to the Superintendents. The Superintendents then returned it upon their abstracts to the Board, and received the amount from the Treasurer, 

which they professed to pay, according to their return. But we found, by comparing the 

 

68 Walsh and Fox, Maryland, 389–392. There are numerous references in the canal company records to the 

use of the waterway as a tool of Democratic patronage in Western Maryland. Among these are the following: Gilleace to Clarke, October 13, 1871, Blackford to Clarke, December 20, 1871, Hill to Gorman, August 9, 1872, Duvall, Gannon & Duvall to Fawcett, June 5, 1873, Shay to President and Directors, October 

8, 1873, Michael to President and Directors, November 25, 1873, Hawkin to Gorman, February 15, 1875, 

Biser to Fawcett, August 6, 1875, Prettyman to Gorman, November 7, 1876, Pope to Fawcett, December 8, 

1876, Polk to Gorman, March 16, 1877 and Peter to Fawcett, April 10, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 69 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 104. Earlier in May the board had replaced the 

harbor master at Georgetown and the tender at Locks Nos. 1–4 with its own appointees. Ibid, L, 94. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 569 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

bosses’ time books and the abstracts of the Superintendents, that there were very large 

discrepancies between them, and that a great deal more money had been drawn by two of 

the Superintendents than had been returned by the bosses, or paid to the laborers under 

their charge. These two Superintendents have ceased to be officers of the Company. 

Although the salaries of Hutton and Wailes added considerably to the expenses of the company, 

the activities of both men in streamlining the management of the canal more than paid for their 

employment. In fact, the savings on the Seneca Division alone were enough to pay the salaries of 

both men. All told, it was announced in June 1870 that the new management polices reduced the 

bills of expenses submitted by the superintendents by some $8,757 over the sums of the preceding 

year.70

 The Gorman-dominated board was also responsible for two other decisions that had a 

significant impact on the management of the waterway. In July 1869 the company office was 

moved to Annapolis, thereby signifying the close affiliation of the company’s affairs with the political interests of the state Democratic machine.71

 On May 4, 1870, Engineer Hutton submitted a plan for the complete reorganization of the 

line that he claimed would save the cost-conscious board nearly $12,000 in annual salary expenses. According to the proposed plan, the seven divisions would be reduced to five as follows: 

1st Division: Tidelock B to and including Dam No. 2 and Guard Lock—23.4 miles 

2nd Division: Dam No. 2 to Dam No. 3 and Lock No. 35—40.2 miles 

3rd Division: Lock No. 35 to upper end of Big Slackwater at tail of Lock No. 41—

26.6 miles 

4th Division: Lock no 41 to Lock No. 55 and Dam No. 6—45.2 miles 

5th Division: Dam No. 6 to Dam No. 8—50.4 miles 

The number of bosses and repair crews on each division was to be as follows: 

1st Division: Two bosses and sets of hands 

2nd Division: Three bosses and sets of hands 

3rd Division: Three bosses and sets of hands 

4th Division: Four bosses and sets of hands, the bosses on leaky sections to have a 

larger number of hands 

5th Division: Three bosses and twenty men as at present. 

The number of hands to be employed under each boss was not to be maintained at a fixed standard, but rather was to vary according to the work needs. One carpenter shop would be required 

on each division, with the exception of the fifth which would have two, and each shop would employ from 2 to 4 carpenters. The proposed plan would save the annual salaries of the following 

positions: 

 2 Superintendents $2,000 

 3 Bosses $1,620 

2 (or 3) Horses $600 

Estimated 12 men @ $260 $4,320 

 

70 Forty-Second Annual Report (1870), C & O Co., 8, 15, and Proceedings of the President and Board of 

Directors, L, 180. 71 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 167–168, 182.
570 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

3 Cooks at $216 $648 

3 Carpenters (estimated @ $750) _$2,250

 $11,938 

Additional savings would also be made in the costs for fuel and lights, the maintenance of houses 

and work scows, and the expense of furniture. As the lock tenders were being overworked because of the increasing canal traffic, they were to receive higher wages so that they could hire one 

assistant for each lock under their jurisdiction.72

 The canal board enthusiastically adopted the Hutton report, but before it could be put into 

effect a new board headed by James C. Clarke as president was installed in June 1870.73 The following month the new directors voted to implement the Hutton plan on August 1. The superintendents of the divisions were appointed as follows: 

 1st Division (Georgetown)—Isaac R. Maus 

 2nd Division (Monocacy)—Amos Thomas 

 3rd Division (Antietam)—John Shay 

 4th Division (Hancock)—Denton Jacques 

 5th Division (Cumberland)—Edward Mulvaney 

The offices of general superintendent and paymaster were abolished, and President Clarke assumed the responsibilities of those jobs, for which he was placed under a $50,000 bond for the 

faithful discharge” of the “trusts committed to him.” In October it was determined to move the 

company office from Annapolis to Hagerstown so that the directors would be more accessible to 

the employees on the line of the waterway. All of the changes were made, according to Clarke in 

his report to the stockholders in June 1871, “to introduce more system, and greater discipline in 

the service than heretofore existed” and to secure “greater economy by holding to a more rigid 

accountability the officers and employees in [the] discharge of their duties.”74

 Two property inventories survive from the 1870 reorganization which indicates the quantity and types of tools, supplies and provisions that were kept aboard a repair crew’s house-boat 

on the former Seneca Division and those that were under the immediate control of the division’s 

superintendent. The house-boat inventory was made because the vessel was transferred from the 

former Seneca Division to the Georgetown Division to enable Superintendent Maus to house his 

men while working in the Georgetown area. Up to this time, repair crews had been housed at a 

local tavern while working in Georgetown at a cost to the company exceeding the 50 cents per 

day charged the laborers by the canal directors for their room and board. The property inventory 

of the Seneca Division was made because almost all of its length was transferred to the new 

Monocacy Division in the reorganization.75

 

72 Forty-Second Annual Report (1870), 48–50. 73 The Hutton recommendation relative to the salary increases for the lock tenders was put into effect on 

May 6. Each tender of a single lock was to be paid $50 per month, while each lock keeper of two locks was 

to receive $75 per month. The single lock tenders were to hire one assistant and the double lock-keepers 

were to employ two assistants subject to the approval of the division superintendent. Proceedings of the 

President and Board of Directors, L, 314–315. 74 Forty-Third Annual Report (1871), C & O Co., 8; Forty-Fourth Annual Report (1872), C & O Co., 10–

11; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 338–339, 349, 369, 393. 75 Hutton to Clarke, August 3, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. The inventories may be seen in Appendices A 

and B. A cursory look at the company ledgers during the 1870s indicates that the company usually made a 

profit from the collection of the 50-cent daily charge from each laborer for room and board. For instance, 

the company realized a net gain of $1,144.32 from January to July 1870 between the amount collected and 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 571 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

 The Clarke administration took a number of steps to up-grade the quality of the repairmaintenance work on the canal as well as the productive capacity of the work crews. In June 1871 

the wages of journeymen carpenters were increased by 25 cents a day to a total daily rate of 

$2.50.76 Two months later, a decaying packet boat lying idle at Cumberland was refurbished and 

converted into a repair crew house-boat.77 With trade reaching record levels every year, the additional revenues were used to employ increasing numbers of workers to make the long-deferred 

repairs and improvements during the winter months. An example of the growing number of winter repairmen can be seen in a report by Superintendent Maus detailing the work activities on the 

Georgetown Division from November 1871 to March 1872: 

A gang of (6) six men under Boss Mason John Brannon commenced cutting stone at 

Great Falls on 1st November, 1871, and worked up to Feb. 2nd 1872. 

 A gang of (5) men under Boss Mason John Brannon commenced repairing and 

rebuilding Locks 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 on Jan. 8th 1872, and worked 

up to February 21st 1872 laying 1351 feet of new stone with cement. 

 A gang of (17) seventeen masons under Boss John Brannon commenced putting 

up Feeder Wall Feb. 20th 1872, and worked up to March 4th 1872. Length of wall 400 

feet, 3 feet thick and from 9 to 15 feet high layed in cement. 

 A gang of (4) four man under Boss Mason John Brannon commenced repairing

walls on Towpath and Berm side of Canal in Georgetown and worked from March 5, 

1872 up to March 9th 1872. 

 A gang of (6) six men under Boss Quarryman Levi Barnes commenced to quarry 

stone at High Island Feb. 20, 1872, and worked up to March 4th getting out stone. 

 I placed a work on 1st December, 1871, (5) five Carpenters and (2) two helpers 

under Boss Carpenter John Collins and have accomplished the following work viz: Repaired Locks 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 21. Built Bridge near Lock 15 on Log 

wall Level, 3 stanks and one Crib in Feeder, and laying Truck with Lumber from Quarry 

to high Island, taking up truck put in (2) two new flumes one at Lock 5 and one at Lock 

6. 

 Built (2) two Bridges at the foot of Market house East and West span in Georgetown, and put up railings on Towpath side under Bridges at Market House and Aqueduct. 

 I placed at work on Jan. 2nd 1872 a gang of (9) nine men under Boss William 

Matthews, who have done the following work—Building stank at Head of Feeder, removing dressed stone to Locks, worked on Crib to Feeder, puddle culvert below Chain 

Bridge, repaired Wall at Jennys Mill, puddling Trunk at Thompson & Edmonston’s Mill, 

cutting bushes on Berm Bank from Lock 5 to Lock 8, removed mud & stone from Lock 5 

to stop Lock, making stank and pumping out Lock 6, worked on Feeder and cleaning out 

Bottom of Canal in Georgetown Level. 

 I placed at work on Jan. 2nd 1872, a gang of (8) eight men under Boss John C. 

Myers, who have done the following work viz: Tearing down Lock 15, attending Masons 

at Locks 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15. Tearing down Lock 14, removing mud and stone from 

 that spent. In January 1872 the net profit was $476.32 and in September 1875 the profit was $558.45. Apparently, the carpenters and others who worked in the company shops along the line rented their own quarters except when they were on special assignments at various points along the line. On those occasions, 

they boarded on the company house-boats or in lock houses or other company structures and paid 50 cents 

per say for room and board. Monthly Statements of Receipts and Expenditures for Boarding Employees on 

the Canal Line, 1872–1877, C & O Co. 76 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 411. 77 Ibid, L, 435–436. 
572 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Lock 8 to Lock 15. Worked at Feeder from Feb. 20th up to March 4th. Also removed mud 

& stone out of Bottom of Canal on Georgetown Level. 

 I placed at work on Jan. 2nd 1872, a gang of (9) nine men who have accomplished 

the following work—Tearing down and attending Masons at Lock 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 & 

21. Cut the Bushes on Berm Bank of Canal at Lock 20. Cutting to Lock 20, removed mud 

and stone from out of Bottom of Canal at Lock 20 to Lock 23. Worked on Feeder from 

Feb. 20th to March 4th, removed mud and stone out of Bottom of Canal on Georgetown 

Level. This gang under Boss I. G. Fields. 

 I placed at work on Feb. 13th 1872, under Bosses Cammack, Kendle & Connel 

(104) one hundred & four men who were wheeling stone, wheeling sand, carrying cement, mixing cement and cleaning out the Bottom of [the] Canal, removing mud and 

stone out of Georgetown Level. Working off and on to March 11, 1872. 

 We have on hand (6) six new lock gates and 3 old ones that have been repaired 

which I consider almost as good as new. There has been more work accomplished on this 

Division this past winter, than has been done any season for the past ten (10) years; the 

Division is in a great deal better condition now than it has ever been for that space of 

time.78

In June 1872 Arthur Pue Gorman, who had served both as a member of the canal board and the 

House of Delegates since 1869, was elected as president of the canal company. Almost immediately Gorman moved the canal office from Frederick to Annapolis. However, there was no reorganization of the canal management or significant turnover of personnel until the latter end of his 

ten-year presidency.79 One of the earliest surveying registers of canal employees that list the positions, number of workers, and salaries by division from Georgetown to Cumberland is that for 

March 1873. The register is as follows: 

GEORGETOWN DIVISION 

Superintendent I. R. Maus $83.33 per month 

Collector W. W. Blunt 125.00 per month 

Assistant Clerk C. Stewart 75.00 per month 

Inspector Hughes 75.00 per month 

Harbor Master James S. Kemp 75.00 per month 

Lock-keepers (18) 

Boss Carpenter 70.00 per month 

Carpenter (5 men) 2.50–3.00 per day 

Boss Mason 5.00 per day 

Masons (3 men) 2.50–4.00 per day 

Blacksmith 60 per month 

Helper 1.50 per day 

Boss of Laborers 47.50 per month 

 

78 Ibid, L, 561–564. 79 Frederick Examiner, June 5, 1872, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 32, 34, 

113, 171, 223, 265, N, 1, 49, 87, 108, 192. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 573 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Laborers (14 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 20.00 per month 

Boss of Laborers (2 men) 47.50 per month 

Assistant 1.58 1/3 per day 

Laborers (24 men) 1.50 per day 

Level Walker 46.50 per month 

Cook 20.00 per month 

MONOCACY DIVISION 

Superintendent D. T. Lakin $83.33 per month 

Collector George T. Pope 75.00 per month 

Assistant Clerk Joseph Holland 60.00 per month 

Lock-keepers (12) 

Boss Carpenter 2.50 per day 

Carpenters (3 men) 2.25 per day 

Boss Mason 4.00 per day 

Masons (5 men) 1.50–4.00 per day 

Blacksmith 2.25 per day 

Boss of Laborers 47.50 per month 

Laborers (11 men) 1.50 per day 

Cooks (2 women) 20.00 per month 

Assistant cook 1.50 per day 

Boss of Laborers 47.50 per month 

Laborers (19 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 20.00 per month 

Boss of Laborers 47.50 per month 

Laborers (24 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 20.00 per month 

ANTIETAM DIVISION 

Superintendent John Shay $83.33 per month 

Lock-keepers (6) 

Carpenters (2 men) 2.25 & 2.50 per day 

Blacksmiths (2 men) 2.25 per day 
574 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Level Walker 1.50 per day 

Laborers (9 men) 1.40 per day 

Cook 20.00 per month 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Level Walker 1.50 per day 

Laborers (5 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 20.00 per month 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Level Walker 1.50 per day 

Laborers (7 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 20.00 per month 

Mason 3.50 per day 

HANCOCK DIVISION 

Superintendent Denton Jacques $83.33 per month 

Collector H. Blackman 35.00 per month 

Collector J. V. L. Ensminger 35.00 per month 

Lock-keepers (11) 

Carpenters (4 men) 2.00–2.50 per day 

Blacksmith 2.00 per day 

Masons (3 men) 3.00–3.50 per day 

Stone Cutter 3.50 per day 

Tender 1.50 per day 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (32 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 18.00 per month 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (11 men) .96–1.50 per day 

Cook 18.00 per month 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (10 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 18.00 per month 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 575 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Boy 16.00 per month 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (9 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 18.00 per month 

Horse Hire (26 mules & 

drivers) 

189.25 per month 

CUMBERLAND DIVISION 

Superintendent Edward Mulvaney $83.33 per month 

Collector William Weber 125.00 per month 

Assistant Collector John M. Resley 100.00 per month 

Inspector C. V. Hammond 75.00 per month 

Assistant Inspector Phoebe A. Neil 16.67 per month 

Lock-keepers (20) 

Boss Carpenter 75.00 per month 

Carpenters (5 men) 2.25–2.35 per day 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (10 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 18.00 per month 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (6 men) 1.50 per day 

Boss 45.00 per month 

Laborers (8 men) 1.50 per day 

Cook 18.00 per month80

As the canal company had been operating with a five-division alignment since 1870, a group of 

29 citizens addressed a memorial to the Gorman board in May 1873 requesting the reestablishment of the Williamsport Division as the sixth superintendency. The memorial contained seven 

reasons for such an action: 

(1) Most previous boards maintained the division 

(2) Williamsport was centrally located on the canal line 

(3) Williamsport was an historic canal-centered town 

(4) Williamsport had fostered the canal in its early years and had extended credit to 

the company during the financially-troubled years. 

(5) The coming connection of the Western Maryland Railroad with Williamsport 

would increase the commercial prospects of the town 

(6) The great lengths of the present divisions 

 

80 Payrolls, March 1873–July 1874, C & O Co. 
576 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

(7) The danger of the slackwaters behind Dams Nos. 4 and 5 required closer attention. 

In conclusion, the memorial mentioned the increasingly important political considerations underlying the request: 

But, we respectfully submit, there are other reasons deemed equally as important by the 

entire party to which, we, in common with the entire management of the Canal belong. 

So long as the President and Directors of the Company are appointed solely from the 

dominant political party in the State, so long will that party be held politically responsible 

for its management. The President and Directors being appointed with equal reference to 

their political affiliations and their known competency and integrity, the masses of the 

party naturally expect the principle to be carried out with regard to the patronage and 

subordinate places. And we beg to remind your honorable Board, in no spirit of captious 

fault-finding that the failure to fully recognize this principle has placed the supremacy of 

our party in this county [Washington] in jeopardy, and threatens us now with impending 

defeat. Recognizing the importance, at this time, of this view of the matter, and to evince 

our unity and harmony in the accomplishment of what we believe to be off essential importance to the good management of the Canal and the success of our political party, we 

have laid all individual preferences aside and agreed to recommend Jonathan Spillman 

for the position of Superintendent, believing that he is in every way competent, and that 

he will give unbounded satisfaction to the Company and the people of Williamsport. 

The memorial was referred to a special committee which recommended that the management of 

the canal did not require a new Williamsport Division; thus, the proposal was rejected at that 

time.81

 During the years 1875 and 1876 disputes arose over the wages paid by the company to 

the repair crews, and further conflicts developed over how much should be deducted from the 

worker’s pay to cover the cost of room and board. In 1875 thirteen crew bosses sent a petition to 

the directors asking for a pay increase. The petition is interesting in that it describes some of the 

conditions under which the repairs crews operated: 

Our pay remains the same that it was when the present system for managing the Canal 

was inaugurated and when we take into consideration the increase of labor and responsibility consequent upon the increased trade upon the Canal we feel confident you cannot 

fail to see the justice of our prayer. We would further set forth that we receive one third 

less pay than others occupying similar positions under other corporations or public 

works. In consequence of the regulations established we are prohibited from engaging in 

any other business; we are therefore dependent upon this above for the support of our 

families, and when you take into consideration the increase in cost of living compared 

with the past you will discover that we are rending service for less pay than formerly. 

This too when some of us flatter ourselves that by a constant and undivided attention to 

our duty we have contributed much to the present financial prosperity of this great work. 

We would further submit that we are in the discharge of our duty constantly exposed to 

contagious and malarial diseases entailing upon us great physical suffering as well as pecuniary loss. In conclusion permit us to say that we are all deeply impressed with the 

 

81 Memorial, variously signed, to President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, May 

31, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 577 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

great responsibility of our position and feel a deep interest in this great work under your 

charge and knowing you to be gentlemen of enlarged and liberal views, we ask nothing 

but justice and right at your hands.82

In May 1876 trouble erupted near Sharpsburg when Superintendent Samuel Mc Graw of the Antietam Division ordered his men to repair a breach in the canal. Those workers with carts refused 

to go to the site of the break until they were assured of receiving $3.50 per day. The common laborers joined in the short-lived sit-down strike until McGraw agreed to pay them $1.50 plus room 

and board per day. Similar wage increases soon spread throughout the entire length of the canal.83

 The question of what amount should be deducted from the wages of canal employees for 

room and board also arose in May 1876. Up to this time the company had deducted 50 cents per 

day from the pay of workers to pay for the cost of food and housing in “house-boats,” lockhouses, or company-owned structures along the line. Such arrangements were not provided for 

the carpenters and blacksmiths who worked in the company shops at such locations as Lock No. 

5, Great Falls, Edwards ferry, Sandy Hook, Williamsport and Cumberland. These men had to 

provide for their own room and board (which averaged 75 cents a day) with the exception of 

those periods when they were assigned to projects along the canal. The problem was complicated 

by the fact that the company deducted 50 cents a day from the workers’ wages even though at 

times the company was forced to board its hands in private homes at 75 cents per day. Thus there 

was considerable dissatisfaction by both canal officials and employees with the company’s system of providing for room and board. Before the problem could be resolved, however, the declining fortunes of the canal would eliminate the need for discussions about the adoption of a more 

equitable system of providing for the men.84

 In November 1877 the most disastrous flood in the history of the canal up to that time 

struck the canal, reaching levels from two to six feet higher than the worst previous flood in 1852. 

On December 1 all the company employees, including the collectors and lock tenders, who were 

not engaged on the repairs were relieved from duty so that expenditures were restricted to the actual cost of repairs and office expenses. The line of the canal was also reduced to three divisions 

as follows: 

1st Division—Eastern terminus to and including Dam No. 2—John T. Fletchall, Superintendent; Isaac Maus, assistant superintendent 

2nd Division—Dam No. 2 to upper end of slackwater at Dam No. 4—J. J. Moore, 

Superintendent; Samuel Mc Graw, assistant superintendent 

3rd Division—Head of Dam No. 4 slackwater to western terminus—L. G. Stanhope, 

Superintendent.85

 

82 Memorial, variously signed, to Board of Directors of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 1875, Ltrs. 

Recd., C & O Co. Apparently, the board paid little attention to the petition. 

83 Mc Graw to Gorman, May 17, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Up to this time, the laborers had received 

$1.50 per day out of which 50 cents was deducted for room and board. 

84 Fletchall to Gorman, May 27, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 85 Fifteenth Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 9–10. Paymaster Stephen Gambrill was placed in charge of 

the repairs on the Georgetown Level; Fletchall was given immediate supervision over the repairs from 

Lock No. 5 to Dam No. 2; Moore was instructed to employ 200 laborers and as many horses and carts as he 

could at Dams No. 3 and 4; Stanhope was ordered to rebuild Dam No. 4 and hire 60 men to repair Dams 

No. 5 and 6; and Cumberland collector A. Willison was authorized to employ 100 men to repair the canal 

from Dam No. 6 to Cumberland. Gorman to Board of Directors, December 12, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O 

Co. 
578 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

After the canal was restored to navigation in the spring of 1878, the old seven-division management system was reestablished. The positions, number of employees, and salaries that were 

adopted at this time were as follows: 

“The salaries of officers and pay of employees are: President, $2,500; Treasurer, $2,000; 

Engineer, $2,400; Paymaster, $1,500; Collector at Cumberland, $1,500; Collector at 

Georgetown, $1,500; Collectors at Williamsport and Hancock, each $25 per month; assistant clerk to Treasurer, $1,200; Inspector of cargoes at Georgetown, $900; Directors, 

while in season, $4 per day; seven division Superintendents, each $1,000 per annum; 17 

bosses, each $45 per month; average of 20 laborers to each division at $1 per day and 

board; 15 smiths, $2.25 per day; about 3 carpenters to each division at from $4 to $2.25 

per day; lock-keepers, $60 per month for double and $40 for single locks.86

During the late 1870s the Gorman board sought for ways to reduce its operating expenses by introducing various improvements. One improvement, completed and in operation by October 1879 

was the installation of a telephone line along the waterway built by company hands under the supervision by Telephone Engineer J. Frank Morrison at a cost of nearly $15,000. There were 43 

stations so located as to be within easy reach of any point on the canal. The telephone system, 

which was the longest single circuit then in existence, enabled the canal company to reduce operating costs by providing fast communication of information relative to breaches and canal traffic 

problems. Such information had been carried formerly on foot or by horseback or mail.87

 In his annual report to the stockholders in June 1880 President Gorman announced that 

the telephone system had proven successful in facilitating canal repairs and enabling the company 

to concentrate its regular work at several locations along the waterway. Such developments had 

reduced the cost of labor and lessened the need for seven division superintendents. Accordingly, 

the number of divisions had been reduced to two: 

1st Division—Eastern terminus to Lock No, 39—J. J. Moore, superintendent 

2nd Division—Lock No. 39 to Western terminus—Lewis G. Stanhope, superintendent 

It was calculated that this reorganization would save the company some $12,000 annually in 

overhead expenses.88

 By 1880 Gorman had used his position as canal president to secure his hold of the Democratic Party in Maryland and win election to the United States Senate. Some critics, such as 

ex-canal president Alfred Spates, accused Gorman of relegating the real needs of the canal to a 

level of concern secondary to his effort of employing his position—one of great political influence in Western Maryland and hence Annapolis—as a vehicle to achieve his personal political 

ambitions. Such charges were summarized in an article in the Cumberland Civilian on March 3, 

1878: 

 

86 Frederick Citizen, 1878, in Alfred Spates Papers, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville. The 

precise date of the article, which had been clipped from the newspaper, could not be determined. 

87 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 92–97, and In the Circuit Court of the United 

States for District of Maryland: In Equity Daniel K. Stewart vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company and 

others (Baltimore, [1878]), 106, 328–329, 333–334. Two descriptions of the telephone system may be seen 

in Appendices C and D. 

88 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 11. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 579 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

These charges allege that under the present management the canal has been for several 

years past in bad condition; that previous to 1872 boats carried from 130 to 135 tons of 

coal, and now carry no more than 110 to 120. That the prism has filled up as to make it 

almost impossible for boars to pass in many places; three guagers are employed to do the 

work of one; two men are employed as collectors at Cumberland at an expense of $2,700, 

while one of them offers to do all the work for $1,500; that an officer of the company 

here employed a large number of men solely to make use of them for political purposes in 

the Democratic primaries, so as to defeat certain men who were objectionable to the 

President of the company, and that for their political services they were paid by the canal 

company; that officers of the company bought votes, and thus aided in defeating the Democratic candidate; that certain officials were appointed solely in consideration of their 

promise to render certain services at Annapolis at the bid of the President and Directors 

of the canal company; that a contingent of $6,000 in the hands of these officials was expended in such a way as to demand investigation; that some of the officials of the canal 

company are receiving pay for two offices; and that Directors who are forbidden by the 

charter to receive more than the amount of their expenses are getting salaries, and that the 

pay of others has been doubled; that expensive excursions are of frequent occurrence, on 

which occasions an elegant boat with costly appointments is used, and unnecessary expenses incurred. . . .89

Gorman replied to the charges by denying the specific allegations of wrongdoing while at the 

same time admitting that political considerations had been involved in filling canal jobs. In commenting on the Gorman years as president of the canal company, his biographer, John R. Lambert, commented: 

The canal reflected the political complexion of the state. Maryland was the largest stockholder and as such chose its governing officials. The board of public works was composed of the governor, the comptroller, and the treasurer, all of whom had strong party affiliations that dictated their choice of the president and directors of the canal. In the same 

way, the lesser appointments in the company’s service were also made, for the most part, 

from members of the dominant party. It [the system] had always existed. 

According to Gorman, the system was justified because: 

In the ranks of either of the political parties, which divide the intelligence of the country 

not less than its votes, it is always easy to find honest and capable men who are fitted, intellectually and morally, for the most important trusts, and have no great unwillingness to 

accept them.90

In August 1882 Gorman retired as president of the canal company to devote full time to his political career. A secondary reason for his departure was the decline in the fortunes of the canal as 

a result of trade stagnation, financial depression, stiff competition, and physical deterioration. 

Following the reign of Gorman, there was a succession of short administrations by political appointees, all of whom owed their positions to him. The administrations were as follows: Lewis C. 

 

89 Cumberland Civilian, March 3, 1878, in Spates Papers. 

90 Quoted in John R. Lambert, Arthur Pue Gorman (Baton Rouge, 1953), 71–72. 
580 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Smith, (August 1882); L. Victor Baughman (December 1884); and Stephen Gambrill (January 

1888).91

 To resolve the financial dilemma as well as it was able, the canal company resorted to 

several devices. First, it cut the ordinary expenses of operation whenever and wherever possible. 

Second, the board applied its economy measures to the work of maintenance and improvement by 

authorizing only the most essential repairs to the waterway and suspending work on the comprehensive program of improvements laid down by the Gorman administration in the mid-1880s. 

 During a miner’s strike in the spring of 1882 trade on the canal was virtually suspended. 

The board reduced the pay of the lock tenders from $40 to $20 per month and that of the bosses 

and horsemen from $45 and $25 to $25 and $15 per month, respectively. The salaries were not 

restored to the pre-strike levels until May 1883.92

 Further steps were taken to reduce operating expenses during the winter of 1883–84. Effective January 1, the pay of the lock tenders was reduced by 50 percent. Moreover, 65 employees on the 1st Division and 40 on the 2nd Division were laid off. Many of the men were rehired in 

the early spring to help get the canal ready for the new boating season.93

 Still unable to meet its expenses, the board on April 24, 1884, ordered a 50 percent reduction in the number of its laborers. Accordingly, the following cuts were made: 

DIVISION NO. 1 

J. Shipley Boss Carpenter From Self & 3 men to Self & 1 man 

M. Lynch Boss Carpenter From Self & 2 men to Self & 1 man 

J. P. Biser Boss Carpenter From Self & 7 men to Self & 3 man 

G. G. Latchford Boss From Self & 14 men to Self & 4 men 

Connell Boss From Self & 15 men to Self & 6 men 

Scraggs Boss From Self & 20 men to Self & 10 men 

Riley Boss From Self & 17 men to Self & 10 men 

Elgin Boss From Self & 13 men to Self & 6 men 

Boteter Boss From Self & 15 men to Self & 6 men 

Allen Boss From Self & 18 men to Self & 10 men 

Drenner Boss From Self & 15 men to Self & 6 men 

Marrow Boss From Self & 12 men to Self & 6 men 

From 12 Bosses & 141 men to 12 Bosses & 69 men 

DIVISION NO. 2 

S. D. Young Boss Carpenter From Self & 5 men to Self & 1 man 

J. W. Burgess Boss Carpenter From Self & 3 men to ------------- 

S. Troup Boss Carpenter From Self & 3 man to Self & 1 man 

Kelly Boss From Self & 12 men to Self & 4 men 

Sprigg Boss From Self & 12 men to Self & 4 men 

Hittenhouser Boss From Self & 7 men to Self & 4 men 

Masters Boss From Self & 8 men to Self & 4 men 

S. Sterling Boss ------------- ---------- 

J. F. Sterling Boss From Self & 14 men to Self & 6 men 

 

91 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 247–248, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, 

N, 197–198, 298–299, 301, 323–324, 350, 370. 

92 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 189–190, 214. 

93 Ibid, N, 246, and Fifty-Sixth Annual Report (1884), C & O Co., 17. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 581 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Hughes Boss From Self & 9 men to Self & 6 men 

Burgan Boss From Self & 16 men to Self & 8 men 

From 10 Bosses & 89 men to 9 Bosses & 38 men 

In addition, one gang of hands at the Basin Wharf in Cumberland was to be dismissed to provide 

a savings of 25 percent in its operating costs.94

 Faced with increasing debts and a continuing decline in trade revenues, the board in June 

1884 ordered 20 to 25 percent cuts in pay and personnel. The following reductions were made: 

DIVISION NO. 1 

J. J. Moore Superintendent From $125 to $100 per month

J. Isaccs Assist. Superintendent From $100 to $80 per month 

William Snowden Collector From $125 to $100 per month

W. Jarboe Clerk From $100 to $75 per month 

36 Lock-keepers From $40 to $30 per month 

4 Lock-keepers From $45 to $35 per month 

1 Lock-keeper From $50 to $40 per month 

1 Lock-keeper From $65 to $55 per month 

Richard Clark Helper at Outlet From $30 per month to dismissal 

James Vaughan Mason From $1.75 per day to dismissal 

E. Elias Assist. Carpenter From $1.75 per day to dismissal 

D. Reed Assist. Carpenter From $1.75 per day to dismissal 

William Danner Assist. Carpenter From $1.75 per day to dismissal 

Joseph Elgin Assist. Carpenter From $1.75 per day to dismissal 

G. G. Latchford Boss of Dredge From $70 to $35 per month 

A. W. Latchford Engineer & Watchman From $2 to $1 per day 

Average Monthly Force (12 men) From $1.10 per day to dismissal 

W. H. Riley Boss From $55 per month to dismissal 

Average Monthly Force (10 men) From $1.10 per day to dismissal 

Cannell Boss From 8 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

C. F. Elgin Boss From 10 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

Scaggs Boss From 12 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

R. H. Botter Boss From 6 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

William Allen Boss From 12 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

Silas Duncan Boss From 8 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

James Marrow Boss From 7 men to 4 men at $1.10 per day 

DIVISION MO. 2 

Lewis G. Stanhope Superintendent From $125 to $100 per month

A. Willison Collector From $150 to $125 per month

John Edwards Assist. Collector From $100 to $75 per month 

J. Ranahan Guager From $50 to $30 per month 

E. J. Neill Inspector From $40 to $30 per month 

J. Spielman Collector From $50 to $40 per month 

 

94 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 257–258, and Fifty-Sixth Annual Report (1884), 

19–20. 
582 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

28 Lock-keepers From $40 to $30 per month 

4 Lock-keepers From $65 to $55 per month 

2 Lock-keepers From $50 to $40 per month 

H. Tedrick Packet From $50 to $35 per month 

Carpenter From $1.75 per day to dismissal 

Blacksmith From $1.75 per day to dismissal95

Additional drastic cuts were made in the staff of the central office at Annapolis in July. The offices of general superintendent, assistant superintendent and engineer were abolished, and President Smith assumed the duties of general superintendent. The number of employees at Annapolis 

was reduced to five—president, treasurer, accountant, clerk, messenger—and their salaries were 

reduced by 20 percent.96

 At the annual meeting of the stockholders in June 1885 L. Victor Baughman, who had 

been elected as president of the canal company in the previous December, announced that the 

reduction of salaries and wages, the discharge of unnecessary employees, and the consolidation of 

offices had resulted in a savings of $26,473.57 in operating expenditures. However, the company 

was still unable to meet its monthly payroll and had fallen behind several months in its payments 

to the workers. Most of the company laborers were continuing to perform their jobs despite the 

backlog in wages, although some workers in Washington County had left their places of employment. Henceforth the two superintendents, J. P. Biser and Edward Mulvaney, would make 

monthly trips over their divisions and submit written reports to the president concerning the work 

that needed to be done.97

 Owing to the limited means of the company, Superintendents Biser and Mulvaney were 

ordered to dispense with the services of the entire canal labor force in January and February 1886. 

Only those employees who were needed to police company property were to stay on the payroll 

and then at reduced salaries.98

AMOUNTS DUE TO UNPAID LABORERS 

AND OTHER PERSONS 1883–1889 

1883 $ 2,088.54

1884 $ 2,803.94

1885 $ 174.46

1886 $ 589.45

1887 $ 4,686.48

1888 $21,609.98

1889 $26,554.06

$58,509.91∗

∗ Amount unpaid as of Nov. 1, 1889, Register of 

amounts Due Labor, 1883–1889, C & O Co. 

 

95 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 267–268. 96 Ibid, N, 274. In addition, the position of assistant collector at Georgetown was abolished, and all of the 

carpenters on Division No. 1 were consolidated under the supervision of J. J. Biser. 

97 Fifty-Seventh Annual Report (1885), C & O Co., 6–7, 9. See the following page for a list of the 

“Amounts Due to Unpaid Laborers and Other Persons, 1883–1889.” 

98 Fifty-Eighth Annual Report (1886), C & O Co., 11–12. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 583 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

President Baughman reported to the stockholders at their annual meeting in January 1887 on the 

results of the cost-saving policies of his administration and the prospects of the company for the 

coming year. Among his comments were the following statements: 

It will be observed that in the first year of our management a saving of over thirty thousand dollars on the running expenses of the canal was effected over the expenditures of 

the year 1884. A still further reduction of nearly twenty-three thousand dollars was effected this year over the year 1885, thus making the reduction for 1886 nearly fifty-three 

thousand dollars less than it cost to run the canal in 1884....We feel assured by an enforced system of economy we will be able to make still further reductions during the year 

1887. 

The present administration does not propose to take advantage of honest labor by employing men in various positions when there is no prospect of obtaining the means by 

which they are to be remunerated. 

 We have endeavored to carry out the pledges made to the people of Maryland 

when we assumed charge of the affairs of this Company two years ago, at which time we 

gave our assurance that a strict business management would be inaugurated, and that under no circumstances should this great work be prostrated for political purposes.99

An article appeared in the Baltimore Sun on August 20, 1887, describing in considerable detail 

the company provisions for room and board for its workers. In light of the desperate financial 

condition of the company and its numerous cost-cutting polices relative to labor, the article appears to be self-serving. Nevertheless, it is the most exhaustive treatment of the living and working conditions of the canal maintenance crews that is available: 

The number of employees of the Canal Company is about 275, of whom 125 are laborers 

who live in houses on land or in boats owned by the company, their quarters are fitted up 

with berths, wash stands, dining tables and other conveniences, and are noted for cleanliness. The laborers are paid $1.10 per day and are charged forty cents daily for board. 

Good cooks prepare and serve the food, which consists of beef, pork, bacon, vegetables, 

butter, bread, coffee and sugar. Each berth has a comfortable mattress and clean sheets 

and plenty of blankets. It was a wise act on the part of President Baughman to provide the 

men with good food and quarters, as they are in better condition physically than formerly, 

and, being satisfied, work harder. The cooks, of whom there are about twenty, are the 

only women in the laborers’ houses. They have separate apartments, and manage to preside over their stoves and tables in a manner that commands respect. The men eat breakfast between six and seven o’clock, go to work at seven, take an hour for dinner at midday, and quit work at six o’clock. Then they wash, and spend the evening smoking, singing, telling jokes, and having a good time generally. The company’s boats are towed to 

any point where work is required.... 

Carpenters, bosses and miscellaneous workmen make up the remainder of the list of employees.100

In his last annual report to the stockholders in January 1888 just before Stephen Gambrill, the 

son-in-law of Senator Gorman, was elected to replace him, President Baughman recited the accomplishments of his three year administration. Although somewhat exaggerated, the report indi-

 

99 Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), C & O Co., 11–12. 100 Baltimore Sun, August 20, 1887, in Spates Papers. 
584 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

cates his concern for the achievement of the most efficient management system possible for the 

canal in light of the deteriorating company finances: 

Impressed with the belief that the proper administration of its affairs demanded a total divorce of its management from all political entanglements, we distinctly asserted in our 

letter of acceptance three years ago that the canal should, during our term, be conducted 

solely on business principles. 

 With that end in view, useless offices were abolished, the number of employees 

decreased, expenses were curtailed, a close personal supervision was given to every 

branch and department, and no effort was left unused to secure an increase of tonnage 

and to stimulate the development of trade. As a consequence there is not today, and there 

has not been during our term, a single supernumerary or extra hand in the service of the 

company; there has not been, and there is not now, a single instance where a saving could 

have been effected in any way consistent with maintaining the efficiency of the works 

that have been overlooked, and every available ton of freight which the capacity of the 

boats was equal to was secured for transportation. Politics and political matters were kept 

studiously out of the business and the management of the canal, and we can say, without 

the fear of a successful denial from any source whatsoever, that the canal has not in any 

shape or form been used in the interest of or against any political party during our incumbency of the office of president.101

 

101 Sixtieth Annual Report (1888), C & O Co. 5–6. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 585 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

IX.: MANAGEMENT OF CANAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

DURING THE RECEIVERSHIP PERIOD: 1889–1924 

Following the titanic flood of 1889, the canal company admitted that it was unable to raise funds 

to repair its works and that it was bankrupt. As the majority owner of both the 1878 and 1844 

bonds, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad held preferred mortgages on the physical property and the 

revenues of the canal. On December 31, 1889, it petitioned the Circuit Court of Washington 

County for the appointment of receivers under the mortgage of 1844. On March 3, 1890, receivers were appointed to restore and operate the canal.102

 The receivers soon took steps to restore the navigation of the canal. H. C. Winship, a 

long-time employee of the canal company, was hired as general manager, while H. D. Whitcomb, 

a former general engineer for the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company and one of the commissioners for the construction of the levees on the Mississippi River, was employed as chief engineer. By the spring of 1891 some 1,000 laborers were involved in the repairs.103

 At the same time the receivers commenced a review of the overall maintenance and operating needs of the waterway. The assessment led to the preparation of a list of the estimated number and types of positions required to manage the canal: 

1 General Superintendent and Manager $3,000

1 Assistant Superintendent, 1st Division 1,200

1 Assistant Superintendent, 2nd Division 1,200

1 Collector at Cumberland 1,000

1 Clerk at Cumberland 600

2 Boss Carpenters (@ $60 per month) 1,440

1 Assistant Carpenter (@ $35 per month) 420

40 Laborers (250 days @ $1.10 per day) 11,000

3 Boss Carpenters (10 months @ $60 per month) 1,800

7 Assistant Carpenters (10 months @ $39 per month) 2,730

10 Section Bosses (10 months @ $60 per month) 6,000

10 Section Bosses (2 months @ $15 per month) 300

80 Laborers (250 days @ $1.10 per day) 22,000

11 Level Walkers (300 days @ $1.10 per day) 3,630

15 Horses Owned by Bosses & Others (@ $15 per month) 2,700

1 Collector at Hancock (@ $30 per month) 360

1 Collector at Williamsport (@ $40 per month) 480

59 Lock-Keepers (10 months @ $20 per month) 11,800

6 Lock-Keepers, Outlets and Bridges (10 months @ $30 per month) 1,800

2 Lock-Keepers, Waybills & Feeders (10 months @ $40 per month) 800

1 Lock-Keeper, Feeder (10 months @ $25 per month) 250

3 Lock-Keepers and Inspectors (10 months @ $35 per month) 1,050

1 Collector at Georgetown 1,200

1 Clerk at Georgetown 720

1 General Bookkeeper and Cashier at Company Office 1,500

$78,980

 

102 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 263–266. 103 Petition of Trustees, April 25, 1891, Receivership Papers, Washington County Courthouse, Hagerstown, 

Maryland 
586 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

In addition, a list of other estimated maintenance and operating costs was compiled as follows: 

Cumberland Wharf $5,000.00 

Trimming Cargoes 2,606.50 

Operating Territory within District of Columbia 

including Georgetown Incline 5,000.00 

Material for Repairs (gates, houses, flumes, wasteways, 

trunk bridges, scows, boats, wheelbarrows, shovels, picks, iron 14,020.00 

104$28,626.50 

It is not known how closely this estimate was followed in subsequent years as the receivers established a management system for the maintenance and operation of the canal. The payrolls for this 

period, which are listed as existing in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal records at the National Archives, have been lost. As a result, there is no accurate method of determining the composition of 

the employees on the line. However, a cursory examination of the annual expenditures by the 

trustees during the receivership period indicates a close correlation between those figures and the 

listed cost estimates in 1890.105

 Because of the unavailability of payroll lists and detailed annual reports for the period 

little is known about the men who managed the canal during the receivership. The only individual 

for whom there is some information is George L. Nicholson, who served as general manager and 

superintendent of the waterway from the early 1890s until 1938 when the canal was sold to the 

federal government.106 Another man long associated with the canal during this period was Samuel 

Sidney Connell, who served as section boss from Lock No. 22 to Brunswick from the early 1900s 

to 1924.107

 

104 “Estimated Cost of Operating Canal,” filed June 9, 1890, Receivership Papers. 105 Reports of Trustees, 1891–1924, Receivership Papers. 106 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 186–187. 107 Jane Chinn Sween, “A History of Dawsonville and Seneca, Montgomery County, Maryland” (Mss. 

Maryland Historical Society, 1967), 69. Connell lived in a company house beside the Seneca basin during 

his tenure from the early 1900s to 1933. The structure was torn down after his death in the latter year. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 587 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

X. RESUMPTION OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

PERFORMED BY CANAL COMPANY CREWS 

A review of the canal company records indicates that virtually throughout the operating history of 

the canal regular maintenance activities were performed by work crews headed by bosses who 

were generally under the immediate supervision of the division superintendents. During the winter months from mid-December to mid-March the canal was usually closed to navigation. It was 

during this period that the crews removed siltation deposits and other obstructions from the canal 

trunk, made major repairs to the masonry locks, aqueducts and culverts, and restored the towpath 

to grade. Repairs or improvements were made to the lockhouses and the company shops and offices along the waterway. The wooden gates and the wicket rods in the locks and the waste weirs 

were replaced by new ones built in the company carpenter shops at various points along the canal. 

Such items as the woodwork in the composite locks also were overhauled during the winter. The 

winter months were also the time when long-range improvements, such as the lengthening of 

some of the locks in the 1870s and 1880s, were accomplished. Sometimes when a break occurred 

at an aqueduct or a culvert during the navigation season, a temporary wooden trunk would be 

thrown over the “trouble-spot” until more extensive repairs could be made in the winter. 

 During the boating season which usually lasted from mid-March to mid-December, the 

company crews were kept busy with a variety of duties. Some of their more frequent activities 

included clearing deposits and debris from the culvert barrels, strengthening the towpath and 

berm embankment protection walls, and making minor repairs as needed on the canal structures. 

Aside from these duties, the crews were kept busy repairing breaches in the canal banks, replacing lock gates that had been damaged by boats, and raising sunken hulls. The crews also performed the necessary restoration work to the canal after the frequent spring and fall freshets 

which struck the Potomac Valley. When major floods occurred additional hands were often recruited in the towns and villages along the canal to supplement the regular work crews. One of 

the most frequent problems to face the canal company during the summer months was that of an 

inadequate supply of water. As this situation was generally caused by the low level of the Potomac and leaks in the dams, the crews often spent much time tightening the structures in an effort 

to raise the level of the pool of water backed up behind them. 
588 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 589 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX A 

PROPERTY ON AND ABOUT THE HOUSEBOAT 

ON THE 2ND DIVISION, AUGUST 1870 

An inventory of property belonging to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company on and about the 

house boat on the 2nd division J. Y. Fletchall Superintendent [August 1, 1870]. 

J. Y. Fletchall Superintendent [August 1, 

1870]1

2 wheel barrows old sag 1⁄2 worn 

6 wheelbarrows very good (new) 

2 wheelbarrows for stone new & good 

3 crow Bars 

4 picks 

6 shovels old 3⁄4 worn 

1 cart & gear 

1 tool box in good order 

1 feed box in good order 

1 small house for provisions 

1 stable for horse in very bad order 

1 scow in good order 

The House Boat in fair condition—a few 

repairs needed 

13 mattresses more than half worn out 

13 sheets half worn 

13 Bolsters half worn 

13 pr Blankets in all, (1 pr.) for each bed or 

bunk 

2 Lamps 

1 Boat Lamp 

1 Cooking Stove & Fixtures say 1⁄2 worn 

 

1

 Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

17 saucers & 13 cups for Table 

1 pepper box, 2 oil cans 

21 plates, 2 white dishes 1 Brown dish 

1 stew pan, 2 Molasses mugs 

1 Pitcher, 3 tin pans 

1 Kitchen Lamp, 1 Tea Pot, 1 Sifter 

1 Coffee mill, 1 Wash bowl 

1 Jug, 4 Buckets (wood), 3 tin cups 

1 office Stove half worn, 2 chairs 

2 Benches for table, 1 long table & one 

small table for office 

1 Stove in Scow & pipe 2/3rds worn 

1 Block & fall in good order 

1 Tow line new—some old rope of little use 

4 spalding hammers—! Grind Stone 1⁄2 worn 

2 Sledges, 1 shovel 

3 Wash basins, 2 stools 

6 Table spoons & 6 Tea spoons 

1⁄2 doz. Tin plates, 10 knives & forks very 

bad 

2 Looking Glasses 

1 Small flat boat 

1 new arc and 2 old (of no use) 
590 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX B 

TOOLS, BOATS, AND MATERIALS 

ON THE SENECA DIVISION 1870 

A list of tools, boats, and materials belonging to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company on the 

“Seneca Division” 

Delivered to A. Thomas as follows [August 1, 1870] 2

One small flat, 10 pr blankets—8 blankets—10 bed ticks, 7 pillow ticks, 10 pillow slips—26 

sheets—2 table cloths, 5 towels, 2 curtain mosquito bar, 15 knives, 8 forks, 8 tea spoons, 7 table 

spoons, 6 buckets, 6 tin cups, 29 plates, 22 cups and 15 saucers, 3 molasses cans, 2 sugar bowls, 1 

bowl, 2 milk pots—2 coffee mils, 3 jugs, 1 pitcher, 3 boxes—2 trays—1 polling pin—2 oil 

cans—tin lantern—dish pan—4 tin plated—2 coffee pots—1 cooking stove & fixtures—2 

lamps—1 clock—3 tables—3 chairs—6 benches—4 stools—office stove—Bow lamp—wash 

pan—3 Sad irons—Bed Stead in office—oil cloth—3 axes—1 hatchet, 2 wash tubs—1 grind 

stone—2 striking hammers—1 set blocks & rope, 4 cross bars, 2 pinch bars—1 lamping bar, 15 

shovels—6 picks—8 wheel barrows—3 spawling hammers—2 sledges—1 tool chest—2 locks—

1 water keg—390 rails—62 post 1 hand made scoop in good repair—1 old stove. 

1 Dirt scow, 1 large flat, 1 house boat, 2 pumps—want repairing—1 blanket, 1 towel—3 

knives—2 butcher knives, 4 forks—6 spoons—1 canister—2 dish pans—1 tin bucket, 2 coffee 

pots—2 lamps, 2 pans—1 shovel, nearly worn out. 

13 Heel posts—11 tow posts—2 marking sticks, 19 beams—146 arms—3 pieces 4x5 yellow 

pine—250 ft. I in. oak—200 ft. 1 in. pine—100 ft. 3⁄4 in. oak—150 ft 3 in. oak—50 ft 11⁄2 in. 

oak—1 piece 6x10—5 trussels—400 ft 2 in. white pine, lock & key—work bench—2 bench 

screws 1 cross cut saw—1 boring machine—7 augers—1 Canal stamp—2 bars iron 1 wrench—2 

axes—2 crow bars set shear polls & rig—1⁄2 bbl. Pitch—bale oakum, 2 timber jacks and 4 rollers—1 cant hook—1 ladder—one grab hook—1 grind stone—2 buckets, 1 cup—22 bolts—5 new 

pivots—1 old pivot—3 new pots—5 old pots—4 new frames & paddles—1 frame—200 old 

bolts—T.C.L.s & taps—31⁄2 keys, spikes, 40 nails—1 oil can, 1 brush, 2 hoes—3 sets cast gears—

3 jumper drills, 1 churn drill, 5 hand drills—1 scraper—about 1500 old railing iron—2 old shovels—3 house casts, 1 stone truck—1 ring mall about 1000 ft., old lumber, 7 wheel barrows—2 

new stone barrows—2 old stone barrows—1 old grout box—3 old barrows worth nothing—3 

pumps nearly worn out. 

 

2

 Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 591 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX C 

REPORT ON CANAL TELEPHONE LINE, SEPTEMBER 27, 18793

The undersigned committee appointed at the last meeting of the Board of Directors held in Annapolis to examine and inspect the “Telephone” recently constructed under your direction by Mr. 

Morrison, from Georgetown to Cumberland, and also to examine and inspect the re-building of 

Dam No. 4 which was washed away by the floods in the Potomac in the year 1877, beg leave to 

submit the following report: 

 In company with Mr. Morrison we examined a large portion of the “Telephone” line constructed by him, and now in use, and find the number of poles to the mile to be thirty (30) of good 

solid chestnut timber, twenty five (25) feet high of an average size of six (6) inches at the upper 

end, well set in the embankment, on straits four and one half (41⁄2 ) feet deep and on curves five 

(5) feet in clay driven foundations except in crossings over Railroads, or county Bridges or other 

obstructions, in the way of the line where they range from thirty five (35) to forty and forty-five 

(40–45) feet in height in order to clear the line from all possible contact with such obstructions. 

At Big Slack Water the line changes from the towpath to the berm side of the Canal and instead 

of using poles, which was impossible owing to the change from the towpath to the berm side, the 

wire is strung on iron arms or brackets, securely fastened in the rock on the berm side of the canal, a distance of four (4) miles, and then recrosses to the towpath. The wire used in its construction is galvanized No. 9 gauge regular standard Telegraph wire fulfilling all the Electrical conditions of first class material, placed on the poles by screw glass insulators, or brackets, secured to 

poles by six (6) inch spikes. All line wire points firmly soldered at the ends in the most approved 

manner. The instruments are connected with the main line by No. 14 gauge copper wire passing 

through hard rubber tubes through the wall of the Telephone building and soldered to the line 

wire and side. The entire line is worked by five (5) cells gravity battery placed at each Telegraph 

Station, ten (10) additional cells of the same character at terminal points. The Telephone is a carbon transmitter “Edison’s Patent.” 

 The simple and easy method of communication by telephone adapts it peculiarly well to 

canal transportation service, and the facilities afforded to work and transportation on the canal 

must and will very soon dispense with a number of superintendents and other employees necessary under the present management. We have at different places along the line, test the method of 

communication between different points or stations, and find the line in good working order. Mr. 

Morrison, who constructed the line, under your direction, accompanied us for the purpose of explaining the manner of operating the line, and to him we are indebted for so much instructing information on the subject. 

 At the big tunnel an additional line is constructed over the hill from the first lock, east 

end of tunnel to the watch box at the west end of the tunnel, affording additional facilities for the 

passage of boats through the tunnel. 

 

3

 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, pp. 92–93. 
592 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX D 

REPORT ON TELEPHONE LINE, NOVEMBER 1, 18794

Under instructions from your Board during the year 1878, I made a complete survey of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, for the purpose of constructing a Telegraph line and establishing stations at proper points for the transaction of the company’s business and to expedite the making of 

repairs when necessary. 

 In January of the current year, I reported to you that if the line of poles put up by the Superintendents of Divisions on the Canal could be used, that the cost of putting up the wire including line wire insulation etc. would be in round numbers about $14,000. 

 From time to time poles have been erected on which it was proposed to place the wires. 

In March of the current year however, under your direction I made an inspection of the poles and 

condition of the work and found that the poles already up were too light for the purpose for which 

they were intended. It was therefore deemed expedient to supply entirely new poles which would 

not only carry wires to provide for the addition of other wires from time to time as the wants of 

the company might require. I also found that the dense growth of timber along the canal necessitated the employment of gangs of men other than those engaged in construction to open the way 

for the building of the line. I began work on the 12th day and completed and put the line in service 

through its entire length on the first of October. Although it was not until the 31st of the same 

month that the line was cleared of trees and overhanging brush and placed in perfect condition. 

The original plan for a Telegraph line was abandoned because of the cost of skilled Telegraph 

operators and telephones were put in, in which are now being successfully worked by the Locktenders and other canal employees. Every assistance was rendered by the officers and employees 

of the canal company to expedite the work, men and materials were promptly supplied and in little over five months a line was constructed which from the difficulties to be overcome would ordinarily have taken at least double that time. In many places the only foot hold we could obtain 

for the poles was by drilling into the solid rock. In spite of this, and other difficulties, the work 

was completed in the short time above mentioned. The canal company is now in passion of one of 

the best telegraph lines. 

 The following description of the work material and equipment will give you a proper understanding of the character of the line. The poles are Chestnut timber not less than six inches at 

the top, twenty five feet high on the plains with from thirty to forty five feet high at crossings and 

other places when required. 

 The average depth in the ground is four & one half feet, except in curves and strains 

when from five to six feet set was given them. They are set in driven clay and every precaution 

taken to prevent them caving in on curves. White oak brackets fastened to the poles with six inch 

spikes support the glass insulators upon which the line wore is securely fastened with tie wire of 

its own gauge. The line wires are No. nine galvanized wire and stood all the standard tests for 

conducting tensile strength &c. The equivalent consists of Forty Eight “Edison Universal telephones” comprising Transmitter, Desk Pony, Crown Receiver Switch Key, Signal Bell and Relay. 

The Battery consists of four hundred cells of “Calland Gravity Battery” distributed as follows: 

Georgetown 35 cells

Woods Lock 25 cells

Dam No. 4 15 cells

Dam No. 6 25 cells

 

4

 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, pp. 93–97. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 593 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Cumberland 24 cells

The remaining stations thirty eight in number have 195 cells distributed Five cells to each station 

where telephones are placed. The telephones are set up in the watch boxes and Lock keepers 

houses and connected to the outside line wire by No. four gauge insulated copper wire. Where the 

wires pass through the walls of these buildings hard rubber tubing is inserted through which they 

are passed to insure perfect insulation. All the wires and instruments are protected by lightning 

arresters connected to heavy copper plates which are buried in the damp earth at a proper depth to 

insure perfect ground connection. All the materials, and all the work, is of the very best description, and all the appliances which modern science has furnished has been applied to make the service as nearly perfect as possible. 

 Portions of the line have been in service since the middle of September and the entire line 

since the first of October. The officers of the canal report the service entirely satisfactory. In addition to the main line from the collector’s office at Georgetown to the collector’s office at Cumberland, I built and equipped two short auxiliary lines, one from the Consolidation Coal Company 

Wharf at Georgetown to Lock No. five a distance of six and one half miles, to be used for the 

purpose of regulating boats on the Georgetown level. The other over the Tunnel at Paw Paw, to 

be used for the purpose of regulating boats passing through the Tunnel. 

 The total number of poles used in the construction was 

 5,273 Twenty five feet long 

 24 Forty five feet long 

 13 Forty feet long 

 55 Thirty feet long 

and three hundred poles twenty five feet long, span, distributed at different points along 

the line for repairs making a total of 5,665 poles. 

69,300 lbs. of wire was used, including the wire for the auxiliary lines and tie wires. 

7,500 screw glass insulators with 6,000 brackets. 

The telephones are placed at the following named places: 

 Collectors office at Cumberland 

 Bodigan’s Lock 

 Crawfis’ Lock 

 Twiggs Lock 

 Darkey’s Lock 

 West end of Tunnel 

 East end of Tunnel, Lock 66-1/3 

 Bells Lock 

 Ashkettes Lock 

 Dam No. 6 

 Murrays Lock 

 Brewers Lock 

 Ticis Lock 

 Sterlings’ Shanty 

 Sir Johns Run 

 Williamsport 

 Hughes’ Shanty 

 Moravey’s Lock, Big Slack Water 

 Guard Lock Dam No. 4 
594 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

 Burgans Shanty 

 Deloney’s Lock 

 Marrows Shanty 

 Shepherdstown 

 Drennans House Boat 

 Zimmermans Lock 

 Strippeys Lock 

 Harpers Ferry 

 Superintendent Moore’s Office 

 McKernan’s Lock 

 Berlin 

 Maumons Lock 

 Woods Lock, Head of nine mile level 

 Whites Ferry 

 Lock at head of Eight mile level 

 Seneca Feeder Lock 

 Great Falls 

 Moon’s Lock 

 Outlet Lock 

 Browning’s Shanty 

 Collector’s Office, Georgetown 

 Winship’s Office, Consolidation Coal Cos. Office 

 Dam No. 5 

At Georgetown (Collector’s Office) and the station at the east end of the Tunnel two extra telephones were placed to work the auxiliary lines, making a total of Forty six telephones inserted. 

We have two span telephones on hand to be placed subject to order making a total of Forty Eight 

telephones. 

 For ordinary working the line is divided into three sections by switches placed at the following named points: 

 Dam No. 6 

 Dam No. 4 

 Woods Lock (head of nine mile level) 

Three switches are so arranged that by a simple movement the whole line can be thrown together 

making a continuous circuit from Georgetown to Cumberland. To keep the line and instruments 

in order I recommend the employment of three line Repairers, who have been and are now employed in that capacity. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 595 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX E 

EMPLOYEES JULY 1, 1839 

List of persons in the employment of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company on the 1st July, 

1839, with the compensation of each.5

 

Robert Barnard, treasurer and accountant, Washington, per annum $1,400.00 

John P. Ingle, clerk, Washington 1,800.00 

Thomas Fillebrown, jr., assistant clerk 1,000.00 

William E. Howard, assistant clerk 1,000.00 

George Costin, messenger 250.00 

$5,450.00

C. B. Fisk, Chief Engineer, entire line of canal $5,000.00 

John A, Byers, principal assistant, between 2,000.00 

Elwood Morris, principal assistant, Dam No. 6 2,000.00 

Charles H. Randolph, principal assistant 2,000.00 

Joshua Gore, principal assistant, Cumberland 2,000.00 

Israel Dickinson, assistant, Cumberland 1,200.00 

Henry M. Dungan, assistant, Cumberland 1,200.00 

Samuel H. Williams, assistant, Cumberland 1,200.00 

Thomas L. Patterson, assistant, Cumberland 1,200.00 

Clement W. Coote, assistant, Cumberland 1,000.00 

Robert P. Dodge, assistant, Cumberland 800.00 

J. A. Sorecki, draughtsman $3 per day, Cumberland 1,277.50 

William H. Bryan, rodman, Cumberland 780.00 

Fitzhugh Coyle, rodman, Cumberland 720.00 

Benjamin T. Brannan, rodman, Cumberland 540.00 

James R. Young, rodman, Cumberland 540.00 

John T. Cox, rodman, Cumberland 540.00 

Thomas Gore, rodman, Cumberland 540.00 

John Buchanan, rodman, Cumberland 540.00 

John C. Howard, vol. Rodman, Cumberland 360.00 

Charles E. Weaver, rodman, Cumberland 360.00 

Fenton M. Henderson, rodman, Cumberland 360.00 

William T. Winsor, vol. rodmen, duty as chainman 360.00 

A. S. Bender, rodman, duty as chainman 360.00 

$26,877.50 

Daniel Pierce, axeman, $26 per month, Cumberland $312.00 

John Ogleton, axeman, $26 per month, Cumberland 312.00 

John Doyle, chain and axeman, Cumberland 396.00 

George Stump, $20 per month and found, Cumberland 396.00 

Abel T. Crabtree, equal, per year, Cumberland 396.00 

John H. Sargent, equal, per year, Cumberland 396.00 

$2,208.00

 

5 Twelfth Annual Report (1840), pp. 36–39. 
596 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

William, (negro) $15 per month, Cumberland $336.00 

David Knode, chainman, $20 per month and found, No. 6 396.00 

Robert Gates, axeman, $17 per month and found, Cumberland 360.00 

Samuel Chase, axeman, $17 per month and found, Cumberland 360.00 

John Eberts, axeman, $1 per day, Sundays included 360.00 

Thomas Maxwell, $1 per day, Sundays included 365.00 

William Jones, $1 per day, Sundays included 365.00 

$2,542.00

Alex. B. McFarland, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland $1,800.50 ∗

William Anderson, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ∗

Duncan Grant, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ∗

William Challoner, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ∗

Daniel Logan, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ∗

William Hurd, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ∗

James Turnbull, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ∗

James Ellis, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 681.50 ♣Joseph Knode, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣Frederick C. R. Maus, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣James Thompson, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣Morgan Snively, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣Thomas Snyder, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣Lewis Bartlett, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣James M. Cushing, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣Reuben Hurle, Jr., superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 547.50 ♣George Young, superintendent of masonry, Cumberland 730.00 

$11,680.50

Jas. Hilton, lock-keeper—Lock B, Washington 50.00 

Jas. O. Reiley, lock-keeper tide-locks, & locks 1, 2, 3 & 4, Georgetown 1,200.00 

Thos. B. Offut, lock-keeper, Lock No. 5 & Guard-lock No. 1 250.00 

J. Whelan, lock-keeper, Lock No. 6 150.00 

M. Hart, lock-keeper, Lock No. 7 150.00 

L. Barret, lock-keeper, Lock No. 8 150.00 

J. Y. Young, lock-keeper, Lock No. 9 & 10 200.00 

William Burgess, lock-keeper, Lock No. 11 150.00 

Fred. Metts, lock-keeper, Lock No. 12, 13 and 14 250.00 

Hez. Metts, lock-keeper, Lock No. 15 and 16 276.00 

Jos. Caldwell, lock-keeper, Lock No. 17 and 18 276.00 

Daniel Collins, lock-keeper, Lock No. 19 and 20 Crom. 200.00 

R. C. Field, lock-keeper, Lock No. 21 150.00 

 

∗

 Assistant superintendents of masonry, who are paid at the rate of $2 per day in the winter months, and 

$2.25 the rest of the year, Sundays exclusive. ♣ Superintendents of sections at $1.50 per day, Sunday's inclusive, with the exception of George Young, 

who receives $2 per day, he being connected with the superintendence of Dam No. 8, in addition to his 

other duties. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 597 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

M. F. Harris, lock-keeper, Lock No. 22 150.00 

$3,602.00

W. H. Hammondtree, lock-keeper, Lock No. 23 & Guard Lock No. 

2 $200.00 

C. H. Shanks, lock-keeper, Lock No. 24 150.00 

Asa Aud, lock-keeper, Lock No. 25, & Edwards Ferry outlet lock 250.00 

James Fitch, lock-keeper, Lock No. 26 150.00 

Thomas Waller, lock-keeper, Lock No. 27 150.00 

P. McGaughan, collector, Point of Rocks 300.00 

James Davis, lock-keeper, Lock No. 28 150.00 

William Waller, lock-keeper, Lock No. 29 175.00 

William Kuhn, lock-keeper, Lock No. 30, Berlin 100.00 

A. B. Ward, lock-keeper, Lock No. 31 175.00 

J. B. Shope, lock-keeper, Lock No. 32 175.00 

W. S. Elgin, lock-keeper & collector, Lock No. 33 & H. Ferry outlet 

L 300.00 

John Crowley, lock-keeper, Lock No. 34 175.00 

William McKay, lock-keeper, Lock 35, 36, Guard-lock No. 3, H. 

Ferry 300.00 

J. Kercheval, lock-keeper, Lock No. 37 150.00 

G. W. Hughes, lock-keeper, Lock No. 38 & river lock, Shepherdstown 200.00 

Joseph Gwyn, lock-keeper, Lock No. 39 150.00 

A. McCoy, lock-keeper, Lock No. 40 150.00 

L. R. Shaw, lock-keeper, Guard Lock No. 4, Dam No. 4 150.00 

Henry Boyd, lock-keeper, Lock No. 41 and 42 200.00 

M. Crisman, lock-keeper, Lock No. 43 150.00 

William Irwin, collector, Williamsport basin 400.00 

Jacob Morten, lock-keeper, Guard Lock No. 5 150.00 

$4,450.00

Philip Trammel, lock-keeper, Locks Nos. 45 and 46 200.00 

Daniel Brewer, lock-keeper, Locks Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50 300.00 

Henry Rowland, lock-keeper, Lock No. 51 and 52 200.00 

Vacant, lock-keeper, Lock Mo. 53 150.00 

Vacant, lock-keeper, Guard Lock, Dam No. 6 150.00 

$1,000.00

J. Y. Young, superintendent from Georgetown basin to Edward's 

ferry $1,000.00 

William S. Elgin, superintendent, from thence to Harpers Ferry 

Falls 1,000.00 

George W. Rogers, superintendent, from Harpers Ferry to Dam No. 

5 1,200.00 

John G. Stone, superintendent, from thence to Dam No. 6 1,200.00 

$4,400.00

$62,210.00

Western Survey party, (temporarily engaged) 

Jno. S. McColloh, acting assistant, entered service May 19, 1839, at 
598 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

$66 2/3 per month 

Richard S. McColloh, rodman, entered service, June 8, 1839, at $45 

per month 

John Widener, chainman, entered service, May 24, at $1 per day, 

Sundays inclusive 

John Paw, chainman, entered service, May 22, at $1 per day, Sundays inclusive 

Samuel Davis, axeman, entered service June 2, 1839, at $1 per day 

Thomas Taylor, axeman, entered service, May 22, 1839 at $1 per 

day, Sundays inclusive 

The cost of the "Western Survey" last year was $1,029.37, viz: 

Pay of F. Coyle, acting assistant, (while engaged on the "Western 

Survey") 3 2/3 months, at the rate of $60 2/3 per month $244.44 

J. S. McColloh and R. S. McColloh, volunteer rodmen, 3 5/6 

months, at $30 per month 230.00 

Pay of hands and board 498.87 

Contingencies 56.06 

$1,029.37 

President and Directors

Francis Thomas, President, $3,000 per annum 

John J. Abert 

Phineas Janney 

Thomas Perry 

James Carroll 

Jacob G. Davies 

Joseph White 

Directors—$4 per day to each director 

during the time which he shall be actually 

engaged in the duties of his office, 

provided that such compensation does 

not exceed, in any one year, the sum of $300. 

Summary of annual expenses, as before stated, exclusive of President and Directors

At the office in Washington $5,450.00 

Engineers, axemen and chainmen 31,627.50 

Superintendents of masonry and sections 11,680.50 

Superintendents on the line finished 4,400.00 

Lock-keepers and collectors 9,052.00 

$62,210.00 

The pay of the party now temporarily employed in the survey of the Western section, is at the rate 

of $2,800 per annum 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 599 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX F 

OFFICERS FEBRUARY 1, 1840 

List of the officers of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, in service on the 1st day of February, 1840, with the rate of compensation paid to each.6

Francis Thomas, President (compensation per annum) $3,000.00

Jacob G. Davies, 

Robert P. Dunlop, 

Washington Duval, 

Phineas Janey, 

John W. Maury, 

Joseph White 

Directors—$4 per day to each, 

during the time he shall be actually 

engaged in the duties of his office, 

provided the pay of each director 

shall not exceed 300 dollars per annum. 

1,800.00

John P. Ingle, clerk 1,800.00

Robert Barnard, treasurer and accountant 1,400.00

Thomas Fillebrown, Jr., clerk 1,000.00

William E. Howard, assistant clerk 1,000.00

George Costin, messenger 250.00

Maximum compensation if each director shall receive $300 $9,250.00

John Y. Young, superintendent 1st Division canal $800.00

William S. Elgin, superintendent 2nd Division 800.00

George W. Rogers, superintendent 3rd Division 800.00

John G. Stone, superintendent 4th Division 800.00

Jas. O. Reiley, collector and keeper Locks Nos. 1,2,3,4 1,200.00

P. McGaughanm collector, Point of Rocks 300.00

William Irwin, collector, Williamsport 400.00

Arthur Blackwell, collector, Hancock 400.00

John P. Hilton, keeper of tide-lock B 50.00

Thomas B. Offut, keeper, Lock No. 5, and guard lock 250.00

James Dalzell, keeper, Lock No. 6 150.00

Michael Hart, keeper, Lock No. 7 150.00

Levi Barrett, keeper, Lock No. 8 150.00

John Y. Young, keeper, Lock No. 9 and 10 200.00

Weston Burgess, keeper, Lock No. 11 150.00

Frederick Metts, keeper, Lock No. 12, 13 and 14 250.00

Hezekiah Metts, keeper, Lock No. 15 and 16 276.00

Joseph Caldwell, keeper, Lock No. 17 and 18 276.00

Daniel Collins, keeper, Lock No. 19 and 20 200.00

R. C. Fields, keeper, Lock No. 21 150.00

M. F. Harris, keeper, Lock No. 22 150.00

W. H. Hammondtree, keeper, Lock No. 23 and guard 200.00

Charles H. Shanks, keeper, Lock No. 24 150.00

Asa Aud, keeper, Lock No. 25 and outlet 250.00

 

6 Twelfth Annual Report (1840), pp. 34–36. 
600 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

James Fitch, keeper, Lock No. 26 150.00

Thomas Walter, keeper, Lock No. 27 150.00

James Davis, keeper, Lock No. 28 150.00

William Walter, keeper, Lock No. 29 175.00

William Kuhn, keeper, Lock No. 30 100.00

A. B. Ward, keeper, Lock No. 31, &c 175.00

J. B. Shope, keeper, Lock No. 32 175.00

W. S. Elgin, keeper, Lock No. 33 and collector 300.00

John Crowley, collector, Lock No. 34 175.00

William McKay, keeper, Lock No. 35, 36 and guard 300.00

John Kercheval, keeper, Lock No. 37 150.00

George Hughes, keeper, Lock No. 38 and outlet 200.00

Joseph Gwyn, keeper, Lock No. 39 150.00

Andrew McCoy, keeper, Lock No. 40 150.00

Levi R. Shaw, keeper, Guard Lock No. 4 150.00

Henry Boyd, keeper, Locks No. 41 and 42 200.00

Michael Chrisman, keeper, Lock No. 43 150.00

Joseph Hollman, keeper, Lock No. 44, water power 

Jacob Motter, keeper, Guard Lock No. 5 150.00

Phillip Trammell, keeper, Locks No. 45 and 46 200.00

Daniel Brewer, keeper, Locks No. 47, 48, 49 and 50 300.00

Upton Rowland, keeper, Locks No. 51 and 52umberland 200.00

H. Connwe, keeper, Lock No. 53 150.00

John Roberts, temporary, Guard Lock No. 6 456.00

Superintendents, collectors, and lock-keepers $12,958.00

Charles B. Fisk, Chief Engineer $4,000.00

Elwood Morris, principal assistant 2,000.00

Joshua Gore, principal assistant 2,000.00

Israel Dickinson, assistant 1,200.00

Hugh M. Dungan, assistant 1,200.00

Samuel H. William, assistant 1,200.00

Thomas L. Patterson, assistant 1,200.00

R. S. McColloh, rodman 540.00

Benjamin F. Branan, rodman 540.00

James R. Young, rodman 540.00

Fenton M. Henderson, rodman 540.00

 , axeman 365.00

 , axeman 365.00

 , axeman 365.00

 , axeman 365.00

A. B. McFarland, superintendent of masonry 681.50

D. Logan, superintendent of masonry 681.50

Joseph Knode, superintendent of sections 547.50

Morgan Snively, superintendent of sections 547.50

Thomas Snyder, superintendent of sections 547.50
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 601 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

James M. Cushing, superintendent of sections 547.50

George Young, superintendent of sections 730.00

Wm. H. Brayan, commissioner and clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer 1,000.00

Engineers, commissioners, &c. $21,703.00

Summary of yearly compensation. 

The President, and Clerks, (if the directors receive 

the maximum of their compensation) $9,250.00

The superintendents, collectors, and lock-keepers 12,958.00

The engineers and commissioner 21,703.00

$43,911.00

Note: There are a few other officers in the service of the company at this time, but as their term of 

service will expire on the 1st of March next, they are not entered on this list. 
602 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX G 

OFFICERS, ENGINEERS, AND AGENTS APRIL 2, 1841 

List of the officers, engineers, and agents in employ of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 

on the 2nd day of April, 1841, the day on which the present Board of President and Directors were 

elected, with the rate of compensation paid to each annually.7

Francis Thomas, (president) compensation per annum $3,000

Dr. William Tyler, 

Jacob Markell, 

John McPherson, 

Robert P. Dunlop, 

James Swan, 

William Lucas 

Directors—$4 per day to each, 

during the time he shall be actually 

engaged in the duties of his office, 

provided the pay of each director 

shall not exceed 300 dollars per annum. 

1,800

Thomas Turner, clerk 1,800

Edward Shriver, assistant clerk 1,000

Ezra Kouck, collector general of tolls 1,000

Samuel Tyler, treasurer and accountant 1,400

Albert Maybury, messenger 200

10,200

Elwood Morris, chief engineer1st Division canal $4,000

Henry M. Dungan, assistant engineer 1,200

Thomas L. Patterson, assistant engineer 1,200

Jacob C. Schnebly, rodman 540

Benjamin F. Brennan, rodman 540

Two chain and axeman 730

Samuel M. Semmes, commissioner 1,000

9,210

John Y. Young, superintendent 1st division $800

William O'Neale, superintendent 2nd division 800

John D. Grove, superintendent 3rd division 800

Joseph Hololman, superintendent 4th division 800

Benjanin F, Mackall, collector of tolls at Georgetown 800

P. McGaughan, collector of tolls at Point of Rocks 800

William McKepler, collector of tolls at Williamsport 400

Arthur Blackwell, collector of tolls at Hancock 400

John Hilton, keeper of Lock B 50

James O'Riley, keeper of locks Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 500

Thomas B. O'Offutt, keeper of lock No. 5 and guard lock 250

James Dalzell, keeper of lock No. 6 150

Michael Hart, keeper of lock No. 7 150

Levi Barrett, keeper of lock No. 8 150

Osbourn Crawford, keeper of locks No. 9 and 10 200

Wilton Burgess, keeper of Lock No. 11 150

 

7 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), pp. 24–25. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 603 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Frederick Metts, keeper of locks No. 12, 13 and 14 250

Hezekiah Metts, keeper of locks No. 15 and 16 276

William H. Henderson, keeper of locks Nos. 17 and 18 276

D. Collins, keeper of locks Nos. 19 and 20 $200

Robert C. Fields, keeper of lock No. 21 150

John Fields, keeper of lock No. 22 150

William H. Hammontru, keeper of lock No. 23 and guard lock 200

Charles H. Shanks, keeper of lock No. 24 150

Asa Aud, keeper of lock No. 25 and outlet 250

James Fitch, keeper of lock No. 26 150

Thomas Walter, keeper of lock No. 27 150

James Davis, keeper of lock No. 28 150

John Walter, keeper of lock No. 29 175

W. Kuhn, keeper of lock No. 30 100

Dennis Harrison, keeper of lock No. 31, &c. 175

A. W. Jones, keeper of lock No. 32 175

W. S. Elgin, keeper of lock No. 33 and collector of tolls 300

John Crowley, keeper of lock No. 34 175

William McKay, keeper of locks Nos. 35, 36 and guard 300

John Kerchwell, keeper of lock No. 37 150

George Hughes, keeper of lock No. 38 and outlet 200

Joseph Gwyn, keeper of lock No. 39 150

Andrew McKoy, keeper of lock No. 40 150

Levi R. Shaw, keeper of guard lock No. 4 150

Henry Boyd, keeper of locks Nos. 41 and 42 200

Michael Crisman, keeper of lock No. 43 150

Joseph Hollman, keeper of lock No. 44—water power granted 

Jacob Motter, keeper of guard lock No. 5 150

John Herbert, keeper of locks Nos. 45 and 46 200

Daniel Brewer, keeper of locks Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50 300

Upton Rowland, keeper of locks No. 51 and 52 200

H. Conner, keeper of lock No. 53 150

Thomas Fleming, keeper of guard lock No. 6 175

Superintendents, collectors and lock-keepers 12,777

Summary 

The President, and Clerks, ($300 each Director) $10,200

Engineers, rodmen, axemen and commissioners 9,210

Superintendents, collectors and lock-keepers 12,777

Total 32,187

THO. TURNER, 

 Clerk of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. 
604 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX H 

OFFICERS JUNE 1, 1841 

List of the officers of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, in service on the 1st day of June, 

1841, with the rate of compensation paid to each annually.8

Michael C. Sprigg, (president) compensation per annum $3,000

James M. Coale 

John P. Ingle 

Frisby Tilghman 

John T. Dale 

Daniel Burkhart 

John O. Wharton 

Directors—$4 per day to each, 

during the time he shall be actually 

engaged in the duties of his office, 

provided the pay of each director 

shall not exceed 300 dollars per annum. 

1,800

Thomas Turner, clerk 1,800

Robert Barnard, treasurer and accountant 1,400

Ezra Houck, collector general of tolls 1,000

Albert Mayberry, messenger 200

$9,200

John Y. Young, superintendent 1st division canal $800

William S. Elgin, superintendent 2nd division canal 800

George W. Rodgers, superintendent 3rd division canal 800

John G. Stone, superintendent 4th division canal 800

Benjamin F. Mackall, collector at Georgetown 800

Henry Jamison, collector at Point of Rocks 200

Elie Stake, collector at Williamsport 300

Arthur Blackwell, collector at Hancock 300

John B. Hilton, keeper of Lock B 50

James O'Riley, keeper of locks Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 500

Thomas B. O'Offutt, keeper of lock No. 5 and guard lock 250

James Dalzell, keeper of lock No. 6 150

Michael Hart, keeper of lock No. 7 150

Levi Barrett, keeper of lock No. 8 150

Osbourn Crawford, keeper of locks No. 9 and 10 200

Wilton Burgess, keeper of Lock No. 11 150

Frederick Metts, keeper of locks No. 12, 13 and 14 250

Hezekiah Metts, keeper of locks No. 15 and 16 276

William H. Henderson, keeper of locks Nos. 17 and 18 276

Daniel Collins, keeper of locks Nos. 19 and 20 200

Robert C. Fields, keeper of lock No. 21 150

John Fields, keeper of lock No. 22 150

W. H. Hammontree, keeper of lock No. 23 and guard lock 200

Charles H. Shanks, keeper of lock No. 24 150

Asa Aud, keeper of lock No. 25 and outlet 250

 

8 Thirteenth Annual Report (1841), pp. 85–87. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 605 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

James Fitch, keeper of lock No. 26 150

Thomas Walter, keeper of lock No. 27 150

James Davis, keeper of lock No. 28 150

John Walter, keeper of lock No. 29 175

William Kuhn, keeper of lock No. 30 100

Dennis Harrison, keeper of lock No. 31, &c. 175

A. W. Jones, keeper of lock No. 32 175

William S. Elgin, keeper of lock No. 33 and collector 300

John Crowley, keeper of lock No. 34 175

William McKay, keeper of locks Nos. 35, 36 and guard 300

John Kerchwell, keeper of lock No. 37 150

George Hughes, keeper of lock No. 38 and outlet 200

Joseph Gwyn, keeper of lock No. 39 150

Andrew McKoy, keeper of lock No. 40 150

Levi R. Shaw, keeper of guard lock No. 4 150

Henry Boyd, keeper of locks Nos. 41 and 42 200

Michael Crisman, keeper of lock No. 43 150

Joseph Hollman, keeper of lock No. 44—water power granted 

Jacob Motter, keeper of guard lock No. 5 150

John Herbert, keeper of locks Nos. 45 and 46 200

Daniel Brewer, keeper of locks Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50 300

Upton Rowland, keeper of locks No. 51 and 52 200

H. Conner, keeper of lock No. 53 150

Thomas Fleming, keeper of guard lock No. 6 456

Superintendents, collectors and lock-keepers $12,758

Charles B. Fisk, chief engineer $3,000

John A. Byers, assistant 1,100

Charles H. Randolph, assistant 1,100

Henry M. Dungan, assistant 1,100

Samuel H. Williams, assistant 1,100

Thomas L. Patterson, assistant 1,100

Thomas Gore, rodman 500

Fenton M. Henderson, rodman 500

Jacob L. Schnebly, rodman 500

John J. Buchanan, Jr., rodman 500

William J. Bryan, rodman 500

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Axeman 300

Samuel M. Semmes, commissioner 1,100
606 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

$14,000

Summary of yearly compensation

The President, directors and Clerks, (if the directors receive 

the maximum of their compensation) $9,200

The superintendents, collectors and lock-keepers 12,758

The engineers and commissioner 14,400

Total $36,358

Or thus:

The president, directors and clerks (if the directors receive 

the maximum of their compensation) $9,200

4 superintendents $3,200 

45 collectors and lock-keepers 9,558

12,758

1 chief engineer 3,000 

5 assistant engineers 5,500 

5 rodmen 2,500 

8 axemen 2,400

13,400

1 commissioner 1,000

$36,358
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 607 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX I 

OFFICERS, ENGINEERS, AND AGENTS JANUARY 1, 1842 

List of the officers, engineers, and agents in the service of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, on the 1st day of January, 1842, with the rate of compensation paid to each annually.9

 

Francis Thomas, President $1,000

James M. Coale, 

Frisby Tilghman, 

J. P. Ingle, 

J. R. Dall, 

J. O. Wharton, 

D. Burkhart, 

Director —$4 per day to each, 

during the time he shall be actually 

engaged in the duties of his office, 

provided the pay of each director 

shall not exceed 300 dollars per annum. 

1,800

Thomas Turner, clerk and superintendent of tolls 1,500

Robert Barnard, treasurer and accountant 1,200

Total 5,500

Charles B. Fisk, chief engineer $3,000.00

John A. Byers, assistant engineer 1,100.00

Charles H. Randolph, assistant engineer 1,100.00

Henry M. Dungan, assistant engineer 1,100.00

Samuel H. Williams, assistant engineer 1,100.00

Thomas L. Patterson, assistant engineer 1,100.00

Thomas Gove, rodman 500.00

Jacob C. Schnebly, rodman 500.00

John Buchanan, Jr., rodman 500.00

William H. Bryan, rodman 500.00

R. Lorman Ross, rodman 360.00

four axemen 1,110.00

Morgan Snively, superintendent at tunnel, and axeman, $1.50 per day 547.50

Amauel M. Semmes, commissioner 200.00

12,717.50

John Y. Young, superintendent 1st division $700

William S. Elgin, superintendent 2nd division 700

George W. Rodgers, superintendent 3rd division 700

John G. Stone, superintendent 4th division 700

Benjanin F, Mackall, collector of tolls at Georgetown 600

Henry Jamison, collector of tolls at Point of Rocks 200

Eli Stake, collector of tolls at Williamsport 300

Arthur Blackwell, collector of tolls at Hancock 300

John Hilton, keeper of Lock B, at Washington 50

James O'Riley, keeper of locks Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 600

Thomas B. Offutt, keeper of lock No. 5 and guard lock 250

James Dalzell, keeper of lock No. 6 150

Michael Hart, keeper of lock No. 7 150

 

9 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), pp. 25–27. 
608 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Levi Barrett, keeper of lock No. 8 150

Osbourn Crawford, keeper of locks No. 9 and 10 200

Wilton Burgess, keeper of Lock No. 11 150

Frederick Metts, keeper of locks No. 12, 13 and 14 250

Hezekiah Metts, keeper of locks No. 15 and 16 $276

William H. Henderson, keeper of locks Nos. 17 and 18 276

Daniel Collins, keeper of locks Nos. 19 and 20 200

Robert C. Fields, keeper of lock No. 21 150

John Fields, keeper of lock No. 22 150

William H. Hammontree, keeper of lock No. 23 and guard lock 200

Charles H. Shanks, keeper of lock No. 24 150

Asa Aud, keeper of lock No. 25 and outlet 250

James Fitch, keeper of lock No. 26 150

Thomas Walter, keeper of lock No. 27 150

James Davis, keeper of lock No. 28 150

John Walter, keeper of lock No. 29 175

Dennis Harrison, keeper of lock No. 30 175

Wm. Kuhn, keeper of lock No. 31 100

A. W. Jones, keeper of lock No. 32 175

W. S. Elgin, keeper of lock No. 33 and collector of tolls 300

John Crowley, keeper of lock No. 34 175

William McKay, keeper of locks Nos. 35, 36 and guard 300

John Kerchwell, keeper of lock No. 37 150

George Hughes, keeper of lock No. 38 and outlet 200

Joseph Gwyn, keeper of lock No. 39 150

Andrew McKoy, keeper of lock No. 40 150

Levi R. Shaw, keeper of guard lock No. 4 150

Henry Boyd, keeper of locks Nos. 41 and 42 200

Michael Crisman, keeper of lock No. 43 150

Joseph Hollman, keeper of lock No. 44—water power granted 

Jacob Motter, keeper of guard lock No. 5 150

John Herbert, keeper of locks Nos. 45 and 46 200

Daniel Brewer, keeper of locks Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50 300

Upton Rowland, keeper of locks No. 51 and 52 200

H. Conner, keeper of lock No. 53 150

Thomas Fleming, keeper of guard lock No. 6 175

Total, Superintendents, collectors and lock-keepers 11,977

Summary 

The President, Directors, and Clerks, ($300 each Director) $5,500.00

Engineers, rodmen, axemen and commissioners 12,717.50

Superintendents, and lock-keepers, and collectors 11,977.00

Total $30,194.50

THO. TURNER, 

Clerk of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 609 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX J 

OFFICERS MAY 31, 1842 

List of the officers in the service of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, on the 31st day of 

May, 1842, with the rate of compensation paid to each annually.10

Michael C. Sprigg, President $1,000

James M. Coale, 

Frisby Tilghman, 

John R. Dall, 

John O. Wharton, 

Daniel Burkhart, 

John P. Ingle 

Directors—$4 per day to each, 

during the time he shall be actually 

engaged in the duties of his office, 

provided the pay of each director 

shall not exceed 300 dollars per annum. 

1,800

Thomas Turner, clerk and superintendent of tolls 1,500

Robert Barnard, treasurer and accountant 1,200

Total 5,500

Charles B. Fisk, chief engineer $2,000

Henry M. Dungan, assistant engineer 1,100

Total 3,100

John Y. Young, superintendent 1st division $700

William S. Elgin, superintendent 2nd division 700

George W. Rodgers, superintendent 3rd division 700

John G. Stone, superintendent 4th division 700

Total 2,800

Benjanin F, Mackall, collector of tolls at Georgetown 600

Henry Jamison, collector of tolls at Point of Rocks 200

William S. Elgin, collector of tolls, Harpers Ferry 300

Elie Stake, collector of tolls, Williamsport 300

Arthur Blackwell, collector of tolls at Hancock 300

Total 1,700

John Hilton, keeper of Lock B, at Washington 50

James O'Riley, keeper of locks Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Georgetown 600

Thomas B. Offutt, keeper of lock No. 5 and guard lock 250

James Dalzell, keeper of lock No. 6 150

Michael Hart, keeper of lock No. 7 150

Levi Barrett, keeper of lock No. 8 150

Osbourn Crawford, keeper of locks No. 9 and 10 200

Wilton Burgess, keeper of Lock No. 11 150

Frederick Metts, keeper of locks No. 12, 13 and 14 250

Hezekiah Metts, keeper of locks No. 15 and 16 276

William H. Henderson, keeper of locks Nos. 17 and 18 276

Daniel Collins, keeper of locks Nos. 19 and 20 200

Robert C. Fields, keeper of lock No. 21 150

John Fields, keeper of lock No. 22 150

 

10 Fourteenth Annual Report (1842), pp. 25–27. 
610 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

William H. Hammontree, keeper of lock No. 23 and guard lock 200

Charles H. Shanks, keeper of lock No. 24 150

Asa Aud, keeper of lock No. 25 and outlet 250

James Fitch, keeper of lock No. 26 150

Thomas Walter, keeper of lock No. 27 $150

James Davis, keeper of lock No. 28 150

John Walter, keeper of lock No. 29 175

Dennis Harrison, keeper of lock No. 30 175

William. Kuhn, keeper of lock No. 31 100

A. W. Jones, keeper of lock No. 32 175

John Crowley, keeper of lock No. 34 175

William McKay, keeper of locks Nos. 35, 36 and guard 300

John Kerchwell, keeper of lock No. 37 150

George Hughes, keeper of lock No. 38 and outlet 200

Joseph Gwyn, keeper of lock No. 39 150

Andrew McKoy, keeper of lock No. 40 150

Levi R. Shaw, keeper of guard lock No. 4 150

Henry Boyd, keeper of locks Nos. 41 and 42 200

Michael Crisman, keeper of lock No. 43 150

Joseph Hollman, keeper of lock No. 44—water power granted 

Jacob Motter, keeper of guard lock No. 5 150

John Herbert, keeper of locks Nos. 45 and 46 200

Daniel Brewer, keeper of locks Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50 300

Upton Rowland, keeper of locks No. 51 and 52 200

H. Conner, keeper of lock No. 53 150

Thomas Fleming, keeper of guard lock No. 6 175

Total $7,477

Total $20,577

RECAPITULATION 

President, Directors, clerks, and treasurer $5,500.00

Engineer and assistant 3,100

Superintendents 2,800

Collectors of tolls 1,700

Lock-keepers 7,477

Total 20,577

THO. TURNER, 

Clerk of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company 

Canal Office, Frederick, May 31, 1842.

Note. The aggregate pay for the directors for the year ending 31st May, 1842, was $924. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 611 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX K 

OFFICERS MAY 31, 1845 

Schedule of officers in the service of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in the year ending 

31st May, 1845, and the compensation to which they have been severally entitled.11

Name of officer, &c. Amount

1st In the office at Frederick, viz: 

James M. Coale, President, per annum $1,000

D. Burkhart, attendance as director $136 

William Darne, attendance as director 112 

J. P. Ingle, attendance as director 192 

William Price, attendance as director 64 

F. Tilghman, attendance as director 160 

J. O. Wharton, attendance as director 136 

800

Thomas Turner, clerk, per annum 1,500

Robert Barnard, treasurer and accountant 1,200

William Price, standing counsel 250

C. B. Fisk, chief engineer 2,000

$6,750

2nd First superintendency, viz: 

J. Y. Young, superintendent 800

B. F. Mackall, collector 600

John Moore, keeper locks 1 to 4, and tide 600

Frederick Metz, keeper lock 5 and guard 250

James Dalzell, keeper lock 6 150

James Wilburn, keeper lock 7 150

Levi Barrett, keeper lock 8 150

O. S. Crawford, keeper locks 9 and 10 200

W. Burgess, keeper lock 11 150

Asa Tarman, keeper locks 12, 13 and 14 150

Hezekiah Metz, keeper lock 15 12.50 

William Nevitt, keeper lock 15 137.50 

150

Thomas Brewer, keeper lock 16 150

W. W. Henderson, keeper locks 17 and 18 138.00 

Horrace Benton, keeper locks 17 and 18 138.00 

276

Daniel Collins, keeper locks 19 and 20 200

R. C. Fields, keeper lock 21 150

John Fields, keeper lock 22 150

J. Y. Young, keeper lock 23 and guard 200

John Wells, keeper lock 24 150

 

11 Seventeenth Annual Report (1845), pp. 9–10. 
612 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Asa Aud, keeper Edwards Ferry outlet 50 

4,776

3rd Second superintendency 

W. S. Elgin, superintendent 800 

L. C. Belt, Point of Rocks, collector 50 

W. S. Elgin, Harpers Ferry, collector 100 

Asa Aud, keeper lock 25 200 

James Fitch, keeper lock 26 150 

Thomas Walter, keeper lock 27 150 

E. Davis, keeper lock 28 125.00

John Plummer, keeper lock 28 25.00

150 

John Walter, keeper lock 29 175 

William Kuhn, keeper lock 30 150 

D. Harrison, keeper lock 31 150 

A. W. Jones, keeper lock 32 175 

W. S. Elgin, keeper lock 33 and Shenandoah 200 

John Crowley, keeper lock 34 175 

John Kercheval, keeper locks 35 and guard, &c. 250 

J. L. Jordon, keeper lock 37 150 

George Hughes, keeper lock 38 and outlet 83.33

Edward Hayes, keeper lock 38 and outlet 116.67

200 

Joseph Gwyn, keeper lock 39 150 

Andrew McKoy, keeper lock 40 150 

L. R. Shaw, keeper guard lock 4 150 

M. Newman, bridge and ferry tender, Noland's Ferry 150 

3,825

4th Third superintendency, viz: 

John G. Stone, superintendent 800 

Eli Stake, Williamsport, collector 300 

Arthur Blackwell, Hancock, collector 300 

Henry Boyd, keeper locks 41 and 42 200 

Isaac Dodd, keeper lock 43 150 

Joseph Hollman, keeper lock 44, (water power) 

Jacob Motter, keeper guard 5 150 

John Herbert, keeper locks 45 and 46 100.00 200 

Henry Harsh, keeper locks 45 and 46 100.00

200 

Daniel Brewer, keeper locks 47 to 50 300 

Upton Rowland, keeper locks 51 and 52 200 

Hugh Conner, keeper lock 53 150 

James Finney, keeper guard 6 200 

2,950

18,301
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 613 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

RECAPITULATION 

President, directors, and clerks at Frederick $4,750

Chief Engineer 2,000

Superintendents 2,400

Collectors 2,400

Lock-keepers 7,801

Total 18,301

THO. TURNER, Clerk. 
614 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX L 

OFFICERS DECEMBER 31, 1846 

Showing the Officers in the service of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in the year ending 

31st December, 1846, and the compensation to which they have been severally entitled for same 

period.12

1st

 James M. Coale, president $3,000.00 

Daniel Burkhart, Director $176.00

R. W. Bowie, Director 196.00

John P. Ingle, Director 196.00

William Price, Director 192.00

Frisby Tilghman, Director 170.00

John O. Wharton, Director 176.00

1,106.00 

2nd Thomas Turner, Clerk, to 20th Dec. $1,120

Walter S. Ringgold, since 30

1,150.00

F. B. Sappington, Assistant Clerk, to 1st July 366.66

Robert Barnard, Treasures, to February 117.20

Philemon Chew, Treasurer, to 15th April 200.00

L. J. Brengle, since, 800.55

1,117.75

William Price, standing counsel 250.00

C. B. Fisk, Chief Engineer 2,500.00

5,384.41 

$9,490.41

3rd First superintendency 

William S. Elgin, superintendent 400.00

C. Hogmire, collector to 1st April $350

W. H. Bryne, since 250

600.00

John Moore, keeper of locks 1 to 4 600.00

Frederick Metz, keeper lock 5, &c. 200.00

James Delzell, keeper lock 6 150.00

James Wilburn, keeper lock 7 150.00

Levi Barrett, keeper lock 8 150.00

O. Crawford, keeper locks 9 and 10 200.00

W. H. Burgess, keeper lock 11 150.00

Asa Tarman, keeper lock 15 175.00

William Nevett, keeper locks 12, 13 and 14 250.00

Thomas Brewer, keeper lock 16 175.00

Horace Benton, keeper locks 17 and 18 225.00

Daniel Collins, keeper locks 19 and 20 200.00

 

12 Nineteenth Annual Report (1847), pp. 19–20. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 615 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Samuel Fisher, keeper lock 21 150.00

John Fields, keeper lock 22 150.00

E. L. Trail, keeper lock 23 200.00

John Wells, keeper lock 24 150.00

Asa Aud, keeper Edwards Ferry outlet 50.00

4,325.00 

4,325.00

4th Second superintendency 

William S. Elgin, superintendent $800.00 

Lloyd C. Belt, collector $50.00

William S. Elgin, collector, Harpers Ferry 100.00

150.00 

Asa Aud, keeper lock 25 200.00

James Fitch, keeper lock 26 150.00

Thomas Walter, keeper lock 27 150.00

John Plummer, keeper lock 28 150.00

John Walter, keeper lock 29 175.00

William Kughn, keeper lock 30 150.00

D. Harrison, keeper lock 31 150.00

A. W. Jones, keeper lock 32 175.00

W. S. Elgin, keeper lock 33, &c. 200.00

John Crowley, keeper lock 34 175.00

J. Kircheval, keeper lock 35, &c. 250.00

J. L. Jordan, keeper lock 37 150.00

Edward Havs, keeper lock 38, &c. 200.00

Joseph Gwinn, keeper lock 39 150.00

A. McCoy, keeper lock 40 150.00

J. Buchanan, guard lock 4 150.00

W. Watkins, ferry 150.00

2,875.00 

3,825.00

5th Third superintendency 

John G. Stone, superintendent 800.00 

Eli Stake, collector 300.00

Arthur Blackwell, collector 300.00

600.00 

Henry Boyd, keeper of locks 41 and 42 200.00

Isaac Dodd, keeper of lock 43 150.00

C. Myers, keeper locks 45 and 46 200.00

Jacob Morter, keeper guard lock 5 150.00

Daniel Brewer, keeper locks 47,48,49 and 50 300.00

W. Rowland, keeper locks 51 and 52 200.00
616 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

H. Conner, keeper lock 53 150.00

James Phinney, keeper guard lock 6 200.00

1,550.00 

2.950.00

$20,590.41

RECAPITULATION 

President, Directors, Standing Counsel, Clerks and Chief Engineer $9,490.41

Superintendents 2,000.00

Collectors 1,350.00

Lock-keepers 7,750.00

$20,590.41 

L. J. BRENGLE, Treasurer. 

Office Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Co., 

 Cumberland, January 6, 1847
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 617 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX M 

OFFICERS DECEMBER 31, 1848 

Statement showing the Officers in the service of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in the 

year ending 31st December, 1848, and the compensation to which they have been severally entitled for same period.13

1st

 James M. Coale, President, salary at $1,000 

to 1st August $586.07 

Since at $2,000 827.85 

$1,413.92 

William A, Bradley, Director 132.00 

George Schley, Director 132.00 

Samuel P. Smith, Director 264.00 

Henry Daingerfield, Director 72.00 

William Cost Johnson, Director 84.00 

John Pickell, Director 96.00 

780.00 

George Schley, Standing Counsel 200.00 

Walter S. Ringgold, Chief Clerk, at $1,000 1,000.00 

Walter S. Ringgold, Sec. to Stockholders at 

$100 100.00 

Lawrence J. Brengle, Treasurer, at $1000 1,000.00 

F. B. Sappington, Asst. Clerk to 21st July at 

$500 254.18

F. D. Tormey, Asst. Clerk from 7th Aug. at 

$500 200.10

454.28 

2754.28 

4948.20

2nd First Superintendency 

John Lambie, Superintendent 700.00 

William H. Bryan, Collector at Georgetown 800.00 

John Page, Inspector of Cargoes, Georgetown 300.00 

1100.00 

John Moore, Keeper of Locks 1 to 4 600.00 

Frederick Metz, Keeper of Lock 5, &c. 200.00 

James Delzell, Keeper of Lock 6 150.00 

James Wilburn, Keeper of Lock 7 150.00 

Levi Barrett, Keeper of Lock 8 150.00 

John Lambie, Keeper of Locks 9 and 10 200.00 

W. H. Burgess, Keeper of Lock 11 150.00 

John T. Harrison, Keeper of Locks 12, 13 and 

14 250.00 

 

13 Twenty-First Annual Report (1849), pp. 30–31. 
618 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Rebecca Tarman, Keeper of Lock 15 175.00

Mary A. Brewer, Keeper of Lock 16 175.00

William D. Howser, Keeper of Locks 17 and 

18 225.00

Daniel Collins, Keeper of Locks 19 and 20 200.00

Samuel Fisher, Keeper of Lock 21 150.00

John Fields, Keeper of Lock 22 150.00

Edward L. Trail, Keeper of Lock 23 200.00

3125.00 

4925.00

3rd Second superintendency 

William S. Elgin, superintendent 900.00 

Lloyd C. Belt, collector at Point of Rocks $50.00

William S. Elgin, collector at Harpers Ferry 100.00

150.00 

John Wells, Keeper of Lock 24 150.00

Asa Aud, No. 25th to the 1st of June $111.11

George W. Bozzell, since 138.89

250.00

James Fitch, Keeper of Lock 26 150.00

Thomas Walter, Keeper of Lock 27 150.00

Galen Benton, No. 28th to 1st August $87.50

William Watkins, since 62.50

150.00

John Walter, Keeper of Lock 29 175.00

William Kuhn, Keeper of Lock 30 150.00

Dennis Harrison, Keeper of Lock 31 150.00

A. W. Jones, Keeper of Lock 32 175.00

William S. Elgin, Keeper of Lock 33, &c. 200.00

John Crowley, Keeper of Lock 34 &c. 175.00

John Kercheval, Keeper of Lock 35, &c. 250.00

John L. Jordan, Keeper of Lock 37 150.00

Edward Hays, Keeper of Lock 38, &c. 200.00

Joseph Gwynn, Keeper of Lock 39 150.00

Andrew McCoy, Keeper of Lock 40 150.00

John Buchanan, Dam 4 150.00

W. Watkins, ferry to the 5th of May 51.26

2,976.26 

4,026.26

4th Third superintendency 

John G. Stone, superintendent 800.00 

Eli Stake, collector at Williamsport 300.00

Arthur Blackwell, collector at Hancock 300.00

600.00 

A. K. Stake, Keeper of locks 41 & 42 to 1st

July $100.00
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 619 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

L. Stanhope, since 100.00

200.00 

Isaac Dodd, Keeper of Lock 43 150.00 

J. Hollman, Keeper of Lock 44 (water power) 

C. Myers, Keeper of Locks 45 and 46 200.00 

Jacob Morter, Guard Lock 5 150.00 

Daniel Brewer, Keeper of Locks 47,48,49 & 

50 300.00 

Upton Rowland, No. 51 and 52 to 1st April $50.00

J. Miller, since 150.00

200.00 

Sarah Conner, Keeper of Lock 53 150.00 

J. Doyle, Guard Lock 6 200.00 

1,550.00 

2.950.00

16,849.46

RECAPITULATION 

President, Directors, Standing Counsel, Clerks and Treasurer $4,948.20

Superintendents 2,400.00

Collectors 1,850.00

Lock-keepers 7,651.26

16,849.46 

L. J. BRENGLE, Treasurer. 

Office Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, 

 Frederick, January 10th, 1849
620 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX N 

OFFICERS DECEMBER 31, 1850 

Statement showing the Officers in the service of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, in the 

year ending 31st December, 1850, and the compensation to which they have been severally entitled for same period.14

1st

 James M. Coale, President $2,000.00 

2nd William A, Bradley, Director $68.00

Henry Daingerfield, Director 64.00

John Pickell, Director 116.00

Wm. Cost Johnson, Director 32.00

George Schley, Director 116.00

Samuel P. Smith 184.00

580.00 

3rd George Schley, Standing Counsel 200.00

W. S. Ringgold, Chief Clerk 1,400.00

W. S. Ringgold, Sec. to Stockholders 100.00

L. J. Brengle, Treasurer 1,400.00

3,100.00 

5,680.00

4th First Superintendency 

John Lambie, Superintendent 900.00 

William H. Bryan, Collector at Georgetown 800.00

John Page, Inspector of Cargoes, Georgetown 300.00

1,100.00 

Thomas Sampson, Lock B 50.00

John Moore, Locks 1 to 4 600.00

Frederick Metz, Lock 5 to 10th March $55.56

Hy. L. Thomas, Lock 5 since 144.44

200.00

James Delzell, Lock 6 150.00

W. Duly, from 8th March, Lock 7 121.77

Levi Barrett, Lock 8 150.00

John Lambie, to 15th Dec., Locks 9 and 10 $191.17

Charles Resenthral, since 8.83

200.00

W. H. Burgess, Lock 11 150.00

John T. Harrison, Locks 12, 13 and 14 250.00

John L. Trammel, Lock 15, one month $14.58

Richard Collins, from 8th March to 15th June 47.28

John Minnes, from 1st Augusr 72.91

 

14 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), pp. 139–140. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 621 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

134.77

Joseph Nevitt, Lock 16, one month $14.58

Lucy A. Metts, from 10th March 140.98

155.56

Wm D. Houser, Locks 17 and 18 225.00

Daniel Collins, Locks 19 and 20 200.00

Samuel Fisher, Lock 21 150.00

John Fields, Lock 22 150.00

Edward L. Trail, Lock 23 100.00

2,987.10 

4,987.10

5th Second superintendency, viz: 

Wm S. Elgin, Superintendent 900.00 

Lloyd C. Belt, collector at Point of Rocks $50.00

Wm S. Elgin, collector at Harpers Ferry 100.00

150.00 

John Wells, Keeper of Lock 24 150.00

George W. Bozzell, Keeper of Lock 25 250.00

James Fitch, Keeper of Lock 26 150.00

Thomas Walter, Keeper of Lock 27 150.00

William Watkins, Keeper of Lock 28 150.00

850.00 1,050.00 10,667.10

John Walter, Keeper of Lock 29 175.00

William Kuhn, Keeper of Lock 30 150.00

Dennis Harrison, Keeper of Lock 31 150.00

A. W. Jones, Keeper of Lock 32 175.00

Wm. S. Elgin, Keeper of Lock 33, &c. 200.00

John Crowley, Keeper of Lock 34 &c. 175.00

John Kercheval, Keeper of Lock 35, &c. 250.00

John L. Jordan, Keeper of Lock 37 150.00

Edward Hays, Keeper of Lock 38, &c. 200.00

Joseph Gwynn, Keeper of Lock 39 150.00

Andrew McCoy, Keeper of Lock 40 150.00

Thomas Wilson, Dam 4 150.00

2,925.00 

3,975.10

6th Third superintendency, viz: 

John Stone, Superintendent 800.00 

Eli Stake, collector at Williamsport 300.00

Arthur Blackwell, collector at Hancock 300.00

600.00 

L. Stanhope, Keeper of locks 41 & 42 200.00

Isaac Dodd, Keeper of Lock 43 150.00

J. Buchanan, Keeper of Lock 44 150.00

Jacob Morter, Guard Lock 5 150.00

C. Myers, Keeper of Locks 45 and 46 200.00
622 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

John S. Moore, Keeper of Locks 47 to 50 300.00

J. Miller, Keeper of Locks 51 and 52 200.00

Sarah Conner, Keeper of Lock 53 150.00

James Doyle, Guard Lock 6 150.00

1,650.00 

3,050.00

7th Fourth Superintendency, viz: 

From Dam No. 6 to Cumberland

Reuben Worthington, Collector at Cumberland 35.00 

Overton G. Lowe, Lock No. 56 $150.00 27.50

F. McAnary, Lock No. 57 150.00 25.00

John Beard, Lock No. 58 150.00 25.00

Henry Gay, Lock No. 59 150.00 37.50

Wm. Crawford, Lock No. 60 150.00 22.92

John Doyle, Lock No. 61 150.00 10.42

H. Kesekamp, Lock No. 62 150.00 25.00

H. Hunsicker, Lock 63 1/3, 64 2/3 and 66 250.00 24.30

Jacob Carts, Lock No. 67 150.00 25.00

Michael Minnaugh, Lock No. 68 150.00 20.83

Lloyd Lowe, Locks No. 69, 70 and 71 250.00 10.41

David Strong, Lock No. 72 150.00 75.00

James Moore, Locks 73 and 74 200.00 100.00

Archibald Young, Lock No. 75 150.00 83.33

A. J. Wilkins, Guard Lock No. 8 200.00 111.11

623.32 

Temporary Lock-keepers 265.75 

924.07

$18,616.17

Treasurer's Office Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, 

 Frederick, January 1st, 1851

L. J. BRENGLE, Treasurer and Accountant 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 623 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX O 

PRESIDENTS, DIRECTORS, AND CHIEF OFFICERS 

FROM JUNE 1828 TO FEBRUARY 27, 1851 

A list of the Presidents, Directors, and chief officers, of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 

from its organization in June, 1828, to February 27th, 1851.15

Period of Service In Office 

Presidents From To years mo's days 

Charles Fenton Mercer June 21, 1828 June 6, 1833 4 11 15

John H. Eaton June 6, 1833 June 27, 1834 1 00 21

George C. Washington June 27, 1834 June 3, 1839 4 11 7

Francis Thomas June 3, 1839 April 2, 1841 1 10 00

Michael C. Sprigg April 2, 1841 Dec. 3, 1842 1 8 00

Wm. Gibbs McNeill Dec. 3, 1842 Aug. 17, 1843 0 8 14

James M. Coale Aug. 17, 1843 Feb. 27, 1851 7 6 10

Directors

Joseph Kent June 21, 1828 June 11, 1831 2 11 21

Phineas Janney June 21, 1828 June 2, 1840 11 11 12

Walter Smith June 21, 1828 June 3, 1839 10 11 13

Peter Lenox June 21, 1828 June 6, 1833 4 11 16

Andrew Stewart June 21, 1828 June 6, 1833 4 11 16

Frederick May June 21, 1828 June 11, 1831 2 11 21

William Price June 11, 1831 June 27, 1834 3 00 16

John J. Abert June 11, 1831 Dec. 21, 1839 8 6 10

William Gunton June 6, 1833 June 3, 1839 5 11 28

Richard H. Henderson June 6, 1833 June 3, 1839 5 11 28

George Bender June 27, 1834 April 29, 1835 0 10 2

M. St. Clair Clarke June 15, 1835 June 22, 1836 1 00 7

Thomas Carbery June 22, 1836 July 16, 1838 2 00 24

John Hoye July 16, 1838 June 3, 1839 0 10 18

Thomas Perry June 3, 1839 Dec. 21, 1839 0 6 18

James Carroll June 3, 1839 Dec. 21, 1839 0 6 18

Jacob G. Davies June 3, 1839 June 2, 1840 1 00 00

Joseph White June 3, 1839 June 2, 1840 1 00 00

Robert P. Dunlop Dec. 21, 1839 April 2, 1841 1 3 12

Washington Duvall Dec. 21, 1839 June 2, 1840 0 5 12

John W. Maury Dec. 21, 1839 June 2, 1840 0 5 12

Frederick A. Schley June 2, 1840 Declined 0 00 00

James Swan June 2, 1840 April 2, 1841 0 10 00

John McPherson June 2, 1840 April 2, 1841 0 10 00

William Lucas June 2, 1840 April 2, 1841 0 10 00

 

15 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), pp. 149–150 
624 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

William Tyler June 2, 1840 April 2, 1841 0 10 00

Jacob Markell July 22, 1840 April 2, 1841 0 9 11

Frisby Tilghman April 2, 1841 June 7, 1847 6 2 5

John R. Dall April 2, 1841 Aug. 5, 1842 1 4 3

John O. Wharton April 2, 1841 June 24, 1847 6 2 22

Daniel Burkhart April 2, 1841 June 24, 1847 6 2 22

James M. Coale April 2, 1841 Aug. 17, 1843 2 4 15

John P. Ingle April 2, 1841 June 24, 1847 6 2 22

William Price Aug. 5, 1842 June 24, 1847 4 10 19

William Darne June 4, 1844 July 23, 1845 1 1 19

Robert W. Bowie July 23, 1845 June 7, 1847 1 10 15

William A. Bradley June 24, 1847

Henry Daingerfield June 24, 1847

Wm. Cost Johnson June 24, 1847

John Pickell June 24, 1847

George Schley June 24, 1847

Samuel P. Smith June 24, 1847

Chief Engineers

Benjamin Wright June 23, 1828 Nov. 13, 1830 2 4 20

Charles B. Fisk April 12, 1837 Sept. 26, 1840 3 5 14

Elwood Morris Sept. 26, 1840 April 13, 1841 0 6 17

Charles B. Fisk April 13, 1841

Clerks

Asa Rogers June 28, 1828 Declined 0 00 00

John P. Ingle July 5, 1828 July 9, 1840 12 00 4

Thomas Turner July 9, 1840 Dec. 20, 1846 6 5 11

Walter S. Ringgold Dec. 20, 1846

Treasurers

Clement Smith July 5, 1828 July 7, 1834 6 00 2

Robert Barnard July 18, 1834 Nov. 14, 1840 6 3 27

Samuel Tyler Nov. 14, 1840 April 13, 1841 0 5 00

Robert Barnard April 14, 1841 June 4, 1841 0 1 20

M. C. Cramer June 4, 1841 Aug. 6, 1841 0 2 2

Ezra Houck Aug. 6, 1841 Sep. 15, 1841 0 1 9

Joseph Schell Sept. 16, 1841 Dec. 22, 1841 0 3 6

Robert Barnard Dec. 22, 1841 Feb. 13, 1846 4 1 21

Philemon Chew Feb. 13, 1846 April 14, 1846 0 2 1

Lawrence J. Brengle April 15, 1846
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 625 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX P 

LIST OF CANAL POSITIONS, APRIL 188416

Division No. 1

Superintendent J. J. Moore $125 per month

Collector William Snowden $125 per month

Assistant Collector William Jarboe $100 per month

Clerk J. B. North $50 per month

Harbor Master Frank Fishe $50 per month

Assistant Superintendent Joseph Isaacs $100 per month

42 Lock-Keepers $40–$65 per month

Superintendent, telephone $50 per month

Chief Engineer, Georgetown Incline $100 per month

Assistant Engineer, Georgetown Incline $72 per month

Helpers (4) $40–$50 per month

Boss Carpenter (3) $65 per month

Carpenters (8) $1.75 per day

Smith $1.75–$2 per day

Caulker $1.75 per day

Laborer $1.10 per day

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (23) $1.10 per day

Level Walker $40 per month

Mason $2.50 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss of Dredge $70 per month

Engineer $2 per day

Dipper Tender $1.50 per day

Fireman (2) $1.50 per day

Deck Hand $1.15 per day

Laborers (16) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (8) $1.10 per day

Level Walkers (2) $1.10 per day

Cook 66-2/3 cents per day

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (7) $1.10 per day

 

16 Payrolls, April 1884–February 1885, C & O Co. 
626 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (13) $1.10 per day

Cook (2) $.66 2/3–$1.10 per day

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (7) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (15) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (9) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (8) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Horse Hire $509

Total Payroll per month—$6,222.06 

Total Collected for Room and Board—$918.79 

Division No. 2

Superintendent Lewis G. Stanhope $125 per month

Collector A. Willison $150–$50 per month

Collector J. Spielman $150–$50 per month

Clerk E. Edwards $100 per month

Gauger John Ranahan $50 per month

Inspector E. Null $40 per month

35 Lock-Keeper $40–$65 per month

Telephone $50 per month

Steam Packet $25–$30 per month

Assistant Engineer $38 per month

Boss Carpenter (3) $65 per month

Carpenters (9) $1.10–$2 per day

Masons (3) $1.75–$2.65 per day

Boss $55 per month
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 627 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Laborers (6) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Laborers on Mud Machine $1.10 per day

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (9) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (7) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (5) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Level Walkers $1.10 per day

Laborers (5) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Level Walkers (2) $1.10 per day

Laborers (6) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (7) $1.10 per month

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Level Walkers (2) $1.10 per day

Laborers (1) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Horses (19) 

Teams (2) $388.75

Total Payroll per month—$5,713.15 

Total Collected for Room and Board—$629.53 

BASIN WHARF (INCLUDED IN DIVISION NO. 2 PAYROLL 

Clerk $100 per month

Boss $50 per month

Trimmer $50 per month

Watchman $50 per month
628 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Hostler $35 per month

Carpenters 92) $1.50 per day

Laborers (3) $1.10 per day

Dumpers (5) $1.65 per day

Trimmers (7) $1.65 per day

Driver $1.50 per day

Total Payroll per month—$373.30 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 629 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

APPENDIX Q 

LIST OF CANAL POSITIONS, FEBRUARY 188517

Division No. 1

Superintendent J. P. Biser $60 per month

Collector William Snowden $50 per month

Clerk J. B. North $20 per month

Harbor Master Frank Fisher $50 per month

40Lock-Keepers $15–$40 per month

1 Assistant Lock Keeper $15 per month

Captain—Packet $35 per month

Telephone $50 per month

Engineer, Georgetown Incline $47.50 per month

Assistant Engineer, Georgetown Incline $35 per month

Helpers $25 per month

Cook $20 per month

Boss Carpenter (3) $65 per month

Laborers (2) $1.10 per day

Carpenters (2) $1.50–$1.75 per day

Boss, Dredge $22.50 per month

Engineer $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (6) $1.10 per day

Level Walker $40 per month

Cook $20 per month

Quarryman $25 per 1⁄2 month

Laborers (11) $1.10 per day

Cook $10 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (23) $1.10 per day

Masons (2) $2.50 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (5) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

 

17 Payroll, April 1884–February 1885, C & O Co. 
630 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (6) $1.10 per day

Cook (2) $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (12) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (6) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (6) $1.10 per day

Mason $2.50 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborer $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Horse Hire $281.50

Total Payroll per month—$2,672.92 

Total Collected for Room and Board—$530.40 

Division No. 2

Superintendent Edward Mulvany $65 per month

Collector A. Willison $62.50 per month

Assistant Collector John L. Edwards $37.50 per month

34 Lock-Keeper $15–$27.50 per month

Telephone $50 per month

Engineer, Pump $38 per month

Boss Carpenter (3) $65 per month

Carpenters (3) $1.10–$1.75 per day

Blacksmith $1.90 per day

Mason $2.40 per day

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (4) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 631 

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (4) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (5) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (12) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Boss $55 per month

Laborers (9) $1.10 per day

Cook $20 per month

Horse Hire $237

Total Payroll per month—$2,413.21 

Total Collected for Room and Board—$236.80 

BASIN WHARF (INCLUDED IN DIVISION NO. 2 PAYROLL) 

Boss $25 per month

Watchman $50 per month

Hostler $30 per month
632 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 9. Managing Maintenance 1830–1924 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

10. 

THE ECONOMIC 

IMPACT ON THE 

POTOMAC VALLEY OF 

THE C & O CANAL: 

1828–1924 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 635 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

CONTENTS 

I. IMPACT OF THE WESTWARD PROGRESS OF THE 

 CANAL AND RAILROAD 637 

II. IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 

 CANAL AND RAILROAD 639 

III. IMPACT OF THE ENLARGED PROJECT THROUGH THE ADDITION 

 OF BRANCH LINES AND CONNECTING TRADE LINKS 646 

IV. IMPACT OF THE OPERATION OF THE CANAL AND RAILROAD 652 

 A. NEW INHABITANTS 652 

 B. ECONOMICAL TRANSPORTATION AND AGRICULTURAL 

 DIVERSIFICATION 652 

 C. SALE OF WATER POWER 654 

 D. COAL TRADE 657 

 E. GROWTH OF RELATED INDUSTRIES 658 

 F. COMPETITION BETWEEN THE CANAL AND RAILROAD 661 

V. IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWNS 664 

 A. GEORGETOWN 664 

 B. GREAT FALLS (CROMMELIN) 665 

 C. SENECA (RUSHVILLE) 666 

 D. POINT OF ROCKS 667 

 E. BRUNSWICK (BERLIN) 667 

 F. KNOXVILLE 668 

 G. WEVERTON 668 

 H. SANDY HOOK 669 

 I. HARPERS FERRY 670 

 J. SHEPHERDSTOWN 670 

 K. WILLIAMSPORT 671 

 L. HANCOCK 674 

 M. CUMBERLAND 675 

 N. SUMMARY 680 

VI. IMPACT ON THE POPULATION 681 

APPENDIXES 683 

A. WATER POWER LEASES FOR GEORGETOWN MILLS: 1839–1900 683 

B. WATER POWER LEASES BETWEEN GEORGETOWN AND 

 LITTLE FALLS: 1839–1900 691 

C. WAREHOUSES ALONG THE C&O CANAL: 1850–1890 694 
636 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

D. COAL YARDS AND WHARVES USING CANAL WATERPOWER 

 TO SHIP COAL: 1856–1880 699 

E. COAL YARDS AND WHARVES NOT USING WATERPOWER 

 TO SHIP COAL: 1856–1880 700 

F. CHIEF RETAIL COAL DEALERS NEAR THE CANAL IN 

 GEORGETOWN: 1860–1880 701 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 637 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

I. IMPACT OF THE WESTWARD PROGRESS 

OF THE CANAL AND RAILROAD 

On July 4, 1828, groundbreaking ceremonies were held to commence the construction of two 

transportation lines that were designed to link the East and the West—the Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. During the next quarter century both works were extended gradually up the Potomac Valley to Cumberland and beyond. Prior to January 1832 both 

lines were confined to the area east of the Catoctin Mountains by the existence of injunctions 

prohibiting land acquisition above that point.1

 In October 1830, the waterway was opened between Dams Nos. 1 and 2, and in September 1831, navigation was commenced between the 

Georgetown tidelocks and Little Falls.2

 The railroad reached Frederick in December 1831 and 

Point of Rocks in April 1832.3

 Thus at the time of the settlement of the legal controversy between 

the two rival companies in January 1832, both projects had nearly completed their works below 

the Catoctin Range, a distance of some 48 miles from Georgetown by canal and some 69 miles 

from Baltimore by rail. By the terms of a compromise approved on May 9, 1833, the joint construction of the two transportation lines through the narrow passes of the river between Pont of 

Rocks and Harpers Ferry was undertaken. The latter town was reached by the canal in November 

1833 and the railroad in December 1834.4

 Above Harpers Ferry the canal and railroad followed separate paths up the Potomac Valley. The railroad abandoned the Maryland side of the river and pursued a more direct course 

through the rugged and sparsely settled terrain of Western Virginia, free of the competition with 

the canal for the right-of-way, to a point just below Cumberland. Only for brief intervals did it 

return to the Potomac Valley prior to recrossing the river into Maryland. The canal followed the 

winding river to Cumberland remaining entirely within the immediate narrow confines of the valley on the Maryland side of the stream. Hence the canal, much of which was in the flood plain of 

the river, followed a more difficult and circuitous route.5

 Since work on the canal above Harpers Ferry was in progress even before the completion 

of the joint construction above Point of Rocks, the 22.2-mile section between Dams Nos. 3 and 4 

was opened in April 1834; six months after the waterway reached the Ferry.6

 By slackwater navigation in the pool formed by Dam No. 4, Williamsport could be reached, a total distance of about 

100 miles from tidewater.7

 In April 1835 the 22.3-mile section between Dams Nos. 4 and 5 was completed.8

 Because of the financial and labor problems together with increasingly more difficult terrain to overcome, the waterway was not finished to Dam No. 6 near the mouth of the Cacapon 

River, some 135 miles above Georgetown, until April 1839.9

 By the time of the suspension of 

work in 1842, a considerable amount of excavation had been accomplished on the remaining fifty 

 

1 Second Annual Report (1830), C & O Co., 9. 2 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 194, and C, 5. Also see Van Slyke to Mercer, Apr. 2, 1831, 

Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. and Niles’ Register. Vol. XL (Apr. 9, 1831), 91. 3

 Edward Hungerford, The Story of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 1827–1927, (2 Vol., New York, 1928), Vol. I, 116–

117. 

4 Proceedings of Stockholders, A, 170–174; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 341–342 and D, 

3; Niles’ Register, Vol. XIV (Oct. 5, 1833), 84; Ibid. Vol. XLV (Nov. 23, 1833), 199; and Milton Reizenstein, The 

Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 1827–1857 (Baltimore, 1897), 29–32. 5

 Walter S. Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, (Washington, 1950), 87. 6 Sixth Annual Report (1834) C & O Co., 4. 7

 Fredericksburg Arena, Oct. 6, 1835, quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. XLIX (Oct. 24, 1835), 127. 8 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVIII (Apr. 11, 1835), 89. 9 Ibid, Vol. LVI (Apr. 27, 1839), 131–132. 
638 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

miles to Cumberland, but the work was to idle until November 1847 while numerous attempts 

were made to secure finances for the continuation of the work.10

 In the meantime, the Baltimore & Ohio had pushed its railroad rapidly westward, paying 

little heed to one of its original sponsors, the State of Maryland, or to the needs and desires of the 

citizens of Western Maryland. The route chosen by the Baltimore railroad promoters in their race 

for the Cumberland coal trade and the Ohio Valley did carry tracks close to the Potomac River on 

the Virginia side opposite Hancock, but this provided little consolation to the inhabitants on the 

northern side of the river. Hagerstown and Williamsport, two of the most important towns in 

Washington County were completely ignored, although the former was eventually connected with 

the main line by a spur track from Weverton in December 1867.11

 In this manner, the Baltimore & Ohio arrived at Cumberland in November 1842, eight 

years ahead of the canal, and continued westward.12 The canal was formally opened as far as 

Cumberland on October 10, 1850, amid fanfare and enthusiastic celebrations.13

 However, the Baltimore & Ohio continued to push its lines westward, reaching Piedmont 

in July 1851 and Fairmont in June 1852. On January 10, 1853, the railroad completed the connection of its eastern and western sections at Cumberland and opened its lines all the way to Wheeling on the Ohio River, some 379 miles from Baltimore. Thus, less than three years after the canal 

reached Cumberland, it was further outdistanced by its rival line for the lucrative east-west trade 

markets.14

 

10 Ibid, Vol. LXIV (July 29, 1843), 342–343; Ibid, Vol. LXV (Aug. 12, 1843), 372–373; and Twentieth Annual Report

(1848), C & O Co., 3–8. 

11 Hungerford, The Story of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Vol. I, 70–72. 12 William H. Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland (Washington, 1878), 351–352. 13 Cumberland Civilian, reprinted in Proceedings of the Stockholders, D, 390–395. 14 Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, 376, Reizenstein, Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio, 85. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 639 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

II. IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANAL AND RAILROAD 

The Potomac Valley reflected the influence of the westward progress of the canal and railroad at 

almost every stage of construction. The farmer and other property holders benefited in many 

ways. Those fortunate enough to own land in the paths chosen by the two companies profited 

immediately from the sale of their property to the internal improvements companies. 

 From the first year of construction, the canal company was forced to pay exorbitant sums 

for the purchase of its right-of-way. While some of the landholders, on the route over which the 

canal was to pass, readily granted the company the title required, many others obstructed the 

work and refused to surrender their property voluntarily, in the hope of realizing great profits 

from forced sales. In the latter instances, condemnation proceedings were resorted to. These increasingly became the rule as construction moved up the river and as the speculation fever of the 

landowners rose.15

 Among those who resisted the condemnation efforts of the canal company were those 

who held out for the highest possible price and those who would not sell for any price. The former included those who resisted the verdict of the juries, called for new trials and generally tried 

to secure higher prices by delaying tactics, which raised their nuisance value.16

 The second group usually had other motives in the background. Charles Carroll, for example, brushed aside all offers for the purchase of land on Dougheregan Manor, his 10,000-acre 

estate in Frederick County. He was one of the founders of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, which 

at that time was locked in a struggle with the canal company for the right-of-way in the Potomac 

Valley.17

 After the legal controversy was settled in January 1832, the canal company continued to 

face large land prices as the waterway entered Washington County, near Harpers Ferry. The first 

land condemned was that of Gerard B. Wager, a bitter opponent of the canal company. The damages awarded were very high, and the verdict provided a discouraging precedent for the directors 

who had hoped for more favorable settlements in the county. The determination of the local landholders to exact full satisfaction was further strengthened by the award of the utmost damages 

obtainable in the condemnation of land owned by Casper Wever, an official of the railroad and 

enemy of the canal project. Even some of the friends of the canal participated in the onslaught 

that followed. The more impatient proprietors resorted to injunctions to enforce prompt payment 

of their awards.18

 In 1835 and 1836 juries in both Washington and Allegany counties continued to exact 

full satisfaction for land purchased by the canal company between Dams No. 5 and 6. Although 

the company won a victory in one appeal to the courts and the juries were severely censured, the 

hoped-for relief proved illusory. Land costs averaged $2,290 a mile, more than double the estimate of $1,000 made in 1834, ranging all the way from 21⁄2 to 25 times the estimated costs. In a 

letter to the board, Commissioner George Bender described the situation as follows: 

I commenced my efforts to obtain there land with a strong hope of compromising and did 

in fact compromise with eight of the proprietors who has thus signed, and two others who 

had not before a simple jury was carried to the ground, viz. with Wade, Harvey, Brawles, 

Mrs. Jacques, Stottlemeyer, A. Snyder, Lespand, R. Summers, N. Summers and Michael 

Smith; but from these persons it had become necessary by the new line to acquire 1911⁄2 

 

15 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 41–41, and Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1946), 79. 16 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 42. 17 Carroll to Mercer, Feb. 26, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

18 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 91. 
640 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

acres at the aggregate sum of $7,372 instead of 1083⁄4 acres at the aggregate sum of 

$5,575 as estimated by Mr. Cruger (in 1834). In other words, for the 41,664 feet length of 

canal through their estates, I had to pay $705.70 per mile. These compromises, however it 

must be borne in mind, consisted in large proportion of land of little or no value for cultivation and when I attempted to compromise for the more valuable portions of the line, yet 

confined myself at all within the limits of Mr. Cruger’s estimate, I found myself entirely 

baffled. In some case the owners were minors, or their titles were not perfect, or there 

were claims for loss of mill power and etc., so that it became necessary to resort to the 

linguistics of juries as prescribed by the charter of the company. 

Bender then noted the results of the jury awards: 

1834 Estimate Cost 

Heir of Dan Smith $1,000 $2,300

J. Charles, Jr. 100 2,500 

Sam Prather 1,000 2,960 

Prather Heirs 500 1,287 

Tobias Johnson 1,150 10,600

Otto 225 1,775 

Linn 400 1,575 

Peter Miller (per agreement) 150 1,200 

J. Chambers 625 2,350 

Widow Bevans 575 1,000 

The commissioner concluded his report by stating that: 

So long as the value of the land taken is to be judged of by the neighbors and friends of 

the land proprietor brought together a jury against a company of strangers as they are 

taught to consider, so long will the expense attending the acquisitions be much greater 

than has been heretofore anticipated.19

Previous to this series of condemnations, some proprietors in Allegany County had been willing 

to compromise, if only to avoid paying the lawyers fees. The prices up to that time approximated 

the estimates of the engineers. Thereafter, the prospects for windfall profits were so promising 

that landowners were willing to pay legal cost to gain the larger damages.20

 Potomac Valley residents also benefited from the increase in the value of the property not 

required by the canal and railroad. For instance, property values in Cumberland increased from 

$931,118 to $2,124,400 in 1860.21

 This effect extended far beyond the immediate neighborhood of the new transportation 

facilities and was perhaps the most widely bared benefit of their construction. The cause of the 

increase in land values was the advantage, which these commercial arteries brought of cheap and 

easy access to the principal markets for their products and the major sources of their necessities.22

 Another effect on the valley was the immigration of many persons seeking employment 

on the internal improvement projects. These people brought with them their families, their cus-

 

19 Bender to President and Directors, May 31, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

20 Price to Washington, Oct. 25, 1836, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

21 Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, 351, 388. 22 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 89. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 641 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

toms and their beliefs; sometimes, quite alien to the valley. The Catholic Irish were particularly 

disturbing to the established local communities comprised primarily of Protestant German and 

Scotch Irish stock, more so than the relatively fewer Dutch, German, Welsh and English immigrants. The presence of large numbers of persons in crowded and filthy temporary quarters also 

brought health problems to the valley. Minor epidemics among the Irish during the “summer season” were not unusual in the valley, and there were two major scares in 1832 and 1833 over the 

spread of cholera from the workers to the local inhabitants along the waterway. In addition, the 

presence of so many rough and trouble unassimilated laborers in a limited area saved the question 

of the maintenance of order. Drunken brawls accompanying all-night drinking bouts disturbed the 

valley, and clashes between the Irish factions in the mid-1830s terrified the citizens in the 

neighboring towns. The later disputes between the workers and the canal company and between 

the various nationalities employed on the lines, which erupted into violence on several occasions 

and put the inhabitants of the area into the difficult positions of militia arbiters and innocent victims. The groundswell of racial bitterness produced by these antagonistic events laid the foundation for the early rise of political nativism in Western Maryland during the 1830s.23

 The inhabitants of the Potomac Valley were able to take an active part in the process of 

the construction. When agricultural workers were not pressing, many inhabitants took employment on the line of the worker. Because of the need for large numbers of workers and the relatively small pool of labor in the valley, the rate of wages remained at a high level throughout the 

construction firms and receive contract to build the various canal structures. The farmers found a 

ready market, relatively free of shipping costs and widespread competition, for their surplus food 

and drink. Lumber, the principal value of which previously had been as a local building product 

and as fuel, found a more profitable use in construction. Stone, which like lumber had heretofore 

been limited to local use, received a good price as ballast and building material, or, in the case of 

limestone, as a valuable ingredient in hydraulic cement.24

 The last important way in which the Potomac Valley was influenced by the construction 

of the canal was in financial affairs. The valley prospered directly from the existence of the sizeable payrolls of the transportation companies, most of which was spent in the immediate 

neighborhood. The alternating cycles of boom business circles in the valley rose and fell with the 

employment and fortunes of the internal improvement companies. When the canal was nearly 

completed from Georgetown to Seneca, the National Intelligencer reported on June 29, 1830: 

The execution of this great National work has progressed with a rapidity as astonishing as

it is unparalleled in the history of works of this description. A short time only has yet 

elapsed since the necessity existed of rousing public sentiment to proper appreciation of 

the importance of this great enterprise by essay after essay, and of diverting the national 

energy to its accomplishment by convention after convention. But now, only have the 

moral obstacles to its progress been removed, the root of prejudice eradicated, and the 

rock of error blown away, but physical obstructions, far more difficult than any one can 

appreciate who has not seen them, have been overcome, and, under the plastic hand of 

man, made subservient to the great interests of commercial intercourse.25

 

23 See Chapter VII of this study for more information on the canal’s labor force and its effect on the Potomac Valley. 

24 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 288; C, 357–361; Knapp, Ford and Chapman to President 

and Directors, Mar. 26, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. For more information on this subject also see Chapter VIII of this 

study. 

25 Washington, National Intelligencer, June 29, 1830. 
642 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

On January 15, 1831, the Frederick Town Herald noted the enthusiasm with which Virginia and 

Maryland agricultural and lumber interests were using the first stretch of the waterway to be 

opened: 

The operations on this great work still continue, we are informed, with great vigor. As 

late as the 18th of December, the weekly returns of effective laborers gave 2,205 men and 

379 horses. . .Very recently forty-five boats passed through the locks of the 17th and 18th

sections in one day, laden with more than 6,000 barrels of flour, part of which descended 

by the Shenandoah, from Port Republic, a point within 20 miles of Stanton, the geographical center of Virginia; and another from Williamsport, in Maryland, 100 miles 

above the District of Columbia; and wood, for fuel, has already been brought down the 

canal a distance of 16 miles, from above the great falls of Potomac.26

Some five months later, on June 4, 1831, the same newspaper glowingly detailed the economic 

impact of the canal and railroad on the growth of business activity in Frederick: 

From the returns . . . we learn that during the quarter ending on the 12th ult. One thousand 

and ninety-three barrels of flour have been inspected in this city. The increased inspection 

has been caused by the demand for the laborers engaged on the public works in this vicinity – and if our natural advantages for the establishment of manufactories, especially on 

the Monocacy, were improved, the markets for the products of our farmers would be 

greatly extended. As Mr. Jefferson said: “The manufactures should be seated alongside 

the agriculturalist.”27

In February 1835 when the canal company was attempting to lobby the Maryland legislature for 

additional pledges to its stock in an effort to keep construction of the waterway moving, Niles’ 

Register reported on the beneficial effects that an affirmative decision would have on the trade of 

Cumberland and the commerce of the state it self as follows: 

For then a very heavy business must need be transacted on the canal, the town (Cumberland) just named becoming a great place of deposit between the east and west, whether 

commodities are proceeding to or from Pittsburgh or Wheeling; and especially from the 

former when the Monongahela shall be opened for navigation, as it will be, sooner or 

later.28

When work on the canal was suspended in early 1836 pending a further loan from the State of 

Maryland, the optimistic prospects for Cumberland changed to pessimism and depression: 

The stoppage of the work on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal has caused a very considerable panic in Cumberland. Two hours after the arrival of the news, the price of produce 

came down at least 10 percent. Business still continues to be dull; our principal streets 

presenting an unusual barrenness; the merchant is idle; and the mechanic slow in the 

transaction of his business; the speculator is cut to the quick, and those who engaged to 

pay high rents on account of the prospects of the canal, have been suddenly and seriously 

 

26 Frederick, Town Herald, Jan. 15, 1831. 27 Frederick, Town Herald, June 4, 1831. 28 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVII (Feb. 21, 1835), 428. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 643 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

disappointed. Indeed, the citizens of the town generally, and the farmers for many miles 

around, have great cause to regret this temporary suspension.29

After the canal was completed to Dam No. 6 in the spring of 1839, the National Intelligencer

noted the prospects for the improvement in canal trade and the need for completing the waterway 

to Cumberland: 

We may now expect a great increase to the trade of the canal, because the portion in use 

connects with the national road at Hancock. 

Owing to the unusual low stage of the water at this season of the year, the river 

navigation between Cumberland and the point to which the canal is finished is very dangerous; so much so, that out of seven coal boats which left Cumberland lately, during a 

small rise in the river, but three reached the canal, the others being lost. This fact shows 

how important the completion of the canal is to the people of Maryland, as well as the 

advantages which the people of this district (District cities) may reasonably anticipate, 

upon the accomplishment of that event.30

When the Maryland legislature failed to authorize another appropriation for the completion of the 

canal to Cumberland before it adjourned in the spring of 1842 Niles’ Register observed: 

The unfortunate disagreement between the two houses of the legislature of Maryland, in 

relation to amendments to the bill for completing this stupendous work to the coal and 

iron regions of Allegany County, which alone can bring the work into profitable operation, will have the inevitable effect of suspending all operations, for the year, and leave 

the unfinished work to certain dilapidation, with the contracts subject to expensive litigation, and the state saddled with the interest accruing upon seven million of dollars invested in the undertaking. . . So disastrous are likely to be the consequences of the upper 

counties of the state, that large meetings are convened and calls are making the Governor 

to convene an extra session of the legislature with the view of adopting a measure that 

would not only divert the catastrophe, but bring to our aid the vast resources that are now 

almost within our grasp.31

During the five-year suspension of work on the canal from 1842 to 1847, there were several unsuccessful attempts to negotiate new loans for the recommencement of construction. When one 

such attempt was first reported in July 1843, Niles’ Register commented that “This is glorious 

news for Maryland.”32

 Later, in December 1843, after it was reported that an offer had been made to complete 

the canal for $1,300,000, Niles’ Register noted that the waterway when finished, “will place 

Maryland in the very focus of the most prosperous and productive trade.”33

 In late 1845 when work was resumed briefly under a new contract, Niles’ Register informed its readers: 

The subcontractors with apparatus and corps of laborers are now strewed all along the 

line from Dam No. 6 to Cumberland. Day is dawning again after a long gloomy night. 

 

29 Ibid, Vol. XLIX (Feb. 20, 1836), 426. 30 Ibid, Vol. LVI (Apr. 27, 1839), 131–132. 31 Ibid, Vol. LXII (Mar. 26, 1842), 52. 32 Ibid, Vol. LXIV (July 15, 1843), 320. 33 Ibid, Vol. LXV (Dec. 30, 1843), 276–277. 
644 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

The Williamsport Banner of the 1st inst. says the trade of that part of the Canal, which is 

completed, never before was so brisk. Immense quantities of flour, grain and other kinds 

of produce have been collected in our town, and are now ready for transportation to the 

District Cities. Thus, we understand too, is the case at other points along the line of the 

Canal. Within the last week or two, an unusually large number of boats have passed 

down the Canal.34

After lengthy negotiations, construction on the last portion of the canal was finally resumed in 

November 1847 under a contract with Messrs. Hunter, Harris and Thompson. Again business circles in the Potomac Valley and the surrounding region expressed their renewed faith in the future 

economic growth of the area, for example: 

Immense beds of the best coal exist at Cumberland; and Washington, Georgetown and 

35Alexandria will doubtless be highly benefited by the commerce in this article, as soon 

as they can ascend by this Canal to the primitive and exhaustless formations. In seventeen 

of the counties of Virginia and Maryland situated on the borders or vicinity of this canal, 

with a population of 232,784 persons, there have been raised in one year 14,425,134 

bushels of grain, being nearly 62 bushels to each inhabitant. With about one seventy-third 

part of the population of the Union, according to the census of 1840, these seventeen 

counties produce one forty-second part of the grain raised in the United States. 

The sufficiency or scarcity of money in the valley was also related in part to the level of activity 

on the transportation projects and the financial policies of their works both the railroad and the 

canal resorted to the issuance of their own paper money at various times. The Chesapeake & Ohio 

first issued scrip, amounting to some $90,000 in $5, $10, and $20 notes payable in one year at 

four percent interest in April 1834 to enable work to continue until the anticipated returns from 

the sale of Maryland bonds could be realized. The first experience was uneventful because the 

proceeds of the bond sale were more than sufficient to redeem the notes by September 1835. In 

fact, it was very popular throughout the valley, for it prevented a work stoppage.36

 In the currency famine following the panic of 1837, both the railroad and canal had occasion to resume the issuance of paper money. The anticipation of the proceeds from the sale of 

additional Maryland bonds again provided the necessary excuse for the action. Accordingly, the 

canal company on June 7 determined to issue scrip amounting to $50,000 in notes of denominations between 50 cents and $5, the size of the notes being accounted for by the fact that there 

were almost no notes in the valley of less than $5 value.37

 Once more the decision was at first a popular one in the valley. Joseph Shriver, the president of the Cumberland Bank of Allegany County informed canal officials on June 29, 1837, that 

his institution approved of the company’s plan to put small notes into circulation and requested 

several hundred dollars’ worth as there was an urgent call for them.38

 Two weeks alter on July 12, Shriver again requested $200 to $300 of company notes as 

those “already recently have been paid out and the demand for them continues as great as ever.” 

Unless the company notes were placed in the hands of the Cumberland citizenry as quickly as 

 

34 Ibid, Vol. LXIX (Nov. 8, 1845), 147. 35 Ibid, Vol. LXIV (Nov. 1, 1848), 286. 36 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 408, and Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVI (Apr. 26, 1834), 133, 

and Vol. XLVII (May 3, 1834), 149. 

37 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 268–269. 38 Shriver to Ingle, June 29, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 645 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

possible, other notes would begin flowing into the town “from all quarters to supply the amount 

of change” and reduce the demand for the canal notes.39

 Even in Baltimore public sentiment was in favor of the canal company decision to issue 

scrip. According to the President George C. Washington on August 13, 1837, an article in the 

Baltimore Gazette on the previous day, compliments the directors for their “spirit and foresight 

on assuring that we have nearly a million in circulation, when in fact we have not $50,000.” The 

demand for corporate notes was so great in the north that it was estimated that arrangements 

could be made “for the reception in New York alone for a quarter of a million of our small notes, 

without obligation to pay interest.” Similar results were predicted for canal scrip in both Philadelphia and Baltimore. Already corporate issues of small notes had supplanted entirely the market 

for individual notes in the latter city.40

 The popularity of the corporate scrip and the failure of the expected sales of the State 

bonds to materialize, forced the canal and railroad enterprises to enlarge their issues. From the 

limited issue of notes of small denominations only, which had been a temporary expedient to fill 

a gap in the local monetary picture, the two companies proceeded to large-scale emissions of 

notes. In August and September 1837 the canal company authorized the printing of $260,000 

worth of $5, $10 and $20 notes, payable at six months after date and bearing an interest rate of six 

percent.41

 At the same time the unfavorable condition of the market, which was indicated by the 

lack of sales, made the security behind the notes the subject of doubt. Discounting of notes became frequent; even the Baltimore & Ohio’s notes, which had been issued to pay employees’ salary, were discounted 20 percent in Cumberland and 25 percent in Baltimore as late as 1842, on 

the eve of its completion to the former town.42

 Indirectly, the Potomac Valley was affected by the impact of the heavy cost of the railroad and canal projects on the finances and credit of the State and local banks. Taxes, property 

values, the condition of local currency and the state of business health itself were all dependent in 

part on the State and upon the larger banks in Baltimore and the eastern part of the state.43

 

39 Ibid, July 12, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 40 Washington to Ingle, Aug. 13, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

41 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 298–299, 317, 426. Ultimately, the following notes were 

issued: 6,000 sheets of two $5 notes, one $10 note and one $20 note = $240,000 and 500 sheets of two $5 notes, one 

$10 note, and one $20 note = $20,000. The form of the notes was as follows: $20 note—the $20 note of the Bank of 

Montgomery County with the exception of the margin on the ends for which was substituted the ends of the Urganna 

Banking Company $20 note; $10 note—the $1 note of the Philadelphia Loan Company with the end margin of the $10 

note of the Bank of the State of Arkansas; and $5 note—the $10 note of the Bank of Rochester with the end margin of 

the $50 note of the Columbia Bank and Bridge Company. Ingle to Underwood, Bald Co., Aug. 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C & 

O Co. 

42 Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, 350. Ironically, shinplasters circulated by the Good Intent Stage Company 

were still redeemed at face value. 

43 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 93. For instance, state stocks fell to 64 percent of par value 

in March 1844 after the state legislature refused to pass a bill providing for the completion of the canal to Cumberland. 

When the bill had been under consideration and had a chance of passage, the state stocks had sold at 82 percent of par 

value in Baltimore. Coale to Ward, Mar. 14, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
646 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

III. IMPACT OF ENLARGED PROJECTS THROUGH THE ADDITION 

OF BRANCH LINES AND CONNECTING TRADE LINKS 

The canal was not “complete” when it reached Cumberland. Unlike the Baltimore & Ohio however, the canal was unable to extend its waterway over the mountains to the Ohio River. Nevertheless much work was done during the late 1820s and early 1830s in surveying the route, securing land titles, and making detailed plans for the proposed middle and western sections of the canal between Cumberland and Pittsburgh.44

 The project was dropped and lay dormant for some forty years before it was revived in 

the early 1870s during the most prosperous years of the canal trade. At that time, it was estimated 

that the canal could be extended to the Ohio River at a cost of between $24,000,000 and 

$28,000,000.45

 With the decline of the coal trade, the bitter competition of the railroad and the deterioration of the waterway itself during the following decade, the project was not seriously considered 

again.46

 In addition to the ambitious planning for the extension of the main line of the Chesapeake 

& Ohio to Pittsburgh, several branches were considered by the directors and by other interested 

promoters. Among these were a number of feeders in the Potomac Valley and three extensions 

from the eastern terminus of the waterway, all of which would have the effect of binding the valley more closely together and of expanding the benefits on the main line. 

 At various times almost every major tributary of the Potomac River was considered as the 

site of a possible feeder. One projected branch up the Monocacy River to Frederick was frequently discussed in 1829. In February of that year the Canal directors agreed to build a feeder to 

supply water from the Monocacy River to a canal to be built by the newly incorporated Frederick 

County Canal Company connecting the town of Frederick with the Chesapeake & Ohio.47

 At about the same time, the board recommended that a connection between the Monocacy and the Susquehanna might be effected, thus providing an inland waterway to New York.48

 Dr. John Martineau and Frederick authorized a survey of the proposed Monocacy improvement during the summer and fall of 1829 and estimated the cost of the 24-mile waterway at 

$296,389.49

 The citizens of Frederick soon lost interest in the waterway however, and turned again to 

the railroad. The canal directors, who had looked upon the branch primarily as a feeder for that 

part of their own canal above Dam No. 2, were greatly disappointed by this lack of cooperation. 

Seeking ways of utilizing its waterway above the Seneca Dam while the railroad injunction was 

still in effect above Point of Rocks, the Canal board again considered the Monocacy River as a 

 

44 “Reports and Letters from the Engineers Employed in the Revised Location of the Western Section of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal,” in First Annual Report (1829) C & O Co., 104 ff. and William Archer, “Communication from 

Wm. Archer, esq., to the Stockholders of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, On the Subject of the Location of the tunnel 

through the Allegany Mountain”, (Washington, 1835), 1–7. 45 Records Concerning Proposed Extension of the Canal, ca. 1874, C & O Co., U. S. Congress, House, Letter of the 

Secretary of War on the Extension of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Exec. Doc. 20, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, April 

14, 1874, 5–9; and U. S., Congress, House, Letter of the Secretary of War, Transmitting the Report of Engineer Merrill 

on the Chesapeake & Ohio Extension, Exec. Doc. 137, 44th Congress, 1st Session, Mar. 2, 1876, 2–3. 46 The subject of the western extension of the canal was speculatively revived during World War Two and in the late 

1920s and early 1930s. The cost of the project was estimated at $219,000,000 in 1930 and $242,000,000 in 1934. 

Washington Star, Jul. 17, 1927, Oct. 25, 1929, May 4, 1930 and Sep. 30, 1934. 47 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 164. 48 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 53. 49 Frederick Examiner, quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. XXXVII (July 4, 1829), 302, and Niles’ Register, Vol. XXXVIII 

(Mar. 20, 1830), 69. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 647 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

feeder in 1831, along with the Little Monocacy, Tuscarora Creek, Broad Run, Abraham’s Branch 

and other streams below that town.50

 The board of directors also showed some interest in the development of the Shenandoah 

River trade and detailed plans were drawn up to make that river navigable in February 1832.51

However, the strained financial condition of the company made it impossible to undertake any 

major work on that river. As its resources neared exhaustion, the improvement of any tributaries 

of the Potomac by the canal company in the immediate future was impracticable. In 1831, the 

company waived its rights to those branches in order to encourage the organization of state corporations to make the branches navigable and serve as connectors to the canal. Company officials 

were especially eager to see such enterprises improve the Monocacy and Antietam and Conococheague Creeks.52

 Later in November 1838 the canal directors appealed in vain to the Virginia legislature 

for aid to connect the Chesapeake & Ohio with the South Branch, Cacapon and Shenandoah Rivers and make improvements on them for navigation purposes.53

 In March 1839, the board gave its assent to acts of the Maryland and Virginia General 

Assemblies incorporating the Union Company and the Union Potomac Company to construct a 

canal or slackwater navigation on the North Branch of the Potomac from the proposed terminus 

of the Chesapeake & Ohio at Cumberland to the north of the Savage River, but the project was 

never undertaken because of the extended delay of the main line in reaching that town.54

 There were three projects for independent canals to tap the trade of the main stem at its 

eastern terminus, two of which were ultimately carried to completion and put into operation. The 

Maryland (“Cross-Cut”) Canal, which would have connected Baltimore with the main stem, was 

under consideration until 1839 and again briefly in the a870s, but it was never built because of its 

prohibitive cost, the rapid westward construction of the railroad and the various competing political rivalries in Maryland and between Baltimore and the District Cities.55

 However, the Washington City and the Alexandria Canals were finished, and the latter 

became an important outlet for the trade of the Chesapeake & Ohio. 

 The Washington City Canal, which had been built between 1810–1815, was a 21⁄4-mile 

waterway connecting the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. It extended from the mouth of Tiber 

Creek to the foot of present New Jersey Avenue at the Eastern Branch, with the second line following the course of James Creek from a junction with the first route near the present intersection 

of New Jersey Avenue and E Street, S.E., to the Anacostia River east of Greenleaf Point (present 

day grounds of the War College).56

 The organization of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company revived interest in the already deteriorating city canal as a means by which the trade of the former could be brought to 

Washington. The city and the Chesapeake & Ohio reached a compromise in September 1828 by 

which the latter agreed to extend its waterway from Rock Creek Basin to a basin, which the city 

undertook to construct at the mouth of Tiber Creek.57 The extension of the Chesapeake & Ohio 

was completed in 1837 at a cost of $310,000, of which Congress appropriated $150,000, and its 

 

50 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 132 and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 384–385; C, 

35. 

51 Stewart to Mercer, Feb. 10, 1832, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

52 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 190–192. 53 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 521. 54 Ibid, F, 31–33. 55 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 171–175. 56 Wilhelmus Bryan, A History of the National Capital (2 Vol., New York, 1914–1916), Vol. I, 499–501; and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 175–177. 57 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 23–24. 
648 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

operation as a toll-free public highway was placed under the control of a commission appointed 

by the city council.58

 Although the Washington City Canal remained one of the possible outlets for the trade of 

the Potomac Valley until the 1880s, it was seldom used for a variety of reasons. Among those 

were the following: 

1. The tide consistently filled the channel, requiring continual dredging operations. 

2. In the early years, the trade on the main canal and the demand of the city markets were 

not great enough to provide much business for it. 

3. By the time the Chesapeake & Ohio was completed to Cumberland, the canal boats had 

become so large that navigation under the low Georgetown bridges was virtually impossible; hence, trade with both Georgetown and Washington declined as boats crossed the 

Potomac Aqueduct to reach tidewater at Alexandria. 

4. In 1871, four years after Georgetown bridges were raise, Congress took over the direction of city affairs, and the city canal was neglected as Congress was not interested in the 

commercial development of the city as much as it was in its role as the National Capital.59

The most important of the proposed extensions of the Chesapeake & Ohio was the canal to Alexandria built between 1831 and 1843 at a cost of $1,250,000. To obtain a reasonable proportion of 

the anticipated increased commerce from the Chesapeake & Ohio, local merchants took the lead 

in the formulation of the Alexandria Canal Company to construct a tidewater canal along the 

south bank of the Potomac from an aqueduct across the river above Georgetown. The major undertaking in the project was the Potomac Aqueduct, a structure over 1,500 feet long, 30 feet wide 

and 5 feet deep. Eight stone piers rising from the bed of the river and two stone abutments on the 

north and south banks carried the wooden trunk, in excess of 1,000 feet, across the river and 

some 30 feet above tide. The company over-came the hostility of Georgetown, whose merchants 

saw the project as a threat to their monopoly of the valley trade, and surmounted the failure of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio to build the northern abutment of the aqueduct as was required of it by an 

agreement.60

 By 1850 the Alexandria branch had become the primary outlet of the Chesapeake & Ohio 

to the river, for the Georgetown bridges were too low for many of the canal boats and Rock Creek 

Basin was often greatly filled in and generally out of repair. From 1867, when the Georgetown 

bridges were raised, to 1887, when Congress purchased the Potomac Aqueduct and converted it 

to a bridge, Alexandria had to share the coal trade on the canal, which gradually declined until it 

became negligible.61

 Aside from the independent canal connection at its eastern terminus, the Chesapeake & 

Ohio encouraged and facilitated other connecting trade links with its main stem. The company 

constructed three river locks to provide direct boat communication between the Virginia side of 

the river and the canal. The three locations were: Edwards Ferry, built in 1835–38, to tap the rich 

agricultural commerce of Loudoun County; near Sandy Hook just below Harpers Ferry, built in 

1832–33, to connect with the Shenandoah River trade; and across from Shepherdstown, built in 

 

58 Ibid, A, 224–225; and Bryan, A History of the National Capital Vol. II, 110. 59 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 178–179; Bryan, A History of the National Capital Vol. II, 265–266, 576, 

626; and Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 185. 60 Niles’ Register, Vol. XL (July 9, 1831), 328; Ibid, Vol. XLVIII (June 1835), 241; Washington National Intelligencer, 

Dec. 1843; Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 179–182; and Washington D.C., Georgetown, and Alexandria Collection, Holland Loan, Library of Congress. 

61 Proceeding of the President and Board of Directors, N, 362, and Sanderlin, The great National Project, 182. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 649 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

1833–35, to procure the business of that town and the surrounding hinterland of Jefferson County. 

The guard locks at each of the canal dams across the Potomac permitted boats to enter and exit 

the canal and cross the river in the slackwater pools behind the dams. In addition, the canal company encouraged the operation of ferries or constructed bridges across its waterway at points 

where established trade routes were already located between the Maryland and Virginia sides of 

the river.62

 During the 1870s the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company sought to promote the continued expansion of trade in both agricultural produce and coal by facilitating the construction of the 

Cumberland Valley Railroad and the Western Maryland Railroad where those lines touched upon 

the canal’s rights. This policy had the effect of both expanding the economic benefits of the canal 

and knitting the valley more closely together. Completed in 1874, the Cumberland Valley Railroad was a short line extending from Harrisburg to Winchester, crossing the canal just below Williamsport at Powell’s Bens. At that point the canal directors agreed to allow the construction of 

wharf facilities for loading and unloading of coal, lumber, and agricultural produce.63 The Western Maryland Railroad, completed in December 1873, provided a connection between the canal at 

Big Pool just above Williamsport and Baltimore. It was anticipated that the waterway would 

carry most of the railroad’s coal business from Cumberland to the western terminus at Big Pool.64

 The canal company also encouraged the construction of railroad spur lines between the 

Cumberland Basin and the coal fields west of the city. By January 1877 there were four such existing rail lines as follows: 

1. The Baltimore & Ohio passed through the town westward up the North Branch to Piedmont where it connected with the southern portion of the Cumberland coal region. As the 

decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals in 1832 had sustained the claim of the canal 

company to the prior location of its waterway in the valley, the railroad needed the approval of the canal board for its proposed route through the town. Accordingly, on February 14, 1851, the two companies signed a contract whereby the route of the railroad 

was approved and tracks were constructed to the canal basin between Hay’s and 

Shriver’s Mills. Since any railroad from the coal fields in the Frostburg, Georges Creek 

and Savage River districts would have to cross the Baltimore & Ohio to reach the canal, 

the canal company required it to permit its tracks to be crossed by other railroads seeking 

to reach the canal basin, when so requested by the canal directors.65

2. The Cumberland and Piedmont Railroad was the result of a consolidation of various 

railways running from Cumberland to all the coal mines west of that town. Terminating 

at Piedmont, where it connected with the Baltimore & Ohio, this railroad carried all the 

coal mined in Western Maryland that passed to the canal, the Baltimore & Ohio, and the 

Pennsylvania Railroad.66

3. The Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad, which had taken over the lines of the 

Mount Savage Railway, ran from the coal basin in Cumberland through the narrows of 

Wills Creek to the Mount Savage Coal mines. From there it extended over the mountains 

 

62 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 242–243. Also see Chapter IX of this study for more information on this subject. 

63 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 469–470, and Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O 

Co., 16 –17., 64 Hood to Gorman, Mar. 11, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. and Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1876), 18. The anticipated 

coal trade was never fully realized as the Western Maryland Railroad failed to obtain adequate terminal facilities in 

Baltimore. 

65 Hamill, Brannon and Farmands to President and Directors, Jan. 9, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Sanderlin, The 

Great National Project, 245. 66 Hamill, Brannon and Farmands to President and Directors, Jan. 9, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
650 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

where it connected with Georges Creek Railroad, thus offering a continuous line from 

Cumberland to Piedmont.67

4. The Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad, which had at one time been controlled by the 

Baltimore & Ohio, extended from the canal basin through the narrows of Will’s Creek up 

to the Pennsylvania State Line and on to Pittsburgh.68

During the period 1878 to 1880, the canal company attempted to secure an independent 

connection with the coal fields in order to reduce the cost of transportation for the coal companies 

and to free the waterway of its dependence as a coal carrier on the aforementioned railroads. It 

sought to facilitate the construction of no less than four independent railroad companies with the 

canal basin at Cumberland by invoking the agreement of 1851 to compel the Baltimore & Ohio to 

permit the roads to cross its tracks. Among these were the following: 

1. The Georges Creek and Cumberland Railroad, organized and incorporated in 1879, built 

its line from the center of the Georges Creek coal field to Cumberland, a distance of 24 

miles. There it connected with the canal basin and the Baltimore & Ohio.69

2. Two railroad companies, the Bloomington and Fairfax and the Potomac and Piedmont, 

agreed in 1880 to build short feeder lines to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad on the promise of special rates from the canal for coal shipped over it.70

3. In 1880 the canal board invoked the agreement of 1851 at the request of the Pennsylvania 

Railroad to compel the Baltimore & Ohio to permit the former road to cross its tracks in 

order to enter Cumberland and connect with the basin.71

In 1886 and 1887 an independent connection with the West Virginia coal fields was realized with 

the completion of the Piedmont and Cumberland Railway, a subsidiary of the West Virginia Central and Pittsburgh Railroad Company. This railroad built its line down the Potomac Valley to the 

south of the Baltimore & Ohio, and therefore was not balked in its efforts to reach the canal by the 

refusal of that company to permit a crossing of its tracks. Approaching Cumberland basin from 

the west, the Piedmont and Cumberland quickly gained the consent of the waterway to a connection with the basin wharf.72

Like the canal company, the Baltimore & Ohio constructed branch railroads that played a 

role in knitting the Potomac Valley more closely together as well as expanding the economic 

benefits of its main line. Among these branches were the following: 

1. On December 1, 1867, the Washington County Railroad was opened for the 24-mile distance from Weverton on the main stem to Hagerstown 

2. In 1868 the Metropolitan Branch was opened, making a direct connection between 

Washington, D. C., and Point of Rocks and thus shortening by some 54 miles. The previous circuitous rail route between the national capital and the west. 

3. The 28-mile Winchester and Potomac Railroad between Winchester and Harpers Ferry, 

which had been opened for service in 1836, was taken over by the Baltimore & Ohio in 

 

67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 12, and John Thomas Scharf, A History of Western Maryland (2 Vol. 

Philadelphia, 1882), Vol. II, 1430–1431. 

70 Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., 13, and Proceedings of the President and the Board of Directors, N, 

99–100, 112. 

71 Proceedings of the President and the Board of Directors, N, 114–115. 72 Fifty-Ninth Annual Report (1887), C & O Co., 11, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 345–

346. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 651 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

1848. Between 1866 and 1870 it was extended some 20 miles to the Shenandoah Valley 

town of Strasburg where it made connection with the Strasburg and Harrisonburg Branch 

of the Virginia Midland. 

4. In 1871 a branch railroad was built from Cumberland to Pittsburgh, which for years had 

been regarded as the exclusive province of the Pennsylvania Railroad.73

As has already been mentioned, the effect of the branch lines to the main stem of the Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was to knit the Potomac Valley more closely 

together and to expand the economic benefits of the principal lines. The operation of this new 

transportation network completed the revolution in the life of the valley begun by the Ohio Company in 1749, the Potomac Company in 1785, and the National Road in 1806 and advanced during the period of the construction of the canal and the railroad. The essentially isolated, agricultural pattern of life was modified to accommodate an expanded commercial, mining and limited 

industrial development.74

The principal influence of the canal and railroad transportation systems, in their operation, was as a basis for all trade and communication in the valley. Evan the local road networks in 

some areas were keyed to the two main lines. For example, it was reported in the Washington 

Star on June 10, 1889, that the closing of the canal by the recent titanic flood had taken away in 

Montgomery County, 

the means of transportation from a belt of county averaging 10 miles on the side of the 

canal, and which at present has no outlet except by wagon over inferior roads to stations 

on the Metropolitan Branch of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad . . . while the uncertainty 

of future transportation has caused almost panic among the landowners. . . Another indirect loss, in case the canal is not restored or a railroad built on its bed, is the change in 

roads, which will be necessary. The canal is the objective point of many roads in this 

county. These will have to be changed or closed, and new roads laid out to enable people 

to get to market.75

There was a marked shift of trade from the historic north-south route following the natural contour of the valley to an east-west direction based upon the two new transportation systems. This 

was accompanied by a decline in the prominence of numerous ferries across the Potomac as well 

as other remnants of local provincial trade arteries. In their early operating years both companies 

were interested both in local and through trade, but the railroad gradually concentrated on the latter and thus out distanced its rival work as a carrier.76

 

73 Hungerford, The Story of the Baltimore & Ohio, Vol. I, 70–72, 113–119. 74 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 94. 75 Washington Star, June 10, 1889. 76 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 94–95 
652 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

IV. IMPACT OF THE OPERATION OF CANAL AND RAILROAD 

A. NEW INHABITANTS 

The operation of the canal and the railroad had a significant impact on the socio- economic development of the Potomac Valley. A new type of inhabitant was brought to the valley, even as the 

construction period had drawn a new group of people to the hitherto largely isolated, agricultural 

valley dotted with small Protestant Scotch-Irish and German communities. The canaller—

including lock keepers, maintenance crews, and boatmen—who generally lived in close proximity 

to the canal were the most pronounced of the new type during the operating period. Their life was 

a hard one, irregular and unpredictable, and their independent habits fitted their lifestyle. Highly 

individualistic, yet definitely feeling themselves to be a group apart from the mainstream of valley 

society, the canallers usually shunned the towns, because it cost too much to buy provisions and 

they felt out of place even while wintering along the line of the waterway, they had their own settlements on the fringes of the towns or often quite far from them. As a rule, their coarse behavior, 

disrespect for authority, and lack of civilized ways made them the cause of unease among the 

farmers and townsfolk. Yet the purchasing power they brought into the valley economy and the 

services they performed made them an indispensable part of its existence, however grudgingly 

this fact might be conceded.77

 The impact of the canallers on the valley economy was amply demonstrated in an article 

in the Williamsport Pilot on February 8, 1873: 

The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal employs 400 boats constantly during the boating season. 

These boats require 2,000 head of mules, and give employment to 2,000 persons directly 

and 2,000 indirectly. The mules consume at least 25,000 barrels of corn, 3,840 bushels of 

oats, and 500 tons of hay. This provender, which is mainly purchased along the line of 

canal, costs in the aggregate $60,000. The wages of employees, other than hands on repairs, amounts to the sum of $156,800. These figures are rough estimates, based on the 

lowest prices for everything, and will be found in the main, lower than the actual figures 

would make them. And from them some idea may be formed of the real worth of this 

work to the people of Maryland.78

B. ECONOMICAL TRANSPORTATION AND 

 AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION 

To the basic agricultural existence of the Potomac Valley, the waterway and railroad provided the 

stimulus of a cheap and easier access to the markets of the District Cities and Baltimore. An indication of the immediate impact on the agriculture of the valley appeared in Niles’ Register on 

April 9, 1831 noting that upon the completion of the canal between Little Falls and Dam No. 2 the 

shipping costs to Georgetown for a barrel of flour had fallen from $1 to 30 to 50 cents and eventually to 7 cents, including tolls. During the last ten days of March some 30,000 barrels of flour 

“with much other merchandise” had descended the waterway, providing the canal company with 

nearly $3,000 in toll revenues.79

When the canal reached Harpers Ferry in November 1833, it had a similar effect on the 

cost of transporting flour and wheat. Formerly, it had cost between 85 cents and $1 to send a bar-

 

77 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 95. 78 Williamsport Pilot, Feb. 8, 1873, in Arthur Pue Gorman Collection, University of North Carolina Library, Chapel 

Hill, NC. 

79 Niles’ Register, Vol. XL (April 9, 1831), 91, 95, and Lee to Mercer, Jan. 13, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 653 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

rel of flour to Georgetown by wagon, but the opening of the waterway resulted in a reduction of 

this cost to 40 cents. In a similar manner, the canal allowed a reduction of 12 cents per bushel for 

the transportation of wheat from the Ferry to the District Cities.80

 The three principal agricultural products carried on the canal were flour, corn and wheat. 

The flour trade via the waterway started at 151,966 barrels in 1842 and exceeded 200,000 barrels 

each year from 1848 to 1853, reaching a peak of nearly 280,000 barrels in 1850. The rapid increase in the flour trade resulted from the westward progress of the canal into the rich graingrowing areas of the upper Potomac Valley and from the fact that the farmers and millers of 

Franklin, Fulton, Bedford and Somerset Counties of southwestern Pennsylvania began using the 

waterway in 1884 as their principal means of transport since it afforded “them the cheapest and 

most convenient mode of transportation to market.”81

 A severe drought in the valley during the mid-1850s reduced the canal’s flour trade by 

some 50 percent.82

 During the late 1850s and the Civil War years, the railroad began virtually to monopolize 

the valley flour trade, and the canal never carried more than 24,000 barrels of flour after 1867.83

 Flour shipments on the Baltimore & Ohio increased from 146,936 barrels in 1832, to 

294,385 in 1842, and to 774,410 barrels in 1862,84

 Large quantities of wheat and corn were also shipped on the canal. The former averaged 

about 225,000 bushels a year between 1842 and 1849, 275,000 bushels a year between 1850 and 

1850, and nearly 415,000 a year between 1866 and 1878, reaching a peak of 605,880 bushels in 

1869. The latter averaged about 145,000 bushels a year between 1842 and 1849, 170,000 bushels 

a year between 1850 and 1860, and nearly 100,000 bushels a year between 1866 and 1878, reaching a peak of 431,760 bushels in 1867.85

 The stimulus that the canal provided to increase agricultural production in the Potomac 

Valley by offering economical transportation of produce to market was underscored by Victor 

Cushwa, a leading Williamsport merchant and canal shipper, in two newspaper articles in the late 

1880s. On December 30, 1887, he observed in the Hagerstown Mail that: 

When our canal was flourishing, until recent years, our farmers within its reach frequently got more for their grain, hay, potatoes, etc. than they commanded in Baltimore or 

other eastern markets, thereby appreciating real-estate, private and public wealth.86

After the canal had been wrecked by the titanic flood of 1889, Cushwa noted in the Baltimore Sun

of December 26, 1889, that: 

The failure on the part of the management to repair and operate the canal has brought 

upon our people the most disastrous results. Lose of business, labor and property amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the depreciation still going on, are matter 

that go down deep into the recesses of the heart, and most seriously affect the prosperity 

of the people of Western Maryland, to so many of whom the canal was the only market 

 

80 Millard Kessler Bushong, Historic Jefferson County (Boyre, 1972), 122. 81 Proceedings of the Stockholders, C, 461, and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 306–307. 82 Twenty-Seventh Annual Report (1855), C & O Co., 13–14. 83 Enbrey to Somnto Dellinger, Apr. 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 30 –

33. 

84 Reizenstein, The Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 74–75. 85 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 306–307, and Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 96. 

Shipments of grain on the railroad increased from 14,120 bushels in 1832 to nearly 200,000 bushels in 1852. Reizenstein, The Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 75. 86 Hagerstown Mail, Dec. 30, 1887, in Spates Papers. 
654 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

and sole artery of trade. Our own fertile county of Washington, noted for its fine farms 

and thrifty farmers, is skirted by the canal a distance of 77 miles out of the 185 miles, the 

canal’s entire length. The farmers of our sister counties in Pennsylvania (Franklin and 

Fulton), notwithstanding that many of them were favored with shipping facilities by nearby railroads, found better markets on the line of the canal, and hauled to it from miles 

inland the products of the farm, returning with coal, plaster, lumber, etc., benefited by the 

exchange. We would here answer a question often asked: “How can the canal create a 

better market than the railroads?” Simply because the canal is a consumer of farm produce as well as carrier of it. The boatmen are liberal buyers of every product of the 

farm...87

The canal played a role in stimulating the diversification of agricultural production in the Potomac Valley aside from merely providing a transportation route for the marketing of farm produce. 

One such example occurred in 1848 and 1849 when the canal board reduced the charges on fertilizers, in cooperation with the Virginia Society for the Advancement of Agriculture, in order to 

help increase the productivity of the soil. This policy was of particular importance to Montgomery County, where the once fertile land had been worn out by successive tobacco crops. Thus, the 

county, earlier known for its large tobacco plantations began to face a serious decline in its agricultural production by the late 1830s and early 1840s and significant numbers of people emigrated to the West and the South during that period. In 1845, the Society of Friends, in conjunction with the efforts of the Virginia Society for the Advancement of Agriculture, introduced 

Chincha Island Peruvian Guano in the country. The new fertilizer soon came into widespread use, 

the worn out lands were restored, and new crops of revels and grasses were grown. After the Civil 

War, it was estimated that the county farmers spent $15 million per year on fertilizer as the 

county quickly became one of the richest agricultural centers in the State, producing from 18 to 

50 bushels of wheat and 30 to 60 bushels of corn per acre and providing enough produce for the 

operation of 30 mills.88

C. SALE OF WATER POWER 

In addition to the stimulus to agricultural production, the canal and railroad promoted milling and 

manufacturing in an attempt to develop other sources of trade. The canal board saw a twofold 

advantage in the sale of surplus water from the canal to mills and manufactories along its banks: 

The financial return from the sale of the water and the added business, which industrial establishments would bring. The continued financial straits of the company forced the canal directors to 

give increasing attention only to the first advantage. On May 26, 1835, the National Intelligencer

urged the company officials to give the surplus water away in return for the benefits of increased 

trade from the factories: 

The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company can furnish as much water power in the District 

of Columbia, as will propel every machine now in operation in the state of Rhode Island, 

but which must lie dormant for years, if the price at which the water is now held shall not 

be materially reduced. Would not the canal company be infinitely more benefited by giving the water without charge to such establishments, at the termination of the canal, and 

derive their income from the increased business on it, than by holding it at an ordinary 

 

87 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 26, 1889, in Spates Papers. 88 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 214, 239; Thomas Hulings Stockton Boyd, The History of 

Montgomery County, Maryland (Baltimore,1879), 107–110; and Scharf, A History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 672. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 655 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

price for revenue, prevent its occupation? Capital and manufacturing skill can only be 

brought here by liberal encouragement.89

The desperate finances of the company, however, prevented such ideas from receiving serious 

consideration. The early promoters of the canal also thought that small; manufacturing villages 

would spring up all along the line, at every lock at which waste and flume power would be available. This idea persisted among the company officials as late as 1874 despite the obvious failure 

of earlier expectations and reports from other canal authorities telling them to expect sales only 

near towns.90

 In the beginning, the canal company did not possess the right to dispose of its surplus 

water by sale to manufactures as its charter granted the undertaking rights to only that water 

which was essential for purposes of navigation.91 During the winter of 1828–29, the board petitioned for the necessary grant of authority from the parties to the charter, but only gradually did 

the directors overcome the opposition of the valley inhabitants, some of whom attempted to construe the old Potomac Company charter and its modification in the Chesapeake & Ohio charter as 

giving them the sole right to use the surplus water of the river in proceedings before the Supreme 

Court.92 Virginia, whose citizens had the least to lose, gave the necessary authority in February 

1829.93 Under pressure from the local proprietors on the Maryland side of the river who viewed 

the company request as an infringement of their own rights, the state legislators in Annapolis continued to refuse to grant the petition. After a second unsuccessful attempt during the winter of 

1829–30, the stockholders were informed that despite another rejection; 

It is not possible that the people of Maryland will long hazard a transfer to the shores of 

Virginia, of every manufacturing village, to which a judicious use of the surplus water of 

the Potomac might give rise; or that both states will permit a source of common improvement so fruitful of good, to remain unprofitable to either bank of the Potomac.94

Finally on March 22, 1833, the Maryland General Assembly assented in return for the consent of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio to the extension of the railroad between Point of Rocks and Harpers 

Ferry.95

 After a lengthy delay, Congress gave its approval for the sale of water power in the District of Columbia in March 1837.96

 The only restriction on the power received under their acts was the stipulation of the 

Maryland laws that no water could be sold within the state for the manufacture of grain—a prohibition, designed to exclude competition with the Baltimore millers, that would hinder full realization of the program to encourage industrial development until its repeal in the early 1870s.97

 

89 Washington National Intelligencer, May 26, 1835. 90 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 151; Allen to Starbach, Jan. 1, 1835. Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; and Forty-Sixth 

Annual Report (1874), C & O Co., 19. 91 Washington to Stewart, Jan. 20, 1836, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 92 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 31, 44–45. 93 Act of the Virginia Assembly, Feb. 27, 1829, and Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 213. Pennsylvania had given is 

approval for the sale of surplus water in its act of incorporation in Feb. 1828 

94 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 151. 95 Ibid, A, 287, and Laws made and Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland (Annapolis, 1832), Ch. 

291 

96 Congressional Globe, Vol. IV, 110 and Vol. V. 114 & 217. 97 Forty-Sixth Annual Report (1874), 19. In 1835 the Canal Co. sold rights to water power at Williamsport and Weverton, since both were within the state of Maryland, the Canal Co. did not have to await the consent of Congress. 
656 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

 During the struggle to acquire the legal authority to sell surplus canal water, the company 

also faced difficulty in establishing a clean title to the surplus water from Dam No. 1, the most 

valuable source of potential water power on the line. The claims of John K. Smith under the Potomac Company, which had first been raised in 1816, had been inherited by Colonel Amos Binney, a Boston capitalist. After the Colonel’s death, his son Amos, a zoologist and paleontologist 

who took over the family’s real estate and business ventures, took his claim into court after failing to come to an understanding with the canal directors over his claim to 300 acres of land at 

Little Falls encompassing all of the water power at that location. After a series of cases and appeals, the canal company won most of its points and compromised the few remaining ones in an 

out-of –court settlement in March 1836. Thus it was ready to take full advantage of its rights 

when Congress consented to the sale of surplus water the following year.98

 In preparation for exercising its new authority, the company appointed a committee on 

Water Power, consisting of President George C. Washington and Directors Phineas Janney, Walter Smith and Thomas Carberry.99

 The committee studied carefully the procedures on other canal and water-works where 

water was sold to manufactories, particularly the development at Paterson, New Jersey, Lowell 

and Fall River, Massachusetts and Richmond, Virginia.100

 The committee modeled its own rules after the review of those works and provided a 

gradual scale of increasing rents and for the location and control of water gauges. The grants were 

to be made for 20 years at an annual rate of $2 per inch for the succeeding ten years. The leases 

could be renewed indefinitely for 30-year periods provided application was made within 20 days 

of expiration and a bonus of $2.50 per inch was paid for the first renewal and $3 per inch for each 

subsequent renewal. After the renewal of the lease, the annual rental rate would be $3.101

 On May 10, 1837, the canal board voted to advertise that water power and sites for manufacturing concerns were for sale in the District of Columbia.102 The national economic downturn 

in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837 retarded the development of manufactories along the line of 

the canal for several years, but by 1839–40 several leases for water power in Georgetown had 

been negotiated. During March 1839 the company finally adopted a standard form of agreement, 

which was thereafter followed in executing water leases.103 According to available evidence, the 

first permanent lease of water from the canal for manufacturing purposes in Georgetown was 

made to George Bomford retroactive to January 1, 1839. The company granted him 400 square 

inches of water annually for use at his brick flour mill.104

 While water power rights were granted over the next fifty years at various places along 

the canal, including Weverton, Williamsport and Hancock, the most important development was 

at Georgetown. Here the greatest opportunity was available for the establishment of industries 

because of (1) the nearness to markets, labor supply and capital, (2) the location of Dam No. 1 at 

 

98 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 423–431; Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. I, 279–280; Amos Binney vs. 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in Chancery Court, Sep. 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Company vs. Binney & Cranch, C. C. 68; and Binney vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 8 peter, 201. 99 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 216–217. 100 Form for Water Power Leases, Aug. 1832, and Allen to Starbuck, Jan. 1, 1835, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., Proceedings 

of the President and Board of Directors, C, 35; E, 255. 101 Conditions for Letting Water Power in the District of Columbia, Mar. 23, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 159. 102 Proceedings of the Stockholders, B, 113, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 255. Pending 

the granting of full authority to the canal company to sell surplus water, the company had made several temporary 

agreements prior to 1837 for the sale of waste water in the Georgetown vicinity. Bomford’s flour mill had begun to use 

water from the canal as early as 1835. At about the same time two agreements were made with Leckie and Nourse. In 

1836 Mason’s foundry commenced the use of canal water. Ibid, E. 253–255; F. 116. 103 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 31, 34. 104 Ibid, F, 63–64. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 657 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

Little Falls, (3) the large dimensions of the feeder and the Georgetown Level, (4) absence of restrictions on the use of the water, and (5) the fact that the town was a long-established port city 

and trade center and the site of various warehousing, merchandising and manufacturing concerns.105

 Millers, founders and textile manufactures soon became the chief users of water power in 

Georgetown.106

D. COAL TRADE 

The Cumberland coal fields, lying west of the city of Cumberland in a basin (known as Frostburg 

or George’s Creek Barge) some five miles and twenty-five miles long between the Great Savage 

Mountain on the northwest and Dan’s Mountain on the southeast, provided the greatest opportunity for the canal and railroad to promote economic diversification of the valley. Both lines were 

actually aware of the commercial promise of the mining areas and for more than half a century 

vigorously exploited the trade. In 1842, the year in which the Baltimore & Ohio reached Cumberland, only 1,708 tons of coal was transported over its line. The quantity of Cumberland coal carried by the railroad had grown to 192,806 tons by 1850, the year the canal reached that town. In 

that year, during which the canal managed to ship 4,042 tons of coal, the Cumberland coal mining 

operations were conducted by the following companies: Maryland Mining, Washington Coal, 

New York Mining, Allegany Mining, Frostburg Coal, Mount Savage Iron, George’s Creek Coal 

and Iron, Border Mining, Parker Mining, Cumberland Coal and Iron, Wither’s Mining and Aston 

Mining.107 By the late 1870s the Cumberland coal fields comprised 44,132 acres of land. The aggregate depth of the coal formation was 1,100 feet and there were three principal veins: the Big 

Vein, measuring fourteen feet; the Four-Foot Vein; and the Six-Foot Vein. Fifteen mining companies were conducting operations in the fields: Borden Mining, Consolidation Coal, Blaem 

Aveon Coal, Hampshire and Baltimore, George’s Creek Coal and Iron, New Central Coal, Maryland Coal, American Coal, Atlantic and G. C. Coal, Piedmont Coal and Iron, Swanton Mining, 

Potomac Coal, Maryland Union Coal, Davis’ Brothers Virginia Mines and Union Mining.108

 All told, the total coal trade of the canal and railroad between 1842 and 1877 was nearly 

32,000,000 tons. During that 36-year period, the canal carried 10,683,240 tons and the railroad 

20,739,908 tons, the former reaching it peak in 1875 when it shipped 904,898 tons and the latter 

achieving its peak in 1873 when it transported 1,780,710 tons. In 1872 the Pennsylvania Railroad 

Company made an independent connection to the coal fields, and from that year until 1877 it 

shipped 667,729 tons. During 1873, the peak year of shipments from Cumberland mines, 

2,674,101 tons of coal was transported by the three lines: the Baltimore & Ohio, 1,780,710 tons; 

the Chesapeake & Ohio, 778,802 tons; and the Pennsylvania Railroad, 114,589 tons. It is fair to 

conclude that from the 1850s to the 1880s the prosperity of the Baltimore & Ohio and the Chesapeake & Ohio depended to a large extent upon the coal trade from this region since it accounted 

 

105 Rogers W. Young, The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and the Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, National 

Park Service, Manuscript, 1940, 1–6. 

106 Ibid, 58–93, 149–176. In Appendix I of his study, Rogers listed the details of the “Water Leases for Mills on the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in the Limits of Georgetown, D.C., 1839–1900” and the “Water Power Leases for Mills on 

the Canal between Georgetown and the Little Falls of the Potomac, 1840–1900.” Copies of Young’s lists may be seen 

in Appendix A and B of this chapter. 

107 Report to the Stockholders on the completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to Cumberland (Frederick, 

1851), 126–127. 

108 Scharf, A History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1434–1441, and C. J. Orrick, The Mineral Resources and Manufacturing Facilities of the City of Cumberland, MD (Cumberland, 1975), 8–11. 
658 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

for between45 and 55 percent of the annual total tonnage transportation of the railroad and between 85 and 95 percent of the total tonnage of the waterway.109

 At the same time, the coal trade had a significant economic impact on the general prosperity of the valley. Such a point was made by Victor Cushwa on December 30, 1887, when he 

described the beneficial results of the coal trade on the standard-of-living in Washington County: 

The direct revenue of canals or other public or private works . . .may not be enormous or 

even medium, but the indirect revenue is sometimes almost beyond computation when 

the great reduction in coal [price] alone is considered, thereby cheapening merchandise of 

all kinds in our county, the benefits of which independent transportation is the chief factor, the indirect benefits are almost incalculable. People are too apt to look only at the direct interest of public as also private enterprise. Too eager to keep in constant sight the 

almighty dollar and its direct profit, losing sight of the indirect and general good.110

E. GROWTH OF RELATED INDUSTRIES 

The operation of the two transportation lines, especially of the canal, provided many related activities, which supported countless families in the Potomac Valley. Shipbuilding and repair became quite a profitable occupation. At the peak of the canal trade in the early 1870s, there were 

eight principal firms involved in the construction and maintenance of boats: 

Doener and Bender (Cumberland) 

Weld and Sheridan (Cumberland) 

William Young (Cumberland) 

Frederick Mentens (Cumberland) 

Benjamin Mitchell (Hancock) 

Consolidation Coal Co. (Cumberland) 

R. and M. Coulehan (Cumberland) 

Isaac Gruber (Cumberland)111

In addition, there were at least seven dry docks built along the waterway for repair of boats: 

Lock No. 10—Ca. 1875 

Lock No. 14—Ca. 1864 

Edwards Ferry Basin—Ca. 1872 

Lock No. 30—Ca. 1855 

Lock No. 35—Ca. 1900 

Lock No. 44—Ca. 1862 

Lock No. 45—Ca. 1854112

Shipping lines also became an important source of profit as a result of the canal trade. By the late 

1850s packets of the New York and Washington Steam Ship line were putting in weekly calls at 

the Georgetown wharves.113 More important was the development of coastwise and foreign trade, 

chiefly in coal [that] had been found to be particularly suited for New England textile mills, 

 

109 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 26–27 and Fiftieth Annual Report (1876), B & O Co., 36–37. 110 Hagerstown Mail, Dec. 30, 1887, in Spates Papers. 111 See Chapter XI of this study for more information on this subject. 112 See Chapter XI of this study for more information on this subject. 113 Mary Mitchell, Divided Town (Banre, 1968), 3. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 659 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

steamship bunkering and iron smeltering. Hence, much of the capital invested in the Maryland 

coal region before the Civil War was supplied by eastern or English businessmen, such as Evastus 

Corning, William H, Aspinwall, August Belmont, Edward Cunard and the Borden family of Fall 

River, Massachusetts, with special manufacturing or transportation interests, particularly in the 

Northeastern United States.114 During the late 1850s several shipping lines were formed to transport the coal from the canal wharves at Georgetown and Alexandria down the Potomac River, 

through the Chesapeake Bay, and up the Atlantic Coast to New York, Boston and other New England seaports. After a slow-down in the amount of coal shipped on these lines during the Civil 

War, the coastwise trade from the District Cities reemerged with new vigor in 1867 and remained 

heavy for nearly a decade. In the late 1870s a decline in the production of Cumberland coal and 

stiff competition from the Baltimore & Ohio drew off much of the coastwise coal trade from the 

District Cities.115

 To a lesser extent, Cumberland coal descending the canal to Georgetown and Alexandria 

was shipped to foreign markets. From the late 1850s to the mid-1870s shipping lines transported 

coal to the British West Indies and ports on the northern coast of South America where there were 

English naval and commercial interests.116

 In the 1840s and 1850s flour became a principal element of the coastline and foreign 

trade originating at Georgetown. That product, some of which passed down the canal from the 

upper Potomac Valley and much of which was produced in the Georgetown flour mills using canal water power, was shipped via coasting vessels to the populous cities of New York and Boston 

and to a lesser extent via steamship line to foreign ports. The coastwise and foreign shipment of 

flour from Georgetown was short-lived, however, as the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad acquired between one-half and two-thirds of the descending canal trade during the Civil War. Thereafter, the 

port of Baltimore became the central focus of the coastwise and foreign shipment of flour from 

the Potomac Valley and the flour produced at Georgetown was used primarily to meet the local 

needs of the District Cities.117 Many individuals made a comfortable living from the operation of 

grocery and feed stores along the waterway, supplying the boatmen with their necessary provisions for themselves, their families and their mules. Available evidence indicates that a conspicuous exception to this trend was the flour milling operations of Abraham Herr after 1862. When 

his large industrial holdings on Virginias Island at Harpers Ferry were destroyed during the fighting in 1861 and 1862, Herr moved to Georgetown and purchased the Columbia Flouring mill on 

the south line of the canal. He left the mill in the day-to-day superintendence of his head miller, 

Welch, and moved to Baltimore, where he initiated his own enterprise as a commission merchant 

miller on Smith’s Wharf. From there he exported flour milled in Georgetown to markets in the 

West Indies and Brazil. At that time the Latin American markets wanted a high grade flour made 

from wheat with a relatively low moisture and high gluten content, such as would stand passage 

by sea through the tropics. The wheat from the upper Potomac Valley which descended the canal 

met such a description, and Herr, who was equipped to produce high grade flour and had an office in a port-city where flour constituted 70 percent of the exports to Brazil and over 50 percent 

of the shipments to other South American countries, continued to prosper. After the peace at Appomattox, Welch bought the Columbia Mill from Herr, who in turn bought the old cotton factory 

built along the canal in 1844. He converted this mill, which had been closed since 1861, into an-

 

114 Katherine A. Harvey, The Civil War and the Maryland Coal Trade, “Maryland Historical Magazine”, Vol. LXIII 

(Dec., 1967), 361–362. 

115 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 167–168, 176. 116 Washington, National Intelligencer, Apr. 21, 1862, and Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873) C & O Co., 16. 117 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 176; Embrey and Son to Dellinger, April 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., 

C & O Co.; Reizenstein, An Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio, 82–83 and Sanderlin, The Great National 

Project, 217–218. 
660 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

other large and prosperous flour mill, which ultimately became the Wilkins-Rogers Milling Company, manufacturing Washington Flour.

118

 At least 27 grocery and feed stores were built along the canal at the following locations: 

Lock No. 6 ca. 1873 Lock No. 28 ca. 1864 

Lock No. 10 ca. 1873 Lock No. 29 ca. 1864 

Lock No. 13 ca. 1871 Lock No. 30 ca. 1863 

Seven Locks ca. 1873 Lock No. 33 ca. 1859 

Lock No. 20 ca. 1851, 1869 Lock No. 37 ca. 1876 

Lock No. 22 ca. 1870 Lock No. 39 ca. 1866 

Guard Lock No. 2 ca. 1870 Lock No. 41 ca. 1877 

Lock No. 23 ca. 1883 Lock No. 46 ca. 1865 

Lock No. 24 ca. 1873 Williamsport ca. 1866 

Edwards Ferry ca. 1864–65 Lock No. 50 ca. 1865 

Lock No. 25 ca. 1872 Lock No. 51 ca. 1866 

Conrad’s Ferry ca. 1863 Lock No. 52 ca. 1865 

Lock No. 27 ca. 1866 Dam No. 6 ca. 1865 

Oldtown ca. 1859 

In addition, a number of concerns in the vicinity of the eastern and western terminuses of the canal in Georgetown and Cumberland, respectively, catered to the grocery and mule-provender 

needs of the boat.119

 Because the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad concentrated on the through east-west trade, it 

provided fewer opportunities for profitable sideline businesses in the Potomac Valley than did the 

canal. However, warehouses and wharf owners fared equally well from the trade and transfer 

business of both railway and waterway.120 In fact the transfer business was perhaps the principal 

related benefit from the existence of the transportation lines. For instance, the canal directors reported that: 

in 1874 the boatmen received for their services $1,070,000, the wharf owners $344,000, 

while the canal company received from tolls on coal and boats but $428,000 for maintaining and operating a work which cost over $11,000,000, being but $84,000 more than 

was received by the wharf owners on their investment of about $300,000.121

The handsome return on the relatively small capital outlay of the Georgetown and Cumberland 

wharf owners disturbed the canal board. At the same time that the private owners were making 

large profits, their rates were so high (8 cents per ton of coal at Cumberland and 25 cents per ton 

at Georgetown) that they forced the canal directors to reduce their charges on the coal trade in 

order to compete with the railroads for business.122

 

118 Mitchell, Divided Town, 158 –161. 119 See Chapter XVI of this study for more information on this. 120 See Appendix C for a “List of Warehouses along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: 1850–1890.” 121 Anonymous newspaper article in Gorman Collection. See 126 A. 122 Cumberland Times, May 31, 1873, and Washington Daily News, March 2, 1875, in Gorman Collection. In Appendix 

II of this report is a list of the Georgetown coal yards and wharves using water power from the canal to unload and ship 

coal as well as those not using water power to ship coal during the period 1856 to 1880. This data may be seen in Appendices D and E of this chapter. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 661 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

 Accordingly the board dredged the Rock Creek Basin and repaired the outlet lock in order to make the river bank available for wharf facilities, and these actions soon forced the average 

cost of wharfage to be reduced by 10 cents per ton at Georgetown.123

 On the other hand, at Cumberland the canal company leased two-thirds of the Potomac 

Wharf from Consolidated Coal Company in March 1875 and cut rates until the private wharf 

owners were forced to cut theirs.124

 Later in July 1878, the company followed the example of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 

which had earlier secured its own wharf facilities at the town, by purchasing the Basin Wharf 

property from Welsh and McKaig for $86,000. Since it was the largest wharf on the canal basin, 

the canal company secured permanent control over wharfage at that end of the canal.125

F. COMPETITION BETWEEN THE CANAL AND RAILROAD 

Perhaps the most direct advantage to the citizens of the Potomac Valley from the operation of the 

two transportation lines was the limited commercial competition which developed. There were at 

least four focal points of the rivalry which were of sufficient importance to merit attention. 

 In the earliest days, the struggle for the lions’ share of the valley trade occurred at Point 

of Rocks, this was the location where the railroad first entered the immediate confines of the valley and hence where the two lines first met on confrontation. The railroad completed its line to 

Point of Rocks in April 1832, three months after the settlement of controversy over the legal 

right-of-way of the two works. On the other hand, the canal was not opened above Dam No. 2 

until November 1833 because of its need to reach the Harpers Ferry feeder to provide water for 

the 40 mile section between Seneca and the Ferry. Within months of the arrival of the railroad at 

Point of Rocks, several warehouses and other facilities were built at the town for the transfer to 

the rail line of agricultural produce, lime, timber and stone brought down the river from the upper 

valley and across the stream from Loudoun County, Virginia. When the canal reached the town, it 

attempted to acquire its share of this trade for shipment to the District Cities. Even after the canal 

and railroad extended their lines westward, the town remained an important transfer point and a 

place where the two lines competed for business.126

 The rivalry over the Shenandoah wheat and flour trade at Harpers Ferry during the early 

1840s was a renewal of the difficulties which had occurred during the preceding decade when the 

railroad attempted to block the canal’s access to the Virginia side of the river at that strategic 

point.127 Beginning in 1840, merchants engaged in the flour trade in Baltimore petitioned the railroad executives stating that the low rates charged for the shipment of flour on the canal (2 cents a 

barrel per mile for the first 15 miles, and 11⁄2 cents a barrel per mile thereafter) were diverting that 

product from their city to the District of Columbia. Since the flour trade constituted a key portion 

of the Baltimore economy, the railroad quickly took steps to acquire a dominant share of the developing Shenandoah wheat and flour trade. Until May 1, 1841, the charges by rail from Harpers 

Ferry to Baltimore were 34 cents a ton plus 3 cents for handling (a ton amounted to 101⁄2 to 11 

barrels). On May 1, the railroad raised the rate to 50 cents, including handling, and sent a petition 

to the canal company to raise its toll to a “profitable rate.” Soon the canal board raised its toll on 

 

123 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 245–246. 124 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 291; Cumberland Times, March 20, 1875, in Gorman Collection; and Tilghman to Gorman, May 17 and June 14, 1875, Hall to Gorman, Jan. 15, 1876, Graham to Gorman, Jan. 

5, and Feb. 28, 1877, and Hicks to Gorman, Apr. 20, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 125 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 56 –57. 126 Reizenstein, An Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio, 26–27, and Niles’ Register, Vol. XLV (Nov. 23, 1833), 

199. 

127 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 193–195. 
662 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

flour to a flat rate of 2 cents a barrel per mile. Within a month, on June 3, 1841, the railroad reduced its rates to 34 cents a ton, including handling. It was reported that the charges from Frederick to Baltimore were 30 cents, thus making the additional charge for the 21 miles from Frederick 

to Harpers Ferry a mere 4 cents. As a result, the flour trade on the canal from the Ferry fell off by 

over 4,400 barrels as compared with the previous year. A large amount of this decrease was attributed to the maneuvering of the railroad company.128

 Again, in 1844, leading citizens in Alexandria complained of the loss of the flour trade to 

the Baltimore millers.129

 In 1845 the Baltimore & Ohio intensified its efforts to win the flour trade from the canal. 

Its board of directors resolved “to reduce charges only along that portion of the road that was adjacent to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to a minimum which would at least pay the expenses of 

transportation.” At the same time the railroad sought to place obstacles in the way of the transfer 

of canal trade across the river at Harpers Ferry. It continued to charge at the rate of 20 cents a ton 

per mile for goods shipped one-quarter mile over the viaduct, although it had agreed to a maximum rate of 8 cents. It refused to allow the use of its own cars, and those of the Winchester and 

Potomac Railroad were forced to pay a high fee to participate in the trade. Delay was a common 

occurrence in the landing of what little business that was transacted at the Ferry.130

 Competition for the Shenandoah wheat and flour trade, as well as that of Washington 

County, led to a short rate war in 1876 from which the local farmers profited. In the wake of the 

Panic of 1873 which struck the Potomac and Shenandoah Valleys with full force in 1876, the railroad attempted to hold its share of the declining trade by reducing its charges on grain by 4 cents 

per bushel from that point to Baltimore. In an effort to compete with the railroad, the canal lowered the toll on grain and flour from 1 cent a ton per mile to 3⁄4 cent a ton per mile from all points 

between Williamsport and Weverton to Georgetown.131

 The struggle for the Cumberland coal trade, which began in the late 1840s, not only 

proved to be the decisive factor in the course of canal trade and prosperity but also served as a 

boon to the Allegany County coal companies. From December 1873 until March 1845, the railroad and the canal cooperated in the handling of the lucrative business. According to their agreement the railroad, which had reached Cumberland in November 1842, undertook to carry all the 

coal offered for shipment via the waterway over its own tracks to the western terminus of the canal navigation at Dam No. 6 at the special rate of 2 cents a ton per mile.132

 When the state legislature passed the bill providing for the completion of the waterway to 

Cumberland in March 1845, the railroad and its ally, the City of Baltimore, began an all-out assault on the trade of its arch competitor. The Baltimore City Council approved an ordinance to 

allow the railroad to run its tracks into the city to a new depot on the south side of the harbor 

where vessels could dock free of port charges. The city authorities also encouraged the railroad to 

lower its charges on coal shipments. According to Niles’ Register on April 12, 1845, such actions 

would encourage the coal and iron companies and the western county people to keep up the spirit 

of a competition, which however ruinous to canals and railroads, would enable them to get their 

material wealth and products to markets, for a mere song, the very thing for them.133

 

128 Elgin to Ingle, Dec. 23, 1841, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. and Reizenstein, An Economic History of the Baltimore & 

Ohio, 82–83. 129 Maccubin to Turner, Nov. 6, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 130 Reizenstein, An Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio, 83, and Elgin to Coale, Nov. 2, 1845, Ltrs. Recd., C & 

O Co. 

131 Cockrell and Engle to Gorman, Jan. 26 and Mar. 8, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President 

and Board of Directors, M, 255, 258. 132 Niles’ Register, Vol. LXVI (June 22, 1844), 272; Proceedings of the Stockholders. C, 243–245; and McLane to 

Coale, Sep. 17, 1843, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

133 Niles’ Register, Vol. LXVIII (Apr. 12, 1845), 85 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 663 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

 One month later, the Baltimore & Ohio abruptly terminated its arrangement for the transportation of coal from Cumberland to Dam No. 6, doubling its rates to 4 cents a ton per mile.134

 Competition for the declining Cumberland coal trade in the aftermath of the Panic of 

1873 proved to be a boon to the Allegany coal companies as both of the transportation lines 

slashed their rates in an effort to retain their share of the commerce. Until 1876 the canal and the 

railroad had a general understanding to charge moderate rates on coal that were published and 

applied to all shippers. In that year, however, the railroad began to offer rebates of up to 20 cents 

per ton to some shippers. After the canal company announced its 1877 rates, which were 33 cents 

a ton per mile or 8 cents less than the 1876 price, the railroad lowered its charges 22 cents below 

the published rates for 1876 to $1.81 per ton from Cumberland to Baltimore. At the same time, it 

offered “Kickbacks” of up to 20 cents per ton to any coal company that would transfer its entire 

trade from the canal to the railway. As a result, the canal board lowered its toll on coal to 22 cents 

a ton per mile in August 1877.135

 The rate war between the two lines subsided between 1878 and 1882, but the battle resumed during the last seven years of the independent existence of the waterway.136 By 1885 the 

railroad was carrying coal to deep-water docks in the Port of Baltimore for $1.30 a ton, and there 

were reports that rebates to the coal companies often lowered the cost to $1.00 a ton.137 Accordingly, the debt-ridden canal was forced to lower its tolls from 51 cents a ton per mile to 36 cents 

in June 1883, to 33 cents in April 1884 and to 22 cents in February 1885.138

 

134 McLane to Coale, May 7, 1845, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Coale to McLane, May 9, 1845, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 135 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 293–296, and N, 4; New York Herald, Apr. 6, 1877; and 

New York Times, Apr. 20, 1877 in Gorman collection; and Lloyd to Gorman, Mar. 28, 1877, Loveridge to Gorman, 

Apr. 7, 1877, and Garrett to Gorman, May 19, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

136 Fifty-First Annual Report (1879), C & O Co., 6. 137 Reizenstein, An Economic History of the Baltimore & Ohio. 138 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 314 
664 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

V. IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWNS 

One of the best ways to demonstrate the impact of the canal upon the Potomac Valley would be to 

examine its effect upon the towns in the area. As the waterway advanced up the valley, it promoted the development of many towns, which depended largely upon it for a livelihood. In some 

cases the influence was temporary, lasting only for a brief interval until the head of navigation 

moved westward. Several towns flourished to a greater or lesser extent as long as the canal was in 

regular operation. At least one town—Cumberland—took on a permanent position of socioeconomic importance in the life of the valley. 

A. GEORGETOWN 

Founded near the head of tidewater on the Maryland shore of the Potomac River in 1751, Georgetown gradually became a colonial port of some importance. Shipping quickly became the chief 

industry of the town, as foreign and domestic vessels deposited manufactured good and wines as 

well as sugar, molasses and rum from the West Indies. In turn, the ships 

 Founded near the head of tidewater on the Maryland shore of the Potomac River in 1751, 

Georgetown gradually became a colonial port of some importance. Shipping quickly became the 

chief industry of the town, as foreign and domestic vessels deposited manufactured good and 

wines as well as sugar, molasses and rum from the West Indies. In turn, the ships sailed away 

with large quantities of Maryland and Virginia flour and tobacco, the latter being the chief commodity marketed at Georgetown until the early 1830s. From 1804 to 1835, a thriving coastwise 

grocery trade flourished in Georgetown. Nevertheless, commercial enterprise and foreign exports 

began declining in the 1820s as Washington, the seat of national government, expanded and 

drained off much of Georgetown’s trade and capital investment, and Alexandria emerged as the 

deep-water seaport for the foreign commerce of the District Cities.139

 The coming of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal aided in stemming the gradual decline of 

the old port’s commercial importance and its disappearing coastwise and foreign trade. From the 

mid-1830s until the outbreak of the Civil War, the developing waterway contributed to a momentary revival of both the coastwise and foreign trade of Georgetown. The renewed coastwise trade 

in wheat, flour and agricultural produce, which began in the mid-1830s served to replace Georgetown’s early coastwise commerce in groceries and merchandise. The renewed foreign trade with 

the West Indies involving mainly farm and forest products, which replaced the earlier exports of 

tobacco and flour, was short-lived in the face of competition from Alexandria’s rising deep-water 

commerce.140 Within Georgetown, the great tobacco and grocery warehouses of the 1820s were 

replaced by new flour and cotton [mills] using water power from the canal, and coal wharves for 

the transshipment of the Cumberland coal. Primarily because of the waterway’s commerce, by 

1856 Georgetown had numerous brick storehouses lining M Street, five flour mills on the canal, a 

2,560-spindle, 84-boom factory of the Pioneer Cotton Company, several lumber and coal yards at 

the east and west ends of the water front, and thirty-three brick warehouses fronting south on K 

Street.141

 Indicative, however, of the small economic gains arising from this transition, is the fact 

that Georgetown’s population grew by only 292 inhabitants from 8,441 in 1830 to 8,733 in 1860, 

while during the same period the population of Washington was more than tripling from 18,826 

to 61,122.142 The economic benefit brought to Georgetown by the canal during the antebellum 

 

139 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 1–6. 140 Richard Plummer Jackson, The Chronicles of Georgetown, D.C. (Washington, 1878), 49. 141 Mitchell, Divided Town, 2–3, and Constance Green, Washington, (2 Vols., Princeton, 1963), Vol. I, 157 142 Green, Washington, 21. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 665 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

period served to compensate the old port for the loss of its former trade and business, and for the 

increasing surrender of its foreign commerce to Alexandria. While the new enterprises in Georgetown did little more than replace the old, had it not been for this new business, largely produced 

by the canal, Georgetown’s commercial life probably would have disappeared during the mid1830s.143

 During the post-Civil War years, the foreign export and coastwise trade of Georgetown 

began to revive as a result of the burgeoning canal commerce. This revival was shorn by a growth 

in population of the town to 11,384 in 1840—the last year in which population figures are available for the town as its separate government was abolished by Congress in 1871 and it became 

part of the District of Columbia. Although the foreign trade of Georgetown remained negligible 

for the remainder of the 19th Century, a heavy coastwise trade in coal shipments began in 1867 

and continued until the late 1870s when the canal’s coal business went into a tailspin as a result of 

national depression, railroad competition and declining production in the coal field.144

B. GREAT FALLS (CROMMELIN) 

The canal company directors anticipated that a small community would develop at Great Falls on 

the strength of the canal trade, the attraction of the area for leisure activities by Washington and 

Georgetown residents, and the possibility of water-powered manufactories along the canal banks. 

Accordingly, the board approved the following resolution on June 10, 1831: 

Whereas, the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company are indebted to the confidence, liberty 

and enterprise of the Messrs Crommelin of Amsterdam, for the facilities afforded by their 

loan to the cities of the District of Columbia, for the payment of one million and a half of 

stock subscribed to the construction of the canal; be it therefore resolved, that in all orders and proceedings of the Board, the grounds belong to the Company and the Buildings 

erected thereon, at or near the Great Falls of the Potomac, be hereafter named “Crommelin”.145

The projected development at Great Falls, however, never reached an advanced stage of development. Aside from the tavern facilities in Crommelin House, the expectations for Great Falls 

amounted to little more than the construction of several canal company maintenance shops, a 

mule stable and feed house, a grocery store, a horse stable and buggy shed, and a few residential 

dwellings. The known structures, along with their approximate dates and location were as follows: 

Lock “Shanty”—ca. 1899—located at northwest corner of Lock No. 20. Stable and Feed 

House—ca. 1900—located at northwestern edge of towpath, abutting the spillway at 

Lock No. 20 (ca. 1913—buildings removed to site on towpath 350 feet north of Lock No. 

20). Carpenter Shop—ca. 1830—located about 1,000 feet north of the tavern on the berm 

bank of the canal (destroyed by fire and replaced by new shop between 1893 and 1896). 

Collier Dwelling—ca. 1859—located about 350 feet north of the tavern on the 

slope of the hill just beyond the northeast corner of the old gatehouse of the Washington 

Aqueduct (ca. 1875 moved to site about 250 feet north of the tavern and occupied by 

 

143 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 176. 144 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 167–168, and Green, Washington, 21. See Appendix of this 

study for a “List of the Chief Retail Coal Dealers Near the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in Georgetown: 1860–1880” and 

Appendix G for a “Diagram of Georgetown Showing C & O Canal and Riverfront Development: 1830–1900.” 145 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 382–383. 
666 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

Richard Collier, a canal employee, who resided in the house until about 1896 when it was 

razed by the canal company). Canal Company Residence—ca. 1850—located above the 

southern edge of Conduit Road and at a point about one-quarter mile northeast of tavern 

(destroyed by fire in 1889). Garrett Stone—ca, 1869—located on western edge of towpath near northern end of Lock No. 20 (ca. 1879 larger two story building containing a 

storeroom, office, saloon and living quarters erected on same site; structure razed by canal company ca. 1910). 

Two Frame Dwellings and Log Cabin—ca. 1873—1884—located along the berm 

bank of the canal immediately to the south of the tavern (built by Howard A. Garnett for 

residential purposes). Buggy Shed and Stable—ca. 1890—located on the berm bank of 

the canal some 50 and 75 feet northeast of Lock No. 19 (razed ca. 1913).146

C. SENECA (RUSHVILLE) 

Seneca, the first western terminus of the waterway, also held the spotlight briefly in the early 

1830s. The canal directors anticipated that a small community would develop between Dam No. 2 

and the mouth of Seneca Creek for the following reasons: (1) the growth of canal trade; (2) the 

expected emergence of the area to serve as an outlet for the large grain production of the surrounding region; (3) the large pool formed by the dam which would provide an opportunity for 

the canal to tap the trade of upper Fairfax County and lower Loudoun County in Virginia; (4) the 

timber resources of the surrounding region; (5) the further development of operations at the already famous red sandstone quarries; and (6) the possibility of water-powered manufactories 

along the banks of Seneca Creek and the canal. Accordingly, the directors on June 10, 1831, 

passed a resolution naming the site Rushville, in honor of Richard Rush, the former Secretary of 

the Treasury who had negotiated the loan from the Dutch capitalists, enabling the District Cities 

to pay their subscriptions to the canal stock.147

 As the canal advanced westward, the spotlight moved with the construction and the hopes 

for the development at Seneca were never fully realized. The nearby red sandstone quarry, which 

had been in use prior to the American Revolution, continued to be operated until about 1900. 

Built during the late 1830s, the stone mill near the quarry was used to cut and dress the stone, the 

power for such work being supplied by water from the canal. At its peak in the post-Civil War 

era, the mill employed some 100 men, and the stone was shipped to Georgetown and Washington 

where it was used in the popular “brownstone” architecture of the period. Several warehouses 

were built along the canal in the 1870s to store wheat and flour produced in the surrounding region preparatory to shipment down the waterway to the District Cities. Throughout the history of 

the canal period, gristmills were in operation on Seneca Creek about 1⁄2 mile from the waterway—

the last mill being operated by the Tschiffely family from 1900 to 1931.148

 

146 Rogers W. Young, A Preliminary Historical Study on the Area Along the Maryland Shore of the Potomac at great 

Falls during the Heyday of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal: 1858–1880, (NPS Manuscript, 1939), 19–26, 35–40. A 

number of buildings were also constructed at Great Falls relating to the Washington Aqueduct project. Among these 

were the old gatehouse, several temporary construction sheds and shanties, a brick and stone residence, a garage, and 

several frame dwellings. Ibid, 30 –34. 147 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 382–383. 148 Jane Chinn Sween, A History of Dawsonville and Seneca, Montgomery County, Maryland (Md. Hist. Soc. Mass., 

1967), 69–70, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 454, 467, and M, 5. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 667 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

D. POINT OF ROCKS 

A flourishing commercial enterprise sprang up at Point of Rocks in the early 1830s under the 

joint impact of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. As the western 

terminus of the railroad during the legal controversy with the canal over the right-of-way between 

an important exchange point where freight was collected from the surrounding area on both sides 

of the Potomac for shipment to Baltimore. Later in November 1833 when the canal was opened to 

navigation from Seneca to Harpers Ferry, Point of Rocks became an important exchange point 

between the two transportation lines as well as a center from which the canal tapped the agricultural commerce of upper Loudoun County, Virginia. 

 A contemporary description of the community appeared in the Frederick Times in November 1833, shortly after the canal was opened to Harpers Ferry: 

The Point of Rocks is now the point of attraction, and really presents, as we are told, an 

animating scene. Railroad cars and canal boats, constantly arriving, interchanging passengers and cargoes and then departing—the bustle of a little village suddenly arisen, as 

it were, out of the earth and actually doing business of a commercial emporium—its inhabitants hardly yet acquainted with each other, and very often outnumbered by the transient strangers who throng thither in pursuit of business and pleasure—the very novelty 

itself, of two great public enterprises so long at war with each other, just going into harmonious operation upon the spot which may be called the battle ground; and that spot too 

so lately unknown save to the wild foxes of the mountains—in a word, the noblest exhibitions of art and nature contending for mastery, are the rich reward of those who may find 

it convenient to make an excursion upon the canal via the Point of Rocks.149

But the prosperity of the village was only temporary, and it declined rapidly as the canal was 

opened to Dam No. 4 by the spring of 1834 and the railroad was completed to Harpers Ferry by 

December 1834. Despite its declining prosperity, Point of Rocks was laid out in regular lots in 

1835 by H. G. O’Neal for Charles Johnson. Depending largely on the canal and railroad for its 

livelihood, the town remained a small hamlet at the eastern foot of Catoctin Mountain, reaching a 

population figure of 290 in 1880.150

E. BRUNSWICK (BERLIN) 

The town of Berlin was originally laid out in 1870 by Leonard Smith. In early times, the town had 

a flour mill and considerable trade with the surrounding countryside. When the canal and railroad 

reached Berlin, they brought a temporary increase in economic and commercial activity. The increased prosperity declined as both works pushed westward, although Berlin continued to profit 

as a result of its location on the canal and railroad. The town served as a profitable conduit for 

trade between the two transportation lines and Loudoun County as it was a widely-used Potomac 

River crossing point at first by the use of a ferry and after 1858 by a bridge. In December 1874 

Berlin was described by the Cumberland Times as “a small village of Frederick County, containing sixty voters” whose principal business was “the mill of Messrs. Jordan, Graham and Wenner, 

which is run by the water from (the) canal.” By 1880 the population of the town had increased to 

217, and within another decade the population had grown to 300. When the Baltimore & Ohio 

 

149 Frederick Times, quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. XLV (Nov. 23, 1833), 199 150 Schoaf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 369–370 and Thomas John Chew Williams, History of Frederick 

County, Maryland (2 Vol., Frederick, 1910), Vol. I, 321–322. 
668 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

built its railroad yards at Berlin in 1890, the town and its population grew rapidly. Because of its 

rising importance as a railroad center, the name of the town was changed to Brunswick in order to 

avoid confusion with another town in Maryland by the same name.151

F. KNOXVILLE 

Knoxville was another little valley community, which prospered for a brief period in the 1830s 

and 1840s as a result of the increased trade, brought by the canal and railroad. On September 12 

and 19, 1849, the Frederick Examiner described the town as a flourishing community with bright 

prospects for economic development as a result of its close proximity to Weverton and the two 

transportation lines: 

there are a number of improvements now in progress at this place and in contemplation 

that must render it in a few years a place of very great importance . . . There is a large hotel erecting and several other buildings in contemplation. The Messrs. Barken and Co., 

from Baltimore, a wealthy company, have secured the most valuable mines of iron [that] 

are on the Shenandoah and Potomac Mines above this place, and have lately made a purchase of Col. Richard Johnson, adjoining Knoxville, of some twenty acres of land lying 

immediately between the Railway and Canal and was purchased at a reduced price, considering the very favorable location. The Company are now erecting a large furnace, 

storehouse and intend putting up between twenty and thirty other buildings for their 

workmen. This Company have several other furnaces in operation, but have selected this 

location believing it the most desirable as they can manufacture iron here at from five to 

seven dollars cheaper than at any other location in Maryland . . The advantages are so 

manifest that they must and will command the attention of Iron masters and manufactures. Messrs. Barker and Co. . . intend to extend their operations to a valley Mill foundry 

and Nail Factory. 

These expectations were not fulfilled, however, and the town declined steadily after this time. In 

1880 it had a population of 265.152

G. WEVERTON 

Weverton was named after Casper W. Wever, a celebrated engineer connected with the Baltimore 

& Ohio Railroad, who had been associated formerly with the construction and laying out of the 

National Road, the first bridge at Harpers Ferry, and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D. C. 

Attracted by the possibility of utilizing the water power of the Potomac River at this point and of 

taking advantage of the railroad and the canal to transport finished goods to Baltimore and the 

District Cities, he formed the Weverton Manufacturing Company and purchased 500 acres of land 

in 1834 on which he intended to build a manufacturing town similar to that at Lowell, Massachusetts. Along with the land, he purchased the rights to the water power of the river from his acreage to Harpers Ferry, some 3 miles distant. The fall of water in that stretch of the river was ap-

 

151 Williams, History of Frederick County, Vol. I, 39, 238–239; Cumberland Times, Dec. 1, 1874, in Gorman Collection; David H. Brown, Bridges at Berlin (c. Burs. Artz Library Mss., Frederick, 1953), 1, 3; John R. Miele, A Physical 

History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (NPS Mss., 1968) 131–133; and Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 

369–370. 

152 Frederick Examiner, Sept. 12 and 19, 1849, quoted in Williams, History of Frederick County, Vol. I, 274, and 

Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 369–370. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 669 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

proximately fifteen feet—estimates to amount to 200,000 horsepower, which was sufficient to 

turn 3,000 spindles—and it was his intention to furnish the water power at an annual rental. 

 When his projected plans were delayed by the economic depression in the late 1830s, 

Wever attempted to broaden the financial base of the new community by forming a joint stock 

company in 1847. The leaders in this new venture were George Jacobs of Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, as president, Martin Kinsell of Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania and Captain Hezekiah Boteler, 

Edward Garrott, Lewis Bell, John Gray and Barton Boteler as directors. 

 In May 1847 the first sale of lots was advertised. Twenty-six plots were sold at an average price of $75, amounting to $1,800 for less than an acre of land. A contract was made with 

Joseph P. Shannan to construct a dam across the river for $25,000, the work to be supervised by 

Charles B. Fisk, the chief engineer of the canal. Lots were offered at a nominal price for factory 

sites and free to any church, all with the proviso that no liquor should be sold. 

 In 1849 Joseph G. Chapman of Charles County, Maryland, succeeded Jacobs as president 

of the company and James M. Buchanan was elected counsel, Barton Boteler, Treasurer, William 

Loughridge general agent, and Casper W, Wever, secretary. Soon thereafter, three large manufactories were built at the town—a large cotton mill by the Potomac Company, a rifle factory by the 

Henderson Steel and Manufacturing Company, and a marble work by William Loughridge. A 

number of boarding houses for the workers also were constructed. 

 A series of articles in Frederick newspapers in July and September 1849 described in 

glowing terms the success of the venture at Weverton and its bright prospects for the future. The 

development was compared with the successful experimental “textile city” at 

 Lowell, Massachusetts, which had been in operation since the late 1820s, as well as other new 

industrial developments in the United States. 

 All the high expectations for a great manufacturing center perished soon thereafter with 

Wever’s untimely death in late 1849. The recently built factories were closed down and the property of the joint stock company was advertised at public sale by Samuel B. Preston, a local constable, to satisfy the claims of Jarvis Spencer and Joseph I. Merrick. Later in 1852, the major 

freshet that struck the Potomac Valley did considerable damage to the Weverton works. 

 In the aftermath of the Civil War, at least one mill was opened for operation. During the 

spring of 1886 the canal company made provision to transfer power for a mill owned by Merrill 

and Grafton. 

 After the devastating flood in 1877 the canal company purchased the cotton mill and the 

file factory. The mill, which had never been put into operation, was torn down, and the file factory was sold to Chapman and Stewart. By 1880 much of the property in the little village of 100 

persons was for sale at low prices. Jasper Kandell had become the owner of all the water rights, 

but apparently only one mill was in operation—a flour mill owned by David Rinehart.153

H. SANDY HOOK 

Situated on the Maryland side of the Potomac River just below Harpers Ferry, the village of 

Sandy Hook flourished under the influence of the railroad and canal. Receiving its name from a 

quicksand pool in which a teamster lost his team on the road to Frederick, the settlement had two 

houses in 1830. As a result of the growing trade induced by the two transportation lines, the village continued to grow until it had 373 inhabitants in 1880. This growth was enhanced by the canal company’s decision to construct the Shenandoah River Lock in 1832–33 to permit boats de-

 

153 Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 369–370; Vol. II, 1284–1285; Williams, History of Frederick County, 

Vol. I, 271–174; Frederick Citizen, July 13, 1849, and Frederick Examiner, Sept. 12 & 19, 1849, quoted in Ibid; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 490; and Rothbury to Coale, Oct. 17, 1850, and Masning to president and Directors, Apr. 12, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
670 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

scending the Shenandoah River to cross the Potomac and enter the canal near the village. The 

company also built a number of shops there for the maintenance of the canal. According to the 

Baltimore Gazette on November 30, 1874, a large force of workers were employed at the company shops producing new lock gates and other articles for use on the waterway. Included in the 

canal company building complex were a carpenter shop, blacksmith shop, cart house, tool shed, 

storehouse and dwelling house as well as several warehouses for the storage of repair materials 

for the canal.154

I. HARPERS FERRY 

Harpers Ferry succeeded Point of Rocks as a commercial emporium. Because of its location at the 

mouth of the Shenandoah River, it served as both the outlet for the trade of that valley and as the 

point of deposit for that of the upper Potomac. Its commercial position was not solely dependent 

on the railroad or the canal, nor was it of recent development. First settled in 1733 by Peter 

Stephens, Harpers Ferry already had a long history as a depot for North-South and East-West 

trade. Thus its increased prosperity under the influence of the coming of the canal in November 

1833 and the arrival of the railroad in December 1834 was better grounded and more permanent 

than that of most of the valley settlements. During the years from 1830 to 1850, the population of 

Harpers Ferry increased from 1,379 to 1,747. On the eve of the Civil War, the industries on Virginius Island included two cotton factories, a sawmill, a flour mill, a carriage factory and an 

ironwork. The nine large brick buildings of Hall’s Rifle Works supplemented the other thriving 

manufactories along the river. The most important industry, however, was the United States Armory and Arsenal, established by Congress in 1796.155

J. SHEPHERDSTOWN 

Shepherdstown, which had been settled by Pennsylvania Germans as early as 1730, received economic stimulus from the canal as the site of lime mills supplying the major portion of the cement 

to the canal contractors during the early years of construction. After the canal was completed to 

Dam No. 4 in the spring of 1834, it carried a large amount of the town’s trade. 

 As one of the oldest towns in the Potomac Valley, Shepherdstown took an active interest 

in the economic development of the region through the promotion of internal improvements. The 

town of 1,326 inhabitants gave its full support to the canal project and subscribed $20,000 of Canal Co. stock. 

 Sometime before construction was commenced on the canal, Henry Boteler and George 

Reynolds operated a flour mill, known as Potomac Mill, about 240 yards upstream from Pack 

Horse Ford, the historic Potomac River crossing just below Shepherdstown. The mill was powered by water impounded by a dam across the Potomac, commonly called Boteler’s Dam. One of 

the most urgent problems that arose in connection with the construction of the canal was the procurement of an adequate supply of hydraulic lime. In January 1828 Robert Leckie, the inspector 

or masonry on the canal, undertook to locate a source of cement lime that would be both readily 

available and of adequate durability. Such a source was found on the Virginia side of the river in 

the vicinity of Potomac Mill, and after some negotiations, the canal company persuaded the two 

proprietors to convert a portion of their mill to the manufacture of cement. Kilns were erected 

nearby, and extensive experiments were conducted in order to develop a durable water lime. Al-

 

154 Baltimore, Gazette, Nov. 30, 1874, in Spates Paper; Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1284–1285; and 

Baltimore Sun, June 11, 1889. 155 Bushong, Historic Jefferson County, 85, 126–127, 139, and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 165. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 671 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

though the mill was not extensively used by the canal company after 1837, it continued to play an 

important role in the economic activity of the region served by the canal until 1861 when it was 

destroyed by Federal troops. Rebuilt after the Civil War, the mill continued to operate until the 

turn of the 20th century. 

 Closely associated with the mill in its connection with the canal was the dam that provided the power for its operation. The impoundment formed a slackwater pool that occasioned the 

construction of a river lock in 1833–35 to provide access to the canal from the river. This made 

possible the tapping of an extensive Virginia trade, which was an important source of business for 

the canal. Barges were loaded on the Virginia (West Virginia) side, floated across the river, and 

entered the canal via the river lock. When the dam was destroyed in 1889, the slackwater was 

eliminated and the lock was filled in and incorporated into the towpath bank of the canal.156

K. WILLIAMSPORT 

Above Harpers Ferry the most promising site for industrial and commercial development along 

the canal was Williamsport. At this town, which was founded by General Otho H. Williams in 

1786 at the junction of the Conococheague Creek and the Potomac River, conditions were favorable to the establishment of mills and manufactories utilizing water power. Dam No. 5, located 

only eight miles above the town, fed a relatively short stretch of the canal, thus making available 

ample surplus water. Williamsport might also become the channel for the trade of Hagerstown 

with the Eastern Markets via the canal. 

 Because of its location, Williamsport was actively interested in the development of transportation in the Potomac Valley. During the first three decades of the 18th century, the trade of 

Williamsport was largely with the District Cities by means of river boats. In September 1827 a 

group of citizens meeting in Williamsport formed an association to support the construction of a 

canal in the expectation that such a transportation line would enhance the commercial prospects, 

of the town.157

 When the canal reached Williamsport in April 1835, the town took on new life. Niles’ 

Register observed: 

We learn from the Williamsport Banner that the water was let into the canal below that 

place on the 1st inst. and it was expected that, in a few days, the canal would be navigable 

the whole distance from Dam No. 5, above Williamsport, to Washington City. The Banner says: ‘The basin at the foot of Potomac St. has been for upwards of a week past, 

crowded with boats, arks, etc. laden with coal and flour, and that the busy, bustling appearance which the arrival of the boats has given to that part of town, in the vicinity of 

the canal, is truly gratifying, and brings to mind the wharves of a commercial city.158

On April 11, the Williamsport Banner reported: 

Wednesday and Thursday last, the 8th and 9th instant, were busy days with us on the canal. The water was let into the level next below Williamsport, and the numerous vessels 

 

156 John F. Luzader, Historic Sites, Shepherdstown, West Virginia (NPS Mss., 1963), 1- 4; Miele, Physical History, 

139–143; Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 81; Boteler to Mercer, Jan. 14 and 22, 1828, in U. S. Congress, 

House, Committee on Roads and Canals, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, H. Rpt. 141, 20th Congress, 1st Session, 1828, 38–

39, McFarland to Ingle, May 29, 1829, and McFarland to Leckie, July 23, 1829, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; and Ingle to 

Boteler to Reynolds, Apr. 22, 1830, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 157 Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1223, 1230 and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 166. 158 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVIII (Apr. 11, 1835), 89. 
672 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

which had, within the previous few days, been literally wedged in our basins and canal, 

forming as complete a bridge of boats as ever crossed the Rhine, thronged and pressed to 

the lock, eager for passage below. As fast as balance beam and valve key could be plied, 

were they passed on amid the shouts of a number of our citizens, who had assembled to 

witness the novel sight. Of the number of vessels, which were admitted, we have not been 

duly informed; but our estimate, and we speak, we are sure, much within the number, is 

from fifty to sixty. . . 

 It was a glorious sight to see the numerous boats as they lay in the basin at night, 

each illuminated by a glowing coal fire, which cast a long level rule of light across the 

water; and the silence of night was not unpleasantly interrupted by the cries of the hoarse 

boatmen, as they were disturbed from their moorings by new arrivals, and driven to close 

contact with their neighbors; we heard diverse remonstrances, boisterous and uncouth 

against “scrounging,” to make use of the navigator’s expressive, however inelegant 

term.159

The increase in commercial activity did not turn out to be of a temporary nature and Williamsport 

settled down to become perhaps the outstanding canal town along the route of the canal. On May 

26, 1835, the National Intelligencer reported on the continuing developments at the town: 

From Williamsport . . . we learn that that town has quite a lively appearance, from the 

bustle of business, present and prospective. Among other circumstances, consequent on 

the extension of the Canal thus far, we learn that two considerable iron-master in the 

neighborhood of Chambersburg, in Pennsylvania, have agreed to send, each, five thousand tons of bar-iron and castings to Williamsport, this year, for transportation down the 

Canal, to be forwarded to New York, Massachusetts, etc. The advantage of this arrangement to them is, that the same wagons, which bring down the iron, can load back with 

coal from the Canal. For the purposes of this branch of business, a very large warehouse 

is now building on the margin of the basin of the Canal at Williamsport. We understand, 

further, that the officers of the company, on a late visit up the line of the Canal, made a 

disposition of water power to individuals at three different places in the vicinity of Williamsport.160

Furthermore, the economic development of Williamsport was enhanced by the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad’s decision to build its line west of Harpers Ferry on the Virginia side of the river. Thus, 

the rich flour and grain trade of Hagerstown and the Cumberland Valley was diverted to Georgetown through Williamsport via the canal, whereas previously most of it had gone to Baltimore via 

the National Road.161

 Through the years, Williamsport, which grew from population of 859 in 1830 to 1,503 in 

1880, depended on the canal for a large portion of its economic activity. The Williamsport Pilot

observed on August 24, 1872, that: 

There are 48 boats owned by citizens of this town, not counting the immediate vicinity. 

These 48 boats upon an average carry 5,000 tons of coal per trip. Allow each boat 20 

trips per season and you have in round numbers 100,000 tons of coal carried to market by 

our boatmen. The toll upon this coal at 46 cents per ton would amount to $46,000. Add to 

 

159 Williamsport, Banner, Apr. 11, 1835, quoted in Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVIII (Apr. 25, 1835), 135. 160 Washington, National Intelligencer, May 26, 1835. 161 Thomas John Chew Williams, History of Washington County, Maryland, (2 Vols. Hagerstown, 1906), Vol. I, 196. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 673 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

this the toll on each boat for each trip, $8.16, and you have $7,833.60 more, in all the sum 

of $53,833.60 earned by our boatmen during the course of a boating season for the company. Of course this is simply the coal trade, and does not include the local trade from 

this port, or have any reference to tolls collected here. The amount of flour, grain, etc., 

shipped from, and the amount of lumber, hoop poles, plasters, phosphate, etc. received 

here, is considerable.162

Later that same year on December 21 the Pilot again discussed the heavy reliance of Williamsport on the canal trade for its general prosperity. Reporting on the town’s coal trade for the 1872 

boating season, the newspaper noted that: 

The report is exclusive of a considerable amount of coal, the toll upon which was paid 

here, but which was not delivered exactly at the wharf at this place. . . The horse disease, 

low water, and the early close of navigation by the ice, rendered the season not only unprofitable to boatmen but made shipments much shorter than they would otherwise have 

been. The coal shipped by Mr. Cushwa was for the sole use and consumption of the 

Western Maryland Railroad Company (whose line was then being completed to Big 

Pool), and a great deal of it is on the wharf here yet awaiting wagon transportation to 

Hagerstown. That received by Messrs. Embrey and Steffey, respectively, was to supply 

not only the local demand, but manufactories of various kinds in Pennsylvania and those 

portions of Maryland lying along the line of the W. M. Railroad. 

Victor Cushwa 4,234,.03 Tons cut

O. Embrey and Son 3,725.06 

E. P. Steffey 1,544.16

Total 9,504.05 

The value of this coal at $4.50 per ton, which is about the average, is $38,018.20163

The canal company’s efforts in the early 1870s to promote the continued expansion of trade in 

both agricultural produce and coal by facilitating the construction of the Cumberland Valley Railroad and the Western Maryland Railroad, where those lines touched upon the canal’s rights, were 

an added economic stimulus to Williamsport. Completed to the town on December 17, 1873, the 

Western Maryland ultimately provided a connection between the canal at Big Pool (above Williamsport) and Baltimore. The Cumberland Valley, which was opened to Martinsburg in 1874, 

ultimately provided a link between Harrisburg and Winchester, crossing the canal at Powell’s 

Bend one mile below Williamsport. As a result of the new lines, it was estimated that the coal 

trade of Williamsport increased to the point that one-half of the town’s population was involved 

in the shipment, unloading and transfer of coal. According to the Washington Evening Star on 

July 11, 1902, business on the canal at Williamsport was: 

flourishing, there being a continuous string of boats to and from Cumberland. About 50 

boats are unloaded there every month, carrying over 5,000 tons of coal. Large consignments of coal are also being shipped to Powell’s Bend, 1 mile below, where it is transferred to the Cumberland Valley RR. New machines for unloading boats in use on 

wharves at Williamsport greatly facilitate business, about 3 times as many being 

 

162 Williamsport, Pilot, Aug. 24, 1872, in Gorman Collection. 163 Williamsport, Pilot, Dec. 21, 1872, in Gorman Collection. 
674 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

unloaded as before. Shippers are full up with orders for coal, which is shipped over the 

Western Maryland railroad.164

L. HANCOCK 

Above Williamsport, the next major objective of the canal was Hancock, a small village of 367 

inhabitants in 1830. Located on the National Road, the town was 100 miles from Baltimore and 

39 miles from Cumberland. Because of its location, it acted as a center for the local trade of western Washington County, eastern Allegany County and the Cacapon Valley as well as a conduit 

for the East-West trade.165

 The canal company looked to Hancock as a prospective point where contact could be 

made with the turnpike from the west. Here it was hoped that the canal might secure some of the 

wagon traffic from as far west as the Ohio River. As early as October 4, 1834, Niles’ Register

observed that when the canal would be opened to Dam No. 5 during the following spring: 

it will then be opened for navigation 110 miles; and, as the Dam No. 5 backs water of the 

Potomac up to Hancock, the navigation of the canal will be connected with the business 

on the national road, and Hancock becomes a temporary place of deposit between the east 

and west, whether from or to Washington, by the canal, or from or to Baltimore by the 

railroad, after its junction with the canal, either at Harpers Ferry or the Point of Rocks, as 

shall appear most expedient—and no doubt, canal boats will be fitted to receive the bodies of loaded wagons, as the railroad cars now receive them. There is much convenience, 

as well as safety, in this proceeding. The western merchant, at Baltimore or at Wheeling, 

personally inspects the stowage of his merchandise, if he pleases, and according to his 

own judgment of the manner in which it should be packed—with a confidence that it will 

not be changed until its arrival at the place of its destination . . .166

Canal officials began making plans to exploit the trade potential of Hancock in March 1835 when 

the canal was completed to Dam No. 5 as evidenced in a letter written by President George C. 

Washington: 

By the middle of March we shall have an unobstructed navigation of 110 miles, ready to 

receive the spring trade of the whole valley of the Potomac. Our upper dam (Dam No. 5), 

makes a backwater navigation of about ten miles, being within two miles of the Cumberland Road. At this point the water merchants of Wheeling etc. propose immediately to 

connect their lines of transportation and such by this means will be the saving, that they 

believe they can successfully compete with Pennsa (Pennsylvania) Canal. The lumber of 

the Cacapon region will also at this point, be brought into the canal, and we understand 

preparations are making at Cumberland to forward a quantity of coal.167

However, the anticipated business did not develop as expected, primarily because the canal did 

not reach Hancock until April 1839 at which time the national economy was still in the throes of 

depression. By that date the Baltimore & Ohio was speeding its construction westward, and the 

 

164 Washington, Evening Star, July 11, 1902. Also see Baltimore Evening Sun, Aug. 12, 1937; Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1005–1008 and 1230–1231; Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O Co., 16–17; and Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 230–232. 165 Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1252, and Williams, History of Washington County, Vol. I, 196. 166 Niles’ Register, Vol. XLVII (Oct. 4, 1834), 65. 167 Washington to Colston, Jan. 31, 1835, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 675 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

Pennsylvania Main Line Canal had consolidated its hold on much of the anticipated trade of the 

southwestern portions of its state.168

 Nevertheless, Hancock did benefit from the canal and served as a center of local trade. 

By 1880 the town had grown to a population of 931 and had a number of stores, several grain and 

flour warehouses, and several boat yards, all of which were directly affiliated with the canal trade. 

The major business enterprise was the Round Top Cement Company located west of town and 

owned by Robert Bridges and Charles W. Henderson. Originally established in 1837 by George 

Shafer to supply the canal company with water lime, the cement works were purchased by 

Bridges and Henderson in 1963 and employed 120 men by 1880. After the cement was placed in 

barrels, most of it was run across the Potomac by cable to a company warehouse before it was 

transferred to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad via switches that connected with the main line. The 

canal, which provided the water power necessary to run the mill, was used also as a medium for 

shipping the cement and for receiving the coal required to operate the kilns.169

M. CUMBERLAND 

The town of Cumberland at the mouth of Wills Creek is perhaps the greatest accomplishment of 

the Potomac trade route. Founded by the Ohio Company in 1749, it served as a natural canter for 

the business and commerce of the upper valley and for the trans-mountain trade. In the aftermath 

of the Seven Years’ War, fur traders and a few settlers began to move into the Allegheny and 

Trans-Allegheny region. Because of its location on the Potomac Valley route to the west, Cumberland was involved in every major effort to develop and improve transportation in the upper 

valley during the next century. The improvements on the river undertaken by the Potomac Company after 1785 ended at Cumberland. Construction of the federally-sponsored National Road 

began at Cumberland in 1811 and the pike was completed to Wheeling on the Ohio River in 

1818, thereby making the town an important point in the East-West trade.170

 The completion of the railroad and the canal to Cumberland on November 1, 1842, and 

October 10, 1850, respectively, brought to the town a dependable means of transportation to the 

eastern markets and large transfer business in coal from mines in the Georges Creek region and 

farther west. During the decade from 1840 to 1850, the population of the town nearly tripled from 

2,384 to 6,105. William H. Lowdermilk, a noted historian of Cumberland, has written concerning 

the significance of the railroad to that town: 

No other event has ever transpired in the history of the place, which created so much 

pleasurable excitement. Business was entirely suspended, and men, women and children 

gathered about the terminus of the road to witness the arrival of the trains. From the 

mountain tops, and valley, throughout the adjoining country, the people came in crowds, 

and the town was in a fever of excitement for many days. 

The opening of this road proved the inauguration of a new era in the history of 

the town. This was made the point of exchange for passengers and merchandise between 

the East and West. Hotels were erected for the accommodation of travelers, and large 

warehouses, along the railroad tracks, for the storing of goods, which were to be transshipped from cars to wagons for the West, and from wagons to cars for the East. The facilities thus furnished for rapid transportation induced many persons to make the journey 

across the mountains, and the stage companies were compelled to build new coaches and 

 

168 Miele, Physical History, 153 and Niles’ Register, Vol. LVI (Apr. 17, 1839), 131–132. 169 Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1252 and 1256. 170 Miele, Physical History, 160 –161; Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 166–167; and Kenneth P. Bailey, Thomas Cresap:Maryland Frontiersman (Boston, 1944), 94. 
676 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

to erect large stables. Every morning and evening upon the arrival of the cars, long lines 

of stages drew up in front of the hotels. Inside they carried nine passengers, and outside 

one on the seat with the driver. In the “boot” and on the roof was placed the baggage. 

When all were loaded, at a given signal, a dozen whips would crack, a dozen four-horse 

teams would take the road, and dash through the streets at a brisk trot, which would be 

kept up until Frostburg was reached, in less than two hours. Here horses were exchanged, 

and up the mountain grade they went, on their way to Wheeling. 

In a little while after the completion of the railroad to Cumberland, the National 

Road became a thoroughfare such as the country has never before or since seen, for a like 

distance. On every mile of the road were to be seen stages, carriages and heavy freight 

wagons, carrying tons of merchandise piled up under their canvas-covered bows, drawn 

by six powerful horses. In addition to these, great droves of cattle, hogs, sheep, etc. were 

daily on the road. Taverns were to be found every few miles with jolly landlords, who 

knew all the teamsters, drivers and guards. These were “good old times” and the “pike 

boys” still living look back to them with many a sigh of regret.171 

When the canal was formally opened to through navigation all the way to Cumberland on October 10, 1850, it was the occasion for elaborate ceremonies and jubilant celebration. Among the 

speeches was one given by William Price, a long-time canal promoter from the town: 

It was natural, perhaps, that things should be precisely as they have been, both with the 

enterprise itself, and with the individuals whose fortunes have been connected with it. 

The uncommon magnitude, and the uncommon finish of the work, may be regarded as 

cause sufficient for all the alternations and disappointments attending its history. The reasoning of men, from their experience upon works of different dimensions and character, 

might have been expected to lead to disappointment when applied to a work like this. 

Go view those magnificent aqueducts, locks and culverts, of hewn stone—those 

huge embankments, on which you may journey for days down the river; go view the great 

tunnel passing three fifths of a mile through rock, and arched with brick, its eastern portal 

opening upon a through-cut almost equal in magnitude to the tunnel itself. Look at the 

vessels lying in that basin ready to commence the work of transportation, and large 

enough to navigate the Atlantic, -- look at all these things, then think how soon the fortunes of individuals embarked in the prosecution of such an enterprise would be swallowed up, leaving upon it but little more impression than the bubbles which now float 

upon its waters. It will not be deemed out of place, if I here express the hope, that, those 

whose losses have been gains of the company, should not in the hour of its prosperity be 

forgotten. 

It has been greatly decried and greatly misunderstood, but it is a magnificent 

work, whatever may be said to the contrary. Of its probable revenues now that it is completed, I se no reason to distrust the opinions heretofore entertained by it s friends. And 

why should it not be as profitable as, from the first, it was expected to be? The same great 

coal deposits which originally induced its projection, and which have animated the hopes 

of its friends, during all the trials and vicissitudes of its history still lie in these mountains 

waiting an avenue to market. Its quality has in no wise deteriorated and is known to be 

such as to give it a preference over every other description of coal on this side of the Atlantic. The capacity of the coal companies have their railroads and other means of shipment upon the canal, completed. With such a staple and such an avenue to market, that is 

 

171 Lowdermilk, A History of Cumberland, 349, 351–351, 371. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 677 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

to limit the emoluments of the work? Coal, however is but one item of its trade. And 

when we look to the agricultural products of western Maryland, and of the contiguous 

portions of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and after all this, add to the account, the ascending 

trade, consisting of the merchandise for the supply of the territory already indicated, and 

a share of that destined for the west, it is no exaggeration to say, that the work will in due 

time pay off its own debt and leave the state in possession of a permanent fund, adequate 

to all her financial wants. 

The opening of yonder gates to let through the first boat carrying freight from 

Cumberland to tide water, signals a happy epoch in the financial condition of the state. It 

is the turning point in history of the canal, and marks the precious moment of time, when 

this great work ceases forever to be a burden upon the tax-payers of Maryland, and begins to reimburse those who have so long and so patiently borne the charge of its construction. Such an event is cause of congratulations to the people of the whole state.172

With the arrival of the canal, Cumberland again experienced greater prosperity based on the increased trade and transfer business developed by the waterway and from the related activities associated with its operation. The boom proved to be short-lived in its extreme form, however, for 

on January 10, 1853, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was opened for travel between Cumberland 

and Wheeling, and two great excursion trains passed over the road, from Baltimore to the Western terminus. The effect was soon felt in Cumberland, as most of the stage lines were taken off, 

and the great business of transferring merchandise at this point was largely diminished.173

 Thereafter the city settled down to a robust prosperity based primarily on the coal trade of 

the railroad and the canal and on its location at the western terminus of the waterway. Estimates 

of property values available for Cumberland in 1842 and 1860 show an increase from $931,118 to 

$2,124,000 and population statistics indicate that the city grew from 6,105 in 1850 to 7,302 in 

1860, 1870, and 10,693 in 1880.174

 Cumberland secured a large amount of trade from the canal-related economic activities 

and from the boatmen between runs and during the winter. The economic impact of the canal on 

the livelihood of the town is revealed in a series of local newspaper articles in the 1870s during 

which time the waterway was facing increasing competition for its share of the coal trade from 

the railroad. On May 24, 1873, the Cumberland Times reported: 

The shipments of coal by canal for the current season show a remarkable falling off from 

those of last year. By Mr. Slack’s tables we find that the shipments to May 10th inst. over 

his road to the canal amount to 112,099.03 tons, against 136,887.08 tons to a corresponding period last year, showing a decrease for the present season of 24,758.05 tons; while 

the shipments by the same route to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad amount to 474,290.02 

tons against 414,705.01 tons to a corresponding period last year, showing an increase of 

59,585.01 tons in favor of the railroad to a corresponding period last year. This estimate 

does not include companies that habitually ship by railroad alone, but puts the matter in 

the best light for the Canal Board. 

For our city and for the large number of people who depend upon a successful 

canal season for a living, this is a poor showing, and the prospects for the future is far 

from reassuring. . 

 

172 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal to Cumberland, 130–132. 173 Lowdermilk, A History of Cumberland, 376. 174 Ibid, 381, 388, 492, and James Walter Thomas and Thomas John Crew Williams, History of Allegany County, 

Maryland (@ Vols., Cumberland, 1923), Vol. I, 124. 
678 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

Canal shipments are what our people here are interested in. It matters but little to 

them how many hoppers go daily rolling by upon the railroad; they derive no benefit 

therefrom, but with canal shipments the case is different. Every additional ton of coal 

shipped by this route, adds its proportion to the prosperity of the city. Many boatmen live 

here; boats are built in our yards; feed and forage for stock are sold by our dealers, and 

our grocers derive a busy trade in canal supplies when the season is good. . .175

A similar theme was noted by the Cumberland Alleganian and Times in three separate articles in 

April and May 1877. On April 30 the newspaper observed that: 

The canal is the only present surety for Allegany’s prosperity, and when its stability is 

endangered every citizen of the county has a bounden duty in its protection. Cumberland 

is probably more deeply interested in its success than any other section of the county, because she has more property dependent on it outside of the coal companies; but all of Allegany is deeply concerned. . .There are Eastern interests which demand Cumberland coal 

for its qualities; and their demands are sufficient to keep the railroad busy. There are 

other interests, which prefer our coal, while it can compete with other regions; but when 

the price is higher, they will take the other. This latter class is what we would lose if the 

canal should be closed, while the Baltimore company would charge its own price on the 

former. The canal is now in efficient working order throughout, and the tolls are lower 

than the Baltimore road. The canal terminates here, and its trade is local. Destroy its local 

traffic and it perishes. The Baltimore road is almost national, and our trade is not essential to its success. It can hedge us about. It can forgo profits on coal until it crushes us. . 

.

176

On May 5, 1877, the newspaper printed a detailed analysis of the economic impact of the canal 

on the city: 

The principal income of this region is from the coal trade. When shipments are large, our 

businessmen feel the good results; when they are small, our trade interest lag. The coal 

shipped through Cumberland is beneficial to this region only to the extent of the cost of 

production, which benefits Cumberland only secondarily. It is the amount shipped by canal that results immediately to our benefit. . .Hypothetically, we will assume there are 30 

boats leaving this port daily, carrying 115 tons each, at 80 cents per ton, making 180 

boats per week, which would be a gross receipt of $20,700 per week, employing 600 men 

and an equal number of mules. At lest two-thirds of this money is disbursed in Cumberland, giving over $16,000 per week, or $70,000 per month. Aside from this, there are 

over 200 men employed here on the canal in various kinds of work—loading coal, repairing boats, cleaning basin, etc., which increases the receipts by not less than $10,000 per 

month. Thus . . .it is reasonable to conclude that the people of Cumberland receive from 

this source not less than $80,000 per month. Can we afford to lose this trade?177

On May 15, 1877, the same newspaper observed: 

 

175 Cumberland, Times, May 24, 1873, in Gorman Collection. 176 Cumberland, Alleganian and Times, Apr. 30, 1877, in Gorman Collection. 177 Cumberland, Alleganian and Times, May 5, 1877, in Gorman Collection. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 679 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

We have hundreds in Cumberland dependent on coal shipments by canal where Baltimore has 10 by rail. Five hundred canal captains have their all invested in their boats, and 

2,000 men are subject to the captains. Our boat builders have tens of thousands dependent 

upon the employment of these men. Our businessmen derive one half their profits from 

the proceedings of the canal, and our landlords would get nothing for their houses if we 

lose our canal trade. The miner would decrease in his product were the canal out of the 

way; for the Baltimore road would have the monopoly of the trade, and would desire no 

more coal produced than its capacity would admit of carrying. . . 

As further proof of the fact that the town could not rely on the Baltimore & Ohio, 

the article noted that the railroad-owned Cumberland Rolling Mill had just laid off 300 

man and 100 boys.178

By the time that the canal began to fall into decline in the late 1870s, Cumberland had developed 

an independent and permanent basis of economic prosperity and continued as an important industrial and commercial canter. The economic diversification of the city during this period can be 

seen from a list of its principal business concerns: 

1. Steel Rail Mill and Merchant Bar Mill owned and operated by the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad. The Baltimore American of May 7, 1877, reported on the positive economic impact of the railroads Rollin Mill on the growth of Cumberland: 

In the fiscal year 1873–74, the Baltimore & Ohio Company employed an average 

of 853 man per month in the rolling mill in the second great city of Maryland, 

Cumberland. The total wages paid during the year at that mill amounted to 

$432,858.55; 16,284 tons of metal were consumed at that mill, nearly all of 

which was purchased in the State of Maryland, and which was made at the furnaces in Washington, Frederick, Allegany and Baltimore counties. During that 

year the consumption of coal alone at the mill reached 100,000 tons, and there 

were large expenditures for other supplies. . .179

2. Bowery Blast Furnace owned and operated by the Cumberland Coal and Iron Company. 

3. Five Frederick Companies 

a. Union Mining and Manufacturing Company at Mt. Savage. 

b. Savage Mountain Firebrick Manufacturing Co. at Frostburg. 

c. Globe Fireclay Manufacturing Co. at Bridgeport. 

d. Savage Firebrick Manufacturing Co. at Keystone Junction. 

e. Reese, Lemon and Co. at Ellerslie. 

4. Two iron foundries and machine shops 

5. Mills of Cumberland Cast Steel Works 

6. Cumberland Cotton Factory 

7. Cumberland Hydraulic Cement Manufacturing Company 

8. Three steam tanneries in the city and two in the vicinity 

9. Car, locomotive works, and machine shops of the Cumberland and Pennsylvania 

Railroad Company at Mt. Savage 

 

178 Cumberland, Alleganian and Times, May 14, 1877, in Gorman Collection. At the same time, the Baltimore (insert 

225A) 

179 Baltimore, American, May 7, 1877, in Gorman Collection. 
680 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

10. Several large flour mills 

11. Steam furniture works of K. H. Butler (Largest furniture plant in the state) 

12. Numerous other factories including planning and saw mills and sash and door factories180

N. SUMMARY 

Of the towns mentioned as receiving a definite stimulus from the operation of the canal or the 

railroad, only one achieved a permanent status as a result of these influences. Cumberland survived and prospered as the second largest city in the State into the 20th century. Projected communities such as Crommelin and Rushville never got off the ground. Towns such as Brunswick, 

Knoxville, Weverton and Williamsport which drew so heavily from the canal for their support 

declined with the fortunes of the waterway. Point of Rocks, Harpers Ferry and Hancock which 

were primarily exchange points in the valley trade, declined as through traffic replaced local 

business or survived on a lower level of economic activity and importance.181

 

180 Orrick, Mineral Resources and Manufacturing Facilities of Cumberland, 7–31. 181 Sanderlin, A Study of the History of the Potomac Valley, 102. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 681 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

VI. IMPACT ON THE POPULATION 

The expanded transportation facilities and related activities of the canal and railroad played a part 

in the growth of population in Western Maryland. The statistics for the four counties through 

which the canal passed were as follows: 

1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 

Montgomery 16,400 19,816 15,456 15,860 18,322 20,563 24,759 

Frederick 40,459 45,789 36,405 40,987 46,591 47,572 50,482 

Washington 23,075 25,269 28,850 30,848 31,417 35,712 38,561 

Allegany 8,654 10,609 15,690 22,769 28,348 38,536 43,802182

During this period the total population of the four Western Maryland counties in relation to the 

overall population of the state was as follows: 

State Western % of State

1820 407,350 88,588 21.7 

1830 447,040 101,482 22.7 

1840 470,019 96,401 20.5 

1850 583,034 110,464 18.9 

1860 687,049 124,678 18.1 

1870 780,894 141,383 18.1 

1880 934,632 169,779* 18.2183

The percentage of change in the population of the Western Maryland counties in comparison with 

that of the population in the State as a whole during this period was as follows: 

Western State 

1820–30 +12.7% +8.9% 

1830–40 -5.0% +4.9% 

1840–50 +12.7% +19.4%

1850–60 +11.4% +15.1%

1860–70 +11.8% +12.0%

1870–80 +16.7% +16.4%

 

182 Scharf, A History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, 369–370, 654–656, Vol. II, 974, 1554, and Boyd, History of Montgomery County, 107. In 1836 Carroll County was established out of the eastern portion of Frederick and the western 

portion of Baltimore County, and in 1872 the western portion of Allegany County became Garret County. The latter 

had a population of 12,175 in 1880. 

183 Scharf, A History of Western Maryland, Vol. II, 1554. * The population of Garrett County is figured in this statistic. 
682 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 683 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

APPENDIX A 

WATER POWER LEASES FOR MILLS ON THE C&O CANAL 

IN GEORGETOWN: 1839–1900 

LEASE NO. 1 

Lessee Type of Mill Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

George Buford, 

Washington 

Flour, to 1843 

burned, 1844; 

rebuilt 1845, 

cotton from 

1845—sold to 

Wilson, 1850 

South of 

the canal, 

sw corner 

of the 

market 

space and 

Potomac 

St. 

400 May 7, 

1846 

Jan. 1, 1838 Jan. 1, 

1886, mill 

sold to 

Thomas 

Wilson, 

1850 

Thomas Wilson, 

Baltimore, 

MD. 

Sublet to A. 

Pryor 

Williams and 

Co. 

Cotton: 1860 to 

1861 

300 Transferred 

Renewed 

May 1, 

1860 

Jan. 1, 1860 Jan. 1 

1859 

Jan. 1, 

1870 

Mill 

closed 

1861 

Sold to 

A.H. Herr, 

1865 

Superior to 

300 

A.H. Herr 

Georgetown 

Herr converted 

it from cotton 

to flour; 

And flour milling “Pioneer 

Mill” began in 

1867, 140’ x 

50’ in size 

300 Assignment 

Approved 

on 

Nov. 9, 

1865 

Jan. 1865 Jan. 1, 

1879 

Superior to 

330 

G. A. Herr 

Austin Herr 

(Herr & Cissell) 

Flour 300 Transferred Sep. 30, 

1836 

1900 
684 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 2 

Lessee Type 

of Mill 

Location Sq. in. of 

Water leased 

Actual 

date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Joseph 

Hocks 

Of Georgetown 

Surplus water of Rock 

Creek Basin 

Feb. 27, 

1840 

Feb. 27, 1860 

Abandoned in 

1840. 

forfeited on 

Sep. 5, 1844 

LEASE NO. 3 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Nathaniel 

and 

A.P. Scaver 

(or 

Seaver) 

Bark Mill N. side of Water St., between 

Potomac and 

Market St., 

near 

rear Hotshot 

50 Mar. 4, 

1840 

Withheld and 

suspended by 

Apr. 1847 

V. Turner, 

Trustee 

For Mrs. A. 

Robinson 

(Estate of 

Wm. Robinson) 

Remodeled 

as a flour 

mill, 1845 

Practically the 

same site as 

Seever’s mill 

125 Renewed and 

75 inches 

added 

Apr. 13, 

1847 

Apr. 1, 1860 

transferred to 

Coor & 

Schroder & 

Co. 

Leased 

from Robinson: Gerald Wilson 

Flour Adjacent 125 July 1, 1861 

Sublet to 

Wilson 

July 1, 1857 

L. Benjamin Darkey 

and John 

Shoemaker, 

Georgetown 

Flour and 

grist 

Known as the 

“Rivers De 

Mill” 

under Shoemaker 

125 Apr. 11, 

1867 

Apr. 1, 

1860 

Apr. 1, 1880 

transferred to 

Shoemaker & 

Co. 1880 

bought by 

Shoemaker & 

Co. 1864 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 685 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 4 

Lessee Type 

of Mill 

Location Sq. in. 

of 

Water 

leased 

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Thomas 

Brown 

Bakery N.E. Corner of 

Water and Lingan Streets 

50 July 1, 1840 July 1, 

1880 

Successor to 

Brown: John 

Hutton 

Flour 

and 

grist 

50 July 6, 1860 

Renewed 

July 1, 1860 July 1, 

1880

Transferred 

to Fenny in 

1872 

Successor to 

John Hutton 

Flour 

and 

grist 

50 Transferred 

Renewed 

Apr 14, 

1837 

Jan. 12, 1872 

Jul 1, 1880 

July 1, 

1880 

July 1, 

1900 

LEASE NO. 5 

Lessee Type 

of 

Mill 

Location Sq. in. of 

Water 

leased 

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Thomas J. 

Davis 

Flour, 

built 

in 

1841 

N. side of Water 

St., between 

Lingan and Fayette St. and near 

the N.W. corner 

of Water & Fayette Sts. 

500 Sep 1, 

1841 

Sep 1, 

1861 

Sold to 

Boyd & 

Taylor 

Successor to 

Davis 

Boyd & Taylor 

Flour 500 Mar 9, 

1854 

Bought 

by

Boyd & 

Taylor 

Sep 1, 

1881 

Assigned 

1860 to 

Boyce, 

Thomas 

and 
686 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

Successor to 

Boyd & Taylor: Alfred H. 

Herr and 

James S. 

Welsh 

Flour, 

corn 

and 

plaster 

Called the “Columbia Mill”; a 

4 story brick 

structure, size 

128’ x 60’ 

500 Aug 1, 1862 

Also assigned 

by Herr to 

Welch 

Sep 1, 

1861 

Sep 1, 

1881 

Assigned 

to Welch 

on Apr 1,

1862 

Successor of 

Herr and 

Welsh: Jim S. 

Voigh 

500 Aug 1, 1862 Sep 1, 

1861 

Transferred to 

Proctor 

1879 

Successor of 

Voigh: 

Richard Proctor 

Flour 500 Transferred Sep 30, 

1879 

Transferred to 

Herr, 1880 

Successor to 

Proctor: 

Austin Herr of 

Herr and Cissell 

Flour 500 Transfer renewed Jun 30, 

1880 

Sep 1, 

1881 

Sep 1, 

1881 

Sep 1, 

1901 

LEASE NO. 6 

Lessee Type 

of 

Mill 

Location Sq. in. of 

Water 

leased 

Actual 

date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

R. E. Duvall, 

Georgetown 

N. side of Water St. 

between Fayette and 

Lingan. Between 

Brown’s Bakery and 

Davis’ Mill 

Apr. 13, 

1843 

1848 

LEASE NO. 7 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual 

date 

of 

lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Miller and Duvall Saw S.W. Corner of 

Water and Fayette Streets 

50 1844 1843 

Sold to Rynax 1843 

Successor to Miller 

and Duvall: 

John Rynax 

Iron 

foundry 

50 Jun 1846 1882 

Successor to Rynax: 

Mark Young 

Grist 50 1862 1862 Dec 31, 1880 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 687 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 8 

Lessee Type 

of Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Successor to 

108 of 

Hungford 

Alexander 

Ray, 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Flour 

and 

grist 

N.W. corner of 

Water and Potomac Streets 

100 Assigned to A. Ray 

May 1, 1860 Renewal to A. Ray; 

Reassigned to A. 

Ross Ray & Bro. 

Jan 1, 

1839 

Jan 1, 1859 

Reassigned 

to A. Ross 

Ray & 

Brother by 

1849 

Jun 1, 1879 

Andrew 

Abes May 

Washington, 

D.C. 

And Albert 

May Firm of 

A. Ross Ray 

and Brother 

Flour 

and 

grist 

N.W. corner of 

Water and Potomac Streets; 

known as the 

“Arlington 

Mill” 

150 

400 May 1, 1880 

Aug 14, 

1845 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Successor of 

A. Ross Ray 

and Brother: 

A. Ross Ray 

and Brother 

Flour 500 Renewed Apr 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1900 

Transferred 

Sep 30 

1885 to 

G.W. Cissell 

Successor of 

A Ross Ray 

and Brother: 

G.W. Cissell & Co 

Flour 500 Transferred Sep 30, 

1885 

1900 

LEASE NO. 9 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Wm. P. McConnell 

and Co., Georgetown 

25 Granted for 2 

years. Not 

renewable 

Oct. 2, 

1847 

Oct 2, 

1849 

Transferred 

to Morrow 

& Co., 

1848 

Successor to McConnell Company: Wm. 

Morrow and Company 

Tannery 50 Transferred 

and increased

to 50 inches 

May 8, 

1848 

Tannery 

burned in 

Dec. 1849 
688 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 10 

Lessee Type 

of 

Mill 

Location Sq. in. 

of Water 

leased 

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Thomas P. 

Morgan 

Surplus 

water 

of 

Rock 

Creek 

Basin 

Dec 21, 

1849 

Jan 20, 

1880 

Transferred 

to Morgan 

and Rhinehart, 

1860 

Successor 

to Morgan: 

Morgan and 

Rhinehart 

Jan 20 

1860 

Jan 20, 

1880 

LEASE NO. 11 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

William A. 

Bradley, 

Of Washington 

Iron 

Foundry 

N. E. Corner of 

Water and Fayette 

100 July 1, 

1851 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Transferred 

Jun 30,

1859 to 

Elms and 

Bradley 

Successor to 

Bradley: 

James Elms 

and William

A. Bradley, 

Washington, 

Firm of 

Elms & 

Bradley 

Flour 150 May 1, 1860, Renewed and increased to 150 

inches 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Mill 

burned 

1879 

This firm 

failed Dec 

31, 1880 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 689 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 12 

Lessee Type of Mill Location Sq. in. of 

Water 

leased 

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

William C. 

Duvall 

Cracker Bakery until 1857, 

when remodeled into flour 

mill 

N. Side of 

Water Street, 

between 

Market and 

Frederick; 

near Frederick 

About 

1857 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Renewed 

to Davidson, 1860 

Successor 

to Duvall: 

John 

Davidson, 

Georgetown 

Flour and grist “The Model 

Mill” 

200 May 1, 

1860, renewed 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Apr 1, 

1880, 

Transferred 

to Tenney 

and Son, 

1872 

Successor 

of John 

Davidson: 

William H. 

Tenney and 

Son 

Flour and grist 200 Transferred 

Renewed 

Apr 14, 

1887 

Jan 12, 

1872 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1900 

LEASE NO. 13 

Lessee Type 

of Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

William H. 

Edes 

Flour 70 Water Street 50 May 1, 1860, Permission from Nov 

10, 1859 to transfer 

50 inches from 

Little Falls 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Transferred 

to Gartrell 

and Cissell, 

1863 

Successor to 

Edes: 

Cartwell 

and Cissell 

Flour Cherry Street 

near Potomac 

Street 

50 

50 

Transferred 

Renewed 

Jan 1, 

1863 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1880 

1900 
690 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 14 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

George Hill 

Jr., 

Washington 

Paper, 

“Potomac 

Paper 

Mill” 

N.E. Corner of 

Water and Potomac Streets. 

A warehouse 

until 1864 

200 

200

400 

417 

Jan 21, 1864 

200 additional 

inches granted 

Jan 1, 1863 by 

decision of U.S. 

Supreme Court 

Order of Feb. 

1863 

Increased to total 

of 417 square 

inches 

Jul 1, 

1864 

July 21, 

1884 

Firm 

failed Jan 

1, 1885 

LEASE NO. 15 

Lessee Type 

of Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

D. L. Shoemaker Flour Water, corner of 

High 

96 1867 1880 

LEASE NO. 161

Lessee Type 

of Mill 

Location Sq. 

in. of 

Water 

leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Beall and 

Shoemaker 

Flour 73 Water Street 125 1872 1880 

 

1

 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 200–204 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 691 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

APPENDIX B 

WATER POWER LEASES FOR MILLS ON THE C&O CANAL 

BETWEEN GEORGETOWN AND LITTLE FALLS: 1840–1900 

LEASE NO. 1 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. in. of 

Water leased

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration

Farmers and 

Merchants 

Bank of 

Georgetown 

Flour 

and grist 

At “Old 

Locks”, 21⁄2 

miles west of 

Georgetown 

120 

Perpetual 

grant by 

C&O Co. for 

cleaning old 

canal 

Soon after 

Sep 11, 

1839 

Apr 1, 

1840 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Assigned 

by Feb 27 

1881 to 

Edes 

Successor of 

Farmers and 

Merchants 

Bank: 

William A. 

Edes 

Flour 

and grist 

120 

 50

170 

Abandoned 

by Feb 27, 

1851 after 

Edes purchased the 

mill from 

the bank 

Feb 22, 

1851 

Lease 

increased 

50 

inches 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Successor to 

Edes: 

David L. 

Shoemaker, 

Georgetown, 

Firm of D. L. 

Shoemaker 

and Brother 

Flour 

and grist 

“The Lock 

Mill” 

200 May 1, 

1860 

Apr 1, 

1860 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Successor to 

D. L. Shoemaker and 

Brother: 

David F. Robinson, 

Georgetown 

Flour 

and Grist 

200 Mar 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Apr 1, 

1900 
692 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

LEASE NO. 2 

Lessee Type of 

Mill 

Location Sq. in. of 

Water 

leased 

Actual date 

of lease 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

James H. Mason, 

Executer of Gen. 

John Mason, Deceased 

Iron 

Foundry 

One half 

mile west 

of 

Georgetown 

100 Apr 20, 

1854 

Feb 1, 

1840 

Apr 1, 

1880 

Successor to Mason: David L. 

Shoemaker and 

Francis D. Shoemaker, Corporation 

Flour and 

grist 

Foundry 

site 

“Foundry 

Mill” 

100 May 1, 

1860 

Feb 1, 

1860 

Feb 1, 

1880, 

transferred 

to Peall and 

Shoemaker, 

1877 

Successor to D. L. 

Shoemaker and 

Brother: 

1.Peall and Shoemaker 

2.David F. Robinson 

Flour and 

grist 

Foundry 

site 

Foundry 

site 

100 

100 

Transferred 

Sep 22, 

1880 

Jan 1, 

1877 

Feb 1, 

1880 

Feb 1, 1880 

Feb 1, 

19002

Firm Location Tenure

1. M. L. Williams Market Space at the canal 1862–1864 

2. E. S. Barrett Congress Street near the canal 1862–1864 

3. Dickson and King Corner of Greene and Water Streets 1862–1879 

4. Charles Myers 42 Water Street 1862–1864 

5. H. Barron and Son 49 Greene Street 1862–1866 

6. James A. Donnelly 105 Water Street 1863–1865 

7. J. C. Hieston and Company 

And Hayfield and Hieston 

Corner of Jefferson Street and the canal 

And corner of Greene St. and the canal 

1863–1886 

8. William R. Snow and Co. 79 Water and 107 Water St. 1864–18673

LEGEND Symbols [MAP FROM YOUNG] 

Location of former streets, bridges and structures 

Location of former railways, chutes and wharves for unloading and shipping coal 

Towpath, 1831–1858 

Towpath, 1855–1884 

Mills Using Water Power 

1. Flour and cotton, 1833–1866 

2. Use Unidentified, 1840 

3. Bark and flour, 1840–1882 

 

2

 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 205–207 3

 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 25. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 693 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

4. Bakery and flour, 1840–1900 

5. Flour, 1841–1901 

6. Use unidentified, 1843–1848 

7. Saw, iron foundry and grist, 1844–1880 

8. Flour, 1847–1900 

9. Tannery, location unidentified, 1848–1849 

10. Use unidentified, 1849–1880 

11. Iron foundry and flour, 1831–1880 

12. Bakery and flour, 1857–1880 

13. –13A. Flour, 1880–1900 

14. Paper, 1884–1885 

15. Flour, 1887–1880 

16. Flour, 1872–1880 

Coal Wharves Using Water Power 

a. “Upper Coal Wharf”, 1806–1880 

b. “Ray’s Docks”, 1858–1880 

c. W. A. Bradley, 1859–1860 

Coal Wharves Not Using Water Power 

a. American Coal Company, location unidentified, 1857–1880 

b. James R. Wilson, 1857–1887 

c. Morgan and Rhinehart, 1857–1867 

d. Allen H. Sherman, 1857–1867 

e. Aetna and Midland Coal Companies, 1858–1861 

f. John F. Agnew, 1854–1886 

g. Consolidation Coal Company, 1834–1880 

h. New Hope Mine, 1866 

i. Cumberland Coal and Iron Co., 1867–1873 

j. Hampshire and Baltimore Coal Co., location unidentified, 1869–1873 

k. Henry C. Winship, 1872–1875 

l. Merodith, Gilmore & Co., 1875–1886 

Key to Georgetown Street Names in the Appendices 

Old Modern 

Greene 29 

Washington 30 

Jefferson Jefferson 

Congress 31 

High Wisconsin Avenue 

Cherry Grace 

Potomac Potomac (partially closed) 

Market 33 (partially closed) 

Frederick 34 (partially closed) 

Fayette 35 (partially closed) 

Lingan 36 (partially closed) 

Water K4

 

4

 Map, Legend, and Key from Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 
694 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

APPENDIX C 

WAREHOUSES ALONG THE C&O CANAL: 1850–1890 

LOGWALL OR WIDEWATER AREA (LOCKS NOS. 14–15) 

In August 1861 John Pettibone was granted permission to build icehouses on the berm side of the 

canal near the Logwall just off the property of the company. The purpose of the structures was to 

provide facilities for the transportation of ice down the waterway to Georgetown. Nearly a year 

later in August 1862, the canal board authorized President Alfred Spates to execute an agreement 

with Baylis Kidder, granting them the privilege to cut ice in the Logwall vicinity for a 10-year 

period at an annual rental of $50.5

LOCK NO. 22 

A list of the canal company’s improved and unimproved real estate holdings along the waterway 

in 1890 indicates that three warehouses were standing near the lock at that time. The list provides 

the following information on the structures: 

Warehouse of W. L. Thrasher—lease expires 1897—$5 rent per annum. 

Warehouse of Upton Darby and Co.—rent unknown. 

Warehouse of George Pennifield—carried away by 1889 flood—lease expires 1897—

$36 rent per annum6

LOCK NO. 24 

At least two warehouses were built in the vicinity of Lock No. 24 in the early 1870’s. On October 

1871, the canal company granted a lease to John Darby and Son for “as much land as may be 

necessary to erect a warehouse on (the) berm side of (the) canal at Mouth of Seneca.” The following year on March 5 the company directors approved a fifteen-year rent-free lease to James H. 

Gassaway, American Dawson, Samuel Dyson and others for “the right and privilege to erect a 

warehouse near the Mouth of Seneca.” The structure was to be used for the purpose of “Freighting grain” from that point.7

 The list of the canal company’s improved real estate holdings in 1890 indicates that two 

storehouses or granaries were located near Lock No. 24. One was leased to William A. West for 

$36 per year, while the other tenant was listed as unknown. The West lease was to expire in 

1893.8

 

5 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 257, 270. 6 Real Estate, improved and unimproved. From the Records in Canal Co.’s office at Hagerstown and Information Obtained Orally from other Reliable sources, 1890, Receivership Papers, Washington County Courthouse, Hagerstown, 

Maryland. The Thrasher warehouse was built apparently sometime in 1883, because an application by the Thrasher 

brothers to build a warehouse near Lock No. 22 was made in June of that year. Proceedings of the President and Board 

of Directors, N, 218. 7 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 5. 8 Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 695 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

LOCK NO. 25 

Canal company records indicate that a warehouse was being operated by James C. Young in 

1859. There is no readily available information as to the dates of construction and early tenants of 

the warehouse.9

 On October 5, 1861, the canal board approved the following resolution: 

That B. R. Poole be permitted to build a warehouse on the land of the Company at Lock 

25, under the direction of the supervisor, on the usual terms of such grants and paying 

therefore an annual rent of $12 provided, that the company shall be exempt from any 

claim for damages, arising from any source.10

Nearly three years later on July 28, 1864, Charles F. Elgin requested permission to build a warehouse at Edwards Ferry for shipping granite. Although it is difficult to prove, this request may 

have been the warehouse used by the Potomac Red Sand Stone Company for which the canal 

company was receiving $625 in rent per year in 1890.11

 According to a statement in the Montgomery County Circuit Court on May 28, 1872, 

there existed at Edwards Ferry a warehouse: 

partly built on the Canal Company’s property by Geo(rge) W. Spates, and that a carpenter’s shop belonging to the Canal Company stands nearby, where a lot of ground belonging to Spates is used for storing lumber. The agreement allows Spates to let (the) warehouse stand for ten years and Spates agrees to allow (the) Canal Co. to continue to use 

Spates’ land for (the) Carpenter Shop.12

Aside from the aforementioned Potomac Red Sand Stone Company’s operations, the list of the 

canal company’s real estate holdings in 1890 indicates that a granary warehouse was located on 

the berm side of the canal near Lock No. 25. Its annual rental was unknown, and its tenants were 

not given.13

LOCK NO. 26 

Sometime during 1864 Daniel S. White built and occupied a warehouse on the berm of the canal 

just above the lock and adjacent to the road leading to the ferry landing (then known as Conrad’s 

Ferry). The two-story warehouse was 70 feet long paralleling the canal and 23 feet in width. 

There were chutes on the canal side through which the grain was poured into canal barges. White 

paid $36 a year for the lease of the warehouse, but by 1890 the lessee and rental fees were listed 

as unknown. The structure was razed by the National Park Service in 1962, but the foundation, 

built of Seneca red sandstone, remains to indicate its location.14

 

9 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 87, 97. 10 Ibid, K, 222. 11 Ibid, K, 393, and Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers. 12 Land Records, Liber., 52, EBP 10–p. 4 –5, Montgomery County Circuit Court, Clerk’s Office, Rockville, Md. 13 Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers 14 Miele, Physical History, 119; John F. Luzader, Historic Structures Survey Report, Warehouse-Granary White’s 

Ferry (NPS Mss., 1962), 1–3; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 410. See 264–265 for drawings describing the operation of this structure. 
696 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

MOUTH OF MONOCACY, NOLAND’S FERRY, POINT OF ROCKS 

In November 1865 Otho W. Trundle was granted permission to build warehouses at the basin at 

the mouth of the Monocacy River, Noland’s ferry and Point of Rocks. The warehouses were all to 

be built under the direction of the Superintendent of the Monocacy Division. The other stipulations in the agreement were: (a) the annual rental for each building would be $36; (b) the buildings should not be placed so as to interfere with the navigation of the waterway; and (c) no liquor 

was to be sold on any of the premises.15

LOCK NO. 28 

The real estate list of 1890 refers to a warehouse near Lock No. 28. It was leased to J. G. Waters 

at $36 per year. No other information has been found relative to this structure.16

LOCK NO. 29 

On March 24, 1864, the board of directors granted permission to George P. Remberg to construct 

a “warehouse on the lands of the Company on the berm side of the Canal near Lock No. 29.” In 

1890 the tenants and annual rental for the warehouse were listed as unknown.17

LOCK NO. 42 

A canal company document in 1877 indicates that Charles Dellinger had leased a stone storehouse and a wood hay shed near Lock No. 42 for an undetermined period. The storehouse, which 

was used for the storage and shipment of “grain, corn and store goods”, fronted on the berm side 

of the lock and was 30 feet wide and 20 feet long. The hay shed adjoined the storehouse and was 

30 feet wide and 18 feet back. In 1877 Charles Dellinger died and his son Daniel took over the 

lease. In 1890 he was still leasing the “storehouse and granary” for an annual rent of $36.18

MERCERSVILLE 

A warehouse and loading dock, Known as Harris’ Warehouse and later as Boyer’s Warehouse, 

stood at Mercersville about 1 1⁄2 miles above Lock No. 40 during the operation of the canal. The 

remains of the dock on the berm side of the canal are all that remain of this site, now known as 

Taylor’s Landing.19

WILLIAMSPORT 

There were at least three warehouses along the canal in Williamsport during the operating years 

of the waterway. Near Lock No. 44 were two warehouses leased to F. H. Darby and Sons and 

Charles Embrey and Sons. Both firms were involved in the coal and grain trade. On the basin just 

east of Aqueduct No. 5 was the warehouse operated by Victor Cushwa for his profitable coal and 

 

15 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 458–459. 16 Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers. 17 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 374, and Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, 

Receivership Papers. 

18 Miele, Physical History, 121. 19 Dellinger to Gorman, May 1, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. and Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 697 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

grain transportation business. Although Cushwa had established his concern prior to the 1870’s, 

he signed a 50-year lease for his warehouse in 1879 at an annual rental of $100 for the first five 

years and $120 thereafter. 

GUARD LOCK NO. 5 

In 1890 a warehouse was operated by Abram Roth near the guard lock. The date of construction 

and other information relative to the warehouse is not available.20

LOCKS NOS. 47–50 (FOUR LOCKS) 

The board granted permission to Denton Jacques on April 19, 1863, to lease company land near 

Lock No. 49 for the purpose of building warehouses. He was given a 10-year lease to a plot of 

ground 100 by 125 feet on the berm side and a plot 10 by 15 feet wide on the towpath side. The 

rental fee was set at $10 per year. At the end of the lease he was to be given an additional 10-year 

lease at an undetermined rent, provided none of the structures would interfere with the free use of 

the canal and that no liquor would be sold on the property. 

 On June 1, 1866, William J. Hassett was authorized to build a warehouse and establish a 

coal yard on the canal berm at Lock No. 50. The warehouse and coal yard, which he was to rent 

at $36 per year, were to be constructed under the direction of the engineer and general superintendent of the canal. 

 In 1890 there were two warehouses listed on canal property at Four Locks. A store, 

warehouse and hay shed were operated by Snyder and Fennser, and a warehouse near Charles’ 

Mill on the canal berm was rented to the operator of the mill.21

MCCOY’S FERRY 

In 1890 the company records listed a warehouse as being operated by Frank Winter on the berm 

side of the canal just above McCoy’s Ferry.22

HANCOCK 

Just above Lock No. 52 in Hancock were located the Cohills Sumac Mills. This manufacturing 

concern, for which construction data is unavailable, consisted of several warehouses, a flour mill 

and store rooms. In 1890 the operation was listed as being leased to S. Rhinehart, who was paying 

an annual rent of $100 for water power.23

LOCK NO. 67 

In 1890 a store and warehouse at the lock were listed as being rented to M. H. Russell for $36 per 

year, the lease to expire in 1898. No other information relative to the construction of these buildings is available.24

 

20 Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers. 21 Ibid, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 327, 494.. 22 Real Estate, Improved and Unimproved, 1890, Receivership Papers. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 
698 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

LOCK NO. 70 

Near Lock No. 70 were a warehouse, storehouse and icehouse according to the 1890 company 

list. No other information is available on these structures.25

LOCK NO. 71 

Near Lock No. 71 was a warehouse which according the 1890 company list was unoccupied. No 

other information is available on this structure.26

 

25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 699 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

APPENDIX D 

COAL YARDS AND WHARVES USING WATER POWER 

FROM THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL 

TO UNLOAD AND SHIP COAL: 1856–188027

Lessee Location Water used Actual 

date of 

grant 

Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

Swanton Coal and 

Iron Company 

East of the Alexandria Aqueduct, at 

the S.E. corner of 

Water and Lingen 

Streets in the river 

front 

Water supplied gratis to 

unload canal 

boats if quantity did not 

exceed that 

required to 

lock boat into 

river and back 

to canal 

Oct. 

12, 

1855 

Spring, 

1836 

March, 

1858 

Acquired 

by Borden 

Mining 

Company, 

1858 

Successor to the 

Swanton Company: 

Borden Mining Co. 

John R. Masters, 

Agent 

Beginning in 1872 

Same as Swanton 

Company 

known as the 

“Upper Coal 

Wharf” 

Same as 

Swanton 

Company until 

1873, when 

annual rental 

changed 

Mar 

1853 

Free grant 

to 1873 

Rental to 

1880 

Longcoming Coal 

and Transportation 

Co., Washington, 

Alexander Ray, 

Agent, 

Georgetown. The 

MD and New Central 

Coal Companies were 

also shipping over 

Ray’s Docks by 

1869, and S.P.S. 

Hutson by 1870. 

Central transferred to 

Agnew in 1876. 

Immediately west 

of Market Street, 

extending to river 

front wharf near the 

S. W. corner of 

Water and Market 

Streets. Known as 

“Ray’s Docks” and 

“Lower Coal 

Wharf” 

Same as in 

Grant A until 

1873, when 

annual rental 

charged 

Aug 5, 

1855 

Fall, 

1858 

Free grant 

to 1873 

Rental to 

1880 

William A. Bradley N.W. corner of 

Water and Fayette 

Streets, extending 

southward to riverfront wharf near 

S.E. corner of Water and Fayette 

Streets 

Same as in 

Grant A, until

1860 

June 7, 

1859 

1860 

 

27 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 208–212. 
700 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

APPENDIX E 

LIST OF COAL YARDS AND WHARVES IN GEORGETOWN 

SHIPPING COAL WITHOUT THE 

USE OF WATER POWER: 1856–188028

Lessee Location Effective 

Date 

Date of 

Expiration 

American Coal Company Aug 18, 1857 1880 

James R. Wilson Western end of Rock Creek 

Mole, adjoining Georgetown 

Soon after 

Sep 3, 1857 

Sep, 1867 

Morgan and Rhinehart On berm of the Rock Creek Basin at Georgetown Sep 7, 1857 June, 1867 

Allen M. Sherman S.E. end of Rock Creek Mole, 

adjoining Georgetown 

Oct. 1, 1857 Oct 1, 1867 

Aetna Coal Company and Midland Coal Company, James R. 

Wilson, Agent, Georgetown 

Between Market and Frederick 

Streets, extending southward to 

riverfront wharf between the 

same streets 

Soon after 

Jun 30, 1858 

1861 

John P. Agnew, from 1876, 

agent of the New Central Coal 

Company 

Foot of Frederick Street on the 

riverfront 

1864 Through 

1866 

Consolidation Coal Company, 

Henry I. Weld, agent 

On Linthicum’s Wharf at the 

foot of Market Street on the 

riverfront 

Nov 10, 1884 Through 

1880 

New Hope Mine 

J.H.T. McPherson, agent 

Foot of Market Street on the 

riverfront 

1866 1868 

Cumberland Coal and Iron 

Company 

Near and east of the Alexandria 

Aqueduct, on the riverfront between Lingan and Fayette 

Streets 

1867 1878 

Hampshire and Baltimore Coal 

Company 

1869 Through 

1878 

Henry C. Winship At the S.E. corner of the intersection of Market Street with 

the canal 

1872 1875 

Meredith Gilmor and Company Foot of 30 Street on the riverfront 1875 1886 

 

28 Young, Antebellum Commerce of Old Georgetown, 203–204. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 701 

Unrau: 10. Economic Impact 

APPENDIX F 

THE CHIEF RETAIL COAL DEALERS NEAR THE 

CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL IN GEORGETOWN: 1860–188029

1 M. L. Williams Market Space at the Canal 1862–1964

2 E. B. Barrett Congress St. near the canal 1862–1864

3 Dickson and King Corner of Greene and Water Sts. 1862–1879

4 Charles Myers 41 Water St. 1862–1864

5 H Barron and Son 49 Greene St. 1862–1866

6 James A. Donnelly 105 Water St. 1863–1865

7 J. C. Hieston & Co. and 

Mayfield & Hieston 

Corner of Jefferston St. and the canal; 

and corner of Greene St. and the canal 

1863–1886

8 William R. Snow & Co. 79 Water St. and 107 Water St. 1864–1867

 MILLS USING WATER POWER 

1. Flour and cotton, 1839–1900 

2. Use unidentified, 1840 

3. Bark and flour, 1840–1882 

4. Bakery and flour, 1840–1900 

5. Flour, 1841–1901 

6. Use unidentified, 1843–1848 

7. Saw, iron foundry, and grist, 1844–1880 

8. Flour, 1847–1900 

9. Tannery, location unidentified, 1848–1849 

10. Use unidentified, 1849–1880 

11. Iron foundry and flour, 1857–1900 

12. Bakery and flour, 1857–1900 

13. –13A. Flour, 1860–1900 

14. Paper, 1864–1885 

15. Flour, 1867–1880 

16. Flour, 1872–1880 

COAL WHARVES USING WATER POWER 

A. “Upper Coal Wharf,” 1856–1880 

B. “Ray’s Docks,” 1858–1880 

C. W. A. Bradley, 1859–1860 

COAL WHARVES NOT USING WATER POWER 

A. American Coal Company, location unidentified, 1857–1880 

B. James B. Wilson, 1857–1867 

 

29 Source: Young, Rogers W. “The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and the Antebellum Commerce of Old 

Georgetown.” Branch of Historic Sites. National Park Service, January 1940.
702 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10 Economic Impact 

C. Morgan and Rinehart, 1857–1867 

D. Allen M. Sherman, 157–1867 

E. Aetna and Midland Coal Companies, 1858–1861 

F. John P. Agnew, 1864–1886 

G. Consolidation Coal Company, 1864–1880 

H. New Hope Mine, 1866 

I. Cumberland Coal and Iron Co., 1887–1878 

J. Hampshire and Baltimore Coal Co., location unidentified, 1869–1878 

K. Henry C. Winship, 1872–1875 

L. Meredith, Gilmore & Co., 1875–1886 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

11. 

THE C & O CANAL 

DURING THE 

CIVIL WAR: 

1861–1865 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 705 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 707 

I. THE CANAL PRIOR TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR 709 

II. WAR COMES TO THE CANAL: 1861 710 

III. THE CANAL REACHES ITS LOWEST EBB: 1862 724 

IV. COMMERCE ON THE CANAL EXPERIENCES A REVIVAL: 1863 743 

V. THE CANAL TRADE EXPANSION CONTINUES: 1864 754 

VI. PEACE COMES TO THE CANAL: 1865 767 

VII. THE CANAL IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CIVIL WAR 770 

APPENDIXES 777 

A. DISCOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT OF GOLD VEINS 

 NEAR GREAT FALLS 777 

B. STATEMENT OF BOATS NAMES AND OWNERS HELD BY 

 THE U.S. GOVERNMENT APRIL 17, 1861 779 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 707 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

INTRODUCTION 

A study of the Civil War experiences of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company indicates a continuation of the ups and downs which had characterized the history of the waterway since the 

1830s. The immediate effects were almost all negative. During the early war years the canal 

failed to share in the general prosperity which came to the northern states. One reason for its failure to secure much of the increased trade was that it was not a through route to the transmontane 

west, thereby limiting its portion of the heavy east-west traffic. Also, its geographical location 

was unfortunate because its entire line was on the border between the Union and the Confederacy, 

in the path of the contending armies. Consequently its trade was greatly reduced and its works 

alternately occupied and/or destroyed by the opposing forces. The resulting irregularity of its services as a carrier argued against large-scale use of it by the government or by private shippers. 

Furthermore the financial straits in which the company continually labored were a serious obstacle to the progress of the canal. 

The only direct advantage derived from the war was the large demand for coal. Of the 

151⁄2 million tons of coal mined in the United States in 1860, nearly 60 percent was Pennsylvania 

anthracite while the remainder came from the Appalachian fields of Maryland and Virginia (including West Virginia). A specialized “super-coal,” Maryland’s product was particularly suited 

for New England textile mills and for steamship bunkering, and it had been used successfully for 

smelting iron. Thus, with Virginia coal no longer available to the northeastern market, Maryland’s contribution became increasingly important to the Union cause. Yet the company had to 

wait over two years before its carrier was sufficiently clear of the battle zone to permit long periods of uninterrupted navigation.1

In the long run, the war both encouraged and discouraged hopes for improved business 

prospects. The year 1863 marked a definite financial turning point in canal affairs as profits rose 

sharply to levels well above those of the prewar years. For a decade after the war, the net income 

of the company rose measurably with a regularity hitherto unknown to the disaster-ridden canal. 

It should be noted, however, that during the conflict a sizeable portion of the increased profits 

were the result of the neglect of the physical condition of the canal and of rising toll rates during 

the inflationary period, rather than by a marked increase in trade. 

In other important ways, the war record was even less bright. Markets were affected differently. The lucrative flour trade, which was already passing to the Baltimore & Ohio in 1860, 

was finally and definitely lost as a result of the unreliability of canal navigation during the war. 

The coal trade, on the other hand, improved steadily toward the end of the conflict, and by 1865 it 

had become, for all practical purposes, the sole support of the canal company. Accounting for 

more than 90 percent of the trade on the waterway, the traffic in coal came to bear a great weight 

in canal affairs. When technological improvements later enabled the railroad to compete more 

successfully for the trade, the Allegany County coal companies forced toll reductions which deprived the canal of its profits before the trade was lost. 

 The physical condition of the waterway deteriorated greatly during the hostilities. Years 

passed before the masonry structures were properly repaired and the trunk restored to its original 

dimensions. As a result of the suspension of improvements, the canal was becoming outmoded 

and incapable of meeting the demands of an enlarged business. When improvements became unavoidable during the next fifteen years, the company found itself without the tremendous sums 

required. At best, the prosperity of the latter war years merely arrested the inevitable decline of 

 

1

 Katherine A. Harvey, “The Civil War and the Maryland Coal Trade,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 

LXII (December, 1967), 361–362. 
708 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

the canal. At worst, the war indirectly hastened the end, while causing much incidental anguish to 

those who depended on it for a livelihood.2

 

2

 Walter S. Sanderlin, “The Vicissitudes of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal During the Civil War,” Journal 

of Southern History, XI (February, 1945), 51–53, 66–67. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 709 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

I. THE CANAL PRIOR TO THE OUTBREAK OF WAR 

The year 1860 had not been profitable for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company. Political influence from the Maryland legislature had brought about the wholesale turnover of employees 

and the reorganization of the administration of the company in May and June.3

 The canal had not 

been opened to navigation until mid-May. Business had then been brisk until November, when 

heavy rains over the Potomac Valley caused the rivers to rise rapidly. Dams Nos. 5 and 6 were 

injured, while considerable destruction was done to Guard Lock No. 4 and the towpath below 

Dam No. 4. The Marsh Run Culvert was washed out, several sections of the trunk were filled 

with silt and debris, and the walls of Lock No. 21 partially collapsed. The canal was shut down 

for three weeks while temporary repairs were made thus preventing the movement of coal from 

Cumberland to the District cities when such trade could be expected to be at its height. Income 

from the tolls which had totaled $32,547.54 in October fell to $15,951.47 for the final two months 

of the year, and the annual trade statistics showed a decline of more than 17,000 tons of coal from 

the 1859 totals.4

 

When the canal was drained for the winter in late December, more permanent repairs 

were made to restore the canal to its operating condition before the freshet. As a result of these 

efforts, company officials looked forward to a “prosperous boating season” in 1861 despite the 

looming clouds of war.5

 .Nevertheless, the approaching conflict was the cause of some anxiety 

and mixed emotions to the canal directorate as evidenced by the following communication from 

President Lawrence J. Brengle to Clerk Walter S. Ringgold on New Year’s Day: 

We are in great excitement here [company headquarters at Frederick] with regard to the 

National Crisis, and don’t know what to do that will be of any advantage to arrest the difficulty. We are much divided in sentiment on the subject. I still hope there is conversation 

enough in the country yet to save it.6

Water was readmitted to the canal in the second week of March 1861, and during the following 

month there were heavy shipments of coal from the Allegany County mines. In March income 

from the tolls was $16,768.25, while during the first ten days of April $12,581.01 was collected.7

On April 12 torrential rains drenched the entire watershed of the Potomac Valley, causing 

a disaster that dashed the company’s hopes of a profitable year.8

 The Potomac continued to surge 

upward. Upon the portion of the canal, it reached a height only exceeded by the 1852 flood. Considerable destruction was caused to canal property as a result of “the unprotected condition of the 

embankments near the feeder at Dam No. 4.” A number of washes and breaches occurred on the 

Cumberland, Hancock, Williamsport, and Antietam Divisions while damage to the Monocacy and 

Georgetown Divisions was less severe than had been feared.9

 

3 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 183–183, 192–195. 4 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), C&O Co. pp.3, 8–9, 14, and Charleton to Board of Directors, November 7, 1860, Fitzpatrick to Ringgold, November 6, 1860, and Stake to Board of Directors, November 

13, 1860, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

5

 Ringgold to Colston, December 15, 1860, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861),9–

10, 14; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 240, 244. 6

 Brengle to Ringgold, January 1, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

7 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), 10, and Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), C&O Co.,3, 9. 8

 Carleton to Ringgold, April 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 9 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), 10, and Washington Evening Star, April 15, 17, 1861 
710 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

II. WAR COMES TO THE CANAL: 1861 

As the repair crews prepared to restore the waterway, they were hindered by two factors—the 

desperate financial condition of the company and the withdrawal of Virginia from the Union on 

April 17, thus insuring that the Potomac Valley and the canal would feel the full impact of the 

grim struggle about to engulf the United States. Upon the adoption of the Secession Ordinance by 

the Virginia Convention, Confederate militia converged on Harpers Ferry, eager to seize the arms 

and machinery at the Unite States Armory and Arsenal. Unable to capture their objective before it 

was fired by the retreating Federal troops, the Rebel army used the area as a concentration point 

where untrained volunteers were organized into a fighting force by Colonel Thomas J. Jackson. 

Troops were sent across the Potomac into Maryland, occupying the strategic locations at Point of 

Rocks and Maryland Heights.10

Despite the presence of the Confederates around Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry, progress in effecting repairs of the flood damage was reported by the division superintendents. Water 

was back in the entire line by May 14, but the activities of the Virginia militia around Harpers 

Ferry and Alexandria made the coal shippers hesitant to use the waterway until the military situation was clarified.11 Although the canal records do not indicate how many boats were detained by 

the Rebels between Point of Rocks and Harpers Ferry, it was reported that a boat owned by Thomas McKaig had been held up at the latter town by a detachment of Confederate soldiers while its 

load of salt was removed.12

The coal operators were further alarmed by reports during the period of repairs that small 

bands of Confederate pickets were gathering near the Potomac Aqueduct. In an effort to drive the 

pickets away, small bodies of Federal troops commenced frequent forays across the Potomac at 

night in late April and early May. Finally on May 23 the United States Government occupied the 

aqueduct, and on the following day Union troops occupied the Virginia shore opposite Washington. As the towpath of the aqueduct proved to be inadequate for the military exigencies, it was 

later determined to shut the water off from the structure and convert its trunk into a double-track 

wagon road by overlaying the floor with 4 inch planks. By December 5, the bridge over the aqueduct was under construction, and on December 16, the water was drawn off to permit the erection 

of long wooden inclines on trestles to form connections with the roads on either side. A dam was 

placed across the Georgetown entrance of the aqueduct by December 23, thus closing the structure to the trade of the canal.13

By late spring the Cumberland coal trade had virtually been halted. On June 1, the Pottsville Miners’ Journal announced that the trade “appears to be entirely suspended for the present 

by Railroad as well as Canal. The dislodgement of the Rebels from Harper’s Ferry, which will 

soon take place, will re-open the trade by Railroad from Cumberland again, but not by Canal.” 

 

10 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies 

(Washington, 1880–1900), Series I, Vol. II,809–810. 

11 Spates to Ringgold, May 6, 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), 3. 12 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 290. 13 Washington Evening Star, May 2, 24, December 5, 16, 23, 1861; Maj. Gen. J. G. Barnard (Brevet), A 

Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (Washington, 1871),79–80. 

The long wooden incline on the Georgetown side of the aqueduct extended over the canal and connected 

present-day 36th Street with the abutment. Commission of Fine Arts and Historic American Buildings Survey, Georgetown Architecture—The Waterfront (Washington, 1968), 151. Prior to the construction of the 

bridge over the aqueduct, an alternative proposal of building a boat bridge was studied seriously. However, 

the idea was given up because of the depth and powerful currents of the river in the vicinity and the frequency of floods and icing. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 711 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Meanwhile the competing Pennsylvania Broad Top Coal was “coming into demand to supply its 

place.14

The annual meeting of the company stockholders was held at Frederick on June 4. The 

fears and uncertainties of the period were reported as follows: 

The general condition of the canal for navigation at this time is believed to be better than 

it has been for some years past, and a fair business for the season could be done, but for 

the political agitations of the country, by which business has been prostrated, transportation rendered uncertain and precarious, and subject to frequent delays, if not seizures by 

the contending parties on the banks of the Potomac, and unless there be an early removal 

of the seat of war, it is feared that a general suspension of the transportation on the Canal, 

will occur.15

During the second week of June, Brigadier General Joseph E. Johnston, who had replaced Jackson as commander at Harpers Ferry in May, received news that a Union column under Major 

General George B. McClellan advancing eastward along the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad had occupied Cumberland on the 10th. Shortly thereafter, he learned from his scouts that Major General 

Robert Patterson, the federal commander of the recently-created Department of Pennsylvania 

with headquarters at Chambersburg, was closing in on Williamsport with 14,000 troops. Sensing 

that his position at Harpers Ferry was a trap for his command, Johnston on June 15 pulled troops 

out of that vicinity and fell back to Winchester.16

Before evacuating Harpers Ferry, Johnston had his demolition teams sabotage the canal. 

These groups wreaked considerable havoc on the waterway from Harpers Ferry to Dam No. 5. On 

the evening of June 8 word was received in Williamsport that some rebel soldiers were attempting to put “a blast into Dam No. 5, to blow it up.” The Clearspring Guards proceeded to the dam 

and drove off the Virginians after a brief skirmish. Later in the night, the Confederates returned 

and planted a cannon to defend their men while at work on the dam. One blast was ignited which 

destroyed a small portion of one of the stone-filled cribs, but no serious damage took place. The 

next morning a small band of Unionists armed with Minnie muskets left Williamsport and aided 

the Clearspring Guards in repossessing the dam. During the following week, a series of skirmishes took place at the dam as each side attempted to drive the other out of the area.17

On June 13 canal president Alfred Spates reported that the canal was badly injured above 

Harpers Ferry. Gates at four of the locks were destroyed, and a number of boats had been burned. 

Based on the damage that he had seen, he complained that he felt “very sad at the destruction 

committed.”18

The Washington Evening Star on June 14 reported that the Virginians were making a 

concerted effort to destroy Dam No. 4. According to the account, the rebels were 

engaged every night, with dark lanterns, drilling holes in the solid rock on which Dam 

No. 4 rests, on the Virginia side, in order to blow up the same. Should they make successive heavy blasts the dam must give way. The work is superintended by Redmond Broun, 

 

14 Pottsville Miners’ Journal, June 1, 1861, quoted in Harvey, “Civil War and Maryland Coal Trade,” p. 

365. 

15 Thirty-Third Annual Report (1861), 4. 16 Edwin C. Bearss, “War Comes to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal,” West Virginia History, XXIX (April 

1968),155–156. Patterson’s troops occupied Williamsport but made no effort to cross the Potomac at that 

time. 

17 Washington Evening Star, June 11, 14, 1861. 18 Spates to Ringgold, June 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
712 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

an Irishman who superintended its construction. He has two sons among the Confederate 

troops. 

Heavy firing was reported at the dam as a company of 45 Sharpshooters from Boonsboro had 

gone to assist the Sharpsburg Company in an attempt to drive the Confederates away. Already 

four Virginians had been wounded badly during the skirmishing.19

The presence of Southern troops on the Virginia side of the Potomac made it unsafe to attempt any repairs. What especially worried General Superintendent A.K. Stake was that it was 

difficult to secure planks to repair the stop lock at Dam No. 4. Unless this was done promptly, the 

canal below that point would be subjected to extensive damage by a freshet. The discouraged engineer reported to company officials on June 26 that 

Nothing but soldiers, baggage, wagons, camps, guns, pistols and swords, meets our gaze 

here [Williamsport]. Wherever we go they have pretty nearly eaten up everything we 

have. I hope they will get away soon.20

Because of the straightened finances of the canal company President Spates on July 1 urged Clerk 

Ringgold to see if he could collect in advance from the Georgetown millers $1,000 of their water 

rents.21 Of this sum $500 would be allocated for the repair of the stop lock at Dam No. 4. Once 

completed, this would enable the boatmen to bring down a number of stranded coal boats. The 

captains were reportedly willing to pay their tolls in cash on their arrival in Georgetown. Repairs 

to the canal in the Harpers Ferry area were progressing rapidly, but Dam No.1 was leaking so 

badly that it would take a good force ten days to tighten it.22

While the company was attempting to collect advances from the Georgetown millers on 

their water rents, it received word from several enterprises that the war had forced them to cease 

operations. One such message came on July 9 from Williamson & Co. which had leased the Pioneer Cotton Factory in Georgetown on January 1, 1861. With the outbreak of hostilities in April, 

inflationary wages and expenses, the scarcity and high price of cotton, and a drastic reduction of 

sales even at prices below production costs had ruined the company’s credit. As a result, the plant 

had been closed and all hands had been discharged. Until the conflict ended and the factory was 

back in operation, the company requested that it be relieved of its water rents.23

A Cumberland minister also described the depressing effect of the outbreak of hostilities 

upon the interests of Western Maryland and his town. Among other observations, he wrote that 

Her great thoroughfare, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, was interrupted and her Canal 

closed. Trade from Virginia was withdrawn. Every industry was stopped or curtailed; 

stores were closed and marked “for rent;” real estate sank rapidly in value. Merchants 

without customers slept at their counters, or sat at the doors of their places of business. 

Tradesmen and laborers, out of employment, lounged idly about the streets. The railroad 

workshops were silent and operations in the mining regions almost entirely ceased. Then 

commenced a deep, painful feeling of insecurity and an undefined dread of the horrors of 

war. Panic makers multiplied and infested society, startling rumors were constantly float-

 

19 Washington Evening Star, June 14, 1861. 20 Stake to Spates, June 26, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

21 In fiscal year 1861, the company had collected $5,202.24 in water rents. 22 Spates to Ringgold, July 1, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

23 Williamson and Co. to President and Directors, June 20, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Proceedings of 

the President and Board of Directors, K, 254. Desperate for revenue, the canal company refused to grant 

the request of Williamson & Co. on July 9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 713 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

ing about of secret plots and dark conspiracies against the peace of the community and 

private individuals.24

It was July 2 before the Union troops crossed the Potomac at Williamsport. In the campaign that 

ensued, Johnston, the Confederate commander, took his army eastward out of the Shenandoah 

Valley and combined with the force under Pierre G. T. Beauregard to maul the Federals in the 

war’s first major battle at Manassas on July 21. During the maneuvering in the weeks before the 

battle, marauding bands of Confederates made several forays against the canal, one of which took 

place at Great Falls, Maryland, on July 7. In the day-long fire fight, the Confederates nearly succeeded in driving out the Eighth Battalion of the District of Columbia Volunteers that was protecting that strategic position.25

Heavy rains at the beginning of July caused additional damage to the canal. Although 

Union advances in the Potomac Valley had compelled the Confederates to pull back from the 

river, the repair crews did not wish to take any chances. General Superintendent Stake complained that the Rebels seemed determined to oppose any navigation on the canal, and it was 

“impolitic if not dangerous to attempt repairs.” Only those sections that could be attended to 

without risk would be pushed. Work was to be commenced on July 8, and Stake estimated that it 

would require eight to ten days to restore navigation. As the regular work crews that resided 

along the line of the canal had left, the company would be forced to transport men, supplies, and 

provisions into the areas needing repairs. Stake’s fears that the canal would be subjected to damage by marauding soldiers as long as the Union and Confederate armies confronted each other in 

the Potomac Valley were heightened as he organized the work crews when he was warned of a 

threat by the Rebels to “blow down Dam No. 6.” At the same time a Union officer warned that no 

repairs should be made to Dam No.1. If the warning was not heeded, he would have his men tear 

down the dam. Almost daily roving Confederate bands were in the habit of shooting across the 

Potomac toward the canal at numerous points along the river.26

Despite the hindrances to the work crews, all of the repairs on the canal were finished by 

July 20, the day before the Battle of First Manassas, except those at Edwards Ferry, a culvert 

three miles above Paw Paw Tunnel, and the Oldtown Deep Cut. While the last repairs were underway, General Robert Patterson dispatched a company of troops to Hancock to protect the waterway from Williamsport to Cumberland. The repairs at Edwards Ferry were completed soon 

thereafter, but it took an 80-man crew with 20 horses and carts some 25 days to restore navigation 

at the large breach near the aforementioned culvert and the heavy rock slide at the Oldtown Deep 

Cut. When an inspection of the repairs by President Spates revealed that the pool behind Dam No. 

5 was so low that the canal could not be navigated, a crew was put to work tightening the dam. 

Finally on August 26 the canal was again navigable from Cumberland to Georgetown. To affect 

the repairs, Spates had been forced to borrow $1,000 from the Merchant’s Bank in Baltimore and 

$1,000 from the Cumberland Bank of Allegany County.27

With the canal again open for its entire length, trade improved rapidly led by the loaded 

coal barges that had been stranded below Dam No. 6. Tolls which had fallen to $657.36 in May, 

$206.27 in June and $16.94 in July zoomed upward to $2,444.07 in August and $10,509.17 in 

September. During the three-week period after August 26, 10,628 tons of coal, in 96 boats, were 

 

24 Will H. Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland (Washington, 1878), 396–397. 25 O. R., Series I, Vol. II, 123. 26 Stakes to Spates, July 6, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

27 Spates to Ringgold, July 20, 24, August 1, 13, 25, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. General Superintendent 

Stake, frustrated by the effect of the war on the canal, resigned his position effective August 1. Ringgold to 

Stake, July 10, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
714 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

shipped from Cumberland to the District cities.28 

The rise in trade was encouraged by several factors. First, to keep the Confederates from 

interfering with boating on the upper divisions of the canal, President Spates, who was a friend of 

one of the aides of General Robert E. Lee, made an agreement with them.29 Second, President 

Abraham Lincoln on July 20 approved a communication from Secretary of War Simon Cameron 

to Representative Francis Thomas, a former president of the canal company in 1839-41, authorizing the organization of four regiments of loyal citizens 

on both sides of the Potomac River from the Monocacy to the west boundary of Maryland, for the protection of the canal and of property and persons of loyal citizens.30

Third, as the Potomac divided the territory held by the Union and Confederate forces in the weeks 

following the Battle of First Manassas, Federals reporting to Brigadier General Charles P. Stone 

watched the river from Great Falls to the Monocacy River, while units under General Banks held 

the line of the river from the Monocacy to Shepherdstown. By mid-August, Stone’s main force 

was camped at Poolesville, while Edward’s Ferry, Conrad’s Ferry and Seneca were held by 

strong detachments and a string of pickets stretched down to Great Falls. With his division encamped near Hyattstown, Banks assigned the 2nd Massachusetts to occupy Harpers Ferry and hold 

the Virginia bridgehead, and posted the 13th Massachusetts at Sharpsburg, the 1st Maryland Infantry at Williamsport, the 28th New York at Berlin, and the 28th Pennsylvania at Point of Rocks. The 

primary mission of the Federal forces was to observe “the enemy across the Potomac and protect 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal.31

Fourth, heavy rains in early August caused the Potomac and its tributaries to swell. With 

the river at near flood stage, there was little immediate danger of a Confederate thrust into Maryland as the unseasonably high water level prevented fording of wagons and artillery.32

As a result of these factors, canal traffic proceeded with little interruption until midOctober. To be sure there were several incidents along the canal during this period, but none had 

a serious affect on the operation of the waterway. On August 16 and several days following there 

were reports that a company of Confederates had shot at canal boats near Edwards and Conrad’s 

Ferries from positions across the river. A canal boatman was mortally wounded by Rebel fire at 

Shepherdstown on September 9. During the skirmish at that town, the Federals destroyed the Potomac Mill which had passed into the ownership of Alexander R. Boteler, a former Congressman 

elected by the American Party from the Harper’s Ferry District who was now a member of the 

Confederate Congress and a colonel on the staff of General Jackson.33 The bridge across the Po-

 

28 Carleton to Ringgold, September 14, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co., and Thirty-Fourth Annual Report

(1862), 9. In comparison, the toll collections for the same months in 1860 had been as follows: May—

$19,214.19; June—$18,529.60; July—$23,051.10; and August—$28,005.02. Thirty-Third Annual Report

(1861), C&O Co., 14. 

29 Spates to Ringgold, August 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. The terms of the agreement were never 

made public. 

30 O. R., Series III, Vol. I, 338–339, and Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 

Vols., New Brunswick, 1953), IV, 455. 

31 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 560, 565, 567, 569, 574. One of the regiments from which picket details were sent 

to the Great Falls area was the 71st Pennsylvania. Most sources agree that members of this regiment, known 

informally as the “First California Regiment,” were the first to discover free samples of gold near the falls 

during this period. For more information on this topic, see Appendix A. of this chapter. 

32 Ibid, 565, 573 33 Ezra J. Warner and W. Buck Yearns, Biographical Register of the Confederate Congress (Baton Rouge, 

1975), 25–26; Hagerstown Mail, January 18, 1867; and Misc. Mss., Alexander R. Boteler Papers, Duke 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 715 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

tomac was also wrecked by the Union troops in the hope that such an action would deprive the 

Rebels of easy access into Maryland.34

Six days later, on September 15, a severe skirmish erupted at Harpers Ferry following 

sporadic clashes on the 13th and 14th between a strong Rebel force attempting to retake the town 

and northern troops under Colonel John W. Geary. Placing his left behind the railroad embankment southeast of the abutment of the burned Y-bridge and his right along the canal towpath near 

Lock No. 35, Geary drove the Confederates back in the direction of Bolivar Heights after a twohour fire-fight.35

The increase in canal trade and the apparent inability of the Confederates to mount an offensive across the Potomac into Maryland contributed to the optimism of businessmen along the 

canal. Hence several new enterprises were commenced along the waterway in early October. John 

Pettibone was granted permission to build ice houses on the berm of the canal near the “logwall” 

to facilitate the transportation of that item to Washington.36 B. R. Poole was authorized to build a 

warehouse on the land of the canal company near Lock No. 25 for an annual rental fee of $12.37

Despite the trade increase, however, the company was forced to admit by October 1 that 

its means were inadequate to operate and maintain the canal properly. Accordingly, the board 

passed the following resolution: 

Whereas on the 6th of Feby. last, the Board adopted a resolution “that the Company will 

continue to receive the Certificates of tolls in payment of tolls so far as their means and 

financial ability will admit, and Whereas, in consequence of suspension of business on 

the canal for some months past, owing in a great measure to the belligerent operations on 

the Potomac, the means of the Company are inadequate to the proper repair and maintenance of the Canal, therefore it is, 

Resolved, that from and after this day, all tolls accruing on the Canal be required 

to be collected in cash, until otherwise ordered.38

There was a marked increase in military activity along the canal in mid-October. Union soldiers 

under Colonel Geary crossed the Potomac, pushed through Harpers Ferry, and occupied Bolivar 

heights. Once a picket line was formed, fatigue parties began removing and boating to the Maryland side hundreds of bushels of wheat stored in the flour mill on Virginius Island. By the evening of the 15th, the Union men had completed their task, but before they could be withdrawn 

across the Potomac the next morning, a strong force of Confederates led by Lieutenant Colonel 

Turner Ashby advanced and drove in Geary’s picket line. A sharp fight ensued in which the Yankees defeated Ashby’s troops, and under the cover of darkness on the night of October 16 the 

Federals evacuated their bridgehead and recrossed the Potomac.39

The bloody Battle of Ball’s Bluff occurred on October 21. A 1,700-man brigade led by 

 University Library, Durham, North Carolina. Later in 1864, Federal troops crossed the river at Boteler’s 

Ford and marched toward the Shenandoah Valley to destroy its usefulness for the Confederacy. On the 

way, Boteler’s home (“Fountain Rock”) near Shepherdstown was burned. Shepherdstown Register, July 16 

and August 21, 1924, in Boteler Papers. 

34 John F. Luzader, Historic Sites: Shepherdstown, West Virginia (NPS Mss., 1962), 21 35 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 197–199, 569, 594. 36 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 257. Later on July 29, 1862, the firm of Bayliss 

and Kidder was granted the privilege of cutting ice on the “logwall” for ten years at an annual rent of $50., 

Ibid, K, 270. 37 Ibid, K, 222. 38 Ibid, K, 258 

39 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 239–342. 
716 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

President Lincoln’s close friend, Colonel Edward Baker, had crossed the Potomac at Harrison’s 

Island using a number of flatboats, one of which had been moored in the canal about one mile 

away. After occupying Ball’s Bluff as part of a general reconnaissance campaign ordered from 

Washington, the Federals were assailed by a 1, 700-man Confederate force under Brigadier General Nathan G. Evans and routed. The withdrawal became a disaster as the Union troops fell back 

to the crest of the bluff and then attempted to escape. Baker was killed along with 49 of his men, 

158 were injured, and 714 missing, many of whom drowned, compared to only 155 casualties for 

the Confederates.40

Two days after the debacle at Ball’s Bluff, on October 23, a small pitched battle broke 

out at the mouth of South Branch. The fight was triggered when the Confederates attempted to 

blow up the abutment of the South Branch Bridge. Some six companies of Federal troops, whose 

strength was diminished by a raging epidemic of measles, were required to drive the Rebels off 

and restore order.41

The Union success at South Branch forestalled the intent of the Confederates to destroy 

Dam No. 6. Earlier on October 20, Colonel Angus W. McDonald, headquartered at Romney, had 

issued the following order: 

Col. E. H. McDonald will take all the mounted men of his command, except those upon 

scout service, and with them, together with Captain Sheets’ Co. of the Cavalry Regt., repair to the mouth of Big Capon, in the County of Morgan, and then proceed to destroy 

Dam No. 6, by digging around the abutment a sufficient ditch on the Va. shore to drain 

the Dam, and by such other means as may suggest to him as best to effect the destruction, 

confining his operations to the Va. shore. The necessary implements will be provided to 

accompany you. Having effected all you can towards the destruction of the Dam you will 

proceed to destroy the water stations of the B & Ohio R.R. as far up the South Branch, or 

as many as you can convenient with a speedy return to this point with your command. 

Arriving there you will proceed to destroy the abutments of the Bridge thereof. On your 

arrival at Dam No. 6, and every 12 hours after, you will dispatch a courier to report your 

progress to Head Quarters [at Romney, Virginia]. Upon your return you will report in 

writing your action under this order.42

The repercussions resulting from the disaster at Ball’s Bluff sapped the enthusiasm of Generals 

Banks and Stone for operations designed to wrestle the initiative from the Confederates. In early 

November there would be elections in Maryland, and the States Rights Party, composed of proSouthern elements, was making a bid to gain control of the Border State. A responsive War Department ordered the Union commanders to give furloughs to soldiers of the Maryland Volunteers 

so that they might return home and add their weight to the polls. General Banks was also directed 

to send detachments of men to various points to protect Union voters from intimidation by “disunionists” and to arrest any such persons who had just returned from Virginia. If necessary he 

was authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. As expected under such circumstances, the 

generally peaceful election swept Augustus W. Bradford, a conservative Unionist, to victory as 

Governor by a margin of 57,502 to 26,070 over his States Rights opponent, Benjamin C. Howard 

 

40 E. B. Long, The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865 (Garden City, 1971), 129–130, and O. 

R., Series I, Vol. V, 327–329. 41 Smith to Ringgold, October 23, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

42 This copy of the orders was found in an anonymous pamphlet, To the People of Maryland: The Canal 

and its Management Vindicated (n. d.) Rare Book Division, Library of Congress. The orders were taken 

from the personal baggage of Col. Angus W. McDonald by Brigadier General B. F. Kelley at the capture of 

Romney. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 717 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

and Unionists gained healthy majorities of 68 to 6 and 13 to 8 in the House of Delegates and the 

Senate respectively.43

The setback suffered by the troops led by Colonel Ashby at Bolivar Heights on October 

16 had far-reaching repercussions. Influential citizens of Jefferson County, Virginia, led by Representative Alexander R. Boteler of Shepherdstown, began to urge President Jefferson Davis to 

appoint a battle-tested commander to lead the recruits in that area. On October 24, Boteler warned 

Davis that the “enemy along the canal has been re-enforced.” The previous day he had watched a 

Union fatigue party construct a raft at Dam No. 4, and he had seen a number of loaded coal 

barges pass down the waterway.44 The barrage of letters caused Davis to act, and on November 5 

he issued orders for Major General Thomas J. Jackson, who had acquired the nickname “Stonewall” at the Battle of First Manassas, to proceed to Winchester and assume command of the 

newly-created Valley District.45

Meanwhile, trade on the canal had continued to be heavy during the month of October. 

Up until the 26th, 154 boats carrying 27,313 tons of coal had cleared the Cumberland mole. Of 

these, 78 had discharged their cargoes at points above Georgetown, principally Sandy Hook just 

below Harpers Ferry where a large Federal supply depot was located.46

Heavy downpours in early November caused the Potomac to crest at the highest levels 

since the devastating flood in 1852. However, little serious damage was inflicted on the canal except at the Harpers Ferry bridge abutment, where part of the stone wall on the towpath side had 

been washed into the canal and a portion of the high wall on the berm side had been undermined, 

and at the Round Top Cement Mill above Hancock, where a major break had occurred. On the 

Monocacy Division repairs were slowed, when the Union troops took possession of the company 

scow, wheelbarrows, and tools. The icebreaker had also been appropriated by the Federals to 

transport artillery and had been damaged. In making the repairs, money was the biggest problem 

because the superintendents, in most cases, were out of cash, credit, and provisions. Workers on 

the Antietam Division, complaining that they had not been paid for over a month, walked off their 

jobs in early December.47

Despite some of the military’s actions that tended to hinder the repairs, Union soldiers in 

the vicinity of the canal also aided in its restoration. On November 10, Brigadier General Stone 

informed President Spates that during the flood he had sent large parties of his men to protect the 

canal. Without such efforts, much of the embankment would have been “permanently injured.” 

The troops 

carefully watched the towpath, and as soon as the water receded from it, commenced refacing. 90 men being employed in my division the first day & more since. 

Three breaches were promptly stopped. One large one near Seneca, in front of 

Genl. Banks’ Division was repaired, but gave way again & is, I believe, made whole even 

more, by men from Genl. Banks’ division.48

 

43 Richard Walsh and William Lloyd Fox, eds., Maryland: A History, 1632 –1974 (Baltimore, 1974), 354–

355; Secret Correspondence Illustrating the Condition of Affairs in Maryland (Baltimore, 1863), 30–39; O. 

R., Series I, Vol. V, 628–29, 641, 645–647, 651–652; and Hagerstown Herald & Torch, November 13, 

1861. 

44 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 898–899, 919. 45 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 938. 46 Carleton to Ringgold, October 26, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 47 Murray to Ringgold, November 5, 14, 1861, Byrns to Spates, November 6, 1861, Jones to Ringgold, November 11, 1861, and Boatman to Ringgold, December 2, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 48 Stone to Spates, November 10, 1861, Alfred Spates Papers, Alderman Library, University of Virginia, 

Charlottesville. 
718 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Although the repairs to the canal were underway, the Confederates were convinced that the waterway would not be reopened until spring. The Winchester Republican expressed these sentiments when it reported on November 15 that: 

The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal has been damaged by the recent freshet as to render it entirely worthless for purposes of navigation, nor could it be repaired, were every facility 

afforded, before spring. We conversed with a gentleman who walked across the dry bed 

of the canal at Hancock a few days since. He reports that it is broken at many points, and 

that the Yankees had abandoned all hope of having it in running order again this winter. 

The Canal closed, and the Potomac blockaded, the infidels will have to rely exclusively 

upon the Washington & Baltimore Rail Road for fuel and supplies of all kinds.49

As a result of the flood and the lengthy period of repairs, revenue from tolls fell from $17,793.22 

in October to $3,245.56 in November. Liquid assets of the canal company were non-existent. In 

an effort to secure funds, the collectors at Georgetown and Cumberland were instructed not to 

pass any boats whose owners refused to pay their tolls in cash.50 The financial condition of the 

company was so poor by late November that it was forced to suspend payment of interest due on 

its debts to various banks.51

On November 24 just as the entire length of the canal was about to be opened for navigation, President Spates sent a letter to Major General George B. McClellan, calling attention to the 

strategic value of the canal to the Northern armies and asking for increased protection of the waterway by Federal troops. The communication read as follows: 

It is the desire and intention of the Directors of the canal to keep it open for navigation as 

long as the season will admit and if the water is moderate in its temperature this may be 

done with no large expenditure throughout the entire season. It will offer great facilities 

to this community in the transportation of coal from the mining regions of Alleghany and 

may also be of material advantage to the U. State in facilitating the transportation of supplies for the army not only through the course of the canal, but in connection with the 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad from the west to Cumberland and thence by canal to Washington. To accomplish this it is desirable and essential that proper protection of the works 

and facilities for transportation should be given by the United States. Hitherto for some 

months past detention has arisen by the military restrictions which have been imposed 

upon the boats navigating the canal;—They have not been allowed to run during the night 

and have been unnecessarily detained during the day so as to prolong their voyages 

nearly double the usual time required. It is in this view that I take the liberty of addressing you and earnestly request that you will give such orders as you may deem requisite to 

give ample protection to the canal and proper facilities for transportation upon it, and also 

that property of the company consisting of boats, houses & c. which are essential to the 

proper conduct of the canal and which have been used by the military authorities be directed to be returned to the officers of the company.52

 

49 Winchester Republican, November 15, 1861, in Boteler Papers. 50 . Spates to Ringgold, November 3, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. On November 12, the canal board relaxed its policy to permit the “several Mining Companies and others engaged in the transportation of 

coal...at established rates” to pay their tolls at the end of the month. Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, K, 262. 51 Reed to Ringgold, November 26, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

52 Spates to McClellan, November 24, 1861, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co. The following day Spates wrote a similar 

letter to Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs. Spates to Meigs, November 25, 1861, Ltrs Sent, 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 719 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

By the beginning of December, the canal was again open to navigation for its entire length. During the first two weeks of the month, 87 boats carrying 7,613 tons of coal, 633 tons of lumber, 

cord wood, and cooperage, and 89 tons of hay and oats left Cumberland. More than one-half of 

the boats were slated to discharge their cargoes at the Sandy Hook government supply depot.53

Meanwhile General Stonewall Jackson, while waiting for reinforcements to move against 

the Union force at Romney, had determined to impede reconstruction of the Baltimore & Ohio 

Railroad and to stop boating on the canal. When the Confederates had reoccupied the line of the 

railroad from Harpers Ferry to Cumberland after the Battle of First Manassas, the federal government had imposed heavy duty on the waterway as a line of supply. At Cumberland the Baltimore & Ohio relayed to the canal large quantities of supplies for the Army of the Potomac and 

Washington’s civilian population.54 Since October numerous reports had been reaching Richmond that troops and munitions were being sent up the canal for use in probable thrusts against 

the valuable agricultural region in the Shenandoah Valley. The failure of his generals to destroy 

the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal had caused Jefferson Davis to 

complain that such a default had left the foe “in possession of great advantages for that operation."55 In early December word reached Jackson that large numbers of empty coal boats were 

passing up the canal to Cumberland, and he recognized that the reopened canal would be “of 

great service to the Federal Army at Washington.” Since the Cumberland coal fields were an important source of that product and the farm lands served by the canal supplied flour, wheat, and 

corn, Jackson decided “to cut off western supplies by breaking Dam No. 5."56

Sending his militia troops in a feint toward Williamsport, Jackson marched his main force 

to the vicinity of Dam No. 5 on December 7. That afternoon a Rebel force of about 400 infantry 

and 200 horse soldiers commanded by Captain William McLaughlin appeared on the Virginia 

shore of the dam. Throwing their three 10-pounder Parrotts, one 12-pounder Sawyer, and two 6-

pounder smoothbores into battery, the cannoneers of the Rockbridge Virginia Artillery “commenced throwing shells and shot at the dam and houses on the Maryland shore.” A barn was set 

on fire and all the houses within range, including the lock-tender’s residence, were riddled, but 

the projectiles failed to do any damage to the crib and rubble dam. The bombardment continued 

until dusk. The only Union troops at the dam were a company of the 13th Massachusetts, which 

had been assigned to guard the river from Harpers Ferry to Oldtown, on picket and several companies of the 12th Indiana, which had been posted at Sharpsburg, Williamsport and Dams Nos. 4 

and 5 since October 13. As all the Federals were armed with short-range smoothbore muskets, 

their weapons were useless against the Rebel gunners. That night Colonel Samuel H. Leonard of 

the 13th Massachusetts dispatched a canal boat to Cumberland, and the craft quickly returned with 

Company G, 13th Massachusetts, which was armed with long-ranged Enfield rifle-muskets. The 

 C&O Co. 

53 Carleton to Ringgold, December 9, 13, 1861, Ltrs. Recd., C&O CO. 54 Festus P. Summers, The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in the Civil War (New York, 1939), 100–109. 55 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 946 56 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 390, and Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1946), 207. Originally, Jackson had considered destroying both 

Dams Nos. 4 and 5, but he opted against the former because the new masonry Dam No. 4, considered by 

some to be “the strongest of its kind in the country,” had been completed in the spring of 1861. On the 

other hand, construction of a new masonry Dam No. 5 to replace the old leaking log-cribbed, rock-filled 

structure was proceeding more slowly and was still only partially completed. Aside from the fact that Dam 

No. 5 was more vulnerable, it also had the advantage of being farther removed from the Frederick region, 

where General Banks had camped his division in early December. John Miele, “The Chesapeake & Ohio 

Canal: A Physical History” (NPS Mss., 1964), 46–47, and O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 676–677. 
720 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

newcomers were posted in the woods on the Maryland shore and ordered not to fire until given 

word.57

Early on the morning of December 8, the Confederate artillerists reopened their concentrated fire on the dam. Emboldened by the slight resistance of the previous day, they advanced 

their gun to the brink of the river and fearlessly exposed their position. Following the order of 

Colonel Leonard, the newly-arrived men from Company G, 13th Massachusetts, opened fire from 

their hiding places along the river. Within a few minutes, the Rebel artillerists abandoned their 

guns and fled to less dangerous ground along with the cavalry and infantry. Without sufficient 

numbers of men and a supporting battery, Leonard was unable to cross the Potomac to take possession of the fieldpieces, thus enabling the Confederates to withdraw their six guns at nightfall.58

On December 9 the Confederates opened a scathing small-arms fire on the Federals. 

Covered by the Southern fire, a Confederate fatigue party worked its way down to the southern 

abutment of the dam. Using entrenching tools, they began digging a ditch around the end of the 

abutment, into which they hoped to divert sufficient water from the Potomac to erode the ground 

from the abutment and eventually cause it to topple and the dam with it. The Confederates 

worked until dark, protected by the stone abutment from the fire of the Union sharpshooters. By 

the time that they were recalled, water was pouring through the ditch.59

Satisfied that his efforts to destroy Dam No. 5 were successful, McLaughlin recalled his 

troops and returned to Winchester. However, the level of the Potomac was falling rapidly, and the 

water passing through the Confederate ditch soon diminished to a trickle and then ceased. On the 

14th, Jackson reported: 

I have made two attempts to prevent navigation on the canal, but have not thus far succeeded. The only good results that I am aware of having been effected was the capture of 

1 captain, 2 corporals, and 5 privates of the Twelfth Indiana Regiment, and damaging this 

end of Dam No. 5, and killed 1 of the enemy. On our part 2 men are supposed to be mortally wounded. The injury done to Dam No. 5 is not sufficient to admit the passage of water on the Virginia side.60

Two days after the action at Dam No. 5, on December 11, Union Brigadier General Stone assumed “military supervision of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal” in compliance with Special Order 

No. 322, issued at the command of Major General McClellan: 

The Secretary of War directs that the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal be placed under the military supervision of Brigadier General C. P. Stone, Volunteer Service. The immediate superintendence of the canal will be under the President of the Company, Alfred Spates, 

Esq. The officers of the canal, serving under him shall be in all respects, satisfactory to 

the military authority. The receipts of the canal will be applied to meet current expenditure on account of its operations, and any excess or deficit in the income will be placed to 

the account of the Canal Company. The President of the Canal Company will furnish 

General Stone with an account current of the monetary affairs of the company, monthly. 

General Stone will give military protection to the canal property and such aid as is con-

 

57 Washington Evening Star, December 10, 1861; Charles E. Davis, Three Years in the Army: The Story of 

the Thirteenth Massachusetts Volunteers from July 16, 1861 to August 1, 1864 (Boston, 1864), 16–17; Ted 

Perry, ed., Civil War Letters of Edwin Rice (Boston, 1975), 18, 20; Baltimore Evening Sun, August 11, 

1937; and Harold R. Mannakee, Maryland in the Civil War (Baltimore, 1961), 64–64. 58 Washington Evening Star, December 10, 1861. 

59 Ibid. 60 O, R., Series I, Vol. V, 365. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 721 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

sistent with the good of the service in keeping it in repair. Should the execution of this 

last provision extend beyond the limits of General Stone’s command, his requisition on 

the proper commanders will be promptly complied with.61

Accordingly, all officers commanding pickets between Great Falls and the Monocacy River were 

ordered (and all officers of pickets along the rest of the canal were requested) to “give all aid and 

assistance in their power, consistent with the good of the service, to the Canal Co. authorities in 

the preservation & improvement of the canal."62

 Before making another attempt to destroy Dam No. 5, Jackson circulated reports that he 

planned to attack the Federal forces at Romney with some 7,000 men. While the Union commanders prepared to head off such an attack, Jackson completed preparations to oversee personally the destruction of Dam No. 5. By the time that he left Winchester on December 16 at the 

head of the Stonewall Brigade, his scouts had collected and secreted a number of small boats to 

be used in crossing the Potomac, After sending a brigade of militia to feign an attack against Williamsport via Falling Waters, the Stonewall Brigade, which had been reinforced by Colonel 

Ashby’s cavalry south of Martinsburg, took position on the hills overlooking Dam No. 5 at dusk 

on the 17th. That night a fatigue party led by Captain R. T. Colston of Company E, 2nd Virginia, 

who was familiar with the area and the structure of the dam, moved out. Colston and his men 

crept half way across the dam and slid down into the icy water to begin hacking away at the 

dam’s cribs. Their muffled blows went undetected by Union sentinels on the north bank until 

nearly daybreak. At the first alarm, the Federals opened fire on the workmen, but they soon saw 

that the Rebels had piled up stone in the middle of the dam to form a crude but effective breastwork.63

As additional protection for Colston’s fatigue party, Jackson had placed two guns on a 

hill commanding the dam. The cannoneers promptly put their pieces into action, shelling a brick 

house on the Maryland side of the river from which Yankee sharpshooters were harassing the 

workmen. The Federals soon scattered, but a section of the 1st Pennsylvania Artillery quickly galloped into view, threw their two 10-poundrt Parrotts into battery, and forced the Rebel artillerists 

to desert their guns. The deadly Union artillery and rifle fire compelled Colton’s fatigue party to 

drop their tools and take cover because the demolition team in going to and from the barricade 

across the dam had to run a deadly gauntlet.64

General Banks took steps to cope with this threat to the canal. As there was the possibility that the Confederate forces which had occupied Falling Waters might move against Dam No. 

4, he directed Colonel John R. Kenly of the 1st Maryland Infantry, camped four miles west of 

Frederick, to be prepared to march his regiment to either Dam No. 4 or No. 5 “as necessity may 

require or as the movements of the enemy may dictate.” When it became obvious that Dam No. 5 

was the Rebels’ objective, Kenly pushed his column forward and established his command post at 

 

61 Special Order No. 322, December 6, 1861, in Spates Papers. 62 General Order No. 33, December 12, 1861, in Spates Papers. Stone immediately requested from Spates 

information on four topics of vital concern to the operation of the waterway, (1) a list of canal company 

employees including their duties, stations, and salaries; (2) an estimate of the number and type of ice boats 

needed on each division to keep the canal open during the winter; (3) an estimate of the number of animals 

needed for full-scale operations; and (4) a list of stations where boats should be able to stop and discharge 

cargo in order to eliminate the current system that placed restrictions on the movement of goods on the waterway. Stone to Spates, December 11, 1861, in Spates Papers. Spates was given a pass so that he could 

travel on the towpath at any time with a servant and two horses. Pass issued by A. P. Banks, December 16, 

1861, in Spates Papers. 

63 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 395–396, 688, and Bearss, “War Comes to the Canal,” pp170–171. 64 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 390, 397, and Washington Evening Star, December 21, 1861. 
722 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Four Locks on the 19th.

65

At the same time, Banks deployed four infantry regiments with eight field pieces along 

the Potomac between Shepherdstown and Hancock. Two regiments, the 5th Connecticut and the 

29th Pennsylvania, and a section of guns from Battery F, 4th U. S. Artillery, were called up from 

the reserve to reinforce the units charged with the defense of the canal.66

Colston’s fatigue party, reinforced by companies from the 27th and 33rd Virginia, continued their demolition work in the bitterly cold water during the nights of the 18th and 19th. Union 

artillery and sharpshooters shelled the Virginia shore and the dam, scattering the fatigue party and 

killing and maiming several of them. Nevertheless, they continued their efforts, under the cover 

of Rebel gunners, until mid-afternoon of the 20th. By that time, a breach had been opened that 

Jackson believed to be of sufficient size to cripple the canal, and the Confederates pulled back.67

After the retirement of Jackson’s troops, Union patrols crossed the Potomac and visited 

the site of the Confederate encampment. There they picked up numerous blankets and entrenching tools and burned a mill that the foe had been using. Upon inspecting the dam, Colonel Leonard found that damage was not extensive, and working parties were organized to assist canal 

hands with its repair.68

On December 21 canal navigation was resumed both above and below Dam No. 5. During the day, two guns were rushed to Little Georgetown, where some Rebel infantry appeared on 

the south bank of the Potomac. Although the Confederates withdrew after a few shots, the troops 

guarding Dam No. 4 were reinforced with the 29th Pennsylvania and the 5th Connecticut was ordered to Hancock.69

The canal was still open New Year’s Day 1862, and, according to President Spates, the 

“waterway, despite the recent activities of the Confederates is in good order and things look very 

well all over the line.”70 Despite the Confederate attempts to destroy Dam No. 5, the heavy December traffic in coal caused the toll collections to rise sharply to $6,345.14 for the month.71

Nevertheless, 1861 had been a disastrous year for the canal company as well as for the 

Western Maryland coal industry. The trade statistics on the waterway for the year compared with 

those of 1860 demonstrate the drastic decline in traffic and revenue: 

TOTAL TONNAGE COAL TONNAGE TOLLS 

1860 344,532 283,249 $182,343.86 

1861 144,814 119,893 70,566.99 

The statistics of the aggregate Cumberland coal trade for the year also reveal the dependence of 

the Allegany County interests on the through transportation of the canal and the Baltimore & 

 

65 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 397, and Bearss, “War Comes to the Canal,” p. 172. Some of Kenly’s men occupied Fort Frederick and “knocked a hole in the wall through which to point a gun for taking pot shots at the 

Confederates across the Potomac.” John Thomas Scharff, History of Western Maryland (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1882) Vol. I, 217. 

66 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 368, and Washington Evening Star, December 21, 1861. 67 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 390, and Bearss, “War Comes to the Canal,” p. 174. 68 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 390, 398, and Washington Evening Star, December 21, 1861. 69 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 399–400, and Bearss, “War Comes to the Canal.” P. 175. Apparently, Jackson, 

who was back in Winchester by the 21st, was deceived by the over-optimistic stories of his subordinates, 

because he reported on Christmas Eve, “There is reason to believe that the recent breaks in Dam No. 5 will 

destroy any vestige of hope that might have been entertained of supplying Washington with Cumberland 

coal by the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal.” O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 390 70 Spates to Ringgold, January 1, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

71 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), 9. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 723 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Ohio Railroad. The shipments of the various coal companies fell from 789,000 tons in 1860, 

which was an all-time high up to that date, to slightly less than 270,000 tons in 1861, an amount 

almost exactly that shipped in 1851 when the trade was just opening on the newly-completed canal.72

At the annual meeting of the stockholders in June 1862, President Alfred Spates commented on the dismal ramifications of the canal operations during 1861: 

The last annual report [June 1861] anticipated to some extent the unfavorable operations 

of the Canal for the past year, owing to the belligerent movements then in progress on the 

Potomac, and although the direct damages done to the Canal and its works by the military 

were not very great, yet, its business results were even more disastrous than was expected. This was caused by the damages arising from the proximity of the contending 

forces on the river, the restrictions imposed upon the transportation by the military authorities, and the frequent detentions of the boats, by which the time usually required to 

complete their voyages was nearly doubled. 

The Canal was opened for navigation about the 15th of March, 1861, with an active business for one month, which was then interrupted by a freshet in the river, causing 

considerable injury to the Canal and the suspension of navigation for a month, which 

time was required to complete the repairs. When navigation was again restored, active 

hostilities had commenced, and there was comparatively no business on the Canal before 

September. Between this [date] and ... December, there were occasional interruptions by 

breaches in the Canal. 

The diminished revenues of the Company have prevented any improvements on 

the Canal, and indeed have been altogether insufficient to keep it in proper condition, and 

this has resulted in an increased indebtedness for services and materials, in addition to the 

numerous and large claims of that class previously existing. 

It will be observed that the expenses for ordinary repairs, &c., have been unusually small, but this has been the consequence of the limited means of the Company, 

which were not adequate to the repairs actually required for the security of the Canal, and 

the proper maintenance of the navigation. 

As a result of the depredations of nature and man, 1861 was the worst year financially that the 

company had experienced since 1848, two years before the canal was completed to Cumberland.73

 

72 Harvey, “Civil War and the Maryland Coal Trade,” 364–365. 

73 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), 3–5. 
724 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

III. THE CANAL REACHES ITS LOWEST EBB: 1862 

Under the direction of the military authorities, canal company officials attempted to keep the waterway open during the winter of 1861–1862 for the first time since the waterway had been completed to Cumberland in 1850. Icebreakers were employed in the fight to keep the canal operating 

as the military was anxious to transport supplies to its troops preparatory to the coming spring 

offensive and the canal officials were eager to make up for the loss of trade during the previous 

year. A cold snap in early January closed the canal, but the weather soon moderated and by the 

15th it was again open and ice-free as far west as Hancock. Despite the resumption of trade, income from tolls fell to $954.19 for the month.74

At the beginning of the new year, General Jackson made a final effort to interrupt traffic 

on the canal. Reports reaching Jackson led him to conclude that the reinforced Federals might 

converge on Martinsburg and then push on toward his base at Winchester. To counter such a 

movement, the Confederates took the field on January 1 and marched from Winchester toward 

the Potomac. After a long march through bitter winter weather, the Rebels occupied Bath on the 

4th after the Federal garrison was scattered and fled across the Potomac in boats.75 Here Jackson 

was reinforced by Colonel Ashby, who had been engaged since December 30 in a vain effort to 

reopen the breach at Dam No. 5 by placing a rifled gun on the Virginia side and firing shots at 

it.76 On the morning of the 5th, the Confederates advanced on Hancock, but after a two-day bombardment of the town, Jackson ordered his gunners to cease fire and withdraw to Romney when it 

was learned that more Union troops were being sent into the fray. Cold weather now put a stop to 

military operations along the canal.77

After the canal navigation was closed, Major General Banks ordered the canal officials to 

make repairs on the waterway with the aid of his men. If the division superintendents did not 

commence the work immediately, the military would oversee the work entirely. The government 

would pay the repair crews so that the men would not have to be concerned about getting paid.78

Political influence brought about a wholesale turnover of employees during the period 

from February to April 1862. Alfred Spates was reelected president, but the administration of the 

line was reorganized. Six new superintendencies were formed and new collectors and lock tenders were appointed. Although these appointments were the last during the war years, some of the 

new officials soon proved to be less than efficient employees.79

In late February Major General Nathaniel P. Banks’ advance guard crossed the Potomac 

and occupied Harpers Ferry. A pontoon bridge could keep this force supplied, but the Federals’ 

plan called for large-scale operations and he restoration of through traffic on the Baltimore and 

Ohio Railroad. Among the proposed plans for such an undertaking was that advanced by President Lincoln to bridge the river at Sandy Hook with canal boats, while a Philadelphia engineering 

firm rebuilt the railroad bridge at Harpers Ferry. A number of canal boats on the Monocacy and 

Antietam Divisions were appropriated by the military for the project. However when McClellan 

visited the area on February 27, he determined that the banks were too steep for the projected boat 

bridge, and plans for it were scrapped.80

 

74 Carleton to Spates, January 8, 1862, and Spates to Ringgold, January 15, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co.; 

Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), 9; Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), C&O Co., 8; and Washington 

National Intelligencer, March 10, 1862. 75 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 391–392. 76 Washington Evening Star, January 1, 1862. 77 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 391–392, and Washington Evening Star, January 7, 1862. 78 Leonard to Link, February 6, 1862, and Banks to Spates, March 6, 1862, in Spates Papers. 79 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 272–274, 276–277, 282. 80 O. R., Series I, Vol. V, 49, 730, and Lincoln to McClellan, February 8, 1862, in Basler, Collected Works 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 725 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

With the arrival of warmer weather, the canal, whose westernmost sections had been 

closed during much of February, was again opened to navigation from Cumberland to Georgetown by March 1. Coal stockpiles in the District cities had been depleted during the severe winter, 

and would have to be replenished from the Allegany County coal mines. Since it was assumed 

that the powerful army organized by McClellan would seize and hold the initiative during the 

coming year, canal officials were optimistic that the waterway would escape being a scene of active military operations and would consequently have a banner year in trade.81

Reports submitted by the division superintendents in early March indicated that the canal 

was generally in good navigable condition. However, the company’s carpenter and blacksmith 

shops on the Monocacy Division had been robbed and a number of tools were missing. One of the 

company scows had been located, but it had been seized by the army and was being used as a 

ferry on the river.82 On the Cumberland Division it was reported that the towpath and berm banks 

along some sections had been injured by government wagons passing over them. The railings on 

the aqueducts had been removed to allow military vehicles to pass.83

The naval engagement at Hampton Roads, Virginia, in which the Confederate ironclad 

Merrimac destroyed two Union warships—Cumberland and Congress—on March 8, had repercussions which affected the canal. News of this defeat frightened and panicked officials in Washington. President Lincoln was so distressed 

that he could not deliberate or be satisfied with the opinions of non-professional men, but

ordered his carriage and drove to the navy yard to see and consult with Admiral [John] 

Dahlgren [the officer in charge of the Washington Navy Yard] and other naval officers, 

who might be there.84

Perhaps the most gloomy assessment of the battle was rendered by Secretary of War Edwin M. 

Stanton: 

The Merrimac...would destroy every vessel in the service, could lay every city on the 

coast under contribution, could take Fortress Monroe; McClellan’s mistaken purpose to 

advance by the Peninsula must be abandoned, and Burnside would inevitably be captured. Likely the first movement of the Merrimac would be to come up the Potomac and 

disperse Congress, destroy the Capitol and public buildings; or she might go to New 

York or Boston and destroy those cities, or levy from them sufficient to carry on the 

war.85

Knowing that the Union ironclad Monitor was en route to Hampton Roads from New York Harbor, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles attempted to reassure them that the Merrimac, if she 

tried to ascend the Potomac, could not pass Kettle Bottom Shoals. Rejecting the optimistic report 

by Welles, Stanton, with Lincoln’s concurrence ordered on March 9 Quartermaster General 

Montgomery C. Meigs and Admiral Dahlgren to seize 50 or 60 canal boats and other craft. The 

barges would be filled with stone and gravel, moved down the river, and sunk at Kettle Bottom 

Shoals or at some other point in the channel to prevent the Merrimac from ascending the Poto-

 of Lincoln, V, 130 81 Edwin C. Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times To the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal,” West Virginia History, 

XXX (January, 1969), 436 

82 George W. Spates to Alfred Spates, March 8, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 83 Lowe to Ringgold, March 8, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

84 Diary of Gideon Wells (3 vols., Boston, 1911), Vol. I, 61–62 85 Ibid, 63. 
726 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

mac. That afternoon all unemployed boats on the Georgetown Division were taken to the Washington Navy Yard, where a large fatigue party began loading them with gravel. By nightfall, eight 

were ready to cast off, and a similar number would be ready to sail by dawn.86

On the evening of March 10, news reached Washington that in a battle on the previous 

day; the Monitor had forced the Merrimac to retire to the Confederate navy yard at Norfolk. On 

the basis of this report, Welles succeeded in getting Lincoln to forbid the sinking of any of the 60 

canal boats that had been loaded with gravel and sent down to Kettle Bottom Shoals as long as 

the Monitor could keep the Merrimac from entering the Potomac.87

Meanwhile, Commander Wyman had been making soundings on the river, and he concluded that the best points to obstruct the Potomac were at Smith’s Point and Mattawoman Muds. 

Accordingly, orders were issued to move the gravel-loaded canal boats to Smith’s Point.88

After the crisis atmosphere subsided, the military continued to rush boats down the canal. 

On March 10, some 103 canal barges, most of which were empty, passed through Williamsport 

under the charge of army officers. Of this fleet of boats, 37 had come from Cumberland and the 

rest from unknown points.89 None of them had any way bills. 

Several weeks later, President Lincoln, Secretary Stanton, and other officials passed 

down the Potomac on board a steamer for Fortress Monroe. When the long line of canal boats 

moored near the Maryland shore attracted attention, the President jokingly exclaimed: 

that is Stanton’s navy. That is the fleet concerning which he and Mr. Welles became so 

excited in my room. Welles was incensed and opposed the scheme, and it has proved that 

Neptune was right. Stanton’s navy is as useless as the paps of a man to a suckling child. 

They may be some show to amuse the child, but they are good for nothing for service.90

After detaining the 103 boats for more than a month, the Federals found a need for about 50 of 

them in late April. Commander Wyman had ascended the Rappahannock to Fredericksburg with 

his squadron, while at the same time Major General Irwin McDowell had commenced an overland advance from Aquia Creek to Fredericksburg. As his troops pushed forward, they repaired 

the Rappahannock, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad, which had been wrecked by the withdrawing Rebels. Forty canal boats were convoyed down the Potomac and up the Rappahannock 

to Fredericksburg to bridge the latter river.91

By late March 1862 the tide of the war had turned momentarily in favor of the Union. 

Banks’ troops had occupied Winchester, and Stonewall Jackson’s columns had been forced to 

withdraw up the Shenandoah Valley to Mount Jackson. McClellan’s Army of the Potomac had 

occupied the fortified Confederate camp at Centreville and then marched to Alexandria from 

where it had embarked aboard ship for Fortress Monroe. These Union gains in the eastern theater 

of the war removed the canal for the time being from the sphere of active military operations.92

With the threat of invasion lifted, canal company official hoped that full-scale navigation 

could be resumed. The Cumberland coal companies alerted their people to be ready to resume 

shipments. Although there was a shortage of boats as a result of the military’s actions, it was 

forecast that with “uninterrupted navigation” there would be enough vessels to earn a large revenue. To take advantage of the trade opportunities, appeals were sent to McClellan and other mili-

 

86 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times,” 437–438. 

87 Diary of Gideon Welles, Vol. I, 63–66. 88 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times,” 438. 

89 Wolfe to Ringgold, March 10, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

90 Diary of Gideon Welles, Vol. I, 67. 

91 O. R. , Series I, Vol. XII, 3, 94, 98, 105, 121, 207. 

92 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times,” 438–439. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 727 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

tary and civil officials, asking for the prompt release of the seized boats that were so vital to the 

economic life of the canal.93

The issue of disloyalty and labor difficulties with the boatmen soon arose to cloud the 

prospects for a profitable trade. As Maryland was a Border State with a strong pro-Southern element, Unionist authorities suspected Democrats of being disloyal and throughout the war many 

such individuals lost their jobs or were imprisoned. One of the canal company’s most capable 

division superintendents, B. B. Boatman of the Antietam Division, was fired for disloyalty, because at the previous November election he had refused to write his name on the back of his ballot. On April 4 he sent a letter to the canal board protesting the charges against him: 

I have been identified in interest with it, since it has been a canal, now removed, from my 

position, I suppose, because of my attention to the business relating to it upon the day of 

election, instead of subjecting myself to the contemptible position of a serf, by unauthorized and unconstitutional act, of requiring each voter to endorse his name on the back of 

the ticket. I have never concealed my political views, been an open and avowed Democrat, and now, even in this day of bickering and clamor, challenge any man, to allege one 

charge against me, in word or act disloyal. [I] have spent much of my time laboring on 

this work, not receiving my monthly dues, always hoping in its prosperity, and that finally [I] would receive the compensation.94

Although no charges of disloyalty were proven against Boatman, the canal company refused to 

reinstate him. 

The company representatives in Cumberland were distressed by rumors that the boatmen 

were planning to strike. While the coal companies were willing to pay higher rates, the demands 

of the boatmen, which ranged between $1.50 and $1.75 a mile per ton, were such that they would 

cause the price of Cumberland coal to rise to a point where it would be unable to compete with 

coal from the Pennsylvania mines. Already, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had reduced its 

hauling charge on Broad Top Coal by 30 cents a ton per mile.95

The dispute with the boatmen was resolved on April 11, when the canal directors agreed 

to permit an increase in the toll on coal from 1/4 to 5/16 of a cent per ton mile.96 As soon as this 

compromise was reached, a large number of boats were loaded with coal to begin the spring coal 

navigation. However, the small number of boats available for the canal trade was alarming. As 

many of the canal boats that had been taken over by the government were lying idle at Georgetown, President Spates prevailed upon Governor Augustus W. Bradford of Maryland to intervene 

on the company’s behalf and get the Federal authorities to release the desperately-needed barges. 

The situation was urgent since the lack of boats would soon ruin the canal company and the laborers of Allegany County, some of whom had been out of work for nearly a year. In the meantime the Pennsylvania interests had moved “heaven and earth to maintain themselves on the 

ground they were enabled to occupy" by the disasters that had befallen the canal. It was reported 

that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company was prepared to reduce its coal-hauling charges still further to exclude the waterway “from market another year when an attempt to regain it on our part 

will be almost impossible.” As a result, the “very existence of the canal” was “trembling in the 

 

93 Ringgold to Greene, March 24, 1862, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co., and Greene to Ringgold, April 1, 1862, Ltrs. 

Recd., C & O Co. 

94 Boatman to Board of Directors, April 4, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. Boatman claimed the canal company owed him $1,000 in back pay and that he would be willing to settle for two-thirds of the amount if he 

received the rest immediately. 

95 Greene to Ringgold, April 7, 1862, ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 96 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 5 
728 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

balance.” It would be impossible for the boatmen to replace in 1862 the 100 boats held by the 

government.97

On April 15 Governor Bradford contacted Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs 

on behalf of the canal company. That same day Meigs sent a memorandum to President Lincoln 

recommending that the War Department 

take immediately all necessary measures to have all boats, scows, and other property used 

in repairing and navigating the Canal restored to their rightful owners. If boats have been 

used for the uses of the Army or Navy and cannot be restored, they are forthwith to be 

paid for, so that trade on the Canal may be revived. 

Lincoln submitted the memorandum to Secretary Stanton with the following comment: 

I do not sign the within, because I do not know but there is a good reason, known to the 

Secretary of War, why the course indicated should not be taken. But if no such reason is 

known, I think that course should be adopted.98

The communication by Governor Bradford was effective, because on April 16 Stanton promised 

canal officials that he would issue an order within 24 hours for the restoration of the governmentheld canal boats to the company. The company was to receive compensation for those boats that 

had been destroyed or injured. Some 36 boats had been sent down the Potomac to the Rappahannock and they would be returned as soon as possible. Six or eight of the boats had been sunk with 

stone, and if practicable, they were to be raised from the river bottom and returned to the company. Twenty-four boats at Georgetown were to be released at once. About 40 boats which had 

been released earlier and which had been taken again by Army officers for the transportation of 

government stores from various points on the canal to Alexandria were to be unloaded and released immediately. There was also hope for the restoration of the Potomac Aqueduct to canal 

purposes.99

Secretary Stanton saw that a General Order was issued by Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant 

General of the United States. General Order No. 44 dated April 21, 1862, directed that 

All the lock-houses, boats, scows and other property belonging to the Chesapeake and

Ohio Canal Company, on the line of said canal, now held, used or occupied by the United 

States officers or troops, will be forthwith given up and restored to the President of the 

said company. All officers of the Army will respect Alfred Spates, Esq., as President of 

the said company, and are hereby prohibited from interfering in any manner with him in 

the management of the canal; but are directed to give such aid and assistance as is consistent with the good of the service, in keeping it in repair, and removing all restrictions 

which have been imposed upon the boats navigating the said canal. The President of the 

said Canal Company is authorized to give all passes that may be required to be used on 

the canal, subject to the approval of the Commander of the District.100

 

97 Greene to Ringgold, April 11, 1862, ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

98 Lincoln to Stanton, April 15, 1862, in Basler, Collected Works of Lincoln, Vol. V, 191. 99 Ringgold to Greene, April 16, 1862, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. A copy of the “Statement of Boats & Names 

of Owners &c.—Held by the U.S. Government from Books of the Quartermaster, U.S.A., Washington, 

D.C., April 17, 1861 [1862],” may be seen in Appendix B. 

100 General Order No. 44, April 21, 1862, in Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 729 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

On the same day that the order was issued, the National Intelligencer reported that: 

The canal continues in fine order, and boats with flour, grain, wood, and limestone arrive 

hourly. Our information tonight justifies the belief that on Monday next we shall welcome the first boats from Cumberland bringing large cargoes of coal; and, as the Aqueduct is now changed to a bridge, Georgetown must have the full benefit of the trade.101

Several weeks earlier, the board, in an effort to stimulate the coal trade, had granted permission to 

J. E. Reeside to experiment with steam-propelled boats in the transportation of coal.102

Meanwhile, Superintendent Jacob Masters of the Williamsport Division had reported in 

early April that while there was plenty of water for navigation, it would be wise to repair the 

damage done to Dam No. 5 by the Confederates in December 1861. The repairs, which could be 

undertaken as soon as the stage of the Potomac fell, were to be made either by building upon the 

foundations of the old crib, which were still standing, or by closing the space between the new 

masonry dam and the abutments of the old.103 The canal board authorized Masters to commence 

the project at an opportune time and allocated the necessary funds.104

Despite the shortage of boats, traffic on the canal quickly increased. Tolls collected for 

April reached $4, 637, a figure five times the March total.105 During the last week of April, however, the canal was damaged heavily as torrential rains drenched the Potomac Valley, causing the 

river to rise rapidly and crest at Dam No. 4. Two residents of Williamsport complained that this 

was the 

7th high water within the last 18 months. After every high water, we have had the unwelcome and astonishing news that the planks at the stop lock [at] Dam No. 4 had either not 

been put in, or if put in had gone out. Invariably has this been the case for the last 18 

months or two years. The last high water proves that with all the sad experiences for that 

length of time with a cost of not less than $50,000 to the canal but no improvement has 

been made, for the report is now that several of the plank gave way, and the rushing water has done its usual work of in some places filling up and others sweeping away its embankment. 

The two Williamsport residents went on to castigate the canal board for its inefficient and shortsighted repair policy: 

It is said the Repair can be made in two weeks but if the two weeks prove to be such 

weeks as it generally takes at that point, four instead of two will come nearer the time. 

Now the question is can there be no remedy for this intolerable evil, will the Board remain quiet and let this state of things continue until the canal for the want of means to 

keep up these continued repairs fail & become entirely worthless. We hope not. We hope 

and pray that your Honbl. Board will appoint a committee to investigate this matter, and 

see if some means cannot be devised that will effectually resist the weight of water at said 

stop lock which has proved as destructive to canal interest for the last two years. We say 

emphatically it can be done and at little cost. We have said that the canal has lost $50,000 

 

101 Washington National Intelligencer, April 21, 1862. 102 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 287–288. 103 Masters to Board of Directors, April 8, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 104 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 4. The cost of repairs to Dam No. 5 totaled $3,338.58 for 1862. 105 Ibid, 8. 
730 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

by the continued disasters by the giving away of the Stop Lock. The basis of our calculation is this. 7 times the level’s damaged that required $2,000 to make full repair, 

$14,000—average the loss of toll each time, 12 days @ $500 per day, $42,000—add 

$14,000 cost of repair—and we have $56,000 to the company at this point. 

Furthermore, it was charged that such disasters had cost the canal its flour trade, two-thirds of 

which had been taken over by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad during the preceding decade. 

Millers had complained that they could not rely on the canal for ten days at a time, and they had 

been compelled to find a more reliable channel of transportation.106

When news of the damage caused by the freshet reached Cumberland, A. C. Greene, one 

of the canal directors and an agent of the Borden Mining Company, exploded: 

The concurrence of circumstances against the resumption of canal trade this spring are 

positively infernal. Not only is the canal deprived of revenue, but the trade itself is imperiled by the untoward events. I have great fears that the largest and most important buyers 

of coal will despair of getting anything from us this year. 

Already the Broad Top Company of Pennsylvania was “straining everything to retain” its foothold in the District cities’ coal market that it had secured the previous year. At the time of the 

difficulties he had some 1,800 tons of coal en route to Georgetown, and nearly 7,000 tons ready 

for loading at the Cumberland wharves. Greene trusted that every effort would be made to restore 

navigation as soon as possible, as much depended on the boatmen’s ability to deliver the coal in 

early May. As the Baltimore and Ohio was still out of operation, the canal was the sole outlet to 

market for the Cumberland coal.107

The superintendents of the Williamsport and Antietam Divisions pushed the repair crews 

hard to shore up the battered embankments and clear out the obstructions. Continued rains added 

to their difficulties, but by May 8 water was readmitted to these divisions from the feeders at Dam 

Nos. 3 and 4, and the entire canal was again open to navigation.108

Traffic on the canal increased rapidly, but on the night of May 14 heavy rains fell on the 

upper reaches of the Potomac’s watershed, causing a rapid rise on the river above Dam No. 5. 

The work programs to repair the damage inflicted on the dam by the Confederates in December 

1861 had not been completed, and the high water caused considerable damage to that structure. 

Encouraged by the presence of President Spates who had rushed to the scene of the latest disaster, 

the work crews were able to effect temporary repairs and prevent any interruption to navigation at 

this critical period.109

In May 1862 General Stonewall Jackson launched his famous lightning like offensive in 

the Shenandoah Valley. Following defeats at McDowell, Front Royal, and Winchester, the battleweary Federals fled toward the Potomac. Thus the shifting tide of war in the Shenandoah at a 

time when there was heavy traffic on the canal again threatened commerce on the waterway.110

 

106 Embrey and Son to Dellinger and Greene to Ringgold, April 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. The railroad had made a determined effort to win the flour trade away from the canal in the 1840s. Nevertheless, 

the flour trade continued to be one of the larger though erratic sources of revenue. From 14,880 tons in 

1843, it rose to 25,761 tons in 1851 and fell to 11,087 tons in 1860. In 1861 it had dropped to 7,067 tons, 

and after a slight recovery to 7,340 tons in 1862 and 8,566 in 1863, it declined to 5,962 tons and 5,383 tons 

in 1864 and 1865 respectively, Sanderlin, Great National Project, 217. 107 Greene to Ringgold, April 29, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 108 Spates to Ringgold, May 2, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

109 Greene to Ringgold, May 15, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 110 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times,” 442–443. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 731 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

In May 26 most of the Union troop crossed to the Maryland side of the river at Williamsport. The soldiers and their wagons crossed the river on a ferry and marched over the bridge 

spanning the canal. One brigade, however, recrossed the Potomac at Jameson’s Ferry, three miles 

above Dam No. 4. The recent rains had swollen the river and made the crossings a laborious effort. 

Rebel cavalry units hounded the rear guard of the Union army as far as Martinsburg, 

where on the 27th; they captured a large amount of supplies. The next day, two squadrons of the 

2nd Virginia Cavalry made a forced reconnaissance to within one mile of the Potomac, but Union 

batteries, emplaced near the canal at Williamsport went into action and forced the Confederates to 

withdraw. On the 29th, several Confederate forces in the area united under Brigadier General 

Charles W. Winder and carried out Jackson’s instructions to attack with artillery the Federal 

troops of Brigadier General Rufus Saxton posted on Bolivar Heights covering the approaches to 

Harpers Ferry. However, word soon reached Jackson that a strong Union column under Major 

General James Shields was advancing westward from the Manassas area toward the Blue Ridge, 

while a powerful force under Major General John C. Fremont was approaching across the mountains from South Branch. As the two Federal divisions would sever his line of communications, 

Jackson pulled his men back from Bolivar Heights and retired rapidly up the Shenandoah Valley 

before the jaws of the trap snapped shut.111

Following the Confederate withdrawal, the Union armies quickly reestablished control of 

the south bank of the Potomac. By June 4th, the Federals were again in possession of Martinsburg, 

Charles Town, and Winchester. A survey showed that the Confederates had done little damage to 

the Baltimore and Ohio during their brief stay in the area, and it was predicted that through trains 

would again be running east and west out of Martinsburg within one week.112

The company stockholders were informed by President Spates at their annual meeting on 

June 2 that the heavy spring rains and the shortage of boats had retarded business activity on the 

waterway since the resumption of navigation in mid-April. The entire trade up to May 31 did not 

comprise one full month of normal operations. All told, only 25,259 tons of coal had been 

shipped from Cumberland, yielding a meager $18,449.86 in toll revenues.113

Heavy rains in early June which caused the Potomac to flood hampered the Union army’s 

efforts to cross and recross the river. On the night of June 4 the railroad bridge at Harpers Ferry 

was swept away along with lesser important railroad bridges and trestles in the area, thus severing 

the line of the Baltimore and Ohio. Until the river crested and fell, it would be impossible for the 

Union trains and remaining columns to cross. To aid in the crossing, a steam tug was sent up the 

canal from Georgetown and placed in the river at Harpers Ferry. On the 5th the rains ceased and 

the river began to recede and by the evening of June 8 the last of the Federal wagons got back 

over to the Maryland side of the Potomac at Williamsport.114

The June flood also caused extensive damage to the canal. On June 2, two days before the 

Harpers Ferry Bridge was destroyed, a break occurred in the waterway near the Antietam Ironworks. The break was so sudden that a work scow was swept through the breach and smashed. 

First reports indicated that it would take about one week to repair the break, but President Spates 

urged the division superintendent to turn out as large a force as possible including available 

boatmen, and to institute round-the-clock working parties.115

 

111 O. R, Series I, Vol. XII, pt. 1, 530–535, 606–607, 626–640, 707, 730, 738, pt. 3, 530. 112 Ibid, Series I, Vol. XII, pt. 1, 539–541, 813–814. 113 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report (1862), 5–6. 114 O. R., Series I, Vol. XII, pt. 1, 540–542, pt. 3, 304, 323, 342, 361–362. 115 Benton to Ringgold, June 3, 1862, and Spates to Ringgold, June 4, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
732 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

In a letter on June 12, A. C. Greene urged President Spates to rush the repairs on the Antietam Division, because the flood damage to the Baltimore and Ohio and Confederate demolitions at Martinsburg had cut off all transportation of coal to the District Cities. It was imperative 

that coal shipments be resumed quickly on the canal so that demand could be met. As flooding 

had damaged the Pennsylvania rail network, there was the prospect of a heavy demand for Cumberland coal and it was of great importance that the waterway be ready to grasp the opportunity.116

When there still was no through navigation on the canal by June 21, Greene complained 

that “it is 1000 pities” that “we are in no condition to meet this call for coal.” He trusted that repairs were being pushed on the Antietam Division and that attention was also being given to Dam 

No. 5. Unless a close check was kept on the pool above that structure, there would be insufficient 

water for navigation during the dry summer months.117

By the end of June, construction crews had a new railroad bridge in operation across the 

Potomac at Harpers Ferry. However, the canal above Dam No. 3 was still dry. As a result, the 

receipts from tolls, which had amounted to $11,607.72 in May, had fallen to $3,813.61 in June.118

On the evening of June 28, water was admitted to the canal above Harpers Ferry, and it 

was predicted that boats would start arriving at Cumberland by July 2. However, as work had 

dragged on at Dam No. 5, the pool behind that structure was too low to supply water to the sections of the canal between Dam Nos. 4 and 5, thereby delaying navigation.119 A heavy rain during 

the night of July 1 eased the low-water problem but created another by washing a “good amount 

of sand” back into the canal at Dam No. 4.120

Meanwhile, the canal company was continuing to receive distressing news of the effect of 

the war on the mills along the waterway. On June 26, the board was informed that the Columbia 

Mills in Georgetown, which had not been in operation for some eighteen months, had been sold 

by Boyce and Taylor to Herr and Welch. Despite the dismal outlook, the company negotiated a 

20-year water lease to the new company.121

Work on getting a suitable depth of water in the canal throughout its entire length continued to drag during the summer months. The division superintendents and their crews appeared to 

be more inefficient than at any time in the previous history of the canal. By July 24 a troublesome 

breach above Hancock had been repaired, and work on Dam No. 5 had progressed to the point 

that boats laden with coal were now able for the first time since July 2 to make the run from 

Cumberland to Georgetown. Accordingly, toll collections for July showed an increase over June 

of nearly 50 percent to $7,130.73.122

More trouble befell the canal on August 4 when a leak in Dam No. 6 caused an “utter 

failure” of navigation at that point. Superintendent Lowe reported that same day that one of the 

leaks had been located, and that the water in the pool was slowly rising. Because of the severe 

drought, it would have been helpful if the steam pump at the South Branch, which had been vandalized by a Confederate band the previous winter, had been repaired, but no funds were available for such work. Lowe, one of the most efficient superintendents, commenced the construction 

of a crib to prevent the bank at the dam from washing, and navigation was commenced the following day.123

 

116 Greene to Ringgold, June 12, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 117 Ibid, June 21, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 118 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 8. 

119 Greene to Ringgold, July 2, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 120 Benton to Ringgold, July 2, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 121 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 290–291, 298–299, 305. 122 Spates to Ringgold, July 24, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 8. 123 Greene to Ringgold, August 4, 1862, and Spates to Ringgold, August 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 733 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

It was reported that the first boats in a week arrived at Cumberland on August 6. Nevertheless, canal officials were distressed that no rain had fallen in the Potomac Valley for nearly a 

month. As the drought continued to worsen, it was feared that low water would soon terminate 

through navigation on the canal. If no rain came, Greene hoped that there would soon be a big 

“battle with substantial victory on our side.”124

Canal officials, including Clerk Ringgold and Director Greene, soon became irritated 

with the inefficiency and mismanagement of the canal by the division superintendents. On August 

8, Ringgold observed: 

The frequent interruption in the navigation of the canal is very discouraging and from 

mismanagement or some other cause, has been worse this season than at any former period. Unless some remedy can be speedily adopted, I apprehend the most unfavorable results.125

Angered by reports that navigation had been delayed again by sand bars near Point of Rocks, 

Greene wrote on August 11: 

There has been no real through navigation on the Canal this year—that is no boat, I believe, has been able to make a round trip without detention. Whatever may be the excuse 

for the troubles above Harpers Ferry, there can certainly be none whatever, for neglecting 

the removal of sand bars from the section at Point of Rocks until this time. That work 

most surely could have been done while the canal was idle from the damage at Dam No. 

4 and the Supt. Of that division [Monocacy] is to blame for putting off attention to his 

work that length of time. 

Greene was further incensed by the fact that the work at Dam No, 6 had been delayed by a lack of 

hands. As there were about 80 canal boats tied up in the vicinity, he was convinced that at least a 

dozen boatmen could be found who were willing to work on the dam for cash wages. Unless there 

was a speedy reform in the company management, Greene threatened to resign as he had no “idea 

of being disgraced by such mismanagement.”126

The following day Greene reported to Ringgold that he had received word that the boats, 

after being detained while the bars were removed, had started arriving at Georgetown. At the 

same time, there were rumors that a lack of water at Dam No. 4 had stopped through navigation. 

As no word of confirmation had been received from Superintendent Masters, Greene had informed the coal shippers to ignore the rumors. Several railroad passengers were now overheard to 

say that below Harpers Ferry, where the canal was visible from the trains, there was no water in 

the ditch. While these stories circulated, the coal operators were compelled to keep an “expensive 

force in idleness expecting the arrival of boats hourly.” The Baltimore and Ohio had likewise kept 

locomotives and cars standing by “at large expense” expecting the boats. All this was taking place 

because division superintendents were ignoring orders of the directors to report any stoppages 

which occurred in their jurisdictions. Such mismanagement as had been witnessed that summer 

demanded an investigation, and he recommended that all the division superintendents be summoned to Washington for questioning.127

 

124 Greene to Ringgold, August 6, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 125 Ringgold to Greene, August 8, 1862, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 126 Greene to Ringgold, August 11, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 127 Ibid, August 12, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
734 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

The military also was becoming irritated with the inefficiency of several division superintendents and the pro-Southern sympathies of some canal employees. The post commander at 

Point of Rocks, Captain R. C. Bomford, complained on August 28 that Superintendent George 

Spates of the Monocacy Division was derelict in his duties. The entrance and chamber of Guard 

Lock No. 3 had been allowed to fill in with sediment, thus causing delays to heavily-loaded 

barges passing down the canal. The locks on the division were deteriorating badly, and the waste 

weirs were not fit for use. The towpath bridge across McGill’s Ford just above Point of Rocks 

was so unsafe that every team that passed over it was in danger of being drowned. The towpath, 

especially at the high embankment at Callico Rocks, was in such disrepair that a rise in the water 

level of 2 or 3 inches above normal would cause a breach. The carpenters on the division had 

been kept busy at menial labor instead of repairing bridges and other structures. Moreover, Spates 

had employed two lock-keepers and one crew boss who were reportedly disloyal. The only way 

to weed out treason and inefficiency on the Monocacy Division, Bomford asserted, was for the 

company to fire George Spates and replace him with “a loyal man” so that “we can feel safe in 

passing him through our lines.”128

After reviewing the communications from Bomford, the board instructed Clerk Ringgold 

to request further information from the officer. On September 4, Ringgold drafted the following 

reply to Bomford on behalf of the board: 

It is the earnest desire as it is the duty of this Board to see that no disloyal person is employed in any part of the work under their charge. 

You make a distinct charge of your own personal knowledge against one so employed. We must have his name, not strike in the dark, and we call upon you as an officer 

and citizen to furnish the name without delay. You must be quite aware that to suppress 

the name under such circumstances will be conniving at the offence. If there are others 

whose names have been furnished to you with such information as will justify you in 

making distinct charges we desire to have those names and also the witnesses on whose 

statements the charge is based.129

Before Bomford could answer the board’s request for further information, the canal was once 

again to become a theater of active military operations. During the last week of June and on July 

1, General Robert E. Lee, who had taken charge of the Army of Northern Virginia on June 1, had 

turned on and attacked McClellan’s Army of the Potomac, then closing in on Richmond from the 

southeast. After compelling McClellan to retreat to the cover of a fortified camp at Harrison’s 

Landing on the James River, Lee sent Jackson with three divisions to Orange, Virginia, to watch 

Major General John Pope’s newly-constituted Army of Virginia. Following the defeat of Banks’ 

corps of Pope’s army at Cedar Mountain on August 9 by Jackson, Lee moved his forces to join 

the victorious Confederate divisions and set the stage for another Union defeat at the Battle of 

Second Manassas on August 29–30. The bluecoats fell back into the formidable defenses covering the approaches to Washington, and several days later, on September 2, the exposed Union 

force at Winchester under Brigadier General Julius White fell back to Harpers Ferry.130

News of the Confederate offensive had important repercussions for the belligerents, as 

well as the canal company. When President Lincoln on August 4 ordered a draft of 300,000 militia to serve for nine months, the company appealed to Secretary Stanton to obtain exemptions for 

 

128 Bomford to Board of Directors, August 28, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

129 Ringgold to Bomford, September 4, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, K, 309. 130 O. R., Series I, Vol. XII, pt. 3, 811. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 735 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

its employees and the boatmen as the draft would have serious effects on the business operations 

of the canal.131 

More ominous for the canal company was Lee’s determination on September 3 to carry 

the war north of the Potomac. The Army of Northern Virginia was put in motion toward Loudoun 

County. On the morning of the 4th, a Confederate battery unlimbered its guns on Ball’s Bluff and 

fired several volleys at a passing canal boat. General McClellan, who had been charged with repelling the Rebel invasion of Maryland, advised his superiors at the War Department that shelling 

canal boats “is an old amusement of the rebels; it is probably a pretty strong proof that they do 

not intend to cross at Edwards Ferry.”132

At Leesburg, Lee’s lead division, under Major General D. H. Hill, made preparations for 

the offensive across the Potomac. One brigade was dispatched to the river across from Berlin to 

attack with artillery any Baltimore and Ohio trains that might be passing. With two brigades deployed in line of battle, Hill approached the river at White’s Ford. This crossing of the Potomac 

and the nearby Monocacy Aqueduct were guarded by men of the 1st Potomac Home Guard Regiment and the 87th Ohio. The Union pickets quickly fled, and by nightfall Hill’s combat-ready veterans had established a bridgehead almost without firing a shot.133

Before allowing his troops to bivouac, Hill charged a detail with the task of stopping traffic on the canal and taking measures to make it easier for the main body of troops to cross the 

ditch. Near the Monocacy Aqueduct, the trunk could be crossed by a few pivot bridges and under 

passed by the White’s Ford Culvert. Since these structures would turn into bottlenecks for the 

Army of Northern Virginia, General Hill had a fatigue party wreck the Little Monocacy Culvert 

and drain the Seven-Mile Level. The berm and towpath banks were cut down, the prism corduroyed, and the artillery and trains started rolling across. The next morning, on the 5th, Stonewall 

Jackson’s corps forded the Potomac, crossed the canal, and pushed for Frederick.134

Meanwhile, the men from Hill’s division charged with wrecking key canal structures in 

the area were at work. Thomas Walter, the tender at Lock No. 27 who had worked for the canal 

company for 30 year and was one of the men believed by Captain Bomford to be disloyal to the 

Union cause, pled with General Hill not to destroy the aqueduct or the lock. If the Confederates 

intended to stop navigation on the waterway, he informed the general that it would be easier to 

cut down the banks than blow up the masonry structures. General Hill disagreed, and for awhile 

the discussion between the officer and the lock tender became so heated that bystanders feared 

that Walter would be arrested.135

After consulting with his chiefs of ordnance and engineers, Hill learned that in the division there were not enough tools or spare powder to insure the destruction of the Monocacy Aqueduct, so he ordered his demolition team to concentrate on Lock No. 27. A hole was drilled into 

the masonry of the lock and a small charge of powder was detonated, causing slight damage to 

the structure. Having breached the Little Monocacy Culvert, cut down the banks at several points, 

and burned several canal boats trapped on the Seven-Mile Level, Hill recalled his troops on the 

evening of September 5 and proceeded toward Frederick to join Jackson. During the next several 

 

131 Ringgold to Stanton, August 21, 1862, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. Events were to calm the anxieties of the 

canal officials, because the draft was never put into effect. Long, Civil War, Day by Day, 247. 132 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 2, 175. 133 Ibid, pt. 1, 1019, pt. 2, 144–145. 134 Ibid, pt. 1, 952. 135 Petition to Board of Directors, October 14, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. When the canal company later 

moved to discharge Walter for collaborating with the enemy, a petition was sent to the directors from his 

neighbors asking that no disciplinary action be taken against him because of his successful effort to save 

the Monocacy Aqueduct from destruction..
736 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

days, other units of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac and canal at White’s 

Ford.136

On September 9 at Frederick, Lee divided his army into three major units and commenced operations to move against the strong Union force under Colonel Dixon Miles that was 

holding the Harpers Ferry–Martinsburg area. By eliminating Miles’ command, Lee would be able 

to supply his army via the Shenandoah Valley. Accordingly, Jackson moved out with his corps, 

crossed South Mountain, passed through Boonsboro, turned southwestward, and struck for the 

Potomac. Major General Lafayette McLaws with two divisions advanced across Pleasant Valley, 

and took position on Maryland Heights which commanded Harpers Ferry on the north. The division under Major General John G. Walker was to destroy the Monocacy Aqueduct, recross the 

Potomac at Cheek’s Ford, and occupy Loudoun Heights. With the remainder of his troops, Lee 

would cover Jackson’s column, taking position to hold the South Mountain gaps.137

Reaching the Monocacy Aqueduct just before midnight on September 9, Walker’s division quickly drove off the thin line of Union pickets holding the aqueduct. Fatigue parties were 

organized, tools were passed out, and men put to work drilling holes for placing charges to wreck 

each of the seven arches of this aqueduct. After several hours, Walker’s chief engineer reported 

little progress, complaining that the drills were extremely dull while the masonry was of “extraordinary solidity and massiveness.” To demolish the aqueduct would take days not hours. As 

this would ruin Lee’s plan for the attack against Harpers Ferry, the fatigue parties were recalled.138

That same night a Union force moved into the area, took possession of the aqueduct, and 

placed artillery to command the approaches to that structure as well as Cheek’s Ford. Surprised 

by the Union advance, Walker determined to recross the Potomac farther upstream at Point of 

Rocks on the night of September 10. The crossing was carried out with much difficulty, owing to 

the destruction of the pivot bridge over the canal at Lock No. 28 and the steepness of the river 

banks.139

 The Confederate invasion of Maryland had a disastrous effect on the operations of the 

canal and its ability to carry provisions and coal to the Union armies and the civilian population 

of the District cities. The Washington Evening Star reported on September 12: 

Canal navigation is suspended beyond a point twenty miles from here—that is, at Seneca 

Dam. From that point up, for from thirty to forty miles, there is no water in the canal, the 

Confederate forces having drawn it off a week ago, by blowing up a culvert, when they 

first crossed into Maryland—hence supplies for the army cannot be sent up by canal further than Seneca. 

This suspension of navigation with the up country of course cuts off arrivals of 

flour and grain from the fine grain-growing country in Maryland and Virginia lying near 

the Potomac. The market here, therefore, is very unsettled, and the stock of flour on hand 

is held at considerably higher figures by wholesale dealers. The only sales since the suspension is of high grades extra, in small lots, at from $7 to $8, according to quality, 

mostly at the intermediate rate of $7.50. The government contract closed last week was 

taken at rates considerably below these figures. 

 

136 Spates to Ringgold, September 13, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. In this letter, Spates wrote that the damage could be repaired in two or three weeks with an adequate force and the necessary funds. He had made 

arrangements with a gentleman to put a large force of horses, carts, and hands to work on the repairs, but 

since the Rebels were holding the river at Point of Rocks nothing could be done 

137 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times,” 450. 138 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 1, 912–913. 

139 Ibid. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 737 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

There is a fair stock of wheat in millers’ hands, and they are buying the limited 

quantity brought by wagons at rates ranging from $1.35 to $1.40, for red. Any considerable lots of good red would command $1.37 to $1.40, and prime $1.40 to $1.45 per 

bushel. 

In corm, nothing doing, there being no arrivals: Prices have advanced from 2 to 5 

cents this week, and good white would fetch from 70 to 75 cents per bushel. Oats are 

more active, with further supplies from Baltimore, fetching from 45 to 50 cents for good 

new, but for heavy old oats 60 cts. are paid. Some of the very light new oats sell as low as 

35 to 40 cents per bushel measure. 

The coal trade from Cumberland is of course entirely cut off, perhaps for the season. A fair supply had already been bought forward. 

The harbor of Georgetown looks very active, with numerous steamers moving 

about, as well as other vessels, mostly in government trade. 

Hay in bales sells at $20 per ton, an advance of $1 within a week.140

Meanwhile, Lee’s forces were converging on the Union troops holding Martinsburg and Harpers 

Ferry. On the 11th, Jackson’s columns passed through Williamsport and crossed the canal and the 

Potomac at Light’s Ford, and on the 12th forced General White’s troops to evacuate Martinsburg 

and retire to Harpers Ferry. After closing in and investing the 11,000-man Union garrison at 

Harpers Ferry for two days, the Confederates accepted the surrender of the surrounded Federals 

on September 15. Meanwhile, McClellan’s bluecoats had forced the Southern forces to abandon 

Turner’s and Fox’s Gaps on South Mountain, and General Lee fell back behind Antietam Creek, 

thus setting the stage for the bloody Battle of Antietam fought on September 17.141

Shortly after the fighting began, General McClellan dispatched Captain Charles H. Russell with his company of the 1st Maryland Cavalry to Williamsport to burn the pivot bridge across 

the canal at Lock No. 44 and to destroy the Conococheague Aqueduct in an effort to cut one of 

Lee’s avenues of retreat. With the aid of some Pennsylvania militiamen who were holding the 

town, Russell’s men destroyed the pivot bridge, organized demolition teams, and burned eleven 

boats, nine of which were loaded with coal, that had been forced to tie up at Williamsport. Unable 

to materially damage the sturdy masonry of the aqueduct, Russell’s troops returned to the battlefield and the Pennsylvanians withdrew to Hagerstown. By the end of the fighting in the area, 

some of the coal from the fired boats was still smoking, and a group of local citizens extinguished 

the fires, salvaging what coal remained.142

On the day following the bloody event at Antietam, the two armies lay exhausted in their 

positions. Then under the cover of darkness on the 19th, the Confederates retired across the Potomac into Virginia at Boteler’s Ford near Shepherdstown. Three brigades formed the rear guard 

and remained in line on the Maryland side until the crossing was accomplished.143

When McClellan learned of the Confederate withdrawal, he sent Major General Fitz John 

Porter’s V Corps to pursue Lee’s battered army. When Porter reached the river, he found that the 

Rebels were holding the southern bank and defending the fords with 44 artillery pieces. Determining to clear the fords and, if possible, cross the Potomac and capture the guns, a strong force 

of skirmishers advanced and took position along the embankment of the towpath side of the canal, from which the water had been withdrawn earlier, and along the river bank. Covered by the 

 

140 Washington Evening Star, September 12, 1862. 141 Bearss, “1862 brings Hard Times”, 451. 142 Miller to Ringgold, October 3, 1862, Greene to Ringgold, December 2, 1862, and Masters to Board of 

Directors, February 8, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

143 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, 986. 
738 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

fire of the sharpshooters and a heavy artillery barrage, the Federals stormed across the Potomac at 

Boteler’s Ford, scaled the heights beyond, and captured five cannon. The next day, the Confederates under Jackson counter-attacked and drove the Union troops back through Shepherdstown and 

across the Potomac. Most of the retreating men used the ford while some walked across the river 

on the top of the Potomac Mills dam. As the Union armies fled across the river, a large contingent 

of the Rebel line advanced to the river bank, where some took cover in the burned-out Potomac 

Mill. A steady fire was maintained, inflicting a number of casualties upon the retiring enemy. 

Once across the river, the Federals deployed a line behind the canal embankment until they were 

relieved on the 21st. The Rebels remained on the field until nightfall, when upon being relieved by 

cavalry units, they marched to rejoin the main body.144

Meanwhile, the Confederate cavalry leader, Major General James E. B. “Jeb” Stuart, had 

been ordered by General Lee to take several cavalry and infantry units and recross the Potomac 

into Maryland at Williamsport, thus creating a useful diversion by exposing McClellan’s flank. 

Under the cover of darkness on the 19th some of the troops forded the Potomac above the town, 

while a contingent crossed the river at Williamsport and put to flight some Union pickets. A 

working party was organized and quickly opened a good road under the Conococheague Aqueduct. By passing under the canal, the confederates moved out and took position on the ridges beyond Williamsport before daybreak. On the 20th, the Rebels attempted to expand their bridgehead, 

but after encountering a heavy force of Union cavalry converging on the town, they withdrew at 

dark across the Potomac. During their one-day occupation of Williamsport, the Southern cavalry 

burned one canal boat, Independence, and the gates of Lock 44, and wrecked Lockhouse No. 

44.145

Following the Confederate withdrawal from Williamsport into Virginia, Superintendent 

Masters reported to Clerk Ringgold on September 22: 

We have been cut off from the outside world until yesterday so that we had no opportunity to send or receive anything by mail since the 6th of Sept. The damage done the canal 

at this place [Williamsport] by the recent military operations will amount to $2,000 beside the loss of eleven canal boats burnt...If necessary the damage here can be repaired in 

a week’s time; the most serious is the burning of the lock gates.146

Immediately following the Battle of Antietam and the Confederate withdrawal into Virginia, 

General McClellan proposed to establish a supply depot for his army near Harpers Ferry. Consequently, it would be vital to reopen for trade as soon as possible the canal and the railroad. On 

September 21, McClellan’s chief quartermaster, Lieutenant Colonel Rufus Ingalls, wrote Quartermaster General Meigs requesting that orders be issued for the repair of the waterway. When it 

was reported that repairs could not be commenced as long as the Confederates occupied portions 

of the southern bank of the Potomac and kept the canal under artillery fire, McClellan promised 

full protection to the repair crews and to the boats, once the waterway was reopened. As soon as 

navigation was resumed, all the small steamers plying the canal were to be sent to Harpers 

Ferry.147

 

144 Ibid, 338–340, 344–349, 351–352, 830–833, 912–913, 957, 982, 986, 989–990, 1001–1004. For a more 

complete study of the fighting in the aftermath of the Battle of Antietam, see John F. Luzader, “Historic 

Sites, Shepherdstown, W. Va.” (NPS Mss., 1963), 4–19. 

145 Masters to Board of Directors, February 8, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Bearss, “1862 brings Hard 

Times”, 452. 

146 Masters to Ringgold, September 22, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 147 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 2, 339–340, 342–343. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 739 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

By late September, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had pulled back into the Winchester 

area, thus enabling the canal repairs to proceed without hindrance. The Washington Evening Star

reported on the 26th that: 

There is some hope now that the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal may be rendered navigable 

again for the fall trade. It is found that the damage done it by the Confederate forces was 

not so great as had been apprehended ... therefore the repairs may be easily made if the 

line is kept free of the enemy.148

McClellan, on September 30, ordered the formation of large fatigue parties to assist canal officials in effecting repairs. On October 1, a 65-man detail reported to Superintendent George W. 

Spates of the Monocacy Division. The soldiers were put to work closing the breach at the Little 

Monocacy Culvert, thus freeing the regular division repair crews to patch the masonry at Lock 

No. 27. The military detail was enlarged to a force of 150 on October 7, and Spates reported on 

the 14th that his division was again ready for navigation.149

During the first week of October, President Spates inspected the canal from Williamsport 

to Cumberland. He was to see that initial reports of heavy damage to the Antietam and Williamsport Divisions had been exaggerated. Except for the actions of the Maryland and Pennsylvania 

troops, there would have been little destruction at Williamsport. On the Antietam Division, the 

only damage done by the invaders was the burning of the gates at Guard Locks Nos. 3 and 4. Although the Confederates had burned all the railroad bridges between Sir Johns Run and South 

Branch, there was no damage to the canal above Williamsport. Of more immediate concern was 

the drought in the Potomac Valley that had reduced the depth of the river at Cumberland to three 

feet.150

Early in October the Confederates staged two raids designed to harass McClellan’s buildup and wreak havoc on the Union supply lines. Col. John D. Imboden and 900 men left their base 

at Camp Lee in Hardy County, and after surprising a Union patrol at Hanging Rock, they attacked 

the entrenched camp manned by Company K, 54th Pennsylvania, at the mouth of Little Cacapon 

on the 4th. After forcing the Federals to surrender, the Baltimore and Ohio Bridge across the Little 

Cacapon was burned, along with the encampment. A cavalry battalion was sent across the Potomac to cut off the escape of the Federals posted at the Paw Paw Railroad Tunnel. Moving down 

the canal towpath, the Rebel horsemen forced the encampment of Company B, 54th Pennsylvania, 

located some 500 yards from Paw Paw Tunnel to surrender. While the Confederates were destroying the captured camp and equipment, they learned that the guard at their base camp near 

Cacapon Bridge had been scattered by Union cavalry. This news caused Imboden to abandon his 

plans to destroy the railroad bridge across South branch and withdraw from the area.151

In the early morning hours of October 10, General “Jeb” Stuart crossed the Potomac at 

McCoy's Ferry with 1,800 horse soldiers and four guns. The sixteen Union pickets in the area 

were driven in so rapidly that they were cut off from their reserve and were unable to report the 

attack. Informed that the Confederates were fording the river by a long-time local resident, Launcelot Jacques, Captain Thomas Logan immediately moved his troops camped at Green Springs 

Furnace to mount, but Stuart’s horsemen had already pushed northward toward Chambersburg. 

 

148 Washington Evening Star, September 26, 1862. 

149 Spates to Ringgold, September 30, October 6, 14, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the 

President and Board of Directors, K, 310–311. 150 Spates to Ringgold, October 6, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Also see, Benton to Ringgold, October 18, 

1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. On October 9, the canal company requested an army detail to help repair the 

Williamsport Division. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 310–311. 151 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 2, 16–25, 631. 
740 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

As the Rebel objective was to destroy the machine shops and depot at that town, they did not attempt to damage the canal. After committing their destructive acts at Chambersburg on the 11th, 

the Rebels turned back toward Virginia and determined to cross the canal and Potomac at White’s 

Ford before the Union troops, numbering between 4,000 and 5,000, at Poolesville and Mouth of 

Monocacy could intercept them.152 Although a battalion of the 99th Pennsylvania was posted on a 

precipitous quarry bluff overlooking the crossing, the bluecoats, after receiving word of the Confederate advance, quickly abandoned their position and marched eastward down the towpath to 

Weedon’s Ford, thus permitting the Rebels a secure crossing of the river.153

While Stuart’s Chambersburg Raid increased the growing dissatisfaction of government 

officials with the performance of General McClellan, the canal suffered no damage at the hands 

of the Rebel raiders. On October 14, water was readmitted to the Monocacy Division. Although 

the damage inflicted on the canal by the Confederates during their Antietam Campaign had been 

repaired, there would be no through navigation on the canal until the drought was broken.154

Heavy rains during the latter part of October caused the Potomac to rise. However, the 

high water caused a serious breach at Dam No. 5 on November 4, because the new masonry dam 

was still only partially completed as a result of the recent military activities in the valley. Thus, 

there was not enough water in the pool to induce a sufficient depth of water on the Williamsport 

Division to float heavily laden boats.155

The canal trade was hampered further during the final days of October when McClellan, 

goaded by President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton put his Army of the Potomac into motion. 

Beginning on the 26th, the Federals crossed the Potomac at Berlin, White’s Ford, and Edwards 

Ferry on pontoon bridges which had been sent up the canal from Washington. To facilitate the 

movement of this ponderous army, Union engineers threw four bridges across the canal that was 

so low that they stopped all traffic on the waterway. This news caused the Cumberland coal companies to withdraw the boats that had pulled into the basin ready to load. Large numbers of miners, concluding that canal navigation was over for the season left Allegany County and headed for 

Pennsylvania.156

It was November 2 before the entire Army of the Potomac had crossed the river into Virginia. For the next three days, the army continued to be supplied from the big depots that had 

been established at Berlin and Harpers Ferry. Brigadier General George Stoneman’s division, 

which had crossed the river on October 27 and occupied Leesburg, was supplied by canal boats 

sent from Washington to the Edwards Ferry River Locks where they crossed the Potomac and 

passed up Goose Creek to the turnpike where a depot had been established. By November 5, the 

Union army was in contact with the Manassas Gap Railroad and henceforth it used that line to 

transport its rations, munitions, clothing and fodder.157

Canal company officials and boatmen alike laid plans to resume navigation as soon as the 

low bridges at Berlin were dismantled on November 12. That evening a fleet of 36 boats, loaded 

 

152 Ibid, 36–37, 52–53, and Hassett to Ringgold, October 14, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 153 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 2, 50, and Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times”, 456–457. 154 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times”, 457. 155 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 313, and Greene to Ringgold, November 4, 

1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

156 Greene to Ringgold, November 13, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 2, 

494, 499. It is interesting to note that on October 25, the day before the Federals began this operation, 

McClellan had his Assistant Adjutant General send a letter to President Spates promising that the Army of 

the Potomac would discontinue activities that hampered canal operations. Williams to Spates, October 25, 

1862, in Spates Papers. 

157 O. R., Series I, Vol. XIX, pt. 2, 494, 531, 544. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 741 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

with bridge materials, started down the canal. The next morning, 40 additional boats with the remainder of the pontoons, stringers, and sleepers proceeded to Washington.158

At the same time, company official took steps to close the critical breach at Dam No. 5. 

The board had grown increasingly dissatisfied with Superintendent Masters for “his neglect and 

inattention to his duties” and “his want of action ... in the maintenance of his division” which had 

“contributed much to the loss of revenue and of business upon the canal.”159 Accordingly, the 

directors assigned the job of repairing the dam to Superintendent Hassett of the Hancock Division. By the 17th, the leak had been repaired, the water behind the dam had been raised several 

feet, and there was sufficient water along the entire canal for the first time in a month.160

Just as the company, boat captains, and shippers were preparing to capitalize on the improved situation along the Potomac, a small-scale raid by some Virginia cavalry caused some 

anxious moments. On the evening of November 24, a small Confederate band slipped across the 

Potomac at Conrad’s Ferry, swept into Poolesville where they captured 16 Federals and a telegraph operator, and quickly recrossed the river at White’s Ford. Despite fears that the raiders 

would cut the canal, it was found that no damage had been done.161

Even with all these difficulties, commerce on the canal showed a great increase in November as toll revenues rose to $6,084.10 from $538.78 the previous month.162 President Spates 

was so encouraged by this turn of events that he boasted the “canal has not been in better order 

for 10 years than now with a few exceptions.” One of the main exceptions was the run-down condition of the Georgetown Division. Superintendent Horace Benton had neglected the division, 

especially the needed repairs at Lock No. 3.163

In early December 1862 the U. S. Treasury Department took cognizance of the fact that 

the canal provided the government with an established route of communication along the boundary between the North and South. Accordingly, upon the recommendation of President Spates and 

the authorization by military authorities who conducted “loyalty investigations,” six canal employees were appointed to act as revenue agents at $2 a day. These men and their revenuecollecting offices were: George W. Spates at Poolesville; Levi Benton at Sharpsburg; John Warner at Shepherds Landing; Joseph F. Farrow at Williamsport; Thomas Hassett at Four Locks; and 

A. C. Blackman at Hancock. Four other individuals who were not employed by the company 

were appointed as revenue agents at Point of Rocks, Harpers Ferry, Dam No. 5, and Cumberland.164

President Spates and Director Greene remained in Cumberland to expedite the shipment 

of all the coal they could in the final weeks of the boating season. As a hard freeze was expected 

in the mountains at any time and there were too few boats available for the amount of coal to be 

shipped, competition for the boats was keen with boatmen able to demand higher freight rates of 

up to $2.50 per ton from the shippers.165

Several icebreakers were outfitted to keep the Cumberland and Williamsport Divisions 

open as long as possible. On the 20th Spates reported that he had spent the past two weeks “doing 

all in my power by hard work & otherwise to keep the canal open.”166 As a result, the receipts 

 

158 Ibid, Series I, Vol. XXI, 148–149. 

159 Greene to Ringgold, November 13, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 160 Spates to Ringgold, November 17, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 161 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXI, 12, and Spates to Ringgold, November 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 162 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 8. 163 Spates to Ringgold, December 1, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 164 Ibid. 165 Greene to Ringgold, December 2, 5, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 166 Spates to Ringgold, December 2, 5, 9, 12, 20, 1862, and Masters to Board of Directors, December 30, 

1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
742 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

from tolls for December had been $9,245.14, or more than 30 percent greater than November.167

Hence navigation continued until February 1, 1863.168

During the month of December, the canal board continued to receive reports about the inefficiency and dereliction of duty on the part of several division superintendents. The most remarkable charges were those against Superintendent George W. Spates of the Monocacy Division 

who was accused of remaining at his home near the mouth of the Monocacy River from August 

13 to October 21 “transacting his farming affairs & hauling coal from the canal." Moreover, he 

had refused to reimburse the military for work scows borrowed for use by his repair crews, and he 

had failed to replace tools that had been burned by the Rebels. During his absence from the line, 

his workers had gone unpaid.169

Upset by such charges of willful misconduct, the directors issued an order to all the division superintendents on December 11: 

That the several Supts. of the Canal be required to conform themselves strictly to the 

rules and regulations of the Company, that said regulations be strictly conferred on all 

parties connected with the canal, and that said Supts. be required to pass over the entire 

length of their respective divisions at least once a week, and to report to the Clerk of the 

Company, and also to the Collectors of tolls at Georgetown and Cumberland, whenever 

any interruptions of the navigation shall occur, and how long such interruption will continue; that they also be required to make monthly reports to the Board of the condition of 

their respective divisions, and that and carelessness on their part in the performance of 

these duties will be deemed cause for their removal from office.170

All told, the year 1862 was even more disastrous financially for the canal company than 1861. 

The aggregate tonnage on the canal declined more than 12 percent from 144,814 tons in 1861 to 

126,793 tons in 1862. Toll revenues plummeted nearly 10 percent from $70,566.99 in 1861 to 

$63,985.85 in 1862. Receipts from all sources for 1862 amounted to $72,624.95 while expenditures were $231,711.68. As a result of the seizure of canal boats by the Federals in March, the 

Confederate invasion of Maryland in September, several major freshets, and the inefficiency of 

some division superintendents, the canal company reached its lowest ebb during the war in 

1862.171

The equally distressing statistics of the aggregate Cumberland coal trade in 1862 were 

summarized in the Pottsville Miners’ Journal of January 10, 1863: 

Since the war broke out the trade from this Region has been almost entirely suspended. 

The Railroad only carried Coal in the months of May, June, July, August and September—and the trade on the Canal was interrupted entirely in the months of May and October, and only partially resumed in the other months.... 

In spite of its handicaps, the Cumberland region shipped about 318,000 tons in 1862, an increase 

of roughly 48,000 tons over the previous year.172

 

167 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 8. 168 Bearss, “1862 Brings Hard Times” 462. 

169 Chambers to Board of Directors, December 10, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 170 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 315. 171 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 307, 309. 172 Pottsville Miners' Journal, January 10, 1863, quoted in Harvey, “Civil War and the Maryland Coal 

Trade.” 371. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 743 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

IV. COMMERCE ON THE CANAL 

EXPERIENCES A REVIVAL: 1863 

With the use of icebreakers and the help of the comparatively mild January weather, the canal 

remained open to navigation until February 1, 1863. It was during this time that a debate was carried on in the military, the War Department, and the Congress over what measures should be 

adopted to protect the canal and the railroad from further depredations by the Southern armies. 

One proposal that received some attention was that of Colonel Gabriel E. Porter who recommended that adequate protection could be accorded both transportation lines by establishing 

camps of instruction at strategic points between New Creek and Harpers Ferry. He emphasized 

the fact that concentrating troops in this area would provide training under actual war conditions, 

thereby resulting in appreciable savings to the Federal Treasury because officers could serve in 

the dual role of instructor and commander. Although the War Department rejected the proposal, 

Congress became sufficiently interested in Porter’s plan to entertain a resolution offered by Representative Francis Thomas of Maryland on January 12: 

That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of 

providing for the establishment of camps of military instruction at suitable points on or 

near the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, as an effectual means of protecting the Chesapeake 

& Ohio Canal and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, so that those public improvements 

may be safely used for the transportation of coal for the use of steam vessels of the 

United States Navy, and of supplies for the United States Army, while operating in Eastern Virginia, or on our Atlantic front. 

The peak of interest in the proposal was reached in this resolution, and the problem of protecting 

the strategic canal and railroad was given back to the War Department.173

On February 1, the water was withdrawn from the trunk so that necessary repairs could 

be made. During the month of February it was reported that the tender of Locks Nos. 1-4 in 

Georgetown had left his job without notice, and, consequently, the directors appointed Samuel 

Smart to that important position at the eastern terminus of the canal. About March 1 the canal was 

reopened to boat traffic and the pace of trade quickly picked up.174

With the apparent course of the war changing in favor of the North, Congress in early 

March finally authorized an appropriation of $13,000 for the raising of the Georgetown bridges 

over the canal to facilitate the expansion of trade. The bridges, which originally had been planned 

 

173 Congressional Globe, January 12, 1863, and Summers, Baltimore & Ohio in Civil War, 155–157. Later 

in 1863 and 1864, blockhouses were built at strategic points along the Potomac to guard the river fords. 

The blockhouses were 

barns constructed out of the largest and longest logs that could be obtained, each barn being from 

forty to fifty feet square and ten to twelve feet in height. They were timbered on the top to keep 

the shells out and were notched through the sides for the purpose of shooting through above the 

earthworks. In building them, stone was first piled around the proposed foundation, about four feet 

high, then a deep ditch, four or five feet wide, is dug around the stone pile, the earth from the ditch 

being thrown upon the stones to a height of six or seven feet to protect the inmates of the house 

from shot and shell. The whole is surrounded with an abattis. . . and the entrance to the building 

was made in a zigzag fashion 

Summers, Baltimore & Ohio in Civil War, 157–158. 174 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 318, 322–324. 
744 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

and constructed according to the practice prevailing on the Erie Canal in the late 1820s, allowed a 

clearance of only 8 feet above the normal level of water in the canal. By 1850, the barges had become so large that they could pass fully loaded under the bridges but could not return empty until 

the water level in the canal was lowered. As a result, long delays which hampered trade to and 

from Rock Creek Basin soon forced much of the business on the waterway to pass over the Potomac Aqueduct and down the Alexandria Canal to the river at that city, from where it was taken 

to Washington by barge. To reopen the route through Georgetown, eight bridges and the markethouse in Georgetown and one bridge over the basin needed to be raised to allow at least a 12-foot 

clearance. The board considered this improvement in the early 1850s, but after 1854 the matter 

was dropped as far as independent action by the canal company was concerned. Appeals to Congress for financial assistance failed to pass during the remainder of the decade.175 The closing of 

the Potomac Aqueduct in 1861 seriously inconvenienced canal trade, and, after political pressure 

by canal, Georgetown, and Maryland authorities, Congress passed the appropriation.176

Although canal officials soon met with the corporate authorities of Georgetown to discuss 

the most expedient plans for raising the bridges, the actual work did not get under way until April 

1865.177 Nevertheless, the Georgetown authorities responded to the authorization by passing two 

ordinances. First, it was determined on April 4 that the canal president should submit his plans for 

altering the bridges and market-house to them for approval before the work commenced. Second, 

on August 8 plans were approved for a new market-house to be constructed on the site of the present building which was to extend to within eight feet of the north bank of the canal.178

In late March President Spates sent two communications to Brigadier General Benjamin 

S. Roberts, then in command of the Union troops along the canal, complaining that the Federals 

were not complying with McClellan’s General Order No. 44 issued on April 21, 1862. In response, Roberts justified the military’s activities on the grounds that the canal company was employing suspected “disloyalists” and that the waterway was being used to secret[e] supplies and 

information to the Confederates. His lengthy accusations were as follows: 

On entering upon my duties...and before I issued my General Order No. 2, I was informed by many reliable persons that a large contraband trade was carried on between 

Maryland and Virginia and information constantly passing to the Confederate Army, by 

means of small boats and skiffs along the river and canal on the lines where trade with 

Virginia is forbidden by a recent law of Congress. In order to carry into effect that law 

and the regulations of the Treasury and War Dept. intended for that purpose, I deemed it 

a military necessity to seize the boats and other water craft as designated in Part IV of 

that order. It had been stated to me that many boats used in this contraband trade belonged to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. and were hidden away under culverts and 

bridges along the canal and river, and rented by the captains, and agents of the Company 

to speculate in this atrocious traffic and to give encouragement and carry supplies to Dis-

 

175 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 206–207, and Constance McLaughlin Green, Washington Village and Capital, 1800–1878 (2 Vols., Princeton, 1962), Vol. I, 265. 176 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 325. 177 Ibid, 422. 178 Ordinances of the Corporation of Georgetown, from January, 1863, to January, 1864 (Washington, 

1864), 25, 44–45. Later on January 9, 1864 an ordinance was passed changing the plan of the market-house 

to include a second story on the north end of the building. On February 20, 1864, a resolution was approved 

providing that a basement be constructed under the entire building. Ordinances of the Corporation of 

Georgetown (Washington, [1871]), 3–4, 15. The plans and specifications for the new market-house were 

approved on May 7, and a contract was let to John A. Rheem of Washington on June 4. Later on July 2, the 

plans for the basement were dropped. Ibid, 30, 33, 39. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 745 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

loyalists and Rebels in Virginia. It was my first duty, under the state of things as thus represented, to seize all and every kind of skiff or boat that could be taken by secessionists 

from their place of concealment by night or day by force, or that could be rented of unfaithful employees of the Company without its knowledge. 

It was not of course my intention in any manner to interfere with proper commerce and trade along the canal, or to embarrass in any degree its lawful business, known 

to me to be of great importance to the Federal Government. But if the Company has in its 

employment agents or persons who disregard the laws of Congress and the regulations of 

the Treasury Department and the Army, it must suffer the consequences; as I cannot permit boats or skiffs to be kept within the lines of my command that can be used in any 

manner, with or without the assent of the Company or its agents, to aid the enemies of the 

Federal Government. 

When the company was ready to repair the abutment of Dam No. 5, the commandant at North 

Mountain would release the boats captured near the dam to aid in the restoration work. However, 

it was hoped that the company would 

consent willingly to any transient and slight inconveniences the exigencies of the crisis 

may impose on them. All truly loyal and good citizens are expected to make such sacrifices, and the more willingly, as they are intended for the permanent and great good of 

the public.179

As the prospects for canal trade were greatly improve in the spring of 1863, the board received 

several petitions from parties at Cumberland and Hancock, urging an increase in the toll on coal 

of 1/8 of a cent per ton mile. The petitions argued that such a decision would increase the revenue 

of the company and enable it to improve its desperate financial condition. Moreover, the general 

inflationary tendency of prices during the war years had witnessed increased freight rates on the 

railroads and canals of the North, and, consequently, the Cumberland coal shippers would not be 

hurt.180

On April 10, the canal board met to consider the two petitions. After some discussion, the 

directors approved the following resolution: 

That in consequence of the interruption of trade and of injuries received by the canal 

within the two years last past, it is absolutely necessary to make a temporary increase in 

the rates of toll on coal; and upon full consideration, the said toll is hereby increased 1/16 

 

179 Roberts to Spates, March 28, 1863, in Spates Papers. According to Mary Mitchell in her study of 

Georgetown during the Civil War, the only underground activities carried out in that town were initiated by 

small local tradesmen, laborers and citizens of obscure origins. Her research in Old Capitol Prison records 

revealed that “time and again, drovers, brewers and boatmen, who gave Georgetown as their residence, 

were incarcerated for blockade running, smuggling and disloyalty, denied habeas corpus, and released only 

after the interrogation of the prison authorities had extracted all possible information from them.” The most 

sensational case concerned a drug ring of apparently large proportions. The local anchorman was John 

Crumbaugh, a former cattle drover from Loudoun County, Virginia, who had been a butcher in the Georgetown market-house until 1861 when he purchased a wood and fuel business on the canal wharf at the foot 

of 33rd Street. He then bought a home on N Street and used its cellar as a way station between drug wholesalers, his canal boats, and a Virginia contact. In February 1863 he was caught with $14,000 worth of quinine, morphine and nitrate of silver concealed in apple and potato crates. He was sent to the Old Capitol 

Prison and died there in 1864. Mary Mitchell, Divided Town (Barre, 1968), 122–123. 180 Petitions, variously signed, to President and Directors, April 6, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
746 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

of a cent (making 5/16 of a cent) per ton per mile, to take effect on all cargoes shipped on 

or after the first day of May next, and to continue to the first day of November next, after 

which date the rate will be 4/16 ct, of a ton per mile, as it now is.181

The rise in trade and canal revenue triggered a petition from a number of canal employees, asking 

for a general wage increase to compensate for the rising inflation of the war years. This request 

was tabled immediately by the directors as it would further drain the company finances at a time 

when they were attempting to place the operation of the waterway on a more firm footing.182

Just as canal navigation was increasing, the canal company began to feel the effects of the 

Federal Draft Act that President Lincoln had signed on March 3. This, the first effective Federal 

draft, imposed liability on all male citizens between the ages of 20 and 45 with the exception of 

the physically or mentally unfit, men with certain types of dependents, those convicted of a felony, and various high federal and state officials. Draft quotas for each district would be set by the 

President on the basis of population and the number of men already in the service from each district. A drafted man could hire another as a substitute or purchase his way out for $300.183

In mid-April the canal board received word that two lock tenders, M. Burris and I. Edelin, had been drafted. As they were both poor men with large families, neither of them was financially able to procure a substitute. Accordingly, a canal official had loaned Edelin $100 for that 

purpose, while Burris borrowed a similar sum. By this time, the company owed each man over 

$200, and unless the board could do something soon, the men would “be compelled to dispose of 

their claims at a great sacrifice.”184

The quickened pace of trade activity during April and May 1863 produced a sense of optimism along the canal and local entrepreneurs quickly took steps to participate in the new-found 

prosperity. On April 19, Denton Jacques rented for 10 years at an annual fee of $10 two parcels of 

land near Lock No. 49 about 100 by 125 feet on the berm side and 10 by 15 feet on the towpath 

side on which he intended to build several warehouses.185 The firm of Bridges and Henderson, 

which had recently purchased the Round Top Cement Mill above Hancock, commenced negotiations in early May with canal officials to obtain free passage on the waterway to ship needed supplies between Hancock and the mill.186 George Hill, Jr., obtained a 20-year lease on a large parcel 

of ground belonging to the company just west of the Potomac Aqueduct on which he planned to 

construct a mill. To run his new enterprise, he negotiated a 20-year lease for 200 inches of water 

power from the canal company.187

At the same time, the improving trade gave rise to at least one proposal to provide the canal with an outlet to the Potomac just west of the Potomac Aqueduct and thus avoid the costly 

delays of boating through Georgetown. On May 7, T. S. Kidwell offered 

to take the whole front of the Canal from Shoemakers Mill to within 200 feet of a right 

line drawn from the West line of the Aqueduct upon a lease reviewable forever, at $500 

per annum, with the privilege reserved to this Company [Chesapeake & Ohio] of dropping loaded boats from the Canal into the river by mechanical contrivances, at any point 

along said line. 

 

181 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 329–330. 182 Petitions, variously signed, to President and Directors, April 6, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 183 Long, Civil War Day by Day, 325. 184 White to Board of Directors, April 10, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 185 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 327. 186 Hassett to Ringgold, May 4, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 187 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 335–336. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 747 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

After considering the proposal, the board determined that it was not “expedient or proper” to pursue the matter further at that time.188

Despite the economic upturn along the canal, the directors continued to receive reports of 

the long-term ill effects of the previous two years of hostilities on the mills along the waterway. 

One such report arrived in early May from Jacob Miller who owned a sawmill near Sharpsburg. 

Soldiers had taken his mill on January 19, 1862, and had prevented his sawing until May 14. After that, the water was out of the canal from July 1 to 12, for nearly two weeks in August, and 

again from September 14 on. Following the Battle of Antietam, soldiers used the mill as a hospital and then as a pickets’ rendezvous. When the soldiers moved out, they carried the doors, windows, partitions, garners, flooring, weatherboarding, chimney stove, and other movable things 

with them. Even his post and board fence had been cut down and burned. By then it was too late 

in the year to resume operation, even if the repair materials had been available.189

On May 20, Captain E. S. Allen of the Quartermaster’s Office informed the canal board 

that the tidelock at Georgetown was deteriorating and needed immediate repairs. Irked by the 

continued military occupation of the Rock Creek Basin, the directors authorized Clerk Ringgold 

to send the following cryptic reply: 

they [the board] have given directions to the Superintendent to make the Lock effective 

as early as can be done, but inasmuch as it may require repairs beyond the available 

means of the Company, and as it is and has been used for sometime past almost exclusively for the United States, and the injury has arisen in some degree from their agents, 

and further that the U. States have made free use of the Canal, without payment of tolls, I 

would suggest whether it would not be proper that they should contribute to the repairs of 

the Lock in question.190

At the 35th annual meeting of the company stockholders held on June 1, President Spates reported 

on the upsurge of canal trade in the spring of 1863. Since January1, 83,396 tons of coal had been 

transported on the waterway, compared to 94,819 tons for the entire year of 1862. With the help 

of the rate increase in April, revenue from tolls for the first five months of 1863 was $56,615.14, 

or nearly 90 percent of the $63,985.85 that had been collected during the entire previous year. 

Although there was still a deficiency in the number of boats needed for the growing trade, it was 

thought that the rising freight rates would encourage boat-building. Already, there were a number 

of new boats being built in Cumberland.191

After frustrating two Federal attempts to penetrate the strong defensive positions at Fredericksburg and march on Richmond, the Confederates on June 3 again undertook a strategic offensive. This effort was designed to carry the war to the North and relieve pressure on Vicksburg 

and Chattanooga by making the Federals withdraw strength from those areas to counter Lee’s 

threat to the rich Cumberland Valley. By June 8 Lee had concentrated most of his Army of 

Northern Virginia near Culpeper. During the northward movement of the Confederates, General 

Joseph Hooker, who had been named commander of the Army of the Potomac on January 26, 

ordered reconnaissance operations that resulted in the Battles of Franklin’s Crossing on June 5 

and Brandy Station on June 9. After the Rebels had driven Union troops out of their positions at 

Berryville and Martinsburg, the 9,000-man 2nd Division at Winchester was routed by Confederate 

 

188 Ibid, K, 334. 

189 Miller to President and Directors, May 1, 1863, Ltre. Recd., C & O Co.; Ringgold to Benton, May 29, 

1863, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co.; and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 324–325, 340. 

190 Ringgold to Allen, May 29, 1863. Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

191 Thirty-Fifth Annual Report (1863), 5. 
748 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

infantry and cavalry on June 14. On the 15th, Southern troops under Major General R. E. Rhodes 

crossed the Potomac at Williamsport, and after a short skirmish, drove off the small defending 

force. The next day, while most of the men were resting, bathing, and washing their clothes, a 

fatigue party made attempts to blow up the Conococheague Aqueduct and wreck the other nearby 

canal structures. Three days later, on the 18th, the remainder of Lee’s army crossed into Maryland 

at Boteler’s Ford near Shepherdstown. After moving his army into Maryland, Lee concentrated it 

at Hagerstown, six miles from the Potomac and 74 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, his principal 

objective.192

During the period in which the Army of Northern Virginia was proceeding northward, the 

canal was the scene of active military operations. At daybreak on June 10, some 250 Virginia 

cavalry under Major John S. Mosby crossed the Potomac at Muddy Branch to attack Company I, 

Sixth Michigan Cavalry, on duty near Lock No. 24. Dashing up the towpath, Mosby’s Raiders 

drove in the patrols and chased the retreating Federals to within three miles of Poolesville. The 

Rebels quickly withdrew after capturing some 17 prisoners and 20 horses. After burning the Union tents, stores, and equipment at Seneca, they proceeded down the towpath and recrossed the 

river at Muddy Branch.193

A daring raid was launched on the 17th by Lieutenant-Colonel Elijah V. White with 125 

men against a small Federal company under Captain Samuel C. Means stationed at Point of 

Rocks. Crossing the river near Catoctin Creek, he sent a company of 70 men toward Frederick, 

while he took the remainder down the canal towpath, routed Means’ company, and captured and 

burned three wagons and eighteen train cars. After cutting the telegraph wires and tearing up 

some railroad tracks, he recrossed the river with 53 of the 100 prisoners he had captured, all 

without the loss of any of his men.194

A third raid was launched against the Cumberland Division of the canal between Paw Paw Tunnel and the “Narrows” several days before June 20. Although the only available information on the raid appears in a letter from Superintendent Lowe to Clerk Ringgold on that 

date, it is apparent that the Rebels intended to disrupt canal navigation. One or two lock 

gates were damaged, and the waterway was cut just below Lock No. 67 and between 

Locks No. 71 and 72 in a high embankment. Fortunately for the canal company, both 

breaches were made in slate material which did not wash easily. Thus, all the damage 

could be repaired in 10 working days with sufficient hands at a cost of about $600.195

After a series of engagements between Northern units and remnants of Lee’s troops at 

Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville in the Loudoun Valley, Lee ordered his main army to proceed 

from Hagerstown toward Pennsylvania on June 22. Upon learning of the Confederate movement, 

Hooker on the 25th directed his troops to cross the Potomac into Maryland at Edwards Ferry on a 

pontoon bridge, the materials for which had been brought up the canal from Washington. Using 

 

192 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXVII, pt. 2, 549–550; Glenn Tucker, High Tide at Gettysburg (New York, 1958), 

27–39; Clifford Dowdey, Death of a Nation (New York, 1958), 37–41;and Mark Mayo Boatner III, The 

Civil War Dictionary (New York, 1959), 331–332. At the time that the Confederates crossed the river at 

Shepherdstown, Major General Edward E. Johnson took up headquarters at Ferry Hill Plantation, the house 

being owned by the father of Henry Kyd Douglas who was a member of his staff. Wilbur Sturdevant Nye, 

Here Come the Rebels! (Baton Rouge, 1965), 147. 

193 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXVII, 786–788, and John S, Mosby, Mosby's War Reminiscences - Stuart's Cavalry Campaigns (New York, 1958), 158–162. 

194 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXVII, pt. 2, 768–771. 

195 Lowe to Ringgold, June 20, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 749 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

the canal towpath and nearby roads, the Army of the Potomac had proceeded to Frederick by the 

28th where it interposed itself between Lee’s columns and Washington.196

Meanwhile, General “Jeb” Stewart had commenced his famous Gettysburg Raid with 

three brigades on June 24 in an effort to circle around Hooker’ rear and flank and connect with 

the Confederate columns marching toward Harrisburg. As the Potomac was two feet above its 

normal level on the night of June 27 when Stewart determined to cross the river at Rowser’s Ford, 

a short distance below Dam No. 2, he ordered his caissons and limber chests to be emptied and 

his cavalrymen to carry the artillery shells and powder bags across in their arms. Then the guns 

and caissons were dragged into the water and, completely submerged at times, towed through 

nearly a mile of water to the Maryland shore below Seneca Creek.197

Regarding the canal as of strategic value to Hooker, Stuart seized possession of the waterway from Lock No. 23 to the Seneca Aqueduct and ordered his lead company to establish vedettes beyond the canal. To facilitate the crossing of the waterway, a passing barge was commandeered and turned crosswise to serve as an improvised bridge. Twenty dismounted men crossed 

over to the berm side of the canal and established an outpost, while the remainder of the Rebel 

forces crossed the waterway over the pivot bridge at Lock No. 23, which the Federals had failed 

to destroy prior to pulling out of the area. During the night, twelve barges blundered into the vicinity and were promptly commandeered. All were carrying freight except two with loads of Union soldiers, both white and black, en route to Washington. The Confederates found a valuable 

supply of grain on the boats. The prisoners were marched off toward Rockville, eight miles to the 

northeast. Before proceeding to Rockville to interdict the main supply route and line of communications for the Union army, Stuart had nine of the canal boats burned both above and below the 

Seneca Aqueduct, including one in its trunk that damaged the wooden railing. The gates of Lock 

No. 23 and Guard Lock No. 2 were destroyed and the towpath embankment breached, thereby 

draining the Monocacy Division of water and causing the other three boats to sink.198

On June 30, Superintendent Spates of the Monocacy Division reported that his jurisdiction was again in good boating order. The burned and sunken hulls at Seneca had been moved to 

one side of the canal and would be removed from the trunk as soon as possible. The lock gates 

had been replaced and the towpath embankment repaired. In addition, his crews had replaced the 

gates at Locks Nos.13 and 16 and the pivot bridges at Lock No. 13 and Great Falls, which had 

been destroyed by the Federals charged with guarding the line of the Potomac. The only remaining problem on his division was the pivot bridges at Lock No. 25 which the Army of the Potomac 

had used to cross the canal at Edwards Ferry on its way to Pennsylvania. The bridge had been 

damaged to the extent that it no longer turned on its pivot. Boats were passing in either direction 

between Seneca and Harpers Ferry in the employ of the federal government.199

Following the momentous Battle of Gettysburg, July 1-3, the Confederates commenced a 

retreat toward Virginia. A severe storm made the Potomac unfordable when Lee’s advance guard 

reached Williamsport on July 6. Here Union cavalry under Major General John Buford attacked 

 

196 Roger S. Cohen, “The Civil War in the Poolesville, Maryland, Area” (MD. Hist. Soc. Mss., 1961), 11. 

197 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXVII, pt. 2, 693, and Nye, Here Come the Rebels, 316. 

198 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXVII, pt. 2, 694; Nye, Here Come the Rebels, 316–317; Jane Chinn Sween, “A 

History of Dawsonville and Seneca, Montgomery County, Maryland,” (Md. Hist. Soc. Mss., 1967), 70–71; 

and Spates to President and Directors, June 30, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Although C. E. Detmold, the 

owner of four of the boats that were burned, later requested that he be relieved from the payment of tolls, 

the board on January 23, 1864, determined that the “payment of tolls be required on the cargoes of all boats 

to the points where such cargoes were transported and destroyed.” Proceedings of the President and Board 

of Directors, K, 366. 

199 Spates to President and Directors, June 30, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
750 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

the Rebel force under Brigadier General John Daniel Imboden but were repulsed.200 The rest of 

Lee’s army reached Hagerstown on July 7 and entrenched to await replacement of the pontoon 

bridge at Falling Waters that had been destroyed by Federal cavalry. Confederate engineers 

quickly began taking canal boats and pieces of houses and lumber to reconstruct the bridges. Following several more skirmishes between Union cavalry and the retreating Rebels in the vicinity 

of McCoy’s Ferry, Clear Spring, and Williamsport on the 8th and the 10th, Lee determined to commence the river crossing before the pontoon bridges were completed as the level of the Potomac 

had receded to a fordable level. On the 10th, small Rebel contingents began crossing the river in 

canal boats and hastily-constructed hulls “at the rate of three teams an hour,” but the bulk of 

Lee’s army withdrew across the river on the night of July 13-14 over the pontoon bridge that had 

been finished that morning.201 During the crossing, Major General Henry Heth staged a rearguard action at Falling Waters in which he lost two guns and 500 prisoners to the advancing Federals.202 With the entire Confederate force on the Virginia side of the river by the early afternoon 

of the 14th, the pontoon bridge was cut loose to allow the river’s current to carry it downstream 

and dash it against the banks. That same afternoon, the Northern army crossed the river into Virginia over a pontoon bridge thrown across the Potomac at Harpers Ferry.203

After both armies had crossed back into Virginia, canal officials surveyed the condition 

of the waterway and commenced plans for the restoration of navigation. Superintendent Masters 

informed canal officials on July 19 that the damage wrought by the Confederates and the late 

rains on his Williamsport Division would require three weeks of repairs before navigation could 

be restored.204 Henry S. Miller, the collector at Williamsport, reported on July 22 that he was forwarding the toll permits that he had received for the month of June: 

The cause of delay in these permits was an anxiety to have them there in good season - 

hence when the Rebels came into our place, I gave my permits to a man from our country, who expected to reach Washington, but was arrested, yet was successful in concealing my papers. He has just returned & I hasten them on. Please send me black waybills & 

return sheets. The Rebs tore in pieces every paper they could find about my office, but, I 

had all books and papers of importance concealed. We expect to see the boats running in 

about 2 weeks if the Johnny Rebs do not return. This morning we see their pickets again 

on the opposite side of the river. I am fearful we are not entirely clear here yet.205

After traveling down the canal from Cumberland to Williamsport, Greene observed on July 25 

that navigation had been restored as far down the waterway as Dam No. 5. Provided the Rebel 

pickets did not reappear on the Virginia shore, the Williamsport Division might be reopened as 

early as August 1. For more than a week, repair crews had been at work removing sandbars 

mending the towpath, and patching the Conococheague Aqueduct. He remarked that “It is really 

wonderful that a month’s hostile occupancy of the canal should have resulted in as little damage” 

for he had heard that the Antietam Division was unharmed. Thus, he was “charmed with the appearance of the work” and was encouraged that the Rebel pickets had disappeared. The one bad 

break on the Cumberland Division had been repaired, and he was pleased to note that a local 

farmer had prevented another by cutting a waste weir.206

 

200 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXVII, pt. 2, 299, 433–436. 201 Ibid, 275, 280, 301–303. 202 Ibid, 639–642. 203 Ibid, 301, and J. Warren Gilbert, The Blue and the Gray ([Gettysburg], 1922), 121. 204 Masters to Ringgold, July 19, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 205 Miller to Ringgold, July 22, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 206 Greene to Ringgold, July 25, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 751 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Because of his full-scale operations to repair the Williamsport Division, Superintendent 

Masters did not submit a full report to the board until August 4. The chief damage to his division 

had occurred at the Conococheague Aqueduct where the Rebels had torn “down to the bottom of 

the canal the 4 corners” of the structure—an “aggregate space of 74 feet.” All the coping and railing had been thrown into the creek and partially destroyed. A hole had been made in one of the 

arches “nearly the width of the aqueduct & 6 or 10 feet wide.” The four gates at Lock No. 44 

were burned, and the two upper courses of the lock walls had been torn up and thrown into the 

chamber. Four roads had been made through the canal banks on the division through which the 

Confederate troops had passed. The aqueduct would be rebuilt “with masonry as high as the water 

mark or as far as the stone on hand.” The repairs would be completed by August 8 at a total cost 

of nearly $5,000.207

Despite the resumption of navigation in the second week of August 1863, the operation 

of the waterway was disrupted repeatedly by Rebel guerilla raids in which large numbers of 

mules and quantities of provisions were stolen from the boatmen. A bitter Greene complained to 

Clerk Ringgold on September 2 that “the canal is again practically closed by the neglect of the 

Government to afford the boatmen protection.” As a result, numerous boats which arrived at 

Cumberland were refusing “to load and tie up their boat being unwilling and, in fact, unable to 

risk the loss of, in many cases, everything they have.” Although the military authorities had 

promised to “secure” the canal, a large number of boats “have since been disabled by the loss of 

their teams and have stopped.” He concluded his remarks by observing: 

I think it would meet the unanimous approbation of this whole community [Cumberland] 

if Mosby or White or whoever leads these incursions should ride into Washington some 

fine night and carry off with them to parts unknown, Gen. Halleck, Sec. Stanton, and everybody else whose duty it was to prevent these shameful raids - - even for their own 

sakes. If we could only have some heavy rains to raise the river enough to render it unfordable, we might hope to do some business, but our old-fashioned drought is upon us 

with no prospect of a let-up until winter.208

During the month of August, President Spates sent at least four letters to various Union commanders, complaining that the Federal troops along the canal were not effectively protecting it 

from the Rebel raids and were, in fact, hindering navigation by seizing horses and mules from the 

boatmen and damaging canal company property. As a result of the correspondence, additional 

cavalry units were sent from Washington in late August to guard the canal between Georgetown 

and the Monocacy River, and the commanders at Harpers Ferry and Hagerstown were ordered to 

have their troops secure the line of the canal in their areas. Copies of General Orders No. 44, 

which had been issued on April 21, 1862, were sent to all the officers stationed along the river 

with instructions not to interfere with navigation on the waterway.209

On September 1, the military authorities arrested a number of Marylanders and confined 

them at Fort McHenry, charged with having communicated with the enemy or having provided 

information to the Rebel forces during the Gettysburg campaign. Among those incarcerated were 

President Spates and William Broun, the contractor building the Virginia abutment at the new 

masonry Dam No. 5. In the case of Spates, the reason for his confinement was a boast that he had 

visited General Lee during the campaign. William H. Hoffman, to whom the conversation was 

 

207 Masters to President and Directors, August 4, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 208 Greene to Ringgold, September 2, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

209 Hentzelman to Spates, August 13, 22, 1863, Tucker to Spates, August 24, 1863, and Freeman to Spates, 

August 31, 1863, Spates Papers. 
752 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

addressed, had passed the information to the military authorities. The men were to be held at the 

prison facility in Baltimore pending their appearance before a military tribunal on the charges of 

disloyalty.210

The canal board on September 10 appointed Lawrence Brengle as company president ad. 

interim during the confinement of Spates. At the same time, Brengle and Director Joseph H. 

Bradley were ordered to proceed to Baltimore in an effort to procure the release of Spates and 

Broun.211

On the 15th, Brengle informed Ringgold concerning the results of the visit to Ft. 

McHenry. During a conversation with Spates, the confined president had acknowledged that he, 

in company with Davis Raman, had visited the headquarters of General Lee at Hagerstown during 

the recent campaign. However, he had not conversed with Lee but with Charles Marshall, one of 

the General’s aides with whom he had been “intimate” in Baltimore before the outbreak of the 

war.212 His visit to Marshall had been made so as to prevent his arrest by Confederate soldiers as 

he passed along the waterway and “to secure the interest of the canal as far as possible.” Because 

the two canal representatives were unable to affect the release of Spates, Director Bradley intended to meet with Secretary Stanton, who was considered to be more sympathetic to the case. 

Although the charges against Spates were not conclusive, his enemies along the canal were “striving to keep him in the Fort.” The charges against Broun were only rumors, and his release was 

expected within several days.213

Spates was still confined at Fort McHenry on September 24, when the board received a 

letter from him urging the adoption of certain measures to serve the interests of the company.214

Sometime after that date, he was transferred to the prison at Fort Lafayette in New York. Finally 

on January 25, 1864, after further intercession on his behalf by company officials, he was released by special order from Secretary Stanton.215

Despite the uncertainties caused by Rebel raids and the disarray in the canal leadership, 

business on the waterway continued to improve after its reopening in mid-August. Evidence of 

the resurgence of trade was manifested by the new enterprises that were commenced along the 

line. On September 24, Mortimer Osborn was granted permission to install a counter and shelves 

in a room of Lockhouse No. 30 for the purpose of selling dry goods and groceries to the passing 

boatmen.216 On the same day, George W. Case, the tender at Locks Nos. 19-20, was authorized to 

establish a tavern at Crommelin House.217 When it was discovered that the company did not own 

the tract of land adjoining the Potomac Aqueduct that had been rented earlier to George Hill, Jr., 

 

210 Fickey to Ringgold, September 1, 3, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; Washington Evening Star, September 2, 1863; and Stake to Brengle, September 17, 1863, Ltrs. Recd. C & O Co. This was the second time 

that Spates was placed under arrest for disloyalty. Although no information could be found concerning his 

first arrest, it is presumed that it occurred in the aftermath of the Antietam Campaign in 1862. 

211 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 349–350, and Middletown Valley Register, 

September 18, 1863. 

212 Spates was a native of Montgomery County, having owned a 287-acre farm, which he called “Contention,” along the old road between Washington and Rockville. By 1846 he was living in Baltimore, where he 

remained until 1853 when he moved to Cumberland to assume the position of Deputy Clerk of the Circuit 

Court of Allegany County, Cumberland Alleganian, June 24, 1876; Cumberland Daily News, June 24, 

1876; Rockville Advocate, June 29, 1876; Rockville Sentinel, June 30, 1876; Baltimore Gazette, June 28, 

1876; Cumberland Civilian, June 25, 1876; Card, Lodge No. 48, Independent Order of the Odd Fellows, 

February 1, 1853; and “Alfred Spates Qualification as Deputy Clerk,” March 11, 1853, in Spates Papers. 

213 Brengle to Ringgold, September 15, 1863, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 214 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 351. 215 Greene to Ringgold, January 25, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 216 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 351. 217 Ibid, K, 352. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 753 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

the company executed a 20-year lease for 200 inches of water power with him for use at his mill 

located at the corner of Potomac and Water streets in Georgetown which would soon commence 

operation.218 On December 17, Daniel L. White was granted permission to construct a storehouse 

on the berm side of the canal at Conrad’s Ferry.219

During this period, the canal company continued to face the problem of inefficiency on 

the part of some of its division superintendents and of disloyalty charges against others. On September 14, Horace Benton, who had allowed the Georgetown Division to deteriorate, was fired 

and replaced by John Cameron, a long-time company employee.220 Later on December 17, the 

board received an anonymous note charging Superintendent George W. Spates of the Monocacy 

Division with disloyalty and recommending Alex Dent as his replacement. Although generally 

dissatisfied with the performance of Spates, the directors took no action on the communication.221

All told, the year 1863 witnessed a tremendous revival in the overall Cumberland coal 

trade as its aggregate production increased to more than 748,000 tons, only a little less than the 

amount shipped in 1860 and 430,000 tons more than was shipped in 1862. One of the reasons for 

the increased orders in the Maryland field was that the Broad Top mines were closed for three 

months in 1863 as the result of the Gettysburg Campaign and a two-month miners’ strike.222

The canal shared in the revival of trade as the total tonnage carried on the waterway 

soared to 265,847 tons, a sum that nearly equaled the combined tonnages of 1861 and 1862. The 

coal tonnage rose to 229,416 tons, more than double the 94,819 tons that had been transported in 

1862. The tolls received from the trade increased to $154,928.26, compared with the sum of 

$134,552.84 collected during the previous two years combined.223

In June 1864 the stockholders were informed about the progress of canal trade during 

1863 as follows: 

The business of the Canal for the past year has been much better than that of the two preceding years; there was less interruption to the trade from military movements and other 

casualties to which it had been subjected, but for the invasion of June last, which in a 

great measure suspended business for two months of the most active period of the year, 

the revenues of the Company would have exceeded those of any former year. 

The damages sustained by this invasion required an expenditure of about $15,000 

to restore the navigation and the loss of revenue for two months, which would probably 

have been not less than $50,000. With this exception there was but little interruption to 

the navigation during the season of business which commenced about the 15th of March 

and continued till near the end of December.224

 

218 Ibid, K, 358, and Ringgold to Hill, November 27, 1863, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

219 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 361. 220 Ibid, K, 349. 221 Ibid, K, 361. 222 Harvey, “Civil War and Maryland Coal Trade”, 371. 223 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 307. 224 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report (1864), C & O Co., 3. 
754 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

V. THE CANAL TRADE EXPANSION CONTINUES: 1864 

The canal was closed by ice from late December 1863 to early February 1864. At that time, the 

water was withdrawn to remove obstructions in the prism and make repairs in the banks and masonry structures along the waterway. Navigation was to resume in early March, and the canal 

board looked forward to even a more prosperous year than the previous one.225

While the repairs were underway, the canal board confronted a number of issues that 

were symptomatic of the greatly expanding commerce on the waterway. On February 18, Edward 

M. Linthicum, a long-time prominent Georgetown merchant, submitted a proposal to the directors 

for the construction of an inclined plane just west of the Potomac Aqueduct “to pass boats from 

the canal to the river.” Such a structure would alleviate the growing congestion of the traffic 

through Georgetown and in the Rock Creek Basin. The board was interested in the idea and determined to visit the Morris Canal in New Jersey in April to observe the world-famous inclined 

planes operating on that canal. The clerk and the treasurer were directed to procure a topographical survey plat of the company land on the river side of the canal between the aqueduct and the 

Foundry property.226

On April 14, President Spates, together with Directors Albert, Brengle, and Watson and 

the Maryland Commissioners of Public Works proceeded to Newark, New Jersey. Here they were 

met by W. H. Talcott, the engineer in charge of the works on the Morris Canal who gave them a 

tour of the canal and a “verbal explanation” of the operation of the inclined planes. Greatly impressed by what they saw, the directors returned to Washington very enthusiastic about the construction of an inclined plane above Georgetown. However, the uncertainties of the war and a 

shortage of expendable cash prevented the immediate building of the plane.227

The canal board determined on February 18 to terminate the leases of those parties renting company land west of the tidelock and tumbling dam at the mouth of Rock Creek. The company was anxious to reacquire use of this land so that it could be relet to interests who would install improvements for the transfer of coal to river boats. The current tenants, William H. Godey, 

Walter Godey, Solomon Stover, Dickson & King, and J. L. Sims, were notified that they were to 

vacate the property by March 31. At a public meeting on March 15, the property was advertised 

for new one-year rentals to begin April 1. All the lots were rented to M. P. McPherson, an agent 

of Edward Mayer of New York, for an annual sum of $3,760. As he intended to erect the necessary improvements to facilitate the transfer of coal to river boats, the board quickly extended the 

one-year agreement on the condition that the new operation would be a successful venture. As the 

current tenants possessed leases to the properties that had not expired, they refused to relinquish 

their claims to the land. Unable to force the tenants off the lots, the board on April 11 resorted to 

negotiating equitable arrangements with the lessees in order to turn possession of the property 

over to the Mayer coal interests as early as possible.228

As the boating season approached, the board received more applications for the construction of feed stores and warehouses along the canal to accommodate the growing trade. On February 18 the directors forwarded to Superintendent Spates of the Monocacy Division three such requests from M. E. Alexander, L. Roderick, and George P. Ramsberg to build structures near Lock 

No. 29. Upon the recommendation of Spates, M. E. Alexander was granted permission on March 

 

225 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report 1864), 6. 226 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 370–371. 227 Ibid, K, 379. On September 8, 1864, the board paid $75 to W. C. Smith, a civil engineer, for conducting 

a survey and drawing plans for the outlet locks to be built at the same location as the proposed site of the 

inclined planes. Ibid, K, 398. Ultimately, the controversy would be settled in the early 1870s when it was 

determined to build the Georgetown Incline Plane. 

228 Ibid, K, 369, 376–378, 381–382. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 755 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

24 to build a store house on the canal berm near the lock to sell feed and provisions to the boatmen. At the same time, George P. Ramsberg was authorized to build a warehouse on the company land on the canal berm in the vicinity of the lock.229

Although the canal was reopened to navigation in early March, little trade passes down 

the waterway for several weeks. On March 14 Superintendent Lloyd Lowe of the Cumberland 

Division reported: 

The canal has been navigable ten days. No boats been loaded. Two or three that was 

loaded last December has started down. The Boatmen are holding back for an increase on 

freight. They are having trouble to get hands. I found it necessary last month to advance 

the pay of Laborers, and will have to continue it to obtain old hands...230

Three days later the Washington National Republican published an article that elaborated on the 

labor unrest as follows: 

nearly all the miners and boatmen have struck for higher wages. The company [Cumberland Coal and Iron Company] refuse to accede to these demands from the fact that to do 

so would necessarily carry up the price of coal to such a high rate that there would be 

comparatively little demand for it, especially when brought in competition with a superior coal selling at about the same price. There is very little coal at the mines now, hence 

this strike is the more unfortunate. If the miners insist upon their demand for increased 

wages, it is said that the company will discharge the hands and employ others. In such an 

event, resistance is threatened, but as some of Gen. Sigel’s forces are near at hand, it will 

not amount to much.231

The strike was short-lived for on March 18 Greene wrote from Cumberland that 

We shall have a season of great trouble, I fear, in our business. The boatmen have gone 

to work at two dolls freight ‘for the present.’ I do not doubt they will make a demand for 

more, later in the season. The miners are concocting a strike for $.25 a ton additional! So 

we go. These demands cannot be granted and I have hardly a hope of avoiding serious 

suspension of business.232

Shortly after commencement of navigation, the board on March 24 took further steps to facilitate 

the growing coal trade. On that date Edward Lynch proposed to erect a platform and two derricks 

on the towpath near the Foundry above Georgetown that were to be used for loading and unloading coal. As the structure would eliminate some of the congestion in Georgetown, the board 

quickly approved the idea. To make room for the new facility, it was decided to change the towpath by passing it from the south side under the canal trunk, through the culvert above the Foundry and on to the road on the north bank. The road was to be repaired and made secure, and a 3-

to-4-foot high post & rail fence was to be built along the wall of the north side of the waterway.233

 

229 Ibid, K, 370, 373–374. 230 Lowe to Ringgold, March 14, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 231 Washington National Republican, March 17, 1864, quoted in Harvey, “Civil War and Maryland Coal 

Trade,” 372–373. 

232 Greene to Ringgold, March 18, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 233 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 374–375, 387. 
756 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

The canal was in full operation by late March with fifteen to twenty boats leaving Cumberland every day. However, repairs on the towpath and other structures were still underway. Included in the repairs were the replacement of the gates at Lock No. 72 and the substitution of a 

causeway for the bridge across the canal opposite the mouth of Patterson Creek, both of which 

had been burned by Confederate cavalry raiders under Brigadier General Thomas L. Rosser during a sweep of the Patterson Valley in January and February.234 Among other projects, the company carpenters were put to work building new gates for use in case of an emergency. Because of 

the war, labor for the work crews was scarce throughout the Potomac Valley, particularly in 

Montgomery County. The maintenance of the waterway was hindered also by the government’s 

use of some of its scows for the purpose of “moving and building block houses at the different 

fords on the river in order that the canal may be strongly-guarded this coming season.” Company 

officials continued to face the demands of its employees for higher wages as a result of the wartime inflation.235

Heavy rains in scattered parts of the Potomac Valley in early April caused some flood 

damage to the canal, particularly on the Monocacy and Williamsport Divisions. On the former, a 

heavy earth and rock slide occurred near the Marble Quarry about one mile below Lock No. 26. 

The level was drained and the rock blasted into powder and removed with wheelbarrows. Although the high water had covered most of the towpath from Seneca Creek to Lock No. 26, the 

canal banks were not washed badly. As a number of lock gates and balance beams had been broken, a large quantity of timber was purchased at Orleans and Harpers Ferry with which to build 

replacements. Since the damage was generally light, the division was reopened for boat traffic 

within a week.236 

On the Williamsport Division the only damage suffered by the canal was the number of 

sand bars washed into the trunk by the flood waters. Although the high water had covered the 

towpath on the slackwater behind Dam No. 4 for an unheard-of 15 days, the banks had not been 

washed significantly. Accordingly, the division was ready for navigation within five days.237

The board made two significant decisions on April 15 that reflected the rising inflation of 

the period. After May 1 the toll on the coal would be increased from 5/16 to 3/8 of a cent a ton 

per mile.238 At the same time, a new set of wage increases for the company employees would take 

effect. The pay raises would be as follows: 

Collector of Tolls, Georgetown $900 (annual) 

Division Superintendents $1,000 (annual) 

Lock-Keepers at Locks Nos. 6–62, 67–72, 75 Present pay plus $5 per mo. 

Lock-Keeper at Locks Nos. 63 1/3–66 $600 (annual) 

Lock-Keeper at Locks Nos. 73–74 $500 (annual) 

Lock-Keeper at Guard Lock No. 8 $400 (annual) 

Repair Crew Bosses $45 (monthly)239

The increasing trade on the canal during the spring of 1864 was reflected in the growing number 

of business activities along the waterway. The old Robinson Mill in Georgetown, which had been 

closed because of the war-induced cutbacks in demand, was purchased in early April by Benja-

 

234 Lowe to Ringgold, February 3, March 24, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 235 Spates to President and Directors, March 31, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 236 Spates to A. Spates, April 16, 19, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 237 Masters to Ringgold, April 13, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 238 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 382. 

239 Ibid, K, 383. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 757 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

min Darby and George Shoemaker, Jr., and quickly put back into operation.240 On May 12 the 

firm of McVeirs and Jones was granted permission to erect a store on the berm side of the canal 

at Edwards Ferry to sell groceries and feed to the passing boatmen.241 That same day the board 

responded to the inquiry of J. Phillip Roman by authorizing him to build a steam packet and to 

commence passenger service on the waterway. As an inducement for such an undertaking, the 

directors agreed to permit the boat to navigate the canal free of tolls and to pay him an annual 

sum of $200 as long as the vessel was well-maintained.242 To aid in the repair of the growing 

number of boats on the waterway, John Ellis was permitted on June 2 to commence construction 

of a dry dock above Lock No. 14.243

The canal company stockholders were informed at their annual meeting on June 6 that 

navigation on the waterway was proceeding at a brisk pace. Although there had been brief interruptions from high water in April, no material injuries had been inflicted on the canal by the frequent and unusual rising of the river during the spring. The rising price of coal in 1863–64 had 

allowed the company to raise its toll on that product. It was believed that the 

advanced rates will not injuriously affect the coal interest, will materially increase the 

revenues of the Company, enable them to keep the Canal in good condition, make permanent improvements upon it, insure to a greater extent than heretofore, uninterrupted 

navigation, and to materially reduce during the present year, pressing and meritorious pecuniary obligations, which have been an incubus upon its revenues, and greatly restricted 

essential improvements during the past three years. 

Many new boats had been built during the past year, and it was predicted that the higher coal 

prices would encourage the construction of more vessels. Up until May 31, 101,390 tons of coal 

had been shipped on the waterway, producing $74,988.58 in toll receipts.244

During the month of July, more requests from local valley residents reached the canal 

board, asking for permission to build warehouses and grocery and feed stores along the waterway 

to take advantage of the increasing commerce passing over the line. On July 7 Greenbury Foot 

was authorized to build a feed store near Lock No. 28.245 That same day a request from Daniel F. 

Roderick to construct a grain warehouse near Lock No. 29 was referred to Superintendent Spates 

for comment.246 Later on the 28th, another proposal from Charles F. Elgin to build a warehouse at 

Edwards Ferry for shipping granite from the nearby quarry was submitted to Spates for a recommendation.247

Before any action could be taken on these proposals, the canal again became the scene of 

active military activities. In late June, Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early was sent to clear Union 

forces from the Shenandoah Valley. Having accomplished this objective, Early, with 14,000 men, 

was directed to cross the Potomac and march toward Washington in an effort to relieve the 

Northern siege of Petersburg, rail head of the roads leading to Richmond and an important industrial center of the waning Confederacy, begun on June 19.248 He was also to destroy the canal and 

the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.. 

 

240 Ibid, K, 375, 380–381. 241 Ibid, K, 380, 385. 242 Ibid, K, 387. 243 Ibid, K, 391. 244 Thirty-Sixth Annual Report (1864), 5–6. 245 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 393. 246 Ibid. 247 Ibid. 248 Frank E. Vandiver, Jubal's Raid: General Early's Famous Attack on Washington in 1864 (New York, 
758 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

At the same time that Early was preparing to cross into Maryland, a band of guerrillas 

under Mosby forded the river near Lock No. 28, about one mile above Point of Rocks, on July 4. 

At the lock, the Confederates attacked a canal excursion boat with a number of Treasury Department officials aboard who were traveling from Harpers Ferry to Washington. All valuables were 

taken, several passengers were taken prisoner, and the boat was set on fire. The Rebels proceeded 

to Point of Rocks where they took many private possessions, burned a warehouse, robbed several 

stores, and burned military equipment left behind by a retreating Federal detachment. After raiding Poolesville where they committed further depredations, the raiders recrossed the river below 

Point of Rocks.249

Early reached the vicinity of the Potomac River near Harpers Ferry on July 4 and prepared to cross into Maryland. Fighting broke out at South Branch Bridge, Patterson’s Creek 

Bridge, and Frankford, West Virginia, and a portion of the Confederate cavalry occupied Shepherdstown. As they retreated before the Rebels, Union troops under Major General Franz Sigel 

burned the bridge at Lock No. 38. 

During the night of the 4th, the Union forces evacuated Harpers Ferry and took position 

on Maryland Heights after burning the railroad and pontoon bridges across the river. After finding Harpers Ferry too difficult to take because of the Northern guns commanding the town from 

Maryland Heights, Early began crossing the Potomac into Maryland at Boteler’s Ford near Shepherdstown on the 5th. As a result, skirmishes were fought at Keedysville, Noland’s Ferry, Point of 

Rocks, and Solomon’s Gap. A portion of his men were sent to encamp near Antietam Furnace 

from where working parties were dispatched to destroy the Antietam Aqueduct and the nearby 

canal locks and burn as many boats as possible during the night. Early himself participated in the 

burning of several canal barges near the aqueduct.250 On the 6th, Early’s Confederates captured 

Hagerstown and skirmished at Sir John’s Run and Big Cacapon Bridge, West Virginia, and Antietam Creek, Maryland. The following day saw fighting at Middletown, Brownsville, and Catoctin. After encounters at Antietam, Frederick and Sandy Hook on the 8th, miscellaneous Federal 

units gathered under Major General Lew Wallace in an effort to halt the move on Washington. 

On the 9th, 6,000 bluecoats stood directly in the way of the Confederate advance on Washington. 

Early’s 10,000 infantry moved toward to the Monocacy River several miles southeast of Frederick. After a stiff fight, the Federals were routed and the way to Washington was clear. Skirmishes 

took place at Rockville and Gunpowder Bridge on the 10th. The Confederates reached Silver 

Spring the following day, and fighting ensued in the Northern outskirts of the Northern capital, 

particularly at Fort Stevens. Seeing Federal troops moving into the massive fortifications of the 

city, Early commenced a withdrawal toward the Potomac on the 13th, and after several fire fights 

at Rockville and Poolesville he crossed his infantry and artillery at Conrad’s Ferry and his cavalry 

at Edwards Ferry. To delay pursuit, the Confederate rear guard burned the towpath bridge across 

the Edwards Ferry River Locks.251

During the 10-day period that Early was advancing on Washington, a number of Confederate raiding parties were sent out to wreak as much havoc against the canal as possible. As a result, lock gates, bridges, and canal boats were burned in addition to the extensive damage to the 

Antietam Aqueduct. The principal damage to the canal occurred on the Monocacy, Antietam, and 

 1960), 59–88. 

249 Mantz to Smith, July 5, 1864, in William E. Bain, ed., B & O in the Civil War from the Papers of Wm. 

Prescott Smith (Denver, 1966), 99–100. 250 Ibid, 88, and Frank E. Vandiver, ed., War Memories: Jubal Anderson Early (Bloomington, 1960), 383–

385. 

251 A Memoir of the Last Year of the War for Independence in the Confederate States of America

(Lynchburg, 1867), 54–62; Long, Civil War Day by Day, pp.533–539; O. R., Series I, Vol. XXXVII, pt. 

1,pp. 169–358; and Vandiver, Jubal's Raid, 89–121, 148–174. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 759 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Williamsport Divisions, while no injuries to canal structures were reported between Georgetown 

and Seneca and between South Branch and Hancock.252

On the Monocacy Division, the damage was concentrated on the portion of the line between Locks Nos. 24 and 29. The gates of Lock No. 24 were destroyed, while those at Lock No. 

25 were “thrown down, [the] beams cut off, [and] one gate cut in two.” The bridge at the Edwards 

Ferry River Locks was burned and thrown into the waterway. The gates at Lock No. 26, near 

White’s Ford where Early’s troops had crossed the river back into Virginia, were thrown down 

and burned. One of the lock chamber's walls was torn down for some 30 feet in length and from 2 

to 4 feet in depth. The gates of Lock No. 29 were taken down and cut. None of the other masonry 

structures on the division were damaged, but many tools and wheelbarrows had been taken. Two 

boats had been burned—the packet Flying Cloud and the new ice breaker scow. Attempts had 

been made to burn the repair crew’s houseboat, but Mrs. Null, the cook, had defended it successfully. A large force of laborers, carpenters, and masons was soon at work on the repairs, and it 

was expected that the division would be ready for navigation by August 1.253

The Antietam Division suffered considerable damage. Four lock gates and between 35 

and 41 canal boats were burned. The most critical damage occurred at the Antietam Aqueduct 

where most of the masonry on the berm and towpath parapets was destroyed. A portion of two of 

the arches was also torn out. As the entire countryside was in such a state of panic, workers, particularly masons were difficult to find until the end of July. Finally, on the 28th, the directors ordered Superintendent John Cameron of the Georgetown Division to proceed to the aqueduct “as 

early as practicable” to superintend the repairs.254

Considerably less injury was inflicted on the Williamsport Division. Nine boats, one of 

which was loaded, were burned, and six lock gates were cut at the heel posts. The railing was torn 

off the Conococheague Aqueduct, and the lock shanty at Williamsport was burned. The small 

bridge at Four Locks was also destroyed. While none of the damage was critical enough to interrupt travel for more than several days, the leaks in Dam No. 5, coupled with a summer drought, 

were so serious that the water on the division was too shallow to pass loaded barges. The repair 

crews had scattered during the raids, so it would be some time before the cam could be tightened.255

The Cumberland Division received some damage, primarily in the vicinity of Lock No. 

68. The bridge over the lock was burned, and the, masonry and gates partially damaged. Fourteen 

boats were captured in the vicinity of the lock and after the horses and mules were unhitched, the 

craft, most of which were loaded with coal, were set on fire. The Patterson Creek railroad bridge 

was burned as was the temporary bridge over the canal at that point. Even more serious to the 

operation of this division was the continuing drought which prevented the passage of boats drawing more than four feet of water.256

The Confederate raids had a devastating impact on canal trade and the economic fortunes 

of the towns along its line. Aware of what damage guerillas could do to their mule teams and 

boats, the boatmen at Georgetown balked at leaving the security of the town. From the Potomac 

Aqueduct west to Chain Bridge, their barges formed a solid chain. With no grain the mills were 

 

252 Washington National Intelligencer, July 15, 1864. 253 Spates to Ringgold, July 16, 1864, and Spates to President and Directors, July 25, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C 

& O Co. Also see John S. Mosby, Mosby and His Men (New York, 1867), 210–223. 254 Benton to Ringgold, July 20, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board 

of Directors, K, 392–393. 255 Masters to Ringgold and Miller to Ringgold, July 18, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 256 Lowe to Ringgold, July 25, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
760 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

closed, and with no coal or flour the coasting vessels were idled. It was reported that “Georgetown was like Sunday on Tuesday.”257

In view of the needed repairs and the rising price of coal, the board on July 25 ordered an 

increase in the toll on that product. The rate, which was to take effect on August 1, would be 

raised from 3/8 of a cent to 1⁄2 cent a ton per mile.258

The directors also became embroiled in a controversy with the Treasury Department at 

this time over the payment of a 21⁄2 percent federal tax on the gross receipts of the revenues of the 

company. Congress had passed a bill on June 30 imposing such a tax on canals and other corporations to help finance the war effort. In July and August, canal officials resisted the claim, insisting 

that by Section 9 of the Act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia incorporating the 

canal which was approved by Section 1 of the Act of Congress on March 3, 1825, the waterway 

was tax exempt. Refuting such an allegation, Assistant Assessor R. B. Ferguson informed Clerk 

Ringgold on August 27: 

Section 9 of the act of incorporation by the General Assembly of Virginia declares that 

said canal shall ‘be forever exempt from the payment of any tax imposition or assessment 

whatsoever.” This I understand to apply only so far as the State of Virginia is concerned. 

Section 1 of the Act of Congress above referred to ratifies and confirms the act of incorporation by the State of Virginia only so far as the District of Columbia is concerned; or 

in other words, the general provisions of the incorporating act is thereby extended over 

that part of the Ches. & Ohio Canal in the District of Columbia. I do not understand this 

section of the Act of Congress to say or to mean that the Ches. & Ohio Canal shall ‘be 

forever exempt from the payment of any tax, imposition or assessment whatsoever.’259

Near the end of July, the canal again became the scene of military hostilities. After routing the 

Federals under General George Crook at the Second Battle of Kernstown, Virginia, on July24, 

Early’s Confederates in the northern Shenandoah followed the retreating bluecoats in a heavy rain 

to Bunker Hill, north of Winchester. Fighting erupted at Bunker Hill, Martinsburg, and Williamsport on the 25th, and the Union troops crossed the Potomac at Boteler’s Ford on the 26th and encamped near Hagerstown, leaving guards at all the Potomac River fords between Antietam Creek 

and Hancock.260

As Early carried out an operation to destroy portions of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in 

the northern Shenandoah, changes were made in the Union command along the Potomac better to 

oppose the new Rebel threat. On the 29th Early’s cavalry under Brigadier General John 

McCausland crossed the Potomac at McCoy’s Ferry. Marching directly on Clear Spring, the Rebels drove a 400-man Federal cavalry unit five miles back toward Hagerstown before proceeding 

to Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. The following day saw the firing of Chambersburg and further 

skirmishing at Emmitsburg, Monocacy Junction, and Shepherdstown. 

Entering Hancock early on the morning of the 31st, the Rebels under McCausland demanded a ransom of $30,000 and 5,000 cooked rations from the town. Although this demand 

could not be met, the citizens collected all the money they could raise and delivered it to the Rebel commander. Among the funds handed over to the invaders were “large sums of script, bonds, 

 

257 Washington Evening Star, July 9, 1864, and Washington Daily Intelligencer, July 22, 1864. 258 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 395. 

259 Ferguson to Ringgold, August 27, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 260 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXXVII, pt. 1, 326–331, and Long, Civil War Day by Day, 545–546. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 761 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

and acceptances of the [canal] company” that were taken from Jacob Snively, the collector at the 

town.261

Federal cavalry under Averell pursuing the Confederates attacked them at Hancock later 

in the day. The Rebels pulled out to the northwest toward Cumberland. Here on August 1 the 

Confederates staged an assault on the Union lines stretched along the heights two miles east of 

the city near Folck’s Mill overlooking the valley of Evitts Creek.262

During the night the Rebels abandoned the field and on August 2 they proceeded down 

the Oldtown Road toward the Deep Cut. Here the 153d Ohio, after destroying Cresap’s Bridge 

over the canal, had taken position on Alum Hill. While Confederate artillery softened the Federals, several Virginia battalions marched toward a section of the canal that had been left unguarded 

by the bluecoats. Wrecking a nearby building, the Confederates used the timbers to bridge the 

waterway. Crossing the canal, the Rebels quickly turned the Ohioans’ flank and forced them to 

flee across the Potomac. On the south side of the river some of the Union soldiers were posted 

behind the railroad embankment while others boarded an ironclad train that had been brought 

down from Cumberland. The train, consisting of four armored cars with three guns on each, was 

soon knocked out by the Confederate artillery, and the Ohioans were forced to surrender.263

Meanwhile, the Confederates had begun to sense trouble as more Federals were moving 

into the area. Moreover, Major General Philip H. Sheridan had been named commander of the 

Army of the Shenandoah on August 1 with the specific task of ridding the Valley of Early and all 

Confederates. Thus, while the Ohioans were surrendering at Oldtown, Early’s cavalry were fighting a rear-guard action at Hancock as they recrossed the Potomac. After a day of rest on the 3rd, 

Early’s men skirmished at Antietam Ford, Maryland, on the 4th, as they remained a bane of the 

Federal forces in Virginia.264 The following day skirmishing broke out at Keedysville, Williamsport, and Hagerstown as Confederate units once more entered Maryland in a brief foray. Following a period of maneuvering on the Shenandoah as Sheridan attempted to destroy the Confederate 

guerillas under Early and Mosby, Early advanced toward the Potomac in late August but found all 

the fords between Shepherdstown and Williamsport well guarded.265

The Confederate raids into Maryland and the Federal attempts to quash the guerilla 

movements took their toll on the trade of the waterway. The Washington newspapers reported on 

the dismal fortunes of the canal during this period. On August 9 the Chronicle observed that the 

damage done to the waterway and to the boats along its line would “keep back over a hundred 

thousand tons of coal from the Washington market this season.” Although repairs had commenced on the Antietam Aqueduct, Rebel forces in the vicinity had driven the crews away by 

firing across the river.266

The Evening Star of August 22 gave even a darker picture of the effect of the military activities on the canal. The plight of the waterway was described as follows: 

Business upon the canal amounts to nothing comparatively. All that was received since 

the 1st of August by the canal was wood from farms within 20 miles of town. Ice from 

Middleton’s ice-houses, 12 miles distant [at Widewater], and a few hundred bushels of 

grain from points on the canal, the most distant of which is Berlin, 55 miles. The total 

number of arrivals was 20, an average of one daily up to last Saturday. 

 

261 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 398–399. 262 O. R., Series I, Vol. XXXVII, pt. 1, 188–189, 354–355. 263 Ibid, and Lowe to Ringgold, August 25, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 264 Long, Civil War Day by Day, 549–551. 265 Joel J. Williamson, Mosby's Rangers (New York, 1896), 220–222. 266 Washington Chronicle, August 9, 1864. 
762 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

The prospect of reopening of the coal trade this season is regarded by the agents 

of the companies as very unpromising.267

As there was no through navigation at all during the month of August, only $398.80 in tolls was 

collected giving the canal its new low for a single month since July 1861.268

As a result of effective Federal cavalry operations the Potomac Valley was quiet by early 

September, and the scene of small military skirmishes and raids moved well back into the Shenandoah Valley. On the 8th the board, taking cognizance of the return of calm to the valley, commenced to place the canal back into operation. The directors determined 

That the payment of toll be required on such boats as were destroyed by burning, only for 

the distance which the cargo was transported, and that the several Supts. be directed to 

deliver such coal as has been removed from the canal, as far as practicable, to the several 

owners thereof.269

The prospects for reopening the canal to boat traffic were more encouraging by mid-September 

than they had been for nearly two months. In an article on the 13th, the Washington Evening News 

reported that: 

The news from the western divisions of the canal is cheering. The repairs are 

progressing rapidly, and it is hoped that the empty boats which are lying at Georgetown, 

about fifty in number, will be able to go through to Cumberland before the close of the 

week, and that next week the coal trade will be reopened, and all the docks be as noisy as 

ever, with the busy beavers employed in receiving the cargoes for shipment at the 

wharves. 

Up to this date [during the month of September] the arrivals by the canal were an 

even dozen. Of these, three were rafts bringing iron from Cabin John Bridge; six were 

boats laden with wood from points within twenty miles of town; two boats laden with 

grain and flour, and one with hay, all from landings within forty-five miles of town. In 

the same time there were twenty-one departures, three of these boats, venturing to try to 

pass through to Cumberland; the others were bound for nearer landings. 

Of these five only carried cargoes, principally dry goods, groceries, lumber and 

fertilizers. The resumption of trade through to Cumberland will restore to Georgetown 

the appearance of life which was visible just before the rebel raid which suspended the 

trade by this route.270

Encouraged by these developments, the representatives of the Allegany County coal companies 

met in mid-September to agree upon joint action with reference to the demands of the miners and 

boatmen for higher rates. The result of the conference was that the demands of both groups were 

met. The price for mining was fixed at $1 per ton and that for transportation was set at $3 per 

ton.271

 

267 Washington Evening Star, August 22, 1864. 268 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), C & O Co., Appendix B, 10. 

269 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 398. 270 Washington Evening Times, September 13, 1864. 271 Cumberland Alleganian, September 21, 1864, quoted in Harvey, Civil War and Maryland Coal Trade, 

376. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 763 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Meanwhile, the repair crews which had commenced work shortly after the Confederate 

withdrawal had the canal ready for navigation by September 20. However, the repairs and cleanup details continued at their jobs until the end of the month. Superintendent Benton of the Antietam Division reported on October 1 that he had just completed the removal of 24 loaded coal 

boats that had been burned and sunk between Dams Nos. 3 and 4. Moreover, four new lock gates 

had been installed at Lock No. 37, and the Antietam Aqueduct had been completed with the aid 

of Superintendent Cameron of the Georgetown Division.272

Superintendent Masters of the Williamsport Division informed canal officials on October 

3 that he had commenced repairs as soon as the Rebels had left the country. Considerable damage 

had been done to the upper portion of the Conococheague Aqueduct during the last raid. However, the major problem on the division was the leaks in Dam No.5 which had resulted in a shortage of water for passing loaded boats down to Dam No. 4. After some boats were partially 

unloaded at Guard Lock No. 5 on September 30 to allow them to proceed down the canal, a rain 

storm on October 1 had raised the level of water behind the dam. Repair crews were at work 

tightening the structure and hopefully would succeed in patching the leaks before the water level 

fell again.273

Periodic night forays across the Potomac by Confederate guerilla units under Mosby and 

White continued to hamper canal operations during September and October. Known as “Mosby’s 

Rangers,” and “White’s Battalion” or the “Loudoun Rangers,” these roving bands numbering 

some 400 men spread fear among the boatmen along the canal as they staged a series of lightning 

raids into Maryland to steal horses and mules, burn barges, destroy Baltimore & Ohio trains, and 

cut the telegraph wires leading from Washington.274 On September 29, the company officials received word from A. C. Greene at Cumberland that the 

Rebs are stealing the horses from the Boats clear to Cumbd. Two boats have been robbed 

within ten miles of Cumbd. and last night a gang of McNeill’s men crossed at Black Oak 

bottom, passed over Will’s Mountain into the valley of Georges Creek and swept the coal 

mines of their horses. The American Co. lost sixteen. 

Greene went on to complain that the Union army commander at Cumberland was doing nothing 

to counter the tactics of the guerrillas: 

In the meantime Gen. Kelly sits in Cumbd. surrounded by thousands of men but takes no 

steps to prevent or to punish their maraudings. I wish you would impress upon [Secretary 

of War] Stanton the facts and the consequences resulting from them. The canal trade is 

paralyzed by reason of them.275

The most notorious raid occurred on the night of October 14 when some 80 of Mosby’s men under Captain William Chapman crossed the Potomac at White’s Ford, four miles below the mouth 

of the Monocacy River. Moving up the towpath, the marauders burned some ten canal boats 

loaded with freight after stealing about 20 horses and mules from the boatmen. They also 

wreaked havoc on the Noland’s Ferry Bridge by tearing loose its superstructure and throwing the 

debris into the canal. The Rebel band then passed through Licksville to Adamstown, cutting the 

telegraph wires along the route. After fighting off a Union cavalry unit near Point of Rocks, the 

 

272 Benton to President and Directors, October 1, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 273 Masters to President and Directors, October 3, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 274 Williamson, Mosby's Rangers, 249–250. 275 Greene to Spates, September 29, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
764 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Rebels reached the canal only to find a detachment of Federal infantry tearing up the bridge 

across the waterway and throwing the timber into the prism. Quickly routing them, Chapman had 

his men relay the bridge and recross the river at Cheek’s Ford. The Confederate unit reached the 

Virginia shore in safety without having any injuries throughout the entire operation.276

Two days after the raid, on the 16th, Superintendent Spates of the Monocacy Division informed canal officials of the consequences of the foray. Many boatmen between Dams Nos. 2 and 

3 were refusing to move their vessels as there were no Union guards between Muddy Branch and 

Nolands Ferry. Unless Federals were posted along the river between those two locations, navigation on that stretch of the canal would stop.277

Two weeks later, on the 30th, Superintendent Spates informed the directors that the canal 

was functioning very well. Federal army units had been placed along the river from Muddy 

Branch to Nolands Ferry, and the boatmen were making every effort to use the remaining balance 

of the season to the best advantage. However, there were several problems on his division. The 

bridge over the canal at Nolands Ferry that had been destroyed by the Rebels had not been replaced. As the military was no longer using the ferry at that location, he had ordered his crews to 

gather up the timbers and put them in a secure place until the ferry was reopened and the bridge 

was needed. The feed store at Lock No. 28 was being utilized as a picket station by Northern 

troops, thus depriving the owner of its use. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad had placed a stationary engine along the berm side of the canal at Sandy Hook to pump a considerable quantity of 

water from that portion of the trunk to supply a heavy trade on their line. This action, which he 

had not approved, was reducing the level of the water in the canal to such an extent that some 

loaded boats were scraping the bottom.278

The normal functioning of the canal during the remainder of the boating season was reflected in the expanding business ventures along the line. Consideration was given to a request by 

Cyrus Dellinger on November 10 to erect a feed store at Williamsport to cater to the needs of the 

passing boatmen.279 On December 9 the directors granted permission to Dan S. White to occupy 

and use the warehouse that he had constructed at Conrad’s Ferry prior to the summer Confederate 

raids for the receipt, storage, and transportation of coal on the waterway.280

Perhaps the most ambitious project to be undertaken at this time was the decision of the 

Consolidation Coal Company to install new hoisting machinery and make other improvements for 

the transshipment of coal at the Linthicum-owned wharf in Georgetown. As water from the canal 

would be needed to operate the new hoisting apparatus, the directors determined to allow the coal 

company 

to take so much water from the canal, not exceeding the quantity necessary to pass a 

loaded boat into the river and back again as may be needed to make their experiment with 

the pneumatic cylinder in transferring coal from the canal to the river. 

The water was to be leased from the canal company on terms similar to those that had been 

granted earlier to William Ray and the Swanton Coal Company for the installation of unloading 

machinery.281

 

276 Williamson, Mosby's Rangers, 264–267, and Spates to Ringgold, October 16, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O 

Co. 

277 Spates to Ringgold, October 16, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 278 Spates to President and Board of Directors, October 30, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

279 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 406. 280 Ibid, K, 410. 281 Ibid, K, 406–407. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 765 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Despite the quickened pace of business activity on the canal, there were still numerous 

reports of discouraging developments along the waterway. On November 10 the directors were 

informed by W. C. Smith, a civil engineer who was under contract to the company, that he had 

measured recently the amount of water used by various mills and coal wharves at Georgetown. 

He had found that most of the establishments were using large amounts of water in excess of the 

quantities allowed by their leases. Accordingly, the Superintendent of the Georgetown Division 

was authorized to install new water gauges that were approved by Smith at each of the mills. The 

cost of the new devices was to be paid by the mill owners. Henceforth the canal company would 

initiate action against those millers who continued to disregard their leases.282

On the same day that the board received word of the water problem, it was notified of 

other events along the line that were related to the military situation in the Potomac Valley. Superintendent Spates of the Monocacy Division reported that he had been robbed recently of $50 

by several Union soldiers while carrying out his duties.283 George Hardy, the tender of the important Harpers Ferry locks, Nos. 35–36, had been drafted into the Federal army, and his wife and 

children were operating the locks in his absence.284 Obadiah Barger, an old man who had tended 

Locks Nos. 45–46 for a number of years until Susan Newcomer was appointed to the position in 

September 1864, complained that she had never worked at the locks but instead had assigned her 

job to an inexperienced youth without informing the division superintendent. As he was an aged 

man who could not support himself in another occupation, he requested and received his old locktender job back.285

More discouraging news arrived from Superintendent Spates on November 30. Although 

the Monocacy Division was operating, the locks, waste weirs, and flumes were showing signs of 

considerable decay. The feeder outside Guard Lock No. 3 was almost filled with sediment and 

there were large sand bars inside the feeder for some 200 yards. The Union soldiers stationed 

along the canal had filled up the towpath and berm sides of several culverts, and when he had ordered his repair crews to clear the culvert barrels the soldiers had prevented the work. The family 

of the lock-keeper at Lock No. 33 was “much annoyed and almost driven from the lock by the 

offensive odor arising from the embalming of dead bodies” in a nearby company-owned house 

that had been rented to the embalming parties by Messrs. Robias and Rogers, its tenants. Allen M. 

Benson, the keeper at Lock No. 27 had been fired “for disobedience of orders and for destroying 

and threatening to destroy the Company’s property.”286

After the canal was closed by ice in early December, President Spates began to press the 

military for the removal of obstructions in the culverts. Accordingly, Brigadier General E. B. Tyler informed Spates on December 21 that orders had been issued to open all the culverts that had 

been closed by the military. As he fully appreciated “the importance of the canal to both the Government and the public,” Tyler promised that he would not permit his men “to interrupt its workings.”287

Despite the Confederate raids and the lingering uneasiness of the military situation in the 

Potomac Valley, the year 1864 was a profitable one for the Cumberland coal trade and the canal 

company. Writing in the Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review in May 1865, concerning 

the rising demand for coal to support the Northern war effort, C. B. Conant stated that 

 

282 Ibid, K, 407, 419, 422–423. 283 Ibid, K, 405. 284 Ibid. 285 Barger to Brengle, Spates, and Watson (three letters), November 4, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 286 Spates to President and Directors, November 30, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 287 Tyler to Spates, December 21, 1864, in Spates Papers. 
766 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

more coal was demanded [in 1864] by private manufacturers and carriers engaged in 

making and transporting arms, munitions, and supplies for Government. 

The federal government itself increased its consumption of coal by 200,000 tons in 1861 to 

1,000,000 tons in 1864.288

The prosperous year also saw an increase in the coal trade statistics on the canal. The total tonnage on the line rose by nearly 10 percent over the 1863 figure to 290,772 tons. The 

amount of coal shipped over the canal increases by some 12 percent over the total for the previous year to 260,368 tons. The rise in trade, as well as the increase in tolls on coal, enabled the 

company to realize a 32 percent increase in revenue from tolls over the previous year’s totals to 

$225, 897.34. All told, the year 1864 saw the highest total tonnage carried on the waterway since 

1860, and it was the third best year in that respect in the history of the company. In terms of the 

revenue derived from the tolls, it was the most profitable in the history of the canal to date.289

At the annual meeting of the stockholders held on June 5, 1865, President Spates reported 

on the progress of the waterway during 1864. He observed that 

We have the satisfaction to state that the business of the Company for the past year has 

been more prosperous than any preceding year since its organization; that the condition 

of the Canal has been better than for many years previously; and that the transportation 

upon it was more regular and less interrupted, until the invasion of the enemy in July last, 

when material damages were sustained, and the navigation was suspended for three 

months of the most active and profitable portion of the year. The cost of repairs from the 

destruction of the works did not exceed $12,000, but it was estimated that the revenues of 

the Company were diminished by the casualty to the extent of $200,000, and about eighty 

boats were destroyed, thus reducing the means of transportation after the resumption of 

navigation.290

 

288 C. B. Conant, “Coal Fever: The Price and Prospects of Anthracite Coal,” Merchants' Magazine and 

Commercial Review, (May 1865), 359. 

289 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 307. 

290 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), 3. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 767 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

VI. PEACE COMES TO THE CANAL: 1865 

The extreme severity of the 1864–65 winter closed the canal to navigation earlier than usual in 

December and precluded the commencement of repairs until spring. The Potomac River and the 

canal were still frozen in late February arousing fears that the spring coal trade would be hindered, and even worse, that an ice freshet might sweep down the valley when warmer weather 

broke up the ice. The Hagerstown Mail reported on February 25 that: 

It has been hoped that there would be a speedy reopening of the navigation to Cumberland, and some of the dealers have expected to receive supplies of coal by the 1st of 

March; but this is considered by the superintendent of the canal as an impossibility. The 

ice on the western levels is very thick and bank high. A sudden freshet is dreaded, and 

not without reason, for such a freshet, bringing down the ice, would be very dangerous to 

the lower sections, and might so damage the canal as to delay navigation for a considerable length of time. It is ordered by the Canal Commissioners that the water shall be 

drawn off at this terminus on the 22d instant, and the workmen will proceed at once to 

repair damages, which will probably require ten days to complete the work. After which 

the route will be opened as soon as possible, and the coal and produce trade will be resumed. The quantity of supplies at the western depots will require a large number of 

boats for transportation.291

Not only were the Potomac Valley residents concerned about the weather, but they were also 

alarmed by two daring Confederate raids at Cumberland and Edwards Ferry in late February. On 

the night of February 21–22, some 65 men, known as McNeill’s Rangers, crossed the Potomac 

near Brady’s Mills and entered Cumberland while approximately 8,000 Federals were encamped 

in the city. After destroying the office of the military telegraph, the Rebels captured Generals 

Kelly and Crook while they were sleeping and took them, along with their horses, down the canal 

towpath to Wiley’s Ford, where they crossed the river into Virginia. A Federal cavalry company 

pursued the guerrillas to Romney, where a skirmish occurred, but the prisoners were already on 

their way to Richmond.292 Relative to the foray at Edwards Ferry, the New York Times reported 

on February 26: 

A night or two ago a squad of White’s guerrillas crossed the Potomac River, in the 

neighborhood of Edward’s Ferry, and drove in our pickets. They shot three men of the 

First Delaware Cavalry, who are on duty there, and carried off a number of horses. A part 

of the gang visited a store in the neighborhood, and took from it all the articles they could 

carry off. They then retired across the river into Virginia, not however, without loss, for 

one of their number was killed and two others so seriously wounded as to render it necessary to hold them upon their horses while recrossing the river. One of our men is supposed to be mortally wounded.293

Early in March the anxieties of the Potomac Valley residents were realized when a heavy freshet 

resulted from the simultaneous breaking up of the large ice flows in the river and considerable 

downpours of rain. The canal banks and the towpath were washed in many places, but with the 

 

291 Hagerstown Mail, February 25, 1865. 

292 Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, 420–422, and New York Times, February 26, 1865. 

293 New York Times, February 26, 1865, and Ray Eldon Hiebert and Richard K. MacMaster, A Grateful 

Remembrance: The Story of Montgomery County, Maryland (Rockville, 1976), 175. 
768 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

exception of some logs being removed from the cribs on the Virginia side of Dam No. 5, there 

were no serious breaches or injuries to the masonry work. After quick remedial repairs, the canal 

was ready for navigation about March 20. However, business was not actively resumed until 

April 1, because the coal shippers had not made satisfactory arrangements for transportation.294

Following a period of negotiations, the canal company agreed on March 9 to rent the 

property on the west side of the Rock Creek Basin to the federal government until the end of the 

war. Earlier on September 8, 1864, the New York-based Mayer interests that had rented the land 

in March notified canal officials that they were no longer interested in the property as a result of 

the delay in gaining possession of it. Accordingly, the company issued writs of ejectment against 

the defiant tenants, who then rented their properties to the Quartermaster Department. On November 14 the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the canal company by 

dispossessing the tenants of their claims to the land. However, the military already had established facilities on the property, and the canal company was forced to continue renting the land to 

the government at the same monthly rates that had been negotiated by the ex-tenants.295

Meanwhile, the Civil War was drawing to a close. After completing his “march to the 

sea,” Union General William T. Sherman struck northward through the Carolinas on February 1 

to unite with Grant in Virginia. Within six weeks, the capitals and major cities of both North and 

South Carolina were in Federal hands. On April 2 Grant broke the Confederate position at Five 

Forks, 16 miles southwest of Petersburg, and Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was forced to retreat westward. After the ragged 28,000 man army was surrounded near Appomattox Court 

House, Lee surrendered his command to Grant on April 9.296

After the commencement of navigation on April 1, commerce on the waterway proceeded 

at a slow pace and came to a standstill by April 26. The end of the war meant the reduction of 

choice government contracts for manufactured goods with an inevitable reflection on the coal 

trade. With the restoration of normal competition, the Cumberland coal interests began to look for 

ways to decrease costs and attract customers in the northern markets. The high rates previously 

paid for mining and transportation of coal could not be continued. As the miners and the boatmen 

were unwilling to see their wages and profits reduced, wage disputes between the miners and the 

coal companies led to a month-long suspension of mining in the coal fields. At the same time, the 

boatmen put pressure on the canal board to aid their cause on the declining coal trade by reducing 

the toll on coal shipments, but it rejected such recommendations. As a result of these developments, the amount of coal shipped on the canal up to June 1 was 61,677 tons compared to 

101,390 tons during the same period in 1864. The total revenue collected from tolls for the current season was $65,097.44 compared with $74,988.58 over the same period the previous year.297

In his annual report to the company stockholders on June 5, President Spates provided information on the condition of the canal and the state of its financial affairs. Among his observations were the following: 

The canal is now in good navigable condition, but to put it in thorough and permanent 

order, make it reliable for uninterrupted navigation, and afford proper facilities to the 

largely increasing trade upon it, considerable expenditures will still be required. It is pro-

 

294 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), 3, and Masters to Board of Directors, March 2, 1865, Ltrs. Recd., 

C & O Co. 

295 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 399–400, 402–403, 486, and Ringgold to 

Moore, March 9, 1865, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

296 Allan Nevins, The War for the Union (4 books, New York, 1971), Book IV, 309–312. 

297 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), 6–7. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 769 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

posed to do this during the present season as far as the revenues of the Company will admit consistent with other indispensable obligations.... 

Since the accession of the present Board in February 1862, the state of the country bordering the Canal, owing to the various military operations and restrictions, has 

been such as to render all matters connected with its business very precarious. The aggregate revenues of the Company for the years 1861 and 1862, were respectively in 1861, 

$75,741.90, in 1862, $72,624.95, whilst the maintenance of the Canal restricted by these 

inadequate means and the exhausted credit of the Company, was in 1861, $105,607.82, in 

1862, $86,651.26, thus increasing the already overburdened debts of the Company for 

these two years, a further sum of $43,892.23 in addition to accumulating interest on obligations of the Company for repairs &c., which had hitherto been regularly paid, amounting to about $30,000. 

During the years 1863 and 1864 however, notwithstanding the frequent interruptions and restrictions still continued by the course of the war, these disadvantages have 

been overcome in a great measure, and after the payment of all obligations incurred by 

the incumbent Board, [$171,367.10 of] claims previously existing have been liquidated 

and paid... 

There still remain floating or current debts of the Company [$301,024.25] to be 

provided for from their surplus revenues, after the proper maintenance and improvements 

required to render the Canal effective and durable, which it is proposed to liquidate as 

early as practicable....298

 

298 Ibid, 3–5. In response to an order of the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, Spates had delivered a similar report to that body on March 13. Spates to Speaker, House of Delegates, March 13, 1865, 

Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
770 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

VII. THE CANAL IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CIVIL WAR 

The canal emerged from the Civil War on both a depressing note and a promising one. The waterway itself had suffered great physical damage from the military operations of the opposing armies. Furthermore, the military continued to occupy the Potomac Aqueduct and part of the Rock 

Creek mole, to the detriment of the canal’s business. When the Quartermaster Department continued to insist on its right to occupy a portion of the wharves on the mole for a government coaling station, the canal company testily reacted by filing claims against the War Department for 

losses sustained as a result of military use of the waterway during hostilities. On May 2, 1866, the 

company informed Maryland Congressman Francis Thomas, a former canal president that 

during the whole war the canal was freely used by the Government for transportation without compensation being made in the payment of tolls, that considerable damages were done to the works by the operations of the military and great 

losses sustained by restrictions imposed by them upon general transportation, and 

for these the Company have filed claims in the War Department for the years 

1861 and 1862 $75,391.96—1863 & 1864 $292,330, making an aggregate sum 

of $367,721.96.299

Later on September 5, 1866, the directors appealed directly to President Andrew Johnson 

to relieve from military occupation and turn over to the Alexandria Canal Company the Potomac Aqueduct, which belongs to that Company, and is at present 

the obstacle to the early opening of that Canal.300

On the other hand, the financial condition of the company had measurably improved as a result of 

the revival of trade after 1863. Bankruptcy, which had threatened the company in the late 1850s, 

no longer seemed to be so near. The improved commercial and financial status of the company 

made it possible to undertake the sorely needed improvements such as the raising of the Georgetown bridges, that had been postponed and those in progress, such as the new masonry Dam No. 

5, that had come to a halt during the war years.301

 The physical condition of the canal in 1865 was much worse than it had been before the 

war. Despite growing trade and revenues and some increase in repair expenditures toward the end 

of the conflict, the waterway had been generally neglected. The destruction of its works during 

the hostilities had been serious, and in addition, it had not received the attention required for normal maintenance. Only the most necessary repairs had been made, and then often in a hasty and 

slip-shod fashion. Evidence of the general state of the canal’s deterioration was demonstrated by 

the occurrence of numerous breaches on the Georgetown, Monocacy, Antietam, and Cumberland 

Divisions between April and August in 1865.302 It was reported that there were many trees bor-

 

299 Ringgold to Thomas, May 2, 1866, Ltrs. Sent, C&O co. Also see, Ringgold to Rucker, May 29, 1866, 

Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Moore to Ringgold, May 28, 1866, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. After further negotiations, the military finally agreed to relinquish its claims to the mole wharves on January 31, 1868. Godey to 

Ringgold, January 10, 1868, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 56. 

300 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 511. After a number of similar appeals and considerable negotiations, the military relinquished control of the aqueduct. In July 1868 construction was begun on a wooden highway toll bridge built over the rewatered trunk. 

301 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 222–223. 302 Ringgold to Greene, December 1, 1865, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 771 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

dering the canal that had overgrown to the point that they were interfering with the passage of 

boats and the use of the towpath.303 Many of the lock gates needed to be replaced, and the heavy 

horse traffic on the towpath had worn it down at many points.304 The tidelocks in Georgetown 

were out of repair after being damaged by government occupation and mismanagement, and the 

Rock Creek Basin was largely filled in by the deposits of the creek. Moreover, the prism of the 

trunk was shrinking as a result of siltation deposits accumulating on the inner slopes and the floor 

of the canal. Hence it was no longer possible for two loaded boats to pass at many points along 

the canal.305

 In November 1865 the canal company hired Charles P. Manning, a reputable civil engineer, to examine the waterway and to report on its condition and the repairs and improvements 

that were needed.306 In a comprehensive report filed on May 31, 1866, he made the following 

observations: 

It is unnecessary for me to remind the Board that for several seasons previous to 

the last period of suspended navigation, no repairs beyond those of absolute necessity were either attempted or accomplished; nor that, consequently, the need 

of repairs during the past winter, and prospectively, for the current season of 

navigation has been and still is excessive. 

 Though I feel confident that free navigation can and will be maintained, 

without much difficulty during the current season, I fear that the ordinary gradual 

deposit of sediment added to the large amount which has already accumulated to 

an extent sufficient, in many places, to reduce the channel of the Canal to an area 

much less than is required for the passage of two loaded boats, will, at no far distant period, cause an entire suspension of navigation, during the business season 

of, possibly, a whole year, in order that the original proper dimensions of the 

trough may be thoroughly restored. 

 To mitigate, if not to effectively prevent the occurrence of this apprehended misfortune, the active and constant employment of a number of dredging 

boats, during the season navigation, is deemed essential, therefore, I advise the 

immediate construction of two more of these valuable machines, similar to the 

four now in use upon the line of the canal. 

 In general the trough of the Canal is free from dangerous, or even injurious leaks; but that portion of it which traverses the cavernous lime-stone district 

between South and North mountains, has always been, and still is subject to very 

dangerous leaks and consequent breaches, for which there appears to be no effectual remedy, short of the elevation of the entire body of the Canal (bottom, towpath, &c.,) to a height of two feet or more above its present levels, wherever the 

most obstinate and dangerous of these leaks are known to exist, or continually 

threaten to break forth. 

 In general the masonry of the aqueducts, culverts and Locks is both substantial and in good repair, the only exception requiring special remark being the 

aqueduct that spans the Conococheague River, which fine structure was wantonly 

and most seriously injured by rebel soldiers during the late rebellion. At present 

 Board of Directors, K, 442 

303 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 438 304 Cameron to President and Directors, November 9, 1865, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 305 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 489–490 306 Ibid, K, 465 
772 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

the navigation is maintained over this dilapidated aqueduct by means of a substantial wooden trunk which is supported upon the original arches of the masonry 

and quite secure from the damaging effects of ordinary floods. 

 Generally speaking the lock gates are in excellent condition; but there are 

many that should be taken out and replaced by new ones as rapidly as circumstances may permit, and numbers thus removed might then be sufficiently repaired to answer all the purposes of reliable substitutes, or duplicates in cases of 

accident. These perishable appendages of the Canal are liable to great abuse at 

the hands of reckless boatmen, and therefore are a constant source of both anxiety and expense. 

 In relation to the dams, I have to say, that the “Little Falls” and “Seneca” 

(Nos. 1 & 2,) are in a somewhat dilapidated and inefficient state; and that the one 

at Harper’s Ferry (No. 3,) commonly known as “The Government Dam,” is in 

ordinarily good condition. The two first named of these structures are composed 

of brush and loose stones, and the last named of wooden crib-work, filled with 

loose stones and sheathed with timber and planks. Dam No. 4 is not only in 

sound condition, but being exclusively a structure of stone, is regarded as thoroughly permanent, if not quite imperishable. 

 Two thirds of Dam No. 5 are new, and made exclusively of stone, the 

remaining third being composed partly of temporary crib work filled with loose 

stone, but mainly of the original structure, which was built after the fashion of the 

one at Harper’s Ferry. 

 Dam No. 6, is in general good condition, and regarded as a permanent 

structure, though formed of crib-work, filled with loose stones and sheathed with 

timber and planks, similar in most respects to Dam No. 3, but of better form and 

more substantial construction. The remaining Dam (at the terminus of the Canal 

in Cumberland) is exclusively of stone, and in perfect order. 

 Of these Dams Nos. 1 and 2 need unusual repairs, requiring altogether an 

expenditure of perhaps, no less than twenty-five thousand dollars, in order to restore them to thorough usefulness. 

 Dam No. 5 should be completed without delay, and preparations have 

been made and are now in progress to accomplish the major part, if not all of the 

unfinished stone-work during the coming summer and autumn. To complete this 

work an expenditure of about sixty thousand dollars will be required. 

 Of the remaining Dams, No. 3 needs only ordinary repairs. No. 4 a little 

back-filling of loose stones or gravel, and the one at Cumberland substantially 

nothing. 

 Owing to the great draught of water from Dam No. 1, chiefly requisite 

for milling, rather than the legitimate purposes of the Canal, the time is rapidly 

approaching, if it has not already arrived, when the construction of a new and 

larger feeder-canal, in lieu of, and entirely apart from the existing narrow and unsubstantial one at this Dam, should be commence and diligently prosecuted to an 

early completion. 

 At present the consumption of water for milling purposes in Georgetown 

exceeds four millions of gallons per hour, or enough to furnish lockage to tide 

water for forty loaded boats and a like number of empty ones back again. 

 The cost of constructing the proposed new feeder will probably be less 

than, but will not exceed twenty five thousand dollars. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 773 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

 Many of the lock keepers’ houses need considerable repairing, and 

nearly all of these buildings, more or less restoration to a condition of necessary 

comfort. The expenditure of perhaps, five thousand dollars for this purpose, 

would accomplish all that is pressingly needed.307

The restoration and improvement of the canal began almost immediately after the conclusion of 

the war. On April 12, three days after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, the 

board received word that the Corporation of Georgetown had agreed that the bridges over the canal east and west of the Market House were to be raised to a height of 11 feet above the water 

line. Accordingly, a contract was let to C. C. Carman for the raising and repair of the bridge west 

of the Market and the reconstruction of the bridge east of the Market.308 In July the bridges at 

Lock No. 68 and at Patterson’s Creek that had been destroyed by the Rebels were ordered to be 

rebuilt.309 Construction of the masonry dam replacing the temporary structure at Dam No. 5 was 

soon resumed. By June 4, 1866, some 400 feet had been completed from the Virginia abutment 

with about 300 feet remaining to be done before it was finished to the Maryland shore. Plans were 

also considered for the improvement of Dams Nos. 1-3.310 During the winter of 1865–66, many 

portions of the canal were dredged, and large amounts of sediment were removed from the prism. 

Other winter projects included repairs to the masonry works, the replacement of deteriorating 

lock gates, and work on the waste weirs. 

 In June 1866 the canal company finally came to an agreement with the corporate authorities of Georgetown concerning the manner of raising the bridges over the canal. After the Georgetown aldermen authorized the substitution of permanent iron bridges for the stone structures at 

Congress, Jefferson, Washington, and Greene Street, a contract was let to Duvall & Co. on August 9. The new structures, costing $22,000 were completed by early 1867.311

 In anticipation of the resumption of trade through Georgetown, the company hired an 

engineer in the spring of 1867 to draw up plans and estimates for the restoration of the tidelock 

and tumbling dam at the mouth of Rock Creek. A contract was let to Deeter & Maynard for the 

work that was to cost an estimated $9,000.312 At the same time, the company employed its dredging machines to restore the canal to its original dimensions from the mouth of Rock Creek to the 

Foundry above Georgetown.313

 The repair of Civil War damages to the canal continued until 1869. In June of that year 

the stockholders were informed that during the preceding twelve months $169,258.40 had been 

spent on ordinary repairs and $10,453.42 on extraordinary repairs. Commenting on these large 

expenditures, President Spates stated: 

Whilst the above-mentioned expenditures may be considered heavy, yet the condition of the canal was such after the close of the war, from the fact of its being 

 

307 Thirty-Eighth Annual Report (1866), C&O Co., 6–9 308 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 422; Smith to Spates, April 10, 1865, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co.; and Ordinances and Resolutions of the Corporation of Georgetown, from January, 1865, 

to January, 1866 (Georgetown, 1866), 19. For more information on this topic, see Edwin C. Bearss, “The 

Bridges, Historic Structures Report—Part II” (NPS Mss., 1968), 40–42. 

309 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 434 310 Thirty-Eighth Annual Report (1866), C&O Co., 4–5 311 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 501–502, 508; Ringgold to Wallack, October 

20, 1866, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co.; and Ordinance of the Corporation of Georgetown, June 26, 1866, Ltrs. 

Recd., C&O Co. Also see, Bearss, “Bridges,” 42–44 312 Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), C&O Co., 5 313 Fortieth Annual Report (1868), C&O Co., 4 
774 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

continually damaged by the contending armies, as to employ a large force to enable the Board to place its condition beyond any ordinary contingency. This, the 

Board, with judgment and discreetness, have done; and they now have the pleasure of reporting to the Stockholders the canal fully recovered from all damages 

growing out of the war. The whole line is now in thorough, complete, and safe 

condition. 

 During the past ten years little or nothing had been done towards repairing and improving lock-houses, bridges, culverts, aqueducts, locks, lock-gates, 

and waste-weirs of the Company; many of them had become entirely unfit for 

use and were becoming worthless, rendering it absolutely essential to the requirements of the Company to have them repaired. This the Board have done, 

and, although at heavy cost, they now present a comfortable and substantial condition, and the fact may now be confidently stated that the condition of the canal 

in all its departments is such as to justify a largely decreased expenditure during 

the current year, unless overtaken by unseen and unexpected disaster.314

Despite the progress in the restoration of the waterway, the canal company faced numerous difficulties during the postwar years. Heavy water freshets occurred in the Potomac Valley in 1865 

and 1866, and a severe ice freshet in the spring of 1868 did considerable damage to the waterway.315 The wage disputes between the Allegany County miners and the coal companies that had 

interfered with the coal trade in May and June 1865 again erupted in the spring of 1866.316 As a 

result of the deflationary tendency of coal prices and the decreasing demand for that product, the 

board reduced tolls from 1⁄2 cent to 4/10 of a cent a tom per mile in September 1866 and to 1/4 of 

a cent in March 1868.317

 The state of flux in Maryland politics during the Reconstruction era also had detrimental 

effects on the canal company. The Union coalition which had ruled the state since 1862 was undermined by the collapse of the Confederacy. Soon, political forces moved to establish a more 

natural realignment, a conservative reaction to the Radical Constitution of 1864 appeared, and 

Democrats commenced efforts to revitalize their decimated party. By 1867 Maryland’s period of 

“Self-Reconstruction” had come to an end and a more stable party alignment had emerged. Augmented by Conservative Unionists, new voters, and returning veterans, the Democrats became the 

dominant party in Maryland and would remain so for many years to come under the leadership of 

Arthur P. Gorman.318

 The political instability in Maryland during the period of party realignment in the aftermath of the war was demonstrated by the return of local political influence to the canal. The brief 

postwar period between 1865 and 1870 witnessed four changes in canal administration. Alfred 

Spates, who had served as president since January 1861, was replaced by Jacob Snively in June 

1865 only to return in August 1867. In June 1869 Josiah Gordon became president, but he was 

replaced in June 1870 by James E. Clarke.319

 Along with the frequent political upheavals, charges of fraudulence were placed against 

former canal officials. On December 9, 1869, the company’s Committee of Accounts accused 

 

314 Forty-First Annual Report (1869), C&O Co., 4–5 315 Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 5–6; Fortieth Annual Report (1868), 7; and Mans to President and 

Directors, July 11, 1868, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

316 Thirty-Eighth Annual Report (1866), 3–5, and Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 3 317 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 511, L, 82 318 Richard Walsh and William Lloyd Fox, eds., Maryland: A History, 1632–1974 (Baltimore, 1974), 377–

392. 

319 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 224, 304. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 775 

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

Alfred Spates with nine separate charges of falsely obtaining for his own purposes appropriations 

amounting to between $5.000 and $80,000 for work already paid for during the period from February 1865 to October 1868. Division Superintendent George W. Spates was also charged with 

one count of misappropriation of funds.320 Both men maintained their innocence, claiming that 

they were the victims of the fractious political infighting then taking place in the state.321 Alfred 

Spates appeared to vindicate himself by being elected to the State Senate from Allegany County 

in 1869, but the controversy continued unabated.322 On February 9, 1870, the board ordered the 

company counsel, George A. Pearre, to demand from the two men the money they owed the company or face court suit.323

 When the two accused men rebuffed the counsel, formal suits were initiated in the Circuit 

Court of Allegany County against Alfred Spates and in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County 

against George W. Spates. Although the evidence presented indicated a strong probability of misconduct, a citizens’ committee from Cumberland appealed to the directors on October 12 to drop 

the charges.324 Although they refused to do so at that time by a 4-3 vote, all charges were finally 

dropped without further investigation on December 8. The action was taken on the grounds that 

the suit had been brought by ex-president Josiah Gordon and thus was “not authorized by the present or the former Board, and there being no prospect of successful prosecution.”325

 Despite unsettled trade conditions, political interference, and the expenditure of large 

sums of money for the restoration of the waterway, the financial condition of the company continued to improve. Canal trade increased each year with tonnage totals of 372,335 in 1865, 

383,408 in 1866, 521,402 in 1867, 552,987 in 1868, and 723,938 in 1869.326 Receipts from tolls 

averaged nearly $340,000 a year during the same period, thereby allowing the company to pay off 

its floating debt and enabling it to resume the payment of its long-term obligations.327 Thus, the 

stage was set for the “golden years” of the canal’s history in the early 1870s when the waterway 

would experience its most stable and prosperous period. 

 

320 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 233–246. Earlier in July 1866, Alfred Spates 

had come under suspicion when it was found that in February 1865 he had withdrawn the $13,000 appropriation from the U. S. Treasury that had been authorized by Congress for the raising of the Georgetown 

bridges. After he was voted out as president of the company in June, he kept the Treasury check without 

making any account of his transaction in the company’s financial records. Under the threat of a suit in the 

federal courts, Spates returned the check to Jacob Snively, his successor, in September 1866. Ringgold to 

Roman, July 28, 1866, and Ringgold to Snively, September 19, 1866, Ltrs. Sent, C&O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 507–508 

321 A. Spates to Poe, November 15, 1869, and Garden to Stockholders, February 5, 1870, in Spates Papers. 322 A. Spates to Poe, November 15, 1869, and Gordon to Stockholders, February 15, 1870, in Spates Papers 323 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, L, 281, and Baltimore American, February 18, 

1870, in Spates Papers 

324 Ibid, L, 370 325 Ibid, L, 381 326 Sanderlin, Great National Project, 307 327 Ibid, 307,309; Thirty-Ninth Annual Report (1867), 6; and Proceedings of the President and Board of 

Directors, L, 226–231. 
776 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 11. C&O Canal During the Civil War 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 777 

Unrau: 10. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

APPENDIX A 

DISCOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT OF 

GOLD VEINS NEAR GREAT FALLS 

During the past 110 years more than 5,000 ounces of gold, valued at more than$150,000, have 

been produced in Maryland. Almost all of this total has been extracted from small mines in the 

southern part of Montgomery County. The extensive group of workings near Great Falls was the 

most productive of the vein systems. Here were located the Ford, Watson, and Maryland mines, 

the latter being the largest and furnishing the greatest yields.1

 As early as 1827, Professor Ducatelle, a noted mineralogist of the period, stated that the 

region around Great Falls gave strong indications of the presence of gold.2

 Several years later, 

when Mrs. Trollope, the outspoken Englishwoman who was traveling in America preparatory for 

her publication on American manners, visited the residence of a German consul near Great Falls, 

she noted that traces of gold were found.3

 However, it was not until the Civil War period that actual free samples of gold were found in the area. Although there is some controversy surrounding 

the discovery of gold near Great Falls, most authoritative sources agree that the discovery was 

made in 1861 near the present site of the Maryland mine by a member of a regiment under the 

command of Colonel Edward A. Baker, a United States Senator from Oregon and a close friend 

of President Lincoln.4

 Shortly after the firing on Fort Sumter, Baker was commissioned by Lincoln to raise 

three regiments or infantry in Philadelphia. One of these, the 71st Pennsylvania, was placed under 

his command and was referred to informally as the “First California Regiment.” This designation 

was apparently in honor of Colonel Isaac J, Wistar of Philadelphia, who was in charge of the enrolling work and who had commanded Indian Rangers in California and Oregon in the late 1840s 

during the Mexican War. The regiment was moved to Fortress Monroe, where it remained until 

after the Battle of First Manassas on July 21, 1861. Following that northern defeat, the regiment 

was transferred to the Virginia side of the Potomac opposite Washington, where it was engaged, 

along with other commands, in building Fort Ethan Allen near Chain Bridge and strengthening 

the capital’s defenses. The 71st Pennsylvania crossed the Potomac on September 30 and marched 

nine miles to Great Falls, where it camped for the night. On October 1, it reached Rockville, and 

after spending the next night at Seneca Mills, the regiment encamped near Poolesville from the 

3rd to the 20th. During this period, it is likely that small detachments remained on picket duty 

along the river from Great Falls to Seneca Creek. After the bloody Union defeat on October 21 in 

the Battle of Ball’s Bluff, in which the regiment lost its leader and 312 men, the reorganized 71st

Pennsylvania was assigned to picket duty along the Potomac between Conrad’s Ferry and Point 

of Rocks until the spring of 1862.5

 Following the war, several members of the 71st Pennsylvania organized a group that 

bought the farm on which the original discovery was made. Considerable prospecting and devel-

 

1

 John C. Reed, Jr., and John C. Reed, Gold Veins Near Great Falls, Maryland, (Geological Survey Bulletin 1286, 1969), 1. The location and annual production of the Montgomery County gold mines may be seen 

on the map and graph on the following pages. 

2

 John Thomas Scharff, History of Western Maryland (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1882), I, 676. 3

 James E. Mooney, ed., Domestic Manners of the Americans by Mrs. Trollope (Barre, 1969), 183–202, 

227–234 

4

 Reed and Reed, Gold Veins Near Great Falls, 4. and Edgar T. Ingalls, The Discovery of Gold at Great 

Falls, Maryland (N. P., 1960), 1–17. Map and chart from Reed and Reed, Gold Veins Near Great Falls, 2–

4 

5

 Charles H. Banes, History of the Philadelphia Brigade (Philadelphia, 1876), 2–32. 
778 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

oping work was done, and in 1867 a shaft was sunk to a depth of about 100 feet at the future site 

of the Maryland mine. At least 7 ounces of gold were produced in 1868 and 4 ounces in 1869, but 

the work was soon abandoned.6

FORD MINE 

During the 1880s, gold was discovered in the vicinity of the Ford Mine by George Kirk, a Georgia prospector. By February 1890, the veins were being worked by extensive open cuts on both 

sides of Cool Spring Branch, and a small mill was in operation near the mouth of the branch. Underground development at the Ford Mine commenced about 1890. 

WATSON MINE 

In the early 1900s considerable prospecting and development work were done on the veins along 

Carroll Branch, between the Maryland Mine and the Ford Mine, by the Great Falls Gold Mining 

Company. That area, which included the site of the Watson Mine, contained seven veins, the 

most important being the Potomac Vein that was explored by a 135-foot adit. The operations in 

that area, which continued until 1909, consisted of numerous pits and trenches and a few shallow 

shafts with short drafts and crosscuts. 

MARYLAND MINE 

About 1900 the property on which the Maryland Mine is located was taken over by the Maryland 

Gold Mining Company. A 135-foot shaft was sunk, and the mine was explored by drifts on the 

50-foot and 100-foot levels. In 1903 a new shaft was started west of the vein and south of the old 

shaft. This shaft intersected the vein at a depth of 200 feet and was bottomed at 210 feet in 1906. 

The mine was shut down in 1908, but it was reopened briefly by the Empress Gold Mining Company of Philadelphia in 1912. 

 The most systematic exploration of the Great Falls veins began in 1915 when the Atlantic 

Development Company acquired the Ford Mine. Within three years the company had acquired 

tracts totaling 2,100 acres that included nearly all the known vein system. A. A. Hassan, a mining 

geologist and consulting engineer, directed an exploration program of extensive trenching, vein 

stripping, and diamond drilling. Reportedly, the operations found that a vein north of the Maryland Mine extended to a depth of 456 feet and that veins near the Ford Mine were at least 500 feet 

in depth. 

 American entry into World War I led to the closing of the mines in the fall of 1817. The 

Maryland Mine was reopened in the spring of 1918, and some development work and mining was 

conducted until 1922 when the mine was closed and the property sold. 

 After the price of gold was increased to $35 an ounce in 1934, the Maryland Mining 

Company was organized in October of the following year. The Maryland Mine was reopened, and 

a new mill was installed. Between 1936 and 1940 about 6,000 tons of ore was produced, yielding 

more than 2,500 ounces of gold valued at $90,000. The mine was closed in 1940, and no operations have been undertaken in the area since that time with the exception of some individual prospecting.7

 

6

 Reed and Reed, Gold Veins Near Great Falls, 5, and Ingalls, Discovery of Gold, 1–17 7

 Reed and Reed, Gold Mines Near Great Falls, 5–7 and Ingalls, Discovery of Gold, 1–17. Other sources 

that are of value in interpreting the “gold mine” story at Great Falls are: S. F. Simmons, “Notes on the Gold 

Deposits of Montgomery County, Maryland,” American Institute of Mining Engineers Transactions, XVIII, 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 779 

Unrau: 10. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

APPENDIX B 

STATEMENT OF BOATS & NAMES OF OWNERS &C HELD BY 

THE U. S. GOVERNMENT FROM BOOKS OF THE QUARTERMASTER, U. S. A., 

WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 17, 1861[2] 

BOAT NAME OWNER BOAT 

VALUE 

FURNITURE 

VALUE 

DATE 

SEIZED WHERE LYING 

P. B. Petrie1

John Humbert 

F. & A. H. Dodge1

Kate McCormack 

S. B. Harrison1

Capt. Wm. T. Aud 

Molly 

Dr. J. Robertson 

G. Brent 

Independence1

R. R. Gregory1

Odd Fellow1

Emperor1

Geo. W. Hetsyer1

J. Murray 

John Fitzpatrick1

Union1 

Hard Times1

John F. Bear 

Jane Louisa 

Samuel Luman 

J. Arnold1

Juniatta2

Maria Thompson1

Stephen Castleman2

G. Hough 

L. V. Savins1

J. M. Barnes 

Kate Barnes 

Mt. Savage 

W. E. Webster 

Three Brothers 

Wm. Kissner2

M. E. Stonebreaker 

Thos. James 

Geo. H. Mandy1

D. Morrissey 

Three Sisters 

Y. Marmaduke1

John Rinehart 

John Rinehart 

John Moffutt 

John McCormack 

Daniel Shives 

Not Known 

Pat Broderick 

Mertens & Snyder 

Benjamin Mitchell 

Jacob Zeigler 

Nancy Bowers 

John Snyder 

John Young 

John H. Martin 

Patrick Broderick 

A. J. Boose 

A. J. Boose 

A, J, Boose 

Frederick Bear 

American Coal Co. 

J. H. Kindle 

W. W. Faulkwell 

William Elder 

American Coal Co. 

George Hughes 

C. Hughes 

John Savins 

S. B. Barnes 

S. B. Barnes 

American Coal Co. 

John A. Reid 

John Spencer 

Abner Meryman 

American Coal Co. 

John A. Rinehart 

Peter Snyder 

Not Known 

John Byroads 

Salem Cooper 

$900 

$1,000 

$800 

$900 

$500 

$1,300 

$1,200 

$600 

$1,000 

$700 

$700 

$500 

$850 

$600 

$1,000 

$400 

$400 

$700 

$800 

$700 

$700 

$700 

$700 

$400 

$500 

$800 

$850 

$800 

$1,100 

$700 

$1,00 

$1,00 

$700 

$700 

$700 

$900 

$750 

$1,000 

$800 

— 

$4 

$2.50 

$3 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

$5 

$3 

$7 

$2 

— 

— 

$6 

— 

$6 

$8 

$4 

$4 

$4 

$3 

— 

$5 

$10 

$6 

$1.50 

— 

$5 

— 

$4 

— 

$5 

$5 

$5 

$4 

$10 

$8 

— 

Feb. 17, 1862 

Feb. 16, 1862 

Feb. 17, 1862 

Feb. 17, 1862 

Feb. 16, 1862 

Feb. 16, 1862 

Feb 18. 1862 

Feb. 16, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 16, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 16, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 20, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 13, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 26, 1862 

Feb. 21, 1862 

Feb. 19, 1862 

Georgetown 

Alexandria 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Fortress Monroe 

Fortress Monroe 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Fortress Monroe 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Fortress Monroe 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Fortress Monroe 

Liverpool Point 

1

 Blst. Plaster 

2 Blst. Stone 

Document in Spates Papers 

 391–411; C. W. Ostrander, “Gold in Montgomery County, Maryland,” Maryland Natural History Society 

Bulletin, IX, 32–34; Titus Ulke, “Gold Mining Past and Present Near Washington, D. C.,” Rocks and Minerals, XIV, 299–305; and W. H. Weed, Notes on the Gold Veins Near Great Falls, Maryland (U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 260), 128–131. 
780 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 10. C&O Canal During the Civil War 

BOAT NAME OWNER 

BOAT 

VALUE 

FURNITURE 

VALUE 

DATE 

SEIZED 

WHERE LYING 

J. M. Cross1

M. E. McCoy1

G. T. J. McKaig1

Martin Hoffman1

A. C. Blackman 

Liberty1

Prince Rupert1

Col. Dinlop 

Lauretta 

Wila Kate 

Jas. Buchanan 

Lloyd Lowe 

Jno. A. Rinehart1

Sir Jno. Franklin1

Georetta Ardinger 

F. Benton2

R. Gregory1

Jno. R. Wilson 

R, M. Borden 

Elie Wade 

William Jordan 

John L. Jordan 

Martin Smith 

Cons. Coal & Transp. 

Charles Wenner 

Martin Smith 

Martin Smith 

Charles Weinner 

D. Spates 

Cons. Coal & Transp. 

R. B. Carlisle 

Pat Brady 

S. Weston 

Owen Ardinger 

Henry Arts 

Not Known 

Not Known 

Hamilton Douns 

Charles McCarlde 

Not Known

$800 

$1,000 

$650 

$350 

$1,300 

$800 

$800 

$1,150 

$800 

$650 

$1,000 

$800 

$900 

$450 

$1,000 

$1,000 

$800 

$250 

$1,000 

$400 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

$4 

$5 

$4 

— 

$5 

$5 

$4 

$5 

$6 

— 

— 

$5 

— 

— 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 17, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 27, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 17, 1862 

Feb. 21, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 18, 1862 

Feb. 22, 1862 

Feb. 20, 1862 

Feb. 21, 1862 

Feb. 20, 1862 

Feb. 20, 1862 

Feb. 20, 1862 

Feb. 20, 1862 

Feb. 26, 1862 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Georgetown 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Liverpool Point 

Fortress Monroe 

Discharged & Gone 

up the Canal 

1

 Blst. Plaster 

2 Blst. Stone 

Document in Spates Papers 
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NHP 

12. 

LOCKKEEPERS 

AND BOATMEN 

ON THE C & O CANAL 

BY HARLAN D. UNRAU 

HISTORIAN, C&O CANAL RESTORATION TEAM, SENECA 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER 

1976 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 783 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

CONTENTS 

I. THE LOCKKEEPERS 785 

 A. INTRODUCTION 785 

 B. DUTIES AND COMPENSATION 785 

 C. FAMILY AND SEXUAL ROLES 794 

 D. PEFORMANCE RECORD 796 

 E. DRUNKENNESS 798 

 F. NEGLECT OF DUTY 799 

 G. ABANDONMENT OF LOCKS 800 

 H. ABSENCE WITHOUT PROVIDING AN 

 ADEQUATE SUBSTITUE 800 

 I. SALE OF INTOXICATING BEVERAGES 

 BY LOCKKEPERS 801 

 J. REPUTABLE LOCK KEEPERS 803 

 K. THE LOCK HOUSES: 1828–1850 804 

II. THE BOATMEN 806 

 A. INTRODUCTION 806 

 B. CHARACTERISTICS OF BOATMEN: 1830–1850 806 

 C. CHARACTERISTICS OF BOATMEN: 1851–1889 808 

 D. CHARACTERISTICS OF BOATMEN: 1891–1924 814 

E. TYPICAL EXPERIENCES IN THE LIVES OF “CANALERS” 818 

 F. THE EMERGENCE OF LABOR UNIONISM 

 AMONG THE CANAL BOATMENT IN THE 1870’S 821 

 G. FEED AND GROCERY STORES 831 

 H. HAILING PLACE OF BOATMENT 836 

 I. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACK BOAT MASTERS 838 

 J. RELIGION ON THE TOWPATH 838 

 K. CANAL SONGS 839 

 L. STORIES AND REMINISCIENCES OF CANAL DAYS 841 

APPENDIXES 843 

A. SPECIFICATION OF A LOCKKEEPER’S HOUSE, 

 CA. OCTOBER 1828 843 

B. ESTIMATE OF THE EXPENSE OF A LOCKKEEPER’S 

HOUSE, CA. OCTOBER 1828 845 

C. SPECIFICATION FOR A LOCKKEEPERS HOUSE 30 X 18 FEET 846 

D. REGISTER OF FINES COLLECTED BETWEEN 1877–1880 848 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 785 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

I. THE LOCK KEEPERS 

A. INTRODUCTION 

From the earliest period of navigation on the canal in the fall of 1830, the administration organization of the line was a mere formality, because the board of directors retained too much authority for itself. As a result, the character and conduct of the superintendents were not as important 

in the operation of the canal as they might have been. In the absence of an effective line of authority, the character of the lock keepers became important to the welfare of the canal. On the 

basis of what little is known of the lock tenders, they do not, as a group, seem to have been outstanding for their enthusiasm or reliability. Despite the important role which devolved upon them 

in the course of the directors’ conduct of canal administration, apparently little was done to upgrade the quality of their services.1

B. DUTIES AND COMPENSATION 

Several months before the canal was watered between Dams Nos. 1 and 2, the board authorized 

President Charles F. Mercer to nominate lock keepers for the line and determine the rate of compensation for those individuals. The annual wages of the tenders were not to exceed $150 for a 

single lock, $200 for two locks, and $250 for three locks.2

On August 7, 1830, Mercer recommended various individuals to serve as lock keepers 

and the rate of compensation each was to receive. As the company was beginning to experience 

its first financial difficulties, the pay of the tenders was considerably less than the maximum allowances earlier set by the board. The decrease in wages, however, was to be partially compensated for by allowing the tenders to use company land for gardening purposes. The keepers and 

their compensation, which were approved by the directors, were: 

Lock No. 5.—Whalen, keeper; compensation of $100 and use of Lockhouse No. 3. Together with the use of the company’s ground below Guard Gate No. 1 and the embankment connecting it with the towpath of the new canal in its vicinity. 

Lock No. 6—William Conner, keeper; compensation of $100 and use of Lockhouse No. 4 

together with the use of the company’s ground between, at, next above, and below Dam 

No. 1 as far down as the guard gate and embankment. 

Lock No. 7—Robert Brooke, keeper; compensation to be the use of the lands between the 

canal and the river and such islands as had been purchased for the company from George 

French together with the use of Lockhouse No. 5. 

Lock No. 8—Solomon Drew, keeper; compensation of $100 and the use of the Lockhouse 

No. 6. 

 

1

. Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, (Baltimore, 1946), 185 

2 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 135. When compared with the wages being paid to the 

skilled and unskilled laborers then at work on the construction of the canal, the wages of the tenders appear to be rather 

low considering their responsibilities. The average wages for the unskilled workers on the line in the early 1830s were 

$13 per month (based on 26 working days), while those of skilled artisans were as much as $20 per month. Using a 9-

month construction season as a basis, these figures would translate into annual wages of $117 for unskilled workers and 

$180 for skilled laborers. 
786 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Locks Nos. 9-10—Thomas Burgess, keeper; compensation of $150 and the use of Lockhouse No. 7. 

Lock No. 11—(Mr.) Edmonston, keeper; compensation of $100 and the use of Lockhouse 

No. 8. 

Locks Nos. 12-14—Charles L. Sears, keeper; compensation of $200 and the use of Lockhouse No. 9. 

Locks Nos. 15-16—(No name given), keeper; compensation of $200 and the use of Lockhouse No. 10. 

 Locks Nos. 17-18—William Roberts, keeper; compensation of $200 and the use of Lockhouse No. 11. 

Locks Nos. 19-20—William Roberts, keeper; compensation to be the use of Lockhouse 

No. 12 together with the use of the company’s ground between the canal and the river that 

had been purchased from Moreen D. Loper and the Beall heirs. 

Lock No. 21—(Mr.) Fuller, keeper; compensation of $50, the use of Lockhouse No. 13, 

and the use of the company’s land bought from William Scott. 

Lock No. 22—(Mr.) Wright, Keeper; compensation of $100, the use of Lockhouse No. 14, 

and the use of the company’s land lying between the canal and the river below Muddy 

Branch. 

Lock No. 23 and Guard Lock No. 2—Lewis Sewell, keeper; compensation to the use of 

Lockhouse No. 15 together with the use of Long-Acre and the company’s ground between 

the canal and the river as far up the river as within 100 yards of Lock No. 24.3

In September the board approved a resolution requiring that at least one acre be attached to each

lock for the use of the tender. On their plot the tenders were to raise gardens for their supply of 

fresh vegetables and to raise chickens, hogs and cows for their supply of eggs, milk, and meat.4

The grounds set aside for these purposes were to be fenced with materials taken from company 

shanties that were to be dismantled near Dam. No. 1.5

Several weeks after the water had been admitted into the canal between Locks Nos. 5 and 

23, the board made a change in one of the appointments and took the first steps toward a formal 

definition of the lock tenders’ duties. On November 20 W. W. Fenlon, who already had applied 

for permission to commence a packet service between Georgetown and Great Falls, was confirmed as the keeper of Locks Nos. 15-20, since William Roberts had declined taking charge over 

his assigned locks. At the same time, the board directed Mercer to instruct the new tenders in the 

 

3 Ibid, B, 157–59. 

4 Ibid, B, 188. 

5

 Ibid, B, 148. Later, as lock houses were built further up the valley, the board specified that the lots around the structures be fenced with “good post and rail fences.” Whenever possible, locust posts were to be used. Ibid, E, 47, and 

Ingle to Elgin, Apr. 22, 1836, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 787 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

proper manner of operating the locks. Moreover, each lock keeper was to be supplied with tools 

that were to be used for the preservation and repair of the portion of the canal under his care.6

Less than a week later, the board determined to make some special arrangements with 

Fenlon for having taken charge of Locks Nos. 15-20. In addition to a salary increase to $400 per 

year, Mercer was authorized to spend $200 for the addition of a kitchen to Lockhouse No. 12, 

$500 for an additional building, and $100 for other outhouses. These outlays would enable Fenlon 

to establish a hotel at Great Falls, which was soon named Crommelin House. Within eight months 

it was decided to make further improvements to Fenlon’s hotel at company expense, the principle 

projects being the outside plastering of the lockhouse, the construction of a second story, and the 

erection of a porch in front of the stone center portion of the house.7

Similar improvements were also made to the lockhouse at Seneca Falls. The sum of 

$1,000 was authorized in July 1830 for additions to this structure, which was named Rushville. 

Peyton Page was named as the new lock tender as well as the new boat registrar at that location in 

March 1831 at a yearly wage of $250.8

The following June the board authorized President Mercer to appropriate eight per cent of 

the tender’s annual salary for the construction of stables and a tavern near the lockhouse. The 

outbuildings were not to exceed the sum of $300, and they were to be rented by the tender.9

Mercer informed the board on July 1, 1831, that he had found it necessary to increase the 

wages of the lock keepers. Accordingly, he had raised their pay to the maximum limits set by the 

directors on July 7, 1830.10

On July 16 Mercer submitted to the board a draft of the regulations for the lock keepers 

and the boatmen, which he had been ordered to prepare several months earlier. The regulations 

for the lock tenders’ districts and listed the duties that the tenders were expected to perform as 

follows: 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION, INSPECTION, 

AND REPAIRS, INTO LOCK KEEPERS DISTRICTS. 

The first Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the eastern termination of the 

Canal in Washington, to the waste weir next above the old locks at the Little Falls of Potomac, and shall include the basin between Georgetown and Washington, as well as those 

locks. 

The second Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the first, as high up as to include the waste weir next above the United States powder magazine, and shall also include the dam and feeder at the Little Falls. 

The third Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the second, to the lower end 

of the external slope of protection wall next above the culvert over Cabin John Run. 

The fourth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the third district, to the first 

culvert above his dwelling house. 

The fifth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the fourth, to the waste weir 

through the berm of the canal next below the entrance of the Rocky Run Feeder. 

 

6

 Ibid, B, 224–225. C, 401, and Fenlon to Board of Directors Nov. 6, 1830, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

7 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 238, 245, 307, 383–84. 

8 Ibid, B 148, 290, 383. 

9 Ibid, B, 384. 

10 Ibid, B, 396–97 
788 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

The sixth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the fifth, to the lower end of 

the first high vertical protection wall above, and shall embrace Rock Run Dam and 

Feeder. 

The seventh Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the sixth to the lower end 

of the first external slope or protection wall above the Great Falls of Potomac. 

The eighth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the seventh, to the first high 

bluff above the culvert over Watt’s branch. 

 The ninth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the eighth, to the lower end 

of the first external slope or protection wall above the culvert over Muddy Branch. 

The tenth Lock-keeper’s District shall extend from the ninth, to the upper end of 

the external slope or protection wall next above the Seneca Aqueduct. 

If a District Lock-keeper shall, at any time, discover, that any of the works on the 

Canal, within his district, are out of repair, he shall immediately report the fact in person 

or by express, which, for that purpose, he is authorized to hire, to the Superintendent of 

repairs, and if from the nature of the repairs required, or of the damage apprehended, time 

be not allowed without farther injury to the Canal or its appurtenances, to wait the orders 

of the Superintendent, the Lock-keeper shall consider himself empowered, and he is required, at the cost of the Company, to take immediate steps, in the absence of the Superintendent, to repair the injury which has happened, or to prevent that which is apprehended. Of all expenses so incurred by him, for the benefit of the Company, he shall keep 

a fair account, a copy of which, he shall hand over to the Superintendent, as soon as his 

presence shall enable him to take charge of such repairs, the Superintendent shall repay to 

the Lock-keeper, the sums so expended. All such accounts shall be settled as soon as 

practicable, after they arise, and, at least, once in every month. 

No Lock-keeper shall be entitled to receive his monthly pay, who shall have an 

unsettled account with the Company. 

The District Lock-keepers shall be bound, if required, to provide by themselves, 

or their assistants, accommodation and subsistence, at a reasonable rate, not to exceed a 

given sum per week, for the Superintendent, and such hands or laborers as may be engaged in such repairs, or on any improvements upon, or alterations of the Canal. 

Each Lock-keeper and Lock-keeper’s assistant shall be furnished with 2 wheelborrows, 3 shovels, a pick and a crow-bar, to be used in the improvement and repair of 

the Canal, whensoever required, and shall be held responsible for the good order and safe 

keeping of the same; and each District Lock-keeper, in his monthly return to the board, 

shall state the number and condition of the tools within his District. 

In addition to his monthly pay, each District Lock-keeper shall be entitled to an 

enclosed lot, near his house. 

Every Lock-keeper shall be at liberty, subject to the restraints and regulations of 

the existing laws, to accommodate the boatmen, and other travelers at his lock house, 

provided that under no circumstances whatever, shall any Lock-keeper, or his assistant, 

be allowed to sell or to supply on any terms, to any boatmen, traveler, or other person, 

any spirituous, or intoxicating liquor, or to allow the use or consumption of any such liquor within or upon his premises, unless particularly authorized so to do by the President 

and Directors of the Company; and for any violation of this rule, the offender shall be 

immediately discharged from the service of the Company. 

In like manner any District or Assistant Lock-keeper, who shall at any time be 

found in a state of intoxication, shall be forthwith discharged. 

Every District Lock-keeper, and his assistant, shall afford to the boatmen and all 

other persons navigating the canal, every aid and accommodation in his power, while he 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 789 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

duly enforces the regulations for the protection of the Canal and its works–he shall instruct the boatmen how to navigate the Canal, to the best advantage, and especially to 

what part of their boat they should attach their tow or tracking line; how to track it with 

most comfort to themselves, and especially the manner of entering and passing out of the 

locks, and the use of their bow and stern strapping or snubbing ropes. 

Every District Lock-keeper having reason to suspect a boat or float to have increased her cargo subsequent to the date of her waybill, is authorized to call upon the 

owner, master, or other person having charge of said boat or float for a sight of his waybill, to compare with the actual cargo of such boat, and if any augmentation of such cargo 

shall appear to have been made, subsequently to the date of the permit or waybill, to endorse a notice hereof, on such waybill, for the information of the Collector, and the other 

Lock-keepers. 

All boats or floats left by their owners, or such persons as may have had charge 

thereof, either sunk in the canal or loosely floating thereupon, and all floating logs, 

planks or branches of trees, as well as other nuisances within the Canal, the Lock-keeper 

of the district within which the same may be, shall promptly cause to be removed or 

abated. 

Every District Lock-keeper is required to pay particular attention to the orders 

regulating the height of water in the several levels between the locks of his district; and 

the Lock-keepers of the eighth and ninth districts, may be required to receive their orders 

through the Lock-keepers of the seventh or of the tenth district; and in like manner those 

of the second, third, and fourth, through the Lock-keepers of the first or fifth district. 

In all cases, where practicable, the various levels shall be regulated by the use of 

the wastes and feeders of the Canal, reserving the side culverts and paddle gates of the 

locks for their appropriate use – that of filling and emptying the locks when required by 

the passage of boats. 

Each District Lock-keeper shall see that obvious and suitable marks, by description stones or boards, be kept up, above and below each lock, to denote where a boat approaching the same, shall slacken its speed or await its turn for entering the Lock, if other 

boats have a right to precede it. 

No Lock-keeper is authorized to practice himself, or to countenance others, in resisting, by violence, except in self-defense, any outrageous or disorderly conduct on the 

canal, but he shall take, at the cost of the Company, prompt measures to suppress and 

punish the same, by the judicial tribunals having cognizance thereof.11

When the canal was opened to navigation between Lock No. 5 and the Rock Creek Basin in September 1831, the board drew up a special set of rules for the keeper of Locks Nos. 1–4 as that 

position was crucial to the functioning of the waterway at its terminus. The duties of the Georgetown lock tender, in addition to the printed regulations for all lock keepers, were: 

1. He was to have charge of Locks Nos. 1–4 and Tidelock A as well as supervisory responsibility for Lock District No. 1. 

2. He was to hire two able-bodied assistants. 

3. He was to “attend in Person” to his duty and was never to leave his district without 

permission from the president or board. 

 

11 Ibid, B, 314, 421–28. 
790 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

James O’Reily was appointed to fill this position, and he and his assistants were to receive an annual wage of $500.12

From time to time additional duties were assigned to those lock tenders who were respected for their industriousness and consciousness, O’Reilly was authorized to undertake the 

duty of collecting tolls on boats which passed up the canal from Georgetown but did not use the 

Old Locks at Little Falls. The compensation for this job was $100 per year.13

In March 1832, the lock keeper at Lock No. 5 was authorized to examine the waybill of 

every boat ascending through his lock to insure that the captain had paid all his tolls on his last 

descent to Georgetown. He was to receive $50 per year for this additional work.14 

As the canal extended westward, similar arrangements were made with the lock tenders at 

Harpers Ferry, Williamsport, and Hancock to act as toll collectors.15

From October 1834 to October 1837 the Georgetown lock keeper was assigned the additional duty of operating Tidelock B on the Washington Branch Canal for which job his salary was 

increased, to $1,200 per year.16

Some lock tenders were made responsible for the operation of pivot bridges at their locks, 

one such ease being the keeper at Lock No. 30 who received an additional monthly stipend of $10 

for his extra work.17

After the canal was completed to Cumberland in 1850, the directors approved new locks 

nearest to the guard or river locks were generally placed in charge of the operation of those structures along with an increased annual salary of $50.18

Regulations to govern the administration of the waterway. The new rules, which went 

into effect on April 1, 1851, defined the duties of the lock keepers as follows: 

LOCK KEEPERS 

128. It shall be the duty of all lock keepers to make a daily and particular examination of the locks under their charge, and of any other works which they may be directed, by order of the General Superintendent or of the Superintendents of repairs on 

whose division they are, to attend to; and to prevent by all lawful means within their 

power, any injury to said locks or other works, from the carelessness of boatmen or from 

malicious or disorderly persons. 

129. They shall use their utmost exertions to keep the said locks or other works in 

the best possible order, and in case of any accident or injury to them, or to the canal in the 

vicinity of their stations, requiring immediate attention, they shall take the necessary 

measures to remedy the same and to prevent further injury; and in the meantime to send 

the earliest intelligence thereof to the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the canal. 

 

12 Ibid, C, 5–6. 

13 Ibid, C, 112–13. 

14 Ibid, C, 113. As long as the canal had its terminus at Dam No. 2, the tender at Lock No. 23 also was designated as a 

toll collector. 

15 Ibid, G, 149–50. 

16 Ibid, D, 181. In Oct. 1837, the lock house at the tide lock was completed and John Hilton was appointed as its tender 

at a yearly wage of $50. Ibid, E, 329. 

17 Ibid, M, 102. 

18 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland (Frederick, 1851), 

139–40. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 791 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

130. It shall be their duty, at all hours, by night as well as by day, unless otherwise ordered by the General Superintendent or Superintendent of repairs on that part of 

the canal, to pass all boats and floats presenting themselves at their locks, and entitled to 

pass the same under the regulations of the Company. 

131. They shall not permit the boatmen to pass their boats or floats through any 

lock, except in the presence and under the direction of the keeper thereof or his assistant. 

132. The lock keepers shall not absent themselves from their locks, on any occasion, without leave from the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the canal. They 

shall reside in the houses provided for them, at their respective stations; and shall be 

charged with the care and preservation of their respective houses and of the enclosures attached thereto; and also of any property of the Company that may be put in their keeping 

by the General Superintendent or the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the canal; 

and for any injury to the said house or enclosures or the said property, if occasioned by 

their neglect or carelessness, they shall be, respectively, liable. 

133. Lock keepers, when repairs are making in the neighborhood of their locks, 

at points where, and at times when, there is difficulty in obtaining board and lodging for 

those persons employed upon such repairs, shall afford such accommodation, in the way 

of boarding and lodging, the whole or a part of the said persons, at fair and usual rates, as 

in the opinion of the Superintendent of repairs of that part of the canal, he can reasonably 

and with propriety be asked and required to afford. 

134. Although, under these regulations, the lock keepers are, in many cases, authorized to impose fines; yet, except in cases of emergency, it is desired that they should 

forthwith report each violation of a regulation to the Superintendent of repairs on that part 

of the canal, with all the facts in the case, in order that the fine may be imposed by the 

said Superintendent; and that such other measures in relation to the said violation may be 

taken as in the judgment of the said Superintendent may be thought necessary. 

135. All fines imposed by lock keepers shall be forthwith reported to the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the canal; and all moneys received by them for fines imposed by them shall be immediately paid over to the said Superintendent. 

136. Any lock keeper who shall knowingly permit a boat or float to pass his lock 

or locks in violation of any provision of these regulations; or who shall himself neglect or 

refuse to comply promptly, with any one of such of these regulations as prescribes his duties, either towards the Company or those engaged in boating on the canal, shall be 

forthwith suspended from duty by the Superintendent of repairs on that part of the canal, 

on his becoming cognizant of the facts; and a report of the case shall be immediately 

made to the General Superintendent, by the said Superintendent, for his action thereon; 

and in the meantime the said Superintendent may appoint some person to fill, temporarily, the vacancy thus created. 

137. Every lock keeper shall perform such other duties connected with the canal, 

as the General Superintendent may from time to time require of him.19

These regulations continued in effect with periodic slight modifications until the canal went into a 

receivership after the titanic flood of 1889. 

The basic annual wages of the lock keepers remained generally unchanged from 1831 to 

1853.20

 

19 By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations: In force on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 1st April 1851 (Baltimore, 1894), 39–

40. 
792 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

On May 7 of the latter year, the board ordered that the tenders be paid annual salaries according to the following salary schedule beginning on June 1: 

Locks Nos. 1-4 $600 

Lock No. 23 $250 

Lock No. 5 $300 

Lock No. 24 $200 

Lock No. 6 $200 

Lock No. 25 $250 

Lock No. 7 $200 

Lock No. 26 $200 

Lock No. 8 $200 

Lock No. 27 $200 

Locks Nos. 9-10 $300 

Lock No. 28 $200 

Lock No. 11 $200 

Lock No. 29 $225 

Lock No. 12-14 $325 

Lock No. 30 $200 

Lock No. 15 $200 

Lock No. 31 $200 

Lock No. 16 $200 

Lock No. 32 $225 

Locks Nos. 17-18 $300 

Lock No. 33 $200 

Locks Nos. 19-20 $300 

Lock No. 34 $200 

Lock No. 21 $200 

Lock No. 35 $325 

Lock No. 22 $200 

Lock No. 37 $200 

Lock No. 38 $250 

Lock No. 57 $200 

Lock No. 39 $200 

Lock No. 58 $200 

Lock No. 40 $200 

Lock No. 59 $200 

Guard Lock No. 4 $200 

Lock No. 60 $200 

Locks Nos. 41-42 $300 

Lock No. 61 $200 

Lock No. 43 $200 

Lock No. 62 $200 

Lock No. 44 $200 

 20 During this period, the average annual wages for a skilled factory worker in the North (based on a 7-day week of 12-

14 hour days) ranged between $200 to $500. Unskilled workers, women, and children received annual wages ranging 

from $50 to $300. When compared with these figures, the majority of the lock tenders received annual wages that put 

them in the middle of the unskilled working class. T. Harry Williams, Richard N. Current, and Frank Freidel, A History 

of the United States to 1877 (3rd ed., New York, 1969), 464–65. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 793 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Lock No. 63 1/3-66 $400 

Guard Lock No. 5 $200 

Lock No. 67 $200 

Locks Nos. 45-46 $300 

Lock No. 68 $200 

Locks Nos. 47-50 $400 

Locks Nos. 69-71 $400 

Locks Nos. 51-52 $300 

Lock No. 72 $200 

Lock No. 53 $200 

Locks Nos. 73-74 $275 

Locks Nos. 54-55 and Guard Lock No. 6 $300 

GuardLock No. 8 $250 

Lock No. 56 $20021

From May 1853 to September 1859 when another general pay increase went into effect there 

were a few modifications in the salaries of some lock tenders that were the result of special circumstances. In reply to a complaint from Samuel Morany, the tender of Locks Nos. 47-50, that 

his pay was too low to employ an assistant, the board agreed in January 1855 to increase his 

yearly stipend to $500.22

In May 1855 the directors granted John Shelly, the tender at Lock No. 70, a yearly wage 

increase to $225 because the company owned no ground at the lock house on which he could 

plant a garden.23

As the canal trade had increased to the point that the keeper at Lock Nos. 63 1/3, 64 2/3, 

and 66 needed to hire additional assistance, the directors in September 1855 allowed him a 

monthly increase of up to $20 at the discretion of the Superintendent of the Cumberland Division.24

For undetermined reasons, the annual salaries of the keepers at Lock No. 12 and at locks 

nos. 13-14 were raised drastically in October 1860 to $300 and $400 respectively.25

During the next decade the pay of the lock keepers rose rapidly. On May 1, 1864, another 

salary increase went into effect as follows: 

Locks 6-62, 67-72, 75 $5 per month 

Locks 63 1/3, 64 2/3, 66 $600 per year 

Locks 73 and 74 $500 per year 

Guard Lock 8 $400 per year26

The following month the tender of Lock No. 5 and Guard Lock No. 1 was given a $60 per year 

raise.27

 

21 Iron to Lambie, May 7, 1853, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

22 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 140. 

23 Ibid, I,169. 

24 Ibid, I,446. 

25 Ibid, K, 131. 

26 Ibid, K, 383. 

27 Ibid, K, 390 
794 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

As of June 1, 1865, the pay of the keepers at Locks Nos. 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 19-20 

was increased to $50 per month.28

In August 1865 this rate increase was extended to all tenders of two locks along the canal.29

The final general pay increase of which there is any record took effect on May 1, 1870, 

when the pay of all tenders of single locks was raised to $50 per month and that of all keepers of 

two locks was increased to $75 per month. Along with this last pay increase the board passed a 

resolution requiring each single lock keeper to hire one assistant and each double lock tender to 

employ two assistants.30

C. FAMILY AND SEXUAL ROLES 

The canal company never set down written criteria for the qualifications of lock keepers. 

However a cursory review of the company records indicates that the directors preferred married 

men with large families. It was presumed that married men would provide more responsible service along the numerous isolated stretches of the canal than would those who were single. Large 

families were favored both because of their stabilizing tendencies and because they provided 

more hands to do the work. A large number of children was also an advantage to those lock keepers who were responsible for more than one lock, because their older offspring could be put to 

work operating the locks, thus relieving the tender of the need to hire an assistant.31

At times women held the position of lock keeper but these generally were the widows of 

the original tender. In March 1835 the board decided that all women lock keepers would be discharged after May 1, in the interest of more efficient operation.32

The employment of women violated the general social mores of that era, but even more 

important, the physical strength and endurance necessary to operate a lock was thought to be better suited to men. 

There were a number of exceptions made to the ruling, which banned female lock tenders, 

as a number of women served in this capacity during the operation of the canal. In response to an 

entreaty from Mary Ross to be continued as the tender of Locks Nos. 12-14, the board voted in 

March 1835 to suspend its order in her case.33 The following month the directors agreed to keep 

Elizabeth Burgess as the tender of Lock No. 11, provided that she hires a capable assistant.34

On the death of her husband in September, Mrs. Eliza Page was appointed temporarily as 

the registrar and lock keeper at Rushville. When she refused to act any longer as the registrar or 

lock-keeper in October the board voted to abolish the office of registrar at that place and to employ a lock tender on a temporary basis.35

The unpleasant experience with Mrs. Page caused the board that same month to reissue 

its order banning the employment of women as lock keepers after March 1, 1836.36

 

28 Ibid, K, 426–27. 

29 Ibid, K, 438, and Ringgold to Masters, Aug. 15, 1870, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 

30 Ibid, L, 314–15. This salary increase did not apply to the tenders of the Georgetown locks or the Cumberland Lock. 

31 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, p, 185. 

32 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, D, 264.

33 Ibid, D, 267. 

34 Ibid, D, 273. 

35 Ibid, D, 401, 416. 

36 Ibid, D, 421. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 795 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Despite the new directive the board continued to make exceptions based on the circumstances of each case. On March 30, 1836, it was determined to continue the employment of Mrs. 

Susan Cross as the tender of Lock No. 21 “until the 1st day of May, and no longer.”37

One of the most interesting cases in which a woman was appointed as a lock tender occurred in December 1842 after the drowning of James O’Reilly, the highly-respected keeper of 

the Georgetown locks since 1831. On the morning of December 14 O’Reilly’s body was found in 

the opening of the culvert gate of Lock No. 3, presumably having fallen into the canal while turning the crank about 7 O’clock A.M. John Y. Young, the division superintendent, immediately 

hired Philip Gormly, who lived near Lock No. 4, as a temporary replacement. O’Reilly’s assistants and his oldest son were continued as aides to Gormly.38

That same day Clement Cox, an influential Georgetown resident, informed the board that 

O’Reilly had left a large family of females and small children. His oldest son, James, Jr., however 

was 25 to 30 years old, well educated, and “entirely exemplary in his habits.” Although the young 

man had been known formerly as a wild brawler, he had served as secretary of the Temperance 

Society of his church for nearly three years. As he would now be the sole bread-winner for the 

family, Cox urged that he be given the lock keeper’s job.39

The board also received a petition signed by 21 boat owners and captains and Georgetown citizens recommending O’Reilly’s widow as the lock tender. In the opinion of the signers of 

the memorial, such an act would be a fitting tribute to “a most worthy citizen and honest man.” 

With the aid of her eldest son, the petitioners were convinced that Mrs. O’Reilly would render 

credible service to the company.40

Accordingly, the board appointed Mrs. O’Reilly as her husband’s successor on December 

20.41

There were other exceptions to the ruling against the employment of female lock tenders 

in the following years. In April 1844 Mrs. James Davis was appointed to succeed her deceased 

husband as the keeper at Lock No. 28.42

Four years later in April 1846 the board was notified that Asa Farman, the keeper of 

Locks Nos. 12-14, had died, leaving a widow and six children. Although Rebecca Farman continued to operate the locks with the aid of a brother and two of her sons, the board felt that she could 

not handle three locks. Accordingly, she was transferred to Lock No. 15, and Hezekiah Metts, the 

operator of that lock replaced her as he had “sufficient assistants.”43

In 1848 Mary A. Brewer took over as tender of Lock No. 16 for her deceased husband 

Thomas. That same year Sarah Conner replaced her late husband Hugh as keeper of Lock No. 53, 

a post which he had held since April 1839 when the canal between Dams Nos. 5-6 was opened to 

navigation.44

In 1850 there were two female lock tenders listed on the canal company payroll. Lucy A. 

Metts, the widow of Frederick Metts, operated Lock No. 5 and Guard Gate No. 1 until March 10, 

 

37 Ibid, E, 36. 

38 Young to President and Directors, Dec. 14, 1842, and Cox to Ingle, Dec. 15, 1842, Ltrs. Recd, C & O Co. 

39 Cox to President and Directors, Dec. 14, 1842, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

40 Petition to President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Dec. 18, 1842, Ltrs. Recd., C & O 

Co. 

41 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, F, 512. 

42 Ibid, G, 146 

43 Elgin to Coale, Mar. 5, 1846, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 

397-98. 

44 Twentieth Annual Report (1848), C & O Co., Appendix E, 26–27. 
796 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

at which time she was transferred to Lock No. 16 for the remainder of the year. Sarah Connor was 

still at her post at Lock No. 53.45

Company records indicate that at least five women served as lock tenders during the 1860s 

and the 1870s. After a change in the canal’s administration in June 1860, the new board replaced 

all of the waterway’s lock keepers. Two of the new appointees were Mrs. Adeleade Hill at Lock 

No. 12 and Mrs. Egan at Lock No. 60.46

In November 1864 it was reported that John Rench, the keeper of Lock No. 30, had died 

and that George Hardy, the tender of Locks Nos. 35 and 36, had been drafted into the Union 

Army. In both cases, the women and children remained to attend the locks.47

On the death of G. W. Case, the lock keeper at Great Falls, the board appointed his 

widow to succeed him in August 1872.48

D. PERFORMANCE RECORD 

Despite the precautions taken by the board in selecting the lock tenders, a cursory review of the 

company records reveals that many of the lock men were undisciplined and irresponsible. Although most were conscientious in their work, many were dismissed for drunkenness, neglect of 

duty, and absence without notice or without providing a substitute. Frequent complaints were 

made about the sale of liquor by lock keepers to boatmen and workers, and the disorderly results 

of this practice. 

The formulation of detailed regulations and the organization of canal employees with assigned duties did not insure the orderly operation of the work. On the contrary, every conceivable 

abuse was reported at one time or another. Canal property was misused, tools were lost or stolen, 

repair materials were damaged or stolen, and the towpath and aqueducts used as a wagon roads 

and bridle paths. Repeated directions to the lock keepers to enforce the rules strictly indicate a 

laxness or indifference on the part of the tenders and boatmen alike.49

There were general complaints about the performance of the lock tenders almost from the 

first day of navigation. In May 1831 an article appeared in the National Intelligencer describing 

an excursion to Great Falls on a packet boat. The reports noted that the “hands at some of the 

locks are not as dexterous in the management of them perhaps as longer practice will make 

them.” Thus, the passenger who was “not on his guard may chance [to] get a jolt or two.”50

By the spring of 1832, the directors had become alarmed by the numerous reports of the 

irresponsibility and negligence of the lock tenders. On March 24 they ordered the Superintendent 

to interview each lock tender “to ascertain them that are acquainted with the extent of their respective districts and the various duties required of them.” He was to report to President Mercer 

“the name of every lock keeper, whom he shall find, upon examination, to be ignorant of his duty 

or in any way negligent or remiss in its performance.” Furthermore, the directors ordered him to 

“especially instruct” the lock tenders to make daily or weekly inspections of the embankments on 

both sides of the canal, within their respective districts in order to ascertain whether any leak exists or is threatened in any part thereof; whether any musk rats have made lodgments therein, and 

if any, the entrance of habitations...to pass thro’ the several viaducts or culverts of the canal 

 

45 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Cumberland, 139–40. 

46 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 192–93. 

47 Ibid, K, 405. 

48 Ibid, M, 49. 

49 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 185-186. 

50 Washington National Intelligencer, quoted in Niles’ Register, XL (May 21, 1831), 206. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 797 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

within their district...or...by looking thro’ the same, whether any leak exists thereon, and that, 

where any such leaks are discovered, they be promptly stopped or effectual measures be taken to 

prevent their enlargement.51

After several locks had been damaged in the spring of 1833 as a direct result of the negligence of the lock tenders, the board took further action to impress those individuals with the importance of enforcing the company’s regulations. In June the directors determined that each of the 

lock keepers be “distinctly informed” that they would henceforth. 

be held responsible for any damage done his lock, by violently entering the same, or using iron pointed poles, while in the same, unless in each case of injury he report the number and description of the boat, by which such injury is occasioned; and when practicable, 

the name or names of the person or persons, having the same in charge, to the Collector 

in Georgetown, before the boat shall have returned thro’ his lock. In like manner, he shall 

be held responsible for any injury done, by any boat to the gates, or pointing or projecting 

stone of his lock: and the cost of repairing such injury, shall in each case, be deducted 

from his next month’s wages. 

The directors put “teeth” into this directive by requiring that the superintendent would henceforth 

certify that the locks were in “good order” each month before the lock tenders were paid.52

Throughout the years of the canal’s operation, the board frequently had to direct the lock 

tenders to enforce the rules of the company, often with the threat of dismissal if they refused to 

cooperate. In June 1833 the lock tenders were ordered to prevent any sharp-pointed scow from 

entering the canal after July 1 – this despite the fact that such a regulation had been in effect for 

nearly two years.53

The following month the directors were notified that there was “a regular travel of all 

kinds of carriages on the towing path” and also “crossing on the coping of the Monocacy Aqueduct,” both of which were violation of company regulations resulting in past from the laxness of 

the lock keepers and in past from the antagonistic attitudes of the local residents.54

An accident at Lock No. 44, in which $60 worth of flour was lost through the negligence 

of the lock tenders led to an edict in June 1836 which stipulated that the tenders would be held 

responsible for all damages to boat cargoes which resulted from their “neglect of duty”.55

In December 1837 the president of the Frederick and Harper’s Ferry Road Company 

complained to the canal board that persons traveling on the turnpike were avoiding tolls by crossing the pivot bridge at Lock No. 31 and using the towpath for the distance between the lock and 

Harpers Ferry. Anxious to cooperate with the road company as well as to protect its works, the 

lock keeper was ordered to enforce the company rules and to prohibit persons from crossing the 

 

51 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 111. As an inducement for the lock tenders to rid the canal 

of the muskrat problem, the board ordered the superintendent to pay a bounty of 25 cents for every such animal, which 

was killed on the canal, in its embankments, or in the riverside of the waterway. 

52 Ibid, C, 368–69. 

53 Ibid, C, 392. 

54 Elgin to Directors, July 10, 1833, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. Within two weeks, the board ordered that posts be placed 

on the towpath to prevent carriages from using the aqueduct. Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 

401. A similar problem occurred in September 1841 when Thomas Dawson of Montgomery County continued to use 

the towpath as a road for his carts and wagons. Elgin to Directors, Sept. 15, 1841, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

55 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 69. 
798 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

bridge unless they were on canal business or were passing to or from Caspar Wever’s Mill for 

whose immediate use the bridge had been constructed.56

When the board received word that many lock keepers and toll collectors were permitting 

boats to pass through their locks without certifying the manifests of their cargoes, it notified those 

individuals at Georgetown, Williamsport, and Hancock in April 1844 that such future violations 

would be grounds for dismissal.57

Frequent complaints that some of the lock tenders were refusing to pass boats through the 

locks at night aroused an angry board in February 1848 to order all the lock tenders to be responsible for such operations 24 hours a day.58

Aside from specific orders and threats of dismissal for the irresponsible performance of 

the lock tenders, the board attempted several other solutions to upgrade the services rendered by 

those individuals. In January 1843 a form of agreement delineating the duties of the lock keeper 

and the prerogatives of the company to dismiss him for non-performance was drawn up by President James M. Coale and adopted by the board for use in all future employment matters.59

On at least two occasions – August 15, 1849, and October 12, 1866 the board acted to increase the responsibility of the division superintendents by authorizing them to dismiss and replace any lock-keeper on their divisions for reasons of misconduct or negligence, providing that 

the directors were informed at their next meeting.60

This approach was used since the board was far removed from the waterway and incidents reported to it at its monthly meetings were often investigated long after their occurrence, 

thus allowing the tenders to carry out a “cover-up” of their alleged misdeeds and thereby encouraging a lack of respect for the enforcement powers of the superintendents.61

At other times, the superintendents were directed to report any lock keeper who was not 

performing his duties.62

E. DRUNKENNESS 

Drunkenness among the lock tenders proved to be continuing problem for the board. One of the 

most notorious cases in which a lock tender was dismissed for drunkenness occurred in 1844. In 

April Ebenezer Steel, the owner of a warehouse near Locks Nos. 45–46, informed the board that 

John Herbert, the keeper of those locks, was drinking heavily. Herbert, who was an old man with 

a large family, countered these charges by arguing that Steel merely wanted his assistant, who 

had little to do other than receive periodic shipments of grain and flour, to be lock keeper so that 

he would not have to pay him wages. Moreover, Steel often did not provide a full statement of his 

shipments, and he could get away with even more dishonesty if Herbert was out of the way.63

 

56 Ibid, E, 345; Thomas to Thomas, Dec. 15, 1837, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; and Ingle to Elgin, Dec. 20, 1837, Ltrs. 

Sent, C & O Co. 

57 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 150. 

58 Ibid, H, 144–45. 

59 Ibid, G, 2. 

60 Ibid, H, 288, K, 520. 

61 Proceedings of Stockholders, C, 592–94. 

62 Circular to Superintendents, William R. Hutton, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.

63 Herbert to President and Directors, April 10, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 799 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Later, a petition signed by 19 residents in the vicinity of the two locks was submitted to 

the board. Among other things, the petitioners noted that Herbert was an “attentive” and “faithful” lock tender who deserved to be keep on the job.64

Following a short investigation of the case, Chief Engineer Charles B. Fisk recommended 

that Herbert be continued as lock tender and the board accepted the proposal.65

Fresh charges of heavy drinking were again leveled against Herbert in August 1844. It 

was reported that he had left the locks under the charge of his son-in-law during a drunken spree 

in the middle of the month. After a similar report in November, the directors removed him from 

the payroll as of December 1 and selected Henry Harsh as his replacement.66

There were other dismissals for drunkenness. In November 1844 it was reported that William H. Henderson, the keeper at Locks Nos. 17 and 18, was “intemperate in his habits, and guilty 

of neglect of duty.” Among other complaints against him were charges that he was living alone, 

employing no assistants, and remaining absent from duty for days on end. Hence he was removed 

from his job as of December 1 and replaced by Horace Benton.67

In March 1846 the board was informed that Robert C. Fields, the tender at Lock No. 21, 

had kept his level “very irregular at times, putting boats aground, while he (was) absent on his 

drunken frolics without permission of the Superintendent.”68

Accordingly, he was fired as of May 1 and replaced by Samuel M. Fisher.69

F. NEGLECT OF DUTY 

There are numerous instances where lock tenders were either warned or dismissed. One 

of the most serious incidents to occur as the result of a lock-tender’s drunken behavior occurred 

on September 11, 1875, at Lock No. 22. Arriving late one night, the Excelsior, owned by Richard 

A. Moore, commenced locking operation with the aid of the tender. As the keeper was so drunk 

that he could “not act straight,” he failed to heed the warnings of the boat’s steersman and opened 

the lower gate paddles before the boat was in place. Hence the boat struck the mitre sill, broke 

apart, and sank with its 113-ton coal cargo. As a result, Moore collected more than $1,300 in 

damages and the unnamed lock man was dismissed.70

For neglecting their duties. In August 1837 Phinas Janney, one of the canal’s directors, 

reported that recently he had crossed over the Potomac River from Shepherdstown to descend the 

canal. Although he had notified the keeper of the river lock of his approach, the tender did not 

arrive at the lock until the boatmen had locked the vessel through it and were ready to descend the 

canal. From other sources there appear to have been numerous instances where the tender had 

arrived at the lock too late to be of any service.71

 

64 Petition to President and Directors, April 15, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

65 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 146. 

66 Ibid, G, 209-210, and Stone to Coale, Aug. 29, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

67 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors G, 210. Henderson refused to leave the lock house, claiming 

that the structure had not been built on company-owned land. Instead, he asserted that the company had taken improperly some vacant land in 1834 and constructed the residence. Thus, a special order from the board was necessary to 

force him to vacate the premises. Young to President and Directors, Dec. 10, 1842, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

68 Elgin to Coale, Mar. 5, 1846, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

69 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 397. 

70 Petition and Affidavit of Richard A. Moore to the President and Directors of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Jan. 12, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

71 Ingle to Rodgers, Aug. 30, 1837, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
800 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

The board received word in October 1842 that the keeper of the Georgetown locks was 

providing adequate service at Locks Nos. 1–4 but was giving scant attention to the Tidelock. It 

was recommended that a lock house be built near the Rock Creek Basin Dam and that the 

Georgetown lock tender be relieved of that responsibility along with a cut in his $600 annual salary. The proposal was rejected, and the directors ordered the tender to give “more efficient and 

prompt attention to the Tidelock.”72

On several occasions, there were reports that the lock tender’s [performance] of their duties resulted in breaches and high-water problems. In April 1834 the directors were notified that 

several lock keepers had failed to inspect their districts for some time; thus, a breach had developed in the canal banks near Harpers Ferry.73

From the fall of 1860 to the spring of 1862 there were seven periods of high water on the 

Potomac, each of which caused flooding below Dam No. 4. In each case, it was reported the 

keeper who was responsible for putting the planks in the stop lock at that location either had 

failed to do so or had done so in an improper manner thus allowing the water to knock them 

out.74

In March 1877 the directors received word that there was a breach between Locks Nos. 

10 and 11 which had been caused by the lock tender’s poor method of repairing an earlier leak. 

There was also a break at the tumbling waste on the Four Mile Level, which the tender had failed 

to report since the previous autumn.75

G. ABANDONMENT OF LOCKS 

Some lock tenders simply left their locks unattended without notice to the company when they 

took other employment or when they had serious disagreements with canal officials. In June 1848 

Superintendent William S. Elgin appointed John H. Boozell to be the keeper of Lock No. 25 and 

the Edward’s Ferry River Lock, subject to the confirmation of the board. He had taken this action, 

according to his report to the directors, because Asa Aud, the former tender, “had gone off.” The 

board quickly approved the action.76

Later in April 1863 Samuel Smart was appointed to replace the tender at Locks Nos. 1–4 

who had left his job, and in June 1874 John W. Mimmis was given the job of C. Shanks who had 

“quit” as the keeper of Lock No. 12.77

When some of the tenders of double locks were unsuccessful in their bid to secure a larger salary advance then that granted to the single lock keepers, S. C. Rogers abandoned Locks 

Nos. 45-46 in protest in May 1864 and was replaced by Obadiah Barger.78

H. ABSENCE FROM LOCK WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE 

For a long period of time, many of the lock tenders took advantage of their isolated locations by 

leaving their locks in charge of unqualified substitutes while they attended to personal business. 

 

72 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 555–56. 

73 Ibid, D, 80–81. 

74 Embrey and Son to Dellinger, Apr. 26, 1862, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

75 Latchford to Gorman, Mar. 24, 1877, Ltrs., Recd., C & O Co. 

76 Ibid, H, 178–79, and Elgin to Board of Directors, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

77 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors K, 322–24, and Maus to Gorman, June 2, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C 

& O Co. 

78 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 384. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 801 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Five such cases were reported in August 1844 alone. In that month the directors were informed 

that John Herbert, the tender of Locks Nos. 45-46 who was later fired for drunkenness, had left 

his locks for two days in the charge of Joseph Duke, his son-in-law who lived in the lock house 

with him. Joseph Hollman, the keeper at Lock No. 44, had never attended his lock in person, 

leaving the job to his employees at his sawmill in Williamsport. On one day of that month even 

these men had been absent with the lock left in the hands of one of the men’s wives. Isaac Dodd 

had left Lock No. 43 in charge of his young son for one day. That same day Henry Boyd had left 

his locks to be operated by his wife’s sister. Levi R. Shaw also had left an inadequate substitute at 

guard Lock No. 4 for one day.79

Following the recitation of the information and similar reports from other superintendents 

on the line, the board determined to put a stop to the growing problems arising from the lock 

keepers’ chronic absences from their duties. On December 20, 1844, the directors issued a new 

order prohibiting any employee from leaving the portion of the canal under his charge for any 

reason without the prior consent of the division superintendent. The superintendents were to report any infractions immediately and stern disciplinary action was promised for offenders.80

Apparently, this order was effective in solving the problem, because no reports of similar 

abuses were found in the company records for nearly twenty years. 

In fact, only two other cases of chronic absence without approved substitutes were found 

in a cursory survey of the company papers. In November 1864 Obadiah Barger, a long-time canal 

employee, complained that he had been removed two months earlier as tender of Locks Nos. 45-

46 without just cause, and that Susan Newcomer, who had been appointed to replace him, never 

had appeared at the locks. Instead she had hired a young person to operate the locks without notifying the division superintendent. When the directors heard that Mrs. Newcomer had delegated 

her authority in violation of the company regulations, she was dismissed from the payroll and 

Barger was reinstated to his job.81

An interesting case occurred in September 1876 when John T. Hill, who had worked for 

the company for ten years, was dismissed from his duty as the tender at Lock No. 16. Although 

he had a good employment record, Hill left the lock in the charge of his assistant every afternoon 

when he went to get his cow for milking. When he was discharged, Hill had nine friends sign a 

petition to the directors vouching for his orderly character, his membership in the Sons of Temperance, and his responsible care of the lock. The latter point was buttressed by the fact that the 

same lock gates had been in place for eleven years.82

There was no indication in the company records as to whether the board took any action 

on the petition. 

I. SALE OF INTOXICATING BEVERAGES BY LOCK KEEPERS. 

Soon after navigation on the canal commences in the fall of 1830 the board considered a 

ban prohibiting the lock keepers from selling intoxicating beverages. Such a ban was first issued 

June 10, 1831, and the following month on July 16 it was incorporated into the formal company 

regulations.83

 

79 Stone to Coale, Aug. 29, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

80 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, G, 219. 

81 Ibid, K, 405–06, and Barger to Brengle, Spetes, and Watson (three letters), Nov. 4, 1864, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

82 Prettyman to Gorman, Sept. 11, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

83 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 182, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 410–19. 
802 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Two exceptions were made in this ruling when the lock keepers at Crommelin and Rushville were permitted to establish taverns, but, otherwise, an attempt was made to enforce the prohibition along the line. There were numerous complaints of violations by the lock tenders, one of 

the most notorious being A. S. Adams at Lock No. 33.84

The board experienced little success in its efforts to prohibit the illicit liquor trade. After 

numerous reports of disorderly conduct near Great Falls and Rushville that were the result of 

drinking at the lock houses at those two locations the board in November 1844 revoked the privileges that it had granted the lock tenders effective May 1, 1845.85

Soon, however appeals by the boatmen and local people pressured the directors into reversing their stand and allow the sale of liquor at those locations. 

The existence of grog shops in many of the lock houses continued to be a nuisance to the 

efficient operation of the canal. In May 1848 J. F. Lewis complained to the board that one of his 

boats had been damaged and its cargo of flour partially destroyed at Lock No. 26 because of the 

carelessness of James Fitch, the lock tender, and his assistant. When the matter was investigated, 

it was found that the captain of the boat had been drinking when he arrived at the lock, and upon 

being informed that Fitch was repairing a break on the level below the lock, he had gone into the 

lock house to purchase more liquor. At midnight the boat, which had been left untied near the 

canal banks, was found sinking to the bottom of the waterway and the flour floating on the surface of the water. The boat captain, who was drunk by this time, solicited the aid of the assistant 

lock keeper to recover some of the flour. With the aid of several other boatmen the assistant recovered what flour he could. For his services, the assistant agreed to accept three barrels of flour, 

and the lock tender took one barrel of fine flour in payment for the captain’s beverage bill.86

The board received the full report on this incident on June 5. At the same time, it was represented to the directors that many of the boatmen and company hands were getting drunk while 

on the job because of the numerous grog shops in the lock houses. Accordingly, the board determined to prohibit “the sale, barter or disposal of intoxicating liquors at any of the lock houses” 

with the exception of “the tavern stands at Rushville & Crommelin.” The order was to be enforced by the division superintendents.87

The following year the board took steps to eliminate the sale of liquor at the Crommelin 

and Rushville taverns. In September the directors voted to discontinue the rental of these two 

structures as taverns and to use them only as lock houses for tenders at Locks Nos. 19–20 and 

Lock No. 23 and Guard Lock No. 2 respectively. Since the living accommodations at both places 

were superior to other lock houses, it was determined to pay each tender $100 per year. Henceforth the sale of liquor was to be prohibited at both locations after July 1, 1850.88

Both of the lock keepers at Crommelin and Rushville appealed the decision to cut their 

wages to $100, claiming that the closing of their taverns had hurt them financially.89

In response, the board raised their annual salaries to the level of $200 that was the standard for all tenders of two locks.90

The board continued adamant in its stand against the sale of liquor along the line of the 

canal. In 1858 Henry Busey, the tender at Locks Nos. 19–20, was permitted to reestablish a hotel 

 

84 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, E, 69. 

85 Ibid, G, 210–11. 

86 Elgin to Coale, May 6, 1848, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

87 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 319. 

88 Ibid, H, 296–97. 

89 Ibid, H, 322–443. 

90 Coale to Collins, May 31, 1850, and Ringgold to Lambre, July 1, 1851, Ltrs. Sent, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 803 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

or “ordinary” at Crommelin House for the accommodation of visitors to the “Great Falls” provided that no alcoholic beverages were served. George W. Case, the keeper of the locks at Great 

Falls from 1858 to 1872, was allowed the privilege of continuing to operate the hotel under the 

same conditions.91

J. REPUTABLE LOCK KEEPERS 

While many of the lock tenders were undisciplined and indifferent to their jobs, there were some 

whose abilities and devotion to their duties was recognized and rewarded. The case of James 

O’Reilly, the keeper of Locks Ns. 1–4 and Tidelock A from 1831 to 1842 has been mentioned 

already. His reputation for honesty and integrity was so well documented that he was appointed 

by the board to serve as collector in Georgetown in 1834. In return, the directors rented two of the 

company buildings in that town to him, one of which was to serve as his office.92

Another man with similar credentials was William S. Elgin who served as the tender of 

Lock No. 33 and the Shenandoah River Lock and as Collector at Harpers Ferry throughout the 

1840s and early 1850s.93

Some lock tenders were promoted to positions as division superintendents in recognition 

of their responsible contribution to the operation of the canal. Along these individuals were the 

aforementioned Elgin and John Y. Young, who served the company throughout the 1830s and 

1840s as a lock tender and superintendent of the Georgetown Division. One of the most respected 

superintendents of that division in the 1840s was John Lambie, who began his employment with 

the company as the tender at Locks Nos. 9–10 on May 1, 1847. Three superintendents whose service to the company extended into the 1870s received their initial canal experience as lock keepers: A. K. Stake at Locks Nos. 41–42 from April 1, 1847, to July 1, 1848; Lewis G. Stanhope at 

the same locks from July 1, 1848, into the early 1850s; and Overton G. Lowe, the first individual 

to be assigned to Lock No. 56 when the waterway was opened to Cumberland in October 1850.94

There were other events throughout the canal operating history that indicated a large degree of reliability on the part of most of the lock tenders. During the spring and summer of 1841 

when the company finances were desperately low, the keepers and other officers either were not 

paid for months or received their pay in depreciated scrip, which had a reduced value of nearly 50 

percent.95

Despite the fact that they were not paid for months, there is no indication that many of the 

tenders left the line during this period. A similar set of events occurred in the fall of 1859 when 

the tenders and canal laborers went unpaid for some months. In December of that year, those individuals were reported to be “in a very destitute state for want of the pay due to them, and were 

unable to procure necessary supplies for their families.” Again there were no reports that any of 

the lock tenders left their locks. To forestall such an occurrence, the board, determined to pay the 

tenders and laborers with “certificates of indebtedness.” 96

The lock tenders demonstrated their loyalty to the canal company under similar circumstances during the waning years of the independent existence of the waterway. Following the 

 

91 Hening et al to President and Directors, Mar. 1, 1858, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, K, 28–29, 352. 

92 O’Reilly to Ingle, Apr. 23, 1834, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, 

D, 228, F, 412. 

93 Report to the Stockholders on the Completion of the Canal to Cumberland, 139–140. 

94 Ibid., 95 Proceedings of the Stockholders, B, 486. 

96 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 147–48. 
804 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

heavy flood in November 1877, all the company officers, toll collectors, and lock keepers, who 

were not involved in the repair work, were removed from the company payroll so “that expenditures were restricted to the actual cost of repairs and office expenses.” A significant number of 

locks men joined the repair crews as common laborers, thus expediting the restoration of the waterway.97

As the canal trade continued to decline during the 1880s, the canal company took various 

steps to cut its operating expenses. During the winter of 1883–84 the pay of the lock tenders was 

reduced by 50 percent.98

In June 1885 it was reported that most of the tenders were waiting patiently for their 

overdue wages. Only a few keepers in Washington County had presented problems to the directors because their wages had not been paid for some months.99

In 1889 just prior to the major flood in late May the company reported again that the tenders as a whole were faithfully carrying out their duties although they had not been paid for 

sometime.100

K. THE LOCK HOUSES: 1828-1850 

Two general specifications were drawn up by company engineers for the construction of the lock 

houses. According to the 1828 specifications for the lock houses, the structures were to be of 

stone, having dimensions of 30 feet by 18 feet. There was to be an earthen-floored cellar beneath 

the kitchen six feet in the clear with 22-inch thick walls. The principal story of the house was to 

be two feet above ground surface with 20-inch thick walls. That part not over the cellar was to 

have a stone footing all around of six more inches. The space between the ground and the bottom 

floor was to have three 9-inch by 4-inch slits to be covered over with perforated iron or copper 

plates. The ceiling was to be eight feet above the floor. The attic story was to have 18-inch thick 

walls, which were to rise three feet between the top of the floor and the square. The peak of the 

roof was to be six feet above the side walls. The stone work was to be laid in clay mortar with the 

exception of three inches on the outside of the walls above the ground surface and the inside of 

the cellar which was to be laid in lime mortar. 

The chimney was to be built in the center of the house and to have a stone foundation 

while the stalk could be built of stone or bricks. There was to be a fireplace in each of the lower 

rooms. The outside doors were to have stone sills and steps, while the window sills could be either of stone or of painted and sanded locust timber. All the door and window lintels were to be of 

stone. 

The floors of the lock houses were to be of 1 1/4 inch heart pine that did not exceed six

inches in width. The front door was to have a stock lock, the kitchen door an inside bolt, the parlor door a seven-inch nob lock, and the rest thumb latches. The windows in the principal story 

were to be 10-inch by 12-inch glass panes, while those in the upper story were to be 8-inch by 10-

inch glass. A 10-inch by 12-inch glass sash was to be put over the front door to light the entry. 

The roof was to consist of 18-inch cypress shingles, not less than four inches wide and 5/8 inch 

thick. 

The principal story was to be divided into two rooms divided by a stud partition. The two 

rooms in the attic story were to be separated by a 1 1⁄2 inch plank partition. The ceilings and stud 

 

97 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878), C & O Co., 9-10. 

98 Fifty-Sixth Annual Report (1884), C & O Co., 19. 

99 Fifty-Seventh Annual Report (1879), C & O Co., 9. 

100 Sixty-First Annual Report (1889), C & O Co., 10-11. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 805 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

partitions were to be lathed and, together with the walls, finished with three coats of lime mortar 

made with glue and clear sand.101

In February 1836 a revised specification for the lock houses was adopted which incorporated a few changes. The houses were still to be 30 feet by 18 feet, but they could be of stone or 

brick at the option of the contractor. If the walls were of brick they were to be 13 1⁄2 inches thick; 

if they were of stone they were to be 20 inches thick. The houses were to have full basements that 

were provided with drains protected by iron gratings. The lintels and sills of the doors and windows were to be of locust. All the outside and inside woodwork was to be given two or three 

coats of English white lead oil paint. The outside doors were to have Pennsylvania or German 

locks with iron handles. All of the masonry, except for the top 1 1⁄2 feet, was to be laid in lime 

mortar. The top portion was to be laid in water cement. Virtually all of the other details were 

similar to the 1828 specifications.102

When the canal was finally completed between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland in 1847–50, 

the company attempted to save money and to speed construction by delaying the erection of lock 

houses on that portion of the line. When the final segment of the canal was opened to navigation, 

the lock houses above the Cacapon River were built. Apparently no single specification was used 

as some of the structures were of frame or log construction and had various designs and dimensions. 

 

101 Specification of a Lock Keepers House, ca. October 1828, Drawings and other Records Concerning Construction. 

The estimated cost for such a structure was $828.46. A copy of this specification may be seen in Appendix A. 

102 Specification for a Lock Keeper’s House, February 10, 1836, Drawings and Other Records Concerning Construction, C & O Co. The estimated cost for such a structure was $950. A copy of this specification may be seen in Appendix B. 
806 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

II. THE BOATMEN 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The life of the boatmen on the canal was one of hard work, long hours, and little pay. The daring 

adventure of their employment coupled with their isolation from much of the world outside of the 

canal made the independent-minded boatmen a rough and ready lot. They usually formed a class 

apart from their neighbors in the Potomac Valley, intermarrying within their own group. Their 

children were frequently born and raised in the trade and generally had little exposure to the educational or social refinements of the emerging American culture of the 19th century. The boatmen 

were constantly brawling among themselves for precedence at locks or because of some real or 

fancied slur. Their life was at best irregular and unpredictable, and the “canallers” exhibited those 

characteristics in their lifestyles. Some dawdled along the line or amused themselves in drunken 

revelry, taking their time in making the run. Others were more ambitious, driving their teams and 

boats at full speed night and day, caring little for themselves, their mules or boats, or canal property. The boatmen were constantly at odds with the company over toll rates and freight charges 

and with the lock keepers over operating procedures or personal slights. Usually, the “canallers” 

shunned the larger towns along the canal, for it cost too much to feed their teams, and they felt 

out of place. Even while wintering along the line they had their own settlements on the fringes of 

the towns or often quite far from them.103

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOATMEN: 1830–1850 

Although many of the “canallers” were hard working and conscientious, the canal company records are filled with references to the brawling, unpredictable, and quarrelsome behavior of the 

boatmen. In their relationships with each other and with company officials, they exhibited a fierce 

independence and contentiousness that often ignored or opposed any show of authority by the 

company officials. 

The rigors of life in the largely agrarian and forested Potomac Valley had its effect on the 

brash behavior of the early boatmen. It appears that they were constantly brawling among themselves for precedence at locks, because of some real or fancied slur, or for exercise. On April 2, 

1831, Daniel Van Slyke, the superintendent of the canal, reported that since the water had been 

admitted into the canal two weeks earlier: 

it is with great difficulty we have been able to preserve order among the boatmen, who in 

striving to push forward for a preference in passing the several locks are sometimes disposed to injure each other’s boats as a means of carrying their point. An unfortunate instance of this kind happened on Wednesday last at the locks on the 9th section. A strongly 

constructed boat ran her bow against a gondola loaded with flour, and so much injured 

her as to render it necessary to transship the load. But no damage was done to the cargo. 

 

103 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 186–88, and Baltimore Evening Sun, Aug. 9–13, 1937. In his book, Sanderlin sketches some of the characteristics of the boatmen from information that he obtained in interviews with George 

Nicholson, General Manager of the canal from 1890 to 1838, “Charley” Egan and Harvey Mayhew, former boatmen, 

Frank Lee Carl, a newspaper correspondent and local historian in Cumberland, and Edward Oswald, Clerk of the 

Washington County Circuit Court at Hagerstown. In the series of five Baltimore Evening Sun articles, Lee McCardell 

discussed the life of the boatmen basing most of his material on two extensive interviews with Captains Charlie (Scot) 

Eaton of Cumberland and Denton (Dent) Shupp of Williamsport. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 807 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Van Slyke went on to suggest that some regulations be adopted by the board to help the lock tenders preserve order. 

so that the boats may pass the locks by turn as they arrive, as it frequently occurs that fifteen or twenty boats arrive at a lock within half an hour. Hence the contention for right of 

preference, which I believe would be allayed if it was known that they must be permitted 

to pass only by turn as they arrive.104

During the following month, Van Slyke informed the directors that the boatmen particularly resented the priority given to the packet Charles F. Mercer in passing the locks. As this policy already had triggered angry protests, he advised the board to print the order on handbills to be left 

with the lock tenders and distributed among the boatmen. Unless this were done, it would be virtually impossible to enforce the policy.105

The boatmen were constantly at odds with the company over toll rates and in the early 

days took unusual ways of expressing their dissatisfaction. W. W. Fenelon, the owner of the first 

packet service between Georgetown and Great Falls, staged a drunken demonstration in Georgetown in September 1831, which was reported to company officials by a local resident: 

Being at the break, at Baker’s, at about 6 o’clock, we heard a thundering noise of wild 

music and saw a large cavalcade (of) colors flying & having got near, it proved to be Mr. 

Fenelon, with his teams and crew with the colors of the Packet floating in high glee; he 

proceeded and paraded down Bridge Street, made a stop upon the new bridge, and refreshing himself and his crew after much music gave the word of command for High 

Street reeling in saddle all the way; a gang of Negroes and boys thronging the street until 

nearly dark. Now, sir, their ostensible object of all that fuss, is a loud complaint about the 

tolls, which gives him a pretext to pour abuses on the institution and bias the mind of the 

people at large.106

The directors were irritated particularly by the quality of the boats operating on the canal. No one 

was willing to undertake to fulfill their dreams of steamers and double-decked packets. In fact, 

the boatmen generally refused to meet even the minimum requirements of the company regulations. Complaints were frequently made of iron-shod boats, leaky scows, drifting rafts, and 

sunken gondolas obstructing navigation.107

 Not only were the boats affecting the flow of traffic on the waterway, but they also were 

causing damage to the locks. This growing problem was reported to the board in December 1838 

as follows: 

many of the canal boats navigating the canal are armed on their sides with iron, and do 

great damage to the locks as they pass through. Many of the stone scows (their ends being at right angles) have their corners plated with iron, and entering the locks they frequently strike the coping and other parts of the lock and do great damage. By examining 

the locks in Georgetown you will readily perceive what damage has already been done.108 

 

104 Van Slyke to Mercer, Apr. 2, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

105 Van Slyke to Directors, May 26, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

106 Rodier to Ingle, Sept. 8, 1831, Ltrs. Recd, C & O Co. 

107 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, C, 30, and Stone to Ringgold, June 6, 1847, Ltrs. Recd, C & 

O Co. 

108 Easby to Directors, Dec. 19, 1838, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
808 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

By the enforcement of regulations, the provision of dry docks, the assessment of fines, and the 

levy of a 100 percent rate discrimination against rafts, the company sought to drive undesirable 

craft off the waterway and to encourage the construction of new and larger boats. In this effort 

they were partly successful, assisted by the need for larger and sturdier boats to handle the growing demands of the trade. Nevertheless the lumber trade and the incidental trade of the numerous 

valley farmers, who after building their own craft designed to last for only one trip (usually to be 

sold at Georgetown for firewood), made the struggle for better boats a never ending one.109 

The formulation of detailed regulations for the operation of the canal adopted in July 

1831 and February 1835 did not insure the orderly conduct of business on the waterway. On the 

contrary, every conceivable abuse was reported at one time or another. The board immediately 

saw the necessity of securing some definite delegation of police power from the parties to the 

charter in order to gain the authority to enforce its regulations.110

 Repeated directions for the enforcement of the rules indicate a laxness or indifference on 

the part of the officials and boatmen alike. Regulations which were regularly singled out for 

stricter enforcement were those that prohibited the use of iron-shod poles for propulsion, the 

navigation of the canal by boats that did not conform to the company specifications, the negligent 

practices that caused damage to locks, and the schemes of boatmen to defraud the company of toll 

payments.111

C. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOATMEN: 1851–1889 

Many of the characteristics of the early boatmen also were exhibited by those who plied the waterway after its completion to Cumberland in 1850. The same problems of violent behavior, disregard of company regulations and property, and reckless navigation practices by the boatmen 

continued to plague the waterway. 

On April 1, 1851, a new system of by-laws, rules, and regulations for the government, 

management, and operation of the waterway went into effect. Printed as a 47-page booklet, the 

regulations covered every facet of the canal’s operation in detail and clearly defined the monetary 

penalty for every offense of the boatmen. This set of regulations, which remained in effect until 

1889, was the most comprehensive effort of its kind to be undertaken by the board. The booklets 

were printed in great quantities and distributed to every boatmen and canal official.112

 In the months immediately following their adoption, the new regulations appeared to 

have the desired effect upon the “canallers.” That this was the case was evidenced by the following report made to the company stockholders by President William Grason on June 2, 1851: 

We have every reason to believe, as far as we can judge, from the short period which has 

elapsed since the by-laws of the company went into operation on the first of April last, 

that very beneficial results have, and will attend them; in the company...and producing a 

 

109 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 188. 

110 Proceedings of the Stockholders, A, 173, and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, B, 206. This 

subject is covered more fully in Chapter 12 of this study. 

111 Bryan to Ingle, Aug. 15, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors B, 

290, C, 30. To aid the tenders in the enforcement of the regulation against the use of iron-shod poles, the directors authorized in August 1831 the construction of a shed at Lock No. 23 where wooden poles could be stored. The boatmen 

would be given such poles free of charge if they turned in their iron poles. Bryan Ingle, Aug. 15, 1831, Ltrs. Recd., 

C&O Co. 

112 By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations: In force on the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 1–47 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 809 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

degree of order and regularity on the past of those navigating the canal, which has heretofore not existed. Although, as was to be supposed, in any new system of regulations, 

some opposition would, in the outset, be manifested by those to whom any restraint 

would be irksome, we have reason to believe, that all well-disposed persons engaged in 

navigating the canal, regard these regulations as wholesome and necessary, acting both as 

a protection to the works, of the company, insuring more regularity, and less frequent interruptions to the navigation of the canal, and, at the same time, preventing collisions 

with some of the boatmen, who have hitherto been disorderly. Under all circumstances, 

there has been less objection than could have been expected, and the boatmen have very 

generally quietly acquiesced in, and readily complied with the provision of the regulations. 

Few infractions of the new regulations had been reported by the officers on the line of the canal. 

The amount of fines that had been imposed was $140, of which $80 had been written by the directors for sufficient reasons.113

Needless to say, the peaceful acquiescence to the company regulations by the boatmen 

did not last for long. The abrasive behavior of many of the boatmen soon became a great concern 

to the directors as they sought to maintain the orderly operation of the waterway. Among the most 

conspicuous examples of the revival of their destructive spirit were the (1) disregard of company 

rules and officials, (2) clamoring for access to the coal wharves on the congested Georgetown 

level, (3) reckless navigation practices which led to boating accidents and to the destruction of 

works on the canal, (4) incidents of physical violence vis-à-vis the lock tenders, (5) reluctance to 

meet the minimum requirements of the company regulations relative to the quality of the barges, 

and (6) attempts to defraud the company of its rightful tolls. 

1. Disregard of Company Rules and Officials 

By the fall of 1851 there were widespread reports of boatmen who were ignoring both the company regulations and the attempts of canal officials to enforce the rules. One common case was 

the insistence of boat captains to use grab hooks while passing through the locks. This persistent 

practice, which tended to cause injury to the masonry of the locks, was considered to be of such a 

serious nature that the board at one time considered revoking the license of any captain who refused to comply with the regulations.114

Another practice, which indicated the boatmen’s lack of respect for the company regulations and the canal officials who attempted to enforce the rules, was that of refusing to pay fines. 

At first this was a minor problem as evidenced by the fact that all but $10 of the total amount of 

$140 levied in fines during the first three months of operation under the new rules in 1851 was 

paid. However, by the late 1870s nearly 70 percent of the fines were never paid. One of the worst 

years in this respect was 1877 in which only $45.47 was collected by canal authorities out of the 

total of $126.52 assessed.115

One of the most notorious incidents in this regard occurred in May 1874 when George 

Reed, captain of the Mayfield and Heiston, was fined $20 for illegally mooring his boat in the 

Cumberland basin. Refusing to pay the fine, he prepared to leave Cumberland with a barge cargo 

of coal destined for Georgetown. Because he refused to pay the fine, the collector at Cumberland 

would not give him a waybill. When the lock tenders at Lock No. 74 attempted to prevent him 

 

113 Proceedings of the Stockholders, D, 409. 

114 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, H, 476. 

115 Fines Paid and Unpaid for 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
810 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

from continuing his journey until the fine was paid and a waybill was served, Reed forced his 

way through the lock. This event brought an additional fine of $50 and a warning from President 

Gorman that a repetition of such an act would result in another $50 penalty. Nevertheless, the 

boat was allowed to proceed to Georgetown without further hindrance. After Reed deposited his 

cargo in Georgetown, he was confronted by canal officials and served notice that he owed the 

company $120 in fines and $4.08 for a waybill. Again, he defiantly ignored the remonstrance of 

the agents, commenced his return to Cumberland without a waybill, and forced his way through 

the locks despite the protests of the collectors at Georgetown, Lock No. 5, and Harpers Ferry. 

When Reed arrived in Cumberland, his boat was seized with the aid of the police and confiscated 

until he paid the sum of $124.08.116

2. Clamoring for Access to the Coal Wharves on the Congested Georgetown Level 

As trade on the waterway increased, the method of expediting canal traffic on the Georgetown 

level soon became a major obstacle to the continued growth of business. Unloading and transfer 

facilities were unable to handle the increasing tonnage, which was brought to them. As a result, 

boats lined up in the canal awaiting their turn to unload. Not only were the delays annoying and 

costly to the boatmen, shippers and company alike, but the congestion on the Georgetown level 

was a problem in itself. The waterway was not wide enough to accommodate both the ordinary 

traffic to and from the basin or the aqueduct and the clamoring boatmen awaiting access to the 

coal wharves. 

Complaints about the congestion and confusion on the Georgetown level forced the directors to take steps to alleviate the problem. In October 1864 the superintendent of the Georgetown 

Division was authorized to employ a harbormaster to regulate the boats at that place.117

Further reports by Georgetown citizens of brawling among the annoyed boatmen as they 

struggled to achieve quick access to the coal wharves led to the board’s decision in April 1866 to 

invest the harbor master “with police authority to enable him more effectually to discharge the 

duties of his office.”118

By 1871 the problem had become serious. Frequently there was a line of 60 to 80 boats 

along the canal bank and occasionally the string of loaded boats stretched from one half to one 

mile in length. As the boatmen jostled for position, some barges ran aground causing delays to the 

other boats.119

In their frustration, many “canallers” disregarded the company regulations and began lining up two, three, and four abreast in an effort to get closer to the wharves.120

Some of the more contentious boatmen attempted to get to the wharves out of turn, and 

when they were refused service they would moor their barges next to the unloading vessels, 

thereby causing jams and confusion. Two of the most flagrant examples of such practices were 

cases where a Maryland Coal Company boat obstructed traffic on the canal for six hours while 

“lying double” and another barge owned by the same company that blocked the navigation for 

twelve hours after trying to get ahead of eighteen boats in line at the Welch Wharf.121

 

116 Pope to Gorman, May 6, 1874, Weber to Gorman, May 20, 1874, and Wenner to Gorman, June 8, 1874, Ltrs, 

Recd., C & O Co. 

117 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 402. 

118 Ibid, K, 482. 

119 Forty-Second Annual Report (1870), C & O Co., 25. 

120 Hayden to Clark, June 14, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

121 Report on Fines Imposed on Boats by R. G. Connell, Harbormaster, Mar. 22, 1871,” Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 811 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

The board soon initiated a series of steps to relieve the congestion and to restore order, 

regularity, and authority in the control and movements of boats on the Georgetown level. As the 

harbormaster was ill equipped to control the growing problem by himself, the directors authorized 

the employment of an assistant.122

 New regulations were enacted which were strictly enforced, and a contract was let to 

build the Georgetown Incline Plane.123

3. Reckless Navigation Practices 

There were numerous instances where the reckless navigation practices of the boatmen led to accidents that caused damage both to the barges and canal structures. At times boat races were held 

up and down the canal–the fastest–known time for a light boat from Georgetown to Cumberland 

was 62 hours set by Raleigh Bender of Sharpsburg while the best-known time for a loaded boat 

from Cumberland to Williamsport was 35 hours set by Dent Shupp of the latter town with 128 

tons of coal. To set such records the boatmen walked along the towpath feeding the mules handfuls of hay while boating and giving them feed and water while passing through a lock.124

In their haste to gain time in navigation, the captain, often ignored the company regulations for passing. Hence a number of boat collisions occurred, one of the most notable involving a 

freight boat and a packet in July 1855. As a result of the accident, the passenger vessel was sunk 

and the freight boat’s captain received a stiff fine.125

The reckless maneuvering of the boatmen and their lack of concern for canal property 

was manifested in other ways. Over the years Aqueduct No. 3 was the site of numerous accidents 

as a result of careless boatmen who refused to slacken their speed to negotiate the sharp bend 

immediately upstream. After a number of accidents in which boats struck and damaged the sidewalls of the aqueduct, the board in March 1870 issued an order that all barges were to slack their 

speed at least fifty yards from the approaches of the structure. The order was printed on handbills 

for distribution, and a watchman was stationed at the aqueduct to see that the boatmen complied 

with the directive.126

One of the most frequent results of the careless practices of the boatmen was the damage 

done to the lock gates. When the “canallers” were in a hurry, they often failed to slacken their 

speed sufficiently as they approached a lock. At other times, the impatient boatmen attempted to 

“lock through” without waiting for the service of the lock tenders. Such practices led to the numerous incidents in which the boats would strike and break the gates, thereby interrupting navigation for as much as a day until a new gate was put in.127

During one 4-year period from 1877 to 1880 there were nine occasions where boatmen 

were fined for running into or breaking lock gates.128

The negligent navigation practices of the boatmen sometimes caused greater damage to 

their vessels than to the canal structures. In one case, the Loretto struck the upper abutment of the 

 

122 Hutton to Clarke, Mar. 31, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

123 Both of these subjects are covered more fully in Chapter 12 of this study.

124 Baltimore Evening Sun, Aug. 9–13, 1837. 

125 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, I, 193. 

126 Hutton to Thomas, March 19, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

127 Grimm to Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Apr. 22, 1871, McMachaw to President and Directors, Mar. 11, 

1874, Fletchall to President and Directors, June 17, 1875, and Fletchall to Gorman, July 18, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O 

Co. 

128 Register of Offenses, 1877–1881, C & O Co. 
812 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Lock No. 15 and broke a hole in its side about one foot square. The boat sank, causing a 24-hour 

suspension of the navigation.129

Many of the boating accidents were attributable to the intoxication of the “canallers.” 

One bizarre incident occurred in June 1873 when the American Coal Company boat Henry C. 

Flagg struck the gates of Lock No. 74 with such force that all four were knocked out and the vessel sank in the lock chamber, thus disrupting navigation for 48 hours. An investigation of the incident revealed that the boat had left Cumberland on the charge of two black hands, as its captain, 

Mr. Mulligan, was on a drunken spree in Shantytown. When the boat arrived at Lock No. 75, the 

lock keeper demanded a waybill, which the crew did not possess. When the hands agreed to wait 

until the captain arrived with the document, the tender noticed that the boat was filling with water 

because of several leaks. Since the hands did not have a pump, the keeper fearing the boat would 

sink ordered them to pull on to the short level below the lock. Soon the intoxicated captain arrived with the waybill and, disregarded the tender’s entreaty to pump out the boat, ordered his 

hands to get the barge moving. They dutifully pulled the boat alongside the F. C. Young, which 

was about to enter Lock No. 74, thereby creating a jam in the mouth of the lock. While Captain 

Mulligan went to a nearby store, his crew borrowed a pump and commenced to extract the water 

from the boat. After the crew of the F. C. Young maneuvered their boat back to loosen the jam, 

the crew of the Henry C. Flagg pulled their boat into the lock. No effort was made to snub the 

boat; thus it struck the lower lock gates and knocked them out, the upper gates slammed shut and 

broke, letting water from the upper level run over the boat and causing it to sink.130

Many mules were also lost as a result of the negligent practices of the boatmen. One such 

example occurred near the brickyard on the Logwall Level in May 1873. As two boatmen were 

passing each other, the driver of one of the mule teams urged his animals on with a series of violent gestures. The driver theatrics frightened the team of the other boat, causing the two mules to 

jump over a high embankment. One of the mules was killed and the other was injured.131

4. Incidents of Physical Violence 

As the lock tenders and the boatmen came into frequent contact, there were numerous instances 

of fighting between the two groups. Because both the lock men and the “canallers” were independent, rough and ready individuals, the initiative for the incidents of physical violence generally appears to have been taken by the latter. At the same time, it is clear that the lock tenders 

were often quick tempered and eager to respond to any provocative challenge flung at them. 

One of the most celebrated incidents occurred at Lock No. 75 in July 1874. The quarrel 

commenced when the Okonoka was “locking through” early one morning. The towline of the 

boat caught on the lock railing and tore it loose. Furthermore Captain John Byroad insisted on 

scrubbing the sides of his boat with a broom while still in the lock. As another boat was waiting, 

John M. Bloss, the tender, ordered him to pull the barge out of the lock. Byroad refused whereupon one of Bloss’ sons opened the berm gate. The gate’s beam pinned one of Byroad’s sons 

against the side of the boat where he was scrubbing. An argument and fisticuffs resulted in which 

one of Bloss’ sons was knocked off the boat by the captain’s wife. After a flurry of rock throwing 

between the boys of the boatmen and the lock tender, one of the latter’s sons injured a son of the 

former with a club. When the tender’s boys were chased to the lock house, they returned with a 

revolver and double-barreled shotgun both of which misfired when they tried to use them. As the 

 

129 Maus to Gorman, Nov. 30, 1872, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

130 Malvany to Gorman, June 25, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

131 Garrett to President and Board of Directors, July 2, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 813 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

boat continued on its journey, the tender followed it all the way to Cumberland on horseback, 

brandishing a club and threatening that he would ‘settle up the damage Old Bitch.”132

At times the mere threat of violence by the boatmen so intimidated the lock tenders that 

they were unable to fulfill their duties. An example of this situation took place when the lock 

keepers were ordered to enforce the prohibition against Sunday navigation in the late 1860s and 

early 1870s. When the tenders attempted to prevent some boats from passing through the locks on 

the Sabbath, the boatmen threatened to fight any individuals who got in their way and proceeded 

up the canal busting the padlocks on the lock gates as they went. When some of the lock tenders 

attempted to stop the boatmen, violence erupted and reports of rioting and “depredations” spread 

along the line. The boatmen quickly gained the upper hand in the struggle, and the company soon 

gave up its attempts to enforce a “Sunday Law.”133

5. Quality of the Boats 

Many of the boatmen continued to be reluctant to meet even the minimum requirements of the 

regulations regarding the quality of the boats operating on the canal. There were numerous complaints of leaky scows, iron-shod boats, and sunken wrecks obstructing navigation. From 1855 to 

1858 some 34 barges were broken or sunk as a result of either poor construction or inattention to 

periodic maintenance work.134

While the quality of the canal boats tended to improve with the growth of trade in the 

post-Civil War era, there were still reports of boats sinking because of their “bad condition.”135

One of the more bizarre stories in this regard was that of a boat which started sinking at 

Cumberland when it was loaded. The crew pumped the water out and began the trip to Georgetown, all the while pumping to keep the vessel afloat. The barge finally sank just above Lock 

No. 5, impeding the flow of traffic for eleven hours.136

Some of the captains insisted on putting “sand streaks” along the sides of their boats in 

violation of the company rules, thereby causing them to get stuck in the lock chambers for more 

than an hour.137 

The problems caused by boats unfit for navigation became a critical issue by 1872 since 

the board was anxious to maintain an efficiently operating waterway to accommodate the expanding trade. Accordingly, a committee was appointed in that year to re-register all the vessels on the 

canal. At the time of registration, the vessels were to be examined to see that their dimensions and 

state of repair conformed to company regulations. Those boats that were deemed unseaworthy 

were to have their applications for registration certificates rejected.138

Despite these efforts the canal faced increasing problems with leaky and sunken boats 

during the remaining years of its independent existence. Among the many incidents of this kind 

was the sinking of the Lezer Ragen at Lock No. 15 in July 1876. Leaking badly before it left 

Cumberland, the vessel was kept afloat by its crew until it ran into the abutments of several locks 

 

132 Byroad to Gorman, July 18, 1874, Bloss to Gorman. July 18, 1874, and Mulvany to Gorman, July 24, 1879, Ltrs. 

Recd., C & O Co. 

133 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 518, L, 317, 169, 422, 435–36, and “Report on Sunday 

Law,” May 19, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

134 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 67. 

135 Hutton to Clarke, June 24, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

136 Maus to Gorman, Oct. 23, 1872, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

137 Gaimm to Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company and Clarke to Mulvany, Apr. 20, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

138 Mulvany to Gorman, June 28, 1872, and Resloy to Gorman, Mar. 7, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Williamsport Pilot, Feb. 8, 1873, in Arthur P. Gorman Collection,. University of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. 
814 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

below Great Falls. As it proceeded out of the chamber of Lock No. 15, the boat sank and its bow 

settled down on some rocks, at the mouth of the lock, cutting a large hole in its bottom.139

Similar stories abound of unseaworthy vessels throughout the period including that of the 

Bertha M. Young. As the boat was leaking badly, its crew convinced the steamer Scrivenes that 

was passing by, to tow it while they pumped the water out. When it became apparent that the 

pumping efforts were futile, the boat was allowed to sink one night on level no. 36 and abandoned, resulting in a delay of 36 hours to canal navigation.140

During the four-year period from 1877 to 1880 the company issued twenty citations for 

sunken boats or vessels that required the aid of canal hands to pump water in an effort to prevent 

their sinking.141

6. Attempts to Defraud the Canal Company of Tolls 

At times the rebellious boatmen attempted to earn higher profits by attempting to defraud the 

company of its tolls. This was done most often when the boats were carrying a small cargo which 

could be hidden under the hatches and which did not weigh the boat down to a great extent. In 

May 1873 the B. L. Slack left Georgetown with 225 sacks of salt hidden under its hatches, although its waybill listed it as an empty boat. It was not until the barge reached Harpers Ferry that 

a company agent discovered the scheme on a tip from the mule driver that the captain was attempting to avoid the payment of $22.50 in tolls.142 

There were numerous other instances in which captains made an effort to conceal a portion of their cargoes from the eyes of the company collectors.143

D. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOATMEN: 1891–1924 

In 1902 the receivers took steps toward the establishment of complete control over freight charges 

on the waterway. The Canal Towage Company, sponsored by the canal receivers and the Consolidation Coal Company both of which were dominated by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, was 

organized along the lines first suggested by Arthur P. Gorman in the mid-1870s. The primary 

function of this enterprise was to provide economy and regularity in the runs of the waterway. To 

do this, the company supplied the boats, teams and equipment, and established a regular schedule 

for the boatmen to follow. Under this new arrangement, all that the captain was expected to furnish was the deck gear, the long and short fallboards, the feed, and troughs. The Canal Towage 

Company also cut freight rates from 65 cents per ton to 45 cents per ton and controlled the distribution of cargoes. As a result, the service and the efficiency of canal navigation were improved, 

but in so doing the last shred of independence for the “canallers” was destroyed. The canal lost 

much of its romance as the boats began to be numbered instead of named and to be uniform and 

utilitarian rather than colorfully individualistic.144

 

139 Fleteball to Gorman, July 18, 1876, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

140 Moore to Gorman, Aug. 31, 1878, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

141 Register of Offenses, 1877–1881, C & O Co. 

142 Pope to Gorman, June 15, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

143 Herbert to President and Directors, Apr. 10, 1844, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

144 Although most of the boats had been named for their owners or members of their captains’ families, many had been 

given colorful names over the years. A list of the coal boats navigating the canal in 1870 contained the following 

names: Eagle, Vigilant, Invincible, Defiance, Emerald, Unexpected, Hawk, Owl, Peacock, Wren, Dalia, Energy, Hero, 

General Grant, Washington Irving, Kattskill, Rip Van Winkle, Brownbones, Napoleon Bonaparte, Six Days, and Wave. 

Weber to Clarke, June 28, 1870, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 815 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Spirited, unruly, flamboyant, and lackadaisical boatmen were alike undesirable to the 

company, and the rougher ones were not permitted to use its boats. There was no longer room for 

romantic characters such as Captain John Malott of Williamsport whose mules were known for 

the white sheepskins with tasseled red rosettes that they wore on their tossing bell bows and 

whose boats were decorated with flags and political banners during campaigns. Traffic became 

regularized on a timetable basis.145

The transition in the position of the boatmen in the changing canal scene had been in progress for some three decades. The growth of marked distinctions in canal society after the Civil 

War–officials, shippers, and “canallers”–mirrored in microcosm the development of the capitalist, 

middle, and laboring classes in the nation as a whole. The emergence of the waterway as a moneymaking, big business enterprise in the early 1870s tended to increase the difference by exerting 

pressure on the groups to maintain the status quo in order not to disturb the canal’s prosperity. 

The impact of the economic depression, which reached the canal in 1876, heightened the pressure 

on the boatmen. The directors insisted that the long-term benefits of maintaining the waterway as 

a going concern outweighed the immediate hardships to the boatmen, which might result. For this 

reason, strikes were crushed, wages and freight charges slashed, and canal trade regularized. The 

“canallers” were caught in a squeeze between the efforts of the coat companies and the canal 

company to reduce expenses. The coal companies, together with the boat builders, sought to increase their profits by maintaining boat rents and sale prices at high levels, reducing freight rates 

and calling for lower toll charges. To meet their continuing expenses, boatmen needed high 

freight charges. But the canal company, seeking to cut transportation costs to stay in competition 

with the Baltimore & Ohio and at the same time attempting to maintain tolls at a profitable level, 

demanded lower boat rents, sale prices, and freight charges. The Canal Towage Company represented the culmination of the late 19th century trends towards lower charges and complete control 

over coal transportation. Independent boatmen could not compete with the Canal Towage Company and its sponsors. A comparison of receipts and expenses of independent boatmen before the 

organization of the Canal Towage Company and the boats operated by that company indicates 

that the profits of the latter were some 42 percent greater than those of the former: 

INDEPENDENT BOATMEN 

Receipts 

90 tons @ 65 cents per ton $58.50 

Expenses 

Boat rent $15.00 

Mule hire 16.00 

Waybills 4.80 

Feed 5.00 

$40.80

Profit Per Trip $17.70 

CANAL TOWAGE COMPANY BOATS 

Receipts 

90 tons @ 45 cents per ton $40.50 

Expenses 

Waybills $4.80 

Feed 4.00 

$ 9.80

 

145 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 268–269, and Baltimore Evening Sun, August 12, 1937. 
816 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Profit Per Trip $30.70146

There is little documentary information on the boatmen following the organization of the Canal 

Towage Company. The only significant problem to arise with the boatmen occurred in 1918 

when the canal carried coal for the government proving grounds at Indianhead, Maryland, some 

30 miles down the Potomac River from Washington. The movement of coal down the canal was 

held up during the early part of the navigation season by labor troubles, which were resolved in 

part by granting higher wages to the boatmen operating the 80-boat fleet of the Canal Towage 

Company,.147

The only comprehensive study of the canal boatmen and their families during the operation of the waterway was undertaken in 1921 by the U. S. Department of Labor. The survey is 

interesting, because it offers data on the social, economic, and educational characteristics of the 

“canallers” in the waning years of the canal’s existence. 

The great majority of the captains on the canal had their wives and children with them on 

the boats. Of the 66 captains on the payroll of the Canal Towage Company, 59 were married 

men.148 Of these, 41 had their children with them during the boating season. The number of children found accompanying their families was 135 (70 boys and 65 girls), of which 48 were under 

7 years of age. In addition to these children, there were 7 boys employed on the canal boats as 

deck hands by captains to whom they were not related. The ages of the 7 boys were as follows: 

one, 11 years; four, 14 years; one, 15 years; and one, 16 years. 

All the captains and their wives included in the study were Native American whites. 

Seven of the captains and five of the wives were illiterate. One captain, who had begun boating 

with his father when he was five years of age, reported that altogether he had gone to school for 

29 months. By the time he reached the fourth grade the children of his own age had long since 

completed the grammar school grades, and he was ashamed to enter classes with younger boys 

and girls. Regretting his own lack of education he said that when his daughter reached school age 

he should stop boating. 

The principal activities in operating a boat on the canal consisted of driving the mules 

and steering the boat. It was generally the child’s job to drive the mules during the day either 

walking besides the mules on the towpath or riding the leader. Steering the boat by means of a 

“stick” which controlled the rudder could be accomplished by the pilot standing or sitting against 

it. Hence the mother of the family often handled the steering while attending to household tasks. 

Young children could steer light boats, while the older boys and men usually handled the steering 

chores for heavily loaded boats. 

The ages of the children working on the boats ranged from 5 to 17, but those aged 14 

years composed the greatest number in any single age grouping. However, the 11-year-olds composed the second highest number in any age category. 

One of the boating households consisted of four persons–the captain, the assistant deck 

hand, the captain’s wife, and their 11-year-old daughter. The girl had been driving, steering, and 

doing housework on the boat for several years, but she did not like boating and was very lonesome. Her father said that she could do anything that a hired hand could do, but he felt that it was 

necessary to employ a man because “you have to rest once in a while.” Among other things, the 

captain observed that the “women and children are as good as the men” and “if it weren’t for the 

children the canal wouldn’t run a day.” 

 

146 Sanderlin, The Great National Project, 269–270, and Washington Evening Star, July 11, 1905. 

147 Washington Evening Star, September 26, 1918. 

148 By 1921 the canal boats were operating in fleets, thereby necessitating fewer captains. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 817 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

In 1920 most of the captains received less than $1,250 from their boat work. About twothirds of them supplemented their earnings either by winter employment or by incidental work 

during the season. For example, one man owned towing mules, which he hired out. Other captains secured small loads of incidental freight consisting of general merchandise, farm products, 

or supplies for the pleasure parks and summer campgrounds in the neighborhood of the canal. 

The captains were paid a uniform freight rate per ton amounting to $75 or $80 per trip. 

The average size of the cabins on the canal boats was approximately 10 feet by 12 feet. 

All cabins had two bunks, one of which was set into the inner wall of the main cabin and the 

other located in the so-called “stateroom” which was partitioned off from the main cabin by a 

diagonal wall. The bunks were 36 inches wide–sufficient space for one person but ordinarily occupied by two. In addition to the cabin bunks, the feed box extending across the deck at the center 

of the boat was ordinarily used for sleeping purposes. This box, 4 feet high and 4 feet wide, provided a fairly comfortable bed by spreading blankets over the hay and other feed. It was used in 

some cases by the deck hands and occasionally by the children. Often in hot weather the floor of 

the deck was used as a bed, but some mothers stated that they were afraid to let the children sleep 

outside of the cabin. 

In spite of the narrow berths, most families regarded them as adequate sleeping space for 

four persons. The feed box provided two additional sleeping places. Of the 41 families in the 

study, however, ten had seven members and nineteen had more than four persons. The most distressing instance of congestion existed where a family of nine lived on a boat. The mother said 

that she made a bed for the children on the floor, but “when you get seven down there, there ain’t 

room left to walk around without stepping on them.” The floors of the cabins were frequently 

bare, but fourteen families reported having linoleum coverings. One family stated that it was impossible to use any sort of covering as the floors leaked and were always damp. 

The hours of travel on the canal were almost continuous. Fifteen hours a day was the 

minimum reported by any of the boat families. Eighteen hours the most frequently reported, but 

several families stated that they worked longer. One family had operated its boat without taking 

any intervals for rest. “It never rains, snows, or blows for a boatman, and a boatman never has no 

Sunday,” said another. “Tell we see some folks along the way, dressed up and a-goin’ to Sunday 

School.” One captain and his wife who reported working 15 hours a day employed no crew but 

depended on the assistance of two children, a girl 14 years of age and a boy of 5. The girl did almost all the driving, usually riding mule back, and the parents steered. The little boy helped with 

the driving but not for more than a mile or two at a time. The boat was kept moving until the girl 

could drive no longer; then the boat was tied up for the night. “We’d boat longer if the driver felt 

like it,” said the father. 

Water for drinking and cooking purposes was secured from springs along the canal and 

stored in barrels or kegs. Water for washing clothes was obtained from the canal itself. Most of 

the families complained of mosquitoes. 

Of the families visited for the study, five lived the year round on their boats, one having 

done so for eighteen years. All of the other families occasionally visited and spent the off-season 

in maintained houses along the canal. The dwellings were chiefly small detached wooden or log 

houses located in or near towns in the vicinity of the waterway within one mile of schools. 

Numerous accidents had occurred among the boatmen’s children. Forty-five children had 

fallen into the canal more or less frequently, eleven had been kicked by mules, one had been 

burned, one cut with an axe, and one dragged by a mule over a lock gate. One mother reported 

that her four children had many accidents. The oldest had his nose broken by a kick from a mule, 

and, with the exception of the baby, all had fallen into the canal many times. Once when a lock 
818 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

tender had closed the gates too soon, the boat’s awning had been dragged off the deck taking the 

children with it, thus pinning them between the gate and the boat.149 

E. TYPICAL EXPERIENCES IN THE LIVES OF THE ‘CANALLERS’ 

The following narrative offers some typical features of the lives of the “canallers.” The material is 

based primarily on three sources: Walter S. Sanderlin, The Great National Project: A History of 

the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (Baltimore, 1946), pp. 186–188; Baltimore Evening Sun, August 

9–13, 1937; and Ella E. Clark and Thomas F. Hahn, eds., Life On the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 

1859 (York, 1975), pp. 1–48. As these sources describe the canal experiences of the boatmen 

from the late 1850s to the early 1900s, the following data should be considered as representative 

only of that period. 

1. Preparations for the Journey from Cumberland to Georgetown 

In preparing for a journey down the 185-mile length of the canal, the boatman needed to obtain 

feed and provisions for his family and mules. Hay and feed for the mules was purchased at various establishments across from the coat loading wharves at the basin in Cumberland, the most 

popular store being Coulehan’s on Wineow Street. Groceries were procured up Wineow Street at 

Dennis Murphy’s or John McGrinnis’ or at Coulehan’s. The usual staples taken along on a trip 

consisted of flour, sugar, coffee, smoked meat, and dry salt belly. As the sale of liquor was outlawed along the canal, alcoholic beverages also were purchased at the stores along the canal basin 

or at the numerous saloons, which operated in Shantytown around and behind the boatyards. 

Among the most popular drinking establishments that the boatmen frequented while waiting for a 

load of coal (or upon reaching Cumberland after a long journey up the canal) were Old Aunt 

Susan Jones’ Rising Sun Saloon, Mis’ Palmer’s Red Tin Shanty, and the bars owned by George 

Burns, Ed Cooney, Gus Hensel, Dora Ogle, and Cherry Clark. If the captain’s family was not 

large enough to provide the needed help on the boat, he made arrangements to hire a deck hand or 

two. 

2. The Journey Down the Canal Begins 

When all preparations were made, the captain backed his boat up to the coal chutes at the loading 

basin. The coal was dumped out of the railroad cars on a trestle over the chutes and passed down 

the chutes into the holds of the barge. After having received a waybill from the canal company 

collector, the boat commenced its run down the canal. A normal trip to Georgetown took about 

five 18–hour days. Although some boats ran all night, most tied up in groups of six or seven between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. 

The usual schedule of work both for the mules and the people was six hours of work and 

six hours of rest. Members of the captain’s family generally slept in the cabin if there was room. 

Hired hands or older members of large families slept in the hay house, which had bunks on one 

side and feed on the other. Some boatmen took Sunday off to attend church services in the small 

towns along the canal, but most of the “canallers,” who generally appeared to be an irreverent and 

irreligious lot, boated seven days a week if loads were available. 

3. The Procurement of Food and Provisions on the Journey 

 

149 Ethel M. Springer, Canal Boat Children, Children’s Bureau, Department of Agriculture, 1921, reprinted in Monthly 

Labor Review, 1923, 3–11. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 819 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Most everything that was needed in the way of groceries or feed could be purchased along the 

canal. There were numerous stores at many of the locks and in the villages in the vicinity of the 

canal that catered to the needs of the boatmen. In addition, most of the lock tenders raised milk 

cows, chickens, and gardens, the surplus of which was sold to the “canallers.” Some of the boatmen, however, carried some chickens and one or two pigs on their boats to cut their expenses. 

The boatmen’s diet was supplemented with fish taken from the canal. 

4. The Role of Women on the Boats 

The duties of women on the canal boats included cooking, child rearing, steering, washing, and 

sewing. It was often the woman’s duty to help steer the boat and feed the mules. The cooking was 

done on the cabin stove, which was usually heated with burned corncobs from the stable. Some of 

the boats had more modern stoves, known as Star Light coal burners, made with coke tin by the 

Cumberland firm of William Moorehead and Lew Metz. Two of the most popular dishes among 

the boatmen were turtle soup made from turtles caught in the canal and blackberry pie made from 

berries that grew wild along the towpath. The women had their babies on the boats; if possible, 

the boat would stop at a town where services of a midwife could be obtained. Then the journey 

was resumed the following day with the man handling most of the cooking chores unless he had 

older children. The washing of clothes and bathing of children often was done at the side of the 

canal in the moonlight after the boat had tied up for the night. The sewing or mending of clothes 

and awnings for the barge frequently was done while the woman leaned against the “stick” that 

guided the boat’s rudder. If the husband died, the widow often ran the boat herself, several such 

examples being Mis’ Ziegler, Nancy McCoy, and Clara Dick. 

5. The Children on the Boats 

To prevent the little children from falling into the canal, there was usually a ringbolt in the cabin 

roof. The smallest children were buckled into a leather or rope harness and tied fast with a line to 

the ringbolt. By the age of six, most children were put to work driving the mules. Most captains 

got their start on the canal in that manner. The mules were driven with a four-strand plaited whip 

by the child walking along beside them on the towpath. The children were permitted frequently to 

ride the lead mule to protect their feet and to prevent them from tiring. The “canallers” children 

generally had little opportunity for schooling. Many times a teen-age boy was hired as a deck 

hand, a job for which he seldom received more than $10 per month. 

6. Approaching a Lock 

When a boat approached a lock, the steersman got out his boat horn, generally a tin bugle, and 

blew the three notes of “Red Rover.” Supposedly the boat horn was saying “Lock Ready! Lock 

Ready!” If there was no horn available, the steersman or driver, whoever had the loudest voice, 

would yell: “yea-a-a-a-a-a-a lock!” or “Hey-y-y-y-y-y lock!” Some boatmen used conch shells to 

announce their approach. During the day, the lock tender often saw the boat before he heard the 

call, but at night he had to be awakened. 

7. The Mules 

The mules, many of which came from Kentucky, were broken in by hitching them to logs. New 

mules, or “Greenies,” often sat down and refused to move. This problem was solved by hitching 
820 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

several trained mules to the “sitdowners” and dragging it along until standing up was more comfortable than sitting down. The mules were hard on their shoes, and, thus, they were reshod on an 

average of once a month. 

Mules were generally purchased when they were 2 1⁄2 years old. As a rule, they lasted 

some 15 years before they became too old and infirm to be of value. Each boatman usually kept 

two teams of two or three mules each with his barge. Good experienced mules often did not require a driver. They slacked off automatically by instinct when a boatman was snubbing a boat 

into a lock and once through a lock they took off on the cue of the steersman’s whistle. If a boatman wished to change his teams, the mules reacted to verbal commands. Generally, the mules 

were changed while the boat was passing through a lock–a feat that required fast work. A short 

fallboard, much like a cleated gangplank, was thrown over the side of the boat when the water in 

the lock chamber was at its highest level, and a fresh team from the stable in the bow was herded 

out quickly. Reckless boatmen would change teams while the boat was moving by jumping a 

fresh team into the canal and swimming them to shore, while the gangplank was hurriedly thrown 

down on the towpath and the old team rushed on to the boat. This latter practice led to the drowning of many mules. 

8. Dogs on the Canal 

A good dog was a great help with the mules and was sometimes used to drive them. Sam Poffenberger had a bulldog named “Rough” who could swim across the canal basin at Cumberland with 

a towline around his neck. This was a great help when the mules and boats were separated on opposite sides of the basin. 

9. Wintering Along the Canal 

When the canal got icy, a canal company scow, loaded with pig iron, started up the waterway 

from Georgetown to serve as an icebreaker. Homeward-bound boats, all light and heading for 

winter quarters, formed a procession behind the ice breaker. As many as 40 mules from the boats 

in the procession would be hooked to the icebreaker’s towline. The animals would haul the boat 

up on the ice and her weight would break a channel through which the boats would pass. The entire convoy would help pump water out of a barge if the ice broke a hole in it. The members of 

the procession also would hack at the ice with their axes if necessary. If a boat was frozen solid, 

the captain and crew closed it up and rode the mules home. 

The boatmen tied up their boats as close to their homes as possible. The most popular 

communities where the boatmen spent the winter months were Monocacy Basin, Point of Rocks, 

Brunswick, Sharpsburg Landing, Williamsport, Hancock, and Cumberland. Of these communities, Sharpsburg was considered the greatest producer of boatmen over the years. A few boatmen 

lived on their boats year-round, and a few maintained homes where their families lived throughout the year. 

In the early spring, the “canallers” would return to their boats. Before resuming navigation in the new season, they would house clean the barges, make necessary repairs, and give the 

vessels a fresh coat of paint. Once that work was done, the awning was spread over a portion of 

the deck and operations were commenced. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 821 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

F. THE EMERGENCE OF LABOR UNIONISM AMONG 

 THE CANAL BOATMEN IN THE 1870s 

During the early 1870s the Boatmen’s Union of Cumberland emerged as a strong force on behalf 

of the interests of the “canallers.” As the first manifestation of labor unionism on the canal, this 

organization reflected the growing interest in such labor activities across the United States in the 

decade after the Civil War. During this period, two national labor organizations-- the National 

Labor Union in 1866 and the Knights of Labor in 1869–were formed for the purpose of exercising their economic and political power to better the lot of the common working man in America.150

Organizing efforts were also occurring among the western Maryland coal miners at this time, and 

wage disputes between the miners and the coal company operations led to the first strike in May 

and June of 1865.151

The first recorded strike by the canal boatmen occurred at Cumberland in July 1871. The 

two-day work stoppage was joined by the dock laborers in that town. According to the word received by President James C. Clarke on August 28, the difficulty 

was occasioned by a few irresponsible men urged on by a few of the boatmen who were 

stated to have been imposed on by the Maryland (Coal) Co. by being obliged to pay a bonus. We (The Maryland Coal Company) reduced the freight, to (the) same basis on outside boats (those vessels not employed by the coal company) or five cents per ton, but to 

those running our own boats we have the spring rates of $1.45 per ton. 

The informer went on to express his fears that another strike was brewing among the boatmen: 

Now the Maryland (Coal) Co. pays only $1.40 to all classes of boats, and still exacts the 

bonus . . . and the result of another strike is threatened. If it were to be confined merely to 

those who aggrieved, no one would object, but you may rest assured if a dozen of the 

men see fit to make the trouble, all will become involved and this will incur the daily loss 

of $25,000. If once begun, the loss all round will amount to hundreds of thousands. Why 

should these vast interests be paralyzed...by a few discontented men, hiring roughs to intimidate the well disposed.152

Sometime during the remainder of the 1871 boating season an eleven-day strike of the boatmen 

and Cumberland dock workers took place.153

It is apparent that the canal company attempted to prevent the labor unrest by ordering 

that the participating boatmen be fined for their activities. Later the board had second thoughts 

about the wisdom of this policy, and on January 12, 1872, it authorized Coale to remit the money 

collected in those cases that merited such consideration. The balance of the money collected was 

to be appropriated to the treasury of the Boatmen’s Benevolent Society, an organization that had 

been formed, recently to foster the welfare of the “canallers.”154 

 

150 Foster Rhea Dulles, The United States Since 1865 (Ann Arbor, 1969), 68–81, and Michael Martin and Leonard 

Gelber, The New Dictionary of American History (Revised, New York, 1965), 335, 340–41, 425. 

151 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report (1865), C & O Co., 6. 

152 Slack to Clarke, Aug. 28, 1871, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, 

M, 426–427. 

153 Proceedings of the Stockholders, E, 182. 

154 Proceeding of the President and Board of Directors, M, 506. 
822 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

There were no further labor difficulties along the canal until January 1873. In that month, 

the president of the Boatmen’s Benevolent Society sent a stern letter to the canal board protesting 

against the directors’ proposal to raise the toll on coal from 46 cents to 51 cents per ton. The letter, which indicated the increasing militancy of the society, read as follows: 

The Boatmen’s Benevolent Society do petition your honorable body against any increase 

of tolls on coal, as we consider such an advance an injury to the business and interest of 

the canal; also ruinous to the interest of the boatmen, to keep the cost of transportation on 

the canal at the basis of last season would require an equivalent decrease of freight, to 

which we the boatmen will not submit. Gentlemen, this association desires that the toll on 

coal should remain at the same rates as that of last Season. We refer you to the decrease 

of freight on coal by way of (the) canal, for the last two seasons of ten cents per ton. 

Submitting to a deduction of five cents each season, and any advance on tolls at this time 

in all probability would cause a further decrease, and for this reason just stated we earnestly enter our protest.155

The underlying reasons for the boatmen’s concern over the canal directors’ proposal to increase 

the toll on coal were given in a report in the Williamsport Pilot of January 11. According to the 

newspaper’s editor, the boatmen at that town all felt 

that such an increase will only amount to a tax upon them. They are certain that in the 

end they will have to pay it. The past season was altogether an unprofitable one. In fact 

many boatmen actually lost money, and we much doubt if half the coal could be shipped 

over the canal during the coming season if the tolls are increased. It should be remembered that hay and feed commanded an unusual price, and of the first name article the 

prairies of Illinois had to be depended for a supply, which is sufficient to indicate its 

price. 

The coal companies have every advantage of the boatmen; they can regulate 

freights with a rule as imperious as the Czar of Russia. They of course will put freights 

down just in proportion as the canal company raises tolls.156

Despite the protests of the boatmen the canal board approved the five-cent increase in the toll on 

coal on February 13. The boatmen were angered still further on March 11 when a petition from 

the Boatmen’s Benevolent Society requesting the suppression of the illicit liquor traffic along the 

line of the canal received no comment from the directors. Consequently, a strike was called, but 

apparently it was of short duration because company officials reported that it merely caused a 

delay in commencing the coal shipments in March.157

 

155 Rosewann to Gorman and Directors, Jan. 1, 1873, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Proceedings of the President and 

Board of Directors, M, 94. 

156 Williamsport Pilot, Jan. 11, 1873, in Gorman Collection. The increasing militancy of the boatmen was also in part 

an effort to make up for financial losses sustained in November 1872 when an epidemic had killed many horses and 

mules along the canal. The epidemic was of such severity that the company estimated that it reduced the total tonnage 

for the canal by over 20,000 tons that month. Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O Co., 3. Mulvany to Gorman, 

Nov. 9 and 16, 1872, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and Williamsport Pilot, Dec. 21, 1872, in Gorman Collection. 

157 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 102, & Forty-Fifth Annual Report (1873), C & O Co., 3. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 823 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

There was relative labor calm on the canal until August 24, 1874, when the boatmen 

again called a strike at Cumberland, demanding that the current freight rates be raised from $1.25 

to $1.35 for transporting a ton of coal from Cumberland to Tidewater.158

 The following day a mob of some 200 persons marched to the coal loading wharves and, 

using threats of violence, prevented the loading of any boats manned by captains who were transporting coat at $1.25 per ton. The strikers camped on the wharves with rations of “bread and 

beer” and vowed to poison the mules and injure the crew of any boat that loaded at the lower 

rate.159

On August 26 the striking boatmen held a public meeting at Cumberland to consider their 

grievances, and the principal address was given by Mr. McCardell, the editor of the Cumberland 

Times. The “canallers” took the position that the coal companies could not afford to pay more 

than the present reduced freight rates–$1.20 and $1.25 per ton to Georgetown and Alexandria 

respectively–and that the boatmen could not afford to carry coal at those rates. Furthermore, the 

canal company should reduce the toll on coal to 36 cents per ton and give the extra 15 cents to the 

boatmen instead of to the company bondholders. The boatmen resolved to adhere to their demand 

that the freight rates should be at the level that was agreed upon in the spring–$1.35 per ton to 

Georgetown and $1.40 to Alexandria. Committees were appointed to provide liaison between the 

coal mine operators and the boatmen and to address the canal company with a petition to carry 

out the “McCardell Plan.”160

Although the strike was called to address the specific grievances of the boatmen, the canal board received word that other factors were involved in the labor unrest. There were indications that some of the coal companies were promoting the strike. There was an over-supply of 

boats for the coal trade, and the coal companies were embroiled in “considerable competition...with no little cutting and gouging.” The only company that was not involved in the work 

stoppage was the Borden Coal Company, which agreed to pay the higher freight rate demanded 

by the boatmen. Thus 9 to 12 of its boats were leaving Cumberland every day unmolested for the 

trip to Georgetown.161

By September 1 the striking boatmen had increased their numbers by enrolling some 200 

captains in a “secret association.” Many of the boatmen of the Maryland Coal Company, who had 

originally opposed the strike, now were in full support. The boatmen had increased the rates to 

Williamsport, Shepherdstown, and Antietam, as well as to Georgetown and Alexandria. The canal 

basins at Cumberland were blocked entirely by boats. However, there was little excitement reported, as the boatmen were “moving about quietly,” but manifesting “a determined spirit to stand 

firm, and refuse to load, except upon the terms demanded.”162

Two days later on September 3 President Gorman received word that the strike was about 

to be broken. The Consolidation Coal Company had decided the previous day to load its boats at 

the higher freight rates, and the agent of the New Central Coal Company had been instructed by 

his firm’s headquarters in New York City to yield to the demands of the “canallers.” However, 

 

158 Weber to Gorman, Aug. 24, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

159 Greene to Gorman, September 14, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. The coal companies appealed to the local authorities to disperse the unruly crowd, but upon consultation with the State’s Attorney, it was decided not to intervene unless 

there was an overt act of violence. As the few boatmen who were willing to work for the lower freight rate were intimidated quickly into abandoning their boats, there were no such incidents. 

160 Weber to Gorman, August 26, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C& O Co. 

161 Ibid. 162 Weber to Gorman, September 1, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. The “secret association” referred to in this letter is the 

first reference to the organization of a boatmen’s labor union. 
824 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

the Maryland, American, Hampshire, Georges’ Creek, Blaen Avon, and Atlantic Coal Companies 

had not indicated a change of position.163

When the strike still had not been settled by September 8, President Gorman requested 

from the various coal companies information relative to their understanding of the stalemate and 

to the causes, which led up to it. One such reply was given by J. W. Pearce, the Agent of the 

Maryland Coal Company: 

To show how the general public are deceived by the operations of Monopolies, and the 

“outside appearance of affairs when local Journals familiar with the Causes, either from 

fear of losing popularity for some pet Candidate for office or other interests; conceal the 

real evil under the cloak of ignorance of the cause, and only briefly notice the passing 

event – will you give some space in your valuable paper to this statement, so as to let the 

people of the State of Maryland understand how one of their great public works is paralyzed by the operations of a ring of Conspirators who are enriching themselves by despoiling the Stock Holders of the Companies they are employed by; and the people, 

whose public work they abuse. As will appear by reference to the Cumberland papers, “a 

strike has been in progress for some time among the Boatmen on the Ches & Ohio Canal!” 

From this brief notice the Stockholders of Coal Cos. and the public would naturally suppose it originated in a demand of the Boatmen for higher freights. If, however, 

you will go to the bottom of the trouble you will find it has been ‘hatched up & egged on’ 

by the agents or Managers of some of the Coal Cos., in conjunction with a part of the 

Boat Building interest at Cumberland. 

Their object is to keep up a high rate of freight on the Canal, so that they may be 

enabled to dispose of Boats at enormous prices. In furtherance of this object by maintaining the Freight, they Crowd their lines with more boats than are required to carry their 

coal; thus depriving their Companies of the advantages of lower rates, and The Boatmen 

to whom those high-priced Boats are sold of the necessary amount of freighting to enable 

them at any promised rate, to make money by good running. 

When the great ‘law of supply and demand’ begins to operate in favor of another 

Company who have been shipping Coal on a lone business basis, and who endeavor to 

have their Coal freighted as Cheaply as possible, by telling its Boatmen to buy Boats and 

supplies at the lowest market rates, instead of forcing them into paying exorbitant prices, 

and by giving steady employment to large numbers of otherwise unemployed Boatmen, 

thus largely more than paying their expenses (for while lying idle waiting for their Companies to load them, the expenses are as great as when running) them; in order to bring 

things back to that happy state where the Coal Cos. shall pay the Boatmen enough to enable them to lie idle and thus prosper the Boat business at the expense of the Coal Trade; 

a few irresponsible & reckless boatmen are employed to get up ‘a Strike’ and by force

prevent these men (who are glad to get loads even at lower rates than the ‘Ring’ proposes) from doing as they see fit with their own labor & property; and so it comes to 

pass, that in order that a few ‘Conspirators’ may grow rich, a stoppage of work for weeks 

is caused; to the injury of the Miners; the Cumberland & Pennsylvania Rail Road—that 

brings Coal to the Canal—the Boatmen, the Ches & Ohio Canal, the various Coal 

wharves & schooners engaged in the Trade, and often causing loss & embarrassment to 

the Coal Companies. Were it not for this forcible interference the principle on which the 

Maryland Coal Co has been working this season—‘Dispatch in loading and unloading for 

 

163 Weber to Gorman, September 3, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 825 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

a Concession in freights,’ would become general, to the improvement of profits by the 

Canal Co, the Boatmen and the Coal Cos. For 3 loads per month @ $1 per Ton for 112 

Tons is $366.00, which would require $1.50 per Ton to equal it,, with only 2 loads per 

month, and Two loads per month this season, is over the average, in such Companies as 

have let the Agents put in more Boats than the business required. 

There has been much talk and abuse of the Canal Co for not paying dividends on 

account of being ‘a political machine,’ the foregoing facts have much to do with its small 

receipts; for high Freights & Tolls inevitably drive the Coal Trade from the Canal to the 

Rail Roads.-164

As the strike wore on, the canal board considered various means to break the stalemate. They 

considered the passage of an order to prohibit the future navigation of all boats whose owners had 

been “instrumental in promoting strikes or disaffection among the boatmen.” The directors also 

considered the expansion of the proposed ban to include the boats “owned in whole or in part” by 

the Cumberland boat builders who had encouraged the unrest. The board apparently gave up 

these ideas since their enactment would have alienated some of the coal companies on whose 

trade the canal depended and some of the boat builders on whom the “canallers” relied for the 

construction, maintenance, and repair of their barges.165

The devastating impact of the strike on the canal’s trade and revenue was assessed by 

President Gorman at a board meeting on September 10. Had it not been for the work stoppage the 

tonnage and revenue for August would have exceeded any previous month in the history of the 

waterway. During the period from August 26–31, the average shipments on the canal per day 

were 1,394 compared with a pre-strike daily average of 4,925. Thus, the work stoppage had been 

responsible for the loss of 21,186 tons of trade during the last six days of that month. Gorman 

concluded by expressing his fears that the frequent recurrence of strikes by the boatmen would 

not only reduce the revenues of the company but that they would force the coal companies to take 

their trade to the railroads. Accordingly, he recommended that a committee be appointed to investigate the causes of the strike and to confer with the coal companies concerning an effective solution to the recurring problem.166

The investigation of the strike by the committee uncovered serious abuses in the system 

of boating then in operation on the canal, which tended to support the boatmen’s position. 

While the strikes, which drove the canal trade to the railroad, were suicidal to the boatmen, it was found that the “canallers” could not pay their expenses at the $1.25 freight 

rate. Accordingly, the boatmen had been taught to believe that (1) higher freight rates 

were the sole remedy, (2) the coal companies would not accede to the higher freights 

unless the canal company reduced its tolls, and (3) the canal company, as a semi-political 

corporation, should eliminate the toll on loaded boats. 

The committee concluded that the boatmen’s reasons for their financial difficulties were inaccurate. In its report, the members informed the board that the real reason for the plight of the boatmen was the exorbitant cost and the unfair purchase terms of the canal boats. A large proportion 

of boats on the waterway had been built by local capitalists in Cumberland at an average cost of 

about $1,400 each. The usual custom was for the builder to make arrangements with the agent of 

one of the Allegany County coal companies to take the boat into the company’s line (i.e., to 

 

164 Pearce to Gorman, Sept. 8, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

165 Ray to Gorman, Sept. 9, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

166 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 176–77.
826 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

transport that company’s coal exclusively). The builder would then sell the boat to a “canaller” 

who was usually poor and unable to pay for the purchase with cash. The builder would advance 

the sum of $800 to $1,200 to the boatman, and this amount was to be repaid in regular installments to be deducted at the end of each trip on the amount paid for freight. 

The boatmen were helpless to resist such practices, because they were forced to agree to 

the terms if they wanted to work. Hence they commenced their work by paying not only a fair 

value for their boats but also an “extortionate” bonus. Added to these expenses were the cost of 

their teams and outfits at greatly inflated prices.167 Thus, the boatmen needed higher freight rates 

from the coal companies to pay the average trippage costs of $35 to $40 and to live. In most 

cases, it would take the boatmen three or four years of hard labor to pay off their debts if the 

freight rate was $1.35 per ton. 

Once a boat was paid off, the boatmen were subject to other unfair monopolistic practices. As soon as a boat was paid for, the Cumberland boat builders often had a new one ready to 

take its place. The agent of the coal company would then remove the old boat from the line so as 

to make room for the new one for the profits to be derived from it. This practice had continued for 

so long that there were a large number of boats owned by regular boatmen who were not in the 

line of any coal company. Those individuals were compelled to obtain loads wherever and from 

whomever they could or to pay trippage to gain admission back into a line. Thus, there were 

about 100 boats more than were needed for the coal trade on the waterway. 

In the spring of 1874 the Borden Mining Company determined to take advantage of the 

large pool of “outside” boats by employing a sufficient number of them to carry its coal. The 

company set down three conditions for this arrangement: (1) to employ a sufficient number of 

boats to accommodate the trade; (2) to keep the boats in port no longer than 24 hours; and (3) to 

enable boats to make 3 1⁄2 trips per month without paying trippage. 

Some of the boatmen accepted this proposition at a reduced freight rate of $1.25 per ton, 

and within a short period all of the coal companies had reduced their rates. This state of 

affairs continued until August 25 when the boatmen paying trippage found that they 

could not make a living while the boats not paying trippage were realizing fair profits. It 

was found that the “outside” boats making 3 1⁄2 trips per month at a freight rate of $1.25 

were producing gross receipts of $490 per month. On the other hand, the “line” boats, 

which averaged about 2 1⁄2 trips per month at the same freight rate, were realizing 

monthly gross receipts of $350 from which approximately $75 had to be subtracted for 

trippage. 

The committee concluded its report by urging the canal board to induce the coal companies to 

break up the system of “middlemen” in the sale of the canal boats. If the boats were furnished at a 

fair price and the boatmen were given constant employment, the cost of transportation would be 

reduced and the “canallers” would realize greater profits. At the same time, the committee fully 

endorsed the company policy of providing police protection to the coal companies during the 

strike. Furthermore the members supported the strict enforcement of the company rules, which 

imposed heavy penalties on any person interfering with the loading of a boat or preventing any 

boat from proceeding on the canal by intimidation or threats of personal violence.168

 

167 The average cost of mules during the 1870s and 1880s varied greatly. Common mules varied from $25 to $200 a 

head or $250 a pair. A team of four good, experienced mules together with their harnesses sold for prices of up to 

$1,400. Such sales were made on terms similar to those on boats. Baltimore Evening Sun, Aug. 12, 1937. 

168 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors M, 180–85. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 827 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Normal operations on the canal were not resumed until late September when all of the 

coal companies agreed to pay the $1.35 freight rate demanded by the Boatmen’s Union. Apparently, the last company to agree to the higher rate was the Maryland Coal Company, which had 

transferred its daily 1,000-ton trade to the railroad shortly after the strike commenced. When the 

company resumed its shipments on the canal, it reemployed a number of its old boatmen at the 

increased rate. Then the strikers attempted unsuccessfully to dictate to the company what boats it 

should employ.169

The Boatmen’s Union continued to harass the movement of those “outside” boats whose 

owners continued to ship at lower rates, but there were no more reports of violence during the 

remainder of the boating season.170

Prior to the opening of navigation on the canal in 1875, the Boatmen’s Union met in 

Cumberland to adopt the freight rates for the year. The rates, which were not to be subject to any 

fees, bonuses for loading, or drawbacks, were as follows: 

To Hancock $ .50 

To Williamsport .70 

To Shepherdstown .90 

To Antietam .90 

To Harpers Ferry .95 

To Knoxville $1.00 

To Point of Rocks $1.05 

To Georgetown $1.35 

To All Points in Washington $1.40 

To 1st and 2nd Boat Yard, Alexandria, Canal $1.37 

To Four Mile Run $1.38 

To Alexandria $1.40 

At the same time, the Boatmen’s Union organized itself into a mutual life insurance association 

and contemplated certain other cooperative ventures for the benefit of the “canallers.” The official 

membership of the union was reported to be 324 with control over 374 boats.171

The Boatmen’s Union continued its efforts to intimidate the nonunion boatmen. On the 

night of January 8 three boats tied up near Lock No. 38 and one boat on the Four-Mile level were 

burned. Had it not been for the quick arrival of the fire engine from Shepherdstown, the whole 

fleet of boats lying at Shepherdstown would have caught fire.172

During the winter of 1874–1875, the canal company leased the Lynn-owned Potomac Wharf at 

Cumberland for a period of two years, thus putting it in a position to reduce the exorbitant wharf 

fees charged by the private wharf owners in that town. Such an action, coupled with earlier efforts 

to lower wharf charges in Georgetown, would make it possible for the company to reduce soon 

the cost of transporting coal over the waterway by some 12 cents per ton.173

 

169 Ibid, M, 180. 

170 Brandt to Gorman, Oct. 27, 1874, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

171 Cumberland Times, Jan. 23, 1875, in Gorman collection. As there were some 539 boats registered on the canal at 

this time, the union, according to this report, controlled about 70 percent of the vessels plying the waterway. 

172 McGraw to Gorman, Jan. 9, 1875, Ltrs. Recd, C & O Co. 

173 Cumberland Daily News, Mar. 2, 1875, and Cumberland Daily Times, Mar. 20, 1875, in Gorman Collection, and 

Forty-Seventh Annual Report (1875), 19–21. 
828 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

AVERAGE BOATMEN’S EXPENSES PER DAY 

as reported in the Williamsport Pilot, Feb 20, 1875 

CAPTAIN $1.00 

STEERSMAN .83 

DRIVER (2 @ 50¢ each) 1.00 

BOARD FOR HANDS 2.00 

ANIMAL FEED 2.00 

ANIMAL SHOEING .25 

LINES .50 

TRIPPAGE 3.50 

TOLLS .40

 $11.48 

COST OF TRANSPORTING ONE TON OF COAL ON 

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL 1873–75, 

as reported in the Cumberland Daily Times, Mar. 20, 1875 

TOLLS $ .510 

WHARFAGE AT CUMBERLAND 080 

COMMISSION TO AGENTS .025 

FREIGHT RATE (185 MILES) 1.350 

WHARFAGE AND HANDLING 

 AT GEORGETOWN .250

 $2.215 

When navigation resumed in March, members of the Boatmen’s Union commenced a series of 

threats against the nonunion boatmen at the Potomac Wharf. Efforts were made to frighten them 

from loading their boats by telling them that their mules would be poisoned and that all boats 

would be prevented from descending below Sharpsburg. Accordingly, the canal company requested that the Mayor of Cumberland authorize the canal’s watchman at the wharf to arrest those 

who were disrupting the operation of the canal.174

On April 6, 1875, the canal board ordered a general reduction of charges, including toll, 

wharfage, and freights. This was done in order to maintain its competitive position in the coal 

trade with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and to placate the Boatmen’s Union. The toll on coal 

was reduced by 8 cents to 43 cents per ton, and the freight and wharfage rates were decreased by 

10 cents and 2 cents respectively.175

Boatmen’s Union still was not satisfied completely with the financial arrangements for 

the 1875 boating season. A delegation from the union met with the board on April 13 and proposed a compromise solution to the stalemate. The union members would boat at a freight rate of 

$1.25 for the season and rescind their claim of demurrage if the boat owners would reduce trippage fees to a flat rate of $30 and the canal company would reduce its $4.08 toll on loaded boats 

by 50 percent. Next a group of boat owners, headed by Frederick Mertens of Cumberland, met 

with the board, and after a heated debate, they agreed to the boatmen’s demands provided the 

company would do the same. Accordingly, the directors passed the following resolution: 

 

174 Tilghman to Gorman, April 1, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

175 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, M, 210–11. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 829 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Whereas the Boatmen cannot secure a reduction in their trippage of more than five (5) 

dollars, and therefore cannot afford to reduce the charges for freight 10 cents per ton, 

without some relief on the part of the Company. 

Therefore, resolved, that so long as the rates for freighting coal to Georgetown 

shall not exceed $1.25 per ton, the toll on through boats shall be charged at the rate of 

$2.04, each way, and the rate for way coal boats shall be 1 1⁄4 cents per mile, each way, 

during the present season of navigation.176

Although their demands had been met, some of the union members remained embittered. As a 

result, a series of incidents were perpetrated against the nonunion “canallers” and the property of 

the canal company. On the night of April 14 the towpath was cut at a point about 3/4 mile below 

Grove’s warehouse on the Antietam Division. It was reported that “depredations of some kind” 

were being committed every night in the vicinity of Sharpsburg.177

Several days after the towpath was cut, a boat was stoned near Harpers Ferry, because the 

captain was transporting coal at “ruinous rates.” In commenting on this incident, the Williamsport 

Pilot, which was supporting the Boatmen’s Union, informed its readers that those boatmen who 

contracted to transport coal at lower rates deserved no sympathy if their boats were burned. Such 

independent action was an invitation to the union members “to take more effectual measures” for 

getting rid of such boats.178

Some union men attacked the Kate Prather captained by Lewis F. Fernsner on the night 

of April 20 at a point some three miles below Cumberland, breaking the boat’s windows and 

shutters with stones.179

On the same evening the J. Baker was stoned on the Antietam Division.180

To find out and prosecute the parties that were perpetrating these incidents, the canal 

company had its officials scour the countryside for leads and information. Furthermore, the company pressured Washington and Allegany County officials into conducting grand jury investigations into the problem. As a result, four leaders of the Boatmen’s Union–James Hitechew, Taylor 

Reid, Peter Wolf, and Thomas O’Donnell–were indicted by the grand jury at Cumberland. After a 

lengthy trial in the Allegany County Circuit Court the four men were convicted on January 24, 

1876, of forming a “conspiracy to control the rate of freight on coal transported over the C & O 

Canal.” When the men were brought up for sentencing two days later, the judge “called attention 

to the gravity of the offense, and admonished boatmen, coal companies, and all others, that any 

combination to control prices by which the business of the community” was interrupted was “illegal and contrary to the common law.” However, as this was the first case of its kind to be tried 

in the county, the magistrate made the penalty as light as possible, imposing a fine of $25 plus the 

prosecution costs amounting to $18.40 on each man.181

There was relative calm among the boatmen on the canal until June 21, 1877, when a 

group of “canallers” struck again to protest a decrease in the freight rates. A number of boatmen 

tied up their vessels on the first level west of Seneca where they awaited some redress from their 

grievances, far from the reach of the coal companies and the canal directors. At the upper end of 

the line, some 24 boats tied up at Lock No. 74 where they effectively closed the canal to traffic 

 

176 Ibid, M, 212; Ketchese to Gorman, Apr. 9, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co.; and Cumberland News, Apr. 17, 1875, in 

Gorman Collection. 

177 McGraw to Stake, Apr. 15, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

178 Williamsport Pilot, Apr. 17, 1875, and Baltimore American, Apr. 29, 1875, in Gorman Collection. 

179 Tilghman to Gorman, Apr. 21, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 180 McGraw to Gorman, May 4, 1875, Ltrs. Recd., C&O Co. 

181 Cumberland Times, Jan. 26, 1876, in Gorman Collection. 
830 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

pending a successful resolution of their demands. The strike lasted for two months, during which 

trade on the canal sank to negligible proportions. The men finally resumed their runs on August 

20, but by that time many canal skippers had made arrangements with the railroad for the transportation of their business for the rest of the year.182

The canal company records indicate that there was relative calm on the canal in 1878 and 

1879. In April of the latter year a petition signed by numerous boatmen was presented to the directors, asking that the charge for trimming boats at the company wharves in Cumberland be reduced from $1.35 to 75 cents per boat. A cursory review of the board’s proceedings indicates that 

no action was taken on the requests and that no overt incidents resulted.183

The financial distress of the boatmen led to another two-month strike beginning in late 

June of 1880. The plight of the “canallers” was the result of the general nationwide business depression and the consequent deflationary tendency of coal prices. The price of a ton of coal on 

board vessels at Georgetown, which had been $4.65 in 1872, had fallen to $2.60 by 1879. Because of this decline the amount paid for transporting a ton of coal from Cumberland to Georgetown and placing it on board a vessel at the latter port had fallen also from $2.24 in 1872 to $1.35 

in 1879. The breakdown of these latter figures shows the desperate situation in which the boatmen were trapped: 

1872 1879

Received by boatmen $1.35 $ .75 

Wharfage at Cumberland and Georgetown .43 .04 

Transfer fees at Georgetown .00 .20 

Canal company tolls .46 .36

$2.24 $1.35 

The 1879 rates provided neither the boatmen, the wharf owners, nor the canal company with adequate revenue, but little could be done to increase them so long as the value of coal on board vessels at Georgetown remained less than $3 per ton.184

The eight-week strike, which extended from late June to late August, had a serious impact on the revenues of the canal company. The average weekly coal tonnage carried on the canal 

during the two months prior to the strike was 21,374 tons, while the average weekly tonnage during the strike was 13,870 tons. It was estimated that the strike resulted in a loss of some 75,000 

tons of coal and some $45,000 in revenues to the company.185 

The strike not only hurt the company’s financial condition, but it also led to serious rioting at Sharpsburg landing, Williamsport and Millstone Point in July and August. Boats were 

stoned at these three localities, and other acts of violence were perpetrated in an effort to disrupt 

the entire navigation on the waterway. The company requested that the Washington County 

Commissioners send all available “sheriffs, detectives, and agents” to the three locations to investigate and to suppress the violence. In September the County Commissioners reported that the 

total cost of its anti riot operations had cost more than $3,000. At the request of the State’s Attorney for Washington County the canal company reimbursed the County Commissioners for $1,000 

of this sum.186

 

182 Fiftieth Annual Report (1878). C & O Co., 3, 6; Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 4; and 

Stanhope to Gorman July 1, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co. 

183 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 81.

184 Fifty-First Annual Report (1879), C & O Co. p.12, and Fifty-Second Annual Report (1880), C & O Co., .7. 

185 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors N, .117–19. 

186 Ibid, N, 120–121. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 831 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

No boatmen’s strikes occurred on the canal during the remainder of the 1880s–a decade 

marked by trade stagnation, financial depression and physical deterioration of the canal company 

and the waterway itself. In fact, there appears to have been little union activity among the boatmen during this period. The one exception took place in February 1883 when a petition signed by 

ten boatmen at Williamsport was sent to the board requesting a redress of six grievances.187

The six demands were as follows: (1) the reduction of trimming rates for loaded boats at 

Cumberland from $1.30 to 75 cents, (2) the cleaning out of regular trying-up places and the planting of posts along the canal so that boats could tie up at night on the berm bank; (3) the enforcement of a Sunday law that would compel all boats to tie up at 12 o’clock midnight on Saturday; 

(4) the clearing-out of the basin at Cumberland that led from the Basin Wharf to the main stem of 

the canal so that boats could navigate that course; (5) the reduction of tolls and wharfage from 55 

cents to 45 cents; and (6) the removal of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad treating from the towpath 

between Locks Nos. 73 -75. The canal directors responded to the petition by promising to reduce 

tolls and wharfage fees at Cumberland to 40 cents per ton on coal and to decrease the cost of terminal facilities at Georgetown by 10 cents, but took no other action.188

G. FEED AND GROCERY STORES 

The boatmen on the canal required large quantities of staples, groceries, and vegetables for themselves, their families, and their hired hands. Among the items that the boatmen needed were flour, 

sugar, coffee, smoked meats, dry salt belly, and bread. The “canallers” also were in need of large 

amounts of hay, feed, and provender for their mules employed on the waterway. The mules consumed an annual minimum of 25,000 barrels of corn, 3,840 bushels of oats, and several thousand 

tons of hay at a cost of some $60,000.189

Up until 1850s the boatmen generally purchased their food and feed in Georgetown or 

Cumberland before beginning their journey. Along the way, they would procure additional supplies in the small towns adjacent to the canal. Often they would buy vegetables from the lockkeepers, some of whom raised large gardens, and local farmers would sell the boatmen hay and 

feed. 

By the late 1850s, however, the canal board had received numerous applications for permission to erect feed and grocery stores along the canal to accommodate the growing trade. Recognizing the need for such stores, the board on September 3, 1858, authorized the Engineer and 

General Superintendent to permit the construction of such stores where they were needed along 

the line of the canal. The following conditions were to be made a part of any agreement to construct such stores: (1) the ground rent was to be at least $12 per year; (2) no intoxicating beverages could be sold; (3) the businesses were not to interfere with the navigation of the canal; and 

(4) the company could revoke the privileges granted upon 30 days’ notice.190

During the next three decades at least 27 grocery and feed stores were built along the line 

of the canal. Most of them were built in the decade after the Civil War. The location, type, proprietor, and date of these stores were as follows: 

Lock No. 6—On December 4, 1873, permission was granted to Levin B. Stine to erect a 

feed store. 

 

187 The boatmen who signed the document were E. P. Steffey, George W. McCardell, E. Donnelly, J. Morrison, W. C. 

McCardell, William Kimble, M. Stitzel, Henry Singer, H. C. Ardinger, and Victor Cushwa.

188 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, N, 208–09. 

189 Williamsport Pilot, Feb. 8, 1873, in Gorman Collection. 

190 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, K, 61–62. 
832 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Lock No. 10—On February 13, 1873, permission was granted to Mikeal Q. McQuade to 

lease 60 feet of ground to build a provision and feed store. 

Lock No. 13—Prior to August 1871, permission had been given to David Lorence to 

build a feed store. In that month his request to lease for ten years a plot of ground, 12 x 

30 ft. for the purpose of enlarging his store was rejected. 

Seven Locks—On December 4, 1873, permission was granted to Mrs. M. A. Douglas to 

rent land at the rate of $36 per year to build a feed store and to raise a large garden. 

Lock No. 20—On June 24, 1851, the board authorized the General Superintendent to rent 

the Ball Room at Crommelin House for the use of the company in return for allowing 

Daniel Collins, the tender at Locks Nos. 19 and 20, to operate a grocery store in the 

building. 

Lock No. 20—On October 12, 1869, Howard A. Garrett was granted permission to erect 

a feed store on the towpath side of the canal and to lease a plot of ground (50 x 28 feet 

and 16 feet from the lock wall) for ten years at an annual rent of $20. The lease was renewed at least once, because the Montgomery County Circuit Court records indicate that 

Garrett was still operating feed and provision store as late as 1887. 

Lock No. 22—On March 9, 1870, permission was granted to George S. Garrett to build a 

feed store at the annual rent of $36. Some time later, the building was destroyed. Accordingly, he applied for and received permission on May 9, 1871, to build a new hay and 

feed store (20 x 24 feet) between the flume and the lock on the berm side of the canal. 

Guard Lock No 2.—On December 8, 1870, permission was granted to John R. Connell to 

erect a feed store on the towpath near the guard lock. Connell operated the store for approximately one year and then vacated the premises. By May 1873 the store was vacant, 

and he was refusing to pay rent. On May 6 of that year, another contract was signed 

whereby Connell was permitted to build a new feed and supply store between Guard 

Lock No. 2 and Lock No. 23. The lease was for six years at an annual rental of $40. 

Lock No. 23—On August 9, 1883, H. C. Ashly requested permission to build a store on 

the berm side of the canal at the lock, but there is no record of any action made relative to 

the request. 

Lock No. 24—On January 7, 1873, E. M. Lowe was granted permission for the lease of 

land at the Seneca Lock for a feed store. Apparently, he moved a building from the Virginia side of the river and reconstructed it on the towpath side of the canal. 

Edward’s Ferry—On May 12, 1864, McVeirs and William Jones, Jr., were given permission to build a storehouse on the berm side of the canal near Edwards Ferry for the purpose of “vending food etc. to boatmen.” The rent was to be $24 per year. 

Edward’s Ferry—Apparently, another store was being operated at Edward’s Ferry prior 

to May 15, 1865, because on that date, Flitchall and Williams were permitted to build a 

porch on their store for an annual rent of $6. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 833 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Lock No. 25—On January 1, 1872, permission was granted to George W. Spates to lease 

a parcel of land on the berm side of Lock No. 25 (Frontage 25 feet and running back 36 

feet) for the purpose of erecting a grocery and feed store. The lease was for ten years at 

$36 per year. On April 30, 1874, Spates assigned his lease to George C. Fisher, and in the 

Spring of 1876 the canal board approved another transfer of the lease to E. E. Jarboe. 

Conrad’s Ferry—On December 17, 1863, Daniel L. White was given permission to build 

a storehouse on the berm side of the canal at Conrad’s Ferry at an annual rent of $12. 

Lock No. 27—On June 15, 1866, M. Kindle was granted permission to build a grocery 

and feed store near the lock for an annual rent of $36. 

Lock No. 28—On July 7, 1864, Greenbury Foot was given permission to erect a small 

building near the lock at an annual rent of $12. 

Lock No. 29—On March 24, 1864, M. E. Alexander was given permission to build a 

storehouse on the berm side of the canal near the lock at a yearly rental of $12. The purpose of the store was to sell feed and provisions to the boatmen. On May 15, 1865, Alexander requested and received permission to sell groceries at his store. The board authorized John H. Rench on December 10, 1869, to build a second feed store on the company 

ground at the lock for an annual rental fee of $36. 

Lock No. 30—On September 24, 1863, Mortimer Osborn was granted permission to put 

up a counter and shelves in a room at the lock house at Berlin for the purpose of selling 

dry goods and groceries. The privilege was to be for one year at an annual rental of $150 

of which $100 was to be applied to his pay as lockkeeper. 

Lock No. 33—On March 4, 1859, William Walsh requested permission to erect a feed 

store on a vacant piece of ground near the lock. Apparently, this store was later built 

above the flume of the lock. 

Lock No. 37—Prior to December 1876, Joseph Lewis had operated a store on the berm 

side of the lock. In that month he requested that the lease be extended for five additional 

years. As his grocery business had been interfered with by the peddling and sale of produce on the towpath, he requested that his lease cover control of the towpath for marketing purposes. 

Lock No. 39—On February 7, 1866, John J. Norman was granted permission to build a 

bakery and feed store at the lock for an annual rental fee of $36. 

Lock No. 41—Prior to May 1, 1877, Charles Dellinger operated a stone storehouse and 

adjoining frame hay shed fronting on the lock. On this date, the lease was transferred to 

Daniel, his son, as he had died recently. 

Williamsport—On January 11, 1866, Shoop and Leferre were granted permission to 

build a storehouse at Williamsport for an annual rental of $36. The following month on 

February 7 Franc Sharpless was given permission to build a store at Lock No. 44. 
834 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Lock No. 46—On August 10, 1865, F. W. Kindle was authorized to build a feed and grocery store. The lease was for ten years at an annual rent of $36. 

Lock No. 50—On August 10, 1865, William J. Hassett was granted permission to build a 

feed store. The lease was for ten years at an annual rent of $36. 

Lock No. 51—On March 8, 1866, Theophiles Barnett was permitted to construct a feed 

and grocery store at an annual rental fee of $36. 

Lock No. 52—On April 12, 1865, A. B. Tancy was granted permission to erect a store 

for “vending groceries and feed” at an annual rental fee of $36. 

Dam No. 6—On December 14, 1865, Adam Faith was permitted to build a feed store at 

an annual rental of $36. 

Oldtown—Apparently, John Wilson was granted permission to erect a feed store “on the 

eastern side of the bridge and the berm bank of the canal at Oldtown” after March 3, 

1859.191

In addition to the feed stores that were built along the canal to cater to the boatmen, there were a 

number of grocery and feed store establishments in Georgetown and Cumberland whose business 

consisted primarily in meeting the needs of the “canallers.” By 1860, there were 17 flour and feed 

stores located near the canal in Georgetown, 13 of which were on Water Street and one each on 

Greene, Cherry, High, and Jefferson Streets. In that same year, there were 7 grocers, whose establishments were situated near the canal. Six of these were on Water Street and one on Market 

Street.192

As the trade of the canal grew so did the number of businesses in Georgetown that catered 

to the needs of the boatmen. By 1872 the number of flour and feed stores in the vicinity of the 

waterway had been consolidated into 7 principal establishments for the trade of the boatmen: 

E. M. Cropley & Co., 184 Bridge Street 

James H. Foster, 22 Bridge Street 

William H. Gaskins, 5 High Street 

J. Jackson and Bro., 110 High Street 

J. T. Lee & Co., Bridge near Greene 

S. B. Lyddane, 140 High Street 

D. F. Robinson, 78 Water Street 

At the same time, the number of grocery stores near the line of the canal had increased to some 

13: 

 

191 Ibid, K, 90, 93, 327, 351, 361, 370, 373–374, 380, 385, 393, 406, 416, 421, 425–426, 441–442, 458–459, 464, 469, 

475–476, 480, 498, L, 207, 248, 289, 382–383, 430, 445, M, 84, 88, 134, N, 141, 224; Garrett to President and Directors, March 9, 1870, Garrett to Clarke, May 9, 1872, McQuade to Board of Directors, Jan. 6, 1873, Maus to Gorman, 

May 16, 1873, Bickler to Gorman, July 30, 1874, Jarboe to President and Directors, April 23, 1876, Lewis to Gorman, 

Dec.12, 1876, Dellinger to Gorman May 1, 1877, and Douglas to Gorman, May 1, 1877, Ltrs. Recd., C & O Co., and 

Montgomery County Circuit Court, 61, Land Record, Liber., E.B.P., 9, 367–368, 63, Land Record, Liber., E.B.P., 11, 

44, and 94 Land Record, Liber, JA-6, 141. 

192 Boyd’s Washington and Georgetown Directory (Washington 1860), 189–92. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 835 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Henry Artz, 4 Market Street 

A. H. Bradt, Canal Street near Potomac Aqueduct 

Buckley and Lyons, 30 Water Street 

George M. Godey, High and Beall 

James Hartigan, 42 Water Street 

John S. Hill, 83 Greene Street 

Lewis and Leetch, 13 Water Street 

E. T. Lyddane, 64 Market Street 

M. McNally, 48 Water Street 

Daniel O’Leary, 128 Water Street 

B. F. Riley, 115 High Street 

John H. Sis, 79 High Street 

Somers & Smith 97 Water Street193 

In the latter years of the operation of the canal as an independent entity, the number of the businesses in Georgetown catering to the boatmen declined along with the commerce on the waterway. Among the most important grocers to the “canallers” during this period were: 

S. Cropley’s Sons Bridge Street and Market Space 

A. H. Bradt, On the Canal near the Coal Elevators 

William A. Offutt and Brother, Bridge and High 

E. T. Lyddane, 115 High Street 

 John Lyddane High and First 

During this latter period the principal businesses near the canal that supplied the boatmen with 

feed were: 

George W. Darby, 221 Bridge Street 

Darby & Johnson, Bridge and Montgomery 

John Dugan & Bros., Bridge and Market 

David B. Jackson, 110 High Street 

William H. Lee, 48 Bridge Street 

Edward Lyddane 81 Water Street 

Thomas Woodward, 35 Jefferson Street194

During the 1870s and 1880s, there were a number of business establishments near the Cumberland basin where the boatmen purchased most of their groceries, provisions, and feed. Groceries 

and staples were generally purchased at: 

Thomas Connell, 122 Wineow Street 

William T. Coulehan, 40 Wineow Street 

Arthur Dawson, 64 Wineow Street 

T. Morris, 116 Wineow Street 

William Murphy, 176 Wineow Street 

John McGinnis, 123 Wineow Street 

 

193 Boyd’s Business Directory of the Cities of Alexandria, Georgetown, and Washington (Washington, 1872), 50–52. 

194 T. H. S. Boyd, The History of Montgomery County, Maryland (Clarksburg, 1879), 145–57 and Boyd’s Directory of 

the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C., 1880), 57–58. 
836 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Feed and hay were usually procured at: 

John J. Humbird, 41 North Center Street 

Smouse & Wilson, 77 North Center Street 

John W. Willison, 7 Glenn Street 

William T. Coulehan, 40 Wineow Street195

H. HAILING PLACE OF BOATMEN 

The hailing place of the boatmen refers to the locality in which they maintained a residence. The 

“canallers” wintered at their homes, but sometimes wives and children lived there year-around. 

According to the canal company register of 1851, in which the homes of all the boatmen were 

listed for the first time, the majority of the “canallers” lived in Cumberland, Georgetown, Williamsport, Alexandria, and New York. The statistical breakdown for the 223 boatmen that registered their vessels that year is as follows: 

Alexandria 14 

Antietam 6 

Baltimore 1 

Barry 1 

Bay State 1 

Berlin 3 

Big Pool 1 

Boston 4 

Brooklyn 1 

Catoctin 1 

Cedar Grove 1 

Cedar Point 1 

Chaney’s Neck 2 

Conrad’s Ferry 1 

Cumberland 41 

Dam No. 3 2 

Dam No. 4 3 

Edwards Ferry 4 

Falling Waters 1 

Georgetown 30 

Glenily 1 

Goose Creek 3 

Hancock 8 

Harpers Ferry 5 

High Rocks 1 

Hock Hill 1 

Honey Wood 1 

Horse Pen 1 

Jefferson County 2 

 

195 Cumberland City Directory, Local Guide, and Business Mirror (Cumberland, 1873), 32, 57; Directory of Cumberland and Allegany County (Cumberland, 1890) 176–177; and Baltimore Evening Sun, August 10, 1937. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 837 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Knoxville 3 

Leesburg 2 

Maryland 1 

Mercerville 5 

Miller’s Basin 2 

Millstone Point 1 

Monocacy 2 

Mount View 1 

New York 14 

Noland’s Ferry 2 

North Bend 2 

Point of Rocks 1 

Potomac Mills 1 

Quarter Branch 1 

Rochester 1 

Seneca 2 

Sharpsburg 1 

Sharpsburg Landing 1 

Shepherdstown 7 

Spring Mill 3 

Springland 1 

Washington 8 

Weverton 2 

Williamsport 17196

The years 1873–74 are the last for which there are available company records listing the hailing 

places of the boatmen. By this time there were 539 “canallers” operating vessels on the waterway. 

 Trade on the canal had nearly reached its zenith by this time for the nationwide depression hit the waterway in 1876, and the commerce never again reached the totals of the early 

1870s. In 1873–74 the majority of the boatmen lived in Cumberland, Williamsport, Sharpsburg, 

Maryland, New York, Bakersville and Hancock. A statistical breakdown of the hailing places of 

the boatmen in those years was as follows: 

Cumberland 162 Knoxville 3 

Williamsport 49 Antietam 3 

Sharpsburg 49 White’s Ferry 3 

New York 36 Sandy Hook 2 

Maryland 27 Berlin 2 

Bakersville 26 Point of Rocks 2 

Hancock 26 Frederick County 2 

Washington County 19 Monocacy 2 

Shepherdstown 13 Edward’s Ferry 1 

Clear Spring 10 Dam No. 4 1 

Seneca 10 Hall Town, Va. 1 

Georgetown 9 Dam No. 5 1 

Four Locks 9 Fair View, Md 1 

Alexandria 8 Gainesville, Va. 1 

 

196 Record of Boat Registrations, 1851–1874, C&O Co. 
838 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

Harpers Ferry 8 Boonsboro 1 

Millstone Point 7 Allegany County 1 

McCoy’s Ferry 6 Oldtown 1 

Cherry Run 5 Jefferson County 1 

Weverton 5 Pennsylvania 1 

Washington 5 Unknown or living on boats 20197

I. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACK BOAT MASTERS 

Although blacks had served as deck hands on canal boats since the canal had been opened to 

navigation, the issue of blacks as boat captains did not arise until 1856. Apparently, several 

blacks either attempted to purchase boats or were hired by the owners of large fleets of vessels to 

be captains of several barges in that year. Upon the complaint of some white boatmen and local 

residents along the waterway, the directors requested the legal opinion of the company counsel, 

W. S. Cox as to the “competency of the Board to limit or prohibit the employment of free Negroes or slaves upon the canal as masters of boats.” In his report on November 7, Cox responded 

that according to his understanding of Maryland statute law there were no applicable acts relative 

to the question of blacks as masters of boats. Accordingly, the board approved a measure on December 10 requiring that all boats navigating the canal after January 1, 1857, have “at least one 

white person above the age of 18 years, who shall act as master.”198

Although a formal declaration by the board abrogating the racial ban against black barge 

masters could not be found, there was some relaxation of the policy in the post-Civil War Era. 

Undoubtedly, the change was a direct result of the outcome of the national conflict and the subsequent adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. However, it is 

interesting to note that no blacks were enrolled as barge captains on the company boat registers 

until January 1878, 1st. In that year, four blacks were listed in that category as follows: 

CAPTAIN BOAT NAME BOAT OWNER EMPLOYER____ 

Louis Roberson Viola H. Weir John T. Dixon New Central Coal 

Wilson Middleton Dr. F. N. Davis T. H. Davis New Central Coal 

Kirk Fields John W. Carder Frank Darkey Hampshire Coal 

J. M. Johnson John Sammon Michael Ouigley Maryland Coal199

J. RELIGION ON THE TOWPATH 

Although there probably were a number of mission efforts directed toward the canal boatmen by 

various religious societies and institutions along the canal, three such endeavors are deserving of 

note. They are the establishment of Grace Episcopal Church in Georgetown in 1855, the holding 

of Sunday School services in Cumberland in the 1880s, and the opening of the Mission on the 

Towpath just above the Potomac Aqueduct in 1894. 

1. Grace Episcopal Church 

 

197 Ibid. 198 Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors I, 303, 319. It is interesting to note that this issue arose on the 

canal about the same time that the controversial and much heralded Dred Scott Case was before the United States Supreme Court. 

199 Register of Boats Employed on the Canal, January 1, 1878, C & O Co. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 839 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

In 1855 three members of the vestry of St. John’s Episcopal in Georgetown, Messrs. Thomas, 

Rittenhouse, and Ridgely, became interested in starting a mission for the numerous sailors and 

canal boatmen who frequented the Georgetown waterfront. Through their efforts and at their personal expense, a small frame church was built on what is now Wisconsin Avenue below M Street. 

Rev Henderson Suter, later the rector of Christ Church at Alexandria, established a Sunday 

School in connection with the mission, and regular services were held there with the assistance of 

several students from the Virginia Theological Seminary at Alexandria. One of the students, who 

was the son of the former rector at St. John’s, was largely responsible for the growth of the congregation. Henry D. Cooke, a one-time vestryman at St. John’s and a wealthy member of the 

banking firm of Jay Cooke & Company, soon became interested in the work of the mission. In 

1865 he bought two lots on Brickyard Hill (presently 1041 Wisconsin Avenue) and made possible 

the construction and furnishing of the present church edifice with a personal donation of $25,000. 

For some years all of the operating expenses of the mission were borne by St. John’s. Later the 

work was taken over by Christ Church, Georgetown, and eventually Grace Episcopal Church became an independent parish.200 

2. American Sunday School Union 

In the late 1880s, the canal company granted a permit to the American Sunday School Union to 

hold Sabbath classes on an abandoned boat near Cumberland. The classes were taught by a local 

woman, and both adults and children were welcome. Attendance averaged about 35 per week. It 

is likely that similar classes were held in many of the towns along the canal for the benefit of the 

“canallers.” 201

3. Mission on the Towpath 

The Mission On The Towpath was established in 1874 by Mrs. S. E. Safford for canal men and 

their families about 1⁄4 mile above the Potomac Aqueduct. The mission was located in a low, onestory brick building “almost under the eaves of the Independent Ice Company” that had served 

originally as the office of the Foxhall Foundry. Here the boatmen’s children were taught to read 

and write, and the adults were instructed in industrial arts and assisted in locating temporary 

housing in winter when the canal was closed to navigation. Sometime after 1905 the mission was 

moved to another building on the old Foxhall Foundry site. In December 1913, the mission was 

closed, due in part to the reduced number of boats operating on the waterway.202

K. CANAL SONGS 

Although most of the boatmen’s songs were never written down or collected, the words of several 

tunes appeared in an article in the Baltimore Evening Sun of August 13, 1937. In the article Lee 

McCardell, the writer, interviewed a number of former boatmen, canal employees, and valley inhabitants during the sesquicentennial celebration at Cumberland. 

 

200 One Hundred and Fifty years in the Life of St. John’s Church, Georgetown (Washington, D.C., 1946), 143; Mary 

Mitchell, Divided Town (Barre, 1968), 139; Washington Evening Star, October 14, 1870; and Rose Trexler Mitchell, 

comp., Parish Register of Grace Protestant Episcopal Church, Georgetown, D.C., 1863–1900 1963, iv–v. 

201 Misc. Mss., C & O Co. 

202 Washington Evening Star, July 11, 1905, and Thomas F. Hahn, Towpath Guide to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, 

Section One (Rev. ed., York 1974), 18. 
840 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

One of the songs noted in the article was a three-verse ditty that Sam Graham, the captain 

of the Rufus Stride, had composed on his numerous journeys along the waterway. The last two 

lines of each verse were dedicated to his mule team, which usually had been driven by one of his 

three sons–Jake, Ben, or Charlie the words of the song were as follows: 

Comin’ down the Big Pool, 

Water mighty wide, 

Pitch out your Quarter 

To see the cat fly; 

Captain, Captain, 

A quarter mighty small, 

Pitch out your pocketbook 

Manifest an’all! 

An’ a ram-jam now, 

Git alon, Old Bones! 

I come down to Williamsport, 

Seven o’clock at night, 

And the first word I heerd 

Was a ‘what boat’s that?’ 

A left foot an’ lousy 

Just gettin’ fat . . . . 

(Editor’s Note-Censored! 

We can’t print that) 

An’ a ram-jam now, 

Git along, Old Bones! 

I come down the Log Wall 

An’ give a mighty yell. 

The hames ketched a fire 

an’ the driver ketched hell. 

The captain played the fiddle 

An’ the steersman played the flute. 

An’ the cook poured coffee 

In the Old Man’s boot! 

An’ a ram-jam now 

Git alon, Old Bones! 

One of the most popular songs among the boatmen was the jingle “Johnny Howard,” a ballad 

about a young canal hand who was hung on St. Patrick’s Day for the brutal murder of his boat captain at the Oldtown Cut. The words of this doleful tune, of which only a few were still in the memory of the boatmen that McCardell interviewed, were as follows: 

 Johnny Howard 

His name was Johnny Howard 

And a nice young man was he, 

he boated on the water 

For many a night and day . . . 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 841 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

(One night at the Oldtown Cut the captain 

came on deck with a hatchet in his hand and announced) 

Johnny, before I take water, 

One of us must die . . . 

(Whereupon Johnny picked up a spreader stick and 

laid the captain low. He was scared but a black hand 

driving the mules reassured him:) 

The Negro said, Johnny, You 

need not run away, 

For I will swear it self-defense 

Upon that fatal day. 

One other song is mentioned in the article by McCardell. The ballad had four verses but the 

words to only one stanza were given: 

I’ve waded through many a valley 

I’ve traveled the tall mountain hill, 

But there’s nothing my spirit can rally 

Like the breadth of old Sideling Hill.203

L. STORIES AND REMINISCENCES OF CANAL DAYS 

There are a number of sources of colorful stories about life along the canal during its operating 

period as well as reminiscences about canal days by former canal employees and boatmen. 

Among the most interesting and entertaining sources are: 

1. There are a series of taped conversations with 14 former boatmen and canal employees 

on file at the Harpers Ferry Training Center and at the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park Headquarters. 

2. The only recorded manuscript of a journey on the waterway during the canal’s operating period was written by an anonymous unemployed New England man who served on 

the crew of a barge on a round-trip voyage from Cumberland to Alexandria and return in 

1859. About thirty years later, he wrote his memories of the voyage. The anonymous 

manuscript reached the City Library Association of Springfield, Massachusetts, at an unknown date, and in 1923, it was given to the Library of Congress. The manuscript was 

first edited by Ella E. Clark and published in the Maryland Historic Magazine, in June 

1960, and in 1975 it was reprinted as a booklet under the title Life on the Chesapeake & 

Ohio Canal 1859 edited by Ella E. Clark and Thomas F. Hahn. 

3. A number of colorful stories about the persons associated with the canal as well as its 

operation are found in George Hooper Wolfe, who worked as a hand on a boat crew in 

his youth during the waning years of the canal’s operation, relates some of the most interesting occurrences, tales, and legends that are associated with life along the canal. 

 

203 Baltimore Evening Sun, August 13, 1937. 
842 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

4. Sprinkled throughout the Towpath Guide to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal by Thomas 

F. Hahn are numerous stories of fiction and fact concerning life along the canal during its 

operating period. 

5. In the Baltimore Evening Sun of August 10–12, 1937, there are two extensive interviews with Captain Charlie (Scott) Eaton of Cumberland and Captain Denton (Dent) 

Shupp of Williamsport. Both of these interviews by Lee McCardell consist of rambling 

reminiscences concerning the boatmen’s and lock keeper’s lives along the waterway. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 843 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

APPENDIX A 

CA. OCT. 1828 

SPECIFICATION OF A LOCK KEEPERS HOUSE 

MASONRY—The building to be of stone and to be 30 x 18 feet over the walls, with a cellar under the kitchen part 6 feet in the clear, with a floor of earth, the walls to be 22 inches thick, and 

have a projection on the outside of 6 inches all round, and at least one course of stone high the 

cellar door to have stone steps, and a locust frame with grooves to receive the doors, which are to 

have substantial strap hinges and be fastened in the usual way with a padlock; there will be a 

window on each side consisting of a single sash each of 10 x 12 glass & 3 lights in width, each to 

shut in an oaken frame, the sash, to have hinges, to open upwards. 

PRINCIPAL STORY—The floor to be 2 feet above the surface of ground; the walls to be 20 

inches thick, and that part not over the cellar to have a footing of stone all around of 6 inches 

more, one course of stone high, the space between the ground and the bottom of floor to have 3 

slits in each side, 9 x 4 inches, to be covered with perforated iron or copper plates, to exclude 

vermin, and admit air, under the end where there is no cellar: the height in the clear of the story to 

be 8 feet between floor & ceiling. 

ATTIC STORY—The walls to be 18 inches thick and three feet high from the top of floor to the 

square: The peak of the roof to be 6 feet above side walls: The stone to be laid in clay mortar excepting 3 inches on the outside of the walls above ground and the inside of the cellar which 3 

inches is to be good lime mortar and well pointed. 

CHIMNEY STALK—To be begun as near the surface of the ground as a good foundation can be 

obtained, one side to be supported by the cross wall of cellar, the foundation to be of stone 8 x 4 

feet to top of arch of oven where it will be 6 x 4 feet the stalk may be of brick or stone; if built of 

stone, the openings of the fireplaces, the insides of the flues, & the oven should be of brick; and 

the top above the roof should be hammered; or built of hard bricks, and good mortar: the kitchen 

flue to be 18 x 12 and that of the parlor 12 x 12 inches after they are plastered. The outside doors 

to have stone sills, and stone steps; the window sills should be of stone, or locust painted and 

sanded. All the lintels of the doors & windows are to be of stone. 

CARPENTER WORK—Joists of first floor to be 3 x 9 inches: of 2d floor 3 x 8 inches. Floors, to 

be of 1 1⁄4 heart pine planed and tongued and grooved. Doors to be of 1 1⁄4 heart pine not to exceed 

6 inches in width to be battened and fastened with wrought nails the outside doors, to have jamb 

casings of 2 inch heart pine, let into the sills and framed at the top the outside doors to have substantial strap hinges put on with screws, the front door to have a good stock lock, and the kitchen 

door an inside bolt, the parlor door to be furnished with a good 7 inch nob lock, all the rest of the 

doors to have thumb latches. 

Windows Those in the principal story to have 10 x 12 glass, those in the upper story to have 8 x 

10 glass: The casings to be 1 1/4 inch yellow pine plank. 

A sash of 10 x 12 glass is to be put over the front door to light the entry. 
844 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

ROOF—To have 10 pairs of rafters, 4 inches deep at top and 6 inches at lower end and three 

inches thick to be framed together at top and be secured by a brace at a point on the rafter that 

will afford a clear head way of 6 feet 4 inches in the attic story; the horizontal slope of foot of 

rafters to project 6 inches over the face of the wall & to have a plansier or casing, spiked to them, 

to extend to face of wall, the shingles to project 4 inches over that, making in all 10 inches of projection; the lower ends of rafters to be notched into a wall plate, and spiked to it; said wall plate to 

be 4 inches thick, and spiked to pieces of 3 x 4 scantling; built angling into top of wall, a rafter of 

1 1⁄2 inch plank to be built in the center of gables to project like the others: Sheeting, to be 3/4 

boards, laid close, the shingles to be cypress, of good quality 18 inches long, & to show 5 1⁄2 

inches to the weather & not less than 4 inches wide [here a word is missing due to torn ms., but it 

is probably] and 5/8 thick. 

CARPENTER WORK OF INSIDE—The inside doors to have plain jamb casings; the 

washboards and surface to be plain, only single beaded; the mantle pieces to have plain pilasters, 

and moldings to support the shelf: The spaces to the right & left of front entry to have stud partitions, the space between chimney stalk & back wall to have a two inch plank partition, the space 

between the fireplace and door of stairway to be stud partition the stair to be plain with a nosing. 

The partition separating the rooms in attic story, to be 1 1⁄2 inch plank: The small closet to be finished in a plain manner. 

PLASTERING—The ceilings, and stud partitions, to be lathed and those, as well as the walls to 

be finished with three coats of good lime mortar, made with glue and proper proportions of good 

clean sand. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 845 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

APPENDIX B 

CA. OCT. 1828 

ESTIMATE OF THE EXPENSE OF A LOCKKEEPERS HOUSE 

Stone and Brick 

60 Cubic yards digging in foundation @ $ .20 per yd. 12.00

124 Perches stone laid in clay, 3 inches in lime mortar @ $ 2.50 per p. 310.00

4000 Bricks of good quality laid in lime mortar @ $10.00 per m. 40.00

60 Running feet blue stone in steps, lintels & sills @ $ .25 per ft. 15.00

Lumber 

3250 Feet common white pine plank @ $ .50 per 100 ft. 48.75

1822 Feet 4/5 hart pine @ $ 2.75 per m. 50.18

4000 Shingles @ $10.00 per m. 40.00

150 Pounds of nails @ $ .08 12.00

Hardware 17.62

Workmanship 

8 Squares flooring including laying joists roof A 4.00 per s. 32.00

Roof 32.56

6 Doors at 3.75 = $22.50 + 2 mantle pieces at $8 30.50

330 Feet washboard & surface a 4¢ = $13.20 + stair at $11 24.20

150 Feet partitions at 5¢ = $7.50 + Closet at $6.00 13.50

7 Windows = $42 + cellar door and frames at $7.50 49.50

Plastering on walls A 22¢ per yd. 32.50

Plastering on laths A 30¢ per yd. 34.80

Painting 30.00

Crane for fireplace 3.50

$828.46

Drawings and other Records Concerning Construction, C & O Co. 
846 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

APPENDIX C 

FEBRUARY 10, 1836 

SPECIFICATION FOR A LOCK-KEEPERS HOUSE (30 BY 18 FEET) 

TO BE ERECTED ON THE LINE OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL. 

MASONRY—The building to be of brick or stone, at the option of the contractor. 

CELLAR—There will be a cellar under the whole house, six feet in the clear, with a floor of 

earth. The cellar walls will be of stone, 22 inches thick, and shall project 2 inches outside of and 

around the building. The foundation course of these cellar walls shall project 6 inches outside of 

the 22 inches. The level of the foundation walls shall be at least one foot below the cellar floor. 

The cellar door shall have some steps, and a locust frame, with substantial strap hinges, and fastened in the usual way with a padlock. There will be two windows in the cellar, one on each side 

of the house, consisting each of a single six light sash of 8 by 10 glass, shutting in a locust frame, 

the sash having hinges to open upwards. From the cellar there shall be a good and sufficient 

drain, protected by an iron grate. 

CHIMNEY—The chimney shall be in the middle of the building; its foundation shall be on level 

with the cellar walls, and may be either brick or stone; no wood shall be used to support the 

chimney, unless at such distance below the hearths, as shall, in the opinion of the Engineer, be 

safe from fire. Above the floor of the principal story the chimney shall be of brick. 

PRINCIPAL STORY—The principal story will be eight feet in the clear between the floor and

ceiling, and its walls will be 14 1⁄4 inches if of brick and 20 inches if of stone. The walls of the 

attic story, lengthwise of the building, will be the same thickness as the principal story. The end 

walls of the attic will only be 9 inches if of brick and 12 inches if of stone. From the top of the 

chamber floor to the square will be 3 1⁄2 feet. The peak of the roof will be six feet above the side 

walls. In the clear, between the floor and ceiling of the attic, will be six feet three inches. 

ROOMS—There will be two rooms in each story. The washboards and surface will be plain. To 

each of the two lower rooms, there shall be an outer door; there shall also be a door leading from 

one to the other of these rooms. There shall be a door for the stairs leading from one story to the 

other; and also between the two upper rooms. 

DOORS—The doors (five in number, exclusive of the cellar door) shall all be plain paneled, each 

having a Pennsylvania or German lock, with iron handles. The outside doors will have locust sills 

and locust lintels; they will have jamb casings of two inch heart pine let into the sills, and framed 

at top; they shall also have substantial strap hinges, put on with screws. 

WINDOWS—In the lower story there will be five windows of twelve lights, 10 by 12. In the upper story there will be four windows of nine lights each, 10 by 12, glass. The casings will be of 1 

1⁄4 inch yellow pine plank. The sills and lintels will be of locust. 

PLASTERING—The whole interior of the building above the cellar shall be plastered, except the 

partition separating the two rooms in the attic story, which will be of 1 1⁄2 inch plank. The plaster 

shall be finished in the most durable manner, with two coats. 
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 847 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

STAIRS AND CLOSETS—The stairs will be plain, and of such rise, and tread, and width, as the 

Engineer may direct. The closets, two in number, one in each of the lower two rooms, will be finished in a plain manner, with battened doors. 

FIREPLACES—There will be two fireplaces, one in each of the lower rooms; each having a 

mantelpiece, with two pilasters; an iron crane shall be put in the kitchen fireplace. 

JOISTS—The joists of the first floor shall be three by twelve inches; of the second, three by ten 

inches; sixteen inches apart, from center to center, of good yellow pine. 

FLOORS—The floors are to be 1 1⁄4 inch heart pine, planed, and tongued and grooved. 

ROOF—The roof will have sixteen pairs of rafters, five inches deep at the top, and eight inches 

deep at the lower end, and three inches thick, framed together at top, and secured by a collar seam 

at the point that shall give the required height of six feet three inches in the clear in the upper 

story. The method of securing the foot of the rafters shall be in the most substantial manner, by 

means of wad plates properly connected with the top of the brick work, of not less than four 

inches in thickness and nine inches in width. The projection over the wall, and the finish at the 

foot of the rafters, shall be such as to present a workmanship appearance. The sheathings will be 

of three-fourth inch board, laid close; the shingles of the best quality of cypress, eighteen inches 

long, showing 5 1⁄2 inches to weather, and not less than four inches wide and five-eighths thick. 

PAINTING—All of the woodwork outside shall have three coats, and the inside two coats of the 

best English white lead oil paint, well put on. 

MATERIALS &C.—The quality of the brick and of the stone work of the whole building shall be 

such as the Engineer shall approve of; and the bond, also, of the brick and stone work shall be 

such as he shall direct. 

 The whole of the masonry, from the foundation up, shall be laid in good and approved 

lime mortar, except 1 1⁄2 feet in height at the top of the stone masonry, which shall be laid in mortar made of the best water cement. 

PLAN—A plan shall be furnished by the Engineer to the contractor, showing the exact position 

of doors, windows, closets, etc. 
848 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

APPENDIX D 

COPY OF A REGISTER OF FINES COLLECTED 

ON THE CANAL BETWEEN 1877–1880 

DATE BOAT CAPTAIN OFFENCE FINE 

May 30, 

1877 

Ed Bayer & 

H. C. Clamohan 

Thomas 

Fisher Passing through lock without waybill $10.00

Oct. 22, 

1877 

R. Cropley’s 

scow Knock out gate in Lock No. 5 $25.00

Nov. 12, 

1877 Five Bros. Joseph Little Run into crib at Lock No. 9 $10.00

Jun 3, 1878 Ludlow Patton 

Shutting off fire while filling level and 

locking through without permission $10.00

Jul 4, 1878 John Sherman Unloading and raising $62.70

Aug 30, 

1878 

Steamer 

Scrivenes 

Allowing the Bertha M. Young in tow 

to sink on Level 36 and abandoning her 

at night without giving notice, causing 

navigation to be suspended 36 hrs. 

$50.00

May 5, 

1879 W. J. Booth Jacob Hooker Running into and breaking gate at Lock No. 40 $40.00

Jan 14, 

1880 

Harry & 

Ralph Running into gate at Darbey’s Lock $5.00

Jan 17, 

1880 P. Heim Mertens Running into gate at Lock No. 61 $10.00

Jun 1880 Walter 

Thompson 

Running into and breaking gate at Lock 

No. 75 $25.00

Apr 24, 

1880 Five Bros. Joseph Little 3⁄4 day pumping by Jacob Sheets and by Adam Keefer $1.50

Apr 25, 

1880 Five Bros. Joseph Little Pumping boat 2 days – 2 men @ $2 per day $4.00

Apr 29, 

1880 

Adam 

Sherman Capt. Bowers Pumping boat 1 hand, 11⁄2 day @ $1 per day $1.50

May 14, 

1880 

Laura P. 

Agnew Capt. Hedely Services 1 hand, 2 days @ $1 per day $2.00

May 27, 

1880 G. W. Kscdr Poffenberger Pumping $5.50

May 28, 

1880 G. W. Kscdr Poffenberger Pumping $5.50

May 29, 

1880 G. W. Kscdr Poffenberger Pumping $4.40

June 12, 

1880 G. L. Booth Pumping $4.40

June 18, 

1880 Mollie Pumping 21⁄2 days @ $1.10 per day $2.75

June 19, 

1880 

City of Hamburg Pumping 2 men 1⁄2 day each $1.10
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study 849 

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen 

June 19, 

1880 

City of Hamburg Pumping 4 men 1⁄2 day each $2.20

June 26, 

1880 

A. J. 

McAllister Pumping 21⁄2 days @ $1.10 $2.75

June 27, 

1880 

Annie & 

Lizzie Pumping 11⁄2 days @ $1.10 $1.65

June 28, 

1880 

Annie & 

Lizzie 

Pumping 2 hands $2.20

July 14, 

1880 G. T. Gertell Pumping and bailing $6.40

Aug 16, 

1880 F. Gorman Pumping $1.10

Aug 19, 

1880 

Hatton & 

Bessin 

Capt. Sharman Pumping $3.30

Aug 22, 

1880 

Ernst & Holland Tying up on towpath $5.00

Aug 28, 

1880 

Harris 

McDonald Pumping $2.20

Aug 30, 

1880 U. S. Bracher Pumping $4.40

Sept 2, 

1880 G. M. Ryan Hoisting water and slamming gate $5.00

Sept 2, 

1880 Stonebreaker Hoisting water and slamming gate $5.00

Oct 24, 

1880 Joseph Clark Laying on towpath $5.00

Oct 24, 

1880 

O. of Sheridan Line Running into gate at Darbey’s Lock $5.00

Nov 2, 

1880 W. H. Lowe Laying on towpath $5.00

Nov 2, 

1880 

Denton 

Prather Laying on towpath $5.00
850 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Historic Resource Study

Unrau: 12. Lockkeepers and Boatmen