PHILLIPS ACADEMY
‘0#
OLI VER-WENDELL- HOLMES
LI B R ARY
aS altiorcL- ^
I-
V
i
K
I* •
i
r
V
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Economics and Political Science Series, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp, 167-439
A a)NGRESS10NAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS IN THE
UNITED STATES TO 1850
/
BY
LEWIS HENRY HANEY, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor of Eeoyiomics, UJiiversity of Iowa
A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OP DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
190C
PvMished bi-monthly by authority of law with the approval of the Regents of the University and entered at the post office at Madison as second-class matter
MADISON. WISCONSIN April, 1903
1 i ,/
rREFACE
The author wishes to express his indebtedness to the inspira¬ tion received from Prof. P. J. Turner, to the advice of Prof. Richard T. Ely and of Prof. B. H. Meyer, and to the faithful help of his wife.
Upon the work of Mr. R. J. Usher in the Congressional docu¬ ments partly depends the accuracy of the foot-note references and the exhaustiveness of the material.
Iowa City, la.
Fehruary 18, 1908.
Lewis H. Haney.
CONTENTS
r
BOOK I— RISE OF THE RAILWAY QUESTION
PAGE
CHAPTER I. — The Railway Enters Congress: Plans and Projects
The beginning of the movement for Railways — Latrobe’s Re¬ port — Oliver Evans and his Open Letter to Congress — Dearborn’s Petition — Roger’s Marine Railway — John Stevens; Government experiments proposed — Strickland’s Report to the Pennsylvania Society for the promotion of Internal Improvements — The first commercial railways:
The South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company . 181
CHAPTER II.— The Railway Enters Congress: Early Ideas Concerning Structure and Utility Track, description and cost of kinds proposed by Stevens, Evans, Strickland, Charleston and Hamburg, etc. — “The American System” of construction — Locomotives, Speed, Cars, Gen¬ eral Utility and Future, Conclusion .
CHAPTER III. — Cost oe Transportation and Rates of Toll Estimates of cost — Actual rates — Maximum rates — Maxi¬ mum rates of significance — Rates to be based on cost..
CHAPTER IV.— Railways versus Canals: 1830-1840
Railways did not find a clear field — The House inquires: 1825 — Congress experiments: 1830 — B. & O. versus C. & O. — The controversy typical of the times — Movement from canals to railways — Exceptions — The railway predomi¬ nant — Summary of arguments for and against railways — Early railways not regarded as merely auxiliary to canals
[3]
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER V. — Railways Supersede Roads as a Nation' al Im¬ provement
Roads or Railways? — Steam on common roads — (Note on steam carriagfes) — The Buffalo-New Orleans Road Bill — Movement to change Cumberland Road to a railway (de¬ bate and vote) — Railways supersede turnpikes in the mail service — General summary and conclusion . 223
CHAPTER VI.- The Railway and Society
Railways different from canals and turnpikes in economic ef¬ fects — Railways monopolistic — The Camden & Amboy — Railw’ays undemocratic — Not regarded as subject to same economic laws as turnpikes — Railways and the Union .... 241
CHAPTER VII.— The Railway and the Government
Agitation for government construction — Construction not to include ownership or operation — About 1822 government ownership and operation became a political impossibility —
Railways regarded as a possible investment — Movement for government ownership: Pacific Railways — The Move¬ ment not general — Government regulation, six grounds for it — Chronological Summary . 251
BOOK II.— AID TO RAILWAYS
CHAPTER VIII. — General Internal Improvement Funds The year 1825, factors for making internal improvements — Bills and resolutions for an internal improvement fund — (1) Rail¬ ways not specifically mentioned — (2) Railways specifically mentioned — National Internal Improvements lose favor... 263
CHAPTER IX. — Government Surveys
The General Survey Bill: 1824 — The first railway route sur¬ veyed: 1825-26 — Surveys become frequent — Charges of corruption —The Act of 1824 repealed: 1837-38 — Discus¬ sion of the various surveys — (Appendix containing a list of surveys made or proposed under act of 1824)
[I I
270
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER X. — Monetary Aid
Different relationships involved in stock subscriptions and di¬ rect monetary donations — Early stock subscriptions in works of internal improvement — The movement for stock subscriptions to railways — Early appropriations donated to internal improvements — Proposed donations to rail¬ ways — Summary and conclusion . 289
CHAPTER XI.— Import Duties and Railway Iron
Early import duties on iron — Condition of the iron industry, importance of iron imports to railways — The movement for free railway iron: 1826-1832 — Debates of 1827-28 — Drawback of 1830 — Free railway iron bill passes: 1832 — Conditions between 1832 and 1841 . . . 298
CHAPTER XII. — Import Duties and Railway Iron — (Con¬ tinued)
The act of 1832 repealed — The tariff act of 1842 — Conditions between 1842 and 1846: rails versus railways — The railway lobby develops — The tariff of 1846 — Report on Memphis Convention’s memorial — Summary and conclusions . 308
CHAPTER XIII.— The Mail Service and Aid to Railways An important point of contact between government and railways — Relations of regulation and aid — Analysis of latter — An account of the movement for a system of con¬ tracts — By 1850 the free mail service idea abandoned . 318
CHAPTER XIV.— Land Grants: Introductory and Early History
A concise account of developments down to 1830, the idea being to account for political conditions which confronted the early railways . 327
CHAPTER XV.— Land Grants: Rights of Way Through Public Lands
Early grants — General grants proposed: 1834-37 — First right of way granted — General law: 1852 — Significance of grants of rights of way to railways .
[51
331.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XVI. — Land Grants: Pre-emption Rights
No pre-emption bill passed — Proposals most numerous: 1835- 36 — Vote on Mt. Carmel and New Albany pre-emption bill — Senate report favors Solma-Tennessee bill — General pre¬ emption bill fails: 1818-19 — The “New” States — Signifi¬ cance of pre-emption rights .
CHAPTER XVII, — Land Grants: Certain Percentages of the Proceeds of Land Sales
Early grants for roads and canals: 1802-1820 — No grants: 1820- 1836 — Some proposals — ■ States seek possession of 2 per cent funds — Five per cent of certain funds granted to Mississippi and Alabama: 1836 — Debate over giving 2 per cent fund to Mississippi — Bill for Alabama passes Senate — 2 per cent funds granted to Mississippi and Ala¬ bama: 1841 — Five per cent to Iowa on admission — Resolu¬ tions of Arkansas and Missouri . 348
CHAPTER XVIII. — Land Grants. Donations of Land Other Than Rights of Way
The Mt. Carmel and New Albany, chronological account of the efforts to obtain a donation — Conclusions from this account — Early proposals for donations to railways — The first donation authorized for a railway: 1833 — Movement for donations grows in volume: 1833-40 — The Pre-emption Act of 1841 — Break in the movement — Revives and in¬ creases — Illinois Central donation: 1850 — Discussion of economic forces, and conclusions concerning the general movement, illustrated by chart showing number of miles of line constructed each year and receipts from land sales 354
CHAPTER XIX. — The Congressional Philosophy of Land Grants to Railways
Arguments of 1836 versus those of 1846 — The proprietor argu¬ ment— The homestead idea — Land Grant and Homestead policies not in conflict — Arguments against land grants
and answers: 1848 — The influence of sectional interests _
(1) Internal improvements and railways — (2) The public domain . 3Q9
page
342
[6]
CONTENTS
BOOICIII.— RAILWAYS TO THE PACIFIC
PART I
ISTHMIAN PROJECTS
PAGE
CHAPTER XX. — History of Isthmian Transportation Projects WITH Especial Regard to Railways Introductory account of transportation projects under Spain — Quasi-private projects of foreign interests: 1827-50 —
United States takes a hand — Mission of Col. Biddle — Isthmian railways of great national importance: 18IG —
The Rockwell Report: 1849 — Accessory Transit Com¬ pany — Conclusion . 386
PART II
TRANS CONTINENTAL LINES
CHAPTER XXI. — Origin and Growth of the Pacific Railway Idea
Forces leading up to the idea — Birth of the idea: 1835-45 — Growth of the idea in Congress and out: 1845-50 — The idea becomes generally accepted: 1850 — Asiatic trade —
Pacific railways . 400
CHAPTER XXII. — Private Projects
Asa Whitney’s plan — Critical examination of the plan — The plan in Congress — Whitney’s motives and service — Hart¬ well Carver’s scheme — De Grand — Extension of Galves¬ ton and Red River R. R. . . : . 409
CHAPTER XXIII. — Government Ownership Proposed
Factors for government ownership — Wilke’s memorial — Gold and government railways — Benton’s national central high¬ way— Walker’s incipient measures . 425
[7]
' a;*
s
INTRODUCTION
Without attempting to define the railway problem, it may be broadly stated that this problem is a social one: whether it be regarded as one of relatively reasonable rates or of absolutely reasonable rates, the welfare and best development of society are the end and solution of the matter. The truth of this some¬ what sweeping generalization no one will deny, yet it is too often forgotten, and the end lost in a jumble of means. To remedy this condition and throw a broader light upon the trans¬ portation question, there is much need that the matter be placed in its proper historical setting, and that is the aim of a study like the present.
It follows from the fact that the question is a social one that it is also political. While relations existing between transpor¬ tation agencies and what, by way of analogy, is called the social organism are more fundamental, they involve relations to the political institutions through which that organism acts; and so, though we are finally interested in the connection between rail¬ ways and you or me, we are immediately concerned with their connection with our government. But this connection is not a fixed, permanent relationship. It has its history; it has grown and changed in the past; it will grow and change in the future. In a word, the railway problem is relative, and not the least helpful phase of a congressional history of railways is that which emphasises this relativity.
The transportation system of the United States is an evolu¬ tion : from the trail to the railway traclv there has been a cer¬ tain continuity in change. The railway passed and partly superseded the highway, the canal, and the river as a means of transportation, these falling into subordinate places in the nation’s aggregate of facilities for conveyance and communi¬ cation. Naturally men met the railway in the light of experi¬ ence and many ideas concerning its nature and operation were
INTRODUCTION
■crude and erroneous. To understand aright the reception of the railway and its early history, in Congress and out, it is necessary to Imow men’s ideas on railway technics and their reasons for those ideas. In brief, to write a good history of railways one could not begin with the railway, for it was and is but a part in a complex of transportation agencies.
The period covered extends from the earliest mention of rail¬ ways in Congress down to 1850, a date which, as Hadley says, ended the years of railway infancy.^ This period in its turn may be divided at the year 1830, when steam was adopted as the motive power in this country, — the years prior to that date being ones of plans, prophecies, and origins; those succeeding it forming a period of infancy, grovTh, and perfection. For several reasons the greater period has such unity and definite¬ ness that a volume has been devoted to it and strictly confined within its limits.
In the first place, by about 1850 there had come a truer con¬ ception of the nature and functions of railways. Again, this truer conception was itself largely due to the technical progress and railway extension of the time. The close of the half cen¬ tury sa’w the railway net fast extending toward the Mississippi river. It was an epoch of rapid railway construction and the beginning of consolidation. Connected with this condition, partly as cause and partly as effect, was the beginning of the system of huge land donations w^hich the year 1850 marked. Then there was the discovery of gold in 1848 which wms a powerful factor in opening the West and stimulating industry; it encouraged projects for a railway to the Pacific and brought up questions of government ownership. Finally, it was at this time that the states, beginning with New York, began to pass general laws of incorporation. This was brought to pass partly no doubt by the spread of laissez faire doctrines and partly by the prevalence of lobbying and corruption, the growth of which state of affairs occurred during our period. Then, too, the national government illustrates the same tendency by passing a general law providing for rights of way to railways at about
^ Railroad Transportation, p. 12.
[10]
INTRODUCTION
this time. These general laws indicate the multiplication of railways which came about 1850.
As sources for a congressional history it is natural to turn to the published proceedings of Congress, and the House and Senate Journals, Debates of Congress, Congressional Globe, and the reports to Congress form the great source for the present history. Locked up in the piles of calf-bound Reports of Com¬ mittees, Executive Documents, and the like, there is a vast amount of material dealing with railways, and one object has been simply to exploit this material in a systematic way. Our attitude has been to a great extent passive — following where this material leads, not attempting to force it into the mould of preconceived notions.
The title, A Congressional History of Railways m the United States, suggests the two-fold character of the work. On the one hand, there is the railway, and much interesting and valuable matter concerning early railways, their structure and develop¬ ment, has been found in the documents. Here, as elsewhere, the chief attention has been given to this material with the idea of tracing those forces which directly actuated congressmen on the transportation question; but other sources, as contempor¬ ary books and newspapers, have been used. On the other hand, there is Congress. Perhaps it is hardly worth while to distin¬ guish the history of the railway in Congress from that of Con¬ gress and the railway, but it is the latter aspect which empha¬ sises the political and legislative side. By reason of this aspect the study necessarily takes on considerable breadth, embracing the great social and economic issues of the time. Thus land policies, internal improvements, the tariff, and the slavery ques¬ tion are all involved — and very directly involved, too — and fur¬ ther complication results from the fact that varied economic in¬ terests give rise to sections which take sides on these questions. South Carolina, for instance, wants neither federal internal im¬ provements nor a protective tariff; what then will be her atti¬ tude toJward a proposal to aid railways by remitting duties on imports of railway iron? Will she favor a step toward free trade at the expense of an extension of the activity of Congress ?
The material for the solution of such questions clearly has
[11]
INTRODUCTION
considerable value for the student of United States history, and it is believed that some light is thrown upon them, if not in the line of new residts, yet by way of clarifying and confirming such conclusions as have already been drawn.
It will be observed that all the relations existing between so¬ ciety, through government, and railways may be summed up under the two heads: aid and regulation. The granting of aid, it is believed, tends to regulation; whether regulation tends to cause grants of aid is a cpiestioii the answer to which our ma¬ terial does not make clear. Throughout the period to be dis¬ cussed there was a legitimate demand for more railways in most parts of the country. This demand, as distinguished from that of the present day, was for more railways rather than better ones — it was quantitative rather than qualitative. The exis¬ tence of such a demand was a strong incentive to government aid, and it was especially strong as an effective political issue in times prior to 1830 and again from 1845 on, those times be¬ ing fraught with fear as to the ability of the Union to hold to¬ gether an expanding country. But, aid being granted, did Con¬ gress make stipulations in the way of regulating the rates or service of the railways benefited? This is a question of fact to be answered only by a careful study of the congressional his- torv'^ of railways.
[12]
I
BOOK I
KISE OF THE KAILWAY QUESTION
A CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS IN THE
UNITED STATES TO 1850
CHAPTER I
THE RAILWAY ENTERS CONGRESS: PLANS ANH
PROJECTS
The Beginning op the Movement for Railroads*
Within' the first three decades of the nineteenth century, the modern system of steam railway transportation was horn. It did not come full-fiedged, however, nor was it without fore¬ runners. In England, as early as the sixteenth century, ways were fitted with flagstones in order to lessen friction. Later strips of wood were used; these in turn were reinforced with strips of iron, till in 1776 a tramway of iron rails was con¬ structed. During the eighteenth century there 'were experi¬ ments with steam locomotion in France and in England. But, roughly speaking, only after 1800 were economic conditions ripe for the change, and then the genius of Stephenson appeared. There Avere numerous experiments with steam traction, on rail¬ ways and common roads, and men like Cugnot, Murdoch, Trev¬ ithick, and Blankensop are 'worthy of note. In 1813, it was dis¬ covered by Blacket that the adhesion of wheels to smooth rails was sufficient for locomotion. Nine years later the tramway from Hetton colliery, Avhere Stephenson worked, was equipped with a locomotive. In 1825, on the Stockton and Darlington railroad,.
* The aiithor is in(lel)ted to the Division of Transportation of the Carnegie In¬ stitution for a grant which has made the prosecution of this work possible.
[15]
182'
BULLETIN OF TilE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
(//
steam, locomotion for commercial purposes began, and in 1830 the historic Liverpool and Manchester railroad was opened.
Now, not only the men of science and engineers, but the great mass of the English people were stirred and interested in these experiments and achievements. What, then, could be more likely than the dissemination of this interest? The seed was wii'h England, but it soon fell upon American ground.
This ground was well prepared. In the first place, the big idealism of Americans was already developed. The great West, with its swelling population, Avas the backgroiuid, and the ac¬ quisition of Louisiana and the expedition of LeAvis and Clark gave large vistas to people and statesmen. Again, and more directly, the need of unity and tangible bonds among the states Avas keenly appreciated. To this end, comprehensiAm schemes of internal improvement Avere very early proposed. Washington saAV the importance of artificial highways to the NorthAvest Ter¬ ritory.’^ As early as 1796, Zane Avas assisted by a congressional appropriation in opening a road in Ohio.- In 1802 and 1803 funds Avere granted the state of Ohio for roads.’’ Under Jeffer¬ son a national system of internal improAmments Avas begun in the Cumberland Load (1806) ; and in 1808, Gallatin made his fa- inous report. Ten years later the Erie canal Avas begun.
Thus, not only Avas the ground Avell prepared for large schemes for improving transportation, but the goveimment, state and national, Avas already trained in its part of assisting such en¬ terprises; and it is not strange that among the earliest men¬ tions of raihvaA's in this countrv are those that are found in con- g r ess i 0 n a 1 doc u m en ts .
IjATRobb’s Eepoet
In the American State Fapcrs^ there appears a communication made to Gallatin by Benjamin II. Latrobe, in 1808, and included in the former’s report upon internal improAmments just men-
^ Loot's MatmaL l.S(»S--00, p. I I. “ See below, p. bCS.
Lair.^ IT: 17A, 22G.
^ XX ; Mif^c. I, OIG.
[ifil
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 183
tioned. This is the first document relative to railways that ap¬ pears in the records of Congress. The unique position in time of this report warrants a full discussion of its contents.
“In the question proposed to me by you,” says Latrobe, “the subject of artifical roads 'was comprehended; but being informed by you that the canal companies of Pennsylvania and Maryland had transmitted to you ample accounts of their undertakings, and as in their works, experience has taught a system and mode of execution of the most perfect kind, I have refrained from adding anything to the information thus required. It has, however, occurred to me that a few remarks on railroads might not be unacceptable to you, especially as the public at¬ tention has often been called to this sort of improvement, and the public mind filled with very imperfect conceptions of its utility.” These misconceptions on the part of the i)ublic, he states, were based on reports of enormous loads drawn by a single horse on railways in England, and consisted in supposing that such a system might soon be generally adopted in this country. For two reasons this supposition seemed vain : on a railroad only carriages expressly constructed for that purpose could be used, and in order to lower cost of transportation sufficiently to justify the construction of railroads, a density and concentra¬ tion of traffic was necessary that must be lacking in' the United States. “The sort of produce which is carried to our markets is collected from such scattered points, and comes by such a di¬ versity of routes, that railroads are out of the question as to the carriage of common articles.”
Three exceptions, however, were allowed to this general in¬ expediency: railroads might pay expenses in connection' with coal mines and granite quarries; they might be used as a tem¬ porary expedient in overcoming difficult parts of artificial navi¬ gation; and they might make possible long lines of communica¬ tion otherwise impracticable.
The report contains a full description of the form of rail¬ way best adapted to this country.®
Thus there are several points of significance in this document.
® See below, p. lon
3
[17]
184
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
In the first place, it appears that the public mind was consider¬ ably exercised over the subject of railroads and their utility. As is implied at the beginning of this chapter, the agitation for railways did not begin about 1830, but at least twenty years earlier.
In the second place, in the report there are brought out some ideas of economic interest. No mention is made of steam, the horse being the only means of locomotion referred to. Clear ex¬ pression is given to the principle according to which density of traffic is so desirable, but no account is taken of the possibility of developing that density of traffic, — a possibility soon to be so liberally discounted in this country.
It is interesting to note that the exception concerning coal mines and quarries was soon justified, among the first railways in the United Stpvtes ® being that laid from a granite quarry in Quincy, IMass. (1826),^ and another from the coal mines at Maiich Chunk, Pa. (1827).®
Oli\ter Evans — His Open Letter to Congress
It is a coincidence that the next distinct factor in the develop¬ ment of transportation in the United States which affected Con¬ gress directly had some connection 'with Latrobe. During the year 1800,® an American inventor, by name Oliver Evans, in seeking support for his schemes, approached Mr. Latrobe, and communicated to him the plan of a steam engine which he pro¬ posed, among other ends, to use for propelling carriages and steamboats. Latrobe pronounced the idea ‘‘chimerical” and absurd, saying that Evans “was one of the persons . . .
seized with the steam mania, conceiving that wagons and boats could be propelled by steam engines.” This is in keeping with
® It seems that the earliest railroad or tramway in the U. S. was in Boston in the year 1807. In 1809 Thos. Lieper, of Delaware county, Pa., constructed one from his quarry. These were very short and the rails were of wood. (See Ringwalt, Development of Systems of Transportation in the U. S., p. 69.) These are railways in the generic sense of the term only.
Brown, W. H., Hist, of First Loeomotive in America.
* lUcl.
* TLis date is not certain. See 'Niles’ Register^ III, Addenda.
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 185
the point just noted, that Latrobe did not consider steam in his report to Gallatin, and it illustrates the attitude of the great majority at this time.
Evans, however, was an exception. As early as 1772 (or 2773)10 he ^^s apprentice to a wagon-maker, he became
filled with the idea of propelling wagons by other than animal power and soon turned to steam. In 1786 he petitioned the leg¬ islature of Pennsylvania for exclusive right to use his improve¬ ments in flour-miUs, ‘ ^ as also steam wagons. ’ ’ His petition was granted as to the mill machinery, but no notice was taken of his transportation ideas. On presenting the same petition to the Maryland state legislature, and explaining “the elastic power of steam,” together with his mode of applying it to wagons, it was granted on the ground that it would do no harm !
From this time on, Evans tried continually to interest others, but found few who could understand, and “no one willing to risque the expense of the experiment.” His encounter with Latrobe 'was typical.
In 1804 he actually propelled by steam a scow mounted on crude vdieels,^^ and a year later published a book describing his steam engine and giving directions for applying it to boats, and “carriages on turnpike roads.” He obtained a patent for his mill improvements in 1808, and much litigation resulted from his attempt to maintain his rights.
Of greater importance as a direct influence upon Congress, however, was an open letter which Evans addressed “To Mem¬ bers of Congress” in 1816, through the columns of the Na^ tional Intelligencer}^ In this article he recounts his services and his trials, and concludes by asking each member to put certain questions to himself, one being: “What will the an¬ nual amount of the benefit be, when my Columbian engines shall be applied to work many thousands of mills, manufac¬ tories, carriages on railway or smooth roads, boats on the great
He gives both dates : Niles’ Register, III, Addenda, and X, 213.
“ By order of the Phila. Board of Health, he constructed a sort of dredge for “cleaning docks.” The machine being in a flat or scow, he added wheels, the axle-trees being merely of wood, and propelled the whole to the Schuykill river, which he navigated by means of a paddle wheel.
^2 See Niles’ Register, X, 213.
[19]
186 BULLETIJf OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AVISCONSIN
Atlantic and western waters, raising the value of western lands ■50 per cent — by lessening the time of going to market can any one calculate within one million of dollars?”
Thus, though Oliver Evans came directly before Congress with no distinct petition for railroads, and though Congress took no action on that subject at this time, his schemes and inventions together with the agitation and litigation which attended them, must be reckoned as an important factor in moulding the minds of the public and of Congress.
It may be said that Evans was a prophet of steam. A study of the newspapers of the day shows that between 1810 and 1820 speculations and inventions concerning steam became numerous. The steamboat was developed and was the Avonder of the period. Evans represented — to some extent, led — this movement, and Avas prominent in directing attention to its ap¬ plication to land transportation.
Dearborn ' s Petition
Between the years 1809 and 1819 the subject of railways does not appear to have been discussed in Congress. The period, hoAvever, Avas one of many projects for improving in¬ ternal communication and transportation. EA’en in 1814, in the midst of the War of 1812, there Avere numerous road bills before Congress, and a proposition Avas introduced to take up a national system of internal improvements along Gallatin’s lines.^^ In his message of 1816, Madison urged that measures be taken to bind ‘Gnore closely together every part of our country, by promoting intercourse and improvements.
The subject of railAvays next attracted the attention of Con¬ gress in the shape of a petition for assistance in cariying on an experiment. In 1819, Mr. Mason (Mass.) presented the prayer of one, Benjamin Dearborn, stating that he had invented a mode of propelling Avheel carriages by steam. Dearborn'
See Home Journal, 181’/, under Roads and Internal Improvcrnenfs. H. J., 1816-17, p. 14.
H. J., 1818-19, Feb. 12.
[20]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAY'S 18T
asked that an experiment be made to try the utility of his in¬ vention, and based his request on the ground that it was well calculated for the conveyance of the mails and any number of passengers, and that it would be perfectly secure from robberies on the highway.
The petition was referred to the committee on commerce and manufactures, and no further action was taken.
Rogers^ Marine Railway
Commodore Rogers’ ‘‘Marine Railway” is of little direct interest, as it was to be but a short inclined plane, limited in' its use to launching ships or hauling them out of water for re¬ pairs; but it should be mentioned, inasmuch as it was a “rail¬ way.” Its operation was as follows two walls extending into deep water were built parallel to one another, and “on these walls or tiers of piles, two platforms or railways” were erected. “These ways,” Rogers said, “may, and for very heavy vessels ought to be plated with iron or other metallic substance. "" Steam or horse power may be used.”
Rogers, we are told, demonstrated the success of his scheme by hauling up the frigate Potomac before a great concourse of people, and President Monroe, who witnessed the feat, recom¬ mended it to Congress for an appropriation.^^
Thus the idea of the railway, — of an iron-covered “way” upon which heavy objects might be transported with little friction, and of the application of steam to transportation on such a way, — was brought before Congress.^'*
state Papers, 1822-23, Nava] Affairs, I, No. 226.
” Jan. 27, 1823, H, J., 1822-23, p. 171. The matter was referred to the commit¬ tee on naval affairs, which reported favorably, and recommended .$50,000 appro¬ priation. The matter was ordered committed to committee of the whole house on state of the Union, and nothing was done (TI. J., 1822-23, p. 216). Nileis’ Register, XXIX, 181, contains the following item: ‘‘A ship rail way, for the repair of ves¬ sels, is constructing in New York. * * * On the Thomas’ principal of the ship rail-way, it is probable there will be no difficulty * * * in hauling out for repairs the largest ship for the navy. Dry docks are scarce and this will make a complete substitute.” (1825)
The marine railway came up in Congress again in 1829-30 : State Papers, Naval Affairs, III, No. 422; IV, No. 589.
[21]
188
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
John Stevens; Government Experiments Proposed
Down to 1825 Congress did not play an active part in regard to railways. There was some discussion and agitation among the people, but it led to no experiment or assistance by the government; and Latrobe’s report, Oliver Evans’ letter. Dear¬ born’s petition, and the discussion of Kogers’ scheme were stimuli attended by no direct results. At the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, however. Congress took up the question, — for it was a question, — with more active interest, and a number of projects for experiments and actual con¬ struction by the general government indicate this change.
The origin of the new attitude may be ascribed in general to the rapid development of railways in' England and the suc¬ cessful application of steam to transportation upon them. In this connection, too, the effect that the extended and im¬ proved use of steamboats must have had in preparing men’s minds for considering the application of the same power to land transportation should not be overlooked.^® But the par¬ ticular and immediate cause lay in the activity of Colonel 'John Stevens of Hoboken; and in order to fully understand this, it mil be necessary to step back into the previous century.
John Stevens was bom in New York City in 1749, and served as Colonel in the Kevolutionary War. The event in his life that directly affects this history occurred in 1787, when, dur¬ ing a drive along the Hudson river, he sa'w Fitch’s crude steam¬ boat. He became interested in the subject, invented a marine engine, a multi-tubular boiler, and used the first double-acting condensing engine made in America. About the year 1812 he turned his attention to railways, and addressed a memorial-® to the board of commissioners of the Erie canal, advocating a double-track railway in place of the canal; but his plan was rejected as not feasible. His plan was for a raised wooden
A writer in 1820 appealed to tlie U. S. Government to bnild a national high¬ way to the West, and calculated on steamboats, “and on the application of the same moving power to carriages upon rail roads * * * /* Mills, Robt.
A Treatise on Inland Navigation (Balt., 1820), p. 59.
See Documents tending to prove the superior advantages of railways and steam-carriages over canal navigation. (N. Y., 1812, and a reprint, 1852.)
[23]
HANEY - CONGKESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAIEWAYS 189
railway; it contemplated steam traction, and both passengers and freight were to be transported at a greatly reduced cost at a speed of twenty to thirty miles an hour.
In 1815, Stevens obtained a charter from New York for a steam railway from the Delaware to the Raritan, the first rail¬ road charter granted in America; and in 1824 Pennsylvania gave him a charter for a railway from Philadelphia to Lancas¬ ter; but neither project was carried out,^^ for though he made every effort, capitalists could not be induced to take them up. In October of the latter year, however, he was given a patent by the government for the construction of railways,^^ and in the Journal of the House of Representatives for January 17, 1825, there appears the following notice; ‘‘Resolved, That the Committee on Roads and Canals be directed to inquire into the expediency of causing an experiment to be made at the seat of government, on a small scale, of the most improved mode of constructing roads, on the plan practiced under the direction of Mr. M’Adam, in England, and of Railways, under the patent granted to John Stephens^^ of Hoboken, in New Jersey.”
In February the committee reported itself of the opinion that it would result to the benefit of the public “to make ex¬ periments in this District of a railroad and of a road con¬ structed on M ’Adam’s plan, for short distances, and in places where they would be useful as well as for inspection. No record is found of such an experiment, however, and no action appears to have been taken upon the report.
Yet this case is of great interest and significance as a begin¬ ning. For one thing, it throws light on the origin of railways in this country. From seeing steam at work on the water, Stevens was led to study it and finally to conceive a definite plan for railway construction. As early as 1812, he published the correspondence between himself and the canal commission¬ ers, and brought his plan of construction and statement of the
The charter was repealed in 1826.
State Papers, 182^-25, II, 28.
The name is so spelled in the text, though the index igives it correctly. ^Appendix, 18th Cong., 2d sess., I, 77, (Feb. 6, 1825).
[23]
190
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
advantages of a steam railway over canals before the public. In 1824, he patented his plan, and in 1825 Congress was in¬ duced to inquire into the expediency of an experiment with it. Again, it should be noted that macadamized roads and rail¬ roads were considered on the same footing. Moreover, Congress took a higlily paternalistic attitude in seriously considering the construction of a railway for ‘Ahe benefit of the public.’^ A further tendency in this direction came to light in the fol¬ lowing year, when there was introduced in the House a resolu¬ tion to the effect that the committee on roads and canals inquire into the expediency of making Railroad at the expense of the Federal Government.”-^
In December of this same year (1825), the aroused interest of Congress in railways was again apparent. It was resolved that there be an inquiry ‘‘into the utility of Railways, as a mode of conveyance for the mail in carriages, and as a means of transportation for heavy articles; and the com¬
parative cost of constructing railways and canals, and the rel¬ ative advantages of the two modes of convevance when formed
The resolution brought no direct result, and no report was made.
Thus the year 1825 is clearly marked in the congressional his¬ tory of railways as the beginning of an active interest on the part of the government.
Strickland’s Report to the PennsylVxVNta Society for the Promotion of Internal Improvements
A further indication of this growing interest was shown in 1826. The House of Representatives then agreed to a resolu¬ tion^^ for the purchase of twenty-five copies of a report on internal improvements, which report came to be prepared in the following way: in 1824 a society was organized in Phila-
2^1/. 1825-26. .Ian. .1, 1820. Resolution not agreed to.
^«//. J., 1825-20, Dec. 15, 1825.
Ibid., p. .‘101.
[24]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS
191
delphia for the promotion of internal improvement, to which end they published information concerning canals, roads, and railways, and otherwise agitated the subject. In January, 1825, this body resolved to send an engineer to England to col¬ lect information concerning these matters, and for this 'work William Strickland, architect and engineer, was chosen. In 1826 the results of his investigations were printed by subscrip¬ tion. In the list of subscribers’ names appears this item: ‘‘House of Representatives of the United States, 25 copies.” In the report some ten pages were devoted to railways, — con¬ struction of road-bed, rails, locomotives, and car- wheels being minutely treated, and suggestions for adaptations to conditions in the United States made.-^ Strickland came to the conclu¬ sion that locomotives might be employed on railways that were nearly level; otherwise inclined planes with stationary engines would be necessary. On the ^vhole, he would seem to favor railN^mys.-'^ His report will be referred to in the section on structure and utility.
The First Railway Companies; the South Carolina Railroad
The five years which followed were years of rapid progress in the railway world. In England steam was successfully ap¬ plied to the transportation of passengers on the Stockton & Darlington railroad, and by 1830 the Liverpool & Manchester railroad, begun in 1826, was in operation. In 1827 Stephen-
Strickland, William, Reports on Canals, raiheaps, roads, and other subjects. (ITiiia., 1820.)
Since writing’ the above, the writer has found the following reference. In the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Societg for 1854 (Vol. 30) apr pears an obituai’y read by Judge Kane before that Society — of which Strickland had been a member. Of Sti’ickland's report he says : “He had witnessed the great experiment of the first locomotives * * * on the Liverpool and Man¬
chester Railroad ; and in closing his report upon this performance, he prophesied that railroads were destined to supersede canals ; and when I was about to remit this passage to the printer, the Society’s committee, and I think the Society it¬ self, remonstrated strenuously against so perilous a committal on the part of a gentleman, whose opinions might he corresponded with their own. In the end, I rewi’ote the closing i)aragraph of the report at their instance, and so saved Strickland from declaring in advance what a lai’Lge part of the world knows now to he true.”
[25]
192' BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
son established works for manufacturing locomotives, and in 1829 three English engines were imported into America. Nor was this country backward. In 1826 John Stevens demon¬ strated the feasibility of steam locomotion on a small experi¬ mental scale. In the same year a short railway was used to transport stone for the Bunker Hill Monument in Boston, Mass., and in 1827 at Maucli Chunk, Pa., coal was transported nine miles from the mine to water over a railway operated by gravity and mules.
The year 1827, however, is marked by more important events than the completion of this short and crude coal railway, for it was in this year that the first railways for general commer¬ cial purposes and for passengers were chartered, — the Balti¬ more & Ohio Kailroad Company and the South Carolina Canal & Railroad Company. The Baltimore & Ohio Rail¬ road Company was chartered by Maryland in April, 1827, and in the same month applied to Congress for assistance in sur¬ veying its route. This is the first case in which a railway com¬ pany ever approached the Congress of the United States for aid; and, indeed, is the first appearance of a railway company in Congress. The early history of the Baltimore & Ohio will be treated at greater length in the following chapters.
The South Carolina Canal & Railroad Company is of more direct interest in this chapter of our Congressional history, inasmuch as a full report of its structure and purpose was laid before Congress. The proposed railway extended from Charleston to Hamburg, a distance of about one hundred and thirty-six miles.®® It w^as the first railw^ay in the United States planned for steam power, and upon it was run the first practical locomotive constructed in this country (1830). Work upon the road was begun in 1829, and it was in August, 1828, that the railway eompany applied for the assistance of goverment Surv^eyors.®^
It was completed in 1834, and was for a sliort time the longest railroad under a single management in the world. Hamburg is on the Savannah river ^opposite to Augusta, Ga.
State Documents, 1S2S-29, I, No. 1, p. 47.
[26]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 193
On August 27, 1829, a United States civil engineer, detailed to this duty, made a report to the president and directors of the South Carolina Canal & Railroad Company concerning the Charleston & Hamburg railroad, which was in turn re¬ ported by the secretary of war to President Jackson, who ' submitted it to Congress.®^ The substance of this report fol¬ lows.
The topography of the region to be traversed was described as eminently suited to the work, from the level character of the land. The use of wood was advocated in the construction of the road, the rails to be of yellow pine and to rest upon sills of lightwood®^ or live-oak. These sills were to be eight feet apart, and the rails to measure at least six by nine inches, the rail and sill being let into each other sufficiently to secure them in their places and made fast by a locust or live-oak key. In place of embankments, it was proposed to raise the road on posts or piles. When it became necessary to replace the road, sills of stone might be used, to which the wooden rails would be fastened by iron chains; or, if a still more durable track were desired, the rails might be covered with plates of iron, as used in Massachusetts, or by ‘Hails entirely of iron, accord¬ ing to the English plan.”
The report also stated that it would be unwise not to make the road adaptable to both horse power and steam locomotives, and, as has been already stated, this was the first road in the United States built with the idea of using the locomotive engine. It was suggested that the weight of locomotives be reduced as much as possible, and that a premium be awarded for the “best model of a locomotive engine, combining lightness and power, and adapted to the use of light wood.” The laying of a single track was advised, on the ground that the traffic did not war¬ rant a double track.
In conclusion, the military advantages of the railway were pointed out.
The plan set forth in this report was followed, except that
state Papers, 1829-SO, 1, No. 7, p. 26.
Lightwood is a pine wood abounding in pitch, found in the Sonth.
194 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
the rails were covered with flat iron bars from the outset, and it should be observed that it was essentially identical with the construction proposed by John Stevens in 1812, who would have raised his track above the ground in order to protect it from snow and dust. Both plans adopted wooden rails, although contemplating the possible necessity for iron, and both were designed for steam power.
[28]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 195
CHAPTER II
The Railway Enters Congress: Ex^rly IdExVS as to
Structure and Utility
“A railroad/’ wrote Latrobe in 1808, “consists of two paii« of parallel ways, one pair for going and the other for return¬ ing carriages.”^ Among the documents submitted to Congress in 1832 was a report of the New York railway commissioners which gravely propounds that “the principle on which the railway operates ^ differs essentially from that of a
canal. In the latter, the body to be moved is sustained by the greater gravity of the fluid on which it is placed. *
In the former, the weight to be transported is sustained on rollers or wheels, and is made to move ^ * along the
hard and even surface of planes, either level or partially in¬ clined.
Little more need be written to indicate that the railway was in its infancy.
(a) Track.
Of the various parts that go to make up a modern railway system, the way or track first came to the attention of Congress. Latrobe described the construction deemed suitable to this country in 1808. The rails were to be of cast iron from three to six feet long, five-eighths of an inch thick, and fifty-six pounds in weight, i. e., twenty-eight pounds per yard. The cross sec¬ tion of this rail would have been in the shape of the letter L, a two-inch “flanch” or projection on the outside serving to keep the wheels upon the track. The ends of the rails were to be fastened to cross-pieces of wood, though the use of stone
^ See above, p. 182.
^Executive Documents, 1S31-32, No. 101, p. 222.
[39]
196 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
foundations was mentioned as being far more durable, it being stated that ‘‘such roads will last for ages.” The cost for a mile of single track, the wooden cross-pieces being used, was estimated at $5,000.
In 1812 Colonel John Stevens proposed to construct an ele¬ vated track entirely of wood, though the possible necessity for iron reinforcement was considered. Such a railroad would have been one long trestle-work. Stevens at first estimated the cost of construction at $4,166 per mile;® later he gave $12,369 as the cost of a railway with brick pillars, timber ways, and bar iron plates.^
Oliver Evans, in the same year, mentioned Stevens’ plan with approval,^ but spoke of one, John Ellicot, who “proposed to make roads of substances, such as the best turnpikes are made with, with a path for each wheel to run on, liming a rail-ivay on posts in the middle to guide the tongue of the wagon, and to prevent any other carriage from travelling on it. Then, if the wheels were made broad, and the paths smooth,, there would be very little wear. Such roads,” he
observed, “I am inclined to believe, ought to be preferred, in the first instance, to those proposed by Mr. Stevens,” being cheaper. Stevens’ and Evans’ plans, however, did not come before Congress directly.
The next report that came prominently before Congress was that made by Strickland to the Pennsylvania society in 1825, — published 1826, — and it indicates considerable progress on most points. Two classes of rails were mentioned: (1) “plate rails” or tramway plates; (2) edge, or fishbacked rails. The latter, it is stated, were coming into general use. The former correspond to the rail proposed by Latrobe. Moreover, Strick¬ land said that either cast or malleable iron might be used, but he did not attempt to decide which was the better, leaning to¬ ward the cast iron rail on the ground that experience had tried it. They were to be four feet long, and fitted into stone blocks- at their ends, being held by cast iron standards or chairs fast-
^Documents tending to prove the superior advantages of railicayis, eto., p. 27.
^ lUd,, p. 43.
® Niles’ Register, III, Addenda.
[30]
HANEY - CONGKESSIONAL HISTOEY OE EAILWAYS 19T
ened to tlie stone. In some cases, however, we are told that oak blocks were used, and that some such device might he ad¬ visable in the United States wherever stone was scarce. The heavy frosts in this country, he thought, would necessitate a bed of crushed stone for supporting these blocks, and sleepers would be necessary where the ground was not hard, as on embank¬ ments, in order to prevent spreading rails. Strickland an¬ ticipated great difficulty in keeping the rails free from dust and gravel. He minutely described ‘‘passing or sideling places.” Such a road as he proposed would cost about $10,- 000 per mile.®
The construction used for the Charleston & Hamburg rail¬ road has already been mentioned. Here wooden rails, capped with iron strips, were adopted, and trestles used in place of any embankments. The road cost about $13,000 a mile.
The South Carolina railroad, too, is remarkable as being the forerunner of what may be called the “American System of Construction.” It was built with the idea that traffic would develop, and no attempt was made to make it a permanent structure. Wood was used not only for rails,’’ but also for the ties or “sills,” and but a single track was laid. The Balti¬ more & Ohio and other early railways were modeled more after the English roads. Thus they used granite blocks or sills in¬ stead of wood. The Baltimore & Ohio started out as though for all time, with a double track and an ambitious system of grades and bridges, which caused considerable financial em¬ barrassment for a period. Furthermore, the cost of construc¬ tion was not adapted to the traffic to be hoped for in any short time.
® The following is the itemized estimate as presented by Strickland :
1. Cast iron edge rai’s, stone foundation, chairs, prep¬
aration of horse and attendant paths, etc . £1,474
2. Forming and draining level ground . 38
3. Cuts and embankments . 256
4. 1 wooden bridge and 1 stone culvert . 60
5. 4 acres of land (a strip 30-40 ft. wide) . 80
6. Fencing, including gates to farms . 200
£2,108=$9,359
(At this time the English pound equaled about ,$4.44.)
It was quite general In this country to use wooden rails^ these being overlaid with “straps” or bars of iron.
[31]
198
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
It may be said that in the one case, according to what may be called the English system, they built above the traffic; while in the other they built beyond it; and as compared to the four¬ teen miles of carefully graded, stone-silled track® of the Balti¬ more & Ohio, we have the one hundred and thirtv-odd miles of wood-tied, single track of the Charleston & Hamburg, con¬ structed in but little longer time.
In the New York report quoted above,*^ the most approved construction is stated to be that of the Baltimore & Ohio, which w'as described as follows : ‘ ‘ A line is first graded, free from
short curves, and as nearly level as i)ossible. A small trench is then formed for each track, which is filled with rubble-stone, on which are laid blocks of granite. ^ Bars, or plates,
of wrought iron, near an inch in thickness, are then laid upon these blocks or rails and fastened to the stone with
iron bolts or rivets. The distance between the two tracks, for the wheels, should be about five feet. This, it will
be perceived, renders the work proof against delapidation, and creates but a trifle more expense.” (i. e. the use of stone in¬ stead of wood.)
The idea that some support other than earth was necessary was quite general at this time. Thus, in A Treatise on Bail- roaels,^^ Thomas Earle says, ‘‘Wherever the ground is not solid, it is necessary to build walls, or fill trenches or pits, with broken stone or gravel, for the support of the props upon which the rails are to rest.” (p. 19.) The supposed necessity for this construction hampered railway extension through its costliness, and served as an argument for those opposed to it.^^
In general, it may be said that prior to 1830, any discussion concerning the railway proper centered around the use of stone or wood in construction, and the opinion prevailed that the
* The Baltimore & Ohio soon adopted less expensiA’e and more practicable con¬ struction.
^ p. 19.5.
^‘'Philadelphia, 1830.
In 1812, Eobt. E. LiA'injrstone objected to Stevens' plan, that it would l>e necessary to extend walls beneath the earth far enough to avoid frosts and alx)ve it to escape the snow. {Dog. tending to prove sup. adv. of raUways^ publ. by .John Stevens, N. Y., 1812, p. 24.)
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 199
former was superior for a work of any permanence, or for dense and heavy traffic.
Very shortly after 1830, however, this idea was abandoned, and in 1832 the engineer of the Baltimore & Ohio reported in favor of a comparatively modern track for the Washington branch. Wooden ties, three feet apart, were proposed, and for greater strength, wooden strips were to be placed below as well as above these ties. The upper strips were to support iron rails fifteen feet long and weighing thirty-two pounds to the yard.^^
It is scarcely necessary to state that a steady increase in the weight of rails per yard took place. From the 28-pound rail proposed by Latrobe and the 32-pound rail just mentioned there was a rise till a government engineer in an estimate for a Florida railway, submitted 1842^3, proposed a rail of 60 pounds weight to the linear yard.^^ These estimates are repre¬ sentative of the increase in actual construction.
It seems that many thought even a double track insufficient, maintaining that numerous trades would be necessary for trains running at different speeds and in different directions.^® It was objected that all travellers must have the same rate of speed or else there must be frequent ‘‘turnouts” (sidings), which would multiply casualties; and again that railways could not be accessible at all points, and at no point without interrupting the current of “wagons,” unless the same fatal resort to “turn-outs” should be taken.^® It was frequently urged that mud and dust in summer and snow in winter would render a railway impracticable.^’’
The early construction was soon abandoned by the Baltimore & Ohio and several different kinds of construction were illustrated in a few hundred miies of its track. See Tanner, H, S., Canals and Raihvai/^ of the U. S., 1840, p. 150. A typical case was that of the railroad from Newcastle to Frenchtown in Dela¬ ware. The road was 16 miles long ; the first 9 miles were laid with stone blocks ; for the rest hemlock planks were laid down on sand or gravel ; on these white oak ties were placed 3 feet apart ; then 6x6 Georgia pine string pieces, which supported iron rails 2% inches wide and % inch thick. Total cost $22,000 per mile, including all expenses, save depots and the like. {Exec. Doc., 1831-32, No. 101.)
^^Exec. Doc., 1831-32, No. 101, p. 215 ff.
Sen. Docs., m3-U, II, No. 62, p. 19.
md.. No. 18.
^8 Ihid.
Ihid, and in the Treatise on railroads quoted above, Earle says, “The action
3 [33]
200
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
(b) Locomotion.
As to the power to be used, there was question in Congress as well as in the minds of engineers. Earle writes: “The first thing to be determined in the formation of a Kail-road is the kind of power that is to be employed on it, whether horses or steam- engines;”^® and that was the question. The locomotives con¬ structed prior to 1830 were weak, crude affairs, and far too ponderous in proportion to the power they developed. Strick¬ land reported that where a considerable distance “admits of being made so nearly horizontal as not to deviate more than 27 feet six inches a mile, locomotive engines may be employed to great advantage,” and he thought inclined planes and stationary engines must be used for any steeper ascent. After 1825, however, remarkably rapid progress was made, and some ten years later a government engineer reported that the maximum grade was assumed to be ninety-two feet to the mile
By 1830 it was generally admitted that the steam engine could haul a greater load at a greater speed than the horse, and that it could do it more cheaply. But numerous objections were urged, such as meet any innovation. Steam engines were dan¬ gerous, being liable to explosion and accident; they caused great wear and tear, and made more expensive construction necessary ; great skill would be necessary for their operation, and so on.
However, what caused most question was the utility of steam for hauling heavy, bulky commodities. The report of the Eng¬ lish commission on steam navigation, which was studied and printed by Congress, assumes that for bulky objects, where speed was of little importance, horse traction 'would be cheaper^® and the great field for railways was supposed to lie in the trans¬ portation of passengers. It will be remembered that the first railways were built at collieries, and that Latrobe thought that such traffic alone warranted railways in this country; so by 1830 ideas were to some extent revolutionized. For this change two reasons may be given: (1) there had developed a struggle
of the horses’ feet” would throw gravel and dust on the track, increasing friction and lessening adhesion.
Treatise on RMlroads, 1880, p. 5.
19 Exec. Doc. 18S5-S6, III, No. 230.
Exeo. Doc., 1831-32, No, 101.
[34]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 201
between tlie railway and tbe canal, in which it was seen that the latter conld compete for low grad© traffic alone; hence its sup¬ porters would profit by such an argument: (2) the early, imper¬ fect application of steam instead of horse-power gave some ground for the idea. It was thought in 1825 that locomotives were not practicable on any but comparatively level roads.^^
The steam locomotive, however, was not the only means of traction which came before Congress, for both compressed air and electricity are found mentioned in Congressional proceed¬ ings as possibly superseding or supplementing steam. The South Carolina Railroad Company had to overcome a difficult grade of a mile or so in length and it seemed that it could not be successfully done by locomotives. Stationary engines were considered, but the company inclined toward the use of a new means — the atmospheric railroad — and at the 1844—45 session of Congress a bill was introduced authorizing the importation of machinery and pipes for such a railroad free of duty. In answering objections, Mr. Evans said that it was a recent Eng¬ lish invention which experiments had shown to answer exceed¬ ingly well for short distances, that the materials could only be obtained in England, from the inventor himself, and that the importation fwould benefit rather than injure Pennsylvania iron manufactures by ultimately increasing the home demand.^^ But after this discussion the matter was dropped.
A few years later Senator Benton, in advocating a national railway to the Pacific, desired room for ‘‘a track by magnetic power. The idea, he believed, had originated with a Prof. Henry and had been “plausibily pursued” by Prof. Page of the Patent Office. ‘‘Who can undertake,” asked Mr. Benton, “to say that any idea will not become practicable in the pres¬ ent age?”
(c) Speed.
As to speed the estimates and prophecies were various. Robert Livingstone in objecting to Stevens’ scheme thought that the road would hardly bear so heavy a load as a locomo-
Strickland, Report, p. 31.
2- Cong. Globe, 1844-45, XLV, 296.
^Ibid., 1848-49, XX, 473.
[351
202’
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
live and its cars at a speed of four miles an hour. Stevens, on the other hand, thought that forty of fifty miles an hour were possible, though from twenty to thirty miles would prob¬ ably be best in practice. In the field of transportation, as in so many others, there were large-minded men who were in advance of their fellows and their time, — ^who cried out in a wilderness. In a work published in 1813,^® Oliver Evans, who, like Stevens, was seeking assistance for railway projects, wrote, ^‘The time will come when people will travel in stages moved by steam engines, ^ ^ ^ almost as fast as birds fiy, fifteen
or twenty miles an hour. ^ ^ carriage will set out from
Washington in the morning, the passengers will breakfast at Baltimore, dine at Philadelphia, and sup at New York, the same day.”^®
Thirteen years later men were hardly more sanguine. In 1826 Mr. C. Crozet, an engineer quoted with approval in Arm- royd’s work on internal navigation, stated, “a rate of speed of more than six miles an hour would exceed the bounds set by prudence, though some of the sanguine advocates of railways extend this limit to nine miles an hour.”^^
By the close of the third decade — after the experiments on the Liverpool & Manchester railroad, and the opening of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad and the Charleston & Hamburg line in this country — the engineer of the Baltimore & Ohio, Jonathan Knight, conceived that if a velocity reaching from fifteen to twenty, or occasionally thirty miles an hour, were to be employed, very heavy, strong tracks would be necessary.^^ He gave the utmost performance of a locomotive for that time as being twenty miles per hour, drawing a load of fifteen tons on a level road. In the same year much was made of the fact that on the Mauch Chunk railroad, where animal traction was used, the very high velocity of from twelve to fifteen miles an hour
Doc. tending to prove sup. adv. of raihvays, p. x, Introd.
There is some doubt as to this date ; see Ringwalt, Dev. of Systems of Transp., in U. S., p. 65.
IMd.
Note : Horses and oxen riding and working a kind of treadmill were tried, and several experiments were made with sails.
p. 570. , j
28 Exec. Doc., 18S1-S2, No. 101, p. 149 ff.
[36]
r
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAIEWAYS 203
made the horses and mules sick, and the wagons could not be kept in repair, so the speed was reduced to from five to seven miles per hour.^® Josiah White, acting manager of this road, wrote an article for the Mauch Chunk Courier, in which he stated that, although a speed of sixty miles an hour might be at¬ tained yet about six miles an hour would be most economical for heavy loads, — higher speed only being profitable for passengers and valuable goods that would bear heavy tolls.
(d) Cars.
From the beginning of railroad agitation in this country, it was seen that special vehicles were necessary, and Latrobe wrote to that effect.®^ In the discussion brought before Con¬ gress in 1831-32 various devices for decreasing friction in the wheels were mentioned.®^
(e) General Utility; Future.
It is, perhaps, not strange that the railway, especially the steam railway, was looked upon as a huge, complicated mech¬ anism by the men of the early nineteenth century. It is so re¬ garded today. But this fact was made an argument against the introduction of the system, and it was stated by many that wear and tear, liability to get out of order, and inability to regu¬ late its complicated action, would make it impracticable. It must be remembered, however, that the interested opposition of canal and turnpike companies gave expression and per¬ sistence to such arguments.
‘ When the first few miles of the Baltimore & Ohio had been completed successfully, it was argued that while a rail¬ way from ten to fifteen miles in length might do, one reach¬ ing to the mountains would be impracticable. To some men of those times it seemed that the country was too rough, and
Exec. Doc., 1831-32, No. 18, p. 163 ff., Report of Acting Manager, Josiah White.
Ihid. Note: In 1831 the first practical American locomotive, “The Best Friend”, made sixteen to twenty-one miles an hour and Peter Cooper’s “Tom Thumb” attained a speed of twelve and a half to fifteen miles an hour. Brown, W. H. Hist, of first Locomotive in Amer.
In England the first railways W’ere adapted to ordinary carriages, and this determined the gauge of tracks which has been generally followed ever since in that country and the United States.
For an account of early cars, see Exec. Docs., 1831-32, No, 101, p. 149 ff. ; Brown, W. H. Hist, of Firlst Locom. in Amer., pp, 96-106, 230; Ringwalt, J. L. Dev. of Systems of Trans, in V. S., pp. 101-103, and index.
[37]
204 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
too poor and backward to make the railway expedient. Latrobe thought this factor limited the usefulness of railways, and a memorial of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in 1831-32 stated that experience had demonstrated the ‘'utter unfitness” of this means of transportation over so rough and unimproved a surface as our country affords, the “present condition of the wealth, arts and population of the United States” being con¬ sidered.
But there were, on the other hand, as early as 1812, at least a few men in this country who believed in the future of the raihvay, and by 1830 they were in a majority.®^
Reference has already been made to the fact that by 1830 ideas as to the kind of traffic the railway was best suited for were greatly changed.^^ Without exception, the earliest rail¬ ways w’ere designed for and introduced in the transporta¬ tion of coal and the like. But between 1820 and 1830 the belief came into prominence that the railway would only be able to compete profitably with canals as to speed in the trans¬ portation of passengers and of the lighter commodities having high specific value. But, again, there were those who sup¬ ported railways in all fields, and the course of a very few years modified views on this score.
One interesting idea which was early advanced was that the demand for them and the facility with which they could be constructed would lead to a too rapid construction of railways with disastrous results. This prophecy was to be widely ful¬ filled.
The status of the railway question in 1830 may be dra'wn from two conflicting utterances, the one by its opponents, the other by its partisans. The memorial of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company referred to above says, “The time, though remote, may, possibly will, arrive in America when mere speed of transporation will warrant the very heavy cost of constructing railways of such graduation, and of so many dif¬ ferent tracks, as to admit of various velocities for persons and property, moving at the same time in opposite directions; and
33 This probably was not true as to steam railways.
3* p. 200.
[38]
HANEY - CONGKESSIONAL HISTOEY" OF EAILWAYS
205
of the substitution' on each of these tracks of locomotives, or even stationary steam engines ^ for animal labor
but this time was remote. But in 1830 Mr. Carson, iof North Carolina, in speaking on the Buffalo-New Orleans road bill referred to a miserable, paltry, earthen road, and states that the committee proposing it had fallen in the rear of the march of science. He refers to the railroad as ‘‘that highest effort of the human intellect, in perfecting a system of road inter-communication, which, for ease, safety and expedition challenges the astonishment and admiration of the world.” He does not mention cheapness of transportation in this list of vir¬ tues, and between the two outbursts, — between pessimism and optimism, — lay the truth.
The conclusions to be drawn from this chapter may be sum¬ med up as follows:
1. The subject of railway transportation was brought before Congress as early as 1808, and the activity of a few broad¬ minded, inventive men agitated the subject from time to time thereafter.
2. The railway was generally recognized as a permanent and useful factor in transportation by 1830, but
(a) There was doubt as to the grade of traffic it would take, and
(b) The advantage of steam over horse-power was not decided.
These conditions and ideas directed the attitude of Congress
toward railways.
3. Construction was beginning to break away from English influence and to become cheaper and more elastic.
4. Congress had been appealed to, had shown active inter¬ est and paternalistic tendencies, but stopped short of actual construction.
Exec. Doc., 1831-32, No. 18.
[39]
206
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
CHAPTER III
COST OF TRANSPORTATION AND RATES OF TOLL
Estimates of Cost
In the days of the first railways, both in the United States and in England, it was thought that the rates of charges for transportation on railways would be made up similarly to those obtaining upon ordinary roads and canals. From the begin¬ ning, hdwever, the supporters of railways urged that rates would be much lower upon that means of conveyance than on turnpikes. Thus, Oliver Evans, in 1804, submitted a statement to the Lancaster Turnpike Company which was intended to show that one steam carriage such as he proposed would yield a larger net profit than ten wagons each drawn by five horses on an ordinary turnpike.^
And in 1812 John Stevens was even more definite and san¬ guine. He stated that much of our internal commerce was at that time only effected at a cost of 50 per cent, on the value of the commodity transported, whereas the railway would make a saving of at least nine-tenths of this charge and reduce the cost to about 5 per cent. Stevens proposed government own¬ ership, arguing that a 5 per cent, toll, in addition to the 5 per cent, cost, would yield an enormous revenue; while at the same time it would save the remotely situated farmer some four-fifths of the charges he was then paying.^
In another place he estimated that one ton might be trans¬ ported 280 miles for 50 cents, which would mean a rate of
1 Niles’ Register, III, Addenda, p. 5. Evans, however, did not contemplate a way of vails such as Stevens projected ; see above pp. 185 and 196.
2 Doc. tending to prove the sup. adv. of railways and steam carriages, etc., p. ix, Introd.
[40]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 207
about .178 cents per ton per mile. He showed that, even al¬ lowing double this amount, the cost would be only one-third the estimated rate for the canals, and so the state might collect a toll in addition, and still allow relatively low rates.^ Stevens’ estimates were made on the basis of steam locomotion.
In Strickland’s report,^ an English engineer’s estimate is cited to the effect that the expenses of operating a locomotive would be less than 30 shillings for drawing 50 tons a distance of 60 miles in ten hours. This would equal less than half a farthing per ton per mile or about .22 cents.®
These estimates, it will be observed, are very low — lower, prob¬ ably, than the cost could have been at that time. There was no basis for a true estimate of depreciation and cost of repairs or replacement.
B. H. Latrobe, who was opposed to railways, took the ground that, with a few exceptions, sufficient traffic could not be de¬ veloped in this country to warrant the cost of constructing a railway.
In the documents relative to the comparative merits of canals and railroads® which were added to the English report on steam navigation, Jonathan Knight, engineer for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, gave the cost of transportation as being not greater than .75 cents per ton per mile,’’ and stated that on a level road it might be’ as low as .5 cents per ton per mile. These figures were based on a railway adapted to horse power.
In 1836, in a speech advocating a railway in place of the National Road, it was stated that the government would only need to charge about 2 cents per mile to keep the former in re¬ pair and pay costs of transportation.®
^ Itid, pp. 20-21.
* See above, p. 190.
® Counting a shilling as 22.2 cents.
* Exec. Docs., 1831-S2, No. 101, p. 149 ff.
^ IMd., p. 156.
*Mr. Jackson (H. of E.), Cong. Dehates, 1835-36, p. 4495. This may refer to passenger rates.
[41]
208
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Actual Rates'^
In a document laid before Congress in 1831, the actual cost of transportation was given as 3.53 cents per ton per mile.® This cost was obtained from a road operated by animal power. It is interesting that a report to the New York canal commissioners, made five years later, stated the cost of transportation on a level railroad to be 3.5 cents, — practically the same amount. This report was severely criticised by railway men, however, as be¬ ing based on a poorly constructed road which could not be called typical,^® and it did not make allowance for the saving in time that resulted from the use of steam locomotion.
In 1831 the Pennsylvania canal commission, in its annual report, stated that the cost of transporting coal on the Mauch Chunk railway and on ten miles of railway from Tuscarora to Port Carbon was 4 cents per ton per mile, and that the toll on the latter road was 1.5 cents per ton per mile, making a total charge of 5.5 cents.^^
In 1832 'we find figures drawn from the early operation of a more perfect road. In debate over a proposed subscription to the stock of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad, Mr. Smith of Mary¬ land read a statement of the cost of transportation by that rail- way.^^ For transporting a barrel of flour from the Point of Rocks to Baltimore, a distance of about seventy miles, this was 27 cents; the transportation of a ton of iron cost $3.17. This makes a per ton per mile rate on iron of about 4.5 cents.
As to passenger fares, we are told that in 1835 it cost $2.50 to travel from Washington to Baltimore, a distance of about thirty-eight miles, and this fare of over 6.5 cents per mile was remarked upon as a triumph of the railway over the stage.^^
® See p. 214 for further cases.
» Exec. Doc»., 1881-32, I, No. 18, p. 164 :
Mules and horses . 11/3 cents
Hands . 11/3 cents
Repairing wagons . 2/3 cents
Oil for wagons . 1/5 cents
See Ringwalt, Dev. of Systems of Trans, in U. 8., p. 49.
Exec. Docs., 1831-32, No. 18, p. 178.
12 Cong. Debates, 1831-32, Sen. May 24, p. 952.
12 Cong. Debates, 1835-36, H. of R., p. 4495. In 1840 H. S. Tanner wrote that
[43]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF RAILWAYS 209
In a committee report of 1848-49 we find a general statement as to cost of transportation and something concerning the freight rates of the time. The average expense of transporta¬ tion on the best managed roads of the conntry was reported to be about 2 cents per ton per mile. On the authority of the Baltimore and Ohio’s 1848 report, the committee stated that the actual cost of transportation to that company was 1.849 eents per ton per mile, while the rate charged was 3.96 cents for a like unit.^^
Most of these statements of actual rates were given by those interested in canals and opposed to the perfection and exten¬ sion of railways; and in any case were those charged upon short, imperfect, horse-railways. Yet these were the only rail¬ ways wdiich had been in operation long enough to afford a basis for such statements. While the enthusiastic or far-sighted might foresee lower charges, it was natural that the high rates actually charged on such railways as there were should form an effective argument against their further introduction, and the broad and buoyant optimism of the men of those days surely appears in the slight retarding effect which was exerted by the imperfections of these first railways.
Limitations on Kates in Charters
As stated at the beginning of the chapter, it was at first thought that railway rates would be made up similarly to those on canals and highways; hence it was customary to distin¬ guish two elements in the charge: one for cost of the service rendered, another for ‘‘toll,” being the net earning on the service.^® Furthermore, it was thought necessary to provide
De Gerstner had concluded that 5 cents was the average passenger fare of the time.
See A description O'f the Canals and Railroads of the U. S. (1840), p. 22.
See also below, p. 213, note 29.
Rep. of Com., No. 145, p. 28.
15 p. 206.
1® The former was a payment for transportation ; the latter, or toll, was a payment for use of track, or “way”. This proper and logical use of the terms was reversed in some cases, and it is the “toll” which varies with the direction of the traffic according to the charter of the Baltimore & Ohio.
[43]
210 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
for tolls on vehicles which might run upon a company’s rail¬ way without belonging to the company.
As illustrating the latter point, and giving a manner of limit¬ ing rates very common in the earlier days, the charter of the Brunswick Canal & Railroad Company may be presented. Section 7 of the act by which this railway company was incor¬ porated runs as follows : “ ^ ^ ^ and the said company
shall be entitled, and they are hereby empowered, to demand and collect by way of freight or toll, on all goods, wares, mer¬ chandise, and productions of the country ^ * and cars
or vehicles of any description, conveyed ^ * over and
upon said railroad, such rates of toll or freight as the board of directors of said company may find necessary to adopt from time to time in their regulations of toll; Provided, That dur¬ ing any twelve months together, the net amount shall not ex¬ ceed 25 per cent per annum upon the aggregate amount of money they shall have actually expended in making, construct¬ ing, and keeping in good repair the said ^ * railroad.
The limitation of tolls by stipulating that they should not yield more than a certain percentage on the capital invested Avas quite general. For instance, a charter of 1835 restricted it to 20 per cent. in the same year another charter provided that if the rates of toll charged enabled the railway to pay more than 15 per cent, on its capital stock, ^‘then the said rates of toll and transportation shall be so reduced * * * as te
enable them to divide 15 per cent, and no more;”^® and in 1836 the act incorporating the Illinois Central prescribed that if the average net earnings of ten years should amount to more than 12 per cent, on the cost of the road, the legislature of Ill¬ inois might reduce the rate of tolls.^®
Such limitations were of little importance and could easily be evaded. They are chiefly signifleant as indicating a ten¬ dency to restrict and control.
Exec. Docs., 1836-37, III, No. 122. This was a Georlgia corporation created in 1834. Its charter appears in the documents of Congress in connection with a memorial.
^^Exec. Docs., 183^-35, 111, No. 126.
Rep. of Com., 1837, No. 238.
2«Rep. of Com., 1836-37, I, No. 121.
[44]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 211
Maximum Rates
More important was the prescription of definite maximum rates of tolls on both passengers and freight, which might ap¬ pear with, or without the above limitation on net earnings. As early as January 4, 1831, in discussing a bill authorizing the construction of a lateral branch of the Baltimore & Ohio to Washington, Mr. Semmes, of Maryland, submitted the follow¬ ing amendment: ^^Said company not to make any higher
charges for tolls on transportation on any part of road ^
^ than are allowed by law for tolls and transportation from west to east on the B. & 0. R. R. ^ ^ The charter
of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad, as Mr. Semmes explained, allowed it to levy different rates of toll according to the direc¬ tion of the traffic."^ From west to east rates were not to ex¬ ceed 1 cent a ton per mile for toll, and 3 cents a ton per mile for transportation; while from east to west the company had power to charge 3 cents per ton per mile for toll in addition to the 3 cent transportation charge. Thus the amendment would have reduced the average maximum freight rate by 20 per cent. ; passenger rates were limited to 3 cents per mile.
As finally passed, however, the act authorizing the construc¬ tion of a lateral branch of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad into the District of Columbia did not make the reduction, merely providing that rates of toll in the District should not exceed 3 cents per ton mile for toll, and 3 cents per ton mile for trans¬ portation;^® that is, a maximum rate of 6 cents per ton per mile.
In addition, certain special rates were authorized for the exclusive use of cars or parts of cars for parcels not exceeding "200 pounds in weight
Parcels weighing 50 lbs. or less (or measuring 2 cu. ft.) 1 cent per mile.
Parcels weighing 50 lbs. to 200 lbs. 2 cents per mile.
Cong. Deiates, 1830-Sl, H. of B., p. 400. There were other features in the amendment.
“ See Laws and Ordinances relating to B. O. R. R. Co. (Balt, 1834), p. 10.
^ Cong. Debates, 1830-31, Appendix, p. 52, Section 1.
^ Ibid., Section 2.
[45]
212 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OP WISCONSIN
Parcels weighing 200 lbs. to 1000 lbs. half ton rates.
Parcels weighing 1000 lbs. to 1 ton, ton rates.
In other words, any article or parcel weighing less than 50' pounds conld be charged 1 cent per mile; if the parcel weighed more than 50 pounds, but less than 200 pounds, it would be- liable to a rate of 2 cents per mile; a parcel of any weight be¬ tween 200 and 1,000 pounds would be considered as weighing half a ton; while any article which weighed over 1,000 pounds went as though it were a full ton. Thus the wholesale prin¬ ciple, according to which small shipments are charged for at a higher rate than large ones, was early recognized, and was given extremely pronounced expression in this act of Congress.
Section 4 sets a maximum charge for passengers. The com¬ pany was authorized to collect a sum not exceeding 12.5 cents, “for taking up and setting down” a passenger carried less than four miles within the District. If the railway company had seen fit to charge the maximum, it would certainly have en¬ couraged “through” passenger traffic!
The Virginia act of 1835,^^ which incorporated the Falmouth & Alexandria Railroad Company, contained like provisions, but the rates were even higher: it empowered the company tO’ charge 8 cents per mile for passengers, — or, if the distance travelled were under ten miles, an extra charge of 50 cents ‘ ‘ for taking up and setting down” was authorized, — and provided that freight rates were not to exceed 10 cents per ton per mile.
The charter of the Winchester & Potomac railway allowed a charge for transportation' of 4 cents a ton per mile in the case of “descending articles,” and 6 cents a ton per mile for “ascending articles,” and passenger rates were not to exceed 3 cents per mile.^®
Other charters are found in the Congressional documents- which contain no limitation upon rates, or merely provide that rates shall not be changed without public notice in advance.^’”
Rep. of Com., 1837, No. 238. Section 24.
Exec. Docs., 1837-38, XI, No. 465, p. 17. The provisions for the Great West¬ ern Ry. Co. were the same ; Sen. Docs., ISIfS-Ji^, III, No. 142. Ascendin'^ traffic* was that traffic on the up grade.
22 E. g., Sen. Misc., 18Ji9-50, I, No. 59 Pac. R. R. of Mo.
[46]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAE HISTORY OF RAILWAYS
213
Maximum Rates of Signifiance
It might be thought that these maximum rates are without meaning and that they bear no close relation to actual rates of charge. There is ground for believing that such is not the case, however, — at least down to 1836.
In the first place, we find the canal companies complaining, that they were suffering in that by charter they were limited to lower rates than were the railways.^®
Again, in the president’s report for 1836, it was stated that rates on the Baltimore & Ohio were too low, partly in conse¬ quence of which the road was in poor financial condition. A list of the authorized rates on other roads was presented to show that the maximum was not high enough.^® This states ment has no significance unless it means that at least in some cases rates were as high as the maximum.
The committee on roads and canals reported to the House in 1836 that ‘Hn the construction of the Ootocton aqueduct * ^ ^ it was found to be good economy to transport upon
the Baltimore & Ohio railroad # ^ ^ the granite * ^ ^
at the charge of 6 cents per ton per mile.”®® The report would seem to indicate that in this case the maximum rate was charged.*'
Exec. Docs., 1831-S2. I, No. 18, pp. 193, 197. Of course, this complaint Avas illogical. It conflicted with the argument that the canals afforded much cheaper service than railways.
See Reizenstein, M., Econ. Hist, of the B. d O. B. R. in Johns Hophins Uni¬ versity Studies, XV, 361. The list is as follows ;
|
Pass, rate |
Frt. rate |
|
|
Railway |
(per mi.) |
(per ton per mi.) |
|
Petersburg |
5 cents |
10 cents |
|
Winchester & Potomac |
6 “ |
7 “ |
|
Portsmouth & Roanoke |
6 “ |
8 “ |
|
Boston & Providence |
5 “ |
10 “ |
|
Boston & Lowell |
“ |
7 “ |
|
Mohawk & Hudson |
5 “ |
8 “ |
|
B. & 0. Old Law |
8 |
4 “ |
|
“ New “ |
4 “ |
6 “ |
Rep. of Com., 1835-36, III, No. 671.
* Note. — As further evidence that maximum rates were charged and as show¬ ing some actual rates, the following material taken from pp. 67-68 of the Jour-t-
214
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Rates Based on Cost
The provisions in the charters of the Baltimore & Ohio and Winchester & Potomac railways, noted above, which allow different rates of charge on articles moving in different direc¬ tions, are interesting. The fact that building railways on any considerable angle of ascent would make cost of transportation vary according as the traffic moved up or down, was among the first facts in railway economics that was grasped by engineers. In 1825, Strickland in his report explained that if traffic were equal both ways, a level road was to be preferred; otherwise such an inclination as favored the heavier traffic. The report of the government engineer to the president and directors of the South Carolina Canal & Railroad Company contained a minute calculation of the relation between ascent and volume of traffic which would make equal power sufficient for trans¬ portation both ways.^“
Mr. Semmes, in referring to the provisions of the Baltimore & Ohio in this regard, stated that the heavy expenditure for constructing the road from Baltimore westward, and for pro¬ curing engines and cars to transport heavy articles up a con-
nal of the Internal Improvement Convention, held in Baltimore, Dec. 8, 1834, is of interest ;
Table Showing Cost or Transportation by Existing Works From Baltimore to Wheeling
By the Rail Road to the Point of Rocks (70 mi.) at 6 cents West and
4 cents East, or an average of about 5 cents per ton per mile, say. . . $3 25
By the Canal, thence to Dam No. 5 (GO mi.) at 2 cents freight and 2
cents toll, or 4 cents per ton, 2240 lbs. being for 2000 lbs . 2 14
By the Cumberland and National Roads, thence to Wheeling (57 mi.) per waggon, carrying 5000 lbs. at $4. per day, allowing 11% days, would be, per 2000 lbs . 18 40
Whole cost, per 2000 lbs., . $23 79
Calculations of com. “have been formed on the present rates of transporta¬ tion on the Balt. & O. Rail Road, — and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. — which are the highest rates of tolls that can he charged on either of said works.” Also assumed traffic B. & W. to be equal.
(Report on cost and time req. to trams, merchan. and pass, between Balt, de the Ohio river. Signed John Davenport, Ch’n.)
31 pp. 211, 212.
32 See above, p, 193.
[48]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 215
tiniious ascent over the mountains had induced the legislature of Maryland to allow a greater charge from east to west.^^ Moreover, the same provision existed in the charters of many other railways.
Clearly the idea prevailed that rates were to be based solely on cost, — upon weight, bulk, distance, and grade.
See above, p. 211,
4
[49]
216
BULLETIIJT OF THE TJNIVEKSITY OF 'WISCONSIN
CHAPTER IV
RAILAVAYS VERSUS CANALS 183(U1840
Railways did not Find a Clear Field
When the railway came it did not find a clear field. It found well-established canals and turnpikes already occupying many of the most profitable routes, and those whose fortunes were sunk in such systems naturally made every possible objection against a means of transportation which would rob their in¬ vestments of value. For some time, too, unbiased engineers were in doubt as to the relative merits of railways and canals, in which doubt Congress shared. It is the purpose of this chapter to describe the early conditions in this regard, in so far as they bear upon the attitude of Congress toward railways, and to trace briefly their development down to the time when the railway superseded the canal as a means of internal im¬ provement which could be regarded as national. Incidentally light will be throAvn upon the general question as to when the railway became predominant in the greater part of the field of transportation.
The House Inquiries: 1825
In 1808 Latrobe had written that railways could not be adopted to advantage in this country, and Gallatin’s report merely proposed canals and turnpikes. Everyone knew that in 1812 Stevens’ proposal to substitute a railway for the pro¬ jected Erie canal had been rejected by the commissioners. Rapid improvement in track and locomotive, however, soon put a new face on matters, till in 1825 William Strickland could
[50]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 217
write from England, that railways had received numerous tests which proved them to be practicable, and he announced that one was about to be constructed from Newcastle to Carlisle in preference to a canal. ^ At about this time, too, the Liverpool & Manchester railway was being planned to parallel a well- established and profitable canal.
These developments could not but affect the proceedings of the Congress of the United States, which, as we have seen, was continually considering plans for improving the transportation and communication facilities of the nation. It is more than a coincidence that on December 15, 1825, it was resolved by the House of Kepresentatives^ that its committee on roads and canals be instructed to inquire into the utility of railways, and that it report to the House upon the comparative cost of construct¬ ing railways and canals, together with the relative advantages of the two modes of conveyance. The resolution implies a de¬ sire to encourage a system of “internal improvement;” but it was not clear that the railway was practicable, or that it was a better system than canals afforded.
Just as the year 1825 marks a growth of active interest in railways, so it is the time when the question as to the relative merits of canals and railways came before Congress as an im¬ portant one.
Congress Experiments: 1830
Between 1825 and 1830 improvement in railway construction was especially rapid, yet even at the latter date its superiority was not clear. In that year the committee to which was re¬ ferred a memorial of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company mentioned the fact that the Chesapeake & Ohio canal and the railway were proceeding over the same territory, and rejoiced that a direct and conclusive experiment was now to be made.® Accordingly a bill was reported for aiding the railway as far
'^Reports on Canals, Railwa/ys, etc. (Phila. 1826), p. 23. 25 copies of this re¬
port were purchased by the House of Representatives, see above, p. 190.
J., 1825-26. See above, p. 190. No report was made. of Com., 1829-80, II, No. 211.
[51]
218
&
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
as the Point of Kocks, where it came together - with the canal.'^ The committee only reported after having ‘‘reflected much on the interesting question, now in agitation in England and this country, namely, whether railroads are to he preferred to canals in ordinary cases, and on routes where there are no in- tennediate water communications;” and they wished it to be understood that not the slightest preference was to be given to either.
This report was made notwithstanding the opposition of the Chesapeake & Ohio canal, and in spite of the impartial words used, it would seem to indicate a strong tendency toward the railway, — especially in the light of later developments. But it shows that people were still divided on the subject.
The Baltimore & Ohio Versus the Chesapeake & Ohio
In this connection the struggle that was taking place between the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company is typical of the status of affairs in gen¬ eral. An account of this controversy, so far as it throws light on the subject of this chapter, follows.®
The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company was chartered by Virginia in 1824, and in 1825 Congress confirmed that charter. The books of the company were opened, and by November, 1827, one-fourth of the stock being subscribed, the corporation was established. In the same year, at a public meeting in Balti¬ more, a report was adopted according to which the legislature of Maryland was applied to for a railway charter; the charter was granted; the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company came into existence as a corporation. In April of the same year, the company applied to the government for surveyors.
Now, the railway company had made it known that they intended to proceed toward the Ohio by a “direct route,” and this fact, together with the saving in time and expense sup-
* The report was not favorably acted upon.
® This account is drawn almost entirely from Congressional debates and docu¬ ments. For a more general account, see J. E. U. Studies, XV, 285 ff ; XVII, 519 ft.
[52]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY" OF RAILWAYS 219
posed to accompany it, aided it in securing favor. The com¬ pany, moreover, was well acquainted with the projected canal route, which followed the line of the Potomac river. In 1828, however, when construction was begun, instead of taking a direct route, it proceeded to survey its way along the Potomac valley, and soon came into contact with the canal at the Point of Eocks, where but a narrow strip of land was available along the river. ControY^ersy arose, and was soon carried into the courts.
Both of these corporations had been aided by Congress, the canal company by a subscription to its stock, and the railway by government surveyors. Moreover, both were seeking further assistance, so the conflict came prominently before Congress. In 1829 the canal company memorialized Congress,® stating that by its charter it was authorized to construct a railway on its “middle section” over the Alleghenies; hence this railway (the Baltimore & Ohio), which was asking assistance^ was usurp¬ ing its place. Further, it asked that no opinion be expressed as to the relative legal pretensions of the opponents.
Meanwhile, the legal controversy thickened. An injunction’ was obtained from the Washington county court by the canal company against the railway. The railway company in turn secured an injunction against the canal company, which had attempted to rush its construction through; but, upon appeal, the canal company won, and the railway had the worst of it on the legal side. Popular opinion, however, supported it, and, through the state legislature, pressure was brought to bear upon the canal company® which resulted in a compromise. In 1833 it was Anally agreed and settled that in return for a sub¬ scription for 2,500 of its shares by the railway company, the canal company was to build both systems through the Point of Eocks.® This was a victory for the railway.
« Sen. Docs., 1828-29, II, No. 99.
The Baltimore & Ohio presented a memorial asking stock subscription, Decem¬ ber, 22, 1828. See below in chapter IX.
^Exec. Docs., 1832-33, No. 113.
® The nature of this compromise accounts for a memorial of the president and directors of the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. in favor of a further subscription of stock in the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co., Avhich was presented in 1834 {Exec. Docs., 1833-3Ji, III, No. 95). The redundancy of the revenue and the national
[53]
220
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
The Baltimore & Ohio — Chesapeake & Ohio Controversy
Typical of the Time
It is to be emphasized that this controversy is of more signifi¬ cance than a mere squabble between the interests of two cor¬ porations. It typifies the general situation that existed in 1830 as regards the transportation question. It was not the fate of the Chesapeake & Ohio canal alone that was decided, but that of many others. The Chesapeake & Ohio was the result of years of agitation and planning, for it had sprung from the ruins of an earlier project by the Potomac Company, to the establishment of which the interest of Washington himself had contributed. The founders of the new canal plan had only decided upon that plan after much discussion, in which the railway figured as a possibility, and the railway was rejected. In the minds of most men ddwn to about 1830 the canal was the beau ideal of perfected transportation. At the close of this third decade, however, at least four factors combined to work a revolution. These factors were: (1) the growing ex¬ tent and importance of the West; (2) the decline, real or feared, of the Atlantic coast states south of New York; (3) the realiza¬ tion of the limitations of canals from topographical conditions, — ^mountains, lack of water etc. ; (4) rapid progress in railroad invention and improvement. They centered in Baltimore.^® It was the working of these forces, given point by the rivalry with New York City, that made the triumph of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad possible at this time, and its triumph opened the way for others.
Exactly the same forces^^ were at work at Charleston, and led to the establishment of the Charleston & Hamburg Railroad Company only a few months later.
As has been observed, this controversy came prominently be¬ fore Congress, and it has been intimated that that body virtu-
character of the work were urged as grounds for granting $1,000,000 to be ex¬ pended on the western section of the canal.
See Me'morial of the Citizens of Baltimore to the mayor and city council, in relation to the Baltimore & Ohio Radi Road, presented in council, Feb,, 1836.
The impracticability of a canal was not so great, however, while the spread of cotton culture westward was more important.
[54]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS
221
ally favored the railway. Direct evidence is at hand. The committee of the Senate which reported on the Baltimore & Ohio memorial in 1829, said, “that public confidence in this description of road is rapidly increasing. In England such roads have become numerous, and several successful experi¬ ments” have been made in the United States.^^ In the House the president of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, Mr. Mercer, was chairman of the committee on roads and canals, so we cannot look to this committee for representative reports. This same president and chairman, however, in a private letter under date of May 14, 1830, writes: “In the existing temper of the committee on roads and canals (Senate), I clearly per¬ ceive that any memorial which we might present would be unfavorably regarded, and I had too little reason to hope a more favorable result from the House while the present de¬ lusion (!) prevails in favor of the railroad.
The nature of this “delusion” is apparent in the words of a speaker in the House at the session during which the above was written. Mr. Carson, in the speech already quoted,^^ re¬ ferred to railways as outstripping canals here and abroad, and exclaimed, “Yes, sir, the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mercer) must hear the appalling, the heart-rending fact, that this mighty monument (the C. & 0. canal) ^ ^
must fall, and must give place to the superior improvement of railroads. ’
The conflict between the Baltimore & Ohio Eailroad Com¬ pany and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company was of great importance in educating the people and Congress, and is of value to the historian as fixing the period at which the canal clearly began to be supplanted by the railway in congressional favor.
12 Sen. Docs., 1828-29, 1, No. 73.
12 See The Early Development of the Chesapeake cC- Ohio Canal Project, in J. H. U. Studies, XVII, 104. For early illustrations of such delusion see below, p. 269. 1* See above, p. 205.
1® Cong. Debates, 1829-30, p. 669 Cf,
[55]
223
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
Movement from Canals to Railways
This change in opinion ^vas not confined to the one case, however. In 1830 the same tendency is shown in the move¬ ment to authorize the transfer to railways of land grants pre¬ viously made to canals. Ohio petitioned for the right to devote her two per cent, fund to the construction of railways instead of canals, and the Senate committee on roads and canals re¬ ported favorably, on the ground that recent improvements had caused the more intelligent to deem the railway superior to canals in many, if not all, respects.^® At the next session of Congress the House resolved to inquire into the expediency of authorizing Indiana to substitute a railway in place of a canal for connecting the Wabash with Lake Erie,^’’ and during the session which followed the same action was taken with regard to the Illinois & Michigan canal in Illinois.^®
In 1833 an act was passed which provided that land granted the state of Illinois for the above canal might be “used and disposed of by said state for the purpose of making a railroad instead of a canal, and in the same year similar acts were passed for Ohio and Indiana.
Exceptions to the Movement
But, although the predominance of railways was assured by 1830 or shortly thereafter, they did not actually and every-
Note. — Bibliography for Baltimore & Ohio-Chesapeake & Ohio controversy :
Sen. Docs., 1828-29, II, No. 99.
Sen. Docs., 1829-30, II, No. 144.
Dep. of Com., 1829-30, II, No. 211.
Dxec. Docs., 1831-32, No. 18.
Excc. Docs., 1832-33, II, No. 93.
Exec. Docs., 1832-33, III, No. 113.
Exec. Docs., 1832-33, III, No. 117.
Eep. of Com., 1833-3Jf, Appendix C, p. 117.
Exec. Docs., 1833-31/, III, No. 95.
Ilulbert, Historical Highways, XIII, 110.
The monographs in J. H. U. Studies above referred to.
State Papers, Feb. 8, 1830. Pub. Lands, VI, 138.
” H. J., 1830-31, Jan. 5, 1831, p. 147.
H. J., 1831-32, p. 71.
Laws of the United States, VIII, 833, Sec. 1.
[56]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 223
where predominate till a much later time. In 1835-36, a pro¬ position to change the Cumberland Eoad to a railway failed in Congress."® As late as 1846 a committee in its report said, ‘rtt is not intended to maintain that a railroad is, in the ab¬ stract, a better medium of conveyance than a navi¬
gable stream, and in the same year it 'was thought necessary by another committee to explain that the nature of the country made canals impracticable.^^
In the state of Wisconsin the railway did not gain ascendency until about 1847,^® certain sections supporting canals and river improvements.^^ This is true for other sections, especially in the West and South; but is not of great importance to a con¬ gressional history because of the distinction between national and local improvements; while railways did not predominate in public favor in all sections at so early a date, they did in Congress, where improvements of ‘‘national importance” alone could properly be considered.
The Railway Predominant
Thus, while the facts already presented justify the conclu¬ sion that by 1830 the railway was recognized as a permanent factor in transportation, and that Congress showed a strong tendency to favor it over the canal, it cannot fairly be said that it predominated actually and everywhere till later, — till the early forties.
The crisis of 1837 contributed largely to this end.^® Prior to that date there was a great deal of canal building on specula-
See Cong. Dehates, 1835-36, p. 4540.
21 Rep. of Com., 181,5-1,6, II, No. 301.
22 Sen. Docs., 181,5-1,6, No. 152, p. 8.
23 Meyer, B. 11., Hist, of Early R. R. Legislaiion in Wis., in M'is. Hist. Coll., XIV, 219.
21 There were at least three chief grounds of opposition :
(1) It was objected that the state could not yet support railways.
(2) Plank and macadamized roads were better for farmers.
(3) Railroads were monopolistic.
This iaustrates the fact that the struggle went on in the border states on much' the same lines that it took place in Congress nearly two decades earlier.
25 Hadley, Railroad Transportation, pp. 31-33.
[57]
224: BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
tion, and these “enterprises” fell in the panic. Stigma at¬ tached to them as a result. Moreover, they had been carried on generally by the states, and suffered from the general down¬ fall of state activity and collapse of state credit. Eailway con¬ struction, on the other hand, did not suffer from the panic to any great extent, and it was more frequently carried on by private companies.
Summary op Arguments Advanced For and Against
Railways
In the first session of the twenty-second Congress, the sub¬ ject of the relative merits of canals and railways was thor¬ oughly threshed out, and nearly all the arguments pro and con may be found in the documents^® of this time, 1831-32. Much that was said concerning the early ideas as to construc¬ tion and utility of railways also applies here.^^
In the learned discussions of this matter, the proper way to begin — in case the railway was to be supported — was to state that the effect of power applied on a railway is constant at all speeds, whereas in the case of a canal resistance increases as the square of the velocity. In other words, it was argued that while on a canal friction increased at a greater rate than speed, on a railway it increased only at about the same rate, and hence canals could only afford to compete for slow traf¬ fic. Its greater speed gave the railway important advantages over canals in carrying the mails, troops, passengers, and all perishable commodities. From the beginning, the desire of the public for speedy mail service put a strong weapon into the arsenal of the railway.
Coupled with the argument of superior speed was that based on a more extended range of service. Canals, it was observed, were limited by mountains and lack of water, while railways could reach the farmer everywhere and carry his produce to the cities.
Exec. Docs., 18S1-32, Docs. No. 18 and 101. See above, p. 195 ff.
[58]
HAITEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF RAILWAYS 225
When it was added that they furnished continuous service during the whole year, While canals were frozen during the winter, a strong argument was at hand for the statement that the railway would be far more efficient than the canal in equal¬ izing supply and demand, preventing gluts and monopolies. This argument was advanced.^®
Again, it was generally admitted, though sometimes dis¬ puted by canal companies, that the cost of construction of rail¬ ways was less. They could be built more quickly, too, and it was pointed out that this was not only desirable in itself, but meant a saving in interest on the capital invested.
Finally when but a few miles of railway had been constructed, it was argued that it would be bad policy to trans-ship goods, and that all-rail routes were preferable. The camel had his nose within the tent.
In behalf of the canal it was urged that practice showed that the railway was an adjunct to the canal and that they were used together. Such an argument shows that the canal was on the defensive and was willing to make concessions; the Chesa¬ peake & Ohio company came to practically admit that the mid¬ dle section of its route should be a railway.^® Canal supporters asserted that no canal had ever been changed to a railroad. The boasted superiority in speed, said they, was after all very limited. Twenty to thirty miles an hour would be fatal. And again, experiments with steam canal boats were being made which showed that great speed could be attained in that way. It was feasible, too, to keep canals freed from ice in winter.
The strongest argument, however, was the cheapness of trans¬ porting heavy, bulky commodities, especially where speed did not play an important part ; the cost, it was asserted, was about one-third that on railways. The argument, however, as it left a large field open to the railway, could not be effectual in checking the growth of a favorable sentiment in Congress.
In checking the growing popularity of railways in Congress, the general appeal to conservatism was most effective. ‘‘G-o
^ Exec. Doc., 1831-32, No, 101, Appendix to the Report on Steam CarHages.
20 Above, p. 219.
[59]
226
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
slow,” said tlie canal faction to Congress, ‘‘it will take years to decide which system is the best adapted to transportation in this country;” and they pointed to the sparse population and uneven surface of the land. Such an argument was two- edged, however, and could at most but put railways and canals on a common level of disadvantage. And it did not reckon with the American system of railway construction (and financiering).
Some of the economic arguments were quaint and fallacious ; others showed valid foresight. It was urged that canals were superior “as a public work” and that railways, were undemo¬ cratic. At the same time, it was clearly seen that railways were liable to cutthroat competition, and that a “parallel line” might involve the original and itself in common ruin. The fear was expressed that railways might be built too fast, and that, being abandoned, they would decay. Canals would be more permanent.
The foregoing comprises the chief arguments as to the rela¬ tive merits of railways and canals, as they were advanced in Con¬ gress up to 1830. It remains to be added that the question dif¬ fered considerably according to the tractive power proposed: if animal power was to be used, the argument from speed was not so strong, but there could be no objection on the score of danger and the like.
It should be remembered that a large part of the opposition to railways was entirely sincere. Many men really believed them impracticable, even in 1830, though, as has been observed, the bias of interested canal owners played a great part.
Early Railways Often not Regarded as Merely Auxiliary
TO Canals
It has been stated^® that the earlier railways were regarded as merely supplemental to rivers and canals, which they followed for the purpose of rendering assistance at certain places and seasons, and that before 1850 men generally considered them as
^ Sanborn, Congressional Grants of Land in Aid of It. Rs., pp. 17, 23.
[60]
HAIv^EY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 227
auxiliary to water transportation. But a study of the earlier railways makes modification of this statement necessary".
(1) In the fix’s! place, we have seen that in the earliest men¬ tion of railways by Latrobe, they were thought of as being used in regions and for purposes for which canals and rivers could not be available.
(2) Again, railways were thought of as taking one kind of traffic; canals, another.
(3) As will be shown later,^^ the earliest assistance to rail¬ ways was rendered to ‘‘canals or railways,” and the earlier companies were frequently formed to construct a canal or rail¬ way. Thus, the railway was often regarded not as an auxiliary, but as an alternative to canals. There were some bitter strug¬ gles between the two, and the railways supplanted canals.
(4) Out of thirty-two projected railways mentioned in a work on the internal navigation of the United States^^ (1830), the majority do not follow water courses, or from their location are distinct and independent from canal or river traffic.
(5) Hallways were spoken of as presenting an effective competition to rivers as a means of transportation.^^
31 Below, pp. 277, 284.
33 The New York Central was built in competition with the Erie canal ; the Baltimore & Ohio competed with the Chesapeake & Ohio canal ; several of the early roads were built to compete with river transportation.
33 Armroyd, George, Internal Navigation of the United States (Phila., 1830), p. 574.
3^ Cong. Dehateg, 1835-36, p. 4542.
[61]
228
BULI.ETII^ OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
CHAPTER V
RAILWAYS SUPERSEDE ROADS AS A NATIONAL
IMPROVEMENT
The introduction of railways met opposition not only from canals, but also, though to a much less extent, from roads or turnpikes; not only did the railroad generally supersede the canal in the country at large and in congressional favor, but it also superseded common roads as a national improvement.
Roads or Railroads
In 1825, it will be remembered, the House inquired into the expediency of an experiment with macadamized roads and rail¬ ways/ At this time an argument that, all things considered, a system of macadamized highways would best serve the nation wmuld have received serious attention, and when the stage of railway development, together wdth the state of the country, is reflected upon, it cannot be wondered at. Short-lived and expensive cast-iron rails alone were in use, while it was gener¬ ally believed that a granite substructure would be necessary. Such being the case, it is not strange that railways were deemed unsuitable to a new and comparatively poor country like the United States; it is little wonder that even so far¬ sighted a man as Oliver Evans believed that ways like turn¬ pikes were to be preferred “in the first instance’’ to railways.^
Furthermore, looking backward, we are more likely to under¬ estimate than to overestimate the power of that vague inertia, conservatism. In 1806, Congress had committed the nation
^ See above, p. 189. 2 Above, p. 196.
[62]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAE HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 229^^
to a policy of road-building, and the great national road was the just pride of the country. An extensive system of post¬ roads had been established. In short, it was natural that men should be loath to turn from their labor in one direction to move in new paths.
Of a quite similar nature to this factor, was the widespread feeling that roads were best suited to a democracy, and that railroads were “moneyed powers.’’ This idea has been re¬ ferred to in connection with canals; it will appear below.
Steam on Common Eoads
Again, as long as steam locomotion was not contemplated as the chief means of transportation, the field for railways was much restricted, and only with the perfection of the steam engine did the idea that macadamized roads and canals might answer for the nation’s internal commerce vanish. The dis¬ cussion of steam transportation on common roads which oc¬ cupied a place in congressional proceedings at the first session of the twenty-second Congress may be regarded as a late stage in that evolution by which the railway supplanted the common road and the canal.
This discussion was encouraged by the canal supporters, as well as those interested in turnpikes and the disinterested con¬ servatives, and it was Mr. Mercer, president of the defeated Chesapeake & Ohio cana], who, in 1832, reported a resolution that the report of a committee of the House of Commons of Great Britain on the use of steam carriages on common roads be printed.^ The English committee had been appointed in 1831 to inquire what tolls ought to be imposed on “coaches and other vehicles, propelled by steam or gas,'^ upon turnpike roads ; ’ ’ what was the present state and future prospects of land carriage by such vehicles; and what utility the public might
® Goifig. DeTjates, 18S1-S2, VIII, Pt. II, 1765. So much of the report on the Chefsapeake & Ohio canal as related to the actual and relative cost of canals and railways was added. Ihid., p. 1841.
* No such vehicle having been made practical, the report did not consider this kind.
[63]
230 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
derive therefrom. On' the first point, the committee reported in favor of extending protection to steam carriages at once, to prevent the exaction of excessive tolls by turmpike compan¬ ies. As to the second question, the matter had passed a doubt¬ ful stage, said they, and many successful experiments indicated success. With regard to public utility, they concluded : ‘‘These inquiries have led the committee to believe that the substitution of inanimate for animal power, in draught on com¬ mon roads, is one of the most important improvements in the means of internal communication ever introduced.”®
The main objections brought out by the inquiry were:
(1) Insecurity on account of boiler explosions, and break- .age of machinerj^;
(2) Annoyance to travellers with horses from peculiar ap¬ pearance, noise, smoke and steam;®
(3) Wear on roads.
These might be largely obviated, however, by using coke, turning the exhaust through the chimney, and applying broad tires.
The great advantage lay in the higher speed and, it was added, “There is no danger of being run away with, and that of being over-turned is greatly diminished.”
The committee assumed that for bulky objects, where speed was of little importance, horse traction would be cheapest.'^
In the debate on* printing, in addition to this matter, a re¬ port on the relative and actual cost of railways and canals,®
5 Exeo. Docs., 1831-32, No. 101.
® Interesting in connection with the recent spread of the use of automobiles.
^ The. following summary of evidence was submitted :
1. Carriages can be propelled by steam on common roads at 10 mi. per
hour.
2. This has been done with a carriage containing upward of fourteen peo¬
ple.
3. Weight, including fuel, water and attendants may be under 3 tons.
4. Steam carriages can ascend and descend hills of considerable inclina¬
tion with facility and safety.
5. They are safe for passengers.
6. They are not public nuisances.
7. They will be speedier and cheaper than those drawn by horses.
8. They make less wear upon common roads.
9. Rates of toll imposed have been excessive.
® Cong. Dehates, Feb. 20, 1832, VIII, Pt. n, 1841.
[64]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAE HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 231
Mr. Cambreling, of Maryland, stated that the idea of locomo¬ tive engines travelling on macadamized roads at the rate of from 15 to 20 miles an hour v/as absurd, adding that railways would also be preferred to canals. At this point Mr. Mercer, — with what may have been delicate irony, — professed himself highly willing to print all the information in favor of railways which the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cambreling, might be able to furnish. He insisted on the practicability of intro¬ ducing steam cars on common roads, by which one-half the present cost of transportation would be saved.
But, just as Oliver Evans’ feat in 1804® resulted in no intro¬ duction of steam carriages, so this agitation in Congress ended in nothing practical. The opinion of Mr. Cambreling was probably that of the majority of congressmen, and nothing of importance with regard to steam road carriages is found in congressional documents after 1832. Aside from its intrinsic interest and its place in the evolution of the steam locomotive, the movement to develop steam transportation on roads is only of significance as a stage in the predominance of the railway over the macadamized highway as a national improvement.* *
** Above, p. 185.
* Note on steam carriages : Roughly speaking, between 1820 and 1830, there was much activity directed toward applying steam to transportation on roads, especially in England, where much progress was made. It seemed for a time that this was to he a permanent improvement. Hostile legislation, however, together with railway competition, checked the movement, though not until several practical steam carriages had been constructed and used for commercial purposes.
In this country so- much was not accomplished, partly on account of the poor roads, no doubt. Oliver Evans’ experiment caused some stir, but no im¬ mediate result. Niles’ Register for Sept. 11, 1819, gives the following notice : “A London paper of July 17 says — ‘The Americans have applied the power of steam to supersede that of horses in propelling stage coaches. In the state of Kentucky a stage-coach is now established with a steam engine which travels at the rate of 12 miles an hour.’ ” The index refers to this item as “Steam car¬ riages, etc., wild report respecting.”
It will be remembered that the year 1819 was the one in which Dearborn peti¬ tioned Conigress concerning hisi project, and the rumor from England might have had this source. This is merely a conjecture. ,
The same paper in the number for Sept. 11, 1824, contains the following no¬ tice, under the catch title, “Steam coach Mr. S. T. Conn, of Virginia, an¬ nounces that he “has made an improvement in the application of steam, which, from its small dimensions and the concentration of power in the generator, gives certain assurance of enabling him to propel carriages on any turnpike or other road which has no uncommon obstruction, * * * Pe has ascertained a
5 [65]
232
BULLETIN OE THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
The Buffalo-New Orleans Eoad Bill
A sign of the times was the attack upon the proposal in Congress to construct a road from Buifalo to New Orleans. This kind of improvement was referred to as a ‘‘paltry earthen road,” and as being behind the spirit of the age, which demanded railways.^®
The Movement to Change the Cumberland Boad to a
Railway
But more significant was a proposition made in 1836 to change the western extension of the great National Bike or Cumberland Road to a railway. After 1830 the growth of railways was very rapid, and we have seen that some time before the close of the succeeding decade they ihad found favor over canals. As they extended they came into more close and general competition vdth turnpikes and stage com¬ panies, which inevitably succumbed where such was the case, making clear the relatively limited sphere of the older methods of transportation. This appeared first in the eastern states, and in Pennsylvania the limitations of the Cumberland Road were early seen.^^ By 1836 it was more generally recognized, and the springing up of many railway corporations with pro¬ jected lines in proximity to the western portion of the road naturally gave rise to the question as to the future utility of a turnpike as well as to its relative cost.
The proposition to adopt a railway for that part of the Cum¬ berland Road lying west of Columbus, Ohio, originated in connection with a senate bilP^ for the continuation of the road
method of guiding the carriage which obviates the necessity of rail-ways.” He proposed to estabiish a coach between Washington and Alexandria or Baltimore, desirinig to prove the merit of his invention at the capitol.
For further discussion, in addition to the Report on Steam Navigation, see Thurston, Robt. H., A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine, pp. 157-171 ; and Armroyd, Geo., International Navigation of the United States (published anonymously, Phila., 1830), p. 590.
10 Cong. Delates, 1829-30, Mar. 25, 1830, p. 669.
11 Hulbert, Historic Highicays, X, 84.
i^BRZ No. OJf, Sen. Jour., 1835-36, p. 79 ; Cong. Delates, 1835-36, p. 723.
HANEY - CONGBESSIONAE HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 233
in the states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and it occupied con¬ siderable space in the proceedings of the first session of the twenty-fourth Congress. The movement for a railway was con¬ nected with an effort to greatly cut down the appropriations,^^ and this fact, in addition to scanty material, makes it impossible to draw sharp conclusions as to the extent to which Congress favored the change. Nevertheless, certain general tendencies will become clear.
At the very beginning of the discussion, it was urged that the cost of constructing a macadamized road through this level country where stone was scarce would be greater than that of a railway and this argument was not met save for so much of the road as lay in Indiana, where a great part of the grading had been finished, and, being adapted to macadamizing, could not be altered without much expense. Mr. Clay remarked that even if a macadamized road was to be made, it would be cheaper to build a railway, too, for the purpose of transport¬ ing stone for the macadamized road ( ! ) .
The following amendment, proposed by Mr. Clay, was car¬ ried by a vote of 30 to 14: “provided the expenditure of that part of the appropriation to be made in the state of Illinois shall be limited to the graduation and bridging of said road, and shaU not be construed as pledging Congress for future appropriations for McAdamizing said road.”^® With this lim¬ itation and reduced appropriations, the bill passed the Senate.
Obviously the significance of the amendment in this con¬ nection lies in the fact that it left the substitution of a rail¬ way possible.
It now becomes necessary to drop the thread of this bill for the moment, in order to notice similar developments in the House. This body had resolved on February 11, 1836, that
The appropriations were cut down considerably. See S. J., 1835-S6, pp. 202, 213. A motion by Mr. Clay to cut down the appropriation for Indiana was lost, however.
Cong. Debates, 1835-36, p. 724.
Ibid., Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri were solid against the amend¬ ment. New Hampshire. New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee were divided. The northwestern states would naturally fear that this meddling with the matter might leave them no road at all.
[67]
234 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
the secretary of war should lay before it an itemized account of the cost of constructing the National Road; ‘‘also the rela¬ tive cost of substituting a rail-way for a McAdamized road, # -j-jjg relative expense of the future repairs of
such railway or road;” and an account of the system of con¬ tracting for the work."®
In accordance with this resolution, a document was submitted on April 20, iwhich contains, besides an account of the method of contracting and tables of relative cost, some important re- marks.^^ Reference was at once made to the existence of railways in the region, though the point emphasized was' not the competition to be feared, but rather the advantages of an all¬ rail route. Railways already projected would connect Balti¬ more with Columbus, a raihvay connecting Cleveland with Col¬ umbus had been recently chartered, while at Springfield, 0., the road would be intersected by the Lake Erie and Mad River railway, and a railway chartered from Springfield to Cincin¬ nati, where it would meet the projected route to Charleston, S. C. Thus, if a railway were constructed it would not only afford a uniform through route to the Wast, but also form part of an extended system north and south, the implication being that a common road would fill no such function.
After describing the construction proposed, the report con¬ cludes, “Assuming as' data the recent performance on the Baltimore & Ohio rail-road of one of the locomotive engines belonging to that company, by which higher grades were over come than any to be surmounted ^ nearly the whole
difference of cost in the items of graduation, masonry and bridging in favor of the McAdamized road, would disappear.”
The cost per mile was estimated at nearly $13,000, which was less than the estimate for the macadamized road, but as some progress had been made on the latter the change to a railway would have meant a slightly greater expense.^* The annual expense for repairs on the railway, however, was estimated at less than 56 per cent, of that on the road.
J., 1835-S6, p. 328.
Ea).ec. Docs., 1835-36. VI, No. 230, p. 6 flf.
About 20 per cent.
[68]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 235
Meanwhile^ tlie Senate bill for the continnation of the Cumberland Koad had come to the House, where it was referred to the committee on roads and canals, and that committee re¬ ported an amendment to change the road from a macadamized road to a railroadd^
The chief reason given for the amendment was based on the relative cost of roads and railways, it being stated that the level nature of the land and the great cost of hauling stone for the road made a railway cheaper, and the estimates given above were cited. Companies engaged in constructing aqueducts had actually found it cheaper to build railways merely for hauling their materials. Repairs would be less by one-half.^®
The committee did not base its judgment on cost alone, how¬ ever. It stated its belief in the ^^vast superiority of railways over the best turnpikes,” adding that: ^‘On this subject the public mind is believed to be settled. ’ ’
The report refers to the advantages of a through rail route to the West, dwells at length on the military utility, and men¬ tions general social benefits.
The Torincipal speech on the proposed amendment was made by Mr. Jackson of klassachusetts,^^ and the main argument was that the progress of steam transportation had been so great since 1820 that common roads had become only of local im¬ portance. Science and ingenuity, said he, had opened far bet¬ ter means of communication which 'would take through traffic away from mere roads, hence the latter would be futile in furthering the original purpose of Congress for creating an ef¬ fective bond between the East and the West. Point was given to his argument by the fact that Mr. Lane of Indiana had stated that, even though railways were better, if the people of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois preferred a road, they ought to have it re¬ gardless of the wishes of other sections. In a word, the road could only be regarded as a sectional or local improvement, and so could not fairly claim a national appropriation.
Mr. Jackson stated that official investigation proved that a
"0 Cong. DelJates, 1S35-36, p. 4495.
20 Rep. of Com., 1835-36, III, No. 671.
Cong. Dehates, 1835-36, p. 4495.
[69]
236
h
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
double track railway could be constructed for $12,238 per mile, which was considerably less than the cost of a macadamized road, and that it could be kept in repair at half the cost.
The cry that the railway was monopolistic and undemocratic,^^ that a real ‘‘people’s road” was wanted, he met by asking who would carry these sentiments so far as to pay $3.50 for an un¬ comfortable jolting of six or eight hours over the road from Washington to Baltimore in preference to an easy ride of less than three hours by rail at a cost of only $2.50.
In spite of these arguments, however, the amendment was rejected by the House.
In the same session this subject came up again. The com¬ mittee on roads and canals having reported a bill for the ex¬ tension of the National Road from Yandalia, Ill., to the Missis¬ sippi river, in which it was provided that the road should be so graded as to permit the laying of rails, that provision was re¬ jected by a vote of 92 to 38.^^ Similar action resulted as to the same provision for the extension to Jefferson City, Mo.,^^ and the bill was laid aside.
This did not end the matter, however, for the discussion was shortly resumed, Mr. Webster of Ohio making the important speech.^^ The substance of his argument was the same as that contained in the speech made by Mr. Jackson. He said that the enterprise of the growing West would not tolerate the slow and tedious stage coach, and that the railway would not only be a speedier, but a cheaper means of travel. Rivers would remain the highways of commerce, — canals he considered as tributaries to rivers, — but for travel railways were “incomparably superior to the best macadamized roads.”
He prophesied that should a road be built, it would soon be paralleled by a railway and be relegated to use for local trans¬ portation from village to village. Notwithstanding his state¬ ment concerning rivers as the chief highways of commerce, he said that the railway would present an effective competition to
^ See below, p. 247 ff.
28 Gong. Debates, 1835-36, p. 4501. 2^ lUd.
^8 Ibid., p, 4540.
[70]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 237
steamboat companies on tbe Ohio river, furnishing a speedier and more continuous service.
Mr. AVebster referred to the military advantage of being able to concentrate troops on the border in a short time, and said that the government policy of congregating the Indians west of the Mississippi made this feature especially important.
The main line of argument seem.s to us, with our later knowl¬ edge, unanswerable, but the conservative element triumphed, and the original bill for a macadamized road was passed.^®
Some of the arguments of those who opposed the change to a railway may be gathered from the speeches of those who favored it, though no more direct account is to be found in the records of debates. For instance, it appears that objection was made on the ground that the railway could not be used by emigrants. Streams of emigrants were pouring westward, and supporters of the original road bill said that such a highway as they proposed would best convey these travellers. Such an objection was easily answered by pointing out that the cost of migrating by rail would actually be less, in that there would be a great saving in time, and so in the consumption of pro¬ visions, and like costs.
Again, resistance came from certain towns along the route of the road, the tavern-keepers especially fearing that the stream of travel, if borne upon so rapid a conveyance as the railway, would sweep past their doors without halt.^’’
These, together with the anti-monopoly, “people’s road” cry, are the only objections to be found, however; and as it seems they could hardly have determined the deliberate action of Congress,^® we must attribute the rejection of the proposed
Vote stood 104 to 82, the important opposition coming from the South.
This was a just fear. The route of the old pike is to-day lined with dead towns. In those days of stage travel the inns along the roads were numerous and those interested in them formed a large and relatively influential class. The introduction of railways caused complaint of numerous persons engaged in staging and stage-taverns, and sympathy for them was very wide-spread. (See Stimson, A. L., History of the Express Companies and the Origin of Amein- can Railroads, N. Y., 1859, p. 29.)
Jacksonian democracy was predominant, however, and the “people’s road’’ argument is on a par with the other political cries of the time. It probably had considerable weight.
[71]
238 BULLETIN OE THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
adaptation of the road to railway construction as being largely due to a general spirit of conservatism.^^ It is probable, too, that the states most concerned feared that any tampering with the appropriations might cause delay or the entire abandoning of the road, and, as has been observed, the fact that a move¬ ment to adopt a railway was associated with one to cut down the appropriations would lead to opposition to the whole change. Even those who favored a railway would take half a loaf rather than none.
Thus, while we cannot measure the sentiment of Congress quantitatively, we may conclude that it was realized that the railway was more efficient than a turnpike, and that roads could not be considered ‘‘national improvements.” In' 1838 the last appropriation for the Cumberland Eoad was made, and it was never completed.
Eailways Supersede Turnpikes in jMail Service
On July 7, of this same year, an act of Congress constituted every railway in the United States a post route. This fact is of much importance in that it was thought for some time that roads would remain best suited for mail service. Indeed, the history of the mail service has been divided into two periods, based on the importance of railways as a means of conveyance the dividing year is placed at 1834, when railways were begin¬ ning to be used in a small way for mail.
In a list of mail contracts made in 1831 for the three years following, no mention was made of railways.^^ Not until 1834 do the annual reports of the post office speak of railways as mail carriers,^- but in that year the following reference oc¬ curs: “The multiplication of railroads in different parts of
Final action was taken at the close of a crowded session, and this must be reckoned a factor in determining the fate of the amendment.
See a History of the Railway Mail Service, Sen. Exec. Docs., IfSth Cong., i265 sess., No. 40, p. 11. This is a documentary history compiled by the postmaster- general in response toi a Senate request. This is a valuable source.
Ihid., p. 25 Submitted in the House, April, 1832.
32 It should be observed that contractors for the delivery of the mail used the railway from the beginning.
[72]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS
239
the country promises, within a few years, to give great rapidity to the movement of travellers, and it is a subject worthy of in¬ quiry, whether measures may not now be taken to secure the transportation of the mail upon them.
In 1834 there were less than 700 miles of railway in the United States, and the average rate of speed^^ was not much greater than that attained by horses on good roads, contracts for mail delivery by the latter means being made which re¬ quired from 8 to 15 miles an hour.®^ Contracts were sometimes awarded stages as making better time.®® As late as April 30, 1835, a letter addressed to a mail contractor refers to irregulari¬ ties on the Camden & Amboy, and concludes: ‘‘From the ex¬ perience we have had, the adaptation of the railroad to pur¬ poses of mail transportation is becoming every day more and more questionable.” An earlier communication had implied a threat to go back to stage service.®^
This attitude, however, was of short duration. In 1835 and 1836, contracts with railways became frequent.®® In 1835 Amos Kendall, the postmaster-general, wrote that to be forced to abandon railway mail service and resort to stages would cause this important branch of government activity to “sink into contempt;”®® and on July 7, 1838, all railways in the country were constituted United States post routes.
Citizens op St. Augustine Ask foe a Kaiuway
In concluding the discussion of the change from roads to railways, a petition^® of the citizens of St. Augustine, Fla., may be instanced as a further illustration. Congress had voted an appropriation for a road to connect Picolata with St. Au-
p. 26.
See above, p. 201.
Sen. Exec. Docs., ItSth Cong., 2d sess., No. 40, pp. 15-18.
36 lUd.
3^ lUd., p. 26.
33 See Itid., p. 28. Tbis was, of course, partly due to the rapid extension of railways.
^^lUd., p. 1.32.
^6 H. J., 1838-39, p. 286.
[73]
240 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
giistine. This, however, did not satisfy certain citizens of east¬ ern Florida, and they accordingly memorialized Congress, ask¬ ing that the appropriation be applied to the construction of a railway over the same route.
As in the case of the Cumberland Road, this agitation led to no change. A counter memorial was presented. Congress did not act upon the matter.
General Summary and Conclusion
As the case of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad versus the Chesapeake & Ohio canal was typical of the general status, so here, the proposition to make a railroad over the route of the National Road is characteristic of the time. Congress began by inquiring into the relative cost and utility of roads and rail¬ roads in 1825. By 1831 steam had become the important factor in transportation and its application to common roads was agi¬ tated. This shows a tendency to adhere to turnpikes, though perhaps a majority of men realized the superiority of railways. In 1836 there was a strong movement in Congress to substitute a railway for the National Road, and it did not fail because a railway was believed to be inferior to the macadamized road. Indeed, we are warranted in concluding that by this time the railway had practically superseded the road as a national im¬ provement. It was the turning point. In 1838 the last ap¬ propriation for this road was made. In 1839 there was an ef¬ fort to alter an appropriation for a road in Florida.
As one turns over the indices of the journals of Congress, he is struck by the sharp decline in the frequency and importance of measures concerning roads, both post and military, which occurs about the year 1840; and, though it practically came nearly five years earlier, we may name that date as marking the time when railways clearly superseded roads as a national im¬ provement.
[74]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 241
CHAPTER VI ' ■
THE RAILWAY AND SOCIETY
The aim of the present chapter is to trace from the utter¬ ances of congressmen and from congressional documents the development of ideas concerning the effect of railways upon society and government; and to give a general resume of the re¬ lations which were assumed to exist between railways and the economics and politics of the country. Some of the facts to be presented have appeared in the preceding chapters, but they are now made the basis for conclusions of a different order.
We know that with the introduction of the railway there came a new factor into the life of the nation, and of the world, which radically affected all phases of that life. The railway is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from other and earlier means of conveyance and communication. But was this apparent to the men, and especially the congressmen, of the early nineteenth century ? On the whole, it may be said that it was. Almost from the beginning it was quite generally recog¬ nized that the laws governing the operation of the railway were different in important repects from those applying to canals and turnpikes. This statement, however, needs qualification,^ and only after 1840 when the railway had superseded canals and roads in Congress, is its truth most clearly apparent.
Railways Diffeeent Feom Canals and Tuenpikes in Social
AND Economic Effects
The differences between canals and railways were brought out fully in the discussions of 1831 and 1832. At that time the
^ See below, pp. 248, 260 fiP.
[75]
242
BULLETII^ OP THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN
effects which these differences must have on social and economic^ conditions were discussed in Congress.
1. Facility of construction and ivasteful competition.
In the first place, the relative facility with which railways could be constructed, and the fact that they were not so limited by topographical conditions made important differences. It was thought by some men that any farm or town that desired, a railway would readily be accommodated, and that this would lead to a wasteful multiplication of routes that would cause loss to all. Thus, Josiah White, in a letter which was submitted by the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company in support of a memorial,® said, ‘‘I think it rather fortunate for society, that railroads are not oi equal value to the canals, for a railroad can be taken anywhere, and consequently, no improvement would be safe on this line, for the moment the improvement succeeded, it would be rivaled, so as to destroy both.” White even expressed a fear that tenure or value of property would be rendered insecure as a result.
This less limited scope and difference in competitive nature, of course, made a distinction between railways and canals, rather than turnpikes. It should be observed that this idea of competition was but a speculation or prophecy, and that it was not based upon any existing condition of ‘‘cut-throat competi¬ tion” among railroads. At the time^ White wrote there were only about 200 miles of railway in this country, and well down to the close of the first half of the century railway capital was relatively scarce and unproductive,® so that such a state could not well exist.
Nor was it based on a supposed analogy between railways and roads, for such a degree of competition does not seem to have been prevalent among turnpikes.
2 It seems to the writer unfortunate that the adjective, economic, does not alone express the idea to he conveyed. It should do so. The German com¬ pound, socio-economic, might he used.
3 Exec. Docs., 1S31-S2, No. 18, p. 166 ff.
* 1832.
^ See Tanner, H. S., A Description of the Canals and Railroads of the United States (N. Y., 1840), p. 22 ff.
[76]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTORY OF RAILWAYS
243
2. Bo/ilways “monopolistic.^’
But while some feared undue competition among diiierent railways, it was commonly recognized that each railway formed a ' ‘ close monopoly, and not a public highway. ’ This' seems to be a contradiction of ideas. By a monopoly, however, was meant not one existing between different railroads, but one which consisted merely in the exclusive right to use the railway ^\dlich the company owning it possessed. The charter of the Falmouth & Alexandria Eailroad Company stated that ‘‘upon the rail-road hereby authorized the company shall have the ex¬ clusive right of transportation,”^ other charters empowered the railway companies to prescribe time and manner in which trans¬ portation services should be performed,^ and others still pro¬ vided that only such vehicles as the company might allow should operate upon its railway.'-^
It was such conditions that caused Benjamin White, engineer, to ivrite, in a letter appended to a congressional document, “I consider a long line of railroad passing from Baltimore over the mountains as being odious in this country as
a monopoly of the carrying, which it necessarily must be;”^® and he observed that a canal was open to any man who built a boat to navigate it as he chose. It was this that Mr. Bouldin referred to when, in a debate on the re-organization of the Post Office, which occurred in the House in 1836, he said that he would vote for any check that could be put upon the mo¬ nopoly of the railroads. In the same year Mr. Jackson repre¬ sented the opponents of railways as crying, “A railroad is a monopoly ! ’
6 Ex!.ec. Docs., 1831-S2, T, No. 18, p. 197.
Rep. of Com., mi, No. 288. Sec. 23.
® Ben. Docs., l&lp-Jfd, V, No. 295, p. 5, Sec. 6.
® Rep. of Com., 1836-37, I, No. 121, Sec. 5. The charter of the Baltimore & Ohio R. R. contained a provision to this effect. It indicates that in the transition to raiiwaj^s there was a tendency to think of railways as being similar to turnpikes.
E<r-ec. Docs., 1831-32, No. j 8.
Cong. DeMtes, 1835-36, H. of R., p. 4495. The following extract from a western paper is typical ; “* * * * nor do we wish to see our Legislature
rush headlong into the granting of monoplies (i. e., R. R. charters), which
* * * « ^7ould embarrass Wisconsin in her future Internal Improvement
operations, and paralyze the efforts of her people. We wish to see the utility of chartered monopolies before they receive our sanction.” Milwaukee Adver¬ tiser, Sept. 15, 18.86. See Meyer, B. FT., Hist, of Early R. R. Legislation in Wis., in TFts. Hi.st. Coll., XIV,
[17]
244
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
There is ground for an argument that effective competition *was not expected to exist between railways, or between rail¬ ways and other means of transportation. Early railway char¬ ters in England did not fix maximum rates for the conveyance of passengers, and this has been taken to indicate a belief on the part of Parliament that competition would keep rates down.^^ Now, quite commonly the early charters in the United States fix such maximum rates, and the act of Congress auth¬ orizing a branch of the Baltimore & Ohio to Washington did so. This, at a time when such was not the practice in England, would seem to indicate an early belief that competition among railways 'would not be effective.
In any case, it is clear that, while many conceived that there would be competition as between different railways, it was ac¬ cepted that there would be monopoly on any one railway, and this fact made a profound difference between the railway and canals or roads. To us it seems very commonplace, but ta those 'who were familiar with no other means of transporta¬ tion than canals and roads, upon either of which any individual might, with few restrictions, place his own vehicle and use his- own motive power, the change was highly significant.
That in practice the railway could not be a common caiTier in the sense that waterways and highways were common carriers was realized almost from the beginning, and this involved a different attitude. Toward railways the people and their rep¬ resentatives would be more hostile, or more suspicious, to say the least; they would be more apt to control. A tendency to¬ ward regulation soon arose, as will appear in a later section.
Bail WAY Monopoly in New Jersey* *
At the first session of the thirtieth Congress there was pre¬ sented the memorial of a large number of merchants of Ne'w
See Acworth, The Elements of Railway Economics, pp. 108-110, for a con¬ venient reference on this point.
* The Camden and Amboy furnishes a classical example of monopoly in the field of railway transportation. In 1830 the Camden and Amboy Transportation
[78]
HANEY - CONGKESSIONAE HISTORY OE RAILWAYS 245
York City asking relief from the evil effects of a railway monop¬ oly 4® The Camden and Amboy E/ailroad Company, together with the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company, had, it seems,, been granted exclusive transportation rights in New Jersey by the legislature of that state, and as the road occupied the direct route between New York and Philadelphia it was in a position to work much harm to the commercial interests of those communities. The memorialists prayed that Congress interfere for their relief. They stated that in 1832 a grant had been made giving the above mentioned companies the ‘‘exclusive right of transporting passengers and goods * ^ * through
the state of New Jersey,” for which right the state was given a bonus of a number of shares of the Company’s stock and in addition was to receive 10 cents for every passenger and 8 cents for every ton of commodities conveyed by it through the state. An annual tax amounting to some $30,000 was imposed.
In 1837, so the memorial runs, the companies' were authorized to charge a $4 fare for transporting a passenger across the state by day, and $5 if by night, the state to receive one-half the amount left after deducting $3 from the fare. The distance being about eighty-five miles, the average fare thus authorized was nearly 5.3 cents per mile. This rate, however, was not uniform, for the companies were restricted from demanding
Co. and the Delaware and Raritan Canal Co. were chartered. The outlook lor the canal company was poor, hut under cover of an amendrnent to its char¬ ter empowering it to widen its canal the company got the right to build a rail¬ way, and so forced the Cajnden and Amhoy to consolidate. The United Company of New Jersey was thus formed. Another line was started between Philadelphia and Jersey City via Trenton, but in 1836 this rival project was nipped in the-' bud by securing control of the line from Philadelphia to Trenton. The system also came to control steamboat and ferry lines. By using undue influence it escaped payment of a large part of its obligations to the state, and secured re¬ newals of its charter, till in 1871 it became a part of the Pennsylvania system.
This railway was one of the few that was profitable in the early days. Its net gain in 1840 amounted to $427,286.28. In 1855 it paid a 12 per cent, dividend.
Its abuses were attacked by the economist, H. C. Carey, in 1848, but, thougli' ne made a clear case, the agitation brought no result.
See Tanner. H. S., Canals and Railtvay'S of the U. B., index.
See Larrabee, The Railroad Question, p. 102 ff.
See Ringwalt, Develop, of Systems of Trans, in the U. 8., index,
Cong. Glohe, 1847-48, XVIII, 823.
[79]
246 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
over 3 cents from any way passenger even though he travelled over the entire line. In other words, inhabitants . of New Jersey had an advantage over through travellers. This discrimination, the memorialists complained, wms not only un¬ just but also unconstitutional, as the constitution provides that 'Hhe citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states'.”
Furthermore, Congress wms asked to interfere under its power to establish post roads. The great southern mail passed over this route and it was greatly delayed by the arbitrary practice of not forwarding mails until passengers could also be taken, the company holding the mail at Philadelphia from two o’clock in the morning until nine in order to kill two birds with one stone. ‘‘This delay in the transmission of the mail was a source of great Inconvenience to the commercial commun¬ ity, and 'was utterly inexcusable ; but they and the Government must submit to it, because the railroad company would consult alone their (own) interest and conscience.” As no restriction upon rates of charge existed and the company had a monopoly the government wms liable to exorbitant demands.
lienee Congress w^as asked to intervene “for the double pur¬ pose of effecting greater economy as wnll as producing greater speed in the transmission of the mail on this important route.”
To the proposal of government intervention there were two chief lines of objection: Mr. Jones (Tenn.) argued that re¬ dress should be obtained through the courts; Mr. Venable (N. C.) believed that as Congress had no right to wmlk to the house of the citizen and say to him, every question that arises between you and your legislature 'we will regulate, so now it could not go down into New^ Jersey and “hold this company in terrorem, and regulate its tariffs of tolls.” Clearly the states’ rights doctrine spoke here.
Mr. Venable moved that the memorial be laid on the table, but his motion wms lost by a vote of 60 to 67 and the matter wms referred to the committee on post office and post roads.^^
No further action appears to have been taken.
[80]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OE RAILWAYS
247
3. Railways ^‘undemocratic.”
Closely connected with the monopoly idea, was the objection that railways were less ^‘democratic” than canals and roads; that is, they 'were held by some to be out of keeping with our ideals of republican simplicity. The same Josiah White quoted above stated that railways were “vastly inferior (particularly as a public work, and in a republican country) to canals, both as to conveyance as well as to economy.” There can be no doubt that this idea played a part in the attitude of people and Congress toward railways.^®
This idea and its causes are brought out most clearly in re¬ lation to the contrast that men drew between railways and turnpikes. In the debate on the proposition to change the Cumberland Eoad to a railway it appears that some members of Congress were objecting that, as their constituents were plain, honest men, they wanted common roads.^® Let gentle¬ men of wealth and aristocrats build railways and travel on them, said they; our constituents “are all democratic repub¬ licans,” and they want a road on which they can all travel together; “no toll, no monopoly, nothing exclusive, — a real ‘ people ’s road ’ ! ”
As has already been pointed oiit,^^ during the era of Jack¬ sonian Democracy such ideas as the preceding were rife. They led to the attack on the Second Bank of the United States which ended in the overthrow of that institution. Like bank¬ ing, the railway business required considerable capital, a corpor¬ ate form, and, more particularly, it required restrictions and limitations upon the manner in 'which it could be set up and used. It was a monopoly in a sense that canals and turnpikes were not. Thus those sections of the country in which the “moneyed power” was regarded as a menace to the nation would oppose railways, — as would their representatives in Con¬ gress.
Furthermore, although canal and turnpike companies pos¬ sessed some of the above objectionable features, they had been in
See above, p. 237 and note.
See Gong. Debater, 1835-36, (H. of R.), p. 4495.
Above, p. 237 and footnote.
6
[811
248
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
existence a long time before Jackson and the element which he represented, and men were familiar with them.
So we may conclude that almost from the beginning, im¬ portant differences in nature and function were seen to exist between railway and canal or turnpike, which differences led to the expression of various hopes and fears and beliefs con¬ cerning the effect of the new device upon the economics of so¬ ciety.
EAiLtfAYS Not Eegarded as Subject to Same Economic Laws
AS Turnpikes
In one respect railways were, to some extent, regarded as resembling turnpikes. Well down to 1830 it was commonly thought that any one might put his vehicle upon the railway company’s track or ‘"way” and travel in much the same man¬ ner as upon an ordinary road. This idea gave rise to the cus¬ tom of distinguishing ‘Holls” from transportation charges, a rate being considered as composed of two parts: one a charge for use of the track or way, and another and additional one for transportation.^® This resemblance is easily over-empha¬ sized, however, and has been exaggerated.^^
From the earliest mention of railroads in Congress, it was seen that specially constructed cars would be necessary,^® and this resulted in the practical exclusion of all but the transporta¬ tion company. Moreover, as has appeared above, early charters provided that railway companies were to have exclusive rights, and while such provisions indicate by their existence that the use of railways after the fashion of turnpikes was considered as a possibility, this possibility was but a legal theory.^^ The use
See above, p. 209.
Hadley, Railroad Transportation, its Origin and its Laws, p. 40 : “Until about 1850 it was assumed that the railroad business was subject to the same laws as any other business, and in particular to the so-called law of competi¬ tion.” On p. 12 he states that in 1850 it “beg-an (!) to be seen and felt that a steam railroad was something more than an exaggerated turnpike or horse rail¬ road * * *
20 Above, p. 183. Latrobe considered this a limitation upon the railway’s util¬ ity.
21 At the beginning of railway transportation in England rails were adapted to ordinary road vehicles. With the use of edge rails and steam locomotion this
[83]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 249*
of edge rails made special wheels necessary, and the develop¬ ment of steam locomotion removed the last chance of a pos¬ sible use by individuals of their own means of transportation.
Most emphatically a railway was regarded even in 1830 as a ‘‘monopoly of the carrying.” What has been written in the section on monopoly^^ makes it clear that men saw that ordin¬ ary business laws did not entirely apply to the railway.
Kail WAYS and the Union
From very early times it was predicted by those who advo¬ cated railways that this means of transportation would open and extend markets and form an effectual bond of union among the states. Stevens expressed this idea, and laid empha¬ sis on reduced cost of transportation:^^ one of the chief argu¬ ments for government aid to railways was based on their bene¬ fit in binding the sections of the country more closely together.
There were thus the economic and the political aspects of the same idea. On the one hand, the facility of railway construction, together with its relative freedom from limitation by topographical conditions, caused hope that rail¬ ways would open new markets and prevent gluts and scarcities by more quickly and cheaply equalizing demand and supply; on the other hand, statesmen and demagogues alike voiced the idea that this new and rapid means of conveyance would lead to social and political unity.
Both Washington and Madison laid emphasis upon the ne¬ cessity for developing internal transportation facilities,^^ but they could look forward to canals and turnpikes only. Presi¬ dent Jackson, how^ever, in a message to Congress,^^ suggested other means: “In the construction of railroads, and the ap¬ plication of steam power, we have a reasonable prospect that the extreme parts of our country will be so much approximated,
became impossible. Tbe whole idea, though it existed in that country to a greater extent than in the United States', soon ceased as a practical force.
22 p. 243.
23 Above, p. 206.
2^ Above, pp. 182, 186.
25 December 6, 1881.
[83]
250
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
and those most isolated by the obstacles of nature, rendered so accessible, as to remove an apprehension sometimes entertained, that the great extent of the Union would endanger its perma¬ nent existence.” By the close of the third decade the railway was looked to for a solution of the problems arising from the portentous extension of the nation’s bounds.
In 1836 it was apparent to many that the Cumberland Road could not fulfill its mission to society and that a railway should be substituted."® In debate upon the subject, Mr. Web¬ ster (0.) stated his belief that the social and political influence arising from the introduction of railways “would be happily felt on the character and destiny of the American people,” and that the connection of the great eastern and western sections by a railway was of the highest importance."^ He laid stress upon the promotion of social feeling among the different sec¬ tions.
It is noteworthy that almost without exception each of the many memorials and committee reports^® concerning aid to railways refers to this social benefit which they confer upon the Union. This will appear more fully in succeeding chapters on land grants.
See above, p. 232.
Cong. Debates, 1835-36, p. 4540.
Note : It is interesting to speculate upon the fact that the introduction of railways came at a time so opportune. It may be said that the supply of trans¬ portation has kept pace with the demand, though no direct causal connection is apparent. During the time that the population of our country extended in a mero fringe along the Atlantic, roads and canals sufficed. When a population of any density reached to the Mississippi, railways had come. Had this not been the case, development must have been retarded, at least, and who can say if the Mississippi or the Rockies might not have formed our western border?
28 E. g.. Rep. of Com., 1835-36, II, No. 525.
Rep. of Com., 1835-36, III, No. 607.
Rep. of Com., 1835-36, II, No. 301.
[84]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS 251
CHAPTER VII
THE RAILWAY AND SOCIETY— CONTINUED Railways and the Goveenment
In spite of any fears concerning monopoly and anti-demo¬ cratic tendencies, the socio-economic advantages of railways early led to investigation, aid, and propositions for construction by the United States Government; while the realization of their harmful tendencies led to efforts at government regulation. The government’s desire of having an efficient mail service and of enhancing the value of public lands should also be borne in mind.
Agitation for Government Construction
Even in the eighteenth century, works of internal improve¬ ment were regarded as peculiarly related to the government. Canals and roads were fostered by both state and nation, and in 1807 the government entered upon the contraction of the Cumberland Road. There were constitutional scruples, but ideas as to expediency probably predominated in Congress. Such being the case, it was to be expected that early railway disciples would turn to Congress, and it is not unnatural that the earliest attitude of that body looked toward government construction, if not ownership.
In 1812, Col. John Stevens 'wrote: ‘‘So many and so im¬ portant are the advantages which these States would derive from the general adoption of the proposed railways, that they ought, in my humble opinion, to become an object of primary attention to the national government,”^ and he suggested an appropriation. Stevens proposed government ownership and operation as well, saying that there could be no doubt as to
'^Documents tending to Prove the Superior Advantages of RoAUoays, etc. (N. Y., 1852), Introduction, p. viii.
[85]
'3
252 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
tlie power of Congress to lay out and make roads and in 1825, it Iwill be recalled, a resolution to inquire into the exped¬ iency of a government experiment with “Eailways, under the patent granted to John Stephens of Hoboken,” passed the House.^
Another glimpse of the attitude of Congress may be caught in 1830 'when a committee reported in favor of aiding the Bal¬ timore & Ohio Railroad Company on the ground that it might ^ ‘ afford a fair and satisfactory experiment, on which it can be decided, whether a canal or rail road ought to be made over the mountains!, under the auspices of the national Government.”^ Most interesting, as throwing light on the relation of sec¬ tional interest to constitutional interpretation, is a memorial® presented by the citizens of Adams county, Illinois. This memo¬ rial was adopted at a public meeting, and it prayed that a rail¬ road might he located and constructed hy the United States from Buffalo to the Mississippi river. The same petition was again presented at the following session.®
The Senate during its 1834^35 session agreed to investigate concerning the expediency of constructing at the national ex¬ pense a railway from Jacksonville, Fla., to the mouth of the Suwanee river.'^
The use of the United States troops in the construction of railways 'was proposed from time to time.®
No further instances are necessary to establish the fact that there was a long-continued tendency, — or agitation, rather, — toward the actual construction of railways by the government, even when the road was to lie within the boundaries of a single state.
^ IMd., p. xi. He admitted doubt concerning^ canals.
® Nbove, p. 189; see also p. 190. The name is incorrectl.v spelled in the Journal. The following year a resolution was submitted in the House to the effect that the Committee on Roads and Canals he instructed to inquire into the expediency of making a railroad at the expense of the Federal Government. This resolu¬ tion, however, was not agreed to. — H. J., 1825-26, Jan. 5, 1826.
* Rep. of Com., 1829-SO, No. 211.
® S. J., 1831-32, p. 67.
« S. J., 1833-3 Jf.
’’ S. J., 1834-35, p. 110.
8 E. g.. Sen. Docs., m3-U, II, No. 62, p. 19 ff .
[86]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS
253
CONSTEUCTION NOT TO INCLUDE OWNEESHIP OE OpEEATION
The question naturally arises at this point as to what was to become of the railway when completed, and this question w'as put in Congress. Mr. Webster (0.) referred to it in the speech in which he advocated the substitution of a railway for the National Road,^ saying that there was misconception concerning the matter. His answer to the question was, that whether a macadamized road or a railway was constructed, it would be turned over to the various states 'within whose boundaries it lay. ‘‘If a railroad was constructed,” said he, “it would be surrendered to the States, and the States would put their cars under the direction of their agents on it.” Just as toll was levied upon those using a turnpike, for the purpose of keeping it in repair, so the state would only charge such rates as would keep railway and rolling stock in efficiency. “Either road,” he adds, “would be equally under the control of the States and the people.”
In this same year. Senator Grundy, of the committee on post office and post roads, in a report, stated that, while the great advantages' of railways had caused some to think that the general government might properly construct and operate them as incident to its po’wer to run mails and provide for the com¬ mon defence, still this would mean so continual an expenditure that it would be better to leave the expense and trouble to the states and to private companies.^®
Under the ideas which prevailed in those times as to the proper relations between federal government and the states, some such solution would undoubtedly have resulted, had the tendency to actual construction by the federal government been carried out.
"Where, however, government only participated in construc¬ tion indirectly, — and in practice government participated in this way alone, — as by granting land to a railway company, the question was different. It was deemed necessary only to
^ Cong. Dehates, 1835-36 (H. of B.), p. 4540. See above p. 236. '^8en. Docs., 1835-36, IV, No. 291.
[87]
254 BULLETIN OE THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
safe-guard tlie government interests and, perhaps to secure fav¬ orable mail contracts. In the case of a proposed stock sub¬ scription, the secretary of the treasury 'was to see that a govern¬ ment proxy voted the shares. There was practically no ques¬ tion of government ownership and operation.
But in at least one case this question was discussed as a con¬ tingency. In 1836 a bilP^ to authorize contracts for carrying mail upon railroads was up, which bill provided for a lien by the government upon the property of the railroad. Senator Buchanan feared that the government might be compelled to take these roads' under its lien, and argued that in such a case it must either continue to operate the road or forfeit its charter. This, he remarked, would be placing us in a most awkward and embarrassing position. The bill was not passed.
There is little doubt that after as earl}^ a date as 1822 govern¬ ment ownership and operation became a political impossibility. In that year a bill for repairing the Cumberland Road passed both branches of Congress, 'was vetoed by President Monroe, and failed upon return to Congress, — a majority of the House sustaining the veto.^^ The significance of this lies in the fact that it involved more than a mere appropriation for repairs: it involved questions of jurisdiction, — ^of erecting toll-gates, administering tolls, imposing fines upon trespassers, and the like. From this time actual participation by the government in the operation of canals and turnpikes became recognized as a political impossibility, and when the railroad came it found a tolerably well established belief to that effect.
Moreover, the development of a strong ‘‘states’ right” move¬ ment throughout this period would have made such participa¬ tion difficult, to say the least, and statesmen came to be ex-
This general question will be treated under chapters on government aid. For references, see : Cong. Debates, 1825-26, II, Ft. II, p. 2251 ; Laws of the U. S., VII, 400, 478 ; Rep. of Com., 1829-30, No. 211 ; Cong. Debates, 1829-30, VI, Ft. II, p. 1136 ; etc.
Sen. Docs., 1835-36, IV. Index, Sec. 3 of the hill.
13 Cong. Globe, 1835-36, III, 372. Also M. Mangum.
11 See H. J., 1821-22, April 29 and May 6; also Annals of Cong, and Niles’ Register, XXII. The bill passed the House by a vote of 87 to 68, and the Senate 29 to 7. Upon being returned with Monroe’s veto, it failed in the House, the vote standing 68 for and 72 against.
[88]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 255
tremely cautious about provoking such disputes. The wave of nationalism which accompanied the War of 1812 was soon suc¬ ceeded by the trough of a narrower spirit. This was mani¬ fested not only in hostility to the United States Bank,^® to the tariff, and to the decisions of the Supreme Court, but also by an increasing opposition to internal improvement by the general government. Jackson defeated three bills for internal im¬ provements in 1830, and there is ground for thinking his policy a popular one.^^ Nullification came in 1830.
The Missouri Compromise was followed by a calm, but in the early years of the third decade a slave revolt and the activity of abolitionists fanned the alarm and hostility of the slave-hold¬ ing South to a fury. The South was solid against Federal activity.^®
For Some Time Railways Regarded as a Possible Investment
In 1826 Mr. Mercer moved a resolution for a general internal improvement fund, to be invested with joint stock companies, the income from such investments to constitute a special fund for interest on loans and for similar works of a public nature, i. e., roads, railways, and canals.^^ Both the Baltimore & Ohio and the Charleston & Hamburg railway companies made efforts to obtain stock subscriptions from Congress. In the debates on the matter, such a subscription was sometimes treated as an investment by the government.^® The government had invested in canals, why not in railways? No subscription was made, however.
1819-20. Ohio persisted in an attempt to tax the hank, and even withdrew from it the protection of the law.
E. g., 6 Wheaton, p. 264. Jefferson, Writings, X ; 'Niles’ Register, XX, 118.
Schouler, Hist, of U. S., Ill, 480-482.
1® The attitude of the South is well summed up in a memorial made hy the state legislature of South Carolina and presented by Mr. Drayton in 1828. This document remonstrated against, (1) increase of duties for encouraging domestic manufactures, (2) the appropriation of money by Congress for the coloniza¬ tion of free blacks, (3) “the exercise of the general power to construct roads and canals, either with or without the consent of the States”. (H. J., 1827-28, p. 164).
1* Cong. De'hates, 1825-26, II, Pt. II, p. 25.51.
^ See Cong. De'hates, 1829-30, (Sen., May 22, 1830; H. of R., May 26, 1830).
[89]
■256
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
In cases where aid was given, as in making surveys, remitting duties on railway iron, and making mail contracts, there was some tendency to look at such aid as an investment/^^
Pacific Railways ; Movement for Government Ownership
But no account of this phase would be complete without notic¬ ing the case of the proposed Pacific railways between 1845 and 1850. In a memorial to Congress,^^ Asa Whitney proposed government ownership and operation for his projected railway to the Pacific. Senators Benton and Bowlin (Mo.) and Senator Houston (Tex.), each supported in speeches or reso¬ lutions the idea of a railway constructed, owned, and operated by the nation, appealing to social and military necessity and hostility to corporate activity.
Mr. Robinson, in a speech replying to the argument of Mr. Bowlin, said, ‘‘I am utterly amazed, and have been since I have been noting the proceedings of the national conventions alluded to (St. Louis and Memphis) at the apparent amount of public favor with which such a colossal and gigantic Govern¬ ment scheme is received.
Yet, at this time it wns true that but few would have advo¬ cated government ownership of railways located in the East. At least two reasons may be given in explanation of this advocacy in the case of the Pacific roads these roads would be con¬ structed under conditions similar in some respects to those ex¬ isting in the East between 1820 and 1830, when the first railways were introduced, and there was a strong aversion to entrusting so great and important a work to a corporation. When the first important railways were projected, the fact that they were to bind what was then the far ‘‘West” to the East, while they had so many obstacles presented by the newness of the country.
See below, pp. 263, 320.
Sen. Docs., ISU-^S. Ill, No. 69.
23 Cong. Globe, 18lfi-50, Pt. I, Appendix, p. 329.
Cong. Globe, p. 472.
It is significant that these were western men.
Cong. Globe, 18lt9-50, Pt. I, Appendix, p. 333.
25 Below, Book III, Chapter XXIII.
[90]
HANEY CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OE RAILWAYS 2 57
made an argument for government participation. So pow, when the ‘‘West” was pushed back to the Pacific, the same forces were at work. J^gain the fruits of the hostility to'ward moneyed powers and the like may be seen in this agitation for government ownership. Those men who believed the corpora¬ tion a menace would prefer government activity. It will be observed that they would be the same ones who cried out against aristocracy and monopoly, demanding a “people’s” road:^® developments making the railway unquestionably superior to turnpikes, they would still prevent monopoly by making the railway a “national” one.
It is hardly necessary to add that those sections which ex¬ pected to directly profit by a railway to the Pacific — or any railway — ^would tend to lean toward a broad interpretation of the powers of Congress, if it was thought that government con¬ struction was necessary to the existence of the road ; and when, as in this case, the road was to lie almost entirely without the boundaries of the states and to extend over public lands, the tendency was the stronger.
Movement for Government Ownership not General
It must not be supposed that this movement for government ownership was a general one, nor would we convey that impres¬ sion. The Pacific roads were not constructed by the govern¬ ment; much less were they owned or operated by it; and there ^ere strong arguments advanced in Congress against the pro¬ posals of Benton and Bowlin. Thus Senator Robinson, in the speech already alluded to,^’’ reasoned that if the government undertook the project, it would result in inefficiency and corrup¬ tion. There would be lack of responsibility. It would be a ^‘political monstrosity.” Mr. Robinson states that the idea '“meets with little encouragement from either Whigs or Demo¬ crats. ’ ’
This conclusion might have been drawn, indeed, at an earlier time, from the words of Asa Whitney’s second memorial to
2® See above, p. 247.
Above, p. 256. See Cong. Glohe, 18^-50, Pt. I, Appendix, p. 333 ff.
[91]
258 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Congress. He states that in his previous petition^® he had favored leaving the railroad when constructed to the manage¬ ment of the general government and the wisdom of Congress; but, ‘‘objections having been raised that our institutions and form of government will not allow the carrying on or manage¬ ment of a work of such vast magnitude,” he now proposes that he himself and his heirs undertake the operation of the road.^®
Government Regulation
Of more practical interest than speculations, proposals, and agitation for government construction or ownership, is the his¬ tory of ideas in Congress as to government regulation. The recognition of the advantages of railways led to the former movement; the realization of their harmful tendencies brought about the latter.
1. In the District of Columbia
AYe may at once take up a concrete case of regulation. In an act of Congress approved May 9, 1828, the assent of that body was given to the construction of a railway from Baltimore to AYashington, and authorizing it to exact such tolls and enjoy such benefits and privileges as were allowed by its Maryland charter.®^ This seems to be a preliminary step toward the con¬ struction of a lateral branch of the Baltimore & Ohio railroad to Washington.
In 1831 we find Congress debating a bill for the authorization of a lateral branch of the Baltimore & Ohio into the District of Columbia, and on January 4 of that year, Mr. Semmes (Md). submitted three amendments to the following effect:
. 1. Said road shall have such location and direction as engi¬
neers appointed by the government shall decide upon.
2. Said company shall not make any higher rates of charge than are allowed by law upon the Baltimore & Ohio railroad for transportation from West to East.®^
Does., HI, No. 69.
29 Sen. Docs., m5-h6, IV, No. 161.
Cong DeJyateis, 1827-28, IV, Appendix, p. xiv. Sucli an act was necessary, inasmuch as Congress has sole control in the District of Columhia.
See above, p. 211.
[93]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAE HISTORY OE RAILWAYS 259
3. The road shall be eommenced within one year and com¬ pleted within three years.
As finally passed, the act of anthorization^'’’® embodied these ideas, but longer time and higher rates were allowed. Its principal regulations may be briefly summarized:
1. Privileges granted by the Baltimore & Ohio’s Maryland charter were confiriiied.
2. Provisions were made for acquiring right of way, and for street and road crossings; the company was not to enter upon any government lot^^ nor to interfere with canal ways.
3. hlaximum rates of toll were fixed and prescribed, special rates on small shipments being authorized.^®
4. Construction was to begin within a year and be completed wutliin four vears.^®
C/
5. The company was to build but one such branch, and it was expressly provided that similar privileges were open to Virginia or Maryland companies' or ‘‘Congressional incorpora¬ tions.”
Thus, between 1828 and 1831, in its capacity as sovereign power within the District of Columbia, Congress was brought very directly into contact with the railway problem ; and, closely following an act of incorporation by the state of Maryland, restrictions and regulations looking to the social welfare were adopted.
2. TJie transportation of the mail
But the government came into contact with the railway in another and a broader field. In fulfilling its function of dis¬ tributing the nation’s mail, it early had recourse to railways, and many and long were the disputes between the post office department and the railway officials, — over rates and condi¬ tions of transportation.
^-Gong. Delates, 1830-31, {H. of R.), VII, 400.
The act as passed was a Senate bill. It passed the House Mar. 1, 1831 ; see Cong. Delates, 1830-31^ Appendix^ p. 52.
®^At this time the federal government owned much property in Washington.
®® 'See above, p. 211.
** This act expired of its own limitations before the road was built, and it was renewed by an act of Feb. 26, 1834.
[93]
260 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVEESITY OF WISCONSIN
Early mention of railways in Congress nearly always re¬ ferred to their advantages for transporting the mails. Indeed,, this was among the strongest arguments of those who supported congressional aid for railways.
Very early, however, the exactions of railways, real or sup¬ posed, made necessary regulation by Congress. In fact, this necessity was foreseen. In February, 1832, DeWitt Clinton, U. S. C. E., made report upon a survey for a railway from Portage Summit, 0., to the Hudson river, in which he stated that it was reasonably to be expected that New York, Phila¬ delphia, Baltimore, and Washington would soon be connected by railway, and numerous mail routes be opened throughout the country. ‘Hf the United States should not, therefore, be able to secure an interest in these works, or be able to control them, the transportation of the mail will be monopolized,” or be forced to resort to slower and more uncertain transportation over roads.
In 1831 President Jackson, in a message, referred to railways as a beneficent institution.^® By 1835 the development of the situation in regard to mail service was such that he used the following words, which must be quoted to be appreciated: ‘‘Already does the spirit of monopoly begin to exhibit its nat¬ ural propensities, in attempts to exact from the public ^ ^
* the most extravagant compensation. If these claims be persisted in, the question may arise whether a combination of citizens, acting under charters of incorporation from the states, can, by a direct refusal, or the demand of an exorbitant price, exclude the United States from the established channels of communication between the different sections of the country; and whether the United States cannot, without transcending their constitutional powers, secure to the post office department the use of those roads, by an act of Congress which shall pro¬ vide within itself some equitable mode of adjusting the amount of compensation.”®^ He suggested that the amount to be paid for the transportation of the mails be fixed by law.
S'? Exec. Docs., 1SU-Z2, No. 133, point No. 84.
ss Above, p. 249.
s» Message of President Jackson, Dec. 7, 1835. Acts of Cong., 24 Cong., 1 sess., Appendix, p. 11.
[94]
HANEY - CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF RAILWAYS 261
These are strong words — such as might have been expected from Jackson. But in the very same month Amos Kendall, the post master general, spoke in a similar vein. He called atten¬ tion to the fact that the Constitution gave Congress power ‘‘to establish post-offices and post-roads,” and asked whether a railway being established by Congress as a post-road, it would be possible for the company to obstruct the carriage of the mails? Whether, in case a railway company did so, — either directly, or indirectly by adopting “unreasonable” rates and inconvenient hours, — the government might not place its own locomotives on the road, and so fulfill the law?^° Kendall’s words suggest broad vistas of government intervention,, and especially those in which he refers to “rights which the govern¬ ment may have to use railroads owned by private companies for public purposes, saying, however, that it was not neces¬ sary to press such claims upon the companies.
It is noteworthy that the attitude of Congress and statesmen was one of prudent hesitancy as to pushing the matter of inter¬ ference. Jackson said the question may arise; Kendall hoped it would not be necessary; in 1836 the Senate committee on post office and post roads reported: “It is prudent, if it be practicable, to avoid the question altogether.”
This was but the beginning of a long struggle. We find President Tyler denouncing railway exactions for mail service and stating that some measure might become necessary to guard against them.^^ In 1838 all railways were made post routes, and the postmaster general was directed to have the mail trans¬ ported upon them if it could be done “upon reasonable terms in 1839 maximum rates were fixed by Congress and in 1845 a comprehensive act was passed which divided rail¬ way routes into three classes on the basis of speed and import¬ ance, and fixing maximum rates for each class.^®
Report of the Post Master General, Dec. 1, 1835. lUd.
^ Sen. Docs., I, No. 1, p. 15.
^ Exec. Docs., 18lf7-li8, II, No. 8, p. 1319.
« ma.
Acts of Cong., 28 Cong., 2 sess., chap. 43.
[95]
262 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
One interesting phase of the struggle to regulate railways in their transportation of the mails was the idea of fostering oom- petition. This idea gained some prominence. Thus in 1836 Senator Benton, in debate over the subject of railway mail contracts, stated his opinion that Congress ought not to sur¬ render so quickly, — agreeing that they could not get along without ‘‘these railroad companies.” And he proposed relays of horses, letters being sent separately from other mail matter for greater speed, by which means he hoped they might travel as fast as the railroad cars.^®
There is no evidence that the idea was very seriously enter¬ tained, and such propositions were perhaps made rather as threats, for the purpose of securing concessions from the rail¬ ways. That is the tenor of a resolution which passed the House in 1841. It runs: “Resolved, That the committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be instructed to inquire into the exped¬ iency of a bill authorizing the Post Master General to establish express mails along the great lines of steamboats and railroad communications, in case he is not able to make contracts to have the mails transported ^ ^ railroad or steamboats, for
the rate of compensation prescribed by law.”^'^
3. The Public Defense
The utility of the railway for military operations was early called attention to in Congress,^® the experiences of the War of 1812 giving weight to this consideration. In debate over granting a right of 'way, Mr. Parks said,^® that the Seminole war illustrated the necessity for transporting troops and muni¬ tion of war, “and unless some provision was made by the Government for compelling these companies to carry govern¬ ment property, they might charge their own price, or even re¬ fuse to carry them.” Like the carriage of mail, this considera¬ te Cong, dole, Apr. 7, 1836, III, 313. See above p. 239. At this time it was not entirely and generally certain that railways were more desirable than stages for the transportation of the mail, t'i’ H, J., 181^1 {special sess.), p. 357.
te E. g., State Papers, 1829-80, I. No. 7, p. 20 ff ; and below in the chapter on monetary aid.
t® Cong. Clo'be, 1836-37, p. 115. Atchafalaya railroad.
[96]
HANEY - CONGEESSIONAL HISTOEY OF EAILWAYS
263
tion was used as an argument for government aid; and like the mail service, it became a ground for government regulation. No evidence that it led to actual regulation has been found, however, and it cannot be called an effective factor to that end. It merely contributed to a tendency toward regulation.
4. Territories
Another case of government regulation occurred in regard to a railway in the territory of Florida. In 1838, an acff^^ wms passed by Congress in confirmation of the act of the Legislative Council of Florida incorporating the Florida Peninsula Rail Road & Steamboat Company. In this act it is provided that during Florida’s existence as a territory. Congress might at any time prescribe and regulate the tolls of the company. The company was also prohibited from doing a banking busi¬ ness, and its surveys were to be made ’within one year.
Here then was a field in which, as in the District of Columbia, government control might naturally arise.
5. Public Lands
Quite similar was the relation of Congress to such railways as passed over the lands held in the name of the general gov¬ ernment. In the period of our history now under considera¬ tion, vast tracts of public land lay unclaimed within the bound¬ aries of the southern and middle western states. To open these lands to settlement, railways were later encouraged ; and when, as was frequently the case, they had to cross such land, they naturally became subject to regulation by Congress. Thus it was stated that when a railroad went through the public lands, it was the duty of Congress to provide some power by which they might be compelled to carry the mails, troops and