Pennsylvania Magazine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE PENNSYLVANIA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY. VOL. XLVIII. 1924. No. 1. THE RAILBOAD STRUGGLE FOE PITTSBURGH. FORTY-THREE YEARS OF PHILADELPHIA-BALTIMORE RIVALRY, 1838-1871. BY JOSEPH S. CLARK, JR. George Washington was probably the first prominent American to turn his eyes westward and think of the possibility of pouring the yet undeveloped wealth of the Mississippi Valley into the lap of the commercial cities of the Atlantic sea-board. His early surveying experiences and his expedition with Braddock to Fort Duquesne had taken him over the ground of one of the best natural routes across the mountains, and in his later years he spent much time in outlining plans for connecting the Potomac and Ohio Rivers by means of a canal. Some twenty-five years after his death the opening of the Erie Canal and the consequent rush of western trade to the Great Lakes and New York showed the merchants of Baltimore and Philadelphia that they must bestir themselves or stagnate.1 Baltimore early made up her mind in favor of a rail- road to the west. The Baltimore and Ohio, first of all the great American roads, shows by its name the pur- XA. L. Bishop: The State Works of Pennsylvania (Yale University Press, 1907), p. 3. VOL. XLVIII.—1 1 2 The Railroad Struggle for Pittsburgh. pose for which it was incorporated. Philadelphia, how- ever, undertook to connect with the west by a system of combined railroads and canals. Baltimore built her road largely through her own efforts; Philadelphia con- scripted the rest of Pennsylvania and her route was built and operated by the state. From the first it was evident that both cities looked to Pittsburgh as the logical western terminus of their improvements. There could be no question of Phila- delphia going elsewhere, and the easiest route from Baltimore to the Ohio lay by way of the Youghiogheny and Monongahela rivers. In 1828 the Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad obtained a charter from Pennsylvania giving them the right to construct their line through southwestern Pennsyl- vania to Pittsburgh.2 It was before the state works had been built and the legislators apparently did not consider the possibility of future competition between the two lines. This charter was granted for a period of fifteen years and by the end of the thirties it became apparent that the road could not be completed within that time. In 1839 another act was obtained from the Legislature extending the original charter until 1847. This act, however, was of such a nature that the com- pany could not accept it.3 The completion of the Penn- sylvania State Works from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in 18344 had made Eastern Pennsylvania extremely wary of granting rights to Baltimore. The original Baltimore and Ohio charter in Penn- sylvania expired in 1843. Having completed their road as far as Cumberland, the company endeavored with- 2 Proceedings of a meeting of Stockholders of the B. & O. R. R. Co. Held in Baltimore on July 12, 1845, to consider an Act of the General Assembly of Va. (Bait., 1845). 8 Ibid, Among other onerous conditions were discriminations in favor of traffic to Philadelphia, a heavy state tax on freight, and a refusal to allow the company to change its rates. 4A. L. Bishop: State Works of Pa., p. 7. The Railroad Struggle for Pittsburgh. 3 out success to get better terms from Pennsylvania. The western part of the state was eager for another outlet to the coast but the Philadelphia representatives were unwilling to grant any concessions to their Balti- more rivals.5 Hence no success was obtained at the legislative sessions of 1843-5. By the middle forties it was apparent that the State Works of Pennsylvania would never provide adequate transportation facilities to the west. The state had spent over ten millions of dollars on their construction and had become so involved financially that for two years the interest payments on the state debt were sus- pended.6 Moreover, state management was slow, in- efficient, and corrupt. The canals were shut during the winter months because of ice, and every spring freshets rendered necessary expensive repairs. The success of the Baltimore and Ohio as a local road had demon- strated the superiority of railroads over canals, and Philadelphia became convinced that her commercial salvation lay in a central railroad to Pittsburgh. By the winter of 1846 popular feeling in all three cities had reached fever heat. It was evident that the fate of both the projected roads would be determined by the actions of the Pennsylvania Legislature. Sub- stantial lobbies from Philadelphia and Baltimore were present at Harrisburg,7 the state capital, urging the merits of their respective proposals. Western Penn- sylvania was thoroughly aroused. The battle centered on the bill granting the right of way through Pennsyl- vania to the Baltimore and Ohio road. Hardly a day went by without some legislator presenting either a petition in favor of, or a remonstrance against the bill "Nineteenth Annual Report of President and Board of Directors of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (Baltimore, 1845), p. 14. • A. L. Bishop: State Works of Pa., p. 25. 7W. B. Wilson: History of the Pennsylvania Railroad (Philadel- phia, 1890), Vol. I, p. 4. 4 The Railroad Struggle for Pittsburgh. from his constituents.8 It was evident that the final vote on the bill would be extremely close. In Philadelphia large public meetings were held on several occasions in the course of which resolutions were passed in favor of the Central Railroad scheme and against the Baltimore and Ohio right of way grant.9 On January 14, 1846, a state railroad conven- tion was held at Harrisburg at which a similar stand was taken. James Clarke, chairman of the State Board of Canal Commissioners addressed the meeting in favor of the Central Railroad and a committee was appointed to prepare an address to the Legislature set- ting forth the reasons for opposing the Baltimore and Ohio and favoring the Central Railroad. The City Councils of Philadelphia petitioned the Legislature to the same effect and the pages of the North American, the leading newspaper of the city, are full of letters and editorials all taking the same side. A study of the various documents, together with such speeches of Senators and Representatives as are available, show the following arguments to have been behind the feel- ing. In the first place it was felt that the public works were unsuccessful, both financially and as a connection with the west. Since a railroad must be built it would be better for it to run entirely through Pennsylvania and serve the interests of the state trade, both local and through, than to end in Baltimore with a consequent drain of both western and local trade to Maryland. Moreover, the Central Railroad would probably run over part of the state works, notably the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad. This would increase the revenue of the state works while the Baltimore plan 8Penna. House and Senate Journals, 1846. Proceedings Jan. lst- Apr. 7th. 9 Reported in North American (Philadelphia), Jan. 2, Jan. 15, Feb. 27, 1846. The Railroad Struggle for Pittsburgh. 5 would impoverish them. This argument was urged by the above-mentioned James Clarke,10 who from his position, should have known what he was talking about. In the second place it was maintained that if the Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad were successful it would be impossible to get enough money to build the Penn- sylvania Eailroad. No investors would risk their funds in so mad a scheme. There was enough trade to grant a handsome profit to the promoters of one rail- road but if two roads were competing for the trade neither could succeed.11 Ridiculous as this argument may appear to us today, it undoubtedly had great force at the time. And there is reason to believe that the development of the country was not sufficient to war- rant the building of two trunk lines to the same western terminus. The Pittsburgh advocates claimed that if the Balti- more and Ohio were refused admission to Pennsyl- vania, that road would build its terminus further down the Ohio at Wheeling or Parkersburg and thus control the Ohio River trade which had formerly come up the river to Pittsburgh. To this the Philadelphia sup- porters replied that Virginia would never grant the Baltimore road a charter in her state, as she wanted to build her own road to the west.12 Moreover, even if she were so insane as to give away her geographical advantage to Maryland the route that the road would have to follow to Parkersburg or to Wheeling without going through Pennsylvania was so mountainous that freight could not be carried over it save at ruinous 10 Speech before Railroad Convention at Harrisburg. Reported in North American, Jan. 15, 1846. 11 Editorial in North American, Feb. 28; letter from "E. C." in North American, Jan. 29th. 12 Several editorials in the Richmond Times were quoted by the North American to this effect. Virginia had passed an act in 1845 granting the right of way to Wheeling, but the B. & 0. had refused to accept it. 6 The Railroad Struggle for Pittsburgh. expense.13 And besides the Pennsylvania Eailroad would build branches to Cincinnati and other southern Ohio points which would tap the Ohio trade even far- ther south than Parkersburg. In addition to these arguments it was pointed out that by keeping Balti- more out of Pittsburgh the former was prevented from obtaining any portion of the trade of the Great Lakes which came down to Pittsburgh from Cleveland.