1882 Newspaper Reports
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMPILATION OF CANAL TRADE ARTICLES FROM THE DAILY TIMES a Cumberland, Md. newspaper, and THE HEARLD AND TORCH LIGHT a Hagerstown, Md. newspaper, and THE BALTIMORE SUN a Baltimore, Md. newspaper and THE CRITIC NATIONAL REPUBLICAN THE EVENING STAR three Washington, D. C. newspapers and ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE an Alexandria, Va. newspaper 1882 Compiled by William Bauman C & O Canal Association Volunteer [email protected] JANUARY 2019 Canal Trade - 1882 A. PREFACE This compilation of newspaper articles about the C. & O. Canal is one of a series. The newspapers were found on-line, except the Daily Times which was found on micro-film at Frostburg State University Library, Frostburg, MD. The report does offer a glimpse of life on the Canal in the time period 1882. Articles from the Daily Times are preceded by DT, those from the Herald and Torch Light are preceded by H&TL, those from The Baltimore Sun are preceded by Sun, those from The Critic are preceded by TC, those from National Republican are preceded by NR, those from The Evening Star are preceded by ES and those from the Alexandria Gazette are preceded by AG. Readers will note the coal tonnage is cited as, e.g. 110 06 tons; which should be read as 110 tons 6 cwt. Coal fractions of a ton were measured in hundred weights (cwt.), 20 hundred weights equal 1 ton. Readers will also note the occasional article reflecting Maryland politics, receivership and the canal; those not interested should just skip over the articles. This is an edited report. After the transcription was complete, an EXCEL spread sheet of the canal trade entries was made to establish consistency in spellings of the canal boat names and boat captain’s names. Not all discrepancies were resolved. Readers looking for their ancestor’s boat should try alternate spellings. Readers are encouraged to search the enclosed report for information on their ancestors as their time and interest permits. Feel free to send additional observations for the benefit of others. William Bauman Transcribed January 2019 Revised May 2019 [email protected] 2 Canal Trade - 1882 Canal Trade 1882 Alexandria may be compelled to deposit the said stock, or in default thereof to pay Sun, Tue. 1/3/82, p. 4. Letter from $175,000, the par value of the stock, to the Washington – The proposal for a free government of the United States. It also bridge across the Potomac at or near the site asks an injunction upon the canal company of the Alexandria Canal aqueduct at and the Alexandria corporation to restrain Georgetown has opened up questions which the transfer of such stock or the voting of the are of very considerable interest to the corporation of Alexandria in the Alexandria people of this District. The aqueduct was Canal Company by reason of such stock. built between 1835 and 1848, and is the The act upon which this suit is based was property of the Alexandria Canal Company, approved March 3, 1837. It provided “that in which the State of Virginia and city of when the corporation authorities of the town Alexandria have held a controlling interest. Alexandria shall deposit the stock held by At the close of the war the canal was leased them in the Alexandria Canal Company in to H. H. Wells, Dungan & Co. for ninety- the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, nine years at $1,000 per annum, the lease to with proper and competent investments and end if the canal and aqueduct is not kept in conveyances in law, to vest the same in the navigable order. These lessees and others, Secretary of the Treasury and his successors as the Alexandria Canal and Bridge in office for and on behalf of the United Company, have built a toll-bridge above the States, to be held in trust upon the same aqueduct, and for some ten years past have terms and conditions in all respects as the opened both canal and toll-bridge. When stocks held in the Chesapeake and Ohio Congress last session appropriated $145,000 Canal Company by the several cities of this for a free bridge the lessees of the canal District were required to be held in and by were very willing to sell their lease, but the virtue of an act approved on the 7th day of canal company (which is controlled by June, 1836, entitled ‘An act for the relief of Alexandria interests) was not willing to sell the several corporate cities of the District of unless a guarantee was made of keeping up Columbia; and the Secretary of the Treasury the canal aqueduct, and so the matter stands. be, and he is hereby is, authorized and A few weeks ago, as already reported, claim directed to advance, out of nay moneys in was made through the United States Court at the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Richmond that certain canal stock held by the Alexandria Canal Company from time to the city of Alexandria is really the property time, as the progress of the work may of the United States, and if this claim is require the same, such sums of money not sustained the controlling interest in the canal exceeding $300,000 as may be deemed will be vested in the United States necessary to complete said canal to the town government and the State of Virginia. The and harbor of Alexandria. Provided that the bill which was filed for this purpose sets out Alexandria Canal Company, in the that in 1835 the government of the United construction of the remaining piers, States paid to the Alexandria Canal abutments and works of their aqueduct over Company $300,000, on condition that the the Potomac river, ar3e hereby prohibited authorities of Alexandria should deposit and restrained from throwing earth or clay with the Secretary of the Treasury the stock into the open river, and are required with the in the canal held by the corporation of money furnished by this bill to remove all Alexandria; that such deposit was never earth and clay heretofore deposited by them completed. It asks that the authorities of in the river.” 3 Canal Trade - 1882 It will be seen that the trust declared case has been transferred from Richmond to in this act is that created by an act approved Alexandria, and will begin there at the “on the 7th day of June, 1836.” There is no United States court-room before Judge act approved on that day having any Hughes on next Wednesday. reference at all to the subject matter. The “act for the relief of the several corporate H&TL, Wed. 1/4/82, p. 3. A Great Falls cities of the District,” to which Congress correspondent of the Rockville Advocate evidently intended to refer, was passed May informs us that one day last week two boats 20, 1836, and was intended to stop the panic passed up the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal created by a proposal to enforce payment of carrying 169 demijohns and jugs, supposed what was called the Holland loan on private to contain water. property in the District cities. It assumed the payment of $1,500,000 which TC, Wed. 1/4/82, p. 4. Rights of the Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria District of Columbia in the Chesapeake & had borrowed by the mediation of Mr. Ohio Canal. – One of the questions raised Richard Rush from certain merchants of in connection with the suit which the United Holland, and had used in the purchase of States had begun in the Alexandria Canal Chesapeake and Ohio Canal stock. The first stock case touches quite an important matter section of this act assumed the debt to the in connection with the Chesapeake and Ohio Holland merchants, and the second section Canal Company and the rights of the District is as follows: of Columbia therein. The District “And be it further enacted, That the Commissioners now represent in the Secretary of the Treasury shall execute the meetings of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal duties prescribed by the first section pf this Company $1,250,000 of Chesapeake & act; the said corporate authorities of said Ohio stock. For this stock the District cities cities shall deposit in the hands of the never paid. They borrowed the money Secretary of the Treasury the stock of the which purchased this stock, and Congress Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company held paid back the money with which the stock by them respectively; and the said Secretary had been bought, and directed that the stock of the Treasury may, at such time within ten be deposited with the Secretary of the years as may be most favorable for the sale Treasury as surety. But the District of such stock, dispose of the same at public Commissioners, as successors of the sale and reimburse the United States such corporate authorities of the District cities, amounts as shall have been paid under the still continue to vote in the Chesapeake & provisions of this act, and if any surplus Ohio Canal Company upon the stock thus shall remain over after such reimbursement, hypothecated. he shall pay over said surplus to said cities Now, however, the Secretary of the in proportion to the amount of stock now Treasury, in the pending canal stock case, held by them.” asserts that stock in the Alexandria Canal The questions which arise in this Company, subscribed by the Alexandria case are: Will the court rule that the words corporate authorities and taken by the “June 7” shall be construed to mean “May United States on the same trusts as the 20,” and will it undertake under an act Chesapeake & Ohio stock already which requires a sale in ten years from 1936, mentioned, does not give the Alexandria to decree the execution of the trust thirty- authorities the right to vote thereon, and he five years afterwards? The hearing of the asks Judge Hughes to issue an injunction 4 Canal Trade - 1882 restraining the city authorities of that city increase of 148,750 tons over 1880.