162 A. L. Bishop — The State Worhs of Pennsylvania. 



nortliAvcstern counties of the state was expressed in the act. On 

 April 10th, 1792, another act* was passed creating a company 

 to open a water communication between the Schuylkill and the 

 Delaware. The idea of its promoters was to build a canal seventeen 

 miles long from Norristown to Philadelphia. It was also their 

 intention to make a temporary improvement of the Schuylkill 

 between Norristown and Eeading, and thus form an uninterrupted 

 water communication with the interior of the state and the West. 



It soon became clear to the two companies that, in consequence 

 of the difficulties encountered in improving the channels of the 

 rivers, the canals should be longer than they had anticipated. 

 Hence the Susquehanna and Schuylkill Company, at the sugges- 

 tion of a British engineer named Weston whom they had imported 

 for their service, determined to extend their canal from river to 

 river, a distance of about seventy miles. The two companies united 

 their forces and completed about fifteen miles of the most difficult 

 parts of the two Avorks, but, on account of financial difficulties, both 

 were compelled to suspend operations after the expenditure of 

 $440,000. f These magnificent projects, worthy of the influential 

 citizens by whom they were conceived, were defeated partly by the 

 want of public spirit among capitalists, but largely in consequence 

 of the spirit of ruinous speculation. For they were ushered before 

 the public not long after the historic speculations following upon 

 the organization of the federal government, in public securities, in 

 the stock of the Bank of the United States, and in public lands. 

 Fortunes were realized from the first two of these schemes by most of 

 those who engaged in them ; equally large ones were anticipated by 

 those who speculated in public lands. It was believed that canal 

 stock would at this time rise in the same manner as other stocks had 

 risen, and that they would thus aiford a good chance to make money. 

 The result was that there was a struggle for an opportunity to sub- 

 scribe. Accordingly, a large proportion of the shares were taken 

 by persons who were wholly unable to pay up the remaining instal- 

 ments and who never contemplated doing so. Their object was to 

 sell out at once whenever an advance took place. In this they were 

 sorely disappointed. There were no purchasers, and instead of 

 making money, the original subscribers forfeited their first pay- 



*Laws (Ms.), No. 4, p. 510. 

 fHaz. Reg., I, p. 410. 



