184 .4. L. Bishop — The State Works of Pennsylvania. 



that i'liiladelpliia Avas llie prime mover in the agitation and that 

 she would receive the greatest advantage from the improvements; 

 that those parts of the state through which the canal passed would 

 receive undue benefits at the common expense. Among those 

 opposed* to the scheme were all the delegates from Bedford, Frank- 

 lin, Cumberland, York, Lancaster, Northampton, Pike, Wayne, 

 Bradford mid Tioga counties. 



The cause for this opposition is apparent. An examination of 

 the accompanying map of Pennsylvania shows that the first five of 

 these counties are situated in the southern part of the state. Their 

 exports, consisting of grain, flour and other farm produce, were 

 marketed principally in Baltimore and the neigliboring counties 

 of Maryland and Virginia. The turnpike through Lancaster gave 

 a direct communication to Philadelphia satisfactory to the inhabi- 

 tants of that county. The other district whose delegates unani- 

 mously opposed the resolutions was in the northeastern part of the 

 state. These counties had no chance of sharing the benefits of the 

 proposed improvements. Moreover, those on the northern border 

 of the state carried on their limited trade with Wew York. With 

 little or no chance of participating in the proposed canal to the 

 West, except to help pay for it, it is no wonder that the representa- 

 tives of the opposition states took the stand they did. 



The friends of the movement were in the majority, however, 

 and ably refuted the arguments of those attempting to block the 

 passage of the resolutions. The whole case for the proposed 

 improvements was presented in a way that could not fail to con- 

 vince the doubtful. The discussion was prolonged until the third 

 day; and, finally, after numerous amendments were proposed by 

 the minority to no avail, the resolutionsf as framed by the com- 

 mittee were adopted by a large majority.^ 



* A full list of the delegates from eacli oomity, showino- the way they voted, 

 is found in A]>|)en(li\' II. p. 264. 



•{• For the full text of the resolutions see Appendix III, p. 26G. 



The woi'ds "within her borders" in the first resohition were struck out, 

 however, since it was urged tliat tliey might he considered as aiming a blow 

 at the proposed canal to comiect the Potomac and the Ohio. — ^Niles' Reg., 

 XXIX, p. 62. 



Another unimportant resolution was added to those reported by the com- 

 mittee, for which see Niles' Reg., XXIX, p. 62. 



+ The vote on the liist three resolutions was approximately 87 ayes and 

 26 nays. The references we have seen differ somewhat, being probably 

 written from memory. The vote on the fourth resolution, which really had 

 no bearing on the important objects of the convention, was 107 ayes and 

 6 nays. 



