The Fate of Washington’s Bequest to a National University

From GWUEncyc

Article

GEORGE WASHINGTON, as is well known, aspired during the later years of his life to see a university established at the seat of government of the United States. As a recent pamphlet has related, Washington mentioned the subject in his first and last annual messages to Congress and in numerous letters.(1) In his last will and testament he bequeathed 50 shares of stock in the Potowmack Company as an endowment for a proposed institution of learning in the District of Columbia. Washington provided that the university might be established "under the auspices of the General Government, if that government should incline to extend a fostering hand towards it." Until it had been established, any dividends from the Potowmack shares were to be invested in stock of the Bank of Columbia in Georgetown or "some other bank." Dividends received from this bank stock were to be reinvested in more bank stock. All this was to be accomplished "at the discretion of my Executors; or by the Treasurer of the United States for the time being under the direction of Congress; providing that Honorable body should patronize the measure."

Of all the legends which have surrounded Washington since his death in 1799, few have proven to be more intriguing than those concerning the fate of these 50 shares of stock. The Potowmack Company had been organized in 1784 to open the navigation of the Potomac (as it later came to be spelled) River route to profitable trade with the West. The 50 shares of stock, presented to Washington by the Commonwealth of Virginia by acts of 1784 and 1785, had a total par value of $22,222, an impressive sum at the time. Washington anticipated generous dividends because of expected large toll returns. As it happened, the Potowmack Company was a financial failure, and it was absorbed by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company in 1828. Only one small dividend was declared.

Congress had already in 1796, as will be seen, refused to establish a trusteeship for the Potowmack shares. During the next 25 years Congress remained opposed, for various reasons which will be explained, to proposals that it establish a national university. Washington's unappropriated bequest was mentioned now and then during the debate. The executors of his estate made several efforts in behalf of the stock.

In 1821, when Congress did charter the first institution of higher learning in the new federal city, the existence of Washington's bequest was again briefly noted. That institution was called The Columbian College in the District of Columbia; it was to become Columbian University in 1873 and The George Washington University in 1904. Columbian College was not a beneficiary of Washington's Potowmack shares, which in any case had become virtually worthless by 1821. Shortly afterwards, proposals for a national university ceased in Congress. Proposals for a greatly altered sort of national university were revived by the late nineteenth century, but likewise failed. This is largely explained by the fact that Columbian College, joined successively by the Smithsonian Institution and other public and private institutions of higher learning, had come to fulfill, in the eyes of Congress and the academic community, the sort of educational establishment in the capital city which Washington had originally hoped would be supported by his bequest.

Later generations continued to be interested in Washington's ideas on education in the federal city, as well as in the disposition of the Potowmack shares. As memory of the Potowmack Company grew dimmer, questions were repeatedly raised concerning the whereabouts of the bequest. Had it been overlooked by the executors of Washington's estate? Or had stock certificates been transferred to the United States Treasury and destroyed there during the British burning of Washington in 1814? Was Congress obliged to "make good" the bequest? As will be seen, each of these hypotheses is groundless. In spite of frequent mention in dozens of historical works and educational proposals, the actual chain of title of the 50 Potowmack shares has not yet been traced. To do so is the purpose of this essay. It is based on evidence found among the voluminous letters, accounts, and legal papers of the Potowmack and Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Companies, and of the executors of General Washington's estate.

Washington's expectation that the 50 shares would provide "adequate support" for a university does not seem fanciful, for the Potowmack Company had prospects of great financial return at the time of its founding. Washington himself had been instrumental in forming the Company. He was one of the strongest advocates of improving the navigation of the Potomac River bed, which he believed to be the shortest and best route of trade and communication with the West, which was then the area just beyond the first range of mountains. In 1784, Washington made the last of several horseback journeys through the Western country.

The Potowmack Company was incorporated by the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, the two states adjoining the river, in the years 1784 and 1785. The Company's Charter provided that it would open the navigation of the Potomac River to permit the passage of boats drawing 12 inches of water from the highest possible point on the river, but at least from Fort Cumberland. The Company was authorized to construct canals, locks, and other necessary improvements, and was given the right to collect tolls.

The Company was authorized to sell 500 shares of capital stock for £100 sterling ($444-4/9) each. Many private individuals were subscribers. The State of Maryland took 220 shares. Virginia in 1784 took 100 shares, 50 for herself and 50 to be presented to General Washington. Virginia purchased an additional 20 shares (at £130 each) for her own account in 1796. George Washington was elected first president of the Potowmack Company, and he served in that post until he was called to be Chief Executive of the United States in 1789.

In 1784, after making its initial subscription, the Virginia General Assembly passed an act donating 50 Potowmack shares to George Washington. Washington declined to accept the shares for his personal use and asked that they be applied to a public purpose. Thereupon in 1785, the Legislature repealed its earlier Act and provided instead "that the said shares with the tolls and profits hereafter accruing there from, shall stand appropriated to such objects of a public nature, in such manner, and under such distributions, as the said George Washington, esquire, by deed during his life, or by his last will and testament, shall direct and appoint."

It is important to note that title to the 50 shares donated to Washington was, after the act of 1785, once again vested in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Washington now, by his own request, had only the right to designate the public objects to which they should be appropriated. In 1795, Washington finally decided that the shares should be donated towards the support of a future university; he confirmed this decision in 1799 in his last will and testament.

The Potowmack Company did not issue stock certificates. Shares were considered to be real estate, and were therefore transferred by deed. Ownership of shares was recorded in subscription books and in the stock ledger of the Company. The books of the Company list the 50 shares as belonging to Virginia, although they are identified as those subscribed for George Washington. Title to the 50 shares remained vested in Virginia throughout the entire existence of the Company. The 50 shares presented to Washington represented ten per cent of the initial capitalization of the Potowmack Company. Because the value of the prospective university endowment was directly related to the financial success of the Company, the actual operations of the Company deserve a brief explanation.

The improvement of the Potomac River which the Company had undertaken involved the providing of a safe and passable channel for boats over the winding, rocky, and sometimes precipitous bed of the river, which stretched some 218 miles from Cumberland, Maryland, to tidewater at Georgetown. The simplest of operations consisted of clearing out sand bars and loose rubble from the river bed. A more difficult operation involved the blasting of channels in shallow places from a river bottom of solid rock to provide sufficient depth for boats to pass. In other cases, depth was provided by building dams and diverting water into sluices, or walled channels.

The most difficult improvements of the Company were the canals built to bypass the five major falls of the Potomac. These skirting canals were as follows: around House's Falls near Harper's Ferry a canal 50 yards long was built on the Virginia bank of the river; a canal 1,750 yards long was built around Shenandoah Falls on the Maryland bank; a canal of 1,320 yards was built around Seneca Falls on the Virginia bank; at Great Falls, five masonry locks and a feeder basin were constructed on the Virginia bank to span a distance of 1,200 yards around the rapids where the drop in level is 76 feet; on the Maryland bank at Little Falls, above Georgetown, three locks were constructed over a distance of 3,814 yards and a drop of 37.5 feet.

A number of problems were encountered in the work. One was the fact that the natural obstacles in the river bed were both extensive and unpredictable. Another was the lack of engineering knowledge, for there were few precedents for such construction in America. Still another problem was the recruitment of skilled and unskilled labor. Negro slaves and indentured servants were used extensively. Finance proved to be the Company's greatest worry. The initial capital funds were rapidly expended during its early years, and the Company then borrowed heavily from local banks.

By 1799, the major improvements on the river had been finished, with the exception of the large and difficult series of locks around the rapids at Great Falls. But the Company's funds were exhausted, and work came to a standstill. At this juncture the State of Maryland came to the rescue with a loan of $60,000, which enabled the work to continue. In 1802, when the locks at Great Falls were finally completed, the greatest obstacles to navigation had been overcome. Such products of the back country as wheat, corn, flour, livestock, meat, and whiskey could now be shipped on boats or rafts over the 218-mile Potomac River route to Georgetown, providing the level of water was high enough in shallow places. The burden of boats navigating the Potomac was eventually to average ten tons, and the cost of river transportation, including tolls, was to be as much as one third less than the cost of land transportation.

The year 1802 was a time of unprecedented optimism for the future of the Company. When the annual meeting of stockholders was held at Gadsby's Tavern in Alexandria on August 2, 1802, the board of directors reported that although tolls had not yet come in as expected, the Company did have a cash balance of $2,883.70 on hand. It was therefore resolved to declare a dividend of $5.55 per share, or a total of $4,073.77. This sum was declared to be the "actual profit on the product of the property of the company."(2) The dividend was paid fairly promptly to most shareholders, although in a few cases the distribution was delayed considerably. The dividend on the 50 shares which the Commonwealth of Virginia had subscribed for George Washington amounted to $277.50, but this sum was not paid to Virginia. According to one ledger of the Potowmack Company, that sum was not conveyed until March 1, 1805, when it was paid to the "Executors of General Washington."(3)

The payment of dividends proved to be a heavy drain on the Company's finances at a critical period. Even at the same meeting where the dividend had been declared, the stockholders had authorized the Company to borrow additional funds if future toll receipts were not adequate. It was to be the first and last dividend paid by the Company.

The Company's toll receipts for the year ending August, 1803, amounted to $9,077.88½. During the next 25 years collections were to range as high as the $22,542.89 received for 1811, with a yearly average of nearly $10,000. Both toll receipts and additional loans were used to finance further improvements. For although the basic works on the Potomac had been completed, the water level continued to be so low in some parts that navigation was possible only during the approximately six to eight weeks each year when floods and freshets raised the level.

In 1803, the Company extended its operations by improving the navigation of several branches of the Potomac. This required considerable time and money. The Shenandoah River was improved from Port Republic to the Potomac, a distance of 200 miles, and six skirting canals were built. Other improvements were made on the Monocacy River and on Conococheague and Antietam creeks.

---

Meanwhile, George Washington's shares in the Potowmack Company remained, at his death in 1799, a problem to be dealt with by the executors of his estate. His last will and testament had been probated in the Fairfax, Virginia, County Court on January 20, 1800. Washington had appointed seven executors: his wife Martha; his nephews William A. Washington, Bushrod Washington, George S. Washington, Samuel Washington, and Lawrence Lewis; and his ward George Washington Parke Custis. Because the executors were geographically separated, they agreed that the affairs of the estate should be conducted by Bushrod Washington and Lawrence Lewis, who were adjoining neighbors in Fairfax County. It was those two nephews who attended to the university bequest, although their attention to it was rather perfunctory.

Bushrod Washington (1762-1829) had been named an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1798 by President John Adams as one of his "midnight appointments," and he was to remain in that post until his death. During these years the Court was largely concerned with establishing precedents for the young republic through its decisions on constitutional matters, and Justice Washington rendered some important opinions. He also became first president of the American Colonization Society in 1816. He was not a man of pretentious appearance. George Ticknor, after visiting the Court in 1815, remembered him as "a little, sharp-faced gentleman, with only one eye, and a profusion of snuff distributed over his face."(4) Under the terms of his uncle's will, Bushrod Washington inherited Mount Vernon, as well as George Washington's library and public papers.

Lawrence Lewis (1767-1839), the other principal executor, had been invited by George Washington in 1797 to come to Mount Vernon to assist his uncle in the entertainment of guests and to perform secretarial tasks. On February 22, 1799, he had married Nellie Parke Custis, Mrs. Washington's granddaughter. By his uncle's will, Lewis inherited two thousand acres to the north of Mount Vernon, which he named Woodlawn. There, in 1805, he built a manor house overlooking the Potomac, which was designed by Dr. William Thornton, architect of the U.S. Capitol.

A careful examination of the known surviving papers of Washington's executors yields a significant negative finding: they contain no specific accounting of the receipt or disposition of the 50 Potowmack shares intended for a university. The executors' accounts do mention 23 Potowmack shares which Washington had purchased for himself, and which he left to 23 different legatees. There are still other references to "Potomac shares"; they deal not with the Potowmack Company but with the Bank of Potomac. (5)

Nevertheless, in his will, Washington did charge the executors with responsibility for looking after the bequest, at least until it was put into the hands of some institution of learning. The executors handled the matter somewhat ambiguously: they did not record their actions in the regular executorial accounts, but watched over the bequest as a sort of personal trusteeship.

What about the Potowmack Company's dividend amounting to $277.50 on the 50 shares which, according to the Company's records, was conveyed to "the Executors of General Washington" on March 1, 1805? According to a later report, that sum "was receipted for on the Books of the Company, by Lawrence Lewis, for himself and the other Executors of Gen. Washington."(6) Lewis himself explained some years later, in 1832, that the dividend, "with the exception of a very small sum," had been invested in stock of the Bank of Columbia, as directed by the will."(7)

It is clear that by 1805 the executors had taken some responsibility for the university bequest by accepting and reinvesting the dividend on the 50 shares. They were to act in behalf of the bequest on at least three other occasions: in 1806, in 1828, and in 1832.

---

In his will, however, George Washington had also invited Congress to consider extending a "fostering hand" towards the establishment of a university in the national capital. What action did Congress take with regard to Washington's bequest? Congress had first considered the matter in December, 1796, after receiving a memorial on the subject from the Commissioners of the District of Columbia (where the seat of government was to be moved from Philadelphia in 1800). President Washington had already decided by January, 1795, to offer the 50 Potowmack shares to the Commissioners for the establishment of an institution of learning in the new city. Washington had also again recently recommended the establishment of a national university in his last annual message to Congress on December 7, 1796. On December 12, 1796, the District Commissioners presented their memorial to Congress in which they endorsed the idea of a national institution of learning. They did not ask for funds. But with the preferred gift of 50 shares in mind, they asked if Congress might not enact "a law authorizing proper persons to receive pecuniary donations and to hold estates, real and personal, which may be granted by deed or devised by last will and testament, for the use of the intended establishment." Congress, in other words, should appoint trustees to look after the gift of Washington as well as others that might be received. Representative James Madison introduced a resolution in the House calling for the designation of such a trusteeship. It did not, however, ask that Congress establish an actual institution of learning or that it provide funds for the support of such an institution. In spite of this, heated objections were raised in Congress to the suggestion that it should even make provision for the custody of Washington's gift.

One objection was that the time to organize a university in the District of Columbia had not yet arrived; it would be many more years before such an institution could flourish in the still-unpopulated city. Furthermore, money should not be taken from parts of the country which would not benefit from the proposed institution of learning, or which could set up their own institutions. In addition, it would be inconvenient for those living at a distance from the capital to send their children to a university there. The farther children were from their parents, the more likely it was that their morals would be corrupted. Also, the fact that a national university had been recommended by the President of the United States did not justify its establishment. Moreover, to encourage the establishment of a single, preeminent, central institution of learning would do harm to the small academies of the country.

More skepticism was expressed in the House. Representative John Nicholas of New York questioned the President's view, seconded by the Commissioners, that a national university would "establish an [sic] uniformity of principles and manners throughout the Union." This, he believed, could not be done by any institution. Edward Livingston, also of New York, feared that the resolution would prove to be an "entering wedge." He believed that the present argument favoring mere Congressional encouragement would someday inevitably be extended to include Congressional financial support.

James Madison defended his resolution by pointing out that Congress was merely being asked to encourage the organization of a "Seminary," as he called it, and need not grant a "single farthing" by way of endowment. He again emphasized the need to establish a trusteeship for the President's donation of 50 Potowmack shares. In reply to the strong objections to the idea of a "National University," Madison emphasized that the report before Congress on the resolution called it "An University in the District of Columbia."

The other spokesman for the resolution, William Craik of Maryland, urged in the House that provision be made for taking care of the President's gift of stock, which he believed "is now valuable and increasing in value daily." Congressional opposition to the idea of fostering a seminary of learning in the District of Columbia was, he thought, "an unhappy presage of the jurisdiction to be exercised on that country." The population of the District was likely to increase rapidly. Would it be reasonable to wait until the area was heavily populated before making provision for higher education? "Though such a Seminary cannot be established now," he said, "it may fifty years hence; and it can never be too soon to commence a good institution."

After debating Madison's resolution for two days, Congress rejected the proposed trusteeship.(8) Thus three years before Washington was to write his last will and testament, Congress had refused even to appoint trustees (much less accept the task itself) who might care for the gift Washington had preferred. The 1796 debate had shown that Congressional opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of a national university. It is significant, however, that several Congressional opponents of the idea made a point of affirming their support for the establishment of a private seminary of learning in the District of Columbia. Such an institution could disseminate knowledge at the seat of government and serve the needs of the locality without necessarily being a central institution of learning for the entire country. This willingness on the part of Congress was to be shown a quarter of a century later, in 1821, when it chartered The Columbian College in the District of Columbia.

The subject of a university in the new capital city was next considered by Congress in 1803, after a memorial had been presented to it by Samuel Blodget. Blodget had had a rather diversified background. On the one hand, in 1801, he became the first American to publish a book on economics. On the other, he had only recently, in 1802, been imprisoned for debt as the result of a series of real estate speculations and lottery schemes in the District of Columbia. One uncompleted lottery in the 1790s had been intended to benefit a future national university, the concept of which Blodget himself claimed to have suggested to George Washington in 1775.

Now, in 1803, Blodget called the attention of Congress to Washington's interest in a national institution of learning and to the "liberal donation" he had bequeathed for its support. Such an institution would, Blodget claimed, be "the most important object ever contemplated in the united efforts of all parties, persuasions, and classes of the American people." Blodget spoke of Washington as "the original founder of the National University," thereby beginning a practice followed by some later promoters of the idea of referring to the proposed institution as if it were already in existence.

The crux of Blodget's memorial was a request that Congress appoint a committee to consider appropriating western lands as an endowment for such an institution. This was the first time Congress had been petitioned to provide material support for a national university. Specific provision for the organization and functions of the proposed institution were left vague, but one prominent feature was proposed: an equestrian statue of Washington was to be erected "as a beautiful centre piece for the entire plan, to be surrounded by halls and colleges." In 1805, Blodget presented another memorial to Congress in which he claimed to have received a large number of "subscriptions for a University in Washington." He asked Congress to grant its patronage and designate a site. Congress did not respond to either memorial, and no further mention seems to have been made of the fund Blodget claimed to have collected (perhaps as part of one of his lotteries) for the purpose of supplementing Washington's bequest.

It is interesting to note that Blodget was one of the first of many who have mistakenly assumed that Washington's bequest was in the form of a cash sum which had been accruing interest since his death. Unaware that the bequest had been in the form of securities of now rather uncertain value, Blodget declared in 1806 that "If no aid from Congress or any other source had followed this noble challenge of Washington, his donation, at compound interest, would in twelve years have given $50,000, and in twenty-four years $100,000."(9)

In January, 1806, a memorial was presented to the House of Representatives from a so-called "Board of Trustees for the education of youth in the City of Washington." It proposed the establishment of an institution of higher learning there and asked Congress to give support by donating city lots and permitting a lottery. The memorial was referred to a committee of five members.

One of the committee's members was Dr. Walter Jones, a prominent physician and representative from Virginia. He was also a friend of Bushrod Washington, one of the two principal executors of Washington's estate. He had recently visited the Justice and his wife at Mount Vernon. In March, 1806, Jones wrote to Justice Washington to ask for a copy of that part of George Washington's will concerning a national university, presumably for the guidance of the House committee still considering the subject of a university in the District of Columbia. Bushrod Washington was staying in the City of Washington at the time and did not have a copy of the will handy, but promised to send Jones a copy of the relevant passages upon returning home. He added:

I would with pleasure afford any assistance in my power towards drawing the bill contemplated by the Committee, but I know that the business of two estates under my management, with my own private affairs, will fully employ the short time I shall remain at home, previous to my next circuit.

The Justice also expressed hopes of seeing Jones in Washington the following day, and invited him to come to Mount Vernon before the former's departure. (10)

On March 11, 1806, from Mount Vernon, Washington sent Jones the requested information, together with the following suggestion, as a principal executor of George Washington's estate, concerning the bequest of Potowmack stock: I have had some idea of presenting a petition to Congress in the name of the executors, requesting that body to pass a law authorizing some officer of the Government to receive an assignment of these shares & to dispose of them in the way directed by the testator, and in such manner, as that body in its wisdom may think conducive to the end contemplated by the General. Perhaps a clause to this effect might be introduced into the law now before that Committee for the establishment of an University at Washington. Will you my dear Sir be so good as to turn this subject in your mind and give effect to this idea, if it meets your approbation and that of the Committee?(11)

As it happened (doubtless because the stock was declining rapidly in value), the executors sent no petitions to Congress requesting that the stock be put in trust for the endowment of an institution of learning, and these two letters from Bushrod Washington to Jones in 1806, indirect as they were, constituted the only approach of Washington's executors to the national legislature concerning the bequest.

On March 28, 1806, the House committee of five presented "a bill incorporating an institution in the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, for the education of youth, and the promotion and diffusion of learning and science," containing the provision that Congress would grant the institution public lots in the City. In the Senate, meanwhile, a bill calling for the incorporation of a "National Academy" had been introduced and read three times in February and March, 1806. Neither of the two bills was ever voted upon; but it is quite significant that neither of them contained any mention of the term "National University." What was envisioned in both cases was simply a Congressionally-chartered institution of learning within the City of Washington.(12)

The Potowmack Company, meanwhile, was not oblivious to the fact that 50 shares of its stock had been bequeathed for educational purposes by George Washington. The Company's president, General John Mason of Analostan Island, in a report made to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin in January, 1808, called attention to the 50 shares "subscribed and paid by the State of Virginia, presented to Genl. Washington, and by him bequeathed toward the Endowment of a University to be established within the Limits of the District of Columbia."(13)

In 1807 and 1809, further bills were introduced in Congress for the incorporation of an institution of learning in the Federal City. President James Madison, in his annual message to Congress of December 5, 1810, proposed the establishment of a seminary of learning in the District of Columbia to be financed by the sale of lands within the District. A committee was appointed to study the matter. Its report, presented in February, 1811, shows again that Congress was aware of the existence of Washington's bequest and that it would be available to a university which Congress might incorporate. After reflecting on the educational benefits of an institution of learning in the City of Washington, the report recommended that the proposal not be adopted. Two major reasons were given: that the Constitution had not granted powers to Congress to establish and endow a national university, and that Congress could not rightly appropriate public funds or property to support such an institution. Washington's bequest and other potential sources of endowment were "too scanty and precarious to be relied upon." To incorporate a university without funds would be "a fruitless and inefficient exercise of the legislative power." The committee had taken a position much like that of President Thomas Jefferson: that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary before Congress could establish and support a university. On the other hand, the committee was careful to state that if Congress should be asked sometime in the future "to incorporate a district university, for the local benefit of the inhabitants of Columbia, and of funds of their own raising, there can be no doubt that it would be considered with kindness." This was a matter quite distinct from the endowment of a national university out of the public treasury, and Congress could rightfully incorporate a local institution under its authority to legislate for the District of Columbia.(14)

In 1815, President Madison again recommended to Congress the establishment of a "National Seminary of Learning within the District of Columbia," and a similar recommendation received one sentence in his last annual message to Congress in 1816. Congress again considered the matter briefly. In December, 1816, the report of a House committee suggested the establishment of a university of 160 students to be instructed by six professors and supported wholly by Congress. No mention was made of the Washington bequest, which was by now obviously not to be relied upon.(15)

President James Monroe, in his first annual message to Congress in December, 1817, recommended that a proposed constitutional amendment concerning internal improvements include a provision giving Congress the power to "institute ...seminaries of learning."(16) It was during the Monroe administration, the so-called "era of good feelings," that Congress finally extended its fostering hand towards the establishment of an institution of higher learning in the Federal City by granting a charter to The Columbian College in the District of Columbia, founded under Baptist auspices. Congress included a provision in the Charter that neither the College's trustees, president, professors, or students were to be chosen on the basis of their religion. Furthermore, the College was to be accountable to Congress for its conduct at any time, as well as liable to inspection by the Attorney General. President Monroe, who approved the act of incorporation on February 9, 1821, was also a contributor to the College. He wrote to the College on March 24 to express his best wishes for its success. He saw its location as a distinct advantage. The College, he added, "cannot fail to be eminently useful to the nation."

Columbian College was founded under denominational auspices, as were all other early American colleges. Although Luther Rice and the other founders of the College had not intended to establish a "national university," their mission was at least in part a national one. They had purposely chosen to locate the institution in the District of Columbia. They were also conscious of George Washington's earlier interest in promoting an institution of learning there. The initial contributions which the College received came from a number of different states. The very name "Columbian" carried a strong national connotation. It was a term in wide use during the early nineteenth century nearly synonymous with both "American" and "national." From it the District of Columbia and many other American places and institutions also derived their names. The early circulars of Columbian College made a point of mentioning George Washington's aspirations for a university in the District of Columbia and emphasized the advantages which Columbian College enjoyed from being situated at the seat of government, the fact that religious discrimination was not applied by the College, and that its students were drawn from throughout the country.

It is significant that Congressional discussion of a proposed national university altogether ceased at about the time Columbian College was incorporated. In 1819, a resolution calling for the establishment of a committee to consider the subject had been defeated; in 1822, the year Columbian College held its first classes, another proposal failed.(17) George Washington's aspirations for an institution of learning were mentioned again in the Senate between 1824 and 1828, in connection with a bill for the financial relief of Columbian College. The College had acquired certain property and notes which carried an indebtedness to the government of $25,953. When the status of the College was considered, some Senators argued that it was a national institution of the sort suggested since Washington's day. A report of the Committee on the District of Columbia, after reviewing, among other things, the views of Presidents Washington and Madison on the subject, noted that the founders of Columbian College had achieved "by voluntary donations, that which it had been supposed could be effected only by the power of Congress." It praised Luther Rice for his "unwearied industry and an unyielding perseverance, which prompted him to traverse every part of the Union in pursuit of aid to this beneficent object." The nonsectarian outlook of the College was also commented upon. As Senator Barbour acknowledged, It is purely a literary establishment; youths from all parts of the Union are zealously invited, whatever may be their religion, and the attention of the superiors is directed to their intellectual improvement...The general improvement of the mind is its object, and it is not bound to the exclusive support of any system of religion whatever. Senator Barbour also believed that the College "now contains 120 of the future legislators of the country." Senator Eaton emphasized that "though sectarian in its origin, it was not so in practice."

The outcome was a decision that the College was eligible to receive aid of a more material sort than that which Congress had provided in the form of the Charter of 1821, and an act was passed in 1828 authorizing the Treasurer of the United States to relinquish the College's indebtedness of $25,953.(18)

In 1832, Congress granted the young Columbian College an endowment in the form of lots in the City of Washington, the same form of endowment which had been a part of some of the unsuccessful plans for a university earlier before Congress. The lots had a total book value of $25,000, greater than that of Washington's 50 Potowmack shares, which were shortly to pass into total oblivion.(19)

---

The Potowmack Company had not proven to be as successful as Washington and his contemporaries had expected. As the financial position of the Company gradually deteriorated during the first quarter of the nineteenth century, so did the value of the 50 shares of stock which Washington had viewed as a productive endowment for an institution of learning. The Company's financial embarrassment had several causes. Passage on parts of the river was still treacherous and uncertain. In spite of all the improvements made by the Company, navigation on the entire river was possible only during the two months or less out of every year when the level of water was high enough. The Company had constantly to provide for the upkeep of its works. Mud accumulated in some canals; the walls of others fell in, and the wooden lock gates tended to deteriorate. Some of the Company's original engineering had been so faulty that complete alterations had to be made. The locks at Little Falls, for example, were originally constructed of wood. They soon rotted and had to be replaced entirely with stone, an operation not completed until 1818. The improvements undertaken on the several branches of the Potomac required great additional expenditures.

Although the volume of commerce carried on the river (hence the amount of tolls received) was fairly large during the navigable season, the Company's yearly receipts were not sufficient to cover the expenses of the ongoing improvements in addition to salaries and wages to Company officers and employees. Large sums were borrowed from local banks. Between 1810 and 1818, the Company held a lottery in hopes of relieving its financial predicament. But the expenses of organizing the lottery, plus incidentals (a subscription agent might be awarded a quarter cask of Madeira as a bonus), plus a later series of lawsuits, caused it to fail. Instead of raising an expected $300,000, it yielded $486.03.

By 1822, the Potowmack Company's debt stood at over $175,000, and its annual profits were not sufficient to pay the interest on the debt. Many who were involved in the project had already realized that the bed of the Potomac River was neither the cheapest nor the most reliable route from the West, and that a continuous canal independent of the river would be more satisfactory. Such a canal, modeled after the Erie Canal which New York State had begun in 1817, would begin at tidewater and eventually extend as far West as the Ohio River at Pittsburgh.

In 1820, Virginia sent an exploratory mission through the country between the Potomac and Ohio rivers to determine whether such a canal was practicable. In 1821, the states of Virginia and Maryland appointed a joint commission on the subject, which, in 1822, recommended that no further aid be given to the Potowmack Company, that its Charter be revoked, and that a better means of improving the Potomac route be adopted. On January 27, 1824, the Virginia General Assembly incorporated the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. This act was subsequently agreed to by the Maryland legislature and the U.S. Congress. On May 16, 1825, the stockholders of the Potowmack Company, meeting at Semmes' Tavern in Georgetown, voted to accept a surrender of their Charter to the new company.

Certain provisions were made for the interests of Potowmack Company stockholders. While regular subscriptions to the stock of the new company were to be paid for in legal currency of the United States, shares in the Potowmack Company would be accepted at par value in payment for C. & O. stock, not to exceed $311,111.11, the total value of the old company's stock. Duly certified claims of the Potowmack Company's creditors would also be accepted up to $175,800, the amount of debts outstanding, with interest, as of 1825.

There was a qualification, however. Persons who had obtained shares in the new company by such exchanges were less likely to receive dividends, which were to be paid as follows. First, all net profits (toll receipts minus expenses) up to ten per cent per annum were to be divided among holders of shares paid for in cash. Secondly, if profits exceeded ten per cent in a given year, the surplus was to be divided among stockholders who had paid for their shares in certificates of debt of the Potowmack Company, the amount not to exceed ten per cent. Thirdly, if a surplus still remained, it was to be divided among those stockholders who had obtained their shares in exchange for stock in the Potowmack Company, the amount again to be no more than six per cent.

The capital stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company was to be $6,000,000, or 60,000 shares of $100 each. Groundbreaking ceremonies for the canal were held on July 4, 1828, and President John Quincy Adams dug the first shovelful of earth. The deed of surrender, by which the Potowmack Company conveyed all its property, rights, and privileges, and by which it surrendered its charter to the C. & O. Company, was made on August 15, 1828.(20)

The Potowmack Company had now passed out of existence. The 50 shares which George Washington had bequeathed had had, at $444-4/9 each, a total par value of $22,222-2/9, and they were therefore eligible to be exchanged for 222 shares at $100 each in the new company.

Although new shares thus obtained for old ones were the least likely to receive dividends, the option of obtaining new stock should have seemed somewhat attractive in 1828, for the C. & O. Canal project was then regarded as a potentially even greater success than the Potowmack Company had been in George Washington's day. But it was not entirely certain at the time, nor has it been clear since, exactly whose responsibility it was to exchange the 50 Potowmack shares. Did the responsibility lie with the executors of Washington's estate or did it rest with the Commonwealth of Virginia?

It has already been mentioned that title to the 50 shares remained vested in the Commonwealth of Virginia throughout the entire existence of the Potowmack Company. There is much good evidence of this in the Company's records. But there is no evidence that she herself took steps to exchange the shares. On the other hand, Virginia did convert the 70 shares she held outright (representing an equity of $311,111.11) into shares of the C. & O. Canal Company, but these shares were not carried on the Company's books after 1836.(21)

---

Official interest in the disposition of Washington's 50 shares would have been entirely extinguished by 1828 had the executors of his estate not kept the candle burning for several more years. Justice Bushrod Washington is known to have come to the District of Columbia (presumably traveling from Mount Vernon) in June, 1828, apparently for the specific purpose of attending to the university bequest. The only clue is the following entry which appears in each of the several sets of executorial accounts which have survived:

Dr.... 1828 June 20. To my expenses to Washington respecting the Potowmack Shares devised to the University. 4.50.(22) The most likely purpose of his visit was to investigate the possibility of exchanging the Potowmack shares for shares in the new company. The Potowmack Company was now just a little more than a month away from the surrender of its Charter, and this may have attracted renewed attention to the bequest on the part of the executors.

Justice Washington may also very possibly have discussed the disposition of the bequest with members of Congress or with others in the governmental establishment, although there is no specific evidence of this. Washington probably conducted his business hastily and in person, and no clues concerning his visit of June, 1828, are to be found in the records of Congress. The files of the Potowmack and C. & O. Canal Company contain no correspondence whatsoever with the executors concerning the 50 university shares during the entire administration of the estate. Record does exist that Bushrod Washington purchased 50 shares of C. & O. Canal stock, but this was an entirely new subscription on his own account, not a transfer of shares from the George Washington estate.

The very next year, probably before he had had sufficient time to follow up whatever efforts he made in the capital in behalf of the university bequest, Justice Washington died, on November 26, 1829, while sitting as a Federal circuit judge in Philadelphia. There is nothing in Bushrod Washington's own last will and testament concerning the 50 university shares, although the property he bequeathed to his heirs included the 50 C. & O. shares he had bought on his own account, as well as a larger number of shares which he owned in the Bank of Columbia.(23)

The last event of major importance in the settlement of George Washington's estate was a friendly suit brought by his executors as an expedient means of settling their accounts and determining the distribution of the remaining assets of the estate to the appropriate legatees. The suit was brought in 1823 and not completely settled until 1846. In the extensive accounts of the estate accompanying the suit there was no reference to the disposition of the 50 Potowmack shares.(24)

In 1832, the very last effort in behalf of the now almost-forgotten bequest was made by Lawrence Lewis, the sole surviving executor. Eighteen thirty-two was the year Congress appropriated $25,000 in Washington City lots as an endowment for Columbian College. Lewis may have been prompted to act out of tribute to the centennial of George Washington's birth which was observed throughout the country that year. He may have acted because 1832 was the year in which the Commonwealth of Virginia finally began to consider making a subscription to stock in the C. & O. Canal Company. But the most likely reason why he now acted was the fact that his health was failing.

Lawrence Lewis proceeded as follows. On February 27, 1832, he presented a petition to the General Assembly of Virginia, the body that had originally granted the Potowmack stock to Washington. He opened the petition by reviewing the provisions of the Virginia acts of 1784 and 1785 putting the shares at Washington's disposal, and the provisions of Washington's last will and testament. Pointing out that only the one small dividend had ever been received from the stock, Lewis recalled that the executors, "with the exception of a very small sum," had reinvested it in stock of the Bank of Columbia in accordance with the provision of the will. Lewis also observed that while the execution of the trust had originally depended on the aid of Congress, whom Washington in his will had viewed as a potential patron of a university, that body had not acted.

Lewis stated that he was the sole surviving executor of Washington's estate; because of his "advanced period of life" he did not expect to be for very much longer "the Depository of the sacred trust," which, now that the other executors were dead, was "vested in him alone." He requested, therefore, that the Virginia General Assembly take the subject under consideration and make provision by law to relieve him of "any further execution of the Trust" by allowing him to transfer the responsibility to "such other Trustees as [the General Assembly] may deem most proper."(25)

The petition was presented to the Virginia Senate on February 25, 1832; a bill was introduced on March 1, and the final act embodying Lewis' request and some additional provisions was passed on March 19. The act specified that the 50 shares of stock in the Potowmack Company were to be "hereby vested in the said Lawrence Lewis, surviving executor of George Washington, his heirs and assigns, and that the said Lawrence Lewis be, and he is hereby empowered to transfer the said stock, and any other stock wherein the dividends thereof have been invested [the Bank of Columbia stock], and any surplus of dividends in his hands, unto such other trustee or trustees as he shall select, and their heirs and assigns, upon trust, to hold the same, and to receive all dividends and profits thereof, and to appropriate and apply the same to the uses declared and appointed by the said last will and testament of George Washington."(26)

In his petition Lewis had not asked the Virginia General Assembly's permission to convert the 50 shares in the defunct Potowmack Company into the equivalent value of shares in the C. & O. Canal Company. Perhaps he was ignorant of the possibility of doing so. But the General Assembly was in March, 1832, also considering Virginia's own future subscription to C. & O. stock (to be made in 1833), which helps to explain why it also enacted the following:

That the said Lawrence Lewis, executor as aforesaid, or such trustee or trustees as he shall appoint by virtue of this act, their heirs and assigns, shall be, and they are hereby authorized and empowered to subscribe the said fifty shares of stock of the Potowmack company, into stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal company, and to represent the same, either in person or by proxy, at the meetings of the stockholders.

Congress had already as early as 1796 disclaimed any responsibility for the bequest, and now the legislature of Virginia, the original donor, was divesting itself of its connection. Now that Lawrence Lewis had gone to considerable trouble to have the title to the shares vested in himself personally, he would presumably be interested in following through. What action did he take? Surprisingly enough, he seems to have taken none. A careful search of the records of the C. & O. Canal Company, especially its correspondence, proceedings, and lists of stockholders, shows that Lewis never contacted the Company for the purpose of making an exchange of stock. Others were still exercising the option of doing so, even though the Company had been out of existence for four years. In March, 1832, for example, Bushrod C. Washington, son of the late Justice Washington, was allowed by the C. & O. Company to convert some Potowmack shares belonging to the estates of several of George Washington's legatees. No mention was made of the 50 university shares in this case.(27)

Is it possible that Lewis deeded the shares to Congress, to a separate trust fund, to another person, or to an educational institution? Again, the evidence overwhelmingly points to a negative answer. No conveyances are recorded on the books of either of the two companies, nor are any such instruments recorded in the land or fiduciary records of the District of Columbia or Fairfax County, Virginia. There is no evidence of a further approach to Congress or to any other branch of the general government. The archives of the Commonwealth of Virginia reveal nothing beyond the Act of 1832 granting the shares to Lewis. The Columbian College in the District of Columbia did not receive the shares or the dividend.

Why did Lewis fail to take any further action? The explanation may lie in the fact that he was bothered by ill health and preoccupied with financial difficulties.(28) Furthermore, even if he had converted the shares, the potential productiveness of the endowment was severely limited by the stipulation that shares so exchanged were least eligible to receive dividends. Any effort on Lewis' part would more than likely cost him more than the shares were worth. Lawrence Lewis died on November 20, 1839, at Arlington, Virginia, where he was visiting his brother-in-law, George W. P. Custis. Lewis' will was probated in Fairfax County, Virginia. His will reveals that his property consisted mainly of the Woodlawn plantation, other real estate, and debts owed him by various parties. Lewis left this to his wife and three daughters. To his son Lorenzo, whom he appointed executor, he bequeathed "all my Books, Phamphlets, and papers, and all other things in and about my house not embraced in the bequest aforesaid." To Lorenzo he also left "all property real and personal not herein before otherwise disposed of - which I may possess or be entitled to at the time of my death." The 50 shares in the Potowmack Company were not specifically mentioned in his will, and were therefore a part of this residue bequeathed to his son.(29) Not surprisingly, no indication has been found that Lorenzo Lewis ever acted in behalf of his great-uncle's bequest to a proposed institution of learning. When he died in the 1840's, the matter passed into complete obscurity.

Meanwhile, what had happened to the $277.50 dividend received by the Washington estate in 1805, and subsequently reinvested in stock of the Bank of Columbia? It had still been in the hands of Lawrence Lewis in 1832, according to his petition. If all the dividends had been reinvested, the fund should be fairly large by now. The answer lies in the Bank of Columbia's own fate.

That institution had had its ups and downs. Located in Georgetown, it had been chartered by Maryland in 1793 to serve the district commissioners building the future capital city. The Bank became an agent for the Treasury and a depository of government funds. It was the first and only bank to have a branch in the Treasury building, the office being located there until 1814. It was also the first in the District to suffer a highway bank robbery: in 1805, an officer of the Bank carrying funds from Georgetown to Alexandria was shot and robbed of over $18,000. The officer survived but the money was not recovered.

The Bank's first President was Samuel Blodgett; its second was General John Mason, the long-time President and Director of the Potowmack Company. For many years the Bank paid dividends at the rate of eight per cent per annum. The Bank benefited from the Potowmack Company's improvement of navigation, for the increased flow of commerce down the river enlarged Georgetown's prosperity. The Bank suffered a decline as a result of the financial Panic of 1819; it closed in 1826, was absorbed by the Bank of the United States at Philadelphia in 1828, which was liquidated in 1839. Creditors were paid in part but stockholders received nothing.(30) The last tangible vestige of George Washington's originally munificent endowment thus went down the drain.

---

MARTIN PAUL CLAUSSEN, JR.

NOTES

1. Elmer Louis Kayser, Washington's Bequest to a National University (Washington, 1965).
2. Proceedings of the Board of President and Directors of the Potowmack Company, 1785-1807, pp. 240-47, Record Group 79, National Archives (hereinafter cited as RG 79).
3. Potowmack Company, Ledger B, fol. 72, RG 79.
4 George Ticknor Lie, Letters, and Journals (Boston, 1877), I, 38-9.
5. Will Books P, Q, R, S, and T, County Court of Fairfax County, Virginia; Washington Family Miscellany, Papers of George Washington, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress; Arlington County Papers, Box II (Washington Estate Papers), Archives Division, Virginia State Library; Washington Family Manuscripts, Alderman Library, University of Virginia.
6. Report to Stockholders on the Completion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal ... (Frederick 1851), p. 20.
7. Lawrence Lewis, petition to the Virginia General Assembly, Feb. 27, 1832, Legislative Petitions, Fairfax County, Archives Division, Virginia State Library.
8. Annals of Congress, 4th Cong. 2d sess., VI 1600-01, 1672, 1694-95, 1697-1710.
9. Ibid. 7th Cong., 2d sess., XII 345-46; ibid. 9th Cong., 1st sess., XV, 301.
10. Washington to Jones March 5, 1806, copy in container 223, Joseph M. Toner Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
11. Washington to Jones, March 11, 1806, ibid.
12. Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 144, 161, 163, 183, 198; ibid. 9th Cong., 2d sess., XVI 426, 428.
13. Mason to Gallatin, 20 Jan. 1808. Potowmack Company, Correspondence and Reports, Drawer 4, RG 79.
14. Annals of Congress, 11th Cong., 3d sess., XXII, 976-77.
15. Ibid., 14th Cong. 2d sess., XXX, 257-60.
16. James D. Richardson ed. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Washington, 1896), II, 18.
17. Annals of Congress, 16th Cong., 1st sess., XXXV 781-82; ibid., 17th Cong., 1st sess., 713-14.
18. Ibid. 18th Cong., 1st sess., XLI 525-27; Register of Debates in Congress, 18th Cong., 2d sess. XLIII, 90-98, 230; ibid. 19th Cong.,. 1st sess., XLIV 7; ibid., 19th Cong., 2d sess., XLVI, 7; ibid. 20th Cong., 1st sess., XLVII 72-4, 245-48, 343-44.
19. Ibid., 22nd Cong., 1st sess., LV, 3210.
20. Potowmack Company, Legal Papers, Drawer 12, RG 79; Liber W. B. No. 22, fol. 211-14, Land Records of the District of Columbia.
21. Lists of Stockholders, C. & O. Canal Company, RG 79.
22. For example: Will Book Q No. 1, Fairfax Count Virginia; Executors Account Book, 1802-1830, Papers of George Washington, 882, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
23. Will Book P No. 1, Fairfax County, Virginia.
24. Appellate Case No. 1602, Appellate Case File, Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, National Archives.
25. Lawrence Lewis, petition to the Virginia General Assembly, Feb. 27, 1832, loc. cit.
26. Virginia is General Assembly, Acts, 1832, pp. 293-95.
27. Proceedings of the President and Directors, C. & O. Canal Company, Vol. C, pp. 108, 115, RG 79.
28. Lewis, letters of Nov. 2, 1836 and Jan. 18, 1837, to Maj. Edward G. W. Butler, copies in Custis Family Papers, Manuscript Division Library of Congress.
29. Will Book T No. 1, pp. 127-31, Fairfax County, Virginia.
30. Charles E. Howe "The Financial Institutions of Washington City in its Early Days," Records of the Columbia Historical Society VIII (1905), 10-15.

Document Information

Images: 0
Photographic Credit: n/a
Author or Source: See Endnotes
Document Location: University Archives
Date Added to Encyclopedia: December 21, 2006
Prepared by: Lyle Slovick, Assistant University Archivist

For more information about GW history

Contact:

Special Collections Research Center [1]
The Melvin Gelman Library [2]
The George Washington University [3]
2130 H Street, NW Suite 704
Washington, DC 20052
202-994-7549
mailto:archives@gwu.edu
Please send us your questions and comments about the encyclopedia.
This site is maintained by the Special Collections Research Center and the Web Development Group.