The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-07 00:00:00

RAILWAYS IN CANADA-THE GRAND'
CANADIAN TRUNK RAILWAY.

We extract from the Quebec Morning Chronicle of the
Bth ult., the following abledocument, from Sir C, Roney,
the general manager of the above line, in answer to the
recent report issued by the directors (in Canada) of the
Great Western in reference to the policy of the executive
of the Grand Trunk Company :

" The report recently addressed by the directors of the
Great Western Railway Company of Canada to their
proprietors in England, on the position of that company
and its relations with the Grand Trunk Railway, is of
such an extraordinary character, that it may require the
correction of certain mis-statements, even if its general
tone preclude the board of the latter company from
entering upon any other defence of its members or
its action. In this view the following statement is laid
before the London board of the Grand Trunk Railway
Company of Canada, to be used in such a manner as the
members of it may deem fit.
"The directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company
of Canada purpose to notice, first, the grounds alleged
by the Great Western board for the report in question,
and afterwards to consider the statement itself.
"On the former point, a reference to the report will
show that, in the first place, its publication is justified
by the comments of a Toronto newspaper—the Daily
Leader; secondly, by the reports and rumours of a
variety of descriptions attributed to this company as
evidence of its designs affecting the Great Western ; and
lastly, by a reference to a meeting with the board
of the
Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, at which itis
distinctly charged with 'having informed the Great West-
ern Board that the arrangement in question had never
been under the consideration of the Grand Trunk direc-

tion, while the tone adopted by the latter practically
amounts to an entire repudiation of the whole arrange-
ment. On the first point it will be sufficient at once to
state that the newspaper referred to is in no respect
under the influence of the Grand Trunk Railway Com-
pany of Canada, and that it has never, in any one in-
stance; been authorised to declare its sentiments. The
directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, neither
collectively nor individually, are in the slightest degree
responsible for the statements of any newspaper in the
province. In saying this, however, the directors may
add, that they have examined the articles referred to,
and they find nothing in them beyond a reply to the
statements of the Hamilton Spectator, for which they
•do not desire to hold the board of the Great Western
responsible.
" On the second point, it is impossible for this board
to attempt a refutation of charges made on the autho-
rity of garbled reports and rumours. They conceive it
perfectly irreconcileable with the ordinary usages of
society for a public company to found accusations upon
such evidence without even an attempt to ascertain
their correctness by reference to the parties implicated.
It is the fact that the whole of these very serious
charges of injustice, rivalry, menace, cajolery, and in-
fluence (if not something worse),' have been made by
the Great Western, without the slightest attempt to
verify them, and without even asking the individuals.
referred to whether they were correctly reported. The
Grand Trunk directors have now made this investiga-

tion, and although under no circumstances would they
have considered themselves responsible for the acts or
deeds of individuals, still they are gratified in being able
again to state, that neither collectively nor individually
have they done aught in violation of their good faith to
the Great Western, while it is specifically a misstate-
ment that any instructions have been sent home to
offer an amalgamation of the two stocks at a, consider-
able premium on the Great Western shares.'
KLastly, the Grand Trunk is charged with being re-
sponsible for the breach of agreement by the Great
Western in their present action. This board has never
met the Great Western board or its representatives.
Committees of the two boards were appointed to arrange
details of agreements between the two companies, ren-
dered necessary by certain modifications which the Great
Western board desired, and of which this company has
not yet been informed, but even these committees have
never met. On inquiry, the only ground for this most
serious charge is in the circumstance that two members-
of this board, when lately in Toronto with Mr. Stephen-
son, had an informal conversation with three members
of the Great Western board, with whom they unfortu-
nately differed as regarded the effect of the proceedings
of the latter company in devoting its funds to steam-boat
speculations on Lake Ontario. At the meeting in ques-
tion, the members of the Great Western Railway Com-
pany's board were expressly informed that the conversa-
tion was altogether unofficial, and yet this is the sole
instance where any personal intercourse has taken place.
The only communication from the Great Western, con-
taining complaint against this company, bearing date
the 3rd of September, was received on the Bth, and was
first brought under the notice of this board on the 28th.
The Great Western have to this letter not even had the
courtesy to await a reply, but have at once denounced
the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government
of Canada, and—it is with deep regret this board feel
called on to state—have done so in London, without
even an intimation to the company, with which they
were under agreements of amity—a course, it is believed,
without precedent in any undertaking managed by ho-
nourable men.

"On this subject it may be stated that the agreement
between the two companies names as a referee, in case of
dispute, Robert Stephenson Esq., M.P., who, being in
Canada, was readily accessible ; and to him the Great
Western Company were bound to make an appeal before
taking any other course. No such desire has been ex-
pressed to this company, and the Great Western thus
rejected the arbitration of the party mutually agreed
upon and best qualified to settle all the points of which
they complain.
"Believing from the foregoing statement that no
ground can justly be shown for the course adopted by
the Great Western Company, this board will now pro-
ceed to notice the statement of fact as alleged in the re-
port in question.
" The Great Western directors, in the early part of
the report, assume the claim to all the beneficial rail-
way legislation of Canada. They claim the original
idea of a trunk line of railway through the province ;
they affirm that they secured the Railway Guarantee
Bill of 1849, and that they were the influential pro-
moters of the Grand Trunk scheme ; in brief, that the
Government of Canada have until now been entirely
guided by their advice ; and that, without the influential
promoters of the Great Western Company, Canada
would have had no railway whatever. So far from
these assumptions belng correct, it is notorious in
Canada that the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway,
now part of the Grand Trunk Railway, was the con-
stant and ultimately successful applicant for the Gua-
rantee Bill ; that this company had 30 miles of rail in
operation, before the Great Western had in reality done
anything ; and that its claim for the guarantee was ad-
mitted by the Government, 12 months before the Great
Western had fairly commenced work. Subsequently, sug-
gestions made by Messrs. Baring and Glyn, during, .a
negotiation carried on by the president and vice-president
of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic railroad, for the sale of
the guaranteed railway bonds, induced the Government
to limit the guarantee to one main line through the pro-
vince, the scheme being discussed and arranged between
the Hon. Mr. Rinks. (Inspector General) and the gen-
tleman referred to, and, on the written application of
the latter, brought before the Executive Council and
decided to be recommended to Parliament, the Great
Western having nothing whatever to do with the plan
until it was laid before the house. So far from the
Great Western being, as claimed, the pioneer of rail-
ways in Canada, it hits invariably followed the steps
of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad, and bene-
fitted by the exertion of the promoters of that road,
while the Government of Canada has certainly shown
by its acts that it needed not the stimulus of private
interests properly to promote railway enterprise in the
colony.
"By the act defining the main line of railway to
which provincial aid should be given, the Great Wes-
tern Railway undoubtedly became entitled to and has
received provincial aid, bat in no other respect had it
any claim on the Government, because the very act
under which it claims to have been commenced and
partly constructed' was the general act, pledging the
provincial aid to all railways above 75 miles in length.
So far as the Great Western is concerned, it would in
reality be no breach of faith had the Government given
the guarantee to other lines than the Main Trunk, be-
cause the former line was commenced and partly con-
structed' under a law giving the guarantee without dis-
tinction to all and every railway chartered. Its repeal,
On the suggestion of Messrs. Baring and Glyn, can cer-
tainly give no rights to the Great Western, whose line is
confined to that from the Niagara river to the Detroit
river, expressly debarring that company from any claim
on behalf of its proposed branch to Sarnia, which was left
precisely in the position of other lines not being part of
the Main Trunk. However, the complaint of the Great
Western on the subject of the Provisional Government
and Legislature aiding a rival line, might be excused, if
such aid had been given ; but it will scarcely be believed
supplyrwhole
Legislature
and GovernmentG
fGovernment
andspirit that the Great Western knew that no provincial aid
whatever has been extended to any line west of Toronto,
except itself ; and that, so far from any breach of faith,
the
the very
receiving
real a a
only
ictrr scrupulously
Tp
acts,ourloo Toronto,
theloy
observedGanhd e Trunktheh required .
beyond which point to Sarnia, e t
aid have
oent
hl
the company themselves
T
West-
ern is, simply, that the Legislature deemed two lines
through the west part of the
provin
ce
the
necessary Great
;A-Va'enscit:
etletterlus ne dos.
eornmm,n
oa
fv
despite its opposition chartered a line from Toronto to
Sarnia, which line being incorporated with no less than
six others in the general system of Canadian ,railways
under the name of the Grand Trunk, a name adopted by
a mere private company, as expressive of what it really
is, and which is most disingenuously endeavoured to be
confounded by the Great Western report with the Main
Trunk line, by which name the Legislature, three years
past, designated that line to which provincial aid should
be restricted, and of which the Great Western formed
part. The Main Trunk comprehended the Quebec and
Richmond, St Lawrence and Atlantic, Grand Trunk,
and Great Western Railways ; the three former united
under the name of Grand Trunk, and the Great West-
ern might have done so also had its proprietors chosen.
" A brief history of these transactions is rendered
necessary by the statements of the report.
" The whole Main Trunk line was chartered prior to
1851, except the section between Montreal and Toronto,
which in that year was proposed to be undertaken by
the Government, and failing such action, was placed in
the hands of two private companies in 1852. Subse-
quently the entire line between Montreal and Toronto
was conceded in 1852 to a new company, styled the
Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada,' and the
•
provincial aid granted to the amount of 3,0001. per
mile.
"The transactions connected with the repeal of the _