Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1832-07-18
WEDNESDAY, JULY IL, 1854
CANAL AND RAILROAD.

CANAL AND RAILROAD.
The citizens of this town and neighborhood
are deepiy interested in the proposed plan Of
:. comprumise.' offered by the Rail Road Com
napy to the Stockholders in the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal. We therefore give place to the toll
lowing, being the conclusion Of long article
frs, published in the National lnteilisencer' IN
repy to what professed to be "Cand'd Ap'
neal, to the Canal Company, relative to the con-
troversy:
Having disposed of those topics in the appeal.
,hich do not properly belong to the question,
whether the stockholders OF the Chesapeake anu
Ohio Canal Company shall consent to the con-
mini construction Of a rail road with the canal,
nn,y in orosress. between the "Point OF Rocks"
and Harper's Ferry, will proceed to consider
the compromise designed to lead to this result.
The General Assembly of Maryland, IN their
late resolution, do not prescribe to the stocKho'd
ers Of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal company
a decision on its purpose. ne resoiu.'on ear
nes,Iy recommends TO the President and Direct
"rs ,6s call of a meeting of the stockholders "in
,be manner authorized by the charter" and to
s,,bn;t 10 their consideration the proposition oil
tho Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road COmpany;,
and il authorizes the proxy OF the State to ex-
Mai, the wish and opininn Of the Legislature,
that the ioint location of the railroad and canal
sboujd he assented to. The resolution compre-
bends an instruction to the agent or proxy OF the
Sat. and a Recommendation Of the call OF &C.
neral meeting for special purpose. The pre-
omhIs sets forth that purpose, and evidently
considers the iuint location Of the canal and rail-
road. as involving no other consequence to the
Canal Company, than an additional expense
,bich it afIirms that the Railroad Company are
willing to bear and pay. The mover OF the re-
solution has permitted no doubt, to remain, as
~ his views in drawing, which were prooao'y
those of the Legislature, ID approving the pre-.
annie and the resolution: since in his letter OF
!, has been seen, that he distinctly re-
.nr,;,ss not the right, which IS unques'ionable,
49,, tho bounden obligation of the stockholders
of ,b,. Canal Company, "not 10 commit me sur
c;JoI oa of injuring the Canal for the benefit Of
the Railroad"
Will. then, any injury be sustained by the ca
nal. should the stockholders assent to the con-
struction of canal aud railroad between the
PANT Of Rocks and llarpers's Ferry, as propos-
Cd nv ,he Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Com
pany? po,,.,.
,,te . commissioner Of the Court of Caancery OF
MARYLAND. and one of the most experienced cl-
,J ..,v;ne.rs of the United States; OF Alfred
Cr,osr a resident engineer of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company: Of Thomas +. Pur-
cell. an engineer of the same grade, IN the SER
vice of that company; The unanimous opinion OF
.he President aud Directors oil the Company,
amonu whom is ]. ]. Albert, Colonel IN the Ar
nav q, the United States, now at the heac oil that
very bureau Of the War Department which Is
charged with the internal Improvements OF the
III in
cnn;o;nt construction, and should be regarded
=. Sufficient authority, on the part OF the stock
soldiers of the canal, who are not themselves en-
g;peers, foe rejecting the proposed compromise.
R,t ;f the stockholders are disposed to disre.
ard he practised Judgment of skilful engineers,
and REQUIRE proot Of the injury to be apprehend-
oh IN IN. canal, from its conjoint construction
with the rail.roa,l. along the bank OF the Poto-
mac. then let that Judgment be examined, and Its
foundation be tested.
To the obvious objection, that the contracts Tor
the canal, along the ground, on which. 1t IS pro-
nosed to construct rail road, also, have been,
for some time. made, and in train Tor compile
ZION according In their terms, BY the 1st Of De-
osmhe, next. It may be replied, that the rail road
company are willing to defray the cost OF any
change of those contracts. that may be found ne
csssary. IN make them accord with the conjoln'
c,nstruc ton of canal and rail road.
Two reiomders occur, to this reply: one is
that there exists no independent arbiter, except
= court of law, to which, difference OF opinion
between the two companies. as TO the extent Of
Their respective responsibilities. under any con
tract. could be referred; and each reference sup
noses law suit between them The other is
that the work being nearly doubled IN extent
. ..~, he done bv the period stipulated in the
s,nt,.cts. and the Canal Company, as well as the
nnhl;c. NAV he made to lie out of the use OF TWEEN
~ mile. Of canal. below the point of Rocks.fo
another year. in addition to the two already lost
For this injury. the Rail Road Company propose
No re,r,bution whatever. to the Canal Company
and could make none. which would. at the same
time, adequately remunerate the public; who vii
hs by far, the greatest loser, as II has long been
by the legal imped,ments thrown In the way o.
the progress of the canal
To the objection that the cana! will be expos
.r,,mented hazard, from being carried