Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1833-02-28
MONDAY, FEBRUARY a5, 1888.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. q. Canal.

We have read with modification ana
regret, not entirely unmingled with
feeling of Indignation, the reports OF the
Committees of Internal Improvement OF
the senate and house of delegates of the
State of Maryland, upon the subject of
the controversy between the Canal and
Railroad Companies.
1t is usual in granting charters tocom-
panies for the construction Of public works,
to require the commencement and conn.,
pletion of the work within limited time.
We have always understood this require
ment to be founded upon the policy, that
inasmuch as the public at large have a
joint interest with the company In the
work; an inert and negligent company
should not prevent or unreasonably delay
the execution Of the work, by hold
I ing legislative privileges and facilities,
which they fail to exercise, in bar of the
activity and public spirit of another CON-
pany. We are persuaded that it was
not the intention of the Maryland Legis-
lature in granting the Canal charter, to
make any other use of the provisions al
luded to above, than to abrogate the
charter in the event of the failure of the
scheme, and extend the abused or unused
facilities to another association.
Fl The Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road
subsequently presented to the people of
Baltimore, Maryland's great commercial
Emporium, a prospect of more erctusire
benefits, than was promised by the Che
sapeake and Ohio Canal, IL the work was
accordingly commenced with spirit and
energy. Both works went on s"lmmlngly
until it was ascertained that both could
ssnot pass the Point of Rocks and other
difficult places, except alta enormous cost.
Both companies claimed the rightof way,
4 and after long and tedious litigation,
Il during which the progress of the Canal
beyond this point was arrested; the right
Twas vested ia the Canal Company by the
decision of MARYLAND Courts. A propo-
ssition was then made on behalf ofthe Rail
Road Company, to the Canal Company,
TO construct both wol ks jointly by cutting
:away the towering masses OF mountain
rock on one side, and the col2fmng the r.
!ver within narrower limits on the other
by walling and filing up. This propo-
:sition the Canal Company carefully con-
sidered, adiudged inadmissible and SUCH
as their best interests required them to
reject, and no duty which they owed to
1 the public required them to admit. 1t
may be remarked here, that the Canal
Il Company were required by the terms of
/ their charter, to commence their work
within limited time, and complete one
hundred miles thereof within five years
4 from the commencement. 1t will be re-
collected that the 4th of July, 1928, was
celebrated by the people of the District
of Columbia and the Canal Company, by
4 a grand pageant, consisting of bands Of
/ music, military and civic professions up
on the proposed Canal route; a part of
/. the ceremony was allotted to Mr.. Adams,
l (then President of the United States in
the exercise of which he pushed spade
into the ground, encountered a certain
Hickory root, threw off his coat Gas twas
sadly pierced through the opposing root,
and threw up a spade full of earth. The
!. work was not commenced until the en-
suing fall. Nevertheless, lest, the Canal
Company might render navigable one
hundred miles of their Canal within five
years from the bona fde commencement,
the Maryland law-g ivers claim the afore-
said 4th of July, 20, and theenactment
of the ceremonials of that dav, as the
true, legitimate commencement of the
work; within five years from which date,
they threaten the abrogation of the char.
ter and the destruction of thismagnifcent
work. Let it be borne in mind that the
progress of the Canal was arrested at the