American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1844-11-25


MK. SPEED ON 1HE SUBJECT Of rHE CANAL.
We have been favored with pamphlet copy
Of "a letter from J. J. Speed, Esq, Of BaIt-
more, to the representatives of Maryland in the
Congress of the United States, on the subject
Of the Canal" 1t is written with the usual
ELEGANCE and perspiculty Of the distinguished
author, and urges with emphasis and cogency,
she adoption of measure Just in itself and Of
great importance to the people of Maryland
That n, the assumption, by the general govern
sueat, Of the works and obligations of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and its completion
70 the Ohio river. In support of this position
Mr Speed adduceS facts and powerful reason
ar. He demonstrates that the work was
originally undertaken as a national concern
that the suggestion originated with General
Washington and that, from its incipiency to
1888 il was considered as l work to be con-
lucted and completed on national account 1t
u urged upon the representatives from Mary
land, to bring the proposition of assumption
plainly and distinctly to the consideration of
congress, as an act Of justice to the state OF
MARYLAND and beneficial TO the union.
There can be no doubt that Maryland was
ndaced to embark IN the undertaking from the
conviction that the funds Of tie general gov
arnuent would be applied to the prosecution
ard completion of the work, without more
il,an an uncomfortable amount of state aid. -
We know that such was the impression Of
members Of the legislature when the charter
Sas granted; and the subsequent subscription
Of one million of dollars to the object, by the
general government, sheWs that such was the
understanding. The canal was to be great
national thoroughfare; designed for the trans
2or,alion Of troops and munitions of war, when
requisite; and to facilitate internal commerce
and cement the union. The benefit TO Mary
land, specially, was to be derived through the
medium Of cros.-cuL canal, to be made at the
expense of the state. 1t was not to be sup
posed, that Maryland would incur the expense
Of the undertaking, and thereby impose an
onerous burthen upon her citizens, to build up
kIiG EltcECSlS vi tilc DlStTlCt VI
30 enhance the value of the national property
within the limits of the ten miles square. No.
The Legislature of this state was willing to APP
oropriate portion of IFS means TO the con-
stfucton Of the main canal, that the state
might derive the benefit Of a lateral canal to
Baltimore city. Had it been for moment
supposed that the general government would
sbandon the enterprise, the state OF Maryland
you'd not have subscribed farthing to the
sork. But, in the confidence that the work
would be- conducted on national accosnt, tho
state subscription was madc-and it now Ie
mains 10 be seen, whether the general govern
neu' % fll6l its moral obligation TO relieve
ne oppressive debt with which
Ser enrI.s-.,> Sci. 2aIa'ysed, through the instrl
mentality OF the nations representatives
We nope that the facts ana reasoning SO
iucdly set forth by Mr.. Speed, may have the
sfltot OF inducing congress to do an act Of JUS
ice; and we are sure that the representatives
aom Maryland viii use their best cxertionS to
attain that object.