Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1845-05-02
WATCHMAN e. JOURNAL.
E. r. WALTON, JRn EDITOR.
MONTPELIER, FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1915.
BOSTON AND MONTREAL RAILROAD.


No. ".
e articles under this head are not intended to be mcthodoa
digocd series, ~ the numbering, Perhaps would import
the numbering merely for the convenience of making refer
ences in the discussion of the subjoct
In our second article we replied to sweeping
assertion of the Boston Daily Mail, that the Rut-
land route would reach nearly all the business of
Vermont, In that reply we claimed it 10 be de-
monstrable that the business Of Windsor land the
section of New Hampshire adjacent.) Orange, Cal
edonia, Washington, Chittenden, Orleans and La
noble counties would be better accommodated by
the Central route via Kcene, while the business of
Rutland and Addison counties only would be bet
ter accommodated by the Rutland route. To en-.
force this position, we clearly described The line Of
both routes, Stating the Rutland route even more
favoraby than it is,) and proved by the grand list
balance of nearly twenty five millions of dollars in
favor Of the sections best accommodated by the
Central route OF course we did not intend to say
there would be that difference in the business of
the two routes, as either would to greater or less
extent, do the business of the other The latter
point was treated of distinctly last week. AS Bos
ton is materially interested in taking the best route,
we had right to expect that the Mail, out of re-
gard to the interests of Boston, would present any
facts and arguments affecting the question; at any
rate, we ought to have expected that it would at
least fairly state the substance of reply which it
had itself provoked. We are sorry to say that it
has done neither: it has been unfathfu to Boston,
in our Judgment, and unfair towards ourselves We
had claimed that the Central route would better ac-
commodate the business of the counties named
than would the Rutland route: but the Mail repre-
sents us as saying that the route passes through
those counties and on this gross Misrepresentation,
it charges US with unfarness, and impeaches our
veracity. We might retort the charges, and give
to them the piercing point Of truth: but this is a
question of great public importance, and we choose
not to divert The public with personal contests,
while facts and arguments touching the questions
in issue are of more consequence Suffice it to
say, that the Mail has utterly bIinked the main
point in issue between u.s. if it has touched it at
all, it has been only to "beg the question:" by
sweeping assertions without the shadow of proof
We call the Mail back to the real and important
question: viii The Central route Jeiic, accommodate
The business Of Wndsor, Orange, Caledonia, La
noble, Orleans, Washington and Chtienden coun-
Ties, than ,cW The Rutland route? We take our no.
sit;on in the affirmative, decming it an mpregnabe
position. Look at the map: these counties, save
Chittenden, lie east Of the Mountains, and in all of
them the streams so run to afford comparatively
level roads to the line of the Central route: none
of them, save Windsor and part of Orange. can
touch the Rutland route without passing the Noun
tains to Burlington. Again, since we have alluded
to the map, we invite every reader to mark the
facts, that the section west of the Mountains from
Mount Holly 10 Burlington is, in area, not more
than two-thirds great the eastern section,-
and that the Rutland loute has therefore but mar
row skirt on the one hand to the Mountains, while
on the other hand the Lake must be drawing off
portion of business which otherwise would take the
Railroad. All our readers, however, may not
have a good map at hand, and we therefore proceed
to demonstrate our position by statement of the
distances to be travelled from the centre Tor shire
town. of each county in question to the nearest
Practicable points on the two routes-the distances
being taken mainly from Thompson's new Gazet-
teer of Vermont: