Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-02-16
PLIGHT OF WAY, ONCE MORE!

We deem il proper 10 correct misappreheE
sion which is gaining ground in relation TO IN
ve,ed question, that compromise, fixing on fis
Creek as the Ohio terminus, has been agreed o
by The parties Interested.
Such, we Learn is not The fact. On The con
,rary, we have increased reason for believing lha
Fishing Creek is The ullimaium Of the Baliimor
Company. Besides the late Letter Of Mr.. Nc
Lane to The Editors Of The Baltimore American
we understand there are more recent and decided
assurances rom The same high source, that in no
event will Fish Creek be accepted BY The COM
pany. The tone of the Baltimore press, too,
which We may safely rely on as indicating The
true STATE Of public sentiment there, is decidedly
in the same direction. We learn, indeed, that il
requires all The great influence OF The President
Of The Company 10 prevent an immediate move
menl for the Pitlsburg connection.
We feel warranted. therefore, in expressing on!
confden, conviction, tina! The idea, that il The Le-
gisaule will stand firm on Fish Creek, The Balti-
more Company will finally acquiesce in that
point, is altogether faIiaciuus. And We are The
more anxious 70 correct this misapprehension,
because, unless removed il may result in driving
the contemplated improvement from Virginia ter
riory altogether, and lose 10 Us lorever lis vast I'd,
vanlases-a result much 10 be deprecated, and
which il is 10 be hoped, The wisdom Of The Lee
gislalurc will avert, beoTe it shall lie forever loo
late, by adopting that point for the terminus Of
~ a -
cspf.
But we are Just placed in possession Of The lei
ers ot Mr.. McLane, above referred 10, which we
are desired To publish and which speak for them
selves.
BALTIMORE, Feb. llh, 1917.
Dear Sir: regret to learn hat the resolution
passed al lhe recent meeting OF our Stockholders
should have appeared 10 any one in The least 10
warrant The belief that the company would make
It's Inld 10 Fish Creek. The resolution was in
tended 10 reject aud exclude in TITO the route pre-
scribed in The present law; and as Fish Creek
could not be reached without occupying that
route in whole or in par, that point W necessa-
rily and explicitly excluded. Mr. Lalrobe's Off
cial letter, which forwarded 10 you BY The mail
Of the same day, is conclusive upon this point.
| will now add, that while can have no douo'
that the substitute proposed oy you would De &c
copied, there could be as little, in my opinion,
lha, The stockholders will no under any crcnm-
stances or for any consideration, construct their
main stem 10 Wheeling BY any route whatever,
that does no! allow US the privilege OF terminus
on The Ohio not higher up than Fishing Creek
AS 10 The compromise" so called, in The bill
reported BY MIR. Shelley, that is wholly and Ut
terly impraclicable It is more Objectionable even
than The present law, and would be promptly and
forever rejected There is no event in which II
could receive The slightest favor. presume you
have already received my contradiction of The
Misrepresentation OF my remarks in the "Am
can" newspa per- Il is difficult to account Tor 50
grave blunder. The remarks referred 10 are
those made in reference 10 the resolution e1clud
ing any route higher up Than Fishing Creek, and
what did say was precisely the reverse Of what
| am reported 10 have said. Lest any acciden:
should have happened 10 my letter enclosing the
resolutions OF The stockholders and Mr.. Latrobes
letter | now enclose copies of both, and the opin.
ions here expressed you may De authorized 10 use
as you may think proper.
| am, respectfully,
Yonr obedienl servant
LOUIS McLANE.
Il