Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-11-11
REPLY TO "VERMONT,"
THE BRIDGE QUESTION.

gan Of the opposition to the bridge, processes to
answer, fairly and justly, the only arguments"
offered by us on the other side we must there
fore retire or rebut. Rebut is the word TO
begin: he has mistaken our "positonn We
are not the organ Of the bridge interest we
have given simply our own views, without die
tation from any quarter--and have given them
from deep conviction that the public interest
would be suoserved by the bridge Let no in
terest be compromised, then, by our course; we
alone are responsible. Let no man be innuen-
are right.
! Time will not permit review Of our articles
but for our life we cannot recall an argument
answered, or an allegation denied Throughout
"Vermont" has gone upon the assumption tina; a
bridge will greatly obsruct navigation an as
SUMPTION con;radicted by facts, and by the com
mon sense of every man without facts and in
deed nuIllied by his own admission that the
bridge will be less announcement to navigation,
than the want of it will be to the railroads. Yet on
this mere assumption, he has eloquently--yea,
POLITICALLY --tscoursed of the SHIP CANAL, and
Ponds the welfare of Vermont. That canal, too,
is announced as "lhe browning and conclusive
objection to the bridget" To that subject we
will first attend. And we inquire, -Will the
slight Inconvenience Of the bridge PREVENT OR
FOR A MOMENT DELAY THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CANAL? lift will not then is "Vernont's"
glowing appeal greater humbug" than the
canal itself. If the bridge ,oW not exclude or de-
i lay the canal, then the good state of Vermont
will be perfectly safe; aye, she will have the ad-
vantage of TWO GRAND THoRouGHFAREs TO the
northern lakes, each competing with the other,
and thus bringing the cost OF transportation for
all orr breadstuffs 10 the very lowest point
Would not this be for tho INTEREST OF THE
PEOPLE OF VERMONT? Why, sir, if you DEM
The fridge and cut off the Ogdensburgh railroad,
then you put an end to competition; you give a
monopoly Of the flour trade to the transportation
companies casualties corporations too, as much
as either Of your railroads. If you deny the
bridge, and the railroad after all goes on, the co.
ira cost, growing out of connection by ferry,
will be just so much added to the price of freight
will be lac upon The consumers Of The -four.
In either event, then, we again ask does not
the INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE require bridge ?
We submit whether this is not a conclusive ar
gument, and of the very sort which Vermont
. has required us TO give. To our apprehension
there is no escape from it.
No answer can be made, unless it be, that the
bridge tcW defeat the canal. IF that is the posi-
Of - Vor ohe A.
convenience Of the bridge cannot defeat the ca
nal. single lock would be double the incon-
venicnce o! draw bridge: yet every body
knows that single lock, or even half dozen,
would not prevent the construction of canal.
If the bridge, then, defeat the canal it will
be simply because the bridge ,ciN secure The con-
Struciion of The Ogdensbngh Railroad; and
thus the real question becomes simply this -
SnALL THE LEGISLATURE OF VERMONT GO OR
AN AMERICAN RAILROAD, OR BRITISH
CANAL? Or perhaps we ought to change the
form Of the queson-ior Vermont" tells us
that this bridge question is premature"-that
we must " wait and see' whether the canal will
be built To accommodate him, therefore, we
will suggest that the question may be--WILL
THE LEGISLATURE POSTPONE FOR ONE YEAR,
The construction Of The Vermont and Cdnada and
Ogdensbugh railroads, for The sake of getting q
chance TO substitute BRITIsH CANAL?
Whatever may have been our zeal for the
bridge heretofore, we confess that this new
} phase of the question has increased it-has
strengthened our conviction that the interests of
the State and the Nation are involved in it, Re-
ciprocity, as between us and the British Govern
ment, will dos lberality, when it is mutual, may
not only be tolerated, but encouraged but we
cannot tolerate this idea of cod-blooded sncri-
fee of AMERICAN TO BRITISH INTERESTS
! What though it be the interest of the people of
Northern New York, and New Hampshire, and
, Massachusetts They are blood of orr blood,
and heirs with us to a common destiny. What
though it be the interest of BosToN ?-of that
BosroN so invdously and ungenerously assa-
ed by "Vermont." 1t is BosroN which is furn.
ishing her millions to compass Vermont with
E railroads tits her capital which is to aid in
, bringing out our hitherto unimproved and unap-
t preciated resources. We regret that the assault
upon her bore the name of " Vermont" How
; ever that assault may accord with the sentiment
of clique, we protest that the sin of ngratltude
has not yet been fixed upon the people of the
State. Not until she is denalionalized, by re-
corded verdict in favor of BRITIsH INTERESTS,
, will it be time for that
1t certainly cannot be necessary to argue a
question which has unve rsally been decided
The question of preference between canals and
railroads, "Vermont,' we know, has minated
that canals can transport cheapest; it is true,
5 probably, of iron, stone and salt-but OF -four,
and domestic goods, which would constitute
nine tenths of the American freight through the
proposed British canal, it is not true. lift were
otherwise, be it remembered that for six months
in the year Canadian canal would be embargo
ed by ce-our supplies would be stopped, our
, prices advanced precisely as they now are. 1t
is this embargo which railroads remove: thus,
too, they relieve the people from the clutches of
the greedy spectators in -four who take aivan-
tagc of every deficiency in the supply of that
article, to eXtort exhorbant prices Again we
repeat-THE PUBLIC INTEREST DEMANDS THIS
OGDENsBuRGn ROAD AND BADGE.