Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-11-11
AGAINST THE BRIDGE.


now pending an application for authority TO con
struct Bridge across the navigable waters OF
Lake Champlain, the principal considerations IN
view of which the applicants for that authority
doubty expect and desire that it may be gran
ted or withheld. .
The project is orc which you admit TO oe OF
"great magnitude" and, with your Perm,sSlon,
propose to examine, briefly, inc glounus upo"
which its friends rest their aoVoea~y y. l Al,
These grounds are s'ateu III y''' P'P'' VI WV
Sd inst MS foows;--
that bridge Indispensable to constant md IN
broken communication by roiIoau between Ncw %
& ontario and second because upon THIS constant una
ubkon railway connections depend the success OF inc ROADS
conncetedhe cheap, ,Sg" Access
IL nv Vermont TO the Western ma1kctsand the great ques
Kan whether Vermont roads shall be the carriers OF the I'M
mense between the West and the Aianc at bo'
The first of these propositions Is, as you re-
mark. "sef.evdent" Nothing can be more OBJ
yious than that line OF railway cannot be con
s,ont and unbruken" If it is not continuous.
Vhe,hor the " chain is broken" by u Ferry or by
tho ice. therefore, is quite immaterial for the
maintenance of this proposition. The question
whether important interests require mat tins
chain shuuld mol be constant and unbroken, to
the extent of bridging the lake, however, Is eS-
sentally different one. And 1t Is on lhis qhes-
ton that YOU proceed to maintain the negative.
Your first position is that bridge ponid De
less announcement 10 the navigation Of ne Lax
tban Fe,yy tcouid be 10 the Transmission Of freight
and passengers By railroad across 1t. AND you
illustrate this point with very considerable MI
nntoness and display Of details; and because
vessel can, under favorable circumstances, pass
n draw-brldce with less Inconvenience than train
of cars eau cross Ferry, you gravely assert
that it furnishes a cogent reason Tor building the
bridget If this species OF compendlous and
easy reasoning has any validity 10 settling such
a oueslion as the one under discussion, it Is lit
tie remarkable that draw bridges ever retu-
sed. on the application of Railroad Companies.
Ii is quite likely TO be true, we admit, that in
nine cases IN ten, it would be less inconve-
nienl" for a ship to pass raw.bridge than for
Railroad train TO pass Terry but this does
not constitute, by any manner OF means, the trne
issue between the friends and opponents of the
bridge. The question is not, apprelend, wheth-
er a bridge or terry is more Or less "conve-
nleul" for the interests of the Railroad, but
whether The Interests Of The People Of Vermont
will he promoted by the obstruction which the
building of the bridge over her nayigabe waters
would create and, especially, tciether the bust
ness of the Railroad could not be performed Wih-
om that obsirurtion If you will demonstrate, Or
even assert, that the Ogdensburgh road, when
constructed, would not transport, oyer It's whole
line from the 81, Lawrence to our Lake, as many
iVithout the bridge, as II would with it, you will
furnish one argument in tGpor Of the bridge. If
1t lCould, permit me to ask you what conceivable
motive the people Of Vermont and New England
who are not holders Of Central, Northern and
Ondensburgh Railroad stock, can have to inter-
pose distractions 20 the Tree aud unmpeded nav
igatlon OF Lake ChamplOin? Not one. To day,
thousands vi her citIzens, and millions OF com
meIce that contributes to her prosperity, have Il
right to the unrestricted use Of her navigabIe
waters; if you would deprive them OF this right
Tomorrow you are bound to show them that the
public good demands It.
The embarrassments which the advocates OF
the bridge encounter from this view OF the case,
obviously suggest the second and only remaining
argument they urge in favor Of it = and that is
that the refusal OF the bridge involves the a.
bcndonnent Of !he OgdenSbugh road, and "the
cnppmg, II not the stopping" Of every one Of
the Vermont roads, "ercept The Central" The
success of The latter road you assert in the Jour
mai OF the 2d inst, is not dependent upon this
contingency. Let us see how it Is with the others
The Rutland stock was taken without regart
to the practlcabillty or impractcablllty of d,1
connection with the Ogdensburgh, by means o
bridge over the nayigabe waters of the Lake
Its stockholders both IN Boston and in Vermont
feel entire confidence that its stock will yield
them at least per cent, tUiihout that connection
and Its speedy construction is absolutely certain
Its friends and managers, both in city and coun-
try, are quite content, whichever way the bridge
question may be decided
The interests of the PdssumpSic road are man
leslly hostile to the bridging project, which, as
you unhesltatlngly proclaim, contenplates con
nectIon with Montreal rt1 Rouse's Point Its
success, therefore, (f there were any doubt a
bout III would be rendered more certain by the
deieqi of that project.
Of tie Vermont and Canada road it is suffi
cent 10 say that II is before the Legislature as
the sole applicant for the privilege, the granting
or denying of which supplies the whole topic q
controversy. To assert trat lis success, therefore
depends upon the bridge, amounts to just moth
ng at all. That it ought to be, and will be
constructed between the points designated II
the charter already conferred upon the company
by the Legislature, there is no room for rcasona
be doubt
So far, then, as the Vermont railroads are con
cerned, not one Of them is dependent for its sue
cess upon the granting, or refusal, of the author
ity asked, to bridge the navlgable waters q. LAX
Chalnplaln. That the prosecution Of the Og
denSburgh road must depend, for the present u
least, upon the result of the existing Applicant
for u bridge, those who have that enterprise i
charge, confidently assert, and 1t is not for me
deny 1t. Those who have placed this project i
sucn pOSllOn OF dependence nave no rlgh
certainly, TO complain that its success has bee
jeopardzed by their own voluntary acts. Thu
II constructed, it would do as much busines
transport as many passengers, and as large a
amount OF freight, OF It's whole line rhttter
had a direct and continuous connection tciM II
Permont roads or not, presume you will not d.
ny. If, therefore, its projectors and friends ha,
chosen to hazard its success upon the grantir
of privilege that is not essential to its prosper
ty, the reproach must fall where it belongs. III
Legislature of Vermont cannot be called on
share the unpleasant responsibility.
In this view Of the existing condition of Il
several railroad enterprises in Vermont, it is id
10 attempt TO argue such disastrous results
are pointed out in the Journal as being newt
bic upon the refusal Of the bridge"
believe have thus, fairly and justly, repli,
TO the only arguments that the applicants for Il
bridge make Use Of to sustain their applicable
agree with the editor Of the Journal, that /
policy OF obstructlng the navigation OF our La
Is to be determined by reference TO the hight
STATE INTERESTS Of Vermont.
But this whole discussion in the Journal, h
been conducted without the slightest allusion
the considerations which furnish, after all, I
GROWING and conclusive objection to the brldl
The commerce Of our Lake, large and imporle
as 1t Is, and prodigously as it has been ncre
ed since the date of tie somewhat musty stat
tics OF lo45" that are spread out in the Jomi
OF the 4th inst. Is, comparatively, in its ieebl