Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-06-08
Office Richmond Fredericksburg and J
PotDmqc RGikr0ad Companv,
RICHMOND, June 4, lS49. J


~" p"esidep, Louisa Railroad Company:
Dear sir: am IN receipt OF yours OF Inc "a
;nsIant and agree with you in opinion mat no
satisfactory result" is likely TO arse from cor
| resnondencc the object of which seems, TO the
Directors of This Company, 10 be rather 10 APP
| near before the public in The newspapers 'hah d
business arrangement between Inc COMPANIES.
am free 10 confess tina. have no amollIon Of 'nis
kind and that il seems TO me the interests OF 'ne
| companies, OF which we are the agents. Wouln V
always better promoted by personal 'ohie'en.es
| in reaard 10 them, with honest efforts 10 90 WLa'
" =, !, orr nower 10 promote them, and The
ny.o;euce Of The customers oi the TWO foaas,
,han hv endeny0rins 10 "aurac public attention
nh IN. mat,ers in controversy between u SUI
| II Inc later be as il seems in your last admiea
| 10 be) your object, il proper thai ths ComranY
| should be presented in us proper attitude, ana
am therefore under the necessity Of replying 10
vonr last as have done 10 previous letters ~
which could discern no pfactical OBJECT
! Ii really seems 10 US most singular, thal you
can perceive no motive IN our making tne sa"'e
CHARGES 10 the Louisa business alter The hrsi
Univ as nm other business coming in at The Juno
| lion except ITO punish the Louisa Company Tor
DESIRING 10 make an independent road, and thai
Won shonld maintain that the Board of Directors
| NJ This Company must be necessarily aclualea BY
ia shirt Of reyenge' because they are mol wiling
n take less or lie Louisa business han on other
| business. with the avowed intention on your par
If Withdrawing this business from them al Inc
carries, practicable period.
Iti,i an ohjec with you, in reference 10 me IN
ture 10 increase Your business by taking very low
rates, which you ock 10 continuing 10 retain PEI
maueut!y, il is obvious that such is not The case
win his Company, with resarc TO a business
4 Cd no
| withdraw from them in he course OF six o! eight
months. So lar from it, il would cost his Com
nany much more Than any profit on The Louisa
business would give them, during the brlel Pc
| riod Won propose 10 continue II 10 them, II they
| should be Obliged 10 make any considerable IN
erease OF their motive power and machinery for
| lis accommodation during sucn period Uncer
| lhese circumstances, ! am Content IL leave with
/ ,he public (resolSet as you seem 10 be on all
occasions 10 appcal o III 10 decide whether what
Won NAV consider fair rates 10! business, which
YOU look 10 retaining permanently, are necessafi-
IL 50 10 Company, which II Is yonr Intention
| ~ lives, Of this business as soon As you can.
mus, also leave il 10 she public" 10 decide
wbstber in making your late reduction OF rates
10 Richmond, alter being distinctly informed mat,
On and after the l.t day OF July The business OF the
Lousia Railroad would BE- charged by this Com
PAW as on all otter business, you have not given
the customers OF your road pledge, that The rates
advertised on the Isl OF June would continue
benceforth your rates; and whether, if you now
raise them, after the late reduction on The Is, in.
slant there will not be reason for The belief, that
the reduction in The first place, and increase al.
forwards have been made merely with the view
OF getting up Glamour or exciting prejudice
against this Company
You remark: "In relation % the charge you
make Of $1,000 for his serricc OF collecting, The
question is nc, whether il would cost the Loui-
sa Company that SUN 10 employ another agent,
but The proper question is, does j; cost yon $1,000
I TO make these collections OF freight &C., due
in common 10 the Two Companies cannot
think il does as the collection for both is one and
the same operation, made Tor US by the samebts
6cer, who wonldcollect your ovn and at the same
time, las il would seem 10 me) oitAout any add.
tional expense. | am entirely at loss to under.
stand (concedins my opinion 10 be correcC how
tina, charge can be justified, except it be considered
fair 10 take advantage OF our dependence" In
reply, have 10 state, tina; am really "at loss 10
understand" how you can seriously make an ar
eument on such point. Your idea would seem
10 be, thai, if expenses are incurred for The com
mon purposes OF tp0 Comp anies, il is right mat
they should be borne entirely by one, because Inc
service OF both sis one and The same operation.
"piiko,lt Any additional ezpsnse." Il is enough
10 state such an argument TO expose u. Inc iact,
however, in the present instance IS, tha' mere Is