Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-01-02

In my defence. ID. GUERRANI.
.See his letter on the subject OF the annexation
Of Teyas-see Benlons speech.
LOUISA RAILROAD.
Mr.. Robinsoa.'s Reply If The 1914 Dse>mber.
But och mankind are weak,
An little 10 be trusted
II self the way'rImg balance shake,
LIS rarely right adjusted!'
To lie Editors Of The Enquirer:
OFFICE LOUISA RAILROAD CO.,
Beaver Dam Depot, Dec. % 1913
Messrs EdiloIs-The publication oil The Pre-
sidenl Of The Richmond, Fredericksburg and Po-
lomac Company in your paper OF the 10Th, re-
auires OF me The execution OF my promise 10 give
10 the public information OF The facts connected
with the present controversy, that the necessity
Tor separation may be better understood.
The Louisa Railroad Company have found the
truth OF Burns estimate OF human character tul-
ly illustrated in their intercourse with The Rich
mond, Fredericksburg ami Potomac Company
II is frequently asked, why cannot there be
compromise? The Louisa Company are sails
fed BY vel! earned experience, that no paper
guarantee will give them protection. The law
is a remedy too slow in its operation and they
feel assured il would have 10 be resorled 10. Pub.
lie sentiment is the only substantial practical pro-
lection in such a state Of dependence as now ex-
ISIS and would exist under any compromise. IL
seems that sell 50 strongly affects The balance OF
the mnd-produces such obiquily OF Judgment
that il is hard 10 put The public in possession OF
the true merits o. The case, even when they rest
on records alike 10 the possession OF both parties.
Il matters mol whether there 'be an omission 10
state facts from mere negligence, suppression
Of facts from design, or a positive misstatcment
II 20 CHI ha ej hn demon
dent party loses The benefit OF its best remedy,
public sympathy; and even that might fail
When, as in The present case, the possession oil
the money, and The power OF constituting the in
slrument, is in The same hands, public opinion
may be sci al defiance.
lin view OF the fact certified below, existing
when The present contract was entered into We
could not agree upon the question what was
Ton in The language Of the cuniract-ii The H., +.
and P Company claimed and exercised the right
10 give il such construction, as 10 have ttoo di
ferent standards on their o,CH r0ad, making II
mean Just what suited their interes,,--how can
we feel safe, except in complete disconncc-
ton ?
As 10 this varying standard for The ton, had
supposed the best way 10 escape from The tithcul-
" was 10 acknowledge the injustice and change
the practice but there is quibbllng anempt 10
Justify, and my position is misslaled. ! do mol
complain OF freight being charged at 1000 10
the ION OH hattonage, which has TO pay freight
on both roads; but when Tie Louisa Railroad
Company IL charged iouh freight 6ettossn the
Junction and Richmond, on their road exclusively
Ter the II ansportat,On OF property belonging 10 the
Lopiso Company do not complain that The Ion
is assumed al that standard which makes them
pay as much as possible; and when the Louisa
Company is credited for the use oil their cars
another standard is assumed, by which they re.
edpe as lille as possible. 1t is lame excuse TO say
that the Louisa Company fixed 1000 lbs. As the
standard for the Louisa road, and that 224O was
the common standard, and that, therefore, the r.,
f. and p Company might apply hem as suited
their interest So far as the Louisa Railroad was
10 be effected by the adjustment OF he ION on
me road Of the r., F. and P. Company, The ton
should be The same, in common justice, no mat
Ter which was assumed; bur will prove that
ouoad hoe, 2240 was not the common standard.
Mr. Robinson says: "At the time oil making
his contract, the standard weight OF Ion on
both roads pas 22i0, and had nepsr been computed
Al less" had previously stated, on the con rary,
4. reason for demanding ihree-lourlhs oil cent
pcr mile for every 1000 lbs carIcdin our cars, that
supposed il was ,osu understood That 1000 lbs. Das
ton. ircere the necessity be has created OF
having 10 publish the following evidence con-
firmatory Of my statement, and conflicting with
niS
The undersigned were employed as Depot
Agents by the Richmond, Fredericksburg and
Potomac Company, when they were carriers on
the Louisa Road; and although not expressly
told, in 80 many words, that a ton was 2OOO
lbs, yet we had right to suppose il was SO con-
sidered b. MIR. Sharp, the Agent Of the Com
pany, as the table Of rates Of March 22d, 1884,
signed C. w. Macmurdo, Treasurer, directs
| "shingles slaves, &c, &C., TO be charged By
the car load, MT breeding three TONS and as the
orders from Mr. Sharp were positive not to put
more than 5000 lbs. Of any kind Of freight on
car, we, therefore, supposed that 5000 lbs and J
tons were the same thing
(Signed) WIN. A. MOODY,
A. ". TALLEY,
r. F. OMOHUNDR0,
N. w. HARRIS.'
F. L. SWIFT,
Depot Agents, employed by the Richmond
Fredericksburg and Potomac Company on thu
Louisa Road.
N. w. Harris was informed by his prede
cessor that 5000 lbs. was car load.
From the table of rates it appears but few
articles are charged BY the ton-and the books
kept by us will show no freight charged a. 2, 24O
Possibly lump plaster might have been paid fo
in that way, but its weight was not on the bills
and ground plaster was charged at 1000 to thu
ton. (Signed) r. F. oMoHUSDRO,
A. w. TALLEY,
N w. HARRIS,
F. L. SWIFT.
rCopY.l My brother, Francis Baker, deceas
ed, was the contractor who furnished all III
limestone sent from this place to the LOUIS
Furnaces, while the Richmond, Frcdericksbur
and Potomac Company were doing the trans
portalion for the Louisa Company. He sold
by the ton of 1000 lbs, and Of course tn
freight was paid on il By the same standard.
(Sigued) MARTIN BAKER.
GoIdonsville, December 2lst 1913.
! COPY.
Richmond, Dec. 2lst, 1913 We certify ina
during the time The Richmond Ffedericksbur
and Potomac Company were carriers Tor IN
Louisa company he iron from The furnaces i
Louisa was estimated al 1000 lbs 10 the Ton, an
the freight thereon paid las cur books show) az
cordiDg 10 that standard.
Signed, WIN. ANDERSON & co.
The foregoing certificates require but litll
comment; The facts stated were accessible TO NJ
RibnsoG; they concusively show that had
right 10 presume that the standard OF 1000 10 Ii
ton was peH understood. The Published rates {
the James River and Kanawha Company Il
1000 TO The ton. | will merely add thai j, appear
it was the general practice on both roads, that
from Richmond 10 the junction, and thence
Gordonsvie, 10 estimate 1000 as the ton, excep
ing probably lump plaster, which in fact was ca
ried without ever being weighed; but even SUI