The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1853-07-14


transhipment could be effected at cost of
one cent per ton. He said that twenty
hands could tranship twenty car loads in an
hour. and as he added that the delay would
not occasion the loss of more than five
| miles In distance, we concluded that he in
tended to tranship all his produce, let it be
as great as it might, in that time. OF
course, in order to do so, he must have, ac-
cording to his own showing, twenty addi-
tional hands for every additional car. Now
as there would be no transhipment without
| the break in the gauge, we threw the
whole cost upon that disturbing circum-
stance. Whether his hands worked or
played the whole day afterwards was quite
immaterial; the break created the necessity
for having them there. If they had been
porters, merely used and paid as the occa-
sion arose, he surely will not pretend that
| they would have worked at the rate of one
cent per ton. If they had been such, they
| would have been dismissed as soon as the
Job was done, and the company would have
| been at no more expense with regard to
them. Being hired by the year, we re-
garded, and still regard it, as fair that their
| hire and the cost of their maintenance
should be charged to the transhipment
| When time and cost are both taken into
| the calculation, it is immaterial whether
the transhipment be effected in one hour or
in ten, since what is gained in the one is
lost in the other. 1t must be recollected,
moreover, that we took Col. Garnett at his
own word. We did not believe, nor do we
now believe, that as a general thing, any
| twenty men upon earth can transfer 1900
barrels of flour from twenty cars to twenty
Others in one hour, though smaller num-
Der may have accomplished a proportionate
| Job under peculiar circumstances, by way of
experiment. Much less could they transfer
an equal amount of tonnage consisting of
miscellaneous articles. And when we stated
thus much, we did not rely on theory, as
Col. Garnett supposes, but upon the judg-
ment of practical men. In conformity with
our belief, we find that at Gloucester it re-
quires all the force of porters that can be
brought to act, to shift the contents of a
single carriage to another in an hour. How
will Col. Garnett be able to tranship the tens
Of thousands of hogs that will be brought
from Kentucky to Covington in that time ]?
1t should not be forgotten that there will
be two breaks: one at Big Sandy, for the
Maysville and Big Sandy, and the other at
Covington. In all probability there will
be three, for the Lexington and Big Sandy
will be pretty apt to choose the same gauge
with the Lexington and Louisville. The
stockholders live principally in Philadelphia,
and are the same with those on the Mays
vile and Big Sandy. 1t was their influ-
ence which caused the latter road to adopt
the 4, 81 gauge. Is it reasonable to sup
pose that it will not compel a similar adop-
| ton in the case of the former? We have
certainty then of doubling the expenses
| and inconveniences enumerated; a fairpros-
pect of trebling them.
1t will be seen, that all the evidences are
against the Canadian authority quoted by
| Col. Garnett, which fixes the cost of tran
shipment at cents ton in Detroit. Why
should labor be so much cheaper there than
at Boston or Buffalo? 1t seems, however,
that the difficulty is to be gotten over by
steam machinery! This, we suppose, costs
nothing-either originally, OF for mainte-
nance, for engineers, and workmen, or for
fuel and wear and tear!
| Let us now examine the question of
time When we said that one hour was
equal to 30 miles of distance, we took Col
Garnett on what we supposed to be his own
| terms, it appearing to us that he had as
sumed that time for his transhipment. We
supposed that the cars would go that dis
tance while the transhipment was going on.
| 1t seems we were in error, inasmuch as
freight trains have nowhere attained a speed
greater than Is miles an hour, while the
average is about 10. We cheerfully admit
the error; though, at Col. Garnett's mini
mum of eight miles an hour, the distance
lost is considerably more than he claims.
In return for this admission, however, we
will state, that the time lost by tranship-
ment cannot, as we have the best authority
for saying, be in any instance less than
twelve hours, and the distance lost there
fore, not less than 100 miles. This will
happen under the most favorable circum-
stances, while the two companies are on
good terms, and both disposed to forward
the business of their roads by every means
in their power. In the event of contrary
disposition, it is always in the power of the
party bringing the produce to delay the
| transhipment "a hours, or indeed double or
treble that time. Col Garnett, however,
takes ''no note of time,' not even "by its
loss" He enters into a calculation, in
deed, to prove that it is of no value what
ever, but as we do not understand it, we
shall not undertake to disturb it. This,
however, we suppose, will be conceded.
When man ships his produce for market,
he wishes it to be there as soon as it can
arrive. He makes his calculation, and if
he finds that the cost of more rapid trans
portation by the railroad, will secure no
adequate advantage, he permits it to go by
the canal, slower but less costly mode of
conveyance. That by no means proves,
however, that time is of no value. 1t only
shows that upon the particular article in
question it is not of so great value as to
Justify the additional expense. To prove
his position, Col. Garnett adduces the in
stance of the Erie canal, and the Albany
and Buffalo railroad, running by the side Of
it, and tells us that the canal transports
twenty tons for one. The comparison is
hardly fair. He should have taken into the
account, the Erie railroad, which, though
it has only one track, during the season
ending with the winter of 1923, trans
ported 406, ,460 tons, the movement being
equal to carrying one mile e6,6s7 ,S9s tons;
while during the same period the canal
| tranc,,nrted q fraction above 900 900 OF