Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1862-01-17
MI. Porter,a speech-

Mr.. Porter's Speech.
Mr.. Porter, of Hancock, yesterday made
s speech in favor of the Pennsylvania
Railroad bill. He spoke over an hour and
a half, and considered the whole case quite
deliberately. We are disposed to do him
the justice of saying that he said about all
that could DE said for the bill. The ground
was familiar to him. He had been over it
time and again. The bill was his own at
Richmond, as it is here. He has given to
it time and investigation, which his oppo-
nents here have not. In this respect he
has signal advantages over them. Once
he carried his bill through the House of
Delegates at Richmond, but on the follow
ing day it was recousidered, and never has
been repassed from that day to this. He says
it was reconsidered, not by reason of any
new light advanced by the opposition, but
by reason of interested combinations on
the part of the city of Wheeling with the
internal improvement party of the State,
which forever held him in check.
Mr.. Porter gave history of the road ::
showed that million and half of dollars
had already been spent upon 1.-TWO hun
dred and City thousand of which had been
expended in the counties sof Brooke and
Hancock: that two hundred and fifty
thousand more would be spent: that it was
regarded as a local interest among his
constituents: that in the canvass between
Lewis Steenrod and D. NJ. Edgington for the
SenatOrship of the three counties of Ohio,
Brooke and Hancock, the two latter had
voted almost unanimously for Mr.. E. on
account of his sympathy and more especi-
ally his Uncle's interest in the road that
this fact was a refutatiou of the assertion
that he was not representing his constitu-
ents. He further said, that the county of
Hancock had given to the Company the
right (without charter) to cross its county
roads: that Brooke had done the same
and that the people of these two counties
had in every way shown their we'll wishes
and interest in the road.
After this historical review, he took up
the arguments that had been advanced to
show that the passage of the bill would
act injurlously upon the Baltimore l. Ohio
road. He said that the granting of this
unrestricted charter to build a bridge at
Steubenville was the only way in which
Wheeling would ever get a bridge, for the
reason that as matters now stood no bridge
would be built at either place-but if the
restriction was removed, the Baltimore
road would, in selt-defence, build one.
And just here we thought Mr.. Porter
made a very fatal admission for his side of
the questiOR,-viz: that the bridge at
Steubenville would be such an advantage
to the Pennsylvania road-give her such
advantages as to compel the Baltimore
road, in order to compete with her, to also
build one either at Wheeling or Parkers-
burg, or at both places.
Pointing to the map Mr. Porter said that
a "fuunel" shaped scope of territory west
( of the Ohio had been marked out by the
i opponents of the bill, as one which would
! more effectually than ever be drained bv
the Pennsylvania road in case the bill was
passed. He said pointing to the map) that
his opponents had forgotten to show how
this "funnel" was tapped on its lowerside by
the Baltimore and Ohio both at Marietta aud
Wheeling. A "funney' thus tapped could
not be considered great advantage to a
road. And they had forgotten he also said,
70 show how uuequally the country west
aud south of the Ohio was divided between
:the east and west roads, and what great
advantages the Baltimore road had. For
instance, it was almost due North from the
State of Kentucky to the line of the Penn
Iylvania Gentral-and transportation in go
ng to Philadelphia over that road had to
I lescribe right angle. Such was not the
ase with the Baltimore aud Ohio, which
net that trade lower down, and at a much
greater advantage. The same argument.
Hr. P. said applied to the country drained
by the Ohio aud Mississippi road. It's
latural outlet was the Baltimore and
PHO.
-