Middletown transcript., 1869-04-17
rhe Kent RAN Roaa Again.


The Kent News, Of Saturday last, takes
the Middletown Transcript to task for pub
fishing the statement concerning the con-
tract for grading the Kent Railroad, said
to have been entered into between that
corporation snd Mr.. J. Mahoney. as well
.as for other publications anterior TO that
statement. We suspect the head and
front Of cur offence is in publishing any
thing at all upon the subject The Ches-
tertown papers probably think that we
hare invaded their province, and herein,
perhaps. lies the secret of their displeasure.
We should be glad to so conduct ourselves
rs to give no offence TO our Chestertown
brethren, or to the corporation which has
been the subject of SO much discussion in the
press, but we begin to despair of attaining
30 desirable a result. Premature" and
inaccurate /" as some Of our statements
have been represented to be, we find some
Of them corroborated, in part, by the Ches-
tertown papers themselves. Mr.. Mahoney
has entered into contract to grade, Law
track, and ballast portion of the road.
That much is settled, we suppose. At
least we have the authority of the Chester
town papers themselves, for saying SO.
But those papers do not vouchsafe to
to tell us anything about the terms of this
contract. Well, let us be thankful for the
information we have, and not be curious
to pry into things too far. 1t has been
limited to us, by one who understands
something of Rail Road affairs, that this
thing Of publishing the terms of contracts,
sometimes interferes with sub-contracts.
and other little ins-and-outs of business.
not altogether desirable to be made public.
We have been so unsophistical as to hold
different views; but for the future we must
tread gingerly, lest we set our foot upon
and crush some of the ar-plums which
may be dispensed in the construction of
this road.
AS to the inaccuracy of the statements
which have been published In our columns
from time to time, we have learned to re-
ceive their contradictions cum grano sails
Aad why2 Not that we for one moment
lbeheHe there has been any intentional mis-
representation, but there have been some
sstrange misunderstanding as to the affairs
at The road. For we ind not only some
Of the directors, but some of the contrac
tors, differing with and contradicting each
other. How, then, could it be otherwise
than that discrepancies should occur? If
the accuracy Of this statement be challeng.
ed, we say, that the several publications
which have appeared in our columns from
our correspondents, corroborate it. More
than this we cannot say, without violating
confidence; but we have felt it proper to
say thus much. for our own vindication,
If ifvindication were needed for the publi-
cation Of statements which did not origi-
nate with us, but were furnished us, in
every instance, by parties connected in one
way or another with the road.
In this eonnexion we append the sub
Joined note from Messrs Backus 4 San
ford; " Observer" may possibly have
werd Of rejoinder. If so, he shall be
heard.
For The 1fiddletot0n Trdnseript
NEsARK, MI. April loth lses.-Mr. Editor.
--Weare surprised to learn that some anony-
nous correspondent of the Middletown Trans
cript has represented that we &c threw up the con-
tract for the construction of the Kent County
Railroad "because of the tyrannical administra-
ton of the Chestertown Directors"
The statement so far as it undertakes to give
the reason for our abandoning the contract is
wholly untrue. The Directors referred to treated
us courteously and dealt fairly by us in our re-
lations with them and the company.
BACKUs 4 SANFORD.
n ATyoN IN nRr The To 81