Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1873-06-11
RUTLAND. June G. 1873.

RUTLAND, june G, 1873
Mcsus Editors y Your letter in relation to
the proposed railroad between Montpelier and
Rutland and asking for such information as
possess concerning Tie various routes which
have bccu proposed, and also The sentiment Of
the people of Rutland on the subject is before
me.
In reply, have to say that am not sufIi-
GENTLY acquainted with Tat portion Of tic
route between Montpelier and Rochester to en-.
able me to form an opinion Of is feasibility
From Rochester to Rutland, several routes
have been suggested but it is my belief thot
only one Of them Is in my wise feasible, and
that is the route from Rochester to stock
bridge; thence to Pittsfeld and thence 10
North Sherburnc, where il would strike tie
route already surveyed for a railroad from Rut-
land to Woodstock and from North shcrbuuo
to the summit Of The mountain, and thence on
through Chitendeu and Mendon to Rutland
That is, form junction with the Rutland and
Woodstock route at North Sherburne. and
carry the line across the mountain to Rutland
/ by the same route established Cor the Rutland
and Woodstock railroad
This has been my opinion Of the matter from
the start aud | believe Il Is the universal
opinion Of the people Of Rutland who have ex-
aminci The subject. It is centrally known
that already n survey Of the Rutland and
Woodstock route has been made. am not at
liberty u give the details of Tint survey. but
will say thut thc average Crude from North
Shcrburne 20 the summit is Sky three feet
per mile, and that 10 no place de. 81 exceed
eighty--ix feet per mile. The average gudc
from Rutland % the summit il sixiy..oycn feet
per mile, and, with single czccpiiln, it does
not at amy place exceed ninety five feet per
mile at ouc point % reaches one hundred and
three feet per mile, f1r distance less than
one third of a mile.
\ very cursory examination VI the country
will show thot at North shu5ume. the
Quecbcc valley from Woodstock, and tbowlloy
from Rochester through Stockhrilc and Puts
field meet, md at that point would make
junction OF the two routes and cauy tie line
thence across tho mountain o. Rud4ad as one
and the same line.
! am aware tint Tire u-uni caul.c. of opinion
prevails among those interested along the proc
posed route, aud tho present enterprise does
not seem 90 enjly amy immunity from this evil,
which has attended i'- predecessors
Whether this attributable go selfish motives
and interests, or 90 want 81 knowledge ortlo
subject IS immatgial az thi. juuciurc TIE
evil exists, aud until ii ,hall De removed mud
an unite 40 ooc common route. We need not
expect ue enterprise % pr -pa, much less
triumph.
twas regarded lew years ago, when look
ing for a route for the Rutland aui Woodstock
railroad, fortunate circumstance TINT ose
route could be found bat N the case Of the
Montpelier aud Rutland railroad, Tie difficulty
seems 90 be multiplicity OF routes. ard the
question i', how 90 di-po.cof ,ha-cnYt rccdei.
TIE route tlat have Indicated is paciic-
able enc, aud s,il think tiat anor the "skir-
{ mishng' on tie "Ga-icn route" end the
I"We-t Rochester route" shan have leen car.
ri,d ar enough. 900 parties viii finally settle
upon IL, carry he Montpelier & Rutland roai
% NoriA shcrbuuc. form iuuci % with the
Rutland unl Woodstock line, aud thence aeio..
thc mountain To- Rutland
am aware that on opinion has obiamcd
among TIE pc Pie ON tie east .ide ef ,he
mountain along ue Montpelier ara Rutland
9 route, that Ruilaui, being hyorJly disposed
= toward the Rutlaud mud Woodstock miluad.
, Is hostile toward the Montpelier mud Rutland
enterprise hu, this is au erroneous opinion.
Rutland is 10 favor 81 both rnI., aud IT,
stead Of regarding one as preiudcid % thc