Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1877-05-25
Marvlaud Affairs,
CANAL vs.. RAILROAD.
Mr. Germans Reply to Mr.. Garrett,
An Able and Comprehensive Document
Interests Of the State Defned-Pro-
position for Uniform Rate.

position for Uniform Rate.
The Hon, A. P. German, president of the
Chesapeake and Ohio canal company, has
addressed the following communication to
President John W Garrett, Of the Baltimore
and Ohio railroad conveying suggestions look
ing to an adjustment OF the ceal tolls between
the two companies
OFFICE CHESAPEAKE AND ONO CANAL COMPANY
Annapolis, May 10, 1877.
Hon. John w. Garrett, President Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Compdny-My Dear Sir
Your communication of the 9Th was received
by me on the 18th and submitted to our board
Of directors, who have instructed me to re-
assure you Of their desire to adjust the differ
ences which have unfortunately arisen between
our respective companies.
They observe with pleasure your offer to
make such arrangements as 10 rates as will
place Maryland coal in market at the lowest
possible rate Of freight.
As you have not made any specific suggcs-
ton by which this result may be accomplished,
they direct me to bring to your attention
plans for an arrangement which, il accepted,
will doubtless protect the Maryland coal iu-
terest and promote the prosperity of our re-
spective companies.
But before making the suggestion of this
plan 1t is proper for Inc 10 notice some state
ments made in your communication in order
to remove the erroneous impressions which
they may have made on many fair-minGed per-
sons who are not familiar with all the facts Of
the case.
The letter OF Vice President King incorpo-
rated into your statement, and purporting to
faf int los al 10
worded as 10 convey an impression not war
ranted by the circumstances attending it,
Without detailing the several prior interviews
bad with him in reference to the coal trade
upon our respective lines, 1t is only necessary
TO say that the interview TO which he refers was
not sought for by me with the purpose OF
making complaint that the Baltimore and
Ohio company had made the reduction in
rates which went into effect on the 9th OF
March, but with the purpose OF ascertalnng
whether there was any truth in reported action
Of your company IN Offering to one OF our
customers a secret or sPec'M draw6deh OF
twenty-five (23) cents ton below such pub
lished rate.
Mr.. King denied all knowledge Of such an
offer, informing me he bad been absent from
the city and had only returned from the West
the evening before, and That if there was any
truth in the report, the offer had been made
by some other officer OF the company during
his absence.
Mr. King them as be states, attempted TO
demonstrate that there was sufficient differ
ence between the published rates OF the canal
and railroad.
Although J. bcllere that special rates had
been offered 10 our customers, yet accepting
Mr., hing denial OF MS knowledge OF such
| proposition, concluded not 10 discuss the
question fur iher with him. |, therefore, lis
tened only to such statements as ho desired to
make in connection with the whole question
lie seems to have erred greatly in interpreting
my silence rs an acquiescenee in hia conclu-
sions aud figures. when ! leil he requested
me to call again, as was usual at the close OF
such interviews.
Immediately after this conversation with
Mr. King received positive Information that
you, as president Of The company, were making
n determined effort TO draw away the coal
trade from the canal. That is to say that you
had already made an actual contract with the
New Central Company, generally large ship
per by the canal, and had sought an inter-
view with the representative Of the American
Coal Company and expressed your desire that
his company should transfer from the canal to
the railroad the product Of Joh its mines, and
as an inducement for such transfer bad offered e
special rate below the rates set forth in the
circular of your company as chargeable TO
ihegeneral public. That, finding the American
Coal Company indisposed to entertain the
proposition TO abandon the canal altogether,
you then offered a special rate 10 that
company II 1t would contract TO ship a
stipulated amount OF coal by your road.
was further informed that similar oilers
had been made by you TO all the large shippers
by the canal.
II these offers had been accepted by all those
to whom they were addressed the canal would
have been left without trade. Upon the re-
ceipt Of this Information addressed to you
my letter Of 3lst Of March have not since
that time had any conversation with Mr.. King
upon the subject.
greatly regret that in your letter Of May
3, In which you refer 10 my conversation with
Mr.. King, you make no reference whatever to
the action thus taken by you, the rumor as
10 which was the occasion of my visit to and
interview with Mr.. King. While in your letter
already alluded to you ignore tho real matter
in controversy, you also, as it seems 10 me,
assume contradictory POSITIONS; you insist
that the canal company desires TO maintain q
high rate Of freight, notwithstanding the ac-
tive composition now existing with Clearield
and other Goals, and a. the same time you insist
that the camel company and not the railroad
company has been always Pract'caHy me az
9TessoT ~ tbs reduction OF rates.