Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1877-05-25

Baltimore and Ohio r IChes. h 0. canal char
X. charges from Cum ges from Cumberland
berland 20 Locust PIT. to Georgetown, per
per gross ton; gross ton;
lSo0 ..,.,..,.'.,..S5 bS llS66...-9 90 cents.
l86G.........,.-.S3 sc 1866. ...73 Clio cents.
ls67...."..."..S3 O2l 1867 ....G9 92-lOO cts.
iS6S....""""."$2 583IlsGS..,. cents.
During the years 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872
the rates OF both railroad and canal were the
same rs 1868.
In 1873 the rates by canal were increased
from as TO 81 cents per ten, the railroad rates
remaining unchanged. This increase in rates
was only made after consultation with you,
aud was maintained until 1875, when your
company reduced its rates from 50 SO per gross
ton from Cumberland to Locust Point to 50 80,
a reduction OF % cents per ton, without noti-
flying the canal company Of such action, when
the canal company reduced its rates from 81
to 46 cents per ton
In 1876 your company again reduced its
rates % cents per ton, or from $50 TO 202
cents, without giving the canal company any
notice. This compelled further reduction on
our part OF cents per ton, which left our tolls
for that year Al cents per ton so that 1t will
be observed that there wns gross reduction in
the charges of your company from 1865 10
1876 Of $3.50 per ton, while the reduction by
the canal during that time was only 81 cents
per ton. While ii might be fairly asserted
that your company, from 1865 to 1875, did
discriminate against Baltimore, it certainly
cannot be pretended that tho rates of this
company ever made such discrimination.
But in addition to yonr published rates for
1876, we were credihly Informed, aud we be-
leiye II is not now denied, that you privately
offered TO the general trade a reduction, in the
form of drawback, Of IS cents ton below
Your published rates. SO anxious were we to
maintain our good relations that we passed
orer ms dct Of aggression with the hope that
you would recognize not only its great injus-
lice TO this company, but the additional fact
that il tended in no small degree to the de-
moralization Of the coal trade, and the policy
would not he repeated
II is right 10 notice one or two other state
ments contained in your communication which
though not germane to the question raised by
us as TO rates involves, az you say, interests
OF great importance TO the people Of Maryland,
and which bear especially upon the COM
mercia Interests OF the chief city of the State
You ask in substance why should the Chesu-
peake and Ohio Canal Company deliver coal
at Georgetown and Alexandria at less rate
than the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Compa-
ny delivers 1t 10 the citizens Of BALTIMORE
| You further mex as it the interest of the
/ y, v,
Of tho largest and most important trallics of
| its great city and chief port, by allowing ex-
IRENE Determinations in 4 system Of tolls by a
canal which il cun govern, in order to trans
fer this trade TO that canal and to the cities OF
| Georgetown and Alexandria?'
We have already shown that the canal COM
pany has not Disseminated against the BALTIC
and Ohio company. Under the Legislation Of
Maryland, Virginia and the United States,
| forming n compact between these parties the
canal has its terminus at Georgetown, in the
District of Columbia. 1t is the duty of the
canal board to manage the work under the
terms of the contract under which it was
built, and that board has a right to ask that
il shall be sustained in the performance of its
duty by The people Of the State.
But il You desire to maintain the propo-
sition that the state Of Maryland and other
stockholders who have invested nearly Sl2,
900, 600 10 the construction of the greatest
| work Of the kind on this continent, l79 miles
| Of which are in the state of Maryland, shall
abAndOa It, sink the capital invested in making
it, deprive three thousand persons who earn an
honest livelihood upon il Of their means Of
subsistence, break down the various interests
dependent on in Western Maryland, increase
the cost of transportation of coal from that
section TO tidewn,cr by leaving the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company without rival
for the carrying tradeof that region, deprive the
farmers Of AlleRany, Washington, Frederick
and Montgomery counties OF this cheap outlet
for the products Of their lands and give TO
your company an entire monopoly of all the
trade from That section OF the State at such
rates ms your company might elect to charge
them, with no power, as you claim, in the
Legislature Of this State to control your
charges, and shall do ali this simply because
the projectors Of this work located FIVE miles
of it within the territory which the State Of
Maryland cedei to the general government for
the national capital, is n proposition 80 extra
ordinary that it will meet with no favor from
the people Of the State or its chief commercial
city.
10 referring to tho financial relations Of the
State Of Maryland to tho canal and the Bal
tinore and Ohio railroad you dwell upon the
fact that the Slate has Invested the principal
sum OF 81, 000 900 IN stock and bonds Of the
canal. that The canal ia in iis debt for interest
to the amOunt Of 1000, 000 and that from
1850 10 the present time it has not contributed
one dollar to the relief Of the taxpayers Of the
State.
You claim, on the other hand, that the
State has received from its Investment Of
$500, 900 in the Washington branch Of the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad 81 ,99l, 522 40, to-
! Belbbf WIN hfEt uIflutDuS from us blOck IN
/ the main stem Of your road
IN common with all the people Of the Stale
we rejoice ~ your success, and pay tribute 10
the wisdom Of The original projectors OF the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad, as well as 10 the
able managers who have produced such results.
We do not, however, appreciate the reasoning
which rebukes the canal company for its
| failure ia past years to secure the revenue
which properly belonged 10 it, and which yet
insists upon the execution OF policy which
would deprive il OF all opportunity in the
future 10 contribute 10 the payment Of the
debt incurred for it's construction.
Nor is il fair TO compare The canal and the
| Washington Branch railroad as your COM
pany enjoyed n monopoly in the Transports
tion Of passengers 10 the city Of Washington
until recently, because Of lie ownership IF the
only line Of railroad directly connecting
the city Of Washington with the general rail-
way system conycrging at Baltimore, and
| agreed because Of the original privilege thus
/ given, TO pay the State a portion OF the gross
sum which the State authorized It to charge
| for this service. II cannot claim any particn-
lar merit for results which the State has derived
from tho contract thus made. II was unque7-
iionably contract eminentiy proftGble during
ma1y years, both TO your company and the
State; but II did not tend in the smallest par
tieulsr TO tax the means or TO lessen the
resources Of your company.
While your company has enjoyed the OK.
traordinAry advantage Of conducting por-
ton Of its business under contract which
| yielded so large return to the stale, and
also very great profit to itself, il has bOen
the fortune Of the canal company 10 labor
under disadvantages, which make il matter
Of the sineorest congratulaton that It's boards
Of directors have been able TO keep the work
not only IN existence, burin good nayigablc
order.