The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-01-25

4
done what they could.
Hon. Joseph Hart, Earlvllle, said he hoped
the motion would not prevail. Three weeks
/ ago he sand, when the chairman of the board
was present here, charged that the board had
done little or nothing towards enforcing the
railroad law during Tie pas; two years, and
Mr., Smith in reply said that was true, but 1t
was because they were waiting for decisions
Of the supreme Court ! can't see why we
should have Il board of commissioners who
are doing nothing. The governor should make
those men know that they must do their duty;
and think if the facts are brought to his no
tice he will remove these men.
Baldwin thought the governor had power to
remove the commissioners.
G. W. Armstrong SAID the governor had no
such power, but granted that the board was OF
no particular value and should he abolished.
They have begun few suits and some of them
have been RENTED
j. X. Shaver was Tor the resolution as it
stands, and thought the governor would do his
duty in the premises,
Mr.. Perry Armstrong sadlt struck him tina,
the resolution was unnecessarily threatening;
but he too said he thought the board more or
namcntal than useful, as they have thus far
succeeded in doing nothing; still he did not
want to force matters. If the language should
be changed, using the word "supersedc" IN
stead of remove" he would consent.
John Barr, Of Morris, thought the resolution
Ina ,nn "a o1l ot1p cd
by this matter and we need something strong.
Alex. Naughey, Of Seneca, agreed with the
above. Strong medicine is needed just now.
He would abolish all the board, and the board
of canal commissioners also We can't make
it too strong We are here to do business
not to mIncc matters say, use the word
remove" and | say too that the constitu-
ton is violated by paying tins board anything
what do they do? If the constitution pro
hiblts appropriatng money to keep up this
canal, why pay the canal commissioners $500
a day? We must point out this fact to the
Legislature that if tlcy have the right to pay
these commissioners they have the right to
sustain the canal. One GOOD practical civil
engineer who thoroughly understands all the
minutiT Of the management of this canal,
with one good man to canvass for freight, can
keep the canal open till the great work of the
ship canal is accomplished The only way to
keep it open is to curtai expenses.
The pr"vious question was called, and Mr.
p. \. Armstrong having withdrawn his mo-
ton to strike out, etc, the resolution rs read
WAS adopted
The ID and 3D. resolutions were, on motion
adopted as reported by the committee
The 4h resolution was then read.
Mr. W. Il. Miligan thought the'last clause
ought to be modified on the ground that it
was generally mpraCtlcabe for the merchants
to use the canal, to whom rapid transit was
essential to their business.
A motion to lay on the table was made. j.
Y. Nichol moved to strike out the last clause,
though he said he believed it was the duty OF
the farmer to support the canal. Baldwin
thought the resolution would be imperative
because it was human nature to sell when one
could sell at the highest price. G.. w. Arm
strong said there was II good deal of bumcomb
said about supporting the canal-we are all
human and will sell at the highest price. The
canal cunt be dried up--all 1t needs is reason
ably good management. This howl about sup
porting the canal comes, he thought, IN bad
taste, since no merchant gets goods by the Ca
nal and no factory ships by it, The canal
themselves ship by rail. Mr.
A. SAID the canal is paying the commissioners
So per day including Sundays and leap year:
it needs thorough overhaullng. The canal
should be put into the hands of business men;
It's resources must be husbanded. Put it into the
hands of VIM. Thomas, or any other practical
man, and it will pay. 1t has been u political
atrair-it must be taken out of the hands of
the politicians. All that is necessary is to take
IA business view of the matter and not howl
about what is past and gone and shipping by
canal
John Barr Morris, agreed with Mr.. \. in
some things, but he thought the canal would
only take care Of itself when supported by the
farmers In Morris last year a quarter OF a
million bushels of corn were taken from the
canal; the railroad could pay cent more per
bushcl than the canal men and make money.
the canal men hardly paid transportation ON
their shipments This VIII continue as long
as the canal men have money or credit and
then the railroad gets all. Injustice to the
farmers it may he said that they sold their
grain to the railroad without knowing the in
tcrcsts at stake Alex Naughey said the farm
ers would sell to the railroads as long as they
paid more than the canal. John Smelling re-
marked that in Pennsylvania they had a SINH
lar trouble; they reduced the expenses of the
canal, and when they were reduced the rail
road paid just Us good dividends
The previous question was called, whcreup-
on the motion to strike out the last clause was
agreed to; the motion to table was lost, and the