Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1881-05-28

crossing to influence your judgment
in determining whether you will rat
ify the connection asked for, you are
using your power in reference to this
connection to override the decision Of
the courts and to destroy rights there
by secured to the new road; and |
further submit that if the canal is to
continue as a line of transportation,
that these new feeders are absolutely
necessary that they cannot reach
the canal and have the benefits of the
low rates of charges fixed by contract
and law unless the action Of your
board permits the connection to be
made. The inconvenience to the Bal
timcre and Ohio railroad is q matter
with which neither the Board of Pub
lie Works nor the canal company
have aught to do, and this was the
view understood you TO have when
you did me the honor to call me be-
fore your board at Cumberland. 1t
is true that you at that time informed
me that you had suggested to both
the Baltimore and Ohio and the Cum.
berlsnd and Pennsylvania and the
Georges Creek railroads that some
compromise had better be made so as
to stop further litigation and eontro-
versy, AMI to enable all Of the roads
to be properly accommodated, and the
new road permitted to deliver its
freight to tie canal company at once;
that you made this suggestion to them
not that you had the right to do so,
but simply in spirit of compromise
and harmony. Your first suggestion
to them was proposition that the
Baltimore and Ohio would permit the
new road to connect with the switch
now in uoe, and use the same track
that is now used by the Cumberland
and Pennsylvania railroad for the
passage of its cars to the canal. The
Baltimore and Ohio and the now
road both assented 10 that prop ostion,
but the Cumberland and Pennsylva-
MIA road, over whose line for few
feet the new road would have to pass,
objected TO the arrangement. Ycu
then proposed that the new road
should change its line. pass under the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad at the
viaduct, and by long curve to be
constructed by the new read reach
the Baltimore and Ohio at Frederick
street, at WHICH point the Baltimore
and Ohio has side track which could
be used from that point to the canal
basin.
This proposition l at once stated to
you was so unfair to the new road
that supposed they would not con-
slider it for one moment; that if it
could be induced to cross under the
Baltimore and Ohio, then the Balti-
more and OHIO should construct the
track wh'ch was provided for under
tho contract OF 1851 with the canal
company parallel with the main track
to the old junction of the Mt. Savage
road now the Cumberland and Penn
sylvania, and that pending the con-
struction Of that new line, which
would take time and be expensive, the
cars of the new road should be per-
mltted to pass over the Cumberland
and Pennsylvania switches and thence
to the canal. You Immediately adopt
ed this view, but it was rejected by
the Baltimore and Ohio. AS | then
understood it, having failed TO com
promise the matter, you recognized
there was but one thing to do, and
that was to determine upon the appli-
cation for connection asked for by the
Georges Greek railroad. If the state
ment now made by the public prints
and otherwise be true, viz: thai after
you left Cumberland and on your way
to your home at Hagerst own the ma
iority of the board determined to re-
ject the connection asked for by the
new road, after a statement by the
Baltimore and Ohio representatives
that if the board would reject said
connection they would construct a
track as was pro- os> d, without the
important condition that the trade OF
the new road should be accommodated
during the construction OF the new
line, it is, l beg to say, with all due
Difference, simply an arrangement in
the interest OF the Baltimore and
Ohio railroad, doing great wrong to
the Georges Creek road and prejudice
to the interests of the canal in the