The Evening critic., 1884-04-19
CHESAPEAKE 8 OHIO CANAL TOLLS
wbnt the BOord of Public works
Has Decided 20 DO.


A special from Annapolis to tho Baltimore
Sun, dated yesterday, says;
"Tho Board OF Public Works, Governor
McLane, Comptroller Turner and Treasurer
Compton present, had q further consultation
to-day over tho reduction OF Chesapeake &
Ohio Canal tolls, and after q conference with
President Lewis o. Smith, Of the canal, adopted
a resolution concurring In the action OF tho
canal board which reduced the tonnage to 80
cents, and recommended to the directors the
consideration OF n further reduction. Presi-
dent Smith explained TO the board the effect
OF the reduction. He said he would call an
early meeting OF tho canal directors to take
into consideration the conclusions arrived at
by the Board OF Public Works. 1t was stated
that the cost OF maintaining the canal year
is in round numbers 5000, 900, allowing a
margin for incidental repairs. IL was con.
tended that TO reduce the tolls TO %
cents, az asked by tho Cumberland people,
estimating the tonnage at 100000 for the year,
would cause n loss to the canal OF $4,000
yearly. total tonnage OF 100000 at 30
cents, which is n decrease OF @ cents on tho
present rates, would place the receipts at
S2l0,OO0 yearly, or n margin Of at least SlO,-
COO over the estimated expenses for maintain.
the canal directors decide TO mako the reduc-
ton In accordance with the resolution OF the
Board OF Public Works thirty cents ton VIII
be accepted as the standard rate. 1t Is argued
rs o good reason for the reduction that II the
Pennsylvania Railroad reduces US
toll 80 as to get Cumberland coal,
tonnage. Tho advocates OF reduction say
there is no danger decomposition from the Bal
tmore & Ohio Railroad, for that road has con-
tracted for all the coal IL can carry, and there
10 no danger OF tho coal going over the canal.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company lost a
good deal OF Clearfleld coal because OF low
rates fixed by the Baltimore & Ohio. The Penn
sylvania Road touches the Cumberland mines
as we'll as the Baltimore h Ohio. These were
some OF the reasons urged by the members of
the canal board, who favored a reduction
when the coal tonnage question was
before 1t. The three members OF tho
board who opposed the reduction to any
figure contended that there was no danger Of
that competition, and that tho boatmen and
boat-bullders were unnecessarily alarmed.
The views as expressed by President Smith
are said 10 have met the approval Of tho Board
OF Public Works, and although tho latter are
very much in favor OF tho reduction, recogniz'
ing the fact that the responsibility OF fixing
the canal tolls is vested wholly In tho canal
have only revisionary power In the mattor,
the board addressed letter TO tho canal
| directors in reference to tho reduction. The
letter is as follows;
"'We acknowledge the receipt OF your letter
informing the board OF the adoption OF the
| schedule OF tolls for the year 1884 OF 33 cents
per ton and cents for wharfage. The board
| concurs therein and beg leave to suggest to
| you the consideration Of a further reduction.
1t was at first thought advisable to also add to
| the communication, whenever such reduc-
| ton can, in their Judgment be made without
| destroying the equilibrium between the re-
| ceipts and expenditures,' but this lattoi
clause was subsequently stricken out.