The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1899-11-03

)
cratic Editors A>sociation.)
When in 1890 tho Board of Public
Works, by authorization Of the Legis-
lature, advertised to lease the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal, and bid was
received and legislation to consummate
the lease was proposed, there was a
strong protest against the lease 10y the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad interests.
In November, 1898, the Board OF
Public Works advertised for bids for
the sale Of the Canal, and but one bid
was received That bid was in the in
eerest of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road, and was far below the bid of 1890.
The proposed lease of 1890 was
designated as steal. If such it was,
then there is no word in the English
language adequate to characterize the
proposed sale of 1899.
The proposition Of 1890 was from
the Washington and Cumberland Rail
road Company, whose incorporators
were Enoch Pratt, a welLknown Balti-
more financier; David L. Bartlett, OF
Bartlett, Hayward & Co.; John A.
Hambleton, the Baltimore banker; A.
Willison, of Cumberland; Martin n.
Rohrbach, wealthy business man, OF
Frederick; E. Kurtz johnson, coal
dealer of Washington, D. c., and Hat
tersly W. Talbot, a lawyer of Rock
vile. This company proposed to lease
the Canal, with its property and fran
chises, for SO years, renewable forever
In consideration of the execution of the
lease the Washington and Cumberland
Railroad Company proposed to pay
within six months from date of the
lease
Principal and interest of the repair
bonds issued under the act of 1878
Chapter So, then amounting, accord
ing to Gov Jackson's message to the
Legislature, to about $600,0O0;
Seventy thousand dollars ($7O,OOO).
to be applied to the payment Of claims
for work, labor and materials which
accrued between January lst, 1877,
and January lst, 1890;
Thirty thousand dollars ($30,OOO),
to be applied to the payment ofa judg-
ment against wharf property in Cum
berland;
twenty-five (25) per cent. Of the
principal of the construction bonds of
1874, said 25 per cent. amounting to
S424,s75; and
Fifteen thousand ($l5, ,O0O) annually
to the State of Maryland, after the
completion of a single track from
Cumberland to Williamsport.
OF this proposition the Annapolis
correspondent of the Baltimore Sun,
under date Of February 5th, 1890, said
-''1f accepted, the capitalists behind
the new-fedged railroad company will
have the cheapest and most eligible 'iyht
of way for their line that has been Sc
cured 10y any corporation on the At
lantic seaboard for years. For long
while it has been the talk that the
Canal would be Cheap at $2,OOO,OOO."
Mr.. John X. Cowcn, then chief coun-
sci Of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad,
afterward receiver and now president,
gave this interview to the Baltimore
Sun, published in the issue of February
Sth, 1890:
The price at which it is proposed to
acquire the Canal when capitalized at
8 per cent. amounts to 81 Sl,364,S75.
This price is totally inadequate to the
value of the property which it is pro-
posed to purchase. The Canal as a
roadbed, graded and bridged through
out its entire length, is worth at the
iDurst cnlculution, without counting the
tunnel or acqueducts, at least $20,0 900
j mile. The total length is 1874 miles,
and it would therefore be worth aI
least $3,6SO,OOO. But there is a mag
nilicent tunnel which affords the one
point Of access to Western Maryland
by which railroad could be con-
structed without having heavy grades
to overcome or several tunnels to build.
This tunnel alone is certainly worth a
million dollars to any railroad desiring
to construct a line along the Canal.
The acqueducts covering the streams
between Cumberland and Georgetown
are numerous and they are built of the
most solid masonry, thus relieving the
railroad from the necessity of bnilding
expensive bridges and piers; and these
acqueducts alone, it is estimated, would
be worth to the railroad company from