Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1901-02-15

&c uas noi ,l--irll'l. g. D. -. i--caus.s the
mad. m"r- particularly. ilr bridges,
would noi Permit II oar hauling the
irsfbr economically. and, therefore, the
l,-,s l.usiu'-,, Ne had ihr YEAR r'und. via
Portland. thu l.rii-r. hui nov things
have euiin-ly changed. and It l. our
I-,licy 10 make il,- fullest H.. If our IN
iir- line that NJ ran. Thew i no rrason
at IN why the traffic L. aud from Mon
TRIAL sllould MT l,e maintained. or in
CREASED. That rsis entirely 18th the
steamship COMPANIES.
Il notice that las, year there Was a
falling "d u the number of steamers
via th, ~ Lawrence, but that certainly
was not GA account of amy action Of the
Grand Trunk. aud there need h. no fall
iug of on account OF our making Port
laud au all wear round port. as We have
no control. neither do We desire To have.
over the Steamship Companies sending
as many vessels as they like to Montreal.
The more vessels that cone to Montreal
the better W would be pleased, Tor
there is uo doubt at all that We shall be
able To- SECURE. ia the future, the same As
We have IN the past, our full share Of the
=. l. Il.
is, however, that for many Years past the
Steamship Companies running from
Montreal have continually refused to
give us space for traffic that is offering,
not only from Western States, hut also
from Ontario. We were in consequence
compelled tn take the traffic via Phila-
delphia, New York, or Boston, sharing
the inland rate with two or more other
Companies. instead of securing the whole
of il, as We could have done ii it wen,
to Portland. To put the matter in n
nut she'll, can you give ME any good
reason why the Grand Trunk should al
low three hundred miles OF its road
and its expensive terminals at Portland
to Toe left in comparative idleness dur
ing, SAY, six or seven months of tn,
year: Would any commercial institu
ton think. for one moment, of such 1
proposition;
Then again We iud Montreal an ex
ceedingIy expensive place to handle
traffic because our terminals here ar,
very much oyer-taXed. Ii very IRE
quently happens that, when we hav,
placed ears on the wharf. alongside tn
vessels, We have had to take them OF
again, on account OF lack of capacity 10
unloading. aud switch them back on 4
the wharf. Sometimes this operation
gone through two or three times, whicl
entirely eats up any profit there Nigh
: have been for the original haul--t
| Montreal,
, In ohder to do away with all this Z,
pense and delay. We have been trying /
| increase our terminal facilities in Mon
2 treal. not at the expense OF the city, lou
at our own cost. \ little more thai
t twelve months ago, We purchased, a
e great expense, block of land on ALDER
/ street, upon which to erect addition
- freight accommodation, but We cannc
t make use of the laud, because the cit
a will not give us permission to lay n
I additional track across one OF the streets
5 Thus are we prohibited from increa'
t ing our terminals, aud putting ourseNe
y in position to handle larger husine,
in and out of Montreal at less cost an
more promptly, though We desire to d
# so at our expense.
V If this sort of thing goes on, v
l. shall have no option but to decrease Il
h amount of work we are now doing j
the city, and the large number of ca
that are now brought here for transfe
we will have to handle at some 9TH
s. point.
). "rhis would, of course, decrease ii
he number of men that we employ in Il
e city, to great extent, but our busine
T. must go on, and if we are compelled,
y self-protection, to put i'll additional te
" minal facilities, where we can do
a. without hindrance, we must not
la blamed"