Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-04-03
A Communication.
,.itorS Kenncbec Journal:

Editors kenncDec journal:
Thank you for correcting the error in
my letter Of April /.
From your very clear and fair editor
ial of April it appears that we both
agree that the terms of the present
Bill are reasonable and fair"
Your nameless correspondent Citizen
in his letter Of March 81, states my po-
sition for me and your editorial of
April , makes the same error.
In my letter of March 30 l confined
myself to criticism of the present
plan and. as to the future said "Just
what that right solution is l will not
attempt to say
Your very clear and fair editorials of
March 81 and April make two state
mcnts: LIST you say that the cost either
of crossing the river at a point below
Rines Hill, or of tunnelling all the hills
on the West side, crossing the river at
the present location, would be 100000
in each case. At the Legislative hear
ing. SO | am told, the estimated cost of
each Of these plans was given at $780,
900. which is - per cent. less than your
statement. 2nI The estimated proba-
bic cost Ct the present plan was given at
S125,00O to $4,000, which, under the
present hill. would make the cost to
the Maine Central 900 or $4,000, in
stead of $45, 900 or $4,000 as you state
Here seems to be a serious difference,
If / am correctly Informed, the differ
encc between these estimates and your
figures are 50 great as to make this
perplcXlng problem only more confused.
1t is easier to undertake Il ST., 900
proposition than a Sl,0000G0 proposition
ana also much less likely for the Maine
Central to make any change after it
has invested $4,000 or $4,000 1t might
possibly abandon an Investment of s45,-
900 or $4,000 to improve its service.
though | do not consider tina. likely in
spite Of your statement that the
Maine Contra! has many times aban-
doned an Investment of $4,000 or $50 900
and would, as certainly postpone such
an abandonment to the remotest pos
Sib'e date.
As to The misstatemcnt Of my posi-
ton made by "Workingman" and Cit
len ! can only say that my opinions.
appearing in your issue of March 90
and April |, over my signature, seem
plain.
This question is 50 important that it
merits tie fullest aud frankest discus
sion. Whatever it outcome such dis
cussion must result in good
Ry Your kind allowance of space
have given my opinions over my sigma :
ture think it would add to the value
of the discussion if Workingman,"
"CitizerS," Voters and future cor
u Il ho
Your editorials have certainly thrown
good deal of light on the situation
especially as TO the probable future po-
stion which all the four interests in
volvcd can legally and equitably take
and probably will take
| hone the discussion may be cOntin-
lled so that each and every voter may
fully understand the magnitude anC
importance of the question and there
fore understand that his voice, so fan
as he is concerned. will settle the ques-
ton. as VOC saw certainly for this gen
Grafton, perhaps for the next
SAMUEL c. MANLEY.
In his address at the public hearing
before the Railroad committee. Mr.
Goodwin. the attorney for the Maine
Contra! stated that the engineers O.
that road. who had gone carefully cvel
the matter estimated the total cost o
doing away with the Rines Hill cross
| ing at 100000 Subsequently in thu
conference of the representatives o
the various interests affected with thu
committee in the room of the Railroad
commissioners. Mr.. Dunn, the Main
| Central engineer was asked il he wa
| prepared to stand by his estimate o
sl00, 900 He replied that ne was as h
was very confident that the work coul'
be done for that sum. Thereupon tn
| present bill was agreed upon and un
animously reported by the committee
the representatives Of the Maine Cen
trail Railroad being so confident of tn
accuracy OF Mr.. Dunn's figures tina