LETTER
fbom
THOMAS SWANN, ESQ.,
1
ON THE EXPEDIENCY
op the
CROSS-CUT CANAL,
addressed
To HUGH BOLTON, Esq., Chairman
of a
COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
together with the
PROCEEDINGS ATTACHED THERETO.
BALTIMORE:
PRINTED BY JAMES LUCAS,
(patent cylinder press,)
Comer of Calvert-st. and LoTel7 Lane.
1851.
LETTER.
Mr. Bohon, President, chairman of the special committee, sub
mitted the following report, which was read and laid on the tahle :
The joint special committee to whom was referred the subject of
the construction of a cross-cut canal to connect with the Chesa¬
peake and Ohio Canal, at Georgetown, or some more eligible point
on the line of that work—beg leave respectfully to report, that hav¬
ing duly examined the subject referred to them, and from its weighty
importance, feeling indisposed to make a hasty decision thereon, they
determined to present to the council such opinions and facts as an
enlarged practical experience alone can satisfactorily give. To this
end therefore, the committee through their chairman, addressed the
following letter to Thomas Swann, Esq , the President of the Balti¬
more and Ohio Rail Road Company :
Baltimore, February 11, 1851.
To Thomas Swann, Esq., President of the
Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company :
Sib :
At a meeting of the joint special committee, appointed in pursu¬
ance of the following resolution, it was unanimously resolved, that
the chairman of the joint special committee of inquiry, to report upon
4
said resolution and propositions, be directed, respectfully to solicit
from Thomas Swann, Esq., President of the Baltimore and Ohio
Rail Road Company, any and all information that may be in his pos¬
session, together with any suggestions touching the aforesaid queries,
which he may be pleased to make :
" Resolved, that a committee of inquiry be appointed, with instructions to re¬
port upon the following propositions ;
1st. To what extent the coal trade introduced by the Baltimore and Ohio
Rail Road Company has added to the business and wealth of the city ; its pros¬
pective increase, and the comparative rates of toll and transportation upon ca¬
nals and rail roads.
2d. What amount of trade both in receipt and delivery, has the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal withdrawn from this city : and the particular description of pro¬
duce and merchandise so withdrawn, as also to what extent, as tar as it can be
fairly computed, will be hereafter withdrawn,—including the immense mineral
wealth of the upper counties of Maryland—by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal ;
a work in which our State has an investment of eight millions, and for which
the people of this city are now most severely and onerously taxed.
3d. The expediency of finding relief, and at the same time enjoying the ben¬
efits of this costly work, by making the cross-cut or Maryland canal, as was
originally contemplated, and used as the sole argument for the undertaking by
our State of this stupendous work of internal improvement.
dth. An inquiry into the expediency of making the canal by appropriating
the dividend stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company, at present
owned by the city, and amounting to about $600,000, and all future dividends,
in stock or money, for its construction, and further, to operote as security for
the interest which may arise upon any bonds the Maryland Canal Company
may find it necessary to create for the completion of this work ; and whether
the dividend stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company, and the
tolls of the canal being pledged not only for the payment of the interest, but the
extinction of the bonds, would not give to our city the advantages of one of the
most valuable works of internal improvement known to the age, and without
an additional fraction of taxation."
The committee disclaim any right to make this call ; but on a
subject fraught with so much interest to the city as this is, they rely
upon your willingness to communicate the information asked, and
hope you will find leasure to comply with their request at an early day.
Respectfully, your obed't serv't,
Hugh Bolton, Chairman
Of the Joint Special Committee.
In reply to the above, the committee herewith present the answer
of the President of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company,
i.nd in being able thus to place before the council the views so prac-
5
tically and forcibly expressed, the committee beg leave to incorpo¬
rate them as a part of their report, assenting as they do to the leading
features contained in said report:—
Baltimore, March 2d, 1851.
To Hugh Bolton, Esq,,
Chairman of ihe Joint Select Committee, SiC,
Sir:
I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 11th ult.,
enclosing a copy of the resolutions referred to the joint select committee,
of which you are the chairman ; and apprizing me that you had been "di¬
rected respectfully to solicit from the President of the Baltimore and Ohio
Rail Road Company, any and all the information that may be in his pos¬
session, together with any suggestions, touching the aforesaid queries,
which he may be pleased to make."
I need hardly assure you that it will afford me pleasure to facilitate
your enquiries, in relation to this or any other matter, in which the city
is interested, where my position as President of the Company, may be
supposed to enable me to impait information, which may not be accessi¬
ble to the public at large.
Before proceeding to comment upon the resolutions contained in your
letter, I must take occasion in the outset, to disavow any feeling, which
could influence me, to place myself in opposition to any plan, which
might have the effect, either directly or remotely, of relieving the city of
Baltimore from the heavy burthens which have been entailed upon her,
by a great work of internal improvement, having its terminus beyond the
limits of the State of Maryland—from any livalry which it may be sup¬
posed to exercise, in the relation in which it stands towards the important
enterprise over which I preside. I beg the committee to understand, that
I enter upon the examination of this subject with no such bias, at the
same time that I should deem it altogether proper, that both the city of
Baltimore and those who have been entrusted with the administration of
the affairs of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company, should watch
with jealousy any movement which might by possibility interfere with, or
in any way embarrass, the paramount interest which the city has em¬
barked in this road.
But it so happens, that there is no real cause for alarm, so far as the
Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company are concerned, either from the
Canal as at present located, with Alexandria as its terminus, or the exten¬
sion of that work to the city of Baltimore, by means of the cross cut or
Maryland canal, as contemplated in the resolutions of your committee.
Of all the acts of legislation which have marked the policy of this State,
in regard to her system of internal improvements, there is not one perhaps
which it would be so difficult to reconcile at this day, upon any principle
of sound statesmanship, as that which assumed the completion of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, tcilh its terminus beyond the limits of our own
State, at the immense outlay which it involved ; and this too in the face
of a Maryland work, running parallel with its entire length, from the
Point of Rocks to the town of Cumberland—connecting the city of Balti-
2
6
more with the same mineral region, which it was designed to develope,
and well adapted, in all particulars, for the accommodation of the trade
and travel of the region through which it penetrates ; besides looking to
the more important results which were likely to accrue, not only to the
city of Baltimore, but the whole State of Maryland, from a connection
with the Ohio river and the resources of the great West.
But the error has been committed, and it is unnecessary now to enquire
into the causes which led to it. The State of Maryland has become the
proprietor of a costly work of internal improvement—terminating in the
District cities and the town of Alexandria—with more than $11,000,000
of capital locked up in its embrace.
It is not singular that it should occur to your committee, that with the
large interest which the State represents, in the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal, and the heavy proportion of the tax of its construction which falls
upon this city, it would be your desire to make that work productive,
either in the mode contemplated by one of your enquiries, by a cross-cut
Canal, to bring the trade to Baltimore, or by some other plan looking to a
curtailment of the, tax which has been incurred in its construction.
In a well directed effort to accomplish either object, it would be the
duty of every good citizen most cordially to unite with you and with those
who represent the State's interest in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.
Believing that the operations of that work cannot seriously interfere with
the plans of this Company, it should be our desire to see it making the
largest returns, and contributing something towards the heav}' burthens
which are now bearing so grievously upon the State at large, and her
great commercial city.
This brings me to the consideration of your third resolution, which I
shall take the liberty to consider as first in order, viz:
I. "The expediency of finding relief, and at the same lime enjoying
the benefits of this costly work by making a cross-cut or Maryland canal,
as was originally contemplated, and used as the sole argument for the un¬
dertaking by our State of this stupendous work of internal improvement."
I regret to say that I can see no ground upon which to recommend the
e.xpediency of such a measure, either now or at any future time; and that
I am constrained to believe, that the District cities will always enjoy an
advantage in the trade which may be induced to pass over the line of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, over the city of Baltimore, with any and all
the facilities which may be afforded by a cross-cut canal. Such a conclu¬
sion, I am aware, is any thing but complimentary, to the policy which
induced the State of Maryland to embark so large an amount in this
enterprise; but I feel that we have no longer any right to conceal a truth
which is every day becoming more and more apparent.
There are four prominent routes, as your committee are aware, which
have heretofore engaged the attention of engineers, to connect the city of
Baltimore with the Potomac river, viz:
1. The Westminster route.
2. The Linganore route.
3. The Seneca route.
4. The route to Georgetown.
7
The two first are thrown aside as impracticable, for the want of an ade¬
quate supply of water; and the third is S J miles longer than the fourth,
besides being greatly inferior in other respects.
Mr. Trimble in his report of March, 1837, after a careful e.xamination
of the surveys of Dr. Howard and others, adopts the route to Georgetown,
as that which any "Engineer would select, on which to construct the
shortest, cheapest, and most capacious canal, to connect the harbor of Bal¬
timore with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal."
The route to Georgetown may be assumed as the most eligible, all
things considered; and could hardly be brought into comparison with the
others I have named—varying as they do in cost from $6,324,300 to
$8,810,000.
The Georgetown route is estimated by Mr. Trimble, in the report above
alluded to at $3,530,000—and is 445 miles in length—equivalent to about
$80,000 per mile. The toll and transportation upon this canal are assum¬
ed by Mr. Trimble at a half cent each for coal, being 445 cents per ton,
or one cent per ton per mile.
The idea of an intersection at a point higher up the Potomac river than
Georgetown, seems to have been suggested, by the greater temptation
which might be held out, to divert the trade of the canal to the city of
Baltimore, than where the connection is brought into immediate proxim¬
ity with the District cities. Mr. Trimble, however, does not seem to
attach weight to this consideration, and disposes of the claims of these
various routes by remarking, that the route by Georgetown, "its length
and lockage, and cost, are less than any other; its capacity for the trans¬
portation of heavy burthens at the least expense and the shortest time,
exceeds greatly that of any other, and its facilities for future enlargement
incomparably greater; for while the canal by Seneca will admit of no
future enlargement, the one to Georgetown can be increased to any desi¬
rable extent."
The object of the cross-cut or Maryland canal being then, to bring the
city of Baltimore in competition with the District cities, for the benefit
which may be expected to result from the coal trade on the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal, it becomes us to enquire into the mode in which this is
to be accomplished, and the advantages which the work may be reasona¬
bly expected to hold out.
To the 44| miles assumed by Mr. Trimble as the length of the cross-cut
canal, we are to add 1| miles, the distance from the contemplated basin
in Baltimore to tide water, at Locust Point, and the total length will be 46
miles—and the terminus the same with the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road.
Mr. Trimble's estimate, for toll and motive power, being equivalent to one
cent per ton per mile, we have a total aggregate of 46 cents per ton for
the entire distance.
We may be met, I am quite aware, in reply to any estimate of proba¬
ble cost of transportation upon this canal which may be based upon the
experience of similar works, that the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Com¬
pany have already indicated their purpose, to reduce their rates upon
coal to 37i cents from Cumberland to Georgetown, being -¡¿ss P®""
ton per mile ; but it can hardly be presumed that I should be governed bj-
any such standard ; and I shall take occasion to enlarge upon the fallacy
of the proposed reduction, in another branch of the subject which you
qave referred to me in your first resolution.
8
The only proper basis on which to estimate the results of a work like
this, is the actual and equivalent capital involved, and the expenses cer¬
tain and contingent which are likely to be incurred.
Mr. Trimble's estimate for the cross-cut canal is $3,5.30,000. Assu¬
ming this to be correct, and adding nothing for contingencies, which the
former experience of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal would hardly jus¬
tify us in doing, we will only claim the addition of the cost of construction
and right of way for the 1 miles from the basin to Locust Point, and the
purchase of grounds and establishment of suitable wharves at tide water,
which we estimate at not less than $120,000, making the total cost of the
Maryland canal $3,G50,000.
If the results of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal are to be taken as any
guide, in regulating the estimates for the construction of a work similar in
all respects, we might safely add one-third more to the cost of construc¬
tion as estimated in the report of Mr. Trimble.
Mr. Latrobe assumes the maintenance of the canal, inclusive of the
collection of tolls, in view of the deep cuts it must encounter in a soil
subject to slides, and the experience of similar works, at $1,000 per mile
for 4(5 miles, making $46,000
Management and general expenses, say - - - - 5,000
Giving a total of $51,000
Which at 6 per cent is equivalent to a capital of - - 850,000
So that the total actual and equivalent capital would be - $4,500,000
Upon which the interest at 6 per cent would be - - $270,000
The sum of $270,000 of nett revenue then would have to be realized,
in order to make a return upon the capital invested, and the receipts of
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in 1849 amounted to $65,438 03, of
which $.50,839 03 were due to the head of expenses.
The following table will shew the amount of toll necessary to be charg¬
ed, in order to pay the accruing interest upon the capital invested in the
cross-cut canal, for the several amounts of tonnage stated :
PGR A THROUGH TRADE
Of 500,000 tons—54 cents for 46 miles, = per ton per mile.
Of 1,000,000 tons—27 do. iWo P®'' P®*" mile.
Of 1,500,000 tons—18 do. per ton per mile.
Of 2,000,000 tons—131 do. per ton per mile.
Of 2,500,000 tons—lO,",; do. P®"" ton per mile.
Of 3,000,000 tons—9 do. per ton per mile.
So that according to the estimate of Mr. Latrobe, it would require a
trade of 3,000,000 tons through the cross-cut canal, to bring the toll
slightly within the limit of proposed to be charged by the Chesa¬
peake and Ohio Canal Company upon a trade of but 500,000 tons over
their own line, as costly in construction, maintenance and management,
as the cross-cut. It is further to be remarked, that in order to pay an
interest at the rate of 6 per cent upon the capital assumed, the amount of
9
tonnage required would be 2,824,268 tons at cent per ton per mile
or 9 cents for the whole distance of 46 miles.
This exhibit would present a picture by no means encouraging to the
prospects of this new enterprise, and could hardly be supposed to invite
so heavy an outlay. There can be no error in the leading features of the
calculation upon which I have relied ; and it is believed that in every
instance a liberal allowance has been made in favor of the cross-cut canal.
The idea of a transit of 2,824,268 tons, over such a line, is believed to be
wholly chimerical, and it is doubted whether if its charges and facilities
were such as to justify it, its capacity would exceed half that amount.
Mr. Latrobe assumes 1,350,000, as the maximum tonnage which could
be expected to pass over the canal, and this would justify in the most
favorable view a toll of 23 cents for the 46 miles, or half cent per ton per
mile.
If we add to this a like amount for transportation say 23 cents, for
which we have authority in the experience of the prominent canals in
this country,—and indeed few examples are to be found where so mode¬
rate a charge exists in practice, we have a charge of 46 cents per ton, or
one cent per ton per mile, between Georgetown and Baltimore, as assumed
by Mr. Trimble in his report of 1847 ; and this result from the most care¬
ful examination which 1 have been enabled to give to the subject, may
be relied on as exhibiting the most favorable view which can be presented
by the cross-cut canal, if ever completed. It is known that the toll on
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, in proportion to length would be, if
graduated by the charges on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, per
ton, - - - - $1 375
Delaware and Raritan Canal per ton, - - - - 1 33
Schuylkill Navigation do. do. ----- 1 29
Susquehanna do. do. ..... 835
Clearly showing that the rate of charge assumed, upon the cross-cut
canal is justified by the experience of similar works.
Adopting then the estimate of Mr. Trimble, concurred in by Mr. La¬
trobe, and established beyond question by the foregoing exhibit, we are
next to enquire, whether there is any real advantage in such a channel of
communication, over those already existing, and I give below the estimate
of the Chief Engineer, of the cost of transportation, by the Main Stem
and Washington Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road, either af
which will be found to offer facilities greater than those of the contemplated
cross-cut canal, and might be expected to compete successfully with such
a work should it ever go into operation.
1. Transportation from Point of Rocks to Baltimore.
By Canal.—The same rate of one cent per ton per mile being taken
upon the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to Georgetown, and upon the cross¬
cut canal to Baltimore.
Dúfonce from Point of Rocks to Georgetown, - - - 48 miles.
do. from Georgetown to Baltimore and Locust Point, 46 "
Total distance from Point of Rocks to Baltimore, - 94 "
94 miles at one cent per ton per mile, per ton for whole distance 94 cents.
10
By Rail Road.—At the Company's present rate of charge
of 1-^ cents per ton per mile from Cumberland to Baltimore.
Distance from Point of Rocks to Locust Point, - - 70 miles.
70 miles at 1^ cents per ton per mile, - . . . 9.3^ cents.
By this route then the Rail Road can carry the coal at a lower rate,
without reducing its present rate of transportation between Cumberland
and Baltimore.
2. Transportation from Georgetown to Baltimore.
By Canal.—At the rate of one cent per ton per mile for
46 miles, .........40 cents.
By Rail Road, over Washington Branch.
This road in consequence of extremely favorable grades
and curves, will admit of an unusuully cheap carriage of
freight, due to the large loads to be drawn by the Engines.
Mr. Latrobe estimates the cost of carrying a ton of coal from
the canal basin at Georgetown to Locust Point, distance 41-J
miles, f'/jy of a cent per ton per mile, including wear and tear
of railway. "Supposing a second track, says that officer, to
be laid for the express use of the coal trade and 500,000 tons
to be transported per year, the cost of motive power and cars
being estimated of a cent, and wear and tear of tracks,
&c., at iVó of a cent—total 58 of a cent.
Then 58 X 4!^ gives for 41| miles, for a ton, - - 24 07 cents.
And if this be doubled, in order to give 50 per cent, the
usual profit upon the general business of the road, it would
add 21 07 cents.
And the total cost would become per ton, - - - 48 14 cents.
At the rate of one and a sixth cents per ton per mile.
Leaving a difference against the Rail Road of - - - 2 14 cents.
The estimate of cost of transportation upon the Washington Branch
Road, is stated to correspond, or nearly so, with the actual cost per ton
per mile, upon the Reading Rail Road, allowance being made for the
different characteristics of the two works.
According to the above exhibit then, the difference in the cost of trans¬
portation, between the Canal and the Washington Branch Road, would
be scarcel)' worthy of notice. A reduction of the rate of profit from 5Ü
to 48 per cent, places the two works on an equal footing.
But an examination of the early calculations made upon the probable
results of the coal trade, by Mr. Murray and others, in 1844, will show
that one sixth of the gross charges, was believed to be a sufficient remu¬
neration for the company, and with this, they would have been satisfied,
at that time.
Now Mr. Latrobe estimates, that with a clear profit of one third of the
whole charge, then the rate per ton, from Georgetown to Locust Point,
would be—
24.07 !>4 12.03 = 26.10 cents.
And one-fourth— 24.07 ><! 8.02 = 32.09 cents.
The rates per ton per mile, in the first instance, being 0.870 per cent.
In the second instance, being, .... 0.773
11
Arriving at the conclusion, that with a profit of 48 per ceni of the gross
receipts, the Washington Branch Road would carry the coal as cheap as
the canal, and with a profit of 33j per cent., cheaper by 9/;, cents per
ton, and with a profit of 25 per cent., cheaper by ISyj'ç cents per ton.
The only subject that remains to be disposed of in connection with the
use of the Washington Branch Road, as a competitor with the cross cut
canal, should it ever be made, is that of the transhipment at Georgetown,
or the point of junction, wherever it may be.
This, I would remark, is entirely practicable, and may be effected, with¬
out serious interruption to the trade, at a cost not exceeding three cents
per ton. The most feasible mode would be by section boats, such as
have been introduced on the Pennsylvania canals, and are passed over
the Portage Rail Road, without removal or disturbance of cargo ; other
modes might be resorted to, but it is believed, that in no instance would
the cost of transhipment amount to more than is here assumed, suitable
machinery for the purpose, being provided.
In the foregoing exhibit, it will be perceived, that no account is taken
of time, and the fewer interruptions to transportation upon rail roads over
canals. It is evident that something is due to these elements, in conse¬
quence of the saving of interest, in the operations of a large trade, as well
as the more ready despatch of vessels employed in receiving the coal for
distribution at the more distant points of consumption, the value of the
article by canal being reduced, in the ratio of the delay which may at¬
tend its transmission.
It will also be recollected that that the rail road enjoys a large support,
wholly independent of that which might be expected to result from the
coal trade. In this particular it would enjoy a decided advantage over
the canal, whose operations would be confined almost exclusively to a
single article, and might well afford to give up a portion of the profit of
her coal business, in order the more effectually to secure the trade.
In the foregoing calculations, it must be remarked that Mr. Latrobe has
assumed—for the cost of carriage by canal, a trade of 1,350,000 tons,
while for the rail road he has based his estimates upon a trade of 500,000
tons only.
In this connexion he remarks, that if the trade be more than -500,000
tons, the rail road will gain, in the item of repairs, and if less than
1,350,000 tons, the canal will loose in the item of tolls.
The result would be as follows :
With a trade of 500,000 tons, the toll by canal, in order to
pay interest and expenses, must be, per ton, . . .54 cents.
To which add freight and transportation charge, . . 23 "
And the total cost of transportation becomes, . . .77 cents
from Georgetown to Baltimore.
While rail road charges would he at most, with 50 per cent,
profit and three cents for transhipment from Georgetown
to Baltimore, . . . . . . . .51 cents.
Making difference in favor of rail road, of ... 26 cents
per ton. With a trade of 1,000,000 tons, the rail road would be
the cheaper conveyance by 11 cents.
12
I have thus endeavoured to show by the foregoing estimates—
1. That the cross cut or Maryland Canal, will involve a cost of
$3,650,000. That it will require a transit of 2,824,268 tons of coal, at a
charge of per ton per mile, or Off®- cents for the whole distance of
46 miles, to pay six per cent, upon the capital involved in its construction.
2. That coal can be transported from the point of intersection of the
canal and rail road at the Point of Rocks, over the Baltimore and Ohio
Rail Road, to Baltimore, at a cost not exceeding 93ï cents, without change
in the existing rates on said rail road, while the charge by the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal to Georgetown, and by cross cut canal from thence to
Baltimore, at the rate of one cent per ton per mile, would be 94
cents.
3. That coal can be transported from Georgetown to Baltimore, by the
Washington Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road, at a cost not
exceeding one and one-sixth of a cent per ton, for a trade of 500,000 tons,
compared with one cent per ton per mile on the cross cut canal, with a
trade of 1,350,000, and that with an equal trade of 1,000,000 tons, the
difference would be in favor of the rail road, by II cents per ton, and
consequently that the construction of the cross cut or Maryland Canal, as
contemplated in your third resolution, would be inexpedient and useless,
in every view in which it could be presented to the coasideration of the
tax-payers of the city of Baltimore.
II. " To what extent the coal trade introduced by the Baltimore and
Ohio Rail Road Company has added to the business and wealth of the city
of Baltimore—its prospective increase, and the comparative rates of toll
on rail road and canals."
In reply to the first branch of this resolution my answer must neces¬
sarily be vague. It is difficult to say, with anything like certainty, to
what extent the coal trade has added to the wealth of the city. We know
that it has been gradually increasing since the extension of the Baltimore
and Ohio Rail Road to tide water : and that during the year 1850, it had
reached 123,000 tons, delivered at Locust Point, besides about 25,000 tons
which stopped short of that point. We know further that property in the
vicinity of the company's wharves, at Locust point, has greatly enhanced
in value, and t'hat every day is adding to its importance, by the facilities
held out in that quarter to objects of enterprize, which could not be so
advantageously accommodated elsewhere. The rapid improvement going
on at Locust point, furnishes abundant evidence of the effect of the road,
and the coal trade to which its transportation is exclusively confined by
an ordinance of the city. In the last annual report of the Baltimore and
Ohio Rail Road Company, it was stated that 697 vessels had arrived at
the company's wharves during the year, and the number of houses con¬
structed within the same period, has given an impetus to this new settle¬
ment, which cannot fail to exercise a most salutary influence upon the
general prosperity of the city.
In regard to the increase of the coal transportation, I would remark,
that the subject is one which has engaged the attention of this company ;
and that during the progress of the work to the Ohio river, an increased
supply of coal may be expected to pass over the road-
To what extent this transportation will be augmented, must depend
upon the market in New York and the eastern cities, and the facility with
13
which the Cumberland coal may be brought into competition with the
Pictou and other coals now sold in those markets.
In the quality of the article, it is believed that no coal which has yet
been discovered in this country, compares with that of the Alleghan}'
region, for the various purposes to which steam is applied, and with some
reduction in price, it is likely to become not less popular as a domestic
fuel.
In the recent action of the Board of Directors of this company, re¬
ducing the cost of transportation on coal, on and after first of June next,
reference was had solely to the importance of giving encouragement to
this article, with a view to increased consumplon. The coal trade is evi¬
dently too large an item to be abandoned by the city of Baltimore ; and
its results upon this road, so far, have been such as to justify the most
liberal provision for its future accommodation.
It can hardly be believed that the preparations now going forward, to
transport coal to the District cities and Alexandria, can be so far matured
for a long time to come, as to compass any very large amount of coal—or
to embarrass, to any great extent, the operations of this road ; and it
would be difficult now to say, how far this new channel of communication
with the mineral region, will be capable of furnishing the facilities which
have been so confidently anticipated by its advocates. Without referring
here to the relative advantages of rail roads and canals, which it may be
proper for me to do in another place, I would simply remark, that every
work of the character of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal must stand
upon its own independent basis—and its capabilities can only be deter¬
mined by ike experience of an average of years.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal being just completed and opened for
transportation, it would be difficult to determine how far it may compare
advantageously with other and similar works.
We know that during portions of the year it has been subject to floods :
we know farther, that already it has been retarded, for the want of an
adequate supply of water; and we know that during the winter season,
it will be subject, with other canals situated in the same latitude, to the
usual interruptions from ice.
To what extent these causes may effect the cost of transportation, it is
not in the power of any one at this time to form an estimate. We are
to look also to the relative position of the District cities and Alexandria,
compared with Baltimore, as the termini of the canal and rail road on tide
water.
In any view which may be presented of the rivalry of the canal and
rail road, it cannot be overlooked, that the value of the coal, at the point
of shipment on tide water, will always be regulated by the facility with
which it may be transferred to the hands of the consumer.
From Georgetown to the mouth of the Potomac river the. distance is
125 miles. From Baltimore the distance is about 100 miles.
Mr. Trimble in his able report of 1837 says, "The obstacles to the nav¬
igation of the Potomac river are its deficiency of width and circuitous
courses, making it almost impossible for vessels to beat through the reaches,
as they are termed—and a rare occurrence for any ship to get out with
the same wind.
3
14
Mount Vernon reach and Maryland reach present great difficulties, un¬
less the wind is from the exact quarter to carry ships through. We have
understood that ships have been detained in the Potomac, by contrary
winds, two weeks.
From Baltimore the egress to the sea is easy. The same wind from
several quarters will carry ships to sea; while the width of the Bay affords
ample room for vessels to beat with facility against head winds.
The difference in time in going to sea from Georgetown and Baltimore
is probably ihree days, on the average in favor of the latter.
If steamers are employed to tow vessels on the Potomac, this advantage
in point of time will in a great measure he neutralized, though at a greater
cost on the part of Georgetown.
It is believed that with ordinary favorable winds, vessels could sail to
the mouth of the Potomac from Baltimore, or at all events from the Bod¬
kin, as soon as they could reach the same point from Georgetown by the
aid of steam tow boats.
The advantage possessed by Baltimore, in the greater facility of getting
to sea with ships, will in respect to the coal and coasting trade be obvious.
It is upon the number of trips which any vessel can make that her profits
depends, and no vessels would be willing to loose three days in a voyage
along the coast, with the risk of occasional detention in the Potomac two
weeks, when she could come to Baltimore three days sooner."
This view so strongly presented in the extract above quoted, is entitled
to far more weight than has been heretofore conceded to it, in estimating
the power of the Rail Road, to compete successfully for the coal trade ;
and if the transportation upon the Canal were less uncertain than it is
known to be, would always give an advantage to the city of Baltimore, as
the point of paramount attraction.
I hold it then to be premature, to assume the probability of a diversion
of the coal trade from the city of Baltimore, in the face of the facts above
referred to.
When we hear of a contract at the rate of one-fith of a cent per ton per
mile, for the immediate transportation of 500,000 tons per annum to be
delivered at Alexandria, it must be taken, I should presume, with some
degree of allowance. Capitalists could hardly be found to embark in such
an experiment, without better encouragement than is now held out for
immediate consumption, even at the low rate proposed by the canal.
This Company has been since 1843 building up a market for less than
140,000 tons of coal, and although it is believed that a much larger amount
might be consumed, in case the rates should be such in the Eastern mar¬
kets, as to bring the Cumberland coal into fair competition with other
coals now in use, it is evident that an effort to throw so large an amount
into market, in advance of consumption, if it were practicable at the low
rate assumed by the canal, would be attended with ruinous results.
The policy of this company heretofore has been to keep pace with the
demand, as far as it could be done without interference with the exten¬
sion of the road, and the accommodation of the mixed tonnage in which
the city of Baltimore is much more largely interested.
The problem of charging toll at the low rates proposed by the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, say 37¿ cents per ton, between Cumberland
and Alexandria, or about one-fifth of a cent per ton per mile, is not yet
15
satisfactorily solved ; and it would be quite unnecessary for your commit¬
tee or this company to assume the probability of any such result. Indeed
it may be questioned whether if contracts could be made for the transit of
500,000 tons of coal, from Cumberland to Alexandria, at the rates indi¬
cated, the results would not be disastrous to the future interests of the
Canal Company and the State of Maryland, by impairing confidence in
the work, and ultimately withdrawing from it the patronage which it might
otherwise secure.
It seems to me that the low rates assumed by the canal would hardly
accomplish any thing for the State of Maryland, if the aggregate tonnage
amounted to 700,000 instead of the 500,000 tons proposed to be contracted
for; and while they might have the effect of reducing the rates on the
Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road to whatever extent might be necessary to
secure the proportion of the trade required by that company, could lead
to no other result than to interfere with the interest of the State of Mary¬
land in both these works.
I have no means of knowing the exact amount of interest due to the
priorities, to which the claims of the State of Maryland in the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal have been deferred ; but I see it slated in an article in the
"Baltimore American" of 12lh February, at not less than $150,tj00 per
annum. The cost of maintenance, collection and management of that
work, has been estimated by Mr. Latrobe, at $18(3,000, at the rate of
$1 ,000 per mile. If we take then the items of interest, maintenance,
&.C., we nave an aggregate of $336,000, and estimating the toll upon
700,000 tons of coal at 37^ cents, and boat charges seven cents per ton,
we have to meet these liabilities, an available revenue of $311,500 or less
by $24,500 than the amount required.
I confine my estimate, it will be remarked, to the coal tonnage alone,
which if it be increased by the aggregate of all other tolls, would still
leave an almost nominal balance to be applied to the State's interest in
the canal.
It may be that I have misstated the amount of interest due to preferred
creditors ; but I have seen no contradiction of the article referred to, upon
whose authority I have based this calculation.*
In this view it cannot be doubted that the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company, will have to retain at least their present rates, say 54 cents, to
pay interest and expenses, if they do not find it necessary to add to
these rates; at all events it will be found indispensable to do so, until the
demand for coal is greatly beyond what we know it to be at this time.
With the large interest which the State of Maryland represents in
both the Canal and Rail Road, it has always seemed to me to be a great
mistake to talk about rivalry and compétition, as the principle upon which
these works should be conducted.
If such a principle is recognized, the State of Maryland as well as the
companies themselves, must eventually suffer; and the only re.'ulting
benefit would accrue to the District cities. It is doubtless the desire of
every one—and the tax payers of the city of Baltimore not less than the
State at large,—to realize some return from the Chesapeake and Ohio
• 1 have since learned that the interest due to these priorities, does not exceed
$125,000 per annum.
16
Canal, but to accomplish this, I am well convinced that the able Board of
Directors of that Company, would be the last persons to do any thing
to interfere with the prosperity of the great commercial emporium of
their own State, by any line of policy which they might deem it their
duty to adopt.
I am satisfied, therefore, that it is the true and only policy of hoth the
Rail Road and Canal, to look to remunerating returns in the regulation of
their toll sheets. The object to be accomplished is increased consumption,
and this can only be brought about by time, and the gradual developement
of the trade.
To attempt to force a market in advance of the actual demand, will
only result in disappointment, if it does not more seriously affect the pros¬
pects of those who may be induced to embark their capital in such a
movement.
I wiil now proceed to answer briefly the other branch of your enquiry,
as to the comparative rates of toll and transportation upon Canals and
Rail Roads, and in doing this I shall confine myself to a single prominent
example.
An idea has long prevailed, that in the transportation of articles of
heavy tonnage, where time is not an element in the calculation, the
expense must always range largely in favor of canals, and the sub¬
ject is one which has heretofore given rise to much speculation among
Engineers and professional men. The theories, however, which marked
the early progress of internal improvements in this country, are fast settling
down into something like certainty, and the comparative expense of trans¬
portation upon Rail Roads and Canals is so well established by actual
experience, as to enable us to arrive at a definite conclusion upon this
point.
It is a striking fact, and should not be lost sight of by your committee,
in connection with this subject, that since the introduction of Rail Roads,
both in this country and England, not a single new Canal of any import¬
ance has been projected; and that those which already exist and are in
operation, have been more or less affected by the greater facilities afforded
by Rail Road, both in the transportation of passengers and freight.
The Reading Rail Road was opened to Pottsville in 1842, and in the
nine years, inclusive from that year to 1850, there were carried upon
it, 7,879,776 tons of coal.
The Schuylkill Navigation was opened to the
same coal field in 1825, and in the 26 years from
that year to 1850 inclusive, the total tons of coal
carried was 7,291,462, and in the nine years from
1842 to 1650, the total was - - . . 3,041,107 tons.
Difference in favor of Rail Road transportation in
the latter nine years was - - - . 4,838,669 tons.
During the period therefore for which the two works have been in com¬
petition for the coal trade, the rail road has carried 2Yf|- for each ton
carried by the canal.
17
The largest amount of coal carried by the canal prior to the opening of
the rail road, was in the year 1841, the year immediately preceding that
opening—the number of tons was 584,692
In 1845, three years after its opening, the Reading Rail Road carried
the large amount of 620,237 tons.
And in the year 1850, just ended, the quantity was 1,423,967 tons.
The average annual quantity carried upon the rail road, in the nine
years of its operation, has been 875,531 tons.
And the canal average for the same period, . . 337,901 tons.
Excess carried by rail road, ...... 537,630 tons
per annum.
The rail road has therefore obtained, for its share of the trade, an aver¬
age proportion of of the whole, leaving the canal but
The rail road has therefore engrossed nearly three-fourihs of the entire
trade.
Interruptions, it is true, took place, from the enlargement of the canal
in 1846-47-48, and from the flood of 1850 ; but the rail road on the other
hand was inadequately supplied with power for two years after its com¬
pletion—and the second track, analogous to the enlargement of the canal,
was not laid down until 1845.
Upon the whole it may be well to conclude, that with both works in
the best order, the rail road will appropriate to itself not less that two-
thirds of the whole trade.
Comparing the rates of charge upon the two works, in connection with
their respective shares of the trade, they will be found to stand as follows,
duiing the four years from 1847 to 1850, inclusive :
rail road.
Year.
1847,
$1.25
per ton = 1.32 cents per
ton per
mile.
1848,
1.12
do. = 1.18
do.
do.
do.
1849,
1.76
do. = 1.83
do.
do.
do.
1850,
1.53
do. = 1.61
do.
do.
do.
Average for 4 yrs.
1.42
do. = 1.48
do.
do.
do.
C A K A L .
Year.
1847,
$1.15
per ton = 1.07
cents per
ton per
mile.
1848,
1.00
do. = 0.93
do.
do¬
do.
1849,
I..30
do. = 1.20
do.
do.
do.
1850,
1.41
do. = 1..30
do.
do.
do.
Average for 4 yrs.
, 1.22
do. = 1.12
do.
do.
do.
In 1847 and 1848, the
two works were
still in competition, and
the last two years they had compromised their rates. It will be observed
that during the years of competition they kept nearly together in their
charges—(he rail road being about ten per cent, in advance of the canal.
After the compromise, they separated to the extent of 21^ per cent, on
an average of two years, yet but 8i per cent in the last year.
18
Notwithstanding, however, these differences against the rail road, that
work has carried four-fifths of the trade, for the four years ; and if the
canal had not been injured, and all the trade it might have carried in
1850 be taken from the rail road account and given to the canal, the for
mer would still have carried three-fuurihs of the whole quantity.
The rivalry of these two works aflbrds the best example of the ability of
rail roads to compete successfully with canals, where the same are in con¬
tact with each other ; and there are others which it may it may not be
necessary for me to bring to your notice, in disposing of this part of your
resolution.
The rate of toll assumed by the canal for a transit of not less than
500,000 tons, viz: 37J cents from Cumberland to Alexandria, or iWff
cent per ton per mile, is by no means a fair index of what experience will
be likely to establish, when the canal comes to be fully tried and its capa¬
city ascertained.
There are no examples it is believed of such low rates to be met with
upon any important canal in this country, and they could be sustained
only by an almost total sacrifice of the original capital invested in the
canal.
Thus within the last year—upon the
1. Pennsylvania Canal the toll for use of the canal is, per ton per
mile, - 0.50c.
2. Tide Water Canal the toll for use of the canal is, per ton per
mile, 0.50c.
3. Pennsylvania and Ohio Canal the toll for use of the canal is,
per ton per mile, 0.50c,
4. Erie Extension Canal the toll for use of the canal is, per ton
per mile, 0.4ÜC.
5. Schuylkill Navigation the toll for use of the canal is, per ton
per mile, ......... 0.70c.
Average of the above rates, per ton per mile, ..... 0.520c.
And this average of of a cent per ton per mile is 2| times as great
as the rate of tVA of a eent which the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
speaks of charging.
The lowest rate to which the Reading Rail Road forced down the
Schuylkill Navigation, by the rivalry which so long existed between them,
was fiin of a cent per ton per mile, or 37 per cent higher than the rate
of tWij proposed by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. It must be stated
also that as soon as the rivalry ceased the tolls advanced to tWîti or to 3-J
times the rate proposed by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.
III. "What amount of trade, both in receipt and delivery has the Ches¬
apeake and Ohio Canal withdrawn from this city, and the particular de¬
scription of produce and merchandize so withdrawn, as also to what
extent, as far as it can be fairly computed, it will be hereafter withdrawn,
including the immense mineral wealth of the upper counties of Maryland,
by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal—a work in which our State has an
investment of eight millions, and for which the people of this city are
now most seriously and onerously taxed."
19
By reference to the Twenty-Second Annual Report of the President
and Directors of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, it will be seen
that up to the Slst of December, 1847, the descending trade of the canal
amounted to 81,263 tons. Among the items will be found enumerated,
2-36,620 barrels of flour; 240,000 bushels of wheat; 241,281 bushels of
corn; 13,200 bushels of oats ; l,.560,9-56 feet of lumber; 39,000 bricks ;
45,42-3 bushels oflal; 7,225 bushels of corn meal, &c., &c.
The total revenues during the year, consisting of tolls, water-rents, 8s.c.,
amounted to $63,438 03, and the expenses to $-50,889 03.
What amount of this tonnage has been diverted from the city of Balti¬
more, it would be difficult to estimate, but inasmuch as the Rail Road and
Canal do not clash below the Point of Rocks, it is fair to estimate, that
not more than one-half of the aggregate tonnage, and less than $-30,000
of tolls can be said to have been diverted from the city of Baltimore. In
the amount of receipts for the year, it may be proper to state that there
will be found included 20,778 tons of ascending trade.
As yet no part of the mineral wealth of the upper counties of Maryland,
has been diverted to the District cities, and the monthly operations of the
Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company will show, that the transporta¬
tion of coal to Locust Point has greatly increased.
The results of the future it will be difficult to estimate; but as the sub¬
ject of the coal transportation has been examined in detail, in my reply
to your first and second resolutions, I shall not trouble you with any far¬
ther comments upon this branch of the subject.
IV. "An enquiry into the expediency of making the canal by appro¬
priating the dividend stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Com¬
pany, at present owned by the city, and amounting to about $600,000,
and all future dividends in stock or money for its construction; and fur¬
ther to operate as security for the interest, which may arise upon any
bonds the Maryland Canal Company may find it necessary to create for
the completion of this work; and whether the dividend stock of the Balti¬
more and Ohio Rail Road Company and the tolls of the Canal Company
pledged not only for the payment of the interest, but the extinction of the
bonds would not give to our city the advantages of one of the most valu¬
able works of internal improvement known to the age, and without an
additional fraction of taxation."
The answer to the above resolution will be found sufficiently detailed
in the comments which I have made upon the expediency of the cross¬
cut canal. If I have succeeded in establishing the positions, assumed in
my reply to your first and third resolutions, it will hardly be necessary to
tax you farther, by an effort to show that the appropriation of the dividend
stock to the objects contemplated, would be destructive of the best inter¬
ests of the city of Baltimore and an abandonment of the just expectations
of those, who have heretofore preserved it intact, with a view to the
extinguishment of the heavy burthens under which you are now laboring.
I cannot understand upon what principle it is contended, that a work
involving an outlay of $3,650,000, and promising neither interest upon
the capital invested, nor trade to the city of Baltimore, can be constructed
"without an additional fraction of taxation," unless it be meant, that the
city of Baltimore can afford to give up her interest in the dividend stock.
20
without any reference to the reduction of the tax to which this stock is
already pledged. Nor can I understand how a work which has cost
$17,000,000, and is now hardly meeting its current expenses, as is seen
by the Company's Report of June, 1850, can be characterized, "as one of
most valuable works of internal inprovement known to the age."
If it were so, I am sure no interest would have more reason to rejoice,
than the city of Baltimore, who is bearing so large a portion of the tax,
which its construction has entailed upon the State of Maryland.
But why appropriate the divided stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
Road Companyl Is it not just as legitimate to authorize an absolute sub¬
scription, if the object is one which so strongly recommends itself to the
patronage of the city ?
When the subject of the sale of the dividend stock held by the city in
this road, was agitated during the last winter, I could not but indulge the
hope, in common with other tax payers, that the city of Baltimore would
enter into no new plans, which could by possibility impair her interest in,
or in any way divert her attention from a great work of improvement, with
which her prosperity was so closely identified.
The Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road began with a subscription of
$•3,000,000 on the part of this city. This great work was the offspring
of wise councils, and has continued to engross a large share of the atten¬
tion of your business men, since the period of its origin. In the midst of
the fearful rivalries with which )mu are surrounded, what would have
been the situation of this community, if it had been permitted to languish
for the want of adequate encouragement.? All that you have of hope in
the future is centred in this road. The commercial existence of the city
of Baltimore depends upon it. Let no man shut his eyes upon a fact
which is every day becoming too apparent to be lost sight of. It was com¬
menced under her auspices, and with the same countenance and support
it must be pressed to a final completion.
When I took charge of this road, more than two years ago, the Board
had little expectation that it would be completed to the Ohio river with¬
out further and large aid from the city of Baltimore.
The accomplishment of a sum little short of $7,000,000 was no ordi¬
nary undertaking; and they firmly relied on whatever support might have
been required, in the effort to make the road to its destined terminus.
But the wish of the Board, from the first, has been to throw this Company
upon its own independent resources, to relieve the city of Baltimore and
every other interest, as far as it can be done, from any burthen which the
accomplishment of this great work may necessarilv involve. In this wish
so far, they have, not been disappointed, and they indulge the hope that
the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road may continue to combine within itself
the elements of its own success, and may reach its terminus without
embarrassment to the city or any other interest.
But I am free to say, that with this road unfinished—a road in which
you have an interest of more than $4,000,000, I would appropriate the
stock which you have embarked in it to no new enterprize, whether it be
the introduction of water, the supply of the city with gas, or the construc¬
tion of the cross-cut canal, be the inducements what they may. I would
hold the dividend stock as a fund for my own safety as a stockholder—
21
against any probable contingency—for the purposes of this road should it
be needed in expanding its usefulness, and increasing its dividends, or
the reduction of your taxes, to which perhaps it more legitimately belongs,
when it can be converted without sacrifice. This is the disposition, and
the only disposition, I would make of your dividend stock in this road.
It has been too much the habit of late, I regret to say, to overlook the
relation in which the city of Baltimore stands towards this work. She is
now its largest stockholder. But the $4,01)0,000 which she represents is
far from being the full measure of her investment. This is to be estimated
by her increased and increasing capital; by her commercial prosperity
now and hereafter ; and by the general activity which marks her progress.
These are some of the results, present and prospective, of the support
which the city has given to this road. Her interest is not the mere invest¬
ment of $4,000,000 in the stock of the Company. We are to take larger
and more expanded views. We are to look to the benefit which this road
is likely to dispense, as well among those who aided in its prosecution by
the direct appropriation of their capital, as those who stand towards it in
the relation of tax payers, to meet the onus imposed by the city's sub¬
scription We have united in a common effort to save this community
from the effect of rivalries which threaten its destruction. When the tax
payer complains of the grievousness of the burthens which he has volun¬
tarily assumed, he must not oveilook the effect which has already resulted
from his effort to complete this road. Let him consider whether the ac¬
count is not already more than balanced. Has he not added to the value
of his real estate.' Is he not better off than before the commencement of
this work ?
But why the anxiety to connect the dividend stock of a company in
which the city of Baltimore is so deeply interested, with every measure of
domestic policy, however doubtful its character, which may suggest itself
to the public attention ? Is it from a desire to evince your want of con¬
fidence in the enterprize, by an over restlessness to get rid of its stock ?
Admit it to be practicable to appropriate this fund at its full par value,
to the construction of this cross-cut canal, and that it would be sufficient
to accomplish the object, would it be a wise appropriation of your funds?
when, as I have shown, you have the Main Stem of the Baltimore and
Ohio Rail Road, offering equal, if not greater, facilities, and the Washing¬
ton Branch, not yet taxed to one-half of its capacity, connecting almost
the very point upon the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, with which it is
your purpose to intersect, and the city of Baltimore already interested to
an extent of more than $4,000,000 in these works ?
But assume the measure to be one of rivalry—to interfere with the
prospects of this road, can the city of Baltimore hesitate as to her inter¬
est? Can she draw from a stupendous work which has made her what
she is, and is destined, with proper management, to elevate her still
higher in the future, to foster a rival enterprize—to throw obstacles in its
way, and to impair confidence in its results. Would it not be a suicidal
blow aimed at her own best interests,—and a useless interference with
the success of plans upon which her existence and vitality depend ?
Would it be a judicious appropriation of the money of your tax payers,
who are now struggling under the weight of burdens which they have
4
22
assumed for the great and noble purpose of connecting this city -with the
resources of the mighty west ?
It is too late in the day to talk of the construction of canals, even
■when results are less problematical than they are known to be in the in¬
stance before us. If the question of a subscription to the cross-cut canal,
was an abstract one,—wholly disconnected with the dividend stock, or
the taxes of your people—if the whole amount necessary to accomplish
the object was ready to be appropriated without a dollar of burden to the
city—if you had the power by adjusting the toll sheet of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal, to make the cross-cut a free canal from the point of in¬
tersection to the city of Baltimore,—which was always contemplated as
an indispensable feature in the accomplishment of the enterprize,—the
appropriation of your money to any such object, would be equally fruit¬
less, as to any beneficial results which you could hope to realize. There
are other and more desirable objects to which your capital may be direct¬
ed; and I sincerely hope that the city of Baltimore may not be induced
to part with its dividend stock, or any other available fund at her disposal,
for the purpose of building a canal, in this enlightened age, at a cost of
near $4,000,000, to compete with existing rail roads, which already af¬
ford the cheapest and most advantageous highway for the trade which it
is proposed to develope.
I have the honor to be,
With great respect.
Your obed't serv't,
THO. S WANN.
and therefore submit the following preamble and resolutions :
HUGH BOLTON,
F. LITTIG SHAFFER,
WILLIAM B. NORRIS.
Second Branch.
H. P. BROOKS,
First Branch.
Whereas, it is proposed to construct a cross-cut or branch canal,
to connect the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal at some eligible point on
the line of said canal to the city of Baltimore ;
And whereas the said cross-cut canal will involve a cost little short
of four millions of dollars, ($4,000,000,) an amount altogether be¬
yond the ability of this corporation, without a serious tax upon the
people ; whether it be drawn directly from the treasury or by the ap¬
propriation of the dividend stock of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
Road Company ;
And whereas it is believed that the coal trade intended to be se¬
cured to the city of Baltimore, would be as well if not better ac¬
commodated by the main stem and Washington branch of the Balti-
23
more and Ohio rail road, than could be expected from the contem¬
plated extension of the Chesapeake and Ohio canel ; Therefore,
Resolved by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, that it is
inexpedient for the city to make any appropriation towards the cross¬
cut or Maryland canal, as contemplated by the resolutions referred to
the committee.
Resolved further, that the committee be discharged from the fur¬
ther consideration of the subject.