Eads, James B.
Inter -oceanic ship railway. .Addres:
St. Louis, Mo. ,1880.

"I give theft Books
, for the fo^hsttngtf a. Cpifagt ai-thi^ Cvlofif

¦ iuiiBEMJSEr -

Gift of
Prof. Henry W. Farnam
m\ 

INIER-OCEANIC SHIP RAILWAY.

ADDRESS OF JAMES B. EADS,

n '

DELIVERED BEFORE THE

SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

-A.TJC3-TJST 11, -A_. 3D. 1880.

ST. LOUIS, MO. ;
I/EVI90N & BLYTIIE STATIONKBY COMPANY PHINT.
1880.

ADDRESS.

Mr. President and Gentlemen :
I thank you for the opportunity which you have given
me to address you. The question of the construction of
a highway for commerce across the American Isthmus,
is one worthy of the attention of the people of the whole
country, but to those of California it possesses a singu
lar interest and importance. Any proj ect which promises
cheap and quick transportation for the products of your
fertile soil, which holds out the hope of setting you free
from the depressing effects of the high rates which you
are compelled to pay upon all of your exports, may well
claim your most serious consideration. It is needless for
me to dwell, however, upon the importance of this matter,
for I know that I am addressing those who fully appre
ciate it. You have, learned it from that best of teachers-
experience. Year after year you have seen your broad
acres yield the most abundant harvests. Blessed with
a singularly genial climate and fruitful soil; a popu
lation active and energetic; a ready market for your
grain in the Bast, and a clamorous demand for it from
the markets of Europe, it might well be supposed that
your people were rapidly acquiring that wealth which
is the legitimate fruit of their labors. Such, however, is
far from being the case. Instead of being blest with the
prosperity which you should enjoy, there is on every
hand evidence of depression. Of what value to you are

your enormous crops if the cost of transportation prac
tically closes to them the markets of the world? Open
up cheap water transportation, and all trouble is at an
end. Then, and not until then, will you enjoy that pros
perity which legitimately belongs to the development of
your wonderful resources.
I am indebted to Capt. Merry for the following figures,
as to the accuracy of which I have no doubt : It appears
that last year the surplus of your wheat alone amounted
to 600,000 tons, and it is estimated that this year the
surplus will reach 800,000 tons. The average rate of
freight around the Horn is $15 per ton, and, after careful
investigation, it, was found that such cargo could be
transported by the Mcaraguan Canal at an aggregate
cost of $10 per ton, thus saving upon the total annual
shipment the large sum of nearly $4,000,000, or fifteen
cents per bushel. This fact is something for the pro
ducers of California to ponder over. I am told by some
of your intelligent citizens, who have doubtless thought
but little upon the subject, that they have grave doubts
as to the value of a ship transit across the Isthmus,
because it would probably lose to San Francisco the
trade of the Orient. But must this trade, which no
doubt benefits this city to some extent, be enjoyed at the
expense of the producers of the State ? Must the farmers
lose fifteen cents per bushel on their wheat, year after
year, for the benefit that the arrival of an occasional ship
load of tea gives to a few individuals in San Francisco.
Must the wine 'growers of the State have their profits
continually discounted by the extra cost of carriage
around Cape Horn, to retain a trade that must soon be
shared by other ports on the Pacific that are the termini

of other transcontinental roads ? Will not the real inter
ests of this city be more surely advanced by fostering
the home industries of the great State of California?
Fifteen cents per bushel saved to the farmer in transport
ing his wheat to a foreign market means fifteen cents
added to his profit on each bushel of it shipped abroad.
It means more than this. It means fifteen cents on every
bushel of it that is consumed at home, also, because
that which is used in the State has its value fixed by
that which is sold abroad. The same thing is true of the
profits of the wine and wool growers, the miner, and
indeed every producer in the State who has to depend
on a foreign market to purchase his surplus. In the four
million dollars of annual saving to the State, to which I
have alluded, reference is only made to your exports of
wheat. If to this be added the increased value of that
which is consumed in the State, and the savings on your
other exports, the sum will be found great enough to pay
for the cost of a ship railway in four years out of the
benefits that will accrue to the people of this State alone.
If we are answered that to raise the value of the wheat
consumed in the State will make it cost more to the
home consumers, I reply that the wine grower, the miner
and other producers will enjoy like advantages with the
farmer, because the ship transit across the Isthmus
brings their productions ten thousand miles nearer to
New York and seven thousand miles nearer to London,
and this fact alone will add increased value to every acre
in this State, and benefit every one who breathes the
genial air of the Pacific Ocean.
In arriving at the estimate of $4,000,000, the tolls to be
charged for passing through the canal were fixed at $2

6
per ton. Now, as the ship railway which I propose to
construct will not cost more than half as much as the
proposed canal, the tolls can be reduced in like propor
tion, and thus admit of an additional saving per annum
to you on your wheat shipments of $800,000. If the rail
way were built at Tehauntepec, not only would you save
in tolls, but there would be a saving in carrying distance
over Nicaragua of seven or eight hundred miles, and a
corresponding reduction in the freights. The surplus of
which I have spoken is in wheat alone. I do not esti
mate the enormous crop of wool, wine, base ores, tallow,
quicksilver and other products which annually leave
your shores for distant markets. The construction of
the Nicaraguan Canal would require eight years ; that
of the railway would not exceed four years. Thus we
find that the additional time consumed by the former in
in its construction would entail a loss upon you of the
aggregate sum of about $20,000,000.
Several plans are proposed by which to secure a pas
sage through or across the Isthmus for ocean vessels.
M. De Lesseps urges a tide-level canal; Col. Menocal
and his associates a canal with locks, while I am con
vinced that the only practicable solution of the problem
lies in the construction of a ship railway.
I am not insensible to the fact that the proposal to
carry vessels with their cargoes upon a railway seems
to many persons rather to be the wild dream of an en
thusiast than the sober, well-digested project of a prac
tical engineer. When I approach the subject, therefore,
I realize that there are many prejudices against it,
prejudices which it is quite natural for any one, not
an engineer, to entertain. I will, therefore, endeavor to

explain, in as simple a way as possible, the plans which
I propose, and I am convinced that when you fully un
derstand them you will be satisfied that a ship railway
is entirely practicable. When it was proposed, years
ago, to apply steam to ocean vessels, the proposition met
with any amount of ridicule, and he who made it was
regarded as having lost his reason. Now the white sails
have almost disappeared from the ocean, while the waters
of every sea are plowed by the mighty steamers which
have become the most reliable vehicles of commerce
throughout the world. You will remember that when
the proposal referred to was made the propelling power
of steam was a well-known fact, and its usefulness for
certain purposes was admitted. The objection was that
it could not be applied to ocean vessels, and there was
no end to the reasons given in support of this objection.
The most earnest opponents of this innovation upon
established usage were found among ship-owners, cap
tains and sailors, who were all convinced that the applica
tion of steam to vessels would be the inauguration of an
era of shipwreck and disaster greater than the world had
ever before seen. That era has not yet come, though I
am not sure but that there are some who expect and
wait for it yet.
The idea of transporting vessels upon a railway is by
no means a novel one. Forty years ago this method was
employed in transporting canal boats across the Alle
ghany Mountains in Pennsylvania. When it was found
necessary to connect the eastern and western portions of
the canal at Johnstown and Hollidaysburg, two methods
presented themselves — one was to cut through the moun
tains and make the canal a continuous one ; the other

8
was to build a railway to carry the canal-boats over the
mountains from one portion of the canal to the other.
Inasmuch as the railway was found to be incomparably
cheaper, it was constructed and used until the Pennsyl
vania Railroad made it unnecessary. The railway thus
used in connection with the canal was constructed in a
very rude and primitive manner. It consisted of longi
tudinal pieces of wood, on which were placed rails of .flat
bar-iron. This rude structure was found to be amply
sufficient to admit of the safe passage of the boats. Now
just here I might ask, in passing, whether it does not
seem reasonable if, forty years ago, these canal-boats
could be thus safely carried over the Alleghany Moun
tains, that a railway can now be constructed which would
with equal or greater certainty carry the largest vessels ?
He who is familiar with the wondrous improvements in
everything connected with engineering in the last forty
years would scarcely answer this question in the nega
tive. There is in operation at present, within a few
miles of Washington, a railway upon which canal-boats,
heavily laden with their cargoes, are daily transported
up a steep grade from the Potomac river to the canal
above. In Europe I know of two railways of a similar
character now in operation. Surely if a railway can be
constructed of sufficient strength to carry a canal-boat,
there is no reason why one could not be constructed
strong enough to carry an ocean vessel. The whole
question is one of force, and whenever an engineer
can bring a problem down to this, its solution is an
easy one.
In the construction of a ship railway, of course, the
whole w.ork would have to be upon a very large scale.

The road-bed must be a solid one, and all machinery
employed of a character consistent with the great weight
of the vessels to be transported. I propose to employ,
instead of two rails, as in ordinary railways, not less
than twelve rails,' and under each car to place a multi
tude of wheels. In this way the pressure upon the rails
would be so distributed that at no point would it equal
that imposed by an ordinary first-class freight engine
while at rest.
One of the first objections presented to the mind by
this plan is the great weight to be borne by the road
bed. A cradle for a ship a'nd cargo weighing six thou
sand tons would be about 350 feet long, and would rest
on 12 rails spaced 4 feet apart ; hence we would have a
bearing 44 feet wide by 350 long, which is 15,400 square
feet. This is equal to 780 pounds only on each square
foot of the road-bed. A brick wall 8 feet high will give
the same pressure. Surely, when we look at the stately
houses built on the mud flats which you have reclaimed
from your magnificent Bay, you cannot doubt the ability
of the solid earth on which the ship railway would be
built to sustain the largest ships in transit. If you will
observe the slight tracks made by the shoes of a good-
sized trotter on one of your dirt roads, and compute the
pressure of the horse upon the earth, you will find it is
nearly or quite eight times as great per square foot as
our ship railway would impose. The weight of the
horse is alternately borne upon two feet only while
trotting. If we assume the area of each shoe to be 12
inches, the weight of the animal must rest at each step
upon but 24 square inches of earth, or the sixth part of
one square foot. If we assume the weight of the horse

10
to be 1,000 pounds, he would press the earth at each step
with nearly eight times as much force per square foot
as the largest ship on our railway ; and yet his great
pressure leaves scarcely an imprint of the shoe, although
to the weight of the horse there is to be' added the force
or sudden blow with which the animal strikes the earth.
On each of the twelve rails, under a cradle 350 feet
long, we would have 115 wheels. Each rail would then
carry one-twelfth of the six thousand tons, or 500 tons.
This would be about 4 tons and one-third on each wheel.
As the drivers of a large freight engine at rest give a
pressure of over six tons each upon the rail, it will be
seen that we really need no heavier rails and ties than are
used on first-class railways. With the pressure of the
ship thus distributed, it is plain that she cannot bend,
twist or strain in any way, unless the earth gives way
under her, and this is not likely to occur if ordinary care
be used in building and maintaining the road-bed. It
may be said that the rails cannot all be kept perfectly
level. This is true to a certain extent, but an inequality
of one inch in them could only occur as a result of neg
ligence ; but, to remedy any possible unevenness in the
rails, each wheel would have over it a strong spiral steel
spring that would admit of several inches of play.
To avoid bending the ship in changing from, one grade
to another, the cradle would be run on to what may be
called a tipping table placed in the line of the railway.
This would rest on a fulcrum at the middle and on hy
draulic rams at each end, so that the ends could be raised
or lowered to conform to the different grades. To avoid
curves in the railway, turntables long enough to receive
the cradle would be placed at necessary points in the

11
main track, and on these the cradle would be turned to
the right or left, to change the direction of the ship.
People who think it impracticable to carry a loaded ship
in this way with perfect safety, know but little of the
immense resource which the science of mechanics gives
to an engineer. There are many ways by which a vessel
may be supported, with absolute safety to ship and
cargo, when out of the water. It has been suggested
that the ship should be carried in a tank of water ; but
if the ship is not strong enough to be carried with her
cargo on a dock out of water, on a smooth railway, when
she has been built to buffet the hurricanes of the ocean,
do we lessen the difficulty by building a second vessel,
in which to float the first one, which must not only be
strong enough to carry the ship and her load, but a
mobile cargo of water weighing half as much more ? To
carry the ship in a tank of water would convert an im
aginary difficulty into a real one, and besides adding to
the cost of the railway, would impose upon it a vast
amount of unprofitable cargo.
In the case of the ordinary freight cars upon our rail
ways, you have observed that the trucks are placed at
each end of the car, and thus that part of the rails where
the wheels are placed alone bears the whole weight of
the load, while that portion of them between the trucks
is doing no service at all. This method of constructing
cars is necessary where there are curves upon the road,
but as the road which I propose to construct across the
Isthmus will be free from curves, the wheels may be
placed at very short distances apart under the whole
body of the car, and thus the great weight be distributed.
With a sufficient number of tracks and wheels, there will

12
be such a distribution of the weight that the largest ves
sels afloat can be carried without imposing any greater
burthen upon the rail at any given point than that im
posed a hundred times a day upon the rails of every
first-class road in the country.
Each wheel will be separate from the others, so that, in
case of breakage, any wheel can be taken out without
affecting the others. The strength of one or two wheels,
or that of a dozen of them, is so insignificant when com
pared with the whole number, that derailment of the car
would be almost impossible.
The cradle upon which the vessel will rest may be
compared with a dry-dock. The only real difference
between it and an ordinary dry-dock is that the former
is stationary, while this one is placed upon wheels. This
cradle or dock upon wheels will be backed down upon
the railway, on a grade of about one foot in 100, until it
reaches a sufficient depth of water to enable the vessel
to be floated upon it. When the ship is in position, she
will be safely secured over the cradle, and then the car
will be slowly drawn forward. As the water becomes
more shallow, the vessel will naturally take her position
upon the cradle ; the supports will then be moved up
against her hull, while still afloat, so that she cannot
move on the cradle, and she will then be drawn up the
incline until she reaches the level track above. Here two
powerful engines will be attached, and the vessel will be
at once started upon her journey across the Isthmus.
At the end of her journey she will be put into the water
in the same manner that she was taken out.
I think that I have said enough to satisfy you that this
plan is a very simple one, and entirely practicable. I

13
have shown you that the question is one in which every
element can be accurately calculated. That the distri
bution of weight affords an ample guarantee that the
road-bed will be strong enough to bear the burthens im
posed upon it, and surely no one will doubt that if an
ordinary dock can be built strong enough to support a
large vessel, a dry-dock of equal or greater strength can
be constructed which may be moved with facility on
wheels. There is scarcely any limit to the power which
may be employed.
But at this point I will pause for a moment to notice
a difficulty which no doubt presents itself to the minds
of many of those who hear me. Probably you will all
at once concede that the construction of the railroad is
practicable, and that vessels, however great their ton
nage, can be carried upon it ; but you doubt whether it
would, be possible to carry a vessel upon the railway
without straining or otherwise injuring her. I have
found that this objection is urged with great pertinacity
by many of those who are most interested in seeing
the isthmian barrier removed, and therefore, while I
know that the fear is groundless, I am prepared to re
spect the opinions of those by whom it is entertained,
and concede to them the very best of motives. I call
your attention to the fact that the objection referred to
is urged, not by educated engineers, but mainly, if not
entirely, by non-experts. Now this is not the way in
which you reason, my doubting friends, in the ordinary
matters of every-day life. If you have a business
complication requiring professional advice, you seek a
lawyer in whom you have confidence, and follow his
counsel. If you find it necessary to employ the ser-

14
vices of a physician, you accept what he says as verity,
and, never doubting, obey his instructions ; and yet,
when the most cultivated men in their profession de
clare in the most emphatic terms that a ship can be
safely carried by rail, you are unwilling to accept their
decision. Some of the ablest engineers in this country
and abroad have declared unhesitatingly that loaded
vessels may be thus carried in perfect safety. Among
those who have so declared is Hon. E. J. Reed, late
Chief Constructor of the British Navy, an engineer of
the highest reputation, whose knowledge and expe
rience in ship-building are second, perhaps, to that of no
man living. Indeed, I may safely assure you that since
I first broached the subject of a ship railway, I have
not found a single engineer who has expressed a doubt
as to the practicability of the project. Does it not
seem reasonable, then, that you should accept the views
of those who are best- able to decide these questions,
and who would be unwilling to hazard their reputation
upon a decision where the least tangible doubt existed
as to the correctness of their views ?
Those who are most persistent in the belief that a
vessel in transitu upon the railway would be strained
or burst asunder by the weight of her cargo pressing
against her sides, are controlled, not by reason, but
(unconsciously no doubt) by prejudice. They imagine
that when in its element a vessel has the pressure of the
water constantly outside, to counteract that of her cargo
within. In this they are mistaken. In stormy weather
and in a rough sea there are times when every part of
the vessel is exposed to a strain far greater than it is
possible to subject her to on a ship railway. There are

15
times, too, when the resistance of the water is almost
wholly withdrawn from different parts of the ship.
In crossing on the "Scotia," in heavy weather, I saw
one wheel frequently out of the water high enough
to drive a horse and cart under it. Of course, a great
deal of support was taken away then from the ship's
center. At another instant the huge wheel would
be almost wholly submerged, and the bow and stern be
high in the air. Then, as the ship passed over the
, crest of that wave, the stern would rise higher . still,
while the bow would plunge downwards through the
trough and rush so deeply into the next wave that no
one could stand on the deck at that end of the ship.
At the next instant the bow would be uplifted high on
the second wave, while the stern would sink almost out
of sight down in the trough of the sea. It is not pos
sible to strain a vessel thus severely on a ship railway.
If she be bent at all in the direction in which she is
most easily bent, longitudinally, she has got to bend the
earth itself under her.
A vessel that could not ride with safety upon the pro
posed railway is unseaworthy, and wholly unfit to be
trusted with either life or property. But it must be
remembered that, should it be necessary to give any
additional strength to the sides of the vessel, almost any
number of supports may be employed. These can be
made to extend from the sides or galleries of the cradle,
and could be so applied that injury to the vessel would
be simply impossible. In this connection I may add
that it is by no means an uncommon thing to place a
vessel, loaded with her cargo, upon a dry-dock for
repairs. Quite recently, the " Goethe," one of the large

16
steamers belonging to one of the German lines, was
placed with her full cargo upon the New York dry-
dock, where she remained for a number of days. In
England, the same thing has been done with other large
steamers. If no injury results to vessels thus handled,
it would seem that their safety upon the movable cradle
or dock of a ship railway should not be doubted.
But suppose a canal be constructed, is there no dan
ger of injury to vessels passing through it ? I do not
know of a single route across the Isthmus where it
would not be necessary in the construction of a canal
to cut rock to a greater or less extent. In passing
through these cuts there would always be danger to the
vessel. Were she to take a sheer at such a place, and
were she to be carelessly handled, she could not fail to
be injured. But, say some, danger from contact with
the rock sides can be averted by the use of floating
fenders of wood placed at the sides of the canal.
True, but all these appliances involve large expense in
their purchase and repair, and increase the estimated
cost of the canal and its maintenance.
Another and perhaps the leading objection to the'
canal is its locks. Commerce demands a removal of
all barriers, natural or artificial, so far as practicable.
Here would be the removal of a natural and the substi
tution of an artificial barrier. A canal with its numer
ous locks would be a constant menace to your com
merce. An injury to any one lock renders the whole
work useless until it is repaired. Experience has shown
that a navigation dependent upon locks, whether in
slack water or canal, is hampered by many delays,
while the expense involved in the necessary repairs of

17
the work is a constant tax upon the commerce passing
through it. Another strong objection to the canal is,
that when constructed it cannot be enlarged to meet the
wants of increasing commerce, without an expense so
great as to practically preclude any effort in that direc
tion. This is a very important consideration. A canal
so constructed as to meet the wants of present com
merce might be wholly inadequate to accommodate the
ships of ten years hence. The tendency of the day is
to increase the size and tonnage of vessels, and who
can tell what the ships of the future may be? There are
a number of canals, constructed years ago, and thought
at the time to be of ample proportions, which are now
almost abandoned or nearly useless. But it is said :
" Construct the canal in such a manner as to leave an
abundant margin for the increased size of vessels."
This, of course, could be done, but the increase in size
means an increase in cost, largely in excess of the
amount estimated. Just in proportion as you increase
the cost of the work, just in such proportion do you
increase the tolls and charges which will be imposed
upon your commerce. These tolls and charges must,
of necessity, have relation to and be regulated by the
aggregate amount invested in the construction. You
must never lose sight of the fact that the great object
which you are seeking is to secure cheap transportation
for your products. Here is just the weak point in M.
De Lesseps1 scheme. That a tide-level canal could be
constructed at Panama no engineer seriously doubts,
but it is very certain that such a work would cost from
three to four hundred million dollars, and that the cost
of maintaining it would be beyond all reasonable esti
mate. Were you to adopt this as a means of escape

18
from the evils which you now endure, you would soon
realize that you were in the position of the doves which,
through fear of the kite, sought the protection of the
hawk. This question of the cost and maintenance of
any work constructed upon the Isthmus is a vital one,
and should go very far toward influencing you in the
conclusions which you reach.
In the very able report upon the Nicaraguan Canal,
recently made to your Chamber of Commerce, it is esti
mated that eight per cent, per annum could be realized
by the company, and the tolls not exceed two dollars per
ton. This estimate is based upon one hundred million
dollars as the aggregate cost of the work, which sum is
less than one-third of that required to build the tide-level
canal proposed by M. De Lesseps. The annual tonnage
to be carried is placed in this report at one million tons
below that estimated by De Lesseps (namely, at only
5,000,000 tons). Now, if the Nicaraguan Canal Com
pany can pay an eight per cent, dividend annually by
the imposition of a toll of but two dollars per ton, the
same dividend can be declared by the ship railway upon
the imposition of a toll of but one dollar per ton, for the
reason that the cost of the ship railway will not exceed
fifty millions of dollars, or one-half the sum required for
the construction of the canal ; nor will its maintenance
and operating expenses be in any greater proportion.
I am convinced that the estimate of the cost of con
structing the canal at Nicaragua is far below what it will
actually cost, and that it cannot possibly be built as pro
posed for less than $100,000,000. Should the proposed
work be constructed, it will be found that the cost of
improving the harbor at Graytown will far exceed any
figure which the sanguine advocates of the scheme are

19
now willing to place upon it. The cost of maintaining its
harbors when improved, that of dredging the canal and
keeping it and its locks in repair, and a hundred other
minor expenses, demand the attention of those by whose
products and labor the necessary interest on the capital
invested must be paid.
Standing in your presence to-day, and conscious of the
full import of my words, I declare to you —
1. That a ship railway can be constructed at one-half
the cost of a canal with locks, and in one-half the time.
2. That, when completed, the railway can be maintained
and operated at a cost not exceeding that of a canal.
3. That your largest vessels, with their cargoes, can
be safely carried from ocean to ocean in one-half the time
required for a passage through the canal.
These considerations alone, it seems to me, should de
cide you at once in favor of the railway. But these are
not the only ones. The railroad, when completed, can
be enlarged from time to time as the wants of commerce
may demand. And should the commerce using the road
demand a double instead of a single line of tracks, the
work can be speedily done and at a reasonable expense,
and without interfering with its traffic. Another matter
which I desire to suggest is this : Wherever a canal is
practicable, a railway is also practicable ; and at some
points a railway could be constructed where a canal
would be out of the question. As you reduce the dis
tance for the carrying of your freight you reduce the
cost of transportation. There can be no doubt a ship
railway could be constructed at Tehuantepec, and if this
route were selected almost seven hundred miles of trans
portation would be saved over that necessary if the tran
sit was by Nicaragua.

20
But I have already trespassed too long upon your
attention, and will draw my remarks to a close. The
opportunity is now afforded you to have a work con
structed which will strike the shackles from your com
merce, and contribute wealth and happiness to your
people. When I proposed, years ago, to give to New
Orleans and the Mississippi Valley a safe and deep out
let to the Gulf, and assured the people that 1 was able
soon to remove the barrier which barred the entrance to
their mighty river, I was met with the same old cry of
'¦Canal;" "Give us a canal!" said they, "that is the
only relief from our troubles ; a canal and happiness are
synonymous terms." When I pressed upon Congress
and the people my project for improving the mouth of
the river by the application of the Jetty System, a reso
lution was actually passed by the New Orleans Chamber
of Commerce recommending the construction of a canal
from Fort St. Philip to the Gulf, and a letter, earnestly
requesting me to cease further effort in behalf of the
Jetties, was addressed to me by a large number of the
merchants of that city. Convinced that these people
were misguided and blind to their own best interests, I
heeded not their requests, but pressed my project with
redoubled zeal until success attended my efforts, arid the
work was intrusted by Congress to me. To-day the
Mississippi River is open to the largest ship that floats,
and all of the business interests of New Orleans, cursed
as they were with stagnation and decay, have been in
spired with energy and blest with new life. To the pro
ducers, the merchants, the business men of this great
State, are now offered like benefits. It remains to be
seen whether my efforts will be hampered by your oppo
sition or encouraged by your aid and influence.

08540 4516

¦

¦

¦ ¦¦

¦