lature, was one dollar per ton. All these facts
they did know, or ought to have known, before
they should have assented to any reduction of
tolls on the canal. They also knew it was their
duty to know that for years past, upwards of one
hundred thousand tons of coal, (last year 143,-
000,) which were transported from Allegany to
Baltimore, on the railroad, at a cost of $2 46 per
ton, met with a ready sale at the latter place,
and that the supply was unequal to the demand.
With such a knowledge of facts, what was the
obvious duty of the agents of the State represen-
ting its interests? Unquestionably to have con-
tinued the tolls at one dollar per ton, after the
canal was in operation, for such a length of time
as to have enabled them fully to ascertain what
toll, consistently with the interest of the State,
could safely be charged on coal transported on
the canal to the District cities. If they had done
what, from aught now before us, or within our
knowledge it was their duty to have done, what
would have been the result of their experiment?
Why that the toll upon coal ought never to have
been reduced below one dollar per ton. The
cost of transportation of coal on the canal to the
city of Washington, exclusive of toll, is $1 23
to $1 12 1-2 per ton. Take the highest sum and
add to it one dollar for toll, and you have $2 25
the cost of transporting a ton of coal from Alle-
gany to the District, being 21 cents less than it
would cost to transport it by the railroad to the
city of Baltimore. That difference on price of a
ton of coal, it would be supposed, offered a suffi-
cient premium for its transportation on the canal
in preference to the railroad. The navigation of
the canal opened to Allegany, for the first time
on some day in November, 1830, and closed in
the ensuing month; during which time the coal
was eagerly bought up in the District at highly
remunerating prices, instead of pursuing the
course I have suggested, and which it is sup
posed was so apparent upon the most superficial
view of the State's interest, what did the State's
agents do? Why, about a month or two before
the canal was completed, they united with the
directors of the canal company, and reduced the
tolls from one dollar to seventy-five cents per
on.
Mr. SCHLEY explained. That what he had
said in regard to the subject of coal, was that.
a committee of the board had been appointed,
which had collected and collated much informa-
tion. That that committee had repurled this in-
formation to the board of President and Direc-
tors, and that the board, upon calm and mature
deliberation, determined to reduce the tolls.
The action of the board, not being final, as he
had heretofore explained, they then called upon
the State's Agents, to ratify their act. To en-
able the Agents of the State to know the reasons
for the action of the board, the facts which had
guided and impelled the board to their action,
were laid before them, and the Agents, after such
investigation of the subject as was satisfactory
to them, approved or vetoed the action of the
board. In this mode, and only in this mode,
could the tolls be reduced. |
Mr. DORSEY proceeded. Well, that was per-
fectly consistent. Now, this spring, belore the
canal was open for navigation, the directors of
the Company and State's Agents agreed to enter
into a contract to last for three years, that the
toll on coal should be thirty-seven- and-a-half
cents per ton; provided, the owners of the coal
mines would give security that there should be
annually transported from Allegany to the Dis-
trict of Columbia five hundred thousand tons of
coal for three years. The security not having
been given, the contract was, it is said, put an
end to, and the rate of tolls on the canal is now
fifty cents per ton. For this apparently incom-
prehensible conduct on the part of the State's
Agents, the reason assigned is their desire to
bring the coal into general and extensive use as
soon as practicable; and they have read to this
Convention a letter or some portion of it, writ-
ten by some person in New York, who it is sta-
ted, or it is to be inferred, was desirous of pur-
chasing alarge quantity of coal, and the writer
recommends that the coal should be offered in
the market at the lowest practicable price. That
such a letter so written should be regarded as
any justification or excuse, for the proceedings
of the State's Agents is surprising indeed. Nor
is there wisdom or advantage in the inception of
the trade ill coal being commenced with an ex-
cessive supply of coal to meet a limited demand.
True policy would have dictated, that, for a
time at least, the quantity in the market should
not accumulate, but barely keep pace with the
the sales, if a sound, continuing, healthy mar-
ket is desired. It is an easy thing to effect
sales by a great reduction in prices; but it is
no easy matter to satisfy and retain your cus-
tomers when you restore your commodities to
their original prices. Such a course of proceed-
ing, is generally condemned among merchants,
and often results disastrously. The reasons giv-
en in the explanation of the acts of the State's
Agents, tend but to show the expediency, not to
say necessity of their removal from office
But there is another view of this subject which
irresistably impels him to the conclusion, that a
removal of its agents is imperatively demanded
by the paramount interests of the State. The
deep pecuniary interest which the State holds in
the Baltimore and Ohio rail road company, not
only by its stock held therein, hut in consequence
of its loan of its bonds lor $3,200,000; the inte-
rest on which must be paid by the State in the
event of the rail road company failing to do so, is
well known to the State's agents. They also
well know that it was the original design of the
Legislature of Maryland, when its immense debt
for the canal was incurred, as is shown by the
enactment for the cross-cut canal, that Baltimore
should derive its full share of the benefits result-
ing from the construction of the Chesapeake and
Ohio canal company, that all its other intentions
were secondary when compared with this great
object. That it never contemplated that the canal
should be so conducted as to become a rival
work to the Baltimore and Ohio rail road, and
thereby withdraw from the city of Baltimore
any considerable portion of those products and |
