travel. Every person acquainted with the subject knows that gentlemen who own horses and carriages, will continue to own them, and owning them, they will continue to use them, even if transportation were cheaper on the Rail Road. Neither have we taken into the account the supposed increase of transportation. We do not believe that a Rail Road from Boston to Salem will greatly enhance the amount of transportation. There is but little back country to Salem. On the one hand is the ocean, and on the other a country not abounding with inhabitants. On the west, if you go ten miles from Salem, you come into a country situated so near the capital that they will send their produce to the city. If a person is ten miles from Salem and twenty miles from Boston, he would find it for his interest to transport his goods to Boston. He must employ a team to go to Salem or any part of the Rail Road, and having the goods loaded, they can be transported to Boston, easier and cheaper, than they can be unloaded, and conveyed to Boston on a Rail Road. Besides, those who carry on a land transportation, wish to load both ways, and if they come to Boston without any profit, they would make something on the return load.

Another consideration has weight with your Committee. If the road is to terminate at Peabody's wharf, it would be difficult to extend the route eastward, should that be thought desirable in future. And besides, if the road is to terminate in Salem South Fields, they could not secure the Danvers travel. And if the road should enter Salem North Fields, by way of Danvers, they could not command any part of the transportation now carried on by water.

Neither have we taken into the account the expense

of transporting persons and merchandise to and from the terminations of the Rail Road. If the persons are to convey themselves and their merchandise to the depots at the end of the Rail Road, the expense to the individuals will not be diminished; and if this expense is to be borne by the Rail Road Corporation, this would enhance their expenditures, and render the concern still more unprofitable. The experience of the public on this subject goes far to settle the principle, that a short Rail Road or Canal, can never be profitable. We are aware that it may be said that most of the rail roads in England, and several in the United States, are for short distances. The rail roads in Great Britain are generally in the neighborhood and for the accommodation of the colliaries. These roads are generally coarse and clumsy structures, designed for the transportation of coal. A short rail road may be profitable, if it connects two great commercial cities or two large marts of business, or if it is to form a link in some great line of travel. But neither of these can be said of Boston and Salem.

The proposed specd on the Rail Road, deserves a passing notice. The Petitioners founded their estimate on a speed of twenty miles to the hour. But experience, as far as experience has been had on this subject, goes far to show that the transportation of heavy articles at that rate per mile, is neither wise nor economical. The injury both to the cars and roads, and the liability to accident, all admonish us to be content with a less rapid mode of transportation. Passengers may be transported at a more rapid rate; but where coaches for passengers, and cars for merchandise, are to be drawn by the same steamer, we think a speed of twelve miles per hour, is as great as will be found expe dicnt

The engines on this road would not proceed we think, at a greater rate, and when we take into view the time that must be spent in transfering the cars from the road to the boat, and from the boat to the road, and the time in which the boat is crossing the ferry; we doubt whether the saving of time will be more than 25 or 30 minutes in a passage. And this, generally speaking, is of but little consequence to the passengers.

The alliance formed by the petitioners, instead of relieving, rather increases the embarrassment of the subject. In the first place, there is no such thing prayed for by any of the petitioners as a rail road with a branch over Noddle's Island. And it is hardly competent for the Committee to grant such a request, when it has not been officially asked for, and when there has been no order of notice on the subject. Such a request could not be granted without abandoning the only principle which could justify the granting of any road. Public convenience and necessity alone can justify the granting of a charter; but no person can ever pretend that public necessity and convenience require a road with a branch over Noddle's Island. And should a branch be extended from Chelsea to Noddle's Island, how can the passengers passing over it, be conveyed to the city? The Judiciary Committee on the part of the House have reported that there is no existing ferry between Boston and Noddle's ; and they gave an intimation which we believe will be sustained by the Legislature, that the State ought not to grant a ferry without some consideration. But the idea was held out that the Winnisimmet boats would transport the passengers and goods to Boston. But we apprehend that the Winnisimmet company have no authority to run their boats to the island, and that the Le

་

gislature would not grant a ferry to them any more than

to others.

Is

And how is it with Winnisimmet Ferry itself? that ancient franchise still in being? The Legislature have acted with the utmost caution on that subject. They have endeavored in all their action on the subject, neither to confirm or impair, revive, recognize or deny, any ferry right or supposed ferry right between Boston and Chelsea. And after acting with so much caution on this subject, we think they would not, without much deliberation, establish a ferry even in that place.

But if ferry rights already existed, the Committee consider the connexion of a rail road with tide water a serious objection. The Winnisimmet route proposes to be elevated ten feet above high water mark. It appeared in evidence before the Committee that the rise and fall of the tide was from ten to fifteen feet. This would present a serious obstacle to the safe, cheap and rapid transportation of passengers and merchandize. The petitioners called a skilful engineer to inform us how the cars and engines, if the engines should cross the river, were to be taken from the boats to the road and from the road to the boats. But after all the information that could be obtained, the Committee were not satisfied that it would. not prove a delay, and be attended with considerable expense, if not liability to accident. The fact appears to be this; there is no rail road in operation connected with tide water, and all the information that can be obtained upon this subject, is mere theory which may be exploded by practice.

There is another reason against granting the prayer of the petitioners. At the last Legislature, after giving the parties a long and patient hearing, the Committee repor

22

ted a reference to the present Legislature, and assigned as a principal reason, that the want of proper surveys rendered it impossible for the Committee to give a preference to any particular route. But after this admonition, the petitioners come before the Government again, under nearly the same circumstances. They pray for two distinct routes; many witnesses are called to prove that the route through Danvers is practicable, and yet of that route we have been favored with no survey. The Committee are entirely at a loss, after all they have heard, to decide which route would be preferable. They are rather inclined to the Danvers route, but the want of accurate information calls upon them to suspend their verdict.

The Committee feel called upon to state that the case under consideration differs materially from other cases which have come before them or any former Committee on Railways and Canals. In most cases where a rail road has been asked for, there has been no opposition. When the Providence road was prayed for, the Turnpike did not remonstrate; they came in as petitioners, and by a mutual agreement united with other petitioners in asking for a rail road.

The case of the Lowell road is the only one which bears any analagy to the one under consideration. When that road was prayed for, the Middlesex Canal Company remonstrated. But that case bears but little resemblance to this. The passengers between Boston and Lowell, to be accommodated by the rail road, were transported by stages, and not by the boats of the Canal Company; much of the merchandize was conveyed by teams, and not by the canal, and the canal was closed, with ice four or five months in the year. The Lowell rail road was calculated to accommodate a line of travel and transporta