566 



FARMERS' REGISTER— COMPARATIVE COST OF PORK. 



Suppose 500 hogs, \veii?hing 50 tons, transported 

 on rail roaJ cars, at 3 cents per Ion 

 per mile, (:t would cos^ I believe, 

 Jessbv bou!s,) tliis part of the expense 

 for 100 miles would be, say ^150 00 



Suppose, including; all dclnys, it takes 

 l'|- days per 100 miles — the support of 

 the hogs will be say 8 barrels oi' corn 

 per day — this laid in where it is cheap, 

 with its transportation, will cost, say 

 $1 75 per barrel throughout the line, 21 00 



Transportation of" the owner and one 

 at'endant or feeder, at 4 cents per 

 mile, cost ,«;8 00 



Board of owner 1| days, say 1 50 



Do. of his driver and his wages, 



say ' 1 00 



Do. his passage back, say, 4 50 



15 00 



JBut the hoa's beingatrcst, and well led, 

 will have increased in weight, instead 

 of losing by driving, say only ^ lb. 

 each for every 1.^ days they are so 

 treated — say 250 lbs. at 5-| cents, is 



^186 00 



13 75 



172 25 



In the other way. 

 Expense of driving the same distance, supposing 



it can be done in 16 days, which is more than 



16 miles per day: 

 Feeding for 16 days, 8 barrels per day, supposing 



it can be had on the journey at the averatre cost 



of m 50 per ban-ei. ' $320 00 



Five drivers, at 60 els. per day for wages, 



and findino-, 48 00 



Same for 4 days returning, 12 00 



Owner's expenses, for self and horse, 



$1 50 per day, ^ 24 00 



Lioss in weight of hogs in driving 16 



days, and the risk of losing some of 

 them — put this down only at 6 lbs. to 

 each hog, makes 3000 lbs. at 5^ cents. 165 00 



569 00 



Suppose the average distance in travel- 

 ling from the west to an eastern mar- 

 ket is 500 miles, the cost in driving 

 500 hogs would be, 2,845 00 



The cost by steamboats, canal boats, 

 and a rail road at 3 cents per ton per 

 mile, would be, say, 861 75 



Difference, 



#1,983 25 



This, of itself, would be a good profit on 500 

 hogs, and would enable the seller to reduce the 

 price fi'om $5 50 to 3 50, or at most )g4 00 per 

 100 lbs. 



[The following extracts present all those portions of 

 a much larger article, which will be generally interest- 

 ing to readers in this country. The parts omitted 

 merely furnish descriptions of particular lines of 

 railv\ay contemplated in England, and a general view 

 of such improvements in Europe and America. The 



facts stated in this review, (which seem to be un- 

 questionable,) will serve to direct our attention, to 

 various sources of profit to our own projected railways, 

 which have been scarcely thought of heretofbre — and 

 perhaps, may lesson, if not remove, the objections of 

 many land holders to those improvements. The actual 

 increase in the value of lands on the routes exceeding 

 the anticipated increase — the vast increase of travel- 

 lers caused by the reduction of expense and of time — 

 the facilities for conveying live-stock — all are matters 

 which apply with as much force to one or both of the 

 two great improvements proposed to end at Richmond, 

 as to the English railways referred to by the reviewer.] 



From the Edinburgh Review. 

 IMPROVEMENTS IN INLAND TRANSPORT IN 

 ENGLAND. 



It is now tw^o years since we called the attention 

 of our readers to the great advancement which 

 had been made in the art of applying steam-pow- 

 er to the important purposes of inland transport. 

 We then foretold the rapid extension of this great 

 instrument of social improvement; and subsequent 

 events liave amply verified our predictions. Rail 

 road undertakings have been entered into with an 

 avidity to satisfy the most ardent, and to create 

 alarm in the more timid and cautious. In our 

 own country, hd%ever, the number of checks on 

 such schemes are sufficient to ];revent the public 

 fi-om rushing into them with undue precipitation; 

 and the danger rather is, that private and local in- 

 terests may act as too great a drag on public en- 

 terprise, than that the latter principle should re- 

 ceive undue scope. A considerable jiortion of the 

 pTojjerty of the country, and more especially of 

 that in land, has, in many instances, opposed se- 

 rious obstructions to parties seeking legislative 

 sanction for projected lines of rail road; and al- 

 though, in some cases, such opposition has pro- 

 ceeded li'om sinister motives, or such as would not 

 bear an open avowal, yet we must suppose that in 

 the majority, the ostensible objections have been 

 seriously and sincerely, though erroneously enter- 

 tained. In the jiresent article, we shall endeavor 

 to show, not only that the principal objections so 

 urged are unfounded in themselves, but that they 

 are in direct opposition to the results of experience, 

 and as much opposed to the real interests of the 

 objectors as to the public good. We shall also 

 briefly advert to the principal lines of communica- 

 tion recently undertaken, and to those which are 

 in progress in other parts of Europe, and in Ame- 

 rica. 



The opposition which railway companies expe- 

 rience in obtaining the necessary legislative sanc- 

 tion, proceeds, in the majority of cases, from the 

 land holders, through whose lands the projected 

 lines are to pass. Nevertheless it is demonstrable, 

 that there exists no class of persons whose interests 

 are more likely to be promoted by such improve- 

 ments than those of the local ])roprietors. One 

 ground of objection assumed by]iro])rietors resident 

 in the vicinity of projected lines of rail road, is the 

 apprehended nuisance of the noise and smoke of 

 the engines, and of the exposure of their premises 

 to the intrusion of large nuinl)ers of passengers. 

 The evidence produced before the committee of 

 the House of Commons, on the London and Birm- 

 ingham Rail Road, will show how unfounded are 

 such objections. 



