'838J 



FARMERS' REGISTER 



57 



mouth and Roanolve rail rotul, durincr the last year, 

 ill contrast witli tlio orcat security whicii lias at- 

 tended the oiierations of the Petershur;Lf road, 

 wiiich he dwells upon con amore; but he says not 

 a word about the recent one on the Kichinondand 

 Fredericksburrr road. We can stale lor his inlbr- 

 niation, and that of the public, that tlie directors 

 of the Portsnioiuli road have profiled by the dis- 

 asters to which he alludes, so tar at least, as to 

 place it in a condition Ibr safety and expedition, 

 not interior to that which lie vaunts of the Peters- 

 burii: road, and certainly equal to thai of the Rich- 

 mond and Fredericlvsburo-. 



The growiuii: popularity of the Chesapeake 

 route, however, car.iiot be checked by any device, 

 while travellers prefer, as they always do, steam 

 boats to steam cars; Ibr when they have to choose 

 between two routes, the one entirely by rail way, 

 and the other ibr two thirds of the distance by 

 steam boat, they will assuredly incline to the lat- 

 ter. — [Ed. Herald.] 



When it is proposed to reply to, and still more 

 so when lo condemn any publication, it is proper, 

 both for fair dealing to the writer, and for the 

 better understanding by the readers of the stric- 

 tures, that the piece censured, itseltj should be 

 presented at the same time. This course we have 

 always desired to pursue, as is done in the present 

 case; and we have never availed ourselves of the 

 customary privilege assumed by editors, of an- 

 swering an offensive or disatrreeahle article, before, 

 or without, copying the article itself; and thus, in 

 advance, raising prejudice against U in the minds 

 of readers. We regret that our highly respected 

 brother editor should have adopted a different 

 course; and have done us injury in both these re- 

 spects, by the foregoing editorial remarks, of his 

 paper of March 30th; and whicli course is the less 

 excusable, as the entire note, which he considered 

 so reprehensible, is but little, if an\^, more than 

 half the length of his remarks copied above. Of 

 course, the lenslh did not forbid its insertion. As 

 a matter of sheer justice, we request that he will 

 supply the oinission to his many readers who do 

 not see the Farmers' Register, by copying the 

 foot-note in question, from page 762 of the March 

 No., and also, that he will accompany it by these 

 remarks, whxh his have rendered necessary. 

 \ . They will be made as c mcise as possible. 



First — in correction of mistaken impressions. 

 The suspicion thai the correspondent who oppos- 

 ed the Eastern Shore Rail Road is not what hi.s 

 communication purports, is as much unfounded, 

 as the expression was uncalled for, in arifument, 

 or in courtesy. The writer is a resident landhold- 

 er and cultivator of the Eastern Shore of Mary- 

 land, and one whose private interest in the pros- 

 perity of that region, as well as his standing and 

 general intelligence, isrive him a right to express 

 opinions on that subject, even though they should 

 be mistaken. That his views do not atrree exactly 

 with ours, iu sufRcienllv evident to the readers of 

 Vol. VI— 8 



the notes to his piece, and of several other articles 

 of greater length, which have before appeared m 

 thisjournal. In reasoning on general and public 

 facts, the name of the writer is not required as au- 

 thority; and there is no reason why such pieces 

 should not be anonymous. But we assure our 

 brother editor, that we would not knowingly per- 

 mit a correspondent, were one to attempt such a 

 deception, lo assume false colors, to sustain private 

 interests either opposed to those which would be in- 

 ferred from his assumed locality or position, or with 

 which he was desirous to conceal his connexion. 



In the next place — we claim for this journal, 

 and its editorial conduct, to the fullest extent, the 

 ground which, it is justly said above, ought to be 

 occupied; but which, it is charged, has been aban- 

 doned in the note referred to. In the five volumes 

 of the Farmers' Register, there have been many 

 articles relating to the rail roads from Petersburg, 

 and from Portsmouth, to the Roanoke; and while 

 these two great improvements stood as rival claim- 

 ants, contending beibre the legislature, we confess 

 it was dillicuit, in a journal like ours, open to both 

 sides, and designed to favor the general cause of 

 internal improvement, to appear so perfectly neu- 

 tral as to satisfy all persons of both the rival inte- 

 rests. But until now, no complaint has ever 

 reached us of having shown less than equal favor 

 and justice to the Norfolk and Portsmouth road 

 and interest; though we have heard of charges of 

 the opposite character, being made by some of our 

 nearer neighbors. These charges had no just 

 foundation; but there is no question, but that more 

 selections, communications, and editorial notices, 

 have appeared in this journal, favorable io the 

 Portsmouth route, and its designed continuations, 

 southern and northern, than lo the Petersburg 

 route. The pages and indexes of our volumes of- 

 fer ready proofs of what is here stated in general. 



The views of our correspondent fi-ora Maryland, 

 if received as correct, would have operated to low- 

 er the trueestimationoflhesafely and convenience 

 of rail road travelling in general, and of the value 

 of the Eastern Shore Rail Road in particular, 

 which route has been planned solely as a most 

 important extension of the Portsmouth and Roa- 

 noke Road, and is expected, by 1 he fi'iends of the lat- 

 ter, to give it double value. Now, the manifest 

 object and purport of our note was to defend what 

 was impugned, the safety of" rail road travelling; 

 and in that defence, we conc-eive that Norfolk has 

 j at least ar- deep an inlerpst as Petersburg, and 

 that we were thereby upholding the general inte- 

 rests of'ihe one, fully as much as those of the other. 



But we limited our assertion of aimoet entire 

 security to passengers, to ''well-managed rail- 

 roads." Would our brother editor, or our Nor- 

 fijlk friends, have desired that the claim should 

 have been exleiuled to. and made to include the 



