SPEECH OE COL. RUEUS P. TAPLEY, 
 
 OF SACO, 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, Feb. 17th and 18th, 1865, 
 
 ON THE REPEAL OF THE LAW PROHIBITING THE EXTENSION OF THE 
 “BROAD” OR “MIXED” GAUGE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS STATE. 
 
 In 1860, the State of Maine' passed the following law : 
 
 “No Railroad Comiiany in this State, after its road shall be in operation, shall change the 
 gauge or width of its track between the rails so as to increase or diminish the distance 
 between the same, or shall laj' down any extra or third rail for the working of its road 
 by means of a mixed gauge without the express authority of the Legislature first had and 
 obtained: and it shall bo the duty of the Attorney General, on suggestion or request of 
 any person complaining of a violation of the provisions of this act by any Railroad Com- 
 ])anjq to file a process in Equity against said Company before the Supreme Court in any 
 County in which such violation shall be had, to obtain an injunction against such viola- 
 tion. Any Justice of said Court may grant a preliminary injunction according to the 
 provisions of Chapter seventy-seven, section ten, of the Revised Statutes, to restrain and 
 prohibit such violation : Provided^ however^ This act shall not apply to the roads East of 
 Portland.” 
 
 The Bill under debate, was to repeal this act, and was reported by 
 a minority of the Committee on Railroads, Ways and Bridges, to 
 permit a change of gauge between Portland and Boston. 
 
 Mpv. Tapley addressed the House as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker : — We have now come to the discussion of one of the 
 most important topics to which our attention as legislators may be 
 called during the session ; and I ‘regret to say, that we have been 
 hroiight to it by a most unprecedented course of procedure. The mi- 
 nority of the committee report a bill, which, under the rules of the 
 House, must lie over one day at least, and be printed. They 
 report this bill at forty-five minutes past* ten, A. M., this day, and 
 against all precedent, disregarding all argument, and even entreaty, 
 of those who desire an examination of the matter, the friends of this 
 bill assign 11 A. M. of this day for its consideration — ^just fifteen 
 minutes after the report is made, the final consideration of this ques- 
 tion is ordered, by a suspension of tbe rule, and an assignment of 
 that time, with weeks before us yet before an adjournment. By 
 putting ourselves in the very humiliating position of legging for a 
 few minutes of- time, and intimating that unless granted, the debate 
 might come on the final passage of the bill, we have been allowed 
 until two o’clock P. M. of the same day, with the very cool, yet very 
 frank, assurance that the Avhole subject matter has been discussed 
 outnide of the House, and that members have made up their minds 
 upon the subject. We have as yet, at this session, no precedent for 
 such a course. Even the most trivial matters of legislation have been 
 
2 
 
 allowed to pursue and take those regular and wholesome rules of 
 procedure long practised in legislative assemblies, and which have 
 been found so necessary to secure intelligent action ; but this ques- 
 tion — one which involves the gravest consequences, and necessarily 
 takes into its consideration the great commercial, mercantile and 
 producing interests of the State, present and future, with, also, the 
 interests of the principal city of the State perhaps vitally interested 
 in it — must take on “ indecent haste,” and assume an air very near- 
 ly akin to that of suppressing debate. The dog law takes the usual 
 course of proceeding — is open to debate and amendment, lies upon 
 the table as often as any member desires, for examination — but this 
 bill must be pressed through the same day that the minority report 
 it. I can now only protest against it, and suggest to gentlemen that 
 after they have executed their plans, the recollection of the mode will 
 be anything but pleasant. 
 
 With the announcement which was made by my friend from 
 Bangor, (Mr. Garnsey,) that “ the matter has been fully considered 
 outside the House,” and that “members were prepared to vote on 
 this question,” coupled with the vote that brings this discussion at 
 this time, I can but approach the debate with some embarrasment. 
 I hardly think my friend would have made the announcement he 
 did unless he had been furnished with some assurances that no in- 
 considerable number of you were regarded as pledged to support the 
 minority report. 
 
 Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen : I have not thus adverted to the 
 course of procedure in this matter by way of complaint, for that is a 
 kind of temper I seldom indulge in ; but I have done this to arrest 
 your attention, if possible, and secure it, for a few moments at least, 
 in a more careful consideration of some of the important aspects 
 which it presents. If I shall accomplish this, even but in part, so 
 far shall I succeed in my undertaking. 
 
 Let me, then, ask you to lay aside any previous convictions, aris- 
 ing from an ex parte and partial view of the matter, and forget for 
 the moment the many importunities you have received from inter estecl 
 parties, and looking only at your duties as legislators, give a few 
 moments time to reflection upon the very important question in- 
 volved in the debate. 
 
 A few days ago an order passed both branches, directing an in- 
 ' c[uiry into the expediency of repealing Statute, chap. 152 of the laws 
 of 18G0. The order was accompanied by a single petition, signed 
 by a single petitioner. The matter was referred to the Committee 
 on Eailroads, Ways and Bridges, and in due time a hearing was had 
 before the committee, who, after the hearing, agreed, by a majority 
 vote, that legislation upon the subject was inexpedient. A sugges- 
 tion came from the minority, that the petitioner before referred to 
 (Hon. John A. Poor) desired to be heard, and he was allowed to ad- 
 dress the committee. The committee reported legislation inexpedi- 
 ent. A minority report a bill repealing the Act of 18G0, and now 
 move the substitution of their report for that of the majority, and 
 thus the debate comes on. 
 
 The bill reported, seeks to repeal an existing Statute — to change 
 an existing law of the State. No statement of facts accompanies 
 the report, to show or indicate any reason ; but we are told that the 
 
3 
 
 reasons have been made patent to a portion of members “ outside of 
 the House.” Those members who have not been thus made ac- 
 quainted with the reasons for the desired change, must gather them 
 from a consideration of the question itself, unaided by such sugges- 
 tion, and from the arguments advanced by the gentleman from Au- 
 gusta, (Mr. Williams,) and the gentleman from Dexter, (Mr. Cros- 
 b}^,) who have favored us with their views. 
 
 The first inquiry that suggests itself is, 
 
 WHAT IS THE NATURE OP THE ENACTMENT SOUGHT TO BE REPEALED ! 
 
 It is a Statute requiring certain corporations to consult the sovereign 
 power of the State before they make certain changes afPecting the 
 puUic interest. It is nothing more and nothing less, and no ingenu- 
 ity of man can make it aught else. 
 
 The Statute proceeds upon the ground that the people are the 
 guardians of their own rights and interests ; and it is a correct prop- 
 osition, both of law and fact. The corporations themselves could 
 not have existed but by the expressed will of the people through 
 appropriate forms of legislation. They create the body i^olitic, and 
 to them the body politic should be answerable. Not only do they 
 exist under and by the will of the people, but they exist upon the 
 declared necessities of the public. By the legislatures which created 
 them, they were invested with the power of taking private property, 
 without the consent of the owner, and appropriating it to the uses 
 contemplated by the acts of incorporation. By the law of the land, 
 private property can be taken only for “ public uses.” The strong 
 arm of the sovereign power of a State seizes upon my property and 
 yours, and dedicates it to public uses. The great public say that it 
 is necessary for the promotion of their interests, that it should thus 
 be taken and used ; the legislature confers upon certain corporators 
 the power thus to use it : I say “the power thus to use it” because they 
 could not give them power to use it in any other way. Now, under 
 such circumstances, to whom should such corporations be responsi- 
 ble, but to the people who made them, and the people, whose ne- 
 cessities they have been thus authorized and thus required to pro- 
 vide for? It is veiy plain, and verg clear, that they should be an- 
 swerable to the people for the manner in which they use the prop- 
 erty of the citizen and provide for the public exigencies which author- 
 ized this appropriation of property. 
 
 Upon general principles, therefore, there is nothing in the spirit 
 of the Statute under consideration contrary to right and justice, or 
 infringing in any degree upon the most liberal rules of equity ; but 
 on the contrary, the Statute is one tlie people have a right to make ; 
 and more, and beyond and above all that, it is one they are in duty 
 hound to make, in order that the interests which are not only the 
 primary, but the sole and fundamental cause of the power thus con- 
 ferred, may be protected and guarded. 
 
 The minority, however, say, “You have no such rights : not be- 
 cause they do not in common justice and equity exist, but because 
 the acts of incorporation are contracts between the State and the 
 corporators, and they do not provide for such an accountability.” In 
 other words, the State has given to certain corporations the property 
 of certain of its citizens for p)'^d)lic use^ and have no power to require 
 such use to be made of it, and therefore the Statute should be repealed. 
 
4 
 
 Such a doctrine is monstrous. It has no foundation in law or 
 common justice. No intelligent community will recognise or sub- 
 mit to such doctrines. The power to take your property or mine, is 
 a qualified power. It is only for ‘‘ public uses and when any cor- 
 poration surrenders their charter, and fails thus to use it, its un- 
 qualified use returns to its owner. The corporation takes only the 
 use, not the fee. 
 
 The doctrine advanced by the minority is this : when a railroad 
 corporation have obtained their charter, upon the ground that the 
 public exigencies require it, they may turn around to the public and 
 say, “We do not know you, nor care for you ; our interests are our 
 laws : you must seek yours some other way.” 
 
 As before remarked, such doctrines find no aid in the rules of law 
 or common justice ; on the other hand, the duty of the State has been 
 directly recognized by the Supreme Court of the State, in the case of 
 State V. Noyes, reported in the 47th Volume of Maine Eeports of 
 Judicial decisions, and may be found on the 189th page. They say : 
 
 “ With the legislature the maxim of the law, ‘■Salus populi, Siiprema lex,'' should not he 
 disregarded. It is the great principle on which the Statutes for the secu^ty of the people 
 is based. This power has always been exercised by government, and its existence cannot 
 be reasonably denied. How far the provisions of thelegislature can extend, is always sub- 
 mitted to its, discretion, provided its acts do not go beyond the great principle of the public 
 safety— and its duty to provide for this public safety within well-defined limits mid with discretion 
 is imperative.'''' 
 
 It is further contended, that if this right has not been transferred 
 the policy of the State requires it should now be done — that if you 
 have this power, you should now surrender it. Surrender it to whom ! 
 Surrender it to wdiom ? I ask. This leads to one of the important 
 inquiries of the discussion, and that is, who asks for this repeal ? 
 Who desires this change of policy in the State ? The people, by 
 their representatives in Legislature assembled five years ago, made 
 this their law ujion due consideration. They thus declared a certain 
 State policy ; and who now comes and asks a change in that policy ? 
 
 Turn to tlie record, Mr. Speaker, for the answer ! One single, 
 solitary petitioner ! He, who, when interest called for it, could draft 
 and urge the enactment of this law, now, when interest calls for it 
 through the Boston Board of Trade, can petition for its repeal. The 
 Hon. John A. Poor, once a representative of Portland interests, and 
 a defender of Maine interests, now transferred to the Agency of Bos- 
 ton Capitalists, conies and asks for them its repeal. Not a single 
 citizen of Maine has asked it. Prom Calais to Kittery, from the 
 Canadian line to the Atlantic coast all is quiet upon this Statute, and 
 no one of her thousands of citizens takes the pen in hand to indite 
 or sign a petition. No body of men representing the interests of 
 commerce, navigation or agriculture ask for it. Not a railroad cor- 
 poration, not a single stockholder in any corporation, not even the 
 road over wdiicli they seek to lay a third rail, asks for it. Solitary 
 and alone, unaided and unabashed, the father of this Act now seeks 
 its life. I state this position of the case upon reflection, and I 
 challenge any denial or qualification of it. 
 
 I appeal to you, gentlemen, who intend to support this bill of re- 
 peal, have your constituency uttered one desire in relation to it ? 
 Have you received petitions or instructions in relation to. this change 
 of State policy ? No man of tlie Legislature can answer in the affirm- 
 ative. There were not twenty men in the State, upon the day of our 
 
5 
 
 election, who had the most remote idea of such a request being made. 
 They could not be presumed to suppose any citizen of the State 
 would be so reckless to its interests. Thousands and thousands of 
 your constituency, at this very moment of time, have no knowledge 
 or suspicion of this movement ; and wdiy should they ? There is no 
 reason that can be given why they should, but abundant reason ex- 
 ists why they should not. Five years ago the Legislature passed 
 this Act to protect them and their interests, and the interests of the 
 State ; since that time not a murmur of complaint is heard in the 
 State — no lisp of dissatisfaction comes, hut from abroad^ and can they 
 be expected to presume this is to be changed to accommodate par- 
 ties abroad ? 
 
 Pause a moment and reflect, that the flrst line or word upon this 
 subject had not been written or printed when this body convened. 
 No discussions through the public prints, in the workshop, store or 
 at the fireside, of a great question like this, and yet, with your con- 
 stituency entirely ignorant of what you purpose to do, you propose to 
 repeal this law and entirely change the previous policy of the State 
 with regard to its trade. The causes which are now' moving you on- 
 w’ard to this action wdll afford you very little satisfaction hereafter. 
 
 You will perceive, gentlemen, that the repeal is pressed upon two 
 grounds : one, a want of power in the Legislature of 1800 to impose 
 the restriction specified in the Act, and the other, that if there were 
 power, it is against the best policy of the State to enforce the restric- 
 tion. The question of power has been decided by the Legislature of 
 1860, approved by the Executive and recognized by the Supreme 
 Court in the case cited. If the power did not exist, as it is now al- 
 leged, then the Statute created no restraint, and no restraint exists, 
 and the Boston Capitalists, so far as we are concerned, may change 
 the gauge of the road in this State to any gauge the corporations 
 may be induced to assent to, or may buy and hold a majority of in- 
 terest in stock, and change at their will, wLether we will or no. 
 They may change the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway to the 
 city of Boston, and give the order to Maine to retreat, and particu- 
 larly may say to Portland, “ You may bid farewell to the golden 
 future you have been looking for.” 
 
 Either they have not confidence in this assertion of a w^ant of power, 
 or they desire us to order our own retreat ; for if their view be correct, 
 they need no repeal. We can hardly think, that wdth all their pride 
 of position, and the domination wLich naturally flows from power, 
 they would unnecessarily humiliate us, and therefore we conclude they 
 have no confidence in the assertion that the Legislature of 1860 did 
 not possess the power to impose the restriction. The argument of 
 unconstitutionality is a cunning device to carry this measure. 
 
 They cannot show that the interests of the State demand it. They 
 cannot show that the interests of the State will be promoted by it. 
 They cannot show that the citizens of the State desire its repeal, and 
 therefore they cunningly and whiningly say, “ Unconstitutional ! ” 
 “ Unconstitutional ! ! ” They make an appeal to State pride, and 
 say, w’hether it be politic or impolitic, a great State like ours ought 
 to have no unconstitutional Act upon its Statute Book. Keep in 
 mind all the time, gentlemen, that these suggestions come from the 
 Board of Trade of another State. They arc giving you this advice. 
 
6 
 
 They want you to make haste to proclaim the stupidity of the Legis- 
 lature and Executive of 1860, if they lelieve it was unconstitutional. 
 
 To my mind, gentlemen, the very fact that the projectors of this 
 movement have conducted this matter in this quiet way before it 
 comes to this body, and then forcing it out of the well-recognized 
 and legitimate modes of legislation, is “proof as strong as Holy 
 Writ” that they recognize the power in the people thus to guard 
 and protect their interests. If they had circulated petitions for the 
 repeal, they reflect, these would have suggested remonstrances on 
 the part of the people, who would thus be awakened to their inter- 
 ests and rights in this matter. So they come with a single petitioner, 
 whose prayer was probably indited and signed in Boston. A few 
 days of consideration here, and consultation with our constituents, 
 might produce unfavorable results, and the scheme thus fail ; so we 
 have a silent initiation and a precipitate execution. We may well 
 conclude they do not themselves believe the Statute unconstitutional. 
 
 As bearing upon the question of inherent defects in the Act of 1860, 
 I will call your attention in this connection, to so much of the argu- 
 ment of the gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Williams) as was directed 
 to that point. He has called your attention to the fact that it is an 
 Act entitled “An Act to promote safety of travel on railroads,” and 
 then assumes that the Act has no reference to the safety of travel, 
 and that it is so dissimilar that it provokes a smile every time you 
 read it. Whether he intends to charge upon the Legislature of 1860, 
 who passed the law, gross ignorance and stupidity, or wilful act of 
 deception, really matters not in the view I take of the subject ; and 
 I remember, also, that the same person who is now the sole peti- 
 tioner here, was instrumental in securing its passage. 
 
 The Act of 1860 does contemplate providing for the security and 
 safety of travel. Previous to 1860, certain railroad corporations ex- 
 isted in this State, and had fixed the gauges of their roads, and ope- 
 rated them upon those gauges. The gauges thus fixed had been 
 found safe for the travel. Immediately preceding the year 1860, cer- 
 tain stock and railroad brokers had started the project of working 
 some of the roads by a mixed gauge. This has always been deemed 
 unsafe, and a very able report has been made at one time by a scien- 
 tific and practical Commissioner upon this subject in this State. So 
 much importance, at any rate, was attached to it that the Legisla- 
 ture of 1860 provided the change should not be made without con- 
 sulting the Legislature of the State. 
 
 The spirit and letter of the Act is in entire harmony with ihQ^^otver 
 and duty of the State, and in no manner whatever inconsistent with 
 its title. I It says to railroad corporations, “You have been instiBit- 
 ed upon the public necessities; you must provide for those necessities, 
 and whenever you desire to make any change in the gauge of your 
 road, or propose to work it by a mixed gauge, you must make known 
 your plan to the Legislature ; and if it be found consistent with the 
 objects of your existence as corporate bodies, and does not impair the 
 safety of travel, you may be allowed to make the change ; but on the 
 other hand, if your proposed change be entirely at variance with the 
 provisions and purposes of your charters, you cannot be allowed to 
 thus change your gauge.” I find nothing in this Act to “provoke 
 

 the smile” which seems to trouble my friend from Augusta. I find 
 nothing in the Act inconsistent with its title ; and if I did find a 
 valuable act upon the Statute Book, I should not regard a defective 
 title as any reason for its repeal. 
 
 An Act was passed last winter entitled “An Act to provide means 
 for the defence of the North-Eastern frontier,” which contains an 
 appro})riation of all the land we have to the European and North 
 American Railway Company : now I do not believe that the friends 
 of that road regard the fact that the appropriation was put into a bill 
 bearing such a title as a sufficient reason for its repeal this winter. 
 The truth is, gentlemen, it is one of those “ make-weights,” w'hich 
 are thrown into the contest for the Avant of better material, and you 
 and I know that the gentleman from Augusta never uses such small 
 and inefficient Aveapons, Avhen larger and more efficient are at hand. 
 
 Another objection raised, is that the Statute is a species of special 
 legislation. Who complains of this special legislation ? Now this is 
 also an important inquiry AAuth reference to the argument Avhich is to 
 folloAV ; and let us endeavor to find out as to ivliom this is special legisla- 
 tion. The last proviso excludes all roads East of Portland from the 
 operation of this Act. Do they Avant to be limited in their operations? 
 Do they complain because this restriction is not imposed upon them? 
 Certainly not. No one pretends that such is the case; so all the 
 roads East of Portland are beyond this cause of complaint. If they 
 Avere not, and desired to be embraced within the restriction, that diffi- 
 culty could be A^ery easily obviated by repealing the proviso Avhich 
 exempts them. It is not worth wdiile, however, to argue that mat- 
 ter, for no one pretends that any of these roads find fault because 
 they are exempted from the restriction. 
 
 There are three roads West of Portland — the York & Cumberland, 
 the Portland, Saco & Portsmouth and the Boston & Maine. They 
 are embraced Avithin the restriction. Do either of these roads make 
 the complaint, and ask for the repeal of the Act? None of them. 
 There is not the first scintilla of evidence of such a fact : there is not 
 even the suggestion of such a thing. Certain it is, they are not here 
 by President, Director, or shareholder even, asking it. Not a soli- 
 tary individual in the State asks for it. Now Avho does complain of 
 this “special legislation”? It is simply, and none other, than the 
 Boston Board of Trade. It is the same party Avho is asking for the 
 repeal. Their complaint comes here through the gentleman you have 
 seen here attending upon the birtli of this bill and Avatching Avith 
 anxiety its travail. \Te have it fixed beyond all cavil, that the repeal 
 is asked for by Boston capitalists, and that the complaint that it is 
 “ special legislation,” comes from Boston capitalists. Keeping this 
 in mind, let us pass to another cause of complaint, Avhich is, that 
 Massachusetts complains thattlie Act of 18G0 is unfriendlg legislation. 
 In this last instance Ave have the i)arty Avho com])]ains of “unfriendly 
 legislation” named to us. I therefore find it established, thattlie party 
 Avho Jisks the repeal, and the party avIio complains of the character 
 of the Statute is Massachusetts — or more definitely speaking, the 
 Boston capitalist. About this fact I believe there can be no question. 
 
 With this examination, how stands the case ? It is this : the State 
 of Maine, an independent, sovereign State, no longer the ward of the 
 
8 
 
 State of Massachusetts, has, in a constitutional manner, and by the 
 appropriate modes of legislation, looking to the protection of her own 
 interests, and the safety of her travel, passed an Act which has be- 
 come a law of the State. The capitalists of the city of Boston send 
 an agent to the State of Maine to inform them that the Act is uncon- 
 stitutional ; that it is special in its character as to them ; that it is 
 imfriendhj as to them, and they therefore require its repeal — demand its 
 repeal ; and I do not state this demand in too strong terms, for their 
 agent, in addressing the committee, threatened war if it were not 
 repealed — ‘‘a war,” he said, “more troublesome in its effects upon 
 the State of Maine than the present civil war and rebellion.” He 
 notified, also, all parties who were called upon to act in this matter, 
 that unless they granted and voted for the repeal, their places here 
 would next year be filled with other and better men. These threats, 
 with much other severe denunciation of those who do not approve of 
 the repeal, were presented by him with certainly a great deal of 
 physical vigor and earnestness. The logic of it is not apparent : the 
 policy may be, when we discover its effects. 
 
 I propose soon to inquire why it is Massachusetts thus interests 
 herself in the laws of Maine, and so offensively presents her demands ; 
 but before doing so, I desire to advert to this charge of “unfriendly 
 legislation,” and suggest, upon the shewing of their own agent, it is 
 wanting in good taste and grace, if not in truth. I hold in my hand 
 a document marked 
 
 “ HOXJSm 7. 
 
 CoirLmonwealtli of Massaclixisetts. 
 
 MEMORIAL— 
 
 To the Honorahle the Senate and House of Representatives of the Coranionwealth of Mas- 
 sachusetts in Legislature assembled.” 
 
 This document is signed “John A. Poor,” and dated “Boston, 
 January 17, 1865.” To show you with what grace Massachusetts 
 can complain of “unfriendly legislation,” I propose to read a few 
 extracts from this remarkable book. He begins back to the Act of 
 Separation, and says : 
 
 “ By the Act of Separation— re/wetan^ty granted in the year 1819— the Commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts retamed one-half of the unsold lands lying in Maine, amounting at that time 
 to 11,824,438 acres. Of this amount 3,207,680 acres were subsequently, for the sake of peace, 
 surrendered up or ceded to the United States Government by the treaty of Washington, 
 leaving 8,616,7.58 acres— one-half of which (4,388,379 acres) fell to Massachusetts. The land 
 was to be exemjU from taxation while the title remained in the Co^nmonwealth. How faithfully 
 Maine vindicated this principle, in spite of all the evasions of the right of taxation, the ju- 
 dicial records of our State will show. At the time of separation the lands had but little 
 value in cash, but were regarded as of great importance for settling and as a means of in- 
 creasing the wealth and political power of the countr)'. Proposals of sale w'ere interchanged. 
 Massachusetts would have transferred her interest to Maine for $150,000; Maine offered 
 $100,000, and the negotiations were dropped, most unfortunately for Maine. Portions of the 
 lands w^ere afterwards divided by alternate to»vnships, and, up io 1%2>2, Massachusetts re- 
 ceived into her treasury $122,465.94, as proceeds of sales of land and timber in Maine. In 1832, 
 an agreement of the Land Agents of the two States for a system of management and joint 
 sales was assented to by the respective Legislatures, and in and by this convention it was 
 agreed, that ten per cent, of the gross proceeds of the sales should be expended for improve- 
 ments in the way of roads and bi'idges, and rendering watercourses navigable for the float- 
 ing timber, thereby largely enhancing the value of the remaining unsold lands. From 1832 
 till 1852, Massachusetts paid out only $69,939.49 for roads, bridges and other improvements, 
 while she received $1,927,719.54 as the proceeds of the sales. Maine paid out, from 1832 till 
 1852, $183,116.23 for roads and bridges, leaving a deficit due from Massachusetts of $113,276.74, 
 assuming that the gross amount of sales by the two States was equal.” 
 
 Now comes an important statement ; that which I have read be- 
 ing merely by way of introduction to this : 
 
 “ In 1851 Maine became aroused and alarmed at the course pursued by Massachusetts in 
 contravention of the principles of the compact, y\z: granting licenses to cut timber without 
 limit, or selling the timber and lumber only, retaining the title to the soil, thereby shutting up 
 the lands from settlement, and keeping them from taxation." 
 
9 
 
 Hear, gentlemen, a little farther, what he says in this memorial : 
 
 *• Maine remonstrated, but without success, and saw no remedy except apurchase from Massa- 
 chusetts of all her remaining interests in the public lands." 
 
 And he says Maine did subsequently purchase, and pay $362,500 
 for the remnants and residuary interests of Massachusetts, and then 
 goes on and states figures, and says : 
 
 “ Showing a total of $ 2,682,246.90 received by Massachusetts, without interest, since the sepa- 
 ration, as the proceeds of sales of land in Maine, drawn from the industry of Maine to aid the 
 School Fund of Massachusetts, atid to succor, in its hour of difficulty, the drooping fortunes of 
 the Western Railroad." “ No adjustment of this claim for deficiency of expenditure for 
 roads, bridges and improvements was attempted at the time of the purchase— so anxious 
 was Maine to arrest these unfriendly proceedings, and secure complete jurisdiction and con- 
 trol of the lands within her own territory.” 
 
 This is the State that finds fault with us about the act of 1860 ! 
 These are the men who talk about “unfriendly legislation”!! 
 How gracefully this comes from them ! From what a high emin- 
 ence of liberality do they look down upon us and talk to us about 
 illiberal things. ' They us till 1820, then ’‘^reluctantly'’' parted 
 from us, taking for herself Eleven millions, eight hundred and twenty -four 
 thousand, four hundred and thirty-eight acres of our land — from which 
 she has received about Three Millions of Dollars. They agreed to 
 expend ten per cent of their sales upon roads, bridges, &c., and they 
 were deficit in this matter and are to-day a sum which the memori- 
 al makes up to “$ 146,515.08 without computing interest thereon.” 
 To embarrass and prevent the settlement of their lands, and cheat us 
 out of the tax, they resort to the subterfuge of “ selling the timber and 
 lumber, only retaining the title to the soil and yet, in 1865, these indi- 
 viduals read us lectures about “ unfriendly legislation ” ! What has 
 wrought this great change in their moral nature ? Have they for- 
 got the past ? or do they think we have ? Do they consider they 
 have a right to do these things, and then preach us sermons ? — send 
 their agents to talk to us of illiberal acts ? 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the same spirit which has wrung from us the mil- 
 lions, so conclusively shown in this memorial, now comes and asks 
 for more, by the transfer of all your trade, and that Avhich by our 
 industry and enterprise w^e have obtained from other quarters. The 
 argument of unfriendly legislation must come from some other 
 source to carry the merit of precept and example with it. 
 
 E/eturning now to the inquiry, why Massachusetts interests her- 
 self so much about the matter, let us inquire, in the first place, “Why 
 does she desire the repeal of this Statute ?” Simply, because she 
 believes it is for her benefit to have it done. No one will contend, I 
 think, that she desires it for our good : such unselfish acts are very 
 rare in this world, and would appear a little singular in the company 
 of such acts as I have read from this memorial. It is undoubtedly 
 for her own interest she is working. Why does she complain of the 
 Act of 1860, as a species of “ special legislation ” ? Not simply be- 
 cause it is special legislation, but because it is of thfit character which 
 interferes with her profits from Maine. She regards it as against her 
 interests. If she looked upon it as promoting her interest, do you 
 think she would complain ? By no means : it is because the Act of 
 1860 stands in the way of her profit and interest! 
 
 Pursuing the same course of inquiry. Why does she regard the 
 Act as “ unfriendly legislation ” ? How is it unfriendly ? There can 
 be no pretence that the Act was passed with any malice towards 
 
10 
 
 them. There can be no pretence that we have a desire to injure 
 them. There is not the least particle of evidence that Ave withhold 
 anything which belongs to them. Hoav, then, is it unfriendly ? It 
 is only unfriendly because their interest Avould be promoted by its 
 repeal. If their interests were best promoted by its existence, think 
 you they would regard it as unfriendly legislation ? It is, then, 
 simply unfriendly because they are prevented from reaping a profit 
 from a trade we noAV receive. 
 
 Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen, we have, I think, necessarily arrived 
 at the conclusion, that they regard the existence of the Act as detri- 
 mental to their interests — that its repeal would promote their inter- 
 est ; and now the inquiry arises, how the repeal will obviate their 
 difficulties, and promote their desires ? In other Avords, What is 
 their scheme ? What do they propose to do ? 
 
 They propose to change the terminus of the Grand Trunk Rail- 
 way from Portland to the City of Boston. 
 
 They propose to change the point of departure and arrival of a 
 weekly line of steamers noAv leaving our coast, and crossing the At- 
 lantic from the City of Portland, to the City of Boston. 
 
 They propose to take the benefit of the Western trade, Avhich Ave 
 noAV have, coming over the Grand Trunk Paihvay. 
 
 They propose to obtain a return of the trade of Maine. 
 
 They propose, Avhen we have built the European & North Ameri- 
 can PailAvay, (for they will never pay a dollar towards it,) to take 
 the benefit of that enterprise, also — in homely, practical phrase, 
 they propose Ave shall furnish the fodder and hold the coav Avhile 
 they milk her. 
 
 They propose to change the City of Portland from the busy, active, 
 thriving, rapidly increasing “ toAvn at the East,” to a place Avithout 
 trade, and make it a peninsula over which to transfer the trade of 
 the West, the North and the East to the “hub ” of NeAV England. 
 
 They propose we shall change our State policy, of building up a 
 business and trade in our own midst, and again open the old chan- 
 nels to Boston, and any legislation having different ends in vieAV, 
 they tell us is “unfriendly legislation.” \ 
 
 Mr. Speaker, States, as well as individuals, are the subjects of 
 ambitions and jealousies ; and our innumerable Avaterfalls, magnifi- 
 cent coast, and almost inexhaustable resources for a great manufac- 
 turing and commercial State, coupled with the rapid and unexam- 
 pled growth and prosperity of some of our cities, has not failed to 
 excite our ambition or the jealousies of our neighbors. Boston has 
 neither been unmindful of our prosperity, or ignorant of its cause. 
 
 This once dependency of Massachusetts is noAV a sovereign, inde- 
 pendent State, exhibiting in the present many evidences of a future, 
 rivalling in power, both political and commercial, the ancient 
 Commonwealth herself. 
 
 Now, sir, why should we fall back to the old position of depend- 
 ency to Massachusetts ? Why should we subsidize ourselves to them? 
 
 Why should we give them the benefit of every enterprise Ave have 
 started and carried to success ? Why, pray tell us, should loe open 
 every channel of trade to them ? 
 
 The history of the State, both before and since its organization as 
 a State, which Ave find so carefully compiled in the memorial of the 
 
11 
 
 gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Poor,) does not show imy equitable vqq.- 
 sons for it, and no gentleman lias been kind enough' to show us any 
 other reasons for it. It is not suggested that it will increase our 
 power or advance our position as a State, unless it be in a moral 
 point, by repealing this unfriendly Act. It is not suggested that it 
 will increase the foreign and domestic trade of the State. It is not 
 suggested that it will give a stimulus to trade, agriculture or arts, 
 or increase in any measure our prosperity. Why is it, then ? Can 
 any one give us a good reason for it ? My friend who sits on the 
 left (Mr. Poor) has urged this as a means to obtain aid from Massa- 
 chusetts in the construction of his railway. 
 
 A few years ago the Legislature chartered what is called the Eu- 
 ropean & North American Pailway Company, and authorized the 
 construction of a railroad from the vicinity of Bangor, across the 
 State, to the Provincial line, there to connect with a road in the 
 Provinces, (if any should ever be built.) John A. Poor is said to be 
 President of this scheme. He has asked Massachusetts to help 
 build the road, and his request is in these words : 
 
 “ We therefore respectfully ask the Legislature of Massachusetts to assign to said Rail- 
 way Company its claims against the United States Government, held jointly with Maine, 
 reh;ase and discharge the State of Maine from its certilicates of indebtedness due from said 
 purchase of said lands, and to grant a loan of the credit of the State to the amount of 
 S 5o0,000, to aid in the construction of said railway, and to render such other and farther 
 aid, assistance and encouragement thereto as the Legislature in its wisdom may deem pru- 
 dent and necessary, in view of the importance of tlie European <fe North American Rail- 
 way.” 
 
 A very modest hind of a request.^ unless it teas to he paid for in some way. 
 
 He asks the State of Massachusetts to give up our indebtedness to 
 them, vdiich amounts to $ 200,000, and give to them, also, the claim 
 of Massachusetts against the general Government, which they hold 
 jointly Tvdth us, and which, for aught I know, may be $300,000 
 more, and then, in addition to this a loan of their credit for $500,000 
 more, making in all the very modest request of a gift of a half mil- 
 lion dollars, and a loan to his corporation of a half million dollars 
 more. When the request was made, the inquiry very naturally 
 came. What do you propose to give us for all this ? How do you 
 think vm can afford to put so much into such an enterprise ? These 
 were very jiertinent questions, and must be ans^vered in some way. 
 Some consideration, of course, must be given for such magnificent 
 aid, and it must be a consideration equal, at least, in value to the 
 aid asked for. 
 
 According to the memorial, there is no evidence in the past his- 
 tory of the two States, to lead us to suppose that Massachusetts is 
 suffering and bleeding for an opportunity to give us this amount of 
 money, neither have v^e the more tangible evidence of any offer of 
 it on her part. The idea is perfectly ridiculous, that Massachusetts 
 will make such advances, unless she can see an equal benefit, at 
 least, to bo derived from it. So you will perceive, gentlemen, that 
 if the object is really to get the aid which has been solicited of Mas- 
 sachusetts, it must be paid for in some way or other. 
 
 Now, in answer to the inquiries thus made to him, Avhat does ho 
 propose to give them ? 
 
 As I before remarked, ho proposes to change the terminus of the 
 Grand Trunk Itailway from the City of Portland to the City of Bos- 
 ton, by means of a mixed gauge. Ho then goes on to recount the 
 
12 
 
 value of the change to the City of Boston, and point out the neces- 
 sity which exists for the change. He says, and I read from his 
 memorial, “Within the last ten years Boston has witnessed the 
 gradual withdrawal of the trade of Maine, and the growth of a com- 
 mercial town at the East. The valuation of Portland has increased 
 from $ 4,634,738, in 1845, to $ 26,963,939, in 1864. Her exports 
 to foreign countries, from $ 251,097, in 1845, to $4,396,142, in 1864. 
 Her imports, from $339,791, in 1845, to $ 13,039,749, in 1864 — 
 showing not only a growth of business, but an increase of wealth 
 unexampled in any other city of New England during the same period?'’ 
 
 Now, gentlemen, look at his proposition, as embodied in the par- 
 agraph which I have read : He first says, “ Within the last ten 
 years Boston has witnessed the gradual withdrawal of the trade of 
 Maine.” That is to say, Maine has opened a communication with 
 the producer, and Boston has lost the profits of her trade. He then 
 says the result of this new communication has been to build up “ a 
 commercial town at the East,” the statistics of which show, as he 
 says, “not only a growth of business, but an increase of wealth un- 
 exampled in any other city of New England during the same period.” 
 
 In another part of the memorial, he says, “Twenty years ago, 
 the people of Massachusetts distrusted the ability of the people of 
 Maine to construct a line of railway from the open harbor of Port- 
 land to the boundary of Canada, connecting with a line thence to 
 Montreal. Unaided by other New England capital, the people of 
 Maine persevered in their efforts, and an unbroken line of railway, 
 from Lake Huron to the Ocean, discharges its freight without tran- 
 shipment, on board Ocean Steamers at Portland. A system of rail- 
 ways embracing a length of 1,396 miles, since finished, is now in- 
 cluded in the Grand Trunk Eailway of Canada, with scarcely any 
 connection with Boston, or other portions of New England outside 
 of Maine.” 
 
 Here, gentlemen, you have his proposition. He proposes, so far 
 as he can, to return the trade of Maine, which has been withdrawn. 
 No longer, he tells them, shall you witness “ the growth of this com- 
 mercial town at the East.” The trade which has produced “ not 
 only a growth of business, but an increase of wealth unexampled in 
 any other city of New England during the same period,” shall, he 
 tells them, be transferred to them. He says to them. That line of 
 railway, which we built unaided’’ hy your capital^ when you dis- 
 trusted our ability, shall be opened to your interests and profit. 
 The Ocean Steamers now at Portland, receiving discharges of freight 
 from a line of 1,396 miles of railway, shall receive those freights 
 at Boston, “ outside of Maine.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, is not that the offer, in almost the identical 
 words of the proposition ? and is it not perfectly apparent, that the 
 change and transfer of such important rights and interests must im- 
 poverish us as a State in every point of view ? and can it need any 
 suggestion, to show what immense interests to the City of Portland 
 are involved in this wholesale trade ? But here, again, we meet 
 the gentleman from Augusta, who says we invoke local interests. 
 Pray tell us, what are State interests, but local interests in the ag- 
 gregate. Is Portland worth nothing to the State of Maine ? Can we 
 afford to prostrate her for the aggrandisement of Boston ? What is 
 
13 
 
 tlie City of Portland ? Is it a little, insignificent place, not worlli 
 our care and attention ? or has the learned counsel of the Boston 
 Board of Trade given you some idea of her importance in his me- 
 morial f 
 
 If I recollect aright, it is a city of about 35,000 inhabitants — vir- 
 tuous, intelligent and enterprising. It paid last year, of your State 
 tax, $175,000. It pays this, $328,000. Last year she paid, in 
 taxes and revenue, six millions of dollars. 
 
 She has a weekly line of Ocean Steamers, a line of Steamers to • 
 New York, and a line of Steamers to Boston, besides those plying 
 between ports in this State. She had, during the last year, 3,499 
 arrivals of vessels at her port. Her harbor is your harbor, and one 
 of the best on the continent. Can we afford to lose many such 
 “ locals ” ? She pays one-seventh of the tax of the whole State : six 
 more such locals, and you have absorbed the whole. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, is it well to reverse the order of things in Port- 
 land ? Is it policy to retard this increase of wealth and population ? 
 Is it worth the effort, to try to raise grass in the streets of Portland ? 
 If you transfer all, or indeed any, of these sources of wealth and 
 prosperity to the City of Boston, do you expect that city will contri- 
 bute to the payment of your taxes, or the liquidation of your debt ? 
 No one, for a moment, expects any such aid from them. 
 
 The gentleman from Augusta also argues, that the Statute stands 
 in the way of the completion of the European & North American 
 Pailway, because, as he says, Massachusetts will not aid in building 
 it unless she can participate in its benefits. Very true, she will not ; 
 and it is a very good reason why she slioidd not contribute. There 
 is nothing strange in this refusal. But, gentlemen, I reason upon 
 the subject in this wise ; If the road, when constructed, is of such 
 immense advantage to Massachusetts as to induce them to make the 
 outlay desired, is it not of equal advantage to Maine ? What she gets, 
 we do not ; and what more she gets by a change of gauge, we lose. 
 If this road opens such advantages, let us build it. If twenty years 
 ago we could build “ a line of railway from the open harbor of Port- 
 land to the boundary of Canada, connecting with a line to Montre- 
 al,” “ unaided by other New England capital,” can we not now build 
 a much shorter line, unaided by the Boston capitalists ? VvY have 
 the English capitalist at the other end of this route, as well as that. 
 Then the valuation of Portland Avas $4,()34,738 ; uoav it is $26,963,- 
 939 — almost six times as large. Tlien Portland put into that enter- 
 2 )rise almost one million of dollars. If she could do it then, can she 
 not do it noAV ? No one doubts it. Then why pass by Portland, 
 and seek the aid in Boston ? Very clearly, if the gauge is to be 
 changed, you cannot expect Portland to aid in it. The aid must 
 come from the point that is to derive the benefit. But, says one, if 
 Portland Avill furnish the aid to build the road, Avhy not do so, and 
 keep our system and gauge as it is ? I say, undoubtedly that is the 
 true policy ; but that Avill not ansAver for Boston ; and you see this 
 brings us back directly to the first proposition, that this is a l^oston 
 project ; that it is Boston moving in this matter, and the European 
 & North American Itaihvay aid is a bait to get the restriction re- 
 moved. If Ave build the road, and retain the gauge as noAV estab- 
 lished, they gain nothing. They Avould, in such an event, Avitness 
 
14 
 
 a still greater “ growth of a commercial town at the East.” The 
 only way for them to gain, is by a change of gauge, and that they 
 do whether the European road is built or not. They obtain the 
 certain advantages of a connection with the Grand Trunk. That is 
 all they are after. And here I want to remark, that you have no as- 
 surances of aid from thein in hiilding this road if you do repeal this Act. 
 No promise has been made ; and the manager here has no author- 
 ity to make any. He does not appear here for the Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts ; he only appears for the Boston Board of Trade. 
 
 The State of Massachusetts never will grant such aid. Beflect a 
 moment, gentlemen. Set your own reason at work. The great ad- 
 vantage of this change is to Boston — the single City of Boston — not 
 to Massachusetts, only as she is interested in Boston. 
 
 The gift and the loan is asked of the whole State, and if granted, 
 comes from the wdiole State. Salem, Lynn, Lowell, Lawrence, 
 Springfield, AVorcester, and hundreds of interior towns, have some- 
 thing to say about such a grant as that; and wfith no very direct 
 interest in the scheme, you will not only judge whether there is any 
 probability in its being granted, but you will find the true reason 
 why no resolve appropriating aid has ever passed both branches of 
 their Legislature. In 1852, a resolve did pass the Senate, but it 
 failed in the popular branch ; and you will notice it w^as not on ac- 
 count of this restriction, for it was eight years before the Act was 
 passed ; and from that time to this, there has not been even a re- 
 port of a committee in favor of it. 
 
 Gentlemen, it does not mean aid to the European Load. It 
 means a transfer of the privileges bought by us, when they distrust- 
 ed our ability. Once remove the restriction, and you will discover 
 the designs. The Boston Board of Trade can promise nothing from 
 the Commonwealth. They know very well they cannot get the State 
 to embark in any such scheme. The interior towns and cities of 
 that State wfill be very wary about entering into an arrangement to 
 build a railroad in another State. Their Housac Tunnel has n^ yet 
 been completed ; they have as many public enterprises, on ^^ich 
 the whole State is directly interested, as they will furnish aid for. 
 
 As I said before, gentlemen, it does not mean aid to the European 
 Bead. The gentleman who is here, laboring day and night so assid- 
 uously for his employers, conies from the Boston Board of Trade, to 
 bring about a repeal of this Act, that the}; may avail themselves of 
 the advantages of a road already built, and a course of trade already 
 established. They are not moving in the dark, or proceeding in any 
 doubtful speculation. If it meant aid for the European Bead, w'hy 
 have they not made an appropriation this winter ? Their Legisla- 
 ture is in session now. They could have passed a conditional aid 
 bill, if they desired. Every day, since this matter was broached 
 here, has carried by telegraph the intelligence of its success ; yet no 
 telegram announces to us that even a committee are considering the 
 subject. And, gentlemen, why should they, if, as the gentleman 
 from Bangor (Mr. Garnsey) told us in the beginning, you had con- 
 cluded to repeal this Act, and give them all the advantages flowing 
 from it, without consideration or conditions. It would be folly 
 for them to expend a million of dollars for that which they could 
 obtain for nothing; not quite equal, however, to ours in giving 
 
15 
 
 away that which may be worth hundreds of millions to us. But I 
 know, gentlemen, that the great length of time which I have occu- 
 pied has tired you with listening, and while I have watched care- 
 fully the signs of uneasiness consequent upon it, I have been grati- 
 fied in finding more of it on my left (where Mr. Poor was sitting) 
 than in front. I have, however, but a few more suggestions to 
 make. 
 
 [At this point the House adjourned, on motion of Mr. Miller, of 
 Portland.] 
 
 Upon the next day, the bill being under discussion, Mr. Tapley 
 remarked as follows: 
 
 ]V[r. Speaker and Gentlemen : — When the House adjourned, it 
 was my intention to have proceeded farther into the discussion of 
 the bill itself, but upon reflection and in view of the time already 
 occupied, I shall defer the farther discussion of the bill to such re- 
 ply as may be elicited by suggestions from the other side of the 
 House. I desire, however, to say now, that when the proper time 
 comes in the debate, I shall move the reference of the subject to 
 the next Legislature. 
 
 I shall do this for two reasons at least. 
 
 One is, that it is a question of great magnitude, and involving very 
 great interests ; — interests not merely connected with the present, 
 but reaching far down into the future. It is no ordinary subject of 
 legislation, but involves a change of the policy of the State — not 
 respecting mere temporary matters — subjects which come and pass 
 with every session — but one which affects the vital energies and in- 
 terests of the State for the present, and it may be all future time. 
 
 The consideration and caution so necessary in legislative action, 
 rises in importance with the importance of the subject under discus- 
 sion. The enactment of a public law merely remedial in its nature, 
 needs not that public discussion and criticism which an Act involv- 
 ing a change of the policy of the State, with reference to its trade 
 and commerce, absolutely requires. Upon such questions, the rep- 
 resentative should understand the views of the constituent, and the 
 constituent should learn the true policy, by public and private dis- 
 cussions, through those avenues usually adopted in criticising meas- 
 ures of such great importance. The other reason is, that the eon- 
 stituent has neither been heard upon this subject, or had any notice 
 or intimation that the subject was to be discussed this session. 
 
 As I have before remarked, not twenty men in the State, on the 
 day of our election, had the most remote idea that this question was 
 to be presented this winter. We should remember, that we are but 
 a small portion of the State ; that great interests reside in the con- 
 stituency at home. It was only the ordinary matters of legislation 
 that were expected to arise, and it does seem to me that prudence 
 dictates the deference of this subject another year. 
 
 It will afford time and opportunity for discussion, consultation 
 and thought. The press will take it up and discuss it in its various 
 bearings, and correct conclusion will be arrived at. If it shall be 
 found useful to repeal the Act, then it can be done ; if it should be 
 
16 
 
 found unwise and impolitic to do so, then we are in a safe condi- 
 tion, and no parties have been misled by our action, and no rights 
 have intervened to embarrass in returning to our present prosper- 
 ous policy. 
 
 Again I entreat gentlemen not to act hastily upon this subject. 
 Cast off all alliances, if any have been made. Know nothing but 
 your duties as legislators. 
 
 The calm, considerate action of a legislative body will be likely to 
 be permanent ; but a result obtained by other and indefensible means, 
 affords a very unsafe basis of action. 
 
 The Bill for the repeal having been supported by Mr. Garnsey, 
 and Gen. Hersey, of Bangor, and Mr. Stevens, of Augusta, 
 
 Mr. Tapley remarked as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker : — I shall occupy the attention of the House for a 
 few moments only, to notice a few of the suggestions made by the 
 gentlemen who have addressed the House in favor of the bill. 
 
 My friend (Garnsey) commences by saying I “ have a hard case 
 and a bad case.” In one view of the subject, this may be so. If 
 the judgment has been made up, upon ex parte statements, and upon 
 extraneous considerations, as he notified us early in the debate, then 
 it is a hard case to take ; and in that view, also, it might well be 
 denominated a had case ; but in no other point of view do I so re- 
 gard it. I have waited with patience, and some degree of anxiety, 
 to hear some argument adduced for the repeal. Instead of treating 
 to such a feast, however, my friend commences again to “ring the 
 changes” upon the catch phrases of “ narrow gauge,” “narrow 
 policy,” “broad gauge” and “broad and liheral policy.” 
 
 There are times and places where and when such sounds have their 
 influence. Whether they will here or not, I cannot tell. They 
 hardly comport with the dignity of a legislative assembly, consider- 
 ing matters of great moment. 
 
 I do not regard the policy of a State as indicated in any measure 
 by the gauge of its railroads. There may be a narrow policy exer- 
 cised upon a broad gauge, and a broad policy upon a narrow gauge. 
 If this afforded any indication of a narrow policy, it would put the 
 gentleman’s Massachusetts allies in a more unfavorable light than he 
 seeks to represent us, for they have no broad gauge roads. It must 
 however be apparent to you, that such phrases are thrown in as 
 “ make- weights,” and used with the purpose of prejudicing the 
 hearer, rather than convincing him. 
 
 I find but two arguments advanced : The first is advanced by 
 my friend Garnsey, and is, “that the present system dams up trade 
 in Portland,” — “ Freights require transhipment there.” He desires 
 free communication, without transhipment and change of cars. Now 
 I understand that is just the position the Boston Board of Trade 
 takes with reference to the matter. They don’t want it dammed up 
 in Portland, or in Maine anywhere. They want it dammed up in 
 Boston. What must my friend do vrhen he gets to Boston? Can 
 he go on through to New York, without change of cars '? Can he 
 
17 
 
 go to any place beyond, without change of cars % It is a well known 
 tact, he cannot. Now if he breaks the dam at Portland, it is only 
 to make the dam at Boston ; and that is just what they desire. It 
 is their policy, long practiced ; nothing can induce them to depart 
 from it. It has made Boston what it is. If it has been beneficial 
 to them, can he tell us why it would not to us? If it is illiberal in 
 us, can he tell why it is liberal in them? If a ‘‘narrow policy” in 
 us, why it is a “broad policy” in them? 
 
 The difficulty, gentlemen, is not because trade is dammed up, but 
 because it is dammed up in Portland instead of Boston. They say 
 the principle is right, but t\\Q place is Avrong. So, gentlemen, you see 
 ill whatever aspect you view the case, it is an attempt of the Boston 
 capitalists to obtain a trade and business Avhich legitimately belongs 
 to us, by reason of position and communication with the West. If 
 Ave OAve it to them, give it to them ; if we do not, let us retain it. 
 
 His colleague (Gen. Hersey) has given us another vieAV of the case: 
 He says, “there are three places in the United States to Avhich the 
 surplus products of the West tend for exportation — Portland, Noav 
 York and Baltimore.” 
 
 This is unquestionably so. The Boston Board of Trade vieAV it 
 ill the same light ; their agent here substantially so states in his me- 
 morial. Speaking to the Boston people in his memorial, he says 
 “ that it is impossible to lift freight over the Berkshire hills, and 
 bring it to Boston for export to Europe.” “ It Avill,” he says, “ fol- 
 loAv the Avater line of the Hudson to NeAV York, or of the St. LaAV- 
 rence to its nearest shipping port in winter, Portland, instead of 
 scaling the ridges that separate the valley of the Hudson from the 
 Avaters of Massachusetts Bay.” He also tells them that “flour and 
 grain Avere at one time exports from Boston to Maine, and a change 
 has been effected by the completion of the railway from Montreal to 
 Portland, and from thence to the Kennebec mid to Bangor;” that 
 “the experience of the last feAV years has shoAVii that flour and 
 Western produce, to some extent, already come to Boston by the 
 Avay of Portland, and that Eastern Maine is gradually draAving its 
 supplies from the West by the same route.” 
 
 Noav if I understand the argument of the memorial, it is this : By 
 the completion of this line of railway, the surplus produce of the 
 West goes to Portland for exportation, instead of coming over the 
 Berkshire hills and scaling the ridge Avhich separates the valley of 
 the Hudson from the Avaters of Massachusetts Bay, and that such as 
 does not folloAV this line folio avs the Avater line of the Hudson to Noav 
 York; that betAveen NeAV York and Portland they lose the Avdiole 
 export trade and its incidents, and that unless they do somethin o- to 
 regain or obtain this business, that “commercial town at the East” 
 Avill continue to increase in the remarkable manner indicated by its 
 statistics during the last ten years. The memorial substantially says. 
 You have lost the trade of Maine ; she exports to you, instead of you 
 to her, and you have lost the exportation business abroad, and it be- 
 comes you to look about yourself to retain your position as the first 
 city in Ncav England. Maine is a large State — has immense re- 
 sources ; Portland has a most remarkable harbor — produce is landed 
 directly from the car to ship and steamer — no other city in the States 
 
18 
 
 famishing sncli facilities for transhipment, &g., &g. Now, Mr. 
 Speaker, I understand this to be the argument there adduced, and 
 it appears to be legitimately drawn from the facts. 
 
 The Boston Board of Trade, realizing the force of these facts and 
 figures, at once conclude that the remedy for the evil is to make the 
 water line of the St. Lawrence end in l^oston, then by various con- 
 siderations induce the carriers of exports to sail from Boston instead 
 of Portland, and the present line of Ocean Steamers will make that 
 their point of arrival and departure. I therefore do not find myself 
 diftering materially from the gentleman from Bangor (Gen. Hersey) 
 upon the facts as stated by him. But the Act of 1800 , you will per- 
 ceive, is in the way, hence this movement is made ; and for this 
 purpose this movement is made. 
 
 The General, however, tries to think this will not inalce any dif- 
 ference in the trade ; but Mr. Poor advises his friends in Boston that 
 it will — that it will make a vast difierence. However tliat may be, 
 is it not safe to say, it will do us no good? Whether Boston will de- 
 rive any benefit Ifom it or not, we have not yet found a man ad- 
 dressing House or Committee fool-hardy enough to say it will be 
 any benefit to us. We as a State gain nothing. While none assert 
 tliat we gain anything as a State, it is, it appears to me, very appa- 
 rent we lose. 
 
 Having again recourse to the memorial for fiicts and figures, what 
 do we find has been accomplished under the present system ? From 
 that paper it appears ‘Hhat the trade of Maine has gradually been 
 Avithdrawn from Boston;” “that instead of Boston exporting grain 
 to Maine, Maine exports it to Boston “ that the City of Poibland, 
 situated at the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway, has increased 
 six times in valuation since the completion of that road that the 
 exports from Portland to foreign countries have increased twenty 
 times in value, and her imports forty times in value. 
 
 Can any man say the change can be made without detriment? Is 
 it ])0ssible, that a system can produce such results and be abandoned 
 Avith impunity ? Bear in mind, I do not draw these facts and figures 
 from my own imagination, or from questionably sources. I take 
 them from the pen of the gentleman Avho is engineering this bill 
 throimh, and all men, friends or foes, Avill credit him Avith remark- 
 able ability and extensive knowledge in all matters pertaining to rail- 
 i-oads; — and here I acknoAvledge the great obligation I am under to 
 him for this compilation of facts. Without it, I should have been 
 unable to debate the question at all. It is full of proofs of the great 
 value of the movement to the City of Boston. 
 
 A remark or two from the gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Stevens) 
 deserves passing notice. He has, even Avith this unanswerable array 
 of facts before him, labored most energetically to convince himself 
 that Massachusetts lins not asked for this repeal ; but the more he 
 htbored, the more apparent it appeared to him they Avere the sole 
 party. At every turn in his speech the truth Avould appear, and 
 finally he Avas compelled to admit, substantially, that such Avas the 
 fiict, and then justify it by bestOAving high encomiums upon the Pa- 
 rent CommoiiAvealth, and taking umbrage at the inferences arising 
 from the extracts read from the memorial. 
 
19 
 
 In relation to that matter, gentlemen, I have to say, that I neither 
 made the facts nor tlie memorial, nor the inferences arising from 
 them. They come from other sources, and originate from the other 
 side of' the House. I have no disposition to detract in the least from 
 the high character and eulogium which he has pronounced for that 
 State. I am as proud of tliat State as he is. It is my native State. 
 There -were spent all my early days ; there all my early associations ; 
 there are my kindred, dead and living, and at home or abroad I love 
 to hear her good deeds recounted. No man, here or there, takes 
 greater pleasure in her prosperity and good name tlian I do. But, 
 gentlemen, this can afford no reason for giving her or any other lo- 
 cality rights belonging to the State of my adoption. The interests 
 of Maine, too, are dear to me, and her good name and prosperity a 
 pleasure ; and while a citizen of the State I shall feel bound to watch 
 with jealous care any measure looking toward an encroachment iipon 
 any right of hers, or tending in any degree to retard her progress or 
 paralyze her energies. Such is the duty of every citizen. 
 
 The measure before us seemed to me one which involved great 
 interests to the State and the citizen. It is’one seriously threatening 
 the energies and continued prosperity of the principal city in the 
 State, and as it affects that for good or evil, so it does the State. 
 
 The gentleman from Westbrook (Mr. Payson) has argued that 
 I^ortland, by reason of the extraordinary exertions made by her in 
 tlie construction of the Grand Trunk Railway, have a right to the 
 protection which the Statute of 1860 gives. This has again started 
 the cry of “local interests !” “local interests!” It is a very pretty 
 “ rallying cry,” gentlemen ; but to my mind, out of place in such an 
 assembly as this. As I before remarked, general interests and State 
 interests are local interests in the aggregate ; great rivers are made 
 of small streams, and if the supplies to the streams are cut off the 
 river dries up. As the river requires the supplies to the streams, so 
 the State requires the supplies to the municipalities of which it is 
 made. It appears to me the argument is well taken, and the answer 
 weak. There is reason why Portland is entitled to consideration in 
 the matter. 
 
 Twenty years ago the people of Portland made extraordinary ex- 
 ertions to carry through and build a portion of the Grand Trunk 
 Railway. Citizens of that city even mortgaged their dwelling houses 
 and pledged their very hearth-stones to raise money to aid the en- 
 tei'prise. By their indomitable energy and unprecedented persever- 
 ance, it succeeded; and that, too, as stated by Mr. Poor, “unaided 
 by other New England capital.” They are now reaping some of 
 the fruits of their labors and investments, and certainly it appears to 
 me they have not only a deej) intei-est in the matter under considera- 
 tion, but they have also, upon every principle of honor and justice, 
 rights which ought to be i)rotected. A piece of legislation wdiich 
 will take away from them by major strength the interest, advantage 
 and ])rivileges so onerously and creditably obtained, can never com- 
 mend itself to calm, intelligent reflection. Even if it were admitted, 
 that some localities in the State might profit by it, no rule of justice, 
 equity or comity would require that Portland should make the sac- 
 rifice. It is not, however, for our benefit the cliange is sought, but 
 
r\\ 11 I I II II III ii\ 
 
 934847 
 
 ^ 3 
 
 2 061 
 
 20 
 
 for the benefit of those who distrusted our ability to construct the 
 road to the Canada line, and refused to aid us in the enterprise. 
 
 The cry of local interest has no force with me. I would protect 
 every locality in its peculiar interests, whenever it can be done with- 
 out detriment to the public weal. 
 
 I would retain the trade, now held by us, in this State. 
 
 I would make a Boston, and more, on Casco Bay, by preserving 
 to the people of Portland and vicinity the legitimate fruits of their 
 enterprise and energy. , 
 
 I would build up the interior — foster the interest of the inland 
 cities — increase the facilities of communication with one another — 
 protect and aid the peculiar interests of Augusta and Bangor, and 
 open to them the productive valleys of their rivers. 
 
 I would build the European & North American Railway. 
 
 I would guard sedulously all the interests of our State — Agricul- 
 tural, Educational and Commercial ; but I never would squander 
 away all these, and more, in some fanciful trade with Railroad 
 Brokers, or give away the very elements of our prosperity, if not 
 existence, as a State. 
 
 We can adopt and maintain a policy which will make us in time 
 a great State in every point of view, or we can now take the step 
 towards returning to the subsidiary position which we have once 
 before occupied. 
 
 Gentlemen, I came into the debate a stranger to many of the im- 
 portant questions arising in it. I had no thought that such a ques- 
 tion would arise during the session. My constituents and yours are 
 even now ignorant of the pendency of this question ; and although 
 assured in the beginning, that the measure was to pass, I have at 
 times hoped that it would be deferred for farther reflection, and that 
 we should exhibit some evidence of an appreciation of the import- 
 ance of the subject. If, however, the measure must pass, those Avho 
 come after us may correct the errors we commit. 
 
 Thanking you for the very flattering manner in which you have 
 listened to my remarks, and suggesting the great importance of the 
 subject as the only apology due for the length of time I have taken, 
 I leave the subject in your hands. 
 
 Printed by direction of the Board of Trade, Portland. 
 
 C. S. King, Printer.