Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Lake Ontario shore railroad : letter from Gerrit Smith.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 553

LAKE ONTARIO SHORE RAIILROAD.

LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH.

PETERBORO April 13th 1870.

[col. 1]

Messrs. SCOVELL, WILSON, FOWLER,

THE NIAGARA CO. DIRECTORS OF THE L. O. S. RAILROAD:

You are aware that, for several months, I have been advising the abandonment of our undertaking. I must continue to advise it, providing the people along the route of our road shall continue to manifest no stronger desire for building the road.

It is several years since we began to bold meetings, larger or smaller, for the building of this road: and more than two years since we organized to build it. Nevertheless, we have not yet broken ground. At the time of the organization, it was believed that the road could be built by private or individual subscriptions; - but, ere long, we found it could not. Town-bonding was fast becoming the principal and almost exclusive means for building railroads in this part of the country : and such of us, as had been opposed to this new means, soon felt obliged to acquiesce in it, if we would not be left standing in the way of the further building of railroads. A law was obtained, authorizing the towns, through which our road would pass, to bond themselves, in aid of building it, for twenty per cent of their assessed valuations. Only a little time before, legal permission had been obtained to carry town-bonding in the case of the Midland road as high as thirty per cent : and many of us regretted that the like latitude was not allowed in the case of our road. For nothing could have reconciled us to this bonding of our towns, had we feared that a debt might be left upon our road so large as to endanger their ownership of it. Nevertheless, believing that on a route so remarkably smooth and free from obstructions as is ours, a road could be built at an unusually low cost, we resolved to build it, provided the towns would go as far as they were allowed to in affording the means. We did not suppose that the twenty per cent would pay quite the whole cost. But we did suppose that we could supply the deficiency by a loan, and that the loan would not need to be so large as to threaten the towns with losing the ownership of the road.

Very soon, however, it began to appear that we had greatly overrated the general desire for the road. Only two or three of the towns were willing to bond for twenty per cent. I believe only one has actually gone so high. More of them were willing to bond for but fifteen. Perhaps, still more for but ten; and some of them were not willing to bond at all. All this, too, notwithstanding these towns are fertile, and most of them exceedingly so. All this, too, notwithstanding their innumerable orchards more beautiful, when laden with ripe fruits, than the most beautiful flower gardens, are in so great need of a railroad to get their fruits of unsurpassed quality to hungry markets. And all this, too, when the twenty per cent is not more than six or eight per cent of the value of the assessed property. Just then and there, when we were amazed at finding the desire of these towns for the road to be as weak as their soil is strong, and as fruitless as their fields are fruitful, we ought to have stopped, and taken immediate steps for the disbanding of our company. Nevertheless, various encouragements and the hopes begotten of them were allowed to hold us back from this duty : and hence is it that we have prolonged the miserable existence of our company to this late day. Nor, even yet, is the patience of all the directors quite exhausted - for, still, one more meeting of the directors is appointed. It is to be in Rochester, on the second Tuesday of June. Some of them hope that, by that time, the towns will, with the exception of two or three, that cannot be largely benefitted by the road, consent to bond for the twenty per cent. If this hope shall not be realized, then in the name of all that is reasonable and righteous, do I trust that the building of the road by our company will be finally and fully given up.

Our road would, ere now, have been, at least, half built, or our purpose to build it dropped forever, had it not been for the great folly of which a part of the towns were guilty in proposing to bond themselves for a less sum than the largest which the law allows, and had it not also been for the still greater folly of which officers of our company were guilty in listening to propositions so unreasonable, not to say so absurd. How could I adequately characterize this lack of wisdom by using a less emphatic word than "folly ?" I do not say that the towns should have bonded themselves at all, or taken so much as one step in behalf of building the road. I do not say that the road is worth building, though my large subscription to the building of it indicates my own estimate of the value of such a level link between the railroads of the great east and greater west. All I, here, say is that the towns should have promptly consented to bond for the twenty per cent, or promptly refused to bond at all; and that propositions for any thing different should not have been entertained for a single moment.

[col. 2]

The principal reasons why the towns have held back from adequate bonding are three. One of them is their hope that the road would be built, whether they did or did not help much to build it. But how idle to hope that, after they who are so especially interested in having it built had refused the means, others would come forward to build it for them ! Another of these reasons is their fear that they would be "swindled" by the directors. This is the word which has been so freely used to kindle their suspicions and feed their alarms. All I have to say at this point is that, if the towns bond themselves for the twenty per cent, they will have it in their power to choose the directors; and will, therefore, be themselves responsible for a bad choice of directors. The remaining reason why the towns have refrained from bonding to the whole extent the law allows, is their preferring to put less rather than more of their property to hazard. Such a preference is, as a general thing, undoubtedly wise. But in this case the degree of risk, as well as the amount risked, is to be taken into the account; and in this case the degree is inversely as the amount. In other words, the less the amount the greater the degree of risk. If the towns furnish but half the means required for building the road, it is true that they put to hazard only half as much of their property, as if they had furnished the whole; but it is also true that, whilst in the latter case the degree of hazard would be very small, in the former case it would be very large. For the large loans necessary to be made in the former case would very likely result in transferring the ownership of the road from the towns to the lenders. The tendency to this result is made all the stronger by the probability that, whilst the town bonds would sell at par, the company bonds would sell at some twenty or thirty percent below par. This depreciation of the bonds of the company and this change of owners are, in the light of the history of those railroads, which are built largely by loans, seen to be well-nigh unavoidable.

Is it said that the towns in question have the right to make this foolish use of what is their own ? I am slow to admit it. Least of all do I admit that the directors have the right to fall in with such folly. They have no right to have any part in exposing the towns to the great hazard and, indeed, to so nearly certain loss of a large amount of hard-earned property. Nor have they any right to do that, which will scarcely fail to bring reproach upon themselves. Right-minded men are too regardful of their reputation to consent to be the directors of a road which will, in all probability, load the original and honest stockholders with great loss and themselves with great disgrace. Our directors should not only decline, but indignantly fling back, every proposition to have the towns bond themselves for less than the highest sums they have the legal right to bond themselves for-in other words,. every proposition tending so strongly to the bankruptcy of the company, and, therein, to the disgrace of the directors. By the way, how shall we directors, after all our pledges (such, for instance, as were exacted and given in the Wilson Meeting last Fall) to require, in all ordinary cases, a uniform rate of town-bonding, be able to bold up our shame-filled faces in the presence of such a town as Wolcott? That town which, to her credit, was so prompt to bond herself for twenty per cent, would not fail to regard us as dishonorable men, if we should be guilty of the partiality of accepting a less percentage of bonding from the rich towns between the Genesee and Niagara Rivers.

I, sometimes, hear the remark that where a town is now willing to bond for twenty per cent, but has given the necessary consent to be bonded at a less rate, it will cost too much labor to prepare and execute new papers. Surely, surely, such a remark can be made by none who have a proper sense of the importance of our undertaking. In the light of this importance no account should be made of fifty fold this labor.

I know you - and I look for prompt and wise action in this matter, at your hands. I hope to bear within a fortnight that all the north towns in your county resound with the cry "TWENTY PER CENT OR NOTHING!" "NOTHING" would indeed be a painful decision. Nevertheless, it would be far preferable to the continuation of this long and disgraceful suspense. Should the decision in your county be: "TWENTY PER CENT," the speedy building of the road would be certain. For this decision would be immediately and triumphantly repeated all across Orleans, Monroe, Wayne, Cayuga and to the Oswego River. "TWENTY PER CENT OR NOTHING!" Either of these positions might be wise - but certain is it that any and every thing between them is nonsense. Either of them is manly but all between is puerile. Either denotes courage - but what lies between is cowardice. Either is respectable - but to halt between them is ridiculous.

Respectfully, your friend

GERRIT SMITH.