IMAGE EVALUATtON TEST TARGET (MT-3) .^^ ^W P om. V M Photographic Sciences Corporation 73 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 iV 4% #'4 <\ A- 0^ ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants ac^araitra sur la demidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, pistes, charts, ate, may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc , peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour ^tre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n4cessaire. Les diagramn-.es suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 S 6 Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, Managing Director's Office^ Montreal, 2 3nd Dec , 1873. Dear Sir, I received on my return from New York, your letter of the i8th insc, and your subsequent letter of the 19th, asking me to make a cc^irection in the last clause of you r letter. I regret that you have entered into this correspondence and served the protests on me which you have done, as I am quite sure that this style ot work will not tend to bring about that harmony which, as I have so often before said, I think ought to exist between this Company and your Steamship Line. I shall, in the hope that that harmony will not be unduly disturbed, avoid, as far as possible, referring to many of the expressions in your let- ter which are not of a character likely to do iTi-jch good. With that remi'.rk, and regretting tb-.L your letter should contain many expressions which it does, I pass in silence what otherwise I might be disposed to refer to. I have read the protests which you have served upon me, three in number, and find that they contain statements, put in, I suppose, by the zeal of the lawyers you employ, which are neitlicr courteous, nor correct as matters of fact. It is probably inseparable from documents of this kind, that they should, like lawyers pleadings, contain statements and averments which are not capable of proof, and which are speedily disposed of when the matters are brought to the inexorable lotric of facts and truth. I think it is quite likely that the lawyers I employed to answer your protest, adopted the style which they found had peivaded those you had served upon me. In regard to the question of your averment that there is an existing agreement between us, that we were only to carry 150 carloads of freight a week to Portland, I can only simply again deny, in the most explicit terms, that any such agreement ever was made by this Company. You quote certain letters which passed between yourselves and Mr. P. S. Ste- venson, this Comi)any's Freight Agent ; but you .'uv. of course, perfectly well aware that those letters were simply in the light of discussions upon the subject, and were never intended to contain, as in fact they do not con- tain, anv agreement whatever on the part of this Company, as to the quan- tity of freight that we were to take to Portland. Mr. Stevenson is not the officer of this Company who enters into engagements of the nature to which you refer, and of which you are perfectly cogni/ant, because subse- quently to the date of the letters which you quote. meml)ers of your firm have been in telegraphic and personal comnnuiication with myself, upon the very subject which you say was settled by the letters which you have quoted; and I need hardly remind you that all important arrangements be- tween our two Companies, are always arranged lietween your firm and myself, as representing this Company, tlie details, f)f course, lieing carried out subsequently by the proper officers of this Company. This in itself disposes entirely of the greater pait of your letter : but I must again remind you that long after the correspondence from which you have quoted, your Mr. Allan entered into both personal and telegraphic communication with me, upon the very subject of the capacity which your vessels would have from Portland, At Mr. Allan's request, T saw him, I think on the 2nd or 3rd of Decem- ber, about three weeks after the correspondence with Ivlr. Stevenson, and again the following day in your own office, when the v/hole question of the quantity of freight that was then accumulating at Portland, and the capacity of your steamers to carry freight from that port, was fully discus- sed between us. I told Mr. Allan then, that finding freight was going down so rapidly to Portland, I had stopped a week before the shipment of further freights from Chicago, and that all that would come forward after that, would be the completion of the lots which had been contracted for. I also stated to him that I should require to stop the issue of further bills of lading from places in Canada, until I saw some better chance than ap- peared then to exist to get freight forwarded from Portland. Your Mr. Allan and myself discussed for some considerable time the capacity of your steamers, and calculated, after looking over the various ships comprising your fleet, the quantity of freight that two steamers a week would enable you to send forward. If I remember righth , that figure was 300 car loads a week. Mr. Allan promised, and as he subsequently informed me, carried out his promise, to communicate with his friends in Glasgow, with a view to getting two steamers a week put on, so as to carry off the freights that we were able to take for you to Portland. I offered at those interviews to make an arrangement, both for the present winter and for future winters, to enter into obligations to load two steamers regularly every week at Portland, and to enter into arr? • angements also, ill reoiird to forwanlitij^ freight from places West of Montreal, by your steamers, during the season of navi«;ation of the St. Lawrence. Your Mr. Allan told me that he had discussed the whole matter with his brother — that they were, after that discussion, most desirous of makmg the arrangements which we talked about, and that they had cabled strong- ly to their friends on the other side to send out the ships necessary to sup- ply the wants of the trade that was offering. It is therefore simply wrong in every sense to say that on the 3rd and 7th of November, an agreement was made, when in the first week in December I, myself, was discussing with the members of your firm the question of how much accommodation you would provide at Portland. I was, therefore, entirely justified in directing my lawyer to put into the protest the statement which he did, that no agreement was made with you as to the quantity of freight that should be forwarded weekly to Portland, and 1 don't know definitely yet what the final decision of your Company is as to the amount. , I must, however, remind you that so far, at any rate, you have gone very far indeed behinil even your own idea of 150 cars a week from Portland. With the steamer that sailed on Saturday, four vessels have now left Portland for Liverpool, and the aggregate quantity of freight that they will have carried uvvay, will not exceed, if it reaches 400 car loads, or an average ot rather less than 100 per week. According, therefore, to your own statement, you have fallen behind, in the four weeks, 300 car loads, or 3,000 tons of the quantity which early in November 3011 talked about taking away. And I find that this winter, I must also remind you, that you are sending to Portland, knowing the quantity of freight that is there waiting for your ships to take away, the smallest, instead of the largest, of the vessels of your fleet. You have ves- sels which are capable of carrying 30C car loads and upwards of freight, and yet, knowing the quantity that war, lying at Portland for you to trans- port, you send out a mail steamer vvliose capacity, I think I am right in saying, does not exceed sixty-five cars. You have, further, sent to Port- land to bring the mails this way, one vessel, the Hibernian^ which is able to carry 200 cars of freight ; but instead of loading her at Portland, you send her ofi' to another port, and in place of her, put on the Scan- dinavian^ which carries about 135 cars only. I think I am justified in saying, that there must be some reason other than the mere question of freight accommodation, which causes your peo- ple to adopt a course so extraordinary under the circumstances. The in- capacity of the steamers you are sending out is, of course, one reason why freight is so rapidly accumulating, and when I stated, in the protest which I caused to be served upon you, that the accumulations were now no greater than they have been in past years, I was stating that which was a matter of fact. 4 I think it only necessary to snyTiirtlier upon this subject, that your statement in the letters to which I am now rcplyinj]^, that we have unload- ed cars at points short of Portland, with freight for your steamers, is sim- ply not correct. If, during the List three or four years, there has once or twice been a deficiency of c;irgo for a particular steamer, it has arisen from your, as at present. lorcing me to stop receiving freight for you, and then suddenly putting extra vessels into Portland without notice to us, when, of course, there was not time to get cargo for them from the West. Yo.i must permit me also to say in regard to the next point mentioned in your letter, that T am only using your own language when I say that your proposition in regard to our paying the cost of running your steam- ers, is " simply ridiculous." We certainly are not prepared to undertake your business as steamship owners, and we might, with just as much rea- son, ask you to pay us the expense of carrying freight to Portland for your vessels, as you to ask us to pay the expense of yout ships in carrying freight from Portland to Liverpool. We have no knowledge, or means of knowing, what the proper charges should be on a steamship, and there- fore we should be acting entirely in the dark in the very unheard of ar- rangement that you suggest. I never before heard of either Railway Companies or Steamshij^ Companies proposing in matters of through ar- rangements, that one party, or the other, should agree to pay all the costs of the connecting line, in forwarding freight which was brought to them without expense, by the other pariies to the alliance. In regard to what you say in reference to want of outward cargo, as being the reason why you cannot send ships to Portland, lean only say that, having spent pear- ly a week lately, in New York, I maclo it my business to go to the dillerent Steamship offices, and ascertain what they were doing under similar cir- cumstances. ^^I^ found everywhere 'the universal statement, that whilst there ivere very large quantities of freight forwarded from this side, there was comparatively nothing coming from England, and that as a conse- quence steamers came out widi almost no cargo from Liverpool, or Glas- gow, to New York ; but carrying from New York full cargoes to Liver- pool or Glasgow. Every other Steamship Company, therefore, is placed in precisely the same condition that you are, and yet they find it to their interest to send their ships across the Atlantic light one way, rather than let them remain idle. In regard to the question of rates , I have simply to say, that Mr. Allan, in the interview in the early part of tliis month, to which I have referred, stated that he had no complaint to make, whatever, in regard to the rates at which property was being carried on a through bill of lading. I have only further to add, with reference to that matter, that the proportions thi ca ve.' ot to on lai otl ■ • i«r ^ I upon which thu tliruugh rateii at which l)iisij!es.s is curried by our Railway and your Steamships, have been agreed upon from time to time by mutual arrangement, and the divisions which are now in force are those which have been so settled, and about which, as I have already said, your Mr. Allan told me he had no complaint to make. ■ '; ", •; ' In regard to the proportions of through and local business, I have only to say that your firm have always expressed an anxiety to secure a proportion of the through freight from Chicago, and have urged us to get as much of it as we could ; and if I am not entirely misinformed, and I know that what I say is correct, your Steamship Company is now, and has been carrying from Chicago to Liverpool, through l^altimore, provi- sions and other property at through rates, which do not materially differ from thosej we carry at, in connection with your ships from Portland ; and in regard to this question I may remark, that I am now carrying freight for Liverpool from Chicago, over out line between Detroit and Buffa lo' in coimection with, steamers from New York, on through bills of lading, on terms similar to those at which I have been carrying freight f/^r Port- land, and the steamers from New York are well satisfied with the ar- rangement, and readilv carry o'X all we take there. I should prefer much taking this freight to Portland, if you wouldlet me do so. We have so far shipped for your steamers about 7,000 tons of freight from Canada by Portland, and could easily make tliat 7,000 tons four or five times as much, if you were in a position to forward it. Li regard to the question of stiffening cargo, which I see you refer to in your letter, I must say that I always accepted your statement upon that point as absolutely correct, not having myself any knowledge whatever upon the subject : but I am bound to say, that having conversed w ith many steam- ship people in New York, I was surprised to learn that they absolutely discarded the idea of there being anything] else required to load a ship than boxed meats or provisions. One of the oldest and n^ost experienced captains in t'l:^ Canard service, told me' that he had frequently taken his vessel to sea with no other cargo than the class of prov-sions which usual- ly come luider the head of boxed meats from Chicago, and that he con- sidered that such a load was all that any vessel required, and that he would never have any hesitation in going to sea without a pound of any other description of freight on board. The same statements were made to me in other quarters besides the Cunard Company. I cannot conceive it possible that the "■ Allan" ships are constructed on different principles to those of the other lines running across the At- lantic, or that they require any different kind of cargo than that which other Companies find it perfectly possible to get along with. 1 regret, of course, very much, the position in which the whole matter n \h placed, aggravated aa it is by the small class of vessels, apparently dimin- ishing week by week in capacity, which you are sending out to Portland. I repeat what I have previously said, that I desire, if it is possible to do so, to complete arrangements with your Company, which should be entirely and mutually satisfactory, and desire again to make the offer which I made to your Mr. Allan, to enter into arrangements at once to provide for two steamers a week, (at least 300 cars a week) at Portland, during the season of Winter navigation, and to become responsible, under a proper agreement, for any deficiencies of cargo, — you, on the other hand, being responsible for any deficiency of vessels at Portland. As I have said more than once of late, we shall be ready next winter to probably double our capacity of taking freight to Portland, beyond what we have shown we are able to do this winter. I regret, also, the position in which the matter has been placed, be- cause it prevents the shippers in Canada from getting forward property which they desire to send. I am doing my utmost to relieve them from the embarrassment, and have now no doubt of i)eing able to get vessels which will enable us to forward from Boston or Portland, freight from Canada on through bills of lading. ,j I should have preferred very much to have confined our arrangements for this business with your Company, but as you decline to provide the facilities which are necessary, I am bound in the interest of my own Com- pany to get those facilities wherever I can. I have already made a con- tract to transport a large quantity of grain from Western Canada through Boston. As I have said at the beginning of this letter, I shall avoid, as far as possible, anything in the way of expression which may be calculated to form an embarrassment in our future relations ; and I can only say that so far as I am personally concerned, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to conclude with your Company such an arrangement as I have indicated, and thus put an end to the difficulties which now exist. Yours trulv, ■ ^ ^ ^- ^ (Signed) C.J. Brydges. Messrs. H. & A. Allan. i sut .i'i a- :i..::.h ...i;f. Montreal, December 27th. rST^. Dear Sm, > . We have received vour letter of the 22nd instant, in which you take under review our communication of the 18th instant, written in reply to the counter protest served on us at the instance of your Company on the previous Saturday. Before refcrrinj^ to the more Important points in yotn* letter, we deem it necessary to take exception to your remarks, that our protests contain any statements which are either not courteous, or incorrect as matters of fact. On the contrary, we were particularly careful in our correspondence to avoid adoptinj^ tiie intemperate tone and lauj^uapje which characterized the counter protest which was prepared under your instructions ; and in the legal documents which we were reluctantly compelled, in self de- fense, to serve on your Con\pany, we confined ourselves to the merest statements of incontrovertible facts necessary to establish that we were not responsible for the accumulations of freight and the consequent blocks and to protect ourselves from losses and claims likely to arise therefrom for which we consider we should not be liable. As, therefore, we do not find, upon examination of the legal papers we served upon you, or in the letter we wrote in answer to your counter protest, any ground whatevei for your remarks upon the style of these documents, we think the reference you make to the mode in which you suppose them to have been prepared, quite uncalled for. On the other hand, as you do not appear to dispute the fact that your counter protest is not equally free from the censure with which you visited our communication, and otier as an excuse for it, the fact of its prepara- tion by your legal adviser, we are quite willing to accept that excuse : and as we have been careful to avoid giving cause for oftence, we venture to hope that no further occasion will occur for any imputation of discourtesv. For our part, we have not only every desire to avoid usuing any expres- sion that could give offence, but we are anxious for the most perfect cor- diality and harmony in our relations with your Company, and it was only when we found that our interests were in danger of being seriously com- promised, that we took the legal precautions we were advised .vere neces- sary. And we are pleased to find, on a second scrutiny, that their terms are such as to allow our legal controversy to be carried on without the necessity for any personal feeling. In the face of the correspondence had with Mr. Stevenson in tiie Ii I I! I i t matter of traffic v/a Portland, we failed to conceive how you could possi- bly deny that an agreement liad been arrived at between your Company and ourselves, by which, to qur»te Mr. Stevenson's own words, it was under- stood that we w^uld not take from you •■' any more freight for Liverpool at '♦ Portlandthan the capacity of the regular Mail Steamers, which in figures "' was put down at an average of 150 cars for each steamer, of which 80 "• car-loads per week was all which you were at liberty to engage from '' all local stations and from the Western States." ., 1 . We have always been under the impression that the General Freight Agent of the Grand Trunk Company had the power to make frel^ ht arrange ments, and knowing for a fact that he habitually did so, we never pre- viously for one moment imagined that understandings arrived at with him and placed on record over hi;: signature, would be ignored, as is attempted to be done in the present instance. In fact, until our interview on the 3rd instant, all business transactions with your Company in the matter of Freight Tratlic, since tiie retirement of Mr. Stratton, some twelve months ago, have been entirely arranged with Mr. Stevenson ; and, we think we are correct in stating that, with exception of a letter received from you last spring, regarding wharfage charges on inward cargo at Portland, we have had no communication directly or indirectly with your- self, on matters of business, in the interim. Notwithstanding this, your communication now before us, conveys the first intimation we have ever had that Mr. Stevenson, the General Freight Manager of your Company, is not the proper officer with whom all Freight Traffic business should be arranged. . If it is your desire to repudiate agreements entered into with Mr Stevenson, — and your language is too plain and explicit to admit of doubt on the point, it would be well that the general public as well as ourselves should be informed, — that contracts and engagements entered into with the General Freight Manager of your Company are only valid and binding at your pleasure. In the present instance, it hppens, however, that the agreement in question cannot be ignored on the ground that it had not come under your knowledge, for on the 22nd November yon wrote us : — " Mr. Stevenson has sent me a copy of the correspondence 1. e has had " w'ith you, with reference to capacity of freight from Portland for the " c .ming season." , ,; ,,■■. ., . v ; -: ;■ •?■ , 't " I am sorry you decline to give us the capacity at Portland that we "■' require." " I can easily load, if I have the vessels there, two ships a week from •' Chicago alone; but, of course, as you decline to give us the accommo- •' dation that we want, I can only take the necessary steps to obtain it in '' other quarters." I (i \ landl first freigi re UK ing and vieu for b agiej until! quesi on til I i possi- my and under- rpool at \ ligures ^hich 80 ge from Freight arrange ver p>'e- at with ed, as is interview ny in the on, some son ; and, r received I cargo at vith your- this, your have ever Company, should be with Mr it of doubt ourselves to with the ml binding ;reement in under your 1 c has had and for the md that we week from <2 accommo- obtain it in 9 " We are sending down now more freight than your steamer can take " away; but, of course, it must be quite understood that, as you decline "• to meet our wants, we are at liberty to make such arrangements as we " ph'ase ; and if, later in the season, your vessels fall sIkmL of frciLjlit. it " will simply l">c your own fault and not i-urs." The letter from which the above extracts dw taki-n. iucontrovertibly establishes thj fact, tiiat an undeistuiuliug and agreement was had, not onlv with v(jur Frei;;ht Manager, but with yoiuself, that we would not bring steamers to Portland other than those of the Mai! Line, and that the tonnage bv these vessels placed at the disposal of vour Company, for traffic from all points West and from the Western States, was not to ex- ceed eighty car-loads per week, the balance of the capacity o*' these steamers being reserved for the requirements of the trade from tliis city and from points on vour road East of here ; and that, as we declined to give you further accommodation, that you would take the necessary steps to obtain it in other quarters. Having again estal^Iished the fact, from a letter bearing your own signature, that an agreement as alleged in our notiil .nation and protest was entered into with your Company, four weeks before the date at which the iirst steamer sailed from Portland, limiting the tonnage at your disposal to eighty car-loads per week, we take up your statement that long aftei ihe correspondence from which 've have quoted, Mr. Allan entered into V)oth personal and telegraphic communication with you, upon the very subject of tiie capacity which our vessels would have from Portland; and your further remarks, conveying the impression that on the occasions of your personal interviews on the 3id and 4th instants, it was under discussion to put on two steamers a week, so iis to carry off the freight which you were able to take to Portland and that our refusal to give you the extra vessels is thccau.se of the a'^cum.ilation at Portluid. The Scani/uiav/(/?i, the first steamer of i ce season, sailed from Port- land on Saturday, the 29th November, On that tia\- our attention was first called to the fact tliat exporters in this city, with whom we had made freight contracts some two weeks previ' us, were unal)le to obtain cars tor removal of their property, in consequence of the entire broad guage roll- ing stock of your roatl being taken up, for the interchange of provisions and other gooils from Western Canada and tlie Western States. With a view to obtain conveyance tor the provisions and other cargo contracted ibr by us, and for which steamship capacit}' was reserved under the above agreement, and, if possible, to put a stop to further contracts in the West until our enp,agcments were imp]emL:ntccl, v/e, on the second instant, re- quested an interview, which, by \'our appointment, was iiad at o-ir office on the morniii"" of the followinhippers are aflbrded these continued facilities, the trade ot this city during the entire month of December has been preclud- ed ironi obtaining;; conveyance for property other than that contracted for prior to the ist inst : ;ind we. ourselves, are actually refused a car to enable us to send to Portland about five tons measurement of goods, which we are anxious to sliip by our own ste ;nships to Liverpool. Witn rcgiird to your statement that we have gone very far indeed be- hind even oui own idea of 150 cars a week from Portland, we would draw your attention to the fact that we never spoke of carrying 150 car loads each week, but 11 n average of 150 car loads weekly — a very diflferent mat" ter ; and that, with the takings of the Polynesian this week, this average will probably be reached, — and this without allov/ance for the unexpected delay of the Nova Scotian in the hands of her contractors, having at the last moment necessitatetl the sending out jf the North American^ our smallest carrier ; or for tlie prospective takings of the two steamships we are in the custom of bringing out from the Clyde in the latter part of January in each season, and which on their 1 ^turn voyages are despatch- ed to Liverpool. As, however, the shipments of Western Canada and Western States cargo by these steamers, largely exceeded the weekly tonnage of 80 car loads at disposal of your Company, we also fail to comprehend how, under these circumstances, your position with Western shippers could be i 12 til in any way affected, even had our average fallen below 150 cars weekly. In reference to your statement that, with the steamer that sailed on Saturday, the 3()th inst., fiuni Portland, the aggrcc^ate quantity of freight that they will have carried away will not exceed, if it reaches, 400 car loads, we would wish to record the lact that the actual takings of these steamers were : ' Scandinavi.m, ........ 148 , ^ Prussian, 130 ^: Austrian. 115 ♦ ■ North American, 97 -,,' an aggregate of 490 full car-loads, or 900 tons over the quantitv named by you ; and further, that had proper dead weight for stiffening and trimming purposes been available at Port- land — for which we had made provisions here, but which you had failed to convey — this total would have been much exceeded. Your statement that we have vessels which are capable of carry- ing 200 car loads and upwards of freight, is calculated to mislead, as there is but one steamer in our fleet, the /'i^/y/zc^/aw, with capacity at all approaching that amount ; and that your remai'k in the same paragraph, that we " brought out a Mail Steamer whose capacity does not exceed 65 cars," is equally calculated to deceive, is shewn by the details of the cargoes which we have furnished above. With reference to your remark tliat you merely slated what was a matter of fact, when you averred in your protest that " in some former *' years there has been as much Grand Trunk freight at Portland for said " Steamship Coinpanv as at present, without any demand, protest, and " corrplaint against slid Railway Company," we can only say that if vou will name the particular year to which you have reference, we will under- take to prove, by figufes, compiled from documents prepared by your own officials, and on record in our office, that your shipments in the aggiegate this season more than quadruple the engagements made during the same period in the year you name ; and this, as stated in our previous letter, irrespective of cargo contracted for but remaining unshipped, and for which bills of lading are not in our possession. As regards property lying at way-stations, we are prepared to estab- lish, by the evidence of a person who passetl over the line on the morning of Tuesday last, and who was instructel to obtain the information, that in the vicinity of 200 cars — about 2,000 tons — containing eastward bound freight, were then lying on the sidings between Island Pond and Portland, In reply to your charge that if there has been deficiency of cargo at Portland in past years, it arose from our forcing you to stop receiving freight, as in the present instance, and then suddenly putting extra ves- o th tit ei fr T er a d d a II i 13 weekly, sailed on )f freight , 400 car of these ill car-loads, ad proper e at Port- had failed ; of carry- lislead, as acity at all Paragraph, not exceed :ails of the vhat was a >me former ind for said protest, and that if you will under- »y your own e aggregate ig the same vious letter, ed, and for red to estab- the morning ition, that in ;ward bound nd Portland, T of cargo at op receiving ig extra ves- sels into Portland without notice, when there was not time to get cargo for them fiom the W'cst, we mav I)'; allowe I t > say that, we cannot recall to mind that any extra boat was ever despatched from Britain for Portland, withoui our having first cotnmunication with you, to ascertain whether cargo could be forwarded, and having in reply obtained your assurance in the affirmative. As to the mode in which you treat the ofler we made to carry by our extra steamers any surplus freight you might take to Portland, we must say that we do not perceive the application of the arguments you use to shew that it was a ridiculous one. You reason upv.n it, entirely eschew- ing the fact that when we tendered our extra steamers to you' Company, in the early pu't of November, free of an3' charge other than the actual cost of running them, there was then but little cargo engaged from West- ern Canada and the Western States ; and as if, instead, we were in the position of having freight brought at our desire and for our benefit to Portland, which, therefore, we should ha .e been under some obligation to carry. If that had been the fact, we v/ould have admitted that the proposi- tion to make your Company pay for carrying it across the Atlantic v/ould be ridiculous ; but we cannot agree that that principle will apply where the facts are exactl}- the reverse. The surplus freight was not only not carried to Portland for our benefit, but contrary to our express wish, and contrary to a clear understanding as to the quantity we could carry, under engagements made by your agents from points W'est of here. We have no responsibility for it at Portland, and we arc under no obligation to forward it. We never held ourselves out us l^eing willing to run more vessels than one per week from Portland outwards ; but, on the contrary, dis- tinctly declared our determination not to do so. Under these circumstances, your Company accumulated this enor- mous quantit\' of freight at Portland, for some purpose, or with some mo- tive of its ov.ii, with which we have nothing to do, and which we do hot enquire into. It is sufficient for us to know that the acciunulation of the • freight in question, was bi"ought there to serve the purposes of the Grand - Trunk Railway Company in some way or other, and not only without any encouragement on our part, that we should be able to take it away, but absolutely against oiu' distinct declaration that we could not do so. Upon whom then, should the expense of carrying that freight to its destination fill? Upon us who are under no obligation to carry it, who did not desire that it should l^c brought to Portland, an