« ZurückWeiter »
Ques. 4. Were you one of the owners of the steamer Thomas Jefferson ; and if so, had you any knowledge of the design by the memorialists, or any of them, of their purpose to purchase the Curtis Peck and bring her on James river, before such purchase was made; and had or had not the owners of the Thomas Jefferson determined to withdraw her from the river before you knew or heard any thing of the design of purchasing the Curtis Peck? State fully all you know on this subject.
Ans. I was a director in the James river steamboat company, and of course held stock in the company. The Jefferson was the only steamer they owned. I was in New York in April 1844, about the 12th or 14th of the month; and in answer to questions made by those then in New York for the purpose of purchasing a boat, I observed that there would be no difficulty, as far as the James river company was concerned, as I was satisfied they could have the wharf at Rocketts in Richmond, used by the James river boat, at the same price paid by them for it, and that the rent could commence from their taking possession of the same. The stockholders may not at that time have had their minds made up on the subject of the Jefferson being withdrawn. The directors, I am satisfied, had their minds made up on the subject, or I should not have made the previous remarks. I cannot say that the Jefferson was withdrawn before the purchase was made, but it was not far from that time, which may have been about the last of May 1844.
Ques. 5. Was the withdrawal of the Thomas Jefferson from the river produced by the coming of the Curtis Peck on the river, or from another cause ? and if the latter, state what was that cause.
Ans. The Jefferson, in my opinion, would have been withdrawn at no distant day from the one on which it was done, if the Curtis Peck had never made her appearance. The Thomas Jefferson was withdrawn and sold to close the affairs of the company.
THOMAS A. RUST.
Interrogatories to Mr. Robert A. Mayo by the Respondents.
Ques. 1. Were the advertisements, or any of them, copies of which were annexed to the respondent's answer, authorized by you or your associates in the ownership of the Curtis Peck, or did they set out the fare charged between the points therein named ?
Ans. The advertisements under the signature of Libby & Haskins of Richmond, and John Dixon of Norfolk, who were the agents for the Curtis Peck as well as owners in that boat, were by the approbation and authority of the owners of that boat, and did set out the fare charged by said owners, but no authority was given to any others than those persons stated above to advertise the sale of fare for the Curtis Peck and Alice.
Ques. 2. What share of the fare, as fixed by the said advertisements between Richmond and Petersburg and Baltimore, was allotted to or was received by the Curtis Peck or her owners?
Ans. On passengers going to or from Petersburg and Richmond to Baltimore, the sum paid was received for some time as had been received by the owners of the Patrick Henry, whilst she connected with the bay boats, viz: when the fare was $ 6, the Curtis Peck received $2 40 and the bay boat received $3 60; and so in that proportion, when any change of fare took place, being four tenths, out of which the amount of 50 cents was paid over to the clerk of the City Point railroad company, leaving $1 90 for the boat's proportion. The only change which took place was the reduction from oths to ths, at whatever the fare should be established, whether higher or lower.
Ques. 3. Was the fare between Petersburg and Richmond and Baltimore at any time reduced below the rates fixed in said advertisements ? and if yea, say when the reduction was first made, and to what the reduction was last carried.
Ans. The lowest charge made by the line was, as far as I recollect, $ 4 for the regular travel, three tenths of which was received by the owners of the Curtis Peck, except such days as the regular freight line left, when forward deck passengers have been carried for $3; and in one instance a number of Irish labourers, who had been discharged from the dock, were offered to be carried for that price, but were taken for less by the Columbus and Pocahontas. The time of the reduction to $4, was made upon the introduction of the Augusta into James river, to run from Port Walthall in connexion with the Richmond and Petersburg railroad, for the transportation of passengers to and from Richmond to Old Point and Norfolk, and when she reduced the fare to $ 1, and then to 75 cents, including meals.
Ques. 4. How was the fare, as fixed by the lowest reduction, (admitted in your last answer,) between Petersburg and Richmond and Baltimore, divided between the Curtis Peck or her owners and the bay boats ?
Ans. The answer to this interrogatory has already been given in the 2d.
Ques. 5. What was allowed the owners of the Curtis Peck by the bay boats, or the owners thereof, for running in connexion with them at the low fare from Petersburg and Richmond to Baltimore, of $ 4?
Ans. The same answer as given to the 4th will apply to this, and is given in my answer to the 2d question.
Ques. 6. Has any pecuniary or other advantage, present or future, contingent or absolute, ever been allowed or agreed to be allowed, or is any now allowed to the owners of the Curtis Peck by the owners of the bay line, in any form or shape, besides the proportions above specified on through tickets between Richmond and Peters
burg and Baltimore? and if yea, inform us what that advantage was or is, or is or has been estimated by you to be worth.
Ans. To the first part of the question, I answer that for a time the bay line agreed to bear a part of the loss that might be sustained by the owners of the river boats, on account of the opposition by the Augusta; by this arrangement the owners of the river boats were to receive three eighths of the difference between $ 3 and any price they might think proper to reduce the fare to on the river, viz: When the boats ran for
the difference between that and $3 being $ 2, three eighths of this being 75 cents, was the amount received by the owners of the river boats on local travel. This arrangement, as well as the arrangement to receive three eighths on through travel, was to be discontinued at the pleasure of either party; the first was discontinued in the fall of 1846, and has not been resumed, and the owners of the river boats do not now receive any thing more than three eighths on travel going through. As far as I can estimate the advantage of the through travel and the advantage above referred to, it may be estimated that the increased gross receipts are equal to 10 to $12,000. I expect, however, that this arrangement was never made until after the Augusta was put on the river and reduced the fare.
Ques. 7. When the Curtis Peck and Jewess commenced running on alternate days on James river, between Richmond and Norfolk, was there a daily line on James river?
Ans. The Jewess, upon coming on the James river, formed a daily line, by running on the alternate days with the Curtis Peck, but not in connexion, as the owners of the Curtis Peck were in no way interested in the Jewess, and were opposed to her running on the river. It may be proper to remark in this connexion, that the Curtis Peck had been regularly running on the river when the Jewess came, and the owners of the Curtis Peck could not prevent her running on the alternate days. In answer to the latter part of the question, I do not recollect the time the Jewess was put on the James river. I think she was taken off in August, or perhaps in September; and I think she came on in the spring, but I cannot say positively.
Ques. 8. At what date did the two boats in the last mentioned question commence running on alternate days on James river?
Ans. This question is sufficiently answered in the answer to the seventh.
Ques. 9. Who are the owners of the bay boats with which the Curtis Peck ran in connexion ? Are they a corporation or not? And did the Jewess belong to the owners of the bay boats before referred to at the time that she ran on alternate days with the Curtis Peck ?
Ans. I do not know who the owners of the bay boats are. I have never seen a list of the stockholders, and am quite certain it is a corporate company. I believe the Jewess did belong to that company, as she has been employed by that company as a part of the regular line on the bay, in connexion with the Georgia and Herald. "Who held the title to said boats I cannot say, but have always understood them, for years past, to be the property of the Baltimore steam packet company.
Ques. 10. When was the Alice introduced upon the James river; and who were then and who are now her owners ?
Ans. The Alice was introduced in James river in the fall of 1845, I believe about the last of October. The owners are now the same as when she came into the river, and are as follows: The title to the Alice, and the papers, are in the name of Luther Libby, who became personally responsible for her payment in New York, where she was purchased, and the title will remain in him till she is fully paid for, except one portion, which is held by Taylor in Baltimore, which has been paid for. The persons to whom the title will be made when paid for, are R. O. Haskins, R. A. Mayo, Hay T. Taliaferro, E. S. Taliaferro, John Dixon, Dickinson, Jos. Carter and John Davis.
Ques. 11. Were you not informed before the Augusta was put on the Port Walthall and Norfolk route that she would be put on if the river and bay boats continued to take passengers between Richmond and Baltimore, and Petersburg and Baltimore, at the same price as between Norfolk and Baltimore?
Ans. In answer to this question I say, that Mr. Moncure Robinson, in a conversation in the street near the basin, and whilst a fire was raging in that neighbourhood, did come up to me and engage in conversation, and as well as I recollect did speak of his plans for breaking up the river boats; but his conversation at that time was chiefly in reference to a bill pending before the legislature, asking for a charter to incorporate a company to construct a railroad from the City of Richmond to Eltham on the Pamunkey, and urging the necessity of our using every exertion to defeat it, as it was to injure the travel on James river as well as the railroad. In this conversation, in which Mr. Robinson seemed to have much interest, he stated that it was his purpose to put the Augusta on from Port Walthall to Norfolk, in connexion with the railroad line, for the transportation of passengers. If this plan did not succeed, his purpose was then to put on the Mount Vernon, (a boat then building in Philadelphia for the Potomac steamboat line,) to run from Acquia creek to Baltimore by the bay at any price passengers should be taken by the James river and bay boats-should this not succeed, he would then put on a line of steamboats from Baltimore to Charleston, as he intended to have the through travel
. I do not recollect that any thing was said about the price or fare through from Richmond and Petersburg to Baltimore, or any other reason assigned for putting on these boats but their interference with the through travel at that time.
Ques. 12. After the Augusta was put on the Port Walthall route, did you not decline a proposition made you to run on alternate days with the Augusta on James river, and to share equally in all the advantages of the Norfolk and Port Walthall association, provided you would give up your connexion with the bay boats for the diversion of the through travel ? and did you not state as your reason for declining the proposition, that the advantages accorded you by the bay line were greater?
Ans. There was such a proposition submitted, and which would have been met in a spirit of compromise, had it been such a one as the owners of the boats, the Curtis Peck and Alice, could have consented to. position was understood as one coming from the Port Walthall association. Who that association was, was not known to the owners of the James river line, and they have never known till the last few days what the advantage of a connexion with that association would have been. To have consented to the proposition submitted by Mr. Moncure Robinson, that the Augusta should have the privilege of running the alternate days, would have conceded the right to Mr. Robinson to put her on the river, which the owners of the Alice and Curtis Peck always contended was not proper, and believed that the Augusta was the property of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac railroad company, and applied to the Board of public works, by their memorial, in the early part of May 1846, and soon after the Augusta came on the river. In accepting this proposition, it would have been indispensable for either the Curtis Peck or Alice to be sold, as the Augusta was to be retained, and a very considerable sacrifice was to be made in the disposing of either of the boats, and to have acceded to the proposition and have been entitled to any advantages which might be received by a connexion with the Port Walthall association, both boats were to run to Port Walthall, much to the prejudice and against the interest of the owners of the James river line, who are owners of wharves and property at which the boats lie, and would have amounted to an abandonment of the river between Richmond and the mouth of the Appomattox river.
In answer to the latter part of this question, I did state either then or at some subsequent meeting between Mr. Robinson and myself, that his propositions were not equal to the advantages we derived from running our line as we were then running it; we knew very well if the line was broken up, as was proposed, that some other line would at once be put on, to convey through passengers from Richmond and Petersburg by the way of Norfolk, and thereby increase the number of boats on the river, and be ruinous to all concerned ; in addition to this the old line of freight boats continued to take passengers through, and there was no way of preventing it.
In conclusion I would say, that as Mr. Robinson's propositions were not acceptable, I submitted a proposition to Mr. Robinson to submit the differences between the railroad companies and the James river line to William H. Macfarland, Esq. and Col. George W. Munford, and that as far as I had a right to do so, I would abide any arrangement they might suggest, which was rejected.
It is proper to remark, in addition to the above, that I should state that a subsequent proposition was submitted by Mr. Moncure Robinson to me, which will more fully appear by an endorsement on his letter hereto annexed. That proposition was declined.
Additional Interrogatories to Mr. Mayo.
Ques. 13. You say in your answer to question 1st, that no one was authorized to advertise for the Curtis Peck besides Haskins & Libby, and John Dixon of Norfolk, but do not say whether the fares stated in the advertisements signed T. Shepherd, agent, and Wm. M. Moody, agent, annexed to the answer of the respondents, were correctly set out or otherwise. Will you be good enough if you know the rates of fare charged between the points named in these advertisements, to answer this enquiry.
Ans. I believe the fare set out in the advertisement by T. Shepherd, agent, and William M. Moody, agent, as annexed to respondent's answer, did set out the fare correctly, as charged at that time.
Ques. 14. When was the steamer Augusta put on James river?
Ques. 15. The object of the 7th question was to ascertain if there was a daily steamboat line on James river when the Jewess and Curtis Peck formed a daily line by running on alternate days, but in your answer, you treat it as if it was a question how the daily line was formed by the Jewess and the Curtis Peck. Now please inform us whether there was a daily line at or shortly before the period when the daily line was formed by the Jewess and Curtis Peck in said river. If in your answer to this question you say there was a daily line at or shortly before the period aforesaid, by means of other steamboats, tell us what boats they were.
Ans. I do not believe there was a daily line on James river when the Jewess ran on alternate days with the Curtis Peck, nor do I believe there was a daily line for any short time previous to that time; it was not usual to run a daily line in the winter, in the bay or river.
Ques. 16. You say that a portion of the steamboat Alice is held by a Mr. Taylor of Baltimore, what portion of the Alice is held in Mr. Taylor's name?
Ans. At the time of the purchase of the Alice Mr. Taylor of Baltimore was the owner to the amount of $ 11 in that boat.
Ques. 17. Is not this Mr. Taylor a large stockholder, and the president of the Baltimore steam packet company?
Ans. I believe Mr. Taylor is a stockholder in the steam packet company; I have heard so, but I do not know the extent of the interest. I believe Mr. Taylor is the president of the steam packet company, but cannot speak positively, as I have never seen any thing in writing or in print to that effect.
RICHMOND, VA., Sept. 25, 1846.
I shall feel it my duty to the large interests represented by me, to take some further measures for securing effectually our travel, unless some arrangement can be made with the James river boats to give up the present system of “through tickets" to Baltimore. On the other hand, I am so well satisfied that an arrangement can be made between us which will be mutually advantageous, that I am reluctant to make this further move, without first making one more effort at reconciling our respective interests. I think if we could have a full and fair conference together, with a mutual disposition to agree, that we should not be found far apart. I would therefore respectfully propose your calling at my office if you can conveniently in the course of the day, or Monday. I can truly say that I have no feeling on the subject other than one of regret, that our interests should have been hitherto in an antagonistic position, and a wish to harmonize them.
Ro. A. Mayo, Esq.
Endorsed in pencil.
An arrangement I think might be made between the James river boats and the Port Walthall association, on the following terms, viz: That the Port Walthall association should run from Port Walthall, and the James river boats from Richmond on alternate days, at rates to be agreed on between them, but without any connexion in any way with the bay boats or City Point railroad; and that the James river boats should equally have the benefit of “through tickets" to Washington, under the arrangement with the railroad companies, or in addition, a bonus of 4 to $ 5000 from the Port Walthall association, for a term of years, or so long as there are no “through tickets," from Richmond to Baltimore by the James river boat company, or any other line on James river. In the event of any attempt by the bay company to put on a line on James river, the directors of the Washington and Fredericksburg steamboat company, would, I have no doubt, immediately put on a boat between Baltimore and Norfolk.
Interrogatories to William Sinton by the Respondents.
Ques. 1. Were you not the secretary of the James river steamboat company, to which the Thomas Jefferson belonged ? if yea, between what years did you hold the office ?
Ans. I was the secretary of the James river steamboat company between the years 1836 and 1844, in which year the Thomas Jefferson was sold, with a view to winding up the affairs of the company.
Ques. 2. Was there ever a daily line by the Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and the bay boats between Richmond and Baltimore? if yea, at what period did this line exist, and how long did it exist ?
There was a daily line formed by the boats named in the interrogatory and the bay boats about the year 1839 or 1840, but lasted only a few months.
Ques. 3. Whilst the daily line by the Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson lasted, was the charge the same between Richmond and Baltimore as between Norfolk and Baltimore ?
Ans. No, the charge was never as low between Richmond and Baltimore as between Norfolk and Baltimore, previous to the Curtis Peck coming on the river, that I am aware of.
Ques. 4. Was there ever a “through ticket” between Petersburg and Baltimore previous to the Curtis Peck being brought on James river?
I know she ran on the bay, and was considered a bay boat previous to her running in connexion with the Curtis Peck on James river in the spring of 1845, and as she now runs on the bay, she is, I take it for granted, the property of the bay company.
Ques. 6. Was not the Thomas Jefferson withdrawn from the river in consequence of the competition of the steamboats Express and Curtis Peck?
Ans. Yes, she withstood the competition of the Express, but on the Curtis Peck being brought on to run at one dollar per passenger between Richmond and Norfolk, the Jefferson was withdrawn.
Ques. 7. At what rate of fare did the Curtis Peck run when she was first brought on James river, between Richmond and Norfolk ?
Ans. A dollar, including meals.
Ques. 8. Was the fare ever as low as six dollars by the James river and bay boats to Baltimore before the Curtis Peck was brought on the river ? Ans. Never, that I ever heard or knew of.
Interrogatories propounded to William Sinton by the Counsel of the Memorialists.
Ques. 1. Iu answer to the 3d interrogatory of the remonstrants, you say the charge was never as low between Richmond and Baltimore as between Norfolk and Baltimore, previous to the Curtis Peck coming on the river. Will you say what was the fare from Norfolk to Baltimore, previous to the Curtis Peck coming on the river ?
Ans. The fare between Norfolk and Baltimore frequently varied previous to the Curtis Peck coming on James river, but was I am satisfied always lower than the fare between Richmond and Baltimore at the same time.
Ques. 2. The 6th interrogatory of the respondents is in these words : "Was not the Thomas Jefferson withdrawn from the river in consequence of the competition of the Express and Curtis Peck ?” In your answer you say, “Yes, she withstood the competition of the Express, but on the Curtis Peck being brought on to run at one dollar per passenger through between Richmond and Norfolk, the Jefferson was withdrawn." Now we ask, did not the Jefferson run at one dollar before the Curtis Peck came on? And did not the agent, Mr. Southgate, reduce the fare from five dollars to one dollar when or soon after the Express came on the river? Did not the owners of the Thomas Jefferson advertise her for sale before the Curtis Peck was brought on ? When was the Thomas Jefferson advertised for sale? When was the Curtis Peck brought on the river? Did the Curtis Peck ever run in opposition to the Thomas Jefferson? If so, how many trips? Did not the Curtis Peck succeed the Thomas Jefferson at the wharf occupied by the Jefferson? How long did the Express run before the Curtis Peck was brought on ? And at what rates did she run when she was brought on? Ans. The fare of the Jefferson was reduced to a dollar when the Express came on.
The Jefferson may have been advertised for sale before the Curtis Peck actually came on James river, but I am satisfied was not advertised for sale before it was known that the Curtis Peck was purchased to come on James river, and was not withdrawn from the river until the Curtis Peck was brought on, when deeming the opposition a ruinous one she was withdrawn. Whether she ran at all, and how many trips after the Curtis Peck came on, I am uncertain. The Curtis Peck stops at the wharf occupied by the Jefferson, and I believe stopped there immediately on the Jefferson ceasing to run. I do not recollect how long the Express had been running before the Curtis Peck was brought on. She ran at one dollar between Richmond and Norfolk.
Ques. 3. Did not the Express run with the bay lines, and transport passengers to Baltimore at $6 before the Curtis Peck came on ? Did not the Thomas Jefferson connect with the bay lines at the same price charged by the Express ?
Ans. The Express put on and took off passengers as well as the Jefferson from the bay boats, but I do not believe that passengers were ever transported between Richmond and Baltimore, either by the Express and bay line, or Jefferson and bay line as low as $6, or that they were ever transported as low as $6 by the river and bay line at any time previous to the Curtis Peck being brought on the river. If such was the case it must have been for a very short time, and escaped my observation.
Ques. 4. Did not the Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry reduce their fare to one dollar froin Norfolk to Richmond, when opposition was run by the Balloon? When was the Balloon run ?
Ans. When the Balloon was brought on the river the fare was reduced, but I do not recollect exactly to what between Norfolk and Richmond. Nor do I recollect precisely at what time the Balloon ran.
Ques. 5. Do you know whether it was the design of the owners of the Thomas Jefferson, or any of them, to take the Jefferson off the line at any time in April prior to the Curtis Peck being put on the river ?
Ans. This question has been already answered.
Ques. 6. Have you any letter of Mr. Southgate of the date of 26th of April 1844, suggesting the necessity of a change; if so, produce that letter or a copy of it? Ans. The letter of Mr. Southgate of the 26th April 1844, accompanies this.
I have received your favour of the 15th, advising a draft on me for $278 22, wharfage, for the Patrick Henry, which has been paid. My absence at the north has prevented the quarterly accounts of the