page top

Letter from RODNEY V. MARSH to GEORGE PERKINS MARSH, dated November 27, 1858.

Add to bookbag Add to Bookbag | Bookbag (0)

Item Description

Title: Letter from RODNEY V. MARSH to GEORGE PERKINS MARSH, dated November 27, 1858.


  • Marsh, Rodney V.


  • Marsh, George Perkins, 1801-1882

Source Document

Extent: 1 letter

Genre(s): letter



Note [Digital Version]

, Center for Digital Initiatives, University of Vermont Libraries

Type of Resource: text

Parent Collections

Other Formats

Access Conditions

For usage rights related to this resource please visit:
More information.

Permanent Link:

Preferred citation

Letter from RODNEY V. MARSH to GEORGE PERKINS MARSH, dated November 27, 1858., Original located at the University of Vermont's Special Collections in the George Perkins Marsh Collection, filed by date., (accessed January 17, 2018)

Letter from RODNEY V. MARSH to GEORGE PERKINS MARSH, dated November 27, 1858.

Transcribed by :

TEI mark-up by : James P. Tranowski andEllen Thomson

Published by: University of Vermont. All rights reserved.

Publication Information

State of Vermont
Saturday, Nov. 27--1858

Hon Geo. P. Marsh

Dear Sir

There has never been a time since I was a member that rail road influences were brought to bear so directly on members and so overpoweringly as during the session of the Legislature just passed. The Com. on Roads to whom was referred all Rail road matters were, at least a majority of them, the creatures of the Rail roads and Dean its Chairman had undoubtedly made up his mind to do every thing, precisely, as they desired to have him. I preferred to have your Report & the bill I introduced referred to a Select Committee but Linsley of Rutland fought against it as well as others and finally it went to the Committee on Roads. This was in October

After this I had frequent conversations with Dean--gave my views to him & the Com. and -------------------------------- Page -------------------------------- he encouraged me with the beleif that he would report in a reasonable time. But he kept delaying the matter, paid no sort of attention to it, and although one or two resolutions passed the House calling upon him to report on that bill (H.99) he paid no sort of attention to them and did not report until the last week of the Session and then merely reported against the passage of the bill. I stated in decisive language what I thought of this course the last night of the Session but as he did not attempt to apologise for it or to defend his course there was no great opportunity for discussion. It passed off like other business for want of time --

As to RR. Comr a joint Resolution passed the House (after having been delayed time after time by Linsley of Rutland) to elect and the Senate laid it on the table till nearly the close of the Session--when they took it up and passed it. We did not elect till the last day, or last but one. Now as to reducing the salary.

A bill was referred to the Com. on Roads repealing all -------------------------------- Page -------------------------------- laws on the subject of R.R. Comr. and abolishing the Office and another reducing the Salary to $500. Dean, I beleive, first reported in favor of the first and then in favor of the last, but a Senate bill coming in reducing the salary to $500. He reported in favor of the Senate bill and under whip and spur of the rail-roads it was rushed through after midnight amid the bustle & confusion of the last night of the Session.

If I had not had so much other business on hand, during the Session, that must be done at all events, I would have had, in some shape, a full discussion on this great subject of Rail roads but it would have resulted in nothing practical with a Senate constituted as it was, and so finally let it go.

But I am satisfied that this whole matter must, in some shape, be brought before the people and decided by them. They are the ultimate tribunal but the question is how can you get the question before them with most of the leading lawyers and nearly all the presses in the State bought up by them or at least favors in some shape extended to them so that they would either refuse or be disinclined to publish any thing on the subject. I should be pleased to have you consider this matter and let me know what -------------------------------- Page -------------------------------- you think of it.

I have been examining the Rail road laws of Mass. & Conn. and find them more stringent than any thing in the bill introduced that Com. on Roads reported against.

I think if Mr. Edmunds (the Speaker) had appointed a different Com. on Roads it might have effected a vast difference in the action of the House on the subject. Linsley who voted to reduce the Salary I presume thought the $1000. none too high when he was Comr.

It would, I presume, very much gratify the roads to have you resign, because of the reduction of the Salary, but I would do no such thing. I would watch them the closer and be faithful and thorough in exposing every thing of importance to the public in your next report the same as if the salary were higher so as to keep the public advised of their doings & movements Should be pleased to receive your views on all these matters addressed to me at Brandon as I shall return on Monday Very Truly & Respfly Yours

R V. Marsh

Add a comment:


* Optional

User Comments