cording to the rule, they should be a little less than nine feet. The navigators on the Erie canal have not discovered it to be for their interest to make their boats of this width, but have invariably made them of the full width allowed by the locks, giving to the ratios above mentioned, a value not exceeding one half the amount prescribed by Du Buat. Du Buat's rule is therefore not applicable in practice, or there are other circumstances entering into the question of the expense of transportation, other than that of the resistance to motion or amount of motive power. A careful analysis of Du Buat's experiments shows that the resistance is not very sensibly increased if the ratio of the width is reduced from 4 to 4, and hence the gain by increasing to 41 is not commensurate with the expense of attaining that ratio, and the same may, we believe, be said with propriety of a ratio even less than 4. The only particular advantage resulting from a greater ratio, is that of being able to navigate boats with equal safety with a little less care and attention, and to diminish the resistance in passing.

For boats 14 feet wide, such as are now used on the Erie canal, a width of water surface of 4 times that amount, or 56 feet, is undoubtedly all that it is expedient to obtain. How very absurd, therefore, was it to propose, as was done in the reports we are discussing, a width of canal of 80 feet, for locks of 16, or boats of 15 feet in width!

Remarks, similar to the above, are applicable to the sectional ratio, which, it appears from the experiments, may be reduced from 6.46 to 54, without materially increasing the resistance. There is another reason, aside from the expense of obtaining it, why the maximum ratio in this case is not desirable. The down tonnage upon the canal, is from 4 to 5 times that conveyed in the opposite direction. Boats ascending, have consequently, on the average, much less draught than those descending-plainly indicating the inexpediency of adapting in practice, the canal and boats to the maximum ratio. But whether expedient or not, this is a consideration, as already stated, which relates more particularly to the relative and not to the absolute dimensions of the canal and boats. We are therefore to look for the benefits of the enlargement in its effect in cheapening transportation, solely to the advantages possessed by the use of boats larger than those now employed. The assertion has been frequently made, that the saving would be 50 per cent. or one half the present rates. The public have been deluded with the idea that the enlargement to the size proposed, was indispensable to, and would effect this reduction.

It is believed that nearly one-third of the expense of transportation is made up in the cost of animal power. Since, from what is shown above, this power can produce an useful effect as great, or nearly as great, on a small canal, properly proportioned, as upon a large one, it follows, that little or no saving can be anticipated from this source. As to steam power, the advocates of the enlargement having scouted the idea of its profitable use on either a small or a large canal, we are relieved from making any remarks, in the present place, respecting it. There may, and probably will

be, a saving in the cost of boats of larger dimensions, and also in their furniture and equipments, and in the number and wages of the crew, but this saving must of necessity fall far short of one half the whole cost of transportation, and, as we shall show, even this saving, which cannot reasonably be rated higher than 15 or 20 per cent., will be somewhat reduced by circumstances to which we have not as yet alluded, and not only so, but may in all probability be fully realised without resorting to an improvement to the extent of the proposed enlargement.

The question of the most economical size of boat for towing with animal power is one of great importance. Various opinions are advanced in the reports on this subject. The present boats, particularly those designed almost exclusively for freight, (and such, for reasons assigned in our last number, will, in all probability, be the character of the boats traversing the canal,) are towed with difficulty, when fully freighted, by two horses, at an average rate not exceeding two miles per hour, being probably the greatest speed at which power of that description can be advantageously employed. From information derived from those having experience in canal navigation, it is by no means certain that more than two, or at most, three horses, can be usefully employed in towing the same boat.

There is no evidence, therefore, that any important advantage is to accrue from the use of boats very greatly exceeding in capacity those now in use upon the canal certainly none which can justify a belief in the statement, that the cost of transportation will be reduced 50 per cent., or render it proper to suppose that it will approach any where near that amount.

By an improvement in the locks, such as was suggested in the last number, that is, adding to their length, and wherever the pressure of business required, increasing their number, the capacity of the canal would be more than doubled. If to this improvement, be added that of widening and deepening the channel of the canal to the extent which may be easily and safely done, viz., by excavating from the berm side about 13 feet in width and using the material thus obtained for raising and enlarging the bank on the side of the towing path, an additional depth of water of from 1 to 14 feet may be obtained, which will give to the boats a tonnage more than double that which they now possess, and enable the canal to accommodate more than quadruple the trade now conveyed upon it. Such an improvement, it is believed, will give to the boats a size about as well suited to economy in transportation as any other where animal power is used. It will give to the surface a width of 56 feet, being, as above explained, all that is expedient for a diminution in the resistance.

It will prevent the great destruction of property, resulting from the breaking up of the present mechanical structures on the canal, including locks, culverts, aqueducts, and bridges, etc., most of which are built in a very substantial manner. It will prevent the great injury to lands adjacent to the canal, resulting from an interference with the drainage consequent upon depressing the bottom of the canal to obtain the additional three feet in depth. It

may be accomplished without interfering with the navigation, or in any way deranging the business of the canal, in the short period of six years without resort to loans, using only for the purpose the surplus revenue of the canal; and last, though not least, it will save to the people of the State in the original outlay, full twenty-five millions of dollars, together with the interest to be piled on that amount of principal, and which it is justly to be feared, the nett revenue of the canal for a series of years, after the enlargement shall be completed, will not be able to liquidate.

This subject will be continued in the next number.

FULTON.

RAILROADS IN CITIES.-As the right of city authorities, or of legislative bodies, to permit railroad companies to lay rail tracks through public streets of cities and villages, is doubted by many, though we have never been of the number, nor do we doubt the sincerity of those who have doubts on this subject, we avail ourselves of the politeness of a friend, to lay befere our readers the following decision of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, at the spring term of 1839.

We give the letter, omitting the name of the gentleman who furnished us with the copy, and agree with him fully, as to the importance of the case, and therefore give place in the Journal, asking for it the attention of our readers.

For the American Railroad Journal and Mechanics' Magazine.

I have the pleasure to send you, herewith a manuscript copy of the report of the case of "the Lexington and Ohio railroad company, against Applegate and others," as given by the court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.

In this case, the first legal tallent of the State was employed on each side, and the great importance of the case, involving the vital principle of the existence of railroads; for if the defendants had prevailed, it would have been a fatal blow to the future progress of railroads in that State at least; and if adopted by other States, final in its effects throughout the country. Its importance, therefore, I should think such, as to justify you in publishing it in the Railroad Journal.

The cases reported in this volume, were selected by the Judges, under an act of assembly, which directs that they shall permit the publication (under State patronage,) of such cases only, as, in their opinion, "establish some new, or settle some doubtful point, or be otherwise by them deemed important to be reported."

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, at the spring term, 1839, when the following cases were decided.

Judges on the bench-the Hon. George Robertson, Chief Justice of Kentucky. The Hon. Ephraim Ewing. The Hon. Thomas A. Marshall, Judges.

[Mr. Guthrie and Mr. J. T. Morehead for the appellants. Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Pirtle for the appellees.]

From the Louisville Chancery Court. June 19, 1839.

Chief Justice Robertson delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal brings up for revision, a decree of the Chancellor of the city of Louisville, perpetually enjoining the Lexington and Ohio Railroad Company from running, using, or employing their cars and carriages, by steam or otherwise, upon their railroad along Main street, between Thirteenth street and Sixth street," in the said city.

By an act of the Kentucky Legislature approved in 1830, "the Lexing ton and Ohio Railroad Company" was incorporated, with authority to construct a railroad from Lexington, to "some one or more points on the Ohio river;" and to use any land and materials, necessary for that purpose, by obtaining the consent of the owner, or by paying the value thereof, to be assessed upon a writ of ad quod damnum; and "to place on the road, when constructed, all machines, wagons, vehicles or carriages which they may deem necessary and proper for the purpose of transportation," and also to exact a prescribed toll for transportation of persons and property on the railroad. Having determined to make a point on the Ohio river, at or near the city of Louisville, the terminus, the company located its railroad from Lexington to Louisville, constructed it as far as Frankfort; and partially graded it between Louisville and Frankfort, and desiring to extend the road through Louisville, to the Ohio river, below "the falls," it obtained a supplemental act, in 1833, authorizing such extension.

Under the authority of these enactments the company, with the concurrence of the Mayor and council of Louisville, extended the location of its road, within that city to a designated point in Jefferson st.; and having afterwards obtained the consent of the Mayor and council to the construction of the road from Portland below the falls" to Thirteenth street; thence along Main street, to Sixth cross st., and thence to the wharf; with permission "run its cais by steam, at the rate of not more than six miles an hour between Sixth and Thirteenth sts.," it constructed the road accordingly, from Portland to the intersection of Main st., and Sixth cross st., in Louisville; and from the 29th of April 1838, until arrested by the Chancellor, on the 26th of October 1838, it had used the railroad between those points, chiefly by transporting daily about five hundred and fifty passengers in cars propelled generally by steam, though sometimes drawn by horses, at the price of twelve and a half cents for each passenger, instead of the accustomed hack charges, which have generally been from twenty-five cents to one dollar.

The injunction was granted on a bill filed by Elisha Applegate and forty-three others, most of whom were either owners or occupants of property on Main st., between Sixth and Thirteenth cross st., forty of whom were citizens of Louisville, and all of whom alledged that the railroad through the city, was a nuisance purpresture and unlawful encroachment on their private rights of property.

The railroad company, in its answer denied most of the principal allegations of the bill, and insisted that the road had not operated as a nuisance, or an encroachment on private right.

Between the granting of the injunction and the final decree, twenty-six depositions were taken and filed-ten for the complainants, and sixteen for the defendant. And, on the final hearing of the case on the bill, answer and depositions the Chancellor perpetuated the injunction as originally granted, upon the following grounds, stated in the conclusion of a very copious and learned opinion delivered when the first decretal order was made:-"It seems to me that the jurisdiction of the court to interfere by way of injunction, is clear according to established principles and precedents; that the case shows a common nuisance by which the plaintiffs have special damage; a purpresture amounting to a nuisance; a disturbance of easements annexed by grant to private estates and of privileges dedicated and secured by a public law of the general assembly of Virginia, in the streets and town of Louisville; of a corporation abusing the powers arising out of the act of incorporation, thereby working serious injuries to the complainants; and finally of a disregard of private rights, of a character continuous, vexatious, and degenerating into a species of irrepairable nuisance." In addition to those already suggested, the following facts clearly appear: first, that in 1781 Louisville with its main street and cross sts., from first to twelfth, as now and ever since existing, was established by an act of the Legislature of Virginia, vesting the legal title in trustees, and declaring that purchasers of lots should have and enjoy all the rights, privileges and immunities which the freeholders and inhabitants of other towns in this State not incorporated by charter, have, hold and enjoy." Second, that the lots owned or occupied by the appellees on main street, between sixth and thirteenth cross streets, had been purchased from the trustees, many years ago, and have been held by the purchasers and their alienees ever since.

Third-that most of the wholesale and heavy business in Louisville, is, and ever has been, done on Main street, between Sixth and Second cross streets, that the population between Sixth and Thirteenth streets is comparatively thin, and that the business houses on that portion of Main street, are chiefly retail shops, groceries and coffee houses. Fourth-that the title and authority of the trustees of the town passed by the act of incorporation to the Mayor and Council of the city of Louisville, subject to all then subsisting trusts, private rights and public obligations; and fifth-that Main street is ninety feet wide; the railroad in the centre, with a single track; and the entire street, since the construction of this track, has been used as a pass way for all persons and vehicles, without objection by the railroud company, and without any assertion by it of an exclusive right to use that portion of the centre of it which is covered by, and included within, its flat iron rails.

But, as to the effect of the railroad, and of the use made of it by the company, there is much diversity in the opinions of the witnesses, who testified in behalf of the appellees, and of those who deposed on the side of the appellant.

Some of the ten witnesses for the appellees expressed the opinion, that the rails of the railroad obstructed the free and convenient public use of Main street; some of them testified to facts conducing to show that the use made of the road by the company, and especially by the frequent transpor tation of passengers in a long train of cars, propelled by steam, alarmed horses, and endangered the security of persons passing on foot, on horses, and in hacks and private carriages; and all of them averred, that in their opinions the railroad, as constructed and used, had the effect of diminishing the value of real estate on Main street, between Sixth and Thirteenth, and of injuring the commercial and manufacturing business of those who resided there; and that, therefore, it was a public nuisance, and an injurious encroachment on the private rights of the appellees and of many others.