USA > Kentucky > History of Kentucky, Volume II > Part 59
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90
39 Ibid., March 4, 18,0.
40 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 16, 1870.
41 Collins, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, 201.
42 Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, Feb. 18, 22, 1870; Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 17, 1870; Acts of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Passed at the Regulor Session of the General Assembly, which was Begun and Held in the City of Frankfort on Monday, the Sixth Day of December, 1869, 152. 43 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 18, 1870.
44 Ibid., Feb. 17.
45 These are the expenses as reported by the auditor: Opera House, $69.25; Newcomb's Minstrels, $22; Galt House Company, $3618.80; U. S. Hotel, $1.50; National Hotel, $5; Willard Hotel, $57.75; Louisville Hotel. $22.50; Andy Schneider (music), $150.00; Carriages, $424. Louisville Municipal Reports for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31st, 1870, 48, 49.
46 Cincinnati Commercial, July 13, 1870.
47 Ibid., Feb. 19.
967
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
they were met by a steamer from Cincinnati, decked with flags. Bands of music on the boat and cannon from the riversides loudly welcomed the visitors. The two river crafts were joined together by an iron link as token of the close friendship of Cincinnati and Kentucky. In this manner they proceeded to Cincinnati. Here they were received with a great demonstration on the riversides. In describing the great event for the city, the Cincinnati Commercial said, "The city was in a blaze of enthusiasm, yesterday, in welcoming again to the State of Ohio the representatives of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky." A truly magnificent banquet was given in a hall decorated with the flags and coats-of-arms of many of the Western and Southern states. The his- tory of the past was dipped into, with special emphasis on the ancient friendship of Ohio and Kentucky. Lavish praise was heaped upon the commonwealth to the South for her generous aid in helping to redeem Ohio from the Indians. It was also recalled how Ohio had voted for Kentucky's nominee for the presidency, and how Kentucky had returned the compliment by voting for an Ohio son. But these reminiscences stopped short with the Civil war. A strange combination of "Dixie" and "Yankee Doodle" was played, which "elicited unbounded enthusi- asm." The banquet ended with three cheers for Kentucky and Ohio. The guests were presented with silk badges bearing a neatly interwoven monogram of the two letters K and O. Printed on the bill of fare was the Kentucky coat-of-arms and her motto, "United we stand. Di- vided we fall." On the reverse side was the coat-of-arms of Ohio and the inscription surrounded by a golden circle, "Cincinnati's wel- come to Kentucky." 48
Cincinnati assumed a most patronizing attitude in every way. George H. Pendleton, a prominent democrat, was made chief of ceremonies on most occasions. Governor Hayes of Ohio was among those wel- coming the Kentuckians. At the banquet the most evident subject on the minds of the Cincinnatians was sedulously avoided by all, until one of the less discreet members from Central Kentucky mounted a chair and led the yell, "Three cheers for Democratic George H. Pendleton and the Southern Railroad." Confederate generals and Kentucky politi- cians, who had been unceasingly attacked for the past ten years, were now being entertained and praised. The Cincinnati Commercial headed the first column of the first page with a neatly engraved monogram of the letters K and O, and devoted the whole page to an account of the banquet.49 The city spent $6,389 in entertaining her visitors.50 The Louisville Courier-Journal remarked, "The Kentucky Legislature is be- ing petted and caressed and trotted in the lap of Cincinnati to its infinite delight. There is no use in talking, Cincinnati has succeeded pretty well in her desperate effort to get ahead of Louisville in the way of hospitable receptions and entertainments."51
Cincinnati in her endeavor to leave a favorable impression on the legislators, who were to vote on the Cincinnati Southern Railroad bill soon, had undoubtedly gone beyond propriety and tact in her prodigality of expense and praise. To the Louisville Courier-Journal, it appeared to be "the most shameless and the most splendid scheme of corruption that ever disgraced this part of the country." "It was obviously in- decent. It was an open insult." This paper accused Cincinnati of open bribery: "She assumes that the bridge celebration is only a pretext on
48 Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 20, 1870.
49 Feb. 20, 1870.
50 Annual Reports of the City Departments of the City of Cincinnati for the Year Ending February 28, 1871, 85. The legislature returned through Covington and Newport and was entertained by them. Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 22, 1870. 51 Feb. 19, 1870.
Vol. II-26
968
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
the part of Louisville to get the Legislature here to buy it ; she assumes that the Legislature may be bought, and she makes haste, on these degrading assumptions, to beckon the Legislature hence, that she may have the last bid."32 To the Courier-Journal there was now no road open to the Legislature but to defeat the Cincinnati Southern Rail- road bill, and thereby vindicate their own good name and that of the commonwealth: "For the sake of that public credit which we still cherish in Kentucky, and for 'he honor of the old Commonwealth which has preserved her good name untarnished thus far, we look for a vote this week which-whatever may be said of the indiscretion of members -will place their integrity beyond the shadow of suspicion." 53 There is no doubt that Louisville made capital out of this incident, and that it proved more or less a boomerang to Cincinnati.54
After two months of discussion, the Legislature finally decided to take a vote on the bill. The House on March I defeated it by a majority of four-the vote standing 48 to 44; and the Senate voting three days later killed it by 22 to 13. Just before the vote was taken in the House, the governor sent a communication announcing the ratifi- cation of the Fifteenth Amendment, by Rhode Island, Virginia, and Nebraska-most likely a subtle play on sectional prejudice. On the day following the defeat in the Senate, the Legislature passed a resolu- tion thanking Louisville, Cincinnati, Covington, Newport and Geo. H. Pendleton "for the generous and lavish hospitality extended to the mem- bers thereof *
* *" 35 A communication received from twenty-three Tennessee legislators, regretting that the bill had been defeated, was buried with the committee on railroads.5G
This was a fight in which both sides had used every means at their command to win. As for money, the Cincinnati trustees had come armed with $20,000, for the spending of which they need make no re- port. How much of this they used in their efforts to get the bill passed, it is impossible to state. Louisville listed in the report of her auditor the amount of $4,800 for "expenses of Committee at Frankfort." This item also appears: "Isaac Caldwell, judgment $2,112.10." 57 It seems true. and was so charged by Cincinnati, that Louisville refused to pay Caldwell a promised fee for his services at Frankfort, and that he sued the city and was awarded the above judgment. Bitter prejudices and omnipresent politics played their full part in this fight. However intich Cincinnati tried to bury past unpleasantnesses in costly banquets and entertainments, landing Confederate generals and democratic politicians, Louisville replied by reminding Kentuckians of the "damned abolition city" and negro suffrage. In the words of the Cincinnati Commercial, "Thus by influence of a gigantic monopoly, and through the unquenched fires of the rebellion, which keeps alive political prejudice, the rights of the people of Central Kentucky are crushed out, and the friendly hand of Ohio is rejected with spurning and contempt." 58
52 Feb. 22, 1870. This is quoted in the Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 23, 1870. Continuing, the Courier-Journal said, "The invitation was not only a double insult, an insult to the legislature and to Louisville, but it was a declaration of war by the metropolis of Ohio against the metropolis of Kentucky; a throwing down of the wager of battle; an assertion of rival-ship for the possession of the law-making power of Kentucky, and, therefore, an insult to the entire Common- wealth."
53 Quoted in Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 23, 1870.
"4 Collins, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, 202; Cincinnati Commercial, March 5, 1870; Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette. March 4. 1870.
35 Acts of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Passed at the Regular Session of the General Assembly, which was Begun and Held in the City of Frankfort on Monday, the Sixth Day of December, 1869, 154.
56 Collins, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, 201, 202.
37 Louisville Municipal Reports for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31st, 1870, 50.
58 March 2. 1870.
969
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
VI
RESULTS OF THE FIRST DEFEAT-A SECOND ATTEMPT
Louisville thus won her first legislative victory against Cincinnati in its efforts to capture the Southern markets. It was fittingly cele- brated by members of the Legislature in a banquet held the night fol- lowing the bill's defeat in the House.1 But it was with a different feeling that the friends of the bill received the news. The Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce characterized it as "a piece of legislation in violation of the comity of States * * * which would be considered by contiguous and independent States as a hostile act * * *" 2 An attorney for the Cincinnati Southern trustees, speaking of the opposition encountered. said it was "the most determined and positive that was ever inaugurated against any bill before any legislature; there was never such opposi- tion to any measure before the Kentucky Legislature as there was to this." 3 Even many disinterested persons believed this action of the Kentucky Legislature to be very reprehensible. The Western Railroad Gazette characterized it as "worthy of the dark ages" and a proceeding, which if attempted "in one of our Western States * would be likely to occasion something like an insurrection." +
The bitterest disappointment prevailed in Central Kentucky. The people of that section felt that they had been sacrificed to the greed and short-sightedness of Louisville.5 Their first impulse was to attack the city and its railroad with all the scathing language at their com- mand. The Cynthiana Democrat summed up the situation thus: "The country traversed is willing and more than willing, but here comes in the mean envy of a second-rate city that happens to be on our side of the river, to oppose it, like the dog in the manger *
* * So far as this part of the State is concerned, Louisville might be removed from the map tomorrow without the disturbance of trade to the amount of a dollar, and without * * * the loss of much good will * * * Cincinnati is worth six of her in importance, in enterprise, in liberality, and in everything that goes to make up a city worth trading with and to be proud of. Cincinnati has as many Kentuckians, and friends of Kentuckians, among her people as has Louisville, the little snob." 6
But the disappointed people were not disposed to stop with bitterly attacking with words "this second, third, or fourth rate place, disposed to swallow, without thanks, whatever the lines of trade compel to flow into its greedy mouth, but never with anything to give in return."7 One of the most effective ways to fight the city was to stop trading with her. Attempts were made to induce the people throughout the whole Central Kentucky region to hold meetings and resolve on boy- cotting all Louisville trade.8 Danville merchants decided to haul their freight by wagon twenty-four miles to and from the Southern ex- tremity of the Kentucky Central Railroad and thereby be enabled to trade with Cincinnati, rather than connect with the Louisville and Nash-
1 Cincinnati Commercial, March 5, 1870.
" Ibid., April 22.
3 Boyden, The Beginnings of the Cincinnati Southern Railway -- A Sketch of the Years, 1869-1878, 15.
4 March 12, 1870.
5 Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, March II, 1870. For like expressions, see Cincinnati Commercial, March 5, 1870. A correspondent to the Cincinnati Cam- mercial, March 2, 1870, says, "Intense feeling prevails among all those here from Central Kentucky. They vow eternal hostility there as to Louisville and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. They believe they have been sacrificed."
6 Quoted in Cincinnati Commercial, Feb. 18, 1870.
7 From Cynthiana Democrat, quoted in Cincinnati Commercial, February, 1870.
8 Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, March 11, 1870.
970
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
ville Railroad four miles distant.ยบ Lexington, Versailles, and many other towns of this region refused absolutely to trade with Louisville. Drummers from the Falls City were treated with "cold comfort" in all the interior towns of the Blue Grass region.10 One observer re- ported that "Her drummers have quit visiting that region. They might as well go to Africa after orders * * Louisville has lost the trade of Central Kentucky, and lost it for good." 11 For the time, it appeared difficult for Louisville to become more unpopular. A friend of Louisville. now becoming disgusted with her course gave warning that "if it is the policy of Louisville to build her palatial residences by grinding into the mud the rest of the State, and fill her pocketbook by making beggars of all other Kentuckians, then I am no longer an advocate for the City of Louisville, but am a State Rights man, ad- vocating the good of my State." 12
The Louisville and Nashville Railroad was equally blamed for the defeat of the Cincinnati Southern project. The Kentucky Statesman attacked it as "a soulless, selfish company-tyrannical in its power and grinding in its exercise. It is hated from one end of it to the other, and all along its branches." 13 Louisville gradually began to wake up anew to the unexpected opposition against herself she had stirred up. The president of the Board of Trade saw this whole section of the state seeking revenge.14 But Louisville was not without her defenders. Garrett Davis, in the Senate at Washington, said of the whole affair : "Cincinnati inveighs vehemently and bitterly against the selfishness of Louisville, for having procured the defeat in the Kentucky Legislature of a proposition, that the State should surrender in perpetuity to her corporation the right of way and all the franchises of a railroad across the entire breadth of her territory; and this extraordinary proposition to come from Cincinnati to another State, having a rival city, if you please, without any effort to modify the constitution of Ohio, so as to enable her to ask for and receive a charter from Kentucky in the usual form. Pray, what but selfishness, and sinister selfishness, could have prompted her to enter upon so extraordinary enterprise. It is a com- mon devise with thieves to join in the pursuit, and to shout loudest the cry, 'Thief !' 'Thief !' " 13
But neither Cincinnati nor Central Kentucky was ready to give up the fight. The surveys on the route and other work preliminary to building the road was kept going as if the right-of-way had been granted.16 Unfortunately a new Legislature would not be elected until the following year (1871). But still it would be possible to stir up the people of the state to such a pitch that they would demand that their legislators pass the bill. The Cincinnati Commercial predicted that "The question whether Kentucky belongs to the Nashville road, and is reduced to the New Jersey level by being the ill regulated property of a corporation, is one that will agitate the old Commonwealth as nothing since the outbreak of war, in 1861, has done." 17 A railroad conven- tion was called for all Central Kentucky, to meet in Lexington in October. Two thousand delegates gathered at this convention, repre- senting twenty-six counties.18 It drew resolutions memorializing the
9 Cincinnati Commercial, April 1, 1870.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., Jan. 18, 1871.
12 Ibid., Dec. 1, 1870.
13 Quoted in Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, March 11, 1870.
14 Cincinnati Commercial, May 22, 1869. 15 Congressional Glabe, 1871, Part 2, Appendix, 42 Cong., 1 Sess., 8.
16 Cincinnati Commercial, March 8, 1870.
17 Ibid., March 2, 6; Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, Oct. 18. Dec. 20, 1870.
18 Cincinnati Southern Railway. Memorial of Trustees and Speech of Hon.
John C. Breckinridge to the General Assembly of Kentucky and Proceedings
971
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
next session of the Legislature to grant Cincinnati the right-of-way, and marked for the slaughter in the first election all those who should vote against the bill. A number of influential men were appointed to agitate the question throughout the state until the Legislature should meet.19
As it was deemed certain that all legislators from Central Kentucky would vote for the bill, efforts were made to stir up that part of the state which had opposed it. A vigorous campaign was begun in Western Kentucky, the stronghold of the enemy. Every senator and all except three of the representatives from this section had voted against the bill.20 The method pursued was to call meetings in the different counties, ex- plain the position of Central Kentucky, berate Louisville for her selfish- ness, and introduce resolutions calling upon their representatives to vote for the Cincinnati Southern Railroad bill in the next session. Such resolutions were successfully adopted in McLean, Ohio, Breckinridge, Webster, Union, Hancock, Henderson, and Hopkins counties. The rep- resentatives from the last two counties were induced to promise to vote for the bill.21 Louisville, much concerned with this apparent revolt of the territory that had always been subsidiary to herself, sent speakers to stem the tide. The advocates from Central Kentucky recounted how their part of the state had always rallied to the support of Western Kentucky to help in securing her excellent railroad connections, and they charged that now it was nothing more than just that they should help Central Kentucky find an outlet for her iron, coal, and farm products.22 It would be a development that would work for the benefit of the whole state. The Louisville speakers had some difficulty in effectively answering this argument. They attempted to hide Louis- ville's selfishness in calling attention to Cincinnati's greed. One of them is said to have used the bizarre argument that "the object of Cincinnati * *
* is to secure a strip of Kentucky territory eighty feet wide. Upon this eighty feet strip she would settle all the negroes she can procure from this State and other States, and with them she will con- trol the policy of Kentucky * * * Kentuckians ! beware !" 23 With the campaign ended, Central Kentucky felt that she had carried the war successfully into the enemy's territory, and it was with a new hope that she entered the fight again to procure the right-of-way.
The Legislature met on January 4, 1871, and on the second day the Cincinnati Southern Railroad bill was introduced in the House.24 The bill had been considerably changed and now its more optimistic friends looked for its certain passage. But a keener observer predicted that the bill would pass by a bare majority in the House, but would fail in the Senate.25 The editor of the Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette was disposed to go about the fight in a plain business-like way. He said, "the City of Cincinnati will neither supplicate for the privilege of
of the Lexington Railroad Convention, 1871; Cincinnati Semi-Weekly Gazette, Oct. 11, 1870; Collins History of Kentucky, Vol. I, 207.
19 Cincinnati Commercial, Oct. 11, 22, 1870.
20 Cincinnati Commercial, Dec. 1, 1870.
21 The following resolution passed in Hancock County is typical: "Resolved That in the judgment of the people of Hancock County, a direct railroad from the City of Cincinnati, in the State of Ohio, to the City of Chattanooga, in the State of Tennessee, is demanded by the commercial, mechanical, and social inter- ests of the people North and South, and that its construction would be advan- tageous to the people of Kentucky generally, but especially so to that part of the State through which it will pass, and that it would injure no legitimate interest in any other part of the State." Ibid.
22 Cincinnati Commercial, Dec. 1, 1870.
23 Ibid., Louisville was accused of boasting that she had $300,000 to spend in blocking the Cincinnati Southern Railroad. Ibid.
24 Ibid., Jan. 5, 6, 1871.
25 Ibid., Jan. 7, 12.
972
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
building this road as a favor nor will it use any irregular means to overcome any Kentucky opposition." He stated that Cincinnati intended to keep no lobby or pleasure house in Frankfort, and that it would be foolish to build the road if Kentucky was to assume a hostile attitude. 26 Despite this disclaimer, Cincinnati had one of the railroad trustees in Frankfort working for the road, and using whatever help he could com- mand.27 She also had her lobby room in the capitol.
Louisville was as much opposed to the bill now as she had ever been, and she used every effort to defeat it. The Cincinnati Commer- cial remarked that "The Courier-Journal is daily instructing the people of Cincinnati how to obtain the Southern trade without paying for a railroad. This is very kind." 28 Louisville used all of her old argu- ments and her old methods. A visitor there said, "Go where you will in street, hotel or store, you hear discussions, angry and otherwise, about 'Cincinnati's little game,' as many choose to call it." 29 Amend- ments of every kind were added to impede the bill's passage. The amendment, providing for the appointment of five Kentuckians as trus- tees on the board to administer the road, was again introduced, and, when, of course, this had to be refused, the bill lost friends.30 Louis- ville also had her lobby room in the capitol where refreshments were always to be had.31 On January 11, a news dispatch announced that "The Louisville lobby spread their first free lunch today." 32 The ex- penses of Louisville's "Committee at Frankfort" amounted to $4,980 for this session of the Legislature.33
Strong pressure from many quarters was brought to bear upon the Legislature to force favorable action. Petitions came in great numbers from Central Kentuckians asking that the bill be passed. Some persons suggested that the supporters of the measure resort to methods of ob- struction to prevent the regular functioning of the governmental ma- chinery until favorable action should be had on the bill. To them it appeared that Central Kentucky was not only not receiving any benefits from the government, but that she was even being openly sacrificed to the greed of the rest of the state.34 A memorial signed by nineteen senators and sixty representatives was sent up by the Tennessee Legis- lature asking favorable action on the bill.35 The governor of Georgia sent a delegation to Frankfort to plead for the railroad.36 The Atlanta Sun said, "We think when Kentucky shall thoroughly consider this matter, the recent legislative action will be reversed. The short-sighted policy which dictated the course recently pursued by that State brings her into a smart degree of reproach." 37 Much to the unpleasant sur- prise of Louisville, the incorporators of the Tennessee end of the Chat-
26 Jan. 10, 1871.
27 Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 14, 1871.
28 Ibid., Jan. 6. A visitor after looking over the situation there said, "Aside from the merchants, the nabobs, and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad in- fluence, there are few in Louisville who care to oppose the Cincinnati Railroad charter." Ibid., Jan. 9.
29 Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 6, 1871.
30 Ibid., Jan. 12, 28.
31 Ibid., Jan. 23.
32 Ibid., Jan. 11.
33 Louisville Municipal Reports for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31st, 1871. 61.
34 Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 12, 1871.
35 Ibid., Jan. 14.
36 Ibid., Feb. 12; American Annual Cyclopaedia, and Register of Important Events, 1871, 431.
87 Quoted in Cincinnati Commercial, Jan. 14, 1871. The Daily Chattanooga Times said it was not through a preference for Cincinnati over Louisville that the South was wanting the road, but through a desire to get better and more outlets. Cincinnati Commercial, June 26, 1871.
973
HISTORY OF KENTUCKY
tanooga and Louisville Railroad (the road projected by Louisville as a counter-move against Cincinnati) came out in favor of the bill.38
Supported by this united opinion of the South and of Central Ken- tucky, Cincinnati felt that the bill should surely go through this time. In early January the Superior Court of Cincinnati had declared the Ohio law enabling Cincinnati to build the railroad constitutional. Cin- cinnati could see no peg on which the lawyers of Kentucky could now hang their constitutional arguments.39 On the 25th of January the House took a vote on the bill and defeated it 44 to 43. On the follow- ing day a reconsideration was ordered, resulting in the passage of the measure 46 to 45.40 This close victory in the House gave hopes of success in the Senate. The most intense feeling prevailed throughout the state. The representative from Jessamine County, who voted against the bill, was ordered by his constituency to resign. He complied by handing in his resignation to the House, but was prevailed upon by his fellow-members to reconsider. He finally promised to remain, pro- vided he were excused from voting on the bill thereafter.41 A flood of petitions now almost inundated the Senate. For more than two weeks it delayed a vote while Louisville and the opposition feverishly strength- ened their defenses. At last on February 12, it decisively defeated the bill 25 to 12.42 The question went to the voters of the state in the election of the following autumn.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.