Republican Herald

In your paper of Saturday last, you misrepresented his Excellency, Gov. Fenner, by saying that he favored the union of the two Pawtucket Turnpike Roads. You repeated this in your paper of the 11th, and reiterated in your paper of yesterday.

I am sorry to see this pertinacity in misrepresenting facts, even after you had been correctly informed on the subject, by being honored with a note having affixed to it his Excellency's signature. I leave to your own casuistry the duty of reconciling your course to any principles which a gentleman should vindicate. But if you are really under a misapprehension in the premises, I will put you in the way to correct your mistake. If you will inquire of your friends, Messrs. Arnold & Simmons, you will find no union of the roads was ever contemplated until after the gentlemen became interested in the East Road; the union then became necessary as they thought to complete the speculation. The East Road was a distinct, and in some measure a rival to the old road. I do not therefore understand your logic, when you say this new road could not have been extended to Fox Point except "by a union of the two turnpikes." As I understand it the original design of the proprietors of the new road was to extend it to Fox Point and thus give to it the facility of all the cross streets on the East side of the town, and this advantage would of course direct travel from the old road and direct it to the new one. You appear to think that the Governor had some interest in favoring the petition for the new road, here you are out again Col. I was not present when the petition was presented, and therefore cannot answer for his official aid or opposition, but I do know and so does Mr. William Harris that as a land-holder through whose premises the road was to pass, he had objections to it: but as some of the citizens of Pawtucket were very desirous to establish the road he waived his objections and made no opposition to the petition. I am informed that when the charter was sent to the Senate for concurrence, Gov. Fenner discovered that through the inattention of our own Representatives it had passed the House with full powers to the corporation to erect the Toll Gate if they pleased within the limits of the town of Providence. He therefore introduced an amendment which guarded against this oversight, by removing the gate beyond our limits, and thereby protected this town from the inconveniences to which it would have been subjected by having a Toll Gate in one of our streets.

But suppose he had been friendly to the petition? There was no impropriety or iniquity in such a course, the iniquity of which the men complain is an attempt to form a union of the two roads and thus deprive the State of its interest in the old road, which by its charter had reverted to the State, and this too by men who were specially delegated and under solemn oath to protect the public interests. If you have any doubts that Messrs. Arnold & Simmons did attempt to deprive the State of $5000 a year allow me to direct your attention to an extra issued from the Herald Office this day, and to a pamphlet from the same office some days ago and your doubts will all vanish unless you are blinded by prejudice and distracted by political zeal.

I am your obedient Servant,
SOMEBODY.