to be grateful. But it is, on this very account, the more important that its opening paragraphs should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. The notion that it is desirable to develop the wealth of the district by means of a railway exists, with more or less of confusion, in many minds, and runs through much of what is said on the subject. This idea is embodied with commendable perspicuity in the following sentences.
'The projected line may,' says the Daily News, 'be designed to facilitate the transport of minerals, and to bring a working population within reach of mines. In that case, to oppose the railway because the steam-whistle frightens the wild birds, disturbs the poet as he hunts for that difficult rhyme in the tenth line of his sonnet, or makes the artist drop his brush, would be to protect sentiment at the cost of the material prosperity of individuals, and the material prosperity of the country. Now, though the moralist may deny that material prosperity should be allowed to outweigh finer considerations, and though the artist may repine, there can be little doubt that in most cases the ordinary laws of economy must have their way.'
Here be it observed that, whether with the intention of making an easy victory for the 'laws of economy,' or not, the opponent case has been stated in its weakest form. A perusal to its close of this very article, still more of the papers that follow it,
