Page:Historic highways of America (Volume 13).djvu/182

The tunnel at summit level was as long as that one proposed on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and gave rise to great discussion. One commissioner, Treziyulney, whose name gave weight to his opinion, disagreed with his associates on the matter of the tunnel, and, in fact, on the entire canal proposition. The majority report having been made to the governor of Pennsylvania February 2, 1825, this minority report was dated February 21. "In short," it read, "the whole country, from the upper forks of the Juniata to the forks of the South branch of the Conemaugh, is mountainous; mountain rising after mountain in quick succession. The main one where the proposed tunnel is to pass, is hemmed in and surrounded by other high mountains, with steep slopes separated from one another by narrow ravines and presenting no favorable situation for canaling, either by lockage or tunneling. Here nature has refused to make her usual kind advances to aid the exertions of man; mountains are thrown together, as if to defy human ingenuity, and baffle the skill of the engineer." The