was asserted that they were swindling the State and pocketing its funds to the tune of $300,000. They proclaimed that they were in favor of the Tunnel, and only desired to take the work from the hands of swindling contractors and the control of a bankrupt and irresponsible corporation, in order that it might be assumed and prosecuted by the Commonwealth; but they were secretly confident, and not without reason, that a board of commissioners would be appointed who would report against the prosecution of the work by the State. Of the three gentlemen appointed, not one had expressed an opinion in favor of the enterprise, and Mr. Brooks, the president, was known to be opposed to it. Both of the two resident members were from localities where the prevailing sentiment was against the Tunnel. But this adroitness of the opposition was baffled, and its confident hope disappointed by the integrity and fairness of Mr. Brooks and his associates. The latter had no prejudices to conquer, and Mr. Brooks had not applied himself many weeks to the duties of his commission, before he was convinced of the feasibility of the work, and satisfied that the State ought to assume and complete it. When their report was made to the Legislature in 1863, the old opposition manifested itself with more intensity than ever, and the same honest gentlemen, who, the year before, were so friendly to the enterprise, and only wanted to transfer it from the hands of rapacious contractors and a bankrupt corporation, to the fostering care of the Commonwealth, threw off their masks, resorted to their old tricks and arts, and renewed their old clamor, against the "Tunnel swindle;" yet, vainly, as the result proved.

The name of Mr. F. W. Bird, of Walpole, has been once or twice mentioned in this article, and not improperly, since he has gained that equivocal notoriety in connection with the Hoosac Tunnel, which attaches to the enemies of all great and noble undertakings. This gentleman has informed the public, that in 1847 and 1848, when he was in the Legislature, he "voted for everything that the friends of the Tunnel asked for." This action cannot have greatly embarrassed Mr. Bird during his subsequent career, since the only thing asked for by the friends of the Tunnel, during those two years, was the charter, granted in 1848. Mr. Bird further informs the public, that "in 1862, we were overruled by the committee, but we defeated them before the Legislature. In 1863, we were defeated, and the Legislature sanctioned the resumption of the work." Mr. Bird also boasts that, while a member of the Executive Council, he "did resist the assumption by the chairman of the commission, of irresponsible control over the work, and did something to prevent the building of the road from Greenfield to the mountain."

In 1862, Hon. W. D. Swan represented the opposition to the Tunnel in the Senate. Mr. Bird, in a communication to the Boston Journal of Nov. 3, 1862, says:--

"The Tunnel fight was organized and directed by three members of the Third House.

The Tunnel matter came before the Senate late in the session, when many important questions demanded the attention of the Senate and rendered it very difficult for them to make personal investigations.

As to Mr. Swan, he very frankly declared that the whole subject was so new to him that he must rely upon us for his materials.

His published speeches upon the Tunnel, upon which his fame as a practical legislator is based by his friends, were written substantially by one of us beforehand, and afterward revised by all of us for the press.

We furnished every fact, made every calculation, prepared every table and arranged every point and every argument logically and rhetorically."

One of the arguments which Mr. Bird confesses he and his associates "arranged," is expressed in the following extract from Mr. Swan's speech:

"I am aware, sir, that it may be said: 'You are going to stop a great enterprise.' No I am not. I have no such intention. I am in favor of the Hoosac Tunnel. If Massachusetts has granted her aid for the accomplishment of any great purpose, I am for going through with it. I am for going through with the Tunnel; but I am for going through with it understandingly; and if Massachusetts is to do the work, let us know that we are to obtain something like an equivalent for our expenditure.

We say, then, to the corporation, we will send intelligent commissioners to examine the road and tunnel, and if the report to us, or our successors, next year, is favorable to this great enterprise, we will go on with it; we will bore a a hole through the mountain, we will arch it, lay the track, and give you ten years in which to redeem the property."

But it is not necessary to quote further from M r. Bird himself; he has been well known for years as an agent of the Western Railroad Company, and the leader of the combined elements of opposition to the Tunnel. He is a man of ability, bold, and adroit in his management, but entirely unscrupulous in the choice of means to effect his objects. As a lobby member, as newspaper correspondent, as pamphleteer, as councillor, and in the numerous other characters which his Protean genius has enabled him to assume, he has, by fair means and foul, diligently adhered to his boastful promise that he "should not desist from opposition till the work is stopped;" and he has lately reiterated his purpose of keeping that pledge, "with the help of God." Those who know Mr. Bird well, entertain no doubt that he will continue to do his best to stop the work, whether with or without the Divine assistance, and that he will literally fulfill his promise, since the work will, undoubtedly, be "stopped" when it is finished.

One other gentleman has been associated with Mr. Bird, as a leader of the opposition to the Tunnel enterprise, who, perhaps, deserves a passing notice in this article, Mr. D. L. Harris, President of the Connecticut River Eailroad. He has less ability than Mr. Bird, but much more practical knowledge of railroad engineering and management. It has apparently been a part of the duty assigned him, to furnish Mr. Bird with the texts for his pamphlets and newspaper articles, and to supply such information, from time to time, as that gentleman's inexperience and ignorance required. He has also emulated the example of his associate by contributing to the anti-tunnel literature of the newspapers. While a member of the House, a few years since, he had the bad taste, in the course of discussion, to quote from one of his own anonymous articles. Upon being accused of being the author of his quotation, he roundly denied the charge, but was convicted by the production of his own manuscript. His seat was vacant during the remainder of that session. Whether this desertion of his post was occasioned by a conviction in the minds of anti-tunnel men and the Western Railroad managers that the exposure had impaired the influence of their agent, or whether he was impelled to retire by the stings of that remorse which a certain class of men experience only when they have been detected in a falsehood, the writer of this paper is unable to determine.

The Boston Advertiser of October 5, 1865, contains an article over Mr. Bird's signature, which was soon after published in the form of a pamphlet, and profusely distributed throughout the State, having for a title, "The Hoosac Tunnel: its Condition and Prospects." It appears, that a few weeks previous, Mr. Bird and Mr. Harris visited the Tunnel locality, and this pamphlet purports to be the result of Mr. Bird's "observations." It has been extensively read, and has, doubtless, inspired the minds of many timid and ignorant persons, with honest doubts of the practicability or expediency of ever completing the Tunnel. It is considered "smart" by those