In a review of the history of tunnel legislation, as given in this pamphlet, passing by the frequent charges of "packed committees," "deceived legislatures," and "tricks of legislative legerdemain," we come to an account of the Act of April, 1862, by which it appears that the bill passed was not materially different from that prepared by Mr. Bird, and offered by Mr. Swan. It was _entitled_, "An Act for the More Speedy Completion of the Hoosac Tunnel," yet the anti-tunnel league considered its passage "a substantial defeat of the scheme," because they believed that Governor Andrew "was opposed to the Tunnel," and would appoint commissioners whose opinions were in harmony with his own. And the virtuous and honest member of the "Third House," through whose adroit management, a bill bearing a title so inconsistent with its purpose, was framed, affects a pious horror of legislative trickery! Whatever Mr. Bird may have to say upon any of his various topics, he never forgets to abuse Mr. Brooks; "_Carthago delenda est_" at any rate; and he returns to the assault at the beginning or end of almost every chapter, with renewed spitefulness. On page 21 it is represented that Mr. Laurie, the engineer who had been designated by the governor and council to make surveys, had a personal interview with Mr. Brooks, and that the following colloquy took place:-- "I am here, Mr. Brooks, to make the surveys ordered." "What order? What surveys?" "The surveys ordered by the governor and council." "I have ordered no surveys and want none. When I need your services I will send for you. Go about your business." Even those who have never reckoned Mr. Bird a man of strict veracity will be surprised to learn that this story is a pure fabrication, that no such conversation, and no such interview ever took place. The communications between the two gentlemen were a letter from Mr. Laurie, who was at Hartford, and a reply by telegraph from Mr. Brooks, who was in Boston. Mr. Laurie wrote,--"Presuming that you wish me to make these surveys, I will come to Boston," &c. Mr. Brooks telegraphed,--"The new survey has not been acted upon by commissioners." On the same page of the pamphlet it is stated that Mr. Brooks, not being satisfied with Mr. Laurie's conclusions, "demanded the suppression of some portions of the report, and the modification of others." "Mr. Laurie, after making such concessions as he could honestly make, resolutely refused to yield to Mr. Brooks' imperious demands upon material points." Now' this representation is just as false as the story about the colloquy. Mr. Brooks did not make any such demands. An exposure of both these fabrications is made in a communication to the Boston Advertiser of March 10th, which contains copies of all the correspondence on these subjects, between Mr. Brooks and Mr. Laurie.