In the first place, it is speciously urged that a railroad would render the Park more accessible, cheapen the cost of visiting it, and make it fulfill more perfectly its original design as a park for the people. To all this it may be replied that the people do not want the improvement at the price they must pay for it. By an almost unanimous voice they oppose it. It is true that the Park is not as accessible as one might wish it to be, or as it soon will be. But to make it easily accessible, it is by no means necessary that a railroad should pass through it. A line touching the southern boundary and communicating with the central portions of the country would answer every practical purpose. The pretext that a railroad across the Reservation will greatly aid the tourist is erroneous. The points of interest are so scattered about that a coach would be in any case a necessity, and all the railroad would really save to the tourist would be the distance from the boundary to the belt line. Neither will such a railroad materially lessen the cost of a visit, which has always been, and will always be, in the main, getting _to_ that region. The Reservation is 1,500 miles from the center of population of the country, and it is this remote location that makes visiting it cost. The outlay after getting there is trifling in comparison with that of coming and going. Whether a railroad pass though the Park, or simply touch its southern border, will not appreciably affect this principal item. In the second place, it is urged that the Park stands directly in the path of the railroads and so "acts as a blockade to the development of three large states." As this will always form the staple argument for granting a right-of-way for railroads across the Reservation, it will be well to scrutinize it somewhat carefully.