OCR Interpretation

Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, January 05, 1830, Image 1

Image and text provided by Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045110/1830-01-05/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

Constitutional H hi
_ Vol.” VI.-—Kp. 113
gjc <£onotUnttonal
T/u> Select C<mnniii«o of seven, it is said, having
Tuct on Thursday, and Mr. Doddridge having waived
lils right to the Chair, and ut his request, Mr. Aladi
s{)ti having taken it, proceeded to distribute tho la
bors assigned to them, viz: the Legislative Depart
uptut to M-r.-I*>>igb of Chesterfield, tho Executive to
Mir. Johnson, and th - Jtidioial to Gen. Marshall. It
is conjectured that the Cotmnittco will report the
1 tuit of their labors to tho Convention this day.
We are grieved, as well ns astonished, to find tho
iinpression prevalent, that the Constitution to be re
ported, ou priuciples heretofore sanctioned by the
Convention, will bn Io*t in that body by a decided and
mixed vote of East and West. This impression
springs from the idea, that every portion of the Con
vention is dissatisfied with seme particular provision,
and fhut ties partial hostility will be of sufficient effi
cacy to induce snch portion to reject the whole. This
conclusion seems to ns so opposito to the dictates of
reason and sound discretion, that we cannot persuade
dUrstdvcs of its reality. The West ie dissatisfied
with the has is provided by Gf»: Gordon—but is not
that liir preferable to tho present distribution of pow
t^r, placing Warwick on a footing with Shenandoah?
I low mucfi too, has tliere not boon gained to tho
qatise of popular rights and social convenience, in the
extension of siillrage—in the choice of Governor by
tho people—in the abolition of tho Council—and in a
responsible Judiciary? Are all tlieso triumphs
dud acquisitions to bo annihilated, because re
presentation is not distributed precisely to suit
(Ire rights and the claims of the West? Dad this
ftortrrm of the Convention the alternative of npponl
filg to a new Convention, there would be moro of
r<Jasnn in their rumored dcterminu'iou to voto aoauist
llie forthcoming cnu-titntion. But the alternative is
ifot within thvii power. No eloquence, n© argu—
blent, senreoly grievances themselves, at' the most
*3 did and crying ahavaator. will prevail on the people
of Virginia to call another Convent i r in a hurry.—
They have had a dose which will last them for the
Balance of this generation. For tho West then, to
I'pjeet the Constitution, because they havo not got
all they wished, or all they have a right to—or be j
dause they may stand a bettor chatice in a future j
Convention—or for all these reasons united—is re- I
Versing the maxim, that half a loaf is bettor than noS
Bread—is biting off one’s own nose, to spite the face. |
Cine thing is certain—that if tho basis goes against j
them, they and Virginia, have yet gained much—nod':
(fits appears so palpable and indisputable to our vi-'{
t^ton, that nothing bnt the vote itself, will convince j
ns, that tltvy moan to vota against tho Constitution.
For the sake of settling the question and giving
p.dace to tha country—for tho reason that the Ju
diciary is reformed, under which they havo groaned
ill common with the west, and thut they continue nji
der the new constitution (iP reported on Mr- Gordon’s
brisls) to retain power—to avoid tho untried danger
(ff dissolving w ithout doing any thing, we bad ima
gined that the great body of Rastorn members would
Have united in taking tho constitution, and thus pro
ducing that decided majority, which is admitted on
all hands, to be so great a desideratum.—Events
Have uniformly turned out in tho Convention, so con
trary to calculation, und the decision of this is so
ITCar at hand, that it would bo weakness to predict
tho result. But seeing that it is always wke to take
\\Tiat we can get, if all is not to be had, ws fmnly
Believe that tho Convention will adopt the constitu
'ffon modelled on the principles nlreirdy agreed upon,
ami what is more, that the people will ratify it, by a
great majority; and this we suy, not in prejudice of
any attempt that may be made at amendment, when
tire constitution oomes to be reported, but in tho ar
.fbnt Iropa, that attempts to liberalize it still furUrcr,
jday prove successful.
U“ Dr. Cha-fes Cocke of Albemarle, Iras been
erected a member of the Senate of Virginia, to fuc*
ecod Gen. Gordon, from the District of Amherst,
Nelson, Albemarle, Fluvanna and Grmclilui.d, by a
considerable majority over Tho. Jefferson Randolph'
arid Lucas T*. Thompson, Ksqfs. Dr. Cocke was1
the mixeJ basis oandidatc.
•On Saturday, the Select CJonmjitteo, at half pavt
1 i, Hot haviog reported, on moliou of Judge Summers,
thoy were empowered to have their Report printer],
pud on motion of Mr. Campbell of J>rord;o, tbe Con
vention adjourned.
On Saturday evening, iho Committr-e fiuirfred their
dirties, (excepting the arrangements of Districts,) and
yesterday their Report appeared iu priut. We shall
to-jn«rro\v publish >t at Inrgr; meanwhile, the obser- ■
vunt reader understands this Report, to bo tire diges
tion iuto Constitutional form, of tire principles here-'
fO+bfc decided by tho Convention. This day it will
be presented to the Convention, and more important
ftecnes than have yet been exhibiietl in that body, may
be anticipated.
JVfudh speculation is afloat os to the fate of this Con
pfltution, and xnucb activity has prevailed for the la«t
•IP, hours, in preparation for the struggle. At'ompts
w ill unquestionably be made to supersede some of its
provisions—to oiler the basis of representation—to
deal mow- gomly with the Judicial corps, and to
change tbe mode of choosing tbe Chief Magistrate.
Some of those attempts may possibly find a majority,
and it is allowed to he greatly uncertain, whether aK
a whole, the reported Constitution would at this time
be accepted or rejected. The hope of changing
rpme of its provisions, would in the first instance, in
duce some to vote against it, who ultimately, that
}u»po being disappointed, would vote foT it. A short
tijnc must now bring light to darkness, and explain
that which perplexes the most expertftrioed and Saga
•:l.; 11 ?* fbservers of gpTTtical events.
Ob FRIDAY, on motion of Mr Hart, resolved the
the committee of Roads and Navigation, be instruct
ed to acquire into the expediency of autho rising a
Lottery for the purpose of raising a sum of money
to complete the road leading from Staunton to Par
On motion of Mr. Aliller of Powhatan, Friday the
8th, was appointed for the election of a Treasurer
for 12 monfhs.
i On motion of Mr. Robertson of Petorabarg, the
j committee of courts of justico were instructed to
i enquire into the expediency of detaching the couu
: tv of Charlotte from the 5th, aud attaching It to
the 6th Judicial district.
Reports were inado by Mr. Hill, from the com
mittee of propositions aud grievances, by Mr. White
of Rockbridgo from that of Roads and Navigation,
.and by Mr. Gilmer from the committee of Rovolu
: tionnry claims.
j . Engrossed bills—I. Prescribing certain regula
tions on the James River Canal. 2. Am housing
i commissioners to raise a muu of money by Lottery,
for purposes therein mentioned. 3. Changing tli«5
time of holding the quartorly conrt of Mason. -1.
Divorcing Elizabeth Lynch of Wvthe, from her hus
band JameB Lynch—were read a third tune aud
Mr. Cabell presented n petition from James Irbv
of Pittsylvania for a petition—Mr. Boshcr, of Ame"
I Ha, one from John Chitlin to be reimbursed a sum of
money—Mr. Scott onu from Halifax, for an np
' propnat.iou from the Literary Fund—Mr. Campbell
of Bedford, owe from Bedford, for a new warehouse i
for Tobacco in Lynchburg—Mr. Davis of Allcgha i
uy, one from Alleghany, respecting alterations iii tbo
location of the Kanawha Turnpike,
A resolution from tbo Committee of Proportions
and Grievances, declaring resouablo, tho petition of
oertain inhabitants of Richmond, Chesterfield, Anuj
lin, Powhatan, aud elsewhere, praying for tluj iu
corporation of a company to erect a now bridge
across Jatneti River, from Richmond to Manchester,
having been read,
Mr. VV i Ilia ms of Henrico, moved to amend the re- I
solution by striking out ‘‘reasonable,” and inserting, j
“bo rejected.” . i
mr. tsurioot opposed tho motion to amend, at
length, aud entered into a detail of the pnblic advan
tages which would aceruo from the erection-of a new
bridge, in the establishment of competition and in the
reduction of tolls. Mr* B. addncod a uutnber of facts
to she# that tho tolls ot Mayo’s Bridge were oppres
sive, and that, the proposed bridge would eflect a re
duction of tho cost oo\y paid by the public iu getting
tomarkot, of eleven twelfths. 0o denied that the
conceding the prayer of the pet tion would be any
infringement of vested right in thopersous of the pro
prietors of Mayo’s Bridge, or that Mayo bad beeu gi
ven tho priviloge of building his bridge for his own
benefit, but for that of the public. That Mayo ought
to be compensated, he admitted—but this he conten
ded, had long since been done, and that it bad been
>11 adjudged by the General Assembly in 1014, at•
tho time thnt Trent was given the privilege of con- I
structinf his bridge. If compensated for°his risqne ‘
and expoiito m IUt4. n itn'i he Was COniJR-n- 1
sated now, and in confiVmation of the fact that lie had i
been amply compensated. Mr. B. stated theromarka- ■
bio fact, that Trent had acknowledged, that in eight i
months after the const>-001 ion of his bridge, which j
find cost {■i'.OOO, he was compensated by tolls. Mr. j
Btu-foot advert oil with some severity, to the mouopo- j
ly of ell the ficilities of passing James River, Coatts’
b’erry end Trent’s Bridge, in tho hands of the pro-I
prietors of Mayo’s Bridge, and to its oppressive eflect'1
upou the town of Manchester and adjacent country,
tracing the decline of Manchester i.i a considerable
degree to that cause. The emoluments accruing to
the proprietors of that bridge, ho alledged to be^cx- ’
cessiveand oppressive, and wholly disproportionate
t° any'benefit conferred by the bridge upon the pub
lic. Since the purchase of Trent’s Bridge by the
proprietor of Mayo’s Bridge, more caniial and popu
lation had deserted Manchester, than lor a leDgtii of
time before. The coal trado from Chesterfield, of
necessity,came over Mayo’s Bridge, and the tolls, of
a single wagon, bringing 72 bushois of coal, amount
ed in tlio year to tho enormous sum of $450! This
was 10 per oont upon the gross value of the commo
dity; an amount exceeding perhaps, the clear profit
of the col! er, and that for a distance of a few hun
dred >ards, and a higher duty lhau was paid on the
coal from Ihe pits above that defended James River. ■
This state ot facts, Mr. B. Considered monstrous and
oppressive. The daily receipts of tolls at Mayo’s
Bridge, was stuted by evidence, to amount in 1813
14, to 110!—amounting per nnumn to g40,I50—and
twenty-five per cent may justly be addod to the esti
mate of 101 I, swelling the annual amount of IoIIb to
upwards of $70,000 per annum, a result so astonish
ing. that Mr. B. declared hrs own amazement at it. .
Was it possible, that the proprietors had not been
compensated for their expenses in building
Mayo’s Bridge? Mr. B. eloquently adverted to the
oppressive influence of the tolls upon the poor, and
the prosperity of the country, and us it was
beyond the power cf the Legislature to re
duce them, secured ns they were liv charter,
there was no remedy for the grievance, but by es
tablishing competition, and thus compelling the ow
ners to reduce the tolls to what they could afford to
receive. 'Phis would redress the evil, as eyporb-ncr
nna SDcwn in me cuhc «r T-rent's bridge, while if
was kept up independently. Ur Burfoot denied
tVint any exclusive privilege or monopoly had been
granted to Mayo,or that it would be any infraction
of his charter, to concede a new privilege. His
charter was granted, notwithstanding the privilege
of Routls’Ferry, and Trent's had been granted In ‘
1R14,notwithstanding tl\e $nnt8 claim to exclusive
privilege, set up then as notf, by Jlayo. These were
precedents on the side of the application, and a num
ber of others were cited by Mr. Burfoot. ft. plainly
appeared, that pnblie Convenience otilyhad been con
sulted iu all these Case-: by tiro Legislature, and that
Mr. B. Contended was the only consideration which
the Legislature ought to entertain. This was the
great prineiplo that pervaded our institutions, and
were the immortal Shakespeare or Milton to reap
pear. the fruits of their genius could not he monop
olized by them for more than 14 years. The disco
very of the power of steam, so important in the his
tory of matikiud, did not entitle Fulton to perpetual
monopoly, but the proprietors of Mayo's bridge, built
Home 40 years ago, were to retain their privilege in ;
J»lr. Atkinson of Halifax, enquired if the toll? of
the new bridge would be reduced, in the degree of the
oppressiveness of the tolls over Mayo’s bridge?
Mr. Burfoot replied, that that would be left to
the Board of Public Works.
Air. Williams of Henrico, followed in reply to *
Air. Burfoot. and in opposition to the petition. He !
stated that hi? private interests were in oposition to j
the course suggested by duty; notwithstanding which, j
hr had come to the conclusion, that to granTthe pe
tition wou.d be unjust in principle. He recited the
difficulty that Mayo had encountered in erecting his
j bridge, the great public benefit that had accrued
; from it, ^nd the fact that the tolls were the same
ami no higher, than those of the ferries on James
I River. Air. W. commented on the impolicy of crea
I ting corporations, and the probability that ip a few
‘years the publje would be subjected to the dame in
fltftiteiflcfiec which It notf'gust&ius: for It Would jje in
the power of the new bridge company, to take off all
tolls, and crush the opposition. Would this bo
competition;1 No individual could compote with a
j corporation. On the fact of Mayo's having been
compensated, and tho evidence relied upon to estab
lish the enormous amount of profit, Mr. Williams
commented, at some length. Were tho estimates of
the gentleman from Chesterfield (Mr. llurfoot) cor
rect, the proprietors of Mayo’s bridge ought to have
amassed a fortune of $2,000,000. Yet Tn point of
tact, Mayo's bridgo was under two incumbrances,
and Trent’s bridge under one, for the pui chase mo
ney. Mayo’s bridge was not so profitable us had
boeu imogined. Mr. W. narrated thfe circumstances
of the purchase of Trent’s bridgo by the proprietors
of AJnyo’s, from which it appeared that purchase had
been forced upon Mayo by circumstances, and that
it had not resulted front any wish to. procure a mono
poly. The abutment of the bridge proposed to bo
built, must be lodged on Mayo’s hind, and Air. W.
warmly reprobated tho injustice of condemning his
land hi order that it might inflict pn him, a* still
deeper injury. The impolicy of granting the appli
cation was obvious, font could not be expected that
individuals would exert enterprise on the erec
tion of works for public advantage when liable to be
deprived of the benefits which they expected to
j imho iroui 11 to tnemscives. ± lie gentleman from
| Chesterfield, admitted it to exceed tlie const it u
I tioual power ot the Legislature to reduce the tolls
j at Mayo’s bridge, yet he wished to do that by a
j side blow and undircctly, whit he acknowledged
j could not be done directly. If the tolls were too high,
i let 11 to Legislature reduce thenMo wbatthey thought
right, with the conditloa that if Mayo did not con
sent to the reduction, the privilege of a new bridge
would then be conceded. This was the true mode
of effecting that reduction df tolls which was desi
red by many. As to the amount of tolls on coal,
Mr. W. stated that in some instances, large fortunes
Were made by the Colliers »i a single year. They
made the consumer pay th» toll, and wero they to
enlist the sympathy of the Legislature, at the ex
pense of tho widow and herchiluren, whose support
; depended upon the toils of Mayo’s bridge? Mr.
W. contested the idea, that the burthen of tolls !
lwd had any influence over the property of Man- '
Chester—or that any of its inhabitants had es- j
j caprvd to Richmond for the purpose of avoidin'* 1
the oppression, lor the corporation burthens t”f
I Richmond, far exceeded the oppression of the
j tolls at Mayo’s bridge. It was true, that the
\ privilege of building his Bridge hail been granted to Mayo for
j the public, and not his convenience—tiui was not the compact
llibt bo should collect tolls in consideration ol bis risque and
| expenditure? Was not this die contract between the public
and him, and is there less injustice in violating that, than any
l other contract to which the public Is a parly? Has nut Mayo
complied with lhe conditions, aud kept bis bridge in order' In
dividual advantage, and mil the public good, was at the l>ot
lom ol this application, and hart Mayo’s Bridge proved a losing
concern, we should not have found individuals coming
forward and priqiosiug to share in his losses. Because Mayo’s
Bridge had proved profitable, others were willing td share in
the advantage, but none had been found willing to embark
with Col. Mayo, in thu untried experiment. So would it prove
in all other cases. None would l>© found willing to share tho
hazard of experiment, but afier it was made and succeeded,
those who refused to incur the risque, desired to shine the
cinohruicnt. Mr. TV commented on the injustice of encoura
ging this spirit.
Mr. Burfnnt desiring to answer Mr: William*, but tire, hour
living late, on motion of Mr. Miller of Powhatan, tile House
O-lTlRnAY, Ja.V. g.
The- Uousn ot’ Delegates oo meeting, was engaged
tor n short tirao in receiving reports from the sever
al Committees, and resolutions olferred by members,
which will be noticed in their progress. The rule
ot the House, which prohibits the reception of pe
titions, was Bn*pended for the day, and petitions wore
presented by Air. Minor and others.
Tho House then on motion of Mr- Burfoot took up
the report of the Couamitteo of propositions amt
grievances respecting n new bridge to be erected
from the city ot Richmond to Manchester, which was
Under discussion the day boforc
Air. Burfoot who was entitled to the floor accor
ding to parliamentary courtesy waived his right.
Mr. Bnoker of Amelia addressed the house in favor
ot the report. He did not think that, because it was
necessary to condemn the property of Air. Aluyo
for au abutment to the bridge, permission to build the
bridge, ought to bo refused. The citizens of Alan
chaster were not the only persons interested. He
thought if the House was in possession of the number
ot drays and waggons, he cared not for pleasure car
riages, which passed this bridge, and the nmonnt of
tolls paid, this information would materially aflbet
its decision. That tho persons living on the south
side of James riyer wvro willing to pay a reasonable
AH- Booker then commented on the remarks of
Air Williams, and referred to the observation, that.
Mr. Mayo was twice incarcerated^ for debt while
erecting his bridge. lie thought it right to give tiro
power to a company to obviate such consequences
in future. If it was thought that Mr. Mayo was
willing to agree to a roduciion of his tolls, it would
be found to be a mistake. IIo thought also tho efity
of Richmond deeply intcrestod in this question. He
had heard that miliers of this city had oflerod to pay
the tolls to induce wheat to he brought to this mar
ket. He thought Mr. Williams, considering the in
terests of his constituents. ought to for in favor of
the report. lie spoke of the uniform liberality of
the member from Richmond in supporting the Cause
■ of improvement in every part of the State, as an in
oucemeni to a like iioeraiity on The part ot the hoir.st.
Mr- Ruthcrfoord said, standing in the relation as be
did, he ivaB bound hy Ills duly to his constituents to I
take part In the discussion. He disavowed any hos- j
tility to Mr. Miyo personally. Ho would not enter
into the details of the question, but coniine himself to
the principles involved in it. Mr. R. said the ques
tion \vas, did the public convenience require this
bridge? The memorial signed by so rjmiy citizens
was conclusive on this subject. No one could be
lieve that the object was to deprive an indivrdiml of
bis property
The exorbitancy of the lolls was unquestionably
a sufficient reason for establishing another bridge.—
'Hie tolls were not paid by the rich colliers, but by
the consumers of Richmond, and in many eases by
tbe poor man who could ill afford it. ' The coal
trade would he increased by the reduction of tolls.
Mr- R- thought it probable, nay certain, that
Trent's Bridge would be permitted to go down by
Mayo, as it was fur his interest so to do. Should
Mayo’s Bridge be swept away by a fresh, ought there
not to be another bridge? That Treat's Bridge also
was frequently under water. If public convenience
required it, there ought to bo three or four bridges,
and if they were kept up, it was conclusive proof That
the public convenience did require them. This was a
stronger case than Trent’s. The rejection twice of
Trent’s application proves that the more the ques
tion was discussed, the hotter it was understood.
Mr. R. then referred to the memorial of Mr. Mayo,
and Paid if the principle contended for in it was sus
tained, no new turnpike could be established, because
one road must reduce the profits of tmpthur.
Mr. R. said that the builder of Mayo's Bridge
; could not have believed that he was to have to all lu
j turc time a monopoly. J-Ie no doubt thought that he
j would be amply rewarded before the increase -»f po
pulation and business would require another bridge,
and Mr. R. thought hie expectations had been fully
realized. The iiens on this bridge did not prove the
contrary. It. was no uncommon thing to mortgage
property to raire money to bo invested m other wur&.
At ail events, the receipts have been Targe enough
uriz7. M , 1 1 pcourngement to individual enter
“i**?;* nri''-o *■» ™ ™,T,;".
ic,t“g„fa ». *«ho
illOQs, Sul would wrr“'tki f * . w0L“n“ 'V'“
! atrl, WtaT •?“„ punt",;
cumnotiii'rm 1 i Pct,l,oner* knew nil the dangers of
competition and yet they feared not the conseipien
Willumm It ^ ?,tp?c ,ho f°ree of the remark of Mr.
OUfri to lip r~ t U |tUf- tu**s *bc Commonwealth
brulee Mr tR Caed!,JiyOUr7‘,UC0 U,c tol,s *» this
required it it « o'n 1 ,al. w ,c1rc P’^'ic convenience
where Toll-ft i t* and. olK?bt to be done every
where. Lolls fair hore might not be so at Lvnch.
m^daL^'uiat H' or ^where. If there was:
am.li h^ 1 I1 f W ProPriRtors of this Company 1
would become the prictors of Mayo’s Bridge, and then
put the tolls on the latter to their full pri7*o and 7‘hut
up their own, thi» could be provided against in the i
BrXeh'r1"1* ‘?Ir- R* Sali r—ZfSL £*S}
Te"r nil "°™a,?gytotbe present application.- !
lie u mP l iy Ur" g° !a' been erected hr the State, and 1
n ft ? r |W,’Pi0!i? to sacrificing the public interest !
chiced him ?d,vl‘Jul“,s‘ . 1 ,je samc principles which in
iip * on n ° f? bir the application in this case, pub
nLeD fi ’ V\ou <1 ,nako bini vote against a private ap
I?*HC|‘ ’•‘"“'d interfere with tho Guuly i
P', 1 11 was any objection tliat .Mayo owned !
the land where t.ie bridge would abut, then any man !
desirous to obtain a monopoly had only to buy up all
proper places tor a bridge, and thus exclude all com- |
JIc concluded by saying that the .jilestion :
was one of puhlic con vcuicnco
xur. ilaryiesaid he would have preferred heimr si
lent, bin ins duty required him to snv a few words,
lie was opposed to the report. He denied that any i
■manure ever eccured of taking a man’s property, by I
winch another valuable property would be destroyed!
nrLS^dthv Wuuld be a casc of injustice and op
pression. i on must take an abutment from Mavo |
tor your new bridge,and thereby destroy >1 brid<re no'w i
belonging to him.
Air. H. denied that the family of Mr. Mayo had
2™;? arj enormous profit from this bridge. Where
was it. It this application was allowed tho liens
vuiild swallow all tho receipts of the bridge. Ho
then spoke ot tho difficulties the elder Mr. Mayo
rerL nUT.TU!t0,r’ and the versa! opinion then en
t rtained that the ruin of the pioprietor would be I
the consequence. I hat Uie bridge had been from
um . to time swept oft, and thus he had incurred an
enormous expense.—-Now when the bridge has been
permanently secured, you Hre asked to deprive the
proprietor ot the benefit. He was not surprised a
tiie number of the petitioners, hedoubied not an equal
nuniner could be found to petition to make Mavo’s
.1 ge a free bridge. He meant no imputation
Mayo s bridge woul.l be destroyed bv tins new
bridge, anil then there vyoulJ be the same difficulties 1
nnder this new company. He referred to the case j
of the bridge at Cartersville. The property of the'
proprietor of the forry was uot taken. The bridge I
was asked for, because the ferry could not accommo
datu all tlie travellers. IJe referred to other cases, 1
m no one of which was the properly of tho proprietor
ot tho first bridge takon to carry into effect the new
br,dS<-- I he forry across the Chesapeake Ilav, was
not established to create competition, but to conduce :
*1 Jil‘~ ", ‘■oru ensence. Ho spoke ol'tbc inhabitants!
of Mn neb ester. lie knew two instances of remoyn Is !
to Iticumond, there might be more,, but those liviue I
[byre certainly escaped tho enormous expenses of
this city. IJe c- ncludcd by saying again that if the 1
application were granted, it would work injustice & !
i i \ ^llrfoof. r> plied. The true question, he said was, i
had the proprietor ot Mayo's bridge been compensated
tor his risque expense. &.trouble in erecting his bridge? I
Was the public taitb pledged to him for a perpetual!
monopoly? Ho thought he had yesterday shown the
coni rary & that (he proprietor had been folly indemni- j
hed. Neither Mr. Williams nor Mr. TIarvio had
answered this view. They had appealed to the sympa- :
tines of the House &. spoke of depriving the proprietor 1
of these dnormoas profits. Who pays tbcfe profits? i
Could not the argument be used that a priv- ;
llc^cu class or laioily had been Created? but be«
would not usd it. If the proprietor had been corn |
pensalcd, where was the injustice in the ease? Re- !
Ibrriug to the remarks of Mr. Williams, Mr. B. said he !
had nerer before heard that Mr. Mayo was in pns- i
session of a large property when he commenced the
bridge; on the contrary his advertising for partners
at that time showed that he had not funds of his own.
Mr. IJ. asked how was this new bridge to destroy or ;
(Kit up Mayo s bridge? I’he joint, stock company can
not boy Mayo’s bridge without leave of this House.
Tho only other Way was by reducing tho tolls._
How did this operero iq the Case of Trent’s bridge?
If the tolls had been equal every body would have
passed at Mayo’s, so that Trent was obliged to reduce
Ills tolls to one half of Mayo’s. Not so in the present I
ensq: the bridges will be equally convenient, and the j
tolls consequently equal. The control will be in the !
board of public works, who will not encourage a ru
inous competition. If a reasonable toll was estab
; Iisbed at one bridge, would not Mayo derive equal
benefit from the just arrangement of the tolls?
Mr. B. denied that a "competition had brought
j Mayo and Trent in debt, and proved the error ^by
, the fact that Mayo gave 120,000 for what cost only
1 about $a,000, a conclusive proof that it was not im
i profitable to Trent, t>r he could not have procured
that price.
lie admit fed that this House ought not to permit
another bridge to be erected by the Oauly Bridge,
because the same principle which would forbid tin:
OilC would justify the other. The CJaulv bridge had
not compensated the commonwealth ; Mayo’s bridge
had eompeuKatcd him. If the proceeds* of fiarily !
bridge had been sufficient to remunerate the expense j
then another bridge ought to be erected if required.
Mr. B then commented on the proposition of Mr.
Williams that unions Mayo agrees to cut down his j
tolls, this act shall pnsn, and said this Would be ef- 1
fccting file object as much by a side blow as that;
deprecated by Mr. W. of taking the abutment of a
bridge fiom Mayo’s land, and thus doing by a side
blow what it was denied could be done directly. He
could not believe that the presence or absence of Mr.
John Mayo could have had any effect upon the pass
age of the act authorizing the erection of Trent's
bridge. The provisions of tire charter asked, would j
restrict the number of shares to he held by any one !
person, nnd thus prevent a monopoly. He spoke of
the colliers arid tlTr-ir incomes. They were the pro
duct of their labor and ought not to be taken from
them to tie given to the proprietor of Mayo's bridge,
but the proceeds of Mayo’s bridge were wrung from
the poor. 'Hie amount of tolls bad increased till
! they had become burdensome and oppressive, in
consequence of the increase of travelling. There
was no monopoly in the colliers. The lands were
bought and sold as all other lauds were, lje denied
th'1 amount of profits assorted by Mr. Williams, nnd
spoke of the enormous charges and risque of the
colliers. Mr. H. contended that the tax of 2 cents
a bushel on coal for crossing James river was in fact
paid by the colliers and not by the consumers: be
Cause at least one half the coal came down the canal
and on the north side of James river, and that the
price was regulated by the whplo quantity. He ad
mitted the consumers would pay the tax if all the
coal passed this bridge. The laborer lie admitted
was worthy of his tnro, and Mr. Mavo’s heirs were
entitled fairlg to remuneration. lie had his tithe
| when the bridge was erected, hut now lie had » tithe,
: wInch amounted to ten or twenty lipoe* its foune^
amount, lie illustrated his argument by reference
to the chartering of the Farmers Bank while the
charter of the Virginia Bank was in existence, and
! iisked did not this fessoQ tly? profits of the Bank of
I treit'ia* Mr. B- alluded to other casej of a Similar.
1 nature.
! In reply to (Jen. Marne's remark that no instance,
f1ucourrc1d •*» w‘»«di » P'trt of « man's property,
j had been taken which wild destroy the value of
I another property belonging to binj. Mr. B said the
! uSt,'n5e wus .‘,0,|y occurrence, and referred to tlni
| Manchester Rail Road. A case had occurred where
a part of a gentleman's property was taken for this
I ro*,i a»d the consequence would be to destroy his fa
j ni lv residence by placing his house between the rail
• fuad and turnpike.
j Me said, in reply to another remark of (Jen. Mar
I $J™,111 tfD- Vefy laCt *bat “'I the penp/esouth side
' oviM® 3,rrr5 des,rous ta obtain a passage.
I over Mayo^bridge free of toll, was conclusive that
and proper. Xo one could bc
h«ve that a wliole peopl* would be willing to do an
act of injustice. 1 hat the concluding remarks of
Uen. H. had surrendered the question, publie con
vcnienee was the principle upon which a new ferry
acrossllie Chesapeake Bay was established- This
was the very ground upon which lie (JVJr. B.) contet.'
ded lor this new bridge, and the admission of tlns
principle was all that he asked. Public convenient:0
was public utility, public accommodation. Mr if
then commented upon the memorial in opposition
J in? proprietor (here admitted flrat he had «« m|n-r
objection to the bridge, but that his lands would l>
taken to abut the bridge. This, said Mr. B. was -i
auiiirnuur ui me inviolability of cliarlers. Is L,r,,„.
poMieunlily to be sacrificed because n narrow slip
«>f ,aml belongs to the proprietor of Mayo's
11 suc/i a principle be adopted you bold out u lurtTio
every projirietor of a bridge, to buy above and below
Imn a narrow strip of lapd, to obtain thereby n per
petual monopoly. ' 1
-Mr. 11. then examined some other parts of this me
morial to prove that the competition of Trent's
bridge was not so ruinous as pretended, and said
Alayo admitted as much, because he expresses bis
willingness to sell at the same price for which tie
bought Trent’s bridge.
-•1 r. 11. concluded his remarks by savinir that, he
hoped the resolution would be agreed to, to enable
the bill to be brought in and picepntcd, when most
of the objections which were only of detail, nij«Hit be
obviated. ”
Gen. Ilr.rvie replied, and said the assert ion he had
made, that there was no instance where one part of
a matt's property was taken, the effect of which
would be to destroy or nearly destroy other jiroperi
ot the same person, had not‘been refuted. The in'
stance given of the person, in Chesterfield wa . „ a
an analogous cafe. Was that person a
stnckhoulev in the Manchester Turnpike Companv
or did he own the land over which it passed? Yh-n.
Harvie said, lie fully believed in the truth of \J;
Mayo’s assertion that he was compelled to buvuo
Trent’s bridge to save Hie property In Mayo’s l<ru! i
from utter destruction. ‘ T
ben. Harvie. then read from the petition «,f V*,
Trent, in which lie disclaimed any intention of i.i
king the land of Alayo or any other person, for an
abutment to his bridge, and declaring that sooner
than do so, he would abandon his enterprise. Vet
now said Gen. Harvie, this ettempt. is made.
Gen. Ilarv o then commented ujton tin. conam t
ottlie projirtelor of Trent’s bridge, when Mayo's
bridge was swept ofFbyla fresh. He said that notwith
standing the avowed object was to put down prices
by competition m that case, the tolls of Trent s
brricre were put up to the highest price tho law
would allow, nst was admitted by Mr. Burfoot, and
argued that the tame result would be experienced m
this case. ■ • •
Gen. II. then spoke of the injury to the canal trade
in coal, it tins bridge was to be erected in addition to
the facilities of the Rail-road. He had oo doubt the
effect wonld be to ruin Mnyo’s Bridge, lie would
not say such was the object, but can this effect be
avoided, if the proprietors choose tv do ip* The pro
vision ns to the Board of Public Works, was he .re
sumed, only to prevent the tolls from bein.r raised
what was to prevent their reduction for a ff”v y< ar*’
t*H Mayo's Bridge was put down, and the placing
them at. the highest possible point to reimburse }
viotts losses. Gvnetal Harvie referred to the free
bridge at Lynchburg, which ho said was not elected
till the proprietors of the old bridge were amply re
mnnerated, aud then the property secured to them.
A.r. Alinor rose and said, he only wished to set den II ..vie
right, ns to a matter of far.t. The Manchester Hail Hoad Jn
over the lands of various persons, waggoners, and others
whose whole living depended on the Turnpike 11,- « jh
die case of the fartersville Bridge, tlie land of Mr It Han'
son, who owned the ferry, was lake,, and condemned to nocn
a road lo the bridge. W
Mr. Miller then referred to tiie chm- of the free Britton
Lynchburg, in which it was provided that the capital X- r.er
af nl0 a,'Te'110 ,1’n ..«»'e forn.£
bridge. Mr Miller would agree to a similar provision in this
case, and thereby avoid any wrong to the owner of Mayo'S
Bridge, lie wished not to interfere with private properly fur
ther than public convenience mini red. r 1 ' ’ 1
-ir. muiins amirp??cil the House again, savin- I,.
hound to reply, as Mr Kurfont had denied the «p..|, Z, certain
statements, made hy him yesterday, that %?, fh.rfoot wax mis!
taken ... supposing, that he had said; that the reduction of li -
nt Mayo’s and Trent’s Hridges, had brooch, hotb in deU ', i,!
had said, that from information derived fro,,, Vr Trent I ,
l.ad ascertained, that the tolls of Trends |5,id2H id,;, i. 17
only a limit .$£000, amounted to only G per cent* ncr mm ,
and he had inferred, that Mayo’s JJridge, must loin- the p/o'
prtetor in debt, in coose<|iience. of the much greater'’out lav of
capital ... its construct., and the niu e.vary exifoce; of ic
Mr. VV illiaras attempted to refute the Conclusion of Mr V...
root, that the ,oils of Mayo’s Bridge, I
2Lcar - Mr- ,1'Urf0°!’ ,e V,"H- ha' ar$"rr' '■‘•cause the rece ,.ts at
I rent 3 bridge, while Mayo’s Bridge was inini-soid,. f,. ,i
amounted to .$3000 in si* months, therefore, Mayo’- would
have been .>16000 in the same time, and adding 2.1 i.er cent uv
annum, u, travelling since that time, the present r reel ms .V
$?***•“»•. «> rv. ;.n.i Mr«tadf.m'sta
1 rent s bridge a, that time, was as high as .1 over wa- at \,n
yo’s, and as all the travelling was then over Trent’s Mrul-e i,
would he precisely tliat of Mayo’s, which \vo„ld reduce ,
calculation to $20,000 a, most.
Mr. W enquired why agree ,n the resolution, if the Home s
now satisfied, after all the explanations whirl, have been
that the application ought to lie refu'pri? Would it miMa- i
saving of tune and expence. to dispose of it npwd II..
the ease of the Farmers’ Hank Charter was no, m^mt Thai
was for a great general good as was supposed, thoti.-h Mr Bur
fiK.t doubted its good effects. I le commented upon",lie dangers
of incorporations Once charter them, and there was m ee.
tmg nd of then, The Farmers’ Bank had «0 entvvin.vi ,,/'i ,'.
,crests with the people of the ('omrnonweath, that the I c.-l i
Hire rcchartered it, notwithstanding the very prevailing do.dr ‘
of litv. Mr W. admitted ,h"a, a cori^tXaondt ^ty
nr iiold any property, hut by permission of ,|,e Legislature Vet
could no, individuals largely interested in the stock of the new
Bridge, buy up Mayo’s Bridge, and thus destroy rompetilhm
bn, there was no necessity for buy ing It was only nerr-.ur
to reduce the tolls of the new Bridge, which might he home by
a company where ,h« loss would be individually small, till
Mavo’s Bridge was put down, and then being the sole fridge
the same monopoly would exist, which was so much com
ed of now. 1 ■ •
nir. .>imams said that the offer of Mavo, in full Trent's
brige, was Unconditional. He (!i.l not see die . • • r ,le tion i,‘,
Mayo’s memorial, as Mr. K cnn'ended - emu, e, o„. if l
bridge were in the hands of one person. ine;>.'be , a .t»«, l.ot
in the. hands of a person desirous to live ^ ,,
was ruinous in the hands of l»r Trent. iwi «ime hu wished to
force Mavo to buy, and he succeeded. Now A’ .-.0 j, w ;t ,,,,,
sell to any person desirous of a fair r>nufi'uiii„n Mr \V ~t...
plained as to his remarks about compels,,." Morn n, r,,,'
tolls. He said that it would t>e less injurious to May , to ,’,„Cl P,l
.1.11 that way, but he did not propose it Mr Willi a in .trmed tbm
an immense fint.me had Ijeen made by ,he Mi; o family. Iron-,
the bridge I li it f <il Mayo mrrjtl h ive boon pr.>t ^.«| of H
Ci'iistdeialfle progeny ofye y.oofd imt .havirt -iilt the <'tid"e

xml | txt