Virginia advocate. [volume], July 09, 1830, Image 2

About Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
MMMMMlMMIMIMMmnMmi. of*
*-<• Iif in.id on such iron below twenty bvo per
cent ait valorem, not upon nny Ie . qu.iui.
than tv< cut *• tons,
AiMMtovi:t» : M.iv HI,
(I'rtiiic No. 70. )
A\ A( I to sitibor-xe tbe Regi-.ter anil Recei
ver ot tlie St iI 'Vii.i Linil district in l.otiisi
una, I•» teeoiro evidence. nml report noon cer
tain claim -• to lands ,n >;ii toiAil therein.
/<« it ow i/f|l It if the Senate nnd House of Hep
resentotirts of the ( mini States in Congress
issrmlilnl, 1 Hat tho Register nml Koceivef ot
tho St. Ilclona huiil district, in the State of Lou
isiana, are Itvrebv authoiizcd uud required to re
ceive evidence in support of tho claim of John
McDonough to a tract of land on the Mississippi
river, hounded above t*v the lands of John It. i
Helleviro, and below hy the lands of Madame A
Duplaintor, and said to contain about fourteen
arpentsiu front : also, one tract of land, situated j
on tho river Amite.all**gcil to have In-on original- 1
ly,granted to Domingo Assaretto by Governor
Miro, on the eighteenth February, ono thousand
seven hundred and eighty •oight, containing
thirty arpents in front, by forty in depth, under
whom tho said Mu Donotigh claims title.
Skc. 2. Jind be it farther enacted, That the
said Register and Receiver shall have the same
powers, and perform tho same duties, in relation
to the aaid two claims, as was authorized and
required of them by tho act of the third of
.March, ono thousand oight hundred and nine
teen ; and shall report to tho Coinmissioqor of
the General l.and Offico an abstract of the evi
dence furnished in each case, together with
their opinion thereon, that tho same may ho laid
beioro Congress at the commencement of their -
no si session ■
Appiiovko : May 28, 18"0.
C O MMUITIO ATIOW, j
To THE LlUTOKri OK TIIE VlflUINIA Al.VOCATK.
It scorns tlut tho publication which you did us
the favor to insert in your paper of the ‘Jitli
May, bus been doomed so far worthy of notice as |
to call fi rth, from the President and directors of I
tho Kivannn Navigation Company, a very ani- i
mated and spirited reply —Wo certainly could ;
not have supposed that a publication of the char
actcr of the one alluded to, intended for the solo '
purpose of exhibiting to the public a plain and
candid statement of the facts and circumstances
oonnocted with a question of deep public intciesl,
accompanied with a few remarks in the way of
illustration,inoffensive in character as we conceiv
cd to any individual or individuals whomsoever,
could possibly have resulted iu arousing into ac
tion the feelings displayed in the publication in
your paper of the 11th. Juno, and of bringing
upon our heads so much asperity and harshness
ot animadversion as we find dealt out to us in
that vory singular production. We aro charged
by those gentlemen with a wish to try our gladi
atorial skill in the tactics ol a paper war. than
which certainly nothing could have been mmo
foreign from our purpose or design. We con
sideied that ours was a course entirely defensive
in its character, called for and imperiously de
manded by the poculiar circumstances in which
we were placed, and necessary in order to relieve
ourselves, as lar as practicable, from the conse
quences and inconveniences of an unjust excite
ment and prejudice produced in the public mind
against us. from wlmt we conceived to be mis
taken views or misconceptions of our motives
and conduct in relation to lint contemplated im
provement ot the navigation of the Kivanna riv
er at Shadwell mills. We contend thcroforo
that the torsi„ of war was not first sounded on
our port, but that it has come from tho opposite
■ida. The gentlemen President and Director,,
having, therefore, as wo conceive, groundlessly
charged us with giving a challenge, which they
say they cannot in honour decline, with ‘-flourish
of drum & trumpet” forthwith take the field and
uttoring severe threats of what they intend to do
take thoir tilts .at pleasure, and retire no doubt in
the conscious triumphsof a fancied victory “ with
all their blushing honours blooming th.ck upon
them.” Now wt say, on our part, that we pro
fess not to bo adepts in the gladiatorial art ; and
as our opponents say they cannot in honour de
cline the contest, wo beg Icavo on our part to
say that wo cornot in honour consent to engage
m any such tournament, especially if our op}»,
nenls havc'given a proper specimen of the man.
ner in which it is to be conducted.-We shall not
thoref.ro, in our reply,trouble the public with but
few remarks on parts of the gentlemen s produc
tion \vhi**h we consider rather of a personal or
irrelevant character, bat .endeavour to confine
ourselves chiefly to subjects of public interest.
In tho first place wo would remark that, as tho
gont lemon admit that our representation of facts
had some effects on tho public mind by allaying,
as we suppose, in some dogroo tho excitement
and prejudice previously existing against 119, we
•nay in charity hope that the genUcmcn weie
...... ......ni,eu hi mo circumstance, as to
oauso them to complain so sorely as they have
done of our resorting to a public news-paper as
the most effectual means of bringing the facts
und circumstances of tho case fairly" before the
public. And again, while the the gentlemen com
plain »o much of being forced or dragged into a
discussion in the public prints so much against
their will, on a single topic only, that of the Shad
well controversy, being the only one touched up
h-v u*'noor publication, and at tho same time
r ,du -e themselves so many various ot Ik r topics
"0t at al1 connected with the Shadwell question
or necessary to if9 elucidation, and also feel them
• ives constrained, as they say, to give publicity
many things which, passing only between
tooniscfvos and Hlo o/dc. mofT,ber of the I nn.
“ in - nion, might seem more entitled to he the
J0Cl ot a Pfivnlocoinmnication than of being
Msxoncd forth i„ the columns of a widely-circa
L, nrw„.paper with vai. ideas, and color*
f,t .'rf,'ay- necessary to elucidate those « many
"'"f the result, no doubt, of the exertion of
much ingenuity. VV0 mav ho .||nw.d ... ...
t-— It OMk MMMHMMMMWa
l*ose for winch they were intended. As for in- '
ttatice “ tin* people of Albemarle are certainly
much indobtted to those gentlemen for their gra
cious condescension in taking them under their
peculiar care and tuition"—and aguin—The
Board wish to throw no impediments in tho way
of individual entorprire. hut to surrender to tl e
owners of those Mills I lie rights of the public to
free iruvigati-m <’l the Rivutma, and the entire
mimopohj of the wheat trade of Albemarle, sa
vours too much ot a colonial po' ey and demands |
a sacrilico which cannot be made." These, with |
various other sentences of a similar kind we
would not, b) any rude or inadvertent touch, in j
tho way of comment, in the least degree mar or
disfijure, hut sorter to remain in all their pristine •
beauty.—Tho gonthhimn in the first place enter
into a long investigation to establish this propro-j
sition“tliat the use of the water for the purpose of
navigation in all navigable streams belongs to the
public "—The gentlemen very well know that
we have never denied or attempted to question
the truth of this proposition, nor bus been at all
embraced in the discussions between us. in rela
tionto thecontemplnted improvement atSbudwell
mills. As an abstract proposition wo admit it to be
true in its fullest extent—quotations are also
made from two inquests taken at Mr. Jefferson's
instance. The first taken in !?!•”> said to bo in
Mr. Jefferson's band writing. Not on any nppli
cation for leave to erect a darn but only to ereet
a mill with a view of taking tho water out ofl,.c
river by u canal to be cut out commencin'' above
a lodge ot rocks tor the purpose of conducting
water to tho mill. Now as Mr. Jefferson did
not «>k for le ave to erect a dam or other olistruc
tion to the water in the river and obtained none,
it followed of course that ho acquired no right
by that leave to prevent tho public, in any im
provement of the river, from removing natural
obstructions in the river us the ledge of rooks
l<>r instance, or any stoppages which he might
pet in. And Mr. Jefferson no doulil for the simplo
purpose of satisfying the Jury or the public, that
he claimed or aimed ut no advantage over the
public or right, which he did not and could not
acquire, by the simple leave to build u mill with
out a dum, inserted in tho inquest tiie clause quo
ted in these words “ but that if the river should
bu opened for navigation hereafter the interest
{'not right,) of the said Thomas ought to ho post
poned to that object, an I those authorized to
open the river should be free to make their open
ing in any part they think best, or of any stop
page which tho said Thomas may have made,’'
that is to say, having obtained .no lawful right
or leave to make any stoppage in the river that
| any such stoppage so made without leave might
! be removed as well as natural obstructions.—
i This opinion of Mr. Jefferson was entirely in ac
cordance with the proposition above admitted to
bo true. “ That tho uso of the water for thQ
navigation in all navigablo streams belongs to the
public” as an abstract proposition—which also
implies the right to remove all natural or unlaw
ful obstructions in the use of the water. This
inquest is of uu validity however being super
seded by a subsequent one, and is only referred
to as evidence ot Mr. Jefferson’s opinion as to
the correctness of the before slated proposition_
but suppose Mr. Jefferson had obtained leave in
the mode prescribed by law, at the same time to
erect o dam across the river, us infict ho nfter
1 wards did, by an inquest also taken in the year
180o. How then would liavo stood the question
, of right as between him and the public ? Had the
public then the right to abate the dmn whenever
tho river might be opened for navigation ? Cer
tainly not. The abstract proposition “ that the
uso ot the water for the purpose of navigation in
all navigable streams belongs to the public” then
becomes qualified, limited or restrained in this
1 that tlio public, cannot abate the dam, or remove
it, as an obstruction to the navigation, without
indemnity to the individual. It is admitted to
lie true that individual rights are in all cases to
be postponed to public ones, but always with in
, demnity to tho indi viduuls in cases of previously
vested rights. Navigable waters are compared
to high ways and tho use of both belongs to the
I public, or too idividuuls ot the nation,as Mr.Jef
, for son says in the quotations taken from his
works on the rights of the pu^m to the batiure
at New Orleans, and is unalinalile.—Tho public
haven right to highways through every part oi
j tho territory ol the stale ; but how are those
highways to be had over soil the right to which
! is previously vested in individuals? Certainly bv
, indemnity. And so it there be any previons ves
| ted individual rights opposing «.r standing in the
' waJ’ of nivigation they must l.e postponed to the
public, but with indemnity of course to the indi
vidual And on tins principle there is no doubt
that every mill darn on the Kivanna river may be
j a0iUeu '> me public interest for the purpose of
j navigation requiro it, but with indemnity to the
owneis of the mills as matter of course. This is
a matter s> clear that it is deemed useless to
mult.pl} illustrations of it—uiuced it is so clear
that it is rather to bo wondered at, that tlio gen
tlemen should have thought it worth while to
enter into such a tedious investigate n i„ prove
it. We come then to the question as to what
were the vested rights of Mr. Jefferson. He
had no doubt a complete vested right to his canal
and mills because they were constructed and
built by his ewn lawful means on his own law
fwl soil, and to his dam because it was erected br
lawtul authority obtained for that purpose, hut
with an agreement attached in tlieso words in
sorted in the inquest of 181)5. “ |t is further
understood by the Jury and agreed to on the
part of the said Thomas, that the canal shall be
used as an improvement to the navigation in ex
tending the navigation from Milton upwards if
that shall he adjudged the most convenient
course. ’ This agreement it is said is tan/amount
to an express condition that the public shall
have the use of the canal &pf the same effect as if
it had been so inserted as an express condition
m the order of court granting Mr Jefferson leave
to build his dam ; and for the present wo will so
consider it. Jt will be understood then that both
" •'Jucrson and the public are entitled to the
use of the canal, and the question is how is this
use to be regulated between them. If ,he canal
and the water therein should be sufficient to an
swer the purposes of both, then no difficulty con
arise, but suppose it insufficient to answer the
purpose ot both? Is Mr. Jefferson then to sur
render bis canal dam and mills and make asacri
fire of the whole for the benefit of the public,
1 ” vvhn, the ,9tc ch«c!lor said in speaking of
the subject would have shocked the feelings of
the court and every one else.” |B there any
principle of equity or justice upon which he
should he pound to make such a Bacrifice , u
here any consideration whatever to bind him to
nake such a sacrifice ? Is the mere favour o( the '
public in granting leave to build the dam such I
\ consideration ? Was the public in any wise in- >
lined, or did they sustain any loss by granting ,
.bis favour ? And what sort of a favour can (
it bo which may afterwards bo resumed or
availed of by tho bostower so much to the
injury of him on whom it is bestowed ? A
favour indeed to use a common phrase “ with
a vengeance." But it is said that os he chose to
accept the favour in that way. lie must ubido the
consequences. So tho tyrant would say wlmso
only rule of right is power ; hut the principles of
moral justice and equity speak a different lan
guage. Suppose the favour accepted on the con
dition spoken of, unqualified and unlimited, and
the after result from the use of the canal by the
public is such as to ptove the total destruction
of his property, ought not a court of equity to in
terfere and modify or quality that condition so as
to prevent that result, especially if it he practable
to do it in such a way as to sccuro and preserve
the interests of both parties? If tho dam pre
sented an insuperable difficulty to the uso of tho
river for tho purpose of navigation even that
would not boa sufficient reason whv the value of
the mill should bo lost to tho owner—the public
ought then to pay for them, and take tho use of tho
canal; but ildoes not present an insupcrnhlo diffi
culty—a separate & indcpendanl public improve
ment can be made, ut an expense not half equal
| to the cost of tho caua' and mill. Then let us
! weigh tho case in the scales of equal even-handed
justice and see tho result.
If th« Canal and tho water therein be used
for tho purpose o( navigation, the value of
the Mills we will say, is destroyed, nnd
lie mill-owners have no alternative but to sub
mit t.t the loss ; but if the Canal and the water
therein he used for the purposes of the Mills t'ln
public have an ollci native, by a separate and in
dependent improvement—does not the scale even
in this point of view preponderate in favor of I
the mill-owors ? then throw into tho nrepordcr
ating scaie the vast expenditures of the individ
ual in cutting the Canal the use of which is in
contest and building his Mills &c. while the pub
lic lias expended nothing, and %vhat is the re
sult? Is not the opposite scale at once seen to
kick the beam? ^Ve iome then-fore to the err •
elusion that tho dccreo of the chancellor is
founded on a clear principle of equity and
justice, in declaring that Mr. Jefferson's right
to the use of the water in his canal for milling
purposes is prior and primary nnd that of the
public secondary and subordinate—We really
do not know how we are to understand gentle
men as to their opinions of the Chancelors* de
cue—They charge us with making partial ex
tracts from it to suit our purposes—they also
quote extracts form both decree and opinion
themselves and seem to endeavour to shelter
and sustain themselves under them, while they
also appear to argue and contend for what seems
to us to he in direct opposition to the plnii.
leading principle of tho decree, which de
clares the right of Mr. Jefferson to the use of
his Canal and the water therein for the purpose
of his Mills to be prior and primary and that
of the Uivanna Company to tho use tlieroof for
the purpose of navigation subsequent and subor
dinate. Their courso is indeed to us very am
bigiuous— & to prevent any further difficulty as
to the correct construction of this decree, and
enable others to form and make up an opirion
for themselves ue will give first ono extract
from the chancellor's written opinion, which is
too Jong itself to bo inserted in errleruoand then
wo will give a full copy of the decree. The
Chancellor in speaking of tho nature of the
condition imposed on Mr. Jefferson in the order
of court granting him leave to build his dam
says: “ Lnder this view of the case what
could have been the extent of the conditions
which the Court meant to impose on him, or of
the. privilege which it intended to reserve to the
public fot granting him leave to build this dam
—was it that he should surrender to the public
his valuable private property tho fruits of 30
years labor and of immense sums of money_
That he should permit them to take the abroluto
possession of his canal and appropriate them
selves the uncontroled use of the water pussin<r
through it to the Mills, (leav ing to him only such
surplus as they might not happen to want) by
which they might bo rendered entirely useless
nnd the Plaintiffs object in erecting them and
d'ggmg his canal, as well as in building this
very darn he wholly defeated. That they should
he at liberty to weaker, the banks ot bis Canal
nnd endanger both them and his mills, by the
erection of such locks as they might find neces
sary? and all this for the simple privilege
of permitting him to build a darn which
according to this view could be of but little or
very uncertain profit to him : and without n^y
compensation tor, or security, against danger.
I tie absurdity nnd unresonnhlencss of such
conditions would liavo shocked the court and
every one else! and tho permission to build on
such terms, would have been properly consider
ed by tho Plaintiff an insult on his understand
ing and the conditions would have at once been
rejected of him. ’
1 lie decree is in these words :
“ ' ,r|rinsn—In the Supcror Court of Chancery
holden at Staunton, 8th December JS19.
Between
Thomas Jefferson PlaintifT
nnd
George Divers, William, D. Meriwether, Nim
rod Bramham, Dabney Minor and John Kelly
subcribeis members and directors of the Rivanna
Company,
_ Defendants.
On the various tapirs brought into discussion
in this cause the court after maturely consum
ing the b.ll, answer, exhibits, examination, of
witness and arguments of counsel hath made up
an opinion which is delivered in writing and
filed amongst the papers in order to enable the
court to pronounce a final decree pursuant to
the principles of that opinion it is adjudged and
ordered that, who are hereby ap
pointed commissioners lor that purpose any
of whom or any other persons who may
ho agreed upon by the parties may act-w»-o
after viewing the dam, Canal and Mills of the
Plaintiff, the locks of the defendants, and such
other objects ns the parties or cither of them
may rensonnb'y require, or as tho commissioners
shall think fit, ,h„l| rrporl t(, lhig court „t thfl
next teirn, or as soon thereafter as practicable,
what injury the PlaintifT sustains or is likely
to sustain by the use of the water for the pur -
pose of navigation through his Canal, what |
damages be au.lains or is in danger of sus
"-1 * - . .
ning from the erection of the Defcndan
ockH in consequenco of their weakening the
tanks of tho Canal or otherwise, by what means '
md to what extent the injury, dafiiages and dan
cer aforesaid may bo guarded against wilhou
lepriving the company or the pubi c of tho con
f n ei.t use of tho Canal ns an improvement on
iho navigation oftho River in the manner con
leraplaled by the order of Court granting the
Plaintiff (lie privilege »f erecting his Dam, in
what manner die use of the water in tho Canal
by each party, may bo regulated, so as to se
cure the rights of each and so that the enjoy*
ment of these rights by each may be as little os
public detrimental to the other ; what comp, n
sati..n,ifauy have,the Defendants already made
to the 1 lainlifl for the privilege of using his
Canal for the purposes of navigation with tho na
ture and value of such compensation ; and what
additional compensation ought to bo mado to
the Plaintiff therefor, and that the said Com
missioners do report to this Court such other
matters as either party may require or as they
themselves may think pertinent together with
any evidence which may be eubmi t. d to them,
and any agreement which the parties may have
made or may make in relation to the matters
aforesaid. In performing tho duties hereby re
quired of the Commissioners they will govern
themselves by the principles of the written opin
ion aforesaid and will especially bear in mind,
that the Pluinliil s right to the use of liis Canal &
tho water therein for the purpose of his Mill is
prior and primary and that the Defendants
right to the use thereof for the purpose of na
vigation is subsequent and subordinate .although
as for ns practicable each must so use his own
as not to injure tliut of the other ("signed^ A
Copy Test William S Eskridge C. C.”
Having thus given a copy of tho decreo entire
we sliuli content ourselves with but few re
marks in relation to it, leaving it to the reader
lo form his own opinion as toils construction
and purport. If the reader would take tho trou
bio to refer to the propositions in writing on
both sides in our first publication lie would be
enabled to discover which of tho two accords
most with the principles of the decree We
contend that our propositions coricspond in
terms and effect with the object of the decree as
nearly as we could make them, and are ns well
calculated to give to the Navigation Company
all the advantages which can be had in the use
of the canal without material iujury to tho
Mills,as any that could bo devised; indued upon
subsequent reflection we think that wo can say
ii.ai we aety any person to invent or propose any
other scheme nioro likely Jo answer the main
object of the decree, that of securing such party
in t.ie enjovment of his respective right to
the use of the said canal and the water therein,
than by giving to the public the use of the water
until it gets down to a certain point, and reeer
ing the balance for the use of the Mills. How
can it be regulated otherwise so as to retain to
the Mill the preference of the use ofthe water
according to the decree. This point was fixed
by us as low as we eonceivcd it could bo fixed so
as not materially to affect the operations of the
machinery. It the reader will advert to tho writ
ten propositions of the company he will discover
that they admit of no restrictions whatever in
tho use of the water in the canal for the purpose
of navigation, but claim tho right o» fixing the
lin t form of the locks of any height they “may
think proper, and it is certain they might be so
fixed as to draw all the water out of tho Mill
lorebays if necessary for the use ofthe locks.
Their propositions are clearly based on the pre
text'.nal the right ofthe puWlic to the use of
our canal and the water therein for tho purpose
of navigation.is piror and primary that ofthe
Mill owners to thon«o thereof for tho purpose
of the Millsscrorir/ary and subordinate ; exactly
reversing the principle of the decree. The
gentlemen Piesidont and directors seem to
think it an act of almost unpardonable presump
tion in us to talk of consenting that the public
may use our canal—they say that the public
holds that right independently of our grant and
in despite of us. If the gentlemen had adverted
more particularly ty the purport of the chan
cellor's decree, they would have seen that tho
decree contemplates conpensalion to the own
ers of the Mills for the use*f the canal ;and if
so it certainly is not such an unpardonable of
fence in us to offer to give tho use without coin
ptinsation.
Tiie gentlemen President and directors have
indulged in much latitude of stricture upon the
written prepositions on our part published in a
former publication, and evidently exert their
ingenuity to give to them a meaning different
from what we intended, and wo think different
fiom their plain litvrp) interpretatation—As the
propositions are before the public we shall leave
it to them chiefly to decide on their proper
construction and interpretation without follow
ing gentlemen in all their ramifications of
error and misconstruction
a>t _ . i
.g.;....emeu onnrge us with an attempt
to distort the meaning of a part of their propn.
silion by an inperfect quotation from them in
this that we quoted them as saying that they
will widen the Cannl, yet that they will widen it
only in such parts ns they think necessary, sup
presing they say the important words “ to nff >rd
passage for the water” whereoy the sense of the
proposition isentirely changed : Now wo would
refer it to any “ candid examiner ” to say whe
ther the omission suggested produced any
change at all in tbo meaning of the sentence.
Tho two sentences11—to widen the Canal in
such parts as thoy may think necessary”_And
to widen the Canal, for the passage of the
water in such parts a9 they think necessary,
certainly imply and mean the same thing.
The extent of widening in oach case is rofered
to the discretion of the person making the pro
position, and that is the essential circumstnnce
or idea which controls or fixes the sense of
each. To afford a passage of the water is plainly
implied in the first sentence, because the Canal
could be widened for no other purpose, and we
believe it is a rule in composition tlint, what is
plainly implied, need not be cxpiessed_As the
gentlemen say they give this as n fair speci
men of our candour in criticism, we beg leave
respectfully in turn to offer it as a fair specimen
if their pretensions to skill in criticism. We
reel somewhat surprising at the suggestion or
supposition of gentlemen that our object in
w ishing a transposition of the locks from above
to below the Mills was to give to the Mill* r,n
ire control of tho water, so as to prevent its dcs
:ending to the locks, we should suppose that
'cntlernen, filling tho stations which they do
voold have had a belter knowledge of hydrostatic t
than Mfliiif to be implied in such an idea—The
philosophy of tin* principle of gravitation teach*
es, we believe, that all bodies either hard or
fluid «h *cend to the lowest point, if there be
no obstruction in the wny to prevent, and that
therefore there would be noway of command
ing the water for tho use ot tho Mills to tho ex
clusion of the locks, in tho snmo (Tnnnl, of
equal deptii below the Mills as above, which of
course they would have llio Canal to he, unless
it bo by putting an obstruction or stoppage to
the passage of the water below the Mills ; or by
employing a sufficient number of hands l>> stand
with buckets and catch the water as it descends,
and throw it back opposite tho Mills; otherwise
it certainly Would descend and afford to the
Locks n supply about equal to that of tho Mills,
but ns Ibis is the idea of gontlemon wo may bo
allowed to suppose that it was their reason for
wishing the Locks above rather than bfelow the
Mills in order that they might thereby get tho
command and uso of the water for the Locks in
preference to the Mills. Tho gentlemen Pre
sident and directors under a consciousness we
presume that it would be difficult to obtain the
sanction of the public to the terms set forth end
proposed in their written propositiors and in or
der to avoid as far as possible their force and
effect, evidently exert their ingenuity to give to
them a construction different fVmn what seems
to us to bo their obvious and literal interpreta
tion. They deny them to ho original proposi
tions of their own, as they say we seem to wish
to coiisidoi them, mid call them a modification
of our propositions, made out so as to render
ours acceptable to th>'m and theirs moroacccp
table to us; and as tbe result of what was un
derstood to have been agreed upon witli a
I iiiemht r of their body deputed to hold aconfer
, Terence with us after they had considered our
: propositions. Wo are somewhat astonished at
the stutement <>f gentlemen of this blanch of
the subject. We cannot suppose that tlie state
ment as contained in the genll‘>mens publica
: tion could have met the sanction of the gentle
man deputed to hold the conference if ho1 had
adverted to its tenor and purport with a full re
collection of the facts «»f tho case. The facts
are those, after tho board retired, and when the
member deputed to hold tho conference came
to us; he slated, first, fliat the board objected to
tho right claimed in our propositions of putting
into operation additional Machinery. We replied
that as we were not apprized of any legal limit
or bar to that right, and as it might be to our in
terest therefore to pul into operation additional
iuacninerv, we did not consider ourselves bound
, to relinquish it; but that, in order to prevent
. that being an obstacle to an amicable arrange
ment of other matters more important to bo their
settled,we’would consent to waive that ri*»ht for
the present and leave it ns a matter for future
adjustment or adjudication and proposed to add
that as a modification to ourwriten propositions
by endorsing it on its back. The understanding
on this point seeming then to be satisfactory to
the member, he further suggested, that the
boaid were also unwilling to be bound to con
struct the flat form of their Locks nt any parti
cular height. To which we replied, that wn
had not. required that,in our wiitten propositions,
and were willing that nothing should be at that
time said about it, leaving them at liberty to
construct the locks as they might think proper
in the flirt instance, but with the explicit under
standing that if they should be so constructed
os to put it in the power of tiie watermen to
draw off the water from our Mills; and it should
turn out that they did so, to our injury, we
should then look to the Company to i„ake the
necessary alteration in the Locks, to prevent it.
The member then remarked that if the watermen
drew off the water improperly, or that we were
entitled to, that they ought to account for their
own misconduct.&not the company. We replied
that it would be out of our poweror to control
the watermen in that respect; that it would be
unreasonable to expect of us to be standing at
the Locks throughout the day, disputing and
contending with watermen, as to the propriety
of their drawing off the water from the Mills,
and that we should certainly look to the Com
pany to guarantee to us a reasonatilo supply of
water for the Mills; and the conference being
thus enacted, the member returned to the board.
1 his according to t he distinct recollection of the
j Mill owners present, is in substance, nt least a cor
j rect statement of wlial took place in the conference
refered to. It is therefore obvious that the mem
ber must have grossly misunderstood us if be re
ported usa- having agreed to the terms stated in
the written proposition of the President and Di
rectors. Indeed the idea or supposition that one
of those propositions is a modification of the other
must be determined at once in itself futile, by
any person who will tuke the trouble to compare
the one with the ether. Standing as thov cer
tainly do as much opposed to each other in prin
ciple, as w hite to black, or light to darkness._
1 he owners of the mills claiming a right of pre
terence in the use of the water in the canal for
milling purposes, and therefore claiming restric
tions in its use by the Navigation Company;
and tfio President and Directors positively re
fusing any restrictions whatever
Is it reasonable to suppose that any man in
his senses would have offered such terms as are
conta ined in our propositions involving the rights
of property of so large a value and then at once
agree to terms so opposite in character,nicknamed
a modification ofsuclr terms? Thereby abandon
ing rights sanctioned and sustained by a decree
of a tribunal of the highest judicature in the
state except one. The gentlemen President and
Directors stato that the mill owners declared
“ that Drey would sign no paper which did not
contain an explicit recognition their prior and
primary lights to the cannl and its waters for
the existing machinery and surh other as might
thereafter be established. ' This statement most
certainly must have resulted from a failuro of
rccollcctionon the pnrtofthe writerofthe publica
tion, for we must believe that some of the morn
bers of the boaid, at least, cannot fail torecolkct
that wo did explicitly and repeatedly state, that
altho’ we could not or would not agree to any
terms which conceded the preference in the
use of the Canal and lire water flowing therein
yet that as to the. right of putting into opera
tion additional Machinery we were willing to
waive it for the present, and leave it as a mat
ter forfuture arrangement or adjudication, and
to incorporate it with our written proposition as
a modification thereof;—and especially of the
member deputed to hold the conference with
us, to wit Major Clarke, to whose candor we
therefore appeal for the correctness of our stato
-n mtmmmmmttiwmmmmmm nr ■
inent on this point. Wo made this statement in
nut former publication and the denial of it on
the part of gentloiiicn tvu may consider, we sup
pnso, as one of those flat contradictions promised
in their publication ; and it is tho only instance
wo believo in which they havo attempted a re
demption of that promiso.
(To be concluded in our next.)
THE ADVOCATE.
CllAltLOTTESVILLE, FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1830.
THE FOURTH OF JULY
While the subjocts of European Governments
celebrate tho birth days of their princes, tho
free citizens of this republic hail, with an ever
rotiowod enthusiasm, the Anniversary of that
wliich declared a nation free, and proclaimed
to the whole woihl tho principles of Free Gov
ernment. They celebrate the birth day of a
nation. On eac h return of this memorable day
the annunciation of iho principles embodied and
enshrined in tho immortal instrument which de
clared us free, animates the bosom of every
American, and pervades, as with an electric
chain, the hearts of millions of Freemen, and it
is cclehratod with songs and rejoicing through
all our borders.
Fho 4th of July, coming thisyear on Sunday,
was celebrated on the Saturday the third of the
inontli by the “ Charlottcsvillo Debating Socie-*
ty,' by tho delivery Of an appropriate discourse
y Mr- "athamw. Wor.rn, in the Presbyterian
Oiiureli, nod the rending of the Declaration of
Independence by Du. F. Carr. Wc shall say no
thing of the merits of Mr. Wolfe s Oration, to
which the delighted and enchained attention of
an enlightened audience bore amplo testimony,
ns we hope hereafter to have it in our power to’
lay it before «.ur readers. Wo have heard of
other celebrations in our neighborhood but none
of the particulars have been communicated to
us.
Mias Wrioiit takes her departure for Eng
land in the Hannibal, which has saiied from
Now York. Wo cordially join in the hope ex
pressed by the Federicksburgh “ Arena" That
she “ parts, like Ajut, never to return.*'
T lie I resident of tho United States was ex
pected on the 25th or 2(>th of June at Louisville,
on his way to the Hermitage. How different is
the progress of General Jackson, moving quietly
or. to the Hermitage, declining the public ex- 1
pressmn of tho willing homage and respect
which freemen woald render to the man of their
choice, the hero who rescued his country from
invasion and plunder and the constitution from
violation, from the elecli Oflppritirr ovoueol_
the Coalition Cabinet—Relying on the good
sense of the American people, and conscious of
the elevated simplicity of his mind, the justness
of his views, and the disinterested patriotism of
tho means by which he aims at their accomplish
,ne"t» 's willing to leave their results, and
the consequent estimation of his character to the
impartial and unbiassed decision of tho people.
Wo hear of no barbacue revelry—no table ora
tions. He is willing that his acts should speak
lor themselves. They require no blazonry of
fictions declamation to recommend them.
I heir contrast with the delinqucnces and cor
ruptions ot the coalition is recommendation o
nough. It is not necessary that the Clerks in
the officos at Washington should neglect their
-duties, to engage in “ arduous political warfaro
n defence of his administration, or in abuse of
iis opponents, and when “ driven to desperation’’
hy this neglect& their own pri vate extravagance,
to rely on the connivance of the government, in
consideration of their services, to overlook or ex
cuse their plunder of the treasury. We hear of
no “ ebony and topaz,” toasts. We see no Sec
retary of State traversing tho country in tho
character of a political mountebank (by tho bvw
quite in character in tho late Secretary) lavish
ing unmeasured praise upon himself and his as
sociates, imprecating “ war, postilonce and fa
mine" on the success of his opponents, and fi
nally going off in one abortive explosion of In
temperance and vunity. (See Mr. Clay’s Mount
sterling speech.)
It seems that the Coalition are not cured of
their propensity to Barbacues and speech ma
king—They are marking the way oflhc Ther
sytes of the Senate on his return to Missouri
by these exhibitions. What will Mr. Clay say
where ho sees such a creature ns Barton
succeeding to his distinctions, and taking his *
place as “ Table Orator" to the Coalition ?
The partizans of the late administration have
feasted him at Cincinati, and again at Louisville,
and tho presses of the coalition are at a loss for
terms to express their, admiration of his ora
torical displays—He two is become, in their
eyes, another “ Demosthenes of the West."
Apostacy and disappointed ambition will people
the west with Demostheneses, and we shall ex
pect to tee Chilton and Stanberry enrolled, in
the Cannons of Coalition criticism, as rivals
of tho great Athenian.
Iii commenting on some remarks of the Charles
ton Mercury on the Veto, the National Inleligen
cer says: “ Rail roads and Canals are virtually
fortifcations; they aro necessary for the duo
protection of the coasts and frontiers from exter
nal aggression.” This is placing the power of
internal improvement on a new ground. This
however, is all that can bo said for it. Its folly
and absurdity are glaring enough.— What will
the leader say however to tho following passage
from the same article. “ With respect lo expen
diture, we have our doubts whether it bo within
the province of the President to attempt to check
the career of congress, in any way other than the
exhibition of estimates. The treasury is Rt the
disposal of Congress ; if that body drain it they
must fill it anew ; the responsibility is with them
Appropriations wVich he deems unconstitutional,
the President may and should reject; when
they are thought to be merely excessive, an ad
monitory view of the finances is ah that he can
undertake as a restraint." We should like to know
if vhat part of the constitution the Ex Mayor
finds any such limitation to tho exercise of the
Veto which it confers on the President. If the
profuse and profligate expenditure of some $60,
000 with which a factious minority ol tho Sen- *
ate, accidentally become tho majority, proposed
to reward the no less profligole devotion of th
Intelligencer to tho coalition, had been presented
to him for his Sfpoval, according to tho consti
lulional ethics of of Messrs. Gales and Seaton, the
veto of the President would he a Itogether impor
tant arrest it. This would have been a very con*
venient interpretation.