Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-12-14
FRipAY, Dec. s-TH,aD DAy.


The Convention met at ii o'clock.
The journal OF yesterday having been read
MIR. Foster, OF Penn. from the committee ap
pointed TO examine the laws of the different State.
passed III relation TO the Canal made the following
report
:" The Committee to whom was referred the res
olution That Committee OF four Delegates from
! each OF the States OF Virginia, Maryland, Penn
| sylvania, and Ohio, and the District of Columbia,
be appointed TO examine the different legislative
acts that have been passed relative TO the Chesa
| peake and Ohio Canal, and report whether any,
and, ii 90. what additions, alterations, or amend
| ments, may be necessary in said laws, and what
farther provision should be made, in order TO carry
into complete effect the objects of the Con
| Also, 10 inquire and report whether any, and
what, further acts OF legislation are necessary for
the security of CONTIGUOUS canal navigation from
some pon. upon the line or at the termination OF
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, to the City of Bal
timore, respectfully report
That, although II be possible that some amend
| ,hents might be benefcially made in the charter,
and that 1t may require some further revision vet
| the committee does not perceive in any of the
proposed subjects Of amendment (except that re-
commended in the first resolution reported from,
the Central Committee) any necessity for Imuedi-
atelesis!aton Or memorial; but that the same may
be postponed without de,rmeni or Inconvenience.
The COMMITTEES therefore recommend, that all
proposals for any change amendment in the char
ter, be, tor the present limited to the one proposed
in the said resolution OF the Central Committee.
The Committee is not aware OF any specific pro-
vision necessary to be made beyond the existing
provisions of the charter, for lateral canal to Bal
tinore; bu, has entire confidence that all which
good faith and justice require TO be DONE in order
TO give effect to the existing provisions OF the
Charter in favor Of such canal will, when the oc-
cason shall arrive, be done by the proper legislative
authority"
! Mr.. Foster accompanied the repor, by some OBJ
servatIons, In which he stated briefly the reasons
which he'd induced tue committee to come TO the
conclusion they had stated in relation to the lateral
canal to Baltimore.
MIR. Howard, OF Baltimore, then offered reso-
lutisn TO amend the report, by striking out so much
as related to that subject, with view to insert a
substitute; and, in support OF his resolution, went
into an argument to show that the existing act o.
Congress is inadequate TO TO the Stale oil
Maryland the complete and desirable right of ma
king the lateral Canal through the District OF Co.
lumbia.
This motion gave rise TO an able and interesting
legal discussion on the Interpretation of an act oil
Congress, confirming the charter of the Canal Com.
psny; IN which Messrs. H0Uayd, of Baltimore
INeison,, of Frederickiown, Mercer, Of Virginia
Jones, OF Washington City, Pigman, of Mary
land, Foster, of Pennsylvania, Clay, yNancy, oil
Maryland and Po,CeH, of Virginia, took part
! Messrs Howard and Maxcy contended, that the
act OF Congress in question not explicit in il.
provisions; that it left the sovereignty of the Dis
trict wholly in Congress, whereas without trans
Ter OF so much OF that sovereignty 10 the State oil
Maryland as was requisite for that States condemn.
ing land, performing other acts pertaining to the
conducting of canal through the District, no ex-
press light IL secured 10 Maryland 10 make the
lateral canal in question; that she is not allowed tc
Judge OF the dimensions OF such lateral canal, but
is obliged 10 conform 10 such dimensions as are
prescribed by the charter of the Chesapeake anc
ONO Canal Company; that the recognition and
confirmation OF the charter granted by Virginia, j.
only OF general and formal nature and the rights
In question, u granted at all, are granted only by
implications; that doubts existed, aud do s,ill exist
in the Legislature Of Marysnd, as to the s1fcien-
cy OF the right granted by Tie act il .Ics ion and
that, although Maryland has subsc. ibed $3.50 900
10 the funds OF the Canal Company, (she being hs
| ony public body which has just substantially en-
conIageI the undertaking. yet, by an act Of 1895,
she las ios lie $500 900 of this to depend on a
| condition precedent, that Congress shall pass an
act, securing 10 MarysD the right Of making the
lateral canal IN questiun--a phrsseology which
plainly implies that she did not consider the act of
Congress (passed nine months before) as having
secuTed such right, and would not, therefore, give
her money without further and more explicit act
on the part Of Congress; and, finally, that, though
The Convention might consider the act as sufficient
JET still that Difference was due 10 the doubts felt
W the State OF Maryland that subject; aud that
therefore, farther legislation, least m dsciarsto
~ form, was requisite.
The gentlemen on the opposite side insisted that,
as tho set Of Congress expressly recognizes and
confirms ia toto The charter originally granted by
Virginia aud ssoced b. Maryland ;he 18th section