Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-01-06

NJ 10.
ties taken in and rightly included IN the 49,,
Loudoun, Fairfax. Jefferson, Berkeley F,eJer,cL
Shenandoah Rockingham, Hampshire, HARDY PenJle
ton, the other half of Augusta, and half of the f,ountv
of Fauquler. Ii the people the Potomac seco, IL
thy TO be treated the people of the James River
on hthey have equal political peCuniay ripb hts hat
sum ought the state appropriate their tow rds
improving the navigation of the Potomace In anu erins
tins question II we are TO be governed By the white po-
pniaton which is the true criterion they entitled to
larger than the people OF the James River section
II the whole population taken co,npu alton slave.
and ALL they are entitled to nearly as large Not
w'ths'andng this the Farmer gravely observes that NO.
one nan or one third OF tins sum should be Apr orated
10 The mprov cmen Of tie Potomac not even the mn NJ
S'ooOOo or any other By this it would appear thar
the people OF James River, OF whom suppose the Far
her one are entitled to exclusive privileges or that
they are court avourtes. Is this consistent with the
republican principles which the Farmer seems IN
build his hypothesis against the Ohio and Chesapeake
anai or IN other words against the Improvement of the
fotomac! Is this consistent with the honorable and
magnr nmous spirit of Virginia of which the Fermar
speaks and which hope she will long maintain: but
cerany not 10y pursuing the course which the Farmer
has pom edson The Improvement of the Potomac tn
t'e 100 o. The Aeganey is enough TO call forth the
my liberal assistance and patronage of the State If
l" IS eafrled tu'ther IT certainly will inure Vre
MA, II viii only make the stock more profitable And
certainly fairly promises TO be more proGa bic or az
much So at the stock of any other canal the coal
at the foot of the Aeghaney will insure that aca;net
ali risques The New York Cana! has no sucb adj
vantage II 1t had. it would be worth more in
the article of tolls than half of all the other ar
hoies carried upon it, The James River Canal has
nothing TO put in competition with it. because tho cool
mere aer oeg raised at great expense from great
depth rs afterwards To be carried BY land al further
expense considerable distance TO the canal and is
'hen carried only about twelve miles upon it, And
yet rom this short freight Of the coal eat
were formed as 10 the profits from the well know result
OF me CONVEYANCE of coal upon canals in England
out the citizens OF the Potomac section ask not for
gus or gratuilics, or TO make the Improvement OF ter
navigation entire state affair as has been done Win
James River: they only ask that the state shall suh
scribe for part OF the stock that other bodies and
individuals may be encouraged TO Subscribe for the re-
nander, and that the undertaking NAV so far have ho
patronage and appreciation state insured to il az
w guard II against all the dangers of those local lea
ouses and selfish sectional feelings which have mani;
tested themselves in the production of the Farmer
Is TINS asking too muCt? the Farmer being nudge
Jet nih say. 10 avoid all controversy in which ing e.
nuly might attempt 10 enange the much agitaed and
as"anhg question OF state rights, in the view which
nave taken OF the expediency propreiy and Justice of
'he s'aie oil Virginia taking part of the stock have
confined myself entirely TO Tie Virginia side of tho Pc
o'nac' and there we had enough and than enourh
To prove that the state of Virginia ought TO do so nt
VIII 1t indeed be trenclng on state riq,ts 10 t,Le
view OF the other side of the Potomac and there finding
large portion OF the Citizens OF MARYLAND and Other
states, whose interest be counted ith the interests
OF our own citizens and illus greatly increase The
magnitude OF Ire object 10 say that this ought to have
some weight with the Legislature ofVrginia? Certainly
not-the Leglslan did ihiuk so hen thcv oefab
iished the old Potomac Cq!npany, and subscribed
inr considerable part OF The stock; neither did
/
cnrrenoe with Mary land corporate the Chesapeok
and Ohio Canal Company. sYhy should not the state
subscribe for part of the stock now? WHY should
they withhold thus from the people of tue Poioma,.
Section their share of the fund for Internal Itnprove
neni' which OF right belongs them? In Justice 10
large portion of the James Taiver Section 1 must saw
ta' nope and believe aithey not acuated ty
that local, selfish and insulated feeling which sceos H.
ma'iieS itself III the production of the Farmer can.
not think that after obtaining largely the patronage
OF e State. that they would be unwilling that il sbonld
To he
Potomac
4 Ctizon Of The Potomac Section Of Jire;oia.
amendment TO the Constltalion-We recommend e.
public attention the letter of Gov TYLER in the eois
ative Proceedings of yesterday. His hostility to the
District System in choosing President has our hearty
CO operation. AT the time we as ardentlv sun.
port the End amendment PROPOSED by Tennessee tIa,
Member of Congress shall be Ineligible TO Executive
appointment, for the time of his election and FIR DIV
months afterwards. As relates to the choice of Flor
tors, Tennessee proposes the first effort proving abor
tVe TO return io two highest Tor the three if too have
an equality OF votes) back to the people Tn This
scheme the edefative principle entirely LOST sight of
The election will be purely RATIONAL and there can he
no more harmony between two districts in Virginia Than
between one district in Virginia and one in CoDnecti
cut vi all the schemes yet proposed in relation TO
any power or measure this is the most consoldatina
and The most unous to state Sovereignty.
900
"bonSfetd the author of certain strctures npop Mr.
Cries. published more than three since in one of the
papers Of This city and supporting addressed To ME
Editors oChc Enquirer ought 10 ha We corrected the ]
win which the Editors Of the publishing paper we're
pleased To accompany the Essay. Mansfield wen [no,r
that his Essay never offered the Fnou,er for lit
cation iha its Editors decmed to publish IL. and
mat therefore rhe Lbery Of he Press could not a bee
called IN question."-ITnquifer, Jan. 3d.
Ihe Editors of ''the publishing papern beg leave 10
observe IN Justification of the remarks which accom-
panied "Nianshels" that That Essay though externally
directed TO us, Tor should not have taken il from m
Po'-Ohce') was headed For the Eoqurern and that
other Phraseoogy was used indicating the intention of
The author 10 publish in The Enquirer fer which we sub
stued other terms: We concluded of course lbat i