Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-01-04
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE or DELEG.qY'I:.S
SATURDAY, Jan. 2.

/
SATURDAY, Jan. 2.
| The House Of Delegates on meeting WINS cncorrI
for short time in receiving reports irm the sever
al Committees, and resolutions offered by mc,nbcrs
which will he noticed in their urorress i'bo rplc
n the ifonsc, which prohibits ihc reception OF pe-
irions, was suspended for the day, and petit wcr=
presentcd by Mr.. Minor and others.
The House then motion OF Mr. Burfoot took IN.
the report oil the Committee of propositions and.
grievances respecting Lew bridge 10 be erectc1l
from the city OF Richmond TO Manchester, uhich WIS
under discussion the day before.
Mr.. Burfoot who was entitled 10 tho floor pcrpr
ding to parliamentary courtesy waived his ripht
Mr. oker of Amelia addressed the hou:e in favor
o. the report he did not think that, because 1t WAS
necessary TO condemn the property Of Dir. Mavo
for an abutment tn the bridge permission 10 build the
bridge, onght to be refused. The citizens of Man
chester were not the only persons ni crested lie
thought II The House in possession If the numftr
of drays and Wagons. he cared moi for pleasure car
risges which parsed this bridge. and the amour, o,
tolls paid, this information would materially afIlcr
It's ceclslon Tint the persons living on the south,
side of James river were willing pay reaso mn bio.
! toll
, Mr. Booker thon commented on the remarks or
MI w hams' and referred 10 tho observation tht
MI mayo vas twice incarceratedi for debt while
erecting his bridge. He thought IT rirht to ovr ,h
power to company to obviaie such cons ,guenccs
IN iutnre II 1t was thought that Mr. Mavo wos
wiling 10 agree to reduction OF his tolls !, would
De iound 10 be mistake. lie thought also The citu
OF Richmond deeply interested in this question RE
had heard that mllers Of this city had offered 10 nv
,he tolls to induce wheat to be brought to THU mar
ket. He thought Mr. Williams consderino ,b. IN
tcrests Of his Constituents ourbt 10 he in E. ,,
the report lie spoke of the uniform liberalitv ri,
the member from Richmond in supporting The c., VI
OF Improvement IN every part of the State as On m
ancemeBt ~ like hberaiity the part Of fbe hoe,
Mr.: Rutherford said. standing in she r,Jn,ion =, H.,
did he was bound by his duty TO his cons,ituon,e a.,
TAX. .ahe part In the discussion. He dsavowed ony hos
f.v 70 Mr. mayo personally He would not enter
INTO the details ofthe question but eofne himself -,
tne principles involved in il. Mr.. X. said tho ouos
ton was, did The public convenience require This
ordgc' The memorial signed by SO many citizens
was conclusive on this subject. No one couN -.
iieVe That the object was to deprive ON individual nj
his property Vi
Inc eSorbtancy of tho tolls was unquestionablv
suhcent reason for establishing another bridge
me tolls were not paid by the rich cplljers bn, b
the consumers of Richmond and iu mnnv case ty
the poor man who could i'll afford it, Tho cr,I
trate would he increased by the reduction of tolls
,- MI, IL. thought Il probnble, nay certain, tia.
REM Dtiuge would be permitted 10 20 down by
Mayo, MS II was for his interest so to do SbonlJ
mayors briGge be swept away by fresh, ought tbcrn
not to be another bridge' That Trrnt's Bfidao aim
wns frequently under water. If public conver;o
required IT, there ought TO be three or four br;Jos
and they were kept up was conclusive prooftbot
the public convenience did require them. This wns n
sIongor case man Ircnts The rejection twice of
ifcnts application proves TINT the more the oues
ton was discussed, the better it was un1crs,ood
MIR; IT, then referred to tho memorial Of Nr. Mavo
ana sad II tic principle commended for in il was sus
~" 'uinPIhS COUIO &c cStnbilSlIud UCcuuer
one roal must reduce the profits Of anothcr
Mr. r. said that the builder of Mayo'r p,i,,cc
could not have believed thar he was To have IN nil a.
lt,re tmc monopoly He no doubt thought llnt Ijn
would be amply rewarded before the incrrnso OF co.
puatIop nnd business would require smother brrIr,.
and Mr.. X thought his expectations Ind beon MI,
realized. The liens this bridge did not prove ,j,,
contrary. IL was no uncommon thing To rooytsegs
property to raise money to be invested i'm ntLor work.
~ all events, the receipts have been larre cnoucb
ana more than sufficient TO reward his piuerurzc and
that was enough for this House to knny Pie ,,o,
lot giving Ri due encouragement To individual c,cr
PRIZE lie believed Mnyos Bridge WIS in no dnuoc~
~ WoulS stlIl be profitable. Competition WINS lilo
pest rcRniutor OF prices. Ii might sometimes lao m
NOUS, put would rorrect rsof There was no dam
gcIo unuhtng individual enterprise. This pctition
p'oNcu ~ inc petitioners knew all The dnntrrs Of
competitions and yet they feared NO, the corSco,,,,
Is ne couId mol sec the force of the remark Of Mr.
Williams, that all the tolls in tho Curn,noDU .nhL
ought to be reduced, If you reduce Tho toh on Ihl,
pTloRc' Mr.. X. said that where public convenience
required w. 1t would and ought TO bo done cycrv
wherc' Tolls fair here might not be - NJ IvncI.
"uIB or Cattersvlllo. elsewhere If lhcre wns
any danger that the proprictors of this Compnnv
would become tho PTictors Of Mavos Brdre md tLc;
put inc tolls on the latter 10 their full price md shr,
up tdelr own. this could he provided araits, in Tho
present charter Mr. Il. said The case Of ,hc tT,ni,.
bridge hid no aBnugy TO the present application
ne Gauy Bridge had been erected bV The STA o. ol
nc would be opposed 10 sacrificing the pubic intc,o,
20 that OF individuals. The same PRINCIPLES which IN
uuCen nun 10 vote inr the application In hia csse MN
JIG 'c"1h' would make him vote acanst n nyivo - n,
PN'u"r "h"h shrId ntcr}rc viii ,'c tS.f,