Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1830-07-16

10 ttlc rlgul Vi '"NN NfN'"NAN" oNH'e''""'
lighter machinery or such as do not require the
use of so much water, we choose not to relin-
ouish that right but to avail of it it we should
think proper to do so. The right however be-
inc denied al,ouethcr and it not being necessary
then to decide il, no qualification OF 1T was pro-
posed or suggested OH either side Gentlemen
say that i, is rot reccilectcd that we appealed in
rain to the principles of the Councillors decree
or that we argued on the subject of our rights in
the presence of the board. Ii is very clear that
we appealed at all we appealed in vain as there
was no disposition evipced on the part of tho
gentlemen TO respect the principles of that de-
cree. But although there may not have been
any formal argument or discussion before the
board there certainly was much dcsutory con
versation and debate between us and the dific
rent members Of the board on the subjects of
right during the day. 1t would be strange
suppositon indeed that six or eight men of bu-
sinosSs should convene by appointment at place
to settle and adjust important matters in dispute
at an early hour of the day, and remain together
until nearly sunset, the fact in this case,
with no other apparent business, and then sepa-
rate without entering into any discussion on tie
matters proposed to be adjusted, and one of them
too, known TO be not without some pretonsions
to diplomatic skill, and familiar with forms of ne
collation., may be inferred from the allusion
made to the manner in which il is said we intro
duced the display of our titles, not unlike that
sometimes used by plenipo,entiarios &c from
this reference however we presume gentlemen
did not forget our appeal to the Chancellor's de-
cree in the out set of our written propositions /;
and we think that copies of the decree were in
the possession of both parties on that day, and
parts of it occasionally referred to during the
discussions of the day. We moreover rccollect
that the written opinion Of the Chanceors was
also in the possession of the board, some one
of its members, and that that also was frequently
referred to, and in speaking of the erroneous
principle on which the decree was said to be
founded, it was observed by at least one member
that it might be easily discovered from reading
the opinion Of the Chancellor that he labourcd
under undue influence or bias which il was
no doubt the name of Mr. Jefferson had with
him-that it was fortunate for the public that
the decree being so erroneous as it in dc
clarng Mr.. Jefforson's rights prior and primary
in the use of the canal and the water therein
was oiiy iiiicIioCuioly ana not uldl, inal IL was
not expected that similar decree would ever
be obtained from any Chancellor again. up
Oh urging the acceptance of our propositions up.
on the ground thai il was the interest of the pub
lie to do so to prevent further difficulty and delay
in the Improvement of the river, and thai by the
dam being Iaised two feet 81 made close, So as 20
prevent leaking in all probability there would at
all times be water enough to answer both purposes
of the mills and navigation. 1t was replied on the
part of at least one of the members in the pre-
scncc and hearing fothers, that it was not doubt
ed that the terms we offered would probably at
ford to the public independently of what was re-
served for the mills sutficcncy of water yet as
we claimed preference in the of the water
in the canal IN the of failure Of sucicncy TO
answer both purposes it was right which the
board were determined not to concede to us, and
therefore rejected our terms on principle altho'
1T was not considered that any practical injury
would probably result to the public by their ac-
ceptancc. This view of the subject was urged
upon us over and over again, and this we consid-
cred to be, as it certainly lis i'll direct opposition
to the leading principles Of the decree, and there
fore we determined not to concede OH our part
With what propriety then can it be said that we
did not appeal or appeal in vain to the principle
OF the decree ? The gentlemen president and
directors represent that many various efforts
have been made to come to an amicable and sa
tlsiactory adjustment and arrangement of mat
tiers with us, and to obtain our cooperation in q.
doptng plan or scheme ofimprovnment ofthe
| navigation of the river-and all Others haping
previously taited they made last effort by the
appointment at Shadwell. We really are at a
loss how to understand gcntlemen's statements
In THIS respect We admit that they repeatedly
| invited US to attend their meetings and the first
invitations were very cheIfuy accepted and at
tended by the elder member of the firm at the T.
Mon at the Inconvenience of withdrawing his
| attention from important private conccrns-but
fnding his attendance on the board was not likely
TO result in any thing beneficial either to the pub
iIc or hImselfas mil-owner he came to the con.
cluslon that his attendance on the board was en-
tirey useless; and believing from what he could
discover that there was no possibility of an ar
rangemcnt Of the Shadwcll subject wished to de
cine MS attendance on such meetings which he
lntimated to some of the members of the board.
but being pressed to attend another meetino he
yielded nc may suppose as the gentlemen say,
rather ungraciously,' but not mole ungracioms
he thinks than was that of the pressing solicit
tations to attend them after he had so explicitly
minated his wish to decline
ut these meetings when attended by the cId-
er member OF the firm he was frequently and
often catechised on the subject of his rights,
with view, ne supposes, Of ascortainng his
views of them, but not single proposition was
ever made for any amicablc arrangement Of the
Shadwell subject. Finally The invitation was
given to attend at ShadwelI for the express pur-
pose we may suppose Of cndcavourine to effect
an amcablo arrangement which we accented
but doubling whether the board would even