Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1830-07-09

es, we believe, that all bodies either hard or
fluid descend to the lowest point, if there be
no obstruction in the way To prevent, and that
therefore there would be no way Of comma nd
ing the water for tho use OF the Mills to the ex.
cluson OF the locks, in the Same Canal, of
equal depth below the Mills az above, which Of
course they would have the Canal to DO, unless
1t be by putting an obstruction or stoppage to
the passage of the water below the Mills or by
employing "A sufficient number ofhands {, stand
with buckets aud catch the water Us i, descends
and throw it back opposite the Mills; otherwise
1t certainly would descend and afford to tho
Locks supply about equal To that of tho Mills
but as this is the idea of gentlemen we may be
! allowed To suppose that it was their reason for
wishing the Locks above rather than below the
Mills in order that they might thereby get the
| command and use of the water for the Locks in
preference to the Mills The gentlemen Pre-
sident and directors under consciousness we
presume that il would be difficult TO obtain the
sanction of the public to the terms set forth and
proposed in their written propositions and in or.
der to avoid as far as possible their force and
effect, evidently exert their ingenuity to give to
them construction different from wha, seems
TO us to be their obvious and literal inierpi eta.
ton. They deny them TO be original PROPOSE.
lions of their own, they say we seem to wish
To consider them, and call them a modification
at our propositions, made out so as to render
ours acceptable to them and theirs more accep
table to us: and as the result Of what was un-
dersto"d tn have been agreed upon with n
meinh.r at their body deputed to hold a confer
ference with us after they had considered our
! propositions. We are somewhat astonished at
the statement OF gentlemen Of this branch of
the subject. We cannot suppose that the state
ment as contained in the gentemens pubca.
ton could have met the sanction of the gentle
man dePuted to hold the conference if he had
adver,ed TO its tenor and purport with full re-
collection of the facts of the case. The facts
are these, after the board retired, and when the
member deputed to hold the conference came
to us; he stated, frst that the board objected to
the right claimed in our propositions of putting
into operation additional Machinery. We replied
that as we were not appriznd Of any legal limit
or bar tn that right, and as it might be to our in
terest therefore to put into operation additional
! Machinery, we did not consider ourselves bound
to relinquish il but that, in order to prevent
ment OF other matters more important to be their
set'ied'we would consent to waive that right for
the present and leave it matter for future
adjustment or adjudication and proposed TO add
that as modification TO our written propositions
by endorsing it on its back The understanding
on this point seeming then to be satisfactory Ia
The member, he further suggested. that the
boaId were also unwilling to he bound TO con-
struct the fiat form of their Locks at any parti.
cniar height To which we replied, that we
had not required that in our written propositions
and were willing that nothing should be at that
time said about it, leaving them at liberty to
construct the locks as they nigh, think proper
IN The first instance, but with the explicit nnder
stahoing That 1t they should be so constructed
as to put 1t In the power of the watermep 10
draw OH 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 ,aake the
necessary alteration in The Locks, TO prevent il.
lie member then remarked that if the watermen
drew OFT the water improperly, or that we were
entitled to, that they ought to account for their
own misconduct ¬ the company We replied
That 1t would be ont of our powerer 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, dispu,ing and
contending with watermen, as to the propriety
OF their drawing Oft the water from the Mills,
and that we should certainly look to the Com.
Pany to guarantee to us a reasonable supply of
water Tor the Mills and the conference being
thus enacted, the member returned to the board
This according to the distinct recollection of the
MIL owneTsPresent, is in substance, at least cor
rect ofwbat took place in the conference
referred to- 1t therefore obvious that the mem.
Der must have grossly misunderstood us if he re.
ported usas having agreed to the terms stated in
the written proposition of the President and Di.
rectors. Indeed the idea or suppositon that one
OF those propositions is modification of the other
must be determined at once in itself futile, by
any person who will take the trouble 10 compare
the one with the ether. Standing as thew Ger.
tainly do as much opposed to each other in p1in.
ciple, as white to black, or light to darkness
The owners of the mills claiming a right of pre-.
| ference In the use of the water in the canal for
milling purposes, and therefore claiming restric.
tons in its use by the Navigation Company;
and the President and Directors positively re-
fusiDg any restrictions whatever
is 1t reasonable to suppose that any man in
| his senses would have offered such terms as are
conta med in our propositions involving the rights
OF property OF 50 large a value and then at once
agree to terms so opposite in character ,nicknamed
modification ofsuch terms ? Thereby abandon
ing rights sanctioned and sustained by a decrse
of a tribunal Of the highest judicature in the
state except one. The gentlemen President and
Directors state that the mill owners declared
that they would sign paper which did no,
contain an explicit recognition their prior and
primary rights 10 the canal and its waters for
the existing machinery and such other as 1night
thereafter be established" This statement most