Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-09


the Dock Compauy was chartcd, that such toll was
to be levied MIR. Yancey moved TO postpone the bill
indie hni' ely.
Mr. Rutherford addressed the House in favor O
the bill and into some detais, relating to for
cI sla iinn this subject. He called the ten
ton of the House, TO the deep interest which thu
commonwealth has in the Richmond Dock Tn,
!, connonx eaith owned q large portion of tle stock
He stated these facts, to shew the injurious conse
q,ences which would result to the tommonwvalth
1t the. bill of the last session, was not repealed The
bill Of the last session. fact directed the erection
a new dnCk--and the ascending as we'll defending
trade. would pass this dock. and inlure tile toll,
OF the present. He said it wss the opinion of uer
sons, we'll acquainted with the subject that the dam
proposed to be constructed, would obstruct the he'd
of the river, and would i,rs and ultimately DESTROY
the bunk of the dock. lie referred to a similar case
of a dam in Jaines River which had caused the h,r,,
Of tho river to be washed away He asked. ii the
House should pass an act desi roying the Dock Com
pany, would not The debt due by the Dock Company
to the commonwealth, in equity be releas ed. He
was not disposed to present. this Kew, but would
submit il to the srrious colsders jon Of the House
! He also referred TO the injury to the Warnhousc
erected the dock uDd tho necessity for
the locks from, the basin, Which he said would cost
SI0O, 600. a.a-
I Mr.. r. then referred to the act of 1890 to .hew
that the comm ,wealth bad reserved power TO
change the charter of the Dock Company as she
found 1t expe,;ient He said there was .rca, dis
tincton between interfering with vested rights, and
releasing u duty required 10 be performed of
company. Tr
Mr.. r. replied to tho objections of Mr. Yonccv,
derived from tie terms. Of ncorp ration he con
tended that the holders of the stock of the Jam
River Company and he pubic, would not hay,.
right III u,plan if the passed b. the last Lee
gisia urcawas repealed. lie referred to the mann
III which thu: act puss al, aud sa id il was not nm
derstood by tho House.
MI K. hen made some statements 20 show hat
tho dam proposed 10 be erected would be OF no be,-
cit; and even Tie GOLFERS would not be ben.fl: ted
by It, He said the present toll on a buIicl f coal
a lax til:riS,, fha Ian 70
vr Company to levy toll Of two cents uuaLe If
tins Improvement be made. p.
Mr. r. said, if the AZ Of last session be not re.
Peaied the Legislature must amend he TO furnish
the means OF erecting The CONTEMPLATED Improvement
as the tolls Of the james R:vor Company were ped
sed for Other purposes sufficient absorb tie whole
OF Them
Mr.. Harvie said, he hoped the House would not
postpone the bill. His inl,vidusl interest YVES so
great in the Dock, that he should not vote on tl,e
que lion, bur hoped it would not be thuupht INN o.
per IT he addressed the Ifuase EIe hen went into
some aienents fthe primary sit on of the Dock
aud said If the act of Inst session was not repealed
all the money invested in the Dock, would be sacr-
need. He also explained the circumstances under
which the bill of the last session was passed and
ag:aed with Mr +. that time had not been had by
the House To examine the amendments proposed by
the Senate, which were IN fact, making bill;
and he was firmly conpiuced that the would not
have passed, If its effect had been udars ood Mr.
Harv.e went into Of the Diet ais of tie bill TO
STOW iheir injurious effects upon the interests athe
la d expended all the money thew had obtained md
bad done ell that the lay required. The lock re-
CURED by former law had tecn dispeneed,uith by q
subsequent act. because the Commit: e.. en- personal
examination, had sern that such lock was entirely
useless, because there not water in tie river a,
the head of tide water float boat The first
law required only communication for boats drawing
one foot OF water. The late act requires one for
boats drawing three feet And Mr.. Harvie asked
if any man The Commonwealth would have vested
mon.y IN the Docs IT such a reqiision had been
an icpated Ha also spoke of the into es.s of the
colers and contended that if the improvement CON
tempated made, il would accs immediate the
golfers E.uch as the Dock did, because where
their coal would be deposited, vessels Of suficrn:
burden to take IL board cannot come, and they |
would have to undertake the navigation of the river
to Rockets, dangerous from winds 10 boats os flca
Willy laden coal boats were.
AIR. Burfoot replied, he in favor of indefinite
postronemcnt. he said the James River company g.
Dock company we're totally distinct liz interest and
purpose One was for the purpose ofaccummodat ing
the up river trade and The other for the oon.en-
ence of Tie shipping OF Richmond. Mr.. Il. then re-
ierred to the charters of the two companies The
James River company were by charter to open t,is
navigation. Whom the Dock company va incorpo-
rated they assumed this burden, and no doubt for
valuable considerations lie thought Mr.. Harvie had
AIKEN nice distinctions in speaking of tide wa:er.-
II meant navigabe tide water, and if the charter of
the James River company required any thing it
meant that navigable communication was 10 be o.
pened. The duty is well settled, and what are the
objections? That If you establish free comrnuni-
cation it will destroy the dock 'Phe deck have as
suIned the duty and cannot complain of it. The
alternative is given by tha OF last session Of pa
eng lock below Mayos bridge into tide water and
if this lock Is not built then the lock is he placed
abvove Mayo's bridge by the Dock company, and
the james River company to build the dam. The
Dock company might have been required to erect
both The lock and the dam, but the Legislature
thought it would be haVd bargain for them ard re-
loved them of tho burden. He contcnded that the
dock and 's securities would be exoneratcd from
the debt due che Commonwealth, because net hing is
is done but what the charter requires. lie contre-
verted the argument that this Improvement would
DO of no benefit to the farmer lie sail every cert
takenfrom he cost oftransPortation was benefit t.
the owner of produce He stated fact relating 20
tho passage of timber for the Ches crfcld rail road
through the dock, which had been compelled 10 pay
toll to the dock and if the lock had been built il
would have passed free toll.
Mr. Williams Of HeurIco said that he did consider this
question between tic James River company and the Dock