Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-01-02


oppressive. Tie dalb ..eceipts of letk s6kMsyoSs
HfgV stated by evidence, 70 ainonnt in 1918
i4.to Understanding per annulR to $40 t5o--and'
twenty i've pr Gent may Justly DC added to the est,-
mato swelling Tho annual amount of tolls TO
upwards of $4,000 per anaun. result astonish-
ing, that Mr. B. eecared his own amusement at it..
Was 1t possible that the proprietors bad iot~been
compensated for their expenses in building
Mayos Bridge, Mr.. D. cloqucnrly adverted TO the
oppressive influence Of the tolls upon the poor, and
the ps3sperity of the country, and it
6eyond the power Of the Legislature to re-
ducc them, secured as they were by charter,
{! ere was no rcnedy for the grievance, but by
tablishng competition, and thus compelling the ow-
neis to reduce the tolls to what they could afford
receive. Th;s-would redress the evil, as experience
had shewn in the case of Trent's bridge, while il
was kept up Independently. Mr.. B,,icot denied
mat any exclusive privilege monopoly had been
granted - Mayo, or that it would be any n,raction
! OF his Charter, to- cuncedc 4 new privilege. His
char,er was granted, notwitlIstandin the pri, cpe
of Coutts' Ferry, and Trent's had becn granted in
i6l'l, notwithstanding the same claim TO exclusive
privilege" set I'm then ; now, by MAYO These were
prccedcntS the side OF tho applications and mum
Der OF others cited by Mr.. Burfuot. 1t p'airiy
appeared, that public only had been con
sui ed IN al these cases by the Legislature, and that
MI H. commended waSi only consideration which
the leg stature ohgf 10 entertain. This was the
great principle that pervaded institutions and
were the immortal Shake, pcare Milton to reap
pear inc fruits OF their genius could no, be monop-
olzrd by them 10. more than { years. The disco.
very OF the power of steam Import ant IN the his
tory of mankind, did nu c1,irc Fulton to perpetual
monopoly, but the Proprciors OF Mayos bridge. built
some 40 years ago, were to retain their privilege In
lperpctuitv, -.-.
! Mr.. Atkinson of Halifax. enquircd If the tolls of
the new bridge would he reduced. i'll the degree ofthe
opPrcssiy"ncss of the tolls over Mayos bridge?
I Mr.. Burtnot replied, that that wo;,,I be left To
the Boa rd Of Public Works.
= Mr.. Williams of lIcnrico, followed in reply TO
Mr.. Burfoot, and in opposition the petition lie
stated that his private interests were in opposition to
N h,
he had come 10 the conclusion, that 10 grant the pc
,iion Won be unjust III principle. He rccilcd the
difficulty that Mayo had encountered in erecting his
= bridge the great public benefit that had accrued
from II, and the fact that the tolls the same
and no higl or, than those Of the ferries OH james
River. Mr.. w. commented on the mpocy of crra
ting corporations, and the probability that in few
years the public would BE- bected to the same in
convenien which it now sustas: for would be in
the power OF the brd,ro COMPANY, to take Oft all
tolls, and crush the opposition. Would this be
comrc ii:on' M individual could compete with a
corporation. On the fact of Mayos having been
compensated, md the evidence relied upon 10 estat-
lsh The enormous amount of profit, Mr.. Will n s
commented, al some lcng h. Were the estimates f
the gent eman from Chesterfield Mr.. BurfooD cor
rect, the rropretors of Mayos bridge ought to have
amassed fortune of $4,000 900. Yet in point of
tact, MIayo's bridge under TWO incumbrances.
and 1renrs bridge under one, to- the purchase =
ncy. Mayos bridge was not profitable as had
been imag ned Mr.. W. narrated the circumstances
of the purchase of Tent's bridge by the propretors
ofMayos, from which it appeared that purchase had
been forced upon Mayo by circumstances and that
had not resulted from any wish to procure mono
poly. The abutment of the bridge proposed 10 g
built. must be lodged on Mayo STAND, and Mr.. w.
land in order fath The iHni@ssce Of condsnn LIZ
deeper injury. The impolicy ofgraniing the appli-
cation was obvious, fort could not be expected that
individuals would exert enterprise on the erec-
ton Of works for public advantage wh liable to be
deprived OF the benefits which they expected to
arise from It to themselves. The gentleman from
Chesterfield, admitted it to exceed the consttu 9.
tlonal power OF the Legislature to reduce the tolls
at Mayos bridge, yet he wished TO do that by a
side blow and indirectly. what he acknowledged
could not be done directly II the tolls were too hiGh
let the Legislature reduce them what they thought
right, with the condition that if Mayo did not con-
sent to the reduction, the privilege Of a new bridge
would then be conceded. This the true mode
Of eiicctng that reduction Of tolls which was desi-
red by many. As to the amount of tolls on coal
MIR. W. stated that Ill some instances, large fortunes
were made by the Golfers in a single year. They
made the consumer pay the toll, and were they to
enlist the sympathy of the Legislature at the OK
pense of the widow and her children, whose support
| depended upon the tolls of Mayos br dge' Mr..
w. contested the idea, that the burthen of tolls
had had any influence over the property of Man
chester--or that any Of its habtants had es-
capped to Richmond for the purpose of AVOIDING
the oppression, for the corporation burthens Of
Richmond, far exceeded the oppression of the
tolls Mt Mayo's bridge 1t was true, that the
privilege Of building his dodge had been granted Mavo for
the public, and not ms not the Compact
that he should collect tolls in consideration OF his rsque and
expenditure Was not this the between public
and hun, and there less injustice in violating any
other contract which the public party, Has not ayo
complied with the condons and kept his bridge iu In.
dVd'al advantage aud not the public good, the
tom of thus application, and had hayos Bridge proved ong
concern. we should not have found individuals coming
forward aud posing share his Because Mayc
Bridge had proved profitable others willing share in
the advantage, but had been found willing embark
whCo Mayo, IN the unned experiment So would prove
~ all oier None would he willing 10 share the
hazard Of experiment, bu, ahef made succeeded
those who refused To the sque, desired
emolument MIR w. commented the injustice of encoua.
gng this spirit
Mr. Burfooi desiring Mr.. Williams but the hour
being late motion Of Mr. Miller Of PowIatan the Iouse
Adjourned
WAsHTNGToN, Dec. 81