Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-05

"hen the bridge was erected but now he had tt lie
""ich amounted to ten twenty iinrs its fol ncr
amount. He illustrated his argument by reference
10 the cbarterng OF the Farmers Bank while The
charter OF the Virginia Bank was i'm existence ,nt
osked did not this lessen the profits OF tile Bank ot
Virginia. Mr. p. alluded to other ca ses of a similar
nature. " - ~ =
In reply to Gen. IIarvie's remark that M ,st,nc.
hha occurred in which part of a mans pronrrtv
had been taken which would DESTROY the value ri,
;n, property belonging to him. Mr. B. said the
Instance was OF daily occurrence. and referred TO thu
Manchester Rail Road. A case had occurred where
part OF gentleman's property was taken for this
roo ana the consequence would be destroy his ia,
MY residence by placing his house between the ru5i
road and turnpike.
! RE SAID in reply to another remark of Cen Iiar
v.e That the very fact that all the people south side
VI James River were DESTROYS to obtain n massage
n Mayo tbridge free of toll conclusive that
rney thought II just and proper. No one could be-
nese .nat whole people would be willing to do an
1ce Oh injustice That the concluding remarks of,
zen ii. mad surrendered the question:. Public con.
senchee was the principle upon which new ferry
across me chesapeake Bay was established. This
was the very ground upon which he tMr. b. confer
ded Tor this new bridge, and the admission of tb
principle was all that he asked. Public convenience
was public utility, public accommodation. Mr. b.
1hen commented upon The memorial in opposton.
me proprietor there admitted that he had no oIb,r
o2lecfon TO the bridge, but that his lands would be
taken to abut the bridge This, said Mr. b. was 3.
Puniic utility to be sacrificed because narrow sl;
OF ianu belongs to the proprietor of Mayos brdgns
II snch principle be adopted you .iold out lure 10
every proprietor of bridge, to buy above and he'll,
h'i narrow strip land, to obtain thereby n pcr
petual monopoly. ~ - i@'-
MI b. then examined some other parts of this me
moral to prove that the competition of 'Tren,.
oWIluge was not so ruinous pretended. and said
mayo admitted as much, because he expresses his
Willingness to sell at the same price for which he
bought Trent's bridge.
Mr. b. concluded his remarks bv sav;nr t1.t L.,
noped the resolution would be agreed to- TO enable
ne o'ii,o be brought IN and presented, when most
OF the objections which were only of Diet all might he
Zen llarvle replied, aud said the ASSERT ion he had
mace mat there was no instance where one part of
IL maps property was TAKEN the effect of. which
would be 10 destroy nearly DESTROY other pronert
OF the same person, had not been refnted The IN
stance given of the person, in Chesterfield was nos
an analogous case. Was that person laru.
stockholder III the Manchester Turnpike Comnan,.
or did he own the land over which it passed, en-
iarvie said, he fully believed 10 the truth of Mr.
Aayos assertion that he was compelled TO buv un
Trents bridge to the property in Mavo's hr;,l.
ram utter destruction.
Gen. liarve then read from the petition of W.,
Trent IN which he disclamcd any intention OF In
klng The land OF Mayo or any other person, for an
abutlnent to his bridge, and declaring that sooner
than DO So he would abandon his enterprise Yct
now said Gen. Harve, this ettempt is made
Ten iiarv'e then commented upon the conduct
OF the proprietor of Trents bridge, when Mavo.s
bridge was swept offbyFa fresh. He said that notwit
standing the avowed object to put down prices
oy competition in that case, the tolls of Irenl:s
law
would allow, as was admitted by Mr.. Burfoct. and
argued that the same result would be experienced N
this case. ~
Gen. II. then spoke of the injury to the c,n,1tr.a
IN coal 1t this bridge to be erected in addition tn
the facilities ofthe Railroad. He had 10 doutt the
effect wond be to ruin Mayos Bridge. He wonlI
not say such was the object, but can this effect be
avoided, IT the proprietors choose to do it, The nro
vision rs TO the Board of Public Works was no rre
sumed' only to prevent the tolls from being raised
what was TO prevent their reduction for few years
tYll IrI6 ratS
them at the highest possible point TO reimburse rra
vious losses. General Harvie referred to the iirr,,
bridge at Lynchburg, which he said was not erected
till the PROJECTORS of the old bridne were ou,,I nv
munerated, and then the properly secured In tba,n
Mr. Miller Tass and said he only wished Gen, Hayie
rgh as to matter OF fact The Manchester Rail Road IAN
over The lands OF various persons waggoners and OILERS
WI, whole vol living depended on the Turnpike said IN
sDn, who owned the ferry, taken and CONDEMNED r., @
road 10 the bridge. ~ os1eh
Mr. Miller then referred the case of the free brd.e ~
Lynchburg, in which provided the capital < &
cent interest to be allowed propieto of the fop
bridge Mr. Dlier would a similar provision in tI,is
case and thereby avoid any wrong owner Of Naro
Bridge lie wished not to interfere with private propertv fur
ther than public convenience required. fOf''S' ''''-
Mr. Williams addressed the House again Gavin. l..
statements made by him yesterday that MIR rloot was mis-
taken IN sPp9pg that ne had said that the reduction Of @
had said that from derived from DR. IT," To, RE
had acertaned that the tolls of 1rents BRIDGE bic
and he had inferred that Mayos Fridge must ri Im'
p ~ uo, III consequence on the much greater OUTLAY of
capital III IFS Construction, and the necessary rxrences of
pairs. - ,i'' u ";
Mr. Williams attempted TO refIte the copc,,,sio AZ
loot that the tolls OF Mayo Bridge, amounted 10 $50 no0
year MI BuFoot he said had argued because the
Irents Bridge, while NayO's Bridge was i,np,esIo' ~
anounied TO $4,000 in six months therefore, ayos would
have been $4,000 in the time adding IS 1e cent %
annum in travelling since that time present rere1t ~
be 500 600 MIR w said Mr. had forgotten a he tell ~
Tenfs Bridge that time high as IL ever wa Ma
yos and as all the travelling then Trens Prie u
would he precisely that of N1ayos which you'd redr9e liz
calculation to S2O,0n0 49," ~
Mr. enqured why 10 the resolution if the Housc =
now SATISFIED, after all the explanations which have e
na the application ought TO lie refused Would il no, he
say ing OF nne and expenoe, tn dispose Of it ngws lie -,
ne case OF me warmers Bank Charter ~ point "
was Tor great general good supposed ho,g AZ ~,
oot doubted us good effects lie commented upon the dangers
W ncO'Pos'Ions Once charter them and was no e,
tng 40 ~ them Fhc FARMERS Bank had 50 emit a.,
eT r %.ln The people Of the Commonwealth esi
e W. n0twI,samdInS the very prevailing doubts
OF us uil'y Mr. W. admitted that corporation cannot b,
ar nod any property but by permission of Legislature yl
cOuo MOI individuals largely interested stock fte c
bridge buy up Mayos Bridge and thus destroy competition