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

'''''' sufficient TO reward his tnfnr
a f faa. was enough for this House to know He w,
ioi giving all due encouragement to Individual .ntor
f. - re 1eneved Mayo's Bridge was in no DANCER
bes, ra,s s'.n DC profitable. Competition was tn
81 80; equator OF prices. 1t might sometimes he ru
NOUS, but would correct itself rbere a -, o u
gea " hunting individual enterprze This pettio,
a,;,: me petitioners knew all the dangers
eo'Pet,.lon and yet they feared not the conseonen
Ges lie could not the force of the r,,n,r ~, NJ
WnnaHis; mat all the tolls in the Commonwealth
Sugtt 10 oe reduced If you reduce the tolls ON th
oI'uge' hr. H. SAID that where public convenient,
required It, it would and ought to he Jone eyar'
t Hneie lois iair here might not be so az Lynch
ours, or Gainesville. or elsewhere. If there wa
any danger that the proprietors of this e,nn,n'
would become the prietors of Mayo's BnJre Pb"!
put the tolls on the latter to their full price and
up toer own, this could be provided against in tb
Rr;Jno h1 ME- t. said the of the auly
1 DtiuSe nad no analogy to the present applications
ne Hauiy bridge had been erected by the State and
ne would De opposed to sacrificing the public interest
Jo .l y, uuiViauais The same principles which in
uuIea nun TO vote for the application in this case pub
nc Seneht, would make him vote AGAINST priva,c n
pinatloh' which should interfere with the Gauy
bliuge. u II was any objection that Mayo owned
he lana where the bridge would but then any man
oesifous 10 OBTAIN monopoly had only to buy up all
proper places for bridge, and thus exclude all com
position lie concluded by saying that the qnestion
was one OF public convenience
Mr. HarVIe said he would have nref,rreJ ,o;n,r :;
Ieht' bus ms duty required him to saw a few words
ne was opposed 20 the report lie denied that any
instance ever occurred of taking mans propertv ~,
winch another valuable property would be dcstrovnd
| 11e said tins would be case of Injustice and ON
preston. \ on must take an abutment from Mavo|
belonging to him. az"
Mr' T.. denied that the family of Mr.. Mayo had
@ .a an enormous profit from this bridge Where
w w"n ~ 'nls oppiicaton was allowed the liens
ouiu swtAioW all the receipts of the bridge. He
.hen spoke OF the difficulties the elder Mr.. Mavoi
~ " encounter, and the universal opinion then en-
he .iit the rum of the proprietor would be
Inc consequence. That the bridge had been from
u,e TO time swept off, and thus he had incurred an
enormous exPeRse.-Now when the bridge has been
permanently secured you asked 10 deprive the
proprietor OF The benefits. He was not surprised
the number of the petitioners he doubt ed no, nm soua
NUMBER could be found to petition to make Mavo's
Drdge free bridge. He meant no irnputation
hayoS bridge would be DESTROYED bv This now
bridge and then there would be the same dfficnl,es
under this new company. He referred to the case
Vi ths or'd9e at Carersvile. The property of the
.I OF 'he ierry was not taken The bridge
was asked for, because the ferry could not accorno-
gate all the travellers He referred to other CAGES
II, no one OF which was the property Of the proprietor
te mist bridge taken to carry into effect the new
oiluse' ne tcFry across the Chesapeake Bay was
not established to create competition, but 10 conduce
TO RihlIr convenience. He spoke oftbc nh,btap,s
81 n"nchcstef he knew two instances OF removals
TO Richmond, there might be more but those living
there Certainly escaped tho enormous EXPENSES II
ehs city: He concluded by saying again that if the
Application were granted, it would work Injustice g.
oppression
Mr. Burfoot replied. The true question he said was
had the proprietor of Mayos brdg e been ed
LOT his rsque expense 81 trouble in erecting his bridge?
Was the public faith pledged to him for p nernet1aI
monopoly? He thought he had Yesterday shown the
onirary " that The proprietor had been fully indemn
he'd Neither Dir. Williams nor Mr. Uarve had
answered this view They had appealed to the y1npa-
tines OF the House 81 spoke ofdeprvinp the proprietor
o, these enormous profits WHO pays these profts9
Gould not the argument be used that a priv
iiegcd class or family had been created but he
would not usn 1t. If the proprietor had been com
gersae'l, where was the injustice in the case? Re
ierriug to the remarks of Nj. Williams Mr. b. said he
had neTer before heard that Nr. Mayo was in pos
| session OF large property when he commenced the
bridge; or the contrary his advertising for partners
at that time showed that he had funds of his own
Mr.. b. asked how was this bridge to destroy or
eat up Mayo's bridge? The joint stock company can
not buy Mayo's bridge without lea re of this House
Tine only other way by reducing the tolls
How did this operefe in the case of Trents bridge?
If the tolls had been equal every body would have
passed at Mayos that Trent obliged TO reduce
his tolls to one ha'fof Mayo's. Not in the present
case the bridges will be equally convenient and the
tolls consequently equal. The control will be in the
board Of public works. who will not ENCOURAGE a rn
fnous competition If reasonable toll was estab-
lished at one bridge, would not Mayo derive equal
benefit from the just arrangement ofthe tolls?
Dir. Il: denied that competition had brought
Mayo and Trent in debt, and proved the error by
the fact that Mayo gave $4,000 for what cost ONLY
about $1,000, conclusive proof that it was not un-
profitable to TreUt,or he could not have procu red
that price.
He admitted that this House ought not TO hermit
another bridge TO be erected by the Gauly Bridge
because the satne principle which would forbid the
one would justify the other. The Gauy bridge had
not compensated the commonwealth Mayo's bridge
had compensated him. If the proceeds of Cauy
bridge had been sufficient to the expense
then another bridge ought to be erected if required.
Mr.. then commented the proposition of Mr..
Williams that unless Mayo agrees TO cut down his
tolls this act shall pass aud said this would be eff
fecting the object as much by a side blow as that
deprecated by Mr.. w. of taking the abutmcnt of
bridge from Mayo's land, and thus doing by a side
blow what it was denied could be done directly. He
could not believe that the presence absence of Mr.
John Mayo could have had any effect upon the pass
age of the act authorizing the erection of Trcnts
bridge. The provisions of the charter asked would
restrict the number of shares to be held by any one
person. aud thus prevent monopoly. lie spoke of
the golfers and their incomes. They were the pro-
duct of their labor and ought not to be taken from
them to be given to the proprietor of Mayos bridge
but the proceeds of Mayo's bridge were wrunr from
the poor. The amount Of tolls bad increased till