Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-01-12


he knew about the sfairs Of the Deck thar sny
o'hsr person. He Railways been friend of the cot
"ss ana had used every Effort TO afford them acili-
~. me Commonwealth were deeply interested; they
prize oil this Dock but II this bin pas tho
Dock must be ruined. He explained how the bill
which was introduced from the Senate last year had
been adopted without sfodirg him am cpy orunity Of
examining II. owing to the anxiety OH the part Of
members 10 reach their homes IL ell the in
tere't OF the Dock, the inere. OF the City which Is
responsible TO the Commonwealth for large amount
Of money loaned TO the Dock and the Interest Of the
Commcnwe alth too; for the Commonw we bound
to make the work required by the bill, last session
without any toll being allowed renunera,e the m tor
the undertaking. The Locks betweenthe Basin and
the Dock were in wre,ched condition, aud requr.
ed the time and money Of the Dock Company to keep
the mad out Of the Dock, driven in by the from
these Locks washing awsy the dirt which placed
to prevent the total testucton Of the Locks and Ba.
building the Lock at the head OF the Dock because IL
was iound TO be peri ely useessthe ats would be
lett aground il the Lock was made. The Jane. River
Company were originally bound to make communi-
ca ion 10 lids wa,er ofone foot water-now they were
compelled to make il three feet, which wouli destroy
the interests of the Dock the corporation OF Rchmc
and the State itself.
But aiew Of the GOLFERS now complaining, and
they send small quantity of coal into the Dock; bat il
Is 70 the Interest OF The GOLFERS that they should pass
h'ngh the Dock rather iias TO through the pond
10 he created hy the eide OF the Dock IL is 80 reason
able that the law should be repealed thai he hoped the
pr seat law would psr..-
Mr.. Burfeot said, this bill ought not to ra,s: The
James River Company by its charter, were hound to
ea"y the communication b,tween the canal and
tide water into full eif.c.-,hs commute alton was
,n,ehued Tor The upl'nd trade the Richmond
Dock was intended for the Iowi,nd trade--,le
,w7 were not at all necessarily come cited. The
James River Company, IN order TO be entitled 10
the canal tolls, bound carry their nprovement
Into Underwater; and the Dock Company by compact
between these Companies took upon thcm-cive. 10 keep
open the communicable between the locks and tide.
water, and we must suppose this burden was for ys.
IuabIe consideration. They compelled TO erect A.
Lock and remove the obtrOct1 tide water that is
70 haVigab'e Underwater, and not TO dry land the
ueman from III. commended The Legislature may alb.
solve these companies, tits true, but these companies
had pledged themselves TO make this communication,
ana 'he Legislature representing the James River
Company ought not 10 exonerse them. The evil COM
planned Of i'; that new Basin i'll be erected along
eide Of this Dock free Of toll, which will ruin the
Dock; but they have brought this on the mseivesthey
might have prevented IL by adopting the alternative
inc law, TO wit 10y putting Lock in their dock
comnodae the upland trades If they would do this the
dam would he unn-eessary,-the Legislature might
have compelled them to make the whole improvements
but 1t was eonsidereda hardship and. therefore, the
James River Conpan were authorized 10 BULL the
dam to benefit them and not to ruin them was con-
tended. ~
Tie argument that you will absolve the corporation
oil Richmond who ars now the security to the Com
monweafh FOR the loan TO the Dock, H. held up in ter
rorsm, because they say by taking away the tolls you.
axe axe away .nelr abilities to Pay-but you afford the
expense which they would necessarily be compelled
to incur and therefore they could be exonerated-
should get into tide wafer without paving additional
toI. III. hoped the bib would be postponed
Mr.. Williams oil Henrico did not think this ques-
ton between the James River Company and Dock
Company, nor one in which the Upper Country were
al all interesedth- ate Of Virginia was alone in
.efe'ea-,he .tockhoIdsrs were provided for by the
PEELED to open the communication to tide water but
This bill does not exempt them from this liability for the
Legislature may require il at any time:-but thew had
Axouera'cd the Deck and imposed the duty mon the
State TO be paid for by the funds of the State si bc
did not think the House prepared for this expense
The James River Company the State, and the Com
PAW are required by the law sought TO be repea.
ell TO make these work.; and that too without
additional toll The Engineer had reported that IL was
necessary to erect locks supposed cost 900
and this lock how reqnred Of the Dock was useless
unless these locks erected and he did not be-
ieve the Legislature womb now erect these locks
ii they did not the works required be erected
by the State which was 10 cost them $40 900 would be
slices. He said he did hot believe any farmer had
attempted to ship hi. produce throw Oh the locks
they landed their produce the basin and IL was way
goned TO the sbpIing-how then coum this improve
ment benefit the upland trade! 1t mat to the pur-
cha.ers OF tobacco, -four wheat where il l. stored
the price the same and the farmers selling their pro-
dnce here and not shipping il. it matters to them
whether IT he deposited in the basin in the DOCK He
hoped the hill would pass.
Mr. Harvie replied to Mr.. Burfoot and explained bis
course relative 10 the bill before the Iast session He
said the Dock Company had attempted to build lock
al the draw-brfige which had cost them nearly $40
OOO and could not succeed because Of the nature or the
bottom in that place: they had been conn led IN sluf
up AT last ~ the lock could hive been
there II would have destroyed the Docks because the
same facility which would enable the upland trade n.
pass out free OF TOLL would enable the low sde to
pass up in the manner
| Mr.. Eppes said, that the James River Comp,nv and
the Dock Company were not this parties before the
House: the parties the state and the
OF the Dock-IIe commended that the state had b,-
come the purcbsser OF the rights Of the James River
company, they exoneraed from the obligations of
the original charter He believed that the work re-
qnired by the bill Of the last would not cost
than 900 and II IL to be Of use IL wouId bs
necessary to build the locks which would cost ano
ther 90 000, and he did not believe tho state who,
were interested in The success Of the Dock Companv
would pay this amount in order to ruin the Dock with
| out any benefit
IL IL evident that neither tn, Dock nor the J.m.s
River Company could execute these works at
And he commended that if they built the dam wobId
throw The wser against the Dock and ws.h IL away.
and as The State was materially Interested he did mar
believe Trey would now do II.
MIR Rutherford explained: he did not mean IN sa,,
as The genil yom Chest theld represented hi. ar
gument, that the subsrsetion Of the tolls from the dock
would exonerae the Corporation OF Richmond but that
II the dock was washed away by the act Of the State
he believed IL would then cxonerate the Companv
The Bill was passed.
I'm CHANCERY-- AT Court held for Buckinylarn
n County the 18th day Of October, 1920.