Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-01-12
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE
House. OF DELEGATEs-Fr idGy
De6dfe on the case Of H. BiHups-Riehmond Dock


Mr.. Rivesof p. c., reported from the Committee
of Privileges and Elections. in the case Of Mr. Biups
returned as delegate fom Matthews. The Commit
tee report on the evidence Of Lew Skimore, Prr.
ing Elder OF the James River di.net OF tho Methods,
Church, that H. Bilup, is stll Minister OF the Cos
pei. and, there fore. ineligible TO the Legislature.
MT B'rps a'k-d that the report might be laid uron
the table, for he desired time 10 hear from home. He
said there now appeared evidence against him, and
there wa, the greater af,ii him time to
disprov- this evijenrc.
MIR Harvie said. he was willing TO forbear little
longer, TO give him opportunity OF proving himse
man OF verarity, ard that it due the gentlenan
character and TO his constithen
Mr.. Anderson said, the evidence that Mr. Biup. -x.
pec,ed to obtain, was not sufficient il received. The
motion was sgavel.
The question then required uron adopting the re.
port.
Mr.. Dillups .aid that one side of the question was
Always good till the other heard he said he wa.
willing 10 renqush his pay for the time II the house
would indulge him To obtain his evidence.
AIR. Roberts said he should indulge in feeling
il but fair ,h,, both sides should be heardhe gem
ueman only desired two or three days to oh ain hi.
evidence, and M Il ought it fair afford him the op
portnniy. He hal s,id he would receive the pay
rac'er and vindca'e his reputation and he hop.d TN.
homse would give him the opportunity lie moved 10
postpone the report until this day week eH
Mr.. VIII Of r. said he did not believe hi. mind
would be chanred by any thing the gentlemen fro.,
Mathews could produce, hrt he thought a, long a.
there possibility of afording him justice IL oueh.
10 be done, and The house should Rot he contaminated
by committing irjns,ice.
Mr.. Cook said he believed the gentleman could
prove that he iai resigned to the elders but that hi,
resignation afer April last and thereto he was
not eligible 10 a seat here.
Mr. Harvc said IL was absolutely necessary 10 res.
The character OF Mr.. Bllup. from infiny 10 allow
him the delay he asked, AMI he hoped the house would
indulge him.
and The resolution was concure in by ayes aud
AYES $50, Noes 3.
The engro..ed bill TO repeal the act 10 amend the
several acts concerning the Richmond Dock Company
and for other purposes. was taken up.
Mr.. Yancey wa. oppo'ed 10 the bill ard he hoped
the House would reject il. IL was controversy be
tween the James River Company and the Dock Com
pany. The James River Company were hound by
chatter 10 open communication with tide
and had done so a. grat expense. The Dock Compa-
ny afterwards united with the James River Company
and abuted their Dock at the lock of the James River
Company and had tie use Of the water. The Dock
Con pany were bound TO open lock into tide water
and TO permit boats to pass through without expense
Their charter compelled them do at their own x
Pense. The James River Company by the law Of the
last session. required TO erect dam across
the river. or the Dock Company to open c,m-
munica'ion from the Dock and thi, bill sought now
10 rerea the law Of the last sc.sion He hoped the
bill would he postponed indefinitely.
MIR. Rutherford said that bill had be- intro iuced
into the House Of Delegates during the last ss.ion
10 explain the right Of The Dock Company 10 cb,rye
toll in certain cases. 1t passed this House with but
w dissenting vot's and on the day before the adj
oGrnmPnt al the Legislature, had been
the Senate entirely cbangednot containing claus.
or provision OF the bill which had pasted thi. House =
Beipg DESTROYS TO examine the bill i'm its new
shape, he had moved that IL should lie the table;
the motion was refrised-an the House being anxiou.
10 adjourn hurried the bin through and passed il with
out having had opportunity OF understsn dng it,
lie stated The deep interest Of the Common a in tn
Richmond Dpck-they had invested S62 500 in its
stock. and had loaned TO the Company $50 OO0 and
that the Corporation Of Richmond bound to ndem-
nifty the Commonwealth against one half Of any loss
they might sustain in consequence Of that loan The
Commonwe alth and City Of Richmond, together were
interested in The Dock, TO the amount Of SiT5 900 He
appreheRded that the work. contemplated nv the act
sought to be repealed, wouId change the channel
oil the River, near this city, and obsruc the free nav.
cation Of vessels into the lower lock Of the Dockand
that the proposed dam would, during ireshes wear a.
way by abrasion, the eartf EN- embankment of the
Dock, next TO the river, and ultimately drsroy IT, lie
asked whether the Corporation OF Richmond would not
be absolved from s security to the State for portion
Of the loan TO the Dock Company-if the Common eah
should gratuitonsiy construct their works TO drs
troy those OF the Dock, and thereby deprive il of the
means OF turning the money borrowed.
lie 'ad that view Of the premi,es aud of the survey
OF the Principal Engineer would prove that the cree.
ton Of these works by the Commonwea would ma
rally iniure the Dock Conpanythese works would
form sJree Dock where no tolls were 10 he chsre Cd
The ascending as well "a the descending trade. would
seek this tree avenue in preference the Richmond
Dock. The Public Warehouse on the Blsin MIGHT
become less profitable 10 The STATE, when connected
with by the new warehouse t. be erected upon the
these works would be srper1uon, unless the Com
monvpaltb was prepared 10 cxpenJ 3: 100 900 10 re-
construct permanently, the Lock al the lower end
OF the Bisin-such was the estimate OF the PRINCIPAL
Engineer in regard To the IL usuai in under
taking great inn rovements 10 send the Engineer to
examine and make his 's,itna'es before the work was
Diet, r;nned onhut in the hurry Of the Legislature no
such prscauiioD had been taken in this case. II had
been coDended, he said, that this work was required
by the original charter Of the James River Company
80. could not The Legislature have released the Com
Psny! Sundry precedents eonld be adJuced 10 she w
they mad heretofore released them from obligations
they had assumed under their chsrer-f Ihey ,o,,Id
do so before the compromise Of 1920 they could GER
sinly exonerae them, since by the they have he
the agents of the Commonwealth The
State has in fact become the James River Company
and exonerse Itself from the performance Of soy
obligation imposed upon itself provided there he
interference with the vested rights of others Mr. II
eonenoed, that the act Of the last session ell TO
do great deal more than the original charter Of the
James River Company fcqUireJ.-Nsvigs'ion accom-
Doiaiing boa's drawing foot OF water ell that
required by that charter The act Of the lat .es-
sion requires three feet depth NJ water Let the char.
ter be literally compiled wilh--l-t the Dock COMPANY
contract its Lock required. and the tuinous ronse.
quences now apprehended will not ho fesred-Navi.
ga'ion 10 tide water will have been effected according
10 the terms Of the charter hut nal such navigation
ss will ruin the Do " the act he repealed, one
would have right 10 complain. Thu few sock hot
dersiB the james River Company eould not complain
Tor the State has guaranteed 10 them IL per cent.
for IL years and Is per cent forever there
after Neiher The interests Of the fStner the collier
would I've sHsced-'be GOLFERS would rather be benz.
6ted than injured.
They row pay hui I cent toll per busheI on cosI
whereas II the act Of 1920 carried into effect they
would have to ply two ccsts; ifthe communication he
made with iiJewS as the james River Company are
compelled make T.. they will under this law he fore
ed 10 ray these cents per ktsbel fpses1 N one