Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-01-04

dcSrous tn obtain monopoly had only 10 buy up all
proper places for bridge and thus exclude all com
petition. he concluded by snyinr that the unestiop
was one uf public convenience
Mr. fiarvie sad he would have preferred being ST.
lent, Oh! bs duty required him TO say few words.
H. was opposed to the report. He denied that any
instance ever cccnred Of taking mans property by
which another valuable property would be royed
IL" said tins would be c"sc OF injustice and OPP
prcs+ion. You must tnkc an abutmeni from Blayo
'r your new brdgr,and thereby destroy bridge now
belonging tn him.
Mr. III d-n,cl that the family Of Mr. Mavo Ind
derived An enormous profit from THE bridge Where
vhs IT. " this application allowed tho liens
would allow all the receipts of tho bridge Ill,
then spoke OF tho difficulties tho elder MI. Mayo
had to encounter, and the universal opinion then en-
t"rtnined That the ruin of the proprietor would be
the consequence. That thu bridge had been T. ON
time to time swept off and thus he had incurred an
= Iorinnns cvpcusc.Now when tho bridge has been
rcrnanrui!g secured. YOU asked TO deprive the
proprietor of The benefits. IIo was not surprised n
the number OF the petit oner, lie doub cd not an equal
number could be found to petition to make Navo's
bridge frcn bridge. He meant no imputn,ion
Hlayo's bridge would b. destroyed by this new
bridge ana tion there would b. he difficulties
under this new company. He referred to the 40
OF tho bridge "a, Carersvic. The property of,hc
proprietor of The ferry not talicn. The bridr..
was asked for hcrnusc tho ferry c"u'l accomuio-
date all tho travellers He referred "a o,har cases
- no one al which the property = inc proprietor
ct The first bridge taken tn carry into effect the new
bridge. The ferry act0ss the Chesapeake Bay, WIS
DU,tC(
20 public convenience. lilo spoke ofihc inhabiinni,
al Manchester. He hncw two instances of removals
~ Richmond there might b. moro, but those living
there certainly escaped the enormous expenses Of
thls city He concluded ny sayinr nran th,t II In,
application were granted, ii you'd w-rk Injustice g.
oppression.
Mr.. Burfoot replied. The true question he said was
had the proprietor OF M'yos bridge been npcnsa, cd
for his squc expense s. rpble in erecting hi hriduc,
Was the public faith pledged TO him for II perpetual
monopoly? He thought he had Yesterday shown the
con- rary " that tho proprietor had been fully indemn
fled. Neither Mr.. Williams nor Mr.. Harvic had
Announced this view. They had appealed the symps
thcs OF the iloisc & spoke ofdrpr virr the nropreor
hf these enormous profits. Who pays these prof s.
Could not the argument b. used that a priv
LEGGED class family had hccn crnatcf9 Inn, Inc
you'd not use 1t. 1t the proprietor had hccn CON
rcnsnted, whore was tho injustice in Tho case, Re-
terring TO the remarks OF Mr. Williams Mr. B. snid he
rad never before heard that hIr Mayo was in nos
sccs,on of large properly when n. commenced the
bridge; or the contrary his advertising tor partners
at that time showed thai he had finds of his own
Mr. Ii. asked how was this new bridge tn DESTROY or
cat UP Mayo's bridge The join, stock company can
not buy Mayos bridge without leave Of th,s House
The only othe% way ny reducing the TOLLS
How did ths opere in The case of rrcnt's bridge,
II the tolls Ind boon equal every body would hnvc
passed at hayos, so that Trent Obliged reduce
his tolls To one la OF MaTo's Not rhc present
case: the bridges will be equally convenient aud the
tolls consc1 icny equal. The control will be- in he
hoard of public works, who will not encourage "A ru.
lishcd al one bridge, would not Mayo derive equal
benefit from the just arrangement ofthc tols'
Slr. b. denied that II competition had brought
Mayo and Trent in debt, and proved the error by
the fact that MAYO gave 100000 for what cost only
about SO 600, conclusive proof TINT it was not IN
profitable to Trent, or lie could not have procu red
that price.
He admitted tina, this House ought not To permit
another bridge Ia b. cxccted by the Gauy Bridge
because tho psincpl. which would forbid the
woud jastiiy the other. The Gauly bridge lad
not compensated the comm pnwcath Nayos BRIDE
h1I compensated him. II the proceeds of GauIy
bridge had been sufficient 10 rcmunoratc the cxpnsc
chen another bridge ought to be erected II required
Mr.. b then commented the proposition of Mr..
Williams that unless Mayo agrees 20 cut dnwn his
tolls this uct shall pass and said this would be eff
tccting tine Object as mach by side blow that
deprecated by Mr.. w. oftaking the abumcnt OF
bridge from aIuyO's land, and thus doing by n side
blow what it denied could be done directly. He
could not believe that the prescpcc absence OF Mr.
John Mayo could have had any effect upon the pass
age Of the act authorizing the erection of Trcnt's
bridge. The provisions of the charter asked would
restrict tho number of shares la be held by any ono
person, and thus prev mi monopoly He spoke Of
nc Golfers and their incomes. They were the pro-
duct of their labor and ought not to be taken from
Thorn be given to the proprietor of Mnyos bridge
bat tho proceeds of Mayos bridge wrung from
the poor. The amount OF tolls had Increased till
they had becom" bmdcnsonc and oppressive, in
Consequence Of the increase of travelling. Thorc
vas no monopoly i'll the Golfers. The lands were
JOuGbt ana SOLD as all other Jnn3S we III denied
the amour, Of profits asserted by Mr.. Williams. and
spoke of the enormous charges md risquo of the
golfers. Mr. r. conteDded that the tux OF cents
bushe coal for crossing james river was In fact
paid by the colcrs and not by tho CONSUMERS; b"
cause at least half The coal down the canal
and on the north side OF James river and THAT tho
price regulated hy the whole quantity. He al
United the would pay the TAX If nil The
coal passed this bridge. The laborer hn admitted
worthy of lis nrc aud Mr.. Mnyos heirs were
entitled fairly to remuneration. FIc had his ulhc
when the bridge erected. bu, now he had tithc
which amounted 10 ten or twenty tlmrs lis former
amount. lie Illustrated his argun n, by reference
81 the chartcrng Of The Farmers Bank vvI 10 tl,r
ciI1r'cr fthr Virginia Bank WIS m existence. and
asked did not this lessen the profits Of tho Bank nj
virginia Mr. u. alluded To other Of q similar
nature.
In rcplylo Gen Haryics rom1rk that no instance
had occurred in Which q part of a mans property
Irld hccn taken which would destroy the value ri
another property belonging 20 him. Mr. Il sud tho
Instance was Of daily occurrence. and referred to the
Manchester Raul Road. 4 case had occurred whor,