Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1830-07-09

4 consideration Was the public ia any wise i'm. |
Jured, or did they sustain any loss by granting |
his favour, And what sort of favour can |
it DO which may afterwards DO resumed or |
ovailcd Of by the bestower so much to the |
injury Of him whom it is bestowed. AL
favour indeed to n common phrase with
n vengeance" But it is said that as he chose to
accept the favour in that way. he mus, abide the
consequences. So tho tyrant would say whose
only rule of right is power bat the principles of
moral justice and equity speak different Ian.
guage. Suppose the favour accepted on the coz
diton spoken of, unqualified and unlimited and
the after result from The of the canal by the
public is such as to prove the total destruction
of his property, ought not court of equity to i'm
terferc and modify qualify that condition so as
to prevent tina, result especially if be practable
to do 1t In such a way as To secure and preserve
the interests of both parties If the dam pre-
sented an insuperobe difficulty TO the use of the
river for the purpose Of navigation oven tbat
would not be a sufficient reason why the value Of
the mill should be lost to the owner-the public
ought then topay for them, and take the use OF the
canal; but 1t does not present an insuperable diff
culty--a separate & Independent public improve
ment can be made, at an expense not half equal
to the cost of the canal and mill. Then let us
weigh the case in the scales of equal even handed
ljusice and see the result
If the Canal and the water therein be used
for the purpose OF navigation, the value of
the Mills we will say, is destroyed, and
| he mill owners have no alternative but to sub.
init u the loss {: but If the Canal and the water
therein be used for the purposes Of the Mills the
public have an alternative, by n separate and in
dependent improvement-does not the scale even
in this point of view prcponderate in favor of
the mill-owers? then throw into tho prepor der
atng scale the vast expenditures of the individ.
ual in cutting the Canal the use Of which is in
contest and building his Mills &c while the pub-
lie has expended nothing, and what is the re-
suit? Is not the opposite scale at once seen to
kick the BEAM We come therefore to the cor.
clnslon that the decree of the chancellor is
founded on clear principle of equity and
justice, in declaring that Mr. Jeffersons right
to the use of the water in his canal for MILLING
purposes is prior and primary and that of the
public secondary and su6ordinate-We really
do not know how we are to understand gentle
men as to their opinions of the Chancelors' de-
cree-They charge us with making partial ex
puIpOSeS-tney
quote extracts form both decree and opinion
| themselves and seem to endeavour to shelter
and sustain themselves under Them while thew
| also appear to argue and contend for what seems
to us TO he in direct opposition to the plain
leading principle of the decree, which dc.
clares the right of Mr.. Jefferson to the use of
his Canal and the water therein for the purpose
OF his Mil's to be prior and primary and that
of the kivanna Company to the use thereof for
the purpose of navigation subsequent and su5or-
d,nafe. Their course is indeed 10 us very am
bIgiuous-& 10 prevent any further difficulty as
to The correct construction of this decree, and
enable others to form and make up an opirion
for themselves We will give first one extract
from the chancellor's written opinion, which is
too long itself to be inserted in eatenso and then
we will give full copy of the decree The
Chancellor in speaking of the nature of the
condition imposed on Mr.. Jefferson in the order
of court granting him leave 10 build his dam
says: " Under this view Of the case what
could have been the extent of the conditions
which the Court meant to impose on him. or of
the privilege which it intended to reserve TO the
public for granting him leave TO build this dam
was 1t that he should surrender to the public
ms valuable private property the fruits of 80
years labor and OF Immense sums OF money
That he should permit them to take the absolute
possession OF his canal and appropriate them
serves the uncontrolled use of the water passino
thF"nghi 1t to the Mills, Ceaving to him only such
surplus as they might not happen to WANT BY
which they might be rendered entirely useless
and the Plaintiffs object in erecting them and
very dam be wholly defeated That thew should
be at liberty to weaken the banks of his Canal
ana endanger both them and his mills, by the
erection OF such locks as they might find neees.
s"ryY and all this for the simple privilege
Iot permitting him to build n dam which
according to this view could be of but little or
very uncertain profit To him aud without arv
compensation for, security, against DANCER
The aosurdity and unresonableness of such
conditions would have shocked the court and
every one else and the permission to build on
such terms, would have been properly consider.
eu ny Inc Plaintiff an insult on his understand.
ing and the conditions would have at once been
rejected Of him.
L he decree is in these words:
'Irginia-ln the Superior Court of Chancerv
holden at Stanton, 9Th December 1910
Between
Thomas Jefferson Pl,;,;e
and
George Divers, William, d. Meriwether. MIN.
rod BTamham, Dabney Minor and John Kelly
suocriOeis members and directors of the Rivsnna
Company,
| Defendants
vi the various tapics brought into discussion
In this cause the court after nn,,ureI, oa,;.;lo,
ing the bill, answers exhibits, examinations Of
witness ana arguments Of counsel hath made up
an opinion which is delivered in writing and
hied amongst the papers & in order 10 enable The