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

' vi '"o Sa"ai OF othcrwise, by what means
ma to what extent the injury, damages and dan
ger aforesaid may be guarded against wi,hou
iepr'ving the company or the public of the con
nr"' use OF the Canal us an Improvement on
the navigation ofthe River in the manner con.
'emP'ated by the order of Court granting the
Plaintiff the privilege If erecting his Dam. in
what manner the use of the water i'm the Canal
by each party, may DO regulated, so as to Sc
cure the rights of each and so that the enjoy
ment oftbese rights by each may be as little as
public detrimental to the other; what co.uprn.
sation, ifany have, the DEPENDENTS already made
to the Plaintiff for the privilege of nsng his
Canal for the purposes of navigation with the ma
ture and value of such compensation and what
additional compensation ought to be made to
The Plaintiff therefor, and that the said Com.
mlssloners do report to this Court such other
matters as either party may require or as they
themselves may think pertinent together with
any evidence which may be submit ted to them,
and any agreement which the parties may Ina We
made or may make in relation to the matters
aforesaid. In performing the duties hereby re.
CURED oil the Commissioners they will govern
themselves by the principles of. The written opin-
Ion aforesaid and will especially bear in mind,
that the Plaintiffs right to the use of his Canal &
The water therein for the purpose of his Mill is
prior and primary and that the Defendants
right to the use thereof for the purpose of ma.
VACATION is subsequent and subordinate although
as for as practicable each must so use his own
as not to injure that of the other (signed) A
Copy Test William s Eskridge c. c."
Having thus given copy of the decree entire
we shall content ourselves with but few re.
marks in relation to it, leaving it to the reader
10 form his own opinion as to lis construction
and purport. If the reaier would take the trou
bio to refer to the propositions in writing on
both sides in our first publication he would be
enabled to discover which of the two accords
most with the principles of the decree We
contend that our propositions cor, espond in
terms and effect with the object of the decree as
nearly as we could make them, and are as well
calculated to give to the Navigation Company
all the advantages which can be had i'm tho use
OF the canal without material Injury to the
NILS, as any that could DO devised; indeed upon
subsequent reflection we think that we can say
tha' we defy any person to invent or propose any
other scheme more likely to answer the main
object OF the decree, that of securing such party
IN Tie ENJOY OF his respective right to
Tie Use OF the said canal and the water therein,
than by giving TO the public the use of the water
until 1t gets down to certain point, and reser.
ing the balance for the use of the Mills. How
can 1t be regulated otherwise so as to retain 10
the Mill the preference of the use ofthe water
according to the decree. This point was fixed
oy us as low aswe conceived it could be fixed so
as not materially to affect the operations of tina
machinery. IT the reader will advert to the writ
ten propositions of the company he will discover
that they admit of no restrictions whatever in
the use OF the water in the canal for the purpose
OF navigation, but claim the right of fixing the
Hat form ofthe locks of any height thew NAV
THINK proper, and it is certain they might be so
hSed as to draw all the water out of the Mill
ioreoays II necessary for the use of the locks.
lheir propositions are clearly based on the pre-
text mat the right ofthe public to the use of
our canal and the water therein for the nurnose
OF navigaton'is piror and primary 8. that ofthe
MIL owners TO the Use thereof for the purnose
OF the Millssecondary and subordinate; exactly
reversing the principle cf the decree. The
gentlemen President and directors seem I,
think il an act of almost objectionable presumn.
ZION IN us to talk of consenting that the public
may use our canal-,hey say that the public
holds that right independently of our grant and
in despite of us, If the gentlemen had adverted
more particularly. ty the purport of the chan
celiors decree, they would have seen that the
decree contempates compensation to the own.
ers of the Mills for the use IF the canal and if
so 1t certainly is not such an objectionable Of
fence IN us to offer to give the use without com.
psnsation.
Tie gentlemen President and directors have
INDUCED IN much latitude of structure upon the
written propositions on our part published in a
former publication and evidently exert their
ingenuity TO give to them a meaning different
from what we intended, and we think different
nom their plain literal interpretataiion-As the
propositions are before the public we shall leave
1T to them chiefly 10 decide on their proper
construction and Interpretation without follow
ing gentlemen in all their ramificatioDs of
error and misconstruction.
Inc gentlemen charge us with an attempt
to dist"rt the meaning of a part of their propo
sI'ion by an imperfect quotation from them in
this that we quoted them as saying that ihev
VIII widen the Canal, yet that they will widen il
only IN such parts as they think necessary, sup.
pressing they say the important words 70 afford
passage for the water :" whereby the sense of the
proposition isentirely chan ged Now wo would
refer it to any q" candid examiner to say wbe.
ther the omission suggested produced any
change at all in The meaning Of the sentence.
Inc TWO sentences'--to widen the Canal in
such parts as they may think necessary"-And
" to widen the Canal, for the passage of the
'o0teT in such parts as they think necessary.
certainly imply and mean the same thing
The extent of widening in each case is referred
TO the discretion of the person making the pro.
position, and that is the essential circumstance
or idea which controls or fixes the sense or
"a ~ Inrd &C. L.