Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1831-02-19

'ourg--and u was carried.
hr. 'Pylet moved to amend by providing blank 70,
an appropriation tor road from Falmouth To tho in
tcrect"n OF the Hunt r's Creek Turnpike in the
county II Farfaxncc essary to tho tier
1c,Wean Richmond and Washington.
The amendment was opposed BY Messrs Ander-
son OF Bpte,ourt aud Williams of Harrison.
blr Tyler was opposed ~ the bill, while he though,
that tho rocd for which ha asked an nppronriation IA
worthy as any Other. as To the amount which he
asked--S ie0 0oO-he believed il not moro than svf
icient while he was confident that il the schemes re-
ported by the Committee were executed, 81 900 600
iastoad Of two, would be required
The amendment rejected
DIR Miller moved tu fill the blank for an appropri
etion TO the Petersburg rail road with Oo0-and
she amendment was carried-ayss 65, noes AZ
Mr. Kilgore moved to amend by striking out the
words from the Tennessee line down the Valley of
Va. by Abingdon, F!ncss,ls. &c.-and to insert
Houses"
Mr. Keller opp,sed the amendment. as indicating
route wheh dverged from the main Valley line
II was supposed by Dir Preston, who described
the localities with view to show the adv antages
which would arise from the alteration suggested.
The amendment adopted
MIR Miller moved TO fill the blank for the appropr
alton to the road from the Tennessee line 10 liar.
pcr's Ferry, with $4,000.
MIR Preston moved S360.0O0.
Mr. Garland Of Nelson, enqnired what kind of road
was proposed-if a turnpike, he sarc the app.o-
priation would be insufficient,
Mr Miller replied, that he believed the contem
plated road was to be dirt ro,d-simar to the Re-
nawha road.
Mr. Prestons amendment was rejected and that
proposed by Mr. Miller adapted.
Dir Gibson moved to amend Ivy changing the route
of the Valley road, after It gets to Saunton SO rs
10 make II run from Siaunton to charlottesville
Orange Court House and Culpcper Court House
To Warrentoa in FauQiier-- here IL you'd mee. an
excellent road to Washington City. The proposed
rail road or canal. down the Shenandoah Valley SUI
pcrseded the necessity of this road
ITp
sorry the gentleman from Culpepcr proposed to i'm
prove his section, by demolishing the improvements
contemplated for another section. He could not sup
pose that the products of the Valley of Virginia
were to be carried to market by the route he sug-
gested
The amendment opposed further. by Mr. Wi
liams Of Shenando ali, and Mnssrs Anderson of b.
tnnrt, supported al good deal of ength by Mr. Gibson
who entered into depilcd view of the relative adj
vantages OF the two routes, and rejected
MIR Garland of Nelson said if the appropriation
for the road from the Tennessee line 20 Harper's
Ferry was preserved as it stood-the road being of
dirt, and not for the purposes of Commerce
it decided him agains, the bill. Along many pa rts
OF the route Indicated. there were now turnpkes or
turnpkcs proposed. He therefore moved to amend
by stopping the road at Salem in the County of Bot
e:ourt-giving 10 the Commerce which it brought,
the election Of selecting afterwards, the James or
the Roanoke
Mr. Miller suggested the proprety of extending the
road to Pattonsburg on James River, in the County
OF Boetourt-and the suggestion adopted by Mr.
Garland.
Mr. Mason of Frederick regretted the disposition to
disturb the system arranged by the Committee
of Roads and Navigation II the object of gentle
men was to distract and defeat the whole plan of In
ternal Improvement the attempt to derange the ar
rangement Of the Committee would doubt be so
lar successful. The object of this amendment was
to stop the trade at the highest point of navigation
on the James River, instead Of permitting 1t TO flow
down the Valley. Mr NJ. dwet upon the injustice
ct this design, its influence 10 defeat the bl de-
&c. 60 81,
the Improperly of grasping all for the darling scheme
Of the James River Improvement. He regretted par
ticulary, that this motion C, from the gentleman
from Nelson, whom he had supposed liberal in his
views on Internal Improvement
Mr.. Garland replied, discIamins any purpose Of
hostility TO the Valley, design TO promote the
Jomcs River Improvement at its eXpences. He had
stated what really were his objecons-thst the
road would not answer any purpose OF commerce,
and that it was not desired along severn parts Of
the route. So the State improved and made
pfosperous-so help him God-he cared not, wheth-
or the prosperity was effected by imp rovements in
the north or the SOUTH the east or the west. He
prepared to promote the Improvement of any
and every section Of tho Commonwealth.
Mr.. Mason reloned mt some length
Mr.. Anderson of Bot. said, that us the amendment
proposed to stop the road in his county, he felt it
cumbent him say, tina, he had no agency IN it,
and opposed to it, as he believed was his col.
league.
Mr.. Garland replied TINT he had no intention Of
ctouri.
Mr.. Gallaher urged tho injustice of preventing
this road from extending through The Valley, and IN
favor of the James River already so much favored
and which, no SAID reminded him of Phnroah's
dream, in which the seven fat kIne swallowed up
the lean oncs--wihout looking the ia,ter
The amendment was farther opposed by Messrs.
Williams Of Shenandoah, and Jackson, when the
mover withdrew It for the present.
Mr. Miller moved to amend by filing tho blank
for the appropriation to road from Point Pleasant
Churlestown, with S275oo--and the amendment
was carried.
Mr.. Witcher moved to amond, by extending the
road from Winchester to the OHIO River, instead of
TO Parkersburg
Mr.. Jackson said he lived ut Parbcrsburg--be
should not oppose the amendment, he thought the
discretion necessary in great State Improvement
The amendment adopted.
Mr. Miller moved TO appropriate to that road
! rs ,O00--und the amendment prevailed
Mr. Miller moved 10 appropriate to the road from
the mouth Of Fishing Creek to Smubfeld, Si9, 600
carried.