Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1831-02-17
TlIs GAZETTE.
MARTINsBURG, FrssuApr II, 1881.

MARTINsBURG, FEsRUARr II, 1881.
Yesterday, MIR. Miller Of Botetourf re-
ported a bill from the Committee OF Roads
and Navigation 10 borrow ttsO millions of
dollars on the faith Of the State, TO be appli
Cd to the prosecution OF Internal Improve
pnents The bill Is made the order of the
day for Wednesday next. What is TO DE It's
ultimate fate il were hazardous 70 predict ::
vet we believe there is a decided Eaioritv in
che Legislature friendly to improvements
asnvinced that Virginia IL only to be restored
10 her original relative weight and cense-
quenee, by opening the vast store houses eg
wealth nature has literally provided sa
tisfied that the time has Come when the shout
der must be put to the wheel. If the propo-
ssd loan is defeated, it viii not be from
'S0nvicticn Gifts inpolicy OF that the improve
ments to which Il is to be applied viii not
Sield return, ample aud many fold, political
and commercial but from wreiched local
jealousy and ayidity, in Some degree, it must
bescsniessed, cngendered by the vida extent
of Virginia aud the diversity and opposition
of the interests of different divisions We
trust and believe, that this spirit is sabsiding,
and dmors generous and liberal one grow
iag-[Hic Wing, Feb. ~.
The Canal and Rail Road Csss-agGi,.
We conceive it duty we owe the public
again to call their attention to the causes
which continue to delay the progress of the
Chesapeake and Ollie Canal and Baltimore
and Ohio Rail Road The subject, we find,
has been noticed in the Annapolis Republ-
caa, and the editor appears to feel as seGsbly
as we do, the grievances that the public have
o right to complain Of He makes the fol
lowing important statement. "We under
stand, with surprise, that since last July not
one step has been made ia this case, 10 which
So much is involved BY the attorneys of the
parties--without whose application the court.
according TO rule, cannot progress towards
the settlement Of the controversy" wri
ter IN the same paper, under the signature of
"a Friend to Justice" has undertaken to de
1end the course pursued by the Chancellor
He asks the question, "Wherc is the justice
OF this clamoy, because tina Chancellor will
not (ogainstgthe rishes Of the paf,leS) decide
cause which involves rival interests to the cx-
tent OF many millions eli dollars? Neither of
the parties conaptats'" He further observes,
$50 far from evineing al disposition to put
of the hearing of this cause, the Chancellor
has, on more than one occasion, adopted
unusual Qhough strictly regular means 10
hasten its termination"
We admit the zeal Of the Chancellor, and
his anxiety to hasten the termination Of the
contested question has our unqualified appro-
baton; butwe regret, most sincerely, that he
should have adopted the course 81 all others
most likely to defeat Lis object that requr-
ing surveys and examinations to be nade
whish will necessarily, if he persist in requr-
ing them, cause delay of from three to six
years, is measure likely to prevent delay,
Is, according to our view of the subject,
something extraordinary. Nor have we been
taught 10 believe that, when Csurti call
ed upon to decide question ofright between
parties, that it is either regular or proper for
&he Court to ascertain before it will decide.
whether it will be perfectly convenient to
both parties to have decision, or not One
or tho other of the Companies has right to
progress. If that right is in the Casa Com
apany, 0he Company injoined by the Chan
cellor) the charter OF that Company defines
and limits is, and following the dictates and
limits it, and following the dictates Of com-
mon sense, we would say that unless those
limits be exceeded no restraint should be
imposed
We do net pretend, however, to discuss
the points Of law involved. A very able ar
gument, by MIR. Writ, we understand, tho
we have not seen recovering the whole ground,
has been published and is row beiore the
public. Our object is merely to call pablo
attention to the circumstance that neither
party wished decision. at least that il is so
stated, and that no application has been
made 10 the Chancellor since last July on the
subject. III an error has been committed by
the Chancellor, and we have never yet heard
any one pretend to say that the ground taken
by him is sustainabie, he has perhaps per-
ceived il himself At all events, we are in
formed that if he is asked to set down the
cause for hearing and to render decree up
on The evidence now before him, lie cannot,
with propriety, and sfcourse will not, refuse
to do SO.
We lave heretofore noticed the rumor
that it was in contemplation to carry the Ca
nal across the river with view to avoid the
delay attending its progress on the Maryland
side. We then stated our opinion that moth
ing Of that kind had been determined on. 1t
has been perfectly ascertained that the Ma
ryland is preferable to the Virginia side The
Company itself has SO decided. Maryland
has contributed half millisn-Vi Virginia net
cent, to the available funds of the Compa-
oy. We supposed it Impossible, also, that
such determination had been formed and
the public left uniformed on the subject
A N. date