Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-03-02

wv yesterday, threw out n few observations
on inc rejection by the House Of Delegates, of tho
application Of certain Chesterfield golfers, for in
corporation; and learning that there may possibly
NC motion TO reconsider that vote, we beg with
inc most respectful difidcncc, to add a word or
two more.
spectator of the measure, it appeared to us,
'hat II was rejected solely from vague and undo.
hhed tear OF corporations. Would charter to the
applicants, infer injury to the community? On the
contrary the rcmonstranco of four colliors on the
North side of the River, is strong prcsumptvc
evidence, that the community would be benefited
Tor their opposition could only have sprung from,
administration the appre hen sion, that the mea
sure would lead to reduction of the price of coal:
consequence which however injurious to them.
would be ddmnum absque injuria, and a great adj
vantage to all the rest of tho community. In.
ringing no private rights, encroachinp upon no
principles of law constitution, of inestimab,s
advantage to the applicants and of great probable
advantage to the State, so seriously Interested in
the coal trade, why should the LEGISLATURE refuso
to allow the prayer of tho petitioners? AS TO cor
Po-ations, it is too late to make a stand against
them' on principle. The State has long been dis
pensing charters to all sorts of applicants and Cor
the carrying on of almost every species of bust
ness. Many manufacturing companies have been
incorporated at this very session of the General
Assembly. Why should Cunningham & Ander
son. without objection, have been permitted to con-
vert their private business of spinning and weay
ing cotton, into chartered company the men,
bers OF which were designated by law; and why
should the privilege DO denied to Randolph &.
Heth! LIS there any distinction in principle2 In
the indiVlslble nature of property in Mines is there
not found an argument for the last, which gives it
superior claims to the other? Is the manufacture
OF cotton OF more consequence to Virginia, than
her coal trader
we beg leave to illustrate the rcasonablencss of
the application, founded on the indivisibility of
coal property, by fact known to us. The coal
mines In Chesterfield, now the property of Nicho-
las Mills Esq. descended by inheritance to a nu
merous family, now residents of Kentucky of the
name OF Railey. (And worthy as numerous. y
onaole TO divide their estate otherwise thew were
compelled to sell for what they they could gct.-
Mr. Mills became the purchaser, at S25, 900; s. SO
great was tho sacrifice, that Mr. Mills paid for his
purchase by its proceeds in one year. No man sud-
poses that the property is of less value than
p oo'ooo-probably, greatly more. If the Legis.
lature can save its citizens from mourning sucb
heavy sacrifices, without the violation of princine
without the establishment Of any now precedent.
or the introduction of any principle, and
withal' when the act incidentally promotes public
advantage by inviting the investment and stimuli.
ting the activity of capitals it not wise and
right that they should do it?
our mountains are supposed with every reason,
TO be full of mineral wealth-iron, lead, coal
possibly the more precious metals How are thew
TO DE wrought, but by the fundamentally of Joint
STOCK Companies! Surely the Western Represen-
tation have strong Inducements to encourage n
policy so necessary to develope the hidden wealth
of their country.