Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-01-13
MIR. BROWN or PrrrRsprno

The brief report in paper of the sti inst of the
remarks OF Mr.. Brown, in reply TO Mr.. Mcdowell
upon the debate respecting the Richmond and Ere
dcTcksburg rail road not being considered as full and s
usactory as is desired we give the following as being
more precisely what that gentleman did say
MIR Brown Observed that there was no material var;
ahce between the estimates submitted by himself aud
those OF c &c nteman from Rockbrdgc but as the mi
mute mode IN which the difference had been nopted ont
might create an impression that there wns something mn
lar or uncandid in the calculations presented Inv him
Nhr he elt 1t necessary in justice himself to cali
te aeh'lon OF the House TO the fact that he had referred
particularly to the item of the James River surplus tolls
whic was almost the only matter in dispute and had
sta i now ne applied It, The gentleman from Rock
pugc INSISTED on different application of It, but insead
OF nputing error, he should have characterized il No
difference OF opinion. As TO the other small dscrcnnn
ces, Mr. b. would say that he had drawn The clement
OF ms calculations from the official report of the Second
Auditor, lately presented to the House and oud pedgc
himself Tor their conformity with that report The cen
henan may have obtained additional facts from eiher
sources and may be entirely correct but he wished the
House to observe that the results of ,he gentleman
mates were even more favorable TO the capacity of the
ruhd 10 ncctte proposed subscription than had hen
represented by himself He thanked the gentleman for
showing that even f the r. Company should sncccsd
the share OF The surplus tolls continuing 20 fall to the
State would be $4,000 instead of G2llOO0 az he had
supposed AS 10 the receipts from the Petersluro rail
road he Chr. b. had not fallen into any error ms nj
lcged by the gentleman from lockbridpc lie had sad
a ue una pays 1OOO per annum, for interest on the
loan OF &oOOOO in favor Of that company and received
last yeara declaration Of dividends Of 900 and ould
be deriving from that $4,000 moro than "A mid
This strictly true The gentleman bn,err,er
seemed to think that lie ought TO have gone farther and
SHOWN what precise portion of this Sl2O 900 was nett
Prolt on the investment but the House would perceive
mat ms was not Necessary to the object be had in view
lie was exhibiting the amount of REGENTS dur;n ,lo
year, not the clear profits investments and pros c
was well known already that the States stock In tbn
ROAD cost not $sOOOO, but 100000 lie had confined
nseH 10 the facts connected with his argument and c
he gentleman had prosecuted his Inquiries further and
brought into view other matter lac must not hold linn
(Sr ~ responsible for what lie had not noticed bccause
unnecessary to illustrate his positions being errors
To run EDITORS or 1YiE 1AroUIRER.
DtNIfE@tH5 observe IN your paper Of the 10th inst
which feel 1t my duty to notice Aflcr making an
raci rom some remarks made by me in the Senate and
puDnshcd m your paper Of tie 9Th inst he saws No,y
u MT. anderson used any snch LANGUAGE i'm the Senate
uu MOI near IT, ~ hc used any xprcssion which in tbe
most remote manner conveyed the idea that il was nv
intention 70 excite the people Of The Eus against the
people Of the West and my own constituents IA ec,,o
me do not say, that MIR. Anderson did not use sie6
"hguagc' bn do say that heard none smell - did
use Fuci ana stronger language and am ycry m icf
spfSoa tnat the gentleman from Wythe did not hear
~ i"r ! always addressed myself TO him when I
spoke OF HIM Indeed. was not little nsiouisbcd
10 learn by the gentlcmans note that he d;scloe o
mat no other intention could be inferred from the Ian
R"H8e ne used IN hc Senate. thought at the tuc tb,f
u was ha "oiJcc 20 excite tie local prciudiccs ri ot
frn virginia, m favor Of Mr. Leigh. and againsf M
i.Ves and the Western people, and said So in nv re-.
ply 10 him cannot be mistaken i'm this becanee my
na'a o'9ect IN replying 10 the gentleman, was to break
ue force OF what considered his appeal 10 the ocsl
PfJndccs Of the Eastern people and 10 defend tbe Wet
cfh people against what thought an unjust CHARGE
against thcm regret that my llnoua0c should have %.
capped The hearing Of the gentleman and thorel,v nrc
Fshco n rom dsciaming the intention which he says