Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-01-08

enterprise promised to be so very profitable as il had
been represented the stock would unquesonaby be
Ken by individuals, so that there would be need of
subscription by the State.
Mr. Brown said he in favor of the passage of this
oil, and in order TO shew the grounds on which he
should vote for it, he would ask the attention of the
! House for few moments. lie rose, however, more
| MS favor Several objections had been made the
bill to-day, which MIR b. could have wished had been
made yesterday, when the bill was ordered to be
engrosscd The gentleman from Richmond had
cipated IN his remarks many of the objections which
are now made and waited until the remarks of its OPP
ponens should call for further arguments And had
the opposition made to She BILL been offered them
MIR. Ii. believed il would have been met and that il
would have been the power of its friends 10 sbew that
the bill ought TO But the objections had been
| reserved until the bill it's passage, it dcvoyed
upon its friends TO defend it far in their power.
| Inc gentleman from Goochand has commenced his
opposition by aragnDg the estimates of the
work And 1t was worthy of inquiry, what ground
the gentleman has founded his opinion that 500, 900
VIII NOT DC sufficient to complete the improvement? Last
year, VIXEN the Legislature applied for the ncor
o' tue company; the report OF an able and COM
pcten' Engineer was also presented to the House. in
which 1t stated that the work oud cost $763 600
ihciHdg all the observation-disclosures depots locomotives,
&c. lhe gentleman from Goochland doubtless
that report and examined its details Since that time
| the location OF the road has been completed, and
the means OF arriving ut correct data have conse-
quently been increased And the Engineers report
presented this season, states that the whole of the
road and all ITS appurtenances will
than 100000, and probably Iore than $3.50 600 A
more advantageous location, by which the distance had
been considerably dimDishcd had reduced the estimate
that tie gentleman from Goochand ought TO be salts
fed with the evidence before the House. that the work
would not cost more than 500 600 But the gentleman
calls In question the correctness of these estimates and
iounds his belefn their ncorrectness upon apparent
discrepancy in the first report of the engineer of the cost
oil the Petersburg Rail Road, and the ultimate expenditure
IN its completion. The gentleman does advert to
the fact THAI the first report included only the
ton OF the road and fixtures and did provide for tho
cost of locomotives, cars, &c. Mr. Brown did not ex-
actly know the for excluding from the first es
mate the cost of the moving power 1t was known to
QT thnGn nttl1
deraby swell the expenditure of the company and hence
cannot be supposed that any encealmen intend
cd rs the report did not profess include them That
estimate $3.50, G00he cost ofthe WHOLE including
locomotives, &c had bsen according the last report
of the Board of Pubic Works, S5l5 000 This is the
seeming discrepancy 10 which the gentlemap from
Goochland aludes and upon which he POUNDS his sup
position, that there may be similar discrepancy between
the estimated and the real cost of the Richmond and
fredericksburg Improvement But he should take into
consideration that the estimates in this case include all
tioSe extra expences, which omitted In the first
timate OF the Petersburg work Mr. b trusted the House
would fully comprehend tho merits OS this objection
without further comment.
Surprising, them perfectly reasonable that the
estimates oorrect has the company subscribed the
titee iitis which in ordinary has hitherto enti-
tea sunnr works TO contribution of two-ifths the
part of the State? The gentleman from Richmond sta
ted yesterday that the company had complied with this
| reGpsition. 1t understood the time when ths
bilr first brought into the Mouse that the three
its lad not been fully made ny and ha go 900 re-
nianed to be subscribed Since that period the books
had been reopened in this city, and the residue
subscribed in single day
Mr Brown was not one of those who believed that
the State bound all subscribe to the stock
OF companies, whenever the three-ths of their stock
had been takenby individuals He had urged contra
ny policy n former occasion when he was more di-
rccty Interested than in the present question. And the
prnciRb which he had sustained then he still adhered
to- lie was Gonvincsd that thepe obligation up
on The State to subscribe TO the stock of oil
IndiscrImnatciy: but that it contemplated by the
law establishing the two-f1hs system of Internal I'm
provement that the Legislature should use sound dis
Sreuon III Judging OF the merits of the various applca
tons, and subscribe only where was apparent that the
works were worthy OF public aid The present applica
tlon WAS one which Mr. b. thought particularly entitled
10 the States subscription promised to confer signal
benefits the community
Ihe gentleman from williamsburg has Informed u.s.
howevyr that thus company has excluded itself from any
claim for legislative assistance by pledee given at hs,
last session. when She application was made for ito iocor
Poraon, that il would ask for aid from the Common
wealth This objection Mr. Brown had supposed could
scarcely have been seriously made And had not been
advanced it, Mr. i. should have taken it for est-a
mere bantering repetition of idle gossip pickea up
In the lobby Is IT to be supposed that the period to
WHICH thus pledge was REFEREED there in this House
any persons authorized to make it Who coulA have
entered into agreement at that time by which Just
sIns % che company to be set aside and legisa
ave AID refused when it was demanded? From what
lndiSdual could such pledge have cmanated, al a
time when tho company was not as vet incorpora-
teds The gentleman from Williamsburg has been
here long enough TO know that afl the opinions adj
varsed by jealous advocates of certain neasnros arc
not 70 be taken binding the future course of legisa
ton, and that each subject he considered according
TO MS merits without reference to the declarations of its
thus Objection by reference to attempt made during
the proceedings of the House on the incorporation OF
the company, to bind future legislatures aid this
improvement MIR D. did not rccollect what the pro-
cecdngs on tlot proposition lie recollected that
such motion made and that il either rejected
or withdrawn But, surprising it to have been adopted
would 1t have been binding upon us OF any future Lee
gisature? Can Legislature tic up the hands of its
successors and prohibit them from acting accordiDs tn
their views OF justice and the public welfare? Such
principle had never been tolerated and an argument
founded upon it, too futile TO receive farther aen
"a "A rp1t div Cph nsfot god,
The gentleman from Williamsburg has also adverled
to feature Of this bill which he charactcrzes as mo-
nopoy lie complains that tbp Legislature has tied s
own hands Tor thirty years. and entered into an agree
men to incorporate company construct any other
similar improvemen along the line of this road. But he
does not take into consideration the exemption fou this
restriction, Of the two only routes which ID is suppos
cd rival Improvements would ever bc CONFERENCE.-The
route from Richmond TO Ta1gahannock and that from
| Richmond to Urbanna. The Legislature has simply
pledged ITSELF NOT TO authorize any other Improvement
by wheh the travel should be drawn off from this Rail
Road, or RS receipts from that diminished but
has not prccudcd the establishment of any improve
nent tor the transportation Of produce merchandise
even parallel line with this road
This privilege, which has been sgmatized as a mono.
poly was made under circumstances which il re;gt be
well 10 expainWhen the fund for Internal Improve
inent was FIRST created the great object of the State was
TO encourage the prosecution of works of public utility
by individual capitalists and to that end, in the 10Th
section Of the Get IL was provided that the Com
| monweot 10 receive no prodt upop lis in
/ vestmcnts OF twoifhs in such Joint stock comma
MICS until the individual stockholders should have
melted SIX per cent. their subscriptions from the pro
fits Of the work after which, the State and the indvi-
dual stockholders should share the profits This provi
sion clearly cvnces the stgonQ desire Of the LEGISLATURE
& tf.Ny nauf Nal. g.