Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-01-15


give his reason for opposing the general rc-comment
OF the bill lie supposed that when the committee had the
subject under consideration formerly they gave TO it their
best attention The result Of their bcratios was the
bill now before the House And he presumed there
fore that if the bill commit, TO them again. they
would report 1t again III its present form He for
TINS reason opposed TO sending the bill back without in
structons to the committee. MIR c.. little surpris-
ed find that those who avowed themselves the friends
of the company should oppose his motion They reject
cd the means which were offered them for completing
their scheme-and Mr. c. believed the only practicable
means The scntcInaa from Richmond, says he cannot
consent to this motion because il would open wide field
OF discussion. Is this bill worth discussion? IL IL is
why not discuss it, The state had set out in this
enterprise, by becoming sharer i'll joint stock
company. But, is this joint stock company: 1t APP
peocd rather to Mr. G. 10 be batch OF corporations
holding contro! over the company, which he wished To
PROSTATE, ard 10 withdraw The State from such company
II evident that she had the power in the compa-
ny to which she was entitled The private subscriptions
were less than miilon-the States stock two and
hall mllions-and the State had vote of one-fourth
only Of tie capital stock The city ofRchmond, holding
election OF the Directors If any gentleman would
examine the scale of the votes, they would find that the
city of Richmond would with this large subscription
have majority. Ii then this bill pass, the dis
pcsa of the whole fund would be in The power of the
city of Richmond On former OCCASION he had stated
that lac believed a joint stock company would prove
unable to complete this work. He thought still
but not necessary TO repeat his for that
opinion. He thought the inability of the company
was now more apparent than ever; and he asked the
trends OF The scheme whether they would go with
hun IN proposition. that the State should take the
STOCK now unSubScIlbcd lie had love for the
charter as 1T Stood lie had been against it formerly
Tor he had gone against the subscriptions by the Banks
The gentleman from Berkeley had said that the con-
st;tutonal question in this subject did not wciph very
heavily with him-neter did il with Mr. c. But there
were one or two points which he not quite salts
he'd The Bill of Rights, which has been freely quoted
IN the debate ON this subject tells that private proper
~ shall not be taken for public without lust COM
pensation. He would ask whether this a public
workor was it partly private work and partly pub
lie one? The State would be benefited certain ex-
tent by the worl-and private individuals also TO
be benefited in certain degree. Mr.. G.. did think
that 1t was work Tor which private property could he
taken, on the g.ound that it for public uses He
dd not mean to go into an argument the point.
He had desire TO oppose the people of Richmond in
their wish to subscribe for the stock OF this work Let
them subscribe every dollar they have, if they please
But he opposed this Legislature doing that which
1t had no right TO do. He looked the city of Rich
mond, in regard TO Virginia, he did upon Virginia
with regard to the rest of the States And would this
LEGISLATURE have the right to tax the minority of the
state to aid in making an improvement in Mississippi
Alabama, any other State-no matter how clearly IL
should be shown that the making of that work would
benefit the citizens of Virginia Surely not He wished
to know how many members of this House were ready
to take this work State account far was neces-
say and to give the State her due share of power in the
company. If this motion lost he should vote
against the bill; he did not think the Legislature had
right to fix so heavy tax on the city of Richmond.
lie desired this question TO be considered ques-
uon and he therefore asked for the ayes and The
call was sustained.
Mr.. Coston could not consent to make this test
question; nor, indeed could be made So Ifthe bill is
rc-commted with the Instructions the committee would
have but single point for considerations and would be
obliged TO report the bill exactly in accordance To- the
instructions If IL re-committed generally they
might report IT with the feature proposed by the gentle
man from Williamsburg, with others should seem
to them best Mr. c., therefore, could not this
motion test He had great objections the plan of
the gentleman from Williamsburg; and if called on to
make choice he should rather the State should take the
whole work upon herself make the whole work and
receive the whole honor and profit than subscribe to the
stock remaining
MIR, Wilson of Bot, to explain his vote He
CnoulG vote rc-cOmmittInU the bill and slOuld he
favor OF the instructions of the nteman from Williams
burg, with little more latitude He thouGht the State
ought TO be placed the footing of the individual sub
scrbers her vote fer directors and he hoped the GEN
teman would engrait that provision his motion to
instruct the committee He willing that the citizens
OF richmond should tax themselves as high they
pleased; but he wished this improvement in safe hands
and 1T was due to candor that he should say that he had
little rather the State SHOULD take the whole work. but
NJ anl vas nOi question before tine House. hc
l9fsee' p W. soPositon of the genlepqn, which -
ttpct ifsHli = somewhat modified.
Sil 3slIsor e r. said, he did not suppose the bin
was pcTssr chat other plan could he devised which
we'' ~ be preferabe-but lIe should vote aainst the
motion 5ecs,us1 nc prrcssea tnat If the bill
should come into the House in another FORM the debate
upon would operate destroy the measure as the day
Tor closing the books of the Company would arrive be-
fore the proceedings on the subject would have been
drawn to close. Every who wished the bill re-
committed DESTROYS of ENGRAVING upon il some pro-
vision, entirely hostile the provisions of the present
charter The States subscription could be effected in
many other ways, which not Objectionable and
without an iniraction Of the charter. The people of
on account OF the profit of the worknor the ground
OF gain alone they offered their subscription as a ran
som Tor the charter IN its present endangered po-
sltion Should the bill pass, and The State be de-
sirous Of taxing a part the whole of the stock
ne doubted not that they would be willing be relieved
from their burthen, and would readily transfer to the
state That the State will do this now is doubtl: but
10 IS certain, that certain day, if prevented the
charter Will expire. The question then was whether
TINS was not the only means of saving the charter
and if So delay dangerous to the safety of the
scheme These were the reasons which would induce
him to TO vote against the motion either to gene
rally or with insiructonsand he trusted that those who
were friendly to the charter would vote against the mo-
ton We are told that if this bill should pass it would
give to the city Of Richmond the control OF the compa-
scale Of the votes 20 ascertain the Of their
statements Mr. j. had examined it, and il was truo
that the city Of Richmond would have vote larger than
that Of any individual stakeholder, or than the State
The votes would stand in the following ratio:
City Of Richmond 90
The State rs
Bank of Virginia. 10
Private Stockholders "a
The individual stockholders had by the charter ono vote
on every Share up to ten dividing, therefore, y two
and half they would have "a He did not see the oh
lection which made to the difference between
ducng the of the State 10 one-fourth was bat il
was supposed by doing that would enlist more ef
iecualy The attention and active exertions Of the pr
vate stockholders IT argued that i'm order TO effect
TINS object 1t was best not to give the State who would
always be present by her agent the power c controlln
the whole company, by the vote Of one man Who that
state agent might be, knew but lie might make
the performance Of his duties a political agency and
suDycrt tie ends Of the company. IL was therefore
deemed advisable 10 limit the State vote and make il
one fourth instead Of one half of the stock Afer ALL
the subscription Of the City Of Richmond was the sub
Ia a..