The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1836-01-08

J
/ HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr.. Graham, from the Committee on the Ju-
dietary, to whom was referred the bill allowing
Lawyers residing IN other States to practice in this,
reported the same without amendment, and recon.
mended It's REJECTION, on the ground mat the dis
erection Of permitting such persons to practice is
now properly vested IN the Judge of the Supreme
Court. Report concurred In, and bill rejected
Mr.. Manly, from the same Committee TO whom
was referred portion Of the Executive Message
relating to an exchange of Law Reports with 9th
er States, reported Resolution to that effect,
which passed its first reading.
Mr.. Quinn submitted a Resolution instructng
the Committee, on Internal improvement 10 en-
quire into the eXpedicncy of making an appropria-
ton for opening road in Macon county
I Dir Manly wished 10 know whether the conteIn.
| plated Road would not run through the Cherokee
lands, the Indian title 10 which had not been OK
tlnguished.
Mr.. Quinn replied in the negative.
Mr.. Clarke suggested TO the gentleman from
Macon, the propriety OF establishing separate Co.
vernmcnt for the Cherokee county, for it seemed
there never would be end 10 the applications in
that quarter for assistance.
| Mr.. Quinn replied, that they were not anxious
10 set up for themselves but ii they ever dd, they
certainly should not apply TO Beaufort for King.
The bill 10 incorporate the Raleigh and Castor
Ran Road Company was read the second time.
Mr.. Carey moved its reference TO the Committee
on Internal improvement. lie said il had not been
before any committee II was bill which excited
great interest proposed Road about which there
was good deal of rivalry between Norfolk and
Petersburg; and 1t was the usual course 10 refer
such bills.
Mr. Graham, who introd iced the bill, said if the
reference had been proposed at an earlier period,
he should not have objected TO it; but it would now
delay the action Of the House too long As TO tho
rivalry of certain towns in Virginia, he presumed
the Legislature had nothing TO do with it.
The question on referring the bill was decided
in the negative.
Mr. Jacocks regretted that TIE friends of the bill
had objected to its reference. There were conflict
ing interests which might have been harmonized
in committee. 1t was his wish that the planter
who used this road to transport his produce should,
when it arrived at CASTOR or wilkins Ferry, have
the option OF continuing it on to Petersburg, or, if
he preferred, divert it 10 Norfolk The bill was
not worded SO 10 provide Tor this and he there
lore moved the following amendment.
"Ee ii fariher enacted.-1hat nothing herein
contained shall be construed as to prohibit any
road now incorporated, or which may hereafter
be incorporated by the Legislature Of this State.
from connecting with, Or crossing said road at any
point they may think proper, provided the free
passage OF said road is not thereby obstructod."
Mr Graham said he had no objection to the
amendment, so far as il related to crossing though
being common rght,nc legislative provision was
necessary 10 secure it. But he objected 10 that
part OF it which proposes TO give to other reads the
privilege of connecting with this, and should move
therefore TO amend the amendment by sgieAing
out the words connecting with or
On this motion long and desuItory debate en-.
sued, in which Messrs. Jacocks, Dudley, Collins,
and Mcpherson, opposed, and Messrs. Graham,
Foreman, Hawkins, King, williamson, Clingman,
and manly, advocated it, 1t was argued for the
amendment, that II would be the extremity of in
justice, after the Petersburg Company had con.
structed this road, at an expense Of million OF
dollars to allow any other Company to connect
with and run their Cars on it, without having con.
trI buted aIthlug towards It's completion. That
NoFth-Carolna had nothing to do with the rival.
ship of Norfolk and Petersburg. number of in.
dlyldualS had applied Tor permission TO construct
a road through on. territory, and the only proper
enquiry tor US was, viii it lure the puDlc inter-
est? Ii IT will the franchise should not be grant.
ed-It It viii not, the possibility that one town in
Virginia may be benefited at the expense ofanoth.
or, should not influence the action of the LeriSa.
ture of North Carolina. 1.-THE amendment 10 the
amendment failed, and the amendment itselfshould
prevail, it would defeat, it was said, the BILL because
no prudent Capitalist would invest his money in
Stock to accomplish work, all the benefits accru-
ing from which might be realized BY others with
oct any equivalent therefor. That it was exceed
lngly desirable this bill should pass unincumbered,
as there was certainty Of the road being speedily
ii would be the pioneer 10 sys-
tenn OF improvements throughout the State and We
should no longer nave the credit of making Rail-
roads only on paper. That there was nothing in
The Act TO prevent the Norfolk Company from run
ming road from Weldon to Raleigh, within six
inches of the line of this road, if they chose to do
SO, But il was again and again pronounced rank
INJUSTICE to countenance a provision which would
3uable this Company to connect with the proposed
road, run in upon it, tap 1t, as it were, and carry
Ut the produce TO Norfolk or Portsmouth.
On the other hand, the amendment was opposed.
because ii left the North Carolina Planter no cleo
ION OF markets. but forced him to send his bro
luce to Petersburg, though it might command
rlgher price at Norfolk. That the arguments on
he other side seemed predlcated on the supposi.
'oh lhdl ule PETERSBURG company would be the
My Stockholders in-tiris road But that it wasa
IstInct and separate Company from that, and per-
APPS the Norfolk Company would take u consde
able portion OF the Stock That to pass the bill
'itlfout some provision for other roads connecting
nth 1t, would be 10 grant monopoly TO The Com
any, and was egislating for particular market.
competition was the lie of trade, but this road, if
as proposed, would place the North
arollna Planter entirely at the mercy OF the Pc
srsburg merchants.
The question on the adoa;ion of the amendment
'as decided in the affirmative, 90 10 81.
MT. Jacocks then withdrew the remainder of his
having been defeated, he said, in the
urpose for which i! was offered. The question
ow recurring on The passage of the bill, its second