Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-03-23

$4,000. maxine her loss Tor damages and amour
already expended, at least s250O0o 10 IL wise, IL
polite fec her to pursue this eoursef This is not
aL The State will have TO provide Tor the rsy
mens OF the interest due in July and January next,
and the annuity Of go, 900 to the State, which, 10
gether amounts to Eli, 900. This has been clearly
SHOWN by the Sena'or from Botetoutt and the Sc
nstor from Montgomery. and | will not deiain the
uonse by going into a recapnulation.
| Inc Principal Engineer. In his Report 10 the
Board OF Public Works ISL. estimates the expens'
Tor the completion Of the 22 miles, from LynehbuTs
10 tue Irish Falls one Of the most rugged and diff
ea't portions Of the whole line, atsi5o,Ooo, which
about $50 900 per mile and in his Report for 1896
ISIS, he speaks OF the vast ruggedness and difficulty
OF this portion Of the line.
will now present comparative statement OF the
cost OF tho James River and Kanawha canal, and
| the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. Our canal, from
| mere TO Lynchburg, as before remarked, cost $50,
sS1 per mile. In a summary Of the 27t miles OF
the Chesapeake aud Ohio canal, opened for naviga
ton IN 1889, between dam No aud No 6, present
ed IN the Report OF the General Committee Of the
| stoc khodcrs OF that Company, 9Th August, 1850,
page %, il is stated, that the of construction OF
the above 27t miles. excluding pay of engineers,
snpetintendanec and damages for land, &c has been
aeolt 100000 per mile.
| The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, on this part Of
the line, is so feet wide, and feet deep. The
James River and Kanawha Canal is so feet wide,
and feet deep: tho only difference being one foot
! IN depth between the two Canals. The difference
IN cost being upwards OF S27, 900 per mile. Judge
| Wright, speaking in reference to the cost of the
Canal 10 Lvnchburg, in letter to the Governor Of
the State, bearing date OH August, 1881, said,
such n Canal can I've built, under good manage
rneni for IS or $4,000 per mile. provided water
cement can be procured at near the Blue Ridge"
(See Governors message and accompanying docu.
ments, Dec. 6, 1881, page IL.
I. Various causes can be assigned for the actual
excess Of the cost of the work the estimate ;
a
manufactured nosr the Blue Ridge, during the PRO
gross OF the work from Richmond TO Lynchburs;
The manufacture was still in it's infancy, and the
Company was compelled TO import the grc,,er pMt
OF this expensive article from New York. The
excessive low s:a'c OF the River in the years 1899
and 40, also caused the expense OF the transporta
ton TO be unusually high.
: Considerable alterations in the plan Of the
work took place after Judge Wright made his es,i-
mate: the lower or first level OF the Canal was en-.
lsreed 20 vastly increased dimensions so feet wide
ana ; feet deep-to provide greater supply of
| water power. These miles cost upwards of $780,
GOO. The difficulties, and the great cost of this
valuable improvement, is stated in the 4th annual
reror', pages 53S, 33i, and, rs time is precious |
VIII not detanthc Senate TO read il, but simply re-
Ter them TO the document. which is upon my desk,
and II the service OF any mcmbe:.
At the time of Judge wrshrs estimate, il was
calculated 10 have the suHerstructrre across the
tributary streams, of wood. Butwhen the line cane
to be afterwards located, il was discovered that the
~ streams except Rockhsh was in the reach of the
iFeshetS IN those streams; and hence i, became ne
cessarv 10 Suild all the superstu-ures OF these very
expensive works, except at Rock6sh, of stone, in
''esd OF wood. This, as will readily be perceived.
caused very considerable addition TO the cost OF the
line.
;. Judge wrighi's estimate referred TO the mere
cost Of the construction ofihe work such estimates
81 the ErsIneers do not generally include the items
OF land damages But, II he be he'd responsible
Tor this item, surely one can visit upon him or
tho Company any liability for the vast excess OF
this Item above what might have reasonably been
expected. IL has exceeded all reasonable calcula.
on, from 10 800 per cent, having amounted 10
ABOUT $4,000
4. The estimate of 1880, had reference TO the
prices o. laoour and provisions, prevailing at the
time. These hesvy items, which cover the greater
part OF the expense Of all Chna's rose during the
progress Of the work, from 50 to 100 per cent An
expsrieree in Virginia. may be moned to test
this fact.
The experience of other works may also be sum.
moned 10 support this uverment. In n letter adj
dressed to the President and Directors OF the Ches
aneake and Ohio Canal, by the distinguished En-
gineer Of that work tMr Fisk wherein an expli.
nation IS given of the difference between the esti.
| mates Of January, 1886" aud tie estimate of
January, 1882 OF the cost OF construction ofthe
| oO miles OF the Canal, next below Cumberland, he
says: AN application Of the prices of the Janu-
hty $50 estimate for the 50 miles, TO the quanti
ties OF The es,imate now submitted. wiz: in Jan
I
present, over the Jan. 1885, estimate is charge
abe entirely TO the increase that has taken place in
the cost Of the work, Sn-e the making Of that est
maie."--llth annual report OF the President and
page &c.
In the same report, page 81, an extract from
then recent English work. is set forth, showing the
vast excess OF the cost above tie original estimates
ol various works IN Great Britain, arising from tie
/ increased prices Of labor after the estimate was
made. For example. il is stated that
" The cost Of ihe Grand Junction Railway was
estimated in 1888, at El 900 900. By the directors
report OF January last, s3s,) it appears that the
amount expended on the line TO that time was IN
wards OF EI,60O.o00, and that a large additional
outlay was required for locomotive power and The
completion Of the works and stations.
The estimate, in 1884. Of the London and Bir |
mlngham railway, was Ca, 100000. In Febru,rv
1887. this was increased TO Ca 500 900; and ffom
the last report Of the directors il appears that the
disbursements TO the 3O:h June had amounted to
this sum, and their Chairman stated that an add
tional amount OF -C5OO.O0O would Le required
thus increasing the capital of the Company 10
G5,000,O0O." "
Here follow a number OF other instances equally |
striking, but will not take the time TO read them.
Another cause OF increased expenditure en- the
line from Lynchburg 10 Richmond nav be set down
10 the high prices Of provisions in 1910. produced
from the failure Of the Corn crop in 1899
have gone on, MIR Speaker, to she W. and trust.
to the satisfaction Of the Senate that the increased
PFC OF Ihe cost oil The Canal from Lyrchburg 10 |
Richmond, over the estimate OF $780, has been owing
to the vastly increased price of labor, and OTHER
causes, over which the Company had no con,roul. |
have also shown, that II aid, as now asked by the |
company, IS withheld, that pecuniary loss will |
result TO the State the largest partner in The con-
ceEni and that the Company will DO unable 20 nee,
the July and January nterestupon the loans AREA.
dy made, and the annuity Of s2I 900 10 the Stato.
making IN the aggregate Sl 600; and, tina, if he
amendment does not prevail that the St,,e rnust \
make provision for the payment OF the aforesaid
amount, or be clas'ed with The repuIiatng States.
cannot believe that such course will 10 pursued
The able and unanswerabc argument Of the cen
ueman from Montgomery, delivered this morning. |
makes II unnecessary for me longer 10 de,nin he
Senate. trust, sir, the amendment will prevail.
REMARKS or MR.. FILLMORE
In d.rsnce n IA. Co,,,,.,,.. r ~