Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1843-07-28
LnErLSI RIIL-ROID.

The card Of the President Of the Richmond, Fredercks
burg and Po,owmac Company in the Wing ofFriday last
W be presumed ntionay) does great injustice TO
the Board OF Directors OF the Louisa Rail Road Company
lie says "they offered in many words refer THE
"wuorE the Board of Public Works, leaving il
"to them determine what proper arrangement be-
tween the companies which proposition declined
by the Board Directors Of the Louisa Rail Road Compa
n.y."
These are the facts as the record shews: Mr. Robinson
had made proposition to do the transportation the
Louisa Road, which, among other Objectionable items,
CURED the Louisa Company TO furnish 100000 OF the
ptal The Louisa Board replied tha they could not
ccdc 20 proposition furnish Of The capital
&c. but IT the condition relation the advance OF $50,
600 was withdrawn" (regardng that as not legitimate
part OF compensation "they willing, IN obedience To
the resolution of the stockholders refer the ehoie subject
OF contract for doing the transportation &c. to the award
ot the Board OF Public Works.
Now the card of the President of the r., +. & F. Com
pany represents this identical proposition decned In
stead OF his proposal being offer submit "the tchOie
subject 10 the Board OF Public Works for them 10 determine
what proper arrangement" he expressly refused TO
Withdraw the obnoxious itemconned the referees TO
PROPOSITION giving them only power to review and modi
ty Its items. See extracts from the correspondence be-
tween the Boards MIR. X. says "they cannot, there
lore, trithdTdW that portion Of their proposition and re-
er the remainder OF that they perfectly willing
efer the AOie propositions either the Board of Public
Works the Second Auditor, any impartial arbitrator
"arbitIaors, tcih POcer TO TerisIc and modify EVERY
"lrEM OF 1T, investigation OF the subject they
'may deem TO be Just and reasonable"
How very different this from leaving the irhOe subject
referees "o determine what n proper arrangement"
MIR. RS proposition instead of leaving the "rhoie sub
iect the untramneled discretion and Judgment OF the
referees restricted them his proposition: and their powers
limited reueicing and modifying its items. This
them the proposition cuncedng Others decide whe
Their shall have money; which the Louisa
Directors declined and unconditional offer leave
the IokOie subject TO the Board OF Public Works.
Having my pen in hand, will explain another item of
Mr. Rohinson's propositions which. alluded IN the
ce that om literal eNtracts) seemed have
undergone supervision, the Office Of the X. r. Il 7. CO.
has greatly mlsed least very intelligent Stakeholder
have lie understood say that the advance Of
100000 10 be INSTEAD Of paying Interest," S25,
OUO the Of capital agreed be invested in stock
10 do transportation | anl unwilling think the wri-
ter intended deceive but be that may this is the
The Louisa Board offered pay annually 81 hirty-
one) per S25 900 supposed capital, in
erest, repairs and depreciation Of stock In response
that, MIR. Robinson required the minimum allowance
for capital invested which interest should be paid that
33 1893 80 should BE- the the advance, then, $780,
QUO IN locomotives &c. &C., being the 4 loah
intended only tn abate much OF the interest 33S33
20, and "insead OF paying interest," altogether; and
this advance OF $4,000, the X. +. * r. Co. hnd the pr
yi!ege 10 return in Stock 81 the expiration OF the
This is literal statement OF the facts OF the the
best of my recollection and concurIng with the President
OF the r. F. & p CO., that the minds of the Stockholders
should not be preIudiced before the meeting.
One Of the Directors Of tie Louisa r. X. Co.
Monday, July 2ith