The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-12-15
CAPT. WATTS ON THE RAIL ROAD.

vented the State Of Nur,h Carolina, OF other for.
eign interest, from becoming the purchaser of our
| ha'i Road, having been brought home 10 our
county Representative, Capt. Watts. as being in
serted in the law which authorized its sale. by
him. our enemies, or rather the Petersburg in
terest, have endeavored To fasten the odum upon
him. in order to holster up their cause in North
| Carolina. As matter of Justice to him. and of
interest to our readers, we make room fur the fol.
lowing correspondence which we take from the
| Raleigh Register We are no, satisfied with the
I reasons which induced Capt. Watts To insert so
fatal clause--it should have been left for ,hose
! who had commenced the work Of destruction, to
strike the final blow
! To The Editor of the Raleigh Register:
SIR:--In your paper of the Oath inst a writer
over The signature of a RESPONSIBLE Wit
NESS" attempts To vindicate the Petersburg in
terest against the charge Of mstigating certain
provision in the Act Of the Virginia Legislature
Tor the sale of the Portsmouth and Roanoke Rail
Road. And he essays to fix upon me, and by
consequence, upon the interest | represent. the
odinm Of that charge The provision TO which he
refers. prohibits the State of North Carolina, or
any Company Incorporates therein. from pnrchas-
ing or becoming the owner of said Road This
feature in the Bill. he "avers was intrnduced nv
| Mr.. Samuel Watts delegate from the County
ct Norfolk, &c, &C." and he adds, I" He intro
| duced it without any consultation with the dele
gate from Petersburg. and without apprizng him
| of it," Thus The public are left to infer that the
| Petersburg interest is proved by "responsible
| tcifness," to have been entirely innocent of the
Legislation complained Of while |. with the in
terests committed to my charge, am held up as
! the guilty actor in, and author Of transaction
over which even modest Petersburg sheds her
maledc,ions.
The above avermeni, viewed as an isolated
fact. and Invested of The circumstances and hsto.
ry of the case is Larly correct and partly errone
Gus. While II Processes 10 be ''plan and true
history OF the transaction. it is no history at all
IL is a mere erparte statement; brief assertion.
as partial and imperfect it is brief II is wo-
| iniy deficient of the most important ingredient in
| the history OF any transaction, and that is 1.-the
whole truth
| That did submit the provision complained Of
is most true. But why did | do il was il
want0n. voluntary act. or was il compulsory O.
" Hereby hangs a tale" plain history-a choice
| [qn? chain of facts which fiction cannot break
and which will fix the charge of instigating this
provision where il properly belongs. and where in
spite of every effort Ia the contrary il will continue
TO rest. NV reasons for submitting it have never
been concealed They boldly proclaimed to
| the Virginia House of Delegates and they have
| a addressed
Editor of the FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER"
and published at length in thai paper must
ask of You, Mr. Editor, to spread them before the
public again. by giving that letter a place in the
REGISTER" in connection with this communica-
ton. You will readily see by its scope and con.
tents that The history Of this Transaction is not
embraced IN the simple assertion that Mr. Samuel
Watts. delegate from Norfolk County, intro.
duced the precision complained Of The cause
| and is hero VIII ita1 hy eiJ
the history of the whole affair carried out TO us
| legitimate end. And | will only add here that
! the statements therein set forth, will be atiested
and sustained, if need be, by host of as response
BILE witnesses can be found within the Com.
monwealth of Virginia.
|. is tine also that did not privately, (if that
| is what the writer means, y apprize the DELEGATE
from Petersburg of my intention To offer this pro-
vision. But, did, while was in the act of dis
cnssing the Bill upon lis merits. apprize the
whole House, including the member from Peters
burg, of my intention to offer it, al proper time
and of the reasons which Influenced me TO that
course. Nay. read the provision from my place
and at the request of the member from Peters
burg, sent it to him, who, if | am not very much
mistaken examined it we'll before he returned it
1t was not offered for adoption until the next day,
when it was Incorporated with and became part
| of the Bill. Ii is not to he presumed that | pre
| senied it without cause. The cause will ap
pear in the sequel, and will become more and
more papable with each succeeding day. VIII
"a RESPONSIBLE WITNESS" pledge the Peters
burg interest to aid in getting this measure again
before the Legislature. and in the repeal of this
provision The probability is that the whole
subject will again be before the House of Dele
gates this winter, and hereby pledge myself and
| the interests represent 10 go for repeal. dare
a response!! This will test the sincerity with
which Petersburg attempts to cast the blame of
| this provision on Portsmouth Unless it shall he
the pleasure of the Legislature, for The benefit Of
| Petersburg, to decree that there shall be no Rail
Road from Norfolk to the Roanoke the Ports
month Road must again be brought into the mar
ket. and we shall see whether the Justice of Pc.
tersburg will assist in the repeal of most OBJ
noxious measure which she now attributes to
| Portsmouth, whether she will persist in the
| insiigdtiOn of its continuance
| deem II unnecessary To probing this Commu
| ncaiIon. ! ask more than thai all the facts
| connected with the SUBJECT shall be known. And
while the interests which have The honor to
| represent will shrink from no responsibility which
rIghtiuIly devolves upon them, every care will be
taken that none shall be cast upon them unjusiIy
or which properly belongs to others.
Respectfully, SAMUEL WATTS.
Portsmouth, Nov. 20, 1916.
To The Editor IF The Fayetteville Observer:
SIR: My attention was directed, only day or
| Two ago. to paragraph in the Petersburg Intel
Ilgencer of 'he 18th of April, purporting TO be a
reply TO an Editorial in Your paper Of the 7th
ult., (Which al that time, | had not seen } and
which complains of certain provisions of the act
auhorising the sale of the Portsmouth & Roanoke
! Rail Road, passed at the last Session Of the Vir.
| gna Legislature. The paragraph referred to.
and the impression it was calculated to make on
the public mind in North Carolina, render it
| proper for me to say a few words the subject
and that is my apology for this communication.
The Editor of the InlelIigencer, JOHN W.