Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-05-01
Distances from Pittsyzva- Distances from Lynch.
n

have said that this statement is remarkable
will prove that it is worthy of some other appel
lative will Snow that the distances, as stated,
are, in almost every instance, enormously stated
most curiously so.
1t will be shown thatth purpose of the author
was, i'll all probability, to deceive--to mislead-
and he knew the use to be made of it, he must
have had but little faith the cls;ms OF Pittsylvana
to the favour asked. will not charge that the
object was base and fraudulent l am not in the
habit OF making such allegations, without some
knowledge OF my own on which to rest the accu-
sation. But this | will say-that, in my delbe-
rate opinion, the object of the author was to ad-
vance the pretensions of Pittsyvania-that ne
was not very scrupulous in the use of means-and
that he intended to palm this false statement upon
the House, knowing it to be ia Sc. Every man IS
obliged to come to this conclusion when he exam
ines that statement and compares it with the true
distances which [ shall furnish to the House.
The object is, to prove that the aggregate of
distances is greater to Lynchburg than Pittsyl-
vania c. II. The testimony introduced is false,
and does not establish the fact. l ask special at
tention to the statement. By an examination, it
will be seen that the distances to Pttsyvaria C.
H. from those counties that prefer Lynchburg
are underated in every instance, except one, ana
in that there is only a variation of two miles;
whereas the distances to Lynchburg are
oUer-rated in every instance except one-and
In that the true distance is given The errors in
detail vary from the distances by from 3 to 40
miles. These variations would not be quite so
remarkable if they were notmetlodicay arlang-
ed The distances to Pittsylvania G.. Fl. from
those counties that prefer that location are in eve
~ instance moderated, and the distance from one
of those counties Halliday to PItsyluania is not
given at all. By this system it is easily under.
stood how it is made to appear that Lynchburg is
more remote from the several counties than Pitt
sylvania c. H.; but really do not perceive how
the aggregate of distances even as stated, amounts
in the right hand column to hundred and if
ty one. MAKE it SIC hundred and fifty one =
The author, not content with errors in detail (for
consstency's sake, it may be,) cor1mts one in the
general result. Not satisfied with an advantage of
III niles in favour of Pittsylvania, he adds a
figure, and makes it 2l7 miles. 1t would thus
that the difference, in point of distances, is
2l7 miles in favour of Pittsylvania whereas the
fact is, in my solemn beef that the difference in
favour of Lynchburg is 60 miles. 1t may be said
that this error in addition is apparent the face
of the statement, and therefore could not have been
intended to deceive. 1t may be said, in reply,
that perhaps the author did not expect that the
face of the statement should be seen-that he
antici pated its being heard and not read3 sFortr
nately, however, | have the statement, and it
speaks against itself.
I have prepared statement ofdistances, which
believe to be correct If there is an error in it
am not aware of it. Some of the distances
am personally cognzant of-and those | pledge
myself are correctly stated. l hsve gone to the
members of the House from the different corc-
ties, with two OF three exceptions, those whose
distances knew myself and my in4crmation if
incorrect, is chiely derived from gerte.nen on tlis
floor, end if | mistake eny distance beg to b.
corrected. l have endeavored to make fair
statement, and think nave succeeded. The dis
tances are estimated oythe public h ways, and
II Incorrectly the a1ror is apt be one way as
the other. 7 submit the statement to the House,
with an assurance that;t is accurate s.to the best
of my knowledge ard belief