The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1854-07-28
rHE LYNCnBuRG vlRcusIAH And
THE RICHMOND DELEGATION.

rHE LYNCHBuRG yIRGIlsIAH AID
THE RICHMOND DELEGAT1oNs
Our friends Of The I.ynchburF VLftinian
cannot be broughs 10 acitaowledge hat the
Richmond delegation acted with any mag
nanimisy. in the last Legislature upon the
subject OF the gauge 4nestien. The Virgil
aian goes into TIL. record. and qnoting the
journal Of the last Legislature. only proves
what we stated in our article on the subject.
that when the covineton and Ohio Railroad
bill was up on its passage, the Richmond dc !
legation voted for II. There were reasons, up
to the taking Of that vote, for believing that
i might be carried; and what would have
been thought of the Richmond delegation.
had they voted against 1t, where there was a
probability that it might passi Especially
when we consider that whatever might have
been the result of that vote, there was every
reason to doubt whether Mr.. DEANE' $ amend
ment could have gotten as strong q vote as
the original bill. $50
II was after this that the intimation was
given of q willingness to take the improve
ment with Mr.. DEANE's amendment, rather.
than see it lost. The bill was laid on the Ia
BILE, however, and never came up again. But
had it come up, we still doubt, nay we regard
it as almost certain that the Legislature would
have rejected the bill with MIR. DEANE $
amendment His party included, In its mum
bers. DIR. Yerby, Mr.. Weaver, the indomifa-
BILE BoGLE lwho gloried in laying the bill on
the table, declaring in rather bungliBg Shak-
speare: @
1t sleeputh well y
and every anti internal Improvement man In
the House, whose whole object was to de'
stroy the bill They would vote for Mr.
DEAsE's amendment, but would vote against
the bill as amended. The Richmond delega'
ton, however, were willing to yield their views
of interest," possibly their prejudices-and
60 with Mr.. DEANE. This, we still contend'
showed compromising disposition
But the Lynchburg Virginian is not only
unwilling to accord any credit for the act
but seems to hold the Richmond delegation
responsible for the acts of others 1t says
they allowed their friends about Staunton'
Harrisonburg, &c, to kill that compromise.
The people of "Staunton and Harris onburg'
&C." have representatives who are quite as
Independent and as little under the control
of Richmond as the represe natives from
other parts of the State, and it only shows
how extravagant are the exactions of this city,
when the Virginian complains Of it for not
exercising a control which it has not, over
gentlemen quite as independent and deter
mined in their opinions as our friends. the
Editors of the Virginian, or Mr.. DEANE
himself
This reference to the course of the repre-
sentatives of the Valley, calls up fact which
bears us out in a former statement, viz: that
Mr.. DEANE's amendment, it was known,
would drive off number of delegates from
the support of the bill, and it was not believ-
ed that Mr.. d. could bring as many to vote
for it. This was manifest to nearly every
| one and this was q sufficient reason for the
course of the Richmond delegation, even il
they had been perfectly Indifferent as to
which of the two gauges prevailed.
We should feel some qualification if we
could know that the acts and sentiments OF
the Richmond delegation found a more just
| appreciation with so intelligent journal as
the Lynchburg Virginian; but we apprehend
from its emphatic declarations, that we can
only trust to time to remove the mote 1--WE
hope it is only mote) which prevents it from
seeing clearly the merits of this question.