Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-07-17
FOR THE vIRGINIAS
T UTt ]
Richmond.

/
which | trust does not reflect the opinions an,
feelings of the city of Petersburg; but whos'
| injustice TO this city-whose broad assumptions
aud 'unscrupulons" denuneiations of Richmond
deserve some reply. aud | take upon myself tn,
/ trouble of saying few words suggested by his
/ bitter and inconsilerate preiudices.
have no objection TO the loving and passion
ately endearing language which this corresPon-
dent INDUCES towards Lynchburg and Norfolk
But do not perceive why, in giving loose Ia
these raptorous aud delicious feelings.he should
deem IL necessary to season his cup of joy with
the bitter dregs of hatred towards this city
Wherefore Is il that he could not go on and love,
and.for aught know, be beloved, without darting
forth the forkcd tongue Of envy and magnity
as he reposes in the arms of bis adored
consider il not at all important that any no
tce should be taken of this "Peterzhurg' cores
pendent, except that for the sake of the truth of
history il may be seen what violence he does TO
justice and To truth in his Needless TRADE.
This "Petersburg' commitment says:
" The three cities of Lynehburg, Petersburg,
and Norfolk have common interest and, | te-
feve, common destiny. Whatever enures TO
the benefit or the detriment of ono will affect
similarly the fortunes of the others. We are leagu-
ed together rs a band of brothers against that
common enemy of US Richmond; and it is
only by harmonious cooperation that we can
Vaccinations Of that unscrupulous community
If we examine the history ofthat town. we will
find il nothing but an unhroken series of aggres
sions on the interests of the other cities OF N1r-
ginia. Petersburg and Lynehburg however are
the two cities which have heretofore been fated
10 bear the brunt ol these dsreputnbe enrolch-
mrnts; but no other would escape her enmty If
II opposed the slightest hndrance 10 her mono
polishing designs. If you need proofs, refer
L,.r FL,
course in regard to the Covington q Ohio Rail
road. With the former she invade n country
which was naturally tributary To Lynchburg and
Petersburg. and III regard To the hitter che has
endenyored to deprive them even of II pdriicipd-
ton in the benefits which would result from
work which can only be constructed by the treas
ury of the State Mt large"
trust may with truth assume, that the com
binati, II against Richmond here spoken of is at
least cxaggeraiedn its hostility and its relentless
character. Fiji exists at all, it is grossly un-
just one aud is maintained between communities
whose interests cannot be promoted by any such
hostility. This writer assumes that the interests
of any one of the trio cannot be injured without
injury to the others and assert that the inter
ests of Il edmond cannot be impaired without
affecting injuriously the general commerce of the
State and the prosperity of the other towns
But what right has this writer TO speak for those
towns What right has he to say 1--WE
leagued together as u band of brothers against
the oolnssn enemy of us all-Richmond p
pray TO know when this common enemy"
this Richmond displayed It's "aggressons |"
Was il in sustaining the South Side Road-thc
best speech in the Legislature in behalf of which,
was made by Richmond Representative
Was it in advocating the Lynchburg and Ten
nessee Rail iioad and making corporate sub
scription of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
TO THAT road mo other city save Lynchburg
having subscribed cent to it
Was il in sustaining earnestly the Petersburg
and Norfolk Rail Rond IA scheme which ! be
lieve was suggested first in Richmond.
Was it in sustaining the Clerksevillr North
Carolina Road-in voing directly out of the
Treasury last winter an appropriation of t,co
hundred thousand dollars 10 that Road, the
greater part of which lies in North Carolina
when shorter road would have connected the
town Of Clarkcsrle with the Dauvile Rail Road,
trayersng in its route rirginia territory exclu-
sively, and comforting much benefit upon Rich
mond
Wero these ''agercssons % De they look as
though they were the actions of one who deserved
the eplhet OF Common enemy of Petersburg,
Norfolk and Lyuehburg
Petersburg, as far, am informed, has never
yet aided any thing she thought of especial bene-
fit to Richmond, if | may except some partial
concessions from her hostility by the intelligent
gentleman who now represents that clty-con-
cessons which came not until Petersburg had
determined 10 make an effort for The trade of the
interior. She opposed with the most bitter hos
tty the Dnnville Rail Rond; and is she moi
amaze at the generosity of Richmond in forget
ting that opposition and giving her Jealous friend
ship and aid To the South Side Road an improve
ment which crosses the DanNille Rail Road and
which was projected ,cih the duoIced purpose o
competing NTH the James Rirer Con0l-work IL
which Hchmord is deeply and directly interest
ed Has she ever, since the first brick was
laid in her grounds, exhibited similar proof o
generosity and freedom from seltishness NEVER
The "Danville Rail Road" says he-that i,
the great example of sefshness of Rclrnond-o
her disposition to take what belonged 10 Peters
burg can not be guilty of the folly of under
taking ~ answer so absurd an assertion as that
the trade of the Dan River and Roanoke Nallie,
belonged more 10 Petersburg than to Richmont
in any sense. No man out of that town coult
fail TO be amused at such an assertion. iut lei
mo say to you, Messrs. Editors, and to "Peters
burg" Il trust am speaking 10 only one man
! in that place. that the Danvll Rail Road is MOI
! the child of Richmond. 1t was projected else
where and | have reason to know that it nc
with universal ridicue or indifference in Rich
mond when it proposed. 1t received
neither countenance nor encouragement. 1t wa
believed to be the most visionary of schemes
Its projection and its dirocton-the whole mat
ter of its termini were the conception and labor
of persons living far away from Richmond. Tn
charge of selfshness against her with regard I,
that Railroad is entirely unfounded | take oc
cason to assert however, that even had she pro-
jected i and controlled its termini there would b,
nothing in the act to be ashamed of-nothinl
to justify question to the propriety and poll
cy of the measure in relation to the public inter
eSts.
But the Danville Rail Road was projected by
persons a communities who were deenlv interes