The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1856-02-20
GENkRAL. ASSEMBLY OF vIR CHINA.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
MONDAY, Feb. ls, 1856.
Niabf NeeNien.

MONDAY, Feb Ia 1856.
Nishf Session.
The chair was resumed by the SPEAKER at
| O'Clock, =. NJ.
The House entered upon the consideration o
the order of the sitting. which the bill grant
! Ing the right of way through the counties o
Brooke and Hancock to the Pittsburg and Steu
| benv ille Railroad"
The original bill authorises the construction o
branch of the road down the Ohio river, through
the town of wellsburg, in Brooke, to the city o
Wheeling.
The substitute for this bill. submitted by Mr.
LAS6FITT authorizes the company TO bridge tn,
Ohio from the eastern terminus of their road op
posise Steubenvile, in Ohio. as 10 connect the
| road with that town and ii also proposes to con
struct branch to weilsburg, a distance of eigh
miles, from said terminus.
Mr. LANGFTTr addressed the House in support
of his substitute, and was followed by Mr.. PAUL..
in reply and In behalf of the original bill
Nr GARNET remarked that this war about the
Panhandle right of way, had been sufficiently Gu
during and violent to make Ii a State question
rather than a local one, aud 10 excuse a member
living far from the section Immediately interested
in IT, for taking sides He confessed that he did
not like the course of the petitioners. in construct
ing their road as they had done, after having ask
ell the right of way for it and been frequently de
MED it, He was therefore the less disposed to
grant the privilege of bridging the Ohio, priv
lege he not inclined to, even had they not thus
acted in defiance of the State authority. He did
not desire to see the Ohio spanned at every point
with bridges, to become so many points of cross.
ing stream which should be line of protection
as well as boundary TO the State. He therefore
was not willing TO bridge the Ohio above Wheel
ing. lie believed the road might be very conve-
uieutly constr ucted ON an eligible route to Wheel
ing. He spoke OF the suit against the Belmont
Bridge Company, still pressed, as he believed by
the party i'll Pittsbufg, who desired this privilege
of bridging the Ohio 81 Steubenyille; and he was
not willing to authorizing a branch of their road
g limo 1ttaa thA hat
suit should he abandoned. lie read an amend
mont, which he desired TO offer with this view.
Nj JOHNSTON had no objection to seeing the
Ohio bridged at Steubenyille. Wheeling, Bepwood.
Marietta, Parkersburg, Point Pleasant or any
where il might be deemed proper He saw no
Ggr ON it, lie objected to this Legislature at
tem-ltiag to take case out of the hands of the
Supreme Court. He was willing to leave it there
aud to abide by the decision of that tribunal. If
we cJuld not trust and connde in it, i'll the name
Of Col where were we 10 look He thought it was
wrong refuse the petitioners the privilege they
asked Pennsylvania had granted the right of way
not Only for their road, but for the Hempheld road
which ran to Wheeling and he coEtended, Vir-
ginfa ought to reciprocate this ioerality.
Mr. PAUL replied that Pennsylvania was not
asked for right of way for tie Hempfeld road
tLat Pennsylvania project, and Pennsylva-
mans were petitioners Tor the right of way through
Virginia just as they were for this right of way
from Pittsburg to Steubenvile.
The vote was taken on MI. LANGFITT'S substi-
tute, aud decided in the negatiye-ayes 30, noes
6I So the substitute was rejected.
MIR. GARSETT then offered his amendment,
which provided that before the privileges of the
act should enure to the Pittsburg aud Steuben-
VILE company the suit instituted by Pennsylvania
against the Belmont Bridge Company should be
abandoned and all the expenses incurred by the
company in defending the suit should be refunded.
with interest, to the company, provided they did
not exceed the sum of SIS, 900.
Mr.. BURwELI, of Bedford was opposed to the
substitute. He did not desire to buy or force off
the complainant in this suit, in this manner. Con-
gress had declared the Belmont Bridge public
highway The prosecutors thought proper to
press the suit, nevertheless, and he was for letting
them proceed. He too, was willing to trust the
Federal Court, though Republican and State
rights man
Mr. TAYLOR, of Alexandria declared he consd-
cred that Mr.. JOHNSTON had made an admirable
Federal speech and he concurred fully with Mr.
BURwELL. He never had seen the old fashioned
Republican that was not Federalist, nor Fede
ralist that was not an old fashioned Republican.
Mr.. GARSETT felt satisfied that Mr. JOHNSTON
was no Federalist, whatever he may have said
about the Supreme Court. But he called his at
tention to errors that Court had frequently made
in deciding cases between States and TO the error
they had committed in this Wheeling Bridge case.
majority of the Court, who were Federalists, had
decided against the company in opposition to the
opinions of those distinguished jurists, Taney and
Daniel He did not think it a reliable tribunal,
and for one w as not willing to trust it where State
rights were involved. With regard to refusing
Pennsylva ania the right of way in this case he con-
sidered il no hardship whatever. That State had
denied to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad the
right of way through her territory to Wheeling
AS to the suit he believed it was pressed under the
instgaton of the Pittsburg people, who desired
this right of way to annoy and injure the city of
Wheeling, and it was perfectly proper he con-
tended, that its abandonment should be a sine quo
non in comforting privileges upon them
Mr. JOHNSTON confessed that if great respect
for the supreme tribunal of the United States con
stituted man Federalist, he was to some extent
amenabe to the charge.
Mr.. LANGFITT considered it idle to debate about
the bill or the amendment. The petitioners asked
the right of way for six miles, and the proposition
was to compel them to build thirty. He consider
ed it beneath the dignity of the State The road
would not could not be built. sit never WILL
said Mr. l., ''in the language of the member from
Hampshire (Mr. HIETT) till the resurrection thun-
ders crack :" He moved that they be laid on the
table.
Mr. CABELL moved their indefinite postpone
ment.
Mr.. LANGFITT demonstrated. There might be
some accommodation of the matter.
The motion to indefinitely postpone was reject
ed, and the subject was laid on the table.
The House then adjourned.
SENATE.
fryrI Nal