Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-12-05

Ane name Esankln LOT tne county Academy, &c, the
bill, as thus amended, passed the third reading,
yeas Sc, nays ..
! On motion by Mr. ROBERTS, it was ordered this
bill be forthwith transmitted to the Senate.
nEMPHIs AND OHIO R. R. co.
On motion by Ar KING, (ihe rule being suspend.
ed the House now took up the Senate bill for The
lief Of the Memphis and Ohio railroad-repealine
! the location by Trenton.)
Mr. KING stated the circumstances requiring the
charter provision for making Trenton point in the
location, to be repealed The air line shortened the
distance six miles-so saving $4,000 to the State
He asked no additional State aid-and would ask
none.
Mr. TAYLOR proposed to amend by adding
Provided nothing in this Act shall be 80 construed
as to extend to said Railroad Company, any State
aid they are not entitled to under existing laws"
Mr. TAYLOR had been informed, That the word.
ing Of that act would entite them draw State aid
| to the amount of 100000.
| Mr. KING had no objection TO the amendment, if
1t were clear in its terms He wished to modify by
inserting words prohibiting additional State aid -
Mr. JOHNSON submitted these words in lieu of
Mr. Taylor's amendment: " Provided no additional
State aid shall be granted"
Mr. TAYLOR was afraid Of the word "additional -
and preferred his amendment. He wanted them cut
off from aid.
Mr. KING. If the object was to cut off the aid
entirely, he was opposed TO it. The Directors on
the part OF the state, naQ DECIDED 10 shorten the
route and the money of the State to the extent
of $4,000. They might still go by Trenton and
draw this additional amount. We only ask that aid
which the Company would have been entitled to GO
ing by Trenton, less the $4,000
Mr. RICHARDSON suggested to restrict the aid to
$40 O00-snce it proposed TO 100000 OF
the original appropriation of 100000.
Mr. WILSON showed how this bill might be con-
srued into a new appropriation of 500 200 toward
that road They had forfeited their former aid of q
500 600. They had already received larger sum
sum iOr bridge aid, than any other road in West
Mr. THOMPSON. The Legislature was helpless
in Ahe cas-, the facts showed If the bill pass
not, the Company will go by Trenton and draw the
900 additional.
MIR ROWLEs. Are the Company at work on the
straight line?
Mr. DUNLAP. Yes but they have not got so far
but they turn. Mr. D. read the act Of last ses-
sion TO show that the bill contemplated nc ap-
preparation. He also explained the circumstances
which had brought them the difficulty requiring
the adoption Of the amendment OF that act proposed
in this bill. He also alleged that if the bill were
not passed. they would probably still go by Trenton
and receive the additional bridge aid-S6O 600 more
! than they could receive under this bill. He also
reviewed the printed letter of Judge Brown, criti-
csing the interested motives which evidently prompt
| ed 1.-THE claiming an appropriation of aid to a
worthless, imprscticabe road, with the object to
| ueleab the CONSTRUCTION OF the anu OnlO,
for the prospective advantage of the Mobile and
1 Ohio Misunderstanding reference to certain hypo-
fthecated Tennessee bonds which had paid for iron
ing the latter road in the State of Mississippi.
! Mr. WILSON. Had they not completely forfeited
their $4,000 They had located the air line, and
would not change to go by Trenton. There could
be made no other question here than this: Win this
Leg stature make the additional appropriation of
! 100000!
| MIR BULLOCK vindicated Judge Brown from the
charge of having hypothecated State bonds. Whilst
he would vote for this BILL it would be well for the
House to understand the case, with respect TO aid
proposed to the MObue and Ohio and the Mississippi
Central Railroads, aud he proceeded to make state
mentslat length with reference to sundry proceed
! ings connected with all these interests.
| Mr. GRIFFITH. If the 100000 bridge aid by
Trenton was forfeited, would not the road by the
new route have to cross the same str cams that it
would have to cross by Trenton?
Mr. BULLOCK. Yes.
Mr. DUNLAP had not intended to impcste Judge
| Brown as having hypothecated State bonds. But it
was rumored that such a thing done by the Mo-
bile and Ohio road, of which he is President.
He showed how by defeating the Memphis and Ohio
road the Mobile and Ohio road might gain travel
and transportation
Mr. THOMPSON stated the case as he understood
it, and gave governing his vote in the
Mr. BRADFORD Mr. Speaker: had not inten-
ded, nor do now intend to make speech on this
be ready this legislature had been
so much unnecessary talking. But, sir, being the
preventative Of Haywood county, in which this bridge
is to be built it deyolyes TO explain, at least
the vote 1 shall give. As to system of internal
improvements, think it is wild and reckless. And
say, here in my place to day, that the time will
come land that not very distant) when the people
will have be taxed pay for the building of these
roads. come here pledged to oppose any further
grants of State aid in addition to what has been
promised. l do not consider this adding one single
dollar to her Indebtedness. And while this is so,
there is actually saving of S6O000 by shortening
the route six miles. Now, sir, the question arises.
will the great State of Tennessee take advantage of
a legal technicaty, and thereby cripple the road,
or rather should she not in accordance with her en-
larged sense of patriotism, allow that aid to
terprise she has been endeavOring to foster. The
general happiness, prosperity and interest of the
whole State was the object contemplated in giving
aid to any improvement, and not to build up mere
Gown, or particular spot The Committee on Inter-
nal Improvements has adopted and presented bill
granting an extension Of time TO some half dozen
roads, il which to complete their first thirty miles
What was the object Was it not, sir, to remove a
restriction, to allow the application of State
aid? Yes Now, sir, here is proviso removed 10
allow the application of State aid, which would be
forfeited if removed; therefore still pledgng the
State to or 5000, 900 dollars, which she might
throw off if she desired. On the other hand, here
Is "a TOau HuL dShluB 70 De al
lowed what has been promised on the bridge while it
reduces State aid $50, 900.
Mr. RICHARDSON desired to know the reason
why this bridge aid was made to depend upon the
condition that the road should go by Trenton?
Mr.. BRADFORD. He knew not. 1t might have
been done to propitiate the Representative from
Gibson county at the last session.
Mr. RICHARDSON continued-intim ating his in
tention to offer an amendment, according to his
former suggeston-to limit the aid of this road to
$40, 600.
Mr. WILLIAMS gave his view Of the case-obiect-
ing to gentlemen whose counties had shared most
largely in the States bounty, being forward
for aid He objected also to that aspect of the
case which made the Legislature subject to the die
tatiOn of a railroad company, and centended that
this was nothing less than an original appropra-
ton.
Mr. ROWLEs should not be influenced by the wish |
of the town of Trenton the wish of the railroad
comp any, but should vote with reference to the in
teress of the State at large, connected with the
interests of the company. If we were to go with
the road, it would be wise of to get along
with it with the least expense. With the view he |
took, he in favor of the bill, because the State
was already deeply involved in this improvement
to recede from the work.
Mr. POLK was opposed to additional State aid, but
concurred with others in the fact that the bill was
to save 100000.
Mr. NEWMAN should certainly vote against the
|
mittee considered that there was no additional aid
in this bill. He differed and dissented from that
opinion, and gave his reasons for it. He found in
he Report ofthe Road Commissioner, page II, that
his Memphis and Ohio Railroad had already receiv-
ID S1OO 900 bridge aid; and that officer in summing
up, does not notice the 500, 900 in this bill.
Mr. DAVIDSON asked which route would best
serve the interests of the public.
Mr. NEWMAN. The air line.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Which would be cheapest to
he State? He should vote for the bill for these two
easons, and for the further reason, that if they
lave forfeited the aid of the State it would be
worthy to take advantage of it under the circum-
stances.
Mr. NEWMAN The bill will give to this road
ouble aid.
Mr. STOVALL explained why he should vote for
he bill He relied upon the judgment of the State
Director; and then the State would save $50, 900.
lie would note vote additional aid to the extent of
f $4,000 to complete every road in the State.
Mr. NEwBERN concurred in his colleagues vind-
alton of the honorable, Milton Brown one of the first
otical economists in the State and by his efforts two
ears ago. much imprOvident Legislation fer Inter I
al Improvement was doubtless prevented There