The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1857-10-06
LOCAL MATTERS.


The meeting was called to order at II O'Clock, b,
Robert A. Mayo, Esq, on whose motion uaKLAAi
HASEs, Esq, was chosen Chairman, and Messrs
Albert G. Stubbs and John +. Wren we're appointed
Secretaries.
The Chairman briefly stated the object Of the
meeting aud announced his readiness 10 proceed tc
business
Col. SHERw1N McRaE obtained the floor, and after
briefly reviewing the action Of the city Of Richmond
on the subject Of extension, for several years past
submitted the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the proposed extension of the cor.
porate limits Of the city of Richmond, by taking of
large portion of the tax-paying and enterprlsing
population of the county, and absorbing most
valuable part of the county lands will be highly
detrimental TO the best interests of the county.
2. ReSoired. That the proposed extension will be
lagrantly unjust to those of our citizens who will
be included in the designated limits, subjecting
them to a jurisdiction to which they do not assent,
and imposing on them burthens to which they are
not justly liable.
3. Resoired, That there is no power in the Legts-
lature to extend the corporate limits of the city
of Richmond, at least before the year 1865, to
embrace any part of the territory and population
of Henrico; and that any such act, would, in the
Judgment OF this meeting, be unconstitutional and
therefore null and void.
1. Resoired, That - be appointed to appear
before the General Assembly to resist the proposed
or any other extension of the corporate limits of
the city of Richmond, which will include any por-
ton of the territory aud population of the county
of Henrico.
3. ReS0lred That + be appointed a committee
to ascertain the amount of territory and popuIa-
ton which will be included in the proposed exten-
sion, and to obtain any other information which
they may deem useful in the pending controversy.
Col. McRAE then addressed the meeting at length
in favor Of the resolutions and in opposition TO the
proposed anne xation lie thought it would be uni
to the people of Henrco county to take any portion
of them into the city of Richmond without their
consent and against their will and he defied any
one to show him the power by which the extern
sion could be made. The city had at time pro
posed line Of annexation and given the county mo-
tce of that fact, but since then had changed the
line without any notice. The act il consummated.
would be gross injustice to Henrico inasn,Ich il
would take in at least oue-third of her population
aud taxable property, leaving the expenses of the
county just as heavy as they are at present TO be
borne by the two-thirds of her citzens who were
not annexed. The line Of extension did not pro
pose To take In any of the county bridges, which
were To be kept in repair. nor did it d, crease the
number OF county roads leading to the city, which
were to be kept in order
1he speaker next took the ground that the Le-
glsIature had no constitutional power to extend
Tue clty limits an1 thereby abridge the extent of
territory now embraced in Henrico. The Consti-
tuition fixed the humber OF representatives To COM
pose the House of Delegates, and the Legislature
had Ho power to add to oI1deiract from that mum
Der. When that number was fixed. fIcnrcu, with
other counties, was assigned her delegate on the
pasis OF representation, aud the Legislature had no
power 10 alter that basis. If a portion of the
cotH could be annexed, then the whole county
might be annexed aud thus destroy the basis upon
which the House of Delegates now stands Col
Mck. argued the constitutional question at length
and concluded by the declaration that if his views
were correct, and he believed they were the people
OF ienrico might rely npon the Courts to do them
Justice, even though the Legislature were To eA-
tend the limits, as proposed Ii unconstitutional
the act would be yaiuricss and would so Toe drcir
| ed by the final arbIter To whom an appeal would
be made as Ike last resort
| Mr. JGnN Il louAG followed Col. McRae in an abe
and practical argument, In opposition to the aunexa
tion. Alter reviewing the course of the city aud
her efforts to eXteId her limits without consult
ing those she proposed to annex he hastily review
ed the udrRat3gCs the suburbans were to derive b,
being fdssh ~ by the city and gave a comparative
statement ot the taxes paid by the CitiXrnS o
RichmOud Enter the ordinance of 1851 and those
paid by the people of ilcnrico county. under the
levy made by the county court in July last rs fol
lows:
In Richmond, the tax Oh real estate and the i'm
proyeaents thercou,is one per cent, OF 81 on eve.
~ @lUu in yalue-aud on all personal property
except negroes and dogs. the tax Is the same -
there is further exception rs to the capitatiol
tax on white males, which is IS every white man
50 that white men, negroes and dogs are dscrini
mated against
The county tax is 80 per cent. on tn = State tax
on all subjects of taxation real and personal an,
a capitatiun tax OF 81 on every white man Thu
'-N'''N
| crpt slaves Il years of age. is ~ cents uI
| every $lU0 in value, and on that amount the count
| levy is 81 per cent Ou slaves, the state tax /
| $i2).
Now mark the difference In the city of Rich
inond the tax is 81 every SlUJ in valae of roa
estate. in HenrIcO the county levy is 81 per cent
the State tax of ~ cents every SIUU in value
l. cents on every SlDJ in value. 80 that the cit,
tax is eight and half times greater than that o
the county. A house and lot ia the proposed ex
tension, worth 5000 now pays to the county S2.4J
If annexed, AS proposed, it wonld pay to the cit,
of Richmond $50.
On slaves, the specific tax in Richmond is :,
each. In the county the tax is 80 per cent. the
State tax of Sl.2U-or 30 cents on each, Thu,
showing that the city tax that subject is four
teen times greater than the county tax.
slavo over Il years OF age, in the city, pays in
all to the state and city $500 The same subject
pays to the State and county SI56. Since lS5b th,
increase tax in the city on negroes Is S75. In tn,
| county cents.
| un free white males in the city, the specific tax
| is s.. In the county the tax is 81. Thus showing
the city to be three times greater than that In
the county.
In the city, horses, cows, and all other persona
pro- ETY., except dogs pay tax OF 81 on every $lO'
| in yaiue.
| In the county the same property is taxed 30 per
the state tax of ~ cents on every $lOJ il
value or II cents for every Sl0O in value. Bein4
| eight and half times more in the city than II
| the county.
\ horse aud carriage in the city worth $500
would pay tax Of s.. III the county the tax i:
but 90 cents.
COW in the suburbs worth $50 pays now to tht
county Z cents In the city she would pay 80 cents
showing that the city tax is eight and half time,
as great as that Of the county.
| 4 man whose furniture ia the county is worth
| Il ,U0u has TO pay tax Of $l20 On the sanIi
| amuUR- in the city, SO
| ON capital the tax is equally as oneTous A mar
| in the county holding $4,000 in stocks or bonds
I fl.y ~. <
$50.
| Mr. Young concluded by an appeal to the peop
10 stand firu to their rights relying upon the jus
tice of their cause defeat the Ot the city
| ROBERT A. MAY0, Esq, responded to a call madt
| upon him, and stated that he was now, as ie hat
| aiways been, opposed TO the extension. When
member of the Legislature he had exeTted himself
10 defeat the measure; and 1T the last session of IN
Legislature. though not member OF that body
had used his influence with the Chairman of III
Committee on Propositions aud ''rieyances an
other members To again defeat the bill. lie Wa
satisfied, situated rs his property was "u the East
crn line Of the proposed extension, that ne woul
hs largely benefittrd ia pccuniary point oi view
if the annexation were consuHmHtcd hui lac b'
ievcd it would lie injurious and niJust to th
| people Of Hcnrico county, and believing 50, woul
do sll in his power to defeat the measure.
HEvEY Cox, Esq., had opposed th" annexation i
the last Legislature with ali his might, aHd sliOul
continue TO oppose il. unless otherwise iustTncte
by he'people of the county whose reprcsentatiy
he was. lie thought the extension unjust 70 heI
rico and detrimental TO its best interests.
Mr. YouNG knew that botn gentlemen had exer
ed themselves uohly in their representative cap
cities and took pleasure in bearing witness 70 the
tathtuiness and fidelity.
On motion, the nc ,~lntions offered by Col Mclti
were taken up and unanimously adopted.
| The Chairman iiIIcd the blank in the fourth res
lntion With the names OF Jp1N L., f0uNG and aHE
| WIN McRag, Esqs
The blank in tho fifth resolution was filled wi
the names of MessTs JACOB IL. hkt5Es JAMES
| GuNN and JoHS A. HCFeHEs2S.
, Mr. Young offered the following resolution
, which were adopted:
Rexofrysl That committee Of be appointe
whose duty it rhall be 10 cause To be prepared
+ memorial to the Legislature protesting against
, prppnsed extension, aud cause copies OF the saI
( to bo calculated for signatures among tho peol
cf this county.
Reso'ted, That our delegate and senator be
strueted so far as this meeting can instruct the
, to nse their best efforts to defeat the proposed