Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-08-27

tlona TO nake-no phllnouts 10 sing.
as VIRGINIA A RkPUDIATING STATEf'
The -uljoin.d letter from NJ Robi. Tyi5r Of Phi
lsdephi4 contains just enough Of truth and TACT to
give pnusibiity To the charge made to Mr.. Tyler
against the faith of Virginia.
To disprovs every allegation made by Mr.. Tyers
Informant it is only necessary 10 state, that the al
legged violation of the chartered privileges of the
Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Rail Road
Company, by the completion OF the Virginia Central
Rail Road 70 Richmond, has bean the subject OF in
vestigation before the highest Judicial tribuuals OF
Virginia. and before the Supreme Court Of the United
States and decided by each and all Of them against
IN. assertions of Mr.. Tyler's informant
An injunction was prayed against the Central Rail
rond for violation OF the chartered privileges of the
Richmond fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad,
in carrying through" and way" travel. This in
junction was refused by the Court and the Court Of
Appeals sustained the ruling Of the Court below
The case was taken to the Supreme Court OF the
United States which Court recognised the we'll set
tied principle, that the grant of franchise is of no
higher ORDER and confers no more sacred tile than
grant of land to an individual; and when the public
be taken Tor public purposes on making suitable
compensation nor does such exercise OF the right Of
Imminent domain interfere With the involabilty OF
Contracts" And applying this principle to the then
controversy between these psrties,tvz the Richmond
Fredericksburg aud Potomac and Virginia Central
Raroads) that Court held that these respondents
1.-THE Virginia Crn,ra) chad the right under their char
ter to construct their road from the junction to the
city of Richmond andto cross the road of the COM
plainants on the level thereof and that the use OF
such road for the transportation of freight not
gioaton of fthrrighis guaranteed tos conpldjnnntS,
bv their act of jacorpor0tom" This then settes the
charge of bad faith by the highest judicial tribunal
In chartering the Richmond, Fredericksburg and
Potomac Railroad Company, it WAS not the design of
the Legislature to barter away the power over inter
nal Improvements, to deny to future Legislatures
The power 10 supply the wants Of the country, and the
capacities of roads to meet them.
In Is, Howards Reports, IS. G. U. S.,) will be
found the decision OF this CASE between these Com
panes From the opinion of the Court. delivered by
Justice Grier we extract the following "Construng
this act with these principles in view, where do We
find that the Legislature haze contracted to part with
Richmond and Fredericksburg, for carrying coal or
other freight Much less they be said to have
contracted that no railroad connected with the West
era part of the State, shall be suffered to croas the
complainants road parallel to it, in any por.
ton of its route. Such contract cannot be scited
from the letter spirit OF this section OF the act
Ii contains no pledge that the State of Virginia
will not allow any other rail road to be constructed
between those points or any portion of the distance
for any purpose Bat only road the probable
effect OF which would be TO diminish the number Of
passengers travelling between the one city and the
other, upon the rail road authorized by the act or
to compel the company to reduce the passage mo-
ney."
The circu,ous route between Richmond and
Washington City, which, according to Nr. Tylers in
formant, is now iuuring the Richmond, Fredercks
burg and Potomac Rail Road Company, has grown
out of the necessities Of the State; and because pas
sepp..s select that crcutons in preference to the
more direct route by way Of fredericksburg we eau
not zee how the pledges of Virginia are violated A,
aay rate the charter of the Virginia Central Raj
Roau has been fully sustained by the highest trbu
nal known to State or Federal laws. And We ven.
ture the assertion, that Dir. Tylers informant will
and great difficulty in convincing the public iha,
Virginia has violated her pledges or that she is "a
repudatiDg State"
BY the way ws do not sea any very intimate con
nectiou between the question that heads Mr.. Tylerr
letter and the subject which is discussed therein.
Is VIRGINIA A REGULATING STATE?
PHILADELPHIA, August 2tst, 1858.
tn N, Editors of the ENQUIRER:
GENTLEMEN 1T is with little chagrin that
venture to address such question TO you-Is Virginia
a repudiating State7 Although am now, and have
been for years past citizen OF Pennsylvania, and am
bound TO my adopted Stale by the strongest OF person
al ,ie-, a. we'll by of gratitude and interest,
the old Commonwealth of Virginia is as dear to me
AZ faithful memory and ius, pride can make her.
Recently in q conversation with friend here, man
of character and substance expressed my surprise
at the low price OF Virginia State bonds my ATTENTION
having been attracted TO the fact, that while new
York and Massachusetts fves. snd even New 1ork
City fves we're at premium, Virginia sIes were out
little above 90 ana added, that with the great re-
sources and the unsullied aith of Virgins, her Oh