The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-04-27

HWhcn the Common Council oil re-
tersburg aSScntcd to the proposition to
connect the Northern and Southern roads
through the streets of this city there had
been no intimation, in any quarter, Of the
willingness OF the people of Richmond 10
follow II example ut any time or on any
terms. There was, therefore, no impro-
prictv whatever in Il declaration that this
city would assent to such a proposal when
ever Richmond made provision for making
the connection through her limits also.
But when the Common Council of Rich
mond, with the statement before it that
Petersburg will move when Richmond has
moved. resolves that the latter city will
take no step until Petersburg has set the
example, it is fair to infer that our suspi-
cions were right, and that our m%ctropoli-
tan ncighbors nerer designed to permit the
proposed connection -Pct0Sbmy hder.
Upon this statement OF the case the
Itier draws a distinction favorable to the
attitude of Petersburg, thus: when
4" neither party was committed, Petersburg
" declared She would .tohoon Richmond, but
mot prcccdc her. When Petersburg uaS
committed, Richmond declared she
" rouh not precede ha'."
We cannot see the force Of the diStinc-
ton. These two cities, both taking wrong
ground, propose to follow each other in
doing right. Petersburg first dcicrs to
Richmond, and Richmond, as if not to be
outdonc in that sort of courtesy, says
/" after YOU, dear sister," The lnder
thinks there was no improperly whatever
in Petersburg proposing to follow Rich
mond of course we infer that there was
no imputation upon the intentions of Rich
mond. But then the Index will, we are
sure, admit that to persons Il little pune
t%illious. the declaration of Petersburg im-
Piled a suspicion which they were quite
ready to retort.
But the Inder and ourselves agree about
the importance of these connections-that
they are demanded by the public convent
ence, and ought to be made for the sake OF
the good fame and name of both Peters
burg and Richmond. We do not think the
performance of so just an act should be
made by either to depend upon the move
mcnt of the other. The dispute about pre-
ccdencc is absurd. We trust, for the sake
of their reputation for intelligence and
liberality, both cities will at once recede
from their attitude Oh the subject and
grant the right of way for the connections.
1t is due to Richmond to say that she has
not rejected the application, whatever con
struction the former notice of the matter
in this paper justified. When brought be-
fore the Council, some remarks were sub
mitted by gentlemen as to the course Of
Petersburg, and the proposition was laid on
the table. That was certainly no rejection
OF it, and may have meant a desire for
some further deliberation before acting
upon it. We do trust that at its next
meeting the Richmond Council may take
up the subject and act upon it with no
reference TO Petersburg. Indeed, that
body has in no way expressed any opinion
upon the course Of our ~neighbor city.
We repeat our proposition to our friend
of the Inder to use our best efforts to Sc
cure the connection as a matter Of right
and public duty, and therefore one into
which these side issues ought not to be per-
mitted to enter.