The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-02-16
Commonwealth Of Virginia {shares) H.. Z, ,752
Stockholders living In virginia 2Sg7
Stock held south Of Mason & Dixon's -

* .< esv"~ ~ :, eoARe". - ssss.s Az
IexaHs s.........
Stock held south Of Mason & Dixon's,.s -
.t IL TRIUMPHANT vINDIoATfos,
If to this I add 100 shares held in Della
ware and 900 held by the Seaboard and
Roanoke road, we have an aggregate OF
1865 shares held in the South, as against
s ,567 shares held in England, France, Ger
many, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jer-
sey, Massachusetts, and Indiana. s..> -
ISLANDERS UPON THE ROBINSON FAMILY. i
MIR. 4. next proceeded to the charge that
had been made of the subordination Of the
interests of the Richmond, Fredericksburg
and Potomac road to the Seaboard and
Roanoke road. 1t has been charged, said
MIR. r., that Moncure Robinson, and those
whom he represented, living in Philadel-
phia and in England, had large interests In
the Seaboard road as compared with those
they held In the Richmond, Frederlcks-
burg and Potomac road, and that the snare
holders in the one line subsidized the other
road, and thus grew fat, whilst the share.
holders in the Richmond, Fredericksburg
and Potomac road grew lean. When, Mr..
Speaker, the information was called for Dy
the House, and was asked what my opln-
ion would be when it was made to appear
that those to whom I have referred five
shares of stock to one in the other road, l
promptly replied that it would constitute
good grounds for the charge that the Rich
mond, Fredericksburg and Potomac road
had been subordinated to the interests OF
the shareholders In the seaboard and Roam
oke road. 81.
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS.
Sir: The information sought for has been
obtained, and is before me. Here are the
several statements:
R.E,&P.R.R. S.&R.R.R
Statement of stock held by
Moncure Robinson and
family in roads named. 1,e4l l, d89
Statement of stock held and
repress snted by M. Robin
son in roads named...... 0,245 S.7oa
Statement of the stock held ....
by persons in The roads
nsmcd, being all the
stockn0ldere common to
both companies. 6,073 5,sO8
Mr.. &. then proceeded to examine and
discuss at length the charge of subordina-
tion, and adduced rates Of travel, &c in
support of the position taken.
Turning from this subject, Mr.. K. asked
the attention of the House to several SUBJ
jects which he did not deem german to the
subject under discussion, and alluded in
feeling terms to the charge made that Mon
cure Robinson was " Yankee" and not
in sympathy with the people of his State
during the late struggle. MIR. X. alluded
to the ostracism of Mr.. R. in Philadelphia
to the fact that he had religiously ex-
pended .. ...... .....
FERERs IN THE SOUTH,
and to the kind ministrations Of his house.
hold to the weary and wounded boys in
jackets of gray as they lay in hospitals in
the North. MIR. e. also spoke. with unaf-
fected earnestness as to the services Of MI.
RS son Capt. John III. Robinson, now
president of the Seaboard road; his bear
ing at Roanoke Island; gallantry in the
Kanawha Valley under Loring, and his
services to the Confederate cause under
Breckinridge.
A VALLEY MAN FOR THE BILL.
Mr.. CocHRANE eloquently plead the
cause of the company asking the new
charter, presenting at length the argu-
ments in favor of the bill.
TIE ELOQUENT VOICE OF THE CITY BY THE SEA.
Mr.. SEGAR, of Norfolk, next spoke. He
said that although it was true that the Sec
ton which he represented was particularly
interested in the defeat of the bill, he did
not oppose it on that ground alone. He
OPPOSED 1T AS A vIRGINIAN,
believing that it was to the interest of the
old State, to him so dear, that the schemes
of these foreigners, who have no sympathy
for us, should not succeed. He could not
admit with the member from Giles Mr..
Mahood] that this was contest between
New York on the one hand and Philadel-
phia on the other; much less could he
agree with his friend from Roanoke, Mr..
McCaull,] who seemed to think that it was
struggle for the mastery between the
Pennsylvania Central railroad and the Old
Dominion Steamship Company. If either
of these opinions be correct, it would be
but a trifling matter upon which we are
spending so much time and SO many words.
BUT 1T IS NOT so.
The interests of our leading cities are in
volyed in the decision of the question. The
member from Giles says that if this charter
is refused, it will be in effect saying that
Virginia is full of wealth, and wants no aid.
Such is not the case. 1t will be saying to
foreign corporations, If you come to help
us develop our resources and build up our
waste places, you are welcome; but if you
come merely to make convenience of us,
and only design
HELPING YOURSELVES MORE READILY TO THE
TRADE OF THE SOUTH,
that is another matter" In other days-in
the days of Virginia's prosperity-these
people would not have dared to ask for this
charter. 1t is an insult to our poverty. He
contended that to grant it would also be an
act of
INJUSTICE TO THE RICHMOND, FREDEEIcKs-
BURG AND POTOMAC COMPANY,
to whom the faith of the State is pledged.
That company had been wrongfully accused
on this floor in more than one instance, but
the speaker would not attempt the refuta-
ton of these charges after what had been
said so we'll and SO succinctly by the mem.
ber from Spotsylvania, Mr.. Kelly.] He re-
gretted to see that the members from Rich
mond Tor some of them) had been
sEDUcED INTO THE SUPPORT OF THE BILL
by the idea of cheap travel How does it