The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-03-11
"A Mtsstatcmcnt Co.reeted74---Aa Con e0I
e;ro ,yse.y Of Annexation. D

the question Of the consolidation OF Rich
mond and Manchester. When 1t IL KNOWN
that some at least of the supposed facts upon
which opposing arguments are founded are
inconsidclzteIy stated by persons who have
not taken the pains to inform themselves,
your readers, in confirmation OF your views,
will readily discern that the reasoning OF the
opponcnts of annexation is rs imnlaturely
and falaciously advanced as their facts are
carelcssIy stated. Happening TO have some
acquaintance with the municipal affairs of
Manchester, propose to correct just now u
single error, which, | infer, has been so often
repeated by the opponents OF your views
that you have accepted it as fact, and, con-
| ccding lis truth, have furnished satisfactory
| reply to it. #
The statement referred to is that the les
sees Of watcr-p0wcr from Manchester are en-
| cmpted from taxation by some act OF The
! Manchester authorities. If persons making
this assertion would seek correct informa-
ton they would find that an opposite state
mcnt approaches the fact OF the matter. Sc
veral of these lessccs-perhaps a majority OF
| thcn-are under Il contract Obligation 10 pay
all public taxes and assessments on the pro-
perry leased to them, whereby immunity
! from taxation is secured to the town OF Man
|
and the burden OF such taxation assumed ny
| its tenants. | am quite contidcnt-Speaklng,
however. only from general recollection, ana
not from any recent inspection OF the con-
| tracts-that there cannot be found IN any
one of these leases, or elsewhere, stpllH-
ton or even an expression touching the en-
| cmption of these tenants, or any OF them,
| from taxation. A question has arisen as to
| thc mower of the town of Manchester to levy
| Il municipal tax on tie property leased in
which its lcssecs have Il iedsehOld and per-
sondl interest only. In behalf of the leSsees
it was maintained land in opposition to the
power of the town TO tax this real estate rs
SUCH that the corporation, holding the free
hold and fee simple title in the property,
itself owned the very sui jcct which it sought
to tax; but this question was never Judiclally
determined, and is not now the subject oil
legal controversy. :.
incline to agree with you, MesSrS. Ed
tors, that there would have been no want OF
wisdom in cyempting this water-powcr from
| taxation, and we might readily have conjec-
turcd that our opponents, who assert the eX'
istencc Of this exemption, borrow the as
sumption from q conviction OF Its actual
utility but, convinced Of their sincerity, we
arc prccluded from this conjecture because
they actually ground upon this erroneous as
sumption IN objection to annexation.
Before the opposition to annexation had
| been manifested by the Council OF the city
Of Richmond the writer rs citizen of NAH
| chester, felt great interest in the con>umma-
! ton Of the measure, as one cmncnt!v useful
to both communities; regarding it, however,
as of greater and paramount Importance to
Richmond. 1t seemed to him that if
plausible considerations for hesitation exist
anywhere they apply exclusively TO the south
| side. 1t is true that an existing want Of i'm
proyemcntS in Manchester furnishes one
| reason with its citizens in tavoring anneXa-
ton. Tie fact that it would cost something
| to supply these improvements probably
prompts the city authorities to the opposite
course. Manchester is now in position to
acquire Independence never before enjoyed,
and this reason for lavoring annexation will
probably continually diminish. Indeed, it is
not improbable that in Il few years the sentl-
mcnts of the two communities will lie eX-
actIy reversed. Now, McSsrS. Editors, when
thi, change takes place, What we desire to
| insist on in lchaif OF Manchester is this /:
That the recent action Of the City Council of
| Richmond may be preserved rs Il memorial
! to viudicatc such action rs the Interests Of
! Manchester may then demand shall bc taken.
We MAKE this observation in no rcSeutful
spirit.
II would cost something to obtain needed
| improvements in Manchester. 1t is also
| cQlialy true, we believe, that the statements
made on this subject 10y tie opponents Of an
| ncyation are reckless and grossly exaggerated
and ti!ut the ultimate actual cost would be
tCnfoid compensated for by advantages re-
turned by the measure.
With INC the Chief reason for f:voring an
ncXaii0n i: not the reason just mentioned.
The leading induccmcnt is to make the city
of Richmond a present OF 4 piece of property
the watcr-powcr) which, i'll the hands Of the
city, verify believe III five years would be
found to lie worth more to the city infinitely
| than the whole amount OF her existing i'll
dcutcdnrSS--;l Git that cannot be otherwise
| than fruitful Of advantages to both comilu-
mites. Why 50: This water-poWcr. owned
exclusively by the corporation of Aanches-
ter, lG,ys the town nor, III the form OF rent,
a revenue OF about 200 annually. II fully
developed. it would probably pay directly
into the city treasury, III rent, many times
that sum in cash, but the benefit the city
would derive in that respect is triLing in
comparison with the advantage to be gained
by the impetus given to that peculiar interest
OF Richmond which lies at the very founda-
ton Of her future greatness rs Il city. / re-
jocc to believe that this future greatness is
almost inevitable, sooner or later, however it
may he retarded and diminished by unwisc
legislation. No one will gainsay the inest-
mable consequence of the great manulac-
turing facilities Of Richmond as an clement
of wealth.
There arc improvements now in progress
Of construction which are justly regarded n
promising the happicst results. Shall railroads
and the canal bring all the immense mineral
wealth and ether raw resources intended for
manipulation and manufacture and transmit
them through the city Of Richmond TO some
market having inferior facilities, and thus
lose the substantial benefit of stopping them
here, and the still more important benefit
of sending them away again manufactured
for use or consumption? But still
worse result follows this apathy. Shall
these resources remain hidden, and the
railroads and canal remain unemployed,
because we neglect the development of
this great manufacturing facility: That is
really the most DISASTROUS consequence. 1t
may lie true that in some measure these III
tcreSts should develop one the other. But
we are slugg;rdS il we fail to do all that pos
r sibiy can be done TO start the matter, or, rd-
thor, 10 mute THIS trddc. 1t would be better
10 have the mill for 4 time idly waiting for
the grist than 10 fail 10 produce the grain for
want OF the mill. The tritc reply would
+ lie repeated by some people TO the effect that
the water-poWer of Richmond has remained
+ lndevelopcd, and will continue so to remain
until individual enterprise develops it. Now,
, whether fortunate or otherwise, the fact is
, that One-lalf the Water-DOWcr of james river