The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1873-06-24

1t has beer suggested that by tile char
ter the company is bound to bring its rail-
road into Richmond, and that whcl a point
in Richmond has been agreed to by the
Council, 1t is not competent for the Council
or the company, or both acting together, lt-
gally TO remove it. The fallacy Of this ar
gument is so obvious that it is difficult to
suppose that it was dictated by anything
but that ptrtinac;ous and obstinate spirit of
monopoly which has SO strongly marked
the conduct of that company in its dealings
with Richmond, as VI ell as other bodies. in
destroying almost the most beautiful street
IN the city, regardless Of the losses of the
people, for little gain, aud in the deStruc-
ton OF the York River railroad by persecu-
ton, which superior wealth enabled it to
lniiict, thereby denying to the people of
Richmond the access to the eastern pal 1
OF the State, to Baltimore and the ocean.
which was so valuable and agreeable to
them by that route. In the first place. it
will be remarked, that Richmond, by the
charter of the company, is not the terminus,
but Tie starting point ofthe road Secondly.
that the charter does not designate a point.
but says "Some point, which NAV be an
proved by the Council" which means ann
point which may be approved by the Coun-
ell, and the road already has that point in
the city of Richmond, beyond the confines
OF Broad street, and vet within the limits
of the city; and if, therefore, the Council
should remove the railroad from Broad
street, it would still have proper starting
point. In the third place, if there be any
thing IN thus argument, it means that the
road can have but one starting point, and
when that has been agreed upon, it can
never be changed. If that be true, then
the starting point at the Petersburg depot.
or at the starting point above. should be
abandoned, for the charter, according to
that argument, is daily violated by the use
of two starting points. Again, the absur-
dty as well as the monstrosity of this ar
gument would be further developed by an.
other consideration. When the railroad
was permitted to come into Broad street
Richmond was not more than "a village.
Broad street was very thinly populated,
and very little used as a public mart or
boulevard.
1t might have been very well then to
permit the railroad to come down that
street as Tar as the level would permit,
1t is now a city Of probably 5000 inhabi-
tants, and it may become as large as New
York or Philadelphia, in the lapse of time.
1t might have become SO by this time, and
according to this argument, whenever
Broad street shall extend like Broadway.
from the Battery to the Park, or Chestnut
street in Philadelphia, by this argument it
must still remain unsettled, comparatively,
or ifin defiance of its dangers and nuisances
it should be thickly built up for miles, and
crowded with foot passengers or vehicles,
the Council OF the city, its guardian, shall
not have the power to protect its people
from the injuries to which they would be
exposed, and those which they would actu-
ally suffer, and steam cars must be allowed
to come rushing and crashing through them
at all hours OF the day, unless they would
pay their oppressors what they might
choose to charge for relief, and it is very
obvious from the spirit with which they
have opposed successfully the construction
Of another railroad from the North to Rich
mond, the utility of which we will not
discuss.) that the price which they will de-
mand will be enormous. But we venture
to affirm that this is the first instance in
which 1t has ever been asserted that the
parties to a contract even much less to a |
favor given and received, cannot by their
consent vary the terms of that contract
or even surrender them. And the railroad |
itself, while on the one hand it |
advances this idea, on the other cOntradicts |
it, by saying that if you will pay them
enough they will remove the road, unless
they mean to maintain that what cannot be |
done by consent without price, may be
done by consent for price.
Suppose such arguments to support such
rights were submitted to Philadelphia,
where the principal owners of this road re-
side, what do you suppose its council and |
the people would reply to them? We be-
lieve they would reply with the pick and |
the crowbar, if necessary. And while we
would have no unkind feeling to the Phila-
delpha stockholders, or any other stock |
holders. but the kindest feeling to all the |
that we know anything of per
sonally, we cannot forbear to ask : Is there
any justice or propriety in thus permitting
to put her foot upon Richmond
and to crush any part of it, and of the re-
representatives. of the State of Virginia, we
respectfully enquire what apology have you
for not uniting in the appeal of our people
to be relieved of the great grievance under
which they labor, and permitting arguments
to be put forth in your name for the COLI
tinuance of it?
In conclusion, we beg leave to sum up
our argument by saying that the interests
of the whole community are adversely az
fected by the continuation of this intolera-
BILE nuisance. If it were abated new life
would be impaired to Broad street. Splel.-
did stores and other edifices, public and
private, would speedily take the place of
many of the present buildings and all the
neighboring property would be enhanced
by the progress and completion Of these
improvements. Within five years the value
of real estate on Broad, Grace and Mar
shall streets would be increased at least
thirty per cent. and the revenue of the
ty therelrom in proportion.
We beg pardon for having protracted
this communication so far and conclude by
can earnest, respectful and confident ap
peal to you to remove the Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad from
Broad street.
Respectfully submitted.
David }. Saunders, Chairman, James
Lyons, Otto Morgenstern. Vincent Bar
gamin, George Klein, r. Ferrandini,
John Gr@me, F. Laube, John Iiouck,
II. l.. Wigand, Samuel Hirsh, P. W.
Grubbs. .......
rnMpREsSEn AIR -paTENT n rGIITc