The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-02-19

THE GOVERNORS RECENT MESSAGE RE-
ID yIEWED--THE RIGHTS OF: THE -CHEsA-
+! !lPEAKEAND OHIO RAILROAD AND OF THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA CoNsIDERED-THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY DEFEND
Ep-wHAT!THEw WORK CosT-THE ADvAE-
TAGEs OF HUNTINGTON AS A RAILROAD
TOWN. Jt.a.zz
The following letter to the General As.
sembly was written in reply to the special
message of Governor Kemper sent to the two
houses on Friday concerning the interest
OF the State in the Chesapeake and Ohio
railroad :: E ,f,t.>G'&9 ~ 3iGili27'
- CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RALR0AD,1
a. go. RECEIVERS OFFICE,
RICHMOND, Va, February II, 1877.
TO the Honorable Members Of the General
q, Assemblyof Virginia:
Gentlemen,--The Governor Of Virginia
yesterday sent you a message, in which he
claimed forfeiture to the State Of the prop
erty and franchises Of the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad Company. Ell ...rr. IS
AS the representatiYe OF the managers
and owners OF that property, it is my duty
to guard their interests whenever assaiied,
and it is proper should do SO in this case.
do not propose to comment or the taste,
temper, and time OF this assault upon their
rights, but simply by statements OF dry
facts and laws to refute all and singular the
positions
THE GOVERNOR HAS ASSUMED.
| And first, the sum expended on the Gov
ington and Ohio railroad by the State was
s3,l12, ,1s4.sa and not S5,OOo,oOo, as the
Governor states. The actual value OF the
work then done had greatly deprecated
during the eight years which had passed
since the State had stopped the construction,
and at the time of the contract with the Vlr-
ginia Central Railroad Company its actual
value to the State was nothing, and would
so have continued to this time had not that
contract been made; and, furthermore, it is
now a question whether the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railroad Company would not
have been benefited pecuniarily by abandon
ing the whole, or nearly the whole, OF the
work previously done by the State and
building new line.
THE WESTERN TERMINUS.
Second There was no designated point
on the Ohio to which the road was required
to be carried by any law of Virginia, at
any period, on failure Of reaching which
any forfeiture would accrue. The second
section of the act to incorporate the Gov
ington and Ohio Railroad Company, passed
February, 1866-Session Acts 1S65|66,
page 317-contains the only stipulation in
regard to the Ohio river terminus to which
in any law OF Virginia touching the charter
Of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Com
pany any forfeiture attaches, aud thut is in
these words "Upon condition that it shall,
within six months after its incorporation,
as provided in the tenth section of this act,
| efx mi LOFT
equip, and operate railroad from some
point ut or near Covington, Allegheny
county, Va, and connecting with the Vir-
ginia Central railroad by the way OF the
White Sulphur Springs and the valleys OF
Greenbrier river, New river, and kanawha
river, to point at or near the mouth OF
Scary creek, and thence to the Ohio river"
PROVISIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE ROAD.
4, Section of an act to provide for the COM
pletion of line or lines of railroad from
the waters Of the Chesapeake to the Ohio
river, passed March 1, 1s67-Session Acts
1S66-'67, page 705-provides: .
alt shall be the duty Of said company
within six years after its organization to
complete the railroad from Covington to the
Ohio river in style and with grudes and
curves not inferior to those adopted by G..
port and plans OF said work." .
And then enlarges the scope and priyi-
leges OF the company as follows:
| "And they may select the mouth OF Biz
Sandy river or the mouth OF the Great Ka-
nawha river as the Ohio terminus Of their
road, OF may construct branch OF their
road to both points,"
Together with the contract with the
Chesapeake and Ohio commissioners, these
two acts constitute the charter Of the Chesa-
peake and Ohio railroad.
THE QUESTION OF FORFEITURE.
This latter act, it will be seen, imposes no
forfeiture in this connection, but really only
enlarges our privileges as to building
branches, whilst the former act designates
only the Ohio ,irer as the point to be
reached, and there is nothing therein to in
hibit us from stopping at Guyandotte, Hunt.
ington, or any other point on the Ohio river
that the company might deem best. To the
Ohio riuer we put the road in operation on
its whole line from Richmond two years be-
fore our charter required us to do so, and
have thus fully complied with the require.
ments of the law.
I deny emphatically that "public policy
or the requirements of our charter forbade
the location of our western terminus at
Huntingdon and also "that great natural
obstacles render it comparatively inaccessi-
Bile to the river navigation Of the West
during the greater part OF the year."
HUNT1NGToN's ADVANTAGES.
On the contrary, assert that in regard to
the combined water facilities and adapta-
bllity for the transfer of river freights it is
far the best location betw cen Guyandotte
(where we first strike the Ohio Valley and
the Sandy, and that on an average there
are not three days in the year when
freights can be brought by water from Gin.
cinnati to the mouth OF Sandy that they can.
not be brought to Huntington; and I be-
lieve can 90 further. and make the same
remark, of Huntington and q point on the
river twelve miles east Of Cincinnati.
4 Third. The fact that we are claiming ex'
emption from taxation Is commented on
with asperity. In this the managers of the
road are but following the plainest dictates
of their duty, and are acting in full conso-
nance with an act Of your honorable body
passed April 90, 1S74-Session Acts 1874
page e54. -, .1e..
IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION. .s:s
The facts of the case are that at the time
the Virginia Central Railroad Company en-.
jtered into the contract for the construction
Of the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad the law
was construed not only by said company,
but by the commissioners with whom they
were contracting, as comforting upon the
company an entire immunity from taxation,
and this was one of the inducements ope-
rating upon the company to make the con.
tract, as is shown by the agreed statement
of facts in the suit referred to in the mes.
sage Of the Governor. 1t also appears from
said statement that the State authorities