The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-02-06
The Richmond and Allegheny RAILROAD,

The Richmond and Allegheny Railroad.
The Dispatch of the 31st, after simply
stating in its report of the proceedings of
The Legislature on the preceding day, that
Gen. Echols had made a speech against the
transfer of the canal franchises to the Rich
mond and Allegheny Railroad COMPANY.
proceeds to severely criticise that fact, with
out informing its readers of the drift of Gen.
Echols' argument. Common courtesy vould
have suggested that fair statement of Gen.
Echols' position, in his own Language, should
have accompanied the criticism, so that the
public might be able to Judge of the merits
OF the attack. This was not given, howev-
er, and that it was not, reflects no credit ~,
the Dispatch.
The same paper Of the Bird inst. renews
Its assault upon Gen. Echols because of the
speech first criticised. In this last attack
the writer overreaches himself, in the avow-
ed purpose to iniure Gen. Echols with his
own constituents, for it arraigns him be-
cause OF the support heretofore given to the
Valley Railroad enterprise. The D,spatch
assumes that Gen. Echols gave evidence of
hostility to Richmond because he supported
an improvement proposed to develop his
own section. and when completed, as it some
day will be, will open up region of country,
most OF whose trade will seek an outlet
down the Valley to Baltimore. 1t is the
same old song that has been rung into
the ears of the people from time whereof the
memory of man runneth not the contrary.
that every improvement that does not look
to Richmond as its objective point, is I'm
worthy the countenance of Virginians, and
that the whole State should pay tribute to
Richmond, regardless of the local interest
to be considered. 1t was the attempt to car
ry out such apolicy that piled up the debt Of
Virginia and deprived the Valley of con-
tinuous line OF railroad from one end to the
other with bonus to the State, for every
passenger carried over it. Richmond had
to be subserved and the Valley neglected,
while the people here were being taxed for
the improvements which contributed to the
emoluments of the State capital, and were
refused road, by Richmond influence, of.
fered to be constructed without one cent
cost to the State and even yielding a heavy
revenue directly to the State Treasury.
The reference in the article OF the 31st to
the State asylums located at Staunton, and
the fact that Richmond is taxed to support
them. is too pitiful and contemplate for no.
tice. If the people OF Richmond have any
sympathy with such sentiments, and be-
grudge the portion they are assessed for the
support of institutions whose charities
reach to every portion of Virginia, and are
the pride and property OF the State and live
in the hearts of Christian and philanthropic
people of every section and part OF the Com
monwealth, we pity them. If so, they have
their prototypes in the Pharisees Of old.
But as to the real cause of this assault
upon Gen. Echols and the valley-his views
of the transfer Of the valuable franchises of
the canal and the almost completed road
bed from Buchanan to Clifton Forge, to the
Richmond and Allegheny Railroad Compa-
ny. AS we have stated, we have not seen
Gen. Echols' argument, but we have no
doubt he has good reasons for the position
he has taken. We do not think that he or
any other Virginian would oppose the con-
struction of a railroad up the James River
Valley. 1t is one thing to promise and an
other to execute, and we should not consid-
er it craftsmanship to transfer the valuable
franchises OF the canal to the railroad, upon
mere promise to construct the road. We
have had too much of this transferring bu-
siness since 1865 without an equivalent. If
it is the purpose Of the Railroad Company to
build the road, its friends should not object
to the amendments of Mr.. Bernard and DR..
Moffett, and the very fact that these amend
ments are opposed, leaves ample ground
for the suspicion that there is a huge job in
the whole affair. As we stated some weeks
ago,the question of the certain construction
OF the road should be so guarded as to leave
no doubt Of the consummation, and tn 9
amendments which the friends of the Rail-
road Company oppose, look to that very
object. If Gen. Echols was not satisfied
that there was good faith in the proposed
construction of the railroad, it was his duty
to oppose the transfer and guard the valua-
BILE property of the State. The water rights
embraced in the canal franchises, to say
nothing of the tow-path as completed bed
for the road. and the graded sections be.
tween Buchanan and Clifton Forge, possess
immense value, and would amply repay Tor
the forfeiture the Railroad company stpu-
lated to make. We do not want the forfeit
ure but the railroad, and the Legislature
should see to it that no sharp practice or
huge job hidden beneath all this furry
and hurrah which seem to surround this
project.
We shall hereafter look into this question
more seriously, and see if we cannot give
reason or two for the position of Gen.
Echois. Certainly, if it becomes question
of competition between the James River
Road and the Valley Road, as the Dispatch
seems to intimate, and the friends of the
Valley are to be denounced and bull-dozed
because they support Valley interests, there
will not be much difficulty in answering the
Disp0tcA's complaints and assaults before
Valley people and all others who are rea-
sonable and fair.~ Gen. Echols is a Valley
man as well as Virginian, and as repre-
sentative of the Valley, he is in duty bound
to protect its interest, while he takes in his
comprehension the interests of the whole
State, as well. The fact is the people of
Richmond, or some few Of them, lead by
such superficial and sensational publications
as the Dispatch, have lost their heads about
this proposed Railroad. They are rushing
pell nell for it, without considering the
magnitude of the consideration asked for
its construction, or carefully guarding the
interests involved. The incorporates have
no peculiar love for Virginia which impels
their proposition. 1t is for personal gain,
and it should be well understood and Sc
verely stipulated that the State is to gain
something, too, and not be placed at the
mercy of selfish spectators.
We have suggestion to make to some of
our friends who object to the 5 per cent. ar
rangement in the bondholders' proposition,