that the act of the company in running steamboats on the river is not warranted by its charter; as they believe the design is to crush all competition, and to monopolize the travel between Richmond and the northern cities, and then increasing the rates of travel on the bay above the rates on the railroad, to drive all travel to the railroad, they regard it as an abuse of its charter.

Your petitioners further state that the Richmond and Petersburg railroad company was incorporated in the year 1836, and subsequently came under the provisions of the general railroad law.

The provisions of this charter are similar to the provisions of the charter of the Richmond, Fredericksburg aud Potomac railroad company. Your petitioners are advised that all arrangements and expenditures of money by this company to run steamboats on the river and bay are illegal.

Your petitioners further shew that the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company, at its meeting in May 1844, passed a resolution, by which the president and directors were authorized to invest in such manner as they may deem most for the advantage of the stockholders, any amount which they may deem expedient to retain as a permanent contingent or sinking fund; and any surplus funds which they may from time to time have on hand, and which it may seem to them most advisable to invest temporarily. See 29th Report of the Board of Public Works, page 418.

Under these resolutions the fund was created with which the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company engaged in the steamboat line from Norfolk up James river.

In the report of the president of this company to the Board of public works, (see 30th Report Board Public Works, page 127,) he says, the Board of public works are aware that passengers between Richmond and Washington are conveyed by this company in connection with a company on the Potomac, incorporated by the state of Maryland that the prosperity of the railroad line is in consequence greatly dependent on the proper management of the steamboat line, and it is obvious that the prosperity of both companies is materially so on their concert and co-operation. And to secure this more effectually the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company agreed if the steamboat company would elect the president and directors of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company, directors of the Maryland steamboat company, then either the stockholders of the railroad company, or the company itself, would take from the steamboat company thirty-one thousand dollars, more than half their stock. This arrangement was subsequently carried into effect, and the railroad company took twenty-three thousand dollars of the stock. See 31st Report Board Public Works, p. 411.

The Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company in their report of the 19th November 1846, state that the directors of the Washington and Fredericksburg steamboat company have deemed it expedient on behalf of that company to co-operate in protecting the interest of the great mail line by running the Mount Vernon, one of the boats of that company, at a reduced rate of fare between Acquia creek and Baltimore. The effect of this measure is stated to be, to retain to the Richmond and Petersburg and the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac railroad much of the travel which would otherwise be diverted from the whole line by the reduced rates of fare of the James river and bay boats, (and by the connexion with the Port Walthall association,) to prevent the attempt to divert the travel from the mail line being profitable to the proprietors of the opposing lines. It is stated to be the purpose of the directors to make the line by the Potomac a tri-weekly line, and if the travel should permit it, a daily line. And it is stated to be understood that the Norfolk and Port Walthall association design to place a boat of great speed on the route between Norfolk and Port Walthall, and to make the line a daily one as soon as the daily line is resumed by the river and bay boats. It is stated that these measures must ere long make it the policy of the river and bay companies to be content with the portion of travel they would obtain at their regular rates of fare, and abandon the injurious competition which has been kept up by them for the last eighteen months, with a view of diverting the through travel from the inland route. See Report, page 407. Your petitioners regard this portion of the report as a distinct avowal of the determination of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company, in connection with Port Walthall association and the Washington and Fredericksburg steamboat company, to run an opposition to these petitioners between Norfolk and Richmond.

Before the manner of running this opposition is noticed, your petitioners desire to repel the imputation, that they were improperly interfering with the travel of the railroad line.

As has been already stated, your petitioners run a steamboat line from Richmond to Norfolk. This line passes the terminus of the City Point railroad, and also meets the line from Baltimore in the bay. Your petitioners carry on their boats all passengers desiring to go from City Point by the bay; and all who may desire to return on this route. As an accommodation to the passengers, they are permitted at each end to pay their fare through, and are entered on the waybill, and the agent of each line hands over their fare with the waybill.

There is no arrangement by which the passengers are charged less for taking this route, by taking a through ticket; nor is there any arrangement by which any company pays a premium in the form of a reduction of its fare, (or in any other mode,) for travel on this line.

Your petitioners therefore regard the imputation in the report, that they were not content with the proportion of travel which they would obtain at their regular rates of fare, and that they for the last eighteen months had

been keeping up an injurious competition with the railroad line, as unfounded, and intended to give some plausible excuse for the abuse of the corporate powers of the company.

The manner in which this opposition is conducted, as far as it has been developed, is as follows:

The Richmond and Petersburg company, under their charter, constructed a branch road to Port Walthall. To aid this road, they purchased the steamboat Chesapeake ostensibly as a towing boat.

Your petitioners are advised that in purchasing this steamboat and running her on the river, the Richmond and Petersburg railroad company exceeded their powers. The act of incorporation gives this company power to purchase all machines necessary to run on their railroad, but gives no power, either expressly or by implication, to purchase steamboats and run them on the river.

The report of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company, above mentioned, shews that a concerted arrangement was entered into by that company, the Washington and Fredericksburg steamboat company, the Richmond and Petersburg railroad company and the Port Walthall association, to run a line from Norfolk to Baltimore. This is more fully disclosed in the report to the stockholders, at page 413 of the 31st annual report of the Board of public works, and in the letters of the presidents of the railroad companies, pages 417 to 421 of same report.

From this last document it appears that an association called the Port Walthall association, is formed to run a line of steamboats from Norfolk to the Port Walthall branch of the Richmond and Petersburg railroad. From this point passengers are conveyed in connexion with the association over the railroad to Petersburg or Richmond or to the Potomac, and thence by the steamboat line to the District of Columbia or to Baltimore.

The terms on which this line is run are, three fourths of all receipts for travel between Richmond and Petersburg are to be paid to the Port Walthall association, one fourth to the railroad company, and the whole receipts on through travel from Norfolk to any of the towns of the District of Columbia for two years are to be paid to the association. See page 417.

It has already been shewn that the Washington and Fredericksburg steamboat company is under the control of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac railroad, and the same persons are the directors of each company. The Port Walthall association is said to consist of three hundred and sixty shares of stock, of which 125 shares belong to the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac railroad company. Who are the holders of the residue of that stock is unknown to your petitioners. Your petitioners have no doubt the company was organized by the exertions of the officers of the railroad companies and is under their control.

It is obvious from the above mentioned arrangement that the railroad companies are paying to the association a bounty or gratuity to run an opposition to your petitioners.

The whole fare of the railroad on through travellers from Norfolk to the cities of the District of Columbia is given to this asseciation. This is a mere bounty-and your petitioners are advised that it is a misapplication of the funds of the company. The sum earned by the passage of these persons over the railroad is as much a part of the profits of the road as sums paid for any other passengers; and the donation of this money to a steamboat company, to sustain it in an effort to crush an opposing steamboat company, is not warranted by the railroad charters. If this is a legitimate use of the funds of the railroad, then with equal propriety, the railroad may to sustain an opposition to proprietors of canal packets or stage lines, who may have incurred the displeasure of the company by refusing to be subservient to its supposed interests.

Your petitioners believe this bounty is for the sole purpose of ensuring a profit to the steamboat association. They also believe the arrangement of the profits of the travel from Norfolk to Richmond and Petersburg is made with the same view, and the railroad receives far less from the traveller on this route than it does from any other travellers on their road.

The two boats first run by the Norfolk and Port Walthall association were the Chesapeake and Augusta. The Chesapeake is owned by the Richmond and Petersburg railroad company, and is entered at the customhouse in the name of M. Robinson, trustee of the Richmond and Petersburg railroad company. Why the boat is thus registered is unknown to your petitioners. The other boat, the Augusta, is not registered at the customhouse, and your petitioners do not know by whom she is owned.

They have recently been informed that the directors of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company have ordered the Mount Vernon to James river, to run as one of the boats of the opposition line.

This proceeding your petitioners feel they have a right to complain of. The two railroad companies are furnishing the boats to be run in opposition to them.

One of these boats it is true is nominally the boat of the Maryland company. But as more than one third of the stock of that company is owned by the railroad company, and as by an agreement between the companies the directors of the railroad company are directors of both companies, the boat ought to be regarded as furnished by the railroad company.

In another respect this proceeding is objectionable.

Your petitioners believe the state of Maryland never would have granted a charter to a company to run steamboats on James river. But the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company having procured the control of the Maryland company, are using it to crush individual exertions on James river.

Your petitioners would further state, that in consequence of the remonstrance of the Board of public works, the one hundred and twenty-five shares of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac company in the Port Walthall association were sold to individuals; but whether the money was paid the company, or is still due, your petitioners are not informed. If still due, the company is furnishing the capital by which the opposition to your petitioners is sustained.

Your petitioners believe that your honourable body have power to relieve them from the ruin to which they are exposed by the acts of these companies, both as legislators and as the public authority, which may in the last resort control the stock of the commonwealth in these companies.

They pray that your honourable body will interpose and afford them such relief as it is in your power to grant.

THE PETITION

OF

THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO VOTERS OF THE COUNTY OF HENRY,

Praying the Repeal of the Free School Law passed at the last Session of the General Assembly, so far as the same relates to that County.

To the General Assembly of Virginia.

Whereas, the legislature of Virginia, at its last session, adopted a "system of free schools," especially to be submitted to the people of several counties of the state at the spring election of 1846; and Henry county being included in that number of special counties, a poll was opened accordingly at the last election to ascertain the sense of the people upon the subject, which resulted in the adoption of the law by the majority required for that purpose. After a careful examination of the law in all its bearings, and already feeling to some extent the oppressiveness of its practical operation, your memorialists deeply regret that such a law was ever carried into effect, and are fully satisfied that had it been understood by the good people of Henry, it would not have received (as it did at the election) their support. At the time of the election we would represent that the subject was not understood by the people, for it was brought to their notice but a few days before, and met with the decided support of both candidates, whig and democrat. In fact it was not at all canvassed by any person previous to that time, so as enable any one to understand the various features of the bill. Its friends represented it in a highly favourable light. Our late delegate from this county gave it his decided support, and other talented gentlemen coöperated with him in impressing the public mind most favourably towards this scheme, whilst no one took any decided stand in opposition to it. At the time of the adoption, no one had the means of examining the details of the plan, for it had only reached the county in the sketches of the acts, which had had but a limited circulation; and many voters were for the first time apprised of the fact that they had to vote upon this subject on the very day of the election, while others, as they have since asserted, were under the impression that they were voting upon a mere question of education to be attended by very little expense: That our people were grossly deceived there can be no doubt, and as proof of this fact we respectfully refer your honourable body to the petition herewith transmitted, shewing that legally qualified voters, besides much the larger portion of whom were qualified to vote by the peculiar provisions of this law, have deliberately signed, praying for its immediate and unqualified repeal. At our election last spring, precisely 500 votes were polled. Our present delegate received of that number 261 votes, making 100 votes more than he received at his election. From this statement of facts it is apparent that there is now in the county a majority praying for the repeal of said law. In addition we state it as a fact known to us certainly, that there are many who from pride of opinion, or some other motive, yet decline to sign the petition for the repeal, while they express themselves decidedly opposed to it; and others have not yet signed, who desire to do so, for the reason that they have not had an opportunity of seeing the petition. We believe and therefore state that if the whole vote of the county was polled, it could not exceed 600. During the heated and zealous political struggles in 1840 and 1844, 547 votes was the largest number ever polled in this county; and this fact appears by a reference to the pollbooks of these years. As a further proof of the fact that a majority oppose this law and desire its repeal, we refer the legislature to the fact that the friends of this system have also publicly circulated a petition in its favour, and that they had asserted that theirs in favour of the continuance of the law outnumbered that for its repeal, and that they had many names upon their list which had signed ours. Upon this declaration being made by the friends "of the school," a public proclamation was made on the court-green requesting all persons who wished to withdraw their names from the repealing petition, to come forward and do so. Two names, and two only, were stricken off by request. Notwithstanding their boastings about their number, we venture the prediction that no petition ever reaches the legislature against the repeal of the law with as many as 100 names appended to it, notwithstanding one of the deputy sheriff's has actually circulated one in its favour, and this fact we urge upon the notice of your body, as decided exertions have been made

to procure them. If, however, they present any petition, we venture that they will not subject theirs to the rigid scrutiny by the revenue books, which that in favour of its repeal has already undergone. They cannot possibly get a majority of qualified voters, for we believe and confidently assert that we have already obtained that against the longer continuance of this oppressive and unjust system.

We would further represent, that in our opinion, no county in the commonwealth is less adapted to an experiment of this sort than ours. We have here an unusual monopoly of land, of which a few individuals own large and extensive tracts, of size sufficient of themselves for school districts. And in consequence of the mountainous face of the county in some portions, the population of which is sparse, the districts have been so extended, as to render it not only inconvenient, but almost impracticable for many persons to send to schools at all. If this system should become the settled policy of the county, many of our citizens who are thus remotely situated from the schoolhouses, will still be compelled to submit to the tax, and either incur the further expense of boarding their children or not send them to school at all.

Another great objection to this law is, that it arrays one class of the community against another, and appeals are sometimes made to the very worst feelings of the human heart. Your memorialists, without being constitutional lawyers, would respectfully suggest that a principle has been engrafted in this scheme, which is in direct conflict with the spirit of our government, as well as unwise and dangerous in practice. The power to vote a direct tax upon property is given to the man who is himself utterly destitute, when the moneys thus raised are to be applied in part to his own benefit to an equal extent with him from whose industry it has been raised. And the legislature will observe that the power of the board of school commissioners to tax under this law is unlimited. We urgently protest against this unwise and dangerous innovation upon all free principles, and the power which the legislature has assumed of extending the right of suffrage to persons unknown as electors to the constitution, and thereby giving them indirectly legislative powers. We have always regarded the power of taxation as dangerous even when it is secured by most positive and wholesome restrictions. But by this plan a corporation is created with the unqualified and unlimited authority of taxing the people of Henry at pleasure, and from that oppression there is no reasonable and proper mode of escape, save by petition to the legislature for its repeal. We are disposed to redress our grievances only in a proper manner, and for this reason we are now asking its repeal at your hands. Your memorialists have already felt the unjust and unfair operation of the first levy made by this corporate body upon the people of this county. A very large majority of those who are authorized by this law to vote it into existence, pay very small taxes under its operation. Twenty-five or thirty men pay at least one half of the tax, while of that number, six or eight do not and cannot at any time receive any benefit whatever from it. Thus the property of our county by this new fangled law is placed practically in the hands of those who feel no sympathy with the property holder, but on the contrary are actually benefitted to the extent that a tax is imposed for the support of the system. In this state of things and with this galling yoke upon our necks, we appeal to the legislature as the guardians of our rights, and pray that we shall be protected against the operations of this law, by which inducements are held out to the worthless and the idle to tax the man of substance for the benefit of the former. We state and believe if a vote, according to taxation, could be taken upon this plan, that nine tenths of the tax paying interest would oppose it. Your niemorialists however, would not be understood as stating that this feeling is universal, or that it is the design of the friends of this law, but they urge it as one of its natural results. Many of our citizens, too, whose immediate interests would be promoted by this law, nevertheless are its opponents, for the reason that it is unfair and unjust in its direct operation; and by their just and most creditable opposition we have been enabled to obtain a commanding majority in favour of its repeal. The amount levied by the board of school commissioners at their first annual meeting was $3500, just the amount of tax imposed upon the county to support our civil list, &c., and this sum of $3500 has to be applied to the building of the schoolhouses, &c. You will observe that by this levy the tax of the county is precisely doubled. In addition to this they have lately had a meeting, and resolved to employ twenty-two teachers (that being the number of districts) for the next five months, with the understanding if they are approved that they are to be continued ten months at the prices of from $225 to $300. Also a correspondence was directed to be opened for the purpose of procuring books, English and classical, and of ascertaining the price of the requisite stationery for the schools. From this last act, now a law in Henry, you will see the next year's taxes in this county will be as follows: