Daily Richmond Times

The Lynchburg Virginian, remarking upon the passage of the Covington Railroad Bill in the House of Delegates, says:

We have not seen the bill and do not know what are the details, or whether the State Road is contingent upon the construction of the road between Staunton and Covington; or what guaranties are given that the latter improvement should not strike the James River at Buchanan. We are, therefore, not able to express ourselves fully upon the subject. But it strikes us as an unfortunate policy to pledge the State to the construction of a work of such magnitude, the very route of which has never been surveyed with care sufficient to justify any thing like a reliable estimate of its cost, and that too, some years in advance of the time when the work is to be begun.

We learn that there is every prospect of the Canal being extended from Buchanan to Covington. This would be in strict accordance with our usual policy, to make one improvement cut the throat of another. We hear also that there is little doubt of the passage of a bill, with State aid, for the construction of a road from Buchanan to Salem. This would seem to be necessary to cripple the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, in which the State is largely interested, and we may, therefore, conclude the project will succeed.

The Legislature, on Tuesday, also guarantied the bonds of the town of Petersburg, to the amount of $300,000, to be applied to the construction of the South Side Railroad. [Which, the Virginian does not add, is quite as much in conflict with the State's interest in the Danville Railroad, as the Covington Road with the extension of the Canal.]

The bill for the Covington Railroad merely makes provision for the extension of the Louisa Railroad from Staunton to Covington, and, as it passed the House was denuded of every guaranty for the farther prosecution of the work. We believe it contains no clause determinately fixing the route between Staunton and Covington.