The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-07-02

Provisional tOvefnmnnt, was useu until 1851.
In the volume of ordinances published that
year, which wptt adopted as whole on the
18th of March, on page 3G we flhd the fol-
lowing ordinance
"The seal Of the city Of Richmond shall
continue to he the same in form and style as
1t was used prior to April, 1865"
Under this ordinance new seal was en-
graved, and it is the one how under discus
sion. It isa little larger in diameter thanany
of the others above described, the device and
motto the same as those on the seals used
from 1906 to 1865, but the execution is very
inferior to either of the other three which
have been described, and by All egregious
blunder the date in the legend is "July the
10Th, 1885," .s'
An examination of the facts, which are
narrated above, shows that his Honor the
Mayor is correct in the criticism he makes
upon the, Present city -sa'l; the date upon it
Is not only sanctioned by no event t6tiiieeted
with the history of the city. but both the day
of the month and the number of the year
also can only be attributed to the most mex
cusable carecssness. Wesee that the date of
July 0, 1872, was on the seal used from 1906
Until 1919 Upon the seal then introduced
it was altered to July 18th, 1882, and thus
continued until 1865, when it was repeated
,ipon the seal of the Provisional manage
ment; but when this was superseded by the
seal now in Use it was again changed, and
made July 10Th, 1889. All of these various
'bluntleIs grew out of the omission on the
part of the city fathers when they adopted a
seal to have description of the same en-
tered upon the journal or In their book of Or
dinances. Those who are curious In such mat
tiers will find recorded, with minute details,
in the proceedings of the Continental Con-
gress, description of the seal adopted for
the use Of the United States, and in like man:
ner the convention of this State in 17IG, in
ladopting seal for Virginia, made every de-
! tail Il matter of record, thus giving pernEi-
| nence to the device and description more
enduring than the metal upon which they
are engraved. But we fail to find in the
records Of proceedings or in the ordinances
| adopted by the Common Hall or City COun-
Gil single entry describing any combination
of figures or words as the official emblem of
| the city. That the members of the Common
Hall were aware of the importance OF having
seal is evident from their proceedings in
their second meeting-viz., july 10th, 1872,
above quoted, but the committee to whom
| the matter was entrusted neglected their
| ulllS lUl LDlcc anu w iSpoio up
| to that time the Common Hall adopted the
| private seal of Mr.. Robert Mitchell, Mayor.
| This appears to have answered the purpose
| until 1906, when the first seal made for the
| city was introduced and used until 1919,
when another was obtained and used until
| 1868, to be succeeded by another which was
discarded in 1867, to he succeeded by the one
now i'm use; and, strange as it may sound,
not only arc no two Of these exactly alike,
| but worse than this, not one of them had
any legal sanction, nor have we any clue to
the meaning of their inscriptions. 1t is
| therefore evident that we have never had i
city seal The authority Of which could be
| supported by anything else but usage,
Thanks to the perception of Mayor
| Kelley, the attention of the Council having
| been called to the subject, the duty now de-
| wolves upon this body 10 rectify the blum
| dcTs. We have confirmed his statement and
given such information rs We deemed ncccs.
S,ry to place the subject properly before
| YOU, and we therefore recommend the adop-
| ton of the following resolutions:
RcSolred, That Il committee of three be
| appointed to prepare designs to be presented
to the Connect for an official seal for the city
| of Richmond.
,. 10 report an ordinance making legal all
acts and deeds performed under the sanction
Of the seals hitherto used, and for the adop'
ton of the design which may be accepted by
| the CITY Council.