The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-03-04
TTTECrTY-LfMITsE EXTENSION Ba 1Ll-
MEETING OF CITIZENS OF HENRIeo.
protest against the Passage Of s,se B,ll.

4 meeting OF, the citizens Of Henrico, en-
bracing about 800 persons, was held az the
county courthouse yesterday. Mr.. JACOB ;.
Alice was called to the chair and Daniel +.
Gardner, Esq, appointed secretary.
The Chairman stated that the object oil Inc
meeting was for the purpose Of conferrlng
tneethcr in regard to the bill now pending
before the Legislature which provides for
LAYING off, the streets within two miles OF the
present corporate limits, and to see what ac-
ton should be taken in the premises.
On motion Of DIR. w. J. Mayo, commit
tee of seven was appointed to prepare BUSH
ness for the meeting. The Chair appointed
4. R. Holiday chairman, and Messrs. VIII
liam J. Mayo, D. NJ. Haines, William Il.
| Polk, John 7. Schermerhorn, james L. Reid,
and John L. Grubbs.
After 1 short retirement the committee,
through their chairman, reported the follow
ing preamble and resolutions:
"Whereas bill is now pending before
the Legislature providing for the future ex'
tension of the city limits Of Richmond WITHIN
two miles of said city; and whereas SAID DlIl
is IN invasion of the rights Of the property.
holders of tue county of HenrIco within said
limits. a. well as arbitrary i'll its character !;
therefore he it
"Rcsolred, That we earnestly: protest
against the passage of said bill, and instruct
our representatives and request our senator
to Use their efforts to defeat the passage OF
said bill.
-. Rcsolred, That we approve Of Senator
Holladay's action in moving to 10y Tbs OH
unon the table, Which action meets our en-
tire appreciation.
Ir. Polk, Of the committee, protested
against the above action, having III lils hand
Il petition representing 1854 acres Of lana.
Mr.. Holiday in presenting the resolutions
remarked that the action Of the bill was an
invasion Of tho rights Of the citizens which
vas rot warranted by any clause OF the Con-
stitution. No man or set OF men had a rlsh1
to come onto his farm and say that here are 10
be your streets! Besides, the present corpo-
rate limits are sufficient for twenty, thirty,
or even fifty years TO come, ana ut was
dancing ahead OF the music to 90 Ii
now. No man who OWLS property contlSu-
Gus will Object to laying OF streets when the
population Of the city requires this for &C.
conmodatiou. The bill is too arbitrary in
lis character. No man can build III one OF
these projected streets, although on his own
property, because the city OF Richmond says
.sif YOU do we will tear it down when we
improve your street, and you shan't ger one
cent of damages. It would be imposing q
bindrance and an obstruction to the owner
upon the free use Of his property. 1t is in
possible on three sides of the city, on ac-
count of the formation of the ground, 10 lay
off streets in conformity with the present
streets OF the city.
Sir. John ?. Schemerhorn stated that he
was opposcd to the bill as it was reported
because it prohibited him from building i'll
the street; otherwise lie favored ii.
Mr. William r. Polk presented petition,
representinc 1854 acres, signed by persons
who CAME into his Office. lie did not sup
pose that it was necessary to say one word
in advocacy of the bill. He thought that the
proposition was a sclfeyidcnt one, and that
crei.yhcdy was in favor of it. The present
plan Of Richmond looks as if it had been
made BY a snake that had been crawling
around and got lost. There should be some
system in order to produce the symmetry
and beauty so much admired in cities; For
q great public good private rights must IN
some cases be infringed upon. But he did
not consider this case as one OF infringement.
Il would be worth thousands Of dollars TO
the landowners in the cost OF surveying,
p}ats, &C., to say nothing Of the advantage of
s,rai"ht and uniform streets. he knew per-
SONS living four miles from Tie city who
were anxious to have their property laid or.
and would be willing TO pay TO have it done.
IIr. Il. G. puiiaGl, OF Chesterfield, said
that a. son of Ucurico, nOT living III Cues
terrified, he wanted TO see this bill! passed ny
TIN. LEGISLATURE. The views Of the gentlemen
who proposed il in the General Assembly
were entitled TO great weight. The bill re-
ulircs payment for property taken or destroy
cd by the running OF streets, and 1t VIII
within four years make all the property SUR
rounding the city worth ten times its present
value. For che, owning property in the
county OF Chesterfield, he hoped that the opc-
ratioiis of the bill would not be confined to
the county Of Hcnrico, but would be eN-
tended across the river, aud take IN all the
properiy OH that side within the prescribed
limits.
Mr.. II. A. Atkinson, Jr., said that ne was
opposcd to the bill, Or any bill that the Lee
gislat,lre might pass before il was submitted
to tie people OF the county for ratification.
Il was an invasion Of lie rights OF indiv-
dltals, land we should demand that our lc-
cal rights be respected"
Mr.. Polk remarked that the city Of Chi
cago lad thrown out her lines twelve miles,
Huntington five miles, and 81. Louis very far
into the country. Tie greatest good to
the grcatcst number" should he cur motto.
He moved that The meeting adjourn TO some
ether time before taking action on this I'M
Ij0Itant subject.
Dir. Thomas Pollard seconded the motion
OF Mr.. Polk for postponclncnt.
Dr.. J. e. Beattic said that the idea that the
bill asked for the Use Of private property
without paying for it bad 10 foundation III
fact, and lie read from the bill to maintain
hi, position. He thought the city would, III
less than ten years, want all this property,
and size was now only asking that the pro-
perry sic would then take i'll should lie laid
out in advance. lie thought that no injury
could arise from this action; on the contrary,
it would be Of great advantage to the owncrs
of suburban property. ShaGc-lrcCS could DC
planted out, and other things done with re-
terence to the future streets. London has
had to Fay millions Of pounds for tie want
CT just such law as this.
Tie motion to adjourn WAS then taken
and lost.
Mr. John P. schermerhorn offered as
minority report the following, it being Part
of the majority report:
ReSOireI, That We earnestly protest
against the passage OF said bill, and Instruct
our representatives 10 Use their efforts TO de-
feat the passage Of said bill in its present
lorld."
This was defeated and the question re-
curling on the report CT the committce, it
was agreed to-about twenty-five persons
voting.
Mr.. \. Q. Holiday asked whether he was
to understand that the county wanted no bill
at al on his subject. lie asked that be
should be instructed as to what was wanted
Of him.
The meeting then adjourned without civ
ing him the desired instructions.
Lrh1 Enli1.,s.i l. tla ranLiLinI, rnt.ncral