The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-06-09
LOCAL MATTERS.

| TIE SIEE.TRAcK ON Dock STRgET-A Con-
! rREHESsivE REPoRT FROM THE CITY ATToR-
| SEY-THE QUESTION OF STEAA-LoCoMOTlvEs
Some time ago petition was presented to
| the City Council from the Richmond and
Danville Railroad Company asking the priVi.
| lcge of laying side-track on Dock street be.
| tween Seventeenth and Eighteenth streets.
! The petition was referred to the Committee
on Streets and reported upon by them. Sub
scqueutIy it was referred 10 the city attorney
| for his opinion. At the meeting Of the Com
mon Council held on Monday afternoon the
following report from the city attorney,
covering the whole subject, was presented
and adopted. The attorney for the city
says: ....,.t,.. ......- ....,,....
Respectfully returned to the Board Of
| Aldermen. The privilege of laying side.
track on Dock street, asked for by the Rich
mond and Dauville Railroad Company, is
objected TO by the York River Railroad Com.
pauy as violation of q contract between it
and The Danvie Railroad Company. -.
"The records Of the Council show that
Dock street was widened for the purpose Of
securing connection between the two rail.
roads. One.fourth of the expense was borne
by the city; the residue was borne equally
by the two railroad companies. The contr-
though it was doubtless expected that mate.
rial benefit from the connection would accrue
TO the trade of the city. 1t was distinctly
understood at the time that steam:locomo-
lives would not be used upon the connecting
track. --------...... ..-.---.-.-.
"The effect of granting the petition in this
case would be, in measure, to convert that
part of Dock street through which it is pro-
posed TO run the side.track into depO. for tue
Danville Railroad Company, private corpo-
ralior. Such usage Of public street is not
| to be ADVISED except in case Of public neceS-
sity. However, should it be the pleasure OF
| the Council to license this proposed work
| the rights of the people Of Richmond could
! best be guarded by making the license revo-
cable at the will Of the City Council, or
either bIauch of the body, or at the will CT
| the Mayor Of the city.
by lin ordinance of the city passed De.
cemher 23, 1871, (printed ordinances, 1870,
p. 2I) the Chesapeake and O1lo kallrond
COMPANY is authorized TO construct several
branches to its road within the corporate
| limits, and to work the same with ordinary
| engines and cars This ordinance is pro.
posed as contract by its terms, and was &C.
cepted by the railroad company soon after
its passage. Large powers are conferred by
this ordinance TO enable the company to con.
struct these several branches. These powers
are fully set forth in the ordinance, and need
not be here enumerated. fhe third para.
| graph Of section authorizes tue company to
build branch from either of the branches
before designated in the ordinance, or from the
company's warehouses and wharves. by any
practicable route, from the eastern limits OF
the city between Main street and James river
/ ,,,hf aSr fhnnNo hpf IN hD
northern line of Cary street and james river
| to near HaNall's mills, and thence between the
| river and the canal to the western limits OF
the city. The construction of this branch
| last mentioned would most interfere with
the ordinary and legitimate uses of the streets.
| The city reserves to its Committee on
| Streets Generally the right TO supervise the
| work and TO restrict the rate OF speed ulfon
| the three branches to four miles per hour.
| 1t clearly contracts that steam may be used
upon these braDcheS, and the company Is
| required, where 4 grade is changed to the
damage of private property, to pay such
| damage.
| Necessarily, in the construction Of the
! work authorized by this ordinance, private
property would have to be taken, and it Is
very questionable whether the City Council
| has power 10 authorize railroad company
| 10 take private property for It's uses In the
extension Of it's lines. 1t seems to me that
sucn grant, to be valid, can only emaDate
from the sovereign Legislature Of the State.
but whether the contract be valid or
not, it is mos. probable that our courts
| would hold, notwithstanding lts PLAIN terms,
that the City Council would have the right
to inhilil the nse Of steam-locomollves IN
the corporate limits. Should it be the de-
sire of the Council TO reScind the ordinance
so far as it would authorize the construction
| of the branch herein particularly described, I,
| it had better be done 1T once, or at least be.
| fore the company have expended money and
labor upon the faith Of the assurance given
| by the ordinance. The question, however,
| is not likely to be a practical question for
some time to come.
"The connection road between the ,Frede-
ricksburg and the Petersburg railroads has,
however, under its charter, the right to, use
am.locomotives on its road; indeed, With
out the use of steam the work would be al
| most useless. f- .s..l ..4,. ,.t....;,. -. -
"The city, in its agreement with this COM
pany, has reserved the customary police
powers. The reservation would not ordlna-
rily suffice to exclude the use OF locomotives
propelled by'steam, but under the decisions
! in this State, no reservation OF power Is ne
cessary to effect such an emu. The city has
inherent powers to exclude their use within
its corporate limits, and that, too, without
making compensation tor the loss or destruc-
ton OF property" ...a.