The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-05-11
The City Council versus The City Rail
way Company.
RICHMOND. Nav 2. ISL.

RICHMOND, May 2, 1881.
EditorS Dispatch: A card appeared in
the DiSpGtch several days ago signed
- Manager City Railway Company con-
/ tanning certain criticisms upen the action Of
/ the Committee on Streets with reference to
| the c0mpany's petition TO extend its track
on Main street. which makes il proper 10
: ate the other side Of the case as the COM
mlttee understood il. The writer says the
! petition was presented in June. 1880, and
was reported 10 the Council in March, 1881.
| This leaves be impression that there was
unusual and unnecessary delay. The causes,
however. were perfectly well known to the
company, aud may be briefly stated here.
! The usual summer recess OF the Council
occurring immediately after the presenta-
| tiOn Of their petition, 1t was impossible TO
give II consideration until the Council re-
assembled in the fall. Domestic I'll ctiOn
in he family cf the president Of the COM
panv made It seem proper to postpone the
subject then for awhile; and similar atflc.
atiOn IN the fImily OF the chairman of the
committee again prevented conference on
! the subject. a. soon a. practicable, there
/ fore, and without any neglect Of the matter
on the part OF the committee. the president
Of the company was heard, and The petition
N
members for full investigation and report,
which was made to and adopted by the full
committee in February.
IL is true that the Committee on Streets
did not agree 10 the ordinance prepared by
the company. Whether or not the COM
mttee acted wisely. and with a due regard
to the city's interest, in Withholding IT,
sanction, IL iS content 10 leave 10 an Impair
tial public TO decide. Ii the company had
asked simply icr the privilege OF extend
ing its Track on Main street under the pro-
visions OF the ordinance now IN force there
j. no doubt the unanimous cOpsent OF the
committee would have been given, ana
could now he obtained. But the company
presented certain demands that the COM
mittee did DOT believe 10 be to the Interest
OF the city to adopt. Not having a copy Of
their proposed ordinance, | will have tg
state The points OF variance from recol.
lection.
First. The company asked an extension
OF their charter until l920--fOrty years from
The date Of their petition. The committee
thought it would be unwise 10 extend the
unusual and highy.favOrably privileges and
exemptions eDioyed by this company for 80
long time, covering period during which
we felt sanguine Of great increase in pros
perily and population; and before the eX-
piraiion of which term such monopoly
might grow in;o immense value, and de-
prive the city OF large revenues TO which
she would be Justly entitled from such use
OF her principal streets. But desiring TO be
exceedingly liberal, the committee granted
ten years dn addition TO the unexpired term
Of ten yeITs under their present charter),
making twenty years in all. surely this was
as far. II not farther, than we ought TO have
gone in that direction.
Second. The company desired the privi-
lege OF carrying, for hire, parcels and bag
gage, as well q, passengers, to the derois
aud all points 90 their route. DeemiDg this
to be an infringement upon the rights OF the
licensed express aud transfer companies
and tegmstefs OF the city. the committee re-
commended that this might be done only by
paving for the privilege such lieeuse-tax a.
the Committee on Finance should assess.
Third. The compnDy arked to be relieved
I'm the future from The requirement 10 keep
In repair the space between their trucks.
To this proposition We could not assent.
From The organization 0! The railway CON-