Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-06-03
ture has declared to be lawful. and what the

upon 10 the Inconvenience OF the general
public.
Sir. Meredith discussed the right OF tho
Council 10 grant the use OF electricity ss
motive power, snd insisted that the word
"borso-cars was intended 10 be descriptive
and not Initiative. lie called the attention
Of the Court 10 the act Of 1920,
allowing the city Of Richmond TO
grant the right 10 lay railways
IN It's streets. In that act no mention u
made as 10 the kind oi motive power 10 be
used; that the railways formed under Tie set
we're only 81 iect TO such restrictions a. the
Council might ipnosc; that The Union Pas
scnger. Railway Company bad been formC d
under that act; that that ac. had never been
repealed bv The granting OF the CITY charter ;
that Il bad not then been implicitly repealed
because e WIS not rcpugnaot to the city
charter. aud because the city charter did
not cover all the powers granted 10
that act, ~ that Act applied In some par
ticulars a. well - the county Of HenricO
as 20 the city Of Richmond; that not having
been repealed and there being 10 limitation
therein a. 20 the motive power 10 DC used,
the city bad the right 10 allow any slnd 81
motive power th1t would not be IN law q
nuisance; that the cbawCt Itself did not in
tend 10 conlne the CITY 70 authorizing only
hOrses as a motive power; tbatihe very next
section Of the charter authorized tire city 10
authorize The use OF steam and even - TX
the speed Of locomotives running through
the streets; thar TIL, LIT provision showed
that tho Legislature had not intended
10 be restrictive ~ 10 the KINDS %
motive power 20 be used. Such being the
case, it would be 50 upnect ssaiily strict con-
slruction 70 hold that by the word "hors"-
cars It was Intended by the LEGISLATURE 10
ifnlt the city 10 cars DRAM by horses only.
IIo coH'cnGed That the use OF electricity ana
the erection Of poles ana wires for ia tran'-
mission ere BOT regarded IS nulsances; that
IN order for thing 10 be y nuisance IL must
either be one held - such at common la7.
or declared 20 be such statutory enactment;
that m this STATE such poles aud wires we're
held 10y statutes not 10 be nuisances. but pub
lie needs and benefits; that the differ, ut STA
tulcs Of this State authorize the erection ~
poles and wires, The use Of e'eCiricy not only
for telegraphIc and telephone purposes, but
also for electric lights; that such Icing The
case, the use Of electricity As n motive
power for strcet-cIs could not be regarded
Hs nuisance, and hence that the city had
the right 70 authorize its u9e both by
reason Oh The act Of lSj9-'G0 and ty
reason OF the several provisions OF tue
charter referred to; that all doubt upon
this question wa removed by the actof 1887
onIarsing the powers OF the railway COM
pany that it was ibteHded by tie last sec
lion Of that act TO allow The CITY 10 authorize
the company 10 use such motive power as
the company might deem proper; tha, the
argument as 10 the cOnstitutionality OF The
act was vicious, because the title suiilclently
stated the purpose Of the act, and That the
disputed section OF the act beng germene
10 tae chief object Of the act did not contain
a second object.
Tpon this point he cited authorities.
MIR. Meredith urged that the seventh sec
ton should net be construed as the counsel
Tor the conplsinAnts Insisted; that IL would
have been useless for the Legislature TO cay
that the company might use such motive
poWer aS the cities are authorized To permit,
because il the cities were authorized TO per
nit the use Of certain motive power there
would be no need for the Legislature to say
that the cOnpgny might use such motive
pOWer; that II is rule Of construction 0,
statutes tks- no section shall be 80 construed
AS 10 be useless il il admitted Of any otncr
construction; thnt that section does admit
Of another construction which would pre-
vent IL from beng useless namely, That the
COMPANY may use such motive power az the
city Of Richmond may see III 10 permit, and
that under such legislative authority the city
had right to grant the temporary use OF
electricity as motive power.
lie contended that even il be bad been
unable TO satisfy the Judge az TO the right Of
the city to grant the franchise, yet be In
sisted that the Injunction should be dissolved
~ to the city Of Richmond and the Board OF
Aldermen; that at least It must be regarded
IS a disputed question whether the city had
the power 10 grant the C0ry'sireet franchise;
that under such circumstances the Court
should not allow the Injunction to
stand % against the Boa.d Of Aldermen;
that the Board OF Aldermen as now
constituted ceases TO exist on the LIST OF
July; that II will be impossible 10 appeal and
have the appeal decided before that day;
that therefore TO refuse 10 dissolve the IN
junction as 20 the Board would amount tn a
perpetual injunction against the Board, and
would totally deielt the ordinance, because
IL II be not passed 10y the present Board over
the veto Of the Mayor the veto stahcs and
the ordinance is dead; that unless The
Court clearly has authority to en-
ioin the Board, and unless the case
absolutely requires that they he enioined, 1t
would be unfair te deprive them OF dele
gated right to pass upon this question; that
a court ~ equity never makes an Injunction
more extensive than is absolutely necessary
20 pr0tccs the rights Of the compliments;
that II is not necessary 10 continue the in
junction against the Board of Aldermen in
order 10 protect tue rights OF the complain
ants in this case. II the injunction be dis
solved a. to The Board Of Aldermen the COM
plainauts viii be projected by continuing the
injunction against the company.
Hence, said Mr.. Meredith, no harm will
be done to the cOmpainanls by disSolying
The Injunction as 70 tie Board, bur an injury
would he done TO the Board Of Aldermen
and a BARN 10 the company may be done by
continuing the injunction against the Board.
Therefore the Injunction shoald he dissolved
as 20 The Board.
The case was here, at o'clock, submitted.
UNDER AMUSEMENT.
The Judge intimqied after the close OF the
argument that he was inclined TO believe
that a court Of equity had the power TO in
jeln the passage OF an ordinance by mu-
nicipal council II The ordinance was clearly
ultra uireS but that court OF equity would
require a clear case before granting such m
Injunction; that this case presented peculiar
why the Injunction should
not be continued unless tue case was
a very clear one; that no did not
mean by such iutimaion to say what
he would do, but merely TO show that he re-
garded that the case should have very full
that be would give it such
aud render his opinion in the next Two or
three days. aud desired that the large number
Of books which had been cited TO him on both
sides should be LETT by the counsel for his
use.
THE RETURN or TIE GRAYS.
Parade Of the First Regiment This
n..sr,.- IN VEatro.na urForn