Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-10-02
BELT LINE MATTERS.
APPLICATION OF DR.. PATTERSON FOR
AN INJUNCTION.
Does tho Charter Of the Fredericksburg
Company Arthorize It Ia Build Such
an Extension n This?

/
connection not in Richmond but a short
distance west Of the city.
Already the greater part of the grading
and masonry has been done, and the iron
bridge TO 90 over the James IS ready 10 be
sent here from the North TO be placed on
the piers.
From time TO time the railroad compa-
MICS have met with various legal obstacles
growing ont of the condemnation Of lands.
The most serious questions have been
! raised by Dr. II. A. Patterson. who insists
that the fredericksburg Company has no
chartered rights to build such an exten-
sion as this and cannot do so under the
general railroad law: also, that If 1t has
any such authority from any source what
ever il must deposit with the Court the
value Of the condemned land, - assessed
by the commissioners, before II eau begin
work upon his land.
This point Judge Wexford Yesterday
practically decided well taken. The other
great question was ably argued before the
Judge by Messrs. Courtney IL Patterson
for petitioner. DR.. r. A. Peterson; and by
Mr.. W. G. Preston and Messrs. Leake u
| Carter for the railroad company.
| Judge Wexford took all the papers in the
case and announced that he would prOba-
bly, be able to render his decision tO-mor-
row.
|
appeal case Of Buchanan against the trede-
ricksburg Railroad Company-an appeal
from the decision of the commissioners
awarding damages, which the appellant
considers inadequate.
THE CHARGE IN THE BILL.
Following is the charge in the bill which
seams 10 be of most Importance 10 the pub
lie:
Tho said proposed railroad branches Off from
the main stem Of the Rich Ond Fredericksburg
| and Potomac railroad at point ehout one mile
and half north Of the city OF Richmond anu
| running through the most valuable OF the su-
! burbs In 2 southwestern direction q point ON
james river about two and ono half miles west OF
! said city. connects With q branch Of the Richmond
ana Petersburg railroad tthe bridge across the
| river beiug butt by the two companies jointly;
| ana IN tho said two brancn roads arc completed
| aud put into operation. large part OF trade and
travel over said Richmond, fredericksburg and
/ Potomac railroad viii pa 3 by the city ot hlch-
mond through the counties OF Honrico ana Nhc5-
| tcrfied. without entering or in any manner
Lenenting said city.
II Is evident on tho face OF tho charter Of sal
| Richmond. Fredericksburg and Potomac Rail
road Company thaI 1t was intended that The city
| of Richmond should DO the southern terminus o:
| said road and its only southern terminus, and
said charter was granted Tor the oeneht oil tAe
city Of Richmond, the capital OF the state
Your orator, therefore, charges that tho con-
! atrurion Of the said branch road for tho purpose
| stated above. is not only not within the authority
given by said charter, tut in express violation OF
! the plain tntent and meaning thereof IL Is
c,nimed by the -aid rlilrJal company that lhe
| said branch or lateral road is Outt IN pursuance
! OF authority glyon In section of sad act OF III
| corporation. Bat your orator denies that sall
| section authorized the construction OF any such
| road. The lateral or branch roads thefeDy au-
! thori1cl were intended 10 be feeders TO tho main
line, whose only southern terminus Is klch-
| Dond. Il was expected AMI intended that by tho
lateral roads thereby authorized the city or ltch-
| moni was TO be benefited. IL WAS not intendel
thai by means Of the said lateral roads the trade
/ ana travel OK said Richmond Fredericksburg
| and Potomac railroad should DE diverted from
| Richmond. and thar said city be injured thereby.
| The aid proposed rOal VIII Dc connecting
link between the ri hmOn1, frederlcksDurs
| and Potomac railroad and the Richmond AMI
| Petersburg railroad, anu the building Of II -
| not only not authorized by the charter. but is
| positively prohibi-ed by the general railrotl
| law Of the states Section 1925, Code OF lss1.
! provides that two railroads terminating n tho
/ same city Qkc the kich frcierlcSsDurg
I AID Potomac aud the lNchnond anu fetersbdrs
/ Terminating In Kchmond) shall not conh'.L
or life OF SAID city without hrst applying % san
b city for permission 90 connect within ~ nnlls'
/ Your orator ayors and charges that 5u'h an ap-
| puratiOn has not 'en ma1o % tho city OF hlch-
| mouI. and that said two companies laYo not
| boen refused permission 10 connect "ith'h sald
! city. And your OrasOr for TINS reason also
| In entering upon ami taking your orators land
| a. aforesaid for the purpose of connecung WIN
tho Richmond aud Petersburg railway outside OF
| Richmond arc Illegal
ANswEn or THE COMPANY.
The answer Of the railroad company to
the above charge is as follows:
This respondent denies that It is IT, purpose
in building said branch road 10 diyort any tr1f-
H. from the city u Richmond. The principal
rcason which induccd this respondent 10 buIi
ini- branch line IS because ot tho inahhty Oh
| this company 20 obtain any suitable connection
with tho acamOni AMI Petersburg railroad IA
the limits 0i the city OF Richmond
It's true that Tor over twenty years connec-
ton between said two roads has existed over tho
roaiway Of the Richmond. fredericksburg and
| Potomac and Richmond and Petersburg Connec-
ti0n KaiiIoad Company short railroad
about ono aud quarter miios long "llhm mo
: CITY OF Richmond, over which all tho through
/ tranlc. freight and passenger has heretofore
/ bscn conducted by steam locomotives; aud M lh"'
last few yoars certain very large through tr'ight
business has been built mp, no part oi whi'h
stopped IN tho city ot HcnmOn1. but all ol
which was necessarily carried through rho
city over the Connection railroad. This through
| freight trafllc was complslned OF rs an annoy
Ruce to those residing near tho line ot the road,
and the City council on Juuo - 1873, passed an
or finance prohibiting the use Ot 5team-englnes
upOn said Connection road after tho 5th 81 April,
lSO. 4 copy oi this ordinance Is herewith hled,
| marked Exhibit No. :" aud ~ prayed - 10
! treated as a part hereof This respondent does
NOT admit the right of the city 10 pass this or
IL
| 70 enter into any controversy with sad city
! and tas stated IN its report 10 stockholders.
| made November q, lo,%l desiring not only
/ 10 avoid annoying, bat 10 do their utmost 10 ~
| c0mmOdate tho residents OF IN" ciiy, recon-
mended b the stocAholiers tho passage oil tue
/ resolution hereinbcforo reclted, authorizing the
! Board of Directors 10 construct branch line
| from point north Of Richmond on its main line
| to point on the Richmond and Petersburg rail-
road. This company must meet he demands oi
| through trEfilc and 10 perform lts duty 70 inc
a "a mNrr inf ~ Ia
~ 10 can. 20 conduct It's operations A. u cause
| 10 undue annoyance 10 the citizens OF this Coin-
| monwealth. II Is with this intention ana solely
| IN TINS spirit that 10 Is eXpcndlng q sum enOr-
! nous in proportion 10 its finances IN CONSTRUCT
| ing works Of extraordinary magnitude, ani
| which without such consideration WOull NOT
haye been undertaken. The charge mat thls
company intends 10 change It's southern termi-
/ nus Is positively denied The propsruB ~ me
/ respondent company Is 50 JHy i1ehfiRsl ic'h am
deyeadeHt upon r.dt " ths cHy h'c"-
n,ond hat Il cotfld not b. deeasd necesSary
! Z, inesf such an drcrntSnt br J0r NE fact
| that IL has been nude under oat This
! respondent has no idea OF changing It's southern
terminus from this city. Its freight terminus Is
| NOW and will continue for local business on west
Broad street in this city, and this respondent eI-
| poets aud believes that when the through freight
! can be carried around the city the Clty council
/ will 80 amend its ordinance ot June ~, $50 az
/ 10 allow the passenger trains 70 be propeller by
/ steam engines over the present company lihe,
/ thus maintaining the passenger terminus a n.
/ b. disappointed Ia this hope AID ex-
! pectation, and should the sait ordinance
/ rs now existing be declared valid ana
! respondent prohi oited from transferring passen-
gers from the Union depot its southern passon-
! ger terminus, over the connection road never
theless this respondent would Sill maintain us
| southern passenger terminus at the present
/ point even though its trains had TO go over tho
| branch line now in question aud come back into
/ the city over the Petersburg bridge. Your re-
/ spOudent ia this connection aYers that IL In con-
/ nectl0n with the Richmond anc Petersburg Kali
/ road Company has expended very large sum
! of money in erecting q very large. convenient,
/ ana handsome Union depot or station az Seventh
[ and Canal stree In this city for tne convenience
OF its local tIavel and especially OF the citizens
: of RichmOnd and therefore have given the most
/ earnest aud substantial proof OF its desire 70
I maintain its permanent passenger terminus at
/ that point.
! This respondent further answering says thH
/ the said " James River branch IN question is IN
/ fact and within the meaning Of the said charter
q branch or lateral line. aud that its construction
/ and operation will not in any manner Se lnli-
] riAus the CITY Of Richmond. The company Is