The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-08-24

FXf EET TEh1INONf.
DR.. i. r. Baker. who was the next
Speaker also advocated the regulation OF
tho speed, especially for the benefit of
the few reckless riders In the city. He
was I'm favor Of limit Of ten and five
miles. respectively. The introduction OF a
bell was a nuisance, which would only
frighten horses and confuse pedestrians,
who would not know which way to dodge.
The lanterns could not be kept lighted on
the rough pavements OF the streets, and
II the ordinance was enacted as IL stood
now, those who thought at present that
they wanted IL, would soon ask for its
repeal To impose special tax would
be an injustice. because wheels were now
assessed as personal property although
not specified az bicycles.
MIR. Walter &. Mercer practically made
the same statement, advocating a limit
OF the speed from ten to twelve miles an
hour, and Of six miles Tor turning cor
ners. This ended the discussion on the
part Of the whcelmen.
nc1IoN By SECTION.
Mr.. Boykln. Of the committee, briefly
spoke against the imposing OF a special
tax, and then moved that the first Sec
ton Of the proposed ordinance be 80
amended as to limit the speed TO twelve
miles an hour, and 10 six miles for turn
ing corners. This was agreed TO.
he next moved 10 strike out the clause
as to the Introduction OF lighted lamps.
Mr.. Carter opposed the motion, thinking
that lamps should be carried for the
better protection OF the public. Alderman
Mitchell said he would be in favor Of a
lamp If incandescent lights could be
used, and Mr.. BOykin's motion was finally
carried. Mr.. Carter alone voting against
the same
Mr.. Boykin then moved that the clause
IN regard 10 the ringing OF bells be
stricken out. and 1lr. Carter raised similar
objections as before Alderman Mitchell.
who rides wheel himself, said that the
only accidents he ever experienced were
IN two instances when he rang his bell.
Inc motion prevailed, Mr.. Garter alone
voting in the negative.
Inc section In regard to the imposing
or license tax WIS stricken out on
motion of Mr. Mcdowell. and, on motion
Of Alderman Mitchell. the section fixing
a fine was amended by substituting the
provision against fast driving. which inn
poses a fine from 81 10 so or imDrisOn-
ment In jail for from five to thirty DAYS.
The committee then decided to recon-
mend 10 the Council the adoption of the
ordinance as amended. containing only
the two sections limiting the speed TO
twelve and six miles and imposing a
fine or Imprisonment.
Gas AND WAITE 3 LIS.
The next matter taken UP was the ordi-
nance introduced by Mr.. Vaughan In the
Board Of Aldermen, at the request of
Or w. w. Parker IN regard to the
payment Of gas and water bills. II was
thought that possibly the enactment OF
the ordinance would require an increase
Of the clerical force In the Auditors
office. and, for that reason. the committee
decided 10 return the ordinance TO the
Board OF Aldermen with the request that
IT be- referred 10 the committees on gas
and water for investigation on that point.
CITY ORDINANCES.
The opinion Of city Attorney Meredith
as TO the powers OF the codiher and re-
wiser Of the city ordinances was then
read. II was As follows:
''IO your inquiry whether Mr.. Coke
was authorized In preparing cOdifcation
OF the ordinances. 10 Introduce new ordi-
uauces, / reply that | an OF opinion that
be had such authority lie was given
power 10 revise and codify Under that
language he was not confined To q mere
compilation, but should In his draft sub
nit such changes as he might think mt;
such changes TO be accepted or rejected
as the Council might think advisable.
Even if he had heen given no such power
/ do not see what harm could arise from
his giving more than his contract called
for. While he was authorized TO recon-
mend all changes he deemed desirable. yet
the Council is not obliged 10 accept one
OF them
Captain Coke. the collier and reviser
of the ordinances, stated that he had eN-
pected just such an opinion. In justice
70 himself and the committee, he deSlrcI
to make statement. He went on TO say
that the remarks made by members OF
the committee AS pubii shed ~ print. had
been caused by apprehension as TO
mis- real duties. which were as Mr.. Mere
deth defined them. lie cited 80 authorities
10 snow that DEE was right I'm defining the
powers of COLLIER and reviser, as lie
did
When NJ began Nis work some three
years ago he HAD left ont provisions In
the CITY ordinances which were already
contained I'm the charter Of the city Of
Richmond. In order ga avoid repeutlons
as much as possible. The charter was
always printed in the same took with
the ordinances. and 10 repetition
lie had introduced some ne~
measures. which at the time he had sub
mitted To Mr. EIysOn. who was then
Mayor, ana which had met with the APP
proval OF that gentleman, and he eX-
pected TO submit them 10 the committee
at the proper time TIE leaving out "
such sections as We're contained in the
charter ala not affect the existing law,
and his recommendations AS 90 new meas
ures did not bind the Council in the
least.
The Chair stated that the language Of
the original resolution. which provided
that alterations should be- made only with
the consent Of the committee or the Coi.n-
bers of the committee. and for that rea-
son the opinion OF the city Attorney had
been asked for.
i lengthy discussion as 80 the details
Of the work followed. and the committee
finally adjourned at 10 Z. NJ. 10 meet
again next Tuesday evening at Z O'Clock.