The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-09

| tho Board OF Aldermen, nut II ne hd1
| known that Broad street would De lett I'D
It's present condition he would never have
voted for IL unless the franchise had been
so amended as to put every dollar OF ex-
ponsc incident 10 restoring 1t on the Irac-
| ton Company The Board, he said. In
passing the ordinance, mad not contcm-
plated that the city would be put to any
! expense. The street, he said, was ia
| bad condition from the Masonic Temple 20
! Fourth street.
KNEW or 40 EXPENSE.
Mr. Turpin do you recall any expense
| TO which the city has been put on &c
/ count OF Broad streetY' asked sir. Allen
Il do not. SIR" replied Mr.. Turpin.
Mr. Blake, having volunteered to give
| whatever information he could, was next
| questioned. lle said the entire rise on
| Broad street was between First and
| Fourth. and while 10 was an eye-sore, II
| was 30 especial Inconvenience, and he
| mad heard no complaint, that the resi-
| dents of his ward knew that the street
would be restored in 1900 al no expense
TO the city Tie rise he said, was only
nye or six inches.
Mr. j. Langstaff Johnson, engineer of
| the Traction Company, was next ques-
! TONED.
| Mr.. Johnson. are the tracks Of the
| Traction Company on Broad street higher
| than the original grader asked Mr.. Roun-
tree.
"Our tracks are laid practically 10 the
original grade Of the street" replied Mt
| johnson. Il don't think there is Diff
ference Of three inches from one end TO
| the other We were very careful 10 fol-
low the lines laid down 10y the city Engi-
noor."
rs II your opinion that the street will
be restored 10 is normal condition when
! the tracks Of tho old company are taken
up" continued Mr.. Rountree
Mr.. Johnson gave IL as his opinion that
such would be- the case. and made
drawing 10 support his opinion.
what is the reason for the difference
I'm the grade OF the two sides OF the
strect?' was the next question.
INEQUALITY IN GRADE.
because OF the inequality in the grade;
the north side IS much fattor than the
other" he replied. II am sure that the
laying Of our tracks made no material
difference in the grade OF Broad street
Are YOU sure that the elevation of your
tracks is not as much as six inches IN
certain placcs?" asked Mr.. Rountree.
Mr. Johnson declined TO state positively
that such was not the case. but was
| t0lCrahly sure # was not. Air. Johnson
| said that so far from throwing additional
| expense on the city she had been re-
| liovcd OF having 20 pay for good deal Of
/ paving.
Mr. Johnson concluded his testimony.
| and was excused after stating 10 the
committee. no the request Of Colonel cut
shaw. that there had been no conversa-
: ton between himself and the city Engi-
| uccr regarding the matter
| Superintendent Charles Selden, Of the
| Richmond city Railway and Electric
| Company. was then examined, lie agreed
/ that Mr. Johnson had given very fair
statement of the condition Of affairs on
| Broad street
THE CITY ENGINEER.
After another statement from Mr..
! Rioomberg regarding certain paving on
Broad street. the city Engineer was
questioned. Tie said the matter was
totally misunderstood and had been
grossly misrepresented. and that AN
this commOtion would not have arisen If
| application had been made TO his Office
for Information.
The franchise. he said. had been pre-
parod lust ass all other franchises were
! granted. il was impossible, be said.
i'm LAYING q track TO put il down ms YOU
would pavement. there were slight in-
! coualities that must Dee made 10 con-
! form 90 the track The grade OF Broad
street. he said. had not been changed.
/ and the committee should know that II
! had been informed.
The changes of the grade that had been
made were ON lower Broad street for
! the hottcrmcnt of that thoroushiare The
! street and curbiug had settled, ncccssitat-
| ina. n change The grade given tho
| company oh west Broad. he said. from
| the Collog. out toward the Fair Grounds
! was The permanent grade. ana tho city
| had 10 bear her share of raising the street
10 the level of tho tracks.
! Colonel Cutshaw then explained the
/ sunken condition of the north side OF
| portion of Broad street from Ninth 10
! Hancock. which he showed 10 be due In
| part 20 the sinking of "a trench cut for
! gas-pipe
Colonel Cutshaw showed by maps that
! the inequality boz the centre OF the street
! ranged FOR half au inch To three inches.
III any man." be said. "can come here
| and tell this committee that tnat Is
change of the grade OF Broad street, then
| I will throw mp the sponge. There is no
more TO De said on the subject
The city Engineer by the aid Of his
| maps. explained az length 10 the com
| mittee the condition of Broad street from
| every every point Of view. To restore
the north side OF Broad street from Ninth
| to Hancock 10 "a good condition. said
| Colonel Cutshaw. would cost not $4,000
or 1000. but only $500 about 500 10
each Of the three wards. which would
under ordinary circumstances be re-
| gardcd rs a mere bagatclle by the Street
! Committee.
THE MATTER IN 4 NUTSHELL.
| The question. ne said. resolved itself
| into whether the CITY should pay $500
! FOR restoring the north side OF Broad
street M the present time. or wait until
the tracks Of the old company were taken
out.
In answer to questions by Mr.. Roun-
| tree. Colonel Cutshaw said that no one
/ could have foreseen the rut caused on the
| north side Of Broad street from Broad 10
| Hancock. This was due TO work done by
the old company under It's franchise
! granted In 1855. ana while the same was
| unsightly Y would have 10 remain so
until the city was able 20 spend 500 on
It or the tracks Of the old company were
removed.
Colonel Cutshaw said that i'm most In
| stances The city could be protected 10y IN
sorting The clause i'm every franchise that
! n any eXpcnse We're incurred by chanse
! Of grade the same should be- borne by the
| company obtaining the franchise rms
! could not have been done. however an
the case Of Broad street on account or
the existence Of the franchise OF the
| Richmond Railway and Electric COM
| pany.
At tho conclusion Of Colonel Cutshaws
testimony. tho committee adjourned on