The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-08-29

no, raise auv objection. He gave up a
thousand dollars By surrondering his prop.
erty on Seventh street when the street
car line was constructed there.
Mr. Cannon. who represented property
on FRS, and Broad streets and two Other
nieces on First street between Broad and
| cary street. said that he had no objec-
lion te the construction OF the line on
/ First street.
OTHER DIRECTORS
Mr. Chalklev. who represented property
on Foushee and cary streets with nfty-
two feet front also opposed the PROPOSE
ton and stated that the new line woul.
no, bring am new traffic to the Tractior
Company between First and Madison
streets
Mr. Rankin said he was one Of the
signers Of the original petition for the
route on Cary street west OF Madison
street and at that time he found only
two property owners on Cary street from
Madison 20 Linden streets, who were op-
| posed 10 the proposed franchise.
Or. Ross then suggested that the prop
erry owners present. who were opposed
20 the proposition. should be asked TO
raise their hands, but his suggestion was
not acted upon.
Mr.. SxereInsrs a property owner on
Cary street. did not see any need for tha
proposed line because the traffic 10 Holly
wood did not demand II.
Mr.. j. SHELTON Williams then again
addressed the committee and said that
| ~ the First-street line was not granted.
the committee would no doubt. under
/ the charter. indicate some other route.
but any other line would meet with some
objections. II the First-sireet line was
| granted a hundred people would be bene-
faH no ID ed
and this damage would be very small.
CAPTAIN GUIGJN'S DENIAL.
Captain Gulgon. counsel Of the Rich
mond Railway and Electric Company.
! said the statement had been made that
the old company was al the bottom Of
| this opposition. lie denied this emphati-
| cally. for no representative OF his com
pany had taken any part in the fight.
| The only action taken by his company
was the Offer made 90 construct an cleo
trio line on Laurel street.
Colonel W. ". Archer opposed the APP
! plcatiOn OF the Traction Company In
an earnest manner IN behalf OF the
| property overs on First street, and took
| the ground that not q single property
! owner on First street from Broad 90 Cary
street was in favor OF the proposition.
No one else Of the property owners
desiring TO speak on the subject, the
Chair stated that the time had come for
! the COMMITTEES 10 take some action In
| the premises.
Mr.. Ebel moved that the application OF
the Traction Company FOR the construc-
! ton Of its line on First street be granted.
and this motion was seconded by Mr..
! MOuntcastle.
VIEWS OF COMAIITTEEMEN.
Mr.. Carter said that cross-town street
car lines were badly needed in Richmond.
and on several occasions an attempt had
been made 10 establish such. The one
| just designated by the sub-cOmmitte would
| be Of advantage 90 d large class OF peO-
! pie. provided an amendment 70 the
! proposition was adopted which he in-
| tended TO offer In the near future. after
the franchise had been granted AS pre-
scrbed In The charter. lu discussing the
| offer Of the old company Mr Carter
thought Laurel street WAS too high up
| town for q cr0ss-town line. and suggested
! First or Second street as more desirable.
Mr.. Mountcastle butfy expressed his
views. which was 300 favor Of granting
the franchise .sb-G Cor ay the Traction
! Company
Mr.. Bloomhere stated thar u he felt
! the public would Boz benefited Boy il he
would vote iu favor col the franchise
asked Tor by the Traction Company. but
! DE had not sufficient light on the subject
| az that time % see that the establishment
! or the proposed route was necessity for
! the public. or that the latter wanted D.
lie felt convinced that the old members
| or tie committee would bear him ONT
~ stating that the Traction COMPANY
ala not originally want the HOLLYWOOD
branch, and that IL only agreed 10 the
construction OF the same after Mr. Bow
hin. Who was then member OF the
BOARD or Aldermen from Clay ward.
h"d declared IN the most emphatic man
] her, That Ae would never vote Tor the
franchise asked for by that COMPANY
unless 10 would agree 10 construct a
route 20 Hollywood
MT. D. VI. King here desired 10 know
whether the Richmond Railway and Eloc-
uic company had ever submitted i'm
writing an offer o. elec;rify ns Lanrel-
street route with the UNDERSTANDING th,+
il should be used boy the Traction Com
p'hy subject 10 The provisions made
ny the Committee on Streets.
The Chair stated that he had never
seen any such written offer. and Captain
Dulgon who WIS then allowed 10 adj
dress the committee. said that COM
munication 20 that effect had been sont
by his company % one or two members o.
'"' COMMITTED hnt 100 order 10 make
sure he had communicated with Cantafn
Andrew fizzini on tho subject. and he
then submitted written statement OF
mo latter gentleman embracing the prop
ositions referred 10.
FRANCHISE REFUSED.
The Chair ruled that tile cornmunica-
ton could not be considered at the time.
inasmuch as the proposed First-street
franchise was under confederation.
The vote was then taken on the First
street route. and the application OF the
/ Traction Company FOR the same was
rejected by a tie vote OF six 10 six,
which Was as follows:
Ayes-Alessrs. Carter, Ehel. Molmtcas-
tle Pollock. Woody. Alen-6.
Noes- Mcssrs. Hahen. Blo0mberg. Bur
ton. Foster, J ~ King J. J. King.
Mr. j. J. King then moved thar the
committee receive the offer tendVred
by Captain Andrew Pizzini. through Cap
tain Guigon. and that 10 consid. r. as
a committee Of the whole the various
routes suggested. and 20 over the same.
the various roads interestd 20 provide
the means OF transportation. The mo-
ton was lost.
subsequently, however. Mr.. Ebel moved
10 reconsider this vote. which was agreed
TO- and tho committee then decided 20
- over the various routes next We'd