The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-27
MANCHESTER GIVES CONSENT
Continued from First Pase)
that the Council would give that gentle
man permission TO express his views
MIR. CATLINS FINE SPEEOH.

4 U
! request OF aulte a number Of Richmond
/ crs who had selected him because ne
was interested in real estate IN Mdn-
/ chester. and he therefore felt IKE tdih-
I INK 10 the Council as II he were clu@,"
4 OF their CITY IL had been SAID mat RICH
/ mond wouid derive far more benent from
{ the proposed improvements thah me
sister city. MIR. Brauicy had punt w
I the borders OF Manchester and then ne
went 10 Richmond Tor hnanclal assls. aiee,
which was readily given him.. resardless
OF whether he was a citizen OF richmond
/ or Manchester II the proposed scheme
was carried out. he felt assured that the
I property IN Manchester would be en-
HANGED IN value at ieast 10 per cent. IL
/ was impossible TO improve one city anu
AT the same time retard the other.
After reiating a few instances where
Richmond capital had neen invested III
manufacturing establishments IN Man
chester he urged the members or the
Council to dsabusc their minds OF all
the ideas advanced that night 10y thc
! opposition. lie was present in the interest
OF humanity and not TO advance the
schemes of the railroad company, ana
ne did not think that the residents OF
the two cities realized the true inward
ness OF the situation. Both cities were
at present in a rather bad condition. ana
something should be done at once TO pro-
cure employment tor the people. he
appealed to the Council 20 realize the idct
that the residents Of Richmond and Man
chester were al one body and that the
river could not separate the two cites.
He had been instrumental IN starting 4
new manufacturing establishment, when
would give employment 10 several nun
drCd persons and cause the investment
of about $4,000. but ii was immateral
TO him whether the plant would be cs-
tablished in Richmond or Manchester.
When Mr. Catlin had ended Mr. Sims
withdrew his original resolution, which
he substituted by another providing th9t
a committee Of three he appointed 10y the
Council 10 confer with similar commit
tee 10 be appointed by the legislative body
of the city of Richmond TO confer on the
subject and 10 report such recommends
tons as they may deem proper.
MOTION TO ACCEPT.
Mr. Morton did not see any necessity
for the appointment of such a committee.
inasmuch as the city of Richmond had
already given unanimous consent to the
improvements and the railroad com
pany. through Mr. AXtell. had submitted
its ultmatum. lie. therefore. offered as
"a substitute 10 Mr.. Sims motion resO-
luton instructng the bridge commission
ers TO grant the request asked FOR by
the railroad company under the conditions
contained i'm Mr.. AXtelIs letter, read dur
ing the early Tart OF the evening.
The substitute was seconded by Mr.
Mr.. Morton stated that Manchester was
in good financial condition. but thdt
this could not be said Of the city IF Rich
mOnd and that ii you'd be rather doub.-
ful when the two cities could think q
rDrcwing the remaining portion If the
bridge.
Mr.. Pool said he had heard so much
about the dcTre citation Of the property in
Manchester by the proposed improvement.
but IL had been only talk without ANY
argument. He would. therefore, vote FOR
the request of the railroad company un-
less some very gCOd reasons could be
given why the property would deqreciate.
At the suggestion of Mr.. Sims another
opportunity was given Nj. Bradley to eX-
plain his views The latter stated that the
submitted plans of the proposed changes
In the bridge did Lot suit. and that II they
were carried out the property I'm ManCLcs-
ter would decrease from % 10 SO per cent.
i'm value The bridge at this time cost
the sum of $4,000. and its construction
had improved the value OF the real estate
in Manchester about loo per cclt. He
suggested the postponement on the
further cor sldc"ation of .he matter, so
that public meeting could be held. dur
ing which tine citizens of Manchester could
express their views.
MIR. CATLlN'S REPLY.
Mr.. Catlin. who was allowed to reply
10 Mr.. Bradley pointed out that the latter
h,d failed to prove his assertions as TO
the depreciation of the property, and had
only made idle statements. There was
another gentleman from Richmond pres
ent. who represented 100000 worth of
property in Manchester. and they both
asked the Council 10 grant the request of
the railroad company. They would GER
tainly not do so if they thought their
property would be damaged by il only for
the benefit Of the railroad company. As
taxpayers of Manchester. they asked the
Council to decide the matter in favor OF
the railroad company.
Mr.. Green explained that he had been
the original mover of the resolution which
intended TO compel the railroad company
to reconstruct the entire Free bridge. lie
did not think that Manchester would be
benefited If the present scheme was car
ried out. Now was the time to rebuild the
entire bridge. and both cities should join
I'm the work with the railroad company.
Richmond would receive all the benefits
from the proposed Improvement and That
city could well afford TO increase us
bonded debt i'm order to pay its portion
for the rccor struction OF the bridge. The
amount saved on annual repairs would
certainly be larger than the amount OF
bonds so issued. Under the pendlhs
proposition Manchester would not receive
a fair share i'm return for what that city
was about to give up.
Mr.. Campbell stated that only one citi-
zens from the Second Ward had asked
him 10 vote against the proposition OF
the railroad company. while great many
others had requested him to support the
same. He had failed TO hear any argu-
ment against the request Of the company
ana would therefore vote lot H.
Mr. owens said he had up 10 that time
avoided taking part i'm the discussion OF
the subject but he was in favor of the
proposition. and had failed TO see any
Justification for any serious objection
The railroad company intended TO spend
The sum of So. 900 IN the renewal of seven
spans Of the bridge. which latter WAS
owned by the two cities and Manchester
would be benefited to the extent OF
S17. 800 while it would only lose in
depression of the road-bed on the Rich
mond side TO the amount of nine feet.
THE VOTE.
A vote was then taken on Mr.. Morton's
substitute instructng the Bridge Com
missioners to grant the privilege asked
for under the provisions of the contract
submitted The substitute was carried
by a vote Of TO I, which was as follows:
Ayes Messrs. Randlett. Pool Camp
bell. Morton, Hart, Patram, owens and
@ Brien-S
Noes-Messrs. Sims, Green. Nelson. and
Utz-4.
This ended the long-talked-of contro-
versy. and the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company will now apply 10
the authorities of lienrco county for
certain changes i'm one Of the turnpikes
After this has been agreed upon the entire
matter will be laid before the Board of
Directors Of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company.
The Council adjourned at 1890 p. NJ.
until next Friday evening.
---------
Growing Weaker.