The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-27
MANCHESTER GIVES CONSENT
By a Vote Of 5 to 4 The Council Ac-
cents the c. and 0, PrOpOStlO
LENGTHY DISCUSSION INDUCED IN
Mcssrs. Axtcu and 4. a. 'a'i'" -""
strong Arguments in Favor "i '"e
NIov.ment- Mcssr.. Sims and br"d-
ley represent the oppos'''"'

A., asio1rncd meeting Of the Mahc"'S'e'
&C, ,.... e,l9 last night in the Coun-
cu chamber. whose chief OBJECT "'' ~
,e,rb a definite arrangement Z" poss'0'',
4. .,..rl ,o u,g improvements piopoa'u
DIX thc Chesapeake and ONO i''"a''
which would involve the lowering oi p"''
of be road-bei of the bridge Vui'e "
i,rro number OF spectators were present.
.......,, th.n several from Richmond VINO
.,. interested in Manchester real estate
yr,. Board OF Trade. which is said 10
have a rather limited working mei"D''-
shin WAS ably represented 10y MI H. ~
BRADLEY. who was the most serious
,...tor to tne scheme. but after "a discus
sion. which lasted over two hours " i's'
luton was adopted by vote oil , TO D. '''
.t,,,fino the Bridge Commissioner 10
..,,~ irfo Ill contract with the i"4iO'"
cDn.fiuv for the proposed impio' ei'''''''
a.. .uhniIited by tine railroad peoP''
-s. Citv Council met shortly before
,.i...l in fhe Council chamber, win an
fnr members present as iolio"7'
i r. Green, W. -. Nandicl'' "N"
Sims. of The First Ware Me9si va "a
g.rnrh.ll Matthew Morton, ana w. w
p,oi of fhe Second Ward; W. IL Ii1IN
a. a. ~rison. and I. l.. Patram. OF 'ne
,rifri ward. John O'Brien Uresidenp
~ II Owens. and John j.. w. y '"o
Fourth Ward. .. 90 +bc
NJ Sims first presented report or the
Committee on Streets, Wnich ua" "i''
gocioek that afternoon. and wnlch aSN,u
80 r.e comnlttce Doe INDUCED for one
moro week The request was .,..'., ...,.,..
with the provision tnat lhc 'oli,iiI'. .,,
49,. ~, tha Council on next Friday
night.
THE BRIDGE QUESTION.
communication was then received
from Mir. j. r.. Perduc. secretary OF the
pri8oe Commission. which brought up
Inc question as TO the changing oil lhe
Free bridge in accordance Win zoe pfopo-
erion made hy the management OF the
(1csapeake and Ohio Railway Oohp"Dl'
This letter was accompanied by the lol-
lowing communication, sent TO lhe COM
uiseioucrs by Mr. Decatur ANleh second
.icc-prcsidcnt of the Chesapeake an" O4iio
hallway Company.
..-rt. Chesaneake and Ohio Railroad
Comuanv appeared before YOU lh Al -.St,
lsG with the request thal il p" "uv'50u
and agreed to hy your DoaIu, pi,7'.,t..u q"
form of resolutions and contract, tltlhs
the railway company the right under GER
faIn conditions and restrictions chpoultu
iu the form submitted 10 you 10 bullu l'9
QTNIH.fU MNfhr NlIUr" anu 'fNA
iriieo lowering it's surface sufficiently 10
enable travel 90 pass under the runway
structure Detailed plans were also sun
uitttd with the said form OF ics"l lulloii9
and contract This resolution ana con-
tract with the plans, were referred pf
,au fo the city Council Of Mdncucsitis
aorDmuauIDd bv "a resolution in which
your board asked for instructions from
"1t has come 10 the knowledge of the
Railway Company that the Council vt
Manchester adopted q resolution To the
Following erect. " Resolved That the
Tridec Commissioners be instructed TO
grant the petition OF the Chesapeake ana
Ohio Railway Company. provided SAID
company build a new bridge 20 the Man
chester side OF the river and enclose the
Niaduct with blinds $50 feet on each
side.
TO FURTHER CONSIDER
Tho matter being again in your hands
the railway company appears before YOU,
asking your further action upon It's pcu-
lion. and the papers which IL submitted
.if the Company has been correctly
advised as 20 the action Of the Council
of Manchester and the resolution. whicn
it adopted as set forth above, i have TO
Saw that In compliance with the desire
OF the Council of Manchester. as express
ca in its resolution, the Railway Com
pany is willing 10 effect such mOdinca-
lions OF the resolution and contract SUBJ
mltted 20 YOU and referred 10y YOU TO
i6e said Council. as VIII provide for the
erection of blinds for 80 feet on each
side.
panv cannot agree 10 the other provision
OF the said resolution of the Council Of
Manchester: that is, that the Railway
Company shall build new bridge 10 he
Manchester side OF the river,
ID personally have explained 10 your
f,lv the limitations under which the
Railway Company is placed, and have
also had opportunities or explaining 10
the Council of Manchester as well as 10
tnc Street Committee OF the city OF
Lillmoud. when the matter was before
tie CCurcil Of Richmond, that this COM
uany cannot undertake 10 renew any
portion or the Free Bridge than the
PARTS consisting OF seven spans. which
40 is necessary 20 change in order 10
allow the works of the Railway Company
10 bee constructed. The reasons control
ling the officers of the company IN This
are imperative.
The proposed changes I'm the Free Bridge
and tho disadvantages that were feared
would arise from them were presented 10
the Council OF Manchester IN an dsD'cls
and in the most thorough manner by a
number OF citizens.
"The Manchester members OF Your
Board appeared before the Council I'm eX-
ecutive session. called especially 20 con-
slider the question. The subject was dis
cussed by members OF the Council al
several meetings. and after having tuliy
c lNslttltN inc oulttlNNn lNdi N'lt VA
fered and AN the features Of the matter.
the Council found that the plans OF the
company We're acceptable with the one
provision. that blinds should be provided
as above stated.
such being the conditions the Railway
Company respectfully brings the subject
20 your attention again, in the hope ana
belief that IL will be the pleasure OF your
Board 20 grant the petition ana 10 con-
clude the contract.
MIR ANTEII SPEAKS
ON motion Of Mr.. Morton, Mr. Decatur
Axtell. who was present was invited to
address the Council. lie spoke in SUBJ
stance as follows.
Il am at a loss 20 know what 10 say
about the matter which has been so eN-
tensiveiy discussed on various occasions
There seems TO be. however, one question
10 he considered further, There are
two conditions attached TO the petition.
ia the FIRST place that blinds Of length
OF q hundred and fifty feet each way be
provided at the proposed railroad cross
ing. this the railroad company was will
ing 10 90. The other proposition to re-
luiiO the entire bridge the company can
not agree 20. We cannot so any further.
il 1 felt that this provision should be
laid before the Esard OF Directors OF nay
company with the understanding that
such disadvantage as had been alluded
20. would hfVe 20 be met / am afraid l
would have 10 vote against the proposed
Improvement.
Il cannot think that these disadvant-