Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-11-04
THE TRACK REMOVAL
QUESTION DEBATED BEFORE THE
STREET COMMITTEE LAST NIGHT.
NO DECISION MAS REACHED
Final Action Deferred Until Next
Thursday-spicy Arguments Adj
|, vanced by CounseI-Much Fable
Interest Manifested.

Interest Manifested.
For three hours last night the Council
Committee on Streets traversed the
beaten track OF the Richmond Union
Passenger Railway Company's petition
for the removal of the Bank and Frank
lin-street tracks.
A little spice was injected into the ar
gument by counsel representing both
sides of the question, but no material
progress was made, and a vote, that It
was thought might be accepted as
test. was reached on a substitute intro
duced by Mr.. Ebel. but 1t proved to BIO
no criterion, for while the motion to re-
consider in order to introduce the resolu-
ton was adopted. the resolution itself
was rejected. The committee finally ad-
jcurned until next Thursday night with
out taking any action.
MIR. EBELS SUBSTITUTE.
Members present at the meeting were
Messrs. Allen chairman, Bahen, Burton,
Gibson Woody, Whittet, Ebel, Peters,
Pollock, King, and Lawder
The ordinance. with the amendments
made by the Common Council, was duly
read When this formality had been COM
piled with, Mr.. Ebel rose and offered the
following resolution, as a substitute Tor
the whole:
Whereas, the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company has made application
TO the. City Council for the prlyllegee o OIL
removing the tracks Of the Union Pas-
senger Railway Company's division OF
its railway from Bank and Franklin
streets. between Seventh and twenty
first streets, and to run the cars Oh tne
Union Passenger Division on Main street
Richmond City Railway Division or It's
line. between Seventh and Twenty-nrst
streets making therefor all proper con-
nections. curves, &c; and,
Whereas the franchise OF the SAID
Richmond CITY Railway Division Of its
line. operating on Main and other streets
in the city, expires in the year 1900; ana,
whereas. by consent OF the said Rich
mOnd Railway and Electric Company, the
franchise for the Richmond City Railway
Company can be disposed OF by the CITY
Council at this time: therefore, be IL ..
Ordained by the Common Council or
the City of Richmond 0he Board OF Al
demen concurring), That before the CITY
Council takes any action looking TO the
removal of the tracks above mentioned
from Bank and Franklin streets, that the
stockholders. holding a majority OF the
stock of the Richmond Railway ana EieS-
trio Company, in a meeting duly calico,
shall authorize the Council Oh me, the cry ny
Of Richmond by proper resolution, 70
dispose of the franchise of the Ricnmohd
CITY Railway Company in such way as
the Council may deem proper; -
But in disposing of the said franchlSe,
none of the rights or privileges OF the
said Richmond Railway and Electro
Company in reference to the said Rich
mond City Railway Company franchise;
shall be abridged or affected If the sara
Richmond Railway and Electric company
shall authorize the city Council TO dis
pose of the franchise OF the RlcnmOnu
city Railway Company as said Councii
may deem proper. the Council shail TAKE
action before the first day of March, 1873,
to dispose of the same, in such manner
as it may decide.
COULD AVOID COMPLICATIONS.
Tn support of the resolution. Mr.. Ebei
said he offered 1T because he thought the
present an opportune zine to take the
matter up. II would take at least year
before the conditions upon which the
| franchise shall be disposed of are deter
mined. The rights of the railway COM
many. he said, would be in no way
| abridged. He believed the present Council
was as free TO dispose Of the franchise as
| any that could be elected If the resolu-
ton were adopted, added Mr.. Ebel, 1t
would not allow the Union Passenger
Railway Company to use the Main-street
| tracks.
| Mr.. Pollock asked whether the sale OF
| the franchise would not complicate mat
| ters. as far as the branches in the west
| End OF the city are concerned. MI. Epei
| explained how all complications might be
obviated by the conditions to be included
| in the new franchise.
At this point the chairman interposed'
ruling that the paper before the commit
tee. submitted by the Council, should hrst
be disposed Of, and Mr.. Ebeps substi-
tuting an entirely different proposition
was a new matter and inadmissible.
Mr.. Ebel contended that 1t was a SUBJ
stitute. inasmuch as II suspended the re-
moval of the tracks After some discus
sion Mr. Ebel withdrew his resolution.
CONSIDERED BY SECTIONS.
Mr.. Pollock then moved that the ordi-
nance should be taken up section by sec
ton. and this was agreed to. Section l,
which states the object Of the ordinance,
was adopted by vote of 70 3.
At this point it was moved that any
counsel representing interested parties
| should be given a hearing before the ordi-
nance was acted upon as whole. ms
motion was adopted, and Mr.. Guigon. of
counsel for the railroad company, was
| given the privilege of the floor. The ordi-
| nance had been most carefully considered
| by the committee, he said. and on the
| main proposition he had no further argu-
| ment 10 submit. If counsel for other par
| ties gave to the committee any reasons
which might led the body to recede from
its former action, when the franchise was
adopted by vote of 10 10 2, then the rail-
road would like to be heard in answer.
PROTEST AGAINST THE REMOVAL
MIR. Reddy asked for the privilege OF
| the floor. which was granted. lie opposed
| the ordinance on the ground OF pubic
| convenience For eleven years the com
pany had run over the line, and there
had been no complaint from the cltl'
Gems. The railway company might have
asked for the change from motives OF
economy, he continued, but the members
of the Council were not sent there t1
economize for the street-car system
with all respect, he said, the members
were sent to see that this and other cor
porations lived up to their franchises.
, Counsel said he represented nj merouS
residents along the line, and he so rep
| resented a prospective bidder for the fran
| chise now owned by the Richmond Rail
| way and Electric Company. He presented
a petition from numerous storekeepers
and residents OF Bank and east Franklin
streets protesting against the remova
| OF the tracks.
Why, asked Mr.. Reddy, should YOU
I take the tracks from the streets or
| ..htoh .hax, NOW areo No objection haC