The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-02-25
Appropriation Measure Debated in the
House Yesterday.
B0SSLYN CHARTER ACT VETOED
Governor Tyler Gives His Reasons FOR
Nor Approving 1.-the Proposed
Railroad Consolidation scheme
,JaiIor's Fec Bill Passed.


Some changes were made.
There was a ncht in the House over
.no hin 10 nuthorizo the Richmond
"a Petersburg and the Petersburg Rail
road Companies to consolidate under inc
name of the Atlantic Coast Line Com
many. An amendment 60 subject the
nronerti.s OF the Richmond and Peters
hug company to local as well as state
taxation was defeated. but vote on the
hill was not reached.
THE GOVkKNORS VETO.
Governor Tylers veto of the Rosslyn
charter IS as follows:
Richmond Va. February i 1895
TO the Senate:
senate bin No. 1876 entitled An Act TO
INCORPORATE the Town OF Rosslyn i'm the
..onnty OF Alexandria. is hereby returned
10 your honorable body In which II ORR
ginated.
scnted TO REPRESENTATIVES. especially near
the close Of the session. with the request
20 have them passed as quickly as posSl-
bic. and OFTEN members themselves DO
moi catch the fun bearing Of the measure
Therefore IN stating my objections 10
this bin must be- understood as making
no criticism Of It's patron. or of others
who gave 10 their support Both the Sen
ator and Representative assure me that
I'm their Judgment the Incorporation OF
thc town would De the best means OF
promoting good order al the place. IL
Is a conceded fact that 10 have a monopoly
of the gambling business In this section
would be OF immense value. have giveh
as much time as possible 90 parties repre-
senting both sides of the question. and
have read much Of the voluninOus matter
that has been presented for my consid-
Grafton.
THE OBJECTIONS.
There are objections to this bill both Of
a constitutional and prudential nature,
and / feel quite sure. with proper time
for consideration. this bill would not have
passed either branch of the General
Assembly As TO the moral or prudential
reasons | need have but little to say. Ii
will ever be my duty to exercise 10 the
fullest every power at my command 10
suppress lawlcssness of every kind.
whether or not IL is the purpose Of this
measure to create and shield from out
side interference a Monte Carlo" at this
point. or whether the parties designated
as officers under this charter are repu-
table or disreputable characters is not
question / feel called upon 10 discuss or
decide Suffice 1t TO say | could not give
nv approval to a measure where the
slightest charge OF unhtness Is made ana
especially when we should give to TINS
section men in every way above suspicion
TO execute the laws at such an important
point ....,,,.,,
The Constitution. article 8 section Il
saws: IAN regular elections for city or
town officers under this article shall be
held on the fourth Thursday in May
and the officers elect shall enter upon
their duties on the first day of July sue
ceeding" while this bill requires the
election to be held on the Tuesday after
the nrst Monday in November. II rs
claimed that under section 20 Of the same
article OF the Constitution authority is
found for this extraordinary and unusual
feature. Though / have not been able 10
Obtain the opinion OF the Attorney-Gen-
eral on this point. but viewing 1t from a
practical standpoint. ] do not think such
authority is conferred by said section.
Article S. section Il is the only one pre-
scribing the time when county ana town
elections shall be held. and | think it is
a mandatory provision. Surely this must
be the opinion of the Legislature when
II Is considering the question of submit
ting an amendment TO the constitution
for consolidating the time for holding
state and county elections | see no
reasons why This town should have the
privilege of holding it's elections on an
other day than that prescribed by the
constitution of all other counties. cities
and towns In the State.
The code OF 1887. chapter g. section
lo2l TO leis provides fully for the orGaniza-
ton OF towns. &c. and ] can see no
reason for departing from II.
The proposition TO lcgslate officers in
this town into Office for a period OF nearly
our years. which involves the ignoring
OF tour regular elections seems 10 he
unnecessary IL not unconstitutional
During the time these officers thus hold
their offices the people will be taxed
without having a voice in electing the
officials who impose taxes upon them.
PEOPLE ABLE TO SELECT.
Except upon the presumption that the
people inhabitlng the proposed town OF
Rosslyn are totally incapable OF self
government there does not seem 10 me
any defensible reason why the General
Assembly should foist upon them for a
term of nearly four years a set Of town
officers I'm whose selection they are not
permitted To have any voice. and OF
whose fitness the General Assembly has
mad but little knowledge. and whom the
people kosslyn might reject under the
usual methods OF popular election.
There Is no clause limiting or fixing the
amount of salaries or emolument that
may be paid 20 these officers, and the
sole control Of the funds OF the town is
IN their hands 70 do with as they see TT.
This is certainly a dangerous power.
The mayor OF the town Is 10 be ex-
vfticio a justice OF the peace. and OF
course mas jurisdiction over all sums
under 500. The sheriff and constables
OF Alexandria county are forbidden 10
exercise any Of their powers or duties
within the bounds OF this proposed town.
How could process be served upon par
ties living In the town when the amount
IN controversy would exceed 500? Again.
IN case the mayor OF the town should
be guilty Of malfeasance or misfeasance in
office. before what tribunal could he be
tried? Again the hill provides that the
town may send SIS criminals 10 the jail
OF Alexandria county. provided the town
pays all expenses OF such criminals.
Suppose Che town should have more
criminals than II has money to care for
what would II do with the number In
excess
TWO OBJECTS.
This hin prescrircs matters pertaining
20 the incorporation OF the town. and at
the same time limits the jurisdiction OF
county officer
Does Il not embrace two objects, and
therefore repugnant TO article 5, section
u OF tho Constitution?
There IS a provision that all property
IN the town is to be exempt from all
county ievies. provided It keeps up its
own roads. streets and schools. and sup