Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-10-17
uroad-strcet Line

,,. ..~-..t.s oa Streets has decided
.....- rha ordinance submitted by
~. r.gl-N.uon syndicate.
-,. l.s. az tla preliminary skirmishes
f.-. between this company and the
traction company for the street railway
s.-...s.. occurred last night. II was de-
,...r tho most interesting Of them all.
E.-c.-y-Auoney Meredith appeared
,.rs the committee as counsel for the
r-.aon Company. and presented the
r-- OF that corporation forcibly and
f-rly Mr.. Martins rejoinder was
% lacking in force or logic, and the ar
e.mant was az times decidedly spicy.
Oa8 OF the most important statements
.ais during the evening came from Coun-
t-.l Ebel. who. during q brief speech,
y1e1 the requirements that will prob
~ be- made by the committee and in
s1ed In the ordinance. These include a
TX on $40 on the assessed value of the
r-al. rent for the use Of the streets, a
Jugsion that the company shall water
tls streets Of the city along its lines. and
he posting Of a bond for the fulflment
O. tie terms OF the franchise.
The action of the committee practically
f.sposes for the present. at least, Of the
petition OF the Traction Company unless.
as was intimated by Mr.. Meredith. the
contract that the Boyd-Newton syndicate
claims exists between themselves and the
rry S. nothing more than an option, and
,rs indicate finds itself unable TO ac-
osre the property Of the company. or re
FUSES 90 accept the ordinance on account
oiis possible stringency.
CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION.
Nabrs present at this meeting were
Nsse Allen. Ebel, Pollock, Gibson,
K1s Iawder Bahen, Peters. Bloomberg
Burton. The opinion of the City Attorney
was called for. and was presented and
read by Mr. Pollard. The opinion begins
Directing the resolution which called for
IL, official statement, and continues:
1t IS not clear from the resolution
whether YOU wish 10 be informed on one
81 -wo p0ints-viz.:
l Whether the present Council is com
r,teut TO grant a franchise TO any one
other than the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company or It's assignee, TO take
effect iu the future. 20 operate q street.
railway on the same streets on which the
Richmond Railway and Electric Company
is now operating under its franchise. that
is. can this Council grant at once iran
chise 90 another company, TO take effect
in the iuture, t0 parallel on the same
streets the lines Of the routes Of the Rich
murd Railway and Electric Company; or
Whether the present Council IS COM
Ietcut % grant "a franchise 20 any one.
other than the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company or IFS assignee. 90 take
effect on Tho expiration Of The franchises
Of said company. 90 operate "a Street-rdll-
way on the same streets and in the same
location Do the streets where the tracks
OF the Richmond Railway and Electric
Company are now located
Flrst-lf the first version Of the resOu-
ton s. Tie proper one then I answer yes.
provided the time in the future for taking
cNtct 0i the ordnance granting the fran-
cAi-e is not so far In the future as to
rliee the presumption that 10 was pur-
Tlsely SO adopted in order 10 defeat fu-
tIre councils from lcgislating on the sub
-ect Every franchise must have some
Da'e fixed in the future for 10 10 take
effect. IL presidents Of this nature were
l. T. scores might be cited. II It
i. ..'.i that section u of the ordinance
passed March 80. 1900 prohibits the Coun-
ci from Swing the privilege "tO two or
more companies 20 run their cars I'm the
same it0r except AZ the crossing Of
I... ana only for the purpose of cross
.t s,flet' 10 IS sufficient 20 say that
la I.t an ordinance, and is subject
y. repeal tv the Council and the actual
t...'< of franchise in violation of its
ii''.r..r would be repeal Of IL. and, If
Ut .Dt-lt g. desired, the double set OF
now operated by different com
a Broad street under separate
ser0n4-Hlt II the last-suggested con
IN.u.n is the true one 20 be put on
resolution. then its answer must be
H.NI from . proper understanding
non 10 OF the ordinance OF March
cJNCIRS WITH MEREDITH.
.r Pollard then quotes the section
"il deals with the renewal OF the fran
aad continues:
i-0 language Of this section IS not
i., lts meaning as plain as could
ned. but / concur substantially
- W predecessor I'm his view as 90 us
as indicated an his opinion 10
under date Of october /, 1887, where
H.l De seen from the above section
nh. present Council has not the
n dispose Of said routes, without
no OF the said company so as
won't that Council which shall be
vl n 1898 from reeranting the route
.all expire December 81. 1893. nor
prevent that Council which shall be
n 1870 from regranting 20 the
hpany the routes which shall ex-
N The 3lst day Of December. 1900
e II the present Council and the
nf can come 70 terms as 10 any
ascension ~ franchise, 10 can be done
.-'lal consent, but only In that man
A '1rianatiOn and elaboration how
Vt fhis terse statement. i beg 20 say
700 practical effect Of the provisions
Won ". as ] understand II, Is 10 add
year u vitality 10 each one OF
inchises referred 20 IA your resO-
ri during which additional year no
for a new franchise TO another
iF 10 operate over the same
along the same lines. can be en-
INTO that the Council then in power
s not undo and commit the franchise
On To the old company. Although such |
l.r legal status between the city and
c ~ the present franchises. yet this |
or the one co be elected next |
s' might grant the franchises 10 an
% Company. 20 take effect after the |
fNihon Of the additional time allowed |
. 'tfeement with the old company. bat |
49, PC" franchise would be subject 10 |
ur ~ any Council In power prior 10
af plfauOn Of the extra year given, as |
dix 'ld Tor agreement between the |
aul the old company
INTACT WITH OLD COMPANY.
via Us % say. the city has contracted |
'NV Ola company that year from