The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-04-25
THE new RAILWAY.
Council Committee on Ordinance
Met Last Evening and
REFERRED PEOPLE'SORDINANCE
Back to the Company for Revision.
City Will Want the Privilege of
Purchasing the Road In the Event
of u Municipal Ownership Millcn.
ium-several Other Changes sug.
scsted by the City Solicitor.

rho o,t
,,a,,, p.,,...'<, ~ " 'iic req
na,,,, - o,,.' was eA'eiisiSeiy
tho ,as,,. ~ tNeso't' Ut
o,,.,,..s ,He" u 'iier council
ro,a.ra,, ~ '.' anu ~ was
~. ~ .o'p''y iot ieSisioi on
NJ 49,. 80 ~ 'ne cry s''iei'of'
49,. .aeu "'teii'ioh " 'iie ordi-
Vt. .,,.,. aNe po'ii.s anu III erect
10 I'''o'' "ete ioi I plactieaiy
""ieh shouiu impose
an,. i',o''s " .nose III Tue ran
60. ""eenns G f.i'ii
T.e.s .
Tho ,o,,o,'.,., peste q. .ne ii'te'ins
VI 'ie eoi'''iii.-
, GU. -. '1N' 't I'
1r,ss. 49, - s' n1o,'''aii' 'cn,''ia''
s. ''iit'i'', anu .he
- 30 10 iepi e'eii'a'''e' hi'
ot'et p''' ''cs inter-
~, psSe Spee'u'oi p do III iae'
80 "Ao WASH si.e" .he
oppoi ."'N'' ~ spehh tof .he
90 .o'miNs '"e e''s SWIFT
WI iepoft ii'''e time was iost IN ad-
e' 80 'e i''o'ioi " ietet 'he
~ I.,N, ~ .He company tot 'is'on
49, aa.nna o.. . .' ~ He". .ioii,
- III ..,a.,s. ~ c, - ""s ~ seeTtu
-, o. a't man .eGo', '''eN
'n'eu 'hh' ne ii'u io opJectioh u near
from the company, but In view Of the
solicitors suggestions thero WAC li,tla
d;sno.i,,or -, ,,a.,-, -, a.
VIC poS'''oi 'o"aiu uiscussioh uH'il 'he
next meeting.
City Solicitor Nesbitt, who was given
,ho ors,,
,,,. VI .A'
so'i'''it''ee' Hau given II n careful study,
and the tenor of his report was that the
ordinance shouId have boo,, dr,,,.r ,,oro
.,.,oS,,' i' Deeii ul'"h more
'pes"'is. nc proped II from start
10 'fnish. and his first recommendation
pertalned to the openinp sentence no
surras,i,, .oort,,r 49,, T..
lam stleels IN tne ute
ii'Stedu OIL general stipulations OF the
Streets" He next suggested that "suc-
cessors and oss,,,.,, s,ho,,a \, ,,,,.,...
~, -. 'u.u VIC s'ieAe'i
ou'' o'''ess couhcli intended the COM
pany to have the privilege of selling its
franchise. Others were ror tho srhs,i-
t,,,o, =,
'u'ioii vi single track for tracks;
street passenger cars" instead of
cars" He also argued for n Iim;,ot,o,
in tho erec,,op ~,
mi, 'ioiiey pores.
IHe soncltor next inquired what ar
lunSeneht the Peoples company had
Win the Wheeling &; Elm Grove for
Ehapilhe street: what with the Wheel
me company for the crossing OF the
Market street bridge, or what with the
Baltimore & Ohio for crossing its
tracks. Ihese details, he said, should
pe specihed.
other defects noted were In there be-
lnS no stlpulations rs to the frequency
or number OF cars to be operated. guage
OIL track, or provision for switches or
tneir location.
concluding, Mr.. Nesbitt suggested
tnat there be an insertion Of the condi-
IONS imposed on the Wheeling & Elm
Grove. In the Peoples ordinance there
was an absence OF clauses relating TO
the compensation the city received or
the term OF years the franchise should
run. He suggested clause f6rbidding
tne sale oil the franchise or conSol!da-
tion with another company. The solicit
Tor also wanted the work Of supervising
the construction OF the road done by the
CITY engineer. instead OF by the board OF
pubic works.
fI,.A