The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-10-27
FRIDAY. OCTOBER q, 1890.
QUESTION
THE STREET-CAR
AGAIN.

In a communication 10 The Times, when
we published yesterday, Mr. John Shelton
Wniams. speaking for the Richmond
Traction Company. expressed the opinion
that The Times had done that company an
Injustice in assuming that the proposition
(which 1, recently made 70 the Council IN
volved q purpose to cut of the branch
lines ana 20 leave them to SHIFT for them
selves. presumably to perish
The Times disclaims any purpose OF the
remotest kind to do the Traction Company
any Injustice. on the contrary IL recog-
nizes the service which the Traction COM
many has rendered 20 the city m building
q magnificent line and operating e in
satisfactory way. II only wishes taat
every electric line I'm and around Richmond
were operated as well.
In this controversy touching the dis
position Of the Main-stroot franchise. The
Times has had an eye single 10 the inter-
tests Of the city of Richmond. Between
the rivals for the franchise it has striven
to be as impartial as possible. j has been
guided g. its belief that the following
principles should control the disposition Of
the city railway franchises:
That the interests Of the city and It's
immediate adjacent territory should pe
considered as a whole
That the franchises should be given to
that corporation which could assure TO me
city the best returns and the best service
On the railroad. That the compensation
II the city should be not merely cash
pavment but a percentage Of the gross
earnings.
That the term of tho franchise should
he limited 90 say twenty-five years. so
that the city could get the benefit OF lninre
development and Improvements.
That it is to the interest OF the city that
all the railroads should De operated hy one
concern. This sounds like the objection
able word monopoly" but experience has
shown 1t in such matters to be the wisest
method OF producing best results ut once
70 the public and 10 the operators.
That the city should. in its ordinance,
reserve ample power 10 secure an efficient
service and TO see that 1t receives proper
return Tor the concessions granted.
with the PRINCIPLES In view we would
advocate as thorough an investigation as
Mr.. Williams could desire OF all the facts
which would enable the City Council TO
come 10 a wise conclusion in the matter.
As 10 the contract between ar. Fisher
and the gentlemen who are applying for
a franchise for the operation Of the city
railway properties. We have no doubt that
n q knowledge Of that contract is neces-
sarv 10 enable the city Council wisely 10
protect the city's interests, they will de-
mand such information about II as VIII
enable them TO do so. We know nothing
OF the details OF the contract between Mr.
IYsher and these gentlemen, and IT Is not
apparent 10 US that it is necessary 10
know how they are going to divide up the
stool and bonds among themselves pro-
vided the city gets the returns and the
service which II demands.
We believe that IN New York in the
disposition Of some Of the street railway
franchises they were put Up TO the high
est bidder In this connection II would
seem wise for the city Council 10 appoint
q committee 20 Investigate the methods
adopted by other cities ~" securing the
best results 10 a city in disposing OF such
franchises.
1t is not clear how the city Of Richmond
can control the disposition OF franchises
which have been granted by the county.
but II there IS any way % accomplish
this. those lines that are already In opera
lion around 1lcimond should be provided
for. We DO not think that the Traction
Company, In taking up these outlying
properties should be Required 20 pay any
thing more than what Is a just and proper
compensation for them. but that would be
q matter or agreement between the own
ers OF those properties and the Traction
Company.
===@---E-Z[-