The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-05-30

continued from flFSt rage
tho subcommittee had been convinced
that the proposed track at grade. which
was TO meet the connection with the
freight depot. was the only reasonable
way out OF tho difficulty
After q good deal OF discussion. which
was on the same lines as In the sub-com-
mittec. Nj. Pollocks motion to tunnel
Broad street was lost by a vote or Z TO
5. Those voting for K were Messrs. Ba-
hen. ~Bloomberg, King. Pollock and
Woody.
IT WAS LOST.
The amendment offered by Mr.. King
was then lost by n vote OF : 20 4. those
voting in the affirmative being Messrs.
Bahen. Bloomberg, King and Pollock.
Mr.. King next moved that tho railroad
authorities be heard as 20 the details OF
the construction OF the proposed union
depot but II was stated that the COM
pany could only proceed with the work
after all the provisions had been COM
piled with. The motion was lost. only
Messrs. Bahen and King voting for the
same.
On motion Of Mr.. Bloomberg the sec
ton was so amended that the plans have
to be approved by the City Engineer. h
section was then adopted with this
amendment. The section was finally
adopted.
Section 4. specifying the location and
character Of the depot building, and sec
ton .. requiring the road TO begin work
IN six months and 10 complete every
thing in two years after the commence
ment. were then adopted without discus
sion.
Only a slight verbal change was made
in gncffOD & priOr TO adOptiOn.
A similar change was made in section
!, and the section was adopted
Section 3 was adopted without change.
STRUCK a SNAGt.
When section 9. requiring the company
TO nle bond for the completion Of the
work. was reached. there was a hitch.
Mr.. King moved to fx the amount or
the bond, which was left blank IN the
ordinance, at $4,000.
Mr.. Bloomberg moved 10 amend by
striking out the provision requiring bond
| and simply compelling the railroad TO re-
imburse the city for any damages that
might be suffered through the execution
of the proposed improvements.
Mr.. Pollock offered an amendment 70
curing the railroad company 10 file with
the clerk of the city Council its accept
| ance Of the provisions OF the ordinance
which acceptance should be in writing
| under the corporate seal Of the company,
constituting a contract between the city
and the company binding the latter 10
construct the works contemplated by the
ordinance. and I'm the event OF failure 10
do so the company agreed 20 pay the city
the sum Of $1,000 as l%iquidated damages.
Mr.. Pollock spoke at some length In IA
| vor Of his amendment. saying IN did
away with the onerOus feature OF the
bond proposal. In tina II did not require
a large amount Of money 10 be deposited.
Colonel Cutshaw. by request. gave his
views ON the amendment. lie Favored
IL heartily. IL imposed a burden upon no.
body. II simply said that II the compony
were acting I'm good faith # would lose
| nothing. ~ acting I'm bad faith 1t should
pay for a..
GOOD FAITH.
Mr.. T. Randolph williams. counsel for
the railroad, by permission, addressed the
committee. He said this question Of good
faith seemed to be the only one in the
| minds Of some members Of the committee.
Did the committee think his company
was working so hard for n franchise
simply for fun Had IL p%urchaeed over
| 10000 worth Of real property In hlch-
mond merely as a real estate specuiation2
He thought every possible means thus
far had been taken advantage of by the
| company 10 show its good faith2 lie
objected TO a bond. because he thought
that should the company for some reason
be unable 10 build the road, IL would be
outrageous TO demand from il $4,000 In
the way of blood money.
Mr.. Ebel opposed the bond and the con-
tarct TO pay damages. lie grew eloquent
I'm the course OF his remarks, and made
the strongest speech of the evening.
Mr.. King Withdrew his proposition 10
require the placing Of n bond for $4,000,
and spoke endorsing Mr.. POll0cks amend
meut.
Mr.. Pollock spoke I'm advocacy OF his
amendment. and Mr.. Bahen followed on
the same line.
Mr.. PoIlock's substitute for Mr.. Bloom
berg's amendment was lost by q vote OF
4 TO s. Messrs. Bahen, Blo0mberg, King,
and Pollock voting for the same.
Mr.. Bloomberg's amendment was then
acted upon. Mr.. BlOomberg spoke In
favor Of the amendment, and 1t was
adopted.
There was one or two further slight
amendments Of the section, and IL was
adopted.
The question then came up on the adop-
ton OF the ordinance as a whole. Mr..
Bloomberg spoke at length In opposition
10 the proposed grade crossing on Broad
/ street.
Mr.. King opposed recommending the or
dinance 70 the Council until plans were
in the hands Of the City Engineer.
Mr. Bloomberg then asked 10 have the
vote by which the committee had refused
10 strike out the provision for a grade
crossing on Broad street. but only Messrs
~Bloomberg. Bahen, King and Pollock
voted for his motion.
ORDINANCE ADOPTED.
The vote on the ordinance as a Who'll,
was then taken, and resulted:
Ayes-Messrs. Allen. Bahen. Burton
Whittet. Lawder. Ebel, Woody, Pollock
Peters, Gibson-l0.
Noes-Messrs. Bloomberg and King.
Mr.. Pollock. I'm explaining his vote
stated hat he was in favor OF recon-.
mending the ordinance to the Council
but reserved himself the right of raising
his objection I'm the Council with regard
to the grade crossing on Broad street.
A recess Of half an hour was then
taken.
G. AND O. ODINANCE.
| Nearly an hour elapsed before the COM
| mittee r%ecOnvened and tho franchise ask
ed for by the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
way Company was. then taken up and
considered by sections on motion OF Mr..
Burton.
When thu preamble had been read Mr..
POllock moved "a on the consideration