Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-12-05
WILL NOT ACCEPT It,
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PACED

granting Of the conduit franchise as
case in point where the city had suffered
as a result OF undue haste.
Mr.. Caslxle endorsed afr. Wallerstelns
views. The resolution the Council was
now asked 10 repeal was. in the speaker
opinion, the most important I'm the book
TASTY legislation Is bad Ieslsla,tlol, IN ir
asserted. Il have great conhdehcs an AZ
the Street Committee. but they don't 90
my thinking" he said, and, continuing
he cOntendcd that members outside the
Committee on Streets had not had time
enough 10 consider the ordinance. lhe
matter Of who Is TO get control OF the
road As "a most important one, Mr.. CAS-
kie siid, "for II / thought the present
owners were going TO get control, would
strongly oppose this ordnance
SHOULD ACT PROMPTLY.
Mr. Bl0omberg spoke I'm favor Of taking
action az an early date. Members VINO
rad not read the ordinance when had
been ia their hands for several days were
not likely 60 study IL before the next
meeting There were influences abroad 10
defeat the effort OF the city 20 dispose OF
the street-railWay property az one ume'
ana by forcing the disposition OF the ines
little by little the interests Of the city
would be injured. lie thought the Coun-
eli should begin the work. which would
probably extend over two or three seS-
siOns.
Mr. Caslde charged that an effort was
being made TO repeal the rule, because III
only required a majority vote. He said ne
was convinced that n the members behind
the movement could have secured 70 votes
to suspend the rule they would never
have moved tO repeal it.
Mr.. Ebel advocated the adoption Of the
resolution When the day was fixed Tor
the consideration. all the active MINDS
i'm the Council would be set thinking,
even If they had not been considering the
matter during the past months Inc
newspapers had printed daily articles on
the sub. Jet. as well IS editorials. ana IL
was impossible that any one could be ls-
uOrant of the matter who was q read
or OF the newspapers. He denied that
the Council had made any mistake in
granting the conduit ordinance. II was
one OF the greatest benefits the city had
received for very many years The Ordi-
nance should De- passed i'm some form. so
tldt the city might ascertain whether
it was or was not acceptable 10 the syn-
d,catc. so that n IL were rejected the
city charter might be amended so as 10
put the Council i'm position TO deal with
the street railway matters in another
way.
LEAVE 1T ~ FISHERS HANDS.
After some further discussion Mr.. Miner
asked what would Doe the situation OF the
city ON January t. 1880. when the city was
unable 20 comply with the terms of its
contract and purchase the Main-slreet
line or renew the franchise?
MT. BiOOmhele stated, III reply, bId1
Mr.. Fisher would then take the road over
for term of years.
Mr. Pollock spoke az length In favor OF
the resolution. and upon the question be-
ing called the motion 20 abrOeate tho
rule was adopted boy the following vote.
Ayes Mcssrs Blanks. BlOOmberg Ebei.
Gibson. Mccarthy. Mills. Miner, Peters,
Pollock Shea Teefey, Whalen, Winston,
and NOOdy-l4.
Noes-Messrs. Camp. Curtis Gunst Har-
relson. Hobson. Neale, Tanner. Waller
stein. West Williams. and Caske-lL
After the adoption of this resolution
motion was made to adjourn, and IL was
carried. so date was fixed Tor tine meet
ing at which the franchise IS 60 be taken
up but IL is subject TO call.