The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-04-20

+
Brsad Street franchise He thought the
sum OF Siaaoo or $4,000 a year was beg
garry sum for taxes from such a cempa-a
nv" He though, that the city should get
not less than $4,000 as bonus for the
property Or the franchise.
They say We need money for a new
jail; we need money to clear our water.
and we need money for other purposes"
said Mr.. Caskie.
Mr. Caskie said he thought that favor
tteism was being shown, and said that
came in and asked for sixty days time
to put up u s2oeoG bond. you nave not
the assurance that the three months is
time enough in which to gather In the
bonds.'' said Mr.. Caskie. He was willing
to give the $4,000 bond back TO the in
corporators. aud thought that it would be
wise TO decline to grant the extension
asked for. He stated that when the or
dinance was presented ne was very active
in putting on amendments. he sa!d thai
fc was informed that the ordinance was
null and void unless the company gather
ed 3n the bonds in the specified time
Mr.. Wallerstcin arose and stated that
he was very proud of the fact that ne
voted against the franchise
OF GREAT INTEREST.
Mr.. Rloomberg said that the question
had been asked him as to what position
the Council had assumed toward the com
pany. He said taat he knew and unher-
stood everything that ne nad voted for,
and that during his service of six years
in the City Council he had not known a
question of greater interest than the one
now being discussed. He stated that he
was unwilling to allow one corporation
TO mon0polize tae lines and wipe out all
others He thought that the better the ser
vice given Ehe people of Richincn1. the
better they would be satisfied, and stated
that the bondholders of the .'oid lines
were the men who owned the lines. He
said that he understood that new track
was being laid now, and that new rolling
stock had been ordered by the new COM
pany.
Mr.. Wallerstein asked Mr.. Bloon5ery
to tell him whether the old railway conf
pany ever defaulted in the payments of
its bonds. and moved to lay the ordnance
offered by Mr.. Bloomberg on the table
ORDINANCE NOT TABLED.
Mr. Ebcl spoke against laying the ordi-
nance on the table. He said that he
only wanted a fair remuneration from the
company for the use of the city's streets.
He thought that in order TO keep faith
with the company. they ought to grant
them the desired time.
a recorded vote on the motion as offer
ed by Mr.. NEallerstein 80 lay the ordi-
nance upon the table was then taken.
The vote stood as follows: T'wenty-three
to three. Those voting TO table it were
Messrs. Peters, Wallerstein and Casiic.
Mr. Gbel moved that the opinion of the
City Attorney he heard upon the Gues-
tion of the amendment as offered by Mr..
BiocnbeTE. II was adopted.
MUST COMPLY WITH IT.
The City Attorney responded to the re-
quest Of the Council by saying that it
was always better to leave nothing to
construction and have the letter Of every
legal paper perfectly clear, but in his
opinion the failure of the company to
comply with the provisions Of section 8
of the ordinance would operate forfeit
ure of every right under the ordinance
OF the Richmond Passenger and. Power
Company.
Mr.. Wallerstein. before offering reso-
luton, asked that all VINO We're not merl-
bers of the body be asked TO retire during
the reading of the same. He said that he
had been apprised of the fact that mem
bers of the company had been lobbying
in order to get the counciimen to vote
against his resolution. The resolution is
as follows:
''Be it resolved. That the pending ordi-
nance be referred to the Committee on
Streets, with the instructions to consider
the same with pending amendments. but
any delay occasioned by said reference
shall not operate in way prejudcial to
the rights of the Richmond Passenger and
Power Company as 10 the forfeiture of
the $4,000 bond deposited under section
. of their ordinance, and the period be-
tween this day and the date of a report
from the Committee on Streets on the said
ordinance shall be excluded in the conpu-
tation of the time in which said bonds
may be forfeited of said ordinance"
A1r. Bloomberg said: Would the gentle
man that offered that resolution be sur
prised if We're to tell him that it is not
worth the paper it IS written upon?'
he hoped that it would be the pleasure of
the body to vote down the amendment
The question then was the amendment
offered by Mr. Harrelson. to be added
TO the ordinance offered by Mr.. Bloom
berg. The amendment is as follows, and
is to follow after the word Richmond, in
CONTINUED on Second Pagco