The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-10-14
Very truly.
n T.. BEMIS. President
VIEWS OF MAJOR PATTON.

Major James D. Patton, president OF me
Richmond Passenger and Power company,
when asked this morning regarding the
charge that his company was blocking the
securing of a transfer system, said:
eve were greatly surprised at the ac-
ton of the Traction Company in publish
ing our letter to them on the subject OF
transfers before replying to it, and in the
absence of the president of the company,
whose return must be awaited before 2
reply can be had.
81 do not understand the terms OF
transfer agreement between the two COM
panies to be matter in which the pubic
is in the slightest degree interested, ana
we regarded, and still regard, the nego-
tiations as a private business matter be-
tween the two companies. When our COM
pany began operating its properties last
April addressed a letter to the Traction
Company stating that We We're ready to
arrange a system of transfers Mr.. Be
miss replied to that letter by saying that
he did not recognize the Passenger and
Power Company, and declined to enter
into any negotiations with it. Subsequent
ly. when Mr.. Bemiss decided to recognize
the Passenger and Power Company. he
sent Communication inviting negotia-
tons on the transfer question.
SAW MIR. BEAIIss.
II had one, or probably two, interviews
with Mr.. Bemiss, in which we discussed
the question in a general way. About the
middle Of August, at Mr.. Bemiss invita-
ton. Mr.. George Ansie and myself met
Mr.. Bemiss and Mr.. Waddey at Mr.. Be-
miss residence. and thoroughly discussed
the transfer question with the aid Of a
large map showing the transfer points.
We explained to these gentlemen at the
outset that we We're not authorized or en-
powered to make any agreement on behalf
Of our company, but that we We're there
to discuss the question and gain all the
light possible. At the conclusion of this
interview. Mr.. .Ainsie and myself. again
explaining to the other gentlemen that we
were only acting in our own individual
capacities, stated that we would recon-
mend to our Board for its adoption a GER
tain plan for transfer agreement.
1.-THE next day an article appeared in
paper to the effect that the only thing to
be donc now was to sign the papers, and
that all agreements had been made. This
statement did not emanate from US, and
when asked about it by a reporter Mr..
Ainslie stated the facts of the interview.
as I nave just stated to you.
.At the next meeting of our Board Of
Directors, which was called especially
for the purpose, we recommended the
adoption of the plan. which We had
promised Alessrs. Bemiss and Waddey to
recommend. The matter was exhaustive
" discussed g that and other subsequent
meetings of the Board, and a majority Of
the Board, at a meeting held at the COM
pany's Office on Tuesday last. being Of the
opinion that the plan was not a proper one
for us to adopt, declined to do so.
1t then directed the secretary to address
the letter which was published by them
when received.
"The proposition which was made by our
company was adopted by our Board, for
the reason that the Passenger and Power
Company completes with the Traction
Company in practically all of the latter's
territory, while the Traction Company
completes with the Richmond Passenger
and Power Company in none OF its sub
urban lines and that "a transfer agree
ment upon an equal basis would give the
Traction Company undue and improper adj
vantage over our Company.
NO BLOCKING DONE.
Eve are held up TO the pubic as block
ing the transfer. SYSTEM and the reason
assigned IS because We did not accept the
one and on.y proposition made by the
Traction Company. The article goes on
to state that it appears to US (the Trac-
ton Company to be an absurd proposition,
and to show that the Passenger and Pow
ers COMPANY is not anxious to have a
transfer system settled on a fair basis
And further, the Traction people do not
hes,ta to to say that on the basis proposed
nv the Richmond Passenger and Power
| Company there is not a settlement OF the
| question In sight L do not exactly see
| how we should be held to be blocking the
transfer agreement any more by refusing
"a ACCEPT the proposition Of the Traction
con- pa,ly, than that they should DE SO up
| held for declining to accept our counter.
proposition and from the whole tenor OF
/ the article 1t appears to us that the Trac-
ton Company, n Its first communica ton
issued to us an ultimatum and argues our
failure to accept It as an effort on our
mart to block the transfer system.
trl,a We q re- IRE.