The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-06
BELL PETITION
NOT ACTED UPON.
Matter Debated in--street Committee
at Great Length.
VIEWS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
He Advises the Adoption of Resolution, but
The Committee Defcrs Action Until He
Can be Preseut-kiuch I'M
proycment Work.
VIEWS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.

The Street Committee spent the greater
portion of its session last night consider
ing n communication from the City At
;ornc, concerning the petition of the
Bell Telephone Company for a franchise
to operate in Richmond. The commune
cation was laid on the table until the
City Attorney can be heard from in per-
son
The letter of Mr.. Pollard. read as soon
rs the committee convened, was as fol-,
lows:
Il beg TO call your attention TO the pc
tition of the Southern Bell Telephone and
Telegraph Company, asking franchise
rights in this city. recently referred to
you 10y the common Council, and strenu-
ously advise that. in my opinion, no &C
ton should be taken, either by you or by
the Council, looking TO the granting of
the PRAYER of this petition Us long as
said company is pressing the litigation
by which il seeks TO establish its right
to occupy the streets of the city with It's
poles and wires. not only against the
wishes Of the City Council. but in VIOLA
ton of ordinances of the city. In my
judgment IT is important that some
brief statement be put upon the record
as 10 The position of the city regarding
this petition of the Bell Company L
have. therefore. taken the liberty of pre-
pairing the draft of Il resolution to TINS
end which I enclose herein, and suggest
that you recommend it TO the Council
for adoption, and return therewit', to the
Council the petition of the said COM
Iany-
THE RESOLUTION.
Tho resolution suggested by Mr.. Pol
lard is as follows:
BE it resolved by the Council OF the
city of Richmond. the Board of Alder
men concurrins, That the consideration
Of the petition of the Southern Bell Ieie-
phone and Telegraph Company presented
TO the Common Council at its regular
February meeting, 1901. be. and the same
l.. hereby, postponed until the litigation
Instituted in the year 1895 against the
city of Richmond and still prosecuted by
the petitioning company. now pending IN
the Supreme Court, has been ended,
either by a dismissal Of such proceedings
CT by a final determination Of the court.
MR.. CHIPLEY is HEARD
After one or Two other motions Fad
been debated and lost, the committee.
by the close vote of six to five, granted
The courtesy of the floor to Mr.. Chipiey,
The representative of the Bell Company.
Mr. Chipley stated that for some time
past the company had endeavored to
take a conciiiatory position towards the
city He thought the dismission Of the
suit would be absurd at this time
Among the clements which entered into
the question We're the cost of the hlSa-
ton and back taxes. Both Of these Things
the company proposes to pay and save
the city harmless. He thought refusal
to consider the matter would simply
mean that Richmond would have a poor
telephone system for several years lon
ger.
Col. Cutsl,aw speaking in favor OF the
resolution, stated that the City Attorney
lad stated that the petition OF the EEL
Company was only another feature of
the litigation and that the object would
lye 10 represent to tie court that the
matter was in process of settlement be-
fore the City Council, the effect of which
would be to staVe off action on the part
of the court.
At the conclusion of the city engineers
remarks Chairman Allen called upon
Mr. c. Y. Meredith. who was associate
counsel with the City Attorney in the
Bell Company suit. and who happened
to be present, to state his views in the
matter. Mr.. Meredith said he was not
prepared to speak on the question, not
knowing what was in the city engineers
mind.
Mr.. Pollock inquired of Mr.. Meredith
whether the consideration by the COM
,nittee would affect the case in the courts
aid Mr. Meredith replied that he thought
it would not.
Mr. Chipley asked Mr. Meredith if the
record in the case of the S. Is. Z. e 7.
Co vs.. City Of Richmond, now before
the L. S. Supreme Court, could in any
way be amended so as to show that any
action on the part of the Richmond Coun-
ell was pending. Mr.. Meredith replied
that il could not.
LAID ON THE TABLE.
Mr. Mills moved to table the com;nuni-
cation of the City Attorney as he desired
to hear from Mr.. Pollard in person.
Mr. King moved that it be rejected.
Mr. Allen favored the City Attorney
resolution. and argued that the Bell Com
pany having occupied a position of de-
iiance to the city for years should not be
heard from as long as the suit was pend
ing.
In this connection Mr.. Chipley remark
ed that under no circumstances could
the company dismiss the suit before ne