The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-05
FRANCHISES HARD
TO III. Oti AMEND
3raxton, Meredith and Pollard
Discuss Position of Cities.
CONSTITUTIONS PROVISIONS.
The Amended Franchise of The Rich-
mono Telephone Company Will
Come Up Before the Street
Committee Tc>Night.

The application of the Richmond Ieie-
phone Company for an amendment 10 us
franchise ordinance, which will be taken
nm by the Council Committee on Streets
Tonight. has given rise TO one or more
interesting and important questions as
regards the restrictions thrown around
the granting or amending OF municipal
franchises by the new Constitution
city Attorney Henry Il. Pollard. in an
opinion which Will be read TO the Street
Committee tonight. holds that the Guy
is il g position under the new Consutu-
ton to grant the amendments asked for
by the Richmond Telephone Company.
A very clear and comprehensive dis
cuss.on Of the position Of cities in the
matter OF granting and amending fran
chises has been secured from Mr.. A. Z.
t3raxton, of Stanton, whose prominent
part in the making OF this portion OF the
Constitution. gives his view OF the mat
ter the greatest weight and authority.
Mr. Braxton has this to say on the
subject:
INTO THREE CLASSES.
According to my understanding, the
new Constitution divides municipal fran
chises into three classes. as follows:
81. Those which are for terms of less
than one year.
I'D. Those which arc for terms OF not
less than one year, nor more than thir-
ty years; and,
I'D. Those which are for terms OF more
than thirty years.
THE first class may be granted by
town. or city councils without waiting
for any legislative action and without
receiving bids therefor.
The second class cannot be granted
by the Council until the Legislature has
enacted laws prescribing how bids there
for may be received and acted upon, ana
until the Council has actually received
and acted upon such bids in the manner
so prescribed by the Legislature.
The third class cannot be granted by
anybody. at any time. or in any man
ner-they being utterly forbidden.
THE COUNCILS FUNCTIONS.
Thus you will see that, as to one
class, the Council can act without await
ing legislative action; as to another class,
il cannot act until the Legislature has
provided the method of action; and as
TO the third class. il can never act at all,
either with or without legislative ac-
ton.
The sole distinction between these
classes of franchises consists in the
length Gf the terms for which they are
granted and in no other respect Is there
any difference between them. So that
1t matters not what the nature of the
franchise may be, If it lasts for less than
one year it is of the first class. ard may
be granted by the Council without fur
Their legislative action; If it lasts for not
less than one nor more than thirty years
i- re he, oil 1,11 Cpr1
be granted by the Council until the Leg
stature has prescribed the method of
procedure and if it lasts for more than
thirty years it Is of the third calss, and
can never be granted at all-neither be-
eore the Legislature acts nor afterwards.
ONLY FOR A YEAR.
I'm reply, therefore, to the question
as to whether. under the law it now
stands (the Legislature not having yet
acted in the premises), the Council has
the right to grant franchise, i would
cay that if the grant is for less than
one year 1t has such right. but if for longer
term than one year it has not.
by the word franchise 1 mean fran
chise. lease or right of any kind to use
any street, alley or other public place,
property ca easement. in a manner lex
cept for II trunk railway not permitted
to the general public.
..In reply To- the question as to whether
the Council as the law now stands can
amend in any way any ordinance grant
ing such rights TO such companies now
In existence, I would say that so far
as granting franchise is concerned
cannot see that it Is at all material
whether 1t is an original grant or an
amendment of a grant already made-the
foregoing restrictions being alike appli-
cable ts, either case; for cannot i'm
agine why council should be permitted
to do by way of amendment to an ordi-
nance that which it could not do in the
original ordinance itself. nor do | see
anything in the language of the Consu-
tuition to justify such a contention.
which, II sustained, would completely
natlify all the provisions Of section l25
on the subject.
SUBSIDIARY FRANCHISES.
..It may be urged that there is a DIFF
ference between an original franchise,
which may be separately and independ-
entity operated or utilized, and subse-
auert, ancillary franchise, that can only
be utilized in connection With and as
subsidiary to some principal franchise
already in existence. and which, there
fore. is CT value only to the holder of
the principal franchise, and doubtless
there Is such a difference: but 1t seems
very clear that the Constitution does
not recognize any such distinction in the
matter OF granting franchises; doubtless
because the best and most reliable test
as to whether a proposed franchise is
in fact merely subsidiary is 20 put it
up at auction. and if 1t be merely sub
sIdiary of course no one but the owner
Of the principal franchise will bid for
1T, in which event only the cost of offer
ing II for sale will be lost: but If some
one else should bid for it there would.
Tor that reason. be good cause to think