The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-05

sessed OF independent value. However,
whether this be the real reason which
controlled the makers of the Corstitu-
ton or not. the fact seems to be that
granting of Subsidiary franchises aref
exactly the same as those for granting
original and independent franchises.
AS TO AMENDMENTS.
If. therefore. the amendment in con-
temptation would have the effect of Civ.
ing the company any more privileges or
rights to the use of the public streets
or property than It now has. either as
to the character OF the privilege or right,
the place where it many be exercised or
the period for which 1t Is to last. ! would
say that it cannot be granted. as the
law now stands. unless It be only 1or
term of less than one year. and this
regardless OF whether the 1ranchise De
merely a subsidiary one or separate
and Independent one
ION the other hand. II the effect OF the
amendment is not to confer any such
additional rights or privileges. can see
no reason why It cannot be adopted re-
gardless of whether its operation IS
limited to one year on not; for apparently
there is no reason why an existing orol-
nance granting a franchise may not no"
be amended Just as any other ordnance
NAV be amended. provided only. that the
enlarging or extending the franchise
granted by the original ordinance or OF
adding any additional. Independent fran
ctiSe thereto.
CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION.
The following is City Attorney Pollard's
onin;on upon the granting of the Rich
mond Telephone Company's amended
franchise. which will be read to the
Street COMMITTEES tonight:
ITO the Committee on Streets
Gentiemen,-By Your request l have
had under consideration the question.
whether the Council, in view OF the l1m1-
tations placed upon it by section 10 OF
the new Constitution, can legally pass an
ordinance under confederation by YOU en-
titled AN ordinance to amend and re-
ordain sections !, 2, 4. S and of an or
dtnance entitled an ordinance to allow
the Richmond Standard Telephone Com
pany to construct and operate a tele-
phone plant or exhcange, approved De-
cember G. 1885,
'Bv the terms of section 12o Of the new
Constitution it is provided that oe1ore
granting any franchise or privilege Tor
term Of years to use any street or o'net
public property of the corporation. the
municipality shall first, after due adver-
Element. receive bids therefor publicly,
and in such manner as may ~ prov1deo
nv law. and shall act as required ny
law The determination of the question
submitted by you. therefore depends upo!s
the question, whether the proposed oIol-
nance is, in contemplation OF the acuon
or the new Constitution. the granting OF
franchise or privilege not no"
nossesssed by the Richmond Telephone
COMPANY. whose ordinance it is proposed
to amend.
AMENDMENTS ALLOWABLE.
..Kv a careful reading Of the several
sections o., the proposed .ordFnanca
do not discover that any franchise or
privilege for a term of years to occupy
the streets of the city Of Richmond is
rranted beyond tho franchise and priv
le.es already possessed by the orolhance'
of which this is an amendment. Inc
amended sections, except the nrSt t"i,eh
relates to the change OF the name OF the
company. relates to the regulation OF
these rights and TO the rates OF compen-
sation which the company may charge Tor
services to be rendered the public:
."rhe Limitation of the Constitution was
intended to prevent the original grant or
subsequent extension of franchise rights
in the streets. either as to term or terri
tcrv, without first receiving bids pub
licly for such franchise rights. after due
advertisement. The proposed ordinance
does not extend the term Qife) OF the
original ordinance. nor does 1t give the
right to occupy any additional streets or
territory.
II am, therefore. of opinion that the
passage of the proposed amended ordi-
nance is not prohibited by the section
c.c the new Constitution above quoted.
Very respectfully,
I'll r. POLLARD,
CITY Attorney
MIR. MEREDITHS OPINION.
Mr.. c. v Meredith, when seen yester-
day in regard to the power of a city
to amend a franchise, gave the following
statement:
IF a Council amend charter In any
provision or condition after it Is granted
without following the constitutional re-
quirements. that requirement will be use
less and of no avail. a favorite of
Council would only have to have some
assurances of future amendments to bid
on any franchise, however restrictive. He
would look to the future amendments for
his release. In fact, with such an as
surance, he would desire the origiSal
franchise to be as burdensome as posi-
BILE. so as to drive off any competitor.
There must be some amendments which
are necessarily subject to that require
ment such an extension of the life
of the franchise; an extension of the
route, and the like. It would seem. there
fore, that the power Of the CouA,cu
would depend upon the nature of the
amendment and not upon the fact that
it is an amendment.
The object and spirit of the requirement
would suggest this distinction-that where
an amendment is in the nature Of an
enlargement of the franchise. whether
produced by increased privileges or by
release of obligations. assumed for the
benefit of the public, the Council must
follow the constitutional requirements:
but where the amendment consists of the
imposition of additional requirements for
the benefit of the public. the constltu-
tional requirements would not apply.
ALLEGED SUNDAY OPENING
1h;..aan Man Summoned to Anpear