The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-12-29

| stltutlOnaltty5 OF the Statute, and would
throw doubt upon the very act that corr
summarized the consolidation sought to
4 be 1lfade effectua tog cher with the said
promises." There would not be n very
SATISFACTORY guarantee of the binding Sc
curly OF these promises under sucn
| legislative enactment
furthermore, granting that all the legal
| tilliicuties in this article above set out
be, and was, passed to put the. matters
| alluded to into effective operations, how
could the promises" of the city Of Rich.
mond be enforced, # tlat city. through,
refuse to carry them out7 In plain
| words, suppose that utter annexation
| had been made a fact by Legislative en-.
actinen, the authorities Of the city of
to. build the Free Bridge. the 100000
schoolhouse. to spend during a16 one
year the $4,000 on the streets, or TO pay
things, how could the city OF Richmond
be made to do so? BY suit, do you say?
Who would ,sue2 Under what law would
you sue? Manchester as a city would
city of Manchester. Therefore, Manclies-
ter could not sue. This Is nlanifest-to9
plain for argument Could Rlchmond
sue itself? That is a legal absurd atty
Could the. people Of Manchester sue?
There would DO no people of Winchester;
they would all DO people Of Ricl,m9 nd
ond ennd nn tho o BY law
not this demonstrated? You must con
cedc that it Is: and there seems TO be
no legal remedy to obviatc TINS insep-
arabic difficulty and absolute inhibition
to tic enforcement OF these ..promses"
It Is proposed to make the city of Man
chester ward of the city OF Rlchnrond,
with equal representation as any other
ward of the latter city; and. to give this
representation tho practical control OF
tho $4,000 to be used IN improving the
streets Of the city OF Manchester. Under
ol nw see Ir V AL coSe
OF Virginia, D. 239) the Council of the city
of Richmond cnn change the boundaries
of wards. or any one or more of the
wards Of the city, whenever It clooses;
washington Ward" may become, under
councilmanic action. part of another
ward, or may be divided, and n part of
Its territory united with another ward,
whose representatives will still be from
washington ward" and yet dominated |
by Il majority from the new part OF that |
ward, with Ideas and purposes entirely
adverse to the present intents and sym
pathics of the councilmen from Man
chester This change is not improbable,
when we see the many things accom-
day and generation. Tho part of the Sec
ton Of the Constitution referred to reads: |
The Council Of every city may, In
manner prescribed by law, increase or
boundaries of the wards thereof, and I
SHALL In he year 1903 and In every tenth
year thereafter, and also whenever tho,
boundaries Of such wards are changed,
reapporton the representation in tho
Council among the wards in n manner
prescribed by law. etc
Moreover, any citizen Of the then city
Of Richmond would have the legal right
to apply to the courts for an injunction
to en1oin and restrain the appropriation
and use OF the public moneys on the
streets, etc, Of Manchester, on the
gronnG that that part Of the city was
part, to which 1t was entitled under the
law. Dllon's Municipal Corporations, p,
71a. (besinning) paragraphs 1911. OIL N.
923. 9l2 n. and 92i tsz
These authorities establish the prInc!-
pies governing the proposition laid down
In this article, and the books abound with
cases and preccdents sustaining the same
parity Of reasoning. 1t is well-snitcd, and
an essential part of our law.
Tho promises of the city Of Rich
mond. that nre SO Catching on the
outside, need but analysis TO be demon
stratcd to be of no validity at all. Not
that the members of the Richmond conr-
mittce are not perfectly sincere and earn
contract. If 1t may be called such, IS
undum pnctum. n contract that cannot
be enforced. but that is void In law.
!. Because 1t cannot be enforced, as
upONS ploNCu.f !
2. Because it cannot be made binding
by legislative enactment. rs above shown.
3. Because it cannot be made binding
and Interchangeable by coun cilmnnic en-
actment, as above shown
A. Because tho contract II 1t could be
called such. is between the two cities, one
of which ceases to exist when consolidn-
ton Is consummated, and thus leaving
only one party Qhe city of Richmond)
existing, and thus demonstrating that tho
so-cal|ed contract is absolutely invalid,
because it could not be enforced I: there
then remaining no party to enforce It.
and there being only one party when con-
is consummated to the con-
tract which is legal anomaly. a
Under these circumstances, and in the
face Of the law, how can the people OF
the city Of Manchester afford to enter
into an arrangement of this character,
which cannot be enforced?
Would not the people Of Manchester
be like the man who buys gold brick"
and who is laughed ut for his stupidity? /
That is the way it seems to us, who E.
are looking at these important questions
from all sides and under AL aspects of
the case. Respectfully. s#tSs