The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-03-19
Prominent Men Express.
Themselves Strongly
in 4Fdvor.Of1 1t.
WOULD INCLUDE
.NORTHSlDE SUBURBS
Barton Heights and Chestnut
Hill, as Well as Paramount,
Are Expressly Mentioned.
Scarcely a Dissenting
Voice From Any Sec
ton Of the City.
.llIl.. B.

A number OF progressive Richmond men
were asked IL they favored the annexa- \
ton OF the three suburbs. Barton Heig hts,
Chestnut Hill and Paramount. No at
tempt was made to poll the city, but
simply 10 get the prevailing sentiment IN
different sectionsi of the city a nd Sin dill
ferent walks$of life. nerchan ts.l doct s.
preachers lawyers and others were ask
ed and their replies. which Is are a over
whelmingly for thes annexa ton OF the
suburbs Indicated, are printed herewith
"A, y, Chewing:
h Replying to yours Just recel ved XII We e
have Is say tina I We are In hearty accord
with tho plan OF taking Barton ights
jC.festrrti Hill and FairmountSin the city
az we'll as a considerable slip adj oining
the West End on the south.
stewart N. woodward:
81 am heartily In favor ct In Guiding
Barton Heights Chestnut ELL and q air air:
mount in the territory to be annexed q 70
Richmond, and $conside IT absolutely es-&
sentiaI for the future growth and develop
ment OF the city that these suburbs
should be brought hin the corporat lon
line. Is attl
Leroy e. Brown: d
Eyes, II am in favor OF! extending the
corporate line, not only anne king Barton
Heights, Chestnut Hill and Paramount
but also to extend 1t to the present line
OF the Jurisdiction Of the Hastings Court,
u. II. jenkins:
Am In favor OF annexlng ou 1tl5 On On
the northside to take In t hose towns
and In other directions where people live
and do business, hut not In ia vor Of miles
Of old z fields. remote from the present
limits. i would take Manchester. toe .ss...
John G. Freeman: Il; f si
WIN say that L am inSf ayorSof a MEX
tension of 81 theas corporate limits OF the
CITY OF Richmond, provided 1t Is wisely
done. ] am unable to say wltho.u nor
information. whether It would be swlse'sto
annex Barton Heights Chestnut Hill and
paramount or not. and, therefore, 4 cannot.
m swer your question more definitely.
;55..I am most heartily in favor of annex
Ing Barton Heights, Chestnut Hill and
Paramount to the city of Richmond, and
Of issuing bonds sufficient to equip out
lying territory at once wit h public I'M I'M
.provements. = @ \
q. r. yarbrough: . 3}- 4 !ss83
cS lIiS
alton, including Barton Heights, Chestnut
Hill and .Fairmount, and such Their ter
ritory as may be needed. ss
James r. Gordon:
..Beg to say that I am clearly of opin-.
ion that a new boundary line ought to
take in Barton Heights, Chestnut Hill
and Paramount, at same time ! adoEnotl
mean to say that l oppose the boundary
lines advocated by the minority Of the
committee. Entirely, i think there is a.
middle ground between the majority and
minority that it would be we'll to adopt"
Sutton and Company:
I'VE are in favor ofSthc annexation of
Barton Heights. Chestnut Hill and Fair
mount, for the rea SON that they lie nearer
the business center of the city than any
OF our suburbs. The lands are sold at
very moderate prices, which affords the
opportunity for persons OF moderate
means to own their homes, and we think
that section should be developed with,
city improvements at as carly a date as
practicable. M
Geo u. Christian:
IT am in favor Of extending the cor
porate limits of the city, and. unless
there are physical and financial diff
culties In the way Gas to which&4I am
not advised), ] think the extension should,
Continued on Fifth Page.)
-. 81.