The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-11-10
A GREAT FIGHT
ON ANNtx.A ton
Mcssrs. Meredith and Wcnden-
burg Discuss Constitutionality
Of the Law.
KNOCKING AT CITY GATES
Hundreds Of Hcnrico People,
Represented BY Meredith,
Asking to Come in.

Asking to Come in.
or intense interest to all Richmonders,
| and sizzling in It's concern to Henrico CIT
izens. the annexation question. a question
| that means the widening Of tho limits OF
| Virginias capital city By the anneAat!oE
1 Of contiguous territory. wherein res'ae
] Hundreds Of people who are petitionlns,
! pleading and clamorng to enjoy the PRIV
i ilegcs of their city neighbors; Is being dis-
/ cllscd in the Henrlco Circuit Court, WIN
i Judge Cnrnett, az Mathews, as the iinal
/ arbiter of the vexatious matter. 'FRONT.'
/ nent lawyers are wrestling with the iesui
] points. The consttutionality OF the law
/ under which annexation OF con tiguous ter
j ritory is effected is being attacked and
likewise is 1t being ably supported. 1t IS
/ a battle royal, and Richmond has not
4 before III years witnessed such struggle
between such brilliant legal lights.
All Of yesterday was consumed in argu-
i ment by Messrs. L. o. Wendenburg Com
! monwealth's Attorney of Henrico county,
/ and Charles V. Meredith, a prominent
i member of the Richmond bar. who, with
/ Mr. r. r. Pollard. Is representing the
/ people OF Richmond who desire to see
4 Richmond expand, and also representing
/ tho residents of East Richmond and Fair
i mount, who are clamoring to be annexed
/ Mr. Wendenburg had spoken the day be-
1 fore and closed his argument on the ap-s
! plication for demurrer on the part OF
4 1.-THE board Of supervisors OF Henrco yes
I tcrday before recess. He attacked the
q constitutionnlity OF the annexation law,
declaring that the Legislature was In this
instance delegating legislative function
4 or power upon the Judiciary. This Is the
/ meat in the cocoanut. The attorneys for
/ the county have the belief that In tho an
\ nexatIon law there is confounding OF the
Legislative and judicial departments, and
/ that dire things will result II the court
i Easses upon such question as the one
i now before it. Hence the demurrer OF
Il the county, and likewise does the de-
i murrer5 Of Mrs. James II. Dooley. who
q owns property in Henrico, have Its ori-
Egin On these demurrers the discussion
n thus far has progressed The case propf
i has not been presented to the court, cx-
q cept where the argur ent struck 1t.
T The City's Side.
Mr.. Meredith spoke for about four hours
yesterday, and clearly and ably presented
the city's side of the question to the court.
He quoted his references bearing on the
constitutonality OF Me question, and
3 drove home shot after shot with telling
effect into the disturbed sides Of tho OPP
posing side
. Mr.. Meredith claimed that the Legisla-
4! ture had declared a law and made the
statute, and that that was the extent Of
Of the legislative duty, and that It had
simply referred to the courts the ascer-
ia lnment of certain facts, which, when
ascert aimed, would Justify the court In de-
cIarng the annexation. BY this course
the two departments were confined to
their respective functions; that this was
necessary by reason Of the provision In
the new Constitution, refusing to allow
the Legislature to annex territory by sep
cIal acts, and only allowed It to make
general laws applicable to all cities and
towns, for purposes of annexation; that
by that constitutional provision the Leg
d lsIature was empowered to select and des-
Ignate the method by which annexation
should be accomplished"
In II gist, this WAS the argument OF Mr..
Meredith. He cited reference after refer
ence bearing upon the question, and mot
tho Issue fairly and squarely, He laid par
tlcular stress upon the argument that the
I-cgislat ure, In making the annexation
law, was not confounding tho functions OF
the two departments-tho Legislative and
judicial In this case. he argued. tho Leg
islnture had made a law. and simply sdes-
ignated the method by which the law
should be enforced.
Mr.. Wendenburg's Reply.
/ Mr.. Wendepburs's closing argument In
opposition to the annexation proposition
attacked the constltutionulity of tho act
almost wholly. He claimed that the stat
4 ute reversed all precedent In this respect
T for 1t would leave the decision OF the en-
Q tire matter TO the court. "GrantIng that
J. the courts have a right to decide the mat
: ter, the law Is unconstitutional, because
!, It does not provide tor the protection Of
J, the people, who are brought In against
l. their will, by due process OF law. For In
: stance, take Fafrmount, the Indebtedness
|" of which Is $4,000. The law says thai
= when they come Into the new territory
J. and become a part of Richmond, the IN
debtedness 10 transferred from the toWr
of Falrmount, as obllgor under those
bonds, to the city Of Richmond, as tht
obllgor of the bonds; that the liability j
I transferred from one obllgor to another
Isn't that changing the obligation Of
contract without due process of laW2 Tn
y. y, Legislature has not the power to lmpal
r. the obligation OF those bond contracts, 10
IN the bond holder mIght say that he Wou'
le not have loaned to Rlchmond."
t. Mr. Wendenburg warmed up with hi
n subject. and Notwithstanding the fac
pc that the questions involved are purel.
10 technical, and usually of Interest onl,
: to members OF the bar. there were man
In the audience who watched with in
tense interest the legal battle.
Mr., Rraxton To-day,
nd Hon. A. G. Braxton, for the county q
ny