The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-08
DOCK QUESTION;
Mr.. BEM|SS TALKS.
Regards the Property We'll Worth
the Price Named by Bond
holders Committee.
WHAT OTHER CITIES DO
The Dock Woull Pay City Hand
somely in More Ways
Than One.
WHAT OTHER CITIES DO

! Mr.. Il. l.. Bemiss, who represents tho
| bon1holders now practically owning tho
| Richmond dock, and has been thus drawn
| into the discussion concerning the propo-
| sition for the city to purchase the same,
| was seen yesterday.
| Mr.. Bemiss stated that he Ind heard II
| r,imored that the move to sell the Rich
| mond Dock to tho city was hut nm Mt
| tempt on the part OF the bondhoders to
unload on tho city, n property which
they could not otherwise dispose OF or
use, and that the adverse report OF the
Finance Committee upon tho proposition
was due to n feeling that tho price asked
was too high.
Mr.. Bemiss stated that he desired to
make It clear at the outset, that the
proposition to sell this property to the
city. did not originate with the bond
holders committee and that not one OF
the bondholders had the remotest notion
OF any such plan until their attention
was called to II by the representatives
of the Chamber OF Commerce. but on
the contrary they were actively engaged
In formulating an entirely different plan
for dsposing OF this property.
1t was only after some days OF nego-
tiating that the option for limited
period. at the price OF $4,000. was
granted to the Chamber Of Commerce.
After this option was granted. overtures
were made to representatives OF the
bondholdcrs, looking to the acquisition
Of the dock. OF tho price in excess Of
$4,000.
Mr.. Bemiss stated that he considered
the price of $4,000 very reasonable. for
the following reasons:
First Because the property was actual
ly worth II. There was no doubt what
ever, that the property, with any Ind OF
encouragement to shipping will earn Mt
Ian OF Az nav rnu N nv 70
Second. It cost the bondholders many
times this amount. There seems to be
an impression that as tho property Mt
the judicial sale, was knocked down to
the bondholders at their bid OF $4,000,
this was the cost OF It. AS far as the
amount of money that the hondholders
would have been required to pay for
this property. It would have made no
difference whether they had bid 5000 or
81, 10000, the latter being the amount of
bonds on deposit with them. secured py
first liens on the property.
Before the sale the bondholders had
exercised every effort TO develop pur-
chaser Of the property as whole and
their failure to find such one showed
that In all probability the property would
have to be bought in by them. Just be-
fore the sale they formally discussed
the amount which they shoild bid on
the property. 1t WAS determined that
they would not bid over $4,000. hut
would bid against any other bidders UP
10 that amount. The property was sold
In parcels, and the aggregate bids were
s35s,Ooo, and all OF the real estate was
awarded to the bondholders at thNtr mini
mum bid on the property rs whole.
Third. The deed from the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway to the w. r. Trtgg
Company recItes n cash consideration
of $4,000 In addition TO the money
received, other benefits accrued 10 the
Chesapeake ana Ohio Railway.
Mr. Bemiss was asked whether 1t was
not true that the dock, under private
ownership. would have 10 be maintained
for the river commerce OF the city He
replied that he understood that this was
true in way, but that tho obligations
imposed upon the owners of The dock
were only such as would provide such
facilities as We're required over nifty years
ago. But that he felt that those who used
this argument against the purchase OF
the dock by the city failed In Just
appreciation OF the service which the
dock could be to the city. The ownership
of the dock for the past fifteen years by
owners who were not especially con-
cerned in encouraging water traffic
showed a steadily decreasing commerce
in the dock. During all OF this time the
obligations imposed by law as to the
maintenance of the dock were met For
the greatest benefit to the city. the dock
should be operated Mt cost. using surplus
revenues to reduce charges to vessels and
provide additional facilities.
Private owners, Of course, could not
be expected to forcgo possible profits.
Thc wisdom OF this course has been
realized by many cities. notably New
Orleans. La, and Baltimore, Md In the
former city, where every natural advan-
tagc for water commerce existed With
water front OF over twenty-one miles
and depth of 100 to 100 feet right at lac
wharvcs these whnrves had for many
years been rented to private parties. who
derived very large profits from their
lease. These wharfage charges were cx-
horbltant and several lines were driven
away from the city. TO remove this
burden the city refused to continue the
lease and took the Wha.yes under their
own charge. The charges were reduced !;
wharycs were treated AZ public property,
IN be used 70 M TO bring good to all
the community; vessels began to return,
and New Orleans is now the largest grain
export town In America
Baltimore has lately condemned private
property 80 as 10 Increase her wharfage
facilities.
Private owners cannot be expected to
handle this property solely for tho bene-
ut OF thespublc nor can they be ex-
pectcd to use 1t exclusively for dock
pnrposes II other purposes appear which
viii produce n revenue and yet not inter
Zero with a literal compliance with the
! statutory obligations.
Mr. Bemias Wns asked whether the DO
yelopment of tho water transportation
would bn injurious to thu railroads and
no answered that In his opinion It would
10 helpful to tho railroads; TINT only
last week IN agent Of large fertilizer
company in Philadelphia desired to secure
n location on the Trlgg yards IN order
that he might hring by water fertilizers
from Philadelphia. storing thcm In Rich
mOnd of distribution by rail to interior
points; that a very large amount of this
Kind OF business would he developed.
-7t--'-'r--
"Wondcrland' Opens This Week.
Mr. Jake Walls expects To hive won
| dFf1nnd,N new amusement, mt rhIrd