The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-12-15
CANNOT REQUIRE
COMP ANY TO PAVE
Unless There Is Specific Con-
tract, Street Railway Corr
poration Not Liable.
OPINION OF CITY ATTORNEY
City Succeeds to Contract Obi
cations of County in Annexed
Territory.


gineer Charles e. Boiling yesterday
City Attorney H r. Pollard defines
the limits within which the city may
regulate street car lines in territory
annexed to the city operated under
! franchises granted by the county of
Henrico or the former city of Man
chester, and not embraced in the gen
eral franchises granted by the city of
Richmond. The opinion In the main
supports the contention of the COM
pany, the City Attorney holding that
In matters of construction, such as
rails, ties or concrete foundation, the
city has power of regulation under the
general police power, whether there
| We're any specific contract or not but
mat in the case OF paving the road
bed of streets either between or out
side of the rails, the matter is one for
specific contract between the city and
the car company. AS the city in the
annexation succeeded 10 the rights
and burdens of the territory taken in,
the contracts as to paving made by
the county of Henrico and the former
city of Manchester are binding,
Settles ycxed Question.
The matter has been one of dispute
for some time. The specific point on
which the ruling was made was over
the paving of Main street west of
Vine Street. Under the franchise of the
Richmond Passenger and Power Com
pany. to which the Virginia Railway
and Power Company has succeeded
the company is required to pave be-
tween its tracks and for two feet on
either side. with the same character OF
material used by the city, whenever
the CitV ordnrnd
In the franchise granted by tho
county of Henrico to the city railway
company in 1887, the company was
only required to pave between its
tracks--not for any distance on either
side. In order not to delay important
work, the car company agreed to
award the contract for its part of the
paving to the contractor doing the
work for the city and allow II to
proceed, the ruling of the City Attor-
ney to determine tho proportion of the
cost to be borne by each party.
Finds No Contract.
Mr., Pollard says in his opinion that
after looking into the matter he does
not find, in the franchise granted the
Richmond Passenger and Power Com
pany on December IS, 1899, any pro-
vision IN the nature of a contract by
which the city can apply the obliga-
ton as to paving in the old territory
to that part of the line brought into
the city by annexation, from which It
follows that the company cannot be
required to do paving on such portions
of its lines as lie in the annexed tor
ritory, unless II be by virtue of the
police power which resides in the city
of Richmond, or by the contracts be-
tween the county authorities and the
il,1rr TT,
laid and the lines operated. Mr.. Pol
lard holds that the police power in
regard to control of street railways
is confined 20 construction, which is
part of the railway Itself, and does not
extend to street construction or repair
work.
Expire at Ono Time.
The only provision in the franchise
ordinance granted the Richmond Pas
senger and Power Company, Mr. Pol
lard says, which refers at all to any
anticipated annexation of territory TO
the city which might bring in out
lying lines, is clause which provides
that such rights should expire at the
same time as the franchise then being
granted, seeming rather to carry out
the idea that during the life of the
present city franchise the lines an
nexed were to continue to be operated
under the rights granted by the county
authorities
After citing a large number of cases,
Mr.. Pollard concludes: II am therefore
irresistihly led TO the conclusion that
the city cannot, under the police power
nor under the franchise ordinance,
compel the Richmond Passenger and
Power Company to do any paving on
streets not within the corporate limits
of the city at the time that the said
franchise was granted by the Council.
But as by annexation the city succeed
ed TO all the contract rights of the
county of Henrico, so far as they con-
cerned any part of the territory an
neHed, the city can enforce the per-
Torrance of the contract between the
parties as TO paving the streets"
Conditions Vary GrcntIy.
The point having been raised in con-
nection with the paving of Main Street
west of Vine, Mr.. Pollard states that
he has gone over all of the contracts
between the Henrico authorities and
the street railway companies and also
examined the ordinances of the late
city of Manchester, and finds the con-
ditioas varying greatly For the in
formation and guidance of the Engi-
neer's Department, he has perpared a
synopsis of the nature of these con-
tracts and their obligations covering
routes of lines and obligations as to
paving between and outside of the
tracks.
AS Mr. Pollard states, the conditions
vary greatly as to paving, in some
places it being required only between
the rails" while in others the require
ment Is for paving between the tracks"
when there is but one track; in others
paving is to be done by the company
two feet beyond the rails on either
side, as in the city proper, and in still
Other cases paving is to be done be-
tween the rails and for twelve inches
beyond the ties, and in one instance
for three feet beyond the eastern and
western rails.
No Conflict In South Richmond.
All of tho lines operating in the for
mer city of Manchester were CONSOLE
dated under a joint franchise about
ten years ago and as that instrument
was modelled largely on the Richmond
tranchles, there is little or no conflict
OF conditions, the company being
obligated TO pave in South Rich
mond between tho tracks and
for two feet on either side
thereof, beyond the outside of the
tracks, Wherever paving is required
nf s,;t AZ.