The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-11-15
date FIXED FOR
DOCK ARGUMENT
Closing Of Richmond Institution
to Be Considered by
Commission.
OPPOSITION IS INTENSE
City, Chamber and Business
Houses United Against
Petition.
OPPOSITION is INTENSE

Argument on the legal points in
volved in the litigation over the pro-
posed closing of the Richmond dock
will be had On Tuesday, December 8,
at 10 A. NJ, before the State Corpora
ton Commission. An agreement to
this effect was reached yesterday at
conference held between the mem
bers of the commission and the attor-
neys for the parties in interest.
Richard Evelyn Byrd represented at
Yesterdays conference the petitioners.
constituting the bondholders' commit
tee of the William r. Trigg Company.
composed of Horato G. Lloyd, e. L.
Bemts. Howard d. French, e. B. Addi-
son, John s. Waterbury and James
Crosby Brown. The city of Richmond
was represented by its attorney. Henry
II. Pollard. and Judge George l. Chris
tian appeared for the Richmond Cham
Der OF Commerce. William w. Crump
took the place of his father, Judge
Beverly r. Crump. who Is out of the
city. and who represents stephen A.
ELLISON G. Company, the Crump & West
Coal Company, Nelson & Ladd, D. p.
Wake & Company, the Virginia Bond
ed Warehouse Corporation. and E. A.
Saunders Sons Company. These are
business houses who claim that their
trade will be injured If the dock is
closed.
Legal Points First.
1t being determined that the date
indicated would be satisfactory to
all parties. 1t was decided upon. There
are many constitutional and legal
points involved. and these are to be
presented by the attorneys on that
day.
Should the litigation not terminate
a nF =
duced, further day will be set on
which to hear testimony, and the COM
mission will consider the matter on
the facts
In this case the petitioners. acting
under an act of the last Legislature
have applied to the State Corporation
Commission for an order closing and
disseminating the city wharf of Rich
mond, formerly the Trigg wharf, and
which is affected with public use or
easement, in that the public has n
right to make use of it The law
permits the commission to take SUCH
action in cases where the city o.
town in which such dock or wharf
may be located is establishing. or has
established, docks or wharves open to
the public. with or wit-sut payment
of tolls, or in any case where thera
O. . otIiCi Wi4aINSS Vi UUCkS,
or private, which are equally open to
the public USE
Can't Sell Property.
For the petitioners, it is set forth
that the bondholders are losing their
rights by reason OF the public ease
ment with which the property is at.
fected, making it impossible to dis
pose of the land in fee simple or for
Othar 4 tc f,,,
planned that an offer was made to sell
the dock to the city of Richmond, the
Council declining to make the pur-
chase.
Therefore the bondholders desire to
be given power to sell the LAM and
to devote the proceeds of the sale to
the payment of the bonds of the de-
funct William r. Trigg Company, a
former shipbuilGing concern.
me respondents argue that the bill
is unconstitutional anyway, and can
not be acted under, in that its practi-
cal operation would contemplate the
deprivation of the citizens Of the Com
monwealth of their rights of property
without due process of law. To this
end the claim Is made that the Cor
poratlon Commission has no authority,
ana, further. that 1t has no jurisd!c-
lion to do what it is asked to do
In its answer. the Chamber of Com
merce advanced the plea that the de-
struction or filing in of this dock
would be calamity to the growth and
progress OF Richmond. Further. the
Shalhper says that according to its UNI
a ~, ava, tahuthg. the reason this City Coun-
eii ala not acquire the property when
1t was offered to it was not because
the necessity of its continuance was
not appreciated. but because the mem
pers OF the Council believed the own
ers We're already compelled to keep
me dock open and in condition for the
commerce of the city forever.
o. s. Circuit Court Of Appeals.