The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-09-11
Answersof City, Cham
Der of Commerce and
Citizens Filed.
WOULD AMOUNTTO
PUBLIC CALAMITY
Respondents Characterize At
tempt to Discontinue Rich
mond Dock as Effort to Dis
pose of Rights Of Public
to Assist Private En-
terprise.

\ Asserting that the effort to secure
the closing OF the Richmond dock is
an attempt to dispose of the rights
and privileges of the public merely to
assist purely private enterprise ana
to benefit private individuals, the city
OF Richmond early yesterday morning
filed Its answer with the State Cor
poration Commission to the petition
OF the bondholders of the William r
Trlgg Company. There were also pre-
sented the answers of the Chamber of
Commerce and of numerous indvi-
duals whose property and whose busi-
ness would, they claim, be seriously
affected by the discontinuance Of the
dock.
From apparently every conceivable
point. the attorneys for the protest.
ants have attacked the statute and the
petition of the complainants. The
claim is made that the law passed
by the last Legislature. giving the
Corporation Commission power to
close private docks affected with pub
lie easements. is in contravention of
the Constitutions of the United States
and of Virginia. 1t is claimed that
this proceeding attempts to authorize
a procedure by which the city OF
Richmond and private individuals may
be deprived of their property rights
without due process of law.
City's Only Dock.
Counsel for stephen A. Ellison &
Company, who come In as parties de-
fendant to the proceeding, assert that
IL this dock is closed. there will be no
ether in or near the city, and that the
cost of constructing another would be
enormous While wharves could be
built. they could not take the place of
q dock. so 1t is argued. 1t is pointed
out that the construction of wharves,
instead OF obviating the necessity OF
dock, would. on the contrary, in
crease the desirability of it's continu-
ance.
A telling point is that 1T would be
disastrous, when appeals are made 10
Congress for appropriations Tor deep
ening the channel Of the James, to per-
nit the argument to be used that Rlch-
mond allowed her only dock to be
destroyed.
The closing of the dock, says the
Chamber of Commerce in its answer,
would be calamity to the growth
and progress of Richmond.
Answers Petitioners.
These three papers. which are &C
companied by yoluminous exhiblts
showing the history Of the institution
which IL is sought to discontinue. are
IN answer to petition fled In July by
Horatio G. Lloyd. f. l. Bemiss. HOWARD
r French, John I. Waterbury ana
James Crosby Brown, bondholders iol
the william R. Trigg Company Ihese
netitioners sought to have an oroer
entered by the Corporation ComHlis-
sion closing the Richmond COCK, WITH
belonged to the company, ana osei
which the people of the city haVe
nublic easement. The commission Sc.
Yesterday as return day, upon VIZ
answers were to be filed. ~ IS p. .,,,
sumed that date Tor
shortly be set. ~ ,ts at
,,orney Henry r. Pollard. charges mrs. -
that the act of the last Leg sens
Unconstitutional for severaI ns,, 70
One If these is that 1t is con!ia.s IN
the Federal and state LII rtao NO VIOLA
t ia ~ contract between the Ches.
nnaLa and Ohio Railway Company, IN, Ing
spccessor to the Richmond anu AZ ,,.s .
ghany Railway Comp al ~. " liver and
LIS MA Company, the successor "
W. W." Richmond Dock Company, ana .n ne
I VIM ~ r. Trigg Company ana us .; ~,
sicnees, petitioners. me -. coma isw i'm
sns.hfSs the passage OF any law ~
ioTprus The obligations of contract
pA.t ,,.. Euunl Protection.
,acond place. the act Is re-
N sns Unconstitutional because -
garueu violation of the fourteenth
at1entp ,,,snt to the Constitution OF tho
p...ad states in denying 70 tne C.
snnncent and others me e e9,ditv pl ~ an
| tion of the laws. ,aaie, not by what
oct, ~ Ian 10 done or what IS proposeo
mas sone hut by what may pc aohe.
TO pc IA do The act Is unconstitutional, ~
| ). aar,ared, because it attempts TO an
thorize procedure pE Iiii ind wi
OF deprived Of their property
may l.;aSts % without due process of law.
ILi!ssnrth because 1t Is an attempt 70
Violate the vrginta ,n a and
po sdss of the public, merely to assist
au' n,1rely private enterprise and 70
npe ffit private individuals. The act
u ,nder which the Richmond Dock Com
pany was organizedt Is auo1ed as Canals tG
hasins and works to, be erected by
virtue of this act when completed;
shalI forever thereafter be esteemed
and taken as public highways, Tree 1ol
ccnnmmodities or produce whatsoever, on
naynlent Of the tolls imposed by this
| act. ...,.,,
Other reasons assigned fol. uncon-
| stitutionality are because the act
though general in FORM is special in
substance and In fact; because 1t vic.
intes the section of the State Consti.
tuition regarding the creation Of cor.
porations in that i does not ALLOW
| an order to be entered as n result
Of Of compliance of tho petitioners with
requirements, and because Its rea
object is to authorize the surrender
! OF charter rights.
| Leaving the constitutional questions
| the city proceeds In its answer to argu,
the merits Of the case. 1t says tina
| the fact that n large part OF tho docl
| is not open to navigation does no
mean that 1t cannot be made SO b.
proper means AS to the amount O
lincoma from the dock. It calls for tn,
books of the harbor master, saying
that these will show that the not in
come In 1909 was $S0so46, instead o
$l,O5l.57 as alleged by the petitioners
| DENYING the statament OF tha nett