The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-12-07
RAILROAD MAY
COME into SUIT
G. & O. Represented
Before Commission at
Dock Hearing.
CITY RESISTING
EFFORT TOCLOSE
Speaker Byrd Appears as coun-
sci for Litigants Who Seek to
Discontinue Dock Under
New Law-Chamber of
Commerce Fights
Move.

Argument on the petition of the
bondholders OF the William X. Trigg
Company to be allowed TO close and
discontinue what is known as the
Richmond dock. was begun yesterday
morning before the State Corporation
Commission. After three hours of
hearing the case was continued to 10
O'Clock this morning. with the UNDER
standing that 1t will be concluded to-
day.
The merits of the case are not being
considered at this time. the point at
issue being the motion of the re-
spondents that the commission dismiss
the petition for want of jurisdiction
and because the case as stated by the
bondholders does not fall within the
purposes OF the act of the last Legis-
lature.
Vigorous opposition to the closing
of the dock is being put forth by the
city of Richmond, by the Chamber OF
Commerce and by some Independent
property owners who claim that their
.oldings would be injured by such
action. 1t is contcnded that the city
would be damaged in her business in
terests by the diseontinuanee Of this
institution. which is designed to en-
courage and facilitate shipping.
Public Has Rights.
Years ago the Richmond dock was
built under contract between the
State and the operating company. by
virtue of which the public should for
ever be given the right to use 1t for
the loading and unloading of vessels
upon payment of tolls. This right has
been maintained ever since, during
successive ownerships of the dock
property. The present proprietors are
the bondhoiders of the defunct VIII
liam r. Trigg Company, shipbuild-
Ing concern.
They now desire TO rid the dock OF
Its public easement. SO that they may
sell the water front property and
realize some money to be applied to the
settlement OF the affairs of the com
pany.
The Chamber of Commerce. taking
the position that serious blow would
be struck Richmond by the closing
of the dock, Is party defendant 10
the action.
The surprise of yesterdays proceed
lngs was the appearance of Henry II.
Wickham. representing the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company. This con-
Germ had not heretofore taken any part
in the matter. and Mr.. Wickhani eN-
planned that 1t had not as yet been
determined whether or not II would
become a defendant. as he desired to
watch the course of proceedings be-
fore such a determination was reached.
Distinguished Counsel.
Richard Evelyn Byrd and Eppa Hun
ton, .Ir., appeared for the petitlohlnS
bondholders; Henry r. Pollard, for the
CITY OF Richmond; Judge George j..
Christian, for the Chamber of Com
merce, and Judge Beverly r. Crump,
for the individual respondents
81 k,t,I ,Ia Nf
only Judge Crump and Mr. pyrd spoke.
and the latter evidently had not con-
c,uded his remarks when the hour OF
adjournment arrived.
Judge Crump opened the case. He
asked the commission to dismiss the
petition for four reasons viz:
First. Because the act under which
the proceedings were taken is Invalid,
inasmuch as the Legislature had no
right under the Constitution to invest
the commission with the authority to
close q dock.
second. Because on the face of the
petition and record the case does not
fall within the terms OF the act
commission powers which can only be
yescted in the General Assembly.
Third. Because the act gives the
vested in the General Assembly.
Fourth Because 1t gives the COM
mission power by unusual proceedings
to amend charter In manner not
contemplated by the Constitution or by
law.
Powers Delegated.
With these propositions In view, the
argument of Judge Crump naturally
tended toward very nluch-discussed
propostlon-the rights. powers and
duties of the State Corporation Com
mission. He did not think the ,Legis-
II -. -1,% 40, Il all ~ ,,.N1N
powers to this body, Judge Prentis
asked him if it had the right to dele
gate such power to anybody, and he
replied that on this question decisions
had left the question Very much con-
fused.
Reverting to the act of the last Leg
islature, giving the commission power
to close or discontinue any private
dock or wharf affected with public
use or easement, Judge Crump said it
e should be construed strongly against
those who seek to take advantage of
its provisions.
Further, the act says that such ac-j
the property Is located has erected or
is preparing to erect other docks or
.wharyes Judge crump said that a
dock is not a wharf, and he construed
the act TO mean that where the city
the dock may he closed, or where 1t is
about to erect wharf, wharves may
be closed. Inasmuch as the city of
Richmond has no plan of building a
dock, the fact that it Is to build
wharves should not be taken
cognizance Of in this Instance. Such was
= his argument
Powers of Legislatures.
Speaker Byrd, beginning his reply
to Judge Crump, drew distinction
between the Constitutions of States
and that of the United States--that
whereas, the latter grants power the
former take power from tho Legsla-s
8ture. Ajdenial of power, therefore,
was not g matter for the speculation
OF counsel, but II must he written In
4 the ook-n0minated nNthe bond, ~
He Quoted Ksa case Wherein lit was