The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-03-01


been setied, 1t IL understood the
Council Committee ON James
River improvement win proceed
without delay to reconsider the
question of building n new city
wharf. this matter having post
poned temporarily pending set
Element OF the dock question.
The Richmond dock case came to
sudden ending before the state Cor
poration Commission Wednesday, when
an opiuion was handed down by the
commission declining to allow the OLD
water way to be closed. the opinoiu
was prepared by Commissioner wing
field and concurred in by Chairman
Prenus and Judge Rhea, making the
decision unanimous.
The adjourned meeting OF the COM
mission was called to order at IL
O'Clock and as there had been no
previous announcement of the decision
being rendered to-day. the attorneys
representing the various interests IN
volved were present and quite num-
Der OF prominent citizens Interested IN
the case had seats in the court room.
Mr.. wingfield announced that the
commission had come to q decision In
the case and 1t once read the opinion,
which YEAS ~ ft,la0ws: j 49,
The acts Of Assembly Of March IL
1910, under which we are proceeding.
authorizes the State Corporation Com
mission. upon application or the
owner, or owners thereof, TO close or
discontinue any private dock or wharf
affected with public use or ease
ment, and which Is. or may be located
in or near any city or town. where
the city or town Is establishing, or
has established docks and wharves
open to the public, etc, etc. etc.
This act imports an inquiry by the
Corporation Commission and au-
thorizes the commission, in its dis
erection. OF grant or refuse the appli-
cation.
Several preliminary questions have
been raised in this case and ably ar
gued by counsel.
First. The defendants demurred to
the Jurisdiction of the commission
and contended that the act In ques-
ton was unconstitutional and there
fore void. The prima facie presump-
ton Is that the act of assembly Is not
unconstitutional. and nothing has beer
advanced in this connection. in my
opinion. TO overcome that PRESUMPTION
Second Counsel for the Chesapeake
and Ohio railway moved to dtscon.
tinue the case on the ground that the
closing of the dock would violate the
contract between said railway and the
Trigg Shipbuilding Company. Tht,
consequence does not necessarily fol.
low. The mere closing Of the dock
or discontinuance of the public use
or easement. would not conflict with
said contract, and IL after said ease.
ment was discharged the owners fail
ed In any respect to comply with satc
contract. the relief could be obtained
from the established courts of tht
State, by whom such questions can be
better adjudicated than by this com
mission. and the act of March IL
1910. expressly provides that, moth
ing herein contained shall be held tc
impair the obligation of any contract
existing at the time of the passage
wharf. or his predecessor, In the title
and individuals, other than the pub
iic.''
Third. Evidence was introduced II
show that the Legislature acted in ig
norance of the purpose OF the owners
of this Richmond dock to close tn,
same. The act OF Assembly simpl,
authorizes the owners of such docks
TO apply to this commission to b,
allowed to close or discontinue tn,
public use or easement. The pur
pose of the act is plain upon ats face
and 1t Is to be presumed that tn,
Legislature acted advisediy in author
ixing such an inquiry by this com
mission.
Having disposed of these prelimi
nary questions, we have now to con
slider the case on its merits. In othel
de- e. hat Do ~
the public interest that this Rich
mond dock be closed and discharged
of the public use or easement. !
has been shown conclusively that |
large part Of the anthracite coal uset
by the citizens OF Richmond come
by boat; that at present about one
half of such coal brought in by boa
is discharged at this dock. 1t has ais,
been shown that dealers in coal hay'
made their investments and estab
lished their warerooms and plant
contiguous to this dock, relying upoi
the continuance Of the same. an
therefore constrained to think tina
under existing conditions II IL OF Ina
portance. and that the public In
terests OF Richmond require that thi
dock be kept open. and. therefore
that the application or the owners /,
close the same and discharge sais
dock from public use or easemen
thereof must now be refused.
Chairman Prentis and Commission
err Rhea concurred In results, deliver
ing short oral opinions.
II Is not thought that the bond
holders OF the TrigK Shipbuilding Co
will take an appeal and the opinion
Of the commission II regarded .,
final