The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-02-01
Got Bill Through Legis-
lature as Agent Of
Bondholders.
SHOWS CONTRACT
TO COM MISSION
Fact Charged That Only Fifteen
Members Of Chamber, Which
Is Opposed to Closing, Voted
for Resolution to Fight Pc
tition in Courts END
Not Reached.

Evidence adduced yesterday before
the state Corporation Commission in g
the hearing on the petition of the
bondholders Of the William r. Trisg VI
Company to be allowed to close the tf-
Richmond dock, showed that tile "a Sc
has been worked UP by Albert j. Brad
ley, Of South Richmond as a promoter 81
Mr.. Bradley on cross-eNamination, said +
that according to a contract he tween I,
himself and he bondholders. lie is to *
pay all the expenses of prosecuting
the petition. and in case Of 4 success-
full contamination. Is to receive a cash
consideration or else stock in a real N
estate company which is to market
the property.
After the attorneys for the city and
the Chamber cf Commerce had secured
this information from MIR. Bradley. the
contract itself was produce BY Eip,I
Hunton counse! for the bondho!ers
No objection to its production and all
mission as evidence was made By The
lawyers for the petitioners. who ex-
pressed the opinion that 1t Would B
hurt their case
Chamber Meeting Small.
In the meantime Mr.. Bradley rrn-
served his equanimity, making nnl,.>- q
cellent witness. He assert I'd gttat the 5s
meeting of tho Chamber Of Commerce. Il
at which resolutions We're a,optc cnu-
demning the proposed closing OF the
dock was composed OF only{sfirtecn 81
members, and that invitations were 4
sent out according to his best belief
only TO those crsonaily int rest I'll by
reason Of their location along tho
dockstde He further sail that Il num-8l
Der OF leading citizens wcnld como up
and testify in favor Of ctcslns of tic
III nf,tS RI a;
to the char5cr.
Commissioner r. r. Prentis said that
not much weight would be given lva
/ him to the opinions OF men who sMSo,ylSl.l
not come forward and testify before
the commission Thcrcupon Nly. Hun
ton said he thought 4 si1ii,ar degree
OF weight miSEs be given to III, rcso-
lutions OF the Chamber o. Commences.
composed of VT nai:ihc:c. or VIII om fiji
teen were pre- sent at the meeting when
action against closing the dock was
taken.
Evidence Nat Complete.
The hearing was spirited 4, times.
\ notable array OF counsel was pres
ent throughout the day. forecastinS
a legal battle Of moment when the
time for argument comes. The petit
ii2ners did not conclude their iesti-
mony, but have one Or two more wit
nesses 10 put on the s.anl when the
~
| morning. There are some witnesses
also for the city, The CHAMBER Of Com
| mercc and the property owners and
business mel along the line Of ~ he
dock.
Only one side has, OF course. so far
| been heard. The evidence IS to the
effect that the business done by the
dock is very small. and that when the
new city wharves are built the prop
erty as a dock will he worth nothing.
According TO Ferdinand Ebe, former
president of The City Council. the in
stitution IS q nuisance from the point
of view of the coroner. 4j4
Don't Favor NharVcS. 81
However, this view DIT the matter
was not entirely shared by lanes n
Boyd, tile baker and CAPITALIST. tho (
last witness Of the day. FIe earnestly
desires that the city buy the dock an
stop all this foolishncss below Gnlie's
Creek''-rcferrins to tho proposes
wharves He thinks nothing tall o.S
the latter proposition.
| Eppa Hunton and t.ichar'l EVELYN
! Byrd are the ,ttorneys for tic pc;i-M
TONERS, who are the bondholrls' COM
mittcc of the William :. 'rrisg Com
pany. CITY Attorney Hnnry r. Pollard,
appeared for The city ~ Richmond:
Judge George l., Cnris.;an Tor In.
| Chamber Of Commerce.: Judge Beverly
7. Crump for the adjacent business
houses, and lIenry Taylor. Jr. TOR Tire
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Gom- II
pany.
The lawyers for the respondents q
earnestly contend that the closing ot
he dock would injure the shipping
interests OF Richmond and that The
public use of easement is one which IA
should be maintained for The use of y
the people for all time.
Profits Are Smali.
L. t. Bemiss. of the bondliolders
committee. Was the first witness. TIe
submitted figures to show that the
revenues from the dock for the year
1910 amounted 10 only s5,563.02, OF 4
which S4+2.5O was for the use Of water
and the remainder for ,lockage. The
| expense account showed Sl.S194S,
| while the taXes were sl.56?,o6 max
| ing total expenditure of s3it1.54,
! leaving Il surplus Of Sa.I5liS.
Mr. Heiniss MAS OF opinion that tile
CLOSING; and filing up Of the dock, and
the building OF structures for CONNER
cial purposes would result in large
! tax return to the city B7d state as
, against the small amount OF bout 81 -
$40 at present. 3li =a5i
As to The position or the bond /.
holders he said that they have so far
been able to secure only about Is per
| cent. OF the value OF the first mort
gage bonds. which was not equal -
one fourth OF the accrued taxes on tho
, bonds from 1902 date, and under
no circumstances. he asserted, can thew
receive as much ms ne-half OF fha Il
accrued interest.
Rates Not Affected. 4f
as torates on freight. Mr.. Bcmiss
continued. they are not based or,
competition from water transporta-
ton The dock, he said a il M, y hor