The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-30
OWNERS OF DOCK
DECLINE TO ACT
Beniss Tcstlfcs They Have No
Present Intention to Re-
pair Property.
EVIDENCE is CONCLUDED
Argument to Be Had Tuesday.
Believed an Appeal Will
Be Taken.
EVIDENCE is CONCLUDED

With a frank statement by T. L
holders committee OF the William. R.
Trigg Company, that the owners of
the Richmond dock have no present
intention of repairing that property
and of restoring 1t to use as a public
highway. the taking OF testimony on
action came to an end yesterday at
ternoon. Argument will be begun next
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.
MIR. Bemiss said that the bondholders
felt they were under no legal obliga-
ton to keep tho dock open to the
public. The revenues for years have
been small, while good many repairs
have been necessitated. Only a year
ago about sl,1O0 was spent on the
property. When the dock gates were
broken last June. Mr. Bemiss secured
bids on the repairs. and when the
matter was reported to the committee
1t was decided that no steps should be
taken in the direction of again per-
hitting the public use. Since then the
dock has been closed.
Apply for Order.
The city and the business men whose
houses are located on the dock petit
toned the State Corporation Commits
sion for an order requiring the repair
and reopening of the dock. At a
hearing had last week. following
lengthy argument. the commission
overruled a motion on the part of the
respondents to dismiss the petition for
lack OF jur'sd ction
City Attorney Henry r. Pollard and
Assistant City Attorney George Wayne
Anderson represented the municipality
yesterday. while Judge Beverly T.
Crump was the counsel for the busi-
ness houses Eppa Hunton, Jr, ap-
peared for the bondholders' committee.
The evidence of the petitioners was
brief. Captain John A. Curtis. Harbor-
master of Richmond. testified as to the
falling off In the city's water borne
commerce II the dock remains closed,
and r. y. Dunlop. secretary of the
Chamber of Commerce. gave evidence
to the same effect. This was regarded
as establishing the case of the petit
TONERS. which was not controverted by
the respondents.
The defense was based upon the con-
tention that the dock is not canal,
and that therefore there is no obliga-
ton on the part of the owners TO keep
the original charter of the Richmond
Dock Company. Mr. Hunton in this
point relied upon an act Of the Legis-
lature of 1879. which In ratifying a
sale of the property OF the James River
and Kanawha Canal Company. required
only. SO far as the dock is concerned,
that it be kept supplied with water
Dock Is Not Canal.
L. 7. D. Myers. Jr., Colonel c. p. e.
Burgwyn. Captain P. ST. julien Wilson.
Henry w. Stamper, Jr.. and Colonel t.
NJ r. Talcott. all engineers, were in
PRODUCED.
They testified that in their opinion
the dock is not canal. the distinction
being that a canal is waterway for
the purpose of transporting vessels
from one body OF water to another,
while a dock is for the purpose of
loading and unloading vessels. This
line of questioning was first objected
to by Judge Crump on the ground that
IT was mere matter of opinion. but II
was allowed to go in.
1t was Mr. Hunton's time TO object
when questions were asked each wit
ness IL the dock had not been main
tanned for many years for public use.
The commission allowed these ques-
lions and their Affirmative replies and
Mr.. Hunton noted objections. Should
the commission grant the petition it
is believed that an appeal is inevitable
which must be granted as q matter OF
right. This means that the matter
will be in the Supreme Court for some
time and that in the meantime the dock
will be closed