The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-05-17
UNDERTAKES DENY
RESPONSIBILITY
Spokesman for Alleged Trust
Refutes Alderman Don
Leavy's Charge
DID NOT SLAUGHTER
TRAFFIC ORDINANCE
Killing ofMeasureis Envelop-
ed in Mystery-"Flying
in Peoples Face"
Says Umlauf

we dldn t. says Mr.. Alphonso W,
Bennett speaking for the alleged un-
dertaker trust.
Mn Bennett admits, however. that
the ordinance was Objectionable to
him personally because of its numer-
Gus clauses and provisions which
looked to him too cumbersome and
impracticable.
Mr.. John +. Don Leavy, of Clay
Ward. charged on the floor of the
board OF aldermen Tuesday night
that the undertaken trust was seek
Ing to kill the measure. And he
reiterated the charge Wednesday
| morning In commenting on It's death.
There are three undertakers in the
board of aldermen--Mr. John B. Bill
| ley, of Monroe Ward; Mr.. A. G. Mel
sen, of Marshall Ward; Mr.. A. w.
Bennett, of Lee Ward.
And all three voted to adopt the
ordinance amended by Undertaken
Biiley, leaving the exception of the
penalty and enacting clause only this
provision:
Drivers and pedestrians must at
all times comply with any direction
| given by voice or hand of any officer
of the police force as to stopping,
starting. approaching or departing
! from any place, and also as to the
| manner of taking up or letting OF
passengers and the loading and un-
loading Of vehicles"
| Would Delay Funerals.
| At meeting of the ordinance COM
! mittee some weeks ago it was stated
| that the ordinance would work a
| great hardship on undertakers for
| the reason that funeral professions
would frequently have to go a block
| out of their way to get TO church
| or cemetery in order to keep within
the provisions of the ordinance. It
was also said that the ordinance con-
| tanned other features Objectionable
/ TO the undertakers.
/ However the measure as passed
| by the common council and sent to
| the board for concurrence specifically
| provided that nothing in this ordi-
nance shall be so construed as to
| apply to carriages or other vehicles
performing or taking part in funeral
| professions"
| And as If To plunge the proposition
| into deeper mystery, the undertaking
| trio in the board voted to include
| this section IN the forty eight which
/ the aldermen rejected
/ The emasculated ordinance was FIN
| ally adopted and sent back to the
| lower branch by the following vote
Ayes-Messrs. Adams, Bennett. Bill
ley. Cowardin. Grimes. Hobson, Kahn.
Melton. Nielsen. Patram, Perdue. Whit
| tet-12
Noes-Messrs. Atkinson. Butler.
Donahoe, Don Leavy. Gunst, Mitchell
! Moore, powers. Rennolds--9
| Suit Pleasure Seeker.
! Councilman Umlauf from Clay Ward
patron of the measure and chairman Of
/ the ordinance committee. said We'd
nesday morning: 1T looks to me as
| If the ordinance was cut to pieces
| to suit the man who wants to have
a good time and drive at his pleas
ure."
| In view Of the fact, that the ordi-
| nance made special provision to ex-
/ ernpt undertakers, Mr.. ITnlauf was
inclined to put little faith in the sug-
gestion that they were primarily re-
/ sponsible for it's slaughter.
| Another suggestion is that the po-
| lice BOARD may haze indirectly had
| Il hand in the killing. though there Is
no outward evidence to suhstantiate
this theory. II is a fact. however. that
! motion was made at the aldermantc
| session that entire authority in traffic
matters be delegated to the police
commissioners regardless of the fact
| that they have no legislative rights
| Objection was made that as amended
/ THE ordinance gave the police certain
rights to regulate traffic but did not
place an requirement on drivers or
| chuffeurs, allowing them TO go as they
pleased provided there was no police
| interference or directions to the con-
| trary.
! Auto Owners Squealcd.
Mr.. Don Ieavy commented on the
| fact that automobile owners In the
/ lower branch squealed the loudest
when the measure came UP before
| them for consideration and It was at
this tuncture also that he took fall
out of the undertaken trust.
| Incidentally. 1t may be mentioned
| that the Richmond Automobile Asso-
| citation practically endorsed the ordi-
nance In its enuretv before It was
offered in the common council.
| What will be the fate of the amend
! ed ordinance when 1t goes back to
the lower branch for concurrence is
problematical. 1t IL conjectured, how
ever. that the ordinance In it's pres
ent shape will be thrown overheard
Councilman Umlauf was not willing
| Wednesday to venture a prediction In
this connection, but he did wish 1t en-
| phasized that the public was being
greatly injured by the action OF the
aldermen.
They have done nothing more than
to fly in the face of the people, he
asserted. land it is up to them to
stand the consequences"
Mr.. Bliley Talks.
Undertaken John b. Bliley, who
led the fight against the ordinance.
stated Wednesday that he probably
would not have made the attack. IF
Mr.. Gunst and Mr.. Don Leavy hadn't
made such a holler.''
Neither OF these men know any
thing about driving and matters per-
tanning to vehicles in general" he
said. Both are inside men, ar II
were. and nearly always foot it when
they get out on the street"
Mr.. Bhley went on to say that one
feature OF the ordinance was espe-
siallSs ohjeetianahlss. To- haEn, and. that
was the clause providing that yehi-
cles should be required to keep six
Teet OF sffse7M street ears iii drivfnR
alongside them. even on crowded
thoroughfarea That clause, he said
was very fair sample OF the ordi-
nance.
DO Hack Business.
1T is strue." he admitted, that
the ordinance expressly exempted fu.
neral processions from its provisions
but II must be remembered that our
nrm alone has twenty-five carriages
on the streets doing 3 regular hack
business and that ID where we were
| affected"