The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-09-21
OWNERS OF DOCK
RESIST PETITION.
Argue That They Cannot Be
Made to Repair and Reopen
Property.
DER NO OBLIGATIONS
City Seeks to Compel Compli-
ance With Original
Charter.

Argument was partly had yesterday
before the State Corporation Commits
sion on the petition of the city of
Richmond and certain business men to
compel the owners of the Richmond
Dock to repair that property and again
open 1t to public use. For several
! months past the dock has been closed
to traffic, the result primarily OF n
break in the gates. which the owners
| have declined to repair. 1t became
evident yesterday that they have no
intention whatever of again allowing
the public TO use the dock while II is
doing 80.
The hearing was not concluded, and
was adjourned at . o'clock until II
o'clock Ills morning.
Since the dock was closed the boat
line plying between this city and
Petersburg has discontinued Its daily
visits. The proprietors of the line say
that the merchants Will not haul to
the wharves lower down the river,
and that they cannot compete with
the railroads unless they can bring
their steamers into the main business
section of the city.
Traffic Is Stopped.
In addition, business houses located
on the dock have been deprived OF the
advantage of receiving coal and other
supplies in which they deal, greatly,
they claim. to their disadvantage and
loss They therefore presented the Pc
tition to the State Corporation Com
mission, asking for an order to COM
pel the repair and rcopening OF the
property. Later the city Joined In the
petition.
The argument is that. according to
the ancient charter under which the
dock was constructed, It is required
to be kept open forever for public use
upon payment OF the tolls liked by
statute.
When the case was called yesterday
morning, the point at issue was mo-
ton made by Eppa Hunton. Jr.. coun-
sci for the bondholders' committee OF
the William r. Trigg Company. OWL
ers of the dock, that the petition
should be dismissed because the com
mission has no jurisdiction. Mr.. Hun
ton made an argument to support this
contention, saying that the power
given to the commission over trans
portation companies does not extend
to the dock owners. because they in
no sense constitute a transportation
company.
Not Required TO Keep Open.
Further. in tracing the history of
the property through its various own
under the act OF 1879, ratifying the
sale OF the James River and Kanawha
Canal to the Richmond and Allegheny
Railroad Company, the only require
ment Is to maintain the water supply
of the canal between Boshers Dam
and tLdewater. which is at the foot
of the falls OF the James. 1t Is not
claimed, said Mr.. Hunton. that this
obligation is being violated. His ar
gument was that the original oblige.
ton to keep the dock open for public
Use was not transmitted in this act
Replying for the business men who
are petitioners. Judge Beverly r.
Crump called attention to the fact
that the city of Richmond had put
much money into the canal and dock
that part of it was on what was orig
inaily public property, and that the
original requirement. that the dock
should be maintained as public high
way forever is still binding.
Explains Act.
Answering the argument that the
act OF 1879 does not specifically re-
Crump said that this was true. for
the reason that the property was not
allowed to be closed.
He spoke of the obligations resting
upon the succeeding owners. claiming
that they are to-day in full force
and effect.
Assistant City Attorney George
Wayne Anderson spoke for the city.
maintaining that the continued opera
tion OF the dock is an important fac
tor in the business interests of Rich
mond. He called attention to the re-
cent ruling OF the commission to the
effect that the time has not come to
close the dock. City Attorney Pollard
and Mayor Richardson were also pres
ent at the hearing.