The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-03-02
Ing, and am watching them sizzle." Congress 10
laughing on the other side Of its face.
IMPROVE THE WATERFRONT.


The best interests of the city of Richmond
and its business men demanded that the dock,
running from Seventeenth to Twenty-eighth
street should not be relieved Of the public ease
ment which has rested upon 1t since its Gre
alton, and the State Corporation Commission ID
to be commended for dismissing the petition OF
the Trigg Company bondholders' committee
Another good thing about the decision Of the
Commission is the demonstration OF the fact
that innocentlooking bills cannot be sneaked
through the Legislature OF Virginia without a
full knowledge Of their import. and subsequently
taken advantage Of to work hardship upon a
community. The legislators OF Virginia had no
idea the bill providing for the closing of docks
which they passed March 10th contemplated
the removal of one OF Riehmond's chief safe
guards against exorbitant transportation
charges. and the Corporation Commission acted
exactly right in refusing to exercise any prerog-
alive under the terms of the measure
The Commission took the view that the bust
ness interests of Richmond would be injured By
the closing of the dock. and voiced its persuasion
capital city to ask for further Federal appropri-
ations for harbor improvement in the face OF
limiting. II not entirely removing, all semblance
of water transportation facilities.
Now that the Commission has declined to
grant permission to close the dock. it is incum
bent upon the bondholders to continue the opera
ton of the dock In which the state and city
have large interest In view OF the fact that
their plans have been entirely upset by the
Commission. ii Is not reasonable to believe that
the dock will be improved or anything done
other than to keep it nominally open This,
however will afford great measure of protec-
tion TO the business men of Richmond for they
will not be left entirely to the tender mercies OF
railroads, which almost always see necessity for
increasing rates, but little for enhancing eff
cheney
Attention having been focused on the river
front by the Commissions decision in the docl
matter, the time is ftew ripe for the approval of
the city wharf project, aud its early execution.
1t is a regrettable fact that Richmond within
such easy reach OF the Chesapeake Bay and the
+NN'N'''NAN NNNhdP
ing to Hampton Roads, has no municipal water
I front Improvements. This city needs modern
/ spacious concrete wharf, not only because the
maintenance of it would have most decided
tendency toward keeping down railroad rates
and making them lower. but because IL wou1e
and development of business interests. If
has been said that two or more ships could be
loaded at the city wharf every week and the
number OF boats which now use the limited wa
terfront improvements gives an indication OF
the extent to which commerce could be deyel
/ oped.
mistake made by the City Council il
turning down the city wharf proposition severa
weeks ago, but the measure was reconsidered
and within the next day or two viii come III
again bearing the renewed approval of tn,
James River Improvement Committee and the
! Finance Committee The people Of Richmond
particularly the shippers and other business;
men, should demand OF Council the adoption o
this project The measure provides for the ex
penditure of $4,000 for the building OF AN unto
date concrete wharf Five thousand dollars OF
the money will go for blasting rock from the
river in the vicinity of Rockets where the pro
posed wharf is TO be built The other s33 oot
VIII be expended on wharf which will near
more for the development of business in Rich
mond than can be imagined or predicted There
may be some difference of opinion in Council
as to whether the wharf should be constructed
of wood concrete bu. this will merely no 9
discussion as to whether the money should be
/ thrown away or used in the right direction