The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-08-09
MERCHANTS ASK
STATE FOR RELIEF
File Petition With Corporation
Commission to Demand Open
ing of City Dock.
CLAIM DAMAGE is HEAVY
No Action Taken Owing to Alb
sence of Quorum-Recite
Facts in Case.

Through their counsel. Judge Bev-
erly 7 Crump. Stephen a. Ellison &
Company Unc). L. p. Murphy g. Son.
a. 5. Lee & Sons Crump & West Coal
Company and Nelson & Laid yesterday
petitioned the State Corporation Com
mission on behalf of themselves and
of other merchants of the city. that
the bondhoiders OF the William X
Trigg Company be required to make
certain repairs to the city dock. which
they contend are necessary to the
handling of water borne traffic. The
paper was filed IN the offices OF the
commission, but no action was taken
yesterday. quorum of members
was not present.
The petition sets forth fully the
various transactions through which
the dock has passed. and quotes from
the deed made to the Trigg Company
the agreement that the purchasers
would at all times keep in good re-
pair and condition all necessary and
needful dock walls, banks. appurte-
nances and appliances along and with
in the boundaries set forth in said
deed. for the due and proper mainte-
nance and operation of said dock ac-
cording to the lines established"
Quotes Legislative Act.
According TO the deed. the Trigg
Company assumed all the rights and
obligations of the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway Company. its predeces-
sor The petitioners call the attention
of the commission to the fact that
the bondholders of the company. as
owners of the dock property, are un-
der the same burdens and liabilities
imposed upon the Trlgg Company in
connection with the dock. They.
therefore. hold that the owners are
dock in proper condition. and to keep
II open for public use.
The commission is further shown
that by act of the last General AS
sembly. il was authorized to close and
discontinue any private dock affected
with a public use or easement when
the city or town in which the dock
may be located is establishing or has
established docks or wharves open to
the public. or in any case where there
are other wharves equally open for
the public use. Last year the bond
holders committee petitioned the COM
mission. asking that the dock be dis
continued; that they be relieved of
the burden OF keeping 1t up. Protests
on the part of the present petitioners
and others went before the commits
ers committee was denied.
Claim Grent Hardship.
The petitioners set forth also that
they own property adjacent TO or
near the dock. and that they located
their business there in the faith that
1t would be continually kept up for
public use. These merchants deal
largely in coal and Wholesale groce-
ries, lid claim that they lose largely
on account of the difference in rates.
as the dock being out of use they
would have to use the railroads. the
rate by rail- especially on anthracite
coal, being very much higher than the
water rate. Adequate docking facili-
ties, they say. mean the saving to pri-
vate consumers of hard coal at least
30 cents on each ton.
They allege that since the dock
passed from the ownership of the
James River and Kanawha Company.
the original owners. its maintenance
has been greatly neglected. and that
the bondholders committee of the
Trigg Company has done scarcely
nothing to keep 1T in proper condition
and to invite water traffic. The pres
ent owners. 1t Is alleged. have allowed
the decay and deterioration of the
dock and all appurtenances to con-
tinue.
According to the Ellison Company.
the dockmaster stated on July last
that owing to the condition of one
of the gates to the lock forming the
entrance from James River. 1t was
not practicable to dock SO that boats
| could no longer be brought in.
Take il Up With Bemiss.
This" continues the petition. was
| very disastrous situation for Ste
| phen A. Ellison e. Co. and others. de-
pendent for the continuance OF their
business upon the bringing of barges
/ of coal and other merchandise into
! the dock" This firm tells also OF
| letters written f. l.. Bemiss, as agent
| for the owners of the dock, acquaint-
| ing him of conditions. and file por-
| ton of his replies as a part of the
petition.
Mr.. Bemiss is quoted as saying: "I
do not recognize any liability on the
j part of the owners of the dock to
J YOU or others because OF your inability
/ to use the same. or any obligation to
! permit It's use to you or any one de-
! string it" Subsequently, the ,pe
/ titioners claim they had had their
/ counsel make inquiry of Mr.. Bcmiss
| as to the probability OF an. early res
| toration of the dock, but had been
| unable to obtain any satisfaction in
| regard to when it would be in con-
| dition for use.
Summing up, they allege that "the
/ present owners of the dock have failed
| and arc continuing to fall to perform
! tho public duty resting upon them,
/ which failure results greatly to the
/ detriment not only OF petitioners.
whose business places are adjacent to
or near the dock, but to shipping in
, terests and the citizens of Richmond
at large While the petitioners, whose
business will be greatly injured by the
| failure Of the owners of the dock TO
! keep 1t open for use. may have a
I proper claim for damages by reason
Of the failure OF the owners of tho
dock to comply with their contract
and obligations; Yet the dock owners