The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-11-16
FRANCHISE FIGHT
WILL Be CARRIED
TO COUNCIL FLOOR
Committee Adopts a Report,
Recommending All Bids
Be Rejected
FRIENDS OF NEW
COMPANY HOPEFUL
Ordinance Creating the Fran
chise Is Criticised As Not
Giving City Full
Protection

On adoption Of resolution rejecting
both bids for new electric ligh, and
power franchise and reasons there
for as submitted by subcommittee
Of the Council committee on streets
TO the full committee. 1t was an
nouneed that the light would be taken
TO the floor of the council, The vote
rejecting the bids stood:
AyeeChairman pollock. Mills.
Powers. Fuller and yondeiear. Noes
---Haddon and Gunst ent-Ael-
sen.
Immediately after the adoption of
the resolution rejecting the bids Of
the Richmond and Henrico railway
company and OF Arthur Upper d
Co. bankers. of New York. and the
reasons for the rejection as set forth
ny a subcommittee In the committee
on streets yesterday afternoon, 7.
Gray Haddon gave notice that h.
would offer a motion before the next
meeting of the estye council TO. grant
the franchise to the Richmond and
Henrico railway company. Il know
we are In the minority" indicating
Mr. Gunst. who had seconded ham
In arguments against adoption of the
resolution. he said. but cannot
aErse VITA Nea, and. the fight will ase
carried to the floor OF the council
Mr. Gnnst nodded approval II Is
understood that Mr.. Nielsen fayors the
action of the minority.
Council is Divided.
when the question is put before
the council for action II is said that
thai body will act favorably IN be-
hail of the younger local company.
while the board of aldermen Will
favor the action OF the street COM
snittee. In thai event the matter will
be as II no ordinance framing a new
franchise for bids had been. and the
question can come UP only a. a new
subject.
The Richmond and HenrSco railway
company offered sic in it's bid for the
franchise. The New York firm Of
fered $1,000 for the franchise, the
offer being placed before the council
by Judge George L. Christian
In his argument against adoption
Of the report of the subcommittee,
Mr.. Haddon said that the suocoHinit-
tee was not reporting on the ques-
ttor-af-rthe difference between the
amounts offered, but upon the ordi-
nance. which was reported as being
defective He said that this qnes-
;4an had already been settled. since III
had passed both bodies of the city
council and had been approved by
the mayor. He cited the fact fhat
the city attorney had given IT as ms
ouinion that the ordinance was
legal. and. AZ for himself. he thougns
!, fully covered and protected the IN
;erests of the city
Report criticisss Ordinance.
On the other hand. the report when
viii be sent by the street COMMITTEES
tn the council points out that the or
tiinance is not In the best form TO
prsttrt the city, and adds mat the
city attorney has agreed with THIS
opinion, and would not draw up
franchise In like form. The paper
also states what the franchise gives
TO the city the power to require the
grantee 10 extend it's lines to any
part of the city, and thereby imposes
on the city the obligation OF taking
the initiative in demanding any ex-
tension. And on the other hand, the
report points out. the competing COM
Yany could use any and all streets OF
the city. and tear up any street. The
report further complains that the
franchise gives to the street commit
tee the power to say to what extent
the franchise may be exercised, when
would make the value OF the IRAN
chise dependent upon the whims ana
caprices OF future committees.
And. further. there is no provision
which would secure to the citizens
electricity at lower rates than those
now charged by the existing COM
pany: whereas. on the contrary. a
maximum rate OF ten cents thou-
sand watt hours which lie In excess of
The present rate, has been esta blish-
I'd. The committee is also OF the
opinion that the rights and privileges
sought to be granted are Of far great
er value than either Of the bids. Tho
report closes with the recommendation
that an ordinance for another fran
chise should be framed by the city
attorney in the best form. which will
in every way protect the city.
Claims Il Protects.
Mr.. Haddon declared that the ordi-
nance as adopted does not protect the
city. especially in view OF the fact
that the present company Is working
under a franchise In which there are
NO restrictions. Mr.. Fuller. Of the
ma fority. stated that he did not ques-
ton the policy OF granting a fran
chise. but whether this franchise was
commensurate with the needs of the
city.
Mr.. Mills offered resolution re-
auesting the city attorney to furnish
a STANDARDIZED ordinance for light
and mower franchise The resolution
was adopted. The report Of the COM
mittee viii be printed and forwarded
to the council.
The report follows:
To the Honorable Council Of the City
OF Richmond. Richmond, Va:
Genflemen.--Your committee. to
- nV an