The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-04-05
TITLE DEFECT NO
| BAR TO PURCHASE
COMMON COUNCIL rNsTRUcrs CITY
ATTORNEY POLLOCK AGAIN
TO ACQUIRE DOCK.
ACTION is UNANIMOUS
QUESTION OF WATER RIGHTS FAILS
TO ALBRIGHT FINANCE COM
MrTTEE WHICH RECON-
MENDs PROPOSITION.

On recommendation OF the Finance
Comniltee. common Council iass
night in special session voteo uhan
mously to instruct the clty ATTORNEY
to proceed to acquire the city COCA.
unoer the terms Of the resolution
adopted March a6th la.t, notwitn
standing any defects In the utie 70
the water rights that may exist y.
develop. Thlrty-one memoirs Voteo
for the proposition. Those absent
were Meesrs. EosIhan. Hobson, Lums-
den, Miller, Mills, RatcliTfe, WILTSHIRE
Workman.
just prior to this action. the BODY
voted down the Richards resolution
requiring the present owners TO give
an indemnifying bond to safeguard
the city in case litigation In connec-
ton with the water rights OF the dock
results in giving the city airy DOCK
instead Of wet one.
Aldermen Must Act.
The resolution approved by the
body will be acted upon by the Board
, of Aldermen Tuesday night. 1t will
then have to be sanctioned by the
Mayor just as In the case OF the pre-
vious paper having the same purpose
In view which was approved by him
some days ago.
Whether 1t would be advisable for
the city to acquire the dock with the
water rights title in doubt was dis
cussed at some length yesterday after
noon by members Of the Finance Com
mittee, who had with them e. l..
Bemiss, chairman OF the bondholders'
committee. offering the dock for sale,
and Eppa Hunton. Jr.. counsel for the
bondholders, and also for the Old Do
minion Iron and Nail Company. which
Is the plaintiff In the suit which may
upset the citys claim to full title
to the water rights.
Refuses to Give Bond.
Mr.. Bemtss let 1t be known first OF
all that his committee WAS opposed to
furnishing an indemnifying bond. II
was willing. however. to agree to take
the dock OF the city's hands. refund
ing the purchase money with interest,
II it should develop that the water
was diverted from the dock. AL
though approaching this offer. the
committee was OF the opinion that
the city would prefer to retain the
dock, whether wet or dry. In fact.
II was pointed out that the property.
filled in and converted into gilt-edged
real estate, would be worth fully
twice as much as II would be II II
continued as waterway.
Mr.. Hunton, discussing the pending
litigation in the Law and Equity
Court explained that It IL In the
shape of a demurrer to the bill, and
that 1t might not affect the city al
all In this connection City Attorney
Pollard volunteered the information
that Judge Crump expected to reach
decision within the next week OF
ten days
There was some discussion as t.
what extent the city might be at.
| fected II the State Supreme Court
holds that the Corporation Commits
| sfon was correct in its ruling requiring
the dock to be kept open as q water.
way. An appeal from this ruling. Il
| will be recalled. was noted to the
| States highest tribunal, ana it Is still
! pending there.
Again. II was pointed out that the
| city would not be loser, whateve,
| might be the result. and the commit
| tee let II go at that.
II the city finally comes into pos
| session of the dock and the way 1.
| clear, 1t proposes to spend fully $50.
| 900 on Improvements to the propert,
| to make 1t model waterway OF III
| kind.