The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-04-16

increased under 1t from less than
S:,ooo,ooo year TO more than $4,000
900 u year"
Mr. Gregory answered Mr.. Pollard
bri Ely.
There must be some cause for this
ordinance" rema rked Chairman I'm
lauf. They haven't shown case OF
any injustice. We would like TO know
II you can do So
Mr.. Gregory said he could not. but
believed others could. Alderman Moore,
OF the committee also called for u con-
crete case.
Rev. John G. Scott, a property owner,
who has been in constant conflict with
the Building Inspectors office, told of
tho condemnation of property at Sew
cnteenth and Grace Streets. causing
him much loss. and said he had exam
ined IL himself and did not believe 1t
was dangerous TO life and limb. Mr.
Beck exhibited photographs OF th.
| building In question TO the committee
MIR. Scott next referred 10 Sixth and
Marshall Streets. where no had owned
an old frame building, which he had
examined personally and found not un-
safe. He protested that whom this
case was called in the Police Court
Justice Crutchheld had refused to call
his witnesses or hear his statement
rcmarkins that n. had known the prop
erty for thirty years and that II should
have been condemned long age.
Old Bull store.
"If your complaint Is against the
Police Justice" remarked Mr.. Pollard.
VIC arc wasting time here. You can
prepare complaint and the Council
has power TO remove him for mal6en-
sancc In Office
We need not SO into that" SIND
Chairman Cmlaut. Everybody pres
Ettf II ~ old Nun
sixth and Marshall Streets. l 'Snow
OF my own knowledge that It shoufG
| have come down ten years ago
Frank Fcrrandini said the action of
| the Builders Exchange came from the
| board OF directors, not tho member
| ship. since he had never been at a
/ meeting when Il had been discussed.
| and knew many members did not ia
| ror the Gilman ordinance. Ha had
! come TO the meeting, in response 10
| a postal card sent out by the Build
/ ers' Exchange. urging his attendance.
F.! but since hearing the argument. ne
/ was convinced that tho code should
| not ,bc changed. AS trustees OF his
! fathers estate. hE said he had had
| Three buildings condemned and or
dered removed. and subsequent events
! bad shown the Building Inspector TO
be right in each instance. He review
| ed his controversy WITH HIS neighbors
w
builders were tcstifyiUE that the
/ building was safe and would stand for
years, and the case WAS being con-
| tinued from day TO day for three
| weeks In the Police Court. the hall
settled the matter by FALLING in, sew
erai workmen narrowly escaping death.
! lie thought that with Injunction ana
| bond. there was ample appeal to pro-
| tcct property owners, and that a
small clique OF real estate agents were
+, trying TO kill the law that had built
Richmond. II would he mistake. he
argued. to hamper an efficient oInccr
| In discharge of his duty Plenty OF
builders would take short cuts, he as
serted. and 1t was a safeguard to own
ers TO nave city inspector come
about to see how much cement was
F; put into tho mortar. and how strong
| tho columns are.
! Charles Nj. Robinson an architect.
slohc IN opposition to tho ordinance.
! SAVING that so far as his plans were
| concerned all of the changes suggest
ed by the Building Inspector had been
10 the benefit OF mis- clients, and the
protection OF their property. TO was
! opposed to any attempt to read into
the law any compromise settlements
which were mere lodging of plain,
| legal requirements. and was satisfied
| with present conditions
| Advocated by Collins.
| Allen g. Collins closed for tho applI-
cants for the new ordinance He was
proceeding to an elaborate argument
on the assumption that there was no
appeal, and that. decisions were arbi-
trary and confsca tory. Under cross
examination he could not cite one in
stance of injustice or confiscation of
property, and City Attorney Pollard
In reply asserted that the law was
exactly the reverse of that stated by
Mr.. Collins, showing how ample APP
Peals were provided II the property
jowner is willing to take the respon-
sibility and back his Judgment as TO
the safety of his property with a
bond.
Mr.. Gunst wanted to refer the whole
matter to a subcommittee to further
heard enough Mr.. Vonderlehr insist
ed on voting at once.
Il have heard the Board of Alder
men vote million dollars in ten min
utes." said Alderman Moore. 1--WE havs
heard this talk for seven hours at
two sessions. and should be ready to
vote. I see nothing TO be gained by
putting Off action until after tho pri-
mary"
The vote on the Gunst motion to
, refcr was rejected. / TO T. and the
ordinance then reported 10 the Board
or Aldermen for rejection by tho fol-
lowing vote:
Ayes-Messrs. ponderlehr. Butler.
Kain. L,imsden. hroncure, Moore and
Umlanf
No-Mr. GlInst.
+ The committee will meet shortly at
the call of Chairman Umlauf to tako
up number. of other pending papers
Marriage Iiccnscs.