The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-11-12

the granting of any franchise In ops
position to the Virginia Railway and
Power company. Subsection has
every safeguard necessary to protect
the city. This section I substituted
for the one presented by the attor-
neys for the Richmond and Henricc
company. The city council can re-
quire the company to take any route.
and IL the company fails to do this
the franchise reyerts to the city,"
In reply to a question by Mr.. Had
don. the assistant city attorney said
that whenever the company securing
the franchise wanted to cover any
particular street there would have TO
be an advertisement to that effect.
Thereupon AIR. Haddon presented
substitute To MIR. Powers motion. that
the franchise be granted the Rich
mond and Henrico company and the
committee present to council Its rea-
sons.
II object to Mr.. Powers motion"
said Mr.. Haddon, because a subcom-
infttee cannot give amy more reasons
than we already have And why
should We go to further delay by wait
ing for a subcommittee report 2"
Mr. Gunst agreed with Mr.. Haddcn
and deplored further delay.
"Gur subcommittee can report In
plenty time to send the matter to
council" said Mr.. Mills.
Both Mr.. Mills and Mr.. Powers tie
clared they were sick and tired Of all
the delay. and after short parlev
with Mr.. Haddon, in which he said he
did not wish delay. Mr.. Haddon
agreed to withdraw his motion II the
matter could get before council.
wherein he could present a minority
lrrt ~ .,
committee assured him there would b.
no trouble In that. but before Mr..
Haddon actually withdrew his substi-
tute Mr.. Fuller wanted to know what
rights the city would accrue under
the proposed ordinance.
Interests Of the People.
II don't care a dot for either the
Richmond and Henrico or the Virginia
Railway and Power company" said
Mr.. Fuller. "All I am looking after
is the city Of Richmond. am here
to represent the people. and II this
franchise does not protect the inter-
ests of the people. want one which
WILL"
Under fire .from various members
of the COMMITTEES Assistant City Az
torney Anderson said that the fran
ehise, while IT might not be AZ rigid
in its requirements as he might have
drawn. was a valid one. and would
protect the interests of the people.
THE company will have to come
to council for any extensions" said
Mr.. Anderson. While the first sec
ton says the company may use the
streets and the second that the conn
mittee may require them to use spect~
fed streets, the franchise as q whole
may be controlled by the council"
A majority OF the committee did mot
agree with Mr.. Anderson. and upon
the withdrawal Of Mr.. Haddon's SUBJ
stitute. the vote on MT Powers mos
tion to reject and name q subcQm-
mittee to give reasons was adopted
by the vote Of Ave to three:
Ayes--Mills, Fuller, Powers, voude-
lehr and Pollock.
Noes--Gunst. Haddon and Nielsen.
Chairman Pollock then named
MesSrs. Fuller, Mills and Pollock on
the committee. @
When asked why. he did not name
member OF the minority on this COM
mittee, Mr. Pollock said he could mot
see how a minority member could give
any reasons why the franchise should
not be given out.
The subcommittee will meet On
Wednesday night at o'clock. and =
report from that committee will BE-.
presented to the full committee on
Thursday afternoon at S o'clock.
The paper which Chairman Pollock
endeavored to present as coming from
the Virginia Railway and Power corn
pany. was one In reply to statements
| --inted in the advertising columns ~
| the papers on Sunday by the RtcA-s
mond ana Henrtco people.
| II includes number of extracts p4i
reports purporting TO have been nsaAse,