The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-07-09
Old Company Will APP
peal to Court if He
Signs Ordinance.
CITY ATTORNEY
TO RULE ON LAW
Question of Policy Will Be De-
terrined by Mayor, Whose De-
cision Will Be Announced by
Thursday - Lawyers Pre-
sent Able and Extended
Arguments.

Argument on tho proposed light ana
power franchise for the Richmond and
llenrlco Railway Company was heard
for more than tour hours yesterday
afternoon by Mayor Richardson Henry
vs.. Anderson. ~ al extended argument
iur tne N.fgin!a Railway and Power
onps ny, attacked both the des!ra-
bl.ty OF a competing franchise ana the
legality Of tAs document wnich mas
been approved by both branches OF
ti.e Council Charles Y. Meredith and
samue. l. Kelley replied Tor the ap-
pAcAnt company
~ the close ol the argument. Mayor
Richardson stated that as to the ques-
ION OF policy Involved he would do
tvrmine for a.nseli after due deliber-
ALTON. ~ 10 III. very intricate law
points which had been raised. ne said
the charter provided that the CITY At
iorney should &c, az the legal .avssof
OF the Mayor ana IN that respect he
would act 10 accordance WITH whatever
opinion Nj Pollard may render. In
any event he VIII reach determine
,ion within the nest day or two in
order TO return the ordinance either
signed or WITH has vote 10 the City
CLERK within the five days allowed by
law for consideration or such papers.
VIII Act shortly
The ordinance went to Mayor
Richardson last Friday, and lie there
fore has untu Thursday TO act on the
matter The Mayor asked q number
OF questions OF Counsel TO bring out
the points involved. giving It the nrst
real consideration II has had by city
AUTHORITIES since II ceino from the sub
committee on streets. Commenting on
the provision which makes the grant
expire 81 the came time az the exist
Ing hight and power franchise the
Mayor asked whether Il was within
the power OF the city 10 grant an OK
elusive franchise. and on being told
'hs' q; was, though 1t had never been
conc here. expressed the opinion that
t-cre should DC monopoly In such on
terprses. but o--y where there was
public ownership lie said raat per-
maps The same results could be OBJ
ihlnst oy the use OF private capital
where there was strict regulation.
Anderson Attacks Ordinance.
Hcnry ~ Anderson opened the argu-
menf briefly reviewing the history
Of the contest. bringing out the fact
taat an examination OF the rates in
more han ntty cities had shown that
Richmond now hai electric current g ;
low OF lower than The average The
sub committee. he stated after nnd!ng
that the rates here were reasonable.
and the service adequate. had recon
't''t4Ef4 tttrN ~ Fs4 careful INJURY
made a. 10 the desirability u COM
ietns franchise. which study ,vas no;
Sivcn ether by the Stree, Committee
or the Council. the full COMMITTEES
limiting the hearing 10 one and one
Nalt hours 10 SIDE and adopting
amendments practically eliminating
tho wrok OF IT'S sub committee Pass
Ing on 10 discussion OF the powers
aud dutiea Of the Mayor 10 review and
cnoek unwise and hasty and Icon
sigered legislation. Mr. Anderson ar
fuol against competition In the case OF
regulated public service enterprises.
SAYING that the regulation tied their
hands and when competition was then
permitted they We're then told to fight
wi'h hands tied. Competition in such
cases he said was war and was only
jnsuhci, as last resort. since il was
obvious that one service with ono set
OF ccnduits can serve the community
at less cost than can two
City Gains Nothing
The double tearing up and obstruct-
Ing % the streets he held was only
lNstihed when the public gained there
by After wasting the resources OF
both companies in a destructive war.
consolidation would result. with de-
nreciatcl service, higher rates and a
greater capital on which the com
munity would pay a return. II not
fully regulated already. he was willing
TO agree to complete regulation by the
Corporation Commission. or to submit
any questions that might arise TO ar
oitration He saw no reason why tho
city should give the Henrico company
light and power franchise merely
because II now has an Improbable
street railway line--a railway which
ne claimed was as little needed as
something not needed OF all.
If 1t is tho object OF the c!t,. TO
make their Investment profitable re-
eardless OF whether 1T is for the good
of the community" he said "whv NOT
give them a gas and water franchise
and carry the thing to its logical con-
clusion? Why uso an instrument OF
warfare against Il company which is
serving you well. and against which
there has been no complaint? What
encourae ement Is that to invested capi-
tai TO give good service II it gets no
approval thereby?"
1.ttacks Its Legality.
Leaving the question of policy, Mr. A
Anderson then attacked the legality
OF the ordinance a adopted on the
ground that 1t does not designate the
streets TO be used. or the time in which
they are to be used because the ordi-
nance attempts TO delegate to the
street Committee legislative powers OIL
the council. which cannot be delegated. |
and because 1t does not in other re-
spccts comply with the mandatory
provisions of the State statute. The
whole trouble Mr. Anderson said. was
that the Council had drafted fran
chise after the old lines as the law,
stood prior To a03 when the new Con
sututon took effect with the acts am Il
nntSins that document and the Cor 1
poration Commission took Office. Time