The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-12-12

rico Company He considered the
veto power of the Mayor as intended
chiefly to check hasty. corrupt or i'll
considered action. There was no inti-
nation of corruption in this case; the
argument had been carried on Tor
year. with the fullest publicity, and
TWO Councils have passed on the is
sues declaring for competition In pub
.ic service. and he believed that a
majority of the people OF the CITY
were for the granting of the fran
chise to his company. Mayor Ainslie
asked a number Of questions bringing
from Mr. Kelley d statement Of his
view that the franchise required the
srantee to serve the entire city in
compliance with such additional ordl-
nances as might from time to time be
passed by the Council requiring ex-
tensions, and that the contesting OF
he validity OF such orders OF the
Council would have the effect of for
felting the franchise.
Not a single member of either
branch had favored the $1,000 nid OF
Arthur Upper & Company, he said.
and he considered il little singular
that they should have come in with
an upset bid at the last moment
Judge Christians clients, he said.
could well afford to come in after the
fight had been made and even az their
revised bid of $4,000 take the fran
..hise and sell il out at a profit. The
policy Of competition he claimed had
been settled by the old Council when
it advertised the grant; the question
Of legality. although questioned by
Judge Christian and Mr.. Anderson, he
thought amply covered by the opinion
Of the city attorney, leaving all that
he conceived to be nefore the Mayor
TO determine whether the due pro-
cesses of law had been complied with.
ai= whether the Council was Justified
IN accepting the lower rather than the
l. CHER bid.
Except for speculative purposes"
continued Mr.. Kelley. Il don't believe
that nybOdy except ourselves would
have this franchise al any price
Meredith Defends Franchise.
Mr.. Meredith told of the long cor
tinued publicity given to the franchise.
Were, there some great moral wrong
he would expect the Mayor u stand up
AGAINST the whole community. but
where two successive Councils mad eN-
pressed themselves On a mere matter
OF the establishment Of business
enterprise in the community. d.
thought - Mayors duty To- b.
clearly to scquicsc> IN The will Of the
peoples representatives. Accepting
NJ. Andcrsoa's cOn;ention that a rcgC
lated monopoly was better than com
petition in public service corporations.
be contcndcd that There Is M proper
regulation in Virginia Of light ana
power companies. the Corporation
Commission having ruled that u had
no power over he rates OF transmits
sion conpsnlc, The Council. he held
VS. in the exercise % = reasonable dis
erection when 10 accepted d SO bia
rather than a s.. 900 bid. a reversal 81
surh reasonable discretion where there
mad been ne manifest wrong. such a.
bribery. and no haste or lSck Of pub
u~ftv. he considered hardly a prOpel
subject for exercise % IN. veto power
Mr. Anderson closed the argument
briefly summing up The case from MS
standpoint. urging ne Mayor not 70
auorovc an ordinance Fundamentally
u-souns N principal. Improperly and
loosely drawn. snd Of more than doubt
ful legality, selling for $40 rights
which are admittedly worth $4,000
and probably much more. and which
viii certainly. ~ c>rted. be capitai
zoo a. not less than 100000.
Mayor Ainsiis indicated that " would
be several DAYS before he reacsed
fnsl decision.