Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-07-29

crs' attorneys for an appeal to the
highest tribunal in the country by an
allegation that tho rights of the com
plainants. guaranteed under the four
Ieenth amendment TO the Federal Con-
stitution. are violated by the provi-
sions of the ordinance
So far as is known in legal circles in
Richmond, the Supreme Court of Louis
lana is the only appellate tribunal
which has passed on the status of the
)itney as common carrier. In that
instance the validity of an ordinance
adopted by the City Council of New
Orleans was upheld The New Orleans
ordinance requires bond of $1,000 for
each car operated as jitney. The
text OF the opinion is not available.
CITES ALLEGED ACTIVITIES
OF POWER COMPANY
The bill laid before Judge Wells
covers more than twelve typewriter
pages, and reviews the development Of
the jitney business in Richmond and
the alleged activities of the Virginia
Railway and Power Company in opposi-
ton to the independent jitney business
are cited. The company is not a party
to the suit. either as n complainant or
defendant. and will take no part in the
legal fight testing the validity of the
ordinance.
1t is asserted in the bill that. when
the courts refused TO grant the injunc-
tion asked for by the Virginia Rail-
way and Power Company TO prohibit
the operation of the jitneys without
proper taxation, the complainants con-
sidered their rights and those of the
people OF the city of Richmond were
safcguarded and made secure" The
enorts TO stop the jitneys. it is charged
came when the effect of this better
and cheaper travel and transportation
afforded TO the people of Richmond be-
gan TO be felt by the Virginia Railway
and Power Company"
LEADING CONTENTIOUS
OF JITNEY PETITION
Other outstanding contentious of the
bill are:
That the ordinance is in violation of
the legal rights of the independent
jitney owners and Of the rights of the
people of The city; that il is illegal, in
valid, void. unreasonable, unconstitu-
tional, unjust and destructive of the
lawful business and rights of the COM
plainants;
That the city of Richmond had pre-
Viously granted the complainants
licenses to operate their automobiles
for hire, and that these licenses do not
expire until January 81. 1916. 1t is
averred that the compliments have
fully complied with the provisions of
these licenses. which authorize the
operation of exactly the same kind OF
cars. and that nothing has been done
to forfeit these permits.
CLAIM CITY CANNOT
REVOKE LICENSE RIGHTS
That the city, having required these
licenses and accepted money for the
same, cannot revoke the PRIVILEGES
therein granted or place a greater
burden upon the jitneys: and that by
the passage of this ordinance the city
of Richmond has violated the obliga-
ton of It's license contracts with each
of the compliments, in contravention
OF the fourteenth amendment to the
Federal Constitution, and that the or
dtnance is, therefore, unconstitutional
and void. The compliments set up
the fourteenth amendment and Eek
prcssly rely upon the same"
That 1t is not within the power of
the city to discriminate between citi-
Zens, and that the City Council in
violation of right and precedent, has