Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-05

iS-DlSPATCH: THURSDAY
| annually for $500 bond. 1t is as
serted that any responsible jitney
| owner can obtain like bonds.
CITY CLAIMS BOND
IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY
Replying to the charge that tho bond
| requirement Is discriminatory. tho city
undertakes to show that ut the present
time bond of $500 is required OF every
person licensed to operate vehicles on
tho streets of Richmond. and that the
city may sue on this bond for the
benefit Of any person who suffers Injury
as a result Of .he operation of such
vehicle.
II is alleged that the difference in
! tho bond required OF these vehicles and
! that eXactcd of the jitncy is based only
| on the extent and i'm the manner that
, the difference in the business OF the
: jitney requires. The bond is not a
deliberate attempt to put the jitney
out OF business. but is protection TO
the public and the requirement was
, made for that purpose. the answer
! adds
| Colonel Anderson raised the question
| OF the authority of the city to make
J such regulations under the general
F.! police powers of its charter. as were
| necessary to safeguard the lives and
I property Of citizens, including the pre-
. scribinr OF routes and fixing maxi
mum passenger capacity. Judge Wells
indicated that there was no question in
his mind as to powers Of the city in
this particulars
ATTORNEYS CONFINE THEMSELVES
TO TWO MAIN POINTS
! IN" arguments were devoted prin-
! cipally TO applications of the law to
/ the allegations of the compla inants in
| their biil and to legal propositions
| raised by tho answer, filed by the city.
| with many supernuous issues removed
! by Judge Wellss statement. limiting
| the scope OF the argument thu at
| torneys devoted themselves to the two
main points. Numerous authorities
were cited by each side in support Of
| their respective contentious.
The answer of the city, in addition
| TO containing specific denials of the
/ principal allegations made as to the
! illegality of certain provisions Of the
ordinance. contains several interesting
! recitals. bearing on the volume Of
jitney traffic on the principal routes
used by these cars. Figures gathered
J by the police. who. at the direction Of
Mayor Ainslie. counted Jitneys as they
! passed three separate points-Lom-
hardy Street and Grove Avenue. Frank
lin and Laurel Streets. and at Seventh
/ and Broad--were cited 20 give an idea
| of the extent Of the traffic.
| The police count was made after the
temporary injunction became effective,
and the point is made that there are
not as many cars operating now as
! there were before the ordinance went
! into effect on July %. only to be sus-
pended by the restraining order, so far
as il affected those owners who are
parties to the suit.
RESULT OF JI1NEY COUNT
: MADE ~ THE POLICE
The result Of the count. which was
made by the police at their several
stands during every fifteen minutes of
the day from o'clock in the morning
untii IL o'clock at night. is as follows:
AZ Lombardy and Grove on July 80,
2,2's Jitneys; on July 81 ALL
Al Laurel and Franklin on July 80,
! ".i33 1itneys; on July 81, 1891
AT Seventh and Broad July 30, a,746:
n
! hned to cars going eastward only be-
cause OF the congestion OF traffic at
seventh and Broad, but as the end Of
the jitney lines is at Ninth and Rroad
the total was secured by doubling
those counted going eastward
IT Is charged that as many as 3as
automobiles. chiefly jitneys, have been
! counted by responsible persons passing
in front of one residence on Park
Avenue within one hour: and that as
many as thirty-five automobiles may
be seen at the same moment in front
/ OF residences located on Grove Avenue
The average, based on the police count
/ is more than siXty-three cars passing
every fifteen minutes, or more than four
n minute. at Laurel and Franklin: moro
than thirty-eiCht, or nearly 3 per min
ute, at Lombardy and Grove. and more
than siXty-two. or more than four per
minute, at Broad and seventh.
SAYS CITY IS JUSTIFIED
IN DEMANDING $1,000 BOND
In view Of the volume OF the traf-
&c, rs illustrated by the police count.
the city AYERS that the distinction be-
tween the jitney business and the reg
ular vehicle for hire business. tust!fies
and requires the regulation OF the lit
neys for the preservation of the peace
and quiet. comfort and convenience of
the public. and requires a classical
tlon and regulation different from that
| OF the ordinary vehicle-for- hire busi-
ness BY reason OF the danger from
the jitneys to persons lawfully on the
street. il is asserted that the city is
justified and required in guarding the
public safety to demand the bond re-
quired in the ordinance.
On the arraiGnment OF the Virginia
Railway and Power Company by the
omplainants. who charged that the
street car corporation had conferred its
efforts on the City Council to drive the
jitneys out OF business under the guise
of regulation" the city's answer says:
DENIES THAT COUNCIL
WAS UNDULY INFLUENCED
Your respondent is not advised, and
neither admits nor denies the facts al
legged in paragraph , of the bill, as
to the actions and efforts of the Vir-
Ginia Railway and Power Company,
looking To a prevention OF the jitney
business, and if the same is material,
demands strict proof thereof. But this