Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-02-27
COUNCIL NOT AUTHORIZED
TO TERMINATE FRANCHISE

continued From First Pege.)
officials OF tho city government, who
were unanimous In describing the al
legged padding of the pay rolls as an
act altogether uncomfortable in Mr.
Drewry. The latter comes from one OF
the most prominent families In the
state, being the son OF the late Major
Clay Drewry. former member Of tho
city Council and founder, with other
Richmond men. OF big local whole
sale dry goods house that bears his
name.
"The whole matter is keenly to be
regretted said City Engineer Boiling.
i regret chiefly that Mr.. Drewry WAS
not present to make q statement for
himself. 1 have known Mr. Drewry
for years. and have always Ind the
highest regard for him. He was n
faithful worker. and not n breath of
suspicion, as far as I know, attaches
to his past record
CHARGES HARD TO BELIEVE.
SAYS CITY ENGINEER BOILING
at is hard for me to believe that the
whole thing is not n mistake, which
Mr. Drewry could explain. Nevcrthe-
less. had to act promptly upon the
charges that were brought to my ut
tention, and take Immediate action for
the protection Of the city. Now that
tho investigation Is started. l intend
"ouio terminate, put out of existence
ana supplant the present grants
Under the State Constitution, every
public service franchise granted by n
municipality must first be advertised
ana then be sold at public auction If
new franchise is granted by the city
OF Richmond to the Virginia Railway
ana Power Company. the same pro-
cedure VIII have to DO followed
wENDENBURG CALLS PROPOSED
FRANCHISE SALE 4 FARCE
Attorney l.. o. Wendenburg, repre-
scnting the Worklngmen's Protective
Association. has on frequent occasions
attacked this feature of the awarding
OIL the proposed blanket franchise as
farce. He has pointed out that the
form In which the new franchise Is to
be offered for sale, by requiring the
successful bidder to surrender, In con-
sidcration of the new grant, all the
existing franchises now owned by the
Virginia Railway and Power Company.
effectively restricted the buying priyi-
lege to the present company. since 1t
alone could comply with such a condt-
ton.
According to competent students Of
the state and city statutes on this
matter. Mr.. Wcndenburg's criticism is
without point Before the proposed
new blanket franchise Is advertised and
offered for sale. they say. the Virginia
Railway and Power Company will be
required by the city, a condition
precedent to the sale, to relinouish
every one Of its franchise rights in the
N h.,t
the blanket franchise may be In reality
a true auction. In which all bidders will
meet on an equal footing.
ANNEXATION EXTENDED
CITi'S CONTROL. Of LINES
The same authorities pointed out last
night that there has been considerable
misconception as 10 the number of fran
chiSes under which the street railway
company is operating in the city. While
the companys separate grants from city
and counties exceed n dozen in number,
II operates in the city proper under
three franchises only.
City Attorney Pollard informs Mr.
Sullivan on this point that Immediately
upon annexation OF new territory in
which street railways are operated, the
franchise ordinance granted by the City
Council becomes effective over the lines
located in the annexed territory. and all
'Nisttng regulations concerning the
operation of street railways In the old
'errtory become instantly effective In
he new territory.
Annexation, therefore. IL Is pointed
nut. In no way complicated the street
'ailway situation as far as the city
Itself is concerned Now, as before the
enlargement, the entire street railway
system within the corporate limits, Is
operated under and subject to the pro-
visions of only three franchises. those
~ the Richmond Passenger and Power
Company, Richmond Traction Company
and Richmond Railway and Viaduct
Company. formerly the Richmond and
Henrico Railway Company.
CITY WOULD DE
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
Mr.. Pollard's communication to Mr..
Sullivan serves materially to clear up
The situation as to the multiplicity OF
franchises and gives room for much
difference of opinion as to the power of
the Council TO terminate the present
existing grants In favor of an entirely
new franchise.
The city attorney informs Mr.. Sulli-
van also. that the city could be held
Jointly responsible with tho street car
company for accidents resulting from
the bad condition of tracks if, after due
notice OF such bad condition. the city
made no effort TO have tho disability
corrected. The opinion is interesting in
view OF the pending controversy over
the proposed rerouting of the East
Broad Street car lines.
Mr.. Sullivan wrote to City Attorney
Pollard on February 10 as follows:
II would appreciate your opinion as
TO whether or not the City Council Is
authorized under the charter OF the city
to terminate, By mutual consent or
otherwise. existing contracts pertaining
to the operation of, street railways,
granted by the said Council. and as to
existing contracts. affecting operation
in that part of the city recently annexed
not granted by the City Council, for the
purpose Of extending the privileges OF
said street railway company now oper-
attng within the present corporate linn
It's: also If the City Council may take
over for the purpose of municipal own