Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-06-05
VOTES TO REQUIRE I|TNEY55
TO GIVE $4,000 INDEMNITY
Ordinance Committee Incorporates
Bonding Requirement Over
Strong Opposition.
$1,000 BOND FOR EXTRA CARS
Committee Strikes Snag i'm Designat-
ing Routes, and Adjourns After
Three-Hour Session to Complete
Consideration at Call of Chair.

After turbulent hearing and de-
bate lasting more than three hours. tho
Council Ordinance Committee last
night voted. to >. to include in the
pending jitney bus ordinance IL section
requiring jitney owners to file an in
demnty bond of $4,000 for each car
operated by them. In the case of per
sons owning more than one car. addi-
tonal cars arc required TO lie bonded
at $1,000 each
Inc amendment making the bonding
requirement was offered by Alderman
Christian, who proposed Il fat sj,Oo0
pond Tor each car, irrespective of the
number of cars owned by any one per-
son or corporation. Councilman Cheat
wood offered an amendment. making
the bond for all cars over one owned
ny slhEl" person $1,000 The amend
ment was accepted, and the amended
amendment. after a sharp attack by
Councilman English. was adopted.
SHARP DIFFERENCES oN
DESIGNATION or ROUTES
with the bonding problem for the
time being disposed of. the committee
took up the ordinance reported hv the
subcommittee, reading and adopting
the separate provisions scriatim. OBJ
1ectlons arose to tho makc-up of tho
routes requiring the use of Harrison
ana Laurel as connecting streets and
me DEBATE Oh proposed amendments To
inc routes suggested delayed progress
until after II o'clock. At HE'S O'Clock
the committee adjourned TO meet again
At the call Of the chair, to diSpnse of
the route question and complete the
examination of tho ordinance
Attorney f.. Randolph Williams rep
resentinG the Virginia Railway and
Power Company, presented his COM
panN's objections to the ordnance un-
der consideration, which, H. said fail
ed 10 require OF the jitnev II FAX bur
den proportionate to that which is on
acted by franchise and contract from
the street car company
The iitney, argued Mr.. Williams. was
III true sense transportation COM
petitor. Under the ordinance as drawn.
he said. the jitncy would still rniOv
an unfair advantage over tho stree,
car company. since il would still he mt
hhcrtN to operate only nj pron,nblc
periods and absorb the profitable short;
maui business. without hcinr rcuuirc,I
10 perform the expensive special ser
vices required of the company.
WILLIAMS SAYS CTr,,S
Loss Is SIS.230 4 YEAR
JitneEs opera ting in Richmond to-day
take i'll approximately $500 n day every
cent OF which. he said. is taken from
the street railway company, since the
Jitney operates only in territory served
by street railways. on this basis. he
said the annual receipts of the jitncys
would amount to SlS2.J0O IL year Since
the city, IL these receipts were not di-
Nertcd. would receive back 10 per cent
OF this amount in the form of Il tax on
gross receipts. its annual loss from iit-
hcy operation in taxes alone, he said. is
approximately $3.50 a year
Even when we deduct the $4,000 a
year which tho city would receive net
from the licenses proposed in the ordi-
nance. there would still be an annual
loss to the city OF about $4,000 in
taxes. Upon what theory of Justice can
one defend $4,000 subsidy. taken
from the taxpayers OF the city at large
to protect an imperfect supplementary
transportation service which serves
only limited section Of the city, and
that section the wcalthicst
SAYS JITNEY Is NOT
THE "POOU MANS TAXI"
We hear much about the iitncy he
ing the poor mans taxi Nothing could
he farther from III" truth Tho ji,ncy
does not serve Fulton. Church Hill
Oregon Hill. South Richmond or the
other sections of the city where dwell
the persons Of moderate means. II
serves Grove Avenue. Monument Ave-
nuc, Park Avenue and a fcw other West
End thoroughfarcs. comprising a sec
ton one square mile in area. i'm which
dwell the wcalthicst portion of our citi-
zenship."
r. C. Don Lcavy. son Of former
member OF the Board Of Alderman. now
deceased. replied Ia the argument pre-
sented by MIR. Williams. He was the
Tf n, I'LL.
said, worked at another occupation
himself, and hired a competent chauf-
ieur to drive his car.
SEES ATTEMPT 70
KILL JiTNEY BUSINESS
MIR. Don Lcavy denounced the at
tempt to impose bonding requirement
on iitncy operators. ana To lay down
stringent regulations for their opcr-
ations. as inspired by those who want
to see the iitncy regulated ont Of cx-
iStence. In this class he placed the
Virginia Railway and Power Company,
which, lie said. has always fought the
entrance of competitive transportation
agents.
Alderman Christian offered the mo-
ton requiring each iitn"y to execute
"A $4,000 indemnity bond to protect per-
sons injured through the negligence OF
the driver or chauffeur. Automobile
transportation, he said. was here to
stay. ana SnOuld nc maze S3tc Tor the
public
The bond requirement was sharply
attacked by Councilman English. lie
was opposed. he said. to requiring "a
bond OF q jitncy without at the same
time requiring il OF privatc!y -owncd
cars. automobile trucks and taXic;lbs
IL IL was the purpose 10 protect the
pedestrian. lie said. such a bond should
he required OF every motor driven We
hiclc in the city as well as Of every
street car.
ENGLISH MAKES ATTACK
ON HOND Requirement
The real purpose Of this bond" said
Mr.. English with some heat, sis to lay
such a burden on the jitncy ;hat il
will not be able To live. If that is our
purpose tonight. let us he frank about
! 1t. ] cannot conscientiously vote for
| the bonding requirement because il
, means an unfair discrimination against
tho jitney.n