Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-09-20
REPEAL OF J|TNEY LAW
TO NULL|FY COURT CASE
Question OF Validity, Pending In
Supreme Court, Would BE
Stricken From Docket.
EXPECT COUNCIL TO CONCUR
Opponents OF Repeal Predict Law
makers VIII Agree With Ordinance
Committee In Rntifying Measure
Wiping Out Present Regulations.

The jitney. after being the object OF
debates. committee hearings Council
enactment and court rulings for more
than three months. will tonight again
hold the center ~! tho City Hall stage
The lower branch CT the Council has
pcch called to meet in special session
az $50 o'clock to receive from the Or
dinance Committee an ordinance re-
pealing tho present titney law. II this
body concurs in tho committees action
the Board OF Aldermen. at it's meet
ing later in the evening will be asked
TO do likewise
The reaction against jitney regula-
tlon. which reached its climax at a
mass meeting at William Fox School
last tuesday, is depended upon by jit-
heE enthusiasts to find reelection In the
Council. Largely on this feeling was
onsGn INC prediction. common in UNI
ohhcial circles last night, that the
council WILL by a substantial major
n.y. repeal the present law and rely
npon a newly-appointcd subcommit-
tee to report regulatory ordinance
which VIII more nearly answer the
voters demands.
According to lawyer members OF tho
council. the repeal OF the present ordi-
nance III its entirety will have the cf-
feet of automatically MULTIPLYING the
court proceedings now under way for
the determination OF the ordinances
validity. There is pending in the State
supreme Court of Appeals an appeal on
tho part OF the ltigant jitney men
from tho decision OF Judge Wells. OF
Hastings Court, Fart II. holding tho
ordinance legal exercise or the citys
regulatory and police powers
COURT WOULD NOT PASS
on HYPOTHETICAL. QUESTION
IT is pointed out that the repeal OF
the present law would leave to the
supreme Court the task OF determining
the validity Of non-cNistrnt ordi-
nance. and that tho case would there
Tore. be dropped from the docket since
tho court could not be expected to pass
upon hypothetical controversies
In urging the Ordinance Committee
on Thursday night to strike out the
bonding provision and leave the rest OF
the jitncy ordinance intact. Alderman
Fuller pointed to the fact that such n
proceeding would not invalidate the
Jitncy case in the Supreme Court and
that IN the course of short time tho
city would have valuable opinion
from this tribunal TO guide 1t In the
framing OF further j!tncy legislation.
To repeal the ordinance in toto he said,
would be to lose entirely the benefit OF
the study and consideration that has
been given the question OF iitncy reEu-
JITNEYS ALREADY HAVE
FOR HIRE LICENSES
The value OF tho expected court de-
cision. however. was discounted by cx-
ponents Of the repeal OF tho jitncy law
IN its entirety, at the ordinance Com
mittces' meeting. Attorney George j.
Hooper. chairman Of tho William Fox
school mass-mcetinE. told the commit
tee that tho jitncys may hope for relief
only from the Council since 1t has been
pretty we'll determined by the courts
that ordinances like tho one now in
force will stand the test Of judicial cX
animation largely because OF the lib
cral Interpretation OF the police power
clause OF the Federal Constitution that
has been authorized by the United
States Supreme Court.
Jitncy men stated last night that
there was much misconccption as to
the license tan. They deny that there
has ever been any such thing in Rich
mOnd, as an unlicensed or unrcgulatcd
jitncy, since even before the passage
of the ordinance which II is now pro-
posed 10 repeal, tho iitncy owners
were subject TO all traffic regulations
and secured both state and city for
hire" licenses. and gave personal bond
In the sum Of $500 for each car.