Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-05
CITY ASSERTS LEGALITY
OF J|TNEY ORDINANCE
Presents Argument Before Judge
Wells Against Making Injunc-
ton Permanent.
DEFENDS CITY COUNCILS NAME
Assistant City Attorney Enters Sharp
Denial of Charge That Power Com
pany ENerted Improper influence
Upon City's I.awmaking Body.

Asserting the city's right TO regulate
the jitney business for the safeguard
ing OF the life and property of citizens,
Assistant City Attorney George Wayne
Anderson, in his argument before Judge
Wells. Of Hastings Court, Part H., yea-
terday. defended the legality Of the
jitney ordinance that became law on
July 27
Colonel Anderson entered n sharo
denial 10 the charge made in the peti-
tion OF independent jitney owners for
an injunction, that the Virginia Rail-
! way and Power Company had exerted
| improper influence upon the Council to
secure the passage OF the ordinance in
! question. The ordinance. he told the
court. was passed by the Council to
secure the public welfare
EXPECT FINAL DECREE
TOMORROW OR SATURDAY
Judge Wells last Wednesday granted
temporary injunction restraining the
city from enforcing the ordinance
The restraining order will expire Fri
day at midnight. unless 1t should he
extended by the court. Judge Wells
told the attorneys yesterday that he
expected to have his decision ready to-
morrow or Saturday. The case will go
to the Supreme Court, no matter which
way Judge Wells may hold in his
opinion.
on n motion made by Colonel George
Wayne Anderson, assistant city attor-
ney, to dissolve the injunction. Judge
Wells yesterday heard exhaustive argu-
ment from both sides. Richard Evelyn
Byrd and NJ J. Fulton appeared for the
tf,1a,
in the name Of George H. Locke and
others. and Colonel Anderson appeared
for the city. Court was In session from
10 o'clock in the morning until late in
the afternoon.
JUDGE SAYS ONLY TWO
POINTS ARE AT ISSUE
In the course OF the argument. Judge
Wells interrupted counsel to say that
there were only two principal points
at issue in the case. These were:
First The provision requiring own
ers OF jitneys to take out special
licenses.
Second. The clause requiring a bond
OF $1,000 for the first car and $500 for
each additional car operated by an in
dvidnal owner. On the ground that
like indemnity is not required of the
Virginia Railway and Power Company
in connection with the operation of its
street cars, nor of other automobiles
and hacks for hire, the bond provision
was declared by the jtncy owners to
be discriminatory, unjust and de-
liberate attempt to put the jitney out
Of business.
On the license question the city
denies that the complainants were
licensed to conduct the jitney business
in Richmond until January 81, 1916; or
that the jitncy business is the same
business or is conducted i'm the same
manner that for which the licenses
were issued. The city asserts that the
license they now hold is in reality a
State license and that it does not per-
nit the complainants to carry on the
jitney business.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHTS
HAVE NOT REEN REVOKED
by requiring an additional license. it
is further avcrrcd, no right or privilege
OF the complaipants has been revok cd
or ann,lled. and, even il 1t had revoked
and annulled the rights and privileges,
tho city was within it's rights and
powers II is denied that the license
is n contract, and tina; such additional
! regulations and requirements are in
violation of the fourteen amendment of
| the Federal Constitution. as alleged by
the jitney owners.
Authority is claimed by the city to
classify licenses for the purposes OF
| taxation and TO tax such licenses for
both police and revenue purposes, and
| to make such rules and regulations az
the ordinance prescribes, which regu-
lations are not unlawful discrimina-
tions
In support of its contention that tho
bond provision can he given by jitncy
owners without working q hardship
on them. an affidavit made by Fred
erick Sitterding, Jr., president OF tho
- -
(Continued on Third DopaN