Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-02-11
POINT
STILL TO Be SETTLED
New State Code May Come TO Vote
.ses.,r : in Senate Late This
Week.
May BIZ EXPENSIVE TO CITY
Proposed Action Dividing Costs OF
Changing Railroad Grades Would
Force Richmond to Share Elk.
pcnscS Of Belt Line Work.

Force Richmond to Share Elk.
pcnses Of Belt Line Work.
With but one point OF difference still
pending, the new State Code, already
VIII y, obabiy come to vote in the
state Senate this wcok. and is expected
10 take effect January l. 1919. The
point of difference is one OF far-reach-
ing Importance. especially TO the city
OF Richmond, since il may involve the
city In large costs by reason OF the
Helt Line. Improvement and other IA IL
way Solk row in progress or in con-
temptation. The Code as presented by
the revisers proposes that where the
Ern6e is changed to avoid grade t,us,
inss OF county roads. the cost shall be
borne equally by the railroad and the
county. The change pending makes
this apply TO cities and towns as we'll
rs TO counties.
After years OF negotiation over the
Use Of Broad and Eelviiere Streets by
steam railroads, an agreement was
reached with the Richmond Freder!cks-
burg an6 Potomac and the Atlantic
Coast Line for the erection of the new
station nov ncar.us; compile tiop on
West E-oad Street. AS part of this
genera! plan the Belt Line stretching
across tho western part OF The city
was to be lowered 20 admit OF the
crossing or Monument and other ave-
nues. While the Richmond Frcdcricks-
burg and Potomac Railroad contcnded
then that the city should bear IA par,
OF the cost O. lowering the Belt Line
tracks. II finali" agreed to proceed with
The work at its own expense, leaving to
tho courts later to determine whether
theve was any liability on the part OF
the city.
CITY ATTORNEY POLLARD HELD
RICHMOND NOT LIABLE
In an opinion 30 the Council Com
mittee on Streets. City Attorney Henry
j.. Pollard held that the city was no.
liable for Monument Avenue and other
proposed crossings.
Mr.. Pollard said: "As to Noauncp.
Avenue and other proposed crossings
not dedicated. an examination OF the
statute which ! An informed is relied
upon a fixing the liability OF the city
to pay ~one-ha!f of tao expense neuc.
rary In order to have ar ovc-hcad or
underpassaSc across tho Solt Line rail.
wav tracks provides IN express terms
that-yit shall he confined to 'cxstir =
crossings ] therefore told that tho
statute Gees 10: apply to Monument
Avenue. nor 10 such other streets tina,
do not now extend across said right %.
way, from which il follows that there
Is no statute that requires snc-halt
or any part OF the expense OF change
OF grade for such proposed crossing
to be borne hT the city OF Richmond.
and further. hold that the city 81
Richmond, through the IAdminist. ltive
Board, may determine at what -ads
the said avenue and said streets hall
pass across the right OF way {. tho
said railroad company" In such pro-
cecdings he continued. the city would
have to pay only the market value
of the easement taken. but no damage
TO the residue OF the property OF tho
railroad company accustomed by such
taxing
FOUND STATUTE ON SUBJECT
CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY
Concerning existing street crossings,
Mr. Pollard said.
IT find that the statutes on this sub
iect are contradictory and confusing
TO the last degree To indicate. have
10 say that clause IS expressly pro
vides that The provisions OF this see
ton fclauscI shall not apply 10 cross
ings in cities and towns. while clause
80 in speaking of existing crossings
limits such crossings to such as Is
mentioned in the preceding sectioll
that is, clause IS. thus. IS IL would
seem. excluding crossines In cities and
towns, yet providing later in the CLAUSE
(Gal that when il Ghc crossine) -
to he in country road. street or Other
Highway, it sh:.ll ho made By the cor
poration who.2 TACK - 10 b" crossed
and the reNrous- shalt i.c borne equally
by said corporation ana BY the county.
CITY. ~or town having control Of such
county road. street 81 other highway.
Mr.. Pollard continued:
1T Is !. wcll-rccoEEincd principle
that a municipal corporation in the
exercise OF the police power may mako
tI,fi Inv SON "A al
use OF n. railroad in and along streets
OF a city that VII nrotcc; the pub
lie, injurinS the company IS little as
possible III order 10 secure that end.
The leading case on this subject is the
case OF Richmond, fredericksburg and
Potomac Railroad Company vs.. City or
J2ictlmond. 90 L. s. a2l decided IN
1870 whic!! has ben followed and az
f,rmed In cases too numerous L. men
t,on down TO and Including the case
Of Grand Trunk Railway Company VIZ.
South Bend. 80 |. :. 81 decided in
1879, and Atlantic Coast Line Railway
Company. vs.. Goldsboro. @32 l. s. 5is
decided in 1910. IN this last-meu.
TONED case many cares are cited.
among them the important case OF c.
T.. & W. Fly. 60. IS. ',onncravilic, 2iS
U. S. s36 tdeciicd in 1910.
In G. l.. & q. Il; CO. - Nebraska
40 L. S. 81. the court held that the
railroad might bo required to either
lower or elevate i,s tracks At lis nyyu
expense. and adding mat Che fran
cnisc and not the particular location
being the essence of the contract. the
city under the power 10 regulate may.
compel the company to remove tn.
tracks from the centc; TO the side or
from the side 10 tho center If IT,.
street"
THE principles announced IN tho
foregt ins cited decisions % the su-
preme Court Of tho United states arc
in ful accord with the decisions Of
the supreme Court of this state. re
sides the case OF tho Richmond. Fred
erirkSburs and Potomac Railroad Com
pany w. CITY 81 Richmond, sun-o
Which was appca'ed from the decision
OF the supreme Court of tots state. ri
Graft So. the case az the City OF Char
s.iottesvilc VS. Southern Railway Com.
pany. 81 Va. 4es. is much in point.
BELT LINE WORK