|
January !lth, 1944.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Fox to appropriate $3,3~0,00 for said purpose, was
<br />adopted and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Leigh, Fox, G~imes,. Hall, Hows~d, Hutoh~ins, Lawrence,
<br /> Warren, Wilson
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />The following communications from the Oity Attorney~were received:
<br />
<br /> let- "In reference to the-attached l~tter of Mr.-A. E. Parker, City Collec-
<br />tor, requesting relief of taxes against Ninnie Defend on personal property for the years 1936,
<br />1940, l~41, 19~ and 1943, I have investigated t~his matter and I find that the taxes should be
<br />relieved as follows:
<br />
<br />1936 ................... $ 1.o6
<br />194o ................... 2.50
<br />1941 .................. 2.50
<br />1942 .................... 2.50
<br />1943 .............. - - - - - - 2.50
<br />
<br /> The Commissioner of Revenue has approved the statement of Mr. Parker
<br />and the same property was also assessed to Mrs. DeFord's Ben."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Fox to concur in the Attorney's recommendation,was adopt-
<br />
<br />ed.
<br />
<br /> 2nd- "The question o f instituting a suit to compel the Virginia Electric &
<br />Power Company to maintain its bus service in accordance with its contract and the ordinance of
<br />the City of Portsmouth, notwithstanding the orders of the Office of Defense Transportation,was
<br />referred to me for my opinion.
<br /> I find the Office of Defense Transportation is a part of the Office of
<br />Emergency Management of the Executive-Office of the President-of the United States. The Office
<br />of Emergency Management was established in the Executive Office of the President by.an admin-
<br />istrative order, May 25, 1940 ~Sec~ion l, 5 Federal Register 2109). The Office and its admin-
<br />Istrative subdivisions are to se~v~as an administrative aid to the President. It is under
<br />the direction of one of the administrative assistants to the President, ~nd there are about
<br />fifteen of the so-called subdivisions or emergency agencies, among which are the Office of
<br />Defense Transportation aud the War Production Board.
<br /> The First Warm-Powers Act 1941,-Act December 18, 1941 C. 593, 55 Stat.
<br />838,-Provided ~'the President for the more effective exercise and more efficient administra -
<br />tion of his powers as Oommander-In- 0hief of the Army and Navy, is authorized to make such
<br />distribution of function among, executive a~encies as he may deem necessary". The Second War
<br />Powers 1942, Act March 27th,19~2, C. 199 5~ Stat. 176 has no special bearing on the subject of
<br />a suit~
<br /> We are confronted with two questions. First, are t~e orders of the Of-
<br />fice of Defense Transportation directing the Virginia Electric & Power Company to operate on
<br />certain designated rou~es legal, or we may say constitutional? Second, what procedure is
<br />there ~o test the validity and the sufficiency of the orders?
<br />There is-no procedure set up in the orders to t~s~ their sufficiency.
<br />A suit can not be brought against the United States without its con -
<br />sent and usually an Act of Congress which sets up bureaus provides in what court and how shits
<br />may be brought to test the rules promulgated by t~e bureaus.
<br /> The validity of the order of the Office of Defense Transportation is
<br />now being tested in a ~uit brought by the City of Akron against the Akron Transportation Com -
<br />pany asking for specific performance and mandatory injunction to require the transportation
<br />comoany to operate its buses ~ccording to its franchise given by the City. The identical eues~
<br />tioR~ are involved as relates~to the City of Portsmouth. The Court of Common Pleas of Sum~it
<br />County and the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Judicial District of Ohio held that the courts
<br />had no po~er to consider the propriety a~d validity of the order of ~he Office. of Defense Transv
<br />portation and deci~ed the case against the City. An appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court
<br />of Ohio and a'decisio~ should be rendered in a few weeks. Should the City of Portsmouth insti~
<br />tute a suit it will practically parallel the suit in Ohio which should b e decided long in ad_ -
<br />vance of any sui2 ~ha2 may now be brought, and furthermore it will take a year or more to get
<br />final decision from the Court of Appeals of this State. In my opinion, the City should not
<br />institute a suit at this time, certainly not before the Ohio case is decided,f~
<br />
<br /> Mr. Hall stated that he understood buses can be operated on High St. but not
<br />on other streets.
<br />
<br />ed.
<br />
<br />~tion of Er. Hutchins to lay the Attorney's opinion on the table, was adopt-
<br />
<br /> 3rd - "In connection with the report of the investigators of the Federal
<br />Works Agency on the 'alleged conspiracy to have the Coder I~cinerator Corooration, the low bid~
<br />der, withdraw its bid, D0ciet VA 44-1~2', I have read the report and the ~ccompanying state
<br />ments very carefully,
<br /> It appears from the document submitted that someone using the name
<br />James ~. ~hite offered H.W. Sharpe, President of the Coder Incinerator Corpn. a sum of mone~
<br />to have his company withdraw its bid. I find no Sta~e statute or City ordinancebearing di -
<br />reetly upon the subject and I recommend that the report be filed and held for future reference.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Hutchins, ordered filed.
<br />
<br /> The following ordinance, placed on its first reading at last meeting, was
<br />
<br />taken up:
<br />
<br />
<br />
|