|
August
<br />
<br />C
<br />
<br />present, I have gone further into the matter of a loop service at the east-end of High St.,
<br />s~ud have come to the conclusion that the feasible route for white jitneys, wou~d be from
<br />High St., to Middle, to Oounty, to 0rawford, to Queen, to High, busses stopping to discD~rge
<br />_passengers at the northeast ¢orne~ of High and 0rawford Sis., and to ta~e on passengers at
<br />the northwest corner of High and Orawford Sts. This route would pass near ~he new market.
<br />
<br /> In my opinion, colored busses should follow County St. from Sixth Ave. to 0rawford
<br />and take on and discharge passengers on the east side of 0rawford St., south of High. They
<br />could then m~ke a loop via High and Middle to County St.
<br />
<br /> I am of the opinion, that, before t~is m~tter is acted upon by the Council, the
<br />operators of jitneys should be given an opportunity to be heBrd."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Ma. White, the 0ity Man~ager was instructed to su~mit to the Council a~ ordi-
<br />nance covering h~s suggestions.
<br />
<br /> 12th.
<br />delinquent
<br />two ps, ts;
<br />
<br />"t ~m forwarding herewith ad~i~monal bill from the Portsmouth Star for ~dvertisi~g
<br />tax bills. Due to s~ oversight on the part of the paper, the bill was rendered in
<br />first for two insertions and then for three additional insertions.
<br />
<br /> An additional appropriation o~ $160.~ wil~ be necessary ~or this purpose, which
<br />is recommended."
<br />
<br />On motion, the recommended ~opropriation w~s referred to the Fin~ce Committee.
<br />
<br /> t3th. "In ~ccordance with your instructions, I have in~e~tigated the charges m~de verbally
<br />by Nm. O. L. Lee before the 0ouncil on August 12th and as indicated in the attached letter of
<br />August 18th.
<br />
<br /> ~As it w~s not contradicted in any testimony given before me, it may be accepted as
<br />f~ct, as oharged by Mr. Lee, that on June 17th, Mr. Price w~s operating his ice w~gon without
<br />license; on July 19th he was operating his ~utomobile without a Oity license; on Jul~ llth~
<br />he was operating his store without a license. It is to be noted, however, that Mr. Price,
<br />on June l?th, p~id for licenses mggregatin~ $162.20.
<br />
<br /> No testimony was brought ~orws~dby Mr. Le? to s~ow that either the 0ommissioner
<br />of R~eE~e or the License Inspector had been derelict mn themr duty.
<br />
<br /> The testimony of both the Commissioner of R~Eenue ~ud the License Inspector showed
<br />that frequently merchants of good reputation who had been doing business for a n~ber of years
<br />in the 0ity and who were tempors~vily financially embarrassed are ~allowed ~udhave been in the
<br />pmst allowed oonsider~ole delay in p~ying their licenses. Y~u view of the above, i find no
<br />grounds whatever for oritimising the official actions of ~h~r the Con, missioner of Revenue
<br />or the License Inspector.
<br />
<br /> So far as I ~mpersonally concerned, ~Mr. Lee o~me ~into my Secretary's Office some-
<br />time past ~Ud m~de a geners~l statement that Mr. Price was selling on Sund~y, in violation of
<br />the Sund~y Labor Law. I directed Mr. Bro~n~ to tell Mr. Lee that he, Mr. Lee, could, if he so
<br />desired, get a warrant, if he h~d knowledge of violation of law. I also told Mr. Brown to
<br />have the Chief ofPolioe w~rn Mr. Price. The question of the violation of Sund~y lmws has
<br />~lw~ys been debatable ground and in this ~r$icular c~se, I followed a practice in regard
<br />to this lmw which I think is reasonable; namely, to give ~he ~lleged offender a chance before
<br />bringing him into court. As a m~tterTM of f~ct, the evidence developed that when the warning
<br />was given by the Chief of Police to Mr. Price, the latter h~d ceased selling on Sunday three
<br />weeks previous to the warning.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Le~ informs me that he h~d no intenti~u of preferring charges against the City
<br />Attorney, but had simply a~plied to htm~f6r ~inform~tion. I may state, however, that the 0curt
<br />of Hustim~s has decided that a merchant's license is sufficient to cover Mr. Price's dealing
<br />in ice in various ways. As a matter of f~o~, he is ~oper~ting under precisely the same license
<br />as the Portsmouth 0oal and Ice Oompany.
<br />
<br /> The City is not concerned in any violation of the p~rtnership laws of the State
<br />of Virginia. This m~tter should be h~udled by Mr. Lee with the Commonwealth's Attorney, if
<br />he so desires.
<br />
<br /> Er. Lee admitted to me that his ~ction in this matter was predicated on personal
<br />ani~a~s towards Mr. Price and tD~t he was not especi~lly interested in other possible violations
<br />of the License Tax0rdi~ic~.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Price has now secured all Oity licenses required of him.
<br />
<br /> In view of the foregoing, I find no rea! grounds for Mr. Lee's charges and I
<br />recommend that they be dismissed."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Stewart (J.R.), the recommendation of the Mansger was concurred in.
<br />
<br /> 14th. "Under existing 'ordinance,b~ore'~ church is erected on any site, the approval of
<br />the Oounoil, of the proposed site is required%
<br /> The Park View B~ptist Ohurch has requested permission to erect a church-at the northeast
<br />corner of H~tton and A Sts. ~ud St. James Episcopal Church (colored) at the northwest corner
<br />of Effinghamand Bart Sts.
<br />
<br />Approval of these sites by the 0ounoil is recommended.~
<br />
<br />-On motion 6f M~.-White, the recommendation of the M~u~ger w~s concurred in.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|