Minutes 02/13/1923 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10th. "With reference to the question of the segregation ordinance, I beg to state that I have taken up this matter with Petersburg, Roanoke and Richmond, where it is alleged se- gregation ordinances were in existence. I ~m informed by the City N~n~ger of Roanoke that some time ago there was a meet- ing there of some of the white and colored citizens and a committee from the City Counci~l to discuss this question, but nothing was accomplished, and as yet the City has been unable to do anything in the~matter.~ The City Manager of Petersburg reports that Petersburg has no ordinance segregating certain districts for negroes. The .~...~M~yor of Richmond states that Richmon~ hms no segregation ordinance because the whole question was declared tuucon~stitutions~l by~ the. Supreme ~Cou~rt of. the Unite.d States in the case of Buchanan vs, Warley, 29 U.S~. p~ge 60. Nayor Ainslee clamms that Rmchmond had proposed one of the best segregation ordinances ~in the co'~ut~y, which was copied word for word by the City of Luuisville, Kentucky. The Louisville omdi.~ance was attacked on Constmtu~monal g~ounds and w~s declared unconstitutional, hence .no effo~t h~s e~er been made to pass another ordin~nce, a~d the authorities of. Richmond have come to t.t~ o. Qnclusion that it would be a prac- tical impossibility to phrase ~h~ordin~nce ~hich Would stand. M~yor AinsXee further states that troupe h~s been avoided in Richmond by mutual co-.ol~sration and good understanding between the b'la0ks and whites in that City. A~a solution, I wo~ld suggest~ th~ ~.the E~l. E~s~tatel Exchange and the Portsmouth Chamber of Co~rce Segether ~pp~int ~a joint co~mttee~ to st. udy~ the subject and try to avol~ further encroachments 'by mutual coneessi0ns~ and understandinEs._ I do not believe anything can be accomplished in any other ~ay." . On mormon, the communicati, on was ordered .to be .filed, land copies of same forwarded to the 0hamber of Commerce and Real Estate Exchange. llth. ~I ~m in receipt of a draft of a 'Bill regulating revolver s~les, proposed by the United States Revolver Association of New York City. T~his l~w provides br. tefly that none personally identified citizens shall be permitted to otuvchase pistols .or revolvers, a recor~ of same being filed with the Police. No pis$O1 or revolver may be delivered to the person 'un~il the dmy after the sale. Owners of such fixe ~rms are not permitted to carry them on their persons or. in a vehicle without licensee from the Police. ~De~lers are not permitted to display pistols or revolvers or imitations thereof. Possession off a pocket firearm by a perso~ com- mitting or atten~pting to commit a felony, is regarded ~' prima faoie evidence of criminal in- tent and is punishable by a m~ndatory sentence of five years' extra imprisonment. Heavy ~en- allies ar~ prescribed for second and third offenders. N~nufactume~rs' serial nu~abers or other identifying marka on pistols or revolvers must not be altered o~ erased. Aliens and persons who have been convicted of a felony are no~ permitted to pQssess a pz~tol or revolver In view of the very deplorable record as to homicides in this State and in the country generally, I believe 22 would be well if our~ Legislature would pass a Bill of this n~ture and I recommend that the Council endorse the Bill and call upon our delegates in the State Legislature to' support it." On motion of Er. Esleeck, the communication wss laid on ~he table, and copies of the proposed Bill ordered to be furnished each Councilman. l~th. Recommendation that the following compromise offered by the Richmond Cedar Works fzr construction and reoair of brid~es across the Portsmouth Nater ditch, be accepted: The to'acco t i 2~0. ~, provided the Council will grant the Richmond Cedar Richmond Cedar Works P $ · ~Works m right of way for a highway along the eastern bank of the Portsmouth Canal from the southern boundary of the Richmond Oed~r Works' property northwardly to the road leading from the Old John D. Moore place to Deep Creek, the said gra~t to be revocable by theCity of Ports- mouth upon one Year's notice, On motion, the recommendation was referred to the Finance Committee. 13th. "With reference to instructions from the Council to ascertain charges and methods of testing w~mer me, ers i~other cities, wi~ a view to determining whether ~uy 0hangs &s visable in the methods pursued in Portsmouth, I beg to report as follows: In Norfolk, when the City is requested to test a water meter, ~he 0ons~er ~grees to pay the cost of testing the meter if found correct. If f.oun~ incorrect, the City the cost. The meters are tested by the City, the consumer wztneesing the' test if he The water plant is owned by the Oity~. In Ly~chbu~g, the charge for testing meters varies from SB.00 for a 5/8~' meter me ~ to $3E~00~ for an~$" ~ete~. The consumer pays for the test if the t · is f~ound The meter is tested by ~he-City, the consumer having the ~rivilege of being present the test~ if he so desires. The plant is owned by the City. ~es~ whether the meter is found In Petersburg, the City apparently pays for the · correct or not. The ~est is made by the City. The pla~t is owned by the City. In Roanoke, the charge for testing meters is $1.00; .the consumer paying if the meter is found to be correct, and the Company if it is fomnd to be incorrect. All meters are tested by the Company, the consumer witnessing the test if he so desires. The plant is a privately owned one. In Richmond, the $ity ~ays for the oos~ of testing meters and they are tested by the City Ester Department. The plant is owned by the City. In Newport News, where the 0ompa~y is a private one, the meters are tested by the City Eleotricie~u, the oor~s'c~mer bearing the e~ense if the meter is found to be correct and