Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-04-21
Mr.. Bradford and the Delaware
Western Bill.

In our reply to the card signed By the
members Of tue House of Representatives
from this county, attacking the JOURNAL
for its criticism of the action Of q |
majority Of their number against the bill
authorizing the construction Of a new
railroad down the State, we spoke as
follows:
Furthermore, the committee whose oppose
ton the card says caused the withdrawal of
the bill never treated the advocates OF the
measure with fairness or courtesy. Mr.. Brace
ford, the member from this CITY, would never
pay any attention to the counsel for the tbill.
and when action was finally taken by the com.
mittee it was without the knowledge of coun-
sel, who had been waiting two hours for the
opportunity to address the committee. The
excuse given for this was that Mr.. Register
had told the committee that tho counsel for
the bill did not wsut to address. and when he
was asked his authority for such false state
ment he gave George V. Massey, Esq, one
OF the opposing counsel, as the author OF the
report
While we have no desire to modify or
withdraw the above statement so rar as it
relates to the committee and to the
shameful action Of Mr.. Register in the
premises we wish TO say that Mr.. Bradford
not only denies having avoided giving
attention to the matter, but that he has
proven to our entire satisfaction that
at the meeting OF the committee alluded to
he was the one who spoke of the desire OF
Messrs. Bird and Whiteley to he heard in
favor OF the bill, and only withdrew the
suggestion on Mr.. Registers positive but
false statement that the counsel did not
want to be heard. 1t is also shown that
Mr.. Bradford did listen to |. c. Grubb,
ESD, on the subject, but when the
Journal declared that the counsel for the
bill had been denied attention, it had no
thought of Mr.. Grubb, but referred TO
Mr.. Bird, the counsel for the company,
and Mr.. Whiteley, who had immediate
charge of the bill. Both these openly
declared that they had been denied q
hearing by Mr.. Bradford, and it was to
them that we alluded.
We think this statement due to our
selves as we'll as Mr.. Bradford, and while
we spoke by authority i'll declaring that
counsel felt themselves aggrieved fret
conversation with all parties leads US tt
believe that it was a misrepresentation OIL
both sides which led to the conviction by
the counsel for the bill that Mr.. Bradford
had in this matter departed from that ruiz
l. t,I, Ia NJ. r
lied his course throughout the session. W,
of course cannot take back our declara
l ton that counsel felt agrieved at hi
t conduct, but merely declare our owl
conviction that there was no intention t.
, treat them with discourtesy. This doe
# not Affect in any way the main issu
. bewteen the .louRSAL and all til
v sgnera nf the recent card, but il give
e us pleasure to say, III this purely persona
e aggrieved will come to see that it wa
due to a misrepresentation that they Eel
that Mr.. Bradford did not wish them I
have u hearing. They We're outrageous.
treated, but Mr.. Bradford was not re-
spunsibl4 Tor what occurred at the las
meeting of the committee on the subject
- Our opinion as to the Inconsistency q
those members from this county VIII
voted against this bill after suPporin
-. the original Delaware Western bill re
main, unchanged and is shared by mos
those VIZ have met.