Daily Republican., 1881-04-12
ALIBEL ANSWERED.
New Castle COunty's Representa-
tiVcs Deny the Assertions of the
Every Evening.

4 few days ago an editorial Appeared
in the Every Evening charging the New
Castle County delegation in the Legis.
lature with the defeat of the supple
Hcnt to the Delaware Western Rail-
road charter and also charging Anthony
| Higgins, Esq, with influencing the
member, referred to against the bill. The
New Castle delegation feeling az
grieved at such unjust and untrue ;ISscr-
tiOls, publish the following card, deny
ing the charge as being utterly without
foundation and false in every paticular:
In view of the fact that an effort has
been studiously made by one of the
newspapers published in Wilmington
to hold the Republican members of the
House of Representatives Of this State
responsible for the withdrawal Of the
supplement- to the Delaware Western
railroad charter, authorizing the con-
structiOn of railroad running north
and south through the Stat, the under
signed members of the New Castle
county delegation submit the following
sta ement to the public:
The above named supplement passed
the senate by vote of six TO three, and
the senators from New Custle and
Sussex counties voting Solidly for
it, and those from Kent county
voting solidly against it. 1t was intro
duccd in tn" House, read twice and re-
ferred TO the Committee on Corporations
week before last. The counsel who We're
employed to secure the passage of the
bill requested ut that time member
h.. : finTi
70 use his influence for the purpose OF
having the bill remain unactcd upon in
committt" until the early part of last
week. The bill was considered in com
mittcc on Tuesday afternoon last, siA
members of the committee being
present.
The vote in the committee stood two
in favor of the bill and four against it.
OF the two members tavoring the bilL
one was from New Castle county, the
other from Sussex county. OF the four
opposed to the bill, one was from New
Castle county, two from Kent county
and one from Sussex county. Thus. of
the four members of the committee
from the two lower counties, three Were
opposed to the bill while only one tav-
ored it. So strong was the opposition
in committee to the hill that a member
from Kent submitted written report
adverse 10 the granting of the charter.
discussion enSucd, but
finally at earnest request Of the mem
her from New Castle county who tav-
ored the bill, the committee decided
not TO sign the written report submit
ted, but TO report the bill the next morn
ing without recommendation. 1t was
owing t. the opposition in committee
that the bill was withdrawn the next
day, at the instance of the counsel EN-
ployN 10 secure its passage.
II the members of the House from
Kent and Sussex counties had shown
decided preference for the bill, the New
Castle county delegation, in view Of the
fact that the proposed new road would
more directly affect the interests Of the
lower counties than those Of New Cas-
tie county, would have voted Solidly
for the bill. But no such preference
was shown.
With respect to the charge that
Anthony Higgins, Esq, influenced or
to influence the members of
New Castle county delegation against
he proposed new road, we have sim
ply to say that it is utterly without
and false in every partiCu-
ar. EDWARD G.. BRADFORD, JR.,
DAVID EASTBURN,
ANDREW ELIASON,
JOHN PILLING,
HENRY SwAYNE,
GEORGE l.. TOWNSEND,
HENRY II. WOODKEErER
WILMrNGTOS, Del, April II, 1881