Daily Republican., 1882-08-15
PASCHALL'S WHARF.
A PROTEST ENTERED AGAINST
BUILDING A wMARFON THE
SOUTH SIDE. t


!, SOUTH 81 DE.
! ~
Some time ago 1t was mentioned il
the columns of the REPUBLICAN tina
Mr.. Samuel Paschall, manufacturer q
carriages on the South side of Marke
street bridge, contemplated improving
his property by building a wharf OF
the Christiana, adjoining his factory
Subsequently, after Mr.. Paschall hat
properly considered the matter, he con
cluded to build the wharf and ever
went so far as to award the contract t,
a firm, who have built several wharveI
in this city. The work of constructing
the wharf was to have been commenced
at once and the writer of this article
thinking that sufficient time haC
elapsed for the wharf to be finished
took a stroll over in that direction to
the purpose of ascertaining what pro
gress the builders had made with tht
new enterprise, when 10 and behold, in
place of a wharf, nothing but mud
greeted the eyes of the newspaper man
The serbia was amazed at the sight anC
he at once came to the conclusion tina,
the proposed new wharf was nothing
more than q myth and that the news
papers had been blowing up something
that was never thought of for certain
ty, although the information, as frs
received, was perfectly reliable, which
circumstance made the. sight more be-
wildering and the prospective whar
more OF a mystery. The reporter, how
ever, thought he would learn the truI
state of affairs, and why the wharf was
not commenced.
FROM THIS INVESTIGATION
it was learned that the Harlan 10 Hol-
lingsworth Company had caused an in
junction to be served on Mr.. Paschall
against building the wharf which
caused operations to be suspended, un-
til argument in the case could be heard
before the Chancellor, when the matter
will no doubt be settled, otherwise ii
will be taken to Court. This proceed
Ing on the part of the Harlan & Hol-
lingsworth Company will no doubt
take many by surprise, and they will
fail to comprehend their object, in thus
standing in the way of public improve
ment on the south side.
To casual observer 1t would appear
that q wharf on the south side opposite
their works would seriously retard the
launching of the many large steamships
built by this firm. To a more expert
enced observer it would appear that
this firm would like to monopolize both
sides Of the creek by not allowing any
person to build west of the bridge.
Why this step was taken, on the part
OF the firm is not positively known, but
1t does not seem altogether fair that
one mans property should lie idle,
merely to accommodate a large firm of
much influence and who have made
the largest bulk OF their estimated
wealth on this stream by the wharves.
Viewing the subject from matter of
fact standpoint and taking into con-
alteration the fact that the small wharf
at the foot of Orange street was recent
ly sold by John A. Harris to d. Fl.
Kent for $40, 900, it becomes a serious
question when wharves in this vicinity
command such a figure, and it does
not look reasonable that Mr.. Paschall
should thus be hindered from imprOv-
ing his property, by the erection of a
wharf thereon, as in a few years it
would more than double itself in value.
If the wharf was an obstacle in the
way and one which would prove a
source of great annoyance to this firm,
then they would have just cause to
complain, buJ as the wharf does not
interfere with them in the least, this
action on their part is not considered
just one. According to the proposed
plans of Mr.. Paschall the wharf was
to have been built Immediately opposite
Thoru street and was not TO be extend
Ell out to low water line, and would In
no way interfere with the launching of
a boat from the yards OF the aforesaid
Company.
1t is well-known fact that a large
number Of steamboats, comes to the
wharves of the Harlan 81 Hollingsworth
during the winter for repairs
and are kept until the opening of the
next excursion season. Wharfage is no
doub5 charged and in this manner a
large sum Is made annually and a reg
ular ship yard made out of a public
stream. We do not question their right
to do this, but we will venture the as.
sertion that they, nor any one else, has
the right to stop similar enterprise in
another locality, simply to crafty their
own desires and accomplish their ends,
when the other party desires to i'm
prove his own property in order to
make it more valuable.
1t is said that the reason offered for
this objection was that if the proposed |
wharf was built and if a vessel should |
happen to be alongside, about the time
jhe boat builders had their fleet of
stretched along the wharves |
It would seriously obstruct navigation. |
That may be so, but the question natur-
ally arises, in the minds of those who |
he cDguizant of the case, is not the
of the Harlan 81 Hollings-
worth Company extended out beyond |
;he limit as stipulated by law? Many |
persons are inclined to think they are |
md if they were built within bounds,
according to the rules of navigation,
hOre would, no doubt, be plenty of
Dom for all concerned, without OBJ
tructing navigation.
If the truth Is known it would be
ound that the wharves of the II. q II.
company extend out 43 feet beyond
ow water line, which is against the
aw, and after they place large boat
long side of their wharveS it occupies
unlawful space on
lavigable stream owned by the Gov
,rnment and prevents parties on the
opposite side Of the creek from building
on their own property and
With in bounds of the law. II the mat
or Is tested, and there is no doubt but
What 1t will be, it will soon be learned
hat there is no law Of sufficient force
o Withhold Mr.. P. from erecting his
wharf, providing he keeps within the
imits Of the low water line. And then
gain, if the matter is tested, the HI, q
j. Company will no doubt be com
,elled to move their wharVes within the
limits OF low water line.
1t is said by some persons that they,
laving had exclusive use of this creek
or so long time, begin to think that
t belongs to them, and it is for them TO
ay whether wharf shall be built on
he opposite side or not, but when the