The daily gazette., 1883-03-06
A CONToRTION OF FACTS.
Statements About the Building OF the
Bridge Which Are False,

Statements About the Building OF the
Bridge Which Are False.
In the course of the article, misrepresent-
ing the case of the Third street bridge, al
ready alluded to, (Which was published In
the Morning NeDs of yesterday, among
other things the following statements are
made which inquiry show to be false.
Flrst-That the friends of the bill to re-
pay the money expended on Third street
bridge, have attempted bribery to carry
their point"
Second-That previous to the passage OF
the bill the Townsends, the Alrichs, and
the Garasches owned nearly all the land on
the south side of the Christiapa
Third-That Senator Bayard said that
the bridge was not 70 cost the county a
single cent.
Fourth-That those interested were will
ing to pay for any kind Of bridge that
might be approved by the Levy Court.
Flfth-That the question was submitted
to the parties interested by the Bridge Com
mittee (Messrs. Hawkins, Dsrringer, Zebley,
Holllngsworth, Bellvllle and McClelland)
whether the private parties could be re-
quired to contribute more money than the
Market street bridge would cost.
Sixth-That at the time Of the decision as
to athe cost of the bridge the court
decided that it could appropriate ad-
ditlonal money for the erection Of said
bridge.
Seventh-That Mr.. Townsend claims in
his affidavit that he had All understanding
with the Lem Court that the county would
not enforce the payment of the bond entered
into by his colleagues.
Eighth the argument is advanced
that "the Townsends are poor and need the
meney, that the county is rich and can
afford to give II to them"
Ninth-That every man who signed the
bond-Zadoc Townsend, B. F. Townsend,
George G. Lobdell, Lucas Alrich and
Richard Jackson-did so with the full un-
derstanding that its collection would be en-
forced.
Tenth-That Thomas NJ. Ogle's bid for
the bridge was S28, 900.
Eleventh-That the Levy Court used due
discretion in compelling the parties to put
up bridge that "would not be constantly
out of repair"
Twelfth-That after the building of the
bridge Zadoc aud Frank Townsend could
have sold their property at an advance OF
$50, 900.
Thirteenth-That Richard jackson sold
his farm at an advance Of S270 an acre.
Fourteenth-That the ChrIstiana River
Improvement Company realized handsomely
through the erection Of the bridge.
Fifteenth-That the value of the farm of
Anthony Williams (who did not give
cent? was only increased $40, 600.
Sixteenth-That Mr. Townsend's busi-
ness misfortunes have been used in favor of
the bill, and that the members voted for the
bill as matter of charity.
ANSWERING THESE MIssTATKMENTs.
Taking up the misstatements given above
se1idtuni the following answers to them are
nrfuan and oanuat no denied
First-An emphatic denial is made by
Mr. Townsend that he offered John w.
Hawkins, either directly or indirectly, any
money to put his signature to a petition ask
ing the Legislature to pass the bridge bill.
Second-In addition to the property
owned by the Townsends, the Alrichs and
the Garasches, previous to the passage of
the bill, there was the old ferry farm of
| about 200 acres owned by Anthony Will
| liams, the Hazel Dell farm owned by John
Platt, the Dick jackson farm then owned
| by Clayton Plat, the John Pugh farm
| owned by Joseph Hamilton, and other farms
owned by the LeFevre estate, Alexander
Moore, Giles Lambson, Benjamin Elliott,
the Clevands and others.
Thlrd-When Senator Bayard made his
statement before the Legislature there was no
intimation made Of private parties building
| the bridge.
Fourth-Those interested in the bill only
/ expected 81, 200 to be expended on the
| Third street bridge.
Pifth-Such a question as whether more
| than 81 200 could be exacted from the pri-
vate parties was never submitted to them
| by the Bridge Committee.
/ Sixth--At the time the Levy Court de.
| cided to build a bridge similar to the Pen
rose Ferry bridge there was no intimatiOn
as to appropriation of money by the county
SeventhAThe understanding which Mr..
Townsend had that the bond was not to be
| collected, was an explicit one with John w.
Hawkins, who seems to have been the leader
| in all matters appertaining to the bridge,
and net with the Levy Court. Mr.. Town
| send makes no claim of an understanding
with the Levy Court.
Eighth--No argument has been advanced
that the money should be paid because the
Townsends need It.
Ninth-The understanding with all of
those who signed the bond was that 1t was
not to be enforced. The signing of the bond
was understood to be a mere formal COM
plianee with the bridge charter.
Tenth-Thomas NJ 0gle's bid was $25, 900
for bridge similar to that of Penrose
Ferry, approaches complete.
Eleventh-The facts that there was great
looseness' in all the details of the erec-
ton of the bridge, that 1t was left in
complete and rickety by Mr.. Quigley and
that he did not build the approaches, show
that the Levy Court did not use due dis
erection.
Twelfth-At no time could the Townsend
property have been sold at and advance Of
more than $4,000. At one time B. +.
Townsend offered to sell It an advance Of
5000 and the offer was refused.
Thirteenth-Richard jackson only sol d q
small portion of his land, Qast summer)
and that at an advance Of $3.50 an acre,
TO the w. q N. Railroad Company.
| Enartaauth- The Chriatiana River Im-