Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-12-14
THE ELSMERE REMONSTRANTS.
Charges of Grossly Inadequate
Awards by the Commission.

OF certain property holders in ElSmere
against the return of the commissioners
appointed by the Legislature to condemn
lands for the purpose of widening of
Union street through Elsmere in Christi
ana hundred.
1t is new road originally laid out some
10 years ago and was but so feet wide. The
project of widening the road TO 90 feet
was favored by the farmers and property
owners of the neighborhood. The COM
missioners appointed were Isaac Newton
Grubb, John W. Jolls and Joseph David
son.
The remonstrance against the report Of
the commissioners has excited quite a con-
siderable interest. The movement, how
ever. is not against the idea of the estab-
llshment of the road to a greater width,
but more directly against the amount of
the award in the individual cases. Some
property holders claim that their front
entrance-ways are cut off and for this they
have been made no reasonable award.
The total award under the report of the
commissioners amounted to over IS, 800.
The court chamber was filled yester.
day with the remonstrants, their wives and
families. Around the walls SO feet of
surveyors map compiled for the commits
sion by William Carswell attracted the at
tention of those interested and impaired
to the Levy Court chamber something of
the appearance of an engineering exhibit.
l.. Z. Nandegrift represented the follow
ing property holders: John Lynn, Mrs.
Sarah Miller, a. Wollaston, John Schona-
walt, James A. Gebhardt, John Macallister,
George Leach, Samuel and w. p. Johnson;
Austin Harrington represented the estate
of Thomas Walters; Hoffecker & Hoffecker
represented the estate of Margaret j. Cor
nelius.
Austin Harrington opened the case,
representing his clients of the Walters
estate. He understood that at the present
moment there is not sufficient funds in
the Levy Court treasury to meet the pay
ment Of the proposed expenditure. He
claimed that the bill in the first place was
a special act passed for special purpose
III his clients case the award is grossly in
adequate. He asserted there is no public
necessity for the payment, that it takes
certain Important property rights from
people without proper compensation, the
assessment is too low, and the bill was
passed in the interest OF Heald & Co. There
is nothing to warrant the county taking
the citizens property without proper COM
pensation.
L. 9. Vandegrift said he would expedite
matters by bringing up his clients as wit
nesses, whose testimony would be sup
ported by the statements OF Messrs. w. II.
Seeds, John Jacoby and George l.. Town.
send, who personally went out to visit the
proposed road. and who will show how
grossly inadequate tue award of the COM
mission is.
PROPOSITION MADE.
Mr.. Vandegrift offered the proposition
to concede the county 5 feet on each side
OF the road for the $1,000 compensation.
They would be satisfied with that.
W. +. Seeds was called to testify. He
said in the case of the Lynn property, No.
/, for which an allowance of $50 was made,
the widening of the road would damage
the property to the extent of $3.50. The
Lynn property OH the du Pont road was
allowed S150.
For damage to the Lynn residence Si3
was allowed, while the change would re-
duce value by $500. The Miller property
Is made unstable and was allowed but
Sl56. In the Wollaston property allow
ance the damage was $3.50 and only 5000
allowed.
George L. Townsend, in a general man.
mer criticized the awards as insufficient.
The damage to the Lynn houses is $3.50
apiece. On the second Lynn property the
damage is $3.50 against SS5 allowed.
In reply to Mr., Hoffecker in regard To
the cutting off of Is feet Of the front yards
OF the two houses costing S2,40O apiece,
OF the Cornelius property. Mr., Townsend
thought it would be affected TO the extent
of $3.50 apiece. The award is $50 in each
case. The Gebhardt front yard was reduced
from 20 feet to feet III front of porch;
allowed S35, damage is $3.50. The Johnson
front yard reduced from II to 3 feet; the
witness considered the damage to be
$3.50. The Leach farm award IS SlOO. A
total Of 50OxlSa feet has been condemned
including valuable gravel bank.
John Jacoby testified the two LYNN
houses and the Lynn residence are largely
under-rated.
Mr.. Lynn and the other remonstrants
testified in turn. He thought that even
the estimates of Messrs. Seeds, Townsend
and Jacoby are too small.
Mrs: Miller could not sell her 50-foot lot,
now that l3i feet are taken off. Her lot Is
worth 500. Witness thought that she
would not get anything for il now. The
other 50-foot lots oil Mrs. Miller are
damaged $500 apiece. She is injured 500
in all on an award of $l56.
Mr.. Shonawalt described his loss. His
front yard is destroyed, flower garden and
trees, within 20 feet from the street. His
home is entirely despoiled. The allow.
ance of $50 would not rebuild his fence,
The general expression of the small
properly owners is that the country homes
they land out have been destroyed. The
next witness, Mr. Gehhardt, told d similar
story of the destruction of his property.
lie thinks he is entitled $500 dunayes
The award is $50. Tho award wouid bring
the road to within feet OF his porch. that
is practically to throw him out on the
street.
Mrs. johnson stated that the award tool,
all her a feet front but feet. She
and her husband went ont there from
Seventh street for country home. Now
that is all destroyed. A. son of the latter
explained how his property is injured rs
per cent by the awards. His corner lot
loses 81 per cent in value; 100 feet of hedge
is lost. The allowance was only S24 Tor
the three lots. Mr.. Wollaston's front
porch is lost. Mr.. Leach loses GOO feet by
l59. He has been offered at times $500 for
one-half Of an acre. His apple trees, trucl,
patch, &C., will be lost in addition to the
sand, which is worth 81 load. He would
not deed the property in question for $500.
lie has been awarded 500.
All the witnesses testifying, said they
are willing to concede five feet on each
side of the road for the amount Of award.
In reply to Frances IL. HoIfecker Mr..
Cornelius said his property comprising
two houses are valued for 81, 500 apiece,
The front yard of - feet loses i5 feet. The
assessed damage is S6U. The witness
tenants along the new road already ask A
reduction of rent on the Cornelius prop
erty.
Mr.. Hoffecker expressed himself to the
extent that the great objection in this case
is the taking OF private property for the
purposes Of private enterprise. lie claimed
that the present road enterprise was a
secret star-chamber enterprise.
Mr.. Nandegrift followed in an address
to the court.
Following Mr.. Vandegrift's address
Daniel w. Taylor spoke to the court. He
stated elnphatically that Head Il Co. was
not responsible for the bill, nor was the