Evening journal., 1912-03-26

quirement that the canal company shall build bridge
across its canal whenever and wherever the Legislature
directs and especially that IL shall build and maintain
such bridge wherever there is public road crossing
This rs condition upon which the canal company got
its franchises from the State and holds them. Its
charter makes liable to penalties for failure TO com
ply with the Legislatures orders Instead therefore,
OF the canal company being imposed upon and oppressed
by the passage of this proposed act it would only be
required to do thing II agreed with the State do
when the State permitted It TO dig its canal and take
tolls Not only is this true but the passage this
would be the first such requirement the part
State since the canal was first constructed
learn. How would the canal company be imposed
upon? Undoubtedly the Delaware Legislature which
granted the canal companys charter had in mind the
need or advantage Of possible future State highways
when they drafted the above quoted Section 16 Their
wisdom and foresight might be given profitable thought
by many Deawareans today The article the canal
company is opposed to the proposed act. I have
oher or dinerent knowledge on this point, but II tne
people OF Delaware want the dupont Boulevard it would
be strange procedure the part Of the canal COM
pany TO oppose them, when the canal company IS de-
pending largely the people of Delaware and their
representatives in Congress to assist il in unloading The
canal on the United States government
The of the series Of articles fails to state all
'the facts" in connection with the matters by it that
a reasonable and conscientious effort the part of
the newspaper would have disclosed This article deals
with the proposed amendments to the Boulevard law
IL states il to be fact that of the amendments pro-
vides the means of taking the land of property owners
at once and settling any legal disputes later This state
ment is clearly Incorrect IL must have been know
ingy Incorrect because any intelligent person reading
the amendment referred to will understand that It neh
what is stated by the article to be
fact" lnasmuch however the article subsequently
prints the proposed amendments, shall not quote from
them discuss this point further. In the same con-
nection, however, the article fails to print all the
facts" pertinent and easily accessible in that it fails
to tell the public that the provision mentioned
and objected to by the article Is exactly the method
granted by the state to the Wilmington City Railway
Co., and in force and published one of the
public laws relating 90 the city Of Wilmington. Fur
ther this method, similar TO it, is in force
in condemnation proceedings generally in Pennsylvania
and most of the other States of the Union
The second article further that another serious
objection to the amendments is the provision for the
consideration OF benefits as well as dement IN assess
ing damages conscientious statement of all the easily
available facts in this connection would have compelled
the writer of this article to include therein the facts
that all the railroads built in this State have been built
under charters providing for the consideration of bene
fits as well as detriment in assessment of damages that
of the electrical railways have been built; and
that all the provisions of law in this State and in the
city of Wilmington for the construction of new roads
and streets in the widening Of the same contain the
provision
The second article further states that the provision
for branch bouevards would enable the boulevard
company ito take land for boulevard purposes at any
place in the State that il might desire" This would
be- literally no more true of the Boulevard law In
the proposed amendment should be adopted than
it Is now without the amendment Other than techni-
cally il is not true at all Practically considered, the
statement is untrue and any objection based it IS
absurd ANY intelligent reading of the proposed amend
men referred to will disclose that 1t neither
says nor means what is stated by the article
The other matters contained in the three articles
thus far printed deal generally with the merits Of the
boulevard proposition and have no desire to engage
in any general discussion OF these IL Is sunclehI
to have shown that the articles are not such state
nents of he facts" in connection with the boulevard
project as the newspaper in question told the public
it would print and the public therefore had right
TO expect.
No intelligent person read the letter written by
Mr. Richards without realizing how shamefully his con
adence has been betrayed IN the editorial and news
columns of both the Every Evening and the Morning
News It is betrayal which should and doubtless VIII
be resented by the reading public which is entitled TO-
aocurate information i'm the news columns and honest
exnression of opinon in the editorial columns of
to which they give confidence and support 1t is true
MIR Richards does mention the Every Evening
speci6cally but there is Delawarean who does not
know that long before the Morning News arrayed IT.
self in opposition TO the boulevard the Every EVEN
,ng WAS sending broadcast both editorial and news
misinformation in relation to t.