Evening journal., 1912-05-16
CONTINUED from First Pagel

Continued from First Page)
belonged to the State. The wharves
that had been erected by the railroad
company. however, were allowed 10
remain, provided they did not extend
out too far and interfere with navi-
cation.
Mr. Kurtz held that in his opinion
the State has a right to revoke the
bulkhead act as the Legislators prob
ably didn't know that by passing the
law, the State was giving TO the
riparian owners 500 acres of ground
The speakers remarks, at this stage
were received with loud applause.
Mr.. Kurtz said that speaking as a
citizen he submitted the bald fact that
the riparian owners of the riverfront
wanted to enter into an agreement
with the city in return for small
percentage Of land, whereas all the
land which will be made by the fill to
the present low water mark, in his
opinion, already belongs to Whining
WANTS MORE FOR CITY.
Mr.. Kurtz admitted that the city
would probably have to give damages to
the riparian owners should the land back
of the bulkhead be declared city prop
ertV for the loss of the water to them.
Col Stover asked Mr.: kurtz how much
he thought these damages would amount
TO.
Not more than the value of the land,
replied Mr. Kurtz, amid applause.
Alr. Kurtz did not think the city was
getting a fair compensation for its share
In the agreement. He further questioned
the constitutionality of the city enter
inc into a contract with a private cor
poration and further spoke of the streets
to be built with the peoples money,
thereby putting burden on the city, for
small portion of the river front ground.
lie said however, that he understood
the-Government is about to dredge again
i'm the Delaware river and he wanted TO
zee Wilmington get a river 'front.' but
he believed the Council was approaching
the proposition in the wrong way, be
cause it was not sure as TO what the
& citys rights were. He thought the Coun-
eli should first learn what these rights
{ are. and if the bulkhead law Is valid
before taking action on the proposed
"A
riparian owners take the same course
Il and thought this could me done within
two weeks. and that then, perhaps an
81 other proposition could be made where
the CITY would get a larger share OF the
river front property. II that can't be
Il done. he said the city could not enter
into the contract with the riparian own
ers. vet it could allow the Government
TO finish the bulkhead and fill behind It
allowing the question Of the ownership
+ of the land to be decided later.
MR.. BAYNARD DEFENDS LAW.
Samuel II. BaynaTd who was a mem
her of the Legislature of 1901, which
passed the bulkhead act, defended that
BODY in the action it took He said
the members of that Legislature were
men of average citizenship. II was one
of his duties, he said, to look into the
81 bulkhead proposition when the question
of the legality came up, as to the rights
etc, of the riparian owners ana TN
State.
'sNhat's the use to raise the question
over lot Of worthless land now" h
said sIet the bulkhead be built am
then take up the matter of the owner
# shin Of the land later" He said tina
the Government had stopped work ol
the bulkhead because of a bad piece O
work on the part of the riparian own
ers. He considered that as fast land
q could be taxed.
& He considered the land offered the cit.
bv the riparian owners splendid git
and there was enough land in the git
'.< he said. 20 meet the demands of vii
minpton for the next hundred years. H
could not see for what purposes
& could be used other than for parks. Thi
# caused a laugh, Mr.. Baynard being
& member OF the Park Commission. II
added that the land also might be val
uable for farming purposes. He though
the question of legality should be raise
after the city gets something
M LABOR OPPOSES AGREEMENT.
The next speaker was j. T. Andrews
who said he represented the Contra
Labor Union After saying that tn
Central Labor Union had sent a com
munication to Council protesting agains
the proposed agreement, Mr.. Andrew
added that a delegation appeared las
night 70 enter a protest in person. II
said that the Central Labor Union di
not object to a river front for Wilmin
ton TO take its place among big cite
but the organization did object to III
individual or Incorporation getting q
the benefits at the expense of the cit.
bukhead act giving the riparian owner
500 acres of filled in ground withot
costing them one cent, and further tina
the constitutionalty of the act wa
doubted by them.
He said that the Central Labor Unio
would protest until an effort was frs
made in Dover to repeal the bulkhea
act. He thought that the city shou
pay the riparian owners for one-third Il
land and get the whole 500 acres. j
considered il an unjust proposition
give the city but two small pieces Of u
ground and urged that Council withho
the proposition until something was do
at Dover to repeal 'he act
Mr.. SINGLETON OPPOSES.
S. z. Singleton, a business man of th
ss city, and who has taken an active pa
' in the opposition to the river front pro
osition was the next speaker. He said
81 attend this meeting tonight IN ]
spirit of fault finding with what has be-
done, but regard it as a most happy e
|z cumstance that am here upon the
vitation of my fellow -citizens, the cou
cilmen Of the city of Wilmington, to co
@=5::7 49, slider a question in which we are q
21z equally interested. the solution OF whiC
we all equally agree. must be such
will in the greatest degree bring adya
tage to our city as a whole. Speakr
's;<i for myself. / confess to a feeling of cul