Evening journal., 1912-05-16

he said. "is that sometime within ten
years the city shall lay out the pro-
posed boulevard along the river front.
and that means the placing Of rows
of stakes up and down the street. to
show where the boulevard is. and this
viii cost $40.
Outcry Unwarranted.
Mr. Ward said that the outcry about
the Wilmington Terminal Company,
"and it's allies" was unwarranted, as
the Wilmington Terminal Company
did not come into existance until three
years after the passage OF the bulk
head act and three years after the ex-
emption from taxation Of marsh land
act was passed. He could not see what
claim the city of Wilmington had on
the riverfront when IL had never paid
cent 10 improve Il. That part of the
city. he said, receives no benefit from
the taxation Of property and he con-
tended that unless a property has
some value, It should not be taxed
He said the property OF the riverfront
owners was exempt from taxation for
ten years four years of which are
gone. If filled In before the ten years
that long before the property can ever
be used for manufacturing purposes
IL will be taxable.
Former State Senator Artemus
Smith asked Mr. Ward how the ex-
emption from tax on marsh land pro-
noted 20 the public good
Mr.. Ward replied that the Legis-
lature could answer that question. He
said the law applied not only 10 the
land on the river front. but all marsh
land Mr.. Ward asked what legal
or moral right the city has TO the
river front when It never spent a doll
lar in that locality while the riparian
owners have spent S35O,OOO there TO
protect land upon which the city has
houses and streets He said he could
not see where the city had any moral
right to take the land.
Litz Would Condemn Land.
Mr. Litz asked about condemnation
! proceedings and was informed that
the city could only condemn FOR
streets and possibly park purposes.
Lets condemn the land for streets
them replied MIR Litz, "and pave
the whole thing over" added Mr.
Ward.
Francis T. Stirlith asked Mr. Ward
how the S350,000 was expended by
the riparian owners and the attor.
ney replied by keeping up the banks
but primarily for the benefit of the
land owners.
Mr.. Ward in explaining riparian
rights said that ground along a
stream might be practically value.
less while the water was worth thou
sands OF dollars.
DR. Shortlidge asked why an act oi
the Legislature was necessary n the
land owners could go ahead and have
the improvement made
Mr.. Ward explained that the Gov.
ernment had to have the sanction o.
the State TO extend the harbor linel
and therefore the act was introduce,
az the request OF the Government
Mr.. Kurtz held that the discussion
had brought out one question an
! that was the ownership OF the Ian
I and everything centered around tha
/ He said that II Mr. Wards statemer
was correct the riparian owners weT
making a splendid gift to the eli
A but he was not satisfied on the que
: tion of the States proprietary righ
II Louis Kramer a member Of q
|. Referendum League referred to Il
p riparian owners as tax dodgers an
J contended the lands should be take
He drifted from the subject once {
I twice but was allowed 10 proceed
q Former Senator Smith brought u
r the question as to whether the pro
2 posed agreement II entered int
1 would be beneficial to the city. II
! warned that it would be for all tim
. and that II the commerce which ca
q onel Nields hopes will some day com
I to these shores. will muterlalile. l.
I believed that considerable more rive
n front will be needed than the ripari1
2 owners are willing to give
Would Have City Buy.
W W. Knowles. an attorney ar
D. member of the Initiative and Refe
! endum League. said he was a firm b
r lever i'm the river front project II
believed. however. that the best IN
p vestment that the city could MAX
+ would be to appropriate sufficiel
5 money to acquire the river front n
d laughed al the idea Of one pier an