Evening journal., 1913-06-06
Waterfront Victory in Tomorows
Election Predicted on All Sides
CONTINUED From First Pare.

Continued From First Page.
ton in general, that committee knew
nothing of the Bulkhead Act until,
In their investigations a lawyer call
ed IL to their attention and they got
copy of the act to study it.
Having some communication with
Major Sanford. L. S. engineer in
charge of Delaware River work, he
invited the committee to come and
see him at the engineers office in
Philadelphia.
Immediately upon receiving that
committee in his Philadelphia office,
bis first and immediate question
was:
Gentlemen, want to ask you at
once, do you own, or are you inter-
ested in any way in the ownership
of the Delaware rivershore lands in
front of Wilmington? If interested
| would refuse TO talk with you"
He then continued: IF you arc not
Interested. | am free to talk with you.
But you have some very slick people
down there. and they have promised
almost everything and to pay almost
everything. but don't fulfill their
promises"
Major Sanford told that committee
that. not as u. S. engineer, but as a
citizen. he would say to them that
n the city or State we're benefited
the bulkhead would never have been
stopped. and without doubt under
city or State benefit the government
would go ahead and complete the
bulkhead and make the FILL
He repeatedly told the committee
that IL is against the policy of the
government TO fill in lands for pri-
vate benefit.
II may he remembered that the
River and Harbor bills Of 1912 and
of this year. 1913. have contained
provisions for appropriations only
where there is sufficient public bene-
fit 10 he derived to warrant the ex-
penditure.
That joint committee OF Board Of
Trade and City Council wrestled with
the waterfront question and trying TO
get some satisfactory agreement
with the riparian landowners for ff-
teen months until January. 1909, and
could not get any reasonable and
satisfactory understanding with them
and reported that Mr.. Ward and Mr.
Mahaffy actually refused fuNher con
ference With the committee, and At
the meeting of City Council. January
2s. 1909. the joint committee re-
ported to that effect to City Council
and reco,'~ ~nded to Council to ask
the Legislature to repeal the Bulk
head Law.
Such an act was introduced into
the House by Mr.. Bradford, February
25. 1909. House Bill go. to repeal
the Bulkhead Act and was rcferre
al
tons, where il remained. as a lobby
OF lawyers was successful in pre-
venting the bill from being reported
out of that committee.
On February %. 1911. Senator Mil
Ter gave notice in the State Senate
that on tomorrow or some future date
he would ask leave to introduce a bill
to repeal the Bulkhead Act Of 1901.
No such Bill was afterward in
troduced.
The question has often been asked
why was the construction Of the Bulk
bead stopped Just where it stands to-
day.
Mr. Ward attempted to answer the
question in the public meeting before
City Council last spring and in the
State Senate March p, 1918. that II
Was stopped by reason of the failure
Of the Franklin X. Wills Construction
Co.. that had the contract TO build
the entire Bulkhead to the jetty.
This was absolutely mistake as
tho Wills Construction Co. actually
never did fail, but. when the contract
VAS cancelled by the government. the
Wills Construction Co.. paid all its
debts and divided its machinery and
what property il had left between its
officers and stockholders and simply
went out of business.
The unwarranted statements that