Evening journal., 1913-06-09
MAeNrrIcENr MArERFRoNr YIcrORY.


A MOTHER important step in the long and detormn-
n ed fight Of the people of Wilmington to save the
Delaware river waterfront from the Wilmington Ter
minal Company and its associates was taken in the
city election Saturday. BY an overwhelming vote
the average ratio Of which was approximately to =
the electorate Of Wilmington issued it's mandate that
steps be taken in the courts the constitutional
ity OF the iniquous Bukhead Law Of 1901 and also
that condemnation proceedings he give
to city the title to strip Of marsh bank
land along the Delaware river from the mouth of the
Christana northward to Edge Moor
Had II been for the rascality Of election officers
in some districts and the stupidity of such officers
other districts, in the matter Of handling the water
front ballots the vote on the two questions would
have been much larger than it was. But even in the
face Of that rascay and stupidity the vote large
enough TO show concusvely the strength of public
sentiment in favor Of protecting the citys waterfront
the Delaware against the speculative interests which
are trying to get away with it and exploit It,
The Department of Elections issued instructions
that the election officers hand waterfront referendum
ballot to each voter In many districts that done.
In many others the ballots given voters at
all unless they asked them There were districts in
which the waterfront ballots put the
at all they voted but stacked up outside.
In at least instance compelled to de-
mand that the ballot he had and two other bal
the box 1t evidently the design Of the election
officers in certain districts to do their utmost keep
the waterfront vote down to the lowest possible hg-
ures by failing to hand ballots to and by fail
ing promptly put ballots into the boxes after they
had been cast
The sentiment in favor Of the protection and the
conservation of the waterfront was strong. how
ever. that thousands of Republicans. Democrats Ma
tiona Progressves Progressves Single Takers Refer
]
pendents recorded themselves in favor of the city
fghting the Wilmington Terminal Company and its as
socates and obtaining the Delaware river a mu-
nicipally-owned and controlled waterfront. OF each
eight men who voted. seven voted in favor Of such
policy and issued their mandate that It b. carried out
It glorious victory for the people Of city
and would have been much more glorious had it not
been for the rascality and stupidity Of certain cleo
ton officers and their aagrant violation the nstruc-
tions OF the Department of Elections.
That the strength Of the sentimcn in favor Of tho
waterfront and against the Wilmington Terminal Com
pany and its associates be shown us cite few
figures, selected random from several Of the cleo
tion districts
First District Eight ward-Yes. 75 no. o.
Fifth District, Eighth ward-Yes, ia; no. 16.
Third District Eighth ward-Yes 129; no g.
Ninth District Eighth ward-Yes 1is; no, 6
Tenth District, Eighth ward--Yes. 1913; no. s.
tOurth DISTRICT, Elgnth Ward--less l0ls no, Is.
Second District, Tenth ward-Yes. 1877; no. IA.
Second District Twelfth ward-Yes 1877; no, 3D.
Fifth District Sixth ward--Yes. lOS; no. ,.
Sixteenth District, Seventh ward--Yes, l47 no, p.
Second District Fourth ward-Yes as; no. L.
Fifth District Fourth ward-Yes, 143; no, g.
Nineteenth District Seventh ward-Yes. l5l; no, 5
Second district, Third ward--Yes, 1856; no. 21.
First District Third ward--Yes iO9; no. B.
First District. Second ward--Yes. 1O7; no. 0.
] rri.s-
Ninth District, Seventh ward--Yes, 131; no, 90
Second District, Fifth ward-Yes, i42 no. "a
Fourth District. Fifth ward-Yes. l69 no, sc.
First District Fifth ward--Yes ia; no Is.
Tenth District Fifth ward--Yes 1903. no, Is.
Eighth District Fifth ward-Yes 1922 no Is.
Fifth District Third ward--Yes. 100; no. 49,
Fourth District. Second ward-Yes, 1854; no, ,.
Ninth District Tenth ward-Yes. Sc; no. s.
Third District Tenth ward-Yes 1922 no, A.
Fifth District Tenth ward-Yes LOG; no. a.
Sixth District Tenth ward-yes. 81; no. l.
Fourth District. Ninth ward-Yes IS; no, 3.
Third District Teath ward-Yes. az; no. l.
Second District, Tenth ward-Yes Ill; no, Il.
Sixth District. Sixth ward-Yes. 1902; no, II.
Third District, Sixth ward-Yes, 1O2; no. T.
Fourth District, Ninth ward-Yes. 1O7; no. "a.
Eighth District, Ninth ward--Yes. $50; no. 4O
Ninth District Ninth ward-Yes 1872; no, "a.
Twelfth District Ninth ward-Yes, 21s; no, 26.
The above figures which as yet unofficial clear
y indicate the depth public sentiment on the all
important waterfront question.
The only regret is that the ballots we're handled SO
poorly that many did not vote upon the ques-
tons submitted The returns show, however that even
If every voter who did had voted against the
two waterfront questions there still would have re-
manned large maiorities IL. their favor
While there is much complaint in other cities rela-
tive TO the operation of hatwheel trolley cars little
trouble OF that sort is being experienced here. All
companies operating city seem to take pride IN
obeyng ghe regulation against that noise-maline de-