Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1920-01-29
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
QUESTION CAUSES
COUNCIL TALKFEST
Sanitary Company Says It's Up
to City to Rebuild Plant and
Company to Equip 1t.
MOEE TALK FOR TONIGHT

A bitter discussion began in Council
last night when Assistant City Solicitor
John W. Huxley, Jr., told the Council
he thought the city could legally compel
the Wilmington Sanitary Company to
rebuild the crematory recently burned
down and go on with its garbage disposal
contract.
Attorney Philip Garrett, on behalf OF
the Sanitary Company, took issue with
this. giving IL as his opinion that 1t was up
to the citv under the contract TO build the
plaut. and up 10 the Sanitary Company
to replace the equipment.
Council will meet again this evening
10 settle the controversy one WAY or the
other. Meanwhile il was left 10 the
assistant city solicitor TO prepare to
advise the solons of their definite legal
rights in the matter tonight.
MIR. Garrett said his client WAS not
standing on its legal rights, but that he
was rather looking to a get-together plan
for the benefit of lhe city.
IL WAS brought out that the Sanitary
Company had been paying insurance on
the building that was destroyed.
Alexander r. Abrahams had new
offer from the Harlan Company TO trade
in some Of its ground for tho site of the
charrcd cromatory. Mr.. Ahrahams told
of the ship cOmpanys anxiety to annex
this piece 20 its shipyard property, and
that the company WAS ready To meet with
council 10 20 over the proposition. No
actioa was taken by Council upon this.
Mr.. Ellison, OF the Wilmington Sanitary
Company, broke In with the news that he
had stopped his workmen yesterday at the
plant, because of the Board Of Health's
refusal to do certain things. He said the
company felt that it could not go on
without a contrsct with the Board OF
Health. "And 1 should say written
contract said he.
We suggest that the Bosrd of Health
put our other plant IN working order
We stand ready to take care of the gar
bage if the city will do that, continued
MIR. Ellison.
The Sanitary Company is not bound
TO restore the old building, If at oil, until
1924. when its contract expires. according
20 Mr.. Ellison's Interpretation of the
agreement Mr.. Ellison openly charged
that the crematory was burned down by
somebody, and declared the city was TO
blame for it. I'VE had night watchman
and other precautions against fire, he |
said
MIR. Garrett wanted to know whether /
the city wsnted TO rebuild and go ahead. /
"Why rebuild that old plsnt when we /
can build q new plant ? Why not make |
deal with the Harlan Company tor the /
ground?"
That's what were here for tonight,
replied MIR. Garrett"
To rebuild the old plant Will only /
cost shout $500, IT was stated.
THE most important thing Is the chs |
posal of the garbage" broke In Mayor /
Taylor.
but why should the city have to nay /
the S25OO?' the mayor wished to know. /
Its up TO the city, replied MIR. /
Garrett, If il wants the garbage disposed /
~. We are willing 20 rebuild the old one, |
but il will TAKE three months 10 do it. +
During that time we can't handle the .
garbage. too. We don't think we should
have 10 paw $500 to have this other /
plant, tine dryer one, fixed up. We are not /
bound bv contract TO use this plant at PHI, 1
but We are willing to use II.
This discussion places the city IN this /
position Put up $500 or wait, and let /
the garbage take care OF itself for three /
mon ms. while the Sanitary Com pany /
l. rebuilding he burned plant.
The Sanitary Company admitted
through Mr.. Ellison IFS contractual
obligation TO rebuild the old plant and
maintain a disposal plant. Nothing WAS
said bout its oblIga ton, till now to stand
tie cost of disposal by others in the
if il Is not going 70 do it itself.
Mr. Garrett countered with the pro-
,posal that the city reimburse the Sanitary
Company for putting the dryer plant In
operating condition.
Mr.. Huxley said there was only one
alternative, and that to sue on the
Sanitary Companys bond TO compel
disposal of the garbage according to
contract.
MIR Ellison pointed out the compeny
Was obligated only TO the wet
system of disposal. If the city Is thus
forced to the dryer system il must pay
must enter into a separate contract