Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-01-26
OPINIONS DIFFER



in the city than Fourteenth street from
Claymont to Market street" Urging
that the present site be kept he de-
clared that the cost OF land for WIDEN
Ing and improving the present bridge
would he small and that the removal
Of the present bridge would depreciate
the value of the property Of residents
of Eleventh street many rnerchs nts
there being dependent on IN. transient
traffic for livelihood
why depreciate the property of
these persons just To accommodate a
few trucks from outside cities and a
few resdents7'' he asked
Andrew ]. Croas. former n,~,,ls,.r OF
the Legislature. made an earnest sp-
peal for bridge between Eleventh
street bridge and Market street bridge
lie told Of his efforts which resultet,
In the Legislature passing q bin su-
thorizins the Levy Court to spend
100000 for such a bridge and criticized
the Levy Court for not doing go. That
was I'm 1915" he said. 'and on account
of war they asked us to walt. but since
that time ssto,o 900 has been approprtat-
ed for Washington street bridge while
our bridge has been discarded"
General Plan of Proposed bridge.
County Engineer Gruhb explained
and Frank II. ptereon, street cou,rnis-
sioner. explained that the general pro-
tect under consideration did not con.
template a bridge which would end at
Fourteenth and Thatcher streets. but
one that would harmonlra with the
present plane nj the proposed new
boulevard through the nor,heast REQ
ton. Mr.. Piereon added that he was iu
favor Of retaining the present Eleventh
street bridge. even after the new bridge
was constructed. There are not enough
bridges there now and as the land is
developed more bridges win he needed
he eaid.
Judge Lynn said n the present bridge
would I've retained his clients would
have nothing TO say In regard to a now
bridge. Frank II Jones Of the Levy
Court explained that II was the plan OF
the Levy Court TO aisrnantle the present
bridge as soon Az the new one wns
erected
County Engineer Grub explained
that the end abutments of the bridge
were In good condition, but that the
center pier was not strong enough 10
stand the constant Jar OF heavy trucks
and trolley cars passing over Il. u
could, however. be repaired, ne said.
80 as to stand any amount Of light
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and
would give service for many more
years
Must He Drswhrfdsc.
Frank X. Jones declared that efforts
to replace the bridge with anything but
drnworidse would be impossible, as
the government regulations for tho
Brandywine We're as strict as those
governing tho Delaware river Judge
Lynn replied that he believed that the
bridge was not moved more than once
year to allow boat to go up etruan.
and IL lie common knowledge, he de-
ciared. that the sewage system OF the
city has made the Brandywine between
the bridges little moro than a sewer.
Howard III. Ward a member of the
old Levy Court. answered questions as
TO the developments which led up TO
the proposed plan. all of which he
said. had been given widest publicity
during their various stages of develop
ment by the different departments. he
said he felt the Levy Court fully under
stood and appreciated the just demands
of the residents of the Ninth ward for
a bridge. such as the Pine street pro-
posal. especially since the removal of
the old Peoples railway bridge at the
foot Of Sixteenth street
a petition signed by 1ea residents
from over Eleventh street bridge, was
read, requesting the court not TO be
governed by the Wishes Of few In
opposing the proposed new bridge
site. as approved by s,ich experienced
engineers as Harry l.. Msier, Edward
r. Mack and Charles NJ. Upham. engi-
Highway Commission. and asked that
nlent, the Park Board and the State
neers for the Street and Sewer Depart
the proposed plan be carried through