New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-26
THE GREAT OBSTRUCmON
MORE ABOUT THE ST. LOUIS. BRIDGE
Its Author Admits It to Be Failnre
HIS PROPOSED REMEDY
SEVERE CRITICISMS THEREON
The Scheme to Pay Bridge Dividends
by Stopping Up the River Mouth.
THIS is WHAT JETTIES MEAN

Ah1S - B." HAl OEl lilo M 6Al
In the REPUBLICAN of the fourteenth in
st. Louis bridge was an obstruction t
navigation and quoted largely from an abk
report of board of engineers composed o
gentlemen who have had extended expe
rience in making investigations of the kind
on which this report was based.
The report was published in one of thos.
congressional documents which rarely NEE,
the eye Of others than those Immediately
interested in the subject treated. As it ha.
recently become Of interest here, we put i,
in shape for wider circulation than it has
heretofore been given. To this our Eads
willie newspapers object, probably from a
fear that some of the Esdsvillians may read
the report and become contaminated by
the heretical doctrine it contains.
The Globe naively remarks that 1.-THE
people of St. Louis had almost forgotten
that the bridge was an obstruction" 1t
possibly would like to have that tact entirely
forgotten.
The Times speaks of the report as "old.
defunct and ver.to-be-ridiculed" as in.
spired. by "a little local prejudice and q
good DIAL of professional jealousy" and as
hayinf fallen "still-born from the start"
Possibly "from the start" the Times did not
think it proper document to lay before its
readers. From business point of view the
Times was perhaps, right in its conclusion.
The "Eadsvillians" must all be fed on pap
from the same spoon and BY the same nurse,
else some of the little darlings may get the
collie and raise disturbance in the "happy
family"
Having shown up the bridge as an OBJ
structlon, we now propose to consider it az
an engineering achievement, and IN doing
this we are simply feeling around for some
thing better than the stuff born of the
blind enthusiasm with which Eadsvillians
regard the bridge and it's builder. from
which to Judge Of the engineering and ad-
ministrative ability of the man who, with
his jetty scheme adopted, will have placed
in his hands the power to control our most
valuable commerce.
Louisiana has had John Law, who was
succeeded by many other successful adven-
turers. She is now anxious to know when
she will be the victim of another.
We think it was some time in 1866 that
the problem of bridging the Mississippi
river at Eadsville then St. Louls) began to
assume prominence.
The State of Illinois had granted Mr..
Boomer '.and his associates charter for
the construction of bridge at this point,
while the State of Missouri granted a char
ter to rival company, since popularity
known as the Eads' Company.
The Congress of the United States also
authorized the construction of the bridge
under certain restrictions as to height and
length of span. In the course of the struggle
between the rival companies, each with
footing on but one side of the river, the
former called convention Of eminent engi-
neers, having established regulations as
bridge builders or experts to consider and
report upon plans for brid ge.
The convention met in St. Louis in Au-
gust, 1867, organized with the veteran Will
liam j. McAlpine at is head, thoroughly
investigated the problem before it, and
submitted a very able report, which was
signed by twenty eight members of the
The report was in favor of through"
bridge, built with the "Post truss" This
truss gave q we'll settled and known eco
nomical form of girder, having horizon tai
lower chord, offering to navigation the
same head room at all points between piers.
1t was therefore the least Objectionable to
the riv er interest. Further, in this regard,
it met the spirit of the act of Congress au-
the cons truction of the bridge, as
we'll as the letter of the act. Spans longer
han the minimum allowed by Congress for
channel spans were deprecated as useless
and dispropor tionately expensive.
The plan of the Eads arches was not off
,ially presented to the convention, perhaps
because their advocate, being but an anna
eur, was diffident about appearing before
Veterans in the profession he was attempt
ng, but it is evident it was known to the
convention from this extract from the be-
ginning of its general report:
After speaking of the great modern
in engineering, the report
'eads:
But there is danger that, under the in
,entives of these wonderful achievements,
The engineer may be led to attempt impos
abilities, or, what is more likely, to venture
100 far in an untried field of labor, and he
would fail in his duty, and in proper Com
,rehepsion of his mission, if ne allows him
,elf to project plans merely for his own per
,Onal eclat or aggrahdizement, or does not
,onfipe himself to the most safe, prac ticable
md reasonable methods of accomplishing
he results which are desired.
Without quoting further from the report,
is enough to say that it did not please
Mr.. Eads, and so, in his report Of May, 1868,
10 lectured the twenty-eight roundly IN his
Usual style, with which we are familiar,
,ut before doing so bought out the Boomer
harter, thus securing monopoly tor his
ridge and freedom to pursue his own plan
Without further interruption.
The convention estimated the cost of the
,ridge it recommended, with it's approaches,
tc.. at 1864, 900, and considered it the
most economical form of structure that
ould be adopted.
Mr.. Eads, in his report Of May, 1868, re-
marks:
We are prone to associate orr contempla-
ion of the beautiful in architecture and en-
ineering with an idea of costliness, which
not always just. 1t is easy to prove. be-
ond the possibility of question. that in no
ther form could the N sterial in those mem
ers of your bridge which impart to it the
hief feature Of its gracetulness, be used
nth such economy.
Then he goes on by estimate to prove