Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-05-10
The sulphnr Fork Bridge.

When Captain Gracey read his paper on
shis subject before the county court ct its last
meeting the topic was new to our magis-
trates, and they naturally voted IL down.
never having given their attention TO it be-
fore. We cannot help thinking that, when
they have had tiFae tq look into the matter
they win re-consider sEnd reverse their for
mer decision. In this hope we nov present
a few facts bearing on the subject.
More than one bridge has been built over
sulphur Fork at its mouth. The first of
these dates back to 1872 and it was probably
built by private subscription. The cost OF
1t was about $4,000. This was swept away
by the great flood of 1917, known as the heav-
lest freshet recorded in history or tradition.
| For eleven years the bridge was not replaced,
but in 1859 the matter was placed in the
hands of Col. Forbes, well known as Profess
sor of Mathematics In Stewart College and q
skilful civil engineer. His estimates for
Howe truss bridge of lie feet span amount
ed TO $4,000, of which $500 was Appropriated
by the county for that purpose and 81 500
raised by private subscription. This struc-
ture was In It's turn swept away by the food
of 1866, and there has never since been
bridge over Sulphur Fork.
The defect in both these bridges was that
they were built three feet below high water
mark, and perhaps the structure was not
substantial enough for the span of Ito feet.
Mr.. Tapscott has made plan and estimates
for the construction OF a new bridge in
which, If executed, these defects will be cor
rected by means of two contrivances, an adj
ditional pier in the centre of the stream, re-
ducing the span one half, and the elevation
of the bed of the bridge higher by three feet
than that of the old bridge; above highwa-
ter, in fact, so as to be out of the reach of
pressure from any flood that may possibly
take place. Notwithstanding these improve
ments the projected bridge can be built con-
siderably cheaper than either of the old
ones, partly on account of advances made in
mechanical science since then, and partly |
because the side piers of the old bridge are
still there in sound condition and fit for use.
Mr.. TapScott's estimates accordingly are /
s2.250 against So 600, the expense of the first |
bridge and $4,000, that of the second. 1t is
proposed to raisehalf Of the 20 $50 by subscrip- +
ton among those locally intererted in the |
matter, and to apply to the county |
for the other half; so that the amount of /
public appropriation asked for is only 81 ,l25.
Without this bridge the navigation of Red
River is an incomplete transaction, for this
would give our Red River trade access to
regions in Robertson county, Tennessee, and
in Logan county, Kentucky, which now
goes to Louisville, Nashville and Hopkins
vile, and we cannot help thinking that the
county will see its way to contributing the
very small amount, SLIPS, required to put it
through. District No. 3 has been munif-
cent contributor to this improvement in for
mer times, having paid the whole expense
of the first bridge and three-eighths of the
second, in all 81, 500, and No. 5 is far from be-
ing the only district interested in it; every.
district on Red River is directly Interested,
for the improvement is essential to the sue
cess9uI navigation of that stream.
So, gentlemen magistrates, make it a
county matter and procure honor to your
selves and profit to the county. Take a trip
on the Matt Gracey to Port Royal and look
into the matter.