Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-12-11


STRETCHING FOR TRADE,
ST. PAUL T.IKES ANOTHER STRIDE
FOR BUSINESS SUPREMACY.
The Bird ;e Which Invites the Trade OF
Several Counties to This City History o.
Its Inception. Its Progress aud Near Ap
pronch TO Comp,etion-A Review of the
Past aud Statement of tho Present-A
Splendid Piece of Wosk-Advantages OF
the iuvestment-Thc Governments Share
Of the Cost-I,amsey Coun'y's Net Ex-
pense 500, 900.
As long ago as 1866 the Importance of having
q bridge, at, or near Fort Smelling, engaged the
attention Of many enterprising citizens of this
community. At that time the project, largely
fathered by Col. d. A. Robertson, ex-Gov. Mar
SHALL ans many prominent residents of the
present Fourth wards was agitated, and pro-
crossed even to a vote. TIE people dec Jared
against voting bonds for the venture. But in
giving history of the Fort Smelling bridge,
as it now spans the Mississippi river, almost
flashed, it had beginning even farther back
than 1866. SO long ago as twenty five years, a
Company was formed and Incorporated to
brd re the river in the vicinity of the fort.
From the mention above it can be seen that
the Importance of inviting trade and the traffic
of vast contiguous region to st. Paul, ad-
dressed itself to the minds of far
seeing citizens at an early day. As
the city increased in population and
its trade augmented, the prospect Of throwing
open our doors to our Neutrality-suspicious. and
giving them easy access to our markets, met
with favor from year to year. In fact, the
bridging Of the Mississippi became question
largely entering into local elections, and more
particularly was made a test question of any
candidates worth in the Fourth ward or the
territory lying about this proposed avenue to
the wealthy and productive farming country
for tho bridge assumed the ma
ture Of several propositions, which aroused
bitter opposition, responded to by vehement
advocacy Of tho scheme as feasible, in fact q
necessity.
At one time the citizens of the Fourth ward
tried to engineer u proposition like this
through: They in the vehement and urgent
desire to have the bridge, were unwilling to enter
into a contest about their pet scheme, so sub
mitted that up town that part Of the city
above Wabashaw street vote for the bridge. and
that the benefits might be shared by lower
town which they niggardly opposed. This
proposition never came to a focus, but was ad-
vocated with considerable heat by the uptown
folk.
Advocated and opposed, the bridge project
assumed the phase of agitation periodically
for years, especially about the time the State
legislature convened.
In this way ''thc bridge" became topic of
extended discussion. Those advocating it
seemed to have the best Of the argument, and
the people began to entertain the opinion that
1.-THE bridge was an absolute and paying ne
cessity.
Having progressed to this favorable state in
public 'pinlon, the scheme began to assume
something of dctiuite shape in being pre-
sented for the State Solons to pass upon.
Legislation
In the session Of the State legislature of 1876,
March I'd, Hon. James Smith, Jr. introduced a
bill into the Senate for the selection of a
site for a bridge across the Mississippi
river at Fort Smelling, to be built by
or from such subscriptions and donations as
might be obtained by q commission provided
son, VIM. Lindeke and T. NJ. Metcalfe.
Tnis bill became in due time law, Hon.
James Smith, Jr.. IL the Senate, and Fred.
Richter, in the House, advocating the measure
Though q law it was wholly imperative, and
under its provisions the commission never col
lected a cent, even if they ever solicited sub
scrptions or donations.
BY this bill, if nothing mora was gained, the
people obtained legislative recognition.
Ia 1877 another bill was introduced, which
Hon. John NJ. Gilman contested on the ground
that it was impractlcable, and killed it.
Though their will and desire was badly ex-
pressed the people did not become dishearten-
ed at these msearriages Of the bridge project.
In 1878, February 3d. a bill prepared at the
instance of the citizens of the Fourth ward was
offered by Hon. W. Fl. Mead, amendatory to the
act of 1876, providing for the construction of
the amendment named Rudolph
Knapheide, VIM. Dawson, VIM. Lndeke,
Thomas Cochran Jr., and Joseph Thornton as
the commissioners to locate the bridge and per
form such other duties as were imposed by the
requirements of the bill-which indeed were
barren of anything definite, or means where
with to work from. However, this defect of
omission, traceable in fact to the act of 1876,
supplied by bill introduced by Repre-
sentative Mead, during the same session, and
which approved March 2, 1878. This bill
took new departure it embraced the whole
to build. It proposed the sum of 100000,
and the bill was passed authorizing Ramsey
county to issue 100, 600 worth of bonds to ma
ture in twenty years, bearing seven per cent.
interest. The further provisions of the act
were such as usually obtain, providing
means and authority to build approaches, con-
denim for roadways leading to and from the
bridge over in Hennepln county. This proviso
was Incorporated in the bill, at the urgent de-
mand of Minneapolis that Hennepin county
in no way should be held for any expenses at
tending the construction, or for future repairs,
etc.
The Oid FIaO and 1h appropriation.
Pending this State legislation, and even pre-.
cediug it, Hon. J. ". McClung fathsred an
idea, which met with no little derision. He.
however, commended that the bridge would be a
benefit to he United States government, and
that it should share the expense of build
ing avenue for the free transportation OF
military supplies to and from Fort Smelling.
TIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
So iinhned was he with the justice and
equity Of this idea, that he brought the cham
her of commerce to entertain the measure. Ii
thar, r1y ,lar of ho1