Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1881-03-30
FREE BRIDGES--ALL.

EDIfoR REPUBLICAN; In the last issue Of the
Rgttsmans Journal noticed an article headed
"Lumber City Bridge" written by John Russell,
in which he attempts to give the public some in.
formation, viz; That the bridge Is now free and
Il Is well that he has come to that conclusion OF
last. But now to the part of the article to which
| want to call his attention.
In the first place, whom a man attempts to give
the public information on any subject, be should
be governed by truth aud fairness at least he
ought not to contradict his own assertions.
He says that "the Company, through their
officers, waited upon the Commissioners with the
view Of efeetng sale. Twelve hundred dollars
was offered, 81 500 was asked" Now, as to wha,
was then asked amounts to nothing for they
agreed to take 81 ,200 with privilege to take the
toll house, valued at $780, making 81 800 for the
bridge. Then he says acompromise was about to
be effected, when attention was called TO the law
in reference to the sale Of bridges. Now, here
he a6m its there Is law requiring the Court to
appoint viewers to view and appraise bridges.
This eOuse was then pursued. He forgets to say
that the same law says the viewers are to ap-
praise bridges at what they belisre them TO be
irorth, and not phatit cost TO build them hirty years
ago. He goes on to state the viewers were shown
what the bridge cost, and how much 1t has paid
the stockholders, &e., and, Notwithstanding all
these facts, the viewers appraised the bridge At
doubts the honesty Of some Of them, and says the
result was that the Company would not accept the
price offered, and asked the Grand Jury not to
confirm the report. Very smart, indeed for
highly educated men Why did not they go ac-
cording to law and refuse 10 accept and show
cause why they could not sell at that price
Then he says "a few citizens attempted TO raise
$500 for the Company, but was met by the reply
that the Commissioners said the bridge was free"
Which was the only trut hful answer that could
be given, for II was virtually free bridge by ae-
ton Of law, and it is my belief that all toll taken
after the time was up for the Company to refuse
the appraisement. could by law be recovered from
the Company by the County.
He further says, "the Company laborcd while
there was hope or even show Of justice" Jus
tice, indeed, to persuade the County Commission
ers to pay out money illegally and contrary to
the interests Of those whom Il is their duty to
protect.
Again he offered to give US bond to indemnify
Us In case the County Auditors would not pass
the account, If We would pay the Company 500
more than. the amount Fixed by the apprAisersin &C
cordance with lawan in this way attempted to get
the Commissioners to do an unlawful act, and one
against the interests Of the people Of the County
simply to benefit a few individuals and be-
cause we would not 60 outside the pales Of the
law to crafty his friends then he says gross in
justice has been done the Company for which be
holds the Commissioners and the appraisers
responsible Now, here Is where the injustice
and untruthfulness comes In. If be wanted to
be truthful, why don't he say that he, as one Of
the officers Of the Bridge Company, did not know
bis duty and did not apply to the Courts at the
proper time for relief lie was very careful not
to inform the public that the law does not allow
the County Commissioners to fix the price or
value Of bridge to be purchased by the County.
The duty Of the County Commissioners In this
case was closely laid down by the law. They
could pay $1,000 for the bridge, and no more nor
no less, and man Of general intelligence, that
Russell claims to have, should have, and | be-
lieTe, did know, that fact but had not enough Of
cahdor 20 admit it. ELAN JoHSsos.
GRANrIAS HILLS, March 2lst, 1881,