Morning journal and courier., 1881-04-11

The Bridge Question. | Why Orders Are Not Carried Out-Reply | to the Censors of the Board of Alder
 1nem. 3 ta Es9s sssEag 8ls7s2.si*g 2 z5. Il To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND CouR1ER:
 At the meeting of the Board of Aldermen on last Monday evening, the report of the | Committee on Railroads and Bridges in favor | of building a bridge on the railroad | tracks on the extension of Jack son street called forth discus sion in which several members of the Board participated. In the course of their remarks l the Road Commissioners were severely criti- ! cised, and in my opinion, very unjustly cen sured, because the bridges at Lamberton and Dewitt streets, over the railroad tracks, had not been completed Statements of facts were given which were entirely in error, ana false assumptions seemed to serve as 8 pre- text for condemning the course of the Board in the matter. rs.=f Y was asserted substantially as follows: That orders had been passed by the Court or Common Council for the erection Of the bridges named but no action had been taken by the road department in regard to them. That assessments had been laid and that par ties had paid assessments for these bridges That the Board should go ahead and build the bridges without waiting for the lowering of the tracks or reference to the railroad company's wishes. That the Board should report from time to time on unfinished busi- ness in their hands, and give the reasons Tor l the non- completion of the work.
 | In order to show that the Aldermen were mistaken in their assertions and the censure uncalled for, let me refer to the records ana present few facts. A layout of the widen | ing and extension of Dewitt street was mace | in 1872, and the assessments laid for the \ same in May, 1873. In November, 1875, some two and a half years later, the follow | ing order was passed by the Court of Com 1 mon Council ...7...-.s.. =- 1 UOrdered, that the Board of Road Com | missioners be and they are hereby author ! ized to enter into an agreement with the New l York; New Haven and Hartford Railroad l company for the construction of suitable bridge over the tracks of said company on | the line of Dewitt street, on the basis that the | city shall pay one half and the railroad com 1 pany one half of the cost of said bridge"
 When this order was received by the Board | it was referred to 8 committee to confer with l the officers of the railroad company.
 l In June, 1876, the following order was passed by the Court of Common Council: l s'Ordered that the Board of Road Comnlis- | sioners be and they are hereby instructed ! to request the railroad company to construct ] at an early day a suitable bridge oyer their l track at Lamberton street crossing" This l order was by the Board referred to the same committee to make the request as directed. ! Up to this time there had been no assessment laid for constructing these bridges, nor has l there been any since therefore 1t Is mis-
 take to say that assessments have been paid.
 The committee were never able to enter into a satisfactory agreement with the rall- road company in reference to building
 bridge at Dewitt street, and requesting the ! company to build one at Lamberton stre ct
 did not meet with favorable response, as
 might be expected. In August, 1878, the
 following order passed: Ordered, | That the Board of Road Commissioners be
 and they are hereby empowered to build an
 iron bridge on Lanberton street across the 1 tracks of the N. Y, N. H. and H. R. R. Co.,, | in connection with said company, provid- | ed by the laws of this State, and to make all I contracts necessary for building said iron
 bridge.' This order was referred to a com
 mittee of the Board to act with committee
 from the railroad company in carrying out
 the order Meetings were had, plans and es- inmates prepared and substantially agreed
 upon but upon the division of cost there was disagreement. Finding that the two o
 parties could not agree the committee made
 a written report to the Board, giving the facts as they existed, and recommended that
 communication be sent to the Court of Common Council and ask for instructions. By order of the Board communication was
 sent to the Court of Common Council in De-
 tober 1879, detailing at length the condition
 of things, and closing as follows: Before | proceeding further the Board consider Il | their duty to present these facts for your
 consideration, and to respectfully ask fol instructions concerning the proportion < of the expense that is proper the city o1 New Haven should pay and the amount
 of work that should be considered 5 l as part of the proposed bridge" No reply d was ever made to the communication, and al D | of the members of the present Board of Al . dermen who had fault to find with the Boare l. of Road Commissioners were Aldermen II 8 | 1879, which makes their remarks and actlor 9 9 seem all the more unkind One thing should s be remembered, that, under the orders al s passed by the Court of Common Council, tho l. Road Commissioners act only in con IF | junction with the railroad company.
 Let me refer also to the matter of appro n priations. The orders were passed for tht bridges and the Board empowered to make
 contracts, yet no appropriation for the pur
 pose was made.
 The Road Commissioners have regularly
 asked each October for an appropriation tt
 carry out the orders, and the Board of Fi !. | nance have as regularly refused to recon , l mend it.
 ,. Last year the Board presented estimate @ of cost of each of these bridges, when ask l ing for the appropriations for 1881, bu 7. both items were stricken out by the Boart d of Finance. The city charter express e ly provides that no Board of Commissioners 1 bHdl1 luCuT any uhD4AGy UT oApouoC, Dy sSOAA
 tract or otherwise, for which the city shall b'
 responsible, in excess of the appropriation
 made by the Court of Common Council. Th' ! whole case then may be summed up as fol ! lows The Court of Common Council orde1
 bridges constructed at Lamberton and Dewitt
 streets, butneglect to provide for the paymen | of the work. The Road Commissioners asl
 for an appropriation for that purpose, and it Ii
 refused. The work must be done in connec
 ton with the railroad company. The Roae | Commissioners cannot make contracts unless
 the money has been appropriated for the pay
 ment. The Road Commissioners are cen
 sured by the party refusing the appropria
 tion because they do not proceed and com l plete the work so ordered. In view of thes' facts the question is submitted, 'Could any
 thing be more inconsistent ?' JUSTICE. Ala Elegant Toilet Preparation,
 Hair dressing and restorative is to be fount
 in LONDON HAIR COLOR REsToRER. It seldon
 fails to restore gray or faded hair to it's orig | is checked by it's use, and it produces | growth of beautiful young hair, soft, gloss. ! and luxuriant. It certainly is the mos ! cleanly and effective hair restorer now befor
 the American people. A. A. Gibson, Barry
 town, Duchess county, N. .Y., writes; Dr iSwayne $ Eon, Philadelphia Gents :-I en
 close Q postofice order for eight dollars
 please send me one dozen sLondon Hai
 Color Restorer." It has stopped my hai from falling and restored it to it's natural co \ or It has proven satisfactory in every IL
 spect The ttLondon Hair Color Restorer
 can be obtained at all the leading druggist
 at 75 cents bottle. ma26 d&weow1y4p
 \ GN<,- T7s-