Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-04-02

|
half fee, Ter hundred TO the levee line, and is
| also practical for street cars.
! The total length is Que thousand six hun
! dred and eighfy-oDe fett.
( The cost OF either struc,ur5 viii be
For foundations NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. $4,000
for masonry oS,OOo
/ For superstructure 80. .......... 10000
| For Incidental and contingent ex-
psnses, 10 per cent ..... 1890
Total. $199, 100
The above is based upon masonry OF granite
and superstructure of sufficient stability to
meet the requirements incident TO the traffic Of
a metropolitan city.
! The bridge contemplated Goes not conform
\ to the requirements of the u. 3. government,
as laid down in The act of April /, 1879, rela-
tive to bridging the Mississippi river, which
requires channel span Of three hundred feet,
and other spans of two hundred and City feet
| each: but in consideration Of the near proX-
| unity of bridge with spans ri less length
than those contemplated by our estimate, and
| further as bill has already been introduced
| In the Congress OF the United States
| upon which we contemplate favorable
| action by Congress which desig-
| mates bridge is his city
with spal ) of two hundred and fifty feet, We
| base our estimate on a chanrel span OF Two
hundred and sixty feet, leaving two hundred
and fifty feet between piers. or twenty feet
more than the channel span OF The WabashaW
street bridge.
In case a channel spse OF three hundred feet
should be required, it will increase the cost of
| the bridge by $4,000, that is in connection
with two hundred ynd fifty feet span adjoin-
ing; or If the three hundred feet span take the
place of the two hundred and sixty feet span
of our estimate, tt increase OF cost will be
$4,000
Respectfully submitted,
L. W. RUNDLErT.
City Engineer
HORACE E. HORTON.
81. Paul, March 20, 1882.
W. S. Morton. Esq, Of the Commits
sion referred to, submitted and read the
following report:
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT.
To the Honorable Common Council Of tie
City of St. Paul:
GENTLEMEN: fully concur in the above
report on all matters appertainiHg 10 the pro-
posed bridge, submitted TO us for discussion,
with the exception OF the final location,
defined by my colleagues the most advisable
The unanimous and emphatic decision of
your engineers in favor of high fixed bridge,
practically limited its location, on the east side
of the river, to one OF two streets, jackson or
Robert street, and only in The choice between
these two points, do / take exception TO the
above report.
In the construction OF q bridge st Robert
street, there are some conditions that We it
points of superiority over d structure of sim
liar character at Jackson street, which are
found specifically stated in the body OF the
report. These elements of difference ale in
my opinion, OF but minor i'm portance, in COM
parisUn with the greater advantages to be de-
rived from the location Of the bridge at a
point most convenient and accessible for the
anticipated traffic over the new structure; and
other things being equal, the report OF your
engineers would have been unanimous in favor
of jackson street over ali other points CON
sidered.
The present and prospective growth, of the
business portion of st. Paul, would undoubt-
eddy tend to carry the location Of q new
bridge to the lowest available point,
limited by Broadway street. Admitting
this governing influence ii the location Of the
bridge-Which has been conceded by the en-
tire commissioners an important elemen. ia
this discussion, l would respectfully hold,
that IS between the two points considered,
the only question at issue is the feasibility of
bridge at jackson street, the central point OF
the present and probable future business in
terests Of the city.
The practicability OF bridge at this point
has been fully demonstrated in the report;
while the estimated cost is the same as that OF
| Tue ebTACluIc pTOpUStu lOT hODcrL STEEL.
Jackson street, as thoroughfare between
Third street and the levee, is OF bat compare
lively su1all importance, since the completion
of the Union depot; the steep grade between
the points eleven feet in one hundred tending
to divert traffic TO Sibley street; The two road
ways, nine feet IN width, shown on either side
of the bridge approach, would more than &C
commodate the present and possible future
traffic of this portion of the street.
n ant or IQi IF 4fro
street at the junction of jackson and Third
streets, the proposed paving of Fourth and
Fifth streets, and the contem plated widening
OF jackson street, between Third and Fourth
streets, will give increased facilities for traffic,
and this question will most naturally adjust
itself.
The bridge from dickson street would land
six hundred and seventy feet lower down the
river On the west side than that from Robert
street. which would give 1t an additional i'm
portaDce TO that portion of West ST. Paul, to
be more directly benefited by the new sruc-
ture.
For the reasons shove stated, and believing
that the future OF the city, even more than its
present conditions, will demand the lowest
available point for the location of the bridge;
this supplementary report is respectfully sub
mitted. ", g. MORTON,
ST. Paul, March 80, 1882,
Reports referred to committee On streets
sewers and bridges and city clerk in.
structed to give notice that the question
of issuing bonds for the construction of
the bridge referred to in the foregoing
reports, would be submitted for approval
at the ensuing city election.
by unanimous consent, Alderman
Mccarthy submitted draft of ordinance
''entitled an ordinance to establish cleo
ton pTecients in the Sixth ward of the
city of st. Paul." which was read.
Alderman Mccarthy moved that the
rules be so Tar suspended as to allow said
ordinance to pass to its second reading.
The motion prevailed by the following
vote.
Yeas-Aid. O'COnnor, Robert, Grace, Ce,-
nish, TrOtt, starkey, Mccarthy, Mr.. Presi-
dent.-S.
The said ordinance was there upon read
second time and passed -fSee ordinance No.