Daily Republican., 1883-03-07

vance he made In money for the build.
ing of Third street bridge seems not to
be SO we'll substantiated In facts and
written and oral proof as upon the just
and equitable view that the county has
been the gamer by the building of the
bridge, more than the amount claimed
by Mr. Townsend and others. He
makes no pretence of having . legal
claim against the county but simply
that the county has profted by his
money and is rich, while that much
money saved to the Townsend family
when most needed might have bridged
them over the disastrous financial tide
that prosir;,trd them. BY the building
OF that bridge, property on the South
side which Was then NOT worth one
hundred thousand dollars In value has
Increased to ten times that amount in
value. The county and others have
reaped the benefit of that increased
value, but the Townsends, the men who
were instrumental in having the bridge
built and whose money in greater part
built the bridge have not protitel by it,
This may have been their own fault for
aught we know hut that alters not the
cast. Had the Townsends' no, come to
he assistance Of the county, the bridge
would not have been built, and the
COMFY would not have proiiIed by the
increased value OF South side property.
The Levy Court was undecided as to
the propriety OF building the bridge.
Had they foreseen the prosperity thar
followed the building Of it We presume
| there would have been little lrsitat ion
in regard to the propriety Of assuming
he whole expense. r" the county, the
building of he bridgr has been a bo-
nanza.
II not only has the taxes accrling an
nually and growing larger from the
south side Improvements, but it has the
eighteen th0usi nd five hundred dollars
besides which were given to it provided
it would build the Third street bridge.
II there is any generosity in the case
which side can afford to be the most
generous The county is rich and pros
porous. The 'rownsendS are reduced in
| circumstances. Though having no lcga
claim upon the county for their contri-
button 10 heI p the county, the question
is how should the county feel towards
them. We cannot but look upon the
attack upon Mr.. Townsend by a part of
the press Of the city AZ malignant and
brtter III the extreme, and entirely un =
called for by the circumstances w hirh
surround the case. There never was a
stronger petition sem to the legislature
in favor OF any claim than that sent in
favor IF Mr.. Townsend. Nearly all
the leading manufacturers and business
men Of the city who would have the
bulk of the. increase of taxes to pay
were amongst the petitioners in favor of
| the county paying the claim. 1t is not
reasonable to suppose that.>uch business
men AS compose the manufacturing
firms of the Harlan Il HolingswOrth
Company; the j. Morton Poole Com
pany: the Pussy 4 Jone, Company: the
Bowers Il Dure Company the jackson
X Sharp Company, and in fact nearly
all the manufacturing firms Of the city
would rush without thought into recon
mrndlng an unworthy project The
heated attacks Of some of the city press
is reflection upon such business men,
!. Aside from all other considerations
stands the correct principle that the
County ought to build all the bridges in
the county and pay for the same. Com
promises involving IA considerable outlay
Of money generally lead 10 trouble and
confusion. There is no bridg" III the
county that has noue more to enhance
and increase the wealth Of the county
than this Third street bridge, and as Il
matter OF equity and ju,tic" 10 the
men who furnished most Of !he money
to- build it the balance sheet should be
Strurk in hti: favor