National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-09-02
THE AourDucr BRIDGE.
Reasons Why the Owners Want to Sell IL
and why the Government should Not Buy
IL

and why the Government shOplu MOI buI
II.
TO me- Fdior
The editorial in your issue OF Aug. 10, 1851
headed "Tno Bridge Question" should com.
mend itself 10 the attention Of the secretary oil
war and the attorney general.
VIII you permit mo TO suggest in support OF
the points made In your valuable article as |
follows:
From tho "repors OF the board Of survey"
on the improvement Of the harbors OF the Dis |
trict of Columbia ordered by congress, and |
made in 1872 Up. 81, i will appear that above |
the location OF the Alexandria aqueduct there |
are on the district side of the Potomac river |
$500 feet available for commercial and man. |
ufaoturing purposes, and which oher special |
| facilities for the transhipment OF coal" 90,
the report insisting that there exists IN 'Ahso-
soluio need for draw in the Aqueduct
| bridge, without which the whole OF these
| splendid facilities arc utterly lost"
| Parties In interest both public and private,
| have for many years protested against The CON
| struction and maintenance OF the lQuciuct IN
| its present form, which protests nave been
continuous since the action taken by the cor.
| pOrutiOn Of Georgetown in it, proceeding
| against the Alexandria Canal company, and
| IN which they are, by reason Of technical de-
| fects declared by the supreme court OF the
| United States not entitled TO relief u2Peters
9l.)
Tho aqucduct has long since ceased to
| serve tho purpose for which u was erected
| but little Of the coal leaving Cumberland VIA
| canal reaching Alexandria, and of that little,
! the greater part passing 10 that point by way
| of the outlet lock above Georgetown in the
| Potomn river. Its trunk " so insecure that
view Of thS structure shoWi inG b fSr 'nS Hr
able thana sieve, and for detailed and Official
report as to the general insecurity OF the entire
| structure, both bridge and agucduct, reference
should be had TO EN. Doc, ltO, ", H. lotn Con.
LIST sess., being report made by Col. >. Il.
| Albert u. z. q. r., Of an examination made by
him under the order OF the chief OF engineCrh,
L, g. A., the conclusion reached 10y TINT
official being that the condition Of the struc-
ture Is altogether unsafe. Thisroport was sub
mitted April n, 1851.
II is well known that proceedings under the
act OF Feb. %, 1881 authorizing the construc-
ton of bridge, or the purchase OF inc aqu9-
duct, were suspended by the secretary of war
because the sum OF $4,000 was found insut-
iiciout for the purpose indicated, This action
District of Columbia In the house OF repre-
scntativcs REPORT 400, forty-cighth CONGRESS
first SESSION., the committee reporting that Tor
the reason above given the secretary OF war
livery wisely deferred action" and no action
was ever taken under this act, except to learn
the cost of the proposed bridge.
This act reserved to the Alexandria Canal
company the right to use the piers for the pur-
poses of supporting thereon an aqueduct, to be
! suspended from the bridge, TO be erected by
the United states; and especially provided that
tain the additional weight of this aqucduct.
In this consists a partnership in the, owner
7 ship of this work between the United States
and the Alexandria Canal company, or its
lessees
That such condition Of things should have
. been provided for by congress Is ineNplicable,
except for the reason that 1t lacked information;
for inquiry even ola cursory nature, would nave
l shown that the aquCduCt as such hai lOnl
l ceased to be of value, certainly not of such
: importance as to Justify the United states IL
= | rcconstructing the most important ana e&pen
+ sive part at its cost.
We take II, however, that the act of the 23t
: ofFcbruary, 1881, Is obsolete, the officer charged
Q with its execution tho secretary of war hay
ING reported to congress that II was incapable
ofexcCuton. Not only that, but congress, act
ing under the suggestions OF the secretary o
+ war, has In each branch considered substitutes
) the senate having passed the Riddleberger bill
Is. li77), providing for the purchase Of the on
l. tire interest in bridge and aqueduct, free iron
=. all claims of lossces and others and that, fail
u ing to build separate bridge, inc house Q
:. representatives through u committee, report
:; ing in favor Of bridge at the Three Sisters.
~ II is not thought that the action now pro
~ posed can find much favor with either tn
% secretary of war or the attorney general, II
So view of the present suspended condition of tn
% act of February 1881, and the adyantageOu
70 action takon by the senate during the late ses
e sion of congress.
E. At time when so many measures are pond
" ing for tho removal Of distractions IN navign
-. BILE rivers in the United States, not only by tn
70 provisions of the river and harbor bill, but b.
70 legislation looking to the erection OF bridge
.. so as not to impede navigation. Naygatio
20 being certainly the primary consideration 4
o9 such matters II Is hoped that the executive d'
w partmcnts will not hasten to carry into eiie'
., an act of congress one half of which has bee
zee declared obsolete, while congress is by legisli
... tion remedying the defect of which II hi
100 been Officially advised by the very oftc'
charged with the execution Of It's decree.
The secretary of war in his report to I'll
z; President, which was by the President con
90 munlcated TO congress III. r., AZ Congress, II
Is Sess., Ex. Doc. No. 1866, says that the sum {
20 $4,000 in insufficient TO build the bridge
20 the Three Sisters, aud asks for an additions
g appropriation to build the bridge At that poin
o. 50 that he may be enabled to select betwee
~ that point and tho agucduct.
is The same report shows that the superstru'
ture and approaches of an ordinary roadwa
bridge will cost ssi, 500, the cheapest birds
which can be built proper one costing aboi
10 sl5OOOO. If therefore the sum of $4,000
e taken rs purchase money, $4,000 only will +
" main of the $4,000 for the superstructure al
II, approaches The estimate for a roadwi
o. bridge would of course, be largely increase
if the construction Is 10 be strong enough
-. suspend an aquoduct therehom.
j The utter rotenncsso of the present bridge an
IL aqueduct will certainly dotcr the secretary
Sc. war from spending public funds IN repairs G
} II; new bridge could only be built by hir
The report of Col, Albert, above referred /
T. tells tho full story of the insecurity and wort
az leSsness of the bridge and nqucduct
e. We hope that no continuance OF the M
sanCo win be allowed. The Rlddlohorger b
works full provision for purchase iIco fro
ID any entangling partnership OF interest with
;"' dCiunct corporation which will In the intu
~, work claim for tho purchase of tho aquedu
. department
7 paid under the act Of February 1881? Eight
e" live thousand dollars 10 the sum named TO !
''' paid for the purchase OF the bridge. IN
NJ. sum, under tho act, to BIO 'trcated sregard'
'7a as a purt of the general expenses OF the ID
IT, trict Of Columbia, and the United States shf
i be credited with the amount which IL may pi
0 under tho act for the erection OF said brld
0 upon Its 80 perccntum of the expenses OF u
District of Columbia 30, &c.
49, How and upon what tund Is this sum
X, $4,000 ifp0ld, to be crGdltcdP The reason
= BILE intention ol the act was that 1t shou
90. come from the expenses for the fiscal year lss
wv lhs3 The accounts that year between q
IA, United States and the District of Coluubi
SEQ also for ISS-'4, have boon settled and the II
W. nroprial!on acts for lsSl-'Sb In terms of pO
IT 1.-Two and detailed Cngctmcnts specify how u
oci entire sum appropriated shall be eXpcndc
III and the commissioners have presumably ma
81 their contracts for the current year with ref,
4, enOo to such appropriations
W II the appropriation OF tho 2S5, 900 hnd ha
~, unconditional no such difficulty would ha
9gc arisen. Whore, however, the appropriate
~ Is made by the act OF 1881, as pnIt OithG mon
55c' set aside iOr the District Of Columbia and Il
nc; subsequent act providing for the expenses
iiiu the year 1919 ignoring the act of ISL
~ specifically appropTiWes all the sum nccessa
tih for that period, II would seem that the seer
es, tary of the treasury would, on presentation
80 the deed, oven il approved by the attorn
% general. decline most promptly TO ma
~ the required payment, on the ground that
~ such sum rs appropriated by. the uct OF l.,
TO ruary, 1851, was n his disposal or available
az, the purchase OF the aIu0duct bridge.
~: Let the matter rest TIL congress can co
oc. DlCto the action began at its last session. NJ