The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-04-25
MONTOPOLlS BRIDGE.
A Synopsis of the Contracts In the
Case,
And Evidence Tending to Show
Breech of the Same.

anxious to know whether the expenditure
of that much money has resulted in secur-
Ing such bridge as contemplated IN the
contract for its building. As furnishing
information of the present status of the
controversy over the bridge now being
waged in the county commissioners court,
the following extracts from the essential
features of the contract with the ompany
building the bridge and the archit cot super
vising its construction, may prove of in
terest. The contract was entered into with
the King Iron Bridge and Manufacturing
company July 3, 1888, and the bridge was
to have been finished by November 10,
1888, but the time was extended to April
l, of this year. The terms of the con-
tract were $4,000, payable 80 per cent
as the work progressed, and 90 per cent
upon final acceptance by the county com
missioners' court. After giving general
descIipt on of the bridge, its style, length,
etc, the contract says: "The bridge bed
shall be laid to plane five (5) feet above
the highest known flood level of the year
1869"
After a detailed statement of quality of
material and all other specifications under
the head of general" the second section
reads: GAN materials shall be of the
best quality, and all work shall be exc
cuted in thorough, substantial
and Porkmaulike manner in acl
cordance wi in the spec :6cations.
and the true intent and meaning of the
same, subiec to the iDsection and ap-
prevail of the county commissioners
court and their engineer and the in
structions, levels and measurements fur
nished by him." And under FINALLY"
the contract says: "The entire structur e
shall, with its material and workmanship,
be subject to the inspection of Engineer
John Andrewartha, and the acceptance
and approval of the honorable county
Judge and county commissioners court OF
Travis county"
The contract made by the county com
missioners' court with Mr.. John Andre
wartha to supervise the work OF coastruc-
ton, was made August IL, 1888, Andre
wartha being the party of the first part
and the county commissioners court the
party of the second part. The contract
reads as folio Es
"The said party of the first part, con-
tracts and agrees TO and with the party OF
the second Fart, to perform all the duties
required of him, already named and speci-
fed ia contract entered into between
Travis county and the King
Iron Bridge and Manufacturing
company, of the city of Cleveland, state
of Ohio, contractors. Said contract bears
date Sd day of July, 1888, and its speci-
fications and conditions, as referred to
herein and made part of this agreement
and contract, and states substantially and
conditions as follows, viz.
'"That the party of the first part hereto
, shall see and require the county bridge,
over the Colorado river at MoDtopolis
ford, to have the proper depths and foun-
dations to be named by him, and subject
to his inspection and approval as engineer
to the county commissioners court of
Travis county, and all instructions, levels
and measurements, to be furnished by
him, as required by the work, and all ma
terial shall be subject to test, inspection
and rejection by him during the progress
of construction and the entire bridge
structure shall, with its material and
workmanship, be subject to his final in
spection as engineer, and the acceptance
of and approval of the honorable county
10 lge and county commissioners court oil
Travis county, and so required by said con
tract with the King Iron Bridge and Manu-
featuring company, contractors for said
county bridge" The balance of the con-
tract is a stipulation of reward for his
services, using the language upon the
fiual inspection and acceptance of the
completed bridge and its approaches
in accordance with the terms, contracts
uuit ha
Bridge Manufacturing company" And
again, "upon final acceptance and open
ing of the entire bridge and its ap,
proaches for use and travel by the county
of Travis, to the entire satisfaction and
approval by the honorable county judge
and county commissioners court, its legal
representatives, and the inspection OF
their appointed engineer, the said
party of the first part, as herein con
ditloned and set forth, and as condi-
toned and set forth in said contract
made with the King Iron Bridge and Man
ufacturing company, dated July 3, 1885,"
Mr.. Andrewartha has made several writ
ten statements to the county commits
sioners' court, his last being made this
week and consisting of voluminous
document. In it he oombats at great
length the strong bjection made to the
reception of the bridge, because it is al
legged to be In violation of the contract in
that 1t is below the high water mark of
1869. Mr.. Andrewartha contends there
have been climatic changes in the last
twenty years, that there are differences IN
the banks of the river at various places,
that the rainfall is more distributed now
than then because of population and civ
ilizing influences, that there are not SO
many trees and forests to impede the flow
of water and catch driftwood etc.
He says the landmarks of 1869
are going and gone, and it is difficult to
establish the true level of the flood of 1869.
He aflirms that the rain fall of 1869 would
not reach the level of the bridge by or
II feet, and that there was no necessity
for increasing the height of the bridge
three feet during its construction and
above the limit before then fixed by him
for it, as was done. He pronounces the
bridge magnificent product, and earn
estly contends for its reception by the
county commissioners court.
ME-. ]. F. POPE.
The engineer, Mr.. j. f. Pope, wss or
dered by the county commissioners court
to make an examination of the bridge and
report on it's height. He has done so and
his written report comes to this conclu-
sion:
81 find that in a flood similar to that of
1869, the water will rise above the floor of