The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-05-09
SPECIoUS PLEADING OF THE BRIDGE
COMPANY.


We print this morning a communica-
ton from the agent of the King Bridge
company, which built the new county
bridge at Montopolis ford. The article
claims this company has been by us IN
justly treated, in that, though it has In its
work to the letter obeyed the instructions
of the county's engineer, we advise that
the bridge be now not received, We must
continue to believe the bridge company
is leaning upon very slender reed if it
stakes its case alone upon its compliance
with Mr.. Andrewartha's instructions, the
supervising engineer. For he, like it, was
working under contract that both were
obliged to respect, and that neither had
any authority to change. The article ad-.
mits the contract demands "the bed of the
bridge shall be five feet above the
highest known flood level of 1862" As
for our part we will admit, as asserted in
the article, shat the bridge shall be built
according to levels, measurements and
directions furnished by John Andrewar-
tina" What then! Suppose it shall be
proven the bridge is non constructed
strictly in conformity with "the levels,
measurements and directions furnished by
John Andrewartha," will this excuse the
bridge company if it is also found that that
part of the contract has not been com
Piled with, which says "the bed of the
bridge shall be five feet above the highest
known flood level of 1862? This contract
was one and an indivisible instrument, and
compliance with one part of it will not
excuse breach of another and the most
essential requirement in it. That the
bridge oompany's agent, however,
makes this error in reasoning, is
apparent, when, in discussing the conflict
of authority he claims exists as to the
actual level of the flood of 1869, he says
"Be this as it may, it is conceded by all
that the King Bridge company built the
bridge strictly according to the levels and
measurements furnished by Mr.. An
drewartha, and under his directions" This,
if it means anything, means that the
bridge company has regarded Mr..
Andrewartha's say 80 as of higher authority
than the contract it was under bond to
obey.
But there is further question in this
matter. By the extract quoted from the
contract it is seen the bridge company
knew as we'll as Mr.. Andrewartha how high
the county demanded the bridge should
be. Now, did this company blindly rest
its reputation, and the large amount of
money it was placing in the work, upon
the improved heights and levels furp ished
it by Mr.. Andrewarths? 1t was by the
contract put upon notice that the
bridge should be such and such
height; what steps did it take to prove
to its own satisfaction and for its own
security that the height established by
Mr.. Andrewartha was the true and exact
height required? Is not the burden of
proof in this matter thrown upon Il 9
bridge company to show that in accepting
the levels of Mr.. Andrewatha it did so in
the utmost good faith and after all ress-
enable precautions had been taken to see
that his measurements were accurate in
every particular? If the company did
not so act, is it not now too late to come
in and plead reliance upon Mr.. Andre
wartha as an excuse for its failure to
comply with its contract? By its own ad
mission it seems there was a conflict of
authority between Mr.. Andrewartha and
at least one of the county commissioners
before the company began to place the
floor of the bridge upon the piers; and
that as result of this conflict
and the conference that ensued,
three feet we're added to the
height of the piers. If the bridge
company relied so implicitly upon Mr..
why did it not at that time object to such
a change in the height of the piers as
certainly cost it considerable money ?
And, is it not a fact that at this time, in
spite of the three additional feet men
toned, the piers are an average of
eighteen feet shorter than required in the
original plans and specifications upon
which bids for the construction of the
bridge we're made?Can the bridge con-
pany explain why those eighteen feet were
cut off And again, has not the county
commissioners court, the tribunal APP
pointed in the contract to finally receive
the bridge, by direct vote decided to re-
jest the report of Engineer Andrewartha,
upon whose Judgment the bridge COM
psny seems to SO implicitly rely9 In view