The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1891-03-14
WEEKLY TRIBUNE,
ABOUT THE

VI ~
: wagon bridge from the Townsite
npany and the letting of the con-
lct for the construction of a bridge
tween Cascade and st. Clair. The
hple fact that the Townsite COM
by was a party to the first PROPOSE
/, named was enough in itself to
Ing forth the senseless TRADES in
last two issues Of that paper and
!. NJ warrant its falsehoods and perver-
sion of facts.
The TRIBUNE has taken the paths to
N kstigate thoroughly the facts con-
I led with the purchase Of the bridge
the awarding Of the contract for
Cascade bridge, and we are fully
cahvinced that in each instance the
3aard has acted honorably, properly,
in the interest of the people they
i've.
AS to the insinuations of the Leader
That any member of the board of COM
m~issioners accepted a bride, there is
no. answer to be made. The charge
y only by %indirection, and the fact
that it is made by H. p. Rolfe rem
ders it unworthy of serious consider
alton. The names of S. S. Haw-
kins, Charles Wegner, and Samuel
Dickey are proof against his attacks
in the estimation of the citizens Of
Cascade county.
Ii regard to the purchase of the
bridge from the TOWNSHIP company
itmay be well, once for all, to review
tXs facts in the case, promising with
tie statement, on the authority of
thcse interested, that no attempt was
made by the commissioners or Town
site officials to influence the bids to
~ offered by the bridge company
representatives. On this point, las
Mdl as any other, the statement of
the commissioners will be generally
accepted in preference to that of H.
r. Rolfe.
All other things being equal, we
believe the commissioners should
hsye given the preference to the
TowEsite company, that is, should buy
the present bridge rather than build
q new one beside it. To do otherwise
would be to practically destroy $45,-
coo worth of property. Besides it
should not be forgotten that the COM
pany built this splendid structure
when the town was in its infancy,
aud that it has proved of material
benefit to Great Falls and all the
tributary country to the west Of us.
The company came to the rescue
when the county was too young to
bridge the Missouri river, and their
action in this regard is worthy of
some consideration.
But things were not equal. The
proposition of the Townsite company
was the best made, and in accepting
it The board did the Lest possible
thing for the county. In the first
place, they have secured one of the
best and most substantial bridges in
the western country. The massive
piers and the iron superstructure can
not be excelled anywhere. It is a
bridge that will last for a century,
and there is no assurance that a new
a would be its equal. The bids for
the proposed new bridge varied from
$51,500 to $43,375, the lowest being
$1,000 less than $4,000, the sum
asked by the TOWNSHIP company for
tAeir bridge. But in this connection
it must be rendered that the COM
pany give right of way to the bridge
on both sides, to secure which, if a
new bridge We're built, would cost
several thousand dollars. and would
probably be obtained only at the end
of a tedious lawsuit. When, about
q year ago, the commissioners re-
duced the rates of toll on the bridge,
they entered into an agreement with
the company by which the latter were
guaranteed II per cent a year on the
bridge investment, the county to make
good any sun lacking from the re,
sept of tolls. This was done to keep
Me bridge (which was private prop,
srty) open to the public, and the sum
due is in the neighborhood of $4,000
One of the conditions of the purchase
Of the bridge was that this claim
should be surrendered, a clear gain of
more than the difference between the