New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-01-16
4 MENACE TO NEIV-IORh.
no BRIDGE PIER SHOULD BE ALLOW Ed
IN THE NORTH RIVER.
STRONG ARGUMENTS BEFORE TIE SECRETARY
OF WAR BY REPRESENTATIVE NEW-
YORK BUSINESS MEN


WASHINGTON Jan l5-Gusilv II. Schwab and ;.
ID. CoykendalI. Of IN. committee appointed for the
purpose by the Ncw-York Chamber Of Commerce.
and President T. s Atwood and =. T. Ronia'N''
Of the Maritime Association Of the Port 81 New
York. were heard this Afternoon by the secretary
Of War in opposition 10 the bill when r"''"'F
passed both houses Of Congress. authorizing the
construction OF pier bridge across the h"'S'"'
between New-York aud Jersey CRY
I'm openiug his argument Mr.. Schwab spoke o.
the lower Hudson a. not only serving he purposes
OF the vast local and Western river traffic. but as
furnishing the most magnificent harh"r ]" NV
world The building OF the bridge with us pi'IS'
he contendc,l. would very seriously int"ri'rr WIN
ocean steamship traffic. and especially wou'd 'l'7
be true in fogsy weather Another objection was
the inevitable formation Of shoals around N'
,butments which OF Itself would be- a very serious
matter Mr. Schwab did not wish 10 be- unier-
stood as obJec,ns 10 the building OF piI'7e ~
BRIDGES across the Hudson At New YORK. He
favored the construction Of such bridges. but he
would insist that they should b. constituted oi a
single span between the pierhoaI hHes on ''D''
S'SMJ r schwab Was followed by Mr. Coykeniali. Who
believed that the construction OF bridges win pr
would be- siandinS nenhce To- pre- ann s'a, I,1rrii3y
millions OF dollars iu deepening tn chahn'i ann
,r,i."iina the banks ~ tic upper Unison. ami now
!, ,y nr,pos,I io practically destroy an That h'i
bon accomplished. lie believed that thc cpn.trh.
would ADJ from - - ~ PER cent TO ~" cost or nan
liro M. immeuS. tonnage that passed lpNh We
Hudson every year. and Ould in eject threaten me
very supremacy of N-N-No CITY He l'"krl n
the President and Secret. - ~ War 20 protect THESE
interests. =.
President Atwood. Of the Ncw-York Maritime A
ISOLATION. said that b" "a noe at all opp"-"i ~ q
bridge across the Hudson but he was una'tcrahF
opposed 20 "a pier bridge. New-l ork b" ~ald. "wr
her Ircscn, greatness largely 10 her splendid harbof
and magnificent water aifrOa mes Last year NOR,
than half OF the 81 tre tom axe OF exports an
imports OF the Tu!.'l states passed through Ne"
e. r Romainc. Of th- Canal Commute" u he
Produce Exchange. sail that that hoit WIS h"i AZ
lie criticised many features Of the hN. holding.
as did the prccr ling speakers. that The propose
LEGISLATION NOT I'm TIE interests of ~" people
Representative Bartlett. o. Sew YORK. c'ni"id' !
that IN. bridge companies should not ask fpr greater
privileges at the hands of Congress than was al
New-York In $500. That charter dii not authoii<"
the construction ~ pier bridge Mr.. Bartlett
said that IL the opinion OF Jnany hlsh authnrl
ties on engineering that a on~-sphn bridg" across
the Hudson at the point selected was entirely feast
bic. lie regretted that Congress should annually
aufhoriz. the expenditure - millions OF dollars IN
removing Instructions from the rivers and harbors
In the United states ana then permit III" third
greatest harbOr in the world To be chOked up by
pier bridges. ~
YORK spoke against the bill. IL saii u was
singular fact thar representatives, OF bridge com
uauiDs com" l,.r ana insist that the" bridges
,,.r. IN In, lnf.tst ~ M. CONNIE rec 81 New York
and tn. entire country and yet h" representatives.
~ these shipping associations com" nor" AMI Wig
the very lie ~ tho commerce Of The state.
REPRESENTATIVE cummings, oi N"w-lork. also
made a brief but strong argument IN opposition a.
the bill.