The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-26
TWO FOOL VH70ES.
The Freeholders Blocked By
B%ruggemann's Penny-Wis
Notions.

! in the hands of the Freeholders yesterday TO
dispose of, but the board failed to attend to
it. The members simply met and adjourned
to meet again next Tuesday,
Before the meeting was called to order the
member had a long secret conference in the
committee room. This pow-wow lasted two
hours, and the principal subjects OF discus
sion were the vetoes of Director Brugge-
man of the single span bridge over the
Pennsylvania cut and the double track of
the Consolidated Traction Company over
! the Hackensack Bridge at the foot OF New
ark avenue, Under the law the vetoes OF
| the Director killed each plan. The only way
in which the Freeholders can again bring
these proposed improvements before tne
board IS by beginning anew as il the propo-
sition had never been entertained before by
the Director. That the Director vetoed
these two resolutions was a great
surprise to most of the members,
and had they known as much
abous the law concerning yetoes as tney
now know, the resolutions would have been
adopted, Notwithstanding the Directors
vetoes. These members supposed that this
could be done at a subsequent meeting, but
under the law it was compulsory to act on
their vetoes at the meeting when they were
presented or not all. 1t was this lack or
knowledge tha killed the two excellent
propositions for public improvements. The
necessary votes could have been had at that
meeting, for the resolutions had been adopt
ed by a very large majority vote. tn long
discussion Yesterday, it was said, was for
purpose of showing the Director the ''errors
of his ways and to convince him OF the adj
visibility of the propositions.
THE DOUBLE TRACK.
In regard to the double track across the
new iron bridge, it was shown conclusively
that two tracks would not interfere with
travel any more than one track would on the
bridge. Vehicles passing over the bridge
would simply have to follow the track to the
right and no trouble TO wagons could result.
If a motor was behind a wagon, it would be
compelled to remain in that position until
the wagon had crossed the bridge. Col
lisions, if this rule was followed, could not
take place and the only party who would be
ANNOYED or DELAYED would be the Traction
company. But a stronger argument than
this was used in favor of a double track.
The company is willing to contract that it
will properly sheathe the bridge under tho
tracks. If but one track across the bridge is
permitted, only one-half of the bridge will
be sheathed. This will make one-haH of the
roadway at least two inches higher than the
other half, and the bridge will present an
u~ngainly appearance. TIL company will
have to keep its side in repair, and the
county, Will Idft W NO lhC"loO fflUL LIS "
ton. The result will be that the road bed of
the bridge will never be in repair.
On the other hand, if the company should
be permitted to lay a double track, it would
contract to keep the entire roadway sheathcd
and in good order. This in itself would save
the county a very large sum annually, for
the travel across this bridge is very heavy.
trucks being the principal vehicles that
cross it.
Freebooter Ellis, who has been engaged in
bu~ildingroads and bridges for many years
and is considered one of the best posted men
the business in this State, said to me one day
this week that if the Traction Company
would properly sheathe the railway over a
proper quantity of asphalt OF other equally
good material the flooring that has been
leased by the county would last from twelve
to fifteen years without requiring the slight
est repair. If this is true the county would
certainly gain a good deal by granting the
Traction Company a double track.
THAT SINGLE SPAN.
In regard to the erection of a single span
bridge, it would seem that if figures speak
the truth the veto of the Director was of the
sort known as penny wise, and pound fool
ish.n Chief Engineer Harrison's estimate of
the cost of a single span bridge was $780,
991 so. For a single span bridge it was SAL
120, a difference of $9,S71.50. But in favor
of the single span bridge is the cost of the
which the piers would be built, which would
nave to be paid to the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company, and the offer of sixteen lots
by the company free of cost. These lots
average not less than $500 each in value, or
a total of $4,000. When these values are
considered, and the cost of a litigation with
the company that might last four
or five years is estimated, a lti-
cation that would undoubtedly
cost the County thousands of dollars, the
single span bridge seems to be decidedly
cheaper in actual cash. But when added to
all these arguments in favor of the immedi-
ate construction of a single span bridge, the
annoyance that the taxpayers who have ap-
receive from a delay of years in completing
the Boulevard because of litigation, there
seems to be no argument at all in favor of
the veto of Director Brnggemann.
These facts were all talked over yesterday
but no decision was reached. 1t was be-
cause of the inability to arrive at any con-
clusion that no meeting was held yesterday.