The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-03-21


Wm. Muth. commissioner;
John Horsky, commissioner;
q. j. Iooker. dspntY clerk.
Session opened AZ 10 .. m
Minutes Of regular session Dec. "a ISIS
sud Of special ssssiona Jan. rs ana FEB. i
and 20. 1894. read. approved and signed,
According 20 section gl6. Complied stat
utes Of Montsns. the bonds Of county OFF,
GERS wee examined and approved.
TreasuTer's rerort Tor quarter ending
March ], 1894 received ana ordered nled.
Adjourned az T. M. till two p m.
Keassembisd at two p. m.
4 ssent same as forenoon.
Treasurer's report Of licenses collected
SIS 499. II examined. found correct and ap-
proved and ordered printed.
Tax receipts Nos. 3 30l 20 430O inclusive
of taxes collected du ina she quarter By
county treasurer examined, found correct
and approved.
Balance Of afternoon devoted so examina-
tion Of treasurer's report.
he following action was taken In joint
session with county commissioners OF
Teton county a. Gscat Falls. Mont. Feb.
2lst 1884.
GREAT Fans Mont. Feb. p. 1S9L
The board OF county commissioners OF
Lewis and Clarke county Hnd OF Iet0a
county met in joint session ~ Great Falls.
Mont, Feb. ~. 1874. according 30 resoll-
tions passed by the respective boards.
Session opened az 10 =. m. present Chss.
W
OF Teton county T.. Besch Nm Muth aud
John HorskY. commissioners OF Lewis aud
Clarke county, George X. Reeder. consult
ing engineer. Upon motion duly recorded
M Beach was elected chairman.
TIE joint board Immediately entered
Into the consideration OF letting contract
for building bridge across the Moth Fork
OF Sun river and carefully considered all
bids and specifications submitted.
P.sns aud specifications of q. r.. Peppard
upon examination we're rejected for the fol-
lowing essOns:
First-By reason OF trussss being too
high for width Of roadway.
second-By reason of insufficient metal
90 withstand the calculated strain.
Plan No. 3 Of the Mrou9ht Iron Bidee
company was rejected for the same reason
as above.
The Wisconsin Bridge company submit
tei q Baltimore truss. but taking into CON
sideration shat ths proposed bridge IL 60 be ia
an exposed situation and thata truss of this
form does not afford an effective braclng
against wind pressure, Il was deemed best
to suspend judgment upon truases of this
form IN the hope that some other proposed
rlau might AFFORD better aciug against
VIM.
Massslon Bridge &c. s plan No. rejected
for reason % being too high. Plan No. y
rejected By reason OF insuihci3nt specifca-
Nous.
Plan Of the Milwaukee Bridge d Iron Co.
was rejected on account OF Specifications
being iucom plete.
Bid OF Gi!letts-He zog Manufacturing
company vas rejected on account Of speoi-
heations being incomplete.
Bid OF 5. Al. Hewitt a Co. was rejected
for Same reason as plan Of Wisconsin
Bridge eOmgany.
Bid OF n. :. Parker was rciacted for the
same reason hs above.
Bid Of Hugh l. Cooper was rejected for
a
Plans OF the Bullen Bridge company we're
rejected for sans reason as p.sn OF Wis
cousin Is idgo company, nnd alec on &C.
count o. metal not being OF sufficient d.
msusiou 20 Withstand strains
Adjourned a. one g.. %. till I.3J D.. m
keHss mbltd 40 1880 .. M; present ssms
IS forenoon.
lie bosr3 now considered two bids OF the
wrought Iron Br dye company, OF Canton.
Ohio. Ons fo- 50 800 for bridge OF I OO1
Ieuuds PEI line ? FOO. live load oaracitv.
ana one for 81 200 for a bridge Of 80
pounds yer linear foot live load capacity.
After cnreful confederation lt vas found
that the 900 bad contemp .a.ed bridge
OF net capacity Of 1000 Der lincaf foot
Ave load an that 5000 BIZ contemplated
bridge having 81 ength and caracIty in
excess 30 that spec ed "a the bid. This OK
ctssiys strength and material was con
Gidered moe than an offset for the differ
euce in price, and the bid OF $1,000 was
rejected.
Adjourned a. $50 p NJ. till eight ?. m.
heassemoled al eight 3. m. present came
rs afternoon.
Guar FAILS Mont. Feb. q. 1894
10 the honorable boards Of county COM
missione' Of i Wis and Clarke and Tston
counties, Montana.
Gentlemen: Ia the matter Of tbs various
bids for construction OF bridge across
North Fork Of sun rive nsar Augusta,
beeto return she following report. VI.
Ia general terms all plans submitted come
under two forms, the Pratt Iruss with
PARALLEL chords, and the Baltimore Truss
with upper chord arched. Az examination
Of these tYDes shows that ths Iratt truss
has vertical post ~ each panel Oexospt "a
end running through from TOP 90 bottom
chord; while IN the Baltimors truss thar.
is only half the number OF these rosts tbat
are through from top 20 bottom. tito ne.
mnind-r extending ouy half way from ton
90 bottom. he sway bracinq that extends
from one post - tie oppo6ite post OF other
truss 10 Therefore better distributed and
greater IN amount 10 the Pratt than in
the balti IoFs truss and for tuls reason
other thinss being equal ] would suggest
your bonorable boards adopt the Pratttype
o. tTuta -. r. Peppard subinits four
pans. ono PRATT ami "a zoo BiIthnor.
uusses. All plans arc too light in metal
ana Ia places vii not stand caicalst.d
strains. The Baltimore trussea afe thlrt.
az 90 forty iest high. width % ROADWAY
sixteen fes, Taey are too high in prot.or,
ton 20 width
Plan No. 3 - Wrought iron B,ilge com
PAW, % modified BALTIMORE truss haa sane
defects 10 above noted
Wisconsin Bridge company submittsI a
Baltimore truss Of COCA proportions suI
strength, but az before stated She typ- does
not make % stid bridge 18th frttt
Plan no. J. EGsssliu Bridge comraav. 4.
500 high for width OF Roadway
Pan No. Of same company has iusufl-
cieut specifications.
F.au ot Milwaukee Bridge cotannnv haa
incoml le,e spocihcatilas
Plan % Gillette lf-rx9r Manufncturiry
cen tuuy les iucDmll-ts spec lcAtiou..
liau ~ s. n. Hewitt a o.. d. a Baft-
more truss
Plan 90 81. 3. Parker. same truss and
plan ~ IT, J.. Cooper. same design ami
fauits from causes inherent Ia tue ds.irus
a. lefo stated.
Plan 81 BGlleu l.r dye cotnuanv's Bali.
mor- truss las insullri .nt metal 10 wltI-
stand CO culatcd strains
ian 80. z % wrought Iron Bt.des com
Thuy, Pratt truss ~ q good desigu rut
Nliis some posts are a little lQht have no
douht iLe compHug would modify siz.s as
rsqai %. 10 D. here we'll O. note th.t tins
company subfuita she most complete auec
icbtipns ni hny , oplsiti3u leo o. you.
ltuu No. J. Wrought irau I-idre com
phuy, ia Huulu tyLe as plan No. - Irt ID.
calculated 10 ga ~ "a ave load OF --I
pounds PER liuesr foot instead 81 IvtI
ouuds pcr linear foot 60 iu plan NJ D
. nis ls nu rHcsl.eut badge aud fuIIg v,rtt
500 mole shan p.nu no .. 100 Is ng