The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-01-16
Absolutely Pure.

above the site OF the proposed new bridge. he
pre- mits s" MouId Se uImStev tsEsn M in
pier accomm odations. as well rs that on the
Jersey aide; and even now plans are being put
ssesSssSlps' M. scSwab thought, should be
viii F.d ,Si1 the iSi width the ryeh TRe
buadps o. t5e bridge With It's Ps, ne c %pb
oeesS .,ss%ship te Sna woua
ton Was The insyitaSic iorpatio9 % shosls,
around the abutments, which OF Itself would
MT. schwab did not wish to be understood as
SsIcss e.. e h fss q
trary. IN common with all citizens OF New York
S ridrts bSs he would insist ' that they should
pier bead lines on either side q the river: thus
a bridge. he believed. could be constructed at
jectoFs Of the present scheme to the contrary
Notwithstanding. Mr. schwab suggested that
a single span bridge from engineers Of stand.
construetion, from which true conclusion,s as
Mr.. sehwaP was followed by Mr.. coykendsll.
with piers would be standing @enacs to lie
and property. would add from 70 to 90 per
70 ase pes n Re
son every year. and would In effect, threaten
the very supremacy OF the grain trade OF New
President Atwood OF the New York Maritime
Association said that he was not at all opposed
alterably opposed to pier bridge New York.
he said. owes her present greatness largely to
neproecSss Last Year more than oeehSi OF
the entire tonnage Of exports and imports
Of the United States passed through New York;
The Maritime Association. he said. Is composed
OF men who handle nearly all OF this immense
traffic. and It was their opinion that the con-
would be a very serious obstruction to the
commerce not only Of New YORK but OF tho
said. would practically narrow the, river to
necessity involve great loss OF life and prop
4. +. Romano OF the Canal Committee OF the
Produce Exchange criticised many features OF
ers. that il was not in the interests Of the peo-
pie. In any event he thought that bonds
sh9nid be required OF posn 4 fbav
may have caused to navigation In case OF fall
ure to complete the work;
tended that the bridge companies should not
ask for greater privileges ut the hands OF Con-
Granted dA by VI" the state Of New York in $50.
That charter did not authorize the eonstrue.
was was the opinion Of many high authorities on n
eng !neering that one-span bridge across the
Hudson at the point selected was entirely
feasible. IL was not only so from q mechanical
He contended that Il the bill were, once signed
two pier bridges would undonbtsily be built.
York also spoke against the bill
Representative Cummings OF New York also
made brief but strong argument in opposi-
Phil Thorn pson, Jr.. Of Washington was the
FIRST speaker in behalf Of the bill. lie said that
the bill had authorized tho construction OF two
bridges, with the stipulation that no pier be
L was left to the discretion Of the Secretary OF
War whether this space might not be In
creased so as to make them practically single:
as we'll IS mechanical impossibility to con-
the points designated.
Judge Green said that during the discussion
he had heard much OF the great interests o
the ocean steamship companies and foreign
commerce. which. y was said. were involved in
ever, had apparentiy lost sight Of the
great domestic interests inyolved-interests
that would be served by tho construction
that the proposed piers would result In any
obstruction to the river traffic. On the con-
trary he believed that the river itself had been
OF the country because OF the lack of facilities
for crossing 1t. He believed that every In:
terest OF the people had been fully protected
construction Of the bridge were many times as
great as those that would be secured by non
MT Ieponald. the chief engineer of the New
Jersey Bridge Company. was the last speaker.
He gave IL as his professional opinion that q
bridge instructed OF the best material known
to science could not support its own weight
his opinion that singls-span bridge across
the Hudson at the points given 10 practical
imDossibility.