The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-12-19

town, which last mentioned bridge when
completed TO be received by the town as
a public bridge; said Insurance Company
giving satisfactory security TO the town
for the building and erection OF both said
bridges and for the due maintenance
and repair OF said eighteen-foot bridge
forever"
In consideration OF these privileges
granted to the Washington insurance Com
pany, that company built said bridges
on the site of what Is now the Burnside
bridge and along Washington Row, in
front of their building. The bridge ac-
cross the Providence river was pre-
sented to the town, and the town has
since maintained that bridge and others
upon the same location.
When the Weybosset Land Company
and occupants OF the Washington build
ing petitioned 10 have the Row o, cned
again last fall, the matter was thoroughly
and carefully considered by the COM
mittee and to the occupants they made
reply that the land company as landlord
should take care of them, as the City
Council could do nothing until the land
company carried out its agreement.
The land company wanted an authori-
tative opinion from the Supreme Court
at first and then offered to pay the city
$4,000 in full settlement OF all differences,
but the city wanted s15, 0)0; so the petit
tioners offered $4,000, but that would
not suffice.
The committee on city engineers de-
partment went further with their sugges-
tions for a remedy and concluded that IL
the petitioners wished to properly repair
the bridge and put 1t in safe and conven-
lent condition for travellers with their
teams. carts and carriages, and continued
to maintain IT., the fences would oe re-
moved; otherwise IL SCENE des.ra BILE TO
build a new bridge and that would cost
SO much as TO make il disadvantage to
the city to make bridge Unless the City
Council release all claims of titles to the
land ana build q substantial bridge upon
the Washington Row site and to maintain
II upon the payment by the land COM
pany Of $4,000 as contribution OF a
fraction OF the actual cost TO the city.
Or, il the land company preferred to
build a suitable wall for the support OF
their buildings, rather than pay me s15,-
900. that would be acceptable.
or course the Weybosset Land Company
had counter objections and explanations
TO all this. They claimed that the con-
sideration OF their relation TO the city in
respect to the bridge and way was forced
upon them. They had made all reason
able propositions but they had been de-
clined. They also had their counsel look
into the matter and be interpreted the
situation differently and they finally said
II
made they would feel obliged in self pro-
lection to give notice that they must hold
the city liable Tor any loss and damage
they sustained by the way being closed.
Previously, too, they had claimed that
the matter OF repairing the bridge would
amount 10 only about $780,
The matter was finally adjusted by the
Wey Land Company agreeing TO
build it's own wall for its new building,
when IL gets ready, and to pay the city
$4,000, giving the city the right TO sup
port the bridge as ii saw fit. This is con-
sidered an excellent bargain whereby the
city saves geat deal more than the $4,000
it conceded to the land company, for IN
the city had to build the wall ii would
cost nearly $50, 900. AS II is Everybody Is
satisfied.
1.-The contractors, who are under bonds
for five years, opened the new bridge,
the city authorities not wishing TO take
the responsibility so soon.