Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-25
The Memorial Bridge.

Of course the Senate Will reconsider the
vote by which the bill providing for
memorial bridge was passed yesterday
with a proviso stipula ting that the District
should psy one-half of the cost of con-
slruction. Senator Blanchard has wholly
erroneous idea of the financial relations o.
the government to the District and he
should be Immediately convinced OF his
misco2ception. That, however, is another
matter. The memorial bridge project has
within it certain peculiar characteristics
making it worthy of special study in the
line of determining the question as TO
whether or not it's cost should all be borne
by the nation So far as the proposed
structure is memorial, a national monu-
nlent to the heroes of the late war, and so
far as the expense of its construction Is
increased by the BRIDGES memorial char
&C ter. to that extent at the very outset
the nation should bear the entire cost.
The people of the District except as ma
tional taxpayers, were not charged with
any part of the cost of erecting the Wash
inston monument. and they should now be
exempt from any special and additional
Lurdcn in building the memorial features
of bridge designed to commemorate the
deeds Of the heroes of the republic. But in
addition to its memorial characteristics
seat Of government and the great military
reservation the other side of the river.
This military feature IS in reality the main
cause of the general approval given to the
project by successive Secretaries of War,
and was urged in debate yesterday by MIR.
Daniel with force and reason. He further
called attention to the fact that this bridge
would greatly enhance the value of the
government property in Virginia and would
represent material accretion of interest
in case the nation should ever sell its hold
ing. Again the burden comes squarely
upon the government. and 1t is only when
the bridge is viewed as a mere public con-
venience, which, as pointed out, is the least
consideration urged in its behalf that there
is any possibility of establishing the
shadow of q right to force the District 20
pay a share of the cost. Then appears a
Few element in the case; the state of Viz
GINA is to be benefited more than the Dis
trict of Columbia. This state Is quite as
much a party to the enterprise the Dis
tTict and if the whole cost is not to be
borne by the government the state should
share with the District the rest of the
burden
y Bridge of this character would be
patronized from this side more largely BY
tourists than by District people. Thus the
benefits accrung to the city are still fur
Their diminished. On the other hand the
traffic from Virginia would be largely if
not wholly commercial. so that just divi-
sen of the expense would place a still
greater share on the state than on the Dis
trict- There is no disposition to hide the
fact that Washington needs a fine new
bridge across the Potomac. There is not
a handsome structure spanning either of
the rivers, and those across the Potomac
at II g city are disgraces. But the proposed
memorial bridge is not a municipal struc-
ture and If it should be authorized on the
present lines of purpose, plan, architecture
ard probable expense in the name of equity
divide between the District and the bene-
ficiaries in Virginia only the small residue
OF cost which remains after the nation has
assumed the expense of the national fea-
lures which have been indicated. And in
asmuch as Virginia may not be assessed
by Congress to meet her equitable if small,
share Of the expense, 1t is submitted that
II would be wise to treat the memorial
bridge as an exclusively national structure
and to put the District upon the same foot
ing Virginia.