Pike County press. (Milford, Pa.) 1895-1925, 1897-06-04
sUsHKILL BRIDGE LETTING.
Joint Meeting of the boards and the
Contract Award ed.

Contract Award ed.
The adjourned meeting to further
consider the plans and accept a bid
for building the Bushkill bridge and
stone work was held at Stroudsburg
Thursday May 81. Monroe county
was represented by her three com
missioners B. F. Miller, Jacob Hart
man and Samuel Reinhart and their
clerk Henry Huffmrn, Pike by Wal
lace Newman, James Heller and j.
M. Bensley and Clerk G. A. Swepen-
izer. The plans and prices were the
same as offered at the previous
meeting in Pike.
For the two first ballots Hartman,
Miller and Bensley voted for plan G
of the Groton Company, price 81, ,7S3.
This bridge is 80 feet long with a
16 feet roadway and a 8 feet truss.
The specifications call for SO feet be-
tween the abutments hence thi S
bridge would go nicely between
them to the bel of the creek. New =
man, Heller and Reinhart voted for
plan D 1 of the Pittsburg Company
So feet long, 1S feet roadway and 16
feet trusses. This bridge would
rest on theabutments on either side,
foot 6 inches, and while not so
close a fit would look far handsomer
and be of infinitely more service
than one 80 feet long which would
just nicely drop between
On the third ballot Bensley
changed his vote to plan A. Groton
Company, so feet long, price 81, $50,
and on the fourth ballot Hartman
and Miller also voted for Groton
plan A, and the balloting re-
manned the same until the 23rd
which was taken Saturday morning
when Hartman and Miller voted for
plan B Groton Company, price ST.
$50 which was a very light bridge
and wholly unsuitable for the loca-
ton. Bensley voted for plan A price
81, $50 Groton Company of course.
On the 25th and last ballot Hart
man voted with Newman, Heller
and Reinhart for Pittsburg bridge
plan d 1 for 81, ,687 while Miller and
Bensley remained true to their an
eient love the Groton at 81, $50.
After the 22nd ballot Friday after
noon a motion was made by Miller
to adjourn to meet at some future
time. This was seconded by Bens-
ley, but Hartman voted no, with
Reinhart, Newman and Heller, SC
the adjournment fell through.
Miller and Bensley thereupon left
the meeting, and it became neces-
sary to adjourn until evening but at
that meeting no ballots we're taken
and the next meeting took place
Saturday morning.
The Pittsburg Bridge Co. agreed in
order to do away with some obiec
tions as to a high truss, to furnish
heavier bridge for which the pri ce is
$1,SS3, and to put it up for the same
as the one offered for 81, 1,6S7. II
other words they give bridge, the
price of which is $l96 more than the
one specified in the plan.
The mason work was then con
tracted to Palmer and Hartman fol
SO. A per cubic yard. A rough es
innate places the cost of this as be
tween $500 and $500.
Comment on the above is un nee
essary. The reader can readily dis
cern the trend of the balloting, ant
: it remains for Messrs. Miller anC
, Bensley if they clre to do so, an(
, know the motives which actuateC
them, to explain why they persist
entity, with one exception on th'
part of Miller, voted for a highe
priced bridge too short for the place,
, and with only a 16 feet roadway
when the specifications called for al
IS feet bridge with an 1S feet road
) way. The people of the two coun
ties will not be slow is assigning
reason for their action however
: which may or may not be correct.