The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-02-22
BROADWAY BRIDGE BALANCE
1T STIRS UP A LIVELY DEBATE IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRE-
SENTATIVEs
There Was Some Feeling Against 1t
Here, 1t Was Charged. and It's
JudiciOusness Was Impeached
by Its Opponents.

The attempt made by Mr.. Marin
Pop). of Polk, to have the vote re-
considered by which S. F. 179, by Mr..
Ives Oem.), of Ramsey. was passed on
Saturday last, failed.
The bill provided for the transfer. in
cities Of $4,000 inhabitants or more, of
bridge funds to bridge repair funds. It's
application was distinctively local, as
under the provisions the $4,000 now In
the St. Paul treasury to the credit of
the Broadway bridge fund is available
for repairs to other bridges.
1t is, of course, understood that IN
this as in all other laws applying to
st. Paul the consent Of Comptroller Nc
Cardy is necessary before the measure
will become operative.
Mr.. Marin asked that the vote by
which the bill was passed be recon
sidered. and in support of his motion
explained that at the time he gave no.
tice on Saturday it was for his own
protection, and owing to the apparent
division OF the Ramsey county delega-
ton on the measure. Since that time
he had been presented with petitions
signed by property owners of st. Paul
and he had also been interviewed by a
number of reputable citizens regarding
the bill. Those with whom he had
talked on the subject were of the opin-
ion that the bill was the first step to-
ward the abandonment of the project
to build the bridge which was started
in 1889, and for which the city had been
authorized to issue bonds to the
amount of $350,000.
1t might look as though he had in
terfered in the matter. but there had
been no opportunity afforded the MEM
bers of hearing an explanation of the
bill, either at the time 1t was on gen.
eral orders or at the time of it's pas
sage. Many who voted for the bill
wanted to hear the matter explained.
The citizens of st. Paul who had spo-
ken to him about the bill claimed that
the bonds were voted for q specific
purpose and the legislature had no
right to step in and divert the funds.
It was also claimed that this was the
first step toward abandoning the pro-
ject. which was not the desire of a
large number of property owners. He
asked for an explanation from some of
the members of the Ramsey county
delegation.
Mr. Dunn RepD, of Ramsey, said it
was purely a local measure and was
not a question of public policy for the
members from other parts of the state.
He demanded a call Of the house on
the motion. This was ordered, and all
but dozen of the members answered
10 their IdQleS.
Mr. Mcneil Rep.), of Douglas, who
had received a circular signed Lower
Town Taxpayers" protesting against
the passage of the BILL had the meas
ure read again.
Mr.. Schurman Rep), of Ramsey, was
of the opinion that the members out
side of the Ramsey, Hennepin and st.
Louis county delegations had no inter-
est in the bill and should not inter
fere. He explained the history of the
Broadway bridge and the fund. and
stated that, even if the bridge was to
be constructed in the near future, the
transfer OF the 1000 would not inter-
fere with this action. He was one of
the last men who thought the bridge
would not be necessary, and when the
time came and it was needed 1t would
be built. There was no scheme of j. J.
Hill behind the bill. and it was Simply
a matter Of local interest.
Mr.. Abbott Rep), of Faribau1t in
CURED If the Ramsey delegation was
united on the measure.
Mr.. Schurman replied that he did
not know as to this, but at the meeting
Of the delegation the bin was recon-
mended for passage
Mr.. Holm (Rep.), Of Ramsey, said he
had voted against the passage Of the
bill. The proposed structure was To-