Amador ledger., 1902-01-24
THE BRIDGE QUESTION.

Our Sutter Greek cotemporary
is indulging in mere quibbling at the
action of the board of supervisors.
1t blames that body for not building
new bridge in Sutter Creek, and
also for ordering a new bridge at
Jackson, thereby ;atimating that
the first named proposition by
virtue of its higher Importance
was entitled to precedence.
Our cotemporary seems to be so
absorbed over the Incorporation is
sue that it cannot or will not look at
things in the right light. A pro-
fessedly republican paper it seems
to be lending itself to the democracy
in uncalled-for and wholly unjusti-
liable attacks upon the supervisors.
There is not the least danger of fair
minded men being influenced by such
filings, other than to condemn them
as unwarranted. Our cotemporary
says:
"Sutter Greek isn't able to get
even decent bridge on her Main
street, over which there is 25 times
as much travel as there will be over
the new bridge to be built at Jack
son."
That statement of facts may be
true, but it is none the less dishonest
in the inference which it carries.
Sutter Greek has just as good a
bridge to-day as can be found in the
county. 1t will compare favorably
with any bridge at the county seat.
1t is not worn out. It will stand the
traffic of many years of active SER
vice yet. The only reason urged for
a new bridge is that it is not wide
enough for two teams to pass each
other. The same may be said with
equal truth of every bridge within
the county. No one will deny that
wider bridge would be much better
than the present one. No one will
dispute that there is no place in the
county where wider bridge is more
desirable than at Sutter Creek. But
1t is an open question whether the
board of supervisors would be iusti-
fed in destroying good serviceable
bridge at this point and mourning
the heavy expense of erecting
wider one, before providing bridges
at other desirable points in the
county. We do not claim that the
new bridge at Jackson is an urgent
need, but we do think that under the
circumstances it ought to take pre-
cedence of the widening of sound
bridges at any other point in the
county. AS a matter of fact the
supervisors were anxious to meet
the wishes of Sutter Creek on the
question, and had actually called for
plans and specifications for a larger
bridge at Sutter Creek, and the re-
moval of the old structure to Jack
son, thereby endeavoring to satisfy
the demands of all. But Sutter
Creek took the matter out of the
hands of the supervisors by present
ing the petition for incorporation.
Incorporation would take Sutter
Greek out of the jurisdiction of the
supervisors as regards roads and
bridges. Would it be Just to the
taxpayers of the county for the
supervisors to proceed with the con-
struction of the bridge while that
issue remains undecided? Is it right
that all the taxpayers should con-
tribute toward an expensive bridge,
to replace perfectly safe structure,
at moment when the town was
taking steps to withdraw its taxable
property from contributing to the
road and bridge funds of the county?
Would such official action be likely
to command public approval? Yet
that is just what our cotemporary is
contending for. 1t is in order for
Sutter Creek to settle the little mat
ter of incorporation before carping
at the supervisors for neglecting the
interests of that enterprising town.