New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-06-20
OPPOSE BRIDGE PLANS.
Tammany Men Shoe Hostility to
LindenthaPs DrazCingS.

Following the policy already laid down for
them Tanmanys trained aldermen in the Finance
Committee of the Board Of Aldermen yesterday
continued their efforts delay the building of the
Manhattan Bridge
Bridge Commissioner Lindenthal appeared before
the committee to explain his application for $3.50
for the construction Of the bridge. He said the
money was needed for the payment of the expenses
OF construction under all three contracts The
bridge would cost about $15oo0,000 and should not
take over four years TO build.
Commissioner Lindenthar subjected to a long
interrogation by Chairman Mccall regarding the
drawing of plans for the bridge. Mr.. Lindenthal
said he had in his department competent TO
draw plans for such a bridge. and therefore had
employed a qualified architect. Mr. Mccall seemed
get the impression that the Municipal Art Com
mission employed this architect and practically
prepared the plans which caused Mr. Lindenthal to
say m Chairman Mccall: The Art Commission
has made no plans for made the plans for
il 70 approve. Of, which is required by the char
ter"
Alderman Doun. although not member Of the
committee was allowed ask If the American
Bridge Company did not have monopoly by con-
troll Of patents for the eye bar chains to be used
for suspension work the bridge
Commissioner Lindenthal said it had no monop-
olv and that there were patents on the eye bar
chains.
Alderman Doull also wanted to know why the
original plans had been rejected. Mr.. Linoenthal
said it was apparent that he was confronted by a
hostile feeling among "a 'iAS
Il am the responsible Commissioner OF Bridges
said MI Iindenthal, and I rejected the plans as
an engineer when I found they did not suit me.
Those plans were not rejected by ne alone, but
bv a commission OF engineers appointed by the
Mayor
G. c Henning, who objected to the aPpropr1a-
ton saving it was not needed at present. aroused
the anger of MI Lndenthal by trying TO start an
engineering discussion. Mr.. Hennlng condemned
the bridge plans whereupon Mr. Lndenthal asked
him if he ever saw the plans. Mr. Henning SAID
he had. when they were public exhibition Com
missioner Iindenthal said those plans were only
the architectural plans and not the eheLleei4Ie
Are Won an engineer?' asked Mr.. Lindenthal.
Il am a consulting engineer" replied MI. Hen
asn5 Won didn't know those were architectural
plans?' said Mr.. LindenthaL ~ ,
wen if that is So then sit down. snapped the
Bridge Commissioner, looking angruy al Mr- Ken
NJ F4enniug continued TO speak in objection to
e,rantfng the money on the further ground that a
s T5niscaton could be made in the plans that
would greatly lessen the cost he 'a4so P'O'oS'eN
against the use of eye bars.
- = Nichols. engineer in charge OF the coIlstIuc-
ton Of the Williamsburg Bridge, also oojected 70
eve bars declaring they would not be as sIrons OF
67-abIa as wire cables, would cost more ana take
more time in construction: - ~,. LTD
EitrbeII I, Granger. Of No. 4S Cedar-sI, SAD
MANY property owners opposed granting me MONEY
ard Richard S. Buck and Foster Cro"eli' etlsi-
Teers spoke against eye bar cables