The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-03-26
Now in Courts Hands
The Final Hearing in Bridge
Matter Held Saturday.
Taxpayers File Petition.


Of The crossing at the Mifflinville |
bridge was held Saturday. There |
was an unexpected move made |
when Fred Ikeler appeared before
the Court and filed the following
petition:
And now March 2G, 1908, 7. J.
Vanderslice and Ikeler & Ikeler,
attorneys for certain citizens and
taxpayers of Columbia County, in
terested in the construction of the
Mifflinville river bridge, respectful
ly move the Court to be permitted
to intervene in said proceedings and
to stay any further action upon the
petition and answer filed, and to
dismiss all proceedings heretofore
and thereon tor the following reas-
ons:
First-That the Act of June 7,
1901, under which the original
petition in this case was brought
does not apply to the crossing of
the highway in question with the
tracks of the Pennsylvania Rail
road at the u.hern end of the
county bridge over the Susque-
hanna river at the village of Mifflin-
vile.
econd;-That the crossing under
consideration in these proceedings
is not a new crossing, about to be
established.
Third: That the Court is with
out jurisdiction of the subject.
Fourth;-That if said proceed
ings are further continued in, great
and useless expense may fall upon
the citizens and taxpayers of said
county, both in said proceedings
and in any alterations that may be
ordered in the erection Of the said
bridge.
Mr.. Robson, for the commission
ers, objected to the proceedings
most strenuously, although his pur-
pose in doing so was not apparent,
as the end desised by the citizens
and taxpayers was practically the
same as that for which the commis-
sioners are holding out Mr.. Rob
!, ison stated that the commissioners
were ever willing to receive sug
: gestions from tax payers, no matter
in what part Of the county they
: reside, but they don't propose tt
, be dictated to. The position taker
= by him caused some surprise.
! Counsel for the Railroad Com
g pany, as might be expected. OBJ
+ jected to the proceedings too.
d The main point that the Railroa,
/ Company wished to show was tha
1t the proposed change from a grad
to an overhead crossing would nc
e affect the stability Of the bridge
II In support of this contention the
called first Oscar Thompson, con
e sulting engineer. In his opinio
1t the bridge, if change was adopted
e would be reasonably safe, but nc
lie quite so strong as if the masonr
y were run all the way up.
L. F. Fenny, another enginee
of in the Railroad Company's employ
ID testified that the bridge would b
/. strong enough if the modified plan
in were followed, but not so safe.
The testimony Of the Kin
Bridge Co.'S agent, Mr.. MacNol
showed that the change would de
lay the completion of the bridge fc
~ at least seven months. The Bridg
{, Company, he said, had agreed
le &c make the proposed changes fc
o SI3, 600. This includes the add
81 tional span across the railroa
~ = tracks, the raising of the piers su
u. fciently to accommodate the I,
=: quired nineteen foot head clearauC
~, w. and the grading to the abutmen
y The masonry at the south end, a
49, cording to his calculations, woul
W cost $4,000. This is not include
l., in the company's estimate.
~ The only witness called by Il
m Commissioners was Boyd Tresco
A. of Millville, the purpose of whic
ed was to show what the propose
nt changes would cost the count,
ed The additional expense in the co
Il; struction he said would amount
S4, 800, beside the extra expense
keeping up and in repair the ado
rk tional span of 100 feet and the a
" ditional fill. His testimony w
of allowed to stand without any Gro
", examination.
WI AT the conclusion ofthe testimol
ng Judge Little stated that the eviden
les would be thoroughly weighed al
ter the whole matter carefully conside
nv ed before a decision would
reached.