The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1904-01-14

tlt' ANEi 81 I'tot ~ NiiVHNNi " iNt'C
nhd wAstefui, un The part Of bu6A
lie authorities, as it would Be- In
this ago ot concrete, for an indi-
dual 10 put down board aalk
around his residence. ] will not
take up your time with the detail
of figures, by which l have ar
rived at the conclusion; but i am
sure that your experience and OBJ
servation, as well as that of ex-
perts, will bear me out in the
proposition that oak lumber, or
lumber of any kind used in bridge
floor construction, exposed to wear
and weather, consumes money
faster, than would four per cent.
compound interest on the amount
of money, which represents the
difference in the original cost of
the two modes of construction.
If this be true, then it necessarily
follows that by adopting the per-
manent construction plan, it will
only be matter of time, until we
have saved over and above the
cost of the old mode, the entire
cost of the better and more endur-
ing structures.
In Montgomery county, we have
made start towards reconstruct
ing two hundred and fifty miles
of special pike, in the main being
throughfares leading into the city
of Dayton. Abandoning gravel
and using crushed stone, put down
by modern road roller; unbandon-
ing wood for bridges and building
either monolithic concrete or steel
beam corrugated iron arch and
concrete bridges; it is our purpose
to make these highways as cndur-
ing as those which for ages led
to the eternal city of Rome. This
we can do, by moderate levy on
the grand duplicate of the county
authorized by the act under which
these roads were purchased, from
their original owners; and this
the commissioners of any county
of the state may do, in 80 far as
the improvement and reconstruc-
tion of roadbeds are concerned,
under the provisions of Section
4019 Revised Statutes. But when
it comes to bridges on ordinary
county and township roads, where
the road excepting bridges, are
under the jurisdiction of township
trustees and road supervisors, the
maximum levy allowed by the
state, for bridge purposes, is bare
y sufficient to makeshift in the
old wasteful way. / am sure that
in the end, great saving could
be effected, if as rapidly as any
of these bridges need replacing,
the means be provided for replac-
ing them, either with monolithic
concrete, or steel arch and con-
crete bridges. I am not sure, but
that the transformation could be
made without any increased levy
whatever, either now, or in the
future. BY adopting permanent
construction for these bridges,
and issuing bonds for their pay
ment, the interest on the bonds
could be provided for, by setting
apart portion of the present
levy; and in the course of time,
we would get once around, and
as there would not then be many
bridges to construct or repair, we
could begin to pay off the bonds,
with money raised by the present
levy, and which is now in meas
ure wasted, on flimsy construction
requiring replacing every few
years.
An individual of limited means
and credit, is sometimes put in
position where he knows, that
what he does Is for his present
advantage only, and not at all the
thing which would best conserve
his ultimate good. Representing
the rich constituencies we do,
with unlimited credit at our COM
mand, for this purpose, we should.
no longer temporize, and imagine
ourselves to be on footing with
the embarrassed individual referr-
edit; but should at once adopt
a policy which we know to be for
the ultimate good. We should |
not draw bills on futurity, for
that which the present generation
is to consume; but when con-