The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-09-23
DODGE 1T NOW.
Good Time to Avoid Repetition
of Viaduct Trouble.
Sixth Avenue Structure Con-
slant Source of Expense.
WAS NOT ANTICIPATED
Thought That Railway Com
panIes Would Maintain 1t.
Time to Fix Details Is Before
the Construction.

How ii happens that the city Of To-
peka is obliged to dig down in its
pocket every once in a while and fork
over a thousand or two dollars for
maintenance" CT the Sixth avenue
viaduct over the tracks of the Santa
Fe and Missouri Pacific railroads is a
matter which will be of some interest,
now that the question of building an
other viaduct across the Santa Fe
tracks at Branner street is under dis
cussion-
When the Sixth avenue viaduct pro-
5ect was first brought to the official at
tenticn OF the council by means of
long petition headed by B. NJ. Davies,
it was supposed that the cost of main
tenance would be forever borne by
the two railways whose tracks were to
be SPAWNED. This is shown by a pc
tition which was filed with the coun-
ell and which was in part as follows;
AS the said A T. & 5. F. railroad
company has long since expressed a
willingness to construct and maintain
mt their own expense a viaduct or
bridge along said Sixth avenue and
across the tracks of said railroad
wherever the city would construct the
approaches to the same and give the
right of way 20 the street so occupied
to said railroad company, and we
doubt not the X. n. & d. railroad
company would gladly accept a sim
liar proposition from the city;
therefore we most respectfully re-
quest your honorable body to take
such action at once as will secure the
construction of said viaduct or bridge"
This petition was signed by such
men as B. NJ Davies, A W. Knowles
Jas 5 Warner, c. P Baker, J. Lee
Knight, ChaS. Wolff, ]. B. Bartholo-
NEW, s Barnum, J. r. Mulvane ]. W.
Thurston, W. w. Manspeaker Chas
=. Spencer. A J. Huntoon, A. Wash
burn. J. s. Collins. John D. Knox c.
X Holiday, Jas. A. Troutman. B. F.
Bolden and many others.
But the council did not Immediately
take action on the matter. In Novem-
Der of the same year. B. NJ. Davies got
up another petition, and still other pc
titons came in after the council had
really commenced to do something to-
ward the proposition.
On September 16. 1886. the council
passed a resolution ordering the city
engineer to prepare estimates on the
cost of building the approaches to the
viaduct, evidently assuming that the
santa Fe and K, n. & D. otherwise
known as the Missouri Pacific, would
build and maintain the rest of the
structure.
On October s, the council let the
contract for the two approaches to A.
J. Tullock, of the Missouri Valley
Bridge company. for $35,5OO.
Not until April 5, 1887, was the cleo
ton held for voting the necessary
bonds The vote stood 1.750 for the
bonds and 657 against. The bonds
were issued to run 10 years at per
cent.
Ordinance No. s29 was passed. pro-
hibiting the construction of street car
tracks across the bridge. Some time
later this ordinance was thrown over
board, and the street railway allowed
to use the viaduct.
It seems that it was not until some
time along in January, 1889, after the |
approaches had been built, and the |
viaduct partially completed, that the |
council realized what it was up against 4
in the matter of maintenance. 1t then /
discovered that while the Santa Fe and l
the Missouri Pacific had done as they i
proposed, and built the viaduct lover /
their tracks" there was a strip of land /
between the tracks of each company
which neither one claimed to own.
They declined to build any viaductl
there, and hence Topeka had a via
duct with a gap of 210 feet long in the
middle of it
Evidently the viaduct was not much
use in that condition. Mr.. TulIock,
who had the contract not only for the
-fty's portion. but for all the rest of the
structure. seemed to act as the go
between for the city and railway COM
panies, and in a long communica ton
10 the council he proposed on behalf
1G the railway companies that the