The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-09-15
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER Is, 1905.
The Free Bridge Proposal.

we are not surprised that the Rich
-o,d members of the Joint Committee
az the Councils Of Richmond and Man
chester approved the resolution Whlcn
was presented and adopted at WEDNESDAY
rights meeting, providing for the puf-
chase OF the Mayo's Bridge. The resollu
ton recommends to the Councils Of the
respective cities that the commissioners
az the Manchester and Richmond Free
bridge Company be instructed to purchase
the bridge for the sum Of sl27,0o; It pc
ing further provided, however. that II
they deem the aforesaid price excessive
and are unable to secure an offer from
The owners of the present bridge, that
they consider satisfactory and reasonable
that they shall proceed to condemn the
said property in accordance with the
terms of the act of the Legislature, ap-
proved April 2 1902.
II may be stated Just here that the act
OF the Legislature referred to incorporat-
Ing the Manchester and Richmond Free
Bridge Company confers upon that COM
pany the right
"ro construct q free bridge for the
use of the public across James RlVcr
from the southern to the northern shore
nj said river. at or near tho present
Mayo Bridge, running from duil otteet'
,r Manchester, to Fourteenth Street, in
Richmond and all necessary approaches
at either end OF said bridge. and for that
purpose shall have power to acquire, by
purchase or condemnation, the present
Mayo Bridge now tho property OF tho
MAYO Land and Bridge Company, ana
may purchase or condemn the lands
easements or privileges necessary FOR
said approaches, and the right of way FOR
said bridge over and across said river
and the Islands therein SO far as the
same may be necessary.
The city Attorney has no doubt. and
has SO advised that under this act the
Manchester and Richmond Free Bridge
Company has the right to build a new
bridge, parallel to Mayo's Bridge, running
from Hull Street, Manchester, to Four
tenth Street, Richmond MOREOVER. the
City Engineer has prepared plans show
ing that such bridge would be entirely
practicable. one plan provides for u
bridge Just ..nbove, Mayo's Bridge, and
the other Just below. In the one case
the estimated cost of condemned prop
erty would be about s5S,Oo0; in the other
case about $4,000, with 5000 more for
retaining wall on the Manchester side.
We are prone to say, however, after
All bo NIL
clearly of opinion that 1t would be far
better, from every point of view, to pur-
chase Mayo's Bridge and use the site
for the now bridge. But the site Is the
onlv valuable consideration. for the bridge
itself would be worthless in the construc.
ton OF tic proposed new free bridge
Not even tho piers could be used. and w
cannot but think that slN.ooo Is BIZ
price for 1t, It is claimed that Its earn
,ngs will pay a good percentage on tina
sum, hut IL must bs considered that IN
bridge Is In wretohed repair. and tina
a large sum OF money must be soon ex
pended upon it by Its owners In orde
to keep up tho present earnings.
In view of these premises. we are firm
~ of opinion that the property should b
acquired by condemnation proceedings
Let US apply 10 the court to appoin
commissioners and let the commission
ers say what the property is wortt
There would be nothing to lose an
all to gain by such proceeding.
goes without saying that the commits
sioners would not allow owners more tina
si27,1o. the price at which they now o.
fer to sell. and the strong probabiit
is that they would fax the price at fl
ures much lower, The resolution of Il
Joint Committee puts the cart befol
he hnrga