The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-09-11

modern engineering enterprises, and when completed would have been one of the wonders of the age The papers have given extensive details of the af- fair, but they have not given the rea- son for 1t. In order that our readers may have better idea of the kind of bridge being built and of the charac- ter of the accident we copy the de-. tails of the work as we find them in The Hartford courant:
 cantilever bridge in process of construction may roughly be compared 10 a staircase built up step by step without support from beneath. The the pier from which the arch is to be sprung. The outer andI dIupper end, as It Is built up step by step, rests upon nothing, but is held up by pull from the upper side. This pull goes back from the upper side of the outer end over the pier--or, what is the same thing, over the steel construction resting on the pfer-to the anchorage on the bank of the river This an- chorage, and the riveted frame work running from it to the top of the stair case, are calculated to be strong enough to hold this staircase up as it Is built out over the river step by step. On the other hand, the strength Of the pier and of the steel work on the pier is calculated to be sufficient to support both the pull over the pier from the anchorage and the weight of the materials used. Tn the case at Quebec the arch was to consist, not alone of these two great staircases or half arches, meeting together in midstream. and partly sustained. when finished. by mutual pressure at that midpoint. There was to be a suspend ed span of steel work between them 675 feet long. At the time of the ca- tastrophe the two gerat cantilevers. or staircases, as we have called them. hanging over the river, had been fin- ished. and work was proceeding on the suspended span which was to connect them and when finished, to help sup port them. These river arms or stair cases, then. had not only to support themselves, by a practically horizontal pull to the shore anchorages ana the vertical push upward from the piers, but they also had to carry the weight of the material for the suspended span. One of these arms or statrcases held. and the other broke down.
 We give these details in order that the reader may better understand what kind of structure it was. what had been done, and the nature of the disaster.
 
 The explanation, as we have said, has not been given. Engineering News" one of the best informed publications in the country. sent two experts to the scene. They made a thorough ex animation, or as thorough as it was possible for them to. make, and their report is a Ienghty editorial in En- gineering News. Without taking up the time and space with the details of the paper it is sufficient to state that they fail to give any explanation of the cause of the disaster. They mention a number of possible causes, one or more of which may have caused the fall, but not one specific reason that they are willing to set down as the actual fault.
 Now, the engineers who designed and superintended this great work stand at the head of their profession. So far as is known the contractors, constructorssa sand all subordinates were COhbCAChOVuS anu CtAtC Ak men who used, all known precautions to ensure the safety and security of the work, yet it is plain that there was fault or failure somewhere. The fault may never be ascertained. wheth- CT 1t was due to faulty material or workmanship may never be known, but will not one inevitable result be to cause lack of confidence, in our en- gineers? People will reason that if one disaster of this kind occurs an- other may follow and they will nat urally be inclined to look with distrust and doubt on the next great bridge that is undertaken. This shaking of confidence is one of the lamentable results of such an affair as this, and is another instance where the confi- dence of slow growth is rudely shaken.