Semi-weekly herald., 1912-03-21
COLUMBUS BRIDGE.
Mr.. Editor:

valuable paper, l will try to explain
my position as to the Columbus bridg,
question.
As most Of your readers are awar.
| that the bridge at the intersection o.
Texas creek, was removed under Lo-
gan and Charlton's administration
from Spring gulch its former loca-
ton, location selected years ago, by
a competent board of county COM
missioners, to the present site at the
mouth Of Texas creek, and as the
flood of September, 1909, took out
the two east spans, which the county
had to rebuild at the time; and as
the flood Of last fall took out again
the same two east spans, it then be-
came a question with me as to select
ing safe, sure, suitable site for a
bridge. So on Jan. 81, 1912, the full
board of county commissioners, to-
gether with the county surveyor drove
out to Columbus, and stopped at Sam
Parks to feed team and get dinner,
also to get such information from
him as we could, regarding the proper
site to locate the bridge. Mr.. Parks
kindly gave us his assistance and
showed us what he termed the most
feasible site.
After considerable time spent by
the whole board and the surveyor,
looking both up and down the river.
for n suitable site, we became fully
convinced that the site shown us by
Mr.. Parks was in fact the only feas-
ible site to be found.
So by unanimous choice and ap-
proval the site was located at the old
bridge site, or at Spring gulch, which
is one-half mile above the present
site.
The matter Of changing the bridge
was fully discussed as to the oppo-
sition we would meet with in chang
ing the bridge. However we were told
by Mr.. Parks and by John Farrell,
that shortly after the flood of last
year, that a large number of the
residents gathered at the washed out
bridge, and it was the universal opin-
ion of all that it would be folly and
unwise to think of putting bridge
back at that site again. So after
knowing and hearing all of the above
hA f,tl al
mously, to build the bridge at the
old site, or at the mouth of Spring
gulch; and as soon as the county sur
veyor could get the plans and speci-
fications drawn we advertised for bids,
bids to be opened Feb. 9, 1912. And,
as you know, the bids were rejected
and new bids called for, to be opened
March 4, 1912. Up to March heard
of no opposition to changing the
bridge site, but on that date two of
the residents came to me and protest
ed against changing the site. stated
to them that the board had selected
this site two months ago and within
two days the contracts were to be
awarded, and asked why complaint
should come at this late date. also
stated to them that had no choice as
to one site or the other. However, !
did have choice in selecting a site
that would not be detrimental to tax
payers. Anyone familiar with the
Pine river at that point knows full
well that it is only matter of the
period of first high water that the
channel will change to either the east
or the west side Of the present chan
mel, or perhaps both, and if bridge
was built over the present channel it
would be only matter of time until
the county would have to build one or
two more bridges to get to use the
one they ask us to build over the pres
ent channel.
However, the morning or the day
Of opening the bids, Howard Charl-
ton and A. E. Knapp came before the
commissioners with a petition pro-
testing quite vigorously against
changing the site of the bridge. So
after considerable discussion by the
members of the board l, as chairman,
stated to the members that as we
were about to open the bids, and if
it was not the intention to build the
bridge on the site of our former Sc
lection, the contractors should be so
notified in writing.
Then l stated to the members my
views-inasmuch as we would not
have time to locate another site and
advertise for bids, and get the bridge
under headway before the first or
middle Of May, or high water period,
and that | considered the bridge of
great Importance, being on rural
mail route, and that if the bridge was
not built at this time, and fearing
as do that there will be in all prob
ability no bridge built for another
year, l therefore made motion that
the commissioners proceed to award
the contract to build the bridge on
the site unanimously selected and
agreed upon by the full board, and
waiting due time and receiving nc