Evening journal., 1914-03-18
BRIDGE, BUT
NO WALL, IS
B.SO. ANSWER
RaiIrOdd Company Will Bui d
Concord Structure Under
New City Plan
OBJECT TO ANY
EXTRA OTHER EXPENSE

in the Church Building this morning.
between the members OF the Levy Court,
representatives of the street and Sewer
Department and the B. & o. Railroad
Company relative to the abolition OF the
arace crossing at Concord avenue and
b. x Q. railroad.
Il developed at the conference that
while contract. or agreement, had been
entered into between the Levy Court
and the engineers of Tn railroad com.
panv. vet all was not smooth sailing, as
several oi the Levy Court Commis-
sioncrs seemed to have a misunderstood
ING as TO Just what agreement they had
entered into, having expected the rail.
road 60 do more than the agreement APP
parently called for The two important
topics Of the discussion. upon which
hinged the disagrecments. were the mat.
ter of extension OF the size of the bridge
to suit the requirements OF the Street
and Sewer Department as embodied in
the communication sent TO Levy Court
on September 26. 1913. and the matter
Of fixing Isaac Elliotts property to suit
him with retaining wall. in when case
he would withdraw his request for
$500 damages from the county
In rhc matter of the size of the
bridge, the engineer of the railroad
company drew up plans providing for
a 36-foot bridge TO span the railroad,
. which would necessitate pillars or
supports along the curb line. The
specifications for a bridge OF this
size were embodied i'm the plans
: which were submitted before the
conference to facilitate the discus
sion.
Colonel George w. Sparks explain
cd that the Street and Sewer Depart
ment desired the bridge constructed
the ull width of the roadway, with a
clear span, and to allow no pillars
o. uprights at the curb line.
Andrew E. Sanborn, attorney for
the B. 4 O. Railroad Co, explained
that To agree to this rcourst l. uld
be necessary TO bull 60-foot bridg
whi h would compel the rail oad
company o eNpcAu from SIu.o ..
$4,000 more than the bridge which
p the agreement called for. He said
that this was asking too much Of the
q railroad company, as the bridge,
, even in its original size OF 80 teet
would cost many thousand dollars
, and to increase is size TO 90 tsct
without uprights, would mean tha'
j much heavier than the first one
I would have TO be erected.
s He remarked that other bridges hat
e been built here without uprights
e There won't be any more built tha
wav while this commission Is IN OF
fee" remarked Mr. Sparks Hwio eN
planned that to put pillars beneath th'
l. bridge would increase the police risk
10
h that the section in question is yer!
c Isolated and to place pillars alon'
n the curb would be TO give thieves
Il something TO hide behind and sprinl
upon women passing along the street
" After a conference with J. T. OIL
e hausen, superintendent OF the railroad
IS Mr.. Sanborn announced that the rail
road company would comply with th'
= wishes of the Street and Sewer De
partment and would construct 60
foot span bridge at the crossing. HI
said the railroad company was viii
ing to enter into an agreement t.
7 this effect.
Relative to the matter OF buildini
a retaining wall on the Isaac Elliot
property, however. Mr. Sanborn de
n clared that the railroad would declin
# to building anything more than tn
terrace as agreed upon in the agree
ment He said that they were willinl
!, to build the large bridge requested o
them, which was expending nearl
y $4,000 more than they originally in
J tended to expend. but they would re
- fuse TO pay any of the land damage:
e which the Levy Court had agreed Z
Ie pay.
NJ Then ensued long argument
Commissioners Burris and Smith re
&c fusing to vote for the awards for dam
J. ages unless the railroad comply wit
n. Mr.. Elliotts request as they had ten
IS tatively agreed to do.
ID Mr.. Burris explained that Mr.. III
is lott had asked for an award of 81
t. 500 for damages to his property fror
Is the county Mr. Elliott had agreed
1t however. that should a retaining wal
be built upon his property he woul
er withdraw his claim for the $3.50
id And /. for one, am not going TO vot
IS 10 give him that $780," declared MI
e. Burris emphatically.
Mr.. Sanborn, however, contende
ID that the railroad had agreed only
III build the bridge and that the matte
G. OF the awards for damages was up
the Levy Court On behalf OF th
- railroad he refused TO pay Mr.. II
lott the $2.5O0 or to build a retain
ing wall. They would build terrac
as specified in the agreement, but n
wall.
Mr.. Smith told Mr. Sanborn thl
he considered the railroad was ge
ting a big bargain as il was, as
was his opinion that the railroa
should pay for the whole work. Il
did not think the county should pa
a cent, and he declared that shoul
the railroad refuse this demand an
refuse to build the bridge, that n
! next Legislature will be asked
NJ pass a law compelling the railros
to build bridge and TO stand for a
7 the expense.
A long and heated general discu
sion then ensued in which almo
everyone present took part. but NJ
SanbOrn was firm in his stand, an
the conference broke up with q
understanding that the railro;
would build the 60-foot bridge, b
not the retaining wall on the Ellio
property. Burris then said he wou
vote against the awards Mr. Sec
stated that he would vote for q
awards even if he was the only mer
Der to do so, as he believed il vi
a matter Of public improvements. al
that il would be wrong for the Le'
Court TO allow a matter of S2.5O0
prevent the improvement being a
4 Tboe, nraeauf a. Al