Norwich bulletin., 1915-04-28
TWO TOWNS WANT RELIEF
 FROM MAINTAINING BRIDGE
Over Salmon RIver-other Towns ohr Ieet to Making Is a County chsrse.

JeSE se makina If CeuhtS Chsrses Hartford, April a7,-rhe committee l ea roads, rivers and bridges gave a | seeehd hearing Tuesday afternoon On | the proposed act te relieve the towns or Colchester and Chatham from f4ain= | | talhihg the bridge across the Salmon l river and pieaeing the charge up6H
 New teHden and Middlesex counties, |
 At the first hearing there wes but slight objection te the seheme and the
 the heuge. Subsequently opposition
 aeValepea aad upon request MT. Mae=
 donald, house chairman of the com
 ftalttee, had the measure reeemmitted,
 tHgies explained the location of the
 bridge, stating that 1t was 8 eevered structure l16 feet in length and was
 located 4a sections of the towns of CelehesteF and Chatham far removed
 from the pepuleus centre and was but very little used by the people of these
 towns in atlleihing counties. The bridge was about four miles from the Chat l haH centre and seven fniies from the
 vlllsge of Colchester. He said the bridge WAS mostly used ih connection with traffic from Middietewn to Nor-. wieh and Wi11imaatie aa 1t was the
 most direct route, and inaan1uef as the
 two towns did not use the bridge the
 the burden of maintenance, which he
 said was about $50 q year to each
 town, a large sum for the small towns,
 but Of no eonsequenee eouDtywise. He
 said the bridge was authorized by act
 passed in the general court of Con-
 neetiout in t7s4 and that the first
 bridge was built there in f7s2, the con
 ditions being that the towns of Chat
 nam and Colchester should build and
 maintain the bridges and that has been
 the rule ever since. The conditions in
 both towns have changed materially
 since that time. Then the bridge was
 in the populous sections of both towns,
 but now there is no habitation in that vicinity. He said the bridge was now
 in good repair, over $500 having been recently expended on the bridge, and
 that 1t was in Q condition that would
 be serviceable for the next ten years. Representative Williams, of Col chester, also spoke in favor of the
 proposition, stating that the cost of maintaining the bridge by the counties would entail an expense of only one fifth of a mill in taxation, and that the
 bill provided that each of the two ? counties bear an equal share of the 2 burden. Although the bridge was not on trunk line it was considerably
 used and a convenience for publie , traffic. In response to a query as to the cost of a new bridge in the event
 of one bein" necessary he said the cost
 would not exceed SS,000.
 Representative Quigg, of Chatham, 3 said it would be merely an act of jus 3 t1ce for New London and Middlesex s counties to relieve the towns of Chat 5 ham and Colchester from the burden 8 of maintaining this bridge as it serves s the general public more than 1t does n the residents of the two towns. Former 1 Sheriff Thomas Brown spoke in like f | strain.
 l Representative Charles A. Pelton, of @ Clinton, was opposed, stating that it }. was an entering wedge that would re- t suit in compelling counties to take O hy~I6 6crnc I, %r41 !, .-s.- 3 ed counties as did this bridge So far d as he could learn this bridge was To- d cated on a back country road and o could be abandoned without any pub g. lie inconvenience.
 V Representative Morton of Saybrool e said that he had never heard of this n bridge until the matter was brought e to the legislature. Since then he had c learned that the structure was called r Comstock bridge. He said that people = in some sections of Middlesex county
 had never heard of Comstock bridge h and that 1t vas not generally knowI = to drivers of vehicles, even if it ha6 = been in existence for 123 years, as it it t among the things forgotten even by
 the oldest inhabitants, all of which in. J dicates it's real usefulness. He could e not see reason for saddling this bridge = on the counties when 90 per cent. O. e the residents never use the bridge
 The cost of maintenance is so smal s that it is mystifying what the desir, = to shirk the expenditure even on thu y small towns interested and urging thi g legislation. Should the committee de e eide to insist on favorable report i p would not be fair to make the burde1
 on the two counties equal as tn,
 grand list of New London county wa
 considerably more than that of Mid
 dlesex county. This Comstock br-idg ,. is not on a state trunk line, or even
 travelled highway, but rather in tn IS woods, and far removed from civi1iza
 ton at that
 Representative Mitchell of Preston -e clerk of the New London county or It ganiZation of the general assembly ,e stated that at a county meeting whel K this matter was given consideration ,s every member present voted agains w Williams of Colchester. Mr. William
 made reply stating that since tha a meeting he had seen some of tn le members and they told him they wer l. now favorably inclined towards tn If Representative Pendleton of Presto, m said that he, too, had seen some of tn ar members, perhaps the same that ha
 talked with MT. Williams, and tha W they told him different story. MI f. Pendleton said that according to tn 1 state map this Comstock covere 1t bridge was down in the woods an as about four miles from the trunk line ,e He said his little town had bridges c us OWu IO care TOT ana the towns va Chatham and Colchester should d o- likewise, and not ask little Preston t
 come to their assistance in bearing it re lshare of the county expense.
 1e Representative Daniel Smith ( r. Chester protested against this bridg r. being saddled upon Midd1esex count,
 or any part of 1t. Should this act b r. adopted, it would only open the wa at for more bridges to be maintained b III tne couhtles tnat gre now malntaine rv ed. Several other members of the gen n. era1 assembly from Middlesex count
 expressed desire to be accorded 3 n- against the measure, and the hearin ne was closed.
 a -------------- Is