The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-10-25
CITY HAS N0 RIGHT OF WAY
 THROUGH CRAhID ST. DEATH TRAP
 DECLARES CITY ATTY. COhILEY

City Attorney ComIey makes a, statement regarding the Grand Street Bridge, the most interesting portion of which, to the taxpayer, is the ad- mission that S609.00G, exclusive of a Judgment Of court for sI59, ,000 has been expended for the Grand Street Bridge, while the city knew that it had no right of way, across the death trap of railroad tracks which covers the West approach.
 Inasmuch as AIr, Vincent in his tea-time topics, invites a full and frank discussion of the issues of the campaign and proposes to make the Grand Street Bridge the subject of a thorough analysis. it seems to me worth while te clear the atmosphere of some errors which bear the ear marks of deliberate falsehood,
 In the first place it has been in sinuated that the city failed to take an adequate bond to insure the per formance of the contract The fact is that the City took a bond of ample amount and guaranteed by one of the biggest trust companies In the country,
 Again It is insinuared that the City failed to take action on this bond when the Contractor defaulted, This Is false, The City brought an acton against IaS Co1lCaGloE ana HIS surety based upon the default and that suit is now pending in the courts.
 And again the criticism is made that the City has negigently failed to pursue this action Such g. criticism s the result either of ignorance or mendacity. The Bridge Contract pro- vided that the City, upon default of the Contractor, might take over the work and upon It's completion charge
 T-- between the contract price and the cost. Not until that difference is as certained can I proceed with the case against the surety. The same thing is true of every construction contract where the contractor defaults.
 Again the point Is raised that the City built an expensive bridge and made no adequate provision for an approach. And in airing this bril- liant discovery I have been deHher- ately misrepresented by men to whom as City official I endeavored to give such information as I possessed. The Mayor did not neglect to make reasonable provision for the ap- proach.
 It is true the City had no right to lay out a highway over the rail- road right of way. But this was fully discussed at the time and it was
  have to be disposed of by the Public Utilities Commission. But what the critics fail to realize is that the ad- nninistration never contemplated as more than temporary expedient the establishment of 9 crossing at grade It was believed, and with reason, that with the building of the bridge \ the Railroad Company would be forced by the public necessity to ele- vate its tracks. There may be some votes of the hook, bait and sinker class, who will be filled with adnira- ton for the hindsight of MT. Vim cent, MT. Ballard and the other good Democrats who would save the City from Republican mtsrule; but someone suggested on another oc- casion anyone could have discovered America after 1492. In 1915 we did not anticipate that the increasing complications of the world war would make it impracticabls to force the expense of grade elimination on the overburdened Railroad Company. And it must be admitted that we never dreamed that when the time for action did arrive the railroad would be in the hands of the United States Government and not only the City but the State would be power less to force any action. The elimina- alton of the Housatonic Grade Cross ings was a part of the Grand Street program. If it could have carried through it would have been a great boon for every traveller who must daily risk his life at these crossings. That is was not carried through was due to the events which no City Government could control.
 In all the discussions of the Grand Street Bridge it has been assumed by the critics that the City failed to hold the Contractor to his contract. The fact is that all the delay, all the fruitless expenditure of money, all the bitter disappointment in the failure to achieve the desired results was due to the fact that the city did in s1st that the Contractor should live up to his contract. If the people of this town understood the problem which we had to solve, they might still crticise our judgment, but they would no longer question our good faith And it is because this phase of the controversy is deliberately and systematically ignored that ask your attention to what I know to be the rue history of the case.
 When the bridge was planned 1t was found to be a reasonable econo- my to build of concrete the eight piers which carried the super structure. But it was also recom- mended that the contract be so drawn that when the great masses of concrete were deposited in the river the operation should be so carried out that no part of the concrete mixture should come in contact with water. It was therefore required that the Contractor should build eight coffer dams which should be the forms into which to pour the concrete. You will understand that these coffer dams were to be built in the river and consequently would have about forty feet of water in them. There fore we put in the contract two pro- visions to govern the building of the Diers. First, that the Contractor should pump the forms dry, and second, that he should pour all the concrete for each pier in one con- tinuous operation. This he thor oughv understood and he actually outlined to the engineer the plan by which he would fill these conditions. But when he started the work he found he was not able to go through with it and he proposed that we re-