The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1920-10-28

to otheSna RverB Come be Wecomed
Paving TO Bridge Recalls
Fight for It's Construction
While Paving Was Secured After Brief Struggle Years
Of Aggtation and Strenuous Effort Required to
Secure Bridge-Many Prominent Men Figured
in Effort-Short Line Assisted


While Ontario and the Frrtand Bench are commem-
Grating the construction of the paved highway connecting
them it is well to remember that this highway would
never have been needed had not the bridge which spans
the mighty Snake river not been built.
And old timers recall that where the paving now
makes travel easy and comfortable there once existed
veritabe swamp, whose existence Of the argu
mcns used by those who fought the construction of the
bridge.
As the building of the bridge was mark of progress
too is the laying of the pavement yet the difference in
the struggle to the latter is of n mark
Of progressive spirit of this section II seems therefore
fitting at this time that brief history of the struggle
which resulted in the building of the bridge be given.
Built in 1909
For years. prior to 1909 there was an agitation for
the construction of bridge the Snake There
opposition the effort both Within and without Ontario
From within the struggle came from those who for
iOus wanted different locations; while
opposed the bridge at any point
Then there were Jealous enemies of Ontario who saw
i'm its construction competition for them and the dvertng
of business To Ontario that they had monopolized for
years.
This all meant fight for those who were battling for
the growth of Ontario and its share of the trade that
naturally belonged 10 it, The list Of those who made this
hattie cannot all be given, for the memory of those here
now had part in the struggle undoubtedly did not recall
them all.
Judge G. L. King took the first forward step when as
the representative in the legislature of 1907 he introduced
II appropriatng $40 900 for the construction Of the
hrldg lIc lnri sure was defeated BUl IN IN W. III,
Brooke, wi lad succeeded Judge King again introduced
the 5l and secured its passage.
1t was fou4lt however and effort made to enjon
the payment of the money which 10 be matched by
similar appropriated by the City OF Ontario and
Malheur county However these obstacles overcome
land tho original bridge commissions f.. A. Fraser, James
a. Lac key and H. G. Boyer had the funds and the author
ity to proceed wien the county court composed OF Judge
Ben Ilichaldsoi G. w. Malctt and q. b. Glover made
their appropriation.
r',n came the fight for n site One location after
anoth was talked about but when the commission tried
to get title the landing the Idaho side they were
bakcd They fought the argument that the stretch OF
ground between the city and the river swampy, that
the bridge was needed and every conceivable argu
ment FINALLY the hand thru which the cut the Idaho
side now runs was purchased from NJ b. Sherman, and
landing secured First however bill had to be passed
at Washington granting permission to cross the river
Had Seventeen Bids
When the commission called fOrbids it had no spec
fcations no engineer and therefore technical advise.
he bids called for and at the same time the bidders
were asked to submit plans to accompany them
Seventeen proposals received and these were
turned over the engineering department OF the Oregon
Short Line railroad offer of such assistance having
been received from Geo H. Omstead then division super
tendent friend of the city, The Short Line engineer
w S. Warren compared all the plans and selected that of
the Minneapolis Steel Machinery company and that
firm was awarded the contract Quick action was secured
and the steel construction completed before the land
4 ing for the wooden treste was secured.