The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1931-02-24
Twichell Hit by
Steam Roller of
Bridge Partisans
tContinued from Gage one,

Continued from Gage one
construction work on highways In the
counties was not forthcoming.
Halvorson stated the bridge fund
was for the purpose Of building
bridges and should be used. especially
now. when there is an opportunity to
receive a large amount Of federal aid.
He commended the proposed highway
construction was based on the sup
position of an increase In revenue
which yet had not been fully deter
mined.
Twichell challenged Halvorson's fig
ures and the two INDUCED in argu-
ment. Highway construction will be
deprived of 5000, 900 and consequently
$500, 900 of highway work will be lost
as a result Of the bridge, Twichell
said. He stated that two Of Mercer
county's representatives were against
the bill.
Mckay Makes Reply
j. H. Mckay of Sioux replied that
both Mercer county members were
from the extreme southern portion Of
Mercer county and vitality interested
in having a bridge In their section.
Twichell pointed out II the counties
we're unable or refused to put up their
share, the money would lie idle. while
highway construction was In demand.
Halvorson answered by stating ut
would be mighty fine to have that
SIT 900, the state share for the bridge,
lying In the bridge fund. neverthe-
less" He reiterated that II the
| state went the limit in matching fed
eral aid, $780,o00 still would remain
unused.
T. D. Acheson Of Bottineau called
attention to the proposed paving
project running west from Fargo.
Acheson said Cass county would have
to seek state aid and was attempting
this by diverting SIPS 900 from the
bridge fund Tor highway construc-
ton.
c. Sax of Mckenzie In supporting
the measure claimed building bridges
over the Missouri was not q local
proposition but statewide. Much
argument was advanced that the west
had received $968, 900 for bridges while
the east only $4,000.
Sax denied the western part of the
state owed the rest Of North Dakota
for any aid received In the way Of
bridges. He added Mckenzie county
had given the state Governor 6hafer
and for this reaso the state vas In
debted to Mckenzie county. Sax Is q
Nonpartisan.
Matt Crowley Of Mercer attempted
to mend the bill to permit the bridge
site to be selected by Mercer and Nc
Lean county commissioners or by q
vote of persons living in the counties
Objection to amending the bill was
made by r. r. Scholl of Mclean
Crowley said a bond issue was neces-
sary should the bridges be built and
when a vote was taken on the bond
issue, the site could be selected at the
same time.
Mclean Favors It
o. E. Erickson and H. F. SWEET Of
Kidder said sentiment In Mclean
county was for the bridge at the site
designated in the bill, while r. E
Strutz Of Stutsman denied this. AL
are Nonpartisars. Erickson added HI
was not afraid to face his constituent!
because Of voting for tho bridge.
Those voting for the bridge wer'
Acheson, Akan, Aljets, Anderson. All
finson, Asleson, Bittner, Burns, Butt
Carlson, Carothers. Correll, Cox
Craig, Crockett, Dahl, Dilland, Dyer
Erickson Of Benson, Erickson OF Kid
der, Halvorson, Hanson, Hill, 1nder'
gard, Isaak, Kadell, HAPPIER, Lenke
Lavik, Lehr Levin. Lofthus, MartiI
Of Bottineau, Martin Of Williams. NC
Cay, McColl, McManus. Mostad. Mus
Niewoehner, Olson Of Adams. Olson o.
Burleigh, Owings. Opdahl. Peters
Pfenning, Qualey. Sax, Savre, Scholl
Schurr, Sprenger, Stoa, Sundby o
Mclean. Sundby Of Renville. Svingen
SWEET, Treffry, Twete, Van Berkom
Wtgen, Wilson, and Wolf.
Voting against the bill were Base
flug, Bishop, Boo. Bohnsack, Bruins
dale, Crowley, Dolwig. Fitch, Elan
nigan, FROZEN. Gibbons Hal c ow
Hamilton. Hausmann, Helbling, Hen
rickson Of Ransom, Herman. Holte o
|: Cas-, Holte Of Dickey, Ho.thusen
. Jardine, johnson, Johnston, Knee
land, Lamb, Lunde, Lynch, Mau. Nc
Dowau, Montgomery, Morgan. Nelson
; Northridge, Olafson, Ostrem. Platt
: Rulon, Smith, Steedsman. Steensor
!, Strutz, Thompson, TimIn. Traynol
Twichell, Veitch, Worner and Speake
HpAAnno~