Year: 1868




reference to the two bridges built across the main
canal at this city during last winter, have pro-
duced one Of the main objects we had in view.
which was, 10 elicit such ventilation of the
matter as would enable our people to understand
the exact situation. The lengthy communiea-
tion in another column on the subject NAV be
| regarded as full and fair statement Of the case
on the side Of the authorities of our city; and
however clear and decided may be the views en-
tertaiped by many on the other side, it must be
conceded that the case, in legal point of visw
is not without its complications.


30 far as we are personally concerned we have
no desire in the matter beyond that the question
shall be speedily settled in such a way as to put
the bridges into active use, whether that shall be
done by the city, town, or "any other man" In
opposition to tie view taken by the city author.
ties, however, we can, without becoming party
| to the discussion, state that view something
luxe the following is entertained: The city of
Ottawa, by law Of their state passed some years
ago. was released Of all charge or responsibility
IN reference to keeping up roads and bridges in
the township Of Ottawa outside the city limits,
in consideration that she would take full charge
of the roads, streets, bridges &C., inside Of those
limits, the portion OF the town outside the lin
its being equally released az to such charges in.
side. When it was proposed, however, to build
these canal bridges, it was urged that, from their
location, they would really benefit that portion
OF the town outside ofthe city as much as they
would most of the city ITSELF and it was there
fore but fair that the outside portion of the town
should contribute its proportion Of the expense of
building them. So special law had to be pass
ed 70 levy tax on the whole township, to raise
the money to pay for the bridges And this is
just what the law did. 1t provided for a tax to
raise the Means, and appointed three cemmiss-
| toner's under whose direction the means were to
be expended and the bridges built. When COM
pietsd and accepted by the commissioners, their
efice ceased, and the law made it the duty Of the
City OF Ottawa TO maintain and keep the bridges
in repair, and, if pivot bridges, to open them for
| the passage Of boats. The law was doubtless
lame in this particular-that, if the uaoie town
was 50 equally interested in the bridges as to
make it just that the whole town should pay for
, their erection, then like justice would require
| that .he whole town INSTEAD Of the city alone)
shoald be charged with the expense of tending
aud keeping them in repair. But though the
law, in this respect, is doubtless unjust can the
city authorities set its positive injunction at de-
| faneer


| Suppose, for instance. a boat carrying cargo
worth $4,000 should but against the bridge,
and instead of sending the bridge to Kingdom
GOMEZ should itself 20 to the bottom Ths law hav
ing made it the duty of the city of Ottawa to
keep the bridges open, and that duty having
been neglected, who would pay for the cargo'
| Just one word more. 1t is admitted, We be.
lieve that SO far as the superstructure goes, the
bridges are well built, but it is urged that the
piers upon which they are placed being crit
piers instead of solid, masonry, as they should
have been, ale worthless, and in proof of this
the fact is stated that the bridges have already
sagged 60 much out of level that it is almost i'm
possible to turn them. Now we are told by ex
celent mechanics that, in like this, the Grill
pier, built of heavy plank, is the best and mos
solid of all piers; and that the sagging of these
piers is owing entirely to slight swelling of tn,
plank from being submerged for the first tim.
under water,--a fault that can be permanently
remedied at very slight expense. Is this no
worth looking into 2 ..