OHIO RIVER BRIDGE.
Mr. Messick's bill [H. R. 370] supplementary to an act for the incorporation of Companies for the purpose of constructing bridges over streams on the State line, was read the third time.
Mr. FRAZER said he understood these bridges were to be built in the interest of a railroad corporation with privilege to charge toll. He opposed its passage.
Mr. CAUTHORNE--There is nothing in this bill specifying whether these Companies shall charge toll or not. It simply provides for a corporation already formed and the capital stock is already paid in.
Mr. MESSICK was opposed to referring the bill to the Committee, as the people of Evansville want the bridge, for when the river freezes over their commercial facilities are cut off. He hoped the bill would become a law.
Mr. CAUTHORNE said: This bill, if it passes, will not hurt anybody, becanse if they charge too high a toll there are plenty of laws on the subject regulating that. The only question is: Will the State of Indiana allow a foreign corporation to build a bridge between this and another State? They do not propose to call upon us for money; they build it themselves.
Mr. KENNER could see no reason for the opposition to the bill. It only empowers corporations of other States to do what corporations may do in this State. There is not a thing about this bill objectionable.
Mr. GARDNER--If the citizens of Kentucky want to establish a connecting link between our State and theirs, it will not put us in a worse position, but, on the contrary, it will open up page: 59[View Page 59] commercial relations which will prove beneficial to the State. The New Albany bridge was cited as a bridge to be built under a similar bill. It is entirely different in this respect. When that bridge was proposed to be built the Company asked the city of New Albany to indorse their bonds to the amount of 25 per cent. of the value of that bridge; and in this case the citizens of Kentucky desired to build the bridge contemplated without any assistance from the State of Indiana. The only possible objection that can be urged is that it tends to obstruct the Ohio River. The height of the bridge and distance of the spans is such as to overcome the objection, as the navigation will not be materially obstructed. I do hope the bill will pass without any further delay.
Mr. SCHWEITZER said when the bill came up for the construction of the New Albany bridge there was scarcely any opposition, and there should be none to this, as it requires or asks for no Indiana capital to aid the corporation, and does not interfere with a bridge anywhere else. He favored the passage of the bill.
Mr. ROELKER said: In the winter, when the river is frozen, there are thousands of car loads of produce standing at Evansville. and this bridge would give them an outlet to the Southern market. I am in favor of the bridge. It does not cost us anything, and if the corporators of it do not treat us right we can build another bridge.
Mr. MITCHELL moved to refer the bill to a Special Committee, with instructions--one of the Committee to be the gentleman having the bill in charge.
The motion was agreed to--yeas, 66; nays, 14.
