[Bridges; Bulkeley Bridge; Infrastructure; Transportation; Urban Planning; Building America] Connecticut vs. Hartford Bridge Company 1887 – 1888. Manuscript administrative legal work product in eight booklets relating to the public demand for a toll-free bridge across the Connecticut River at Hartford. These eight notebooks detail the process by which a company-owned toll bridge was converted to a toll-free bridge, with detailed notes of all issues relating to the impact on trade and transportation. Condition very good.
State vs. Hartford Bridge Company, Record of proceedings of Commissioners
Edward W. Seymour, Frederick J. Kingsbury, Thomas Sanford, Commissioners in Hartford
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 24 pages, ink on paper. Dated December 10, 1887 to July 10, 1888. Public notices from newspapers pasted in. Kept in chronological order, the entries record summaries of meetings held by the commissioners.
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 48 pages, ink on paper. Entries dated February 3, 1888 (pp 1-20); May 21, 1888 (pp 21-48). A history of the original open wooden bridge from founding of the company 1808-9 (toll bridge opened 1810) and the changes and modifications made to its structure, some occasioned by weather events, being washed away by an ice freshet in 1818. The bridge was rebuilt as a two-roadway covered bridge under a charter with special privileges granted by the legislature, including non-interference of the legislature in the collection of the tolls, which the bridge company was allowed to keep. Also, land by which a traveler approached, entered and exited the bridge. Matters such as stress factors and useful life are addressed, as well as costs per square foot.
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 48 pages, ink on paper. Ink notes continue on the inside back cover. Arithmetic calculations in pencil on the outside back cover. Continuation of Vol. 2, meetings about how to rebuild the bridge. First dated entry is May 23, 1888. Numerous citations of legal precedents are recorded as defenses of the state of Connecticut’s right to have a toll-free highway bridge. Just compensation to the company included estimations of earnings, p.25 and, value of the company’s franchise apart from the value of the property, p. 33.
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 48 pages, ink on paper, notes in ink continue on the inside back cover. The issues of eminent domain are recorded, as notes taken in meetings dated May 24, 1888. In a meeting held July 5, 1888, objections to the advantage of the free bridge, p. 13. Notes reflect the business-reliant benefits of bridge accessibility from various places.
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 48 pages, ink on paper, notes continue on the inside and outside of the back cover, giving the order of appearance of representatives of the various bridge-dependent towns, July 6, 1888.
[Vols. 6 and 7 not present.]
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 24 pages, ink on paper. Continuation of hearings in notes. Mention of Mr. Bulkeley (for whom the bridge was named), p. 3. Entries are timed in fractions of the hour, indicating a full schedule including railroad representatives.
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 24 pages, ink on paper. Notes of the continuation of hearings. Entries are timed in fractions of the hour, indicating a full schedule including railroad representatives. Notes of closing arguments.
Untitled and un-numbered volume.
Paper-bound booklet 26 cm (10 ¼ in), 48 pages, ink on paper, written mostly on the recto, with an occasional use of the verso. A working draft of a speech, given by a person of authority. Reference is made to the President’s last annual address to Congress in which he urged tariff reform. The author uses the terms “tariff reform” and “tariff redirection” to advocate strongly for the “free trade” economic benefits of a free crossing at Hartford of the Connecticut River.
See: George E. Wright, Crossing the Connecticut Hartford Bridge, Hartford: The Smith Linsley Company, 1908.