Winfield Bridges

The following items show the only information I could obtain relative to the first attempts to get bridges built in Cowley County...
1871
Walnut Valley Times, March 24, 1871.
COUNTY BONDS FOR BRIDGES.
We call the attention of our citizens to an act of the last Legislature authorizing the counties of Butler and Cowley to issue bonds to build bridges, which has become a law by publication in the Kansas Weekly Commonwealth.
The bill was gotten up and put through by Messrs. Baker and Manning, representatives from the two counties interested, and provides that said counties may have an election, on the question of issuing bonds in the sum of thirty-thousand dollars to build bridges in the Walnut Valley.
It does not specify the time of the election, nor the particular locality of the bridges, only that they must be in the Walnut Valley.
We must say that this is a remarkable bill, and passed in a most remarkable manner. We were not aware that any petition had been sent to the legislature asking for such a bill. In fact, we never heard such a project talked about, along the Walnut Valley, and it is certainly not a favorite project with the people off of the valley.
Chelsea has commenced her bridges, and proposes to build them without taxing the balance of the County to pay for it.
Eldorado has just voted bonds to build three bridges, one across the main Walnut, and two across the West-Branch, and the bridges will probably be completed within two or three months.
Towanda and Plum Grove are alive on the subject, and propose to build their own bridges without the aid of the County.
Propositions are being exchanged between Eldorado and Chelsea to join together in building a bridge at or near the dividing lines between the two Townships across the main Walnut.
There has been a good deal said about Augusta building one or two bridges, but as they have established a ferry there, we presume the project has been abandoned, and they now ask that the County build them a bridge. We consider this unfair and shall oppose the project.
It is unfair that one locality shall be taxed to enrich another. The framers of our Constitution were of this opinion when they engrafted into our State Constitution Sec. 8 of article 11, which provides that the State shall never be a party in carrying on any works of internal improvement.
Under this section, the rich and populous portions of the State cannot vote a tax upon the more thinly settled portions, to build up their own locality. This provision is a great protection of the rights of the minority against the encroachments of the majority.
The principle is a good one and is just as applicable to counties as to the State. The Legislature saw this and provided that each Township shall have power to build its own bridges.

It is true that a bridge across the Walnut at Augusta would benefit more or less the other portions of the County. So would a bridge across the Missouri at Leavenworth be of some benefit to almost every portion of the state, and yet it would be unconstitutional and wrong for a majority in the Legislature to vote a tax upon the whole state to build a bridge at Leavenworth. It would be equally unjust for the populous districts along the Walnut Valley to build themselves bridges at the expense of the people of Whitewater, Little Walnut, Hickory, and Rock Creek. It would also be unjust to require those Townships that go ahead and build their own bridges at their own expense to aid also in building bridges for other Townships.
Now if Mr. Baker had embodied in his bill the Whitewater and other creeks mentioned above, and made an equal division of the benefits of the proposed taxation, it would not have been open to so much objection; but as it is, we cannot support his bill.
We would be glad to see our sister town of Augusta have a magnificent bridge, but we think they are asking too much, and would advise them to do as we have done; build their own bridge.
Walnut Valley Times, May 5, 1871.
                                                        BRIDGE BONDS.
So far as we have talked with the people from various parts of the county, the general feeling seems to be one of opposition to the issue of bonds for the building of bridges. In a very short time, the railroad will have reached Newton, on the Little Arkansas, just seventy-one miles northwest from here in a straight line, while Florence is eighty-five miles, and Cottonwood Falls full a hundred miles distant. So far as mail and railroad matters are concerned, we shall not long need the bridges. We are now, as heretofore, in favor of immediately building them; but the utter impossibility of obtaining any assurance in regard to the equitable division of the money, stands in the way. We think the project will be defeated. Arkansas Traveler.
                                            BRIDGE OVER THE WALNUT.
Cowley County Censor, May 13, 1871.
A move is on foot to bridge the Walnut at this place, notwithstanding the thimblerigging of the straightforward gentlemen who reside at the mouth of the Walnut and who pretend to be the mouth pieces of the people. We suppose they consider their course in this matter as honorable and gentlemanly.
Bridges at Arkansas City and Eldorado township...
Walnut Valley Times, May 26, 1871.
Arkansas City is building a pontoon bridge across the Arkansas River at that point.
Walnut Valley Times, May 26, 1871.
The contract has been let for three Tubular Arch, Wrought Iron Bridges, across the streams in Eldorado Township. This will make our town accessible from all points at all times.
Cowley County lost any ability it had to get a single solitary bridge until 1872...
                                                                    1872
Winfield Messenger, March 15, 1872.
                                                 WINFIELD AT PRESENT.

The prospects of Winfield at this time are, indeed, flattering. An election will soon be called in the township for voting bonds to build two bridges over the Walnut; and a bridge will be constructed over Timber Creek without bonds. The bonds will be voted, and the bridges will be built.
A large four-story Flouring Mill, containing four run of stone, is to be built the present season. The admirable water power at “Knowles’ ford,” has been purchased for the site, and the gentlemen controlling it have the capital and experience to make it first class. It is to be built of stone, like our splendid school buildings, and will, with other improvements to be made this season, fill the people of Cowley County with pride of their capital town.
THE FIRST PERMANENT BRIDGE IN COWLEY COUNTY.
From the very first, I have been utterly confused about the two bridges west of Winfield that went across the Walnut River, and as to the location of these bridges. I was finally able to figure out the course of events relative to one of them (Bliss bridge) by backtracking and figuring out some of the events leading up to them. It appears that Bliss sold mill to Wood [First name unknown]. Then I gather that Wood took on as a partner Oscar Jettinger...
THE NEW BRIDGES.
Winfield Messenger, March 15, 1872.
Two new bridges across the Walnut will be built the coming spring at this place. The people in this Township will all vote for the bonds and they all recognize that we must have these bridges, for they will not only benefit the town but will benefit all who live in the township and trade at Winfield.
Next article indicates flour mill was constructed. It only refers to one bridge across the Walnut...and I gather from later articles that it was at Knowles’ ford...
Winfield Messenger, June 28, 1872.
Twenty teams are continually passing through town loaded with rock for the new mill foundations and the bridge piers.
Excerpts...refers to bridges and two grist and flouring mills...
Winfield Messenger, Friday. July 12, 1872. [Editorial.]
What is Winfield doing for the county? She is building bridges for the county, which justly belonged to the county to build, and which the county has the benefit of, which will cost her not less than $13,000. Has Winfield no claim upon the good will of the county? Where can the farmer find a better market in which to buy and sell?
Is it wise for the farmer to destroy his own market? Two splendid grist and flouring mills are being erected at Winfield, where every farmer in time will want to bring his grain.
Winfield Messenger, July 19, 1872.
ENTERPRISING. Augusta voted against bridge bonds on the 6th inst. Well, thank the Lord, Winfield voted for bridge bonds, and is building them too. Our bridges will enable us during high water, to cross and go up on the divide. No thanks to Augusta.
Article does not name the bridges...
Winfield Messenger, July 19, 1872.
Twenty men are employed on the bridges.
Winfield Messenger, July 19, 1872.

The Township Board estimated the amount of work done on the bridge piers up to July 5th, at $725.
Do the next items refer to the future “Bliss Bridge?”
Winfield Messenger, July 19, 1872.
The main pier for the bridge at Knowles’ ford is completed and the abutments are going up. The bridge will be 30 feet above low water mark.
Winfield Messenger, August 16, 1872.
The piers and abutments of the bridge at Knowles’ ford are finished, and the upper structure is being rapidly put on.
Winfield Messenger, August 30, 1872.
The time is drawing near for the completion of the bridge. By the next time the river rises, the people living on the other side can come to town without waiting for low water.
Note that next article states first and only bridge over the Walnut...THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE THE BLISS BRIDGE!
Article also refers to bridge being built south of Winfield...
Winfield Messenger, October 4, 1872.
COMPLETED. The bridge at Knowles’ ford is completed and the Walnut River is being crossed on the best bridge in southern Kansas. This is the first and only bridge built over the Walnut River and speaks well for the people of Winfield, and vicinity. The bridge south of town is progressing very fast.
Plea for a bridge across Timber Creek is made...
Winfield Messenger, October 18, 1872.
A bridge should be built across Timber Creek, at the crossing north of town, immediately. The dam backs the water a considerable distance above the crossing now, and when the dam is full the water at the crossing will be five or six feet deep. Action should be taken in this matter at once.
Excerpt...
[EDITORIAL PAGE: THE SOUTHWEST.]
Winfield Messenger, October 25, 1872.
A fine bridge spans the Walnut at this point, and another is in process of erection about a mile south of town.
The following indicates two bridges across Walnut: west and south of Winfield.
Winfield Messenger, November 1, 1872.
The bridge south of town is nearly completed. This makes two bridges across the Walnut at this point.
The next information relative to bridges at Winfield did not come until 1880...
1880
Winfield Courier, May 20, 1880.
We last week visited the Bliss mills now under the new management. We found Mr. Oscar Jettinger, one of the partners, in charge, and everything running as smoothly as it did under the old administration. Mr. Jettinger is a pleasant, agreeable gentleman, and will no doubt make the Winfield City Mills, as it is now called, one of the most popular institutions in the county.
[NOTE: NAME CHANGED FROM “BLISS MILLS” TO “WINFIELD CITY MILLS”.]

[OLDEST BRIDGE IN COUNTY, BUILT IN 1872 - FELL!]
Winfield Courier, August 12, 1880.
Last Friday afternoon the old bridge near Wood, Jettinger & Co.’s mill, fell in. It has been condemned for over a year as unsafe, and persons who used it were notified that they did it at their own risk. This was the first bridge built in the county, and has stood there since 1872. One of Al. Requa’s teams had crossed the bridge only a few moments before it fell.
The following shows the exit of Mr. Jettinger from mill...
Winfield Courier, September 9, 1880.
Winfield is to have another first-class dry goods store. Wood, Jettinger & Co. have rented the building now occupied by Lynn & Loose, and will put in a twenty-five thousand dollar stock of dry goods as soon as they get possession, which will be about Oct. 1. They have secured the services of Mr. Will Hyden; formerly with M. Hahn & Co., as head clerk. Will is a popular salesman, and his acquaintance with the people will make his services doubly valuable. Messrs. Wood, Jettinger & Co. are making large investments in Winfield and are valuable citizens.
Winfield Courier, September 16, 1880.
The new dry goods firm is to be Williams & Jettinger instead of Wood, Jettinger & Co., as we stated.
Winfield Courier, October 7, 1880.
Messrs. Williams & Jettinger are opening up their goods. They have purchased a splendid stock and will have the stone store filled from top to bottom. They will likely tell our readers when they get ready for business.
Winfield Courier, October 21, 1880.
Messrs. William & Jettinger, the new firm which recently opened for business in the old Lynn & Loose stand, say their opening say in this issue. Their store is full of nice, clean new goods. Give them a call.
                                                                     AD.
                                                  DON’T YOU FORGET IT!
                                                  WILLIAMS & JETTINGER
     Are receiving and have on hand a large stock of Dry Goods, Clothing, Boots, Shoes, Hats, Caps and Groceries. They must be sold. Give us a trial.
The following shows that Wood became the sole owner of old Bliss mill...
Winfield Courier, November 25, 1880.
Wood, of the late firm of Wood, Jettinger, & Co., is now the sole owner of the Winfield mill.
The following shows that Bliss bought an interest in his old mill from Wood...
Winfield Courier, December 9, 1880.
As we predicted, C. A. Bliss has gone into business again. A man who has been in active business for many years cannot keep out of it. He has bought an interest in his old mill again and now he will buy wheat and sell flour. The new firm is styled Bliss & Wood.
                                                                      -0-

1873
Bridge across Walnut south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, Saturday, January 11, 1873.
Bridge Contract. The severe weather of the past month has prevented the Contractor from making the fills at the approaches to the bridge south of town. When the cold season moderates, the bridge will be put in order and our rural friends can then visit us, regardless of high water.
Winfield Courier, Saturday, February 1, 1873.
There has been some trouble about the interest on the bridge bonds of this township. Trustee Short informs us that the bonds were not issued soon enough to have any interest come due this year. Not being registered by the State Auditor, they could not be certified up to the County Clerk, who makes the tax levy to meet the coupons.
West bridge across Walnut...
Winfield Courier, February 15, 1873.
Public Notice. [Trustees Office, Winfield, Feb. 14, 1873.]
The undersigned has erected on the Bridge, Signs, cautioning persons against riding or driving over the same faster than a walk. Those parties who have been in the habit of running horses over the West Bridge, are hereby informed that the law against the same will be strictly enforced. J. P. SHORT, Trustee.
West and South bridges across Walnut...
Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 27, 1873.
For the information of your readers I would state that travel across the bridge south of town has been stopped. It was found that the north abutment was not sufficiently strong to hold the fill, and Maj. Hobson, the contractor, has several men at work putting it in shape. The bridge will probably be ready for crossing early next week.
On behalf of the Township Board I would state that as yet neither bridge has been accepted, nor will they, or the balance of the money be paid, until both are put in shape to conform to the contract. The contractor realizes the fact and is acting accordingly.
J. P. SHORT, Trustee.
Winfield, March 26, 1873.
Excerpts re West and South Bridges across Walnut...
Notice that Bliss has a new partner: Blandin!
[ARTICLE DESCRIBING WINFIELD/COWLEY COUNTY.]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 8, 1873. [From the Atchison Champion.]
Two very fine bridges of Baker’s patent have been built by Hobson, of Wichita, across the Walnut, one a quarter of a mile west of town, and the other three-quarters south.
We had the pleasure of a little drive around in company with Hon. L. J. Webb, to see the Fair Grounds and the two new mills, one just below the bridge on the west of town, and the other on a narrow peninsula a half mile south. The former is built of rock, three stories high. Two run of burrs have been put in, and it is the intention to add two more. It is run by water power. There is a splendid rock dam attached. Messrs. Bliss & Blandin, proprietors.
Bridge north of Winfield over Timber Creek...
Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 24, 1873.

A Petition, signed by 91 citizens, voters of Winfield, has been presented to the Township Board, petitioning them to call an election for the purpose of voting $2,500 for erecting a bridge over Timber Creek just north of town.
[SPECIAL ELECTION: WINFIELD TOWNSHIP.]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 7, 1873.
RECAP: ELECTION TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1873, TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE ISSUING OF BONDS OF SAID TOWNSHIP IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A BRIDGE ACROSS DUTCH OR TIMBER CREEK AT THE POINT WHERE THE COUNTY ROAD PETITIONED FOR BY A. S. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS CROSSES SAID CREEK IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TWENTY-ONE IN TOWNSHIP THIRTY-TWO SOUTH OF RANGE FOUR EAST IN SAID TOWNSHIP. SAID BONDS TO BE ISSUED IN SUMS OF $500 EACH WITH INTEREST PAYABLE SEMI-ANNUALLY AT 10% WITH COUPONS ATTACHED; BONDS TO MATURE IN NOT LESS THAN 12 NOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS....BALLOTS: “FOR THE BRIDGE AND BONDS” OR “AGAINST THE BRIDGE AND BONDS.” J. P. SHORT, Trustee.
D. A. MILLINGTON, Clerk.
Winfield, July 29th, 1873.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 28, 1873.
At the election of Tuesday, for the purpose of deciding whether the township should give bonds to the amount of $2,500 for the purpose of building a bridge across Dutch Creek at the point where the road crosses said creek north of Winfield, there were polled, in all, 177 votes, and the bonds carried by a majority of 45.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 23, 1873.
NOTICE. Owing to the impossibility of negotiating bonds of any kind at present, the Township Board have decided to let the building of the bridge across Timber Creek rest for the present. J. P. SHORT, Trustee.
1874
Bridge across Walnut south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, June 19, 1874.
The bridge across the Walnut below town is reported in an unsafe condition.
Pertains to bridge north of Winfield across Timber Creek...
Winfield Courier, August 7, 1874.
Bridge Notice.
Sealed proposals will be received at the office of the Township Clerk of Winfield Township, in Cowley County, Kansas (The District Clerk’s office), up to Tuesday, the 1st day of September, 1871, at 1 o’clock, p.m., for the building of a bridge across Timber or Dutch Creek at or near the point where the road, known as the A. S. Williams county road, crosses said creek in the S W 1/4 of sec. 21, T P 32, Range 4 east. Beginning at a stake on the left bank of said creek and bearing across said creek N 35 degrees W 3.57 chains passing a blazed walnut tree about six inches in diameter at 2.37 chains. Said bridge to have a roadway as high as the highest point on the left bank of the creek at said point.

Proposal for the building of said bridge must be accompanied with complete plan and specification of the same; the price to be charged therefor in the bonds of said Township at par value, together with a bond with good and sufficient security in double the amount of the proposed costs thereof, conditioned for the faithful execution of the work proposed, and the carrying into effect any contract made in reference thereto. The right to reject any and all proposals reserved. H. S. SILVER, Trustee.
E. S. BEDILION, Tp. Clerk.
Winfield Courier, September 11, 1874.
The contract to build a bridge across Dutch Creek was let to E. P. Kinne, Esq., of Arkansas City, for $2,500 dollars. It is to be what is known as the Fake Truss. The bridge is, we believe, to be completed in sixty days.
Winfield Courier, October 9, 1874.
                                                    Notice of Issuing Bonds.
NOTICE is hereby given that the bridge bonds voted for on the 26th day of August 1873 will be issued by the undersigned on the 24th day of October 1874.
Attest                H. S. SILVER, Tp. Trustee,
                               E. S. BEDILION, Tp. Clerk.
                               O. F. BOYLE, Tp. Treasurer.
Winfield Courier, November 12, 1874.
The bridge across Timber Creek progresses finely under the supervision of E. P. Kinne.
Winfield Courier, December 31, 1874.
The new bridge across Timber Creek at the north of town is completed and accepted. It looks like a good job. Mr. E. P. Kinne of Arkansas City had the contract and has done himself credit in the enterprise.
                                                                    1875
Excerpts relative to South Bridge across Walnut...
Winfield Courier, February 11, 1875.
                                                The Winfield Board of Trade.
We are informed that several of our influential citizens have organized an organization to be known as the Winfield City Board of Trade. The purpose of the organization is the welfare of the city and county. We have been presented with the following resolutions for publication as having been passed at their first meeting.
Resolved: That it is the duty of the Winfield Township authorities to rebuild the bridge across the Walnut south of town.
Resolved: That in the opinion of this board the money collected for liquor licenses in Winfield Township, before the organization of the city, is sufficient to repair said bridge if the funds could be reached.
Timber Creek bridge north of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, August 19, 1875.
The approaches to the Timber Creek Bridge, just north of town, are in a terrible condition. It is unsafe to attempt to drive over this bridge as it is now. The Road Supervisor should attend to it at once, and while he is at it, he might go and fix up the one west of town, as it is but little better.
Bridge south of Winfield across Walnut...

Winfield Courier, November 11, 1875.
The bridge south of town is attempting to conform to the advice of the noble Horace G. It’s “going West,” and unless something is done to it soon, it will go South via the Walnut River. Immediate steps should be taken to save it. Twelve hundred dollars will put it in good shape. If not attended to at once, the township will lose six thousand dollars and the use of the bridge.
                                                                    1876
Excerpt showing west and south bridges across Walnut and bridge north of Winfield over Timber Creek...
                                               THE WINFIELD COURIER.
                                                     CENTENNIAL ISSUE.
                         WINFIELD COURIER, THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1876.
                                                                BRIDGES.
There are five bridges in the county, all wood structures. Two span the Walnut near Winfield, built in 1872, at a cost of $6,000 each; one crosses Timber Creek north of Winfield, costing $2,500, built in 1873; one crosses the Arkansas River south of Arkansas City, at an expense of $15,000, built in 1872; the fifth crosses the Walnut River east of Arkansas City, at a cost of $5,000, erected in 1873.
Excerpt relative to Bridge across Walnut south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, January 13, 1876.
                                                Commissioners’ Proceedings.
J. S. Hunt, trustee of Winfield Township, appeared and asked the board to repair a bridge built by Winfield Township across the Walnut River south of Winfield. The board, after being fully advised in the matter, agreed to lay the matter over for the present.
                                                       JANUARY 11, 1876.
Board met as per adjournment. All present.
In the matter of the Winfield Township bridge, the board have on this day agreed not to repair said bridge for the reason that the county did not appropriate money in the construction thereof; and hence the county has nothing to do with said bridge.
Winfield Courier, January 20, 1876.
Now that the County Commissioners have resolved that they won’t repair the bridge south of town, Winfield Township must do it. The township board should at once make an examination of the structure and, if necessary, call some practical bridge builder to their aid and decide at once what is necessary and then go to work. The township had better spend twelve hundred dollars if necessary than lose the bridge.
Winfield Courier, February 17, 1876.
The lower bridge is not repaired yet.
Winfield Courier, March 30, 1876.
Thanks to the ingenuity and industry of Capt. Hunt, the bridge across the Walnut below town is in using order. The repairs were made two weeks ago, but so quietly and unostentatiously did the Capt. do the work that we failed to learn of it until recently. He put the bridge in shape for less than forty dollars, whereas his predecessor and others had estimated that it would cost several hundred dollars to save the bridge.

Excerpts showing loss of two bridges: the one north of Winfield across Timber Creek and the one south of Winfield across Walnut River...
Winfield Courier, May 11, 1876. Editorial Page.
At noon of Saturday the stream north of town, known as Timber Creek, was over its banks and surging against the bridge. About noon the bridge left its moorings.
By 6 p.m., of Saturday, the water reached the highest point: at least six feet higher than ever before within the knowledge of the oldest settler. About five o’clock the bridge across the Walnut south of town yielded to the torrent. The water was flowing over the floor of the bridge about one feet deep at the time. It lacked one foot of reaching the upper bridge at any time.
The two bridges swept off are a loss to Winfield Township of about $4,000.
Winfield Courier, May 11, 1876.
Let us have an iron bridge across the Walnut south of town.
The following refers to condition of bridge west of Winfield across Walnut...
Arkansas City Traveler, May 17, 1876.
The bridge at Bliss’ mill is said to be in a bad condition. The abutments on both sides of the river are cracked.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 31, 1876.
A meeting was held in District No. 33 (east of the Walnut), last week, at which it was resolved that the people of that section were opposed to voting bonds for bridges, and calling on the County to erect one. There is no denying that the Townships east and west reap a great benefit from the bridges of this Township, yet if the County refuses to build the bridge, do the people propose to do without it? We could not ask the County to bridge the Walnut at this place without favoring the one or both, at Winfield; and if they build these, then Lazette and Silverdale will want the Grouse bridged. If the distribution could be made equal throughout the County, we should favor County bridges.
Winfield Courier, June 1, 1876.
It is time something was being done about replacing the bridges across the Walnut River and Timber Creek.
Winfield Courier, June 15, 1876.
Something should be done to replace the bridges near Winfield. Our friends south of town are becoming very uneasy.
Excerpt re bridge north of Winfield across Timber Creek...
[ITEMS FROM THE TELEGRAM.]
Arkansas City Traveler, July 12, 1876.
A petition, asking the Commissioners to repair the Dutch Creek bridge, above town, is being circulated and extensively signed.
Refers to bridge south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, August 24, 1876.
The recent rains put the Walnut past fording this week. How about that bridge below town?
Articles relative to bridge north of Winfield across Timber Creek...
Winfield Courier, December 28, 1876.

                                                          Bridge Meeting.
Pursuant to call several of our citizens living in the north end of Winfield Township met to take action in reference to the relocation of the bridge across Timber Creek, which was washed away last spring.
N. E. Newell was elected chairman and Geo. Mentch, Secretary. On motion a committee of three was appointed to solicit subscriptions for the purpose of rebuilding said bridge.
Robert Weekly, Peter Paugh, and Geo. Mentch were then selected as such committee.
On motion the meeting adjourned to Saturday night, next.
                                                                    1877
Winfield Courier, January 4, 1877.
                                                             From Bethel.
EDITOR OF COURIER: The citizens of Dist. No. 37 met at the schoolhouse to hear a report from the committee appointed to take subscriptions for building a bridge across Timber Creek. The report was highly satisfactory. A committee was then appointed to advertise for bids and let the contract, which committee consisted of Robert Weekly, H. L. Barker, G. W. Mentch, Peter Paugh, and the writer hereof. This enterprise illustrates the proverb, “Where there is a will, there is a way.”
Winfield Courier, January 4, 1877.
                                                       Notice to Contractors.
Notice is hereby given that sealed bids will be received until Saturday, January 24th, 1877, for repairing the superstructure of the bridge across Timber Creek. Contractor to use all the material of the old bridge that is suitable. For plan and specifications, call on or address, S. E. BURGER, Secretary of Committee.
Winfield Courier, January 18, 1877.
The Timber Creek Bridge is going ahead.
Winfield Courier, February 1, 1877.
The timber for the new bridge across Dutch Creek, north of town, passed through the city one day last week.
Winfield Courier, February 8, 1877.
GIBBS & HYDE were the lowest bidders for putting the bridge across Timber Creek, north of town. Work will commence soon. It ought to be completed before the spring rains.
Arkansas City Traveler, March 7, 1877. Front Page.
The Township board will be petitioned to appropriate a sum of money not exceeding $360.00 to be used in repairing of the bridge across Dutch Creek, just above town. It is now proposed to raise the piers and put in an iron bridge—which can be done at the cost of something over $800.00—the gentlemen proposing to erect it agreeing to take the subscriptions already raised for pay as far as they go. Telegram.
Winfield Courier, March 8, 1877.
J. A. Bullene, brother of our Winfield Bullene, is here as the agent of the Missouri Valley Bridge Manufacturing Co., of Leavenworth, and as such has contracted to put an iron bridge across Timber Creek, north of town.
Winfield Courier, March 8, 1877.

The final letting of a contract to build an iron bridge across Timber Creek shows what a few determined men may accomplish. A half dozen farmers in the north part of Winfield Township began working that project up a few weeks since and now success crowns their efforts.
Winfield Courier, May 17, 1877.
The iron for the Timber Creek bridge is arriving. Several wagon loads are on the ground. The bridge will withstand the next flood, sure.
Winfield Courier, June 7, 1877.
The new bridge across Dutch Creek, north of town, is rapidly nearing completion. We understand that it will be ready for use Saturday.
Winfield Courier, June 14, 1877.
The new bridge across Dutch Creek, north of town, was accepted by the township officers last Saturday morning. It is built mostly of iron, and is much more substantial than the one washed out last spring, and is about three feet higher. Many citizens visited and crossed it in carriages and buggies last Saturday.
The following concerns bridge south of Winfield across Walnut...
Winfield Courier, March 22, 1877.
                                                            Bridge Meeting.
                                        PLEASANT VALLEY, March 14, 1877.
Meeting for purpose of soliciting subscriptions for repairing abutments for iron bridge across Walnut River, south of Winfield, convened, with C. J. Brane in the chair. T. J. Harris, Joel Mason, and W. B. Sitter were appointed committee to solicit subscriptions.
Motion carried to the effect that committee proceed to business immediately.
Motion that proceedings of the meeting be furnished the Winfield papers for publication. Carried.
On motion the meeting adjourned.
                                              J. W. CHATTERSON, Secretary.
Propositions for two new iron bridges: one west of Winfield and one south of Winfield across Walnut...the one west of Winfield to be built at “brewery ford”??? Could this be on 7th Street???
Winfield Courier, June 14, 1877.
See the proclamation in another column, for an election to vote bonds, to the amount of $5,500, for two new iron bridges across Walnut: one at the brewery ford, west of town, and the other south of town in place of the one washed away by high water last spring. The election will be held on Tuesday, July 17th.
The next article refers to bridge on C. S. Smith County road ($3,000) and a bridge on the W. S. Voris county road ($2,500).
Later articles indicate that the W. S. Voris County road would lead to a bridge south of Winfield. Also, that a bridge had previously crossed the Walnut south of Winfield on W. S. Voris County road.
It appears that C. S. Smith County road would indicate a bridge west of Winfield. Above article indicates that this bridge would be at the “brewery ford”...???
Winfield Courier, June 14, 1877.
                                         BRIDGE BOND ELECTION NOTICE.

To the voters of the municipal township of Winfield, in the county of Cowley, State of Kansas.
WHEREAS, on the eleventh day of June, A. D. 1877, a petition signed by more than two fifths of the qualified electors of said township, was presented to the Trustee, Clerk, and Treasurer thereof, praying that an election be called in said township for the purpose of submitting the following question, to-wit: Shall the municipal township of Winfield, in the county of Cowley, State of Kansas, issue its bonds to the amount of three thousand dollars, for the purpose of building a bridge across the Walnut river in said township, on the C. S. Smith county road, at the most practicable point within the distance of one hundred yards of where the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of section twenty-nine, in township thirty-two, south, of range four east, crosses said river.
And “Shall the municipal township of Winfield, in the county of Cowley, State of Kansas, issue its bonds to the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars, for the purpose of building a bridge across the Walnut river in said township at the site of the W. S. Voris county road.”
Said bonds to be issued in denominations of five hundred dollars each, payable within ten years of the date thereof and bearing interest at the rate of ten percent per annum, payable semi-annually.
Therefore be it known: That on Tuesday, the 17th day of July, A. D. 1877, an election will be held at the usual place of voting in said township, between the hour of eight o’clock a.m., and six o’clock p.m.; for the purpose of determining whether the bonds said township shall be issued for the purpose aforesaid; and at said election all those voting in favor of the proposed bridges and bonds, shall have written or printed on their ballots the words: “For the Bridges and Bonds;” and all those voting against the proposed bridges and bonds, shall have written or printed on their ballots the words: “Against the Bridges and Bonds.”
In witness whereof we have hereto set our hands this 12th day of June, A. D. 1877.
JAMES S. HUNT, Township Trustee.
E. S. BEDILION, Township Clerk.
Winfield Courier, June 28, 1877.
Upon the “sober second thought,” the proposition to vote Winfield Township bonds to build two bridges across the Walnut River does not grow in popular favor. Aid would readily be given for a bridge south of town, but the necessity for one west does not seem as pressing at present. This is the way the farmers of Winfield Township talk to us.
Proposition to build a bridge across Walnut west of town and repair bridge south of Winfield across Walnut...
Arkansas City Traveler, July 11, 1877.
WINFIELD votes on a proposition to erect a bridge across the Walnut at the brewery, and to repair the bridge south of that place, on the 17th inst.
First part of article pertains to bridge across Walnut west of Winfield at the brewery. After the signatures, it refers to bridge across Walnut south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, July 12, 1877. Editorial Page.
The Bridge Question.

We, the undersigned, agree to pay the amounts set opposite our names for the purpose of completing an iron bridge across the Walnut, Cowley County, Kansas, and votes aid therefor in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) at an election to be held July 17th, 1877. Said sums of money to be due and payable in consideration of the erection of said bridge, to the order of the party to whom the officers of the said township let the contract for the erection of the said bridge.
WINFIELD, KAN., June 25th, 1877.
John Himelspaugh $60.00.
E. S. Sheridan $50.00.
John R. Davis and Son $50.00.
M. B. Rupp $50.00.
C. S. Smith $50.00.
L. D. Randall $25.00.
Thos. Randall $35.00.
C. P. Ward $40.00.
Wm. Carter $25.00.
A. T. Shenneman $50.00.
A. B. Graham $25.00.
J. R. Taylor $25.00.
J. F. Brooks $20.00.
Jesse Chatfield $20.00.
P. M. Waite $100.00.
M. L. Read’s Bank $200.00.
Calvin Kimble $10.00.
C. W. Donkin $10.00.
B. Alexander $10.00.
C. G. Bradbury $10.00.
J. C. Poor $5.00.
Wesley Bowers $20.00.
J. W. Randall $20.00.
O. F. Boyle $50.00.
Joseph Likowski $20.00.
R. Ehret $10.00.
Winfield Tunnel Mills $50.00.
George Easterly $10.00.
Phillip Stump $10.00.
Six hundred dollars ($600.00) has been assured in subscriptions for the completion of the bridge south of town on the W. S. Voris county road. The parties having the matter in charge are confident that the subscription to the two bridges will amount to $2,000 or upward. It now remains for the citizens and voters of Winfield township to say by their ballots whether they will avail themselves of the very liberal subscription or repel the trade seeking admission to our thriving city.
Winfield Courier, July 12, 1877.
The election on the bridge bond proposition will be held next Tuesday in this township.

Bridges over Walnut south and west of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, July 19, 1877.
The proposition for $5,500 in Winfield Township bonds to be used in constructing two bridges across the Walnut River at this place was carried last Tuesday.
Winfield Courier, August 9, 1877.
                       Township Board’s Notice for Proposals for Bridge Building.
To all whom it may concern:
Notice is hereby given that sealed proposals will be received by the Township Board of the township of Winfield, in the county of Cowley, State of Kansas, until the hour of 10 o’clock a.m., on Friday, the 17th day of August, A. D. 1877, for the construction of two bridges across the Walnut River, in said township at the following points, to-wit: One on the C. S. Smith county road, and one at the site of the old bridge on the W. S. Voris county road. Proposals for the building of such bridges must be accompanied with complete plans and specifications of the same (including the kind and quality of materials to be used in the construction of each material part thereof) and must state the price to be charged therefore in the bonds of said township at par value, and the difference, if any, between this and the price which would be charged therefor in cash.
Each and all of such proposals must be filed in the office of the clerk of said township in the city of Winfield, and be accompanied by a bond in an amount equal to double the proposed cost of such bridge with sureties to the approval of said board, conditioned for the faithful execution of the proposed work and the carrying into effect by the bidder, of any and all contracts entered into by him with said township, in reference to the building of such bridge or bridges.
The board reserves the right to reject any and all bids. J. S. HUNT, Trustee.
E. S. BEDILION, Township Clerk.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 22, 1877.
L. Lippmann has the contract for furnishing 24,000 feet of native lumber for the two Winfield bridges. They are to be completed in sixty or ninety days.
Legal questions re bridges answered at Topeka meeting...
Winfield Courier, August 23, 1877.
The convention of County Attorneys at their late meeting at Topeka have given the following answers to legal questions which were propounded to them.
“In case a bridge is to be built which is to cost more than $1,000 and the county agrees to appropriate $1,000, the delinquent road tax collected, belonging to the township in which said bridge is to be built, cannot be used by said township in completing such bridge.
“Where the cost of the bridge exceeds $1,000, but the excess is raised by private or other means, the County Commissioners can appropriate $1,000 to complete the bridge.
Iron bridges to be built across Walnut south and west of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, August 23, 1877.
Messrs. Simpson and Stewart have the contract to build the piers and abutments of the new iron bridges.
Winfield Courier, August 23, 1877. Editorial.
                                                             The Bridges.

The township board of Winfield township have let the contract to build the bridges across the Walnut River to the King Bridge Co. for the sum of $7,000.
Several styles of bridges were presented in the bids and specifications and the board selected therefrom King’s best and strongest style of patent tubular wrought iron bridges.
The cost is $600 more than it would have been had one of the lighter styles been selected, but the board have done well in selecting the best.
The South bridge is to be of one span of 150 feet, and the abutments are to be taken down 13 feet, rebuilt, and raised 6 feet higher than before, and is to be completed ready for travel on or before the 27th of next October.
The West bridge is to have a main span 120 feet, an east approach span 60 feet, a west approach span 30 feet, two stone piers 30 feet above low water, and one stone abutment, the whole to be completed by the 17th of November next.
The bridges are to be paid for with the bonds authorized by our late election so far as they go and the balance by private subscriptions, of which nearly the necessary amount is already pledged.
The specifications on file are very voluminous and minute, leaving no loophole, so far as we can see, for a misunderstanding with the contractors or for slighting the work. Everything necessary to a perfect and substantial job seems to have been specified.
We opposed the bonds at the election because we did not believe we were able to build both bridges, and feeling that the South bridge was most important we desired that it alone should be undertaken. It now looks as though we were mistaken and that both will be built in a short time, and we are prepared to give those who have labored so effectually to this end due credit for all the success that shall be achieved.
Winfield Courier, September 20, 1877.
An immense amount of material has been collected at the south bridge. The derrick is up and the abutments will soon be built. The iron will be here about Oct. 10th.
Winfield Courier, November 1, 1877.
SIMPSON & STEWART have finished the abutments of the south bridge and have moved their derrick to the west bridge.
Winfield Courier, November 1, 1877.
The contract is let to grade the approaches to the south bridge, to be completed by the 15th inst. The superstructures will be raised immediately.
Need for road repairs and approach to north bridge across Timber Creek...
Winfield Courier, November 1, 1877.
It will pay our businessmen to volunteer funds to pay for labor to repair the road from the north bridge across the Walnut west to the rise of the bluff, and to grade the approaches to the Timber Creek bridge. The work should be done at once. Who will attend to it?
Winfield Courier, November 29, 1877.
The road to Douglass is in excellent condition. The approaches to the Timber Creek bridge are well graded, the gulch at Grow’s is smoothed down, and the rocky hill this side of Douglass is as smooth as a floor.
Work proceeding on south bridge over Walnut...
Winfield Courier, December 20, 1877.

The bridge iron has arrived and the contractor is at work putting up the superstructure of the south bridge.
Following applies to both bridges over Walnut [south and west]...
Winfield Courier, December 27, 1877.
Bond Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the board of Winfield Township, in the county of Cowley, state of Kansas, will, on the 21st day of January, 1878, at the office of the township clerk, in the city of Winfield, issue the bonds of said township to the amount of five thousand five hundred ($5,500.00) dollars, in payment for the construction of two bridges across the Walnut River in said township, the one at a point on the W. S. Voris county road, the other at a point on the C. S. Smith county road. C. C. PIERCE, Trustee.
Attest: E. S. Bedilion, Township Clerk.
1878
Bridge south of Winfield over Walnut completed...
Winfield Courier, January 10, 1878.
The south bridge is rapidly approaching completion. It will be ready for use in a few days.
Arkansas City Traveler, January 23, 1878.
An agent of King’s Bridge Company has been here estimating the cost of building a bridge across the Arkansas river south and west of town. They have completed the bridge across the Walnut south of Winfield.
Winfield Courier, January 24, 1878.
The south bridge is up. Bring on your wood.
Winfield Courier, January 24, 1878.
The first load that passed over the new south bridge was Col. McMullen’s safe, headed by six yoke of heavy oxen. The weight of the team and load was not less than twenty thousand pounds.
Winfield Courier, January 24, 1878.
Ed. Bedilion rode a good horse down to examine the south bridge, but while making his inspection, the horse played a joke on him by returning alone. Ed. did not say any cuss words as he waded back through the mud, but don’t say anything to him about it for he may forget himself yet.
Winfield Courier, January 24, 1878. [Editors: D. A. Millington and A. B. Lemmon.]

The south bridge across the Walnut River is completed, accepted, and in operation, and now we swing our hat and give the three times three and a tiger with the best of them. It is ready for operation just in time, for the river has recently come up booming again, nearly ten feet above the ordinary stage. The bridge is one of the most beautiful iron structures we ever saw, and appears to be in every way strong and substantial. It is 150 feet span, 33 feet above low water, on substantial stone abutments, and the approaches are splendidly graded. When the proposition was submitted to vote $2,500 bonds to this bridge and $3,000 to the west bridge, we opposed the proposition because we did not believe we could build both, and voting so small a sum as $2,500 for the south bridge would ensure its failure. But the bonds were carried and the splendid management of the township board with the contributions and active aid of other citizens has proved us to have been mistaken. But while great credit is due to the board and others, we are mainly indebted to the efficient and persistent efforts of M. L. Robinson that this project has been worked up and carried though to complete success at so little cost to the township.
Arkansas City Traveler, January 30, 1878.
The bridge across the Walnut south of Winfield, on the old piers from which the Baker bridge was washed away a year and a half ago, is completed and is said to be a good one.

And now we reach the place where I am thoroughly confused. MAW
Iron bridge west of Winfield over Walnut...later: southwest of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, February 7, 1878.
There was a full force of men working on the west bridge all day Sunday.
Winfield Courier, February 14, 1878.
The new iron bridge spanning the Walnut River southwest of town is completed.
HELP!

Next item mentions four bridges: wooden bridge northwest of Winfield...???
QUESTION? WHERE WAS THE FOURTH BRIDGE?

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 21, 1878. Front Page.
                                 MILLINGTON & LEMMON, PUBLISHERS.
                                             COWLEY COUNTY, KANSAS.
                                                                BRIDGES.
There are four fine bridges within one mile of Winfield. One crossing Timber Creek, just north of the city, is an arched iron bridge of 100 feet span and 30 feet high stone abutments. The next is a wooden truss bridge across the Walnut River just northwest of the city 200 feet long on stone pier and abutments 35 feet high. The third is an arched iron bridge across Walnut River just southwest of the city one hundred and eighty feet long and thirty-five feet high on stone pier and abutments. The fourth is an iron bridge with a single span 155 feet long on 35 feet high abutments, across Walnut River just south of the city. The total cost of these bridges is about $25,000. Other good bridges are found in various other parts of the county.
Excerpt re bridge at Bliss’s mill...
Winfield Courier, June 13, 1878.
                                                    THE GREAT STORM.
The water in Timber Creek is slowly subsiding; but in the Walnut it is still rising. At Bliss’s mill it is up to within 16 inches of the bridge and as high as ever known before. The rise at this point is already 28 feet. Bliss had a large quantity of flour in sacks in his mill, and the hands set to work moving it into the upper story; but the rise was so rapid that about 10,000 pounds of flour was caught on the main floor, and is of course a loss.
Reference in next articles to bridge south of Winfield over Walnut...
Arkansas City Traveler, June 19, 1878.

Last Tuesday and Wednesday a very heavy rain fell, swelling the streams to an impassable extent, and carrying off saw logs, wood, wheat, and growing corn along their banks. The abutment of the bridge across the Walnut, south of Winfield, is said to be so badly washed that the bridge will fall, and water surrounded the approach of the bridge at Newman’s mill for more than a day. Mr. Bell, the owner of some sheep, near Park’s schoolhouse, was drowned in Badger Creek while attempting to cross, and the house of Mr. Frew, on Beaver Creek, was washed away and two children drowned, while he was making every effort to save his wife. Dr. Holland’s house was surrounded by water, and the occupants compelled to remain in it twenty-four hours before they were rescued. The Arkansas River rose four feet above the bridge pilings at this place, and carried hundreds of bushels of wheat, in the shock, down the stream. From all parts of the county we learn of its destruction to men, beasts, and the grain in the fields. In Pleasant Valley Township a horse belonging to Mr. Lucas was struck dead by lightning, and hundreds of hogs, young chickens, and ducks drowned. The damage to the county will be severely felt.
Winfield Courier, June 20, 1878.
The south bridge was nearly carried away by the recent rise in the Walnut. The north pier was almost entirely washed out. All that is left standing of it is a small column of rock under the northeast corner of the bridge and the west side of the pier under the northwest corner, the center having been washed out. That the bridge stood at all upon such a foundation is surprising. Thursday props of large timbers were placed under the north end and no further damage or loss is expected. The loss of this bridge would have been a serious one to the town and surrounding country, and the timely situation paid by many of the citizens of Winfield to secure it from further damages deserves notice.
Winfield Courier, June 27, 1878.
To Mr. Charles Cole, a painter in this city who came here with the men who put up our iron bridges, Winfield Township is largely indebted for saving the south bridge. He went into the rough and dangerous part of the work, risking his life; and by his skill, energy, and good judgment, was the leading factor in the work. Winfield will remember his services.
Bridge south of Winfield over Walnut...
Winfield Courier, June 27, 1878.
Notice for Stone Work.
Bids will be received by the Township Board of Winfield Township, at the Township Clerk’s office, in Winfield, up to July 9th, 1878, for rebuilding pier under the bridge on W. S. Voris’ county road. The Board reserving the right to reject, any and all bids. See specifications at Clerk’s office. E. S. BEDILION, Township Clerk.
Winfield Courier, October 17, 1878.
The Township Board of Trustees has awarded the building of the new abutments of the South bridge to Mr. Kavanaugh. If he rushes them up as fast as he did the new stone and brick building of Mr. Bahntge, we can soon have that bridge to use again.
1879
Excerpt...Mentions two bridges across Dutch creek [Timber Creek] north of Winfield...
Arkansas City Traveler, March 19, 1879.
Winfield has two iron and one combination bridge across Dutch creek...

      Excerpts which mention “lost bridge” at earlier dates...???
[E. C. MANNING—CHALLENGED BY SCOTT WITH CHARGES.]
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, September 13, 1876.
2. We charge him with being interested in and connected with the bridge swindle at Winfield, as published in the Telegram of October 2nd, 1873.
[Response to charge No. 2 from Manning.]
The second charge is not true. I refer to D. A. Millington, J. P. Short, and O. P. Boyle, who were the township officers of Winfield Township at the time for proof of my denial.
Winfield Courier, April 24, 1879.
Under this head the Semi-Weekly dishes up a column and a half editorial to prove that the county ought at once to go to a large expense in building additions to, and in remodeling the courthouse.
      It says that “whoever is responsible for building the courthouse where it is, with a swamp between it and the business portion of the town, demonstrates his unfitness to be entrusted with public interests, and has a small soul; that “Winfield has in days gone by been cursed by incapacity and cupidity;” that the courthouse, the schoolhouse, and the lost bridge “are the ear marks that indicate jobbery and rascality, “the indubitable evidences of “gigantic fraud” in those responsible for their construction.
J. P. Short was the trustee and O. F. Boyle the treasurer by whom the contract to build the bridge was let, and during most of its construction, and H. S. Silver, E. S. Bedilion, and B. F. Baldwin were the township officers who made the final settlement with the contractors.
Millington only, of that Association, had anything to do with the letting of the contract and building of the bridge. He was temporarily the township clerk at that time and claims his share of the credit with his colleagues, Short and Boyle, and with other leading men of the town.
                [Unless we could find Telegram article, learning about this is futile!]
The following mentions south bridge, and two west bridges...???
Winfield Courier, July 10, 1879.
At the meeting of the commissioners on Monday some important changes were made in the boundaries of the townships of Vernon, Rock, and Pleasant Valley, and a new township called Walnut was created, composed of the eastern and northern portions of the old township of Winfield, and a slice off the southern portion of Rock. Pleasant Valley gets the south part of Winfield township, including the south bridge and the Tunnel Mills, and Vernon gets the western portion including both west bridges and Bliss’ mill. This leaves Winfield a municipality of itself. This new township of Walnut holds an election for officers on the 23rd of this month.
Refers to bridge north of Winfield...
[BRIDGE DOWN - ACROSS TIMBER CREEK.]
Winfield Courier, July 24, 1879.

The bridge across Timber creek, north of town, was broken down last Monday by driving a large herd of Texas ponies on at one time. Six of the ponies were killed outright and many were injured. The bridge was made partly of iron and partly of the timber of the old bridge which was washed out some years ago, but was not supposed to be insecure. The weight of a large herd of ponies, together with the springing and crowding, was enough to test the strength of the strongest bridge. The herd belonged to a Mr. Seehorn, who came to town after the accident with the intention of suing the township for damages, but has as yet taken no definite action in the matter. If at all, the damages should be the other way, as the gentleman should never have driven more than fifteen head on at one time. The loss of this bridge will be a great inconvenience to the people in the north part of the county, as it cuts off all access to Winfield during high water. This will perhaps be a lesson to our people in all future works of a public nature to build them right in the first place and do away with the necessity and extra expense of rebuilding a bridge, only to be thrown down by a herd of Texas ponies.
Winfield Courier, July 31, 1879.
Last Saturday Mr. Robert Hudson finished taking out the Timber Creek bridge which was thrown down last week. The bridge is very little damaged, there being only one rod and a wooden cross-beam broken. The opinion of the persons who took the bridge out is that it did not go down in the center as at first supposed, but was thrown off of the abutment by the springing and crowding of the ponies. The irons and belts have all been taken out and are now at the foundry, and will only need to be straightened before they can be put back. It is estimated that three hundred dollars will put the bridge back on the old abutments in as good shape as it was before.
Refers to Bliss bridge west of Winfield...
[WALNUT TOWNSHIP AND THE BOND TAX.]
Winfield Courier, August 14, 1879.
We interviewed J. C. Roberts, the trustee of Walnut township, in relation to these matters. He admits that he was one of the workers in getting the Walnut township scheme, and that he circulated petitions by the “pale light of the moon,” but denies that his acts or those of any other men, who were active in the scheme, were the result of a desire to escape from the liability to pay their just proportion of the old Winfield township debt. They desire to pay such proportion and no more.
He says they were compelled to this action in self defense by the action the city had taken; that so long as the city was a part of Winfield township, the township board could levy the tax to pay principal and interest of the bonds and incidental expenses on all the property of the township, but when the city by the acts of her citizens obtained an organization as a city of the second class, the township board could no longer levy a tax on the personal property in the city, and the city could not levy a township tax so that the city would escape its just proportion unless the city authorities should determine to levy the tax anyhow; that the bridge at Bliss’ Mill needs a considerable expense to secure it from danger and destruction, and that the city authorities refused to assist in that matter, claiming that they had no jurisdiction and showed a disposition to saddle the whole debt upon those outside the city, as in fact they seemed to believe they had done; that lawyers advised him and his associates to that effect. He says that the men left in Winfield township had but one of two things to do: either to pay the whole bonded debt amounting to some $16,000 and interest, which the city men had voted upon the township, and the $5,721.74 of floating debt, which city men had contracted; or to put the balance of the township in a way that it could not be compelled to pay more than its just proportion.

He says they studied the matter carefully and determined upon the latter. They worked secretly because they knew they would otherwise probably be defeated.
He says he made a demand of the county commissioners that they should levy a tax on Walnut township sufficient to pay its proportion of the floating debt and the maturing bonded debt and interest; also, a small tax for incidental expenses, that he did not name; a two mill tax as we stated last week.
We shall have to admit that the foolish move of organizing the city as second class evidently placed our Walnut friends in a bad predicament and that they had a show of justification for the course they took to get out of it.
The more we learn of its effects, the more we see that the second class move plunged us into a labyrinth of difficulties. There seems to us but one way out of this part of the scrape. The commissioners must make the tax levy on the whole property within the lines of the old Winfield township. We think it their duty and the only way to save our credit and cost of suits.
Winfield Courier, August 28, 1879.
The bridge across the Walnut, at Bliss’ mill, has been “closed for repairs.” It is in rather a dilapidated condition.
Winfield Courier, September 11, 1879.
On the east end of the west bridge, a plank has broken and left a large hole through the floor. At the west end there is a similar hole and a number of loose boards. This should be fixed at once.
The following article refers to FOUR bridges....???
[COMMUNICATION FROM “S. E. B.” RE BRIDGE BONDS, ETC.]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, December 25, 1879. Front Page.
COMMUNICATED.
WALNUT TWP., DEC. 20, 1879.
EDITOR COURIER: In your issue of the 11th inst., under the head of “Bridge Bonds,” you say things that are liable to mislead, and with your permission I will give all the facts in the case so far as I known them, and I was connected with the movement from first to last, and ought to know the motives which actuated those whom you are pleased to call “timid citizens.”
The reasons for our actions are as follows.
1. Winfield township had built four bridges, issuing bonds and scrip to the amount of $25,000: $5,000 of which was scrip or township orders. (This is not claimed to be the exact amounts, but near enough to illustrate.)
2. Winfield City became a city of the second class, and by the law none but the real estate within the corporate limits of the city could be directly held for the indebtedness of Winfield township, thus leaving all that class of indebtedness known as scrip to be raised by the remainder of the township—say about $5,000—and assuming that the real estate in the township and the real estate in the city were equal, then the taxpayer in the township would have to pay in addition a tax on his personal property which would make the taxes relatively about as follows.

A, being a citizen of the city, would pay on his real estate $1.00, and on his personal property, $0.00.
B, living in the township, would pay on his real estate $1.00, and on his personal property, $1.00. In addition thereto, B would pay 25 or 50 cents on his real property and 25 cents on his personal property for the purpose of liquidating the $5,000 of township orders.
Thus, they would stand:
A. bond tax: $1.00
B. bond tax: $2.00
B. order tax: $.50
These sums are only approximately correct and would vary only as the relative ratio of the different classes of property within the two corporations varied at the time the proper authorities apportioned the debt to each.
3. There were four bridges to maintain at an annual cost, taking 1878 as a criterion, of about $800, for the use of the whole county. It was useless to think of trying the county for assistance; the township had lost half or more of its taxable property, and was saddled with a heavy bonded debt and a large floating debt—what could we do but as we did? Here was Vernon township on the west, with a large area of the best agricultural land in the state, and filled with an intelligent, go-ahead class of people that were, per force of location, compelled to use two of these four bridges all the year round. The same remarks are applicable to Pleasant Valley on the south with reference to one of the bridges, except that Pleasant Valley accepted the present of a new bridge with the best possible grace, while Vernon did not seem to appreciate the munificence of the donors in allotting two and a large additional territory to her domain.
4. After having made up our minds, the “coterie” went to work, got up a petition in legal form, made copies, and gave them to friends of the project. The petitions were duly circulated, and at the next meeting of the County Commissioners they were presented, and after laying the situation before that honorable body, they saw fit to grant the petition, and created a new township, giving two of the bridges to Vernon, which township by virtue of use ought to by right be compelled to maintain them, one to Pleasant Valley, and leaving one to the new township; thus dividing the cost of maintaining the four bridges among the three townships most interested in their use.
And now, as this article is already too long, I will close with a word as to the manner of circulating those petitions, as that seems to be a great “eye sore.” Those who had charge of the project acted upon the principle that you only receive help from friends, and that enemies are at liberty to get all the information they can. This is a world in which all work for their own interests as they understand them, and neither do they publish all their projects broadcast, but having made up their minds that a certain action is just and would result in bettering their condition, they set about to accomplish it in a legal (if you please) way, and he who says least does most. S. E. B.
1880
[CORRESPONDENT “VERNON” REPLIES TO S. E. B. COMMUNICATION.]
Winfield Courier, January 1, 1880.
VERNON TOWNSHIP, Dec. 27, 1879.

ED. COURIER: A communication signed S. E. B. in your issue of Dec. 25th, seems, under the circumstances, to require a few words of comment from someone. The writer sets out with the assertion that “in your issue of Dec. 11th, under the head of “Bridge Bonds,” you say things liable to mislead.”
He may have proved this charge to his own satisfaction, but no one reading his article would be able to perceive how. On the contrary, his statement of “facts” (already patent to everyone who has examined the subject), and the complications growing out of the action taken on these facts, more than justify your editorial in every essential particular.
The argument he makes to justify the course pursued, amounts to simply this: That himself, and a few others, becoming restive under a burden they had voluntarily assumed in the past, with full knowledge of the contingencies that might arise in the future, resolved to shift the same to other shoulders, by any means, fair or foul, so that it might be “legal,” (if you please.)” In doing this, he has but used the means that have done “Yeoman’s service” in plastering over the acts, and soothing the conscience, of every wrong doer since the days of Cain. Selfish interest, caprice, and passion are potent influences, and have swayed the minds and warped the judgment of greater men than those engaged in the “Gift” concern of which we complain.
The light in which the people of Vernon regard this matter is about this: If Winfield city and township, first settled, and possessing superior advantages, think that it will best serve and advance their interests to vote bonds and build bridges, thus attracting trade and travel; well, it is their undoubted right to do so, and displays commendable enterprise in their own behalf and public spirit as well.
And if the people of Vernon township, exercising their own judgment and from motives of prudence, prefer to suffer some inconvenience for a time rather than add to present embarrassments by building bridges, decline to do so, who shall say that it is not their undoubted right to so decide?
And if the people of Vernon object to accepting such responsibilities, on what rule of law or equity does S. E. B. base the right to “compel” such acceptance.
The people of Vernon township are not deficient in public spirit, nor do they lack enterprise, governed by prudence; but the remarks of S. E. B. on that point must be slightly ironical. There is a manifest lack of intelligence somewhere “there anent,” and a disclaimer on his part at once convicts him of insincerity. Had this matter been gotten up in an open, manly manner, and on the principle that “it takes two to make a bargain,” and after a fair hearing had been decided against us, whatever we might have thought, there would have been no opposition made.
But done as it was, by a few parties in the furtherance of their own selfish interests, and utterly regardless of the means employed to effect their purpose, we think we have good reason to object and shall not very soon cease to do so. VERNON.
Mentions iron bridge west of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, April 22, 1880.
The road supervisor of the district in which is the west iron bridge should repair the plank roadway at once before some serious accident occurs.
Even though the next article does not say so, it turns out that they are referring to the bridge located near Bliss mill, commonly referred to as the “Bliss Bridge”...

[OLDEST BRIDGE IN COUNTY, BUILT IN 1872 - FELL!]
Winfield Courier, August 12, 1880.
Last Friday afternoon the old bridge near Wood, Jettinger & Co.’s mill, fell in. It has been condemned for over a year as unsafe, and persons who used it were notified that they did it at their own risk. This was the first bridge built in the county, and has stood there since 1872. One of Al. Requa’s teams had crossed the bridge only a few moments before it fell.
Indication in the following of bad condition of bridges...number not given!
Winfield Courier, December 2, 1880.
The Monitor calls attention to the condition of our bridges. That is correct. These matters should be attended to, and the press should keep up a noise about it until it is attended to.
Indicates work to be done on bridge south of Winfield over Walnut...
Winfield Courier, December 9, 1880.
Sam Watt, trustee of Pleasant Valley township, is having the south bridge across the Walnut river overhauled, tightened up, and got in first class condition this week.
Refers to bridge west of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, December 16, 1880.
Mr. Lynn has discovered a thin layer of coal west of town near the west bridge. It is not probable that coal can be found in paying quantities less than 300 feet deep in this vicinity.
South bridge repaired. Refers to investigation needed of west iron bridge...
Winfield Courier, December 16, 1880.
Sam Watt, trustee of Vernon township, has put the south bridge in a safe and first rate condition. Now it is in order for our friend Skinner, trustee of Vernon township, to investigate the west iron bridge and put it in like condition.
[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]
Winfield Courier, December 23, 1880.
S. Watt, trustee of Pleasant Valley township, is entitled to the thanks of all the people who live in or come to Winfield. At a small expense he has made the south bridge secure. Now let the other trustees go to work.
1881
Refers to north bridge and to west bridge...
Winfield Courier, January 13, 1881.
Nearly every evening last week the river at the north and west bridge was thronged with young folks skating. The snow Saturday night put a stop to their fun for awhile.
Refers to bridge near Bliss’ mill that was no longer there...
Winfield Courier, January 20, 1881.
We are called upon to record accident No. 3 on the old man-trap of a bridge near Bliss’ mill. Saturday night, one , after filling himself with liquor, started home. The team seemed to be imbued with the master’s spirits, and commenced running. They turned the corner of the Christie residence, spilled the man out, and rushed for the old bridge; but the bridge wasn’t there, neither was there fence or posts to check their progress.

They had gained considerable momentum and of course plunged over the abutment, and fell thirty feet to the ice below. The wagon was smashed to atoms. One horse had his leg broken, and laid on the log for twenty-four hours before anyone removed him; and the other horse got up, walked across on the ice, and went on home. If the man hadn’t been drunk, he would not have fallen out, and would probably have been killed; consequently, liquor saved his life. Another argument for the free whiskey forces.
Refers to north bridge across Timber Creek...if I read the article correctly, bridge is down, as they are seeking iron bridge on standing abutments...???
Winfield Courier, January 27, 1881.
OLD TOWNSHIP FUND.
There is in the county treasury about $1,500 to the credit of old Winfield township, which was raised for road purposes, and ought to be appropriated for such purposes and not remain in the treasury. The bridge across Timber creek is such a purpose and is a necessity for an important travel and trade which comes to Winfield. The bulk of this money was paid by citizens of Winfield, and these citizens are interested in keeping the roads open to allow travel and trade to come here. We ask that the legislature pass a law appropriating the amount to put a first-class iron bridge on the Timber creek standing abutments. It can be done for the amount. We think this would meet with general consent. If not, there is no other just way but to appropriate it to pay on the Winfield township bonds.
Excerpts referring to “Bliss Bridge” no longer there???
Second excerpt refers to “west bridge”...does this mean that the “Bliss Bridge” was the second bridge west of Winfield over Walnut???
[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]
Winfield Courier, January 27, 1881.
Time and again have the papers in this city called the attention of E. D. Skinner, the trustee of Vernon township, to the danger of the roads running to what was known as the Bliss bridge. At this end there is nothing to stop a team plunging down, as was the case on Saturday night last. The only reason that the trustee gives for not fencing the road is because the commissioners changed the township lines. Legal authority says that this man, Skinner, is liable for all damage that may occur while he leaves the road in such a dangerous condition. We hope this is true, and that he will be obliged to pay for the horse killed last Saturday. He would have no sympathy in this country if he would lose every dollar’s worth of property he has in the world. He will probably learn that the acceptance of an office of trust entails certain duties that are incumbent upon him to perform. We now give you notice, Mr. Skinner, unless you attend to your duties as trustee, you will find yourself involved “in a sea of trouble.”
Last Saturday was an unusually bad day for Winfield. Many men appeared to think it was the last day that a drink of whiskey could ever be procured; and in consequence, those drank who never drank before, and those who were in the habit of drinking, drank the more. The natural result was, lots of fellows got full. One would naturally, under such circumstances, have anticipated many accidents, but there was, as far as we know, but one serious one, and that was to George McIntire, who lives on the farm of his mother-in-law near Seeley.

George got blind drunk and started home about six o’clock Saturday evening: he started his horses on a dead run and instead of taking the road south, to cross the west bridge, the team made for what was the Bliss bridge, that being their old familiar road. In making the turn McIntire was thrown out without injuring himself. The team ran madly down the blind road and plunged down from the abutment fully twenty-five feet to the ice below; one horse fell on top of the other. The horse underneath had his leg broken and laid on the ice and suffered for upwards of twenty hours before he was killed. The other horse loosened himself from the harness and went home. The wagon made a complete somersault. A man saw the team go over and he rushed uptown for Dr. Graham, taking it for granted there was a dead man down on the ice. The doctor came, the man was found, taken into the office of Bliss & Wood, and our worthy coroner reported the man dead-drunk. The horse, the nobler animal of the two, suffered and was killed, while the man still lives. The ways of Providence are indeed inscrutable and past finding out.
Perhaps the following article explains the status at this time of bridges.
It appears that the Timber Creek bridge across Walnut north of Winfield is down.
It appears that the old Bliss Bridge across Walnut west of Winfield is down.
It appears that there was another bridge across the Walnut west of town [referred to as the brewery bridge]. What is not said: was the “brewery” bridge considered as the west bridge, built about the same time as south bridge, and therefore still standing?
[BRIDGES.]
Winfield Courier, February 3, 1881.
“BRIDGE OR NO BRIDGE” is the prevailing topic of conversation this week. It certainly looks to us as if this was a one-sided question. That the bridge across Dutch creek is needed no one will deny. The people in North Walnut township are paying taxes on the bonds which were used to build the old Bliss bridge, the west, or brewery bridge, and the south bridge. They can make no possible use of these bridges and they are paying their money for the convenience of others. The time has now come for the balance of the township to help them by allowing the use of the funds now in the treasury to place a new bridge on the abutments which now stand there. The amount, in comparison with that used in the construction of the other three bridges, is small, and it is, in all justice and fairness, due to them that this money be appropriated to build the Dutch creek bridge. The abutments now standing there were built by private subscription; they have spent much time and money in trying to get a good bridge, while they have paid taxes far out of proportion to the amount they have received in improvements. They did not kick and squeal when asked to tax themselves to build bridges over which they would never travel; but as soon as they desire help and ask for money already in the treasury, part of which they themselves have paid, others come in and object. One of the loudest opponents of the bridge scheme wants to apply the money toward paying off the bonds now outstanding, and howls for “a reduction of taxation.” This is very good. We all want to reduce taxation, but it is hardly fair to get all we can out of a fellow, and about the time he wants something substantial in return to sit back on our dignity and tell him that we have inaugurated a system of “retrenchment and reform.” Be fair, gentlemen, and it will pay in the long run.
Excerpts re north bridge across Timber Creek...
[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]
Winfield Courier, February 3, 1881.

On Tuesday Messrs. Weakley, Burger, and Brown, of Walnut township, obtained a large number of signatures of our citizens asking that the fifteen hundred dollars now in the county treasury be used to build a new bridge across Timber creek. Many of our citizens signed under a misapprehension. We call the attention of our readers to an interesting communication on this subject from a prominent citizen.
[Note: Courier did not print above communication.]
The council met in special session on Wednesday to protest against the funds of old Winfield Township being used for any other purpose except to pay the indebtedness of such township according to the original agreement; and further protesting against a petition that had been placed on the streets Tuesday asking that these funds be used to build a new iron bridge across Timber creek. This action was unanimous on the part of the council. The protest was then submitted to a number of our largest taxpayers who signed it, and the entire document was forwarded to our delegation at Topeka.
Refers to bridge across Timber Creek north of Winfield...want iron bridge...
Winfield Courier, February 24, 1881.
FROM THE COURIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTER:
A bill has passed the Senate authorizing the Treasurer of Cowley County to pay to Walnut township the road and tax fund of old Winfield township, providing that Walnut township shall build an iron wagon bridge across Dutch creek, north of Winfield.
[THE TIMBER CREEK BRIDGE.]
Winfield Courier, April 7, 1881.
Last Thursday the Walnut Township Board completed the contract for the erection of the Timber Creek bridge. They worked for five days before getting a satisfactory proposition. The abutments are to be thoroughly repaired and straightened, and the superstructure is to be of the best wrought iron. When completed this will be one of the best bridges we have, and will be “put there to stay.” The Board will superintend the work closely, and see that no inferior material is used. The people are largely indebted to Mr. Robert Weakley, Samuel E. Burger, George Brown, and others for the work which made it possible to secure the bridge. The Board also put in some faithful work and showed much business ability in bringing the propositions within the limit of money on hand.
Winfield Courier, April 21, 1881.
Mr. J. C. Roberts, trustee of Walnut township, has been putting in the week superintending the repairs on the Timber Creek bridge. He informs us that the abutments will be ready for the iron by Friday. The bridge will likely be opened for travel inside of thirty days.
Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.
J. C. Roberts says the Dutch Creek bridge will be here by June 1st. It will then take but a few days to complete it as the work of getting the parts is already done.
Winfield Courier, May 26, 1881.
Mr. Chas. McNulty hired a span of horses and buggy of Speed and Schofield last Sunday and undertook to ford Timber creek just above the bridge which is in process of construction where the water was at least ten feet deep. The current floated the horses, who swam around twice, and finally drowned, with their heads near the bank in the direction from which they entered. Mr. McNulty clung to the buggy standing up in it with the water around his waist and was rescued by a boat which was rowed up to him from below.

Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
J. H. Bullene let the stage pass over his new iron bridge across Timber Creek Monday morning on a temporary crossing, but the bridge was not finished until Tuesday noon.
Winfield Courier, July 7, 1881.
The Timber Creek bridge was not accepted by the board last week, owing to some defects in putting it together. Ten days were allowed the contractors for perfecting the work.
[THE NEW IRON BRIDGE.]
Winfield Courier, July 14, 1881.
J. C. Roberts, Trustee of Walnut Township, called on us last Thursday, and invited us to go along and see the new bridge, while they examined the structure for final acceptance. We soon found ourself at the bridge, where were the treasurer and clerk of the township, Messrs. Blanchard and Joel Mack; Col. Bullene, of Leavenworth, the contractor, and his brother, J. G. Bullene; S. E. Burger, and a few others. We did not go as an expert, so our opinion was not given and did not count, but we were much pleased with the bridge. It appeared to us to be thoroughly well constructed, and a complete bridge in every particular. It is a beautiful bridge, of a hundred feet span, on abutments far above high-water mark.
We came back, and all took some lemonade, at Col. Bullene’s expense. Then the parties sat down in the COURIER office and settled up, and the board paid for the bridge. A great deal of work has been done by Robert Weakley, S. E. Burger, George Brown, and others, to get up an interest, get the necessary legislation, and the necessary subscriptions. The Township Board have spent their time, and used the greatest care to make the bridge perfect in every respect, and have attended to their work faithfully. The people most interested give them full credit and grateful thanks.
This bridge is of much importance to Winfield in many respects, and the efforts of those whose exertions have secured the bridge will be appreciated.
Reference made to west bridge...
Winfield Courier, July 28, 1881.
Some unprincipled fellow has defaced M. Hahn & Co.’s sign, the one near the west bridge. Several letters have been scratched from the board with a knife. A man or a boy who will do this, will steal sheep.
Refers to south bridge, it says....???
Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.
Walnut, Vernon, and the other townships outside of the city in old Winfield Township, have employed H. C. Sims, of Wichita, to look after their interests in the suit brought in the U. S. Court by the King Bridge company. The company has about $2,500 in scrip which was issued to pay for building the approaches to the south bridge. If necessary, City Attorney Seward will act for the city in the case. In our judgment the above suit should be added to the series of blunders committed in blotting out the old township, and the whole matter should be settled and paid with as little cost as possible.
[BRIDGE SUITS.]
Winfield Courier, December 8, 1881.

The King Iron Bridge Co. has sued the townships of Vernon, Pleasant Valley, and Walnut, and the City of Winfield in the United States Circuit Court for the sum of $1,879.67 and interest, on five township orders of the old Winfield Township, all issued for building the approaches to the South bridge April 10, 1879, except $330.00, Dec. 31, 1878, for iron bridges. Rossington, Johnston & Smith of Topeka are attorneys for the plaintiff. The petition asks for the appointment of a master in chancery who shall take proof of the territorial extent and taxable property of the parts of the old Winfield Township now in each of the defendant limits and apportion the indebtedness to each, and that an order issue that each of the defendant municipalities pay their proportion immediately. This is in addition to the suit of Carpenter brought by M. G. Troup in the district court of this county for the payment of $2,036.10 of bridge scrip of Winfield Township and interest from October 15, 1881. This is one of the results of bad management in the past in the disruption of Winfield Township. Now there is no other way to pay the indebtedness legally except at the end of a suit in chancery.
Winfield Courier, December 29, 1881.
Mr. E. D. Skinner, trustee of Vernon Township, talked old Winfield bridge scrip with us half an hour Saturday. As Vernon is not very largely interested in the matter, she will let Walnut and Winfield do what fighting there is to be done.
1882
Cowley County Courant, January 12, 1882.
The trustees of townships comprising old Winfield Township have met and apportioned the expense of contesting the payment of the township scrip issued by the officers of the old township for bridge building. The apportionment between the townships based on their property valuation is as follows:
Vernon, $7.35.
Fairview, $4.42.
Walnut, $39.50.
Pleasant Valley, $7.40.
Winfield City, $91.33.
This makes a total of $150.00.
The Courier has stated that the Hon. H. C. Sluss has given a written opinion that the scrip was legally issued. We think the statement of the Courier contained a typographical error, as we saw the written opinion of Mr. Sluss, in which he confidently states that the scrip was not legally issued and that he had no idea that the old territory could be justly held for its payment.
The Courier also misstated in saying that Mr. Sluss demanded $300 for contesting the case. Mr. Sluss has agreed to contest for $150, three hundred dollars to be paid him if he wins the suit.
Rumor relative to bridge north of Winfield over Timber Creek...
Winfield Courier, January 19, 1882.
Rumors have been current that the Supreme Court decision invalidates the bill appropriating the money for the Dutch Creek Bridge. The bill received the constitutional majority and is all right.
[EDITORIAL.]
Cowley County Courant, March 2, 1882.

OLD WINFIELD SCRIP.
We have heard considerable comment among our citizens in relation to the payment of the city’s share of the scrip issued by old Winfield Township, for which the city of Winfield has been sued by the King Bridge Company and by Carpenter and Reed.
The city’s proportion to pay, should the courts decide the debt legal, would be considerable, and the people of this city would certainly wish to know that the debt was lawful before they are called upon to tax themselves for two or three thousand dollars. The city council at a meeting resolved to contest, if all the other townships would join, in testing the legality of this large amount of scrip.
Since then we have learned that Pleasant Valley Township has refused to contest, but we suppose of course, the city council will take steps to protect the interests of the people and see that they pay only such debts as are legal. This scrip has not a very good name, and is thought by many to have been illegally issued.
Though Mayor Troup is attorney for the parties bringing the suit, we suppose he will guard the interests of the people as well as those of his clients, and the citizens of this city will look to him and to the city council for full protection of their rights. If these claims are legal, the city will not hesitate a moment or protest an instant over their payment, but a decision of the courts should certainly be obtained.
Winfield Courier, March 2, 1882. Editorial.
THOSE WINFIELD TOWNSHIP SUITS.
We wish to brace up our city council in relation to these suits. They are in relation to the debts incurred by the last trustee of the old township, in building the bridges in excess of the amount voted by the people. For this excess township scrip was issued, the legality of which was questioned or denied at the time, and has never yet been decided. Three suits against the territory which comprised the old township are commenced to collect this scrip and the question to be determined by the court is: Is this scrip legal and binding? If so, what existing municipal corporation is liable and in what proportion? And in what way shall the money be raised? The suits already commenced involve the sum of about $5,000. It is necessary that these be defended in order that either of these questions should be properly settled and the interests of the corporations interested be protected and secured on equitable principles. John C. Roberts, trustee of Walnut Township, has been at work in the matter for sometime and has made, with the approval of the other townships and a majority of the city council, complete arrangements for the defense of these suits at a minimum cost. The county clerk has furnished the assessment rolls and a schedule of the proportion of the expense to each municipality is agreed upon. The officers of each township interested have signed a contract to pay their proportion of the expenses. It is doubtless the wish of the citizens that the city council also ratify the contract. It will cost $150 to defend these three cases and it is worth much more than this to learn the legal status of the claims. We cannot afford to let it go by default. This sum is the fee of H. C. Sluss, who has been selected as the counsel for the defense. In case the two principal suits are defeated, the sum will be double. The proportion of the $150, among the municipalities, will be about as follows.

Winfield City, $92; Walnut Township, $37; Pleasant Valley, $7.50; Vernon Township, $7; and Fairview Township, $4.50. The city of Winfield can well afford to stand the $92, and the council should promptly ratify. In case the suits are successful, Winfield City alone will have $3,000 to pay besides its proportion of some further claims which will be prosecuted. She can well afford to pay $92 or twice that sum to have her interest thoroughly looked after. Mr. Roberts has done the work; now let the council stand to and go ahead.
Reference made to west bridge and up the hill...
Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.
W. A. Lee received one of the Gaar Scott engines and separators last Saturday for John Davis and Bros., of Vernon Township. It was unloaded, driven up through the streets, and created quite a commotion. The idea of an engine running along the road without horses and pulling a threshing machine was rather novel, to say the least. After going about through the streets for awhile the engine started for Vernon Township followed by a large procession of farmers. It pulled across the west bridge and up the hill on the opposite side without trouble. Mr. Hess of Vernon engineered the “iron horse.” We wonder what the mechanical ingenuity of man will invent next?
Reference made to west bridge...
Cowley County Courant, June 1, 1882.
Mr. J. H. Finch met with a severe accident last Saturday evening. As he, with Gen. Green, was driving on the approach to the west bridge, the team jumped to one side, upset the buggy, and threw Mr. Finch to the ground, breaking both the bones in his left leg, a little above the ankle. Dr. Emerson reduced the fracture, and Uncle Jim is now getting along very well.
Reference made to west bridge...
Winfield Courier, June 8, 1882.
Mr. Powell, a sheep man of Harper County, while returning from the country Tuesday in one of Schofield & Keck’s best rigs met with a very serious accident. In coming down the grade at this end of the west bridge, the buggy struck a large rock, almost upsetting it, and throwing Mr. Powell out. The horses immediately became frightened and began to run. Leaving the road, they ran into the timber at the right, and while going at a terrific rate, one horse struck a large tree, instantly breaking his neck. Luckily there was no lady in the buggy.
According to next article: three bridges only. One west of Winfield (still cannot figure out location of west bridge); one south of Winfield; and one north of Winfield across Timber Creek [often referred to as Dutch Creek]...
[COWLEY COUNTY: HISTORY & DESCRIPTION.]
Winfield Courier, July 13, 1882.
(From Green’s Real Estate News.)
BRIDGES.
There are two good bridges across the Walnut River at Winfield, one west, and one south of the city. The first one is an arched iron bridge, 180 feet long and 35 feet high. The other the same kind of a bridge with single span, 153 feet long. Each of these bridges rests on solid stone abutments. There is also one (an iron bridge) north of town and across Dutch Creek. This bridge is 100 feet long.
Refers to iron bridge west of Winfield...repairs by Vernon Township...
Winfield Courier, November 16, 1882.

The board of Vernon Township are tightening up and repairing the iron bridge west of town. They will also complete the grading.
                                                                    1883
Refers to bridge west of Winfield over Walnut River...
Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.
The Walnut River rose last Saturday up to within eight feet of the roadway on the west bridge, which is higher than it has been before for three years.
Winfield Courier, September 13, 1883.
The floor of the West bridge is in a bad condition and unless something is done someone will have damages to pay. The embankment on this side ought to be railed, also. Doc. Copple’s team backed off of it some days ago and narrowly escaped injury. The proper authorities should look after it at once.
Arkansas City Traveler, November 21, 1883.
“Now that the west bridge has been repaired in good shape, there is no reason why the farmers should not turn their faces once more toward the county seat.” Telegram.
Isn’t there? Well, we should smile that there was. Most farmers are blindly prejudiced in favor of getting the highest prices for their wheat. It may appear foolish to you folks, but there is no accounting for tastes. Hence they come to Arkansas City.
Winfield Courier, December 27, 1883.
The repairs on the West bridge are finished and teams began to cross Wednesday evening.
                                                                    1884
Winfield Courier, January 3, 1884.
The west bridge is now thoroughly repaired and was thrown open for travel last week. The repairs are first-class, Trustee Martin having seen that every stone and piece of timber was put in just right. It has cost upwards of five hundred dollars, about half of which was furnished by the businessmen of Winfield and the balance by Vernon Township.
Refers to the bridge over Walnut south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, January 31, 1884.
I have had the rods and braces tightened on the iron bridge south of town, in Pleasant Valley Township, and conspicuous notices put up announcing “$5.00 fine for riding or driving over this bridge faster than a walk,” and by the powers of “Gaskell’s Compendium,” the next man that trots cattle or horses across that bridge will hear a racket.
                                                     L. HOLCOMB, Trustee.
Mischief at West Bridge...
Winfield Courier, February 7, 1884.
A lot of boys have been in the habit of going out to the west bridge, mornings, firing off pistols, and scaring the teams of passers-by. When remonstrated with by a gentleman the other morning, they used very offensive language. Complaints have been made and the boys will come to grief if the thing is not stopped.
Refers to bridge over Timber Creek north of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, March 20, 1884.
                                                               Bad Bridge.

The trustee and road supervisors of Walnut Township should attend to the northwest approach to the Timber Creek Bridge right away. It is represented as in a bad and dangerous condition. First they know, there will be an accident and damage done which will cost the township five times as much as it will to make the needed repairs.
Refers to all Cowley County bridges...
[BRIDGES.]
Arkansas City Republican, April 26, 1884.
At a meeting last Saturday at the courthouse, in Winfield, held for the purpose of discussing the project of the county’s purchasing all the bridges built by the several townships, and costing $500 or over, for the nominal sum of $1.00, it was decided to be the sense of the persons assembled that such action be taken. A committee of three, consisting of L. F. Johnson, of Beaver; W. M. Sleeth, of Creswell; and H. H. Martin, of Vernon, were appointed to confer with the county attorney concerning the legality of calling a special election, or of submitting to the qualified electors of the county the question of purchasing the bridges and also to ascertain whether the county has the power under the law to purchase said bridges, and if so, to prepare through legal advice petitions to the county commissioners to call said election, and with instructions, if necessary, to call another meeting.
Refers to absence of a bridge at Bliss’ mill...
Winfield Courier, April 10, 1884.
A BRIDGE! A BRIDGE!
My Kingdom for a Bridge!!!
The principal grounds mentioned by the Railroad Commissioners for recommending a station between Winfield and Oxford, two stations only ten miles apart, was the lack of bridge facilities to get in to either of those towns. It is about time that the businessmen and citizens of Winfield took active steps to have the bridge at Bliss’ mill reconstructed on a much larger and more substantial plan. Winfield has lost enough business on account of the absence of that bridge. The profits already lost on that account would be sufficient to build more than one such bridge, perhaps half a dozen.
Refers to all bridges in Cowley County...
[BRIDGE MEETING.]
Winfield Courier, April 24, 1884.

On last Saturday afternoon a large meeting was held in the Courthouse for the purpose of discussing the feasibility of the County purchasing the various bridges built over the Walnut and Arkansas Rivers and one over Timber Creek, all of which have been built by the Townships and by individual subscriptions; and also building some others much needed in different portions of the county. It being a fact that all the costly bridges built in the County up to the present time having been built exclusively by the townships and by individual subscriptions, the county itself never having invested a single dollar in any of them, cannot under our present laws expend a single dollar in repair on said bridges, and the burden of keeping them in repair by the townships has become a very onerous one and in consideration of the fact that several townships having control of said bridges, are desirous of selling said bridges to the county for a normal sum, say for one dollar ($1.00) apiece, and thus shift the responsibility of keeping them in repair onto the county. It was thought best by many of the leading citizens, both of the city of Winfield, and also of the several townships, to call a meeting of citizens and discuss the feasibility of the change. The meeting was organized by calling C. A. Bliss to the chair, with H. H. Martin as secretary. A motion being carried that a committee of three be appointed by the chair to draft resolutions expressive of the sense of the meeting, Col. McMullen, William Moore, and Jessie Isenagle were appointed as said committee, who after some deliberation reported the following.
WHEREAS, There are many valuable bridges already built in the county, and
WHEREAS, These bridges have been erected at great cost by the townships building the same, and
WHEREAS, These bridges are kept in repair at the expense of said townships, and the same have become burdensome to the people by whom they were built, and in justice to the taxpayers of said locations ought to be transferred to the county,
Therefore, Resolved, That the county ought to own all the bridges within its limits valued at $500 dollars and over, and further,
Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting—1st: That the county purchase and own all bridges of the value of $500 and over, and—2nd: erect others when the same may be necessary in the county, having in view the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
The above report of the committee was received and unanimously adopted.
A motion was then made, and carried, that it is the sense of this meeting, that a special election be called to submit to the qualified electors of Cowley County, Kansas, the question of the county purchasing all the bridges of the various townships owning bridges of the value of $500 and over at a nominal sum of, say one dollar ($1.00) each, and of building some others, and if the same cannot be done at a special election, that it be submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the county at the next general election; if it is found upon further investigation that the county has the power under the law to purchase the same.
A motion being put and carried that a committee of three be appointed to confer with the county attorney in regard to the legality of calling a special election, or of submitting to the qualified electors of the county, the question of purchasing the bridges, and also to ascertain whether the county has the power under the law to purchase said bridges, and if so, to prepare through legal advice petitions to the county commissioners to call said election. L. F. Johnson, of Beaver, W. M. Sleeth, of Creswell, and H. H. Martin, of Vernon, were appointed as said committee, with instructions, if necessary, to call another meeting after such meeting adjourned sine die. C. A. BLISS, Chairman.
H. H. MARTIN, Secretary.
[BRIDGE MEETING.]
Winfield Courier, May 8, 1884.
THE BRIDGE MEETING.

I notice in the columns of your paper of last week the proceedings of a bridge meeting. I have talked with several of the taxpayers of this township on the subject, and am satisfied that this township would be in favor of the county buying the bridges already built by the several townships; and of building bridges in the future at the expense of the county instead of the townships. But it seems to me that it would be imprudent to hold a special election about the matter. The expense of an election of this county costs about $800. This is a trifle for a county so large and wealthy as Cowley, but it is worth saving; and I would suggest that we take a vote on that matter at the general election in November, and, instead of spending that amount to hold a special election, that it be appropriated to repair the bridges proposed to be bought.
While there may be no law authorizing appropriations by the county to repair bridges belonging to any township, I believe it would be generally approved from the fact that it is right that any bridge that is free for the use of everybody should be kept in repair at the expense of the public. Yours Truly, H. J. SANDFORT.
Refers to contamination from Timber Creek bridge north of Winfield...
[COMPLAINT BY CITIZEN.]
Winfield Courier, June 19, 1884.
A citizen has entered his complaint to the COURIER, in which he avers that he saw with his own eyes and counted with his own counter the remains of seven defunct dogs floating in Timber Creek above the water works; that he has seen wagon loads of garbage thrown off of the Timber Creek Bridge into the stream night after night; that land-owners north of town have stopped allowing the use of their land as garbage ground and for this reason the stuff is dumped into the river from the bridge. This may be a very nice and handy thing for the persons who haul the garbage and carcasses away, but as dead dog soup, has not yet become a favorite or healthy beverage with our people, we desire to enter an emphatic protest against it. If it must be dumped in the river, let the dumping occur from the bridge below the town. The statute gives our city fathers police power in such cases for a mile outside of the city. We ask them to take immediate steps to stop it.
Excerpt pertaining to “bridge case against City of Winfield”...
[CITY COUNCIL.]
Winfield Courier, June 19, 1884.
The bill of Jos. O’Hare, $32.50, expenses of trip to Leavenworth in attending to the bridge case against the city, were allowed and ordered paid.
Refers to all bridges in Cowley County...
Winfield Courier, September 18, 1884.
A bridge meeting will be held at the Courthouse in Winfield, at two o’clock next Saturday, for the purpose of considering the public bridge question as relating to the people of the county. Let all turn out. Order of Com.
Excerpt re Cowley County bridges...
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 1, 1884.
A FEW WHOLESOME TRUTHS.

We have today petitions in circulation in this city praying the county commissioners to submit to Cowley’s voters a proposition for the county to purchase the three bridges now owned by Creswell and Bolton Townships. Will the county commissioners act on this before the general election? If Arkansas City, with its Republican majority, defeats King, is anyone foolish enough to suppose the county will help take this bridge burden from our shoulders? In the coming years we may frequently desire to call on the county at large for aid. The county is Republican; so is Arkansas City; and if we do not show a reasonable degree of fairness in politics, we cannot blame the rest of the county for working against us in matters purely local.
Excerpts re Cowley County Bridges...
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 8, 1884.
MR. SCHIFFBAUER AS A LEGISLATOR.
“If wishes were horses, all could ride,” and if promises made during a canvass were all that is required to secure election, the result would be simply narrowed down to a soft-soap basis. The man who could make the most plausible promises would reap the largest harvest of votes. This tickling business seems to have been largely adopted by our worthy mayor in his search for support for the legislature, and the lavishness with which he scatters his promises proves that they cost him nothing, and also proves that they are worth no more to the voter. Right here we wish to state that whatever we say concerning Mr. Schiffbauer has been gained from reliable Democratic or independent sources, and is not published with any desire to misrepresent him. We are credibly informed that our mayor tells his independent and Democratic followers that the bridge south of this city should be assumed by the state, “and if I am elected, I will see that it is done,” says Frank. This is obviously a bid for Bolton Township’s vote. It is a very seductive promise, and if Bolton Township were peopled with ignorant voters, it might have its desired effect. But such a statement shows a lamentable lack of intelligence on the part of Mr. Schiffbauer, and augurs ill for his success as a creditable representative. There isn’t a bridge in Kansas assumed by the state; there isn’t a bridge in the United States assumed by any state. There have been laws passed in our state legislature authorizing different counties to assume the bridges therein, when certain conditions have been complied with, and this law is in force in Cowley County today; and Mr. Schiffbauer’s election to the legislature can have no influence whatever on the bridge question—even supposing this to be his motive for running.
We will change this statement. His election would have some influence. He could not be elected without a large Republican vote in Creswell and Bolton Townships, and, as we said last week, this would simply cut us off from the county and leave us with no hope for aid from outside townships in the future. This is not mere idle talk. It is solid fact, as our people will realize sooner or later. We do not say that Mr. King’s election guarantees certain relief in bridge matters, or any other special legislation; but we do say that his defeat through Republican disaffection in this city will go largely toward drawing the hostility of the entire county upon us.
Arkansas City Republican, October 11, 1884.
In each township of Cowley County petitions are in circulation asking that the county commissioners submit a proposition to the lawful voters of our county for the purchase of the bridges in the county. The two bridges across the Arkansas River should at least be owned by the county above all others. The Arkansas is a government stream and does anyone else know of bridges being owned by the township, when they span a government stream. All bridges within a county should be owned and sustained by the county, for are they not a benefit to the people at large as well as they are a great benefit to the community in which they are located.
Refers to possibility of building new bridge west of Winfield. Gather this would be near where the Bliss & Woods bridge was located and evidently fell down...

Winfield Courier, October 16, 1884.
Bridge Matters.
EDITOR COURIER: There is some little stir for a new bridge across the Walnut River on the west side of town, main object being to give east and west trade a direct road to the business portion of the city. The writer has talked with some of the Vernonites and citizens of the city and it seems the most desirable place is at the west end of ninth avenue, this road would then run direct to the crossing of Main street and ninth avenue, the center of the business portion of Winfield and run by the fair grounds and within one block of Bliss & Wood’s Mill. Should the bridge be built where the old wooden bridge stood, this would throw teams into the meandering crossings and switches of both the Santa Fe and Southern Kansas Railroads; while if the other was there, there would be but one crossing. It is not thought that the old piers of wood bridge are sufficient for a good double bridge. People of the western part of this county know something of the mud hole they have to encounter in crossing by this route. A direct road coming in at the west end of ninth avenue is surely desirable. CITIZEN.
Refers to all Cowley County bridges...
[BRIDGES.]
Winfield Courier, October 16, 1884.
The County Commissioners have decided to purchase at a sum not to exceed five dollars all the main-stream bridges in the county, for which an election proclamation is published elsewhere. They will also span the Arkansas near Tannehill with a bridge.
Election Proclamation.
STATE OF KANSAS, COWLEY COUNTY. ) ss.
I. G. H. McIntire, Sheriff of said County, do herein and hereby proclaim and make known to the electors of said County that there will be a general election held in said County at the several election districts therein, on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, A. D. 1884, for the purpose of choosing one President and one Vice President of the United States, one member of Congress for the Third District of the State of Kansas. And the following State officers of the State of Kansas, one Governor, one Lieutenant Governor, one Secretary of State, one Auditor, one Treasurer, one Attorney General, one Superintendent of Public Instruction, one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and one Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Also the following District officers: One Judge of the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District; one State Senator for the 27th Senatorial district of the State of Kansas, one Representative for the 66th Representative District of the State of Kansas, one Representative for the 67th Representative district of the State of Kansas, and one Representative for the 68th Representative district of the State of Kansas. Also the following county officers: Clerk of the District Court, Probate Judge, County Attorney, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and a member of the Board of County Commissioners for the First Commissioner district of said County.

And I, the said G. H. McIntire, by order of the Board of County Commissioners do further proclaim and make known that whereas the Board of County Commissioners of Cowley County, Kansas, have determined that it is necessary to purchase at a sum not exceeding five dollars and forever after maintain a certain iron bridge across the Walnut River at a point about 150 feet north of the ½ [?Could be 1/4 or 1/8..hard to read?] section line running east and west through section No. 20, township No. 34 south, of Range No. 3 East in said County, said bridge being near Searing & Meade’s mill, and has been constructed 8 years and originally cost $3,500, and has a 90 foot span and 30 foot span approach and made of iron with plank floor, in good condition; that an election will be held at the time and places aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the County shall purchase said bridge at a sum not to exceed five dollars. The ballots in favor of said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “For the purchase of the iron bridge across the Walnut River near Searing and Meade’s mill,” and those against said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “Against the purchase of the iron bridge across the Walnut River near Searing & Meade’s mill.”
And, whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of said County have determined that it is necessary to purchase at a cost not to exceed five dollars and forever after maintain the wooden bridge across the Arkansas River about a half mile west of Arkansas City, near the half section line running east and west through sections 25 and 26, township No. 34, Range No. 3 east, in said County, said bridge being built on piles driven 15 to 20 feet deep and is 800 feet long, built about one year ago of wood, cost $5,000. Therefore, I do further proclaim and make known by order of said Board of Commissioners that an election will be held at the time and places aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the county shall purchase said bridge at a cost not to exceed five dollars. The ballots in favor of said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “for the purchase of the wooden bridge across the Arkansas River about half mile west of Arkansas City,” and the ballots against that proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “against the purchase of the wooden bridge across the Arkansas River about a half mile west of Arkansas City.”
And, whereas the Board of County Commissioners of Cowley County, Kansas, have determined that it is necessary to purchase at a cost not exceeding five dollars and forever after maintain the combination bridge situated about one mile south of Arkansas City in said county across the Arkansas River at a point about 10 rods east and six rods south of the southwest corner of lot No. 4, in section 36, township 34, range 3 east, in said Cowley County, said bridge being about 750 feet long, partly iron and partly wood, the iron part 3 years old and the wood part 5 years old and cost $10,000. Therefore, I do further proclaim and make known by order of said Board of Commissioners that an election will be held at the time and places aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the county shall purchase said bridge at a cost not exceeding five dollars. The ballots in favor of said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “For the purchase of the combination bridge across the Arkansas River about one mile south of Arkansas City.” The ballots against said proposition shall have written or printed thereon “Against the purchase of the combination bridge across the Arkansas River about one mile south of Arkansas City.”

And, whereas the Board of County Commissioners of Cowley County, Kansas, have determined that it is necessary to purchase at a cost not exceeding five dollars and forever after maintain the iron bridge across the Walnut River about a half mile west of the south part of the city of Winfield in Vernon Township and in the southwest quarter of section 29, township 32 south of range No. 4 east in said Cowley County, said bridge being built of iron with stone peers and abutments, one span 120 feet with two iron span approaches, one 26 and the other 30 feet, built in 1877 and now in good repair and cost $4,000. Therefore, I do further proclaim and make known by order of said Board of County Commissioners that an election will be held at the time and places aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the county shall purchase said bridge at a cost not exceeding five dollars. The ballots in favor of said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “For the purchase of the iron bridge across the Walnut River in Vernon Township,” and those against said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “Against the purchase of the iron bridge across the Walnut River in Vernon Township.”
And whereas the Board of County Commissioners of Cowley County, Kansas, have determined that it is necessary to purchase at a cost not exceeding five dollars and forever after maintain the iron bridge across the Walnut River about a half mile south of the city of Winfield in Pleasant Valley Township, Cowley County, Kansas, said bridge being built of iron span 150 ft. with two iron approaches and stone abutments built in 1877; in fair repair, cost $4,500; therefore, I do further proclaim and make known by order of said Board of County Commissioners that an election will be held at the time and place aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the county shall purchase said bridge at a cost not exceeding five dollars. The ballot in favor of said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “For the purchase of the iron bridge across the Walnut River about a half mile south of the city of Winfield in Pleasant Valley Township,” and the ballots against said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “Against the purchase of the iron bridge across the Walnut River about a half mile south of the city of Winfield in Pleasant Valley Township.”
And whereas the said Board of County Commissioners of Cowley County, Kansas, deem it necessary to build a bridge across the Arkansas River about 525 feet south of the half section line running east and west through the middle section of twenty-one (21), township thirty-three (33), range three (3) east in Beaver Township, Cowley County, Kansas, said bridge to be built of iron, with stone and iron piers and abutments, length 300 feet, width 14 feet, the estimated cost of which is $6,500 dollars.
Therefore, by order of the said Board of County Commissioners, I do further proclaim and make known that there will be an election held at the time and place aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the county shall build said bridge at the estimated cost thereof, the ballots in favor of said proposition shall have written and printed thereon, “For the building of the Iron bridge across the Arkansas River in Beaver Township,” and the ballots against said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “Against the building of the Iron bridge across the Arkansas River in Beaver Township.”
And Whereas the said Board of Commissioners of Cowley County, Kansas, deem it necessary to build an iron bridge across the Walnut River near the section line between sections seven (7) and eighteen (18), township thirty-one (31), range No. four (4) east in Fairview Township, Cowley County, Kansas, the estimated cost of which is $4,500, said bridge to be built of iron, with stone piers, and is 280 feet long.

Therefore, by order of the said Board of County Commissioners, I do further proclaim and make known that there will be an election held at the time and places aforesaid for the purpose of determining whether the county shall build said bridge at the estimated cost thereof.
The ballots in favor of said proposition shall have written or printed thereon “For the building of the Iron bridge across the Walnut River in Fairview Township,” and the ballots against said proposition shall have written or printed thereon, “Against the building of the Iron bridge across the Walnut River in Fairview Township.”
And I do further make known that two ballot boxes will be necessary at each voting precinct, one for the votes for National, State, District, and County officers, and one for the votes on the bridge propositions.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand as the Sheriff of Cowley County, Kansas, at my office in the city of Winfield, this 13th day of October A. D. 1884.
G. H. McINTIRE, Sheriff.
Excerpts from long reply by Schiffbauer re Cowley County bridges...
Arkansas City Republican, October 18, 1884.
“Schiffbauer as a Legislator.”
Editors Republican:
GENTLEMEN: Knowing as I do that you are my political opponents in this campaign, yet I still believe there is still honor and fairness enough in journalism to allow you to publish the following statement in answer to an article published in the Traveler under the title of “Schiffbauer as a Legislator.” The amount of truth there is established in that article I will attempt to show; and I leave the matter to those who were present and heard all the remarks I made whether or not I have made a true statement.
In the first place, Mr. Traveler, you say that article was not with any desire to misrepresent me, and that your information was gained from good and reliable independent and Democratic sources. A little further along you state that my supporters are not a very choice part of the community. Then your independent informants cannot be thoroughly reliable according to your views, can they?
I never at any time made the statement you mention to the effect that the bridge south of town should be assumed by the state; nor did I make any statement at any time that could be tortured into meaning this. I did say, and I repeat it here, that all bridges now built and maintained by the various townships in the county, should be assumed and maintained by the county. And all bridges hereafter to be built, costing to exceed two hundred dollars, should be built by the county and maintained the same as other bridges, by the county. You say there have been laws passed in our state legislature authorizing different counties in the state to assume the bridges therein when certain conditions have been complied with, and this law is in force in Cowley County today. Then why under the sun is the law not enforced, and thereby relieve the township from this burden which has been borne with patience so long.

You say further Mr. Schiffbauer’s election could have no influence whatever on the bridge question. Now I want to cite you to the laws of Kansas of 1883, to the laws passed by our state legislature and senate in relation to bridges. I refer you to house bill No. 205, page 90; senate bill No. 221, page 90; house bill No. 296, page 95; house bill No. 301, page 97; senate bill No. 264, page 99; house joint resolution No. 9, page 100; senate bill No. 28, page 104; senate bill No. 124, page 111; senate bill No. 69, page 114; and so on. You can find on pages 119, 131, 129, and 133. Now, why the necessity of these acts, if, as you say, our representative can have no influence; why did our representative two years ago pledge himself to secure a similar act to those cited to above; if he had, or could have nothing to do with bridges? He was and is an expounder of Coke, Blackstone, and constitutional laws and ought to know; was he the hypocrite you picture me to be? It does seem to me you judge me by the rest of your party.
About the time I came to your city, the bridge south of town was washed away by the freshet, and Creswell Township was bonded to her utmost limit, and the vexed question was how to replace that bridge. And I then said that in my opinion the general government should give us an appropriation sufficient to place a new bridge across there, and I believed they would do so if the matter was properly presented; and I still hold that opinion. And it is the duty of the best senator the United States ever had (?) to assist us in this matter, as he knows as well as anyone else, that this bridge is used fully as much for the benefit of the Indians and military departments as by the citizens of this state; and an appropriation of this kind would be quite as judiciously expended as the $20,000 to $50,000 expended on this same stream, in the shape of some cadet of the U. S. Engineer corps surveying and estimating the number and extent of the sand hills and snags between Wichita and Little Rock.
Refers to Cowley County bridges...
Arkansas City Republican, October 18, 1884.
The petitions of the several townships of Cowley County asking the county commissioners to submit the propositions to the legal voters of said county for the purchase of the bridges within the county at $5 per bridge was granted at their session of last week, and an election was called for on November 4, 1884. In the county there are five bridges to be purchased: one across the Walnut near Searing and Mead’s mill; one south and one west of Arkansas City spanning the Arkansas River; then, one across the Walnut in Pleasant Valley township. [CONFUSING! I COUNT ONLY FOUR MENTIONED ABOVE.]
The notice of election also calls for erection of two bridges, one upon the Arkansas in Beaver Township, and one to span the Walnut at Fairview.
A separate ballot box from the one used to deposit the votes for the national, state, and county candidates will be had for the votes on the bridge question. This proposition is one which all should stand united upon. It is not political; therefore, all should pull together. It is a subject of vast importance to each and every citizen of Cowley county. What enriches one township augments the remaining ones. Let us all put our shoulders to the wheel and on the first Tuesday in November vote for the purchase and erection of said bridges.
Excerpt re Cowley County bridges...
Arkansas City Republican, October 18, 1884.
Clippings from the Courier.
The county Commissioners have decided to purchase at a sum not to exceed five dollars all the main-stream bridges in the county, for which an election proclamation is published elsewhere. They will also span the Arkansas near Tannehill with a bridge.
Excerpt re Schiffbauer and bridges in Cowley County...
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 22, 1884.
SCHIFFBAUER AS A LEGISLATOR.

Mr. Schiffbauer is not the first nor the only man who has advocated the county’s assuming our bridges, and in questioning our statement as to the law in regard to our bridges, he only displays more of that ignorance and stupidity which has thus far characterized his campaign. There is, and has been for years, a law authorizing Cowley County to assume the bridges of the county. Why isn’t it enforced? Because our county commissioners have always been instructed by the county attorney that this question must be decided by ballot, and that the bridges could not be accepted as a gift, but must be purchased, the county paying therefor a nominal sum. The question has never been submitted to the people for the simple reason that heretofore it has been impossible to carry it; but for your special edification, Frank, we will say that one week from next Tuesday, Cowley County votes on this question, thus relieving you of the responsibility of securing an appropriation from the general government.
Refers to Cowley County bridges...
Arkansas City Republican, November 8, 1884.
Creswell says unanimously for Cowley to buy the bridges.
Refers to changes a west bridge at Ninth Avenue would make to Winfield...
Winfield Courier, November 13, 1884.
Rev. J. H. Snyder is putting the finishing touches on his fine new residence just across the west bridge. The architecture is very neat and the location beautiful. Should the projected bridge across the river at the end of Ninth Avenue be built, the splendid table land just over the Walnut will soon contain many handsome suburban residences.
Refers to Cowley County bridges...
Winfield Courier, November 13, 1884.
The Bridges.
The bridge questions voted on last week were nearly as uncertain as the New York returns. The result is: For the purchase of the Walnut River bridge south of Winfield, carried by 21 majority. For the purchase of the Walnut River bridge west of Winfield, carried by 22 majority. For the purchase of the Arkansas River bridge west of Arkansas City, lost by 2 majority. For the purchase of the bridge south of Arkansas City, lost by five majority. For the building of the iron bridge across the Arkansas River in Beaver Township, lost by 27 majority. For the building of the iron bridge across the Walnut River in Fairview Township, carried by 334 majority. This matter of the county purchasing the bridges already built, at $5.00 each, seems to be a mistake. The Statute provides that the county cannot at any time appropriate more than the original appropriation for repairing or maintaining a bridge. Thus, if the county buys these bridges at $5.00 each, it can never spend more than $5.00 each in keeping them up. The bridges that were defeated, with the exception of the Beaver bridge, are better off than those which carried. Arkansas City and Winfield both voted solid for the bridges.
Arkansas City Republican, November 15, 1884.

Winfield voted solidly for the purchase of her bridges and scratched Arkansas City’s. Unintentionally Winfield when she scratched us did us a favor. As it is now the Winfield bridges are on the county and only $5 can ever be appropriated for the maintenance of them. Our bridges remain on the township yet. If Winfield had acted squarely, and voted solidly as the Courier stated she did for the purchase of Cowley’s bridges, all our bridges would now be in the same fix as Winfield’s and only $5 could have ever been expended for the maintenance of Cresswell’s bridges in the future. He that scratches last scratches best and longest.
Arkansas City Republican, November 22, 1884.
We are informed that we were too previous in accusing Winfield of scratching Arkansas City on the bridge question. The Courier was right for once and we gladly correct.
Excerpt re suit against City of Winfield by King Bridge Co. in U. S. court...
Winfield Courier, December 4, 1884.
                                                         The City Parliament.
The following bill was allowed and ordered paid.
Also, Jos. O’Hare, for services in the King Bridge Co. vs. City of Winfield, in U. S. Court at Topeka, $160.00.
Re Cowley County bridges...
Arkansas City Republican, December 27, 1884.
                                              Shall Bridges Be County Property?
There seems to be a general desire to place the bridges in charge of the county. The expense of keeping them up falls heavily on the townships in which they are located, while the public at large do most of the traveling over them. We understand that petitions will be presented to the members of the legislature from this county asking that they try to secure legislation covering these points. Courier.
Questions raised by Creswell Township relative to bridges...
Arkansas City Traveler, December 31, 1884.
                                                            Bridge Meeting.
At a meeting of the voters of Creswell Township, Monday, December 29, business pertaining to the township was transacted, after which the subject of maintaining certain bridges was brought up for discussion. We know that certain bridges have been built and maintained for the benefit and accommodation of other townships and corporations almost exclusively. Now the question is who must support these bridges. So far Creswell Township has been taxed to build and support said bridges, but the fixed determination at the present is to throw off this oppression. Not because we are opposed to internal improvements, or any legitimate expenditure of money whereby we may be benefitted to any reasonable extent.
Speeches were made by F. M. Vaughn, G. Kirkpatrick, R. L. Marshall, and A. B. Sankey. Mr. Kirkpatrick proposed to make said bridges self-supporting by making them toll bridges. Mr. Vaughn proposed to have the bridges vacated and closed, as they are the private property of the township. Others proposed different schemes. It was agreed by all, however, that the supporting of said bridges was an injustice and an imposition. It was thereupon
RESOLVED, (1) That the grievance be placed in the hands of a committee appointed by the chair. (2) That this committee be instructed to bring the matter before the county Commissioners, and to decide what steps should be taken toward righting the wrong. (3) That the Clerk be authorized to present a copy of these proceedings to the different papers of Arkansas City for publication. R. L. MARSHALL, President.
S. E. POLLOCK, Secretary.

                                                                    1885
Refers to Winfield bridges...
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 1, 1885.
People coming to our city will find the streams on all the main roads leading into Winfield well bridged with good iron-arched structures, having spans 155 to 180 feet in length and put up in the best workmanlike manner. In fact it is a difficult matter to find better bridges in any of the older States.
Refers to Cowley County bridges...
                                         “Shall Bridges be County Property?”
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 8, 1885.
The above is the heading of an article in the COURIER of last week: said article says that petitions will be presented to the legislature asking that some action be taken looking that way. I wish simply to call attention to the action of the legal voters of the county at the last election. The question was then sprung upon the people and met with a partial defeat; a great many communities not voting on it, not having considered the matter. I think it would be perfectly safe to say that if the question had been sprung at any other time it would have been completely “snowed under.” The COURIER suggests that the expense falls heavy on the townships in which the bridges lie, while the public at large travel over them. The position is a false one; the public across the Walnut for a small portion of the taxpayers of Cowley County. It seems strange that said public across the waters of the Walnut in the vast and fertile valley of the Arkansas should ask us that live on the sterile, rocky ridges of the central and eastern parts of the county to build bridges for them, after they have laughed so many years at our attempts to live. We never thought of asking for help to build bridges over Grouse and Silver, and let me tell you they are often impassable. From the tone of the article referred to I judge the Hon. Ed. Greer thinks favorably of the project. Go slow, Edward; remember you have aspirations. The voters of the county have spoken on the bridge subject.
                                                      YOU DON’T KNOW.
We clip the above from the Telegram of last week. As to the merits or demerits of the bridge question, Mr. Greer has given it, up to this time, but little attention. However, there seems to be a demand from the people of Bolton, Creswell, Beaver, Vernon, Pleasant Valley, and Winfield for some action which will relieve them of the heavy burden of keeping up so many bridges. There is also a demand from many citizens of the Grouse Valley for bridges on that stream. And now comes the eastern divide people with a protest. The bridge question is mixed. Less than a third of the voters at the last election voted on the question, and the vote was nearly a tie, so this is no guide to the wishes of the people. Should the question come up the member from this district will try to find out what a majority of his constituents want and act in accordance with that finding.
                                                      Those Bridges Again.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 15, 1885.

The bridge question seems to be one of the important questions before the people of Cowley at the present time. Shall the people in certain localities be under the necessity of loading themselves with a debt that will require a generation to pay in order to build a bridge which is not only a benefit to themselves, but to the county at large? When a township by reason of its location and public necessity is compelled to build one or more bridges, which in turn adds increased valuation to the land, is it fair that that township must pay its increased taxes into the public treasury for the benefit of those who did not or would not assist in making said improvement? Suppose it is necessary in a certain township to build a bridge that will cost $4,000, and that there are 144 quarter sections in said township, the cost would be almost $28 per quarter; now, instead let the whole county pay 9 cents on each quarter and the bridge is paid for and no one overburdened with tax, and next year the county will be able to build a bridge in some other township where it is needed.
“You Don’t Know,” whose communication the COURIER copied from the Telegram, says: “It seems strange that the public across the Walnut should ask us that live on the sterile, rocky ridges, to build bridges for us.” With his permission we will say we never have, nor do we ever expect, to ask them to build our bridges. All we ask is that each one throughout the county pay in proportion to his valuation. There is no one here who claims to have compelled “You Don’t Know” to locate on the “sterile, rock ridges” he speaks of, and if he don’t like it there, there are a few farms for sale here yet.
At the close of his communication, he raises the lash and threatens the Hon. Ed. P. Greer, and he may just as well save his wind because Ed. will do what he believes is right and agreeable to the wishes of his constituents.
Now a word respecting the vote on the bridge question at the last election: a large part of the people of the county did not vote at all. Another portion voted against all the propositions except one or two in which they were personally interested. Another part consisting of the Southwest, where their bridges are already built, voted in good faith for all the propositions without a scratch, and now the result is if that vote is legal, after building one iron bridge, we must keep these in repair ourselves and also help to build and repair bridges in other parts of the county. Is this fair? Is it not worse than the matter complained of by “You Don’t Know?” A LOVER OF JUSTICE.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 22, 1885.
Senator Jennings, of Cowley, is on the Senate Committee of Ways and Means, on that of Fees and Salaries, on Corporations, on Cities of the Second Class, and is Chairman of the Committee on Roads and Bridges.
Excerpt re Cowley County bridges...
[TISDALE: “GROWLER.”]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 29, 1885.
I notice in an article published in the COURIER on bridges a calculation that somewhat surprises me. “Lover of Justice” says that a tax of 9 cents on each quarter section will raise $4,000. Now we have, I believe, 4,352 quarters in this county; the tax that our friend proposes would amount to $391.68. “You Don’t Know,” in the Telegram was not far out of the way.
Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, February 21, 1885.
Senator Jennings has introduced at the senate a bill in regard to the building and maintenance of bridges. It contains 20 sections and is quite too lengthy for the REPUBLICAN to go into detail. Section 10 of the bill provides for a bridge fund and is as follows.

“The county commissioners of the several counties in this state are authorized to levy a tax annually on all taxable property of the respective counties of this state, not exceeding five mills on the dollar, for the purpose of providing a bridge fund, to be expended under the provisions of this act.”
Sections 12, 13, and 14 concern us more directly and are as follows.
SEC. 12. All bridges constructed under the provisions of this act, shall thereinafter be repaired and kept up jointly by the township, in which said bridge is located, and the county; the township bearing one-third and the county two-thirds of such expense.
SEC. 13. All bridges proposed to be built under this act, over any stream or other place requiring such bridge, and across the boundary line between two townships in the same county, the election for such bridge shall be called in each township at the same time and in the same manner as hereinbefore provided for holding the election in one township; and if a majority of the votes cast in each township shall be in favor of the proposition, then the board of county commissioners shall levy and collect from each of said townships one-sixth the cost of such bridge, which shall be expended as herein provided.
SEC. 14. The board of county commissioners of the counties of this state shall hereafter appropriate out of the bridge fund of their respective counties, money sufficient to pay two-thirds of the necessary repairs and expenses of keeping up any bridge or bridges already built by township or townships, or by the county, where the original cost exceeds $300; and such township or townships in which such bridge or bridges are located, shall pay one-third the expenses of the repairs and expenses out of the road and bridge or other tax fund of such township or townships.
This bill to us appears to be a good one, yet there may be some flaws in it. Anyway, it is head and shoulders above any law we have in regard to bridges.
Arkansas City Traveler, February 25, 1885.
County and Township Bridges.
We make the following extracts from the Senate Bill introduced by Senator Jennings. The bill makes provision for the defects in the present law and has the merit of exceeding practicability.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
SECTION 1. Whenever the trustees of any township in any county of this state shall present to the board of county commissioners of his county a petition, signed by two-fifths of the resident taxpayers of each township, praying for the construction of a bridge within said township, at a point to be mentioned in said petition, the necessary cost of which will exceed five hundred dollars, the board of county commissioners of above named state shall inquire into the facts set forth in such petition, and if said board deem the building of said bridge of sufficient public necessity and utility, it shall determine upon a plan, the kind of materials to be used, and estimate the cost thereof.

SECTION 2. The said board of county commissioners, after determining the necessity and public utility of building a bridge under section 1 of this act, shall submit to the qualified electors of the township in which said bridge is proposed to be built, at a special election to be held for that purpose, a proposition as to whether said township shall pay one-third of the cost of building said bridge; which proposition shall state the precise point at which such proposed bridge is to be constructed, the kind of materials to be used, and the estimated cost of the same. At least twenty days’ notice of the time and place of holding said election, either by publication for three consecutive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation in said township, or by posting up printed notice thereof in not less than eight conspicuous places in said township.
SECTION 10. The county commissioners of the several counties in this state are authorized to levy a tax annually on all the taxable property of their respective counties, of not exceeding five mills on the dollar for the purpose of providing a bridge bond, to be under the provisions of this act.
SECTION 11. The board of county commissioners shall have the executive control of letting all contracts under the provisions of this act, and making payments therefor, and the county treasurer shall pay out no money out of this bridge fund to be expended under the provisions of this act, except upon a warrant signed by the chairman of such board and attested by the county clerk. Provided further, No money shall be paid to any person, company, or corporation contracting to build such bridge, until all the materials for such bridge are on the ground: And provided further, That not more than half the cost of building such bridge shall be paid until such bridge is completed and accepted by said board.
SECTION 12. All bridges constructed under the provisions of the act shall thereinafter be repaired and kept up jointly by the township in which said bridge is located, and the county; the township bearing one-third and the county two-thirds of such expense.
SECTION 13. All bridges proposed to be built under this act, over any stream or other place requiring such bridge, and across the boundary line between two townships in the same county, the election for such bridge shall be called in each township at the same time and in the same manner as hereinbefore provided for holding the election in one township; and if a majority of the votes cast in each township shall be in favor of the proposition, then the board of county commissioners shall levy and collect from each of said townships one-sixth the cost of such bridge, which shall be expended as herein provided.
SECTION 14. The board of county commissioners of the counties of this state shall hereafter appropriate out of the bridge fund of their respective counties, money sufficient to pay two-thirds of the necessary repairs and expenses of keeping up any bridge or bridges already built by township or townships, or by the county where the original cost exceeds $300; and such township or townships in which such bridge or bridges are located, shall pay one-third the expense of the repairs and expenses out of the road and bridge or other tax fund of such township or townships.
SECTION 16. Whenever the township shall declare on the records of that township that the building of a bridge is necessary at some point in their townships, and that the cost of the same will be less than five hundred dollars and more than one hundred dollars, then the township trustee shall immediately present a copy of the record of that action of such board to the board of county commissioners, and if said board deems the building of such bridge practicable and of sufficient public utility, and that it will cost less than $500 and more than $100, said commissioners may build the same as provided herein for the building of other bridges, without an election for that purpose being held in the township or townships where such bridge is located.

SECTION 17. All bridges in the counties in this state costing one hundred dollars or less shall be built and repaired exclusively by the township in which they may be situated.
SECTION 19. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book.
[NOTE: The Winfield Courier did not print anything about bridge legislation.]
Refers to bridge south of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 5, 1885.
The south bridge has received a splendid new floor.
Refers to specific bridge west of Arkansas City and lack of bridge law in Kansas...
Arkansas City Republican, March 21, 1885.
Nearly $500 have been subscribed to repair the west Arkansas River bridge. Even after Arkansas City has put the bridge in proper shape, who is going to keep it in repair? The townships refuse to aid any; the city, county, and state have no law by which they can aid. We need a bridge law of some kind very badly.
References made to bridge west of Winfield...
Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 26, 1885.
Mr. Monroe Teter, an account of whose injury by being thrown from a wagon is given by our Hackney reporter, was more seriously injured than at first supposed. The concussion darkened his memory so completely as to leave no record of his having started to town Monday or as to anything that occurred during the day. His left arm was broken in two places. The rocks causing the disaster had rolled down from the cliff bordering on the west approach to the west bridge. Authorities can’t be too careful about keeping obstructions removed from public roads.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.
The team and wagon of a mover shied off and went head-over-heels over the embankment at the east approach of the west bridge yesterday. Fortunately no serious damage was done. This is not the first accident at this place. It is dangerous, and if Vernon doesn’t make it secure by a strong railing, she will have the neck, limbs, or some other part of the animal or human anatomy to pay for. Procrastination is the thief of wealth.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 23, 1885.
There is a hole in the west bridge two weeks old, big enough for an elephant to run its foot through. Look out for a damage suit.
THE WEST BRIDGE.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 30, 1885.

Several times lately teams have been thrown over the embankment from the narrow approach to the west bridge. One citizen had a limb broken. It seems that not until some terrible accident resulting in the death, perhaps, of ladies or innocent children occurs, will the proper authorities take steps toward abating the danger. The law, as it stands, makes it the duty of the officers of Vernon township to attend to this, and makes Vernon responsible for the damage. The burden is heavy and THE COURIER believes, with the citizens of that township, that it is unjust, and the law should be remedied so that the county will bear at least a share of the expense of keeping up all the bridges. Had Senator Jennings’ bill covering this matter become a law, the remedy would now be at hand. But it isn’t. The legal responsibility rests with Vernon and she should accept it in as good grace as possible and trust to the nature and equity and justice of their case for relief. Should someone be killed through their negligence of a legal obligation, it would be an everlasting blemish on the fair name of Vernon township. The Board of County Commissioners cannot, under the law as it now stands, afford any relief.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 30, 1885.
The Maddux family, out of which the mother and three children perished in the Medicine Lodge flood, were the family whose team and wagon went over the embankment of the west bridge two weeks ago—mention of which was made in the COURIER. Revs. J. H. Snyder and P. B. Lee helped them out of the dilemma, learned that they were on their road to the west to pre-empt a home. Little did they think that all their bright hopes and inspirations were destined to death in an awful vortex ere they reached the promised land.
Re County Bridges...
Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, June 13, 1885.
                                                         An Unjust Criticism.
EDITOR OF THE REPUBLICAN: SIR: I desire to call the attention of the public to the following quotations from the “Traveler” of the 16th.
“The repair of roads and bridges lying outside the city limits, over which general traffic passes, lies with the county; and the county commissioners, who, from any feeling of jealousy or other selfish cause, neglect to perform this important duty, are false to the trust reposed to them by the people, and this neglect becomes oppressive and unjust.”
And again from the same article: “This loose-jointed way of whipping the devil around the stump is forced upon our citizens because of the refusal of the county commissioners to perform their duty, and this is why we say a state law should be passed requiring such bodies to keep bridges and roads in repair, and then if they neglect, there is a chance to get after them with a mandamus.”
I now publish from statutes of 1885.
“SECTION 1. The township trustee, clerk, and treasurer of each municipal township in the state shall constitute a board of commissioners of highways and township auditing board for their respective townships.
“SECTION 5, same chapter. The said board shall have charge of the roads and bridges of their respective townships, and it shall be their duty to keep the same in repair, and to improve them as far as practicable. Whenever the available means at their disposal will permit, they shall construct permanent roads beginning where most needed.”
I have only this to say, that ignorance is no excuse for an editor in criticism of public officers when the means of knowledge are easy of access, and further, that public officers have sufficient to answer for in proper criticism for errors of judgment in matters for which they are responsible, without unjust criticism in regard to matters entirely out of their control.
                                                             A. WALTON.
And yet another article about the west bridge being in bad shape...
It also appears that the bridge north of Winfield needs work...
                                                     SOME BAD PLACES.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 18, 1885.

The west bridge has got a hole in its floor, right in the wagon track, large enough to take in an elephant’s foot, and people are getting fearful of it. It should be attended to at once by the Vernon authorities, or they’ll have an animal’s leg to pay for. The Timber creek bridge also has a bad point. At one side of its west approach, whose banks are fifteen feet high, without railing, lie huge rocks, put there for some purpose for which they were never used. Almost every team passing them shies off. As there are only two feet of margin to shie on, several rigs have tumbled head over heals down the embankment. This is a chance for the Walnut township road overseer to distinguish himself, by saving the township the worth of some broken necks.
Indignation expressed over west bridge...
OVER THE PRECIPICE.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.
THE COURIER has numerously called attention to the dangerous approach of the west bridge. It is only twelve or fifteen feet wide, skirted by rugged banks about twenty feet down. Substantial railings on either side, whose cost would not exceed fifty dollars, would arrest all danger. But the Vernon authorities have neglected this matter—probably to their everlasting sorrow. The latest victims were Mr. A. H. First, residing with Mr. Jameson, and Miss Flora Zimmerman, of J. S. Mann’s household. They were out driving Sunday evening with Rev. Reider’s horse and buggy. Approaching the bridge, the horse scared, whirled half around, and, with a fearful lunge backward, the outfit and occupants went backward over the embankment with a terrible crash. The weeds and brush covered the view, giving it anything but the wicked place it is, and not until the horse fell over backward and loomed up in mid air did Mr. First realize his awful danger. Death, sure and certain, flashed through his mind, and there couldn’t have been a more astonished or happier man than he, when he got through the combat with those fearful boulders in his precipitate descent of twenty feet, came to, and found most of his teeth were knocked out, his jaw broken, and he able to walk. The young lady fell out of the buggy and caught on the first ledge, receiving only a few bruises. The horse recovered from his stun and started to run, having been badly shaken up and bruised, but no limbs were broken. The animal is evidently a hard shell Baptist. The buggy is almost a total wreck—knocked into numberless pieces. In viewing the fall, it seems a mystery how the horse or occupants escaped with their lives. Judge Soward and Capt. Nipp happened along in their buggies and picked up the victims of the wreck. It was a frightful experience, mingled with mysterious luck. It will probably cost Vernon something as damages. This ought to be warning enough. This place must be railed. It is Vernon’s legal duty and must be enforced.
Movement begun to construct new bridge west of Winfield to join 9th Avenue...
A BADLY NEEDED ROAD.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 16, 1885.

The petition of J. F. Martin et al for a road from Vernon township through the West Side Town Company’s addition, across the Walnut and joining west 9th Avenue, has occupied the attention of the county fathers yesterday and today. The petition was granted, last evening, awarding damages of $600 to John Lowry and $650 to J. C. McMullen, providing the county was not held liable to pay such damages until Vernon, or it and Winfield jointly, constructs an iron bridge across the Walnut on this road. But owing to some irregularity in the petition, it was re-considered today and laid over to Monday. This road is absolutely necessary and should, and no doubt will, be made.
Refers to new bridge on J. F. Martin County Road across Walnut west of Winfield...
                                                 JUST WHAT IS NEEDED.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 23, 1885.
The County Commissioners granted the J. F. Martin county road Thursday, running from Vernon through the West Side Town Company, across the Walnut, and joining with the west end of Ninth Avenue. The damages claimed were $1,250, but after a thorough canvass of the matter, considering the great benefit of the road to property owners along it, but $600 was awarded, $400 to Capt. Lowry and $200 to the West Side Town Company, the county not to be held liable for the payment until Vernon township, or it and Winfield jointly, construct across the Walnut a substantial and capable iron bridge. The opening of this road is certainly a very beneficial move for both the citizens of Vernon and those of Winfield. A straight and convenient outlet west has been our great need. The park bridge is a weak concern, having been built on skimpy funds, and has been continually out of repair. The bridge on this new road will be one of the very best—one that will last and always be safe.
             [QUESTION: WHAT IS MEANT BY “PARK BRIDGE” ABOVE???]
I consider the next article VERY IMPORTANT!
Conklin talks about roads and bridges.
Mentions J. F. Martin road through Vernon; states bridge/road should have been built years ago at 7th Avenue rather than the proposed 9th Avenue under consideration. He also refers to “old Bliss bridge” falling down and nothing done to replace it.
                                                            OUR ROADS.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 23, 1885.

All interior towns like Winfield depend on their trade and consequent prosperity upon the products of the soil, and the more accessible we as a city make ourselves, the more prosperous we will be as a community. It should be our aim to aid the farmer in hauling to our city the largest amount of his various products, with the least amount of labor and time. And in this question of good roads and bridges, every businessman in the community is equally interested with the farmer. In the various pressing needs of a new and growing community, roads and bridges for reason of lack of money are neglected; but with us that time is now past, and if we expect to keep our trade and secure new, we have got to cooperate with adjacent townships and make better roads. I do not expect that Winfield should do it all; but I do expect that we as interested parties shall do our part. Our city has made many complaints about Vernon’s neglect to keep the west bridge in repair. It would have been good business on our part if, instead of foisting upon her a burden she did not want, we would have shown a willingness to share the expense of such burden. The people of that township would have felt more kindly to us, and there would have been no broken limbs and losses of property. A community is made up of individuals, and bulldozing tactics do not succeed with the farmer any better than the latter—particularly where you are obliged to live as neighbors, and future favors are expected. An excellent move has been made on securing the J. F. Martin road through Vernon, and the $600 may be thought by many to be excessive; but when it is recollected that the consideration is a new double track bridge across the Walnut, it will be readily recognized that the amount is not excessive. This bridge and road should have been built years ago, and at 7th avenue instead of 9th, as now proposed. The further north we make this bridge, the more territory from that direction we secure for our trade. If, when the old Bliss bridge went out, a new and better one had been built, there today would be no Kellogg, with its fine roller flour mill and its opposition stores. This is an illustration of where our “save at the spigot” policy has lost us a fine trade for all time.
In conclusion, I want to particularly call the attention of our businessmen to the condition of the Dexter road. This is a township road with Winfield and Walnut on the north and Pleasant Valley on the south; and it is one of the most important roads that leads into the city. Over it comes all the trade from Dexter, Otto, and Maple City, and I do not exaggerate when I say that for months past the condition of this road would have been a disgrace to Arkansas. There is about one hundred yards between Mr. Eddie’s and Mrs. Platter’s farms that for weeks have been simply impassable. Farmers have been obliged to go north to the Tisdale road, or make a long detour south; and now after eight days of dry weather, a load can be hauled through it by doubling teams. I have tried various ways to get this road worked, and for the reason that I had from six to twenty men at work in my quarries on the land east of Mr. Eddie’s; and in my failure to do so, I have been subjected to additional expense and loss, and was obliged to discharge several men who would have had a steady job with good roads. I first saw the Justice, J. C. Roberts, and he said no tax was levied by Walnut and he had no money to do it with. If road tax had been levied, the Southern Kansas alone would have been obliged to pay $200 of it. My next move was by subscription, and parties answered they would not give from their private means for a public purpose where all were equally interested. I next hired two men and teams and tried to ditch it, but only succeeded in partially carrying off the water. To repair this road, I will furnish at the quarry all the broken stone necessary, and less than a hundred dollars would ditch it and give a macadamized road over the worst places. As I said at first, we are all interested in good roads leading to our city; and if I have in this article succeeded in making our businessmen feel their responsibility, it will not be long until such a road as I have described will be an impossibility in this section. J. E. CONKLIN.
The following refers to bridge north of Winfield...stone approach walls...
                                             NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 20, 1885.
I will receive sealed bids until August 29th, for the building of two stone approach walls to the timber creek bridge, walls two and one half feet at bottom, eighteen inches at top, six feet high and thirty feet long each. Also five hundred linear feet of grade near S. E. Burgess farm, as per specifications now in my possession. Right received to reject any and all bids.
                                      J. C. ROBERTS, Trustee, Walnut Township.
                     [Yes. They had “Right received” instead of “Right reserved.]
The dilemma of bridges in Cowley County expressed by Schiffbauer...
Arkansas City Traveler, September 9, 1885.
                                                      COUNCIL MEETING.

Mayor Schiffbauer remarked that the people of Arkansas City would soon find themselves without bridges, and they wanted stirring up to a knowledge of this fact. There is no law in the state to define the duty of county or township in the matter. Last year Senator Jennings introduced a bill in the legislature, requiring county commissioners to appropriate money towards building necessary bridges, and if the cost was over a certain amount to bill them entire. But the measure did not pass. Now that our city is set apart from the township, the council is without authority to devote money to such a purpose, the township won’t do it, and the county cannot. There is thus no way on God’s earth to build necessary bridges, or keep old ones in repair.
Movement started to build bridge by private subscription west of Winfield at location of the old bridge (Bliss & Wood’s mill)...
ANOTHER WALNUT BRIDGE.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, September 17, 1885.
A meeting of Vernon and Winfield citizens was held in this city Monday to arrange for a new bridge on the old piers on the Walnut at Bliss & Wood’s mill. Chas. C. Black was president of the meeting and G. H. Crippen secretary. It was determined to erect a six thousand bridge. Senator Jennings, J. B. Lynn, S. H. Myton, J. W. Millspaugh, Billy Moore, S. W. Schwantes, B. F. Wood, and J. F. Martin were appointed as committeemen to boost the matter through. It is proposed to erect a $6,000 bridge on private subscription. Twenty-two hundred dollars were subscribed in this meeting, the largest amount, $800, by Bliss & Wood. The road, as condemned and paid for years ago, leading from Vernon to this bridge, runs along the north bank of the river until it strikes the bluff, where it comes out on the section line. Another meeting will be held on the 28th to perfect matters.

AT THIS POINT, HAD TO QUIT. AM WORKING ON OCTOBER COURIER.
MAW May 17, 2001

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 1, 1885.
A meeting was held at the Brettun house on Monday to contract for the erection of the new Walnut river bridge at Bliss & Wood’s mill. A dozen or more of those most interested were present. A. McLoath [?] represented the Leavenworth bridge company in the meeting, and contracted to erect a $5,000 bridge, as soon as the funds are guaranteed. The finance committee of this bridge association will proceed at once to raise the amount, most of which is subscribed, and the bridge will go in by January 1st.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 1, 1885.
The contract was closed today with the Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Company, through A. McTouth, [?] their representative, for an 18 foot Pratt truss, double track bridge across the Walnut river at Bliss & Wood’s mill. It will cost $5,000. There is but $1,700 yet to raise, which will be easily and speedily done. Let the good work go on; we need this badly.
[Note: First item shows A. McLoath; second item shows A. McTouth.]