To view the figures and tables associated with this article, please refer to the flipbook above.
As early as 1868 an Act was passed in the Minnesota Legislature authorizing:
“…Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to construct and operate a railroad-bridge across the Mississippi River, between the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and a point opposite, in the State of Minnesota, with the consent of the legislatures of the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and said bridge, by this act authorized to be constructed, is hereby declared a post-route, and subject to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, and requirements, and entitled to all the privileges named in an act approved July 25, 1866, entitled “An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges and to establish them as post-roads.”
The 1866 Federal Act had set standards for high level and low-level bridges. On April 1, 1872, that act was modified and on June 4, 1872, it was further modified as follows,
“AN ACT further regulating the construction of bridges across the Mississippi River.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all bridges hereafter constructed over and across the Mississippi River, under authority of any act of Congress, shall be subject to all the terms, restrictions, and requirements contained in the fifth section of an act entitled “An act to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River at or near the town of Clinton, in the State of Iowa, and other bridges across said river, and to establish them as post-roads,” approved April 1, 1872; and in locating any such bridge the Secretary of War shall have due regard to the security and convenience of navigation, to convenience of access, and to the wants of all railways and highways crossing said river.”
The last lines added a new consideration for the Secretary of War to consider, namely “security and convenience of navigation, to convenience of access, and to the wants of all railways and highways crossing said river.” By 1872 the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul had a line connecting Chicago and St. Paul, as well as a line from Lacrosse on the Mississippi to Milwaukee and used the Winona Bridge. Lacrosse was across the river from LaCresent, Minnesota, where there was a line from St. Paul. It looked for a way to cross the river at Lacrosse and its Chief Engineer J. T. Dodge selected a site north of the city crossing the Black River over an island and then the Mississippi River “from the engine or round-house, in the Fifth Ward (formerly North La Crosse), across the lower end of French Island, to a point on the Minnesota bank, a short distance above the old warehouse, near the La Crescent Ferry landing. This site he had selected with sole reference to the desire of the company to secure the shortest and most direct route between Chicago and St. Paul, and without any special regard for the interests of other existing or contemplated railways, on either or both sides of the Mississippi, centering at or near La Crosse.” The railroad then applied to Congress to approve the location of their bridge. Gen. G. K. Warren, an expert on the Mississippi River, was in the process of reviewing the Mississippi River bridges and reported on June 29, 1872, “This location of the bridge and draw is not objectionable to navigation on the Mississippi River, provided the proper works are built to always maintain the channel through the draw.”
The city of Lacrosse and others, however, wanted the line to run through the city and cross the river and petitioned the Congress to intervene. The Minnesota Southern Railroad also wanted a crossing south of Lacrosse. A Board of three Army engineers was appointed and interpreted the June 18, 1872, law as follows, “This would seem to require that all future railway bridges over the Mississippi shall also be highway bridges. As it is not so stated directly, the board thought it best to get an official interpretation of the meaning of this act, and therefore telegraphed the Chief of Engineers for such interpretation.” A. A Humphreys sent a letter to the Secretary of War stating, “a question has been raised as to the meaning of the act of June 4,1872, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. It is claimed by some that the act in question requires that all future bridges over the Mississippi River shall be highway as well as railway bridges. I beg leave to suggest that the law be submitted to the Attorney -General for his opinion in the case.”
The case was sent to Department of Justice and the Attorney General wrote in part on August 7, 1872, “Moreover, had Congress intended so important a modification of previous acts as a requirement that the bridges in question should all be constructed for both railways and highways, it is hardly to be supposed that it would have been content to make so vague a provision for the purpose as the words of this clause would constitute…It would, in fact, be leaving interests of very great value and consequence to the chances of a doubtful implication and as most of these bridges are authorized to be built by railway companies interested only in the accommodation of their own business, it is not to be presumed, in the, absence of explicit provision to that effect, that Congress meant to burden them with the heavy additional expense that would have to be incurred to accommodate their bridges to the uses of common highways or wagon-roads. The true intent of the provision of the act relative to the location of bridges is, it seems clear, to define more particularly the duty of the Secretary of War in making such locations.” In other words the Board of Engineers had misinterpreted the intent of the legislation.
A letter was sent to the Chief of Engineers stating, “In view of the opinion of the honorable Attorney-General, dated August 7, 1872, regarding the construction of the laws relating to bridges across the Mississippi River, whether, under act of June 4, 1872, all such bridges as are therein referred to are required to be highway as well as railway bridges, and the fact that this opinion was not received in time to be laid before the Board of Engineers which has recently made a report upon the question of location of bridge or bridges at or near La Crosse, Wis., and that the board has entertained a construction of the law different from that of the Attorney-General, it seems proper that it should be reconvened to reconsider the subject. It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that the board be reconvened, and with your sanction it will be so ordered.”
The Board of Engineers was reconvened in September 1872 to consider their recommendation for the bridge site given the opinion of the Attorney General. Their report was presented to the Chief of Engineers with the recommendation, “After a full consideration of all that has been urged by all the parties in interest, the board feel constrained to adhere to their original decision, that the only bridge that should be permitted across the Mississippi at or near La Crosse should be at the foot of Mount Vernon street.” They also wrote, “It was argued on the part of the Milwaukee and Saint Paul Company that we had no right to consider the future and its probabilities, but must control our decision by the wants of existing interests only. For the reasons given above, the board entirely disagree with this view. We believe that we must anticipate the future, and try to foresee it, so that it may be provided for now, and thus the need of another bridge near La Crosse be obviated.” Humphreys agreed and on October 11, 1872, a letter was sent to the Secretary of War with this opinion stating, “in the views of the board I concur, and recommend to your favorable consideration and approval the site selected at the foot of Mount Vernon street.”
An attempt was made to repeal the June 4 Act giving the Secretary of War power to control matters other than clearances but this failed. The City of Lacrosse gave the railroad the land at the foot of Mount Vernon Street in February 1873. The Wisconsin legislature passed, over the Governor’s veto, a bill to have the bridge at the lower site and the War Department approved this site.
In spite of these reversals the railroad started building its bridge at its proposed site. The Attorney General to test his conclusion asked for an injunction in the United States District Court that stated, “It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that an injunction be issued pursuant to the prayer of the bill herein strictly forbidding, enjoining and restraining the said defendant, the Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, its agents, contractors, laborers, servants and officers, and each and every one of them, under the pains and penalties which may fall upon them, from placing any stone, piling or bridge materials, and from proceeding to construct any bridge in or across the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the city of La Crosse, in said Western District of Wisconsin, at or near the locality described in the bill of complaint in this suit, until further order of the Court.”
The judges in hearing this injunction agreed with the railroad stating, “Had we to decide, we should say that their location is far less injurious to navigation than the one indicated by the Secretary of War, and that it is equally as convenient and accessible to other railroads and highways.” The injunction was lifted and on March 6, 1874, the Wisconsin Legislature passed a bill that “gave the authority to railroad to bridge the Mississippi where ever they chose.” The War Department, still dragging its feet, did not authorize construction at the site until late 1875.
As was usual process at the time, the company requested proposals from several bridge companies who submitted their designs in accordance with the specifications prepared by the railroad. The American Bridge Company received the contract to fabricate and erect all the bridges. Instead of their usual Post Truss they submitted designs using Pratt trusses and a variation of a Pennsylvania Truss. Their swing span, with its 360-feet length was patterned after the design the Kellogg Bridge Company had prepared for the Louisiana Bridge.
Work began in January 1876 but, due to flooding, etc., work was not resumed until June 10, 1876. Their bridge was just over a mile and ¾ long from the easterly banks of the Black river across Campbell’s island to the westerly banks in Minnesota. Over the eastern channel there were five spans of 150 feet. This was followed by 660 feet of wooden trestle across the island. Across the westerly channel there were two spans of 164 feet from the west bank of the island, one span of 250 feet and a swing span of 360 feet with the swing span next to the Minnesota shore. The 164-feet spans were Pratt Trusses and the 250-feet span a broken chord Pennsylvania Truss.
Construction started on June 10, 1876. The contract for the design and construction of the superstructure was signed in early July and the bridge was opened on November 28, 1876.
A History of La Crosse County concluded, “There is nothing particularly showy about the entire fabric, but everything is constructed in a handsome and substantial manner, that does credit not only to the company, but to the contractors who so faithfully performed their work. The contract test of the bridge was made by a double-loaded freight train, and the strain was found to be remarkably sustained by every portion. The completion of this magnificent structure represents a total cost of over half a million of dollars.”
It was replaced in 1902 with steel spans. Plans have been proposed to replace the swing span with a lift span, but they have not been approved to date. ■
About the Author
Dr. Frank Griggs, Dist.M. ASCE, specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having restored many 19th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He is now an Independent Consulting Engineer (fgriggsjr@verizon.net).