Technology: 1867-1900 Competing to span the river

During the 1860s rival companies formed to build a bridge between East St. Louis and St. Louis, spanning the Mississippi River.  With one company formed on the Missouri side and the other in Illinois the rivalry dealt with more than the type of bridge to be built.  State pride, the potential for local profit, and competing interests between ferry operators and rail transportation, fueled the competition.
An early drawing from the 1875 history of East St. Louis from Robert A. Tyson's History of East St. Louis (1875).

Realizing that someone would probably build a bridge, the Wiggin's Ferry Company, the owner of much of the East St. Louis waterfront and the largest ferry-boat operator, backed the Illinois company and its plan for a bridge that would be high enough to allow ferries to pass beneath it.  Previous to this support the Wiggin's Company opposed the building of a bridge, exercising significant political influence to keep the issue dead from its first mention in the 1830s.  Also joining the Illinois company was the city of East St. Louis and the Northern Line Packet Company, a conglomerate of steamboat, railroad, and merchant interests.  The river cities of Venice and Brooklyn, both near East St. Louis, also joined.
The Eads Bridge.

The construction rights would have to come from federal legislation.  During a brief, but volatile period, the rival companies competed for the right to build the bridge.  James Eads, the engineer hired by the Missouri company, advocated a plan in Washington that would build the bridge too low for ferries.  If his plan won, the ferry companies faced a quick end to their business.  However the Illinois company, supported by ferry operators, won the right to construct a bridge within a twenty-five year period.  With this victory the Illinois bridge company could charge St. Louis businesses tolls and limit the city's commerce, or they could sell the Wiggin's Ferry Company the rights to building the bridge and the ferry operator could delay a bridge for twenty-five years.  In either case the Illinois company believed they could garner substantial profits from the federally assigned building rights.

The Missouri company was not finished fighting and they generated another public battle over building the bridge.  The controversy went back to federal legislators.  Before any legislators could act, Eads, the chief engineer for the Missouri company, worked out a compromise and the two rival companies merged in 1867.

<- Previous  Top  Next ->