On Operators and OperationsOn Operators and Operations

Part 1 - An informal look at Chicago bridge tending in the 19Part 1 - An informal look at Chicago bridge tending in the 19

thth

and 20and 20

thth

CenturiesCenturies

byby James S. Phillips James S. Phillips

October 2009October 2009

Introduction

From the beginnings of Chicago, bridges crossing the branches of the Chicago River have beenmovable. Whether these bridges were floating, center pier swing, or bascule, there was a need for bridge operators or tenders to move the bridges to allow waterborne traffic to navigate the river andland traffic to cross the river.Today, it seems that the bridge tender and his work is generally admired by most citizens. There issomething idyllic about a job steeped in the maritime history of the city, and few jobs make theimpression that raising thousands of tons of steel does.Admiration was not always given to the bridge tender or his bridge. Chicago has always been a busy city, but in the late 19

and early 20

centuries there was vigorous competition between landtravel and waterborne travel. In this competition, those on water had the upper hand. Throughmaritime tradition, and by federal law, water traffic was given priority and bridges were required toopen

on demand, 24/7,

regardless of what was happening on land. Any watercraft too tall to sailunderneath the closed span could call for the bridge to draw with just a toot of its horn.The fact that bridges could, and did, go up at any time, caused high levels of frustration and anger in citizens attempting to cross the river. Anger was vented at federal law, boat captains, bridge tendersand the movable bridges themselves. This conflict continued off and on throughout the 20

century.Today, the frustration is limited mostly to scheduled times on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the

From the lower deck of the N. Michigan Ave. bridge

sailboat migration seasons.This article is an informal look at bridge tending in Chicago as documented in the newspapers. Inthe addendum are two job descriptions from the mid and late 20

Century and an abridged version of the current drawbridge operation regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard. The next installment will provide a current view of bridge tending supplemented by stories from current bridge men.

The 19

Century

“Just why a bridgetender's essential qualifications should consist of black-guardism, the use of foul language, and a determination to discommode the public whenever he can find the opportunity is aquestion which has not yet been solved. ... the average bridgetender is about as low and contemptible a specimen of humanity as can possibly exist.”

(“Where Do the Bridgetenders Come From?”, July 10,1883, The Chicago Daily Tribune)

This less than complimentary description of bridge tenders was somewhat typical of the era. In the19

Century, “bridge tender” was a title given to the overseer of an individual bridge. The operationand maintenance of the bridge was performed by a crew of bridge men who were hired by the bridgetender. Bridge tenders were given the job not on their technical skills nor their moral character, but ontheir political affiliations. The system was summarized thusly:

“Instead of hiring so many men to look after a bridge, the city employs one man, paying him a large salary and letting him select his help. The result is that a saloonkeeper or some other ward striker getsthe job for from $1,500 to $3000 a year, and hires one, two, or three men at $10 or $12 a week and pockets the difference for bossing the work.”

(“Investigating the Bridgetenders,” June 28, 1885,The Chicago Daily Tribune)

There are many examples of the corruption and abuse when city jobs are meted out in a patronagesystem. Its implementation in bridge tending proved no different. More often than not bridge tendershired political allies to staff the bridge. Problems documented during the era include: bridge men too preoccupied with women guests to respond to boat signals; public inebriation while on the job; leaving bridges open long after boats had passed; and hooliganism used to “encourage” the general citizenry tovote to keep their bosses in power.Even with the corruption, a number of the bridge men provided good service. There are amplestories of the bravery of the bridge men in rescues, suicide prevention, and capture of criminals. Someof these accounts are found in the “Stories” section.One story of valor in the system occurred in the 1890's. The bridge tender at the Adams St. bridgedied, leaving his wife and sons destitute. In desperation, his widow applied for his job but was refused because

“it would be illegal, too great a breach of precedent, or something of the kind for a woman to

3be appointed bridge-tender.”

(“Ever on the Swing,” August 27, 1893, The Chicago Daily Tribune)

.A politically connected lodge brother of the deceased tender came to the rescue by applying for andreceiving the bridge-tending job. He subsequently hired the dead man's sons to be the bridge men andsigned their salaries over to their mother.By the end of the century, there was pressure to take bridge-tending out of the patronage system andinto the merit system.

The 20

Century

Serious efforts to move the bridge tenders from the patronage system began in 1901. The battlecontinued until 1907 when the city council finally voted to hire bridge operations personnel using thecivil service examination. This step led to a more professional and efficient crew of bridge men for thecity.However, this, didn't change the legal mandate that bridges open for waterborne traffic on demandor the landlubbers' complaints. Many newspaper articles were devoted to finding a more equitableapproach to bridge operation, from advanced notice from shipping interests of their intent to sail theriver to elimination of movable bridges altogether. These proposals made little progress during the firsthalf of the century.Commercial shipping began migrating away from the Chicago River to the Calumet Harbor early inthe 20

century. Even so, there was still a relatively large number of vessels on the river. In 1920, itsfirst year of operation, the Michigan Avenue bridge was operated 3,377 times. During the 1930's theannual number of lifts was still measured between1000 and 2000. In the 1960's, the annual bridge liftsnumbered in the hundreds and by the end of the century, the Michigan Avenue bridge was raised lessthan a hundred times each year.Even though commercial river traffic dropped as the century progressed, on demand bridge liftswere still required. For financial reasons, the city began looking for more efficient ways to staff the bridges. In 1941, a roving system was introduced on a select number of bridges. This reduced thenumber of resident tenders and the number of bridges staffed 24 hours. In the 1950's, all bridges weremodified to lift from one of the bridge houses to further reduce the manpower required. As the years passed, additional bridges were lifted by roving teams rather than resident bridge tenders.This reduction in the number of bridges manned 24 hours forced a decline in the number of bridgetenders. In 1937 there were 392 tenders. The number dropped to 360 in 1948. Even though some