Daily national Democrat., 1861-06-25
1ailp Natlonal DrmOcrat.
Srnreme Court Decision upon the Feath-
or River Free Bridge Case--The Free
I1.:dnn Sustained.

OVp AAN'' =
rrhs ground of complaint is, that the plain
,;ff. are the owners and possessors of liz
oonsed toll bridge, near by. The plaintiffs
orer that the franchise was acquired in 1892,
H., tho nlaintiff Hanson;that since The acQuir
~, ofthe franchise, the holders thereof, as
siSns etc, have done everything required of
tHem bv law; that all the franchise, property,
etc in connection with the bridge have been
held bv the present plaintiffs since $50; that
in 1852, plaintiff Hanson and eo-corporators,
under the name of the Yuba City and Narys-
vile Bridge Company (having been previous
" organized as a corporation in this name)
made due application to the Court of Sessions
ofthe county of Yuba for authority to con-
s,ruct their bridge, a0d duly observed ard
Entitled all the terms and requirements Of
the law; and on the 9TH October, 1892, that
Court, hy order, granted to the corporation
authority to construct, and a license to keep
tbe same and collect the tolls thereon, for
twenty years; that the corporation did con-
struct the bridge at great cost, and fulfilled
the various provisions of law prescribing the
duties ofowners of bridges; that the corpo-
ration obtained renewals annually of the IL
cense from the Court of Sessions until this
power was taken from that Court and after
wards obtained such renewal from the Board
of Supervisors since the change of the law
giving this power to such Boards; paying IL
.cense fees and conforming to the laws in this
respect; that the last of these licenses was
granted toi one year from the 9th day of Au
gust 1860, when the plaintiffs executed
bonds, and did the other things required Of
them to perfect their right Yhe hill farther
avers that the defendants are proceeding to
destroy the rights of the plaintiffs 10y the
erection Of a bridge across the Feather river
and within six hundred feet of the toll bridge
which will prove utterly destructive of the
value of the franchise Of the plaintiif This
is done under the color Of the Act of the Leg
stature passed the llth of April, 1889, which
grants the right and privilege to the county
Of SUtter Of constructing and keeping across
Weather river bridge for public use extend
ing from Fifth street ofthe city of Mary ysvilc,
in the county of Yuba, to the opposite bank
of the river, the cost of the bridge to be paid
for partly 10y pr' ate subscriptions and do
nations, and partly by warrants to be drawn
on the County Treasurer of Sutter county,
and on a fund therein styled the Bridge
Fund, and "when said warrants are paid hy
toll derived from said bridge, then said bridge
shall be free for all crossings of persons or
property" The bill goes on to aver, that the
plaintiff bridge is in every respect, sufficient
for the public wants and convenience, and
chat the new bridge is not needed for public
or private accommodations
The Judge of the County Court of Sutter
having denied an injunction upon this hiil,lhe
plnintlifs below appeal from his order; the
counsel, waving technical objections, have
desired that the case thus made be decided
upon its legal merits.
We do not consider it necessary TO c'ti-
else very closely the provisions Of the Act Of
JSj0or 1855 in reference to bridges, ferries,
etc, to determine whether the rights Of the
plaintiffs arc governed hy the first or the last
ofthcsc statutes, or both together; norris it
necessary to decide the question of the pow
or ofthe Legislature to dIvesi itself, 10y way
of grant of the right to make any further or
other grant of ferry or bridge franchise, SO
as to interfere with the business or profits of
the one first granted. Fer it is not preteu-
deI that any express grant was made to he
plaintiffs here to this effect. The acts of IS59
and ! $50, while they empower the Court Of
Sessions in the one case, and the Buard OF
Supervisors IN the other to grant this fran
chse do not pprport 10 make thc grant in
exclusion ofthe right of the State, or the
Board or the Court to grant to any one else
franchise for bridge or ferry N the same
BtiLhhorhool, or so situated as to interfere
with the first These franchises. hcirg SOW
!
poWer of the State and are primarily repre-
sen,el and granted by the Legislature as the
head OF the political power and the suhor
Ginate bodies or tribunals making the grants
are only agents Of the Legislature in this re-
spcct Bat the delegation of these powers
TO these suGOr1inates, III no way impairs the
power ofthe Legislature to make the graut,the
effect of the grant is unquesionahly to give
right of property to the grantee or Hcensee;
and it would not he in the powsr of the Leg
islature to divest this property or transfer it
to another person, so long as the owner held
in obedience TO the law. No attempt is made
to dlvest Mls property, or to destroy or inn
pair mis- franchise What the appellants
contend is that, not only have they this
property and this franchise, tut they have
also the right tn insist that no other franchise
Of like kind shall be granted, the effect Of
which would hc to impair tie palus aud take
oay the proftS of their own; in other words,
tina, their grant is of the exclusive right TO
the profits Of the travel in the ncighhorhood
at least within the distance of this bridge
20 their own. We think the rule is settled
To the contrarysat this dnv Ever since the
great case of the Charles River Bridge Com
pany vs.. Warren Bridge Company (ll Peters
5iS), these grants have been held not eXclu-
sive; as granting right, but not as estop-
ping the granting power from making other
grants, though the effect of the last be to
destroy the profits of the first (See, also.
Hartford vs. Hartford, Ii Peters 53l;
Bank Of Ohio vs.. Knapp, l6 How, 800. Bush
Us Penn. Bridge, etc Co, Ind. 81; Indian
Canon Road vs.. Robinson, Is Cal. 5lU)
The question is very fully considered in
the cases of the Supreme Court of the United
States and in the case Of Indiana. The
reasoning upon which the conclusion mega
tiring the claim of the grantee goes is that
the grant is not IN terms Il grant of an eX-
Ciusve right; and that the Government
holding this power to be eNerised tor the
public interest and convenience is not to be
presumed to part with it; but the intent to
do so must atlirmattyeIy appear, and be plain
and manifest, and that this intent is not
shown from n mere grant of the franchise
and privilege this grant being efeclual. TO
show that the Legislature had given the
particular right to one grantee, but not prov
ing that the Legislature had divested itself
OF all power to grant in the same vicinity to
any other.
1t is not necessary to critcise the particu-
lar language Of the Act of 1880; for sup
posing that the limitations and provisions
applicable to the Court of Sessions apply to
or control the Legislature, aud supposing,
further, that the righs of the appellants rest
under and are protected by that Act -surpo-
positions which we make only for the argu,
ment-slill, by the Act of 1850, there is no
grant of an exclusive right. 1t is true, the
Court of Sessions could Iy that Act only
grant anal hoe Iai ,,r farr,r ft,.,