The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-07-03
THE SOUTH STREET BRIDGE CASE.
Opinion OF the Supreme Court Refusing
20 EniOLn aus OOnnGrMctloM.

Opinion OF the Supreme Court Refusing
10 EpjOtn ttB COnstructtOn.
The following are material portions OF the
opinion given yesterday in the Supreme Court
by Justice Read, in the case of the City vs
Field ct al, affirming the decree of the Court az
ntsi prius, by which an Injunction restraining
the construction of the South Street Bridge was
refused:-
The whole law.making power of the State is COM
limitations Imposed on thai body by the CnSstntion %
Independent Of these limitations the legislative power
dg Re 6S % s s says
them by money raifed by loans and taxation. This
power is indspu able and upon its constutionality
undouotedy build this bridge over navga6e river.
from loans or taxes and in doing is they might eng
ploy commissioners to erect 1t This must be con-
OF erection the city and county through which
and which bridge is thrown connecting the
east aud west banks of the schuylkill. upon which
1 j. 10 fact % age Of es,lt connecting
remolest parts Of West Phiiadelpbia Tns city has
eight hundred thousand souis aud the question is.
cannot the state place the cost OF this public
a1ertv eaoh nv h dSe eaa pSpnisIoh n
adm OF argument, Tor the mere state menJ of it Is
But we are not wanting in direct authority upon
wan held that an act Of lhe Legislature Imposing
puohc Improvement such As canal Is valid AND CON
passage Of suoh % OF saoS
Gisrct had entered into bond to the state by which
the Improvement In answer to some objections,
proves quite too nuo it Would go to cut OF
t a s ywhah @ey TO Of 4sys S
poor. or establish and keep on foot common
i eSniOunds two distinct legislative powers: "y
SI @ pao ~isn s s TPe
upon com aiprties, and may be exerted in favor OF
public beneGt. A TAX 10 build a luaaic asylum may
ss be sGs on to % Of
iudividual pecunsry benefits to each one who should
Soud no. be msintaInsd ioT moment; Yet i Who
s tsxsn may may ' SSused bat aa%i s e4e1 sss
retersah,s fer @ to y % 9 taxing power, , t.,
County Commssion of HampshI Ella Pickering
60 Snd bingham q oni"Sy h1lGse and TarnpiEe
sss ns ahSrge S S% the
pensive bridges in Whole or in part upon eoseties
and It s impo, sble to deny the equity of these pro-
ire 81 the Of erecting this
money 10 be raised by a loan created by the Conn
mssloners, and to be deposited with he Treasurer
officers q the Conn ,slon, and expended on the
the Councils 70 provide for the prnoipai aud in
Of this m Which Rd.a thus VIII H. @ part
yn. ~ Barton's, 627 we find similar statute in New
a Board Of Commissioners. he differences being that
The city, and not the Commissioners, were to issue
The object Of this act Is to build free bridge over
sent bridges that river, from the Girard avenue
made 80 wholly or partially at the cost of the
All the bridges from the Falls to the mouth of the
schuy kin are free excepting the Peters Island and
he Srase St he b RsFSsd ID ana a.
very heavy expense TO the county of Phadelphia.
the ely Of Philsdelpha rs' -
an act to e @ 9 m free b bridge s
Of Philadelphia, passed May 10 1851 the Councils Of
and suSstsnIia bridge over the river schsyikl at
y aGs 90
by loan to be raised az therein dreoed said bridge
steSed OK e nscesssy
% 6aTg taken S ac o. hs
asupps menI 70 il passed The 5th or Apru, 1866
sHho.y 10 create Loan not no 6 Iced M s 6ondFea
After iuTther Opposition by Councils the Legislatare
on The 5th Of April Is prssed further supplement-
veyor The city 10 direct the building Of the bridge
es The biidge Was 70 have suiicient and conVe.
n1ent draw for mssted vessels, and 10 defrSy this
rizeo to create an additional loan OF two hundred
anu payable by the city in forty years and the
ceeds paid TO the City Treasurer The Councils are
sinkiHs iSaS to s15sds6 s pfipGlpa il icrsy
other gentlemen are created additional Comms'
The Councils contest the cons nationality of these
aoiG and under RESOLUTION res M n Of snose & bodies the CITY
has made a very Iearned and elaborate argument, TO
show that these laws violations OF the COnsttu-
ttOn that This y urt l. bound enJOn the
lien of ne bridge as directed by those % acts
that The Legislature may rule over The Scbuylkill by
whatever agency Is satisfactory. Nor can it be
doubted that subse quenly appOtuted special agent
supersedes and dsp aces previously appointed
general agent, and this without express words,
sci invoke those'princplfs of strict construction
which apply to grants to private corporations,
as If The city OF Philadelphia bridge
company claiming valuable franchise In
derogaton of the public rights; but dit
must be manifest that tn Is not case for the ap.
picaion or those principles. Tue city 10 not pri-
Vate but muUic pal corporation and Is TO derive no
prohls Whatever from Lue bridge, tor it Ia to he
ep, and not ICll-bridPe. The city, tEe the County
Com missioners a selected agency for carrying,
SchuYlkil FOR the benefit all the peo pie or the
Commonwealth" (6 Wrights; 2l2.)
This is strictly applicable TO the present cases the
city declined the agency, aud special agent ls
Legislature, In the legitimate exercise of her power,
bas imposed the cost or bridging the river she has
done before on the county-the present city "The
only interest involved Is the public Inter est and no
other s concerned In their municipal corporAtlons)
creation, continuance, alteration or renewal, The
the idea OF vested rights" 1--WE know of no vested
rights Of political power n any ciCzen body OF cti-
zens except those conferred by the Constitution" s
Wendell, SD
The corpora ton OF the CITY cen be changed altered
or repealed by The Legislature aud IL would be SIM
gulhr anomsly II that body could not, It's own Off,
cers erect bridge over naVlgsb BILE river, which Is
certainly not duty OF city, unless required by the
city.
Our opinion, therefore is that those acts oonAtI.
tulional and must be Obeyed.
The decree Is am d. and appeal dismissed at the