Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-08-27
FHE sCIoTo BRIDGE lllIlD CASE,
peelsISnl OF aaags orss8
F.5I1od HIe1g8I DIS GIa IIo = tBeIf
Observation-Disclosures

4 Yesterday being the day for the delivery
OF the opinion of Judge Green on the appii,
cation for an injunction TO restrain the
County Commissioners from locating the
proposed bridge over the Scioto river, at
the foot of State street, there was a large
u number of Acitizens and professional men
present, and muchinterest was manifested
In the, decision and much speculation was
INDUCED in as to what that decision would
fbe, se,b9st e, g. 80 e., ,se,q .q @ .'' Z
| sAt2 O'Clock P. M. Judge Green read one
of the most able and exhaustive opinion.
/ we have ever listened to. Not a. point Of
the subject was neglected or left untouch.
ed. We append a synopsis of his decision
Il 1. That where public officers are charged
with the performance of q public duty re.
4 fquiring the exercise of Judgment and dis
cretion, SIS this case, there is no jurisdIc-
,tion to restrain them by Injunction in the
Iexereise of such Judgment and discretion
on the ground of mistake, or ttatthey have
not acted as judiciousl y as they might have
done. Such iurisd ton can only be exer-
tcised where It IL alleged and shown that
i they have acted In bad faith. ID Il &
A. 2. That in this case It is not made to ap-
| pear that the Commissioners, IN view of
present necessity, and having regard to
popu alton, business, SC. have not acted
Wisely in the location Of this bridge.
I 3. That there is no proof whatever. that
inI making said, location, the said Commis-
| improper motives or Influences, but from
all that appears in the case, they have been
Influenced entirely by their views of duty
and the public interests.i "a ssrr4s ris1T iiaa
A. That the act passed April A. 1866,
entitled ian act to amend section
| three Of an act entitled an act further to
prescfibe the duties of county Commission
}ers, passed April g, 1867 20, I. Vol. SO, p.
93), which provides s.that thereafter the
county commissioners shall not make any
purchase or enter into any contract or en-
gagement for the erection of any infirma-
| ry, court house. jail, bridge, &C., by which
a larger amount of money OF expense is in
| ting the question as to the policy of such
outlay or expense involved therein, to the
qualified voters of the county, either at the
annual spring or fall :, election, &C."
was Internationally repealed, without
ANY saving, or reference to existing
IPsSial sss asws a oy vol tRs sit PaTssss PTsss
therefore the, special act passed March l3
1868 20. L., vol. Go, p. 221) ''to authorize the
Commissioners of Franklin county to levy
a tax, for the purpose of constructing a d,
bridge across the Scioto river at such point
as the Commissioners may designate, be-
tween the National bridge at, Broad street
lumbus & Harrisburg turnpike, " is not con-
trolled or affected by the provision in the
said act of April a, 1866, above recfted. dnfla
5. That the said act of May 8, 1868, does
not repeal, expressly or by Implication, any
'of the powers conferred on the Commits
sioners of Franklin county by the said spe-
cial act of March 13, 1868, but simply pre-
shall be executed; that the two acts are
consistent and full effect should be given to
the provisions of both n zs8i i-i-.H4
6. That there is nothing in the language
of either of said acts, nor in the spirit, OBJ
jecta and purposes thereof that will au- .
thorize, such q construction as will except
the special act from the provisions of the
act of May9. 1868. % zs.rsa a.rsu vd g-s
z. That it appearing that the, construc-
tion of the said bridge contemp plated by the
said special act viii involve an expendi-
ture Of more than $l5,00G the Commisf
sioners of Franklin county are not author
lied TO contract for the building thereof
without firstssubmitting% the. question Of
such outlay or expenditure to the quali-
fed voters Eof said county, at the annual
spring or fall election, as required by the
said act of May 9, 1851 N q Y II
When hehad concluded thereading of
bis opinion, the clerk was ordered to enter
the following order on the Journal:
49, Isaac Eberly ct al. plaintiffs y
j991ld HFoT WI 'E33IId oEn ~
John G. Edwards ct al. defendants.
Motion FOR TIE dsloDdnce' Of an injsmctson:
This case came on to be heard before
Hon. John L. Green, Judge of the Court
of CoEam0n Pleas at Chambers son the ap-
plicatio1 Of the plaintiffs for-th allowance
OF an injunetion as prayed for on the petit
ssmep dssndsats ss 4ss9n adayts aaa
testimony, and was argued by counsel.
On consideration whereof, it appearing
that the cost of the bridge in the petition
mentioned viii involve an expenditure ex-
ceeding $15, 900, and that the defendants, as
Commissioners5a as Aforesaid, under the law,
have no authority to contract fer the erec-g
tion of said bridge until the question of the
policy OF such expenditure snall have been
submitted to vote of the people at spring
or fall election, and approved BY, majori-
ty Of the votes cast at sdch election; and,
the defendants having failed to submit said
question to "a vote of the people, as afore-
Ordered, That said defendants be ipjoined
and restrained from. further proceeding to
make any purchase or contracts for the
erection of said bridge until the said lques-sl
tiOn of the outlay or expenditure involved
therein shall have been submitted to the
people and decided as aforesaid -
This settles the question of d bridge over
the Scioto river in the city Of Columbus
for the present Submitted to vote of the
people it would be defeated we verify be-
lieve. - 11" hsS 'Fa"t's' '''S" %