The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1876-08-03
THE BRIDGE QUESTION.
whnr a Member or,he anr says.

dcayoring to find what course it is to
the interests of the city they should
pursue in solving the bridge question,
!hcrc is need for calm consideration,
and all extreme views or hasty express
sions of opinion on 4 question of some
vital importance are calculated TO de-
feat II successful solution of the
difficulty.
The Dallas Bridge Company is cor
poration owning u valuable franchise,
granted by the act of the Texas l.egis,
laturc, july 9th, 1870. This act grant
ed the right to build ~ bridge within
two hundred and fifty yards of line
running due west from the centre OF
the square, to charge toll according tc II
prescribed tariff, and TO have such rights
for thirty years Section eight of TINS
act provides that no subsisting rights to
ferries should be thereby Invested, An
amendment to said charter was made
by supplemental act, approved March
ID, 1871 Providing that said section
eight should be so amended as to pro
vide that no person shall be authorized
or allowed to erect amy bridge or keep
any ferry across the Trinity River with
in three miles of the city of Dallas after
the completion of this bridge, and ex-
tending the time said charter should
be in force TO fifty years w eH-
1t will be seen that this company
have valuable franchise, and one the
lawful extent of which Dallas
is deeply interested in ascer-
tanning, The writer is well
satisfied that the citizens of Dallas, as a
people, give place to none, either as their
willingness to do justice to every one
or their determination to have Justice
from everyone. But before we accede
to the rights of the Bridge company or
assert our own, is it not the dictate of
good judgment to ascertain, in the best
way we can, what our respective rights
are? When works of public improve
mcnt become greatly needed and their
cost or character render it difficult that
they be constructed other than by cor
porations, it is both lawful and reason
able that they should beand bytheir char.
tiers have secured TO them such privi-
leges us will secure to them II reasona-
bly, safe Investment for their capital
and liberal remuneration for their en-
terprisc. Nothing but the welfare or
convenience of the public to be subserv-
eel therby justify coniering these eXclu-
sive privileges, and when they exist the
Legislature may not only give exclusive
enjoyment of privileges that heretofore
We're vested in the people, buteyen per-
nit the taking ofpnpateprope upon
making proper compensation therefor
No grant Of private property, upon
making compensation therefor, will be
sustained by the courts when rcsoued
to, to test the validity Of such Legisla-
tive grant, unless, called for by the ne
cessity of the case; and by analogy the
writer submits that no exclusive CON
ccsSon toa corporation OF rights and
privileges of the people, (such as a
man right to ferry on his lands,) is
justified, or valid, unless it be also nee
cssary, and whether an infringement OF
the rights of the property Of an lndivid-
ual be grcirer than is necessary to ne
complish the particular benefit sought
80 be conferred upon the public, is for
the judicial and not the Legislative pow
er to determine Says an e?ninent wri-
ter so it is doubtless true, that while it
belongs to the legislative department to
determine and declare the propriety of
the exercise Of this power of the rights
of universal domain; they cannot exer-
else it beyond the scope OF the line OF
necessity, and an abuse Of its exercise
can doubtless be controlled 10y the judi
cial power. Should the legislature,
either, hy direct exercise of the pow
er or through some.subordinate agency,
lmder power confined by them, abuse
the authority by using it IRE gular, OPP
pressively, or in bad faith, there can be
no doubt of the power of the courts to
furnish an etfectual remedy against
such acts again. constitutional au
thority then being not greater than
that existing by natural law, and the
Legislative power being subordinate to
the constitutional the sacred right OF
private property is above the control Of
the Legislative power, except i'll the cases
of actual necessity for public use
This public use is an
inherent and inseparable quality
the character of which is not changed
merely because the Legislature chose t
80 denomnate it, Dwaris on statutes
and constitution Am cdition), p. 3S6
The writer holds that the aboyeprin
ciples apply with equal force to thu
grant by the Legislature, TO q corpora
ton OF rights and privileges which be
long to the people, or n prohibition o
their exercise by others; and that while
perhaps it would be an encroachmen
on the legislative functions for the judi
cial power to enquire whether the put
lie necessity existed, yet it is within tn
scope of judicial authority to decid
whether the exclusive privileges con
icrred may not be agreater infringement
of public rights than was necessary ant
Just to accomplish the purpose desired
and, if so, thengto that extent void.
4 bridge was q necessity and coul'
only be had by considerable outlay, ant
expense in keeping it up. The exclu
sion OF competition, both as to time an,
distance, so far ,ss seemed necessary a
the time of the Incorporation, to insur
secure investment and n liberal RENT
neration, was not unreasonable and wa
within the power of the Legislature t
grant, bit no more and if proven to tn
satisfaction of court of competent j
risdcton thatll an entire prohib
ton of all bridges and ferries tc
three miles above and below, fc
fifty years, was an unreasonable an
greather encroachments upon tho We
ted rights Of the Judge than was nece
Sary to insure. the inoorporators 81
cure investment and liberal remuner
ton. SO much OF the said charter tn
writer thinks would be held void. I