The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1882-06-03
,rman n teacher of German

academy; Miss Zimmt r. n aica.nor VI TcIW UNA
Williams poet Miss Anayo' , W wa" tar
Miss Smith. female d~tbr; Hayden, railroad
president; Miss Vernon, hating school
marin. :,
Willard Gentleman presented l. ne diplomas IN
AS neat II manner rs we ever he."' II uo"e ~
Ottawa. 49,. ,,.
Then came more flowers, until the sl,Ge Was
covered with them. Miss Mayo deliyerSu the
lvaledictory, very neatly wordcd and beautllslly
read. parting song followed, closing he
exercises. -
The commencement was n great success. The
ESSAYS were too short to become tedious, and
were read deliberately and well, so that probably
all were easily heard in all parts of the honse.
A bill was filed In the L. s. Circuit Court at
Chicago on Friday last by the Canton Bridge
Company against the Town of Utica and Its Com
missoners of Highways, the Town of Deer Park
and its Commissioners Of Highways, and the
County OF La Sale, to prevent the use OF the
bridge over the Illinois river, connecting the
towns of Utica and Deer Park, until such bridge
is paid for The bill sets out the state law on
the subject of building bridges, and recites the
history Of this case, with which our readers are
long since familiar. The State Supreme Court
recently rendered decision in the case holding
that no legal contract had been made between
the commissioners and the bridge company.
The commissioners at the meeting at which the
contract was made acted together, and ma ori-
ty of the two bodies concurred, though, as mat
ter of fact, a majority of the commissioners of
Deer Park were not present The court held shat
the two bodies could not act together, and that
their Joint acts were therefore void, and the two
towns were not bound to pay for this bridge.
The TrjbuRc, in n fearful article, says: This
may be very good law, but the bridge company
feels that it is not equity justice, and it now
seeks relief in another way. 1t charges that,
though guided by learned counsel, it made a
mistake in supposing the two sets OF commits
siOners could act together, or that the contract
they made was binding, or that the town cleo
tons constituted, as matter of fact, n binding
decision in favor Of building the bridge or that
the acceptance of the bridge made the towns
liable to pay for it, or that the agreement be-
tween the towns to maintain the bridge acted as
ratification of Its purchase, or thatit complain
anti had, in fact an adequate remedy at law
against the towns. These six mistakes, the COM
planant claims, court of equity has power to
relieve against. The towns set up that il they
should pay for the bridge they would exceed
their constitutional limit of Indebtedness, and
that the town of Deer Park retracted its consent
to the erection OF the bridge. The defendants
refused either to pay for the bridge or to allow it
to be taken down; and the bridge company now
asks that, on account of the above mistakes and
fraud, it may be allowed to remove the bridge
without any let or hindrance, and have an &C
counting for the use OF the bridge during the six
years it has been built; or, If the defendants elect
to retain the bridge, that they may be compelled
to pay for 1t and be restrained from using 1t until
this suit is decided and until they do pay for it in
full with interest" The Bridge Company should
have learned earlier the lesson their difficulty
now teaches them, that they should be not over
anxious to make contracts for expensive bridges
with municipalities, for the individual taxpayer
always has the right, fortunately, to know where
and how his money is spent; and in these cases
there is always sure TO be a "kicker," no matter
how laudable the enterprise.