Morning journal and courier., 1882-04-15
TOmIinsOn's Bridge.
A Glance At Hts History-Ias Past an Present-Judge Munson's Address.

Olance AL HIS E1SCOry-lG2 FASL ana
 Present-Judse Munson's Address. We present herewith the interesting ad- dress delivered recently by Judge l.. E. Mum son in the chamber of the Court of Con-
 mon Council on the old Tomlinson bridge. In 1796 the Legislature of this State
 granted to the inhabitants of East Haven ib- erty to erect bridge across from New Haven
 to East Haven at or near the place called Leavenworth's Ferry, and to collect toll from all persons passing over or using said bridge according to schedule of rates made out and made part of the charter.
 This bridge was to be built in two years from the rising of the General Assembly in
 1797, and the charter was to run 70 years from and after the time fixed in the charter for it's completion. Liberty was also given to the inhabitants of East Haven to assign and transfer said grant to such individuals or company as should give bond to the treas
 urer with surety in the sum of S2O,0o0, con-
 ditioned that the bridge should be built with in the time limited in the resolve,-the bridge to be 27 feet wide and the draw at least 2e feet wide.
 The corporate name of the Bridge compa- | ny was ''The company for erecting and sup
 porting toll bridge from New Haven tc
 East Haven.' Said company was authorized to purchase 1 and hold land not exceeding 100 acres, an6 | said company were to keep said bridge ir good repair for 70 years, subject to the in spection of the General Assembly as often as | they shall think proper, by. committee o1 otherwise.
 In 1799. the bridge having been completed at larger sum than was expected, the tol not yielding only about 1-2 per cent, the | Legislature increased the rates of toll about | 33 per cent on the amount fixed in the char l ter,
 In 1895 the Legislature again auth orizec an increased rate of toll of more than 4O( per cent. over the original amounts allowed | in the charter.
 l After enumerating the rates of toll allowed 1 under the new schedule. they enact that saio | company and their successors be and they are hereby authorized to use and occupy said 1 bridge for the term of 15O years from the completion thereof, and the time for said company using and occupying said bridge is l hereby extended to 150 years from the com 1 pletion of the same, giving the company about 67 years of unexpired limit under the charter. In 1920 the Legislature resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Bridge company own | ing said bridge to make and keep in good re- pair, at some convenient place in the chan nel of said river, @ good and convenient
 draw to admit the easy and free passage of
 such vessels as may have occasion to pass up and down said river, the same to be done and fn ha "a ic- sioners hereinafter named within such time as they may limit. David Plant, Charles Pond and Rufus Hitchcock were the commis-
 sioners named to superintend said bridge. In 1867, Private Acts, page 28, the Legis-
 lature passed an act authorizing the Bridge
 company to sell and dispose of all or part of said bridge to the city of New Haven, &c.,, for the purpose of making it 8 free bridge.
 This is substantially all the legislation had pertinent to the questions now before the Council.
 Without discussing the question whether the company have suitable facilities to &C., commodate the vessels passing up and down this river through the draw; whether the bridge is unsightly, unsafe and 8 nuisance generally, I have only to say that if the bridge is unsafe the company can be com pelled to repair it. If it falls down or is knocked down by vessel passing through it the company must rebuild it, and if it fails to suitably accommodate the shipping inter ests the Legislature may yet inquire into it and have the evil remedied.
 But those are not questions that address themselves to this Council under the proceed ings now before us. v
 If the company repair the old structure or rebuild anew, they will keep the bridge as toll bridge till they are remunerated for the outlay or till their chartered limits expire, 67 years hence. That is not what we want. We want free bridge there, and I am in favor of the city taking hold of the matter at once and giving us good free bridge as cheaply as pos sible consistent with it's location and the demands of the public, but free bridge at all events. And I am in favor of it's being done without a dollars expense to 8 single property holder on either side of the river by way of assessments of benefits which may come to his land by virtue of it's being free bridge over and above Q toll bridge. l doubt if the city has the power to make as- sessments of benefits for repairs or rebuilding the bridge even if It were disposed to doso. doubt both the power and the policy of as- sessments of benefits for the expenses of changing this from a toll to 8 free bridge. Public convenience and necessity require this change to be made, and the public should pay for it in equal taxation without imposing any special obligations upon any one
 But it is said that property on the easterly side will be greatly enhanced in value by the