The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1883-12-29

within the city limits IS based entirely
upon what Is commonly called the argu-
ment Of inconvenience This argument
J when the law IS plain and unambiguOus
in itS terms, is entitled To little, II any,
weight, hut when the construction OF n
statute Is In doubt 1t Is often of controlling
Importance. But when this argument ia
applied II will not do to consider single
inconvenience on the one side and ignore
all those which would exist upon the other
1t proper, therefore. that we consider
few Of the Inconvenience that may re.
suit ii the law Is so construed that the
towns cannot build the bridge.
! Let us suppose that the city OF Ottawa
contained but 1000 Inhabitants, a portion
residing south aud the other portion north
of the river, that the point where the
I present bridge IL located was the most
available and convenient point between
the towns for the maintenance OF bridge,
or that one at another point would cost
twice as much rs the one proposed 10 oe
built, or indeed, that it was impossible to
build a bridge at any other point. Now,
II II be true, that there is no legal way III
which the towns could build and maintain
it, 1t would either remain unbuilt and the
population OF the adjoining towns be put
to trouble and Inconvenience, or else the
whole burden Of paying IT'S cost, say 800.
i 600 would be cast upon n small city,
the assessed valuation of the property
OF which might, and undoubtedly would
he SO small that it could not under the con.
sttut,On incur Indebtedness sufficient to
build it.
Again supposing 50 small city should
succeed IN building 1t, 1t would by doing
90 be compelled to impose upon itself a
burdensone tax for public Improvement
for the use and benefit OF two large town
ships, while the inhabitants Of such town
ships living without the city limits, would
entirely escape taxation
1t Is conceded that the towns OF Ottawa
and South Ottawa have the undOubted
power to bald a bridge across this river.
No one would have the hardihood to con
tend that they could not build such Il
bridge at point mile above or a mule
below The present one. and were they to do
go, no one would insist that those lnhabit
ants OF the towns who lived within the
city limits could escape the payment ct
the taxes levied 10 pay its cost Such be-
ing the case, what rule of sense or justice
is there that requires the bridge TO be built
at an announcement point and at an unnec-
.ssary expense, because forsoOth, those
who pay the largest portion OF its cost are
so unfortunate as to DC residents OF city?
AS all the inhabitants Of the towns, as
well as those living within as those living
without the city, are equally taxed to pay
for the bridge, why should il not be, erect
ed at the point which Will make 1t most
convenient and least expensive?
The law intends that the power con
ferred upen the townS shall he exercised
in such manner AS shall best suOservc
the public interests, and the commissioners
of highways 10 acting under the law in
question. are bound to execute the power
gwen them for The best interests of the in.
habltants of their towns, and among those
are included those who 1--we
within the limits of the city rs we'll as
those who live without. If the public III.
terest require that bridge should be built
over a stream which divides the towns, i'll
is their clear duty TO build 1t at such avail
able point as will ebe MOS. convenient for
the public, and to say that, though the
most available point is within the city lin
its and though It's erection there IS desired
by all the inhabitants of the towns who
contribute to pay for 1t, and it can be erect.
ed at no other point where 1t Will be con-
venlent for the pubic, yet it cannot be
erected within the city but only at some
point inconvenient for the inhabitants and
where It would be vastly more expensive,
is not to speak in a very complimentary
way OF our system OF Jurisprudence. When
the statute says without making any ex-
cepton that. bridges over streams which |
IL 4. hall t,n h,t,t nd
- paired at the expense of SAID towing
and such construction as lS claimed is !
given It, men of sense and intelligence !
cannot but have thorough contempt for
our system of administering justice.
There Is nothing In the provisions of the
statute in regard to the distribution OF the
road anu bridge fund that iorblds the evec-
ton of the bridge in question by the towns.
On the cyItrary, the very fact that one half
The road aud bridge tax collected on the !
lying within the city limits un-
der section t3 and the whole OF that which
NAV he levied under section IA OF the Act
Of 1883, is placed In the hands OF the COM
mis.iouers of highways, to be used by
them aud not by the city, furnishes very
strong argument why they should be per-
mittcd to use portion OF IL within the
city. The CITY authorities can In no event
receive more than arises from levy of 30
cents on the $4,000 upon the property
within the city, while the commissioners
may with the aid of the board OF town
auditors, collect 10 cents ON the $4,000
from the same property, and the construc-
llon of the law commended for would re
uulre them to expend all this money col
ected within the city limits as we'll as all
hat might be collected IN the rest OF the
township upon roads and bridges outside
Of the city. 1t would also permit them to
expend il in adjoining towns, but not
cent of it IN the city. 1t must strike any
man that if the law be as it has
been claimed, that the commissioners can
not expend any money within the city, no
more villainons scheme tor plundering a
city's taxpayers could we'll have been IN.
vented than this road and bridge statute.
IfHtherefore, we apply the argument OF
inconvenience in constituting the statutes IN
question we find that the inconvenience
hat would result from permitting the
towns to build the bridge within the city.
Is very much less than that which would
follow the opposite construction.
Taking into consideration all the stat
p,o nroyIsiona nm The subject and giving