Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-10-13

Report ot The Fight WagIng Between
The CITY and the Suspension
Bridge Company.
Comparison Of thc Cotton Receipts at WACO
and dallas worising- Of The
amended sunday Law
spceia,,o thc Gazette

lions NJ citizens, The city council decided
10 open tho upper ford on the Btalos,
from The foot Oi Washington street IN
west Waco 60 the foot OF Elm street IN
East waco 1'hc work commenced on
tho west Side first, and the banks Wcrc
soon cut down SO that hOfscmcn and
vehicles could get the river. Bot when
the sircoteumm iasloncr started TO wOtk ON
Tho cast side, at the foot OF Elm street,
hc was stopped by an Injunction from
ihu suspension bridge company. The city
obcycd the Injunction. In tho meantime
thc suspension bridge company put u
force Of men az work on the cast side,
driving piles directly across Elm street,
osicnsibly TO project tbs casterapproach
90 .ha bridge. IN reality hOwcver these
piles givully atop people from using the
ford, as they block NJ Elm stree; com
plotfly The city authorities hold that
the bridge company has no right warrant
ing them in occupying or blOckadlng the
commons along The river banks, on either
side or tho streets OF the city Acting
under Instructions aud warrants issued by
The recorder, CITY Marshal Moore went
Dcr0ss The river this morning and
men, including Mr. Geo. q
f.
Tho Charge against them Is imlaWfully ob.
structiug Che streets. They gave bond
for appearance before thr recorder mud
stopped work Tor the time being. The
marshal ihon arrested T.. a. Surgls,
president ol tie bridge company, who
also gave bond, and u is probable there
WIl bD some lively litigation over the
matter The CITY had somewhat sin.
ltr difficulty Wiih'thp bridge company In
1861. mad 81 - not settled set The city
desired 90 upou this same Washington
street ford Tor Che benefit Of the public
The bridge company erected fence
across th0 street, along the river bank.
ildcrmAn Spcigit was acting may.
va, and he ordered the then city
marshal, h. ~. Compton, 10 tcur the
fence down, Which was done. The
bridge company went into district court
aud obtained a perpetual Injunction re-
streaming the city FROM interfering with
Che fence. The city appealed 10 the Su.
prrmu court, which dissolved the in.
Junction, rcuauding the case back To the
district court here Tor new trhl. Bv
some ucaus the mandate OF the supreme
court was lost, and The case has never
hccA tried again The renewal OF the
tronhlri Ii likely to cause somc feeling.
There Is q ford, used by the public, two
hiotas south of Che bridge, bur it IS
somewhat incOnycnicut and out of the
way ANA not near SO good crossing a.
ihe one tie city now seeks to open, which
IS Mocknnfth oi the bridge. The cf
fort, " tho bridge company to prevent the
public from using the ford are likely 10
create bitter feeling against the bridge
company Tho city comedies that the
chartered rights Of the bridge company
forbid tho erection of another bridge FOR
pablo uses across the river within a dis.
tame Of five miles ON cach side of the
7usa"rsiou bridge, but claims that The
peeplr have right To- use the crossings
provided by nature that is, the forts
and that the city has The right To- control
ana use rs streets leading to said natural
crossings.
The above may be said to be the clty's
side Ot thc question. The bridge COM
pany has its Side, too, which il given
about as fUllnws The bridge com.
papy claims thut the city of Waco
does not possess any rights 10 tue
commons along the banks of the river
on the cast side, where the plling is being
drivcn that the bridge company pur.
chased und now owns said land; that Elm
street was never opened by the city, and |
II % had been could not be opened to the
river bank, save by rurchasc or condemn
alton ~ strip OF she bridge compnny's /
land that county road did not run
along where Elm street now runs before
tdst Waco became pan OF the city, but
ihut the county court Ia 1870 abolished
laid road; that The mandate OF The si. /
prcn,e court IN the Compton ease did not
dissolve the preliminary Injunction: and,
finally, that the new piling now being
done on Elm street IS necessary to the
pcrnsncncy of the eastern approach To
iho bridge The bridge company people
take very 1rm stand on these points
and are evidently not disposed
70 Yield an inch of what they claim as
ilicir rights They say that years ago,
when Waco was a small town, hundred
inilrs distant from any railroad station.
they commenced the construction OF the
magnificent iron suspension bridge, which
cost el2a,0On, aud invested their money
freely, az great risk They propose to
stand pat on all the privileges given
ihein by their charter. The use ~ tue
lower fora they are willing 90 conctdc,
not as right the public has.
nut Simply ~ u concession 30 satisfy
puh'tc icclinS. IL may ur added tAsf 81
30 , ffAN'NrAt if''' ~ NNb fNNAat com. iNNlA
secretary, was also arrested IS tae @.eF
shal this morning What iaftkts erees
aro 10 10 taken, hy either ..de, viii asst ~
deyclcncd until tomorrow.
ConGcrIng with the people 90 fe afii
lcct u H. easy a. see tlnt tho f~ppnIsf-
anoc of public feeling Is agsiuss tia. bfiAse
company. This was 90 be expected. h0u-
cvor Corporations 90 Mi usually gct
much sympsthy, whether tbay are ln Inc
RIGHT Or not man who can ride his
horse or drive his ychiclc across TIE ford.
instead Of p7yinp the bridge company
irom ~ % ao ccnts, D. an % ar4ae n
layofoi Gplnmmohd passage, aud tlierc
are hundreds ~ lersua, WHO have occn
sion % cross the riycf every dav.
Ihe coai-oll can, that is u.ed 10 kindll
the IRE, VIII have ca look 10 a. nnrcls,
as The gin saw Is setting in the lead
scarcely q wrek fassrs that a gluhccidont
W not reported This morning while
ibMham rowou was feeding gm al
BldckWel's gin,siX miles north uf uilscity
ais arm gos caugn IN Il,c saws ana MAS
severed hctwrcn the wrist and the elbow.
Cotton recclpts were lighl to-day, as n
AZ ftsa. IA