The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1885-10-14
THE SITUATION"
Status Of Affairs In the Sus-
pension Bridge VS.. the
City Of Waco.
The Opinion Rendered by adgeJ
watts I'm the Case Of Compton
vs.. Waco Bridge Co.
how the Matter stands, and
Opinions Expressed on Both
Sides OF the Case.


Opinions Expressed on Both
Sides OF the Case.
The clash betweenth city Of Waco
VS.. the Waco Bridge company does
not create much connection among
the citizens generally. There are
only few who seem to care any
thing about it, but it can be said that
some of these few are a little bit hot
over the clash. This should not be,
as both sides have their rights to de-
fend and grievances to complain of.
Captain T. A. B.air is managing the
affair for the city, aud VIM. l.. Pra-
ther, esq.,, represents the bridge COM
pany. In conversation yesterday
with Hon. E. A. Sturgis, president of
the bridge company, and VIM. l..
Prather, esq, secretary of the COM
pany, these gentlomer told the Ex-
AMINER reporter that they had no
axes to grind in this matter; that
they did not want to, nor did not in
tend to try to deprive any one of
their rights and privileges to ford the
Brazos river, but that the,
wanted justice done themselves
and their company. In diving
piles at the place where
the city enjoined,them they were hov-
ing the work done SO as to stop a
great wash which came down from
Elm street, in East Waco, aud which
was liable to continue to wash aud
spread until it would damage their
piers on the east side of the Brazos,
II allowed to remain as 1t was. The
land on which they were having this
work done belonged to the bridge
company by right OF purchase, and
they have . right to enclose it If 1t be
necessary to protect their property
from ruin. This is part of the de-
Tense of the bridge company, but, as
Mr.. Prather said, newspaper was
not the place to discuss this matter;
1t should come up before the courts.
Captain Blair said the bridge COM
pany never made any move to re-
strain the city from putting in the
sewer, which runs from the pond
In East Waco down Elm street
to the river, and their
property was invaded when
the ditch was cut to
put the sewer pipe down, but they
waited until the roadway was opened
down to the river before they sued
out the Injunction. But all this ar
gument will come up before the
courts, and the EXAMINER wishes
only to give q statement of the facts
as near as they can be obtained.
II will be remembered by many of
our citizens that the city council or
dered tho ford opened at the foot OF
Washington street, in 1877, but they
were enjoined by the Bridge COM
pany. The case was tried in the dis
trict court and resulted in verdict
for the Bridge company, who was
the defendant. An appeal was taken
| by the city to the supreme court, and
the opinion, (extracts of which we
give below, was rendered by Judge
Watts, and approved June %, 1883,
and the case was reversed aud re-
manded.
No other action was taken in the
premises yesterday, and what the
Bridge company Intends dong they
have kept 1t TO themselves.
without undertaking to determine
how, or TO what extent, an easement
might be obtained upon this "re-
serve,n for that question is not pre-
sentcd IN this connection, the propo-
sition for consideration Is, did the
municipal authorities grant to APP
pellee right TO this RESERVE" to the
extent asserted. For the purposes OF
the argument II might be conceded
that the city council had the power
to grant appellee a reasonable ease
ment or charge upon portion of this
reserve, for cattle pens and other
things necessary in conducting its
business. But the question remains,
did the council in fact grant the right
TO the extent claimed? No such in.
tention Is apparent either from the
language of The application or the
resolution. At most IL but conferred
upon appellee the right to use such
reasonable portion Of the @reserven
as would be necessary in conducting
Its legitimate business. THIS Is more
apparent when we consider the pnr-
poses for which the grant was asked
and made, the character OF the
RESERVE" and the extent of
the power of the coun-
ell over the same. The ght of ap-
pellee to inclose this entire "re-
serve" aud abstract all the ways TO
the river except that which leads o
its own toll gates, was never con.
templated by the council. 1t could
not be reasonably supposed that the
council would have attempted to cx-
clude the general public from this
RESERVE" which had been conveyed
to the city rs common, and for the
use Of the public. The subsequent
action Of the council in adopting the
ordinance, directing the removal of
the distractions from the streets or
ways leading across this reserve to
the river, 10 at least persuasive that
II was never intended that such oh.
siructions should be placed across
these ways. Appellee's real object In
extending the plank faom the foot Of
Washington street TO the river does
not admit Of much question. IL was
10 prevent the public from crossing
the river at the ford, aud 10 compel
all TO pass over its bridge.
From tho evidence as disclosed
BY the record, this way from
Washington street 10 and across
the river, aud along what 10 now
EuAurs. Hf... -