The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-08-18
he council or city engin

the city of Austin are hereby ex-
empted from working ON public roads
beyond the limits of the city"
Sec. 100. That the jurisdiction and
powers conferred on the city of Austin
by this act shall supersede the auth
GRITTY of each and all other municipal
corporations heretofore exercising any
authority over any part of the terri
tory included within the boundaries
of the city of Austin as prescribed by
this act."
Our constitution, Sec. l, Art II, rec
ognizes the several counties as munic-
ipal corporation and legal subdivisions
of the state.
From the sections cited above it is
clear that the legislature intended
to vest in the city of Austin the ex-
elusive control of all public highways
and bridges, which could properly be
said to form part or section of any
public street of the city. AS the corp
crate limits of the city include the
Colorado river and narrow strip of
land on either side thereof for dist
ance of more than twenty-one miles
above the bridge in question, it is not
intended that the conclusion her Elm
reached shall apply to any other
bridge than the one at the intersec-
tion of Congress avenue and the ColoG
RADIO river. This bridge is wholla
within the city, is built across l.
stream at its Intersection with a prin-
cipal street so as to form a continual
ton thereof. 1t is part of the street
or highway.
The city ofAustin being empowered
to control and regulate its streets
and highways, and having power to
raise money to keep them in repair, is
obliged to repair them in their en-
tirety including bridges thereon. Its
corporate responsibility is commensu-
rate with its corporate obligation
That the Congress avenue bridge was
originally bought by the county does
not shift the responsibility.
The erection of the municipal cor
poration of Austin and the grant to it
of exclusive Jurisdiction over its
thoroughfares by the Legislature ipso
facto ousted the jurisdiction of Travis
county over the highways recognized
by the city and included within the
city limits. Upon this subject our
supreme court has said: "The county
court does, it is true, possess gem
eral jurisdiction, cO-eXtensive with
the limits of the county, to lay out
and establish public roads and high
ways, but as that jurisdiction is con-
ferred by general law which is APP
plicable to every county in the state,
it is at all times subject to be changed
or modified by special laws, acting
upon the same subject in particular
counties, or special localities, though
such change will not affect the opera
alton of the general law, except in
these particular localities, which are
intended to be taken out of the rule.
Now the act Incorporating the town
of Goliad, and giving to its council
authority to lay out and improve the
public highways within the incorpor-
alton, is a special law upon the same
subject, co-extensive in its operation
with the limits of the town, and II
acted upon by the council its effect
must be to modify and repeal the gen.
eral law upon the subject, within
those limits, and to take from the
county courts it's jurisdiction over
roads and highways therein"
That the taxpayers of the county at
large must pay the purchase price OF
said bridge can make ne difference.
The city of Austin is under obligation
by virtue of it's exclusive jurisdiction
to maintain it's highways, including
bridges, in safe condition for travel,
and when that duty is performed it
will insure to the benefit of every per-
son interested in its performance.
The county of Travis bought the
bridge by virtue of powers granted to
it as governmental agency, and as
such continued to exercise its juris-
diction over it until the legislature
by the charter of the city of Austin
gave to the city sole jurisdiction and
control to the exclusion OF other gov
ernmental instrumentalities. And by
reason of the city's exclusive control
over its public highways and the pow
er under its charter to raise money to
keep them in repair, and its acqui-
escence in the use of them by the pub
lie it becomes bound to keep them in
safe condition.
Commissioners of Shawnee county
VS.. Topeka, 80 Kansas; Mechanics
burg VS.. Powers, 1877, 81 Illinois, "a.
Third-In answer to your third
and fourth questions as to whether
the county can surrender and
donate the property to the
city, you are respectfully adj
vised that the jurisdiction and status
of the bridge being fixed by law no
act of surrender by the county could
change it, except that if the city ex-
pressly adopt the bridge it will be an
additional reason that it should pre-
serve it in repair. Your court would
be unauthorized to convey the fee to
the city because the county holds it in
trust for the people of the county who
have right to its use as public free
bridge.
Your fifth question, asking whether
the city or county is responsible for
keeping the bridge in repair, is
answered under the third question
above.
1t may be that the county having
bought the bridge has right as an
incident of ownership to see that the
property is preserved, and in the
event of the failure ofthe city to main
tain it in proper state, or its failure
to exercise its Jurisdiction over it, the
country has right to make such vol
untary repairs as are necessary to
l.