The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-08-18
THE BOULDIN BRIDGE.
THE COUNTY COM MIssIoNERs WILL
AID THE CITY.
What Was Done at the Conference Between
the County Commissioners and the Com
mittee From the City Council Held
Yesterday Morning

the committee from the city council,
composed of Aldermen Schuber,
Nltschke and Weyerman, met with
the county commissioners for the pur-
pose of holding a conference on the
question of repairing or re-
building the bridge over Bouldin
creek on the San Antonio road. All
the commissioners were on hand and
in addition thereto County Attorney
Walker, City Attorney Pendexter,
Messrs. Ward & Faulk and number
OF citizens having the best interests of
both the county and city at heart
were also present.
The case was fully and thoroughly
presented by the first three above
named gentlemen, who argued that
the question at issue was in the main
a question of equity; that while
the city was given jurisdiction
ever the bridge by the new charter
no act could divest the county of it's
property rights in the bridge, it hav-
ing been originally purchased by the
county from the company that built
it; that while the county was not
bound to maintain the bridge there
was no legal inhibition against the
ounty appropriating money to assist
the repair on the bridge.
j They We're followed by County
Judge Won Rosenberg who argued
against the county contributing one
Cent towards the bridge. He did not
deny that the county could spend
money on the bridge, but thought
that as long as the city had voluntar-
lily assumed control of the bridge that
they should keep it in repair.
Commissioner Newning then intro
duced the following resolution:
Res, lived, That it is the sense of
this court that the power to spend
funds on the property purchased from
the T. G. R. q B. Co., in conjunction
with the city of Austin for the pres.
ervation and improvement of said
property, has been fully established,
and this court, in view of the large
share of taxes paid by the city, will
join the committee of the city council
in Investigating what class of repairs
and improvements can be mutually
agreed upon.
Passed by the following vote: Yeas
-Newning, Brown and Thorp. Nays
Pace and Won Rosenberg.
During the discussion the opinion
rendered by attorney general in last
November was frequently cited, and
The STATESMAN gives it in full be-
low for the information of those who
have never seen it:
Nov. ~, 1891.
Messrs. John W. Brown, w. N McElroy Chas.
A. Newning, County Commissioners, Austin,
Tex
DEAR SIRs-In your letter of Oct. 6
you state in substance, that while the
south boundary line of the city of
Austin extended south only to the
center of the channel of the Colorado
river, private corporation obtained a
charter to build, and built and main
tanned toll bridge over said river at
the foot of Congress avenue. That
subsequently the county of Travis,
through its commissioners court,
purchased from said private corpora
ton said toll bridge, its approaches,
the road leading up to it on the south
for the distance of 900 feet, which was
owned in fee by said private corpora
ton, together with all franchises, etc.,
and issued negotiable bonds in pay
ment and withdrew the tolls, making
the highway and bridge public and
free. That subsequent to eaid pur-
chase, the Twenty-second legislature
granted to Austin an amended char
ter extending it's corporate limits so
as to include said bridge, it's APP
proaches and the right of way 800 feet
in length above referred to; and that
you wished to be advised by this de-
partment upon the following points:
First-Does the county of Travis lose
its title to the bridge, roadway, APP
proaches, etc., because they are in the
city limits? If yes, can the citizens Of
the county outside of the city be taxed
to complete the payment due by the
county for the purchase of said bridget
You are respectfully advised thaf
the county has not been Invested O
it's title to said roadway and bridge,
but that it is held by it in trust for the
public, who have by dedication an
easement of travel over the road and
bridge. If the bonds of the county is
sued in payment for said bridge were
legally issued they must of course be
paid by the taxpayers of the whole
county.
Secon d-You also inquire: "Who
has the right to regulate and control
said bridge, roadway, approaches,
etc., the city or county?" The act of
the Twenty-second legislature incor-
porating the city of Austin contains,
among others, the following provi-
sions, which it is necessary here to
notice:
Sec. So. AS to taxes and bonds:
"Sec. so. That the city council hall
have exclusive control and regulation
of all streets, alleys, sidewalks and
highways within the corporate limits
of the oity. x *:u
"Sec. 81. That the city council shall
fix and determine the nature and ex-
tent of all sidewalks and streets, etc.,
and shall have power to con-
struct, regulate and keep in repair all
necessary sidewalks, footways and
streets and to regulate the use of the
same"
"Sec. SO. That it shall be their
board of street and sewer commits
sioners) duty to prepare and recon-
mend to the city council comprehen
sive plans for sidewalks, streets
*.U