The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-02-20
CANNOT CONDEMN THE ROAD.
ccontinusd from Eighth Page)

Continued from Eighth Paze)
ssople who live out in that section ana
This be didn't think should interfere with
The rights OF the owners Of the island
legally he held that the commissioners
were bound 70 maintain the highway.
From a practical standpoint the neces-
SHY. he SAID vas just as great. The land
= now returned at s. an acre. It used 70
be worth s. an acre. he said, but went
down on account OF the absence Of the
hridgs. II would not do 70 take the means
oe~ transportation and communication
away, he said, and then argue that the
land is worth nothing.
There are more than 1900 acres on the
Island, and all revenue and profit have
besn cut or from this land on account Of
rhs absence OF the bridge. He spoke Of
ne 300 acres owned there by the Rene.
dictine Order, which had intended to build
monastery upon It, but nothing could
De done with any OF the property, ne
said. until the bridge was built
Mr.. Charlton commended that the com
uIssto2ers were compelled under the law
% build the bridge Chairman Dale said
AIr. J. r. Saussy, the county attorney
had advised the board that there was no
obligation upon them to build the bridge.
NJ Saussy then stated that he had ad-
7FlSed the old board and this one as well
that It was not obligatory upon the com
mLssioners to rebuild the bridge. Mr.
Saussy said his opinion was based on the
history OF the bridge, which was built BY
private subscription to replace a ferry
that was then being used as a means Of
coumunlcation with the island The fact
NAT It was built by private subscription.
he considered, did not obligate the county
70 repair or replace it. though by the act
Of 1910 1t was made a part Of the public
roads OF Chatham county. If that had
been the only act on the subject the
county, he said, would have to maintain
Il. The act of 1871, he said, gave the
county authorities power to alter, i'm
prove or abolish this road and the bridges
5ust the same as If the act OF 1870 had not
been passed This, he said, rendered nuga-
tory the act OF 1870, and put the bridge
Dack IN the same position as before the
passage Of the act of 1870 It was on this
ground, he said, that he had advised the
commissioners that they We're not Obliged
70 build the bridge
In the matter Of discretion, he said. the
commissioners, in his opinion, could build
the bridge If they so desired or thought II
necessary. He said the act of 1873, in
structing the ordinary to widen the arch
put no obligation on the county to keep
me bridge in repair, as that was a step
take 70 abate nuisance, and get rid of
an impediment to navigation.
Nj. Charlton said he thought he could
demonstrate that Mr.. Saussys argument
was wrong. He said that bridges were
included under public roads, and that the
commissioners were bound to keep them
Ia proper repair. The only question, he
said was whether this particular bridge
was properly a part of the public high
way. If such were the case, it was ad-
mitted, he said. that the county was bound
70 rebuild 1t. 1t was, he said
by the act of 1870 made
a part of the public road system Of the
county and he contended that the only
purpose Of the act of 1871 was to relieve
all doubt about the county authorities
having the right to abolish, alter or repair
the road and that far from repeating the
act Of 1870, it only re-afiirmed that statute
With regard to the act of 1873, he said,
that IL was not passed to abate a nuisance,
as such a course was not taken in these
cases, and there was no reason or sense
in the county spending money to abate
a nuisance for which private parties were
responsible. The passage of this act, he
said, was evidence that the bridge was in
charge of the county and should be re-
paired by it.
Dr.. Charlton, who had just come in, said
he had secured some facts about the
bridge, which he had obtained from Col
George S. Owens. Col. owens stated facts
substantially as already given, except he
said repeated attempts to get the county
lic highway resulted in failure.
Mr.. 4. Nj. Cunningham, Jr., represent
ing Mr. G. w. DeRenne, said his client
would certainly object to bridge and
road going over the. entire length of Long
island to reach Skidaway, when it could
run over road already. defined over the
eastern end Of this island. If the bridge
was built, he said, Mr.. DeRenne would
certainly insist on a draw-bridge being
put in. AS a business proposition he
asked, if it would improve the property
on Skidaway Island and double its value
as Mr. Charlton said, why do not the
property owners built the bridge them
selves instead of asking the county to
do it. He called attention also to the
fact that the county engineer had stated
it would cost $4,000 TO build the bridge
Chairman Dale wanted some time to
look into. the matter, and said it had
better go over to the March meeting.
SIT. Charlton said that the county's fis-
cal year began before that time, and
he did not want to go before a grand
jury again with regard to the matter.
The appropriation, he said, had been
made and he would like to have action
taken sooner.
Commissioner Carson said he also want
ed to look into the matter, and while he
considered there was some equity in Mr..
Charlton's position, he thought time
should be taken for a due Consideration.
For these reasons the matter went over
% the March meeting.
Drs. George II. Stone and A. Oemler |
appeared before the commissioners to urge
the establishment OF some means of com
uunication by land between the main
land and Wilmington Island They spoke
81 the value of the property there, and
he necessity for such means of commun-
loation. The matter was referred to the