Daily Kennebec journal., 1897-07-22
THE BAY BRIDGE.
Sagadahoc Still Discussing the
Question Of Rebuilding.
Can the Court Compel the County
to Replace the Bridge2
Opinions Differ Observations on Provisions
Of The 1885 Charter.

Richmond. July 21.-(SpeciaD Like.
Banquo's ghost the Merrymeeting bav
bridge question will not down, but il
rises not to trouble its enemies but to
disturb ITS friends. The latest rumor
concerning the subject lis to the effect
that certain residents of Rowdoin. Bow
doinham and Topsham have retained
council to bring the matter before the
court with view to compelling the
county to rebuild the bridge even
against the expressed wishes of ma
jority of the inhabitants
Now this is a question that nightly
interests the taxpayers of Sagadahoc
and they naturally ask upon what
grounds the petitioners for a writ Of
mandamus base their claims
The court has held that the board If
county commissioners have no power To
bridge navigable waters go that an or
der from the cougt to rebuild must be
predicated upon the act of 1925, under
which the bridge was originally built.
The county assumed the bridge in
1878, subject to the act of Incorporation.
Whatever the incorporates were bound
to do the county is bound to do and no
more. If the incorporators We're bound
to perpetuate the bridge. the county
must do the same and II the former as
sumed no obligation to haintain the
bridge the latter is under no liability to
do SO. and there would be nothing upon
which the court could predicate an or
der to rebuild Many wel-informe /
Richmond men take this view of the case,
declaring that the talk about the court
compelling the county to rebuild is ali
buncombe.
Examination of the act of incorpora
tion shows that the incorporators as
sumed no liability to maintain the
bridge. For anything that appears in
the act they might suffer the bridge to
fail INTO decay al any time and ii is a
Well known fact that while the bridge
was under their control it was at one
time impossible for nearly two years.
no attempt being made to compel the
proprietors to repair it,
In view of the provision of the grant
of 1885 it is argued with a good deal of
plausibility that there is nothing for
the court to act upon. But the act i'm
poses obligations which the friends OF
the measure might not care to have
the county assume. Section three OF
the act provides that the proprietors of
the bridge shall build and keep ready
for opening over the main channel Il
sufficient draw for vessels of 10 or more
tons burthen and for steamboats, pass
ing up and down the river, with all
reasonable facility and convenience.
The act also provides that on the west
ern side of the island a good and sufii-
cient draw shall be maintained for the
passage of RATS up and down the
river.
1t seems to be generally understood
that If the court presumes to act in re-
lation to the matter it must compel the
county to carry each and every section
of the act into full effect. To what ex-
tent this would dcplete the county
treasury is left for taxpayers to figure
out
SO far as maintaining draw is con-
cerned the law has never been complied
with at least not in recent years. For
years and years the bridge has in this
respect been maintained in plan vio-
lation of the original grant. the county
having occasionally paid damages on
account of its neglect to provide a
draw
Grave doubts are entertained as to
whether those who favor the PROPOSE
tion to rebuild have probed the uues-
ton to the bottom, and it is believed
that when the facts are understood
they will hesitate to percipitate litga-
ton over it.