The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1899-01-18
The FREE BRIDGE.
The old 5ne is the only solu-
ton of the problem.

difficulties in the way Of ~ new one
Sens Of the legal questions involved
How debts may be confracted-Im-
possibility Of getting u vote 10 .bsiid
new one under the circumstance
Injunction to be feared from taxpay
ers and owners Of present bridge =
Value Of Franchise aud The propesss
as 1t now stands-Ley price nam. :.
by the owners
e More ignorance OF law and less con:
mon sense are displayed by those who
assert they are for free bridgr and III
the same time give the lie 10 the as
sertion by declaring they are for nes
bridge and opposed to buying and
making free the present bridge prop
erty The most ardent advocates Of 4
new bridge must admit it cannot cost
less than 800, 600 and most probably
much more. 1t will be impossible u,
build any kind OF a bridge without
going into debt for 1t. No debt can
legally be created by the County court
s'unless all questions connected with
the same shall have been first sub
mitted to vote OF the people. and
have received three afths of all the
votes cast for and against the same. "
See Constitution Art. 10 Sec. 8. No
one will contend, for moment, that
a three fifths majority can be secured
for 4 new bridge debt, when the pres
ent bridge can be bought for $25, 900.
Any attempt to build on credit, or by
the creation Of a county debt will be
enjoined by parties interested, either
taxpayers, or the owners of the pres
ent bridge. With the certainty that
suits would follow, and that such
debt, if contracted, could not be en-
forced or collected, no contractor
would undertake to build or to furnish
the materials.
The right to collect such debt
contracted for bridge and other coun-
ty purposes was settled adversely by
the Supreme court of this State, in
the case of Davis VS. Wayne county
court reported in SO W. Va, page
104.
Syllabus of the case is as follows;
1st. Section 5, Art. X. OF the con-
stitution prohibits the mourning OF
any indebtedness by a county court
which cannot be paid out of the funds
on hand or the levy for the current
fiscal year without complying with
the other requirements Of this sec
ton.
End. A county court cannot bind
the levies Of future years under sec
tions %, 26, C. 1874 Acts 1928 to pay
for improvements made on roads and
bridges, without first submitting all
questions in relation thereto to vote
Of the people, as required by section
art. X, of the constitution.
3rd. A contractor or laborer deal
ing with the county court is charged
with notice of the constitutional linn
itation Of its powers; and, il he per-
forms labor or does work for it under
an authorized contract of payment
out of the levies Of future years and
not out OF the funds on hand or the
levy for the current fiscal year, he can
not recove. for the same in an action
of assuTpsit or compel the county
court by mandamus to lay levy for
payment thereof, even though the
county court has issued certificates,
orders or evidences of debt therefor.
In this case the court held that hows
ever meritorious and just the claim or
debt, or however much the contractor
may have been misled by the court,
or by any legislation, these facts could
not make valid contract that Great
ed debt, and that it was the highest
duty Of the court to preserve the con-
stitution inviolate, and that to hold
such debt valid and binding would
place it in the power of the county
authorities to evade the constitutional
| limitations, and bankrupt every coun-
ty in the State.
If the building of new public
bridge will subject the county to pay
ment of damages to the full value
Of the present bridge, and the crea-
tion of debt both for paying for the
new bridge, and damages to the old,
does anyone suppose three fifths Of
our people will vote for creating the
debt or bonding the county? Do we
want to pay for two bridges when one
will answer every purpose?
The demand for new free bridge
or none is demand for none and
simply means perpetuation OF the
present system of tolls.
Arbitration for the price of the
Suspension bridge has been suggested.
Such an arbitration to be fair must
be binding on both parties, binding
the one to accept and the other to pay
the price fixed Or ascertained. But
while the County Court might arbi-
trate or condemn, it would have to
allow fair price (the ''just compen-
sation" of the Constitution) for the
property, including its franchise, or
right to collect tolls, which would un-
doubtedly be greatly in excess of
1926, 900.
In the first condemnation case by
the United States against the Mon
ongahela Navigation Company, under
a special Act of Congress excluding
the value of the franchise, the U. S.
Supreme Court held the Act uncon-
stitutional, and void. The value as
assessed under that Act was less than
81, 5000 A subsequent Act was
passed requiring the value of the fran
chise to be ascertaincd as well as the
value of the mere material and real
estate, and the total value so ascer-
tained. and paid by the Government
to the Oompany, was over $3.50, 900,
or over $1,000, 600 for the franchise
alone. Would not condemnation, or
arbitration proceedings probably re-
suit In fixing much greater value
than the price named by the bridge
Company? Col. G. I. Mcdonald a
wholly disinterested and very compe-
tent judge, has already fixed it at $40
900. Delays are dangerous. The
value of the Bridge is steadily increas-
ing with its increasing earnings. II
has already more than doubled since
the County had the first opportunity
of buying in 1887.
The income has nearly quadrupled
since 1882. With the increasing bus
mess, population and wealth of the
unty, and prosperous railroad on
the West side and the coal flieds open
ed it's value will still more rapidly
increase.
Mastering out requires red tape.
Although the order for the imme-