Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1903-06-11
States Attorney Holds Past Act.
ion of County Board Has
Been illegal
IN BUILDING HIGHWAY BRIDGES
Each Bridge i'm Positions Must Con-
form to the Statutory
Provisions.


for by the board upon the mode of |
procedure in granting aid in the build |
ing of highway bridges. In il Mr.. Weld |
holds in effect that in many eases the |
past action of the supervisors in aid |
ing the townships has been Illegal. |
The opinion, which was placed on
record. is as follows:
Rock Island, H., June 10, 1907
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
of Rock Island County.
| am asked by one of your members
to give an opinion ON the following
matters; CD What provision, if any,
is a township bound TO make for the
payment of one-half of the construc
ton of bridge before it can compel
a county to appropriate one-half the
cost under See. 10 of road and bridge
law? co May more than one bridge
be included in one petition for county
aid under Sec. 10?
Priority Not Material.
Taking these questions in their
order:
"Q) Section 10 provides that the
county board shall appropriate from
the county treasury a sum sufficient
to meet one-haf the expense of said
bridge or other work. 'on condition
the township asking aid shall provide
one-half of the required amount and
further down in the same section ii
provides that the county board shall
not be liable for any part of its eX-
pense or compelled to pay any part
of its appropriation until all of the
work shall have been completed and
accepted by said commissioners and
supervisors. 1t was held in the case
of Stark county. Y. p. us. Ill. 459. that
under the statute as il now reads.
that ii is not necessary for the town
To make provision for one-half the
cost before asking county aid. 1t *
immaterial when such provision Is
made, whether before or after the
county board makes said appropria-
ton The aid is granted on condition
that the local authorities will provide
for one-half of the expense of the
work to be done and that affords all
needed protection to the tax payers.
l do not find that the law has been
changed, nor that shy subsequent
opinion of the supreme or appellate
courts has modified the views express
ed i'm this opinion. | therefore con
clude that the appropriation by the
board must be made without regard
to the finarces Of the town asking the
aid. but that no money can be paid
out of the county treasury until such
time as the work is completed and ac-
cepted under the provisions of the
statute.
Under Three Heads.
"(2) As to the second question:
This naturally divides itself into three
divisions, as follows:
| "(a) Where the petition shows on
its face that each bridge is such that
it would meet the conditions of the
statute if county aid were asked for
it alone is an Independent petition.
"(b) Where some of the bridges in
the petition would support independ-
ent petitions and some would not.
"(c) Where none of the bridges
alone would cost enough to support
an Independent petition and the cost
of several bridges must be added to-
i gether in order to make an amount
exceeding 20 cents on 500 of the lat
est assessment roll. etc.
1T the case of Supervisors of Mer-
Ger county vs.. New Boston. Is ILL.,. app.
PA. it was held that one petition
might embrace two bridges provided
it contains the necessary averments
as to each. That means that the pc
tition should set cut all the bridges
with the estimated cost Of each and
show the facts as to each bridge as
fully as if each were described in 4
separate petition. 1t will not do in
any case to add the cost of different
bridges together and simply give 4
lump sum of the estimated cost of al
the bridges.
MY conclusion then is that any pc
tition is good and sufficient for the
board to act upon which described
any particular bridge so that it ap
pears as to that bridge that the stat
utory conditions exist. Thus. if the
petition describes several bridges sc
that it appears that each bridge
would support petition by itself, the
board can legally act by making the
proper appropriation for each bridge
IF some Of the bridges described in
the petition would support independ
ent petitions. but others would not
the board may lawfully make the APP
preparation as to the bridges that
would come under the provision anC
refuse as to the others. If no one OF
the bridges described in the petition
by itself would justify county aid
then it should be refused and the cost
of different bridges in my opinion
cannot be added together so as to re
quire the county to make an appro
priation for two or more jointly wheI
it could not be compelled to appro
pirate for any one of them.
"HAROLD A. WELD,
States Attorney"
Defer Action.
Upon the request of three member:
the resolution introduced by Super
visor Wood demanding the abrogatioI