Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-03-13

. nection that the committee has no hard
| and fast program with reference tc
this bill. 1t does not insist upon the
present form of any section of the bill
| if better provision can be made, in the
! judgment of the Legislature. 1t simply
] seeks to get the best means possible
/ for accomplishing the result aimed at
l wish now to consider some of the
provisions of the bill more in detail,
and state briefly the reasons which led
the committee to adopt them. In the
| first place the 50-foot limit, in Section l.
| OF course this is a purely arbitrary limi-
tation. We know that some bridges OF
~ or 40 feet. by reason of their sltua-
ton. are more expensive to build and
| maintain than others of so feet. On
the other hand the cost of building
bridges of. more than about so feet is
in constantly increasing ratio to the
length of the bridge. For this reason
the committee decided upon so feet as
the limit. Considering the preliminary
| work to be done by the county commits
sioners, June 1 next, seemed as early
| date as was practicable to fix for pass
ing control to the counties. The desig-
nation of such bridges as are thus
| taken over is obviously for the benefit
of the traveller. and removes any
doubt. in case of accident, as to the
liability of the town or county.
With regard to payment for steel
bridges, it seemed fair to the commit
tee to make this provision for the rea-
son that the steel bridges, are for the
nn ri 10 1ar cpnSanupntIV
the more expensive ones. There are
157 steel bridges which come within
the requirements of the bill, repre-
senting a cost Of $1,31O1SS. or an aver
age of nearly $4,000. Many of the
towns have not finished paying for
these bridges, and it seemed unfair to
require such towns to contribute, as
they would do Indirectly, to the cree
ton of new bridges in other towns,
while receiving no rebate on their own.
Furthermore. of the wooden bridges
which would be taken over under this
act, less than half are in good repair,
while the steel bridges, built, for the
most part within the last Is years, are
almost without exception in good con-
dition. These are the only reasons for
making a discrimination between the
two classes of bridges, and 1 am aware
that much may be said against the
idea. The argument of expense, how
ever, is not important as I hope to
demonstrate later. But if the Legisla-
ture should see fit to strike out this
feature of the bill, it would meet with
no objection from me.
The item of repairs is to be borne
equally by the county or counties, in
which the bridge is located, and the
State. While, as matter of law, the
county and State would probably sue
coed to all existing rights of towns I'M
der any agreement with any person,
firm or corporation touching the main
tenance of any bridge, a specific pro-
vision to that effect has been inserted.
Section 4 is practically taken from
the present highway law. Section es-
tablishes the procedure in the in the
construction of new bridges. 1t makes
the county commissioners, in the first
instance, the judges of the necessity of
such a bridge, with the right of appeal
by the petitioners, in the event of an
adverse decision by the commissioners,
to a committee of the Executive Coun-
is final.
The appeal is taken to the Council
rather than to the court for various
reasons; it is probably more eXpedi
tious, less expensive, and with result
equally satisfactory. But even if the
Council should overrule the county
commissioners, the interests of the
town are completely within the control
of the citizens of the town, for until
the town shall have raised and paid to
the county commissioners one-third of
the cost, as determined by them, con-
struction cannot begin. These provis
ions absolutely safeguard all the in
terests concerned. There is no chance
for Iog-rolling, either on the original
question of necessity, or the later one
of cost. The county commissioners
have no incentive to build more ex-
pensive bridge than is necessary, for
every dollar from the town and the
State, not two dollars for one, from
either of them. Both the county and
the State may have an opportunity to
pass on the preliminary question of ne
cesSity, and all must wait upon the ac-
ton of the town in legally raising the
money.
The provision in Section as to APP
portionment of payments is to obviate
d difficulty which has often arisen as
to what method or what valuation
should control.
The first part of Section is based
on the present highway law. The lat
ter part is almost identical with Sec
ton S, with such changes as were nee
essary to make it's provisions apply to
two or more counties.
The first paragraph of Section is
taken from the Bangor and Brewer
Bridge Act of two years ago. The re-
manning paragraphs of this section are
self explanatory. Questions having
sometimes arisen as to the power of
toll bridge companies to sell their prop
erty and franchises. in the absence of
express authority in their charters.
such authority is explicitly given No
question can arise as to the taking of
private property without due process
of law, or, specifically, without a trial
by jury. inasmuch as the court has re-
Gently declared that it is competent for
the Legislature to select or create
disnterested tribunal to assess the
damages.
i e