Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-11-17
BANGOR MUST PAY.
Latest Step in Bangor Toll
Bridge Matter.
Petition for Mandamus Granted by
Supreme Court
Full Text of Rescrpt Handed Down
by Justice Strout.

The following opinion rs rescript has
been received by Clerk Of Courts Jones:
Pcnobscot County--State of Maine, by
Information of Attorney General VS..
city of Bangor and City of Brewer.
Opinion us Rcscript.
Strout, j.
This petition is Il petition for manda-
mus. For more than 80 years prior to
1901, the Bangor Bridge Company, UNI
der charter from the Legislature had
maintained toll bridge over the Pc
nobscot river between the cities OF
Bangor and Brewer. BY Chapter 2OS
of the Private and Special Laws Of
1895. rs amended by Chapter 3GO of the
Special Laws of 1901. the two cities,
I'enobscot. as therein provided, were
authorized to take and purchase the
bridge, property and appurtenances" of
tho Fridge Company at price to be
agrccd upon. or if not agreed upon, at
I he appraisal OF committee Of three,
to be appointed by the Chief Justice,
and to be thereafter maintained by the
two cities as a highway. The award Of
such committee to be conclusive of the
valnc. The proportion of the value to
be paid. and the expense of mainten-
nice to he borne by Bangor and Brew
or, If not agreed upon, to be determined
by the county commissioners of Pcnob-
scot county. March 10. 1902. both cities
voted to buy the bridge and make it
free. Bangor and Brewer did not agree
with the Bridge Company upon the
price, and thereupon both cities applied
TO the Chief Justice for the appoint
.ment Of a committee, TO determine the
value of the bridge. property and APP
Epurtenances of the Bridge Company.
On this petition Z committee was APP
pointed. who appraised the value of the
Bridge Company's property. at the sum
of G2,34S. The report and appraisal of
thisycommittee was accepted and con-
firnfed by the Chief Justice, by consent
Of the Bridge Company and Bangor and
Brewer. on the z1st day of November.
1902 All these proceedings appear to
be ITEconformity with the statute.
EanSor ana Brewer having failed to
2grce upon the proportion to be borne
by each for the property. the city Of
Brewer. by petition to the county COM
missioners, requested them to deter
mine their respective proportions in ac
cordance with Section 4. Chapter 800 Of
the Special Laws of 1901. On this petit
ton the county commissioners deter
mined that Bangor should pay for the
purchase four fifths Of SJ0,34S, that be-
, ing the amount Of the value determined
by tbegcommittee previously appointed,
loco ythirl, n fl,ta rpnlliraG
the county of Pcnobscot to pay. and
the city of Brewer should pay the re-
manning one-flfth, and that the eX
pense of the future maintenance of the
bridge should be borne by the two
cities. in the same proportion. All these
proceedings appear to be In due form.
Upon this petition for mandamus to
compel Bangor and Brewer to pay the
Bridge Company the amounts thus
awarded. and to assume the future
maintenance of the bridge and it's APP
proaches, in the proportions thus de-
tcrlnined by the commissioners. Brew
cr. by it's answer. admits it's Willingness
to perform. but Bangor objects upon
several grounds.
1t is claimed that the act of 1895, as
tltltllttu Dy tlc Ntl vi lvpl, utItS0ltu
public rights and prerogatives to pri-
waite individuals aud corporations"
without consideration. and thereby i'm
properly imposed burdens upon the
public. This contention is without
merit. To change toll bridge to II free
public highway is certainly a matter of
public interest broader than the local
advantage to Bangor and Brewer. No
l,rcroyativc WAS Illegally delegated The
act authorized Bangor and Brewer to
purchase the bridge, to make it public,
and free. or If purchase was not
made. to take it by right of eminent
domain and thereafter maintain it for
the public use. 1t was competent for
the Legislature to do this. as under
the law. il the bridge became a high
way, Bangor and Brewer would be
bound 10 maintain it. and there was no
impropricty in allowing these cities to
declare their desires as Il condition
precedent to the taking or purchase Of
the bridge.
1t is also claimed that at the expira-
ton of the time limited in the charter
of he Bridge Company for he taking of
tolls. the bridge became public prop
crty as a highway, and that the Legis-
laturc could not extend the period for
taking tolls, as the acts of 1925 and
1901 provided, that such extension was
equivalent to the granting of a new
charter. which is prohibited by the con-
stitutional amendment of 1875 since
when such corporations can only be
created under the general law. This
constitutional provision has been hello
not to apply to charters previously
granted. though amended subsequently,,
nor is such extension equivalent to
new charter. Farnsworth V. Lime
Rock Railroad. SO Me-, 44o: Foster V.
Essex Bank. Is Mass, 249; Vose V.
Handy. 9 Me. 800. This Bridge Com
pany was chartered in 1928. and granted
the right to take tolls for so years. In
1916 it was granted the right to re-
build it's bridge. and its right to take
tolls extended to so years from the time
the bridge should be reopened for pas
sengers. Nothing in either act profio-
ed for forfeiture of the bridge to the
,,,,hl;,, - ftar tho right to take tOliS