New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-06-06
WILLNOTTAKE THE BRIDGE
Secretary Taft Refuses the Apph-
cation of Missouri.

washington June 5.-Secretary Taft to-day re-
fused the application OF the State of Missouri to
take possession Of the Merchants Bridge across
the Mississippi River at St Louis. on the ground
that there has been no violation of the conditions
of the charter. In his opinion the Secretary says
that two questions arise:
Flrst-Is Section Il of the original bridge act
as amended by the act Of 1888 unconstitutional in
Merchants Bridge Company of its property with
second-E not, then have the restrictions been
violated ana forfeitire taken place, vesting the
States?
Speaking Of the section providing for action by
TIE Secretary, he says he does not think the sec
ton is to be construed as AUTHORIZING the secre-
tary after having found the provisions of the act
we're violated. TO take possession. without legal
proceeding. against the viii of the owner of the
bridge. and St is probable that arbitrary pro-
oeiure might be held be q violation of the con-
sttutionsl requirement that no person shall be de-
prived of his property without due process of law
Then. taking up the question to whether I'M
der the facts the forfeiture has taken place after
recitIng the inhibitions of the act violations of
which constitute the forfeiture the Secretary says
that 10 is not alleged that any director or manager
Of the st. Louis Merchants Bridge Company is a
director of any other bridge across the
river. It s not alleged that the Merchants Bridge
Company has agreed consented to the pooling
of the earnings of this bridge company with those
Of any other bridge company on the RIissssEssi
dence TO show such pooling to have taken place
between the ST. Louis Merchants Bridge Company
and the Eads Bridge Common control of the two
companies by third company is all that is shown
or intirnsted Common control by two companies
for the purpose Of maintaining or prices Of
traihc is entirely consistent with an absence Of
pooling
Secretary Taft then holds that las there is no
evidence whatever that either the business done or
the tolls collected divided between the two
bridges. according to any agreed percentage. the
claim that there is any forfeiture under the sec
ond inhibition falls to the ground what is
meant by the term consolidation this bridge
company with any other bridge company across
the Mississippi. the Secretary after defining con
sclidaton,' says that If Congress had intended
specifically that common control of the two bridges
through any device should work forfeiture OF
the property Of the Merchants Bridge Company. it
would have been easy to say He holds that
the term consolidation used in the statute
does not include the common control of the
two bridge companies by the lease Of the bridge of
one and the ownership OF a majority of stock in
the middle company owning all the stock of the sec
ond bridge company He holds further that py
the amendment to Section II of the bridge act the
word company was placed after the Word
bridge that the consolidation partfeularlzeo
which was TO constitute ground of forfeiture was
no longer a consolidation OF the two bridges as
originally provided. but consolidation OF the TWO
bridge companies. In conclusion, Secretary Tart
says:
order make clear the point point T ba be Is Fal oee
is violation of the words of the statute zen
ton between violation of this act and violations OF
a statute couched in general terms l nia ;yst ey
that there is (prcbaby) sufficient shown TO lusuty
an Investigation into the question whether tnere Is
not in substance and in effect an agreee2e bieb
INSTITUTES such an illegal restraint of interstate
injunction against its continuance and punish a-
of those who have made II ana nave tuS ~
the War Department but matte f9F the
ton OF the grand jury in the Eastern DISTRICT 0i
# there has been forfeiture under the statute
then it is the duty of the Secretary OF War to act
and either in accordance WITH me ne bfdge or his
taking possession being resisted by the parties now
o1 @ s0eh TO effS n e Of The United
States in order that he may obtain possessao a t
Tns Character Of the statute if have made
sbiscf 70 "A suit in rnandanus to compel me to
comply with the duty therein. In case OF srror on
R,,t for the sons given. do not think that any
occasion has arisen in this case doT une brefore
either attempt TO take possession OF tae
peaceaby TO bring any action on the theory that a
forfeiture has occurred
Ct Toris J,ne 5-The application declined to-
dav by Secretary Taft made by ex-Attorney
General Crow of Missouri, who offered on pehali
az the State TO take charge OF or practcaiIy con-
nscate the Merchants Brlose' alteslns '
troll of the bridge had been merged with the baos
bridge in violation Of the federal charter unoer
which the Merchants Bridge was built the con-
tention Of the Merchants Bridge Company, filed by
brief was that there no merger OF prldges' 'he
Merchants Bridge Company existing separately
f-or, the F,adss Bridge Company. The contention
Of Mi Crow that merger OF me tmo or baE
did exist despite the contention OF unere pe!nsf
two senarate companies because the IernlinlaI
Railway Association. which controls and owns ths
r dc bridge also opera ties the Merchants Bridge
julius Walsh chairman of the board OF directors a1
ri The Terminal Railroad Association OF ST LOUIS
snnn1Inced today that the bridge arbitrary Soulo
be removed in the near future Aboiuon o. t tas
arbitraTv would be the removal OF the 2resen! Vol
Of s. car for crossing the Mississippi RIVER mere
and charge OF mileage only for that service