Arizona republican., 1909-05-05
TWO BRIDGE
 QUESTIONS Answered Yesterday By Dis triCt Attorney Bu|Iard THE FIRST AFFECTS TEMPE
It Is Held That the County May Construct a Bridge Within Limits of a Munici- pality---And Location Must Be Detrmined By a Vote.

A few days ago the question was raised whether the county could un- dertake the construction of county bridge wholly within the limits of an incorporated town, it having been brought to the notice of the board of supervisors that the city limits of Tempe include the proposed bridge site there.
 This matter was referred to District Attorney Bullard. along with another question as to whether a majority Of the votes cast should be necessary in order to determine the location of a bridge or whether a plurality would be sufficient.
 The district attorney yesterday sub mitted the following opinion, that the law permits the construction of a bridge across "any nOn-navigable stream" even if it be in Tempe. It is also the opinion of the district attor- ney that a-HaiOrityI of all the votes cast at the election -shan sBe. TedUired to determine the location of any bridge. The opinion followsi "To the Honorable the Board of Super
 visors of Maricopa County, Arizona
 Territory:
 "Gentlemen:-By resolution, yester- day morning. you requested an opinion from me on the question as to whether or not, if the site Of the proposed Tempe bridge is wholly within the cor porate limits of the town of Tempe, if the board of supervisors would have the power to construct the bridge if the taxpayers of Maricopa county, at the coming election, should determine upon that location.
 There are two statutes in our code to be taken into consideration in de- termining this question:
 "First-The general incorporation act of towns passed in the year 1901 by the legislature, and under which the town of Tempe is incorporated. which provides in subdivision of paragraph 545 of the Revised Statutes of Ari- zona, 1901. as follows, amongst the powers granted to towns, incorporated under the act:
 'F'Ourth-To erect and maintain bridges. culverts. sidewalks and cross ways; to prevent and punish for in u
 Also the general bridge law, viz: Council bill No 157, passed by the last legislature, which gives the board of supervisors the right. when directed by vote of the people, to construct bridge across any non navigable stream in the county, at any point within the county. without limitation.
 Query: Does the provision of law provided for in section 545 prevent the board of supervisors from erecting a bridge within the corporate limits of a town or city where there is a gen. eral law allowing them to erect them within any part of the county, such as is provided by the act passed by the last legislature?
 T have examined exhaustiVely into, I think, ever-' case directly decided upon this question that has been de- cided in the United States. including those cases cited to me by eminent counsel, who claim that the board has no right to construct this bridge with in the corporate limits of the town of Tempe. The cases cited by them are as follows: A Colorado case reported in the AS Pacific, page 474; a case re- poi ltu III lie III liiIitOls, D. I, sdIlSl lIie Texas case fe2ortea fn AnIerieSn State Reports.
 The Illinois case goes off on the question that one town cannot compel an adjoining city to join it in the building of bridge.
 ''The Texas case is one that relates solely to highways, holding that an overseer of a highway cannot be in- dicted for failing to improve a high way within the limits of an incorporat-