Arizona republican., 1909-05-05

keep in repair bridges and the ap- breaches to the same.
 Tt will be observed that in the state of Minnesota the law is practically the same as ours, and yet in this case the supreme court decided that the charter powers of the city did not limit the general power of the county to con struct a bridge within the corporate limits of the city, and they further in- timated that, though there was no re- pealing clause to the general law giv- ing counties power to build bridges, which was passed after the city char ter law, that the latter, by implication, repealed the former. though they did determine that it was not necessary to decide the question in that case.
 'I find, further, another extremely well-reasoned case, decided by the su- preme court of the state of Florida, to- wit, the case of Skinner vs. W. B. Henderson ct al, commissioners of .Hillsboro county, in which the supreme court of the state of Florida held that the state could not impose taxes ex- cept for county purposes. and that the
 
 porate limits of a municipality in which the county outside of those limits is in nOwise interested. the same being for the sole benefit and advantage of the city. being wholly within its cor porate limits and entirely munich pal improvement, and is not county purpose, but that the statute author izing the city to build bridges within it's limits does not necessarily revoke the authority given to the county by general statute without restriction as to locality to build a bridge within those limits. As there may be bridges serving only a city purpose. but there may be others demanded in the same territory for county purposes, and where the circumstances create this demand, and the bridge is for the use and benefit of the people of the county at large. or of some considerable DOT tion of it, and intended and needed as we'll for those outside as for those in side the city. the authority of the county to build is not annulled by the local city statute.
 Tn view of these authorities, what is the decision of affairs in regard to the so-called Tempe bridge site?
 ''The proposed bridge to be con- structed over a large water course, to- wit. a large non- -navigable stream. While it is true that it will, perhaps, entirely be constructed within the cor porate limits of the town of Tempe, still the town of Tempe is moderate in size. unable to build bridge of that character by itself, and the bridge. when constructed. will be connected within a quarter Of a mile. if voted by the people, with one of the large main arteries throughout the county, to-wit. a county road. The bridge will, there fore not only subserve the interests of the town of Tempe alone, but In reality will be used in a greater pro portion by people outside of Tempe in the county of Maricopa than by the people of Tempe alone. Therefore. the main object of the bridge. if construct ed, is for the subservance of the en- tire county interests. whether the bridge is located at Tempe or at some other point, all of the taxpayers of the county must pay for its construction. including the taxpayers of the town of Tempe.
 T am, therefore. of the opinion, and so hold, that the great weight and pre- ponderance of-authority, together with the best-reasoRed cases, are to the eff feet that the mere fact that there is a statute giving an incorporated city the right to construct bridges within the limits Of that incorporated city. does not prevent the county of Maricopa from constructing a bridge within the cor porate limits Of said city, where there is a general bridge law without limita- ton, as was passed by the last legis- lature.
 T should hesitate. if Judge Dillon stood alone in his opinion. to hold con trary to him. for the reason that he is recognized as one of the ablest lawyers in the United States upon this par ticular question: but, as I said before, outside of his decision, the great pre- ponderance of authority is in conform ance with the doctrine that under a general power to build bridges. that a county may build a bridge within the limits of an incorporated city, even where there is a statute giving that incorporated city power to build bridges within its limits. Such being the case I unhesitatingly hold. that,