Amador ledger., 1909-06-18
Editorial Column,
THE BIG BAR BRIDGE.

1t would SEEM from the reading of the minutes of the
board of supervisors of Caaveas county, that the purchase
of the Big Bar toll bridge has been definitely decided upon
The supervisors Of the countes-Amador and Caaveras
meet in joint session next month to consummate
said purchase The appointment of appraisers to value the
property merely formal in Difference to the plain
requirements of law. 1t is now generally known that the
legal status OF this bridge involved in doubt Lawyers do
not agree the subject Some contend that the supervisors
are clothed with authority to purchase Others equally
strong in the opinion that the title to said bridge already
vested IN the two counties concerned and if super
Vsos 40 appropriate public money for the purchase Of this
bridge they will render themselves responsible their
ocla bonds tor the amount expended is understood
that the price agreed upon for the bridge $4,000 one half
OF which expense will fall upon each county, making $4,000
Amadors share of the transaction According to current
report the bridge purchased by the present owner for
$4,000 and that this price included only toll bridge
itself but also the land and buildings appurtenant thereto
1t is claimed that since the purchase by present owner
some Wentw substantial improvements have been
made The old wood piers and supports have replaced
with 1ron at expense probably approximatng $4,000
In our article last week fell into slight in regard
TO the history OF this bridge in stating that the purpored
renewal of the franchise 1903 bv the Supervisors of Gala
Veras county was matter of litigation in the superior
OF that county 1t that this franchise SO we are re-
aoy informed has never been udiciay tested The orig
mai franchise to collect tolls was granted bv te LEGISLATURE
III 1902 and ran tor period Of thirty years In 1886 long
after the franchise had expired the board of supervisors Of
CaaVeas county officially declared that the franchise
expired by lmaton the bridge had thereby become bv v
tue OF the law which quoted last week part of the free
PuOnc highway together with the roadway on either side
WHICH the bridge owner by the of the franchise was re-
CURED TO keep IN repair This roadway to be maintained at
private cost extends from Butte CITY on the Amador side TO
"nn ABOUT malt mile OF Mokeume Hill on the Calavera
Siue' NOW 1t was this action of the supervisors in|
making free bridge that was declared ILLEGAL bv the
superior court OF Caaveas county No appeal was taken
from thls decon Presumably the strength of this un
appealed Judgment the supervisors granted the of the
franchise in $685. under which tolls have been collected
to the present time. And SO the vital question &c the riot
10 gather toll from this bridge has been allowed to rest In
THIS unsatisfactory state of affairs supervisors of the two
counties propose to pay large of money from the pub
TIC treasures to buy the questionable rights the parties in
possession of this bridge
10 the ordinary business it would seem that the first
consideration should be- saghten the Question of title
when private individual the purchase of real
estate he usually takes the precaution to get an abstract
te SO as to satisfy himself w1ether or not the other parv
mas anything to SELL Surely the same prudence should
govern III contemplated purchase in behalf of the people of
Two counties OF bridge involving outlay of $4,000 MOI
o usPoSeo 20 OBJECT to the purchase if be absolutely
necessary TO the abolition of tolls this main highway
ne governing bodies of the counties concerned NAV we'll
pause before committing themselves irrevocaby to this
investment IN real estate The public notice calling upon
~ 70 lie protests to the purchase if any objections they
INC proposed deal, is no adequate safeguard. It will
~ ~ excuse hereafter should the purchase be ultimately
ueclaleo null and void Amador county is not in position
to embark in doubtful enterprises COSTING thousands Of dol
lars The Ledger is simply sounding warnino from t,e
taxpayers standpoint. 1t is more than probable in the
event OF the purchase being as the matter now
hat some taxpayer will take upon himself to take