The Oroville weekly gazette. [volume] (Oroville, Wash.) 1905-19??, 1910-10-21

a bridge was good thing as stimu-
lous to the disposition of town lots.
(Throwing in parathentical para
graph at this point 1t looks very much
as though town boomlets were largely
responsible for the ordering OF several
new high priced bridges recently, the
paying for which is going to sap the
life out OF the tax payers of the county,
when added to the enormous amount
the state demand from the county this
year, While getting bridge the peo-
pie of Okanogan decided there was no
use pulling for cheap affair. so they
demanded one costing thousands of dol
lars. If it was to be an ornament, it
should be good one. But let it be
said to the credit and good name of the
people of the place, and as striking
exhibition of generosity and enterprise
such as no other town in the county
has ever displayed, the citizens of Ok
anogan agreed to pay half the cost of
construction of said bridge, and full
filled their agreement. Furthermore
they entered into good and sufficient
bond to pay all costs above the con-
tract price. The commissioners, how
ever, failed to follow the law in adver-
tising for bids, and parties at River
side inaugurated an action to enloin
the construction of the bridge. The
Riverside professors were defeated in
the superior court, and the bridge
rushed to completion. The case was
appealed to the supreme court, and
that august body has ruled against the
county. And there you are. The fol-
lowing synopsis of the decision ap-
peared in the Spokesman-Review of
the 18th:
County bridge contracts are void
unless the commissioners follow the
law as to advertising and calling for
bids, is the decision of the supreme
court, and the contract let by the com
missioners of Okanogan county for a
bridge across the river at Okanogan
City to the Puget Sound Bridge and
Dredging company and Charles Osten
is directed to determine whether the
contract price exceeded the reasonable
cost of the bridge, and if so the county
should recover the difference from the
contractors This refund is directed
in the face of the fact that property
owners of Okanogan City contributed
to the county half of the cost of the
bridge.
''The county commissioners let the
contract for the bridge without calling
for bids, declaring that an emergency
existed, and did not obtain the per-
mission of the war department for
bridging a navigable stream. The
lower court dismissed an action to re-
strain the county and the contract was
completed and the bridge built while
the suit was pending on an appeal The
court holds that the law of 1891 COW
ering the construction of roads and
bridges is not repealed by the law of
1893 on the same subject"
Now the question is what is the
county going to do about it p? AS stated
to the writer by one supposed to know
what should be done the superior court
will take steps to ascertain just what
such bridge ought to cost, and if the
figures are less than what was paid
then the county must bring suit against
Charles Ostenberg and the Puget Sound
Bridge and Dredging company to re-
cover the difference. 1t is a very un-
fortunate situation, and blame can only
attach to the commissioners for their
hasty action.