The Wenatchee daily world. [volume] (Wenatchee, Wash.) 1905-1971, 1910-11-05

/ Whereas. the bridge cost with
out any interest or charge for main
tenance over $17S,000.00, and the
defects existing in the bridge do not
affect its safety in any way, and the
legislature authorized the purchase
of the bridge for a sum, now amount
ing to $190,000.O,
The State Highway Board does
resolve that the said Wenatchee
Bridge would we'll be worth to the
State of Washington $140,000.O0 un-
der the said legislative enactment,
and the bridge would be satisfactory
to the Board at that figure
/ Before taking any action in the
matter, the Highway Board directed
me to write to you asking for written
opinion on the following matters:
First, can the Highway Board
consider a proposition similar to the
one made by the Washington Bridge
| Co., as quoted above. If the High
way Board can consider the above
proposition, would you, or would you
not, advise the Board to pass reso-
luton similar to the one above
quoted. The Board also desires to
have a written opinion from you as
to whether or not the law providing
for the purchase of the Wenatchee
Bridge is constitutional"
| will answer these questions in
inverse order.
The only portions of the constitu-
ton that this law might contravene
are Sections s and II of Article l,
which are as follows:
Section s. No law granting IL
revocably any privilege, franchise or
| immunity shall be passed by the leg
| stature"
Section L. No law shall be pass
ed granting to any citizen, class OF
citizens or corporation other than
municipal privileges or immunities
which upon the same terms shall not
equally belong to all citizens or cor
porations.
| Section 4 of Chapter rs provides
that the purchase shall be subjected
to "a contract giving a perpetual
right to lay two pipe lines each of
| SO inches, internal diameter, over
or suspended from said bridge for the
purpose of carrying water for irri-
eating lands on the east side OF the
Columbia river in Douglas county"
A perpetual right would certainly be
an irrevocable privilege; and the only
question is, is this such privilege,
| franchise or immunity as is contem-
! plated in Sec. 8 of the Constitution
above quoted. And it is also equiva
lent to granting a privilege to the
| Canal Company which it would be
almost impossible to grant to any
other citizen or corporation. How
ever, l am seriously in doubt if either
of these sections are contravened by
the law above mentioned; and the
rule is that where there is any doubt
about the constitutionality of law
that the doubt must be resolved in
favor of the constitutionality. Again
| it has been the uniform rule of this
office not to declare a law invalid or
| 'h,,f RI a.
enforce the same until the courts
declare it invalid.
| AS to your second question, this
| is clearly a matter of policy to be
passed upon by your Board, and it
is not within the province of this
Office to advise upon such questions.
| AS to the first question section l of
the act provides that the State High
way Board is empowered to purchase
the bridge across the Columbia river
at Wenatchee, provided, that said
bridge shall first be examined and
| tested to the satisfaction OF the
State Highway Board Section 2 of
the act provides in part as follows;
Said State Highway Board shall
pay for said bridge the actual cost
of construction thereof, plus six per
cent interest to be computed, etc.
There is no provision in these Sec
| tons or any other portion of the law
giving to your board any discretion
as to the purchase or the acceptance
of this bridge for any less sum or
amount than it's actual cost; and it
is principle of business too well
known to require discussion that
when a certain thing is to ha pur-
auchased at it's full cost price, that
it is to be in good condition and SUBJ
ject to any reasonable test; and this
principle must be read into this law
in giving it proper construction.
When, therefore, the legislature
authorized your board to make this
test, and to purchase the bridge ii
The test was satisfactory, this is IA
that you were authorized to do; and
it is just as plain in my mind that
you are no more authorized to fix a
value on this bridge less than its
cost by reason of certain defects in
the bridge, than you would be if the
lnCic1afrIro hod nocifivo1v said that