Ashland tidings. [volume] (Ashland, Or.) 1876-1919, 1912-06-27
RESTRAINING
ORDER ISSUED
TREASURER ORDERED TO SET
ASIDE FUNDS.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION STATED
Attorney Briggs Outlines Claims
Made BY His CIients-COntends
That Road and Bridge Fund is Al
ready Exceeded BY $4,000.

Judge F. NJ. Calkins has issued an
order restraining James Cronemiller
county treasurer, from using any of
the money collected for road pur-
poses, in redeeming general county
warrants. The order is to remain in
effect until the court has had time
to arrive at a decision on the in
junction suit brought by Benton
Bowers and S. A. Carleton to check
the erection of new bridge over
Bear creek in Medford.
Over one-half of the money de-
rived from the four-mill tax levy for
road and bridge purposes by the
county of Jackson has been collected
and turned over to the county treas
urer, but instead of being placed in
road and bridge fund as specified
by the state law, it has been placed
in the general county fund and has
been paid out for the redemption of
county warrants. To be exacty: On
June 10, the latest figures available,
$4S,O75.S4 out of approximately
$4,000 which should be placed in
a bridge and road fund has been
collected and nearly all of it expend-
ed. The order of Judge Calkins
forces the county treasurer to dis
continue this practice.
Attorneys for the county in argu-
ing the injunction suit against the
bridge called attention to the state
law which provides that money
raised by the road and bridge levy
should be placed in d distinct fund
and be used for road and bridge
purposes only. Continuing their ar
gument, they declared that this
money should be available for such
purposes as the erection of the Med
ford bridge and would not place the
county further in debt
Attorney Briggs of this city, who
is representing the plaintiffs in the
suit, when asked as to the position of
the plaintiffs, said:
The plaintiffs claim, first, that
the bridge is in the city. which is
plated on both sides, and that por-
tion of the county road within the
limits has changed it's character as
county road and is now city
street, and, if city street, the coun-
ty is not liable for the building of
the bridge; second, if it were a coun-
ty road, the county having already
paid out. and issued ,912 road war
rants in excess of the amount of the
road and bridge tax of 1912 under
the supervision of the county court
no funds are now available to pay
the contract for the Medford bridge
and would neceSSitate an increase in
the indebtedness of the county be-
yond the constitutional limits; third,
that even should the money be avail
able to the full extent of the 1912
road tax, nevertheless it is an abuse
of discretion on the part of the coun-
ty court to pay out practically half
of the current road and bridge tax
to build new bridge where now ex-
lists a good one, when hundreds of
miles of road in the county need re-
pair in order to be passable and
many streams need bridges where
fords are now used, especially in
view of the fact that the county court
has turned down all of these outside
roads and bridges on the ground of
lack of funds; fourth, that even
though all of the foregoing might be
construed as favorable to the build
ing of the bridge, nevertheless it is
apparent that the present bridge is
adequate to carry all the water of the
creek at its present height and width,
and that the county should not be
put to the expense of raising the
grade of the bridge four feet and
putting another bent on the east side
of the bridge entirely outside the wa
ter course for the express purpose of
permitting the Butte Falls railroad
to pass entirely under the street
crossing, and in building a bridge of
a grade and capacity not needed for
ordinary bridge purposes, the court
has gone too far and beyond it's
power"
Mr.. Briggs further stated that al
though but $4S,9S0.74 of the road
and bridge fund had been collected,
the county treasurer has paid out al
ready this year S57,97S.20 for road
warrants, and that in addition to this
the court has expended or issued
warrants on the road and bridge
fund to the amount of $50, ,641.6z,
making a total claim upon the fund
of about $SS,000, or $4,000 in eX-
cess of the half of the road tax which
comes under the direct supervision
of the court. Mr.. Briggs contends
for the plaintiffs that the county
court has no right to build bridge
in Medford, on the ground that it
would be just as consistent to claim
every bridge in the valley towns
should be built by the court.
In speaking of the effect of the
suit upon the present Indebtedness
of the county, Mr.. Briggs said:
1T is not the intention of the
plaintiffs in any manner, by infer
ence or otherwise, to repudiate or in
validate any pre-eXisting county war
rants, but the defendant Perham,
who has the contract for the bridge,
asks for an injunction restraining
the paying out by the county treas
,,rar of anv money until he has been