Ashland tidings. [volume] (Ashland, Or.) 1876-1919, 1912-10-28
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT THE
MEDFORD BRIDGE.
To the MedfOnd Tribune, MedfOrd

To the Medfond Tribune, Medford,
Ore.
Gentlemen: In ynGr issue of Oc-
tober "a YOU printed in large type on
your first page ar article entitled
The Truth About tie Medford
Bridge" Inasmuch as J was pri-
marily interested in enjoining the
county court from making an appro-
priation for the bridge, and have in
consequence of my action been gross
ly misrepresented in the columns of
your paper, would ask now in com
mon fairness to print the following
statement of facts, by myself. I
would add that l am sending a copy
of the same to every paper in the
county, with a request that it be
published:
On June 6, 1912, Jackson county
was over 100000 in debt, and there
was very little money in the road
and bridge fund available to build
and repair the bridges on the county
roads where such work was badly
needed.
Contrary to law and protests of
over seven hundred taxpayers from
North, East and West Medford, two
members of the county court, Judge
Neil and Frank Brown, obligated the
county to the extent of $4,000 to
build bridge SO feet wide at one
end and Sc feet wide at the other,
with steel rails for street railway
and also cement posts for arc lights
on the Main street of Medford.
Now if thought the county funds
were improperly disbursed or han
died, being a citizen and taxpayer
of the county, l had right to appeal
to the law for relief, and so far the
courts have sustained me by grant
ing a permanent injunction. And
the supreme court of Oregon had
ruled that the county had no au-
thority to build a bridge except on
county road, and as to what consti-
tutes county road, l will quote the
supreme court decisions:
In the case of Huddleston VS.. Eu-
gene. 1t seems to be a we'll settled
rule of law that when county roads
are tall en- within the limits of city
they become city streets, and to the
exclusion of other governmental au-
thorities (45 Oregon, 92, page 90
And in the case of Schroeder VS..
Multnomah. The court said: 1t is
unnecessary to consider at this time !
what kind of a highway will be |
deemed legal county road, within |
the meaning of the statute, since by
no possible construction can the term |
be held to include a city street or
bridge.
Where a city extends its boundary |
over new territory the highway
therein is impressed with the char
acter of street and subject to the |
exclusive control of the city and to
the liabilities and servitudes of all
other streets, cited Oliver VS.. New
berg, 80 Oregon, 50. And as to the |
special legislation for Medford will |
cite the case of Simons VS.. North
rup. The court held that it is not |
within the power of the legislature |
to compel the county to be taxed for |
the payment of debt of the city
incurred in the purchase and con-
struction of certain bridges. (This |
was in the city of Portland 27I
Oregon, pag 503, section z.
Now as to all the bridges built |
and mentioned by the Mail-Tribune
in the issue of the oath, they were
all built on county roads, not city |
streets. But, nevertheless, the peo-
pie were complaining all over the
county about the indiscriminate is
suing of warrants and extravaganza
or the county court, and l was i'm
portuned by citizens of Medford to
enJoin the county court and stop the
indiscriminate issuing of illegal war
rants. But | could not believe the