Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1913-01-14
BRIDGE COMMISSION IS AGAIN UPHELD Supreme Court Affirms De- cision of Judge Grace in
 Denying Writ. WILL END THE FIGHT Predicted By .Imrists That Any Furth. CT Attempt to Stop Project
 is Useless.
WILL END THE FIGHT

Little Rock, Ark, Jan. 13.--The Supreme Court, in decision handed down today, affirmed the decision of Judge A. B. Grace of the Jefferson circuit court, in which T. II. Collier and other. were denied writ of cer- torar in an effort to review the pro- ceedings of the Jefferson County Free Bridge Commission. The decision is a decisive victory for the Bridge Commission and it is predicted here, will end all legal proceeding against the Free Bridge project, it being the opinion of lawyers and jurist. that any further attempt to prevent the building of the Free Bridge would be useless. The decision follows:
 The Decision.
 In the Supreme Court of Arkansas January 13, 1913.
 Collier vs. Beard of Directors Jeffer-
 son County Br dge District.
 OPINION
 McCulloch, c. J.
 Appellant, citizen and land own CT of Jefferson County, Arkansas, presented to the circuit court of Jef- ferson County his petition for writ of certiorari to bring up and squash the proceedings of the Board of Di- rectors of the Jefferson County Bridge District finding and declaring that the petition for improvement had been signed by majority, as~.presrrib- ed by the terms of the statute anrhor- izing the improvement named. The improvement district for the purpose of constructing br dge across the Arkansas River at or near Pine Bluff, was createt by special act or me General Assembly of 1911. The our poses of the act and the proc 9edings to be had hereunder are set forth in the recent case of the Board of lm- provement of Jefferson County Bridge District vs. Collier, 31 Ark, Law Rep. 6S3, 149 s. w. 66. The act is almost identical with the act creating the Ft. Smith and Van Buren Bridge District, set forth in the case of Shibley vs. Ft. Smith and Van Buren Biidge District, 96 Ark, 132 s. w. 444. The statute was suffic ently set forth in the opinion in those eases and need not be repeated here.
 The present proceeding was insti- tuted in the circuit court for re- view of the findings of the beard of d rectors in declaring a majority in favor of the improvement. Tine cir cuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition for certiorari, and enter ed final judgment dismissing the pe- tition, from wh oh Judgment an ap- peal has been prosecuted to this court.
 The statute provides, in substance, that. after the organization of the board of directors, public notice or the passage of the statute should be given. day set for hearing petition, and that of at said hearing the board of directors shall find that the petl- lion or petitions are not signed by a majority * of the holders of real property within the district as shown by the last county assess ment, they shall so declare and such findings shall term nate all proceed ings under the Act"; but that "'if said board shall find that said petl- tion. CT petitions, are signed by a l maioriv * of the holders Of real property within the district, as shown by the last county assessment they shall SO declare and shall pro. ceed to carry out the purposes or this Act"
 So far as relates to the questlon now presented, this statute is almos identical in language with the ft Smith and Van Buren bridge statute
 In the above cited case, in dispos- ns of the controversy concernlng that act, we said:
 "In the statute creating this dis- trict .ae Legislature has not seen fit to make the power to proceed ue- psnd upon obtaining the consent a majority of the property owners hnt upon the entertainment and acc laration of the commissioners that the not .ticn has been signed by a ma inr,tv in value of the property own ars The power of the Legislature 70 directly put the district into opera tion. without obtaining the consent C' nronerty owners, embraces the power to put it into operation by the as- cerpa amment and declaration Of the comni ssioners, at least where there Is a provision for public hearln7 before the commissioners on tee question. ' ** Moreover, It Is we'll settled principle of Jaw tna' where the Leg stature has erected tribunal for the purpose of ascertain