Marble Hill press. (Marbel [sic] Hill, Mo.) 1881-1923, 1917-01-04
County Nusf Build Bridpcs

Supreme cour, Of Missouri had up
held Judge Frank Kelley in his de
cision, rendered last July. IN the
case OF Scott county vs. he Little
River Drainage district. This case
was brought before the Circuit court
TO restrain employees of the drain
aee district from cuttlnH across lhe
Rock Levee road few miles south
Of Cape. .Glrardeau, ut a point where
the Ramsey creek diversion channel
Of the Little River drainage system
inlefsevts this road In reality the
case was brought 20 have the courts
determine whether the county or
the drainage district should buIh
the bridges over the artificial bitches
of the drainage district where these
bitches cut Through public highways
A ease similar tn the nu brought
BY Scott county Was apIsIhrd to
the Supreme court from Macon
county thec years ago and the
opinion Of the Supreme court in
that case was that the county should
bull the bridges When the later
case came before Judge Kelley last
summer he gave a similar opinion.
hasing his judgment on that of the
SuWeme court Tae county. by its
attorneys, appealed from Judge
keiiy's decision. but. i, seems. the
Supreme court has sustained him
This d~cisioD Of the Supreme
coas' will mean that Scntt county
viii nave 10 pay approximately 81.
900 for the bridge across the Ram
sey creek diversion channel and for
several smaller bridges vest of0ran
Cape Girardcau county has a sim.
liar case before the Supreme court
and II Il GETS n like opinion will
have to construct eight bridges
across channel larger than the
Ramsey 'crrek channel IL Is eSti.
malei that these bridges will cost
from $4,000 TO $4,000 each
Considering the condition Of the
coun,ys finances the building Of
these bridges will seriously cmbar-
fass the county aud will throw il
farther in debt. Some think a leels-
lative enactment might bring relief
and an effort in that direction may
he made,
Commenting on the decision OF
the Supreme court. just handed
down, r. Z. Bailey of Sikes,on, spec.
ial attorney for Scott county in this
case. has the following to say
! am keenly disappointed at the
decision but not surprised because
the legislature has, in its efforts 10
encourage drainage. thrown down
all the bars TO the district and left
small chances for the people to pro-
tect themselves. or for the courts TO
intercede in their behalf have
not yet read the opinion OF the Su-
preme court and cannot comment
thereon, At the time Judge Kelly
rendered his opinion in this case, |
felt. and feel yet, that his opinion
was eminently proper and correct
He followed the law as he found !,
and We could not expect him to do
OTHERWISE. we hopeu 10 gel the
Supreme court to overrule It's for
mer opinion and eiye us relief This
the court has refused TO do
The difficulty, however, does no,
lie with the courts At best this
was very close question under the,
law the legislature has enacted. and
| am not ready 70 say that the law
will not justify the decision, but |
have no hesitation in saying that
nothing justities the law, To my
mind this law is wrong and there
should be concerted effort to get
the coming legislature 70 amend
this law and put the hHtsn Of
building the bridges s these
artificial canals on asesy lnefs Of