Year: 1859

give lts provisions, but the substance of il is
we believe, as above stated


As far as the mere matter of having fire.
bridge is concerned, if the people Of Suite
county feel able to bear the very heavy eI
Pense of building one, it might be wei
enough to let them build it, provided they
did not, by SO doing, interfere with preexist
ing vested rights, or do unwarraDtable injury
to private parties whom the law is bound in
justice to protect. In the first place, howev
er, we are very seriously inclined to doubt


whether the construction of free bridge al


the expense of the people Of Sutter county


would exactly be good policy, even for them


selves Sutter county pays less toll over the


bridge already established than either the
counties of Yolo and Colusi, and it is very
doubtful whether her citizens would make
anything by paying out, in a round sum
twenty, thirty, forty or sixty thousand dol
lars, which they would have no means Of
ever getting back again, the bridge being
free, instead Of paying a much smaller
amount in the aggregate, by little and little
In either case it is an expenditure of money
and the only difference is that the free bridge
would cost the county in the long run much
more than the toll bridge ever could; for
besides the original outlay for the work
there would be the dead expense-no income
coming in--of employing man or men to
keep it. and the continual outlays for repairs
which everybody knows are absolutely neces-
sary, at least once or twice every year, and
frequently oftener. on the very best of
bridges.


1t has been stated that the cost Of crossing
the toll bridge already established, to the
people of Marysville and Sutter county to-
gether, is $4,000 per annum This is a
very great mistake, for the entire receipts of
the bridge. for the last year, amounted to
only S22 300, and this included travel from
Yolo, Colusi, and everywhere else as well as
from Sutter and Marysville


But, if the people of Sutter really want
to 60 to the expense of building free bridge,
and burden themselves with the debt which
it would incur, it is none Of our business.
We have no objections. But we do conceive
it to be our duty, in the capacity Of public
journalism, to state that we entertain serious
doubts as to whether the Legislature has the
right, in Justice and good faith, to authorize
the contemplated action on the part Of the
Board of Supervisors of Sut;er county. Such
action would at once destroy wholly the val
he of large property, established under the
duly enacted laws Of the State, and paving
large taxes yearly to the government. 1t
would make a work entirely worthless, which
would never have been undertaken but for
the protecting guarantees of the existing
wilful destruction of private property by di
rect act of that very power which called the
property into existence and is constitutionally
bound to protect it. TEis toll bridge across
the Feather river was chartered by the Court
of Sessions of Yuba county, under general
law regulating the matter. After the abol-
ishment of the authority, in such cases, of
the Courts of Sessions, all the past actions of
the Courts of Sessions were legalized by one
sweeping enactment of the Legislature, and
subsequent authority vested in the Board of
Supervisors. Under this authority of the
Board of Supervisors Of Yuba county, the
two or three persons owning this toll bridge
have acted-have charged such tolls as were
allowed by the Board, and have yearly paid
$500 in taxes on the property. Under the
supposed protection of the law, they have
laid out large sums of money in repairing
and have gone to great deal of other ex-
pense which they W ould never have incurred,
had they imagined that the Legislature could
by any possibility step in and bring about as
total a destruction of their property as if it
were set on fire and burned into ashes, and,
worse than this, nullify the franchise which
was conpacted to last for twenty or forty or
fifty years, 1--WE forget the exact term) and
without which stipulation the work would
never have been built at all. This contract
is as binding upon the State as it is upon the
county, for the Legislature legalzed, as we
have stated by one sweeping enactment all
the acts of all the Courts of Sessions, which
were made under the existing laws, and this
proceeding of the Court of Sessions of Yuba
county was of course included in the num-
Der.


There would be no justice in the Legisla-
lures giving single private individual legal
power, because he happened to be pecuniari-
ly able, to do an act which would destroy
the entire value of another mans property.
What better justice is it, then, to empower a
combination of individuals in the shape of
an organized county, to do the same thing
Shall a whole community be allowed, under
legislative sanction, to crush out the rights OF
a private man, and conspire to destroy his
property9 Hardly. we should think, under
a Christian, enlightened and free govern
ment


1t is scarcely necessary for us to say, that
we trust the Legislature will not pass Mr.
Parks bill Although we might concede al
that is claimed for the free bridge, and fully
believe that it would benefit not only SutteI
county but the whole State, yet we could
never bring our judgment and conscience tc
the conclusion that this benefit ought to be
incurred by striking down the rights of q
private citizen or stripping him of his prop
erty.


SoLoNoN's TEMPLE-A citizen Of this place
is now erecting a counterpart of Solomon: