Assuming, as apparently the propounder does, that the proposition is uncomplicated by any questions of franchises, public rights in the land on which the bridge and its approaches are built, etc., then there is no question but that the owners of either bridge have a perfect right to charge what toll they please. On the other hand, suppose the permission of the War Department, or some other governing body, had to be obtained in order to build piers in the river, or even to build the bridge at all; the argument used in asking for this permission is that the bridge is needed as a public convenience; or it is desired to occupy certain streets for the approaches, again is used the argument of public convenience, and so on. These privileges are granted on the tacit understanding, at least, that the public convenience is to be served, and the Courts rule that, in such cases, in consideration of the equity which the public has in the property by reason of the rights granted, a fair return on the value of the property, but no more, should be the basis for establishing the rates of toll. Would the _Sun_ claim that the value of the rights and franchises given by the public in such a case, be included in the value of these bridges, and that a higher total income should be derived from one bridge than the other because the value of the streets on which the approaches had been built is greater in one case than the other; or that a greater income should be derived in one case than another because the cities furnish more people than the villages? Is there any particular reason, except for the slightly larger depreciation and cost of maintenance, and, bearing in mind the fact that both bridges cost the same, why, if there is ten times as much traffic on one bridge as on the other, the toll should not be proportioned accordingly, to provide the same income on each?