The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-03-15

intention OF complying with the ordinance,
having fortified themselves with the opin-
ion of counsel, that the provision on which
Mr.. SWAMI laid so much stress, and which he
declares have been 'its most important feature"
was wholly imperative. In addition to this
conclusive proof of bad faith, we have, through
the same channel, evidence of the corrupt prac-
tees by which the ordinance was obtained-of
the violence which was used to stihe any express
sion of the popular sentiment in opposition to the
measure and of the entire completely of Brock
& Co. in the whole dirty business from beginning
to end. 1t was the knowledge of these facts that
kept the Legislature of Maryland from passing
the BROCK Bill. The same knowledge ought to
lead the City Council to repeal, tomorrow, the
ordinance which is now the only cover that BROCK
& Co. have for their pretended rights-an ordi-
nance, the passage of which was obtained by
dishonest means-which the parties who profit by
it confessedly meant to violate when they acquired
their interest under it-and which, in effect they
have utterly and totally disregarded.
Nor is this all. The repeal of the ordinance
would not leave BROCK & Co. in a worse plight
than the failure of the Legislature TO pass their
Bill has already placed them They are at this
moment entirely without authority for the priv
ileges they claim-wihout protection for the
franchises they usurp. They are no better than
trespassers upon the public highways of the city
the common property of the whole public-and La
BILE to be dealt with as such. Nothing but the su-
preme power of the State can confer upon any
man, or number of men, exclusive right of
way over public highway or any portion thereof
authorize the appropriation of any portion of it
to uses which are either private exclusive. 1t is
only by exercise of the sovereign power-of the
right of eminent domain, as the lawyers term it,
that such privileges can be conferred or obtained
These privileges the Legislature has failed to
besow-the City Of Baltimore has not the right to
bestow them. The control which the MAYOR and
City Council possess the streets of the city,
is limited and qualified control-itself derived
from the legislative bounty-from the charter of
the City. 1t does not extend to the power of
granting to any individual exclusive right to the
use of any portion of those streets. Otherwise, if
the city could grant to party the possession of
the middle of the streets, it might to grant another
the possession of the sides-fto Messrs Brock &
Co. the middle for their cars-wih equal propriety
to the MesSrS. STEWART the sides for their hacks
and thus streets which were only authorized TO be
condemned, or the beds of which were originally
coded to the city, for public uses might in time be
closed against the public, and reserved for uses
which are strictly private. Clearly, this would be
a stretch of power beyond the scope of the citys
charter-yet this is precisely what the MAYOR and
City Council have attempted to do in the case of the
Passenger Railway grant. An Act of Assembly
was found necessary to give to the MAYOR and City
Council power to authorize the construction of
sdelings switches by the owners of warehouses
or lots fronting on streets through which rail-
road might pass. The Act of 1881 oh. 252 was
accordingly passed for the purpose, which re-
quired, in every instance, the assent in writing
of the owners of the major part in extent of front
feet the lots fronting the streets through which
the track was to be laid. If the case of the CITY
Passenger Railway were within the meaning and
operation Of this Act, which it clearly is not the
want Of the previous assent in writing of major
ity in interest of the property-holders on the line of
the streets through which the Railway passes, would
invalidate the ordinance authorizing its construc-
ton.
Such, then, is the condition in which Messrs
Brock & Co. are left by the failure of the Legis-
lature to confirm to them the possession of our
streets-such the precarious tenure by which they
hold what is not their own. They are absolutely
dependent upon the forbearance, not only of the
public, but of each and every individual in the
city. They may be indicted by the Grand Jury
as a nuisance. Their cars may be stopped by an
injunction at the suit of any member of the pub
lie. Anybody may put cars upon their tracks
There is no different law of the road for the mid
die of the street from that which prevails at the
sides Therefore, they cannot compel the re-
moval of a vehicle or other obs acle which may
obstruct the passage of their cars If there is
room to turn out it is their business to
do so. If the cars so constructed that they
cannot turn out it is their misfortune. If a man
should drive a loaded wagon along their track no
matter at how slow pace, though there may be
a procession of cars behind him, he can neither
be compelled to leave the track or to quicken his
pace.
These are some Of the little annOyances to which
the owners of the Passenger Railway are at pre-
sent exposed, and from which they have nothing
but the forbearance of our citizens to protect them
Now that the neck of ruffanism has been broken
in Baltimore by the passage of the Police Bill and
the removal of Judge STUMP, brute force-though
it broke up the Three-cent Meeting in the Square
and threatened the Legislature of Maryland at its
hour of adjournment-can offer no hindrance to
the enforcement of strict legal right in any ques-
ton between Brock h Co and any member of the
public That questions will arise, and that the
legality of the present occupation Of the streets by
Brock l. Co. will Ne tested in a Court of law. we
have manner of doubt. That the decision will
be against Brock & Co. we have just as little
doubt Nor can we say that we have any sympa-
thy to bestow upon them. To be compelled TO
make restitution of that which they came so I'M
fairly by. would be only just retribution for that
which they have done and that which they have
tried to do.