Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1884-08-23

it my first duty to look to the interests
of the county | represented, l would
have been loath to enter into a contest
against sister county so nearly allied
to our own, especially if any possible
injustice might result.
AS the matter presented itself to me,
however, I was not placed in any such
embarrassing position, because it was
clear that the bill, if passed, would be
nugatory and result only in expensive
and vsxatious litigation, IN which Gar
rett would have inevitably been worst
ed in any attempt to exercise authority
over the disputed territory. This, |
think, can be made clear to every one.
The Constitution provides article 10,
section IL
| The General Assembly may provide by law
for organizing new counties, locating and re-
moving county-seats and changing county
lnes but no new county shall be organized
without the consent of the majority of the
legal voters residing within the limits pro-
posed to be formed into said new county, It :
nor shall the lines of any county be changed
without the consent of a majority ofthe legal
voters residing within the district which I'M
der said proposed change would form part
of county different from that to which it
belonged prior to said change.
The Act of 1872, providing for the
formation of Garrett county, designat-
ed line Of division by q description
of its points of juncture with the
Mason and Dixon's line and the Poto-
mac river, connected by q straight line
between said points.
1t is contended that in locating this
division line an error occurred by
which the northern terminus of this
division line was located some con-
siderable distance westward of the
point designated by the Act, resulting
in loss of territory to Garrett county,
such territory being triangular in
shape, of some width at the Mason
and Dixon's line and tapering to q
point at the Potomac river.
Assuming without admitting) this
to be true, still it is undeniable that
the line as surreyed became by adoption
the line between the counties. By this
line the vote was taken and in it the
two counties acquieseed for years.
Each county imposed and collected
taxes up to and not beyond it and the
courts of the counties exercised their
J jurisdiction in accordance with it. The
boundary described by the Act of 1872
was directory to the surveyor; the one
laid off on the ground by the surveyor
was the only fixed, lawful line, whether
he located it according to his instruc-
tons contained in the Act or not. If
he located it wrongly the time to seek
a correction was before the rotc acas token.
Otherwise, look at the result-the peo-
Pile living between the two lines could
not vote ON the question Of new county,
eel non, at the time the vote of 1872
was taken. Now if the Legislature
has power to change the line under the
guise Of correcting it without a vote
Of the people living on this strip are
not these people carried out of Ale
gany county without ever having had
chance to vote ON the question at
ala Clearly they would be, and this
is just what the Constitution prohibits.
The bill of 1884, which failed to be-
como a law, made no provision for tax
ing vote Of the people on this strip
of land, and was therefore clearly I'M
constitutional.
Allegany county owns all territory
up to the division as actually Surveyed in
1872; nothing can deprive her Of it
short Of vote of the majority of the
people living east of the line to annex
themselves to Garrett county, and any
act Of the Legislature which attempts
to move the established line eastward
without such vote is null and void.
In this view | was sustained by the
opinion of Attorney General Roberts,
ex-Attorney General Gwynn and sew
eral other eminent legal gentlemen
whom | consulted in regard thereto
And this view was also adopted by a
majority of the Senate by refusal to
pass the bill. Very truly yours,
VIM. BRACE.