Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1899-04-26
TROLLEY ROAD BLOCKED.
ATTORNEY SAY S THE LAW PRE-
VENTS CONCESSIONS.

MIR. RODNEY DEALT EXCLUSIVELY
WITH THE LEGAL AsPECT OF THE
APPLICATION MADE TO THE
LEVY COURT.
John il. Rodney, attorney for the Levy
Court, yesterday afternoon gave his opln-
ton on the application Of the New Castle
and Delaware city electric railway for
the use of the public roads. causeways
and bridges between those two points I'll
was as follows:
MY opinion being requested In regard
to building a trolley road between New
Castle and Delaware City, / have to say
that l do not presume anything Is re-
quired of me except an expression Of the
| legal status Of the case-h the Levy
Court has authority to allow the CON
structdon of such a road along and over
the public roads. The fact as 20 whether
such use would interfere with the public
in the exercise of its rights Is not one
which can be or should be left to me. The
Levy Court could decide that better and
more satisfactorily than I can.
with reference to the roads them
selves 1 would say that in my opinion
the Levy Court has nothing to do with
what are known as hundred roads. Cause
| ways and bridges are the appropriate
and restricted matters over which the
court has control. In this connection l
cannot conceive that other roads which
are placed under road commissions. who
provide for the amount necessary to
maintain them and expend the same, can
be considered to be under the jurisdic-
p tion II the Levy Court. Were such TO b,
assumed by II, confusion would result
In my opinion, therefore, the Levy Cour
has nothing TO do with any roads saw,
causeways. as are now under their con.
trol, or may hereafter he assumed by
them. This opinion is not In conflict tC
the act Of 1898. entitled an act to pro
tect the county roads and bridges. pro
viding that no electric or other railway
shall occupy or use any county road o
bridge without the consent OF the Lev!
Court Upon the assumption, therefore
e that the court only has jurisdiction owe
Z such roads as being causoways. can tn
right which the public has to the unre
; stricted use and franchise Of it be i'm
paired by or under the authority OF tn
Levy Court?
IN the present case protests and re
monstrances have been presented b
persons entitled TO use the road. Eve
without this l think that any consent o
> agreement given by the court to a corpo
ration charging tolls or fares for the US
Of or to occupy the public roads or cause
ways would be valueless / do not thin
any but the supreme power of the state
i, to wit, the Legislature, can confer sue
privilege Before the General Corporatio
act in the special charter was granted
permission was given by the Legislator
to use the public roads. This meets tn
- requirements suggested by me. In tina
- act no such permission Is found nor d
/ think any can be suggested inferer
, TALLY or by implication, inasmuch as th
"a General Corporation act, under whic
this proposed line Is to be incorporate.
contains no words, either expressly or b
necessary implication, which would q
.. | construed to enable them to use the pull
" lie roads. OF course, II no such privllog
could be inserted In the charter obtaine
so much more could such "a privilege nC
be granted by the Levy Court? OF cours
-, this right to use the public road by "A pr
vate or quasi-public corporation could
10 as well, and perhaps even more appr'
N priately given by private person as !
,s the Levy Court. AS an Illustrate
40 against such grant, it may be suggeste
, that the reasoning that would allow
trolley road such privilege would ailo
any other motive power, not eXcludir
r steam"