Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1901-04-12
THE CANAL MUST BE SOLD

The attention of Mr.. Isdor Rsyner, At
torney General, was directed on Monday to
9 joint resolution passed by the General
Assembly of Maryland at the session of
1900 regarding the Chesapeake and Ohio
canal.
This joint resolution directs the Board Of
Public Works, after consultation with the
Attorney General, TO take such steps as il
shall deem necessary to enforce the decree
oil the Circuit Court for Washington county
for the sale OF the canal and to resist the
passage Of any order to extend the time for
the execution Of the decree. The resolution
further provides that the Board OF Public
Works must instruct the Attorney General
to appear 10 behalf Of the State and assert
its rights 10 enforce the said decree as soon
after May l, 1901, as shall be reasonably
practicable.
This joint resolution" said Mr.. Rayner,
"is mandatory and leaves no discretion
whatever either with me or with the Board
OF Public Works The board under ia pro-
visions must take the proper steps To en-
force the sale Of the canal, and must ap-
pear 10 behalf of the State and assert It's
rights TO have the decree for the sale of the
property executed. The time expires May
next, and have no doubt that within
reasonable time thereafter proceedings to
that effect will be instituted"
"What would the State get from the pro.
ceeds Of the SALE or how would its liens
stand as To priority p the Attorney General
WAS asked.
"In the case of the State We. Brown and
Others" Mr.. Rayner replied, "the decree
passed by Judge Alvey, 10 the Circuit Court
for Washington county in equity, wac az
hrmed. In the opinion delivered with the
decree Judge Alvey decided that the lien of
the state is prior 10 that of the preferred
bondholders OF 1874, and that in the dstri
button oil the proceeds Of the sale the State
was To be paid next in order To the repair
bonds Of 1873, amounting at this time to
possibly nearly a million dollars, the prin
cipal being 100000. This decree was at
frmed in SD Md. Since that decree was
passed the State, under the Acts OF 1895 and
1900, has waived It's priority in favor of Ger
tain claims for labor, supplies and mate
rial"
"Can the State protect itself in. case Of a
sale Of the property"
IL do not think there Is any doubt about
this proposition. How far the State could
manage the canal If 1t should buy is another
question. II il should ever reach this stage
nothing can be done in violation Of Section
"a OF Article OF the Constitution, which
prohibits the giving or loaning the credit OF
the State for the purposes therein named
and prohibits any appropriation for con
structing OF aiding any work of internal
improvement. The Board OF Public Works
will fully protect the interests of the State,
and Il looks like there will be active com
petition for the property when il comes 70 q
sale which will inure TO the benefit Of the
State"
Gould the sale again be delayed ?" Mr..
Rayner was asked.
"This question has not been fully deter
mined by the Court OF Appeals. In my
Judgment, the time has arrived for the sale
OF the canal, and do not think there will
be any further extension"
aCan the case be carried TO the Supreme
Court OF the United StatesH"
~Judge McSherry, in his partially dissent
ing opinion, in SD Maryland, seems to in.
innate that there might possibly be ground
for an appeal. But upon an examination
Of the latest Federal cases rendered since
this decision am satisfied there is no ground
Whatever for Federal Jurisdiction. The ques.
ton whether the bondholders Of 1874 have
q lien upon the corpus Of the canal, If only
upon lis lows and revenues, Is State qnes-
tioa, and has been settled by the decision Of
the Court of Appeals 10 the case referred TO
Ip favor Of the State"