Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-11-17

case, although he was taxpayer in
Salem and the fine went to that town.
If the State condemns land for
public use, the damages must be as
sessed by q jury of citizens of Maine,
unless the parties agree upon a COM
mittee or none can be assessed and
the condemnation would fail for nom
payment of damages.
Jurors constantly sit in the trial of
criminal causes which result in a fine
paid to the State, and on appeals by
land owners from the damages awarded
ton of Il highway, where the damages
are to be paid by the county in which
the Jurors are tax payers, but we are
not aware that an objection on account
of interest has ever been seriously en-
tertained. in such cases, though the
statutes applicable are silent as to the
questioned interest, the Inference being
plain that from the necessities of the
case the minute interest of the Jurors
in such cases is not a disqualification.
Our statutes contain many cases in
which this same implication arises. In
certain cases the county commissioners
are authorized TO appoint assessors OF
State and county taxes, (Revised
Statutes, Chap. 6, Sec. 1889. So in case
of damages for public parks by appeal
to county commissioners, Revised
Statutes. Chap. 3, Sec. so, the estab-
lishment of ferries, Revised Statutes,
Chap. 20, Sec. ., purchase of lot for
school house by municipal officers. in
certain cases, Revised Statute. Chap.
- sp~C>
| to a way ordered by the commissioners,
they may appoint an agent, in certain
| cases, to make them, audit the expense.
! and the town becomes liable therefor,
{Revised Statute, Chap. IS. Secs. SO, 81,
$50, town ways laid out by municipal
| officers, damages awarded by them.
| (Revised Statute, Chap. is, Secs. IA. iG),
| assessors of taxes in towns. In all
| these cases. and others that could be
cited, the Legislature evidently intend
| ed that the officers charged with the
| duty should act, Notwithstanding their
minute pecuniary interest.
In many of the instances the officers
charged with the duty are necessarily
! interested as tax payers.
| In this case, when the act of 1895 was
| ptSStu, tfle I1OIfoTaDlt JOIlI a. refers
was Chief Justice, and remained so for
| nearly five years thereafter. He was a
| citizen of Bangor and q large tax payer
in that city. Yet the Legislature pro-
| vided that the Chief Justice should ap-
point u committee to appraise the value
of the bridge property, who were to act
| under his instructions. The authority
to appoint the committee was limited to
the Chief Justice. no other persons
| could make the appointment. If the
cities had acted within four and a half
years after the passage of the act, as
! they might have done, and were eX-
pected to do. the authority and duty of
| appointing the committee would have
| rested with him. Can it be doubted that
| the Legislature intended to confer au-
| thority and impose q duty upon him as
the Chief Justice, notwithstanding any
| interest he might have in the result us
Il tax payer in Bangor? 1t must have
been expected that this duty would be
discharged by him. If he could not
act, all proceedings under the statute
would fail, a result the Legislature GER
/ tainly did not intend This considera-
| ton forces the conclusion that the Leg
| lItSIlUtiu tlldC his remote inter-
est should not disqualify him.
So in both the act of 1895 and that Of
1901, it was provided that the county
| commissioners of Penobscot county,
should determine the proportion to be
| paid by Bangor and Brewer, an author
ity and duty not more important than
the appointment of committee of APP
| pralsal, and instructions to it, The Leg
| islature understood the probability that
| one OF more OF the commissioners We're
| likely to be citizens or tax payers in
| one of the cities. Yet it said nothing in
the act about disinterestedness. 1t
provided no other tribunal to make the
apportionment. If for any reason the
commissioners could not act, the pur-
| pose of the statute and of the two cit
les to obtain a free bridge must fail
| The Legislature reposed confidence in
the character OF the men who then We're
| or should be commissioners and impos-
ed an important public duty upon them.
All of them might be tax payers i'm one
| or both Of the cities. No provision for
disqualification on thai account was
contained in the act. No reason is per-
ceived why a different rule should Apply
to the commissioners than that applied
to the Chief Justice. AS in the case of
the Chief Justice. the inference is over
Whelming that the Legislature intended
to ignore the trifling and contingent in
terest of a tax payer in either city, too
small ito be legally estimated. and
that it should not disqualify. AS evil
dence OF such intention great stress is
laid on the fact that otherwise no result
could be attained in Com. VS.. RYAN
supra. and Com. VS.. Burding, 10 C,lsh.
SOC.
The difficulty is not met by the suc-
@estion that the commissioner residing
IN Brewer need not have acted. allow
ing the other members of the board to
perform the duty. The statute con-
ferred the power on the county commits
sioners as board, Machias River Co
V. Poor 35 Me-. 10. 1t contemplated
having the judgment of the three, they
were not to act officially. Besides two
or even all might have been taxpayers
in the city. State V. Intoxicating Ii
quors, "a Me-, SOS; Com. V. Emery II
CuSh., All.
1t is further insisted that mandamus
is not the proper form of remedy. 1t is