Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1905-01-21
TOWN AND VICINITY
The Paving Business


Last week the JOURNAL gave town at
torney Gordon's construction of judg,
Boyd's decision, throwing out the hope
that the town may vet retrieve its loss
on account of the Union street paving
miscarriage.
1t has since made inquest into 1.-THE
other side of the story, and finds that
it is first necessary to give quotation
from the opinion which did not appear
last week:
The Act of 1892 does not require any no
tice. in terms. but as was SAID of the Act of
1874, Chapter us. in Schar case, II Mary
land jl6.
1t was not niece ssary for the LEGISLATURE Ia
designate all the fOrmalitirS the Mayor and
City Council were to ohsrrN" in the execution
of tn" powers tn" legislature WAS comforting
upon them by the Act in question. We must
assum" that the legislature intended them to
d"tcrmn" the character and extent OF the
notice which the cNigcncy of the case de
handed and of the proceedings att"rn.
The Court therefore decided
/, That the Act of 1902, Chapter IS,
tthe town Charter is good, and that the
Legislature Intended that the Mayor
and COuncilmen should by Ordinance
prescribe legal provisions for notice etc.
,, That Ordinance" No. III of the
Mayor and Councilmen of Frostburg is
null and void because it does not pre-
scribe such notice.
The net result of the whole is
|, All present assessments are umcul-
lectlble by any process, either now or
hereafter.
,, That the Legislature may. or may
not sanction the levy of certain special
assessments upon properties 10 til, rrt,Dt
Of the J,0rtIcHidr bcH,GtS rrrrjr,d as a re
suit of the paving.
3, For every future purpose the Char
ter is valid, and COnterS upon the Mayor
and COuncilmeu of Frost burg ample
power to act whenever "A valid Ordinance
may be passed by them for carving into
effect the powers granted.
OF the two tranSlations of Judge
Boyd's opinion the latter is probably the
more accurate.
The towns Charter is valid, and
The amendment CChaptcr IS, Acts of
1902 under and by virtue" of which
Ordinance No. iii WAS passed is valid
only the OriiDuurc jtSrT is coid!
In view of differences between at
torneyS, how are the people hereafter to
learn beforehand whether an Ordinance
providing for public improvements is
valid
This question Is pertinent because re-
cent costly history teaches the people
that after the work is done is too late TO
find ont that the whole town is to meet
the obligations of few.
For instance, the incumbent attorney
throws out the hope that the town can
be relieved by future Legislative action
On the other hand, the JOURNAL is in
formed that the very best that can be
hoped form that event is action providing
for an expensive process to ascertain how
much private property has been bcne-
fitted by the public improvcment-this
with the peril alternate that jury
may determine that it has not only not
been benefited, but uctnuIiq jnjurrd!
Is there not danger that so much nm
certainty has been cast over the validity
of town legislation that an end has come
to real street Improvement
Who is there this side of the Bench to
say lntallihly that an Ordinance is valid !:
Doesn't the whole uncertain situation
resolve itself into a practical reversiun of
prcgreSslVe-town to easy going, stand
still village life?
As the case now stands, it is the duty
of the next Council to abolish for at
least two years the office of Street super
visor, and not to hire IA man, horse. pillow
or wagon for Il stroke of street repair.
This, Ill order that every cent of avail
able money may 90 to paving about
$4,000 lately lost i'll the final ascertain
ment of differences between LAWYERS.
This is what a private establishment
would do under similar stress, or ''take
the benefit -"