The aegis & intelligencer., 1905-02-10
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ROAD LAW.

SQaarter IL am. { Quarter 20 am
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ROAD LAW.
The brief filed by the County Com
missioners of Baltimore county, in
the recent friendly suit that has been
decided in their favor by the local
equity court in the test case regard
ing the constitutionality of the Road
Law Of 1904, is replete with interest
and gives much information respect
ing the events that have led up to
the present road improvements as
contemplated by the members of the
last General Assembly.
The sole point at issue is the ques-
tlon whether or not the recent act
conflicts with Section 81 of Article 8
of the Constitution, which says in so
many words that the General Assem-
bly, shall not have power to involve
the State in the construction Of
works Of internal Improvement. In
order to intelligently construe just
what the trainers of the Constitution
meant, It is necessary to study the
history leading up to the adoption
of the same. Before doing this, how
ever, the brief shows in a convincing
manner the broad powers that are
given legislatures as compared with
acts of Congress. In the former, all
powers of legislation are taken to
exist except where prohibited by the
Constitution, while in the latter,
Congress can only assume powers
laid down by the organic law of the
National Government.
In accordance with this principle,
the early legislatures of this State
made vast expenditures of money for
internal improvements" notably
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and
the Susquehanna and Tidewater Ca
nal. In nearly every case the venture
proved a bad one, and the States
finances reached such low ebb in
1913 as to almost amount to a repu-
diation. Heroic men and measures,
however, saved the States credit,
and additional taxes were levied by
the Legislature of 1916 and 1947 SO
as to meet the overdue and accruing
obligations Of the State. After this
bitter experience the Constitutional
Convention Of 1850 met, and all of
its delibera tions are colored through
out with the hostile feeling engen-
dcred by the States assistance to
internal improvements" This body
passed a most stringent provision
preventing the State from taking
part in "any enterprise" The Con-
stitutions of 1864 and 1867 both fol-
lowed the same line of thought, each
one, however, being slightly less
stringent than its predecessor. In
the published reports of these con-
ventions, the strong point is made
that nowhere i'll the preserved steno-
graphic notes of the addresses made
by the members is any objection
made to the expenditure of money
forpublic roads. That every address
is silent on this point is significant
from the fact that as the brief shows
state aid to the public roads has
been recognized by our first colo
nists, WHO had come from a country
where from time immemorial public
ways had always been the "King's
Highways" and every Declaration
Of Rights claims that the trainers are
entitled to the Common Law of Eng
land. In the exercise of this right,
the State had from time to time
spent money on the public highways,
which must have been done with the
implied consent of the people-they
making no protest through their
chosen representatives. 1t is true
that the money spent on public roads
was not levied directly by the legis-
latures, but through delegated pow
ers to the County Commissioners,
who for convenience sake are created
by the Constitution for the purposes
of more easily carrying out local self
government.
1t will thus be seen that a strong
case has been presented to the Court
ofAppeals, which calls for a broad
minded Interpretation. OF course we
do not anticipate the result of the
deliberations of the judges, but it
does seem that the recent ruling
given by the Attorney General, direct
ing the Treasury officials not to pay
out any money under the Act of
1904, which provided for the yearly
expenditure of 100000 for road
purposes, is certainly open to ques-
ton
NOT COLOR, BUT INTELLIGENCE.
Should the Court of Appeals sus.