The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1906-12-15
.ruaoa duncan on the wafer ouestion-

Judge Duncan on the Water Question
Sustains the Action of the County Com.
miseioners.-In q written opinion delivered
in the Circuit Court at Towson on Wednesday
Judge Duncan decided that the Baltimore
County Water and Electric Company has no
| power to lay its pipes in the streets and high
ways of the county, other than the LIST district,
without the assent of the Highways Commits.
| sion.
The decision is a sweeping victory for the
county and sustains the action of the High
ways Commission in refusing the water COM
pany permit to lay its pipes in Mount WASH
| ington, after vigorous protest made by resi-
| dents. The water company intended to pipe
water from the Patapsco river or its tributaries
| to supply Towson, Govanstown and Luther
| ville 1t claimed the right to lay its pipes in
| the streets and highways in any part of the
county without obtaining the assent Of the
Highways Commission. and appealed to the
Circuit Court from their action in refusing the
permit.
Judge Duncan decided that it has this right
only in the First district and in Ellicott City.
Elsewhere in the county it must obtain the
assent of the Highways Commission for that
purpose. The avenues in which application
was made to lay pipes are in the Third district.
Judge Duncan said, in part:
1--WE find that under this charter the corpora
ton was authorized to use all the thoroughfares
in Gainesville and other portions of the First
district for the purpose of supplying water;
it was specifically authorized to excavate the
earth in the streets for laying the pipes and
there is no provision in the act for the per-
mission or direction of the municipal authori-
ties, the water company under the act having
the right to use any or all the streets of that
district without the assent of those Entrusted
by law with the control of the public highways.
GREAT POWERS CRITICISED.
"And this right to place its mains in the
public roads ofthe First district was recognized
in the case of Baltimore city vs.. the Baltimore
County Water and Electric Company. Surely,
a charter granting to private corporation
greater powers and control over the public
highways never received legislative sanction.
Mt is not difficult to see by the careful terms
of an amendment to the charter OF the Cations.
vile company that it was not only authorized
to extend its operations from its limited area
in the First district to Ellicott City in Howard
county and to within radius of half mile
from the corporate limits thereof, but that it
was given specifically the right to use any and
all streets of Ellcott City territory for its water
mains as fully as if it had been included.
''In the second amendment to the charter of
the Gainesville Water Company it claims that
the powers and authority conferred upon it in
the First district were by this amendment
given to it in every portion Of Baltimore
county.
1.-The company, before the passage of this
second amendatory act, had no power or right
to extend its mains outside of the First district
and EllicOtt City, and RADIUS OF nall mile
from its corporate limits, and desiring still
further to enlarge its business, secured this act
which gave it the right to extend its operations
to other parts of Baltimore county, but did not
invest it with the right to the use of the Streets
mains and alleys without the assent of the
municipal authorities, as did the act of 1888
relating to the Ellicott City extension.
NOW then, in addition to those rights here
tofore conferred and which up to the passage
of the act of 1900 it already enjoyed the statute
says the company shall have all the rights and
privileges conferred upon corporations incor-
porated under Article % of the Code of 1888
and ali amendments and supplements thereto.
ADDITIONAL RIGHTS DENIED.
"What are these additional rights to which
it is entitled The act of 1898 says:
"'Any corporation formed for the purpose
of supplying water shall have power to lay
pipes and construct all other such work as shall
be necessary or suitable to carry out the pur-
poses of said corporation, provided the assent
of the County Commissioners OF said county
shall be first had and obtained
II am clearly of the opinion, therefore, that
the act 1900 relied upon by the water company
is not susceptible of the construction placed
upon it in the very able argument OF its attor.
ney, but that it merely gave the power and
privilege of extending its mains into other
portions of Baltimore county with the assent
of the Highways Commission of Baltimore
county.
II have not gone into other questions raised
in the argument for the reason that 1t IS, IN
my Judgment, unnecessary.
II will sign an order sustaining the de-
murrer."
It is understood the water compay will ap.
peal from the decision and that the case will
be brought up at the January term OF the
Court of Appeals.