The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-11-10

Rockville. the quaint little county seat
in the hills or Montgomery. will attract
the interest Of lawyers as well as Of auto
mobilists on Tuesday next, when argu-
ment VIII begin on the case which
eventually is 10 decide the important
question Of Jurisdiction over the Con
duit road. claimed by both the United
States and the State Of Maryland on
that day viii come up before the county
court the appeal taken on October a
by counsel for John A. Lutz. the Wash
ington autoist who invited arrest uy
speeding over the road near Cabin John
Bridge. in order that the test might us
made.
When the case comes up for argument
on the appeal a battle royal will ensue.
The State VIII be represented by Attorney
General William Shepard Bryan and
States Attorney Peter; G. Z Baker and
Charles A. Douglas viii appear for Mr..
Lutz. and United States District Attorney
John c. Rose. OF Baltimore. will represent
Attorney General Bonaparte in behalf OF
the government. Whatever may be the
decision Of the county court. the case
will be taken in due course 10 the United
States Supreme Court as il involves 4
legal cOuundrum which has never been
passed upon by that body. and can only
BE- decided by the highest tribunal in the
country, being an issue between a SOW
ereign State and the Federal government
When the State Of Maryland gave lis
consent 10 the acquisition OF the strip
OF land now known as the Conduit road.
through an act OF the Maryland Iegisia-i
ture. IL was in these words:
That If the plan adopted By the President Of the
United states To- Supplying the city Of Washington
with water should require said water 20 De drawn
from any source within the limits 0f this state.
consent is hereby given tho United state 90 Iu-
chase such land and % construct such dams le-ef-
y0irs. buildings. and other works and % exercise
c1ncIncnty with tie State q Maryland such 5uri.-
dction over the sane as may be necessary for SAID
purpose.
The Constitution Of the United States
(article ]. section S. clause 10 IN pr0yid-
ing for the acquisition by the Federal
government Of territory 20 be used as the
seat Of government uses this language;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases what
soever over such District mot exceeding Ten miles
sqI2rei As may. by concession u the particular
States and the acceptance O. Congress. become the
seat ~ government of tle United States and %
the consent ~ the legislature Of the State which
the sane shah be. for the erection Of forts nag
ZINES arsenals. dock Yards and other neetful build
nss
Declares Clauses Conflict.
The Attorney General Of the United
States has held that in conflicting with
the clause OF the Constitution Just quoted.
the condition placed by the Maryland leg
islature upon its cession OF the Conduit
road strip is void. u is 10 decide this
question that the case arising through
M Lutz's arrest VIII be made q test
Having been made by a duly constituted
State officer. Deputy Mullican- and not
by an Official OF the famous burg OF Glen
Echo. this case involves the question OF
jurisdiction over the Conduit road. claimed
by both the Federal government and the
State Of Maryland. which is an exceed
ingly nice one from the lawyers point
Of view.
II, as Mr.. B0naparte claims. the condl-
ton upon which Maryland consented 10
the sale Of the conduit road strip is un-
constitutional. then the interesting legal
point arises. Does not this then abrogate
the cession itself. since It was made only
upon condition that Maryland and the
United States should exercise concurrent
jurisdiction over this territory Can the
courts, in short, declare the condition
upon which the government was per
mitted 20 acquire the land void, without
AT the same time invalidating the act OF
CONSENT
Should the State court uphold the con
tentiOn Of the government that the con-
dition alone is invalid, the attorney gen
eraI of Maryland VIII carry the case 10 the
Supreme Court Of the United States on
appeal On the other hand. should the
decision be averse TO the contention Of
Mr.. LutZ. as represented by his attorneys.
and Of the United States. as represented
by Mr- BonapaTJe in the person Of bIr-
ROse-tO wiz. that the State has no jUTis-
diction over the road-then Mr. LUIS
attorneys and the attorneys for the
United States viii appeal 10 the highest
tribunal for final decision on the queS-
ton OF jurisdiction.
Differ to Outcome.
Capable lawyers have expressed the
opinion that the position Of Jhe govern
meut is untenabIe. Others. equally emf
nent. including Mr. Bonaparte. hold the
opposite view. II has but one chance for
a complete victory-to convince the courts
that the condition upon which the state
gave consent TO the sale OF the property
is invalid without invalidating also the
/ act Of consent itself. The State and the
government OF the United States. accord
/ ing to the accepted Interpretation or the
constitutional clause covering the case.
cannot exercise the concurrent Jurisdic-
ton over the strip that is provided for in
the act OF consent II the act, in It's en-
tirety. should be held 20 be void. owing
70 its conflict with the Constitution, then
the government would ind itself IN the
position OF a private owner Of property
within the State Of Maryland. having no
more rights under the law than any other
! property owner within that States con-
fines. II could not even tear up the road,
since. under the law Of Maryland. any
highway which has been IN constant
public use for the period Of twenty years
becomes the property OF the Common
I wealth in which il IS located and cannot
be closed save by the legislative action
Of that Commonwealth.
Would CurtafI Federal Power.
The only rights which the United
States could exercise. therefore would
/ be the maintenance and control Of its
pipe line under the roadway, and per-
haps il could not even disturb the
roadway for the purpose OF repairing
I the pipe line without the consent
of the State The government of the
/ United States would, I'm effect, be placed
on a par with a privately owned water
company. owning private right Of way
/ for its pipe line under the bed OF d State
road
There is no precedent for such a case.
The pecuIiar legaI points involved. as be-