Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-07-10

of that constitution. the Legislature had no
power to appoint justice of the peace, nor
could they vest judicial power In any other
officer except such as were enumerated IN
the first section of the fourth article OF
the constitution When that constitution
was adopted, therefore. 1t stripped the
mayor of the judicial power or jurisdiction
appertainng to the office of justice OF
the peace, which had been conferred upon
him by the act of 1911 and it is equally
clear that such jurisdiction could not, con-
stitutionally. be conferred upon him by the
code of lS6D.'
The case of Attorney General agt. Nc
Donald e Wis, 500 is likewise precisely
in point and several other decisions of
state courts of last resort might be cited to
show that such legislation is clearly I'M
constitutional.
If the view of the Maryland law above
suggested be correct, 1t follows that the
mayor of Glen Echo has jurisdiction to
impose collect fines. since the provision
of the charter processing to give him such
jurisdiction is imperative by its terms and
IL 1t Were operative, would be unconstltu-
tional. 1t would that persons who
have been compelled to pay such fines,
when under arrest and threatened with
Imprisonment, are entitled to recover back
the same, either from the mayor himself
or from the town of Glen Echo. If the
money has been (as | understand to be the
case) paid into the municipal treasury.
Whether ii would be practicable to ar
range a satisfactory test case to deter
mine his authority in the premises is not
altogether clear. but, in any event pro-
ceedings for this purpose could be insti-
tuted only in the courts of Maryland,
Jurisdiction Over Conduit Road.
at appears from the papers transmitted
with your letter that your inquiry relates
to certain matters of much broader scope
than the jurisdiction of the mayor of Glen
Echo. l understand from these papers that
you desire advice as to the jurisdiction of
the United States and the powers conferred
upon your department with respect to so
much of the above mentioned Conduit
road as lies within the limits of the state
Of Maryland.
The Attorney General then reviews the
acts of Congress for the Conduit road, and
says:
I'm 1852 and 1853 the Congress authorized
and made necessary appropriations for the
construction of works to furnish the cities
of Washington and Georgetown an album
dant supply of water and for the aCquisi-
ton of such lands might be needed for
these purposes. In 1853 the Legislature of
Maryland passed an act whereby it was
provided that consent is hereby given to
the United States to purchase such lands
and to construct such dams. reservoirs,
buildings and other works. and to exercise
concurrently with the state of Maryland
such Jurisdiction over the same as may be
necessary for the said purpose
Large sums of money were from time to
time appropriated by the Congress for the
completion of the works connected with
this water supply. and by an act approved
March 3, 1859, the President was directed
to place the dams. aqueducts, water gates,
reservoirs and all fixtures and improve
ments connected Herewith. together with
the lands. houses. fencing, water and other
rights and appurtenances connected with
the same and belonging to the United States
unoer the immediate care, management and
superintendent Of properly qualified Of
hcer of the United States Corps of Engi-
neers.'
THE same act forbade any pollution of
the water supply under penalty of fine and
Imprisonment. In none of these acts is
there any authority to make this road,
but in 1871 $4,000 was appropriated for
macadamiZng the top of the conduit now
used as the main road to Washington
In fact. a road had been constructed a
number of years previously over or in
close proximity to the conduit, to aid In
building the latter and the other works
and afterward in keeping them in repair
1T would seem that the use of this road
as an approach to Washington has al
ready become general among the citizens
OF the neighboring districts of Maryland
prior to 1871 and macadamizatioa of the
surface was then recommended to pre-
vent possible injury to the masonry of
the conduit by reason of deep ruts in the
said road. caused by heavy vehicles pass
Ing over 1t in rainy weather.
Highway Never Authorized.
mo federal statute appears to have
highway or even expressly authorizing
Its construction, but for more than forty
years the road appears to have been, in
fact, used VIGOROUSLY for highway pur-
poses
The land in which the conduit is laid
and over which the road runs has been
throughout purchased by the United States
In Zee, and neither the state of Maryland
nor Montgomery county nor the town of
Glen Echo nor. so far l am aware any
other authority, corporation or individual
has contributed othe cost of the roads
maintenance and repair, all of which has
been betrayed through liberal appropria-
lions made by the Congress. The road is
Tor about eleven miles. within the limits of
the state OF Maryland, and, for about one
mile. within those of the town of Glen
Echo
Article 1. section 8. of the Constitution
provides that the Congress shall have
power TO exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such district mot
exceeding ten miles square) as may, BY
cession of particular states and the ac-
ceptance of Congress become the seat of
the government of the United States and
to exercise like authority over all places
purchased by the consent of the Iegisla-
ture of the state in which the same shall
be. for the erection of forts. maya zines
arsenals dockyards and other needful
buildings.
Power Vested in Congress.
There can be no question and, so far as
i am Cware. none has been raised that the
word building in this passage is used in
sense sufficiently broad to include public
works of any kind; but 1t has been suggest
ed that, inasmuch as the works specifically
mentioned all of a military character
lands can thus be acquired only for pur-
poses 'needfur to the national defense
While this view Is not wholly unsupported
by authority. it is in conflict with the opin-
ion of my predecessor in the matter of the
New York post Office site. hereinafter cited,
and 10 which reference is made, with APP
prevail by the Supreme Court in the Leav-
enworth case, mentioned mira. as well as
win the weight of authority in the state
courts. and in my opinion, this provision
OF The Constitution cOntemplates the pur-
chase OF land 'neeGful.' for any reason. to
thr discharge of any of the constitutional
duties or the exercise of any of the consti-
tutiOnal powers OF the United States
In this case consent of the state of
Maryland was clearly given to the pur-
chase of the land. and. if the land was ac-
CURED for 'needful' purpose. as thus
contemplated by article l. section s of the
Constitution. il seems clear that the mower
OF legislation over such land vested in the
Congress as soon as II was acquired with
such consent. In the language of the Su-
preme Court tFort Leavenworth Railroad
Company w. Lowe. IFS L. S. DID, go 533,.
When the title is acquired by purchase
by consent Of the legislatures Of the states
the federal Jurisdiction is exclusive of all