Evening star., 1907-11-13
CONDUIT ROAD CASE
Hearing Commenced Before
Rockville Court Yesterday.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
How Far Does Government Author
ity Go Over the Strip?
RIGHTS OF GLEN ECHO's MAYOR
Extended Arguments. on Both Sides
and the Case Finally Taken
Under Amusement
RIGHTS OF GLEN ECHO'S MAYOR


Under Amusement.
ROCKVILLE. Md Norea,hn- Is
Counsel representing the state of Ma-v-
land. tho United States government and
the automobi'ists who have been furnish
ing Glen Echo with revenue collected by
the mayor Of that Town through The ac-
tive town marshal appeared vest ,rday be
fore Judge James b Henderson of tho
Montgomery county circuit court to argue
rho now famous Conduit road case
This involves a question OF jurisdic.' -
which arose from the arrests OF members
of foreign legations who speeded their
autos on ;hts stretch OF road and were
hauled before the aggressive mayor ike
any other offender They We're released
when the government intervened. but the
question of ownership has never been set
tied. The Attorney General ~ the | niied
States holds that the United states =
the exclusive owner of the road by Ces-
sion from the state. While the Montgomery
county authorities ins 81 that the state
assented only to the use of The road for
q specific purpose. namely. to construct
a conduit to furnish the capital with
wnter and that the state could exercise
police powers over the road which lay
within its borders
Legal Points Involved.
The question affecting governmental
jurisdiction was argued yesterday bun It
vas not the only point raised. Indeed,
the court may not be called upon to de
eide this. inasmuch as the case before it
rests upon two very different contentious
These are: First, the validity of the pro-
vision In the Glen Echo charter VIII Ch in
vests its mayor with authority to decide
criminal cases, ana. second, whether the
act limiting the speed of automobiles
applies TO the road in question what Is
maintained by the government, the act
of 1906 specifically naming state roads.
The case yesterday came before thS
Montgomery circuit court on an appeal
from a fine imposed upon John 4. Lutz-
Il was alleged that he exceeded the speed
limit and was sentenced by the mayor to
pay a fine of $50. Subsequently he was
again arrested for a similar offense out
side the territorial limits of the town OF
Glen Echo and fined $40 by justice of
the peace Of Montgomery for violating the
state law which limits the speeding Of
automobiles to twelve miles an hour.
By stipulation of counsel all matters Of
fact in these cases We're agreed upon and
only the questions of law involved in the
cases were presented at the hearing.
States Attorney Robert B. Peter Of
Rockville and Edward 3. Briggs of Wash
ington appeared for the state and the
mayor of Glen Echo. Mr.. John c. Rose.
United States district attorney for the
government; Mr.. G.. l.. Baker of Wash
ington for John A. Lutz, and Mr. A. f.
Leckie for the automobilists generally
Mr.. Rose announced before the case was
taken up that he was present to intervene
for the purpose of raising the question of
jurisdiction.
Three Questions to Be Decided.
I,rr
ing the act ceding the Conduit road to
the government, and said three ques-
tlons were to be decided
% Was the Conduit road a thorough
fare within the meaning Of the staoute,
CD Has the state of Maryland the
right to regulate the rate of speed of
vehicles within its borders?
t3D Has the mayor of Glen Echo tha
right to try cases of this character?
He then proceeded to make an elabo-
rate argument on the first proposition,
claiming that the state had never re-
linquished control. of the road. He
maintained that the government could
hold property only as an individual.
subject to such laws as the state might
henact. and maintain absolute possession
only when used for a specific purpose.
Mr.. Peter held that the act ceding the
territory gave the government only
limited jurisdiction, and that the state
could enforce police regulations to safe
guard it's citizens.
He then proceeded to argue that when
the government appropriated money to
macadamiZe the road and specified in
the appropriation bill that this road
was now used as the main road to
Washington" it by implication became
a public highway and dedicated to pub
lie use.
At this point Judge Henderson re-
marked drily: Then. following out
your logic. if the United States barri-
cades this road it can be indicted for
obstructing the highway
An Elaborate Argument.
Everybody smiled. while Mr.. Peter
continued as if there had been no in
terruption. He quoted a number of au-
thorities to sustain his contention with
reference to state jurisdiction.
The court asked a number Of questions
bearing on this proposition, and indi-
Gated a willingness to hear this matter
discussed and authorities given. The
point raised evidently made an impress
sion.
Having disposed of this feature of the
case Mr.. Rose then said he would refer
briefly to the question OF JuTisdiction
which he did not opine required de-
cision as it was not directly involved
Still he would give his views, leaving to
the Judge to decide whether it was an
essential adjunct.
u
care to decide questions not directly at
issue Mayors rush in where Judges fear
to tread
The district attorney then claimed 1t
was essential to have a good supply or
water for the thousands in the govern
nent's employ. II was one of the ne
,essities of the government. No mill
Lary fort could De established without a
water supply. and IN this case the gov
eminent was obliged to draw on this ter
itory. He claimed that the govern
ment had exclusive jurisdiction when it
acquired the land for a purpose, and it
now resolves Itself into the question, Is
not the construction Of the conduit essen
tial to the nations capital?
Mr.. Rose received the earnest attention
If the court, and when ne concluded Mr..
Leckie who was asked by the judge
whether he desired to be heard. said the
ground had been so fully cove. ed by the
district attorney that he believed 1t un-
necessary to add anything.
The states attorney replied briefly TO
the argument bearing on the authority of
the state in the matter.
At the conclusion OF his remarks the
court stated it would take the case un-
der consideration.
1t is the opinion of the lawyers who
heard the arguments that the judge will
confine his decision to the quest ons di-
recty at issue bearing upon that of eX-
c.uSiYe ownership.