The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1910-10-01
MONDAY.


said, was against the County Commits
sioners, as a corporation, charged with
the duty OF building and caring for
roads, and could have properly SO
have been brought prior to the pas
sage of the Act of 1908, which speci-
fes the way in which roads shall be
built, and provides for a joint board
OF seven members, majority OF them
appointeeS OF the Governor. The
county was not responsible for failure
to adopt a proper plan for the roads
construction and incurred no liability
for damage resulting therefrom. The
local Act OF 1908, Chapter 734, author
ICES an issue of 100000 worth of
county bonds to obtain funds for
building roads. 1t then provides for an
Auxiliary Board, not a merely advis-
orv body.
Section 4 OF the Act provides that
hut $4,000 be used annually either by
ites!f or supplemented by funds OBJ
tanned from the State under the Shoe
maker Act The Board is to act and
advise with the County Commissioners
as to the location and character OF the
roads and letting OF contracts, and the
majority OF the two boards. in Joint
session, is to decide upon all matters
, connected with road building Real
| control Of the matter is taken from
the County Commissioners and given
to the newly created body. The peo-
pie could not be held responsible for
damages caused by the acts OF this
body. and, ii there were no decision
bearing upon such cases, it would be
anomalous to hold the people liable
But in the Wilson case, involving a
! claim for damages, caused by car
! rlage colliding with distractions in
a road in Baltimore county, the plain
tiff got verdict but the Court OF Ap-
pealS, in the majority opinion given by
| Judge Schmucker, held that the local
law giving road commissioners con-
troll OF the roads was superior to the
general law and relieved the County
commissioners OF responsibility There
is, it was held, no liability at Common
Law for damages OF the character in
question, and it is inferred only from
the County Commissioners being given
control OF the roads, and so the Court
Of Appeals held that as control had
passed from the Baltimore County
Commissioners their responsibility had
also passed The remedy for damages
was to be sought from the Legislature
and not from the Courts. So long as
| the peoples direct representatives
have control OF the roads their respon-
| Sibility remains; but with the passing
| OF control passes also responsibility
The contract in the case on trial
was made in the name OF the County
| Commissioners, but it was ratified by
majority OF the two Boards in Joint
session, where nothing could be done
without the concurrence OF the Auxili-
| airy Board either under the local law
! OF 1908 or the Shoemaker law The
| findings of the Court OF Appeals in the
| Wilson case fitted the present case.
The only negligence that could be al
legged was the failure to provide a
| drain for the water on the road, but
the plaintiff could not set up his indi-
vidual Inconvenience against the pub
| hes convenience. 1t was very doubt
ful, too, whether the failure to provide
a drain could be held to be negligence.
| 10 lay down such a rule would sub
| Ject taxpayers to staggering outlays.
| moreover, it would have to be shown
that II was common practice to pro-
vide drains in order for their absence
to create liability But no liability of
| the defendants had been shown in the
case on trial.
w. I. Warburton, Esq, said the
prayer involved very important .ques-
ton. If ii were granted. it must fol-
| low that there was no local control of
| roads under the Good Roads policy
or program. The Baltimore county
law expressly took control OF the roads
from the County Commissioners, Civ
ing it to the Road Commissioners, and
the Court OF Appeals very properly
were not liable for Mrs. Wilson's i'll
Juries. The case at bar was different.
! trested upon contract offered in
evidence. There was no evidence that
| the road had been built under the
local Act OF 1908, but there was evil
| dence that it had been constructed un-
der the terms of the Shoemaker law
At any rate, the State had paid part of
the roads cost. Under the act of 1908
discretion as to using the funds it au-
| thorizes or local and State funds joint
ly is left to the County Commissioners
The Auxiliary Board is to advise with
the County Commissioners as to the
roads to be improved, the character
of the work and the letting of con-
| tracts.
Judge Adkins inquired as to what
control the County Commissioners had
of roads built under the Shoemaker
Act. Mr.. Warburont read from the
| Act. Judge Adkins said that the road
was built either under the Shoemaker
Act. the Act OF 1908 or the joint board
had acted ultra wires or beyond its
authority. If built under the Shoe
maker Act, his Honor wished to learn
ii there were any decisions bearing
upon the County Commissioners liza
bility. Mr.. Warburton urged that the
Auxiliary Commission had merely ad-
vsory powers. Statutes OF doubtful