Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-05-14
STATE HOUSE
municipalities Must Have
Authority to Build Roads
Railroad Matters Program for
MI. Desert Teachers Convention
Man Fined $40 and Costs for H.
legal Possession Of a Deer
STATE HOUSE CALENDAR.
Regular Meeting of Governor and
Council viii Be Held at 10 A. M.
Wednesday, May 27.

Il must, therefore, advise the COM
mission that wherever towns are to
make q contract for the construction
of State highways or State aid high
ways within their limits, the town
when it appropriates money there
for, if it intends to bid on the work
or if it is willing to do 1t in case the
Highway Commission so determine,
should also pass a vote authorizing
it's selectmen or road commissioner
or some other officer to enter into
such contract in behalf of the town."
said Attorney General Scott Wilson
of Portland in a decision rendered
Wednesday at the request of Paul D.
Sargent, chief engineer of the State
Highway Commission.
The decision of Attorney General
Wilson is as follows:
In relation to the making of a con-
tract with the town of Eden for the
building of the State highway, or
State aid highway, whichever it may
be in that town, as | understand the
question, it is whether the selectmen,
or the road commissioners, which
Eden now elects under Chapter 3S9
of the Private and Special Laws of
1905 have authority to make con-
tract in behalf of the town.
This involves the consideration of
the question of what officers, if any,
have authority to bind the town in
respect to contracts for the repair and
construction of highways, and wheth-
er they can make a contract for the
town without being authorized by spe-
cial vote of the town.
THE authority of the town to en-
ter into a contract of this nature is
contained in Section II of Chapter 100
of the laws of 1913, but it is not pro-
vided therein what officers have au-
thority to act in behalf of the town
in this respect. Query then: Have
the selectmen such authority without
being authorized by the vote of the
town? l think not.
while the limits of the powers of
the selectmen are not very clearly de-
fined in the statutes, and as the Court
says in Bryant VS.. Westbrook, sc
Maine 454: Many of their acts in be-
half of the town and which are rec
ognized as appropriately within the
sphere of their duty have their orr
gin in long continued usage-They are
not clothed with the general power
nor are they a general agent of the
municipality for which they act The
same language is used by the court
in the case of Smith VS.. Inha bitants
of Cheshire. 13 Gray 31s
I'm Clark VS. Russell, 116 Mass, ASS,
the court in defining the powers and
duties of selectmen in respect to their
authority to enter into contracts to
keep highways and bridges in repair,
says: The powers and duties of Sc
lectmen are not distinctly defined by
statute-The extent of this authority
may indeed depend largely upon long
continued use and custom. 1t is not
necessary to define carefully its linn
its or to say that in case when no
other provision is made that the Sc
lectmen in temporary emergency
may not employ labor in the repair
of highways in order to secure the
safety of the public and the protec-
ton of the town from liability. 1t
is enough that, without express au-
thority, they cannot make contracts
like these
From the discussion in Bryant VS..
Westbrook, above cited and its cita-
ton of the Massachusetts cases. par
ticularly the case of Clark VS.. Rus
sell, and from an examination of
Chapter % of the Revised Statutes
and the authority given to selectmen
therein, it would appear to me that
the selectmen of the town have no
authority 10 bind it in a contract with
the State for the construction of
highways. 1t may be well to note
at this point that the contract in cues
ton is not one that has been open
to a town until 1907 so there can be
no long continued usage with refer
ence to it, and further it is a con-
tract of different nature from that
ordinarily entered into by road COM
missioners or other town officials in
the repair and construction of ways.
we then come to the question,
is there any authority vested in the
road commissioners of a town under
the present law that would authorize
them without express vote of the
town to enter into such contracts. We
are obliged to answer this query al
so in the negative. In our opinion a
special vote on the part of the town
will be necessary in order for con-
tract of this nature to be made as
there are no town officials with au-
thority under the statutes broad en-
ough to bind the town in contract
of this kind
Under Sections u and 70 of Chap
ter 20 of the Revised Statutes, the
road commissioners under the direc-
ton of the selectmen have authority
to employ the necessary men and
teams and to purchase the materials
for the repair of highways
Under Section 70 towns may direct
whether the money raised for ways
and bridges shall be expended by the
road commissioners or selectmen, and
under Section rs towns may authorize
their road commissioners or other per-
sons to make contracts for opening
or repairing their ways.
From these provisions and from an
examination of the authorities con-
tanned in Field VS.. Towle, "a Maine 405.
ingalls, VS.. Auburn, 81 Maine 352:
Getchell VS.. Wells, IS Maine A.; Tufts
VS.. Lexington, ~ Maine SIG; Wiley
VS.. Windham, 95 Maine 4S2, l am of
the opinion as above stated that the