Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1920-03-11
Court Rules In Favor OF
Traction Engines.


The question of whether or not traction
engines can or cannot be taken over the
good roads of Maryland was decided by
Thief Judge Thomas of the Carroll Coun-
ty Court at Westminster. on Monday OF
this week.
The case in question was that OF Ar
thur l. Stevenson VS.. E. Austin baugh-
man. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.
1t involves the right of the thresher-
men TO use the State roads with their
traction engines. which right was denied
by the Motor Commissioner. unless the
wheels Of the engines were equipped with
bands or some device that would render
them smooth.
Chief Judge Thomas held that the pol
lev of the State was to encourage agri-
culture and that the law upon which the
Motor Commissioner attempts to base
his action did not authorize the restric-
ton. After disposing of the question OF
the character of cleats on engines and
the damage to roads. Judge Thomas said:
"Those engaged in the threshing bust
ness and the farmers they serve repre-
sent some of the best citizens of our State,
than whom no one could be more con-
cerned or interested in the preservation
o of good roads, which have now become
public necessity On the other hand. the
State officials charged with responsible
duty Of constructing and maintaining the
public highways can have no other inter-
est IN the matter than a desire to protect
them from unnecessary injury and there
would seem to be no reason why. with
cooperation, satisfactory solution OF
the difference may not be found.
Evidence was produced blythe plain
tiff and by the defendant as to the amount
of injury to the road caused by the en-
CINE. Upon all the evidence it is at least
doubtful whether the injury described by
some Of the witnesses could have been
caused wholly by the plaintiffs engine,
but in the view the court takes of this
case that question is not involved or now
before it.
"Ctsp n IS, of the acts of 1873 vests
the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles with
certain discretion in the revocation OF
registration and markers, which discre-
ton he has the authority to exercise, but
what the court decided in passing on the
demurrer to the bill was that the statute
recognized the right of persons engaged
in the thrcshing business to op crate their
traction engines, over the State roads
and under the statements of facts alleg-
ed in the bill. The discretion vested in
the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles by
the statute did not include the authority
to revokr plaintiffs certificate of regis
tration and markers solely because the
wheels of his engine had cleats on them
or the tires were not smooth.
when the act of 1918, which recog-
nized the right of persons engaged in the
threshag business to operate their trac-
ton engi es over the State roads was
passed, the Legislature must have known
that the traction engines had cleats on
their wheels and must also have known
that they would not be operated over the
State roads without causing some injury
to them.
1.-THE court must not, however, be un
derstood as meaning to restrict the dis
erection I'd power of the Commissioner
of Motor Vehicles beyond the limit here
in expressly stated The Legislature has
conferred upon him broad powers and
discretion deemed necessary for the pres
ervatinn of the public highways of the
Ctatn md tho fatu of thosa nainp than
and the courts have no power to either
qualify or enlarge them. There might
be traction engines or other motor vehic
les or ci"ats on them of such unusual,
extraordinary or peculiar construction or
their condition might be such as to cause
unreasonable damage to and warrant
their exclusion from the public highways,
and courts of equity would have no pow
err to control or restrain the auth ority of
the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in
regard to them.
The conclusion of this court is the
persons engaged in the business that the
plaintiff is engaged in have the right in
the conduct of such business to operate
their engines over the State roads and
that certyfi.ates of registration and mark
ers for their engines 80 used can not be
revoked simply and solely because the
engines have cleats ON their wheels. The
injunction heretofore granted must be
continued