Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1922-03-15
BRIDGE INJUNCTION DENIED
JUSTICE DEASY REVIEWS SITUATION AT
SOME LENGTH
Court not Concerned with Expediency, Wisdom
or Popularity of Work--Legalty of
Proceedings so far Upheld

Justice L. B. Deasy of the Maine
supreme court has rendered decis-
ion upon the request of certain tax
payers of Hancock county that a
temporary injunction be issued to
prevent the construction of the pro-
posed bridge between Hancock and
Sullivan. Justice Deasy denies the
injunction. The decision follows:
Crabtree ct ais. VS.. Aver ct ais,
bridge case.
Deasy, j. With the expediency
wisdom or popularity of the pro-
posed public work the Court is not
concerned. These are matters
solely for the legislative branch OF
the government. The only questions
to be considered are whether the act
of the legislature violates the consti-
tuition, and whether the proceedings
of the board are, or are not, in &C
cordance with the act. If the legis.
lative enactment is unconstitutional
or if the board in any vital matter
has failed to follow it's require
ments, an injunction should issue;
otherwise not.
BY chapter 100 Of the special laws
of 1921, the legislature incorporated
the Hancock Sullivan bridge district.
BY this act it has declared that the
district should be entitled to the
benefits of the provisions of the gen.
eral law relating to bridges, public
laws of 1915, chapter 319, and
amendments. A bridge board was
created, consisting of ten trustees
elected by the towns composing the
! n icfr int ho Mt @
and the highway commissioners,
each subordinate board having one
vote. The bridge board was given
the right and charged with the duty
! of determining whether public con-
venience and necessity require the
bridge, and in the event of an af-
! firmative decision, to approve plans.
| Thereupon the bridge is to be built
and paid for, 20 per cent. by the
district, 80 per cent. by the county
and SO per cent. by the State. The
board has decided the bridge to be
necessary.
The petitioners are admittedly tax
payers Of the county and district and
interested as such.
1t is contended that the act of the
bridge board in determining that
public convenience and necessity re-
quire the building of the proposed
bridge is void for the reason that no
public notice was given Of the meet
ing held for the purpose.
| 1t is admitted that notice was
given, to all members of the bridge
board. This is the only notice re-
quired by the express terms of the
act.
The legislative enactment pro-
vides that the State highway COM
mission shall appoint times and
places for meetings of. said board
and give such reasonable notice
thereof as they shall see fit. This
requires some notice, but it does not
contemplate public notice.
If public notice had been intended
it would seem that the board (not
the highway commissioners would
have been charged with the duty Of
giving it. If the legislature had con-
templated public notice it could have
easily, and would have undoubtedly
provided for "such reasonable pub
lie notice thereof as they shall see
fit"
But it is claimed that without APP
parent legislative intendment the
word public" should be read into
the act This may be true when
necessary to save legislative act
from vitiation by reason of uncOn-
stitutionality. In this case it is l
think not necessary for reasons here
matter set forth.
The other points relied upon by
the petitioners relate to the constitu
tionality of the act. I might with
propriety refuse to grant an in
junction upon the ground that sin
gle Judge upon a petition for tenn
porary injunction in advance of any
pronouncement by the full court
should decline to pass upon the con-
stitutionality of statute.
The presumption Of constitution
atty to which acts of the legislature
are entitled, has due weight in the
deliberations of the law court and is
generally treated as controlling in
preliminary hearings.
Deering VS.. R. R. Co., 81 Me. 172;
Lemaire. VS.. Crockett 116 Me. 264.
However counsel having argued
the case fully and presented briefs of
authorities upon the constitutional
problems involved, I shall consider
those questions rather than to rem
der merely pro forma decision.
No question is raised that the
legislature could have authorized
the building of the bridge wholly at
the expense of the State. 1t must
! also be agreed that the legislature
may create taxing districts and make
the cost of any public work wholly
or in part charge upon the same
provided that the district receive
special benefit from such public
work.
This doctrine (recognized in all
| jurisdictions) is established in
Maine in the case of the Foresty
district (109 Me. 476). The Rum
ford & Mexico Bridge District CHS
Me. 1870 and.the Portland Pier Site
district (112 Atlantic 839). Numer-
GUS cases might be mentioned upon
which the Court has not been called
upon to pass. Indeed every town is