The Republican., 1925-06-25

parte Crossing the Rhine" Washing
tons March," and a tune composed
Tor the occasion by Mr.. Medley Of
Cumberland, which he called "The
Lady We Love Best"
1t was the general impression that
the Act of Congress cedlng the Cum
berland Road TO Maryland and the
Acts of the Maryland Legislature ac-
ceptlng the road, constituted a con-
tract by the State to keep the high
way in repair. Years of neglect had
reduced the fine road to a condition
almost impassable for vehicles. The
people of Allegany were anxious to
have 1t put III repair, and, as the
State owned it, the opinion was that
the State should undertake to do the
work. This the State did do many
years later. At the session Of the
Legislature in 1870 bill was intro
duced appropriating $4,000 for re-
storing the road. Before the bill came
up for action, Mr.. Spates, the senator
of Allegany, offered a resolution ask
ing the Attorney General, Mr.. Isaac
ID. Jones, for his opinion as to the OBJ
legation of the State to keep the Cum
berland road in repair. In his opin-
ion dated February 7, 1870, Mr.. Jones
said:-
81 find that Pennsylvania, in March,
1881, and Maryland, in January, 1892,
passed similar acts relating to the
preservation and repair of that part
OF the Cumberland or United States
Road within the limits of the said
States, respectively. The preamble to
the act of each State recites that the
road was, in many parts, in bad condi-
ton for want of repairs; and the pre-
amble to the Pennsylvania act assigns
as one of the reasons of the act: that
doubts have been entertained wheth-
er the United States have authority
to erect tOll-g&tes on said road, ana
collect toll Both recite that large
proportion of the people of the State
are interested in the road and its
preservation. The provisions of the
two acts are in most particulars SINH
lar, and in many identical. The Mary
land act provides that as soon as C.?-
gress should assent, the road shall
be taken under the care of the State
of Maryland, and that the State
should appoint a Superintendent of
that part of the United States Road
within the limits OF the State of
! Maryland;' authorized the erection
of toll-gates and toll-houses; the ap-
pointment of toll-gatherers; pre-
scribed rates of toll, and provided
that the amount Of toll, after deduct
ing expenses of collection. etc, should
be applied to the repairs and preser-
walton of the road.
at further provided that if there
should be any surplus money arising
tN1l ,f+
all expenses, it should be paid into
the treasury of Maryland, to be de
nominated on the Treasury books,
The United States Road Fund which
fund should be applied solely to the
repair and preservation of the road.
at was further provided that the
act should have no force until Con-
gress should assent to it, and until
the road in Maryland should be put
IN complete repair by an appropria-
ton by Congress to repair the same
and to erect toll-gates and toll-houses.
The State reserved the right to
| change, alter or amend the act so as
to regulate the amount of tolls not
below or above sum necessary to
pay expenses incident to the preser-
walton and repair Of the road, and to
| compensate agents, etc.
Congress, by the Act of July, 1882.
made an appropriation for repairs
and Improvements on the road east
Of the Ohio River and to carry into
effect the provisions of the aforesaid
acts Of Pennsylvania and Maryland,
to which said acts the assent of the
United States was thereby given, TO
remain IN force during the pleasure
of Congress- The acts were directed
90 be printed and appended to the
laws of that session of Congress.
Further appropriations, by Con-
gress, for repairs, were made in 1884
and 1885, conditioned that the States
through which the road passed should
accept the surrender Of the road
within their respective limits, and
that the United States Should not
thereafter be subject to any expense
in relation to the said road etc.
by the first mentioned acts of
Pennsylvania and Maryland, it was
stipulated that 10 tax should be re-
ceived or collected for the passage
of any wagon or carriage laden with
the property of the United States, or
any military stores belonging to the
United States, or to any of the sew
eral States of the Union. A similar
provision was contained in the Ohio
law of 1881, upon the same subject.
In several cases the construction of
the compact thus entered into be-
tween the United States and the said
several States in relation to this
road was drawn in question, and ad-
judicated by the Supreme Court of
the United States. (Searight VS..
Stokes ct al. 3 Howard, ISL; Neil,
Moore G. Co., VS.. the State of Ohio, 3
Howard, 720; Achison VS.. Huddleson,
II Howard, 293).
"The result of the decision was,
first: That the United States, by the
compact, was exempt from any ex-
pense, directly or indirectly, in main
tanning the road.
Secondly. That the States accept
ing the surrender of the road within
their respective limits, proposed to
take the road and keep it in repair
from the tolls collected upon it, ex-
empting the United States mail
coaches and other property of the
Government from any toll.
"Thirdly. That by the terms of
the compact the States were to regu-
late the tolls, from time to time,
solely with reference to raising
revenue sufficient to pay expenses and
keep the road in repair.
IN Searight VS., Stokes, the Su-