Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-06-20
COUNTY PERMITTED
TO CONDEMN LAND
Legal Opinion Given by At
torneys on Rockville
Courthouse.
nv WILLIAM J.. wHEATLEY,

ROCKVILLE, Md, June Coon
struction Of the proposed new court
house here on a combined site composed
of the present square occupied by the
building and the square west OF the
buiiding which is being sought. may be
carried forward by the county COM
n, ,SSioncrs. as an examination OF the
several acts dealing with the matter in
dicates that it can be legally dope, ac-
corcins to en- opinion by Cissel 4, Wood
ward. counsel for the commissioners.
which has been delivered to the board.
The outstanding point in the opinion
is the statement that the commissioners
may acquire the square west OF the
courthouse by condemna ton proceed
ings. authorized under the acts of 1927,
which provided the original fund for
the construction of the court building
and for the jail.
MAY Use Emergency Funds.
The attorneys also say that the
100000 emergency funds may be used
for the acquisition of land. but that 1t
would have to be refunded at the next
session of the Legislature, by providing
a new bond issue.
The board also is informed that 1t
is required to widen Commerce street
for an additional Is feet and thus &C
SQUARE west of the courthouse.
The bond issue which authorizes 500
600 for the purchase of an aSdlticna!
strip OF land west of the courthouse
can be used only for the purchase OF
this strip But counsel say in then
opinion this money cannot be used Tor
the purchase OF this land. ii it would
close Court street. since. they say, the
purpose OF acquiring the land Is for the
relocation Of Court street. However,
in the last part of their opinion, the
attorney informed the board If it de-
cideS TO make the two squares unit,
While the county commissioners have no
authority to close Court street, steps
could be taken by the mayor and
council Of this town to close 1t under
the charter powers.
Start on Project Legal.
1t would appear from a reading of
the opinion, therefore. that the board
of commissioners may go ahead with the
project, even to the extent of condemn
ing the land in the square west of the
courthouse, under the provisions of the
original act
Counsel point out that in eonsid-
eTing the inquiry OF the commissioners
they have necessarily been obliged TO
bear in mind the various proposals and
projects which have been advocated for
the proposed improvement. 1t is pointed
out that the proceeds of the $4,000
bond issue for the construction of a Jail
does not require the commissioners to
make it separate structure, but it
may be included in the courthouse
In discussing the authority of the
commissioners, counsel has divided the
question into three plans. Plan No.
Is. for the construction of a modern
courthouse and jail with funds made
1Nr~ lal.l for fhnt
TRACT OF land now known as the Court
house Square. Under this, counsel says,
the board has power TO remodel, recon
Struct the present building" or tear
down the same and build a new building
for the courthouse and jail, for which.
they say, $3.50, COG is available, including
the original bond issues of $3.50 900 Tor
the courthouse and $4,000 for the jail
authorized in 1927 and the $3.50, 900
authorized at the last Legislature. as
well as the s2OG,000 emergency funds.
Plan No. Stressed.
Plan No. 2 is to construct a court
house and jail upon tract of land
consisting of the same tract as mem
toned above. with such additional land
as might be acquired under the act of
1929 authorizing the relocation of Court
street. The board can acquire this strip
either by purchase or condemnation,
but for the strip cannot eXpend more
than $4,000. Under this plan, in the
opinion of counsel. the commissioners
could expend all of the funds men
toned under plan No. l, less the 100000
for the strip.
Plan No is to construct a court
house and jail upon a tract Of land
consisting of the tract mentioned in
plan No l and the additional land
contained in the square Immediately
- l. = H. f..s.,. l.
closing of Court street. Under this
plan several of the proposed acts must
be dealt with. One of these, passed
at the last legislature, in addition TO
other authorizations, allows $4,000 for
the widening of Commerce street. Coun-
sci say that, in any event, this widen
ing must be done, as the act directs
the commissioners to do II, but in
widening the street they would neces-
sarily acquire portion of the land IN
the west square,
Internationally" says the opinion.
"a portion of the land can be acquired
under the provisions of chapter 384 Of
the acts the jail statute, since there
is 20 limitation whatever save that the
jail be located in the town of Rock
Vile, respecting the location. Chapter
No, $40, the emergency certificate act
would, In our opinion, provide funds
for the acquisition of this land, provided
that the commissioners determine that
such an emergency existed as would
meet the requirements of the statute,
which cites that the commissioners
might borrow not to exceed $500, 900.
However, in the opinion Of the major
ity OF the board of county commits
sioners OF Montgomery County, it shall
be necessary for the protection of the
health, morals, safety and welfare of
the county
Commissions Judgment Final.
THE judgment of the county commits
Eioners as expressed by ordinance would
appear to us to be ANAL as to the ex-
1stence Of the necessity for the issuance
OF these certificates, provided that there
was no abuse OF the authority conferred
by that act, and the degree of emer-
gency declared by the commissioners to
exist would not be subject to a review
by the courts"
Counsel points out that the original
courthouse act has occupied the pfinCi-
pal part Of their attention, and say that
there are two questions involved. The
first of these is whether or not under
the provisions of that act they might
expend money upon any land other
than that limited under plan No. 2. The
second is. whether or not under its
provisions the commissioners have pow
er TO acquire land for the purpose OF
constructing the courthouse building,
Continuing on this point, the opinion
SAYS: The first question Is definitely
tied up with the construction TO be
given the words in section 4. subsection
Of the act, TO wit: ON its present site
II would be difrcult for us 10 predict
what construction the court would place
upon the words present site since we
have been unable to find in this State
any decision wherein a similar case has
been decided or wherein these words or
similar words have been construed. We
In holipye after