lature make a report to the general assembly
and recommend such legislation as they shall
deem necessary and requisite to promote or
protect the interests of the State in the pub-
lic works, and perform such other duties as
may be hereafter prescribed by law; the gov-
ernor, comptroller of the treasury and trea-
surer shall receive no additional salary for
the services rendered as members of the board
of public works."
In the printed report, in the phrase—"it
shall be the duty of the said board of public
works to review from time to time the rate
of tolls" &c.—the word "review''was printed
"receive."
Mr, STOCKBRIDGE. The sentence—"it
shall be the duty of the said board of pub-
lic works to receive, from time to time the
rate of tolls," &c., appears to be a little
vague, or rather to confer a duty upon the
board without any authority to enforce or
carry out that duty.
Mr. HEBB, It is misprinted in the printed
report; it should read "-receive" instead of
" review."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Well, I will submit
the amendment I have written. I move lo
strike out these words—" it shall be the
duty of the said board of public works to
receive from time to time the rate of tolls
adopted by any company,"and insert in
lieu thereof the following: "said board of
public works shall require the directors of all
said public works, from time to time, and as
often as there shall be any change in the
rates of toll on any of paid works, to furnish
to said board a schedule of such modified
rates of toll and shall."
I probably should not have offered this
amendment, if the report had been printed
correctly.
Mr. SCHLEY. The commissioners of public
works have the power now to require that
the rates of toll shall be submitited to their
inspection.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. It is implied, I know,
in the section as corrected.
The question was taken upon Mr. STOCK-
BRIDGE'S amendment, and, upon adivision—
ayes 29, noes 21—it was adopted.
Mr. MILLER. I would ask whether those
officers who are to constitute this board are
in all cases required, by this section, to act
unanimously upon any matter that is before
them? We know that in the history of these
boards of public works, there has been hith-
erto a disagreement, and provision has been
made to call in an umpire; the treasurer is
made an umpire to decide matters in dispute.
As this section now reads, I should suppose
it would require unanimous action on the
part of these officers before they could reach
any conclusion. I would ask if that is the
intention of the committee. If not, I would
suggest that it would be better to insert the |
words. "or any two of them," after naming
the officers.
Mr. PURNELL. In the absence of the chair-
man of the committee (Mr. Clarke, of Prince
George's,) l will say that I was not aware
that this matter was discussed at all in this
committee. I presume it would be the neces-
sary construction of this section from its
phraseology that the majority of the officers
should decide all questions before them. The
mutter was not discussed, nor was any action,
so far as I recollect, taken upon the matter
before the committee.
Mr. DAVIS, of Washington. My impres-
sion is that it was the understanding of the
committee that the majority of this board
should control.
Mr. PURNELL, I have no objection to the
amendment suggested by the gentleman
from Anne Arundel (Mr, Miller.)
Mr. SCHLEY. I would say that the opera-
tion of this section, is to constitute a board
by the appointment of the governor, the
comptroller and the treasurer. The present
commissioners of public works do not consti-
tute a board in the legal acceptation of the
term. At least that opinion is held by prom-
inent lawyers in the State, as I know to be
the fact. This report has made a wise altera-
tion in that respect; it has constituted these
officers a board of public works in express
terms. Being a board, there is no doubt in
my mind that a majority is competent to act.
Under the old rule it was only supposed that
commissioners of public works were compe-
tent to act because they were actually a ma-
jority; although a case once occurred, in
which the action of two of them was held
to be valid, as being a majority of three.
it was held good, however, only by the rati-
fication of the directors of the Baltimore and
Ohio railroad company; but was never put
to legal test and adjudication. But as a
board, the same counsel to which I have re-
ferred, once advised me that a majority of
that board was competent to act.
Mr.MILLER. I know there has been some
difficulty, and some legal opinions have been
given upon the constitution of the old board
of public works. Therefore it was for the
purpose of making this explicit that I sug-
gested this amendment to the committee. I
suppose the gentleman from Frederick (Mr.
Schley) is perfectly well aware that if a deed
is executed in which two parties are named
and they are required to do any act, the
act of one of them is not held valid; or
when three parties are appointed as trustees
and required to do any act, the act of two of
them would not be valid; there must be the
concurrent act of the three before the title
could pass under such a deed as that. Now,
if they were constituted a corporation under
the law of corporations, the difficulty might
be got over. And even in such cases, in
charters of bank?, or works of internal |
