1856.] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES.           545

of them are situated as they allege, there can be no doubt, and as
they are willing to make this road without any aid from any source
except that given by the act, they ask for seems reasonable and.
proper. It also appears that every person through whose land this
road passer, has signed the memorial praying for the passage of
this law with the exception of Mr. Lloyd Rogers. That it further
appears from the evidence and statements made before the com-
mittee, that Mr. Rogers land fronts upon Newington Avenue, which
gives him lull and perfect access to the city of Baltimore, and that
his said lands extends from the Reistertown Rail Road upon the
one side, to the Falls Turnpike, or nearly, upon the other. That
these petitioners reside in the section of country immediately in
the rear of Mr. Rogers' land, and that they cannot make the road
asked for by them without passing through some portion of
his land. Whilst therefore, Mr. Rogers enjoys all the privileges
of access to the city, he objects to the petitioners encroaching
upon his soil at any point, and thereby deprives them of the priv-
ileges for which they are now petitioning. The undersigned,
whilst they are unwilling to inflict any injury upon the property
of Mr. Rogers, which it unavoidable, think that no one person, or
the rights nor views of no one person, should be protected by the
Legislature to the detriment of a considerable portion of a com-
munity. It is also a fact, that in the taking of his property he has
ample redress under the Constitution of the State, which pro-
vides, that private property shall not be taken for public use,
without full indemnity to the owner. It is alleged that these pe-
titioners have access to the Reistertown Turnpike Road, which
they ought to use in passing and repassing to and from the city
of Baltimore.

The undersigned cannot concur in this view, as that would
constitute the road a monopoly, which is directly in conflict with
the language of the Constitution, which declares in the 39th Ar-
ticle of the Bill of Rights, "That monopolies are odious, contrary
to the spirit of a tree government and the principles of commerce
and ought not to be suffered" Such is the view taken by the'
petitioners, and in this view we concur.

There are many other reasons which have great weight with
the undersigned (who have looked to the number and respecta-
bility of those petitioners as entitled to due consideration from
them,) but think the facts above stated are sufficient to justify
them in recommending to the Legislature a favorable considera-
tion of their petition. We therefore recommend the passage of
the bill before us.

                 E. A. ABBOTT.

Mr. Stubbs called for the previous question.
On motion of Mr. Brown,