State ex rel. Edwards v. Hall

Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. This suit was brought on a bond to the State, executed on the 12th of May 1860, by William Hall, with the other appellees as sureties, by which he became bound to appropriate, as directed by law all moneys he should receive as Superintendent of that part of the United States’ Road lying within the limits of the State of Maryland — the appeal having been taken from a judgment overruling a demurrer to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th pleas of the appellees. The disposition of the case depends on the construction of the Act of 1881, ch. 85, and the subsequent Congressional Act of 1832, ch. 153. It was conceded on both sides that these Acts constitute a compact between the State of Maryland and the United States, the object and purpose of which was to transfer to the care of this State, that portion of the National Road within its limits, on the undertaking of the State to preserve and keep the same in proper repair.

The appellees, however, go further and insist, as in effect they have pleaded, that the special agencies and means proposed in the Act of 1831, for keeping the road in repair, are subject-matters of the compact, and therefore not within the power of either party to modify or change them without the consent of the other. On this ground, they assumed that the Act of 1852, ch. 129, which directs the payment of the sum of money sought to be recovered in this case, operates as an infraction of the ³³³ compact; and the demurrer to their first plea, held to be sufficient by the Court below, raises the question as to the constitutionality of that Act. Other subordinate questions are presented by the several pleas which we shall notice in their order. The rule proper to be observed in construing the Legislative and Congressional Acts of 1831 and 1832 for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and extent of the compact entered into, was very clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court in Seawright vs. Stokes, How., 151, and Neil, Moore & Co. vs. State of Ohio, Id., 120.

In delivering the opinion of the Court in the first of these cases, the late Chief Justice said, that in interpreting such a contract as that presented by these Acts: “The character of the parties, the relations in which they stand to each other, and the objects they evidently had in view must all be considered;” that “the true meaning and intention” of the parties would hardly be carried out if the contract were “treated as one between individuals bargaining with each other, with adverse interests,” and subject to the “same strict and technical rules of construction as were appropriate to cases of that description.” Here, as there, the United States and a State were the contracting parties, neither interested adversely to the other, and both moving with the common purpose of advancing and subserving the general interest and convenience of the public. Looking, then to the question before us, from the stand-point prescribed by these considerations, and taking the rule above stated for our guide, there is scarcely room to doubt that the whole matter contemplated by Congress and the Legislature in the passage of these Acts as the subject of compact, was the preservation and repair of that part of the National Road within the limits of this State, by imposing tolls sufficient for that purpose, reserving the privilege of free transportation for the mails and property of the United ³³⁴ States. This was the substantial end proposed by the Act of 1831, and in view of the general public interest represented by Congress, it is reasonable to suppose that it was assented to for the purpose of realizing that result, without intending to restrict the State to the special agencies provided by the Act for securing it; and more especially would this appear to be the true relation of the high contracting parties, when we come to consider that a literal compliance with the terms of the Act might not effect, or would operate to defeat the purpose intended. The proper care and repair of the road by the imposition of tolls was the end to be obtained, and in view of that purpose, it would seem scarcely possible to maintain, successfully, that the Superintendent could contract no debt for repairs on the credit of future tolls, because he was not specially authorized by the terms of the Act todo so.

Suppose on that construction of his powers, that upon the exhaustion of the tolls in hand