Blais v. Franklin

• Decision Date: 12 July 1910
• Citation: Blais v. Franklin, 31 R.I. 95, 77 A. 172 (R.I. 1910)
• Parties: BLAIS et al. v. FRANKLIN et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

77 A. 172

31 R.I. 95

BLAIS et al.

v. FRANKLIN et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 12, 1910.

Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Willard B. Tanner, Judge.

Suit by Joseph D. Blais and another, against Robert S. Franklin and others.Certified from the Superior Court of Providence and Bristol for the determination of certain constitutional questions.Cause remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

See, also, 30 R. I. 413, 75 Atl. 399.

John N. Butman and Waterman, Curran & Hunt, for complainants.

Bassett & Raymond, Irving Champlin, and James Harris, for respondent commissioners.

Barney & Lee, for respondentFrederick E. Shaw.

DUBOIS, C. J.This is a proceeding in equity wherein the complainants in the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth paragraphs of their bill of complaint raised certain constitutional questions which were certified to this court by the superior court.The respondents moved that the questions, so raised and certified, be returned to the superior court.But after due consideration the motion was denied by this court for the reasons set forth in the opinion rendered in Blais v. Franklin, 30 R. I. 413, 75 Atl. 399.The case was so fully stated in said opinion as to render unnecessary a restatement thereof at this time.We will therefore only set out the three paragraphs of the bill hereinbefore referred to, which read as follows:

"Twenty-third.That in and by said act, viz., chapter 499 of the Public Laws passed at the January session of the General Assembly, A.D. 1909, hereinbefore mentioned, there is no provision limiting the cost of the construction of said new bridge and said footbridge and the removal of said old bridge, and there is no provision specifying the kind and style of bridge for which the commissioners were to adopt plans or the load it shall be capable of carrying or the traffic it shall accommodate, and if said act should be construed to authorize said commissioners to construct and to make a contract for the construction of said new bridge and said footbridge and to remove said old bridge, inasmuch as it does not limit the cost and make the foregoing provisions, and therefore gives the commissioners the right to fix the cost and the kind and size and style, it is a delegation by the General Assembly of a discretion which should have been exercised by the General Assembly and is not properly an administrative discretion, but is a substantive matter of legislative discretion that the General Assembly cannot delegate, and hence said act should be declared unconstitutional and repugnant to and in violation of article 4, § 2, of the Constitution of Rhode Island, and hence is null and void and should be so declared, and said contract should be declared null and void, and said Frederick E. Shaw should be enjoined both temporarily and permanently from proceeding under said contract and from building said new bridge and otherwise acting under said contract.

"Twenty-fourth.Said commission has executed a purported contract with said Frederick E. Shaw to construct said new bridge for $72,856.This does not cover the entire cost of constructing said bridge, but only the cost of constructing that part of said bridge that is described in said plans and specifications.Nor does it cover the land that must be purchased nor the cost of raising or lowering the grade of the highways leading thereto, nor the damages to owners abutting upon the highways upon either side of said bridge, nor the damages to riparian owners on account of the obstruction of the flow of water by said bridge and the construction thereof nor the expenses, fees, and costs of said commission, its engineers and the numerous attorneys and agents employed by it.Furthermore the commissioners cannot give to the said Frederick E. Shaw the land upon which to build said bridge, as it does not belong to them or to the state of Rhode Island or to either the cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls, and hence the said Frederick E. Shaw, if said contract is a valid contract, will be entitled to make an extra charge for the delay and loss to which he has been put by the said commissioners, and if he constructs said bridge in part upon private land, as required by said contract and said plans and specifications, the portion of the bridge so constructed upon private land will belong to the respective owners of said land, and, if the said commissioners or the state of Rhode Island or either of the cities of Pawtucket or Central Falls should later acquire such land by eminent domain or otherwise, that portion of said bridge upon such land would have to be paid for to the respective owners of such land.In the said contract made by said commissioners and said Frederick E. Shaw it is provided that all work to be done under said contract shall be fully completed and performed on the part of said Frederick E. Shaw within 100 working days after the date fixed in a certain notice in writing, provided that the time lost by stormy weather shall be added, and your orators are informed and believe, and therefore aver upon information and belief, that on the 31st day of December, 1909, said notice had not been given and said date had not been fixed, and whether said notice has since been given and said date fixed your orators have no knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge.Under said chapter 499 the cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls have to alter the grades of their highways at their own expense, the expense of the construction of said bridge has to be paid by said city of Pawtucket in the first instance, and later said expense and the cost and expenses of said commission is divided between said cities of Central Falls and Pawtucket in the manner prescribed in said act Such amount your orators are informed and believe, and therefore aver upon information and belief, will exceed $125,000.The express consent of the people of Rhode Island has not, nor has the express consent of the people of Pawtucket and Central Falls, been obtained to the incurrence of such indebtedness.So far as said chapter 499 as claimed by said commissioners authorizes said commissioners to proceed with and to make said contract for the construction of said new bridge, said chapter 499 is unconstitutional and is repugnant to and in violation of article 4, § 13, of the Constitution of Rhode Island, and said contract is null and void, and, if said chapter does not so authorize said commissioners, then said contract is null and void, and in either case said Frederick E. Shaw should be enjoined from proceeding under and from building said bridge and otherwise acting under said contract.

"Twenty-fifth.Said chapter 499 provides that the said commissioners shall make plans for the raising or lowering of the grade of the highways leading to said new bridge, if in the opinion of said commission such change is desirable, in which case said cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls shall alter the grade of their highways to correspond with the grade of such new bridge without any limit as to the cost of such change.It further provides that in case the owner of any land abutting upon the highways on either side of said new bridge shall claim that such land has been damaged by any of the work provided herein to be done and takes certain steps, he shall be awarded his damages, and they shall be forthwith paid without stating by whom.It further provides that the expense of all said work of construction shall be paid by the city of Pawtucket in the first instance, and that, when the bridge shall be completed and the full cost of the construction shall have been ascertained, said city of Pawtucket shall file a full and detailed statement of said expenditure, including the cost and expenses of said commission and the amount of interest due to the city of Pawtucket for money advanced under said act in the office of the city clerk in both the city of Pawtucket and the city of Central Falls, and after notice and hearing the city of Pawtucket shall name the total amount expended by it under this act, including the costs and expenses of tills commission and the interest due the said city on amounts paid, which each of said cities shall pay, and the proportion of the same each shall pay.Neither city is given any hearing as to the expense of the work or its kind, size, or style; but they have to defray the expense.The city of Pawtucket determines how the total expense, including the cost and expenses of said commission, shall be divided between the two cities, and each city pays said total expense, and then its share of the total expense as determined by said city of Pawtucket, although the city of Pawtucket has already paid the full expense.The cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls are merely given a hearing upon the apportionment of such expense between them.Some of the provisions of said act are impossible, others incoherent and unintelligible, and others are inadequate to accomplish its purpose.For the above reasons and the other reasons appearing in this bill of complaint, said chapter 499 is unconstitutional, and especially is repugnant to and in violation of section 1, art. 14, of the Constitution of the United States, and section 10, art. 1, of the Constitution of Rhode Island, and hence the said contract purporting to be made thereunder should be cancelled and annulled and declared null and void, and the said Frederick E. Shaw should be enjoined both temporarily and permanently from proceeding under and from building said bridge under said contract."

We are of the opinion that three constitutional questions are thereby raised:

(1) Do the provisions of Pub. Laws, c. 499, passed May 7, 1909, delegate legislative power to the North Main Street Bridge commission?

(2) Does said chapter 499 create a state debt in excess of $50,000 without the consent of the people?

(3) Does chapter 499 aforesaid authorize the taking...