In re Opinion of the Justices

• Citation: 127 N.E. 635,234 Mass. 612
• Parties: In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
• Decision Date: 03 June 1920
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

234 Mass. 612

127 N.E. 635

In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

June 3, 1920.

Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court relative to the constitutionality of Senate No. 534, entitled ‘An act to provide for an equitable distribution of the cost of a bridge across the Connecticut river between Springfield and West Springfield.’ Questions propounded answered partly in the negative and partly in the affirmative.

See, also, 125 N. E. 849.

The order of the Senate requiring the opinion of the Justices on the constitutionality of the act, and the act itself, follow:

Whereas, there is pending in the Senate a bill entitled ‘An act to provide for the equitable distribution of the cost of a bridge across the Connecticut river between Springfield and West Springfield,’ known as Senate Bill No. 534; and

Whereas, grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of said bill, if enacted into law: therefore be it

Ordered, That the Senate require the opinion of the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court upon the following important questions of law:

1. Would the enactment of said bill violate the constitutional rights of any person?

2. Would such enactment violate any constitutional right of any political subdivision of the commonwealth affected thereby?

3. Would the said bill, if enacted into law, be constitutional?

Henry D. Coolidge, Clerk.

An act to provide for an equitable distribution of the cost of a bridge across the Connecticut river between Springfield and West Springfield.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in general court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Section 1. The cost of the bridge provided for by chapter two hundred and fifty-two of the General Acts of the year nineteen hundred and fifteen, and of that part of its approaches designated ‘viaduct’ on the plan of said bridge heretofore accepted by the county commissioners of the county of Hampden under the authority of said chapter two hundred and fifty-two, and of the ‘expenses' referred to in section four of said chapter two hundred and fifty-two, and of the cost of the depression of the railroad tracks, and of one main approach in Springfield and West Springfield,respectively; and of maintaining and keeping said bridge and said approaches in repair shall be paid by the county of Hampden, the city of Springfield, the towns of West Springfield and of Agawam in the following proportions, to wit:-Thirty-one per cent. by the county of Hampden, fifty-five per cent. by the city of Springfield, thirteen per cent. by the town of West Springfield, and one per cent. by the town of Agawam.

Sec. 2. The said county commissioners may grant to any street railway company or companies the privilege of running their cars over said bridge, and may also grant privileges to other public utilities, all upon such terms, conditions and restrictions, and for such compensation as in their judgment public interest and convenience may require. The revenue from all such privileges shall be paid to the county treasurer and apportioned and paid by him to the said county and to the city of Springfield and to the towns of West Springfield and Agawam in such proportions as they severally pay toward the cost of maintaining and keeping said bridge in repair.

Sec. 3. So much of said chapter two hundred and fifty-two as is inconsistent herewith is hereby repealed, and so much of the decision of the commissioners appointed under said act and of the decree of the court confirming the same as are inconsistent herewith are hereby superseded.

Sec. 4. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

We, the undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, having considered the question on which our opinion is requested under the order of May 26, 1920, a copy whereof is hereto annexed, respectfully submit this answer:

The order relates to the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 534, entitled ‘An act to provide for an equitable distribution of the cost of a bridge across the Connecticut river between Springfield and West Springfield.’ The proposed bill provides in substance in section 1 that 31 per cent. of the cost of the bridge authorized by St. 1915, c. 252, shall be paid by the county of Hampden, 55 per cent. by the city of Springfield, 13 per cent. by the town of West Springfield, and one per cent. by the town of Agawam. By section 2 authority is conferred upon the county commissioners of Hampden county to grant locations over the bridge to street railway companies and privileges to other public utilities. This section involves no constitutional question and need not be discussed further. By section 3 so much of chapter 252 as is inconsistent with the proposed act is repealed, and so much of the report of the commissioners appointed under that act and of the confirmatory decree of the court as are inconsistent with the proposed bill ‘are hereby superseded.’

The location, plans and specifications of the bridge authorized by chapter 252 were to be determined by a board of commissioners appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court. These commissioners were required by section 4 to ‘determine what cities and towns in the county of Hampden are or will be specially benefited by the erection of the bridge, and what proportional part of the cost of the bridge * * * shall be paid by said county and by such cities and towns respectively.’ Pursuant to that act commissioners were appointed and their report has been filed, giving amongst other matters the location and detailed plans and specifications of the bridge. Their finding to the effect that the city of Holyoke would be specially benefited by the construction of the bridge was assailed on numerous grounds by the representatives of that city. All objections were overruled by a single justice, whose decision was affirmed by the full court. Mayor and Aldermen of Springfield, Petitioners, 235 Mass. --, 125 N. E. 847. Subsequently a final decree was entered after rescript confirming the report of the commissioners. That report contained further findings to the effect that the towns of Westfield and Agawam, as well as the town of West Springfield and the city of Springfield would receive special benefit from the construction of the bridge. The apportionment of the cost of the bridge according to that report was as follows: 31 per cent. upon the county of Hampden, 51 per cent. upon the city of Springfield, 12 per cent. upon the town of West Springfield, 3 per cent. upon the city of Holyoke, 2 per cent. upon the town of Westfield, and 1 per cent. upon the town of Agawam. The practical effect of the proposed bill, if enacted into law, would be to relieve the town of Westfield of the 2 per cent. and the city of Holyoke of the 3 per cent. of the cost assessed upon them respectively by the report of the commissioners confirmed by the court, and to impose an additional 1 per cent. upon the town of West Springfield and an additional 4 per cent. upon the city of Springfield, leaving unchanged the percentages assessed upon the county of Hampden and the town of Agawam.

Numerous statutes have been enacted from time to time providing for the construction and maintenance of bridges and public improvements of like nature. The means adopted for apportioning the cost and expense of maintenance have varied widely. In some they have been determined directly by the Legislature and in others by commissioners appointed by the Governor, by existing public boards or commissions and by commissioners appointed by the court. See Kingman, Petitioner, 153 Mass. 566, 573-577, 27 N. E. 778,12 L. R. A. 417. Some of these statutes have been attacked as a delegation of legislative power to the courts and thus violative of the Constitution. The principle of such legislation has been upheld generally on the ground that the decision of the questions presented required the exercise of the judicial faculty. It always has been recognized, however, that such powers and duties which in their last analysis concern the distribution of the burdens of taxation, are not judicial in the strict constitutional sense but partake of the legislative and administrative as well as of the judicial character. New London Northern Railroad v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 102 Mass. 386, 387;Dow v. Wakefield, 103 Mass. 267, 272-273. A determination respecting the construction and apportionment of the expense of a bridge (when built by public authority and at public cost), however expressed, is in essence a regulation by the sovereign power concerning a highway. It establishes no contractual relation. It does not confer a property right in the private and constitutional sense. Being simply a regulation by government, it is subject to modification and change by the Legislature. One of the well-recognized purposes for which legislative power may be exercised under the general welfare clause of the Constitution (chapter 1, § 1, art. 4) is a wise and careful distribution of the public burdens arising out of the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges. Ordinarily it would not be questioned that the Legislature may enact general or special laws for the construction of bridges and for the division among counties, cities and towns of the cost of building and maintaining them. Boston, Petitioner, 221 Mass. 468, 109 N. E. 389.

If the apportionment of the expense of the Springfield bridge had been made in the original enactment of chapter 252, in precisely the same terms contained in the report of the commissioners, it hardly would be contended that the general court thereby had exhausted its capacity touching the subject and was shorn of authority to change that apportionment.

[2] The power of the Legislature to shift the burden of the expense of the bridge as established by the commissioners and affirmed by decree of the court, we think,...