Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/350

330 330 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. which the State as a sovereign has undertaken to perform, has ever been held to render it liable. Nor does this rest upon the narrow ground that there are no means by which such obligations can be enforced, but on the larger ground that no obligations arise therefrom. Municipalities, such as cities and towns, are created by the Commonwealth in order that it may exercise through them a part of its powers of sovereignty. Where they are engaged in the performance of public duties imposed upon them by statute, they are not liable to public actions of tort for the negligence of their agents employed for this purpose, unless such action is provided by statute. Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344; Curran v. Boston, 151 Mass. 505. " Where wrongs are done to individuals by those who are the servants of the government, those injured are not remediless, as such persons may be sued as may other citizens for the torts which they commit. There may be cases also where it would be entirely just that a remedy should be extended by the public to an individual for the injury he had sustained by the negligence of a public servant ; but cases of this character the Legislature yet reserves for its own determination." It is thus seen that the Legislature has expressly omitted to pro- vide by statute for a liability on the part of the State, and there are good grounds for argument that the State should not be liable in cases of this kind, i, e., " for neglect of a public duty imposed upon it by law for the benefit of the public, and for the performance of which it receives no profit or advantage." ^ It is therefore clearly unjust and unconstitutional for it to make, by resolve, special ex- ceptions in behalf of certain individuals ; and to pay them sums of money to which they are not legally, under the law, entitled. The third objection is that the Legislature is an utterly unfit body to decide upon the justice of these claims. Waiving the legality or illegality of the payments, the Legisla- ture is not a tribunal competent or fitted to ascertain the real extent of the injuries claimed to be suffered, or to judge of the proper compensation for such injury. This will be readily seen when the method by which these sums of money are granted is clearly understood. It is as follows : Let us suppose that a man is injured while at camp, or that an employee of the Gypsy Moth Commission is hurt by falling out of a tree. He goes to his senator or representative to see if he cannot put his hand into the 1 See Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344, where in 1887 the court held that the city could not be sued on account of injuries sustained from a defective staircase in a city school building.