The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1852-05-22


aims house. We then plainly showed
that any attempt to remove him would
be without authority of law: that if he
was elected, it must be by violence; and
we intimated that the overseer would
not allow the premises he lawfully &C.
cupies to be violently invaded, without
resorting to the means of defence permit
ted by the law. We have since under
stood that, under instruction Of emf
nent counsel, he will defend his legal
rights against illegal aggression, to the
extent necessary TO his protection, with
out regard to life Or limb.
We shall argue the question of law
no farther. Mr.. Contwell was appoint
ed by the old board Of Trustees, at the
time tile lap REQUIRED them to make the
appointment. No other appointment
can take e6ect until the 25th Of March,
nert; and the la~yer or the Trustee who
says otherwise, either does not know
what law bears on the case, or else is
ignorant Of the plain meaning of words.
We can readily imagine that law
yer, or trustee, or a County Commits
sioner, may be ignorant of the law, but
when 1t is pointed out ts them, there is
no excuse for their advising or acting IN
opposition to 1t. We cannot, therefore,
but hope that when Monday-the day
upon which the onslaught on Cantwell
was to have been made--shall come,
better counsels will prevail, and the
meeting of violence by violence, perhaps
to the shedding of blood, be avoided.
1t is stated that reliance is placed on
Chap. XII, Sec. IL, OF November session
1887, to sustain the trustees. That is
the Law for kent, made in force for
Cecil by Chap. NNIiI of the same ses-
sion; and the section referred to, gave
the trustees power to remove and APP
point at their discre ton, which diScre-
tionary power was, beyond question,
taken from them by the act of 1913; and
any argument TO the contrary is sheer
sophism, which no luwyer will in sober
earnest enter tain.
Leaving the question Of law aside, let
us look at The fitness and fairness the
case. Nc advantage-political or other
wise--was taken by The last Board of
Trustees in the appointment Of Mr.. Cant
well in February last, for one year, TO
take effect on the 25th Of March; they
did what the law required them to do
nothing more. The present board,
which came into authority or the Bird
inst, exercise the same powers as the
last, and are bound by their actions Just
as their own. Formerly, new Trustees,
which, then as now, came into authority
on the first Monday in May, at that time
appointed the overseer, and when he
was of different politics, removed him.
That was found to be an inconvenient
season to the person so removed; if he
were farmer he could not then procure
farm; and with difficulty could he OBJ
tain house for his family. The Legis-
lature very properly and wisely, changed
the time of making the appointment to
February, and made it a yearly appoint.
ment-requiring such notice to be given
to the incumbent, when removed, as
might enable him to procure another
situation. What law in reference to
the matter could be more proper and
just
A Board Of Trustees are appointed
for two years-they have the appoint
ment OF an overseer twice during their
term. The present board is not shorn OF
any of It's prerogatives in this respect,
but will twice have the making of that
appointment. They are robbed of moth
ing and have no caL Vi complaint; and
the whole movement against Cantwell
is most unwise and iIl-advised; and if
persevered in, is doomed to signal fail
ure and disaster.
So far as the order of the Commissions
ers, indemnifying the Trustees against
nil expenses and consequences, is con-
cerned-we are of the opinion they were
not aware OF the existance Of the law of
lS43. With a knowledge of that law,
it is strange that they would pledge the
property of the county by an unlimited
order Of that kind, which is as un-
authorised by law as it is unMise. A