The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-03-01
La W NTELLIGENCE.


The State of Maryland, on the relation of Char les
Howard and others, ''The Board of Police of the
city of Baltimore" The Mayor and City Coun-
Gil of Baltimore. Application for a Daandamus.
Reverdy johnson, j. Mason Campbell, William II.
Norris and S. Teackle Wallis Esqrs., for the Police
Board; Jonathan Meredith, VIM. Price, William
Schey and Thomas S. Alexander, Esqrs., tor the
city.
On the opening of the Court yesterday, Mr.. Nor
ris resumed his argument on the part of the Com
missioners. He proceeded to discuss the sixth
point in the brief of the relators, viz. That it
entirely competent to authOliz process to run be-
yond the city limits. 1t was settled doctrine
that the law of remedy rested exclusively with the
States This is a law of remedy. Certain eXigen-
cies may arise which may make it necessary that
the State should at all times be able to protect its
citizens. This very power was decided by the
judges in New Y ork to be legal and upon this de-
cision the Metropolitan Police Bill of New York
was organized. The counsel read the decisions of
the New Y ork Courts in support of this argument.
Many objections have been made to the bill, which
do not affect the application for the writ of man
damus. If the Courts would decide that the Sec
tion in regard to calling out the military not
constitutional 1t would not affect the whole BILL
The whole law could not be made void because
there was section in it irrelevant to the main pur
| poses of the bill.
Mr.. Norris then proceeded to discuss the remain
ing points in the brief together, viZ:-that the tax
ing and legislative power of the State are never to
be deemed diverted from the Legislature except
by express provisions of organic law-and it is
| doubtful if even such provision would prevent
their resumption by the people and their represen-
tatives The power of the State to impose tax can
be delegated. The comforting ofthe power festima
| ing the necessary Police tax on the Police Board
is entirely constitutional and violates principle
of representation. As municipal corporations are,
| as respects their public franchises and property
| but branches of the State government, the State
can modify and control them, and exercise every
power over them for the purpose of local gov
ernment, which it exert as respects any other
State property, unless restrained
elusive limitation in the Constitution. The counsel
contended that all the appliances for the establish
ment of the police force-the station houses watch
boxes, &c.-were the property of the State as much
so if they had been built by direct appropriation
from the State treasury. They had been built by
taxation, and the State, having delegated the power
oil taxation for this purpose had right to the pro
Perty, because the municipal government was but
an agent of the State, and was carrying out the
law of the State in levying the tax.
In the same way the Legislature could delegate
a power for levying tax upon the Police Board,
to carry out certain principles of the Police bill
They make the Police Board an agency to carry
out the provisions of the bill. As to the power of
the State to modify and control all the franchises
of municipal corporation, the of The Mayor
and City Council Robert Lennon was referred
to. In this case it appeared that the Legislature
had, by the act passed in 1876, granted power to
the corporation to levy tax upon auctioneers.
That in the year 1926, an ordinance passed en-
acting that no person should exercise the duties of
an auctoneer, unless he paid to the city of Balti-
more the sum of $500 as license-mOney. In 1927
the Legislature passed an act annulling the act of
1876, and requiring all licenses of auctioneers to be
paid into the State treasury. Lennon refused to
pay $500 license to the city, the ground that the
city had no right to collect such tax The city
brought suit, and contended that the Legislature
had not the power to resume to itself the said Ii
cense-money: that it was a violation of contract
between the State and city. The case was argued
in the Court below and taken to the Appeal Court,
in both of which tribunals it was decided that the
act of 1927 constitutional and that the Legis-
ature had the right to take this franchise from the
city and resume it itself.
Mr.. Norris argued that, as the State had the
right to control and resume this franchise, it had
the right to take possession of the property of the
city which had been erected by means of taxation,
which power of taxation emanated from the State
itself. Many authorities cited upon this
point. This BILL however, does not seek to possess
the exclusive property OF the station houses; it is
merely to use them for the purposes of the Police
Department. Referring again to the principle that
the State had the power to control and modify all
the powers granted to local authorities the counsel
| sad that if the proposition on the other side
correct that certain powers, faculties and fran
chises secured to the city by the Constitution
and were constitutional rights, then, in the course
of twenty years, the city OF Baltimore, by getting
in virtue of her large population, certain grants
| from the Legislature, would in that time claim
| to be the sovereign and supreme power, and the
State left like King Lear, with mere body-guard
of an hundred knights, to exert its authority. The
| which can be altered OF changed by subsequent
| legislation. The question is, can any of its
powers be taken away? The State, in regard to
this question, has gone so far to take away from
the city the power to collect wharfage, and even to
repeal an ordinance of the city providing for the
collection of wharfage.
As to the power of the Police Board to collect a
tax for the purposes of the BILL conferred by the
Legislature in the 18th section of the bill, the prin-
cipie was laid down that the State could delegate
such powers to whomsoever it pleased. Many cases
were referred to, to show that the Legislature had
at many times heretofore delegated certain powers
to commissioners to carry out certain specific pur-
poses all of which it contended were analogous
to the point at issue.
Mr.. Norris concluded his argument at 219 o'clock
when the Court adjourned.
Wm Price, Esq, will commence his speech on the
part of the city this morning.
CoURT OF COMMON PLEAs.-Hon. VIM. l.. Mar
SHALL Judge.
The following occupied yesterday: -..-.. T.
Henry Maillard Us. August Douglass. An actor
for goods sold. Defence set Off
Assignment to 100 on postponed docket
CIRCUIT CouRr FOR BALTIMORE CIrY.-Hon. VIM
George Krebs, Judge.
The following occupied yesterday:
Porter and others The Mayor and City Coun
Gil of Baltimore. Motion to dissolve an injunction
heretofore granted in the matter of the assessment
for grading the North avenue. Before reported
Not concluded