The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-04-19

meaning of Constitutions to which it is answered OF
the part of the respondents that this section gives the
Legislature, in creating Office power only to prescribe
the mode OF appointment and can by legitimate rule
OF construction be interpreted grant the power o.
legislative appointment 1t is conceded that the Legisla
ture was not under any obligation confer power
appointment the Executive by this clause of the Con
sttutlon the power placed there the event of diff
ferent mode not being prescribed in The Butt is said
it ought to have been delegated to the people or local a
thoes of the city of Baltimore in the absence of any
such requirement of the Legislature do not
that they were under duty to make such delegation
the appointing The Constitution surely designed
to repOse some discretion in the Legislature both over
the mode of appointment and the popriey necessity
otpassng any law on the subject to which the exercise
the power might relate 1t seems difficult to suppose
that the people, through the Constitution would entrust
to that branch of government nearest to the
power the right to create Office and indicate others
to appoint the officer, and be unwilling place the ap
pontment with the Legislature itself The Constitution
must receive Interpretation according to the sense in
which the people supposed have understood its
language but ought also to be construed with reference
to the previous legislation of the State; oS5 And
when such power had been by the Legislature
from the earliest period of the Government unreason-
able to suppose that the people that same
might occur again unless prohibited by the Constitution?
If there is prohibition express implied, would re-
suit from this vicw that the people intended the egs
ature should continue to exercise the power are not
dealing with one few words to extract what the
strument means look to the whole, its provisions
grants restrictions, objects and purposes and endeavor
from the whole to give it such effect think the
trainers and the people designed We not be
sdered as advocating the exercise of such powers in
citing party times it might effect much mischief not
more than the passage of laws where the Legislature
ana Executive are CT the political complexion
ieb no one doubts the power of the Legislature
laws when it is believed that mere political purposes are
to be accomplished In such however people
may complimentary submit-untiI n change of the Leo
lslature can be effected in constitutional mode
Hence, that while the motives Of the Legislature
can have effect upon the efficiency Of laws neither
can they he regarded by the judiciary when testing their
| power to pass them.
We have considered this point at some length because
IL was greatly pressed by counsel, although
that the objection is fully met by the ps
the State, Md. Rep, 151, which learned Judge
| III
PURSUING the arrangement suggested by the brief
| o6 the appellants, we are next to consider the
elect of the fourteenth section of the law which
transfers the existing police force of the city from the city
government to the Commissioners. This said to be
constitutional, and if the objection defeats law
The arguments submitted this part of the are
the graves character. The appellants claim city
dignity far higher than belongs any other portion
the community character that raises it above the power
OF the State except such reserved by the Constitu
ton itself and that the charter is constitutional char
ter placed beyond the reach of mere legislative power,
either to repeal it, or to annul destroy its important
franchises.
That the city has certain rights under the Constitution
none will deny; but have counties Each is public
territorial division of the State established public po
ca purposes connected with the administration of the
Government possessing the character of and endowed
with the powers of corporations according to the laws
severaly applicable to them 2 c. and j. 399 They are
mere instruments ofgovernment appointed in the
administration of public affairs, and parts of the State
As public corporations they are to be governed accordn
to the laws of the land and subject control Of
the Legislature Regents case, G. j. 397 4Ol Il
G. and j.. 439 This is the unquestioned doctrine on
the subject apart from the supposed effect of the Consti
tuition on this particular charter We have idea that
the Convention or the people designed cothe city
with the immunities claimed for it. That thev
would have placed large city, with population equal to
nearly onehaf the State beyond the operation of its
laws and above the power of the people themselves in
the exercise of their sovereign rights to govern the
State, is not to be believed and unless plainly appears
that such an impcriWR in imperio is created by the
CONSTITUTIONS the pretenson ought not to be allowed
The considerations which suggest themselves in oppo-
stion to it are so obvious that they need not be dwe
upon Nor do we believe that the exemption has ever
before been claimed The city by the act
of 1896 chapter 6s with powers fully equal wants
OF the people supposed the time. police
powers set forth in the ninth section Then year
q797, chapter 54 supplement passed giving addi
hona powers, and declaring that the original charter
and that supplement should be perpetual that all
ordinances passed OF TO be passed should be valid TO
be sure this was not constitutional recognition of h
city, but far Legislature could bind its
sorS, all power the corporation parted with
But we know that numerous acts were pssed aerward
materially aecng the rights powers of the corpora
ton at the instance of the people, but others with
out such application as far as the acts themselves afford
any information to to the motive of their passage As
signal instance may notice the of 1917 chapter
l4s, relatng to the city of Baltimore wherein in ad
don to important provisions concerning the govern
men of the city, and the powers of the Mayor City
Council, and although they had ample jurisdiction over
the subject of Streets commissioners appointed by
name an the talO to survey and lay off the city such
streets lanes and alleys they might deem expedient
with power also to select and purchase property pub
lie purposes, the city authorities having voice in the
matter except to the reasonabeness price, and
an expenses contracted by them to be paid by the
city.
And although the city charter was recognized by the
amended Constitution of 1856, fully, in opinion
as under the present 1--WE sneak apart from the 10Th sec
ton Of the 4h artice with all the powers before pos
seSscd by the corporate authorities, it deemed
advisable to Ohtain by the Act of 1885, chap
2OS authority to increase the annual levy $3.50 900
and by chapter 22S of the session. further power
reference to streets And, examination of the laws
it will appear that most of the subjects which uris
dcton is given to the Commissioners by Act of
1850, iegisatod upon by the State by Mayor
and City Council under authority of the State Legsa-
ture During the time elapsed since the adoption of the
present Constitution, similar powers have been frequent
ly exercised 1t is unreasonable in the of things
that portion or political division of State should be
ths r"%%r Of the whols and we cannot find in the
intended to give to Baltimore city such reemnence-
If there be any interest rights franchises unde the
charter OF the city, think that they need not be passed
upon now because they assaied supposed to
be taken away by the law in question The object is to
regulate the police affairs Of the citynOt to destroy its
ranchses TO place these matters III other hands where
by the duty of governing, always residing in the State
is to be discharged by of other agencies than
heretofore employed Ascrihing to the Legislature the
motives with which all laws of this Kind supposed to
be passed, must assume that tue object is to accom-
psh for the good of the ctzcns Baltimore that in
respect to which previous legislation failed Of ade-
quate results The third point relates to the
l2h section which transfers the use of the reaarm
telegraph station houses, &c, to the Commissioners
We of opinion that the argument branch of
the case was based on the inaccurate idea that this is
vate property within the meaning of the Constitution
There is doubt that taking such property beyond
scope of legislative authority except when required for
public use, and upon just compensation being made But
does this property within such descrpto on? Let
test this by the very exception stated the argument
compensation But to whom is the compensation to be
made? Not to the Mayor and City Council individu-
ais, but to them representing the people And how
made? By tax levied the people themselves that is
the people to be taxed to buy property them
selves for which they have already been have
paid City property may be taken for public purposes
other than the of the city, that is suppose that
property owned by the city might be condemned in
instances, other property; but then the
from the city into other hands from whom the pay
ment OF compensation would be made to the city re-
cent But this doctrine cannot apply where
Ii
icated to particular uses, and apply the same
property to the purposes by only changing the
agency by which the use is to be directed The use is
the and the character of the property changed
the title, because, matter by whom managed it
remains public devoted public USE all the while
belongs, not to the Commissioners but to the city.
The 4th 5th and 9th points relate to the 10th section
Of the 4th article of the Constitution The solution Of
the questions arising them depends whether po
lice which the city authorities empowered create
toned in the sect6nthat is the justices of the peace
and constabes-or to the general police system then in
operation and such might thereafter he established
by law This section whether considered alone toge
with other portions of the Constitution which appear
70 nave to the same subject is by no means free
from difficulty. Urged as they were, either theory ap
peared to be well supported by argument and usra
ton, almost to challenge acceptance but
fully considering the subject in all the phases in which
it presented have arrived at the conclusion that
the respondents construction ought not prevail well
for affecting and vital to the supreme power in the
State, account of the city of Baltimore in
gencies where her citizens might suffer from the
want of power in the State authorities than from posi-
BILE in the exercise of it. If the clear
upon words of the Constitution, by necessary impi
cation could not give weight to such considerations
a question where the human reason may pause
the Judgment be suspended account of uncertainty
in the language employed, they ought not over
looked
1t matter of very serious doubt with us whether
if the respondents view be adopted the city Baltimore
could have any other than peace police, distinguish
ed from such other police regulations conferred on
the Commissioners. 1t is not made the duty nor is ii
within the nature of his office that justice of the peace
constable should perform police duty other than such
looks to the preservation of the peace have no
jurisdiction most of the subjects mentioned in
fifth section of this law, of much importance
necessary the well being of the inhabitants large
oty other imagine If tho police poyor is
exhausted if the whole ground is covered by clause
Of the Constitution, to the exclusion of legislative power
at loss to perceive where the city will find autho
ty to police ordinances other than such
merely temporary ana additional to justices of the peace
and constables who, have said merely peace
officers But by constituting the power as remaining with
the Legislature, it the city authorities exercise
these necessary functions of government for benefit
of the city, may be provided by law We have the
highest authority for saying that the power govern
longs to the people, Declaration Of Rights 1t their
duty to exercise it for the common good and being
under that Obligation it is not TO be assumed that they
have impaired the means of performing the duty
parting with the to any division of the body poll
| tic; "a Peters, SD; ii do, 547.)
1t is valid objection the existence of the power
that it is in degree another organza
tOn in the government and that the exercise by both
may lead to confusion and public strife How the
city proceed under this clause of the Constitutions
will not decide in anticipation 1t will be quite time
enough to determine the limits of power between the
Commissioners and the city authorities when the case is
presented But to assume thai the people will
acquiesce in the proceedings of the Commissioners
They not appointed to for themselves any
portion of the citizens adversely to the rest the