Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1879-05-02
Reply to A. B. Davis, ESQ.

IcfNu w use wear III June Inc amount
of money which had expended during the
previous year for record books, dockeIs, sta
tionery, &C., for the Clerks office | admitted
the fact Of the annual ievy for that purpose,
but denied that such levy was made ''without
warrant of lar" W.
To prove that MrksDavls was mistaken
quoted in full an existing law Of the State,
Laws Of 1865. chapNi57) which has never
been repealed, and which in express and plain
language directs ala warrdnts the levy in
question. ! thoughtfAnd now think, the
quotation OF that hwIwas complete refuta-
ton OF Tire charges rhhde by Mr. Davis.
thought, and J now think, that Mr.. Davis was
not aware OF the existence OF that law when
he wrote his FIRST letter That law did not
apply TO Baltimore city, where The action of
Mr.. Vansant FIRST suggsstcd Mr.. Davis letter.
expected Mr.. Davissfo Recognize 10 that law,
when his attention WIS called 10 it, the com
plete authority whicbsSit gave TO the County
Commissioners TO make he levy in question,
and the absolute requh&nenl which made the
levy duty enjoined up4h them, not TO be
avoided except by violation Of plain law.
Bat instead thereof, Mr.. Davis undertakes,
by an essay upon the conflict Of laws and
Constitutional law. to establish his original
assertion, that the lsyy was mads without
warrant of law ~
Now, only Cqlfrt has Jurisdiction Of so
grave question ssY Gopssi'utoRalty ofaQ
IeskIsines Lax = - SRasss 80 HeSe
no power to decide such sQnesion. The gen
eral public has no sach poker. For Mr. Davis
and myself, who are simply members of the
community and not even learned 10 the law
the question of the Consilutionsiity of an ACT
Of Assembly is simply question offact as TO
what the Courts have deci led concerning it.,
If anything If Mr.. Davis wishes 10 proye
| the law quoted TO be null and void, because
of It's unconstitutionaliiy, let him produce the
the decision of some Court OF competent jnrjs-
dicton, because, Otherwise il cannot possibly
be proved Mr. Davis cannot produce any
such decision, simply because there is none in
existence.
The only matter, therefore, remaining for
me TO estimate in this newspaper controversy.
is the value of Mr.. Davis unsupported opinion
upon the question of ConsiitutionaLlaw which
be has raised. To assist in that esti mate. |
will endeavor TO show the history of the law
OF 1865, chapter ISL, ia its connection with
the Constitution of 1867. Mr.. Davis claims,
if understand him, that the law of 1869 is
null and void because he thinks it is in conflict
with art. 3, sec. 45, of the Constitution of
1867. | shall, al least, he able 10 show that a
great many other people think otherwise, whose
opinions are entitled singly 10 at least as much
weight as his. ! desire first TO call attention
to the fact that art g. sec. 45, Of the Consti-
tuition of 1867, which Mr.. Davis quotes and
requoles, is not a ne,D doctrine in this State
Art 3, sec. A, of the Constitution of 1914, is
WORD Tor WORD exactly the same as art. 3, sec
49, OF the CONSTITUTION OF 1867. The same
provision exactly is also found IN the Consti-
tuition OF 1850.
NOW, when the law OF 1860, chapter, l57,
which / 1uOtn1 hv ba
tnre, tne constitutional provision, art. 3, sec.
A, OF theConstitu'ion Of ls64 was in force. IT.
therefore, the law OF 1865 is unconstitutional
now, II was unconstitutional then. But we
ma by reference TO the Journals of the Senate
ana House oil Delegates OF the Legislature Of
1860 mat The law have quoted was reported
from the judiciary committee OF the Senate
oy us CHAIRMAN, Senate Journal, page 244)
and that II passed the Senate, by yeas and
nays, unanimously page 266.) Then turn
ing to the journal OF the House of Delegates
lpage 49ol we ind II was read and referred TO
the Judiciary committee OF the House. On
page 623 II IS recorded that this law was re-
ported lavorably from the Judiciary commit
tee, ana on page 760lhat i passed the House
OF Delegates BY yo,e OF AZ yeas and nays.
IL was then approved by the Governor and
became law Now II is the special province
OF JUDICIARY committees, always composed OF
iawers, ana seiecled, IL IS presumed, Tor their
atlainments IN their profession to guard Leg
is'auve Assemblies against passing unconstitu-
tonai laws. IL IS clear then that these two
judiciary COMMITTEES, the whole Senate, and
all Inc members OF me House oil Delegates
except three, differed from Mr.. Davis in
opinion.
Next IN order OF time was adopted the Con-
sutunon OF 1851. we have already shown
mat the provisions OF It's art. 3, sec. As, are
Identical win those OF The Constitution Of
1864. But lest the impression should have
been made by Mr.. DAVIS letters that the re-
enactment OF said provision in the Constitu-
ton OF 1867 repealed by Implication the law Of
1868, the history OF which have given from
the journals, call attention to two other pro-
visions OF the Constitution OF 1867. The
Declaration OF tights, which is part of the
Constitution OF 1861, IN art. b, expressly en-
acts that "All acts OF Assembly in force on
the iirst day OF June, 1867, except such as may
have since expired, or may be inconsistent
with the provisions 0! this Constitution" shall
remain in force. The law OF 1865, chapter
lo7, was one OF these acts of Assembly, and,
as before suggested, It not in conflict with
The provisions OF the Constitution of 1864, it
cannot certainly De IN conflict with those oil
me constitution OF 1867, which contain the
same words exactly.
moreover, ART. 4, sec. 10, OF the Constitu-
uon OF 1907, also provides mat The Clerks
OF ,ne several courts snail perform all The
uoues ana oe allowed .ne ices winch apper-
'aih 10 lheir several ounces, as me same nor
are, OF may hereafter oe regulated oy Law,
IL Is also true 'ne Law oil 1860, chapter lo7
nas Sge'h passeu III review before ana with