Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1880-12-24
THE SCHOOL CASE DECISION

The disposition of the case of Jones and
Anderson VS.. Thos. j Heating ct al, by the
Court of Appeals is a source of regret and
disappointment to a large number of our
citizens, in that the Court failed to perform
duty and assume responsibility which,
not only the citizens of this county, but of
the State at large had a right to expect.
Without differing from the Court on the
point decided, (which was purely technical, }
the important question and one of the great
est moment to the people, was, whether the
present law comforting upon the Circuit
Judges the power of appointing County
School Commissioners is constitutional ?
This question the Court ignored, and in so
doing we feel constrained to say, in our
opinion, the Court was recreant in duty,
both to itself and the public interest.
1t is conceded fact that the constitution
ality OF the present law is not only mooted
question, but some Of the ablest jurists in
the State, including some of the judges
themselves, do not hesitate to say that it is
unconstitutional, and it is believed a large
majority of the lawyers in the State concur
in this view.
The Court of Appeals, in this q,se, had
clearly and distinctly before it Question of
constitutional law as to the right of every
judge on that bench, save one, to exercise a
power, To say the least of doubtful authority,
and the very fact Of the Court not passing
upon that question has the appearance of
timidity or the desire to retain this power
If the law is constitutional, in the opinion
of the Court, it was the duty of each Judge
exercising thai, power to have so declared,
If it is not constitutional then each Judge
should have Invested himself at once of
holding in his hands and exercising pre-
rogative not warranted by the constitution
of the State
We do not propose to say the law is I'M
constitutional, or enter into any argument
for or against it, 1t is well-knowt that its
constitutonality is denied, and as a public
journal we deem it our duty to discuss
question of such grave moment and import
ance to the public.
If this law is unconstitutional, then our
judges are indeed occupying most unen.
viable position. They are to-day filling Of
fees, If not of profit, involving one of the
most important trusts in the State. They
have not only the power to control the
whole system of public schools. but indi-
rectly, by their appointments, control the
expenditure of the largest amount of money
contributed by the taxpayers of this State
for any one purpose.
We recognize the principle that the Court
is not bound to decide points not directly in
volved in suit, but 1t is of no uncommon
occurrence for the Court to decide other
questions involved in case to prevent de-
lays, expense and further delegation over
the same subject-matter, but in this case, the
very parties, the judges themselves, consti-
tute the only tribunal that can settle this
constitutional question, and they are also
the same parties empowered to make these
As the judges are opponents
OF the constitution and laws OF this State,
does it not seem strange they should act I'M
der a law which they have not been willing
to decide was or was not constitutional ?
One or more of the judges have refused to
act under the law because they say it is un-
constitutional, this is consistent.
If in the future the Court should decide
this law to be unconstitutional when com.
plications of various kinds have surrounded
the whole school system with losses of money
and responsibility of officers on account of
this deiectin the law, it will then be too late
TO repair an injury to the public, which
might have been ayerted by prompt and de-
cissiyc action in the present case.