Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1881-12-22

ANE EIrE&6 &D3fE tA1 41za1 eAS~M43 49, -
M1nasy Is, vita fun bsneh. % bear IN
conssstsd eisrsi0n eass IL 5ohn =. Fznwick Va
wm. .. wafhss, the preliminary Psocsedings
| IN which wsss lnstiiHted during the lste De-
cember Tern e ths CDart, and pablishsd By
~ II former iasus skispaper. The grosnds
o. eoaiast wers, brissy STATED, irrsguIarity In
shs sppointusest of Judges q Eection Of the
| Iss eiection district Of dis counfy, b. ths
Ceunty Commissioner. ard the fses that ths
eonssse : held 1t tie tine &C his alleged eisc-
slon ne ofEcs % Co.lscior o. Taxes sor the Ord
election district, which IN The visw Of he con-
tessant wns ebnoxious 10 that elaass in the
ConssisAtEon which provides fhai No person
shslI hold mere than one ofses Of proht At ons
tins. The eharss Fl ir1sgsiarity In ne sp-
pointmsns Il Judges o. Elssfioa was hnsed
upon the fsek - disclosed By TIE evidences 81
troduced By The contestant, thai On ths Iith
DAP o. Ocsohsr Last. whsn the County Con-
missioners met for the pgrpose Of sppointing
Judges Of Eleesion Cor the respective eisctioa
districts Of the county, they appointed enc
Alex. Beale Judgs 81 Election for the lst dis
trict in place Of WIN. n. Pembroke, who had
forrsrIy been Judge, but was disqualified By
being candidate ct the Late election Later
| in The session az the same days the eommis-
eioners, withoat formally By resolutions re-
1 einding the appointment Of Beale, app0iEisd
Jas. A. Tennisson % The sane place. The At
sorney for contestant claimed that the APP
/ poimtment ef Eeale gave him = vested right in
| the Office Of Judge OF the Election, which could
not be disturbed By any subsequent action %
| the County Commissioners, and that conse-
greatly the appointment Of Tennisson was IL
| legal and that be had 20 authority TO act 90
Judge Of Election, and that his acting - such
invalidated the election held In that district.
The evidence also disclosed the fact that the
contesice held at the tune o. bis election as
Sheriff. The ofIics 30 Collector Of Taxes, that he
offered bis resignation Of the latter ONCE, bat
| that the resignation was not accepted By the
County Commissioners, and that be now held
both Offices, which holding Of the two Offices,
| Il was claimed BY the contestants attorney,
was prohibited by the Contribution Of this
/ State.
The counsel for ccutestee claimed that Beale
never was appointed BY the County Commits
sioners Judge Of Election for the lst district,
but that be was merely suggested and that
1 Tencisson was the real appointee; that the
| Clerk Of the Commissioners issued the warrant
to Tennisson and that the record Of the pro-
ceedings Of the Board shows that Tennisson,
and not Beale, was appointed; that although
| the Commissioners may have determined In the
earlier part Of this session to appoint Beale, IL
was competent for them &C any time during
the session TO reconside. their determination
and TO make any other appointment they might
| deem best; that the appointment Of Beale was
| incomplete, inasmuch as no warrant was Is
L 1rTh asxaarx
made In the proceedings Of the Board. Upon
the point that the eoniestee held two Offices,
| the counsel for contestee claimed that the Of.
/ fee Of Collector Of Taxes was not such an Of
| fee as it was intended by the trainers Of the
Constitution 10 prohibit person holding an
other Office, from holding.
| After able arguments BY B. @. Harris, Esq,
Attorney for contestant, and Messrs. Hammett
and Combs for contestee, the case was sub
| mitted TO the Court.
Chief Judge Frederick Stone then delivered
/ the decision Of the Court, in substance as fol-
lows: The Court stated that they were here
| 10 hear the testimony In this case and 10 de-
i eide whether OF not VIM. j. Wathen, the con-
tesiee was elected to the Office Of Sheriff ofSt.
Mary's county at the election held in this
county on the 9Th day Of November last, and
only that. Whether Il was competent for him
| 70 hold two Offices Of profit or trust was q
question which they were not called upon 10
| determine under the proceedings in this case.
That was question which was not involved
/ In this case, but one which must arise in pro-
ceedings for Mandamus or Quo warranto.
The holding Of another Office clearly did not
render the contestee Ineligible 70 the ONCE Of
Sheriff, and the question as 10 whether II dis
qualified him from Aoidia1 said SherifAlty,
| did not eater into the consideration Of this
case, As they were only TO determine whether
or not he was duly elected thereto. So that,
that allegation in the petition Of the contes-
tant was disposed Of. In reference to the
| charge Of irregularity in the appointment Of
the Judges Of Election Of the lst district, the
Court stated that 70 constitute such an APP
| pointmens three essentials were necessary,
| first, the selection Of the Judge by The Com
missioness, second, the recording Of the ap-
pointment. and third, the Issuing Of the war
rant by the Clerk 70 the person 20 appointed.
The warrant was never issued TO Beale, nor
did the record Of the proceedings Of the Coun-
" Commissioners disclose the fact that he had
been appointed Judge Of Election, and whilst
the Commissioners may have determined at
one time 70 appoint him, Il was competent for
them az any time afterwards during the ses-
sion TO rescind his appointment and make any
other they deemed proper. So that the APP
pointment Of Tennisson was legal and valid
one. and be was daily authorized 70 exercise
the functions Of Judge Of Election for the LIST
district.
Here Mr.. Harris, counsel for contestant, in
terrupting the Court, asked leave 10 file an Or
der dismissing the petition, which was granted.
thus disposing Of the case.
Judges Stone and Brooke bear their new hon-
ors with becoming dignity and grace, and the
clear, lucid and f0rcible manner in which the
first named delivered the decision Of the Court
in the above case. gives evidence that the man
tie Of his predecessor has fallen on worthy
shoulders, and that the ermine IL not likely 70
be soiled whilst he wears Il.