Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1890-08-12
WRIT OF MANDAMUS.


The writ of mandamus in the case of
Hiram p. Tasker VS.. j. Thomas Scharf
Land Commissioner OF Maryland. for &C
cess 10, and use Of. the public records In
the land office. under "a act OF the Leg
islature of 1890, was argued 10 day In the
/ Circuit Court before associate Judge /.
Thomas Jones' Mr. E s. Riley, coun-
sci for the petitioner opened the case on
behalf of the petitioner, and showed by 3
number Of law quotations the right OF
the petitioner to enter the land office un-
der the authority of the Act Of the Leg
| islafure, aud make extracts of deeds, etc.
| He claimed that Mr. Tasker was the duly
authorized agent of Garrett county, un-
der bona fde contract with the com
missioners OF the county to make abstracts
of titles, and com pile them In o "perma
nent record" book, and that the land
commissioner. had no right to exclude
him from such access.
| In reply to the writ Of mandamus.
the respondent, J. Thomas fcharf,
through his counsel Jas. NJ Munroe, In
bis answer, after acknowledging certain
matters set forth Ia the complainants bill,
says: That said Act OF Assembly of 1890, as
bearing upon this case Is unconstltutonial
and void Because Ii embraces more
than one subject; and because the sub
ject of said Law is not described la its
title; and 10, therefore, contrary to sec
ton 20, OF Article 3 of the Oonstitu-
ton OF Maryland; because said Law 10
q special law making provision for case
for which provision has been made by
an existing General Law, and is, there
fore. contrary to section 80 of Article
of the constitution; because said law di
minishes the compensation OF the res
| VnnHaut nrnu los nF Land
Office, and Is designed to diminish said
compensation during his term of Office,
and is therefore, contrary to section SO OF
article 3 of the constitution; because said
law lie designed to take away from the
respondent fees already earned by him Ia
the performance OF his duty as commits
sioner of the land Office. aud lie, therefore,
contrary to section OF Article of the
constitution and of the Act of 1874,
Chapter SO, enacted In pursuance thereof;
because said act Is designed and intended
10 release persons from their debts or
obligations to the State. without recon-
mendation of the Governor Of the State or
the treasury department thereof. and 10,
therefore, contrary to section 81 OF Article
Of the constitution. And this respond.
emit AYERS that said release has never been
commended as required by said section,
according to the best of his knowledge.
information and belief. And further
shows that the provision of the law, the
commissioner Of the land Office is q
court of record and with large dis
creatiouary powers IS to the conduct OF
his office; that he Is bonded officer.
charged with the safe custody of all the
books, papers, records, &C.. In said Office
deposited and contained; that he IL
required by Article 4, section of the
constitution to charge the lees fixed by
law; that he had acquired vested right
to all the fees charged against the petit
toner of Garrett county, as alleged in
said petition for all searches of books
containing deeds aud transfers of soldiers,
lots, and sill other land record books as
provided by the Act Of 1874 chapter sc, and
TO % per cent. of all other moneys pay
able to the State on account of the public
lands as provided by the Act of 1853,
chapter 4i5 And this respondent fur
ther shows that II would be subversive of
the land office TO allow any person, not
connected with the office, in an official
capacity, free access to ell the records
thereof, TO use tnem at his pleasure, free
from the control and supervision Of the
respondent, and he has resisted the at
tempted invasion of his Office by the petit
toner under the provisions of the Act of
1890. chapter 113, because the right OF
the Legislature to graut such % wers to
the petitioner involves Its right TO grant
the same powers TO any number of persons
upon like pretexts; and the right of the
Legislature to vote away the fees OF said
respondent due by petitioners as aforesaid
involves the right TO vote away all the
Tees and compensation OF your respon-
dent; and the exercise of the powers
claimed by the petitioner would make II
impossible for your respondent to comply
With the obligation of his bond ito safely
Keep" ssll the records, books ETC.. In SAID
office; ard would greatly harrass, impede,
obstruct aud interfere with the transac-
ton OF the public business in said Office,
rob the said Office of its dignity as Court
aud the Commissioners of the Land office;
of all discreation as to tue use OF the
records thereof.
And further shows that Ii is not com
petent In the Legislature to declare the
forfeiture OF lands legally held 10 fee by
the officers and soldiers of the Maryland
Line, Their heirs assigns and devises for
TO take any such summary process against
them as Is contemplated and provided by
said act of assembly and ell the provisions
of said act of assembly are utterly null
and void; ard that therefore, the employ.
ment of said petitioner Ia null and void
and that he ought not to be allowed to
exercise the power conferred upon him
under any such pretext.
Ard Ii further shows that IL the pc
titioner has any remedy against this res
pendent In the premises he has no right
to the writ of mar damus. IS prayed In
said petition.
Dir. Riley closed the argument on behalf
of the petitioner, and the case rests with
tho Can't for d. do~ie9on