The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1894-04-28
COUNTY TREASURER ISSUE.
Mr.. Evans Answers Mr.. Poe.


f Pee, appeared in the Cecil Democrat of
, last week:
M. Editor: Last week l was applied to by the
County Commissioners of this county, whose
counsel am, for opinion upon the validity
OF the recent Act Of Assembly in reference to the
County Treasurer's office. That opinion was
given in writing to the Commissioners, was
accepted by them correct, and was, most prob
| ally the basis of their action in appointing a
new Treasurer, which action of course, necess-
| arily assumed the invaidity OF the recent act.
This action upon my part and upon the Com
| missiOneTs, had taken Tor granted was not only
| regular, but eminenty proper. The gentlemen
| composing the bCard laymen not lawyers |
| md were not supposed to be qualified to deal |
| with legal questions.
| The act had been engineered through the Leg |
| stature by Mr.. &. G. CrotheIs, the apparent !
| purpose OF which seemed to be to take the fnqn
c'dt government of the county out of the hands of
| the peoples representatives. (the County Com
mSsOners) and vest it in the hands Of a nominee |
| OF that gentleman. The ac;, If valid made Il |
| clean sweep in favor Of Mr.. Crothers' nominee
even going to the extent of taking from the Com
| miSsioners the custody OF their own records and
papers. The treasury oil the county every dollar
| 10 he raised by taxation amounting to about
$4,000 year,, and the disbursement of this |
sum was to be no longer solely subject to the
control or supervision of the Commissioners but /
was to be largely under the control OF an agent
| selected, will not say controlled. by Mr.. Croth-
erS the author OF the act: not by the people, or
thc peoples representatives, 1t seemed to me,
| therefore, and doubtless seemed to the Comm.ss-
toner's, that an act 50 extraordinary and SO far
reaching in its consequences, which, whether so
designed or not certainly had the effect to place
the financial government OF Cecil county, Tor the
next two years, in the hands OF Il nominee OF Mr..
&C. Crothers, should undergo q close and c.itl-
cal examination
The opinion which gave TO the Commissioners
was, as have said IN writing. and has been pub
lished: 1t Fas adverse TO the validity OF the law;
and had been acted upon by the Commissioners
IN appointing Mr.. Drennen Treasurer. Whether
That opinion Is erroneous correct, the courts, |
and not Mr.. &. G. GTothcrs, his counsel CT the |
counsel 0: his nominee (Mr. Banks) will have to
determine, and, the courts, not HIr. Crothers
CT his coun 81, or his nominees counsel (Ir. Poe
VIII decide upon the correctness OF my opinion, l
viii content myself with few observations upon
Mr.. Poe's letter to his client published in this
weeks Cecil County AecS As Tor the proclamat-
Ion OF manifesto or whaT ever may be its proper !
name, sl2ned G. G. Crothers, (glso published in
unsupported assertions by that gentleman. and
some coarse remarks conceived ill such wretched |
taste, that shall pass over it without further
remark
In dealing with Mr.. Poe's letter it must be |
remembered that, although he is the Attorney
General Of the State, he is here simply acting as
the private counsel OF Mr.. Crothers. 1t is no part
oil his public duty to write such letters or give
such opinions. 1t is, OF course his privilege, as
it is every lawyers, to give his opinion to his
private client: in this case Mr.. Ciothers or MIR.
Banks. Mr.. Poes public duties, and where his
'opiniODs" are to be received as MS unbiased
judgments on the lac, defined in Article D.
Section Of the constitution, and have no refer
ence TO cases like the present. He appears here
simply as private counsel to MI Crothers or John
Banks (AIr. Crothers' nominee for Tressurer)and
the opinion is therefore to have weight due to a
gentleman OF his acknowledge abity-no more |
no less.
The first remark l shall make upon Mr. Poe's
letter is, that while 1 cannot assume that he
intended to evade the points made by me show
ing the invalidity Of the law, he has certainly |
not stated some of these points as l intended to
state and thought had stated them. Article 3,
Section %, contains this clause, And every law
enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace |
but one subject and that shall be dcScriJcd ar its
hHc"
In commenting upon this provision Chief
Justice Alvey, in the case OF State VS.. Norris 20 |
Md. page %. said The objects designed to be
attained by the constitutional provision are two
fold the FIRST is to prevent the combination i'll
one OF several distinct and IncongTuOuS subjects:
ard the second is, that the Legislature and the
people Of the State may be FAIRLY Gdrscd Cfthc real
nature Of impending legislation. All titles OF acts
I
these Objects
We thus see that this clause OF the constitution
had two objects, negative, and the other
aitirma tive. The negative to prohibit the
Legislature from dealing with more than one
subject in any single act. The affirmative was a
command to the Legislature TO describe that one
subject in the act.
Now bIr. Poe'S opinion discusses only one OF
those objects. His whole opinion is a iabored
effort to establish that the act in question dealt
with one subject He says nothing ut all about
the second object OF this constitutional provision:
pamely, that the subject OF the act must be
described il the title, which Chief Justice Alvey
has emphatiealiy declared is equally the
object oithis clause, the purpose OF which he
says is "that the Legislature and tie people of the
state may be fairly ddrised Of the Pcriing legis-
tuition.
Now, do not intend again 10 go over what l |
have already said in my opinion given TO the
commissioners, in regard to the first subject OF
this provision OF the constitution, namely, that
every act should embrace but one subject. l will
only remark. in passing, that 1 adhere to my |
| hrst view, notwithstanding Mr.. Poe's opinion;
and had time, think, could adduce Il number
! OF additional arguments in support of what 1 |
have BET lore said. But wish here principally to
call attention to the tact that Mr.. Poe has |
totally iaied to discuss what seems TO me to be,
| Il fatal defect in the title OF this Treasury Act |
namely, that the title of the act contains no |
sufficient description, the constitution requires
| OF the subject OF the act.
Not only does the title OF the not contain Il
description OF the subject dealt with by the body
| OF the act tut it mi; describes the subject.
| Let us see what was the purpose and object of |
the Treasures a ct? l will let MIR. Poe tell us. |
He says: Now the general purpose OF the act is |
to provide for the election and appointment OF a
| County Treasurer OF Cecil county, and 10 define
the po'ccrs and prescribe the duties, and for the
| compensation of that officer, and of deputy |
whom he is authorized to appoint.
| According to Mr.. Poe then, one OF the purposes
OF the act was 'to dcfHethe potcers and prescribe
| the duties Of the office. There are two objects o.
| purposes which sought to be accomplished by
the act and, OF course il the constitution is to be-
| regardeded both OF those objects must be de
| scribed in the title of the act.
| Now, l affirm, that only one of those two
| purposes (both OF which Mr., Poe says were in
tended to be accomplished by the act in question:
| has been described in the title. One purpose
| only is described in the title and that one pur-
| pose described in such manner as to amount to
| positive and most misleading misdescrlption
of the purpose OF the act. Here it is: IAN act to
repeal Sections 49, 122 and l23 of Article of the
| Code o Public Local Laws, title Cecil county,
| sub title County Treasurer and to re-enact the
same wih amendments prOridiag for The election of
a Treasurer OF said county in the year 1925, and
his appointment in the meantime
In the face of such title, will Mr.. Pee seriously
| contend, that there is here no miSdesCriptioH of
| what he has himself said were the objects of the
act? Where, in this title is there single word
| telling us that, in addition to the election OF a
| Treasurer, the body of that act goes to define
his pOwer and prescribe his duties.
| 1t must be remembered that this act did not
create the office OF Treasurer. The office of Trea-
surer of Cecil county already existing
| office, and had been for several years. The
original act creating the office had defined his
powers and prescribed his duties" BY the
original act, he was to be appointed by the
commissioners. not elected by the people.
This being the condition OF things, Mr.
Crothers proposed to amend the law, and accord
I inply introduced his bill with title which SAYS