Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-12-30
THE COURTS DECISION.
The Old Board of County Com
missioners Must Step
Down And Out.
JUDGE JAMES REVELL FILES
HIS OPINION
Tn The Maudamus Case nf gamnal Rrooka
In The Mandamus Case Of Samuel Brooke
And Others Versus William H.
Brown And Others.

| IN the mandamus Case Cf Samuel Brooke
and others VS.. William IL Brown and
others. sustaining the demurrer of the
| petitioners to the respondents answer
and directs the writ OF mandamus is issued
as prayed. The following is the opin.
| ion in full
The only issue in the case to be raised
under the petitioners demurrer to the
respondents answer as agreed by the
respective counsel at the hearing is,
whether the Act of the General Assembly
OF Mary land, passed at the extra session
of 1901, ch. 8. was violation of the
Constitution OF this State, as amended
by the Act OF 1890 ch. 225, and adopted
November 3rd. 1891.
The Constitution of 1867, Article =,
section /, provided that the County Com
missioners should be elected on general
ticket OF each county on the Tues
daYnext after the FIRST Monday of Novem-
Der. 1867, and on the same day, in every
second year thereafter their number in
each county. their compensation. powers
and duties should be such as now are or
may be hereafter be prescribed by law.
The Constitutional Amendment o.
1890, ch. 22S. provided that County
Commissioners should be elected on
general tick.t OF each county .
on the Tuesday next after the first Mon
day in the month Of November. CON.
mencIng in the year 1891; their number
in each county, their compensation,
powers and duties shall be such as now
or may hereafter be prescribed by law,
they shall be elected at such times, in such
numbers, and fer such Pe,Tods not exceed
ing SIX years. as may be P,eseyf5ed BY IasV.
Under the provisions OF the several
Constitutions OF the State, the General
Assembly frequently changed the num-
Der of Commissioners, their tenure of
office, &c. The Act of 1892, ch. 442,
(ihe latest prior to that of 1901, ch. IA. J
provided for the election OF three Com
missioners to hold their Office for the
terms respectively OF six, four and two
years, as The Governor might determine
The said Act OF 1901, ch. I3, the legality
of which is now questioned, changed the
number of Commissioners from three to
seven; repealed the Act If 1892, ch. 442.
and thereby curtailed and ended the
terms OF the Commissioners in office at the
time of the election OF the seven Com
mssioners in November, 1901, to the
same extent. as If their terms had expired
by limitation Of the law under which they
were elected.
Tie b0zOe, green 10 tie legislature BY
said Constitutional 14D1end,uexf, 10 b,e-
scribe BY IasO tie nnm6e, of Commissioners
e,S III each comfy, tier condensation.
bo7Oeyy and duties. TO be elected al such
times, IN such Numbers, and 70, such be,1od
not e.xceeai,ig Sf.s years, as the Legislature
might see ht, was. in my judgment, mos,
ample and comprehensive, and the lang
guage plain and clear. No limitation or
restriction whatsoever, direct or by inn
plication as 10 tie times, when the Gen.
eral Assembly should enact that elections
for Commissioners should be held, lex
cept that the election should be at
general election. the first to be held in
November, 1901.
In deciding the issue, il is not for the
Court to cTiticise the motive OF the Legis-
lature, or the wisdom or expe ediency of
its enaclments. 1t is but fair presump
lion that the Actin question was carefully
and conscientiously considered and adopt
ed by the law makers. The Act OF 1901.
ch. I3, preached no contract; for, a pub
lie Office cannot be regarded as the prop
erty of the incumbent. and an Office is no
contract, express or implied. between the
public officer and the government whose
agent he is. The enjoyment OF the office
was TO continue so long as the law pro-
vided, unless the Legislature should in
the meantime otherwise enact. do not
think the authorities read and relied on
by the respondents counsel, initiate with
the views OF the Court, as the same pro.
visions in onr Constitution and laws,
made in pursuance thereof, do not exist
in the cases quoted. Moreover our own
Court of Appeals,it have not misread or
misconceived the case of Wilmington VS..
Polk H. & J. ago. | will briefly state
the facts and opinion of the Court in
that case.
The Act Of 1896. ch. 43. was passed
for the better administration of justice in
the several courts OF the State. and pro-
vided for the appointment and commits
sioning of Chief ard Associate Justices,
and in its 35th section. enacted that said
Act should continue in force until the
2o.h day Of October 1900, and until the
end of the next session of Assembly that
should happen thereafter.
Tie Act of T707. eA. 6o, authorized the
Governor ana Council to appoint and
commission. upon the death, resignation,
removal or other disqualification OF any
Chief or Associate Justice then in COM
mission or who mig lat thereafter be COM
missioned, to hold their office dsvlng
eoOd 6ekavioy removable only for mis-
behavior. &c.
On the 28th oi February, 1899, the Gov
ernor with the Councils consent. appointed
AID commissioned the appellant, William
Warrington, Chief Justice OF the Fourth
District If Maryland. (which Office was
vacant, to hold said Office during good
beEayio,; that he duly qualified and en-
tered upon the duties OF his Office until
the 9Th day OF February. 1907. when he
alleges in his declaration (page 2371 be
vas disseiled of his tieehold in office by
the appellee. William Polk. who filed a
plea (psge z4o) and shefeupon special
veroict was found by the jury. (psge
24o.l The Act of Assembly of 1901 re-
pealed the said Act OF 1896. ch. 43. and
| its supplements; said repeating Act go
| ing info effect the zoth January. 1907,
and was to continue in force until the
Ist January. 1895.