Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-12-21

BY agreement filed in this case all the cues
tions of law and fact were submitted TO the
Court. and at the hearing questions of fact at
issue were waived admitted by REALTORS
counsel. The only inquiry presented 70 the
sembly of Maryland passed at the Extra SEES
sion of 1901, Chapter 10, providing for the APP
pointment by the Court of a Board OF Visitors
for the Anne Arundel County Jail and defining
the duties of said Board. was an exercise of
Constitutional power. This Act gave the
Board supervision over all persons committed
to the Jail. the power of making all necessary
rules and regulations in the premises, directed
the appointment of a Warden who should give
bond, take charge of the prison and prisoners.
exercise the same power over them be subject
TO the same forfeitures and be responsible for
escapes in the same manner and TO the same
extent as Sheriffs of the several counties. &c .
&c. The 18th section repeats all Acts relating
to the duties of Sheriff as 10 said Jail or fixing
his compensation for boarding prisoners or
for other work, and all Acts inconsistent with
said Act.
The respondents counsel in support of his
contention quoted numerous authorities as TO
the power exercised by the Sheriff in Colonial
times, to-wit; The service and execution of
process, return of Juries, keeping, the peace.
the care and keeping OF the County Jail and
the prisoners. which were similar to those
exercised by the Sheriff of the counties of
England. and claimed that the sheriff was a
constitutional officer and that the Legislature
had no right To abridge his duties and pay as
recognized and established by the common
law, that the custody and control of prisoners
as il existed at and before the adoption of the
Constitution could not be taken from him and
given TO an officer not elected by the people
and quoted the following authorities as sus-
| tanning his position:
State vs. Braust 26 Wisconsin, 412
Mckewin vs. keeler ~ Hun, I15.
Warner VS.. The People DEMO, 272.
People VS.. Draper, 10 N. Y, 524.
| George Virtue, sheriff, VS.. Board of Free
| holders OF Essex county, decided by the
| Supreme Court of New Jersey. Not re-
| ported0
These authorities and the reasoning of the
| emminent Judges who delivered the opinions
/ therein contained. might under other circum-
| stances and conditions have much weight. but
/ the case before us is not similar This Court
has been referred to the Constitutional pro
/ visions of none of the States whose decisions
| have been quoted like those OF this state, ano
my research discloses none. They simply pro.
vide for the election or appointment of
/ Sheriff without defining his duties or the
| power given TO the Legislature over them
| The Constitution OF Maryland, Article 5. Sec
| tiOn A, states that there shall be elected il
| each county and in the City of baltimore il
every second year one person resident in sait
| he Shall hold his office for two years >
| shall give such bond, exercise such p0aoer
| and perform sach duttes as nor are or ma!
| hereafter be Hred 6g kd9C." surely this Language,
| can nave but one Interpretation. Uo-wit: tn,
| Legislature may aOridge entirely, do ava
! with or add 10 the duties OF sheriff. Th,
| Legislature from the time of the adoption o
| the former constitution OF the State, up Il
| the present time has exercised its neve
| before disputed power to enact laws, boil
by taking from ana adding To the functions O
| sheriff, and IL was not until the Constitution
OF 1864 that the power was given to the Legs
lature TO enact laws as To the powers au
duties OF Sheriff, yet prior 10 this time il exeI
ciseu such power and our Court nt Appeal
in 1853 said: there is nothing to prohibit tn
| Legislature from adding to on diminishing tn
duties of sheriff, prONtued those ddde be not i
conflict with his Office as sheriff, aud turtle
| remaI KS that what was said in Georgia OF tn
Office of Sheriff in that state is equally appli
cable TO that Office and his duties in Mary
| lane" In the case OF state VS.. Dews r. N
4 ri 1 nv Ra lrf
| continues Judge LsGrand. lit is true taat tn
| appointment Oh sheriff confers upon him tn
| night 10 execute the duties of the office, bu
| from the nature OF the Office, those duties ma
| be changed by law. 1t rs, i'll this state, a pure
| ly ministerial Office, whose function an
| province are TO execute duties prescribed b
| law. from the very nature OF such an Office
| It's powers are the result of its duties; i
reference TO it, the maxim is strictly true tina
! Power and duty are correative.' but il
/ powers do not extend beyond, they are til
nero consequence OF its duties. The nolde
| OF such office has power only TO execute ii
duties, ana because such duties are prescribe
| to and imposed on him. The idea that ute duties
ministerial officer cannot be changed, rel N
eolUe an Of tie order or things, and be
| JfagrdRt d6SeTdaty; IL would invest MIN, who
| IA mere minister and servant, with authority {
| limit the power OF, ana exercise an over
mastering control over, those from whom h
| is 10 receive the law. Those creatures are tn
mere creatures of law, and are, IN their yer
| essence. changeaDle by the law.maklng pOwel
| and his rights, which are deriYaJive only froI
| those duties cannot prevent their creation O
| change. HIS rights, which are the CONSEQUENCE
| OF his duties, cannot intercept the auInorit
| OF the Legislature TO Act on those duties"
Such is the strong language quoted with al
| probation by the late Cniet Justice LeGran
| IN his concurring opinion delivered in til
| case of Mayor &c, OF baltimore VS.. state Q
| rel, OF the Board of Police OF Baltimore, 10 Nj,
| pages ass, 4s9. While this from the cor
| curing opinion OF Judge Bertrand, the opiI
| ion OF the Court adopted il as will appear d
| Judge Iuck's opinion, page 46c, same case,
| Md. When in speaking OF interference wit
| the Sheriff's duties, Judge Tuck who deliver
ed the Courts opinion says: me Uteacs presente
| IN the opinion of the Chief Justice. well q
, | that of the Court below shows that the objee
, | tOns, then being discussed, were not we
, | taken'-l may here add that the undouDte
, rule is that in cases or doubt the Court ougi
| not TO interfere and pronounce a law uncoT
|, | stitutlonal. 1t cannot do 50 without assumin
|, (where it does not clearly appear that tn
, | Constitution has been violated,
| The Court finds the issues in this case fC
|, | the relator. 1t is therefore ordered this 2Ot
| day of December, 1901, that the Judgment {
| the Court is that the demurrer of the relate
| be sustained and the demurrer OF the respoI
| dent over ruled, and that the writ of mar
damus prayed for be issued. Respondent
| pay costs.
JAMES REvELL-
4