Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-12-14
THE OLD BOARDS ANSWER
The New Board of County Commissioners
Petition For Mandamus.

Mr.. L. G. CAN'T, counsel for the old
board of County Commissioners, on
Thursday afternoon filed the following
answer TO the petition for mandamus filed
by the new board last week and publish
ed in full in last weeks MARYLAND RE-
PUBLICAN. The answer is by way of
demurrer.
10 me Honorable, the Judges Of sqid Court:
The answer of William H. Brown. David Il.
X. Steele and Galloway Cheston TO the petition
OF Samuel brook and others against these re-
spondents in this Court exhibited.
These respondents not admitting the legal
suIhciency OF the allegations OF the said petit
ton TO entitle petitioners TO the redress sought
in this Court, and insisting upon ali their legal
rights by way of demurrer, say:
That your respondents VIM. II. Brown was
lawfully elected County Commissioner of
Anne Arundel county at the general election
held in November in the year 1877 and was duly
commissioned as such by the Governor for Il
term OF six years, which term will not expire
until the general election TO be held in Novem-
Der lSU3 Your respondent David X. Steele in
like mannerwas elected County Commissioner
at the general election held in November 1899,
anu was duiy commissioned Tor term OF SIX
years, which Will not expire until after the
general election to be held in November, 1895,
and your respondent Galloway Cheston some
time in the year 1900 was duly appointed and
commissioned by the Governor TO I'LL the
vacancy occasi0ned by the resignation of John
IL. Hopkins who was elected County Com
missioner at the general election held IN
November, 1895. whose term of Office would
expire upon the qualification of his successor
elected at the general e ection held NoVem-
ber 5th. 1901, ana your respondents are advised
that by virtue of the aforesaid elections and
commissions OF your respondents they legally
constitute the County Commissioners of Anne
Arundel county.
These respondents admit that the act of
1901, Chapter IA, was passed 10y the General
Assembly of Maryland, and they admit a pre-
tended election OF seven County Commission
ers was held November 9th, 1901, and that the
said petitioners were returned by the Board of
CanYassers as elected County Commissioners
OF Anne Arundel county. But your respond
ents charge and insist; (a) that the said Act of
Assembly of 1901, Chapter IA. was passed in
violation of the Constitution of Maryland; (a)
that the election held in pursuance of said act,
for County Commissioners of Anne Arundel
county was in violation of the Constitution of
Maryland and the laws made in pursuance
thereof; (c) that Commissioners enormously
issued by the Governor TO the said petitioners
were so issued contrary to law and are of none
effect and that the said petitioners had no
legal right 10 attempt TO qualify as such
County commissioners by taking the oath of
Office and that the same is Of no force or effect
in law.
3 In answer to the fourth paragraph of said
petition these respondents do not admit but
deny that having qualified as alleged that the
said petitioners became 1.-THE lawful constitut-
ed County Commissioners OF Anne Arundel
county and were as such invested with power
and authority" emitting them to demand the
surrender of the Office and its appurtenanceS
by the respondents. And these respondents
deny that on the 10Th day of NOvem Der, 1901,
the day named in said paragraph, or on any
other day the said petitioners made any proper
or legal demand upon these respondents for
the office of County Commissioners of Anne
Arundel county and the custody OF the books.
records, papers and archives pertaining there
to.
That for the reasons above assigned the
petitioners are not entitled to the writ prayed.
And as IN duty, &c.
Il. G. CAN'T,
Attorney for respondents