Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1903-06-24
CITY ELECTION MIDDLE
HEARlAG OF INJUNCTION OF PETITION
ERS THIS MORNING.
The Question As To Legality Of Holding
City Election In July Discussed
Before Full Bench.
PETITION DISMISSED.

PETITION DISMISSED.
The petition for injunction filed in the
Circuit Court by Martin NJ. Smith and
Grafton ID. Ridout, a Republican and
Democratic taxpayer of the city, asking
the Court to enioin the Mayor. Counselor
and Aldermen OF the Guy OF Annapolis
from holding an election on July I3lh
for municipal Offices, was heard this morn
ing in the Circuit Court before Chief
Judge Jones and Associate Judges Revell
and Thomas on law points OF the case.
The petition is bipartisan one and
is brought for the purpose OF deciding
the legality of the law with reference to
the law changing the boundary and port
warden lines of Annapolis, passed by an
act OF the Legislature some four years
ago. w. Hallam Claude, City Coun-
selor. assisted by MIR. Elihu ). Riley, a
former City Counselor, represented the
Mayor aud City Council, who contended
that the city had Sufficient authority to
hold an election. and Daniel K Randall,
States Attorney, and Mr.. Ridgley P.
Melvin. who represented the petitioners.
contending there was no legal authority
under the law for holding the election, II
having been repealed Dy act OF the
Legislature
Mr.. Ehhu S. Riley. associate counsel
on the part OF the city, opened the case
and quoted from authorities, showing il
was not the intention of the Legislature
10 take from the people OF Annap-
lis the right they have enjoyed
since November ~, 1908, right given
them by royal grant when Annapolis was
erected into city by Queen Anne, the
inhabitants of the Capnal OF Maryland
qualified to vote, ana have enjoyed the
right Of electing their officers. This right
IS found expressed in the Code of 1860,
Art. 2, chap. 2O2, and the act OF 1850,
chap. 46S. No one ever doubted. no one
ever suspected, until research began a
few months since, when the right OF the
city of Annapolis to change a ward line
was brought into this Court TOR review,
that the Legislature had repealed. or
was supposed to have repealed. this
great right of the people.
Would the Legislature give this city a
charter. boundaries, right to make ward
lines, provide for municipal regislra-
ton, give it authority to appoint the
officers Of elecsien, provide ballots and
machinery, and then deprive the city oI
Annapolis ot the power 20 carry all these
other powers into effect1 Such was not
the intention OF the Legislature. Here
Mr.. Riley quoted several authorities bear
ing on the case. He coniended that the
the of the law had q double meaning
| In the title il read bonds and bound
aries. In the Act, bonds, boundaries and
bridges. and coverlly-''freeman's bal
lots" Are bonds and boundaries and
bridges german TO each other Z II not,
then the emphatic decision Of the Court
of Appeals stands face to face with this
act. A statute may be valid In part and
void in part. even when the two paris
are contained in the same section, pro-
vided the valid part is independent of, and
separate from. that which is void-Scharf
VS.. Taylor. II, however, this honorable
Court will not deem this case where
rule OF finding the legislative intent must
be enforced, nor the ACT Of 1898, chap.
37o, declared unconstitutional because il
violates Art. 3. sec. 2o. by having more
than one subject of legislation in the Act,
then we most respectfully call the Cours' 5
attention to the third objection to grant
ing the prayer OF the petitioners.
Mr.. Ridgley P. Melvin. on the part OF
the petitioners, followed Mr.. Riley in a
forceful argument. contending there was
no law on the statute books for Legally
holding a corporation election for the
city OF Annapolis, no matter what the
intention OF the Legislature was in pass
ing the law referred to. He contended
that the Court could not substitute its
opinion for the repealed Law, and cited
number OF authorities on the subject.
Mr.. Melvin was followed by MIR.
Daniel r. Randall, States Attorney, for
the petitioners, who said the petition was
filed by two public spirited citizens and
taxpayers for the purpose Of testing the
legality OF the law and to have the con-
structi0n Of the Court as to whether an
election could legally be held on the 3th
Of July, 1903. for a Mayor, Counselor
and Aldermen of the city, and not have
legal proceedings follow at great expense
10 the taxpayers. Mr. Randall said il
was for the purpose ofgetting the Courts
opinion that this petition. was fled, and
he hoped the Court would pass upon Il
at once, that it might 60 TO the Court Of
Appeals for their construction OF the law.
Al the close Of Mr.. Randalrs remarks
Judge Jones said .'it was not necessary
to continue argument further. We have
all arrived at the decision-to sustain the
demurrer and dismiss the petition" but
at the same time the Court declined to
file an opinion at this time.
This decision in effect holds that there 10
sufficient Law by which The election can
be conducted. The petitioners, through
their counsel, will appeal at once, in
hope that the Court Of Appeals win hear
and decide the case on briefs at their
setting here on June 7osh. In the mean
time the ely will make every preparation
necessary tor holding the election.