Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1905-07-14
PRIMARY ELECTION LAW.
DECISION BY THE COURT.

nAOsSohI VI tuo OtkCult OOutt IOI t0lb county,
tiled written opinion In the case Of Willis
b. burdette against the Board Of Super.
visors OF Elections OF Montgomery county
involving the validity Of the Primary Elec.
ton Law passed at the last session of the
Legislature. The Court did not consider il
necessary TO pass upon the grave constitu.
tionAl objections to the law, or its incon.
sistent, homogeneous and ambiguous proVis.
ions set out In complainant's bill, for the
Court say:
ut would be not only illogical but use.
less expenditure Of time and labor to discuss
the constitutional objections TO, or to criti.
else the provisions of, a statute which has
no legal existence. None Of these questions
can arise out OF something that does not
actually exist and in the view we have
taken Of the case under consideration ii will
not be necessary to determine any OF the
questions raised and argued except those
relating TO the objection last stated. It may
be remarked. however, in passing, that 1t Is
at least doubtful whether an act regulating
primary elections In Montgomery county,
restricted In its application as 1t Is TO elec.
tons held within party lines, and confined
TO territorial limits oil the county, 10 subject
TO, or controlled by, the provisions of the
lating to elections" y
The Court further say: "That 1t is the
right and duty of the Courts OF this State,
when the question is raised, to inquire into
the fact whether the statute as published
had In fact passed the Legislature; the only
limitation or qualification upon this right OF
inquiry being that In all cases the best and
most satisfactory evidence should be reQulr.
ed. In this case this requirement has been
fully and strictly complied with. Not only
does the answer OF the defendants admit the
allegations Of the bill OF complaint In this
regard. but we have In evidence before us
the original engrossed bill, with the endorse.
ments of the Chief Clerk OF the House and
the Secretary Of the Senate, upon which
evidence 80 much stress was laid In Berry
vs.. Drum Point r. r. Co., and the Journals
OF the two Houses; and these, together with
the testimony of DR.. Smith, the Chief CLERK
OF the House OF Delegates, and Mr.. John.
ston, the delegate who introduced the orig.
inal measure; Mr.. Almoney, the Reading
Clerk OF the Senate, and Mr.. Hilton, the
Clerk TO the County Commissioners OF Mont
gomery county, demonstrate beyond any
question that the words 'or for any reason
were inserted In the 10 section, and the word
delegate was substituted for the word dele
gation'in the 81 section after the bill had final
ly passed the Legislature. 1t appears from the
Journals that after the original bill had been
passed by the House II was In due course
OF legislative procedure sent to the Senate
which body substituted for the entire meas.
ure bill Of its own, In which shape 1t was
passed by the Senate and returned TO the
House, which refused TO concur in the Sen
ate amendment, and the measure went TO a
Of conference, which reported
two amendments TO what had become, 10
TACT, although not 10 name, o Senate bill
and this report was spread upon the reapec-
tive Journals OF the two Houses, was by
both adopted, the amendments therein re-.
ported were made part OF the bill, and the
latter as thus amended was finally passed
bV both Houses" "The second
amendment reported and adopted Is In these
words: and Ia line of section IS strike
out the following words, or for any reason,
and these are the exact words, that, after
being thus designed and deliberately elimln
ated by the concurrent action OF the two
Houses, reappear In the enrolled bill, which
was signed by the Governor, and Is in the
printed statutes. Whether this Return oil
the Native was the result OF accident or de.
sign 1t Ia impossible from the evidence be-
fore rs TO determine; nor is 1t material
What 1t Is important for Us TO ascertain from
the evidence is, that the conference report
containing this amendment, was q part o.
the engrossed bill when It passed the Houses
because the engrossed bill IS presented u
rs ct the trial OF the cause has not thi
report attached thereto" "As TO
the substitution Of the word delegate 70
the word delegation In the 9 line OF sec
ton 81 II Is q proven and conceded fact II
the case, that it appeared for the first tim
in the enrolled bill.
ain this condition OF the case we are aske(
by the learned counsel for the defendants Il
strike from section 10 the words, 'or for am
reason and permit the remainder of the sec
ton TO stand; la other words we are TO de
clare the section TO be as the Legislature In
tended, and not as the Governor approved
It; although the concurrent action of both
the Legislative and Executive Departments
Is absolutely necessary for the complete en-.
actment of law. And we are requested IA
strike from section 81 the words, and each
delegate 10 q nominating convention shall
pay the sum OF ten dollars, and suffer the
remainder Of the section TO stand, although
In that event the section a. framed by the
Court would be neither the section that the
Legislature enacted nor the one that the
Governor approved. And we are asked To
do this on the ground that these changes are
immaterial aud will not In any wlse affect
the general scope and purport OF the law
II is undoubtedly elementary law that q
statute may be Ia part invalid and partly
valid, and, Il the parts are wholly independ-
emit OF each other, that which Ia valid may
stand and that which Is Invalid will be re-
jected."
"But It Is also equally Is well established
that II the different parts OF an act are 30 In
timately connected with, and dependent
upon, each other as TO warrant belief that
the Legislature intended them as a whole,
and, II ell could not be carried into effect,
the Legislature would not have passed the
residue Independently, and some parts are
invalid, ell the provisions which are depend
ent upon each other must fall"
ITO hold Otherwise would be to substitute
for the law Intended by the Legislature one
which they may never have been willing by
itself to enact"
San examination OF the provisions OF sec.
ton 10 OF the law under consideration will
show that the words which IL 10 now pro-
posed TO eliminate constitute q most vital
portion OF the section. BY far the most i'm
portant provision Of the section is that de-
dining the class OF voters who should be
permitted 10 apply TO any one OF the ballot
judges TO assist them In marking their bal.
lots. As the bill came from the Senate Il
provided that any voter who is blind, or who
by reason oil physical disability. Is unable 70
mark his ballot, or for any reason may ap-
ply 70 any one OF the ballot judges 10 assist
him 10 the marking thereof. II appears
from the Journal Of the House OF Delegates
aud from the testimony OF Mr.. Johnston
who by reason Of the fact that he was the
author OF the original measure took psrtlcu-
lar interest In this piece Of legislation, thai
Il was this license 10 the voter for any rea-
SON that occurred 70 him, 10 apply 10 the
ballot judge 70 assist him 10 marking bis
ballot, that aroused the special opposition
on the part OF the House. which resulted Ia
the non concurrence in the Senate amend.
ment, and threw the bill into conference
and produced deadlock between the two
Houses, which was not broken until the last
day of the session The reason behind the
opposition Of the members Of the House ol
Delegates 10 this provision is apparent
They were unwilling that the ballot judges
should become acquainted with the charac
ter OF the ballots deposited by the voters
except 10 the cases OF those who were blind
or by reason OF physical disability were IN
ahla N mark them which In the nature O