The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1912-03-16
JACKSON WINSCONTEST

VI. Mccullough, Esq, counsel respective
ly for George E. L. Hess and E. Wilmer
Jackson in the contest for Long Term
Commissioner, instituted by the former,
who at the election in November -eceiv-
ed 2176 votes and Mr., Jackson, who was
returned elected, 2244 votes. Mr. Hess
had filed a petition praying the Court to
award him the Office, under the provi-
sions of the Act of 1919, grouping the
several districts of the county into
County Commissioners districts, for pur-
poses Of road supervision, on the ground
that he CMr. Hess) was eligible and Mr..
Jackson was not eligible for the position
as Mr.. Jackson and Mr.. Reynolds who
were returned elected both hailed from
the same district. Demurrers had been
filed to the petition, and Mr.. Mccullough
opened the argument, The question at
issue, he said, was one of very narrow
compass He held that the petition had
not been adequately supported. Mr..
Jackson's ineligibility would not entitle
Mr., Hess to the place an the next highest
supported candidate. The weight of de-
cison was against this view Moreover
the Act of 1910 did not appear to provide
or require that each of the groups OF
districts should have Long and Short
Term Commissioner alternately or in re-
gular turn. He cited from McCrary on
ELECTIONS, to show that the known ineli-
gibility of a candidate when he headed
the poll did not work to give the Office
/ othe next highest opponent. American
practice required a majority or a plural
ity vote for an election. The State Con-
cd; lal do Int Coy,
missioners should be elected at such
times in such numbers and for such per-
iods as might be prescribed. He cited
an Indiana decision, rendered in 1907,
holding that the next highest candidate
for Assessor could not fill the office when
the one returned elected was found in
eligible as not being free-holder; that
the contestant must show his right to
the office and that his receiving the next
highest number of votes gave him no
title thereto.
Mr. Marbury said he would first call
attention to the statute under which the
election was held. TIE Act of 1894 pro-
vided for the election Of Long and Short
term Commissioners in 1895 and every
two years thereafter. The Act of 1910
grouping the districts for purposes of
road supervision expressly provided that
each group should have a representative
in the Board who should be elected by a
majority vote of the qualified electors Of
the county The question might be raised
as to whether the Legislature had the
power to make these provisions or whe-
ther the Constitution provided that the
Commissioners should be chosen from
h. D,,A 4,
tuition was silent on this subject, and the
Legislature might permit the people to
choose Commissioners who were non
residents. The petition was based upon
the fact that Mr.. Hess was nominated
from the second group OF election dis
tricts or the Second Commissioner dis
lrict from which there was no member of
the existing Board. Mr.. Jackson and Mr.
Reynolds were cf ndidates for the Long
and the Short term from the Third Com
missioner district and were returned
elected.
The question WI not merely one of
eligibility, but VIII. !her the Second dis
trict was entitled to representation in the
Board. AS there was no vacancy in the
Third district for the Long Term, the
votes for Mr.. Jackson were thrown away
The Commissioner from each group Of
districts was specially charged with the
supervision of roads in his group, and
the Long and Short Term Commissioners
were to be chosen in each group in turn
The second group had no representative
in the Board and had had none for two
years previous. Unless the alienation
prevailed a similar situation could arise
tnlI
from the third group of districts, the
votes cast for Mr.. Jackson were thrown
away. 1t was true that the Commits
sioners were to be elected by all the vot-
ers of the county, but they were to come
in turn from each group of districts for
the Long and Short terms.
The question was whether the Court
had the power to construe the statutes
governing the matter at issue as Mr.
Marbury held they should be construed
lie cited Maryland decisions supporting
his view. Ono held that the wrong sought
to be remedied must be gathered from
the statute. The Act or 1910 sought to
prevent the election Of two men from
the same district. Otherwise it was nu-
satory and of n9ns effect. Again, it had
been held that the will of the Legislature
is to be carried into effect. The Acts of
1894 and 1910 were to se held as har-
monious. Another decision held it to be
the duty of the Court to take nothing
from or add nothing to statute unless it
could be gathered that the Legislature
had failed TO express it's intent. If the
intent could be gathered the Court might
insert or interpolate words needed to de-
Glare the intent so as 10 give it effect
Mr. Marbury contended that it was ne
cessary for the Court I, hold that there
was vacancy from MI. Hess group Of
districts, that he was rne only candidate
properly voted for for Long Term Com
missioner and that as such he was en-
titled to the office. English rule as to the
next highest candidate merely left the
office vacant. Any other view tnan the
one urged by Mr.. Marbury would he con-
tended, defeat the intent OF the Legisla-
ture as expressed in the language of the
statute. The Legislature assumed that
Its acts were 20 be executed. The pur-
pose OF the Act OF 1910 had to DC COM