The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1917-10-18
Baltimore Asks
A Fair Hearing

Bill, in their report, say:
There was no reason for Civ
ing to the people in the terri
tory Immediately surrounding
the City a veto power upon
the progress and development
of the City"
This was signed by every mem
Der of the Committee, a majority
of whom are county men. viz:
w. CALVIN CHESTNUT
and JOHN H. RICHARD
SON, of Baltimore County,
HON. w. LAIRD HENRY,
Former Judge of Court of APP
peals, of Dorchester.
SENATOR JOHN F. MUDD,
of Charles,
BEN AMINA A. RICHMOND,
Esq, of Allegany, and ALEX.
r. HAGNER, Esq, of Wash
ington County.
In DAILY VS.. Morgan, 60 Nd.
465, the Court of Appeals said:
No one knew better than
the trainers of the Constitu-
ton of 1867, that the time
must come, and that not far
distant, when the extension
of the limits of a great city
like Baltimore would be abb
solutely necessary to its proper
growth and development"
1t is not Unfair and a6suy6 to
submit matter affecting the City
of Baltimore, in the language of
the Court of Appeals, absolutely
necessary to its proper gro70M and
deUelobment," to a majority of the
voters who have settled Just out
side its boundaries? It would be
just as reasonable to submit a law
imposing a license tax on automo-
biles to referendum to the own
erS of automobiles.
LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE IN
THIS STATE.
In the interview above referred
to Judge Harlan also said:
IF there is anything wrong
in subjecting people to a city
government and city taxes,
without their consent or with
out the consent of a majority
of them, it has never been
thought 50, because it has been
the almost unbroken practice
of the Legislature to do that
very thing"
With only tao exceptions, es,eyv
one of tie one hundred or more Acts
achich the Legislature has passed in
cooperating cities and teams, and e.r-
tendiRg tier limits, haze been PASS
ed 7Olth0W any refe,eNdum. In fact,
prior to 1864, there was no limi-
tatlOn on the power of the Legis-
lature to divide counties and create
new counties out of the old ones or
out of parts of old ones. 1t was the
common practice of the Legisla-
ture to change county lines and
city lines, and no one ever thought
that any principle of home rule or
fair play was violated. In the War
Constitution of 1864, for the first
time the Constitution imposed a
limit on the power of the Legisla-
ture to change county lines. In
1867 this limitation was continued,
with a modification which makes
it apply only aheTe tie CHANGE in tie
county line is made for the PURPOSE
Of taking people ont Of one county and
putting them in another counfy. This
was done to prevent gerrymander-
ing which had become quite
familiar with regard to congress
ional districts, and which, but for
this limitation, could be very
easily worked i'll Maryland today.
A little change in the dividing line
between Baltimore county and
Carroll county would make two
solidly Democratic counties in
stead of one Democratic and one
doubtful county, and would give
Carroll county two more members
of the Legislature without any loss
of members in Baltimore county:
so, change in the line between
Charles and Prince Georges coun-
ties would make two safely Repub-
lican counties instead of one Re-
blican and one doubtful.