Evening star., 1948-10-14

Al partial tGTt OF the Mdfy-
land Court of Appeals ruling on
the proposed Montgomery County
charter tollotDs:
This case was instituted by the
appellant, q resident, taxpayer
voter and owner Of o bond issued by
Montgomery County, to enjoin the
Board Of Supervisors Of Elections Of
Montgomery County from submit
ting to the voters Of that County al
the election to be held November 2
ls4S, a charter proposed under Ar
ticle xIA of the Constitution Of the
State "'s.
Other bodies, including the Char
ter Board which had prepared the
charter, q civic association known
as The Charter Committee Of Mont
gomery County and the County
Commissioners Of the County were
allowed to intervene and become
parties defendant 80
The Circuit Court for Montgomery
County filed a decree on July 20
1948, deleting from the proposed
charter certain provisions which
required the preparation of an ex-
pense budget and the making Of
necessary appropriations in the
month Of June each year. directing
the President Of the County Com.
missicners to publish the Charter, as
deleted = .enjoining the Super.
visors of Elections from submitting
the charter to the voters as the same
was originally drawn. and directing
them to submit It, as deleted, at the
November election -.
Reversed Decree.
From that decree, the complain
ant appealed -. The Maryland
National Capital Park and Planning
Commission (and) the Wash
ington Suburban Sanitary Commis-
sion (were) given leave to file a
brief as amicus curiae, and did so
We advanced the case, heard it on
October S, 1948,- and by per curiam
order reversed decree and dismissed
the bill of complaint.
The chancellors found that, under
Article XI A, Section 8, OF the Con-
stitution, all Legislation" must be
enacted" within one month during
the year, and, that the proposed
charter directed that For the
enactment of legislation, the Coun-
ty Council shall sit in Legislative
Session during May Of each year.
Other provisions =" of the char
ter required public hearings on the
e = budget - between June 10,
and June Is, and the adoption OF
such budget - not later than
June 30. These charter provisions
according to the chancellors, pro.
vided for the enactment of legisla-
ton, and violated the restriction ir
Article XI A on such enactment ex-
cept during one month in the year
since the charter had previously
designated the month of May as the
legislative month. The chancellors
therefore, held these provisions ir
Article vi of the charter were un-
constitutional, but not so insep-
arabic from the other part Of the
charter as to prevent the remainder
from being submitted to the voters
The procedure required by Article
xI A for the submission of a char
ter to the voters of county Is in
volved and somewhat clumsy. . ="
ALI of this has been done in
Montgomery County with respect to
the charter now before us in this
case, and we are asked to determine
only whether the charter, either as
drafted, or as modified by the chan
cellors, shall be submitted to the
voters at the election in November
1913. It Is not contended that there
was any omission In procedure or
any neglect Of the constitutional re-
quirements for submission. The OBJ
lection raised was, a. We have
stated, to the substance Of the char
ter prepared, and to It's validity as
q constitutional form Of county gov
eminent.
In Provincs II Court.
Before We came to the substantive
constitutional point, We have before
Us the contention made by the de-
PENDANTS that the courts cannot In
tsrfere with the Legislative processes,
and that enjoining the submission
to the voters Of . proposed charter
Is such interference. Many author
tiles are cited In support Of this
view, and they are impressive and
persuasive. But in this State we
have actually passed upon the valid
ity Of proposed constitutional or
charter amendments, and have en-
joined submission Of an invalid
charter amendment Ceases
were cited)
In the cases cited there were pre-
sented specific questions, which
would necessarily have arisen after
approval by the voters and which
could Just as conveniently be de-
cided before submission as after
wards. We think such q ques-
ton is now presented as the court
should consider In advance Of sub
mission. But In so doing we are de-