Evening star., 1948-07-21
Montgomery Charter Suit

Of the proposed Montgomery County Charter.
1t seems to me that you missed the main point
of the decision which originally prompted my
bringing the suit.
You will recall that originally took the
position that the provision in the Maryland
constitution which permitted charter county
to pass legislation only one month a year
covered all legislation, whether laws, ordinances
or resolutions The Charter Board denied this
vigorously and contended that the one-month
limitation applied only to very limited field Of
legislation and would not affect the operating
efficiency Of charter county. In order to
resolve this disagreement, brought my suit,
which was in the nature of a test suit, and the
court has now confirmed my view that all
legislation must be passed in one month. This
Is the important point settled by the recent
decision and almost every one seems to have
overlooked it. 1t Is important because the
people Of the county can now decide, free from
doubt, whether they want a charter form Of
government where the legislative power to
pass laws and ordinances is limited to one
month . year and with no provisions for
emergencies or special sessions Personally,
don't want that kind Of local government and
won't be in favor Of q charter until the one
month Limitation Is removed from the Mary
land constitution.
There was one portion Of your editorial which
thought was somewhat misleading because
of incompleteness. That was where you quoted
the courts language about the charter being
"a framework for possible governmental func-
tioning" even without the sections declared
unconstitutional and that the decision should
not prevent the people from having the oppor-
tunty to vote on the charter" after removal
Of the portion to which the court took excep-
ton. The way you quoted the decision the
court seems to be giving its blessing to the
balance Of the charter when, in fact, the court
after ruling out the unconstitutional provisions
specifically stated that "of course we realize
this may leave other provisions Of the pro-
posed charter useless" 1t seems to me that
your readers were entitled to this comment by
the court 80 that they could judge for them
selves whether the charter is as Intact" after
the decision as your editorial sought to prove.
HUBERT A. SCHNEIDER.
Editors Note: The court said: "The above
noted provisions being contrary to the consti-
tuition in our opinion, entitle the plaintiff to
have them deleted from the proposed charter;
but this should not prevent the people from
having the opportunity to vote on the re-
mainder, after these omissions; as they are
not 80 inseparable from the entire charter
as to leave an unworkable framework for
possible governmental functioning. The ap-
propriations, as legislative functions, could be
made under Article II thereof as the county
desired, and the remainder Of the charter has
not been attacked in these proceedings. OF
course, we realize this may leave other pro-
visions Of the proposed charter useless, but 1t
Is not our duty or privilege to strike out any
that do not violate the mandate Of the people
u,Iato nh &c m
court. the trainers of the proposed charter and
every citizen of this State The desirability or
nondesirability of adopting the same, with
these constitutional transgressions omitted, will
be for the citizens OF this county to determine,
when exercising their right of franchise"
Applauds A. A. y. w. Decision -,,
To the Editor of The Start aurEas' Ell
The decision BY Chief Justice Laws denying
the right Of the present members OF the Ma
tional Board of the American Association OF
University Women to expel the washington
ID. c. Branch from the association ana
unfolding the branch in its Interpretation OF
the national bylaws is Of significance to many
proups thoroughout the country besides univer-
sity women.
Indirectly the decision delivers an effective
blow to q specious theory which has gained
prominence in recent years. This Is the theory
that the end justifes the means; that II an
objective appears desirable to a group, then
the methods employed to attain that objective
need not be too closely scrutinized.
The decision points the moral that regard
less of the objective sought, any action taken
by the officials Of an organization must DC
in accordance with its constitution, the charter
under which it is incorporated, the corporation
laws governing its establishment and Its own
bylaws
Specifically the court states that the Ma
tionaI Board of the A. A. u. w. has no right
to make or amend the bylaws OF the associa-
ton. That authority is restricted to the ma
tional convention of the association. BY inn
plication this means that the present members
of the national board may not place their own
Interpretation upon the national bylaws. This
is exactly what was attempted when in spite
of the express provision in the bylaws that
in all matters concerning branch affairs the
branches may make their own bylaws provided
they do not conflict with those of the national.
and in spite of the established practice OF
years giving the branches autonomy in the
selection of their membership, the present ma
tional officers read the Interpretation they
desired into the bylaws.
eligibility" they insisted, is the same as
"admissibility" If candidate holds an A. A.
U. W. approved degree from an A. A. U. w.
approved college, that is all that Is necessary.
And no branch may deny admission to such
applicant regardless of her character, integrity,
habits. even her loyalty to the United States
The Washington Branch throughout has
maintained that under the national bylaws
the branches have the right to choose their
members. and that the bylaws OF the branch
which specify that right are not in conflict
with those of the national association: The
court opinion upholds them in this position
The court further pronounces that under the
laws Of incorporation of the national associa-
ton. the officers of the national board have
no authority to expel or to penalize any branch.
In attempting to expel the Washington Branch
from the association because 1t would not
change its bylaws to conform to the erroneous