Evening star., 1948-12-10
Council Election
Ruling byCourt
Due Next Week
Three Judges Weigh
Question Of Legality
In Montgomery Vote
By John v. Homer

By John v. Homer
The Montgomery County Circuit
Court is expected to rule early next
week on the legality of electing
seven County Councilmen Janu-
ary 6.
With all three of its judges par
ticipating, the court took that ques-
ton under advisement late yester-
day.
The problem is to decide complex
constitutional issues raised in the
transition from commissioner
government to the new charters
council-manager system.
While the county awaits this rul-
ing, it also anticipates another ma
jor development-the formal entry
of candidates into the scheduled
council election contest. Seven
Charter ticket nominees are due to
file qualifying papers today, and
one or more independent candidates
may follow suit. The filing dead
line is midnight Monday.
Question Before Court.
Montgomery voters authorized the
governmental change in referen-
dunn last month. The charter they
approved then became law on
December 2.
to decide, in effect. whether the old
commissioners have right to con-
tinue in Office for two years longer
administering the new law-or
whether a County Council shall be
elected to take Office next month.
Judges Charles w. Woodward,
Stedman Prescott and Patrick J..
Schnauffer did not say yesterday
when they would announce their
decision. Previously, however, they
indicated willingness to speed the
proceedings.
Speed is essential, if the verdict
is to be of value. Regardless of the
ruling Of Rockville, the case will
be carried to the Maryland Court of
Appeals. That court will be in
session only five more days
through next Friday-before the
scheduled election.
Arguments before the three Judge
court yesterday were on demur-
rer filed by Charter organizations.
The Charter Board and the Mont
gomery County Charter Committee
were permitted to intervene in the
case as co-defendants with the
Board of Election Supervisors after
four Republican county commits
sioners requested an injunction
against a special election.
No New Issues Raised.
No unexpected issues were raised
yesterday by the opposing lawyers.
The case for a special election
was presented by Frederick P. Lee
of Bethesda, who has just been NOM
mated for one of the seven council
seats. The case against election
was presented by F. Barnard Welsh
of Rockville, attorney to the Board
of County Commissioners and an
old foe of the charter movement.
Mr.. Lee contended that the
adopted charter properly provides
for an election, as directed in Ar
ticle xI-A of the Maryland Con-
stitution and within the meaning of
Article XVII, which restricts the
number of elections.
Mr.. Welsh argued that Article
XVII allows county elections only
every fourth year. The last was
held in 1916, he said, and the next
legal vote would be in 1850. The
same article fixes the terms of
county commissioners at four years.
Since the Montgomery commission
ers have served just half of their
terms, he held, they are entitled to
two years more.
Although the arguments were
confined almost entirely to technical
discussions of the Maryland con-
stitution and the public general
laws, the scholarly presentations
were followed with interest by scores
of persons. In the courtroom were
many lawyers not directly connected
with the case, several candidates
for the new council, at least two
of the complaining commissioners
and many public officials.
Judge Tells Story.
When the lawyers closed their
arguments, Judge Woodward told
a story which set nearly everyone
to wondering
"All through your arguments" he
commented quietly, "a little story
has been running through my mind
Everything here has been SO serious
that I think I'll just tell it now"
The story was about a man who
visited a powder factory. Although
"No smoking" signs were posted
throughout the building, the man
smoked cigar. When a guard rep
rimanded the visitor and asked
whether he noticed the signs, the
offender replied:
Certainly, but they don't say
Positively No Smoking"
Then Judge Woodward alluded to
an earlier charter lawsuit. His
court ruled then that a section of
the proposed charter was unconsti-
tutional and therefore should be
deleted before it went to the voters
in referendum. The circuit judges
were reversed by the Court of Ap-
peals.
In the earlier case, Judge Wood
ward said, it was shown that the
proposed charter required all legis-
lation to be passed in the month of
May.
But" he observed, sit didn't say
positively"
I'm this case, Article XVII states
that the terms of county officers are
for four years. But it doesn't say
positively four years.
That's food for thought, because
that's about what the Court of Ap-
peals said before"