Evening star., 1948-05-21
Charter Budget
Rules Defended
In Court Test
Arguments Continued
To June Ia in Suit to
Block Referendum

To June Ia in Suit to
Block Referendum
A budget appropriation is an ex-
ecutive function, not Legislative. and
a provision to that effect in the
Montgomery County
charter is perfectly valid"
This was the contention made In
Circuit Court at Rockville yesterday
by attorneys fighting suit brought
by Hubert A. Schneider, Bethesda
and Washington attorney.
Mr.. Schneider is seeking to pro-
hibit the Board of Election Super
visors from placing the proposed
county charter on the ballot IN the
November general election on the
ground it is unconstitutional. Other
defendants are the Charter Board
anrd Charter Committee. Argu-
ments in the case were continued to
10 am. June IA by Judges Charles
w. Woodward and Stedman Pres
colt.
The proposed charter would sub
stitute A seven member council for
the present five-man Board OF
County Commissioners.
Objects to Budget Dates.
Mr.. Schneider contends that budg-
etary appropriations by the council
should be made in May. the month
set aside in the proposed charter
for passing laws, and not at execu-
tive sessions in June as provided
in the charter.
James J. Hayden. attorney for
the Charter Board, claimed yester-
day that under the charter form
OF government. a county council
has power to pass all local laws and
to repeal or amend local laws pre-
viously enacted by the General
Assembly.
appropriation of money for an
annual budget" he declared, us not
the subject of a local law passed by
the General Assembly and does not
appear in the code OF public local
laws passed by the General Assem-
bly, for Montgomery County. 1t is
not legislation as defined
in the charter amendment to the
State constitution.
"Since the appropriation of funds
for a county budget is not. the sub
iect of local laws passed by the
it can have no place as
d local law under a charter which
transfers to a county council the
powers of the General Assembly to
enact local laws ""s"
Mr.. Hayden also charged the suit
lis seeking an advisory opinion from
the court predicated on a double If
That is, if the charter is adopted
and if the courts hold it uncon-
stitutional. Mr. Schneider may have
trouble collecting the interest on
the principal of his $1,000 county
bond"
Doubts Legal Procedure.
Mr.. Schneider contended that If
the charter is adopted and later
declared unconstitutional, there
would be no legal procedure avail
able for appropriating funds to pay
of county bonds.
Frederic P. Lee. representing the
Board of Election Supervisors.
the court had no power
to prevent the charter referendum.
"The people of Maryland have
the inalienable right to change their
form of government and they are
taking advantage of this right In
Montgomery County by voting on q
charter form of government" he
said. The court cannot interfere
with this right. 1t cannot prevent
the Board of Election Supervisors
from carrying out duty specified
in the State Constitution
Declaring the suit is premature"
Mr. Lee said Mr.. Schneider is ask
ing the court to determine the con-
stitutionality of a proposal that is
not yet and may never become law
It should be dismissed without even
considering the constitutional ques-
tion involved"
Others Ask Dismissal.
Others asking that the suit be
dismissed included Carey E. Quinn
and Albert E. Conradis. also attor-
neys for the Board of Election Su-
pervisors, and Thomas C. Kelley and
Allen H. Gardner, representing the
Charter Committee.
Mr.. Schneider. who was joined by
David Belts in attacking the de-
PENDANTS demurrer. contended the
Maryland Constitution has clearly
established the fact that appropria-
tion of funds for an annual budget
is a legislative act" He cited de-
cisions in several similar cases.
Tracing the legislative nature Of
appropriating acts back to Magma
Carta. Mr.. Schneider asserted:
1T Is q tortured analysis Of exist
ing State statutes to claim that ap-
preparation OF funds is an executive
function. Since the proposed char
ter does not provide for budgetary
appropriations in the councils one
month legislative session, 1t has not
been drawn according to provisions
of the charter amendment to the
State constitution and no authority
exists for its submission to the
voters"
He insisted the constitutional
question should be raised now, be-
cause if the proposed charter Is
adopted and then ruled invalid 1t
would result in endless litigation
and confusion.
He also charged that If the con-
troversial charter provision is up
held by the court, the county council
would have free reign over appro-
priations and county residents would
have nothing to say in the matter.
since the budget would be drafted In
executive session"
Mr.. Belts claimed the court has
jurisdiction and cited decisions In
which courts had enjoined elections.
"It is not true that courts cannot
interfere with the holding OF elec-
tions," he said. THE contrary Is
we'll established in law. In case OF
this nature, if the constitutional
are not followed, 1t Is
entirely proper for the court to step
in and prohibit an election which
would be invalid and would result
in damage to the taxpayers"