Year: 1860

Ia W INTELLIGENCE.


SUPERIOR CoURT.-Hon. R. N. Martin. JUDGE,


=, The State of Maryland, on the relation of Charles


Howard and others, "The Board of Police of the


city OF Baltimore as. The Mayor and CITY Coun-


Gil OF baltimore Application for mandamus.


~ Reverdy Johnson j. Mason Campbell, William FL.


Norris and s. Teackle Wallis, Esqrs for the Police


6oard; Jonathan Meredith, VIM. Price, William


Schley and Thomas S. Alexander, Esqrs., tor the
| city. A


On the opening of the Court yesterday morning


VIM Price, Esq, commenced the argument on the
part OF the Mayor and City Council


lie began by saying that the case now before the
court court was one OF the greatest Importance; it in


volved principles of immense magnitude and con-
| Germ to the whole community.


MT. frlce then referred to some general princi-
pies OF law In preliminary manner He said that
there was one great principle in our government
which was not found in the government of other
countries, and that was obedience to the sovereign
power, who are the people. In some countries the
scene now presented to US here would indeed be
strange spectacle. We are here examining the
great fundamental principles of law in connection
with the question before the Court upon which
the Court is called upon to decide. The communi-
Oh 1--WE hundred and hlty thousand souls are con-
cerned IN the proceedings here They, outside know
what is going on within these walls but althourh
they are directly interested, yet there is no inter
ruption OF business, uneasiness manifested: they
prepared to submit and yield obedience to the de-





safe In the hands of the Judiciary. There NAV be
times and occasions when the public mind becomes
exasperated; men are divided into parties and of
consequence, differences of opinions and senti-
ments VIII arise and exist, and that some day a.
party which has for time been subject to the rule
OF anotner, may some morning find that thev have
Deen exalted to power Men will become agitated on
oet tba OF policy and some parties will
wrests 1t from them. But the people in all these
agtatlng scenes yield obedience to the power which
Is inherent in themselves 1t is great principle
OF fundamental law that the Legislature is but n
creature of that law; and they are bound to obey
the fundamental law as laid down in the Constitu
ton.


Inc Legislature, the counsel said, and the people
may be agltated but the judiciary which is the
great balance-wheel between the two cannot ha
ahected by the agitations of the people The Court
mas cold, stern duty to perform-to take the Com
stitution and decide from that, whether the Lepis-
lature has transcribed its powers and encroached
upon the great principles of the fundamental law


MIR. Price said that the only questions involved
In the case were presented in the 9Th Sth and 9th
points OF the respondents brief, viz: That the po-
lice provided by the Constitution for the citv of
Baltimore, being intended by that instrument as
an entire arrangement, complete in all its parts
cannot be superseded by the Legislature nor in
any manner nterfered with, except in the mode
pointed out by the Constitution itself that the
sheriff, the justices of the peace and the constabes
are recognized by the 10th section of the 4th arti
Gle OF the Constitution the permanent police of
the city OF Baltimore, and that the Legislature has
no constitutional power to substitute any other
permanent police for that so recopnized nv the
constitution. That the position upon which
the respondent mainly relies is this: That The
whole GROUND covered by the bill is already pre-
occupied by the Constitution. That to make room,
tor the BILL it will be necessary to dsplace the en-
tire arrangement made of the same subject by the
Constitution itself. That by the very terms of the
act the Legislative police is made to extingush the
Constitutional police of the city of BALTIMORE
which cannot be done unless the Law is held to he
superior to the Constitution.


Mr. Price then argued that an entire arrange
Inene ior the appointment of police force for the
city of Baltimore had been provided for bv the
consultation, and that such arrangement could not
be displaced by the Legislature as was intended to
De done by the recent police bill. He then review
ed the different sections of the BILL and commented
upon them. He thought the bill one of the most
energetic specimens OF legislation which he had
ever seen on any statute book. He said the bill
sought to take all power out of the hands of the
the right to choose their rulers, and place their
powers in the hands of a commission who should
appoint their rulers for them


III the people wanted a change of rulers, let them
say SO, ana not the Legislature, who are but the
creature of the people. He would speak of the bill
according to the impressions it had made upon his
own mind when examining it, and he was compel
leo TO say that then he seemed to be reading pro-
clamauon OF martial law. As to the first section,
winch says 1T is to create permanent police for
the city OF Baltimore, it presumes to be paramount
to all the duties conferred by the Constitution and
10 nuilify all the powers of the Mayor and CITY |
council; In the second section the deliberate pur
pose Is declared to put out of the way the police
OF the Constitution, and put in the police of the
Legislature. As to appointing no police officer in
regard to his political opinions he said that was
very well, provided it could be DONE The Com
missioners are to swear that they will not look to |
the political opinions of any applicant but in an
other section they are to appoint no Black Repub-


can-that is, they must not look into the political
ticular class of politicians


MT: Prlce contended that if the Constitution con- |
1erred certain powers upon the Mayor and City |
Councli, ana these same powers were conferred |
upon tne romeo commissioners by the Legislature,
under another name, the act was unconstitutional
The Legislature could not appoint functiopary
provided for in the Constitution under different
name, to perform the same duties. Applying this
20 those portions of the bill which places
the Sheriff and military under the orders of the
Commissioners, he contended that thev were uu-
The Sheriff had certain duties to
perform, which were designated by the Constitu-
displace those duties. The Constitution also gave
the power to call out the military of the State
solely to the Governor. The power of the Gov
ernor Is exclusive If the Legislature can confer
this power upon the Board they can confer it upon
any one. 1t becomes power without limitation
The Constitution provides who shall be the conser
vators OF the peace-the sherifs, justices of the
peace, constabies, and such temporary police as
|
time appoint; but this bill makes them all subject
to the arbitrary command of the Board. The pow
er OF taxation, conferred upon the Board il was |
contended was unconstitutional. 1t was taxation |
without representation. 1t was taking this power
from the city, which conferred upon it by the
constitution. The Board could impose tax of
any amount upon the people; they could create a
city debt, without the people having voice upon
the subject. The whole bill was reviewed bv
counsel and its provisions objected to as unconst
because itsought to dspace certain rights
given to the city by the Constitution and conferred
upon the Board.


The principle of the Constitution, the counsel
said, was to place all power as near as possible in
the hands of the people, This bill does not contain
that principle. The appointing power in il does
not come from the people of Baltimore but it is
created by the Legislature who are elected by the
whole people of the State. The Legislature have
eXpunged by this bill great fundamental princi-
pie OF aw-they have disfranchised in a manner.
the whole people of Baltimore. The Court was to
decide, said MIR. Price, whether it would set aside
the great principle of popular sovereignty inherent
In our government-the power of the people to ap-
point their rulers--Or protect the people from the
encroachments of the Legislature Ii were better
that thousand police bills should fall, than that
our fundamental principle of the Constitution
should be set aside. F.. 7


The counsel then reviewed certain sections of
the constitution of the State of New York and |
he decision OF its courts at the time the question of
the constltutlonality of the Metropolitan Police
bill was under discussion, and pointed out certain
disslmilarites between the cases. .-a1


Inc counsel then argued that if the police bill
y oGispiaces any powers granted to the city by the
constitution, It is void and if void in any one point
It is void in ALL Several authorities were cited on
this point.