Redwood v. Lane
| Decision Date | 18 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | 124. |
| Parties | REDWOOD v. LANE, Governor et al. (two cases). |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Bill of complaint by John Redwood, Jr., against William Preston Lane Jr., Governor of Maryland, and others, constituting the Board of Public Works of Maryland, for declaratory judgment that Laws 1949, c. 488, be declared of no effect and that the defendants be enjoined from taking any action pursuant thereto.
The Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, Joseph Sherbow, J dismissed the bill, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Collins, J., held that there was no record of the yeas and nays on the final passage of the bill as required by the constitution and reversed the decree appealed from and held that such chapter was void.
H. Vernon Eney and Robert M. Thomas, Baltimore (Armstrong, Machen & Eney, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen. (Harrison L. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen. on the brief), for appellees.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
For reasons to be stated in an opinion to be filed hereafter, it is ordered by the Court of Appeals this 18th day of November 1949, that the decree herein be, and the same is hereby reversed, with costs.
On November 7th, 1949, John Redwood, Jr., appellant here, filed a Bill of Complaint on behalf of himself and other taxpayers of the State of Maryland against the Board of Public Works of Maryland, appellees, asking among other things, that Chapter 488 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland of 1949 be declared of no effect and that the appellees be enjoined from taking any action whatsoever pursuant to that act. From a decree of Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City dismissing the bill, after hearing, the appellant appeals.
The act in question, Chapter 488 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland of 1949, purportedly authorized the General Public School Construction Loan of 1949 in the amount of fifty million dollars. It originated in the Legislature as Senate Bill 442. According to the Senate Journal this Bill was read the first time and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance and reported favorably. The favorable report of the Senate Finance Committee was adopted, and an amendment to the Bill was offered from the floor. This amendment was read and rejected by yeas and nays. The Bill, as reported by the Senate Finance Committee, was read the second time and ordered printed for its third reading.
The Senate Journal contains no further record of this Bill except an entry at page 1637 that it was returned from the House of Delegates to the Senate bearing the endorsement of the House of Delegates 'read the third time and passed by yeas and nays' on April 1, 1949. The Senate Journal nowhere indicates that Senate Bill 442 was passed by a majority of yeas and nays with a record of such yeas and nays being entered in the Senate Journal.
The pertinent provisions of the Constitution of Maryland are contained in Article III of the Constitution as follows:
The appellant contends that because there was no record in the Senate Journal that on the third reading the Bill in question was passed by a majority of the whole number of members elected and in its final passage the yeas and nays were not recorded, as required by Section 28 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland, supra, the Act in question is null and void.
On the other hand, part of Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 shows the following extract from the Journal of Proceedings of the Senate of Maryland:
'Page 1394, March 30, 1949
'House Bill No. 442--By Mr. Sklar:
'Subject: 'Banks and Trust Companies,' sub-title, 'Savings Institutions.'
'Which was read the third time and passed by yeas and nays as follows: ', listing 29 names of those voting in the affirmative and none voting in the negative. The appellees contend that this reference in the Senate Journal to purported action on House Bill 442 was really action on Senate Bill 442.
Testimony as to the following facts was offered in evidence by parol testimony: On March 30, 1949, a few days before the adjournment of the Legislature, Senate Bill 442 appeared on the third reading calendar of the Senate. This calender was distributed to the Senate, the Press, and the Bureau of Legislative Reference marked Senate Bill 442 relating to schools and a bond issue. Senate Bill 442 was announced as being before that body for third reading and final passage and so read by the reading clerk, and the yea and nay votes were taken. The Bill allegedly was approved unanimously and the vote recorded by the reading clerk on a tally sheet which was later attached to the following paper, offered as Defendant's Exhibit No. 4:
On a yellow sheet to which this and the tally sheet were attached was stamped the following:
'Said Bill was then sent to the House of Delegates.'
Testimony was also introduced purporting to show that the Assistant Journal Clerk customarily tears out and places on a sheet of paper certain bills which he knows are coming up on the third reading file. He usually scratches out all the printed matter on the particular bill and when that bill comes up he staples it to the sheet to lessen his work. The appellee contends, and the Chancellor found, that instead of pulling down Senate Bill 442 in its final passage he pulled out House Bill 442 which related to an entirely different subject, 'Banks and Banking,' and scratched through all of that title except the number of the bill and the few words showing in a general sense the subject of the bill. He then stamped on the yellow paper to which this House Bill 442 was attached the following words: 'Which was read the third time and passed 'Yeas and Nays as follows:' Said Bill was then sent to the House of Delegates.' This is the paper to which the tally sheet was attached. When Senate Bill 442 reached the House of Delegates it followed the normal procedure there. The Secretary of the Senate presented it to the clerk who receipted for it. It was then sent to the speaker of the House and read from the desk, then sent to the House Ways and Means Committee, reported out favorably and finally passed.
The evidence further showed that while the manuscript copy of the Senate Journal relating to purported action on House Bill 442 indicated that after third reading and final passage 'Said Bill was then sent to the House of Delegates,' the Journal, as printed, stated that after third reading and final passage House Bill 442 was 'returned' to the House of Delegates. This change was made by the compositor to correct what he thought was an error. It was then authenticated, signed by the officers of both Houses, presented to the Governor, sealed with the Great Seal of the State, and duly signed by him. It was then duly recorded in the Court of Appeals.
Evidence was also offered to show that House Bill 442 which dealt with 'Banks and Banking,' supra, did not get out of committee, was never sent over to the Senate and was never acted on by that body. The President of the Senate testified that he had checked Senate Bill 442 with a red pencil check on his copy of the Senate calendar as passed. From other evidence offered it does not appear that the checking of the Senate Calendar at that time was entirely accurate. According to the records of the Associated Press, and the Department of Legislative Reference, Senate Bill 442 was passed by the Senate on March 30, 1949, with 29 votes in the affirmative and none in the negative.
With these facts and others before him which we do not consider necessary to recite in this opinion, the Chancellor found that the Bill was validly enacted. The appellant claims that this parol evidence should not have been admitted, over his objection and over his motion to strike out, to show the facts above recited. For the purposes of this case we do not deem it necessary to decide whether all of this parol evidence, or any part or parts thereof was properly admitted. Considering all of the evidence offered, we are of opinion that there was no record of the yeas and nays on the final passage of Senate Bill 442 as required by Section 28 or Article III of the Maryland...
To continue reading
Request your trial