Worman v. Hagan
| Decision Date | 18 October 1893 |
| Parties | WORMAN ET AL. v. HAGAN ET AL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Frederick county.
Petition by one Worman and others for mandamus to compel one Hagan and others, supervisors of election, to place petitioners' names as candidates for county commissioners on the official ballot. From an order dismissing the petition, petitioners appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before ROBINSON, BRISCOE, McSHERRY, FOWLER, and BRYAN, JJ.
Wm. P Maulsby, Jr., W. H. Hinks, Hammond Urner, and John C. Motter for appellants.
Charles V. S. Levy, I. Roger McSherry, and I. E. R. Wood, for appellees.
The counsel on both sides requested that the court would hear this cause in advance of the time when it would have been reached in the regular course of the docket. The great public interests involved in a prompt decision of the questions presented by the record required that we should accede to the request. We will explain the manner in which the case arises. The appellants, having been nominated by the convention of the Republican party in Frederick county as candidates for county commissioners in said county, desired that their names should be placed on the official ballot to be prepared by the supervisors of election. The appellees were the supervisors for Frederick county. Passing by some matters not material to be mentioned, we may state that the candidates filed in the circuit court for Frederick county a petition for a mandamus requiring the supervisors to place their names on the official ballot. After answers, the court passed a pro forma order dismissing the petition.
The act of 1892, c. 283, provided as follows: "There shall be five county commissioners of said county, and those who were elected at the general election in November, A. D. 1891 shall hold their office for six years from the time of their said election, and the term for which county commissioners of said county shall hereafter be elected shall be for six years." This act was passed on the assumption that the amendment to section 1 of article 7 submitted to the popular vote in November, 1891, is legally a part of the constitution of the state. That amendment is in these words: "County commissioners shall be elected on general ticket of each county by the qualified voters of the several counties of the state, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November, commencing in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-one; their number in each county, their compensation, powers, and duties shall be such as now or may be hereafter prescribed; they shall be elected at such times, in such numbers, and for such periods not exceeding six years, as may be prescribed by law." If this amendment was validly adopted, and if the act of assembly was authorized by it, there was no vacancy in the county commissioners' office, and the names of the candidates above mentioned could not properly be placed on the official ballot. Let us then consider these two questions. The fourteenth article of the constitution prescribes the mode in which it may be amended. It declares that "the general assembly may propose amendments to this constitution; provided that each amendment shall be embraced in a separate bill, embodying the article or section as the same will stand when amended and passed by three-fifths of all the members elected to each of the two houses, by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journals with the proposed amendment." We find that the legislature, by the act of 1890, c. 255, proposed an amendment to section 1 of article 7, and that the act was passed by three-fifths of all the members elected to each house. It was stated on the journal of each house that "an act to amend section one of article seven of the constitution of this state" was passed, and the yeas and nays are set forth, being more than three-fifths of all the members elected to each house. The requirements of the constitution were in all respects observed, unless it is necessary, as maintained by the appellants, that the act should be set out verbatim on the journals. Each house had the bill in its possession when it passed it, and the bill was fully and clearly identified by its title. There would have been no greater certainty if every word of it had been recited. We must give a reasonable construction to the words of the constitution.
There was but one bill with this title. The entries on the journals of the two houses that this bill had been passed by the yeas and nays, which were stated, described their legislative action as distinctly as it could be expressed. The yeas and nays were associated as closely as possible with the enactment contained in the bill,--that is to say, with the proposed amendment. It was not in the power of any person to mistake the meaning of the entry. In the amendments of the constitution, heretofore passed, the same form of entry was adopted. The act of 1874, c. 364, proposed the amendment regulating and restricting the right of removal of causes for trial, and the act of 1880, c. 417, proposed the amendment respecting the election of judges. In each case the entries on the journals of the two houses were in the same form as in the present instance. When, however, they were ratified by the people and proclaimed by the governor, they were accepted by all departments of the government as validly adopted. Under their authority, ever since their adoption, causes have been removed for trial from one court to another, and all judicial elections have been held. We should do immeasurable evil if we should now express an opinion which should throw doubt on their validity.
The fourteenth article of the constitution also requires that the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the state for adoption or rejection in a form to be prescribed by the general assembly, This form was duly prescribed in the act of 1890. It is also required, when two or more amendments are submitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial