Altvater v. Mayor of Baltimore

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It is assumed, in the briefs, upon which this case was submitted, that the facts agreed to, constitute good ground of action to entitle the appellant to recover, if by any statute law of the State, existing at the time, it was made the duty of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore “ to have prevented or removed the nuisance.” Upon this hypothesis, we shall determine the question at issue. The 4th Art. sec. 808 of the Code of Pub. Loc.

Laws, makes it the duty of the Board of Police to “ prevent and remove nuisances” in all the streets of the city of Baltimore, and the supplementary Act of 1867, ch. 367, imposes similar duty upon the Board of Police Commissioners, as they are denominated in the supplement. Whilst it is the duty of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, to pass all proper ordinances authorized by their charter in regard “ to the prevention and removal of nuisances,’’and which may not conflict with the duties imposed upon the Board of Police Commissioners, (Art! 4, sec. 32, Code of Pub. Loc. Laws,) they are deprived of the power of enforcing them.

That duty has been imposed upon the Board of Police Commissioners, who have been substituted as the general agency, to enforce the ordinances of the city, and the ⁴⁶⁶ Mayor and City Council are prohibited from levying or collecting any tax, or appropriating any money for the payment of any other police. 1867, ch. 367. The Board of Police Commissioners are not made authorities of the city as such, by any provision of law; that part of the 4th Art., sec. 822 of the Pub. Loc. Laws, which made them such, having been' repealed by the supplementary act of 1867, eh. 367.

Art. 4, sec. 32 of the Public Loc. Laws, provides that “ no ordinance heretofore passed, or that shall hereafter be passed, by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, shall hereafter conflict or interfere with' the powers or the exercise of the powers of the Board of Police of the city of Baltimore hereinafter created; nor shall the said city, or any officer or agent of the Corporation of said city, or of the Mayor thereof, in any manner impede, obstruct, hinder or interfere with the said Board of Police, or any officer, agent, or servant thereof or thereunder.” The supplement of 1867, ch. 367, forbids any construction that would give any control over said Board, or any officer of police appointed thereby. Although they exercise authority, within the city, for public purposes and objects, and to aid in maintaining good order therein, they have not derived their power from the corporation, nor have they been made amenable to the city for the faithful discharge of their duties. They have been organized as a distinct body of public or State officers “ strictly within the jurisdiction of the State authority.” Mayor and City Council of Baltimore vs. Howard, 2 Md., 357 .

As such, each member of the Board gives bond to the State for the due discharge of duty. 1867, ch. 367. Amongst their other duties, they are specifically required “to prevent and remove nuisances within the city.” Under these