Harman v. Harwood

Bautol, 0. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. These appeals have been argued together and present the same question. The exigency of the case requiring an early decision, the Court, immediately after the argument, proceeded to consider the same, and rendered its decision and judgment thereon, without filing any written opinion; which we now proceed to do, assigning briefly the reasons for the decision rendered.

Under the provisions of the Act of 1814, oh. 490, sec. 2, the appellant, during the regular session of the General Assembly in 1880, was nominated by the Governor, and appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, “Register of voters for the fourth election district of Anne Arundel County”—for two years. Charges having been preferred against him, the Governor, in the exercise of the power conferred on him by the Constitution, ¹⁰ Art. 2, sec. 15, after having proceeded in the manner prescribed by the Code, Art. 42, secs. 13, 14, 15, on the 22nd day of August 1881, passed an order removing him from office, for official misconduct, and appointed John Lowman in his place. The appellant, maintainining that the Governor had not the constitutional power to remove him, and claiming that he is, notwithstanding the Governor’s action, still legally entitled to hold the office, and exercise its functions, filed a bill on the equity side of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, praying for an injunction to prevent the appellee, as clerk, from delivering to John Lowman the books of registration, &c. A temporary injunction was issued as prayed, which was upon hearing dissolved, and from the order dissolving the same, one of these appeals was taken.

The other appeal was taken from an order of thé same Court, refusing to grant a. writ of mandamus, upon the petition of the appellant, requiring the appellee to deliver the books of registration to the petitioner. The decision of the appeals depends upon the true construction of the 15 th section of Art. 2, of the Constitution. Section 9, of the same Article, provides that the Governor “shall take care that the laws' are faithfully executed.” In order to enable him to fulfill this duty, he is clothed with large and important powers. Section 10 provides that “he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint all civil and military officers of-the State, whose appointment, or election, is not otherwise herein provided for; unless a different mode of appointment be prescribed by the law creating the office.” Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, provide for filling vacancies; and Section 15 provides, “The Governor may suspend, or arrest any military officer of the State for disobedience of orders, or other military offence; and may remove.him in pursuance of the sentence of a Court-Martial; and may ¹¹ remove for incompetency, or misconduct, all civil officers who received appointment from the Executive for a term of years.” It is unnecessary to discuss the question whether, apart from section 15, the power to remove, at will, civil officers appointed hy him with the co-operation of the Senate, would belong to the Governor as incidental to the power of appointment.

If such a power could be construed to