Kimble v. Bender

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioner on this record obtained a writ of mandamus commanding one Robert B. Kimble to vacate the public office of justice of the peace at large for Allegany County. At the time of the writ, Kimble was engaged in the performance of the duties of this office by virtue of an appointment by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 153 of the First Extra Session of 1936 of the General Assembly of Maryland. The statute is a local act for Allegany County, and repealed and re-enacted with amendments the subtitle “Justices of the Peace and Constables” of article 1 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland, entitled “Allegany County.” At the time of the passage ,of this act the respondent Kimble was a member of the General Assembly of Maryland, as he was then the qualified Senator from Allegany County.

The principal question is whether or not the respondent is ineligible to be a justice of the peace at large for Allegany County either by reason of the mandate of article 35 of the Declaration of Rights, “That no person shall hold, at the same time, more than one office of profit, created by the Constitution or Laws of this State,” or because of the provision of section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution of Maryland that: “No.Senator or Delegate, after qualifying as such, notwithstanding he may thereafter resign, shall during the whole period of time for which he was elected be eligible to any office which shall have been created, or the salary or profits of which shall have been increased, during such term.” Before proceeding, to a consideration of the capacity of the respondent, the objections to the constitutionality ⁶¹³ of the act, obviously, should be first decided. These objections rest on, three points. The first is that the title is defective when measured by the requirements of section 29 of article 3i of the Constitution, of Maryland. The petitioner urged this contention in the nisi prius court, but did not argue it on his brief.

It is enough to say that, within the decisions of this court in analogous cases, the title is sufficient to put any one interested on notice of the subject-matter of the contemplated legislation and did not mislead as to the main object of the statute. Levin v. Hewes, 118 Md. 624 , 86 A. 233 . The second objection to the validity of the act is that it omitted a provision expressly conferring upon the County Commissioners of Allegany County the power to levy money to pay the salaries of the justices of the peace at large. The compensation of these justices is an annual salary of a fixed amount, which is payable in equal monthly installments.

The language of the enactment clearly shows the intention of the Legislature that these public officials are to be paid their respective and fixed salaries. It is also manifest that the County Commissioners of Allegany County contemplated that the payment of these salaries is the obligation of the County Commissioners. So it was not necessary expressly to include a direct authorization to pay, because the general law provides that the county commissioners of every county “shall levy all needful taxes * * * and pay and discharge all claims on or against the county which have been expressly or impliedly authorized by law.” Code, art. 25, sec. 8; Eyler v. Allegany County, 49 Md. 257, 269 ;, School Commissioners v. Allegany County, 20 Md. 449, 458 . See Chaney v. Anne Arundd County, 119 Md. 385, 388, 389 , 86 A. 1039 ; Code Pub.

Loc. Laws (Flack) 1930, art. 1, sec. 106. ■ No more than this general power to! discharge its lawful obligations is necessary to impose upon the county commissioners the duty to pay the salaries created by the act. The third and final objection on the point of its legality is that the act violates the terms of section 42 of arti ⁶¹⁴ cle 4 of the Constitution, which, so far as it need be quoted, provides: “The Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint such number of Justices of the Peace * * * for the several Election Districts of the counties and wards of the City of Baltimore, as are now or may hereafter be prescribed by Law; * * * and shall have such jurisdiction, duties and compensation, subject to such right of appeal in all cases from the judgment of Justices of the Peace, as hath been heretofore exercised, or shall be hereafter prescribed by Law.” A violation of this section is contended by the petitioner to exist, on the theory that the act confines the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace at large to the limits of certain municipalities, within the territorial limits of Allegany County, and thus ignores the constitutional provision that the appointment must be made with reference to the political unit or county and its election districts. It is asserted that this forbidden effect is produced by the requirement that two of this class of justices shall sit in the municipality of Cumberland, two in the town of Frostburg, and one in each of five other municipalities.

The court’s attention is further directed to the fact that the municipality of Cumberland comprises six election districts, of Frostburg, five election districts, and of Lonaconing, two election districts. The error of the position of the petitioner is in the assumption that the statute limits the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace at large to the particular municipality in which he is bound to sit for the trial of cases. Such a construction is not warranted by the language of the statute. The jurisdiction of the class of justices under consideration is coextensive with the county, and the statutory obligation that a certain number shall sit for the trial of cases in specified municipalities is not in limitation of that jurisdiction but in assurance that, at designated and advantageously located places, sufficient of the additional justices at large will, in the exercise ⁶¹⁵ of their full magisterial jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, be in session to facilitate the more convenient and prompt despatch of whatever function lies within the compass of their authority.

Thus the exaction imposed upon the justices of the peace at large to preside in magistracy at a particular seat is an administrative regulation in the public interest, to make certain that, wherever else it may be casually employed, the county wide jurisdiction granted shall be constantly exercised at the specific places which the statute designates. Hence the provisions do not limit the jurisdiction of these justices to certain election districts, nor to particular municipal corporations. The act provides for the appointment of two classes of justices of the peace. The first class is composed of those who shall be duly appointed in such number, in and for each election district of Allegany County, as shall now or may hereafter be provided by law; and the second class includes the nine additional justices of the peace, who are to be appointed and known as justices of the peace at> large for Allegany County.

Acts of 1936, 1st Ex. Sess. ch. 153, secs. 179, 179-A. The creation of these two classes, their selection, jurisdiction, duties, and compensation, are well within 'the sanction of the decisions of this court. Levin v. Hewes, 118 Md. 624 , 86 A. 233 ; Day v. Sheriff of Montgomery County, 162 Md. 221 , 159 A. 602 ; Humphreys v. Walls, 169 Md. 292 , 181 A. 735 ; Quenstedt v. Wilson, 173 Md. 11 , 194 A. 354 . The remaining questions do not go to the validity of the act, but concern the capacity of the respondent, whose legal competency to hold the office of justice of the peace at large is assailed on two constitutional grounds.

The first is that article 35 of the Declaration of Rights declares: “That no person shall hold, at the same time, more than one office of profit, created by the Constitution or Laws of this State.” It will be found on examination that the declaration invoked is not applicable. Section 11 of article 3 of the Constitution of Maryland qualifies the quoted provision of the Declaration of Rights ⁶¹⁶ by the mandate that: “No person holding any civil office of profit or trust under this State, except Justices of the Peace, shall be eligible as Senator or Delegate.” These concrete rules of the Declaration of Rights and of the Constitution should be read and construed together so as to give harmonious effect to both instruments. In this construction, it should be kept in mind that the provision of the Declaration of Rights is general with respect to its subject-matter, and that of the Constitution is directed to the eligibility of members of the General Assembly of Maryland, and, therefore, is particular in the subject-matter to which it is addressed. So, no conflict arises if, in the construction of the article and the section under consideration, effect be given to tne particular and subsequent provision of the Constitution which exempts members of the General Assembly from ineligibility, should they happen to be at the same time justices of the peace, rather than to the general provisions of the Declaration of Rights.

When so regarded, the better view is that holding at the same time the office of senator and the office of justice of the peace does not make the person so situated ineligible for either office. See Truitt v. Collins, 122 Md. 526, 530-532 , 89 A. 850 ; Lilly v. Jones, 158 Md. 260, 265 , 148 A. 434 ; Pruitt v. Glen Rose Ind. School Dist. 126 Tex. 45 , 84 S. W. (2nd) 1004 ; 1 Cooley’s Const.

Lim. (8th ed.) pp. 127-130. The second ground upon which the capacity of the respondent to become a justice of the peace at large is disputed is based upon section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution. Since the respondent was a member of the Senate of Maryland at the time chapter 153 of the First Extra Session of 1936 was passed, and the term of his then service extends to January, 1939, the eligibility of the respondent for the office to which he was appointed depends upon whether the office was created, or its salary or profits were increased, by the act.

If so, the respondent comes within the purview of section 17, and is ⁶¹⁷ ineligible. An answer cannot be given to these questions until the legislation on the subject is reviewed. The Acts of 1880, ch. 252, provided for two justices of the peace for every election district, except that in election districts 4,; 5, 6, and 14 there was but one justice to be appointed for every one of these districts. There can be no question of the constitutionality of this enactment, which continued in force, without any attempt to change, until the passage of Chapter 12 of the Acts of 1888, which purported to authorize the appointment of two additional justices of the peace to serve at large for the four election districts which embraced 'the city of Cumberland and its vicinity.

This last statute was followed at the same session by the passage of chapter 108, which created an additional justice of the peace for a particular election district, who was to be appointed from, and reside in, the village of Ellerslie or its immediate vicinity. Inasmuch as the acts passed in 1888 contained no other provisions than those mentioned, the two acts are unconstitutional, since it is held that the General Assembly may not provide for two justices at large for the portion of a county included in four contiguous election districts, nor prescribe a qualification of residence within the county. Humphreys v. Walls, 169 Md. 292, 300-304 , 181 A. 735 . The next legislation was in 1902, when, by chapter 197, the three acts mentioned, which had been codified in the Code of Public Local Laws of 1888, vol. 1, art. 1, sec. 179, were repealed and re-enacted in section 179.

By this modified section one justice of the peace was to be appointed by the Governor for every one of election districts 4, 5, 6, 14, 22, and 23 of Allegany County at a monthly salary of $50 in lieu of all fees in criminal cases or in which the State is a party. No other justices were to be appointed for these districts, which composed the City of Cumberland, until the expiration of their terms of office in 1904, when the succeeding section 179A provided that there should be appointed in 1904, and biennially thereafter, only four justices for the six districts, ⁶¹⁸ and that these four should be justices of the peace at large for the said six districts, and everyone of these justices should receive a monthly salary of $60 in lieu of all criminal fees. The Acts of 1902 made no provision for the appointment of the justice of the peace other than for the six named districts, and this omission was corrected 'by an amendatory statute passed in 1904, chapter 249. By this statute two justices of the peace were to be appointed for every election district, except that, in the same six districts, six magistrates at large and no more were to be appointed to serve until 1906, and that thereafter only four magistrates at large should be named for the six districts.

The salary of the first six was fixed at $50 a month, and of the second four was raised to $60 a month. In 1906 (chapter 27) the statute was again repealed and re-enacted and the change made was to increase the number of the magistrates at large from four to six, and no more, in the same six election districts, and to fix the compensation at $50 a month. The statute was also repealed and re-enacted in 1908 (chapter 490, pp. 331, 332). By this legislation the only change attempted was to increase the salaries of the justices to $65 a month.

By chapter 285 of the Acts of 1920, there was another repeal and re-enactment whereby the single alteration was to fix the salaries of the justices at large for said districts at $100 a month. The next change was by chapter 297 of the Acts of 1927. It prescribed two justices of the peace for every election district except for election districts Nos. 4, 5, 6, 14, 22, 23, and 29, in which but two justices of the peace were to be appointed, to be justices of the peace at large, and to be known and styled “The People’s Court,” with qualifications, jurisdiction, and powers, and a monthly salary of $300 for each of its justices. The portions of this legislation which relate to its constitutionality are so similar to those which the court had under consideration in Humphreys v. Walls, 169 Md. 292, 296 , 181 A. 735 , and there held unconstitutional, that the chapter ⁶¹⁹ 297 must be likewise pronounced invalid.

The salary of each of the two justices was $300 monthly, and $50 of this amount was to be paid by the municipality of Cumberland, which embraced the seven named districts. By chapter 292 of the same session, election districts Nos. 11, 12, ,19, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 32, which were included in the municipality of Frostburg, were given but two justices of the peace at an annual salary of $1,200. By chapter 316 of the Acts of 1929, the General Assembly repealed and re-enacted said section 179 of article 1, as amended by chapter 297 of the Acts of 1927, but did not change or affect chapter 292 of the Acts of 1927. As a result of the Act of 1929, two justices of the peace were to be appointed for every election district, with these exceptions: (1) for election districts Nos. 4, 5, 6, 14, 22, 23, and 29 (Cumberland), there should be but two justices, to be known and styled justices of the peace at large, and styled “The People’s Court,” with the qualifications, jurisdiction, and powers as by the statute conferred; (2) for election districts Nos. 18 and 27 there should be one justice of the peace at large, and no more; (3) for election districts Nos. 10 and 15 there should be one justice of the peace at large, and no more-; (4) for election districts Nos. 9 and 25 there should be one justice of the peace and no more; and (5) for election district No. 8 there should be a justice of the peace at large and no more.

On the authority of Humphreys v. Walls, 169 Md. 292 , 181 A. 735 , not only is chapter 316 of the Acts of 1929 invalid, but chapters 292 and 297 of Acts of 1927, chapter 285 of Acts 1920, chapter 490 of Acts 1908, chapter 27 of Acts of 1906, chapter 249 of Acts of