Mayor of Baltimore v. Fuget

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City in a mandamus proceeding, directing the appellants, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the board of estimates, the board of supervisors of city charities, and the city comptroller, to comply with certain provisions of the Acts of 1929, ch. 401, as amended by the Acts of 1931, ch. 115, providing for what is therein designated as “Mothers’ Relief”. To pass upon the question raised on this appeal, it will be necessary for us to give a brief history of the legislation on this subject, starting with the Act of 1916, ch. 670. 'The object and purpose of that act may be gathered or ascertained from its title, which is as follows: “An Act to provide for the partial support of mothers whose husbands are dead, when such mothers have children under fourteen (14) years of age, and are residents of the City of Baltimore and State of Maryland, and of the County in which application for relief is made. And, also to provide for visitation, care and supervision of the family within the State of Maryland for whose benefit such support is provided and to promote home life for dependent children under the guidance and protection of the mother.

And, also as to the Administration of this Act, amount of Payment, Eligibility, Investigation, Penalties and Reports. And, also ³³⁷ providing for the appointment of a Board of three members in Baltimore City, to1 be known as the Board for Mothers’ Relief for Baltimore City, or for carrying out the provisions of this Act by the Board of Supervisors of City Charities of Baltimore City, and authorizing the County Commissioners of the Counties of this State to carry out the provisions of this Act in their respective Counties, and providing for the levying of a tax for carrying out the provisions of this Act.” Section 1 of the act created a board to be appointed by the mayor and to be known as the board for mothers’ relief for Baltimore City, and fixed the salaries of the members of the board and of its employees. It also defined the duties and functions which the board was to perform, and clothed it with the necessary powers and authority. At the conclusion of this section it is said: “Provided, however, that instead of appointing the Board for Mothers’ Relief of Baltimore City, as provided in this Section, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore may, in its discretion, devolve the duties imposed by this Act upon said Board for Mothers’ Relief upon the Supervisors of City Charities of Baltimore City.” By the fourth section of the act, the board was required to report its findings as to claims of applicants for relief to the Juvenile Court of Baltimore City; and in the fifth section it was provided that “if, upon the completion of the examination, provided for under Section 4 hereof, the Juvenile * * * Court * * concludes that unless relief is granted, the mother will be unable to support and educate her children, and that they may become a public charge, it shall make an order directing that there shall be paid to the mother monthly, upon the first day of each month * * * by the City Comptroller'” the amounts therein stated; and the i{Board of Estimates and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore * * * are authorized and directed to levy such tax, not exceeding one-tenth of a mill, as may be necessary and sufficient to carry out the provisions of this Act, or to provide for the .same out of the proceeds of the general tax levy.” ³³⁸ This act is codified as part of article 88A, title “State Aid and Charities,” in Bagby’s Annotated Code of 1924, subtitle “Mothers’ Relief.” It stood until repealed by the Acts of 1929, ch. 401, the title to which was as follows: “An Act to repeal Sections 21 to 31, inclusive, of Article 88A of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1924 Edition), title ‘State Aid and Charities,’ sub-title ‘Mothers’ Relief,’ and to enact in lieu thereof seven new sections to be known as Sections 21 'to 27, inclusive, to provide for the relief of indig’ent widows in order to prevent their being separated from their children.” The changes made by this amendatory act, so- far as we need to refer to- them in the decision of this case, are: (1) The abolition of the board for mothers’ relief and the transfer of the duties imposed upon them to the board of city charities for Baltimore City, who were, under the act of 1916, to- perform such duties if, in the discretion of the mayor and1 city council, no appointment was made of the board for mothers’ relief; and (2) the services of the juvenile court were eliminated; and (3) the taxes to- be levied were increased from one-tenth of a mill to- one^quarter of one cent on each $100 of assessable property.

The Act of 1929, ch. 401, was repealed by the Act of 1931, ch. 115, the title to- which is as follows: “An Act to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Sections 21 and 22 of Article 88A of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1929 Supplement), title ‘State Aid and Charities,’ sub-title ‘Mothers’ Relief,’ to provide for the relief of indigent mothers in order to prevent their being separated from their children, and authorizing an increase in the levy therefor.” The effect of the amendatory Act of 1931, ch. 115, with the exception of a few minor and unimportant changes, was to- increase the taxes to be levied from one-quarter of one cent to one cent on each $100 of assessable property in the city. With the general statement herein made of the contents of the three acts mentioned, we, in the decision of this case, need only set out sections 21 and 22 of the Acts of 1929, ch. ³³⁹ 401, as amended by the later Act of 1931, ch. 115, which are as follows: “21. Any mother of a child or children under the age of fourteen (14) years, whose husband is dead or permanently incapacitated, and who is unable to support it or them and maintain her home, may present a written application or petition for relief to the County Commissioners of the county wherein she resides, or to the Supervisors of City Charities of Baltimore City. Such application or petition shall be verified in such manner and shall contain such information as the said County Commissioners or Supervisors of City Charities of Baltimore City may prescribe. “The child or children for whose benefit the relief is granted must be living with the mother of such child or children.

The relief shall be granted only, when, in the absence of such relief, the mother would be required to work regularly away from her home and children, and when, by means of such relief she will be able to remain at home with her children, except, that she may be absent for work a definite number of days each week, to be specified in the order giving relief, when such work can be done by her without the sacrifice of health or the neglect of home and children. “A mother shall not receive such relief who has not resided in the county where the application is made, or in the City of Baltimore, at least three years before making such application. Whenever any child shall arrive at the age of fourteen (14) years, the relief granted to the mother for such child shall cease; provided, that if a child of fourteen (14) years of age be ill or is incapacitated for work or is regularly attending school, the mother shall receive the funds for its care, during such illness or incapacity for work or during attendance at school, until such child is sixteen years of age. It shall be the duty of the Supervisors of City Charities of Baltimore City and the County Commissioners of the respective counties to investigate every application for relief made in Baltimore City or in any of the counties, respectively, to hear all witnesses for applicants and to carry out the provisions of this sub-title. ³⁴⁰ “22. If upon, the completion of the investigation of any application as aforesaid, the said Supervisors of City Charities of Baltimore City or said County 'Commissioners conclude that unless relief is granted, the mother applying will be unable to support and educate her children and that they may become a public charge, said County Commissioners shall pay or said Supervisors of City Charities shall order the City Comptroller of Baltimore City to pay out of the funds of Baltimore City, as the case may be, to the mother monthly on the first day of each month, such sum as they may deem sufficient to enable said mother to support and educate her children.

The Board of Estimates and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the County Commissioners of the respective counties of this State are authorized and directed to levy such taxes, not exceeding one cent on each one hundred dollars of assessable property, as may be necessary and sufficient to carry out the provisions of this sub-title, or to provide for the same out of the proceeds of the general taxes levied.” The appellants in their brief present three questions as to the validity of these acts, which are as follows: (1) Do the acts of 1929 and 1931 violate the provisions of article XIA of the Constitution relating to the grant of home rule powers and privileges to Baltimore City ? (2) Are the titles of the acts of 1929 and 1931 defective within the meaning of article 3, section 29, of the Constitution ? (3) Do the acts of 1929 and 1931 violate article 3, section 59, of the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of any general pension system ? In addition thereto, the brief presents the further question : (4) Was it competent for the lower court to issue its writ of mandamus in a form other than as prayed in the petition?

We will consider these questions in the order in which they are presented: First, whether the acts of 1929 and 1931 ³⁴¹ violate the provisions of article 11A of the Constitution. This article is known as the Home Rule Amendment, and was proposed by the Act of 1914, ch. 416, and ratified November, 1915. The first section of this article in substance provides that “on demand of the Mayor of Baltimore and City Council of the City of Baltimore, or on petition bearing the signatures” of the required number of registered voters of said city or any county, the “Board of Election Supervisors of said City or County shall provide * * * for the election of a Charter board” of the number therein stated to be elected in the manner therein particularly set forth; and the board, or a majority of them, when selected, shall prepare within the time stated “a charter or form of government for said city or snch county and present the same to the Mayor of Baltimore or President of the Board of County Commissioners of such county,” thereafter to be published at the time and in the manner stated and afterwards submitted to the voters of the city or county; and, “if a majority of the votes cast” shall be in favor of its adoption, the charter, after the time therein stated, “shall become the law of said City or County, subject only to the Constitution and Public General Laws of this State, and any public local laws inconsistent with the provisions of said charter and any former charter of said the City of Baltimore or County shall be thereby repealed.” Section 2 of this article provides that: “The General Assembly at its first session after the adoption of this amendment shall by public general law provide a grant of express powers for such county or counties as may thereafter form a charter under the provisions of this Article. Such express powers granted to the counties and the powers heretofore granted to the City of Baltimore, as set forth in Article 4, Section 6, Public Local Laws of Maryland, shall not be enlarged or extended by any charter formed under the provisions of this Article, but such powers may be extended, modified, amended or repealed by the General Assembly.” Section 4 of this article provides that: “From and after ³⁴² the adoption of a charter under the provisions of this Article by the City of Baltimore or any county of this State, no-public local law shall be enacted by the General Assembly for said city or county on any subject covered by express powers granted as above provided.

Any law so drawn as to apply to two- or more of the geographical subdivisions of this State shall not be deemed a Local Law, within the meaning of this Act. The term ‘geographical subdivision’ herein used shall be taken to mean the City of Baltimore or any of the counties of this State.” There are other sections in this article, but in the decision of this case they need not be set out herein. The City of Baltimore availed itself of the opportunity of home rule afforded it under this amendment of the Constitution by the adoption in 1918 of a charter in accordance therewith (Code Pub. Loc.

Laws 1930, art. 4, sec. 1 et seq.). The charter adopted by the city under the provision of the Constitution became the law of the city, “subject only to- the Constitution and Public General Laws of this -State.” It repealed “any public local laws inconsistent with the provisions of said charter and any former charter” of the city (section 1) ; and the law as set forth therein is not to- “be enlarged or extended by any charter formed under the provision of this Article, but such powers may be extended, modified, amended or repealed by the General Assembly” (section 2). It is further provided by said article o-f the Constitution that the city council, “subject to 'the Constitution and Public General Laws of this, State, shall have full power to enact local laws- of said City * * * including the power to- repeal or amend local laws * * * enacted by the General Assembly, upon all matters covered by the express powers granted as above provided” (section 3). State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 423 , 137 A. 39 .

If the Acts of 1916, ch. 610, codified in the Code of 1924, article 88A, sections 21 to 31, inclusive, title “State Aid and Charities,” subtitle “Mothers’ Relief,” in force at the time >of the adoption of the city charter in 1918, was a public general law, it was not repealed or affected by the adoption ³⁴³ thereafter of the charter, but remained in full force and effect until repealed by the Act of 1929, ch. 401. The act of 1916 authorized and directed the board of estimates and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the county commissioners of the respective counties of the state “to- levy such tax, not exceeding one-tenth of a mill, as may be necessary and sufficient to carry out the provisions of this Act, or to provide for the same out of the proceeds of the general tax levy” (section 25). The act provided for the creation of a board to be appointed by the mayor of Baltimore City, known as the mothers’ relief, to administer the provisions of the act in Baltimore City, unless this duty, in the discretion of the mayor and city council, was imposed upon the supervisors of city charities of Baltimore City, an agency of the city under its then existing charter; while in the counties the county commissioners were named as the agency to administer the provisions of the act. The mayor and city council, in the exercise- of its discretion, imposed the- duty of the law’s administration in Baltimore City upon the supervisors of city charities, and not upon a board for mothers’ relief, which was never named.

This act, the provisions of which applied to the entire state, was undoubtedly a public general law. Lankford v. Somerset County, 73 Md. 105 , 20 A. 1017 , 22 A. 412 ; Herbert v. Baltimore County Commrs., 97 Md. 639 , 55 A. 376 ; Baltimore City v. Allegany County, 99 Md. 1 , 57 A. 632 ; Prince George's County v. Balto. & O. R. Co., 113 Md. 179 , 77 A. 433 ; Gaither v. Jackson, 147 Md. 655 , 128 A. 769 ; Grossfeld v. Baughman, 148 Md. 330 , 129 A.