Maryland case law › Smith v. Stephan

Smith v. Stephan

66 Md. 381 (1887) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedBryan, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe Legislature, by Act of 1886, ch.

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Legislature by the Act of 1886, chapter 116, authorized the Mayor and Common Council of Westminster to fund the floating debt of the corporation, as the same may have existed on the first day of February, eighteen 387 hundred and eighty-six. And. for this purpose, the corporation was authorized to issue bonds to an amount not exceeding three thousand dollars. There can be no reasonable doubt of the power of the Legislature to pass this law.

It creates municipal corporations of this kind at its own will, and invests them with such powers, consistent with the Constitution, as the public good requires. If the Legislature did not have this power, the administration of the public affairs of the State would be very seriously embarrassed. We are not aware that this power has ever been denied by any judicial authority, and we may mention the case of the Police Board of Baltimore, 15 Md., 376 , as a conspicuous instance, where 'it was very emphatically affirmed. If the floating debt of the City of Westminster had been contracted without due authority, this legislative approval would have given it validity.

But we can have no doubt whatever of its power to make ■contracts in the necessary prosecution of its corporate business, within the limits of its charter, and in this way to incur indebtedness. A bill in equity was filed by John Smith of Wakefield against Stephan, Fink, and others, in which it was alleged that Stephan unlawfully assumed to be Mayor, and the other defendants unlawfully assumed to be members of the Common Council of the City of Westminster ; and that they in conjunction were unlawfully exercising the powers conferred by the charter of the city on the corporation; and that these persons were about to issue bonds under the authority of the above mentioned Act of Assembly. It was also alleged that the City of Westminster was not in debt, and that the pretence that said bonds were to be issued to fund a debt of the city was false and fraudulent. An injunction was prayed to restrain the defendants, and each of them, from selling and disposing of the bonds.

The charge that these defendants were unlawfully exercising corporate functions is founded on certain averments 388 of the bill, which impeach the legality of their election to the offices which they assume to hold. It is averred that the election was void and of no effect, because, in the language of the bill of complaint, “it was carried on and conducted without, and in the absence of, and without regard to, any registry or list of qualified voters.” It is contended that the fifth section of the first Article of the Constitution refers to and governs this election; and that it was necessary that the judges who held it should have been furnished with a list or registry of qualified voters ; and that no one should have been permitted to vote whose name did not appear on such list. This section of the Constitution denies the right to vote at Federal and State elections, and municipal elections in the City of Baltimore, to all persons whose names do not appear in the list of registered voters. It makes no allusion to municipal elections in any other town or city.

The distinction is clearly made in the Constitution between Federal and State elections on one side, and municipal elections on the other. It is impossible to mistake the meaning of the terms employed. An election held for the purpose of regulating the local affairs of a town or city under the provisions of its charter would never be mistaken for a State election. It is sufficient to say that no municipal elections exdept those held in the City of Baltimore are within the terms or meaning of the Constitution.

The ninety-seventh section of the Public Local Law of Carroll County gives the right to vote at municipal elections in the City of Westminster, to the inhabitants who are qualified to vote for delegates to the General Assembly. The qualifications of voters are stated in the first section of the first Article of the Constitution. It is declared that every white male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, who has been a resident of the State for one year, and of the county in which he may offer to vote for six months next preceding the election, shall be en 389 titled to vote in the election district in which he resides at ■all elections held in this State. Since the adoption of the Constitution, the right of suffrage has been extended to persons of African descent.

The fifth section directs the General Assembly to provide by law for a uniform

This is a preview of Smith v. Stephan. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.