|
|
|
selves, they pronounce the same not only false but wholly
gratuitous and malicious, the mere expression of political
virulence and disappointment. These respondents, per-
sonally, are quite ready to compare characters with the
complainants, or any of them, as men or citizens, and they
feel it to be a criminal abuse of the privilege of proceeding
in courts of justice, that the complainants, without the
slightest necessity, should undertake to vilify these re-
spondents upon the records of this honorable court, be-
cause, as public officers, in the discharge of a sworn duty,
they have felt bound to act under a law of this State, with
the adoption of which they had no more to do than the
complainants, and have not felt themselves qualified or
entitled to treat it as null and void, because the complain-
ants are dissatisfied with it. ———
|
|
|
|
|
|
These respondents admit they have taken steps to dis-
charge their said duty in regard to the election to be held
under the law aforesaid, on the second Wednesday of
April instant, upon the assumption that said election will
be a lawful election, and that they are bound to do all
things with a view thereto which they are required to do
by law, with a view to and in connection with all lawful
elections to be held in the City of Baltimore. They have
taken steps to appoint and qualify judges and clerks of
election therefor as charged, and propose to proceed
therein unless restrained by proper and lawful process.
For their said action they bespeak and believe themselves
to have deserved the approbation of your Honor and of
all good citizens. —And as to the allegation of the bill, in
regard to the pretended apprehension of the complainants
that they may be appointed judges of election, and being
unable conscientiously to serve as such, may be sued and
otherwise despitefully used, these respondents aver and
charge that the said allegations and apprehensions are
alike groundless. The complainants, Johns Hopkins, John
Clark and William Kennedy, not being residents of any
election precinct of the City of Baltimore, are not by law
eligible as judges of election therein, and these respond-
ents, being bound by the law to select "discreet" persons as
judges, do not feel that they could conscientiously choose
the said Deford or the said Rogers as such.
These respondents further deny that the said complain-
17
|
|
|
|
 |
