17

A removal by the Governor during the recess, has the same
force and effect as a removal by the General Assembly; their
powers under the law are identical, and their decision alike
final, conclusive and binding, and entitled to the same obe-
dience. For parties thus removed to hold on with a strong
hand, and continue to exercise official power, is to resist the
rightful authority of the Governor, and to put the law at de-
fiance.

It has seemed to me necessary to declare my opinion on this
question, as involved in the consideration of the order passed
by the Criminal Court, a failure to comply with which is now
alleged on the return as a ground for detaining these peti-
tioners in prison.

Considering the order was passed without lawful jurisdic-
tion or authority, I cannot remand the parties to prison or
hold them to bail under it.

In the case of William Thomson, the Sheriff, the Criminal
Court passed the following order :

"CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, September Term,
1866.—State of Maryland vs. William Thomson.—Ordered,
that William Thomson give security in the sum of $20,000 to
keep the peace towards the existing Police Commissioners,
and all acting under their orders, and towards the liege in-
habitants of this city, by desisting from all attempts to act un-
der the authority or in aid of William T. Valiant and James
Young, claiming to be Police Commissioners, so long as the
said Valiant and Young shall not have established their
claims by law to be Police Commissioners for the said city
duly appointed, and the present commissioners continue in
the de facto exercise of their office."

" Warden Baltimore City Jail:—Receive into your jail and
custody the body of William Thomson, committed this 3d day
of November, 1866, in default of bail, on the above order.

"SAMUEL SPARKLIN, Coroner."

AMENDED COMMITMENT, November 5, 1866.—For the same
reasons assigned in considering the order passed in the case
of Young and Valiant, I am of opinion that this order was
passed without rightful power or jurisdiction, and that the
commitment under it is not lawful cause for detaining the pe-
titioner.

It appears from the evidence adduced before me that the
warrant against the Sheriff for being engaged in an unlawful
assembly, rout and riot, &c., upon which he was committed
in default of bail, was issued without any oath or affirmation,
contrary to the provisions of the 26th Article of the Declara-
tion of Rights, and it being clear from the evidence that the
same was not issued upon view, the commitment thereunder