65

of inducting the new commissioners before the old commis-
sioners were removed. Was this the legislative intent? It
was necessary to act promptly in certain exigencies. Could
tedious legal proceedings have been intended under such cir-
cumstances? The very object of the law would have been de-
feated. It never could have been the intention of the Legis-
lature to compel the Governor to resort to the courts. An
apt illustration was the Tefusal to produce the police commis-
sioners until after three days. There the mischief was con-
tinued through the day of the election, thus defeating the
very intention of the law. If it had been necessary for the
Governor to resort to the courts in 1861, the consequences
would have been far more distressing. Still, through the in-
tervention of Providence at the last election, the right has
been maintained.

It never could have been the legislative intent to refer the
Governor to the courts. Our friends cannot produce a case
where the Governor is authorized to act in a specific manner,
and his action has been disregarded. In the Code the Gov-
ernor is required to perform certain duties. In the event of
any complaint being made against any civil or military officer
whom the Governor can remove, he shall summon witnesses
to inquire into the facts, and all means are provided for a
full and impartial hearing. The law existed previously that
defined his duties and mode of action. Having the complaint
before him in this case, he investigated the whole case. But
that was out of abundant caution. I hold that he was autho-
rized upon view, upon an affidavit, to have removed these
commissioners and appointed new ones, and he was respon-
sible only to the Legislature. But in the mode of investiga-
tion he exercised his authority lawfully. When this appoint-
ment was made, and the commissioners qualified under this
appointment, they were ipso facto the board of police. Not
that they had possession of the property, but they had the
right, the full right, to such office and property. On the
2nd of November, Messrs. Young and Valiant became police
commissioners of Baltimore. The order removing the old
commissioners was passed on Thursday, and they were noti-
fied of the fact. The new board denied admission to them on
the following day. On Saturday they called again, and they
were arrested. Hence these proceedings. The removal, with
notice of it, vacated the office. The appointment, with the
qualification, installed the new beard. It was the duty of
the old commissioners to have known the correct law and
complied with it. On the appearance of the new commis-
sioners the old board should have received them on Friday
afternoon, and availed themselves only of time to close up
their affairs. That was their duty, no matter what were the
interest involved. That was their duty, if the law is as I
have stated it, and I claim that such is the law. The reports
9