3194

VETOES

making these appointments the Judges were not performing a
judicial function." Id. at 658. Similarly, in Prince
George's County v. Mitchell, 97 Md. 330 (1903), the Court
declared an act imposing upon the judiciary the
responsibility of appointing a custodian of county
facilities to be unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, not every statute imposing appointment
powers on a judicial officer contravenes Article 8. Code,
Article 10, §2, validly requires the Court of Appeals to
appoint the members of the State Board of Law Examiners, and
Article 41, §155 authorizes the judges of the Court of
Appeals to appoint a State library committee. In discussing
these and other instances of judicially appointed officers,
we have previously noted:

"Not only have such provisions been part of
the statutory law of the State at least since
1856, but the Court of Appeals has on numerous
occasions passed on these provisions and thus
approved of their constitutionality sub silento.
See, Norvell v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 212 Md. 14
(1957); Coblentz v. State, 164 Md. 558 (1933) ;
Owens v. Wilmer, ex rel Eastern Short Trust Co.,
131 Md. 175 (1917); County Comm'rs. v. Melvin,
107 Md. 533 (1908); County Comm'rs. v. Melvin,
89 Md. 37 (1899). The Revisor's Note to Courts &
Judicial Proceedings Article §2—102 indicates
that this power is 'based on Article IV, §9 of
the Constitution which grants judges broad
authority to appoint personnel' and further
indicates that 'Article IV, §9 is apparently
declarative of the common law' citing Inter alia,
Robinson v. Townshed, 3 G&J 413 (1831). Article
IV, §9 of the Constitution provides:

"The Judge, or Judges of any Court, may appoint
such officers for their respective Courts as may
be found necessary; and such officers of the
Courts in the City of Baltimore shall be
appointed by the Judges of the Supreme Bench of
Baltimore City. It shall be the duty of the
General Assembly to prescribe, by Law, a fixed
compensation for all such officers; and said
Judge or Judges shall, from time to time,
investigate the expenses, costs and charges of
their respective courts, with a view to a change
or reduction thereof, and report the result of
such investigation to the General Assembly for
its action.

"See also County Commission v. Mitchell, supra,
wherein the Court of Appeals stated: