then refers to the change in the representation of the counties made by said convention law, and alleges said change of representation to be in violation of the existing Constitution.

It further alleges that the said pretended law, (the convention act,) as amended, prescribes and pretends to regulate, as by law, a time and manner of holding a dual election, at which a vote is to be taken on the call of a convention, and also for delegates to said convention, is inconsistent with the 54th section of article 3d of the Constitution, prescribing the power of the General Assembly to pass laws in relation to time and manner, &c., of holding elections in this State.

It further charges that the aforesaid pretended law and amendments, under color of which the sheriff and the police commissioners have undertaken to act as aforesaid, is in utter subversion of the Constitution and laws of this State. That is to say, that the same were passed and enacted by divers wicked and disloyal men, &c., who by cloaking their evil and illegal designs under the forms and ensigns of law, sought to sow dissension among the good people of this State; to alienate their hearts from the constitution by law established, and to break down and subvert the same, and to incite disloyal persons, and especially the Sheriff and Police Commissioners aforesaid, to revolutionary, unlawful and treasonable acts against the Constitution and laws of this State. Further, that the people of this State are exposed to great damage from the undertakings of said Sheriff and Commissioners, under said pretended laws. That your orators by said undertakings will be manifestly prejudiced in their rights, franchises and just influence as citizens in the conduct of public affairs, for as much as they cannot, as at present advised, procure any person or persons to act as delegates to such convention without violating their oaths of allegiance hereinafter mentioned, and without exposing themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution for seditious conduct.

And further, that said law, &c., concludes and assumes to bind all citizens who do not participate in the said election by the acts of those who do.

And further, that said sheriff and said police commis

sioners have undertaken to misapply the moneys and funds of this State within their respective control in behalf of holding the election aforesaid, said election being without warrant of law, and which the constituted authorities of this State, if they be faithful, will and must hold for naught. And that as taxpayers to the treasury of the State they are thereby exposed to damage.

And further, that your orators, by their oath of allegiance, are disabled from acting as judges of election at the election aforesaid, without being liable to heavy penalties.

And further, that said election will be an election wholly without those safeguards which surround a legal election, as no perjury, illegal voting, making up a false return, &c., can be punished by law.

They therefore pray that the said pretended law may be declared null and void, and that said election may be declared without warrant of law, and that William Thomson, sheriff, may be inhibited from advertising or continuing to advertise the election aforesaid in the newspapers, or giving any public notice of it, and also that said Board of Police Commissioners may be inhibited from appointing clerks of election for the election aforesaid, and from doing all such acts as they may do by right and custom for the holding of a lawful election in respect to the election aforesaid, and that a writ of injunction may be issued in accordance with the foregoing prayer.

The bill was accompanied by the usual affidavits, and was filed in open court by Alexander M. Rogers, Esq., counsel for himself and other petitioners. Mr. Rogers stated that he would, on Monday morning, file printed notes of argument.

S. Teackle Wallis, Esq., counsel for the Police Board, having been sent for by the court, asked leave to examine the paper. After glancing at its contents, he said that he had not been able to read it carefully, but so far as he could see, it appeared to be an effort of some four or five persons to assume the government of the State, or get the court to assume it. In either aspect it was a very serious matter, and he should like to see the notes of the complainant's counsel before filing his own, as the court sug

gested. In regard to one particular of the bill, he said he was happy to be able to relieve the minds of the complainants, and that was as to their apprehension of being appointed judges of election. He thought he could assure them there was no danger of that, and he was quite willing, so far as that went, to let the injunction go against the board.

Orville Horwitz, Esq., is the counsel for Sheriff Thomp

son.

On Monday, April 1, S. Teackle Wallis and Orville Horwitz, Esqs., counsel for respondents, appeared before Judge Martin in the Superior Court. A. M. Rogers, Esq., counsel for complainants, also appeared.

After some conversation with Mr. Rogers, Judge Martin said to the counsel for the Police Board and the sheriff that he had requested Mr. Rogers to put in his notes, and that if he required any notes in reply he would advise them. Otherwise he would decide the question without delay, and it could be taken to the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Wallis said it was proper he should advise the court that the defendants had filed answers to the bill, putting the complainants to proof of the material facts on which they individually claimed the right to invoke the court's interference. Under the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the question of granting an injunction must be determined under the circumstances on bill and answer, and not on the bill alone and a case of that sort was not the subject of immediate appeal, but must go up in due course to the October term of the Appellate Court.

Judge Martin said that of course the bill and answer and proofs, if required, would have to be considered together, but that he had already carefully examined the question himself, and the great preliminary inquiry which was above all others, was as to the right of a Court of Chancery to restrain the people from doing a great political act; from holding an election which the political department of the State government had provided should be held in order to take the sense of the people as to a change in their Constitution. That power, he said, was claimed by the bill, and he would receive the notes of the complainants' solicitor upon it, and consider them. If he re

quired any argument from the defendants' counsel he would notify them, otherwise he would decide the case at once, when the complainants' notes had been considered.

ANSWER OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONERS.

The following is the answer filed by Mr. Wallis, the counsel for the Police Board, to the bill for injunction, &c.:

To the Hon. Robert N. Martin, Judge of the Superior Court of the City of Baltimore, sitting in Equity: The answer of Lefevre Jarrett, Wm. H. B. Fusselbaugh and Jas. E. Carr, constituting the Board of Police of the City of Baltimore, to the bill of complaint and injunction of Alexander M. Rogers, William Kennedy, John Clark, Johns Hopkins and Benjamin Deford, filed in this court against them and William Thomson, sheriff of Baltimore:

These respondents, reserving all proper exceptions, say that they are not advised as to the place of residence of the said complainant, Alexander M. Rogers, but they are informed and believe that the complainants, Johns Hopkins, William Kennedy and John Clark, profess to reside and claim their residence in Baltimore county, and have done so ever since the taxation of the City of Baltimore on personal property has been onerous and greatly in excess of that of the counties, although they do and during all that time have done business in the City of Baltimore, and have had and still have all the benefits of a residence there, while avoiding its burdens. These respondents therefore charge that said Hopkins, Kennedy and Clark are not residents, nor is either of them a resident of said city, and that their allegation to the contrary is false. The respondents believe that Benjamin Deford, the other complainant, resides in the City of Baltimore. Whether any of said complainants, as they allege, pay taxes "to the fisc of this State" these respondents do not know, except from hearsay. They are quite sure that said complainants pay no taxes they can avoid, and they, therefore, neither admit nor deny the allegation of the bill in that regard, leaving the complainants to proof thereof.

These respondents know nothing of the alleged qualifications of said complainants, or any of them, to vote at all State elections, nor do they know what oaths two or

more of them, as they allege, have taken "under the prescriptions of the fundamental and statutory laws of this State," or what they may have taken under any other prescriptions; nor whether, in fact, said complainants, or any of them, can properly take the oath which is necessary to entitle them to be registered and vote. The respondents, therefore, admit none of the allegations of the bill in these particulars.

These respondents admit that a certain law was passed by the General Assembly of Maryland at its recent session, to provide for calling a convention to frame a new constitution and form of government for the State of Maryland, and to take the sense of the people in regard thereto, but they are unable to say whether the act recited in the bill is a true copy of the said law, and they therefore leave the complainants to prove the same as they may see fit. Neither can these respondents say whether the other "pretended law" to which the bill refers, and which, as it alleges, "did not come to hand," was passed by said General Assembly.

These respondents, however, say that they are advised and believe that the law in respect to the calling of a convention and the amendments thereto, which were passed by the General Assembly, are not in violation or subversive of the Constitution of this State or the laws thereof, or the Declaration of Rights, in any particular; but that the said law and amendments are valid and binding and in full force, and that it is the duty of these respondents, constituting the Board of Police of the City of Baltimore, to comply therewith faithfully under their oaths, and to do all things thereunder which belong to their official functions in respect to the election to be held under the same on the second Wednesday of the present month of April.

The respondents presume that the various extracts from the Constitution and Declaration of Rights copied into the said bill are correctly transcribed, but they refer the court to the originals for greater certainty. They are advised, however, and therefore charge that the said provisions furnish no foundation for the pretenses of said bill, professedly founded thereupon, but that said pretenses and allegations are wholly gratuitous and would so clearly ap