DOCSLIB.ORG

Baltimore Police Department: Understanding Its Status As a State Agency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 The Abell Report Published by the Abell Foundation March 2019 Volume 32, Number 2 The Baltimore Police Department: Understanding its status as a state agency by George A. Nilson Executive Summary remove the Commissioner remained with the Governor. In 1976, the General Assembly In recent years, the Baltimore Police Department transferred the appointment and removal has come under intense scrutiny following the powers to the Mayor of Baltimore. However, in-custody death of Freddie Gray in 2015 and the Maryland General Assembly left intact the the ensuing Department of Justice investigation, State Agency status of the Police Department. which resulted in a Federal Consent Decree. Many This means the General Assembly rather have started calling for turning control of the than the City Council is the legislative body Department back to the City from the State as a responsible for any legislative enactments way of increasing accountability. This report seeks governing the Baltimore Police Department. to understand the history of how the Department became a State Agency 158 years ago and the Throughout this 158-year history as a state implications of changing it now. agency, the funding of the operations of the Police Department has remained almost entirely By 1860, the Know-Nothing Party had taken the responsibility of the City of Baltimore. complete political control of Baltimore City and was abusing its power. The Maryland General While the Mayor and City Council are Assembly reached the conclusion that the Mayor constrained by the remaining Public Local and City Council had proven themselves incapable Laws establishing the Department’s continuing of maintaining order in Baltimore and accordingly status as a State Agency, the Mayor is able enacted Public Local Laws making the Baltimore to impact the conduct of the Commissioner Police Department a State Agency. through the power to appoint and terminate and to control funding for the Department’s These Public Local Laws required that the operation and initiatives. The City Council has Baltimore Police Department be managed by a some influence in the appointment process board of four Police Commissioners appointed (as it has recently demonstrated) and in the by the General Assembly. The authority to budget process. appoint and remove the Commissioners was turned over to the Governor in 1900. In 1966, If the Public Local Laws establishing the Baltimore when the City moved to having a single Police Police Department as a State Agency were entirely Commissioner, the power to appoint and repealed, there would be several impacts. Abell Foundation www.abell.org @abellfoundation P: 410-547-1300 March 2019 2 First, the City Council and Mayor would be This report seeks to shed light on the free to legislate or micromanage (for good or following questions: ill) policing in the City of Baltimore. Second, Police Department employees would become • How, why, and when did the City employees rather than employees of a Baltimore Police Department become State Agency, and they would be subject to a State Agency? City—rather than State—ethics and other laws and regulations. Third, the Baltimore • Are there reasons to change this status Police Department would lose the current so that the Department now becomes protections which exist under State sovereign a City Agency? immunity, which would likely be costly to the • Are there good reasons for the City and its taxpayers. Department to remain a State Agency? I. Introduction II. How the Baltimore Police The Baltimore Police Department is the Department became a state agency eighth largest municipal police department in America. It employs nearly 3,000 The Know-Nothing movement began in personnel, including approximately 2,500 the early 1840s in New York and spread sworn officers, about half of whom serve throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.1 in the patrol division. The Department The Know-Nothings in Maryland began as is responsible for safeguarding life and a secret club in the early 1850s; restricted property, and for promoting public safety membership to white, male, native- through enforcing the law in one of the most born Protestants; and demanded stricter violent cities in the country. immigration and naturalization laws. The Know-Nothing party was avowedly political in The public safety challenges in Baltimore purpose and relentlessly secret in the conduct have grown since the in-custody death of of its business. Members earned the party Freddie Gray in 2015 and the unrest that its name by repeatedly answering, “I know followed. The City and Baltimore Police nothing,” when asked about their meetings Department are subject to the stringent and internal workings. oversight of a Federal Consent Decree. The Department has had four Commissioners In the 1852 Presidential election, the Know- in as many years and has been without a Nothings emerged on the national stage and permanent leader for over a year. gained national prominence. In Baltimore, the openly Know-Nothing candidate was Among the many questions and challenges elected Mayor, and Know-Nothings gained that face the Baltimore Police Department is majority control of the City Council and the whether the Department is better off remaining General Assembly. a State Agency or if it should become a City Agency. This report examines this particular The Know-Nothings endured longer in issue and provides historical context as to how Baltimore than elsewhere, in part due to the the Baltimore Police Department was abruptly misuse of the Police Department to keep the taken from City control and made a State party in power. Throughout the 1850s, the Agency 158 years ago. Know-Nothings took their political battle to the streets of Baltimore City with the very unsubtle support of street gangs led by the notorious 3 Plug Uglies and Blood Tubbers and the tacit urging his supporters to stay home to preserve approval of the Police Department. Violence on their safety. Know-Nothing Mayor Swann was behalf of the Know-Nothings in the 1856 election re-elected, but the party lost its control of the had reached greater levels than had ever before General Assembly in 1859. been experienced in the City, including a dozen killed, 300 wounded, and hundreds more picked In response to the violence in Baltimore, up off the street, held in confinement, and then the Maryland General Assembly, no longer forced into repeated, alcohol-induced voting, a controlled by the Know-Nothings, enacted the practice known as “cooping.” Police Act of January 1860. This Act removed control of the Baltimore Police Department Baltimore remained solidly under Know-Nothing from the City and transferred it to a panel of political control through the municipal elections four Police Commissioners appointed by the of 1858, which were even worse than previous Maryland General Assembly. elections. Having secured his election in 1856, Mayor Thomas Swann quadrupled the size of the The City, still in the hands of the Know- Police Department, and the officers dedicated Nothing party, swiftly challenged the validity themselves to keeping the Know-Nothings in of the Act in the courts. Later that same year power. Several Democratic candidates for City the Court of Appeals ruled against the City, Council withdrew from the 1858 race and urged holding that because the City was a creature their supporters to stay home for their own of State government, and its police powers safety. Swann’s Democratic opponent for Mayor derived from State powers, the General conceded defeat at noon on election day, noting Assembly had the constitutional authority to that attempts to vote for him promised “loss of enact the Police Act and reconfigure control of life and the general disorder of the City,” and the Baltimore Police Department. A Timeline of the Baltimore Police Department as a State Agency 1784 Baltimore Police Department created 1852 Know Nothings Come to Power BPD becomes state agency, run by multiple commission- 1860 ers appointed by the General Assembly 1900 Power to appoint commissioners is given to the Governor Power to run BPD invested in a single commissioner, 1966 still appointed by the Governor 1976 Mayor given ability to hire and fire the commissioner 2008 Mayor’s discretion to fire commissioner strengthened Abell Foundation www.abell.org @abellfoundation P: 410-547-1300 March 2019 4 III. Funding and oversight remained at six years and appointment was responsibilities subject to advice and consent of the Baltimore City Council. Despite this change, the Police The Baltimore Police Department was Department remained legislatively designated established as a State Agency by Subtitle 16 as a State Agency. of the Public Local Laws of Baltimore.2 The Mayor’s power to hire and fire the • Section 16-2 provides that the Police Commissioner provides him or Police Department of Baltimore her considerable authority over how City is established as an agency and the Department operates and sets its instrumentality of the State of Maryland. priorities. While the power to hire is somewhat constrained by the need to • Section 16-4 states that the affairs and obtain confirmation from the City Council, operations of the Department shall the General Assembly initially tempered the be supervised and directed by the power to fire by requiring that it be exercised Commissioner of Police. only for cause. However, following the 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals that Mayor • Section 16-7 gives the Commissioner Martin O’Malley exceeded his termination the power to run and manage the authority in firing Commissioner Kevin Clark Police Department. It is the Police without establishing “cause” under the Public Commissioner who has the power to Local Law,3 the General Assembly amended issue rules, regulations, orders, and the Law, allowing the Mayor to terminate a other departmental directives under Police Commissioner under the terms of their the local law.
Recommended publications
  • John AJ Creswell of Maryland

    John AJ Creswell of Maryland

    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Faculty and Staff Publications By Year Faculty and Staff Publications 2015 Forgotten Abolitionist: John A. J. Creswell of Maryland John M. Osborne Dickinson College Christine Bombaro Dickinson College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Osborne, John M., and Christine Bombaro. Forgotten Abolitionist: John A. J. Creswell of Maryland. Carlisle, PA: House Divided Project at Dickinson College, 2015. https://www.smashwords.com/books/ view/585258 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Forgotten Abolitionist: John A.J. Creswell of Maryland John M. Osborne and Christine Bombaro Carlisle, PA House Divided Project at Dickinson College Copyright 2015 by John M. Osborne and Christine Bombaro Distributed by SmashWords ISBN: 978-0-9969321-0-3 License Notes: This book remains the copyrighted property of the authors. It may be copied and redistributed for personal use provided the book remains in its complete, original form. It may not be redistributed for commercial purposes. Cover design by Krista Ulmen, Dickinson College The cover illustration features detail from the cover of Harper's Weekly Magazine published on February 18, 1865, depicting final passage of Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, with (left to right), Congressmen Thaddeus Stevens, William D. Kelley, and John A.J. Creswell shaking hands in celebration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword by Matthew Pinsker Introduction Marylander Dickinson Student Politician Unionist Abolitionist Congressman Freedom’s Orator Senator Postmaster General Conclusion Afterword Notes Bibliography About the Authors FOREWORD It used to be considered a grave insult in American culture to call someone an abolitionist.
  • A Guide to the Records of the Mayor and City Council at the Baltimore City Archives

    A Guide to the Records of the Mayor and City Council at the Baltimore City Archives

    Governing Baltimore: A Guide to the Records of the Mayor and City Council at the Baltimore City Archives William G. LeFurgy, Susan Wertheimer David, and Richard J. Cox Baltimore City Archives and Records Management Office Department of Legislative Reference 1981 Table of Contents Preface i History of the Mayor and City Council 1 Scope and Content 3 Series Descriptions 5 Bibliography 18 Appendix: Mayors of Baltimore 19 Index 20 1 Preface Sweeping changes occurred in Baltimore society, commerce, and government during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. From incorporation in 1796 the municipal government's evolution has been indicative of this process. From its inception the city government has been dominated by the mayor and city council. The records of these chief administrative units, spanning nearly the entire history of Baltimore, are among the most significant sources for this city's history. This guide is the product of a two year effort in arranging and describing the mayor and city council records funded by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. These records are the backbone of the historical records of the municipal government which now total over three thousand cubic feet and are available for researchers. The publication of this guide, and three others available on other records, is preliminary to a guide to the complete holdings of the Baltimore City Archives scheduled for publication in 1983. During the last two years many debts to individuals were accumulated. First and foremost is my gratitude to the staff of the NHPRC, most especially William Fraley and Larry Hackman, who made numerous suggestions regarding the original proposal and assisted with problems that appeared during the project.
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
  • Gthe Emancipation of Slaves

    Gthe Emancipation of Slaves

    The Emancipation of Slaves in Civil-War Maryland: An American Epic Scott Harrison Ness Haverford College Senior History Thesis Spring 2008 Advisors: Emma Lapsansky-Werner and Sharon Ullman Acknowledgements My advisors, Emma Lapsansky-Werner and Sharon Ullman, played integral roles in both the shaping and execution of this thesis. Without their patience and enthusiasm, I would never have made it this far. My parents provided moral support during this yearlong ordeal, without which I would have likely driven myself insane. My father, a former history major himself and knowledgeable about the history of Maryland, provided the initial inspiration to examine this period in the state’s past, and introduced me to the Maryland Historical Society. My mother read every draft before submission and offered constructive feedback and criticism (often deservedly harsh). For this, words cannot express my sincere gratitude. This thesis is lovingly dedicated to my cat Annie. Neither blue nor grey, she is the quintessential lost Marylander who struggled to find a place in the divisive country. 1 Table of Contents Introduction ...………………………………………………...3 Chapter 1 Slavery and Civil War in Maryland: A State Torn …...............................................7 Chapter 2 The Invention of Language ………………...18 Chapter 3 1863: A Turning Point in Maryland Politics ……………………………………...32 Chapter 4 1864: Freedom and Reelection ……………..55 Conclusion …………………………………………………..68 Bibliography ………………………………………………...74 2 Introduction The coming [constitutional and] Presidential [elections are] not…mere [contests] between political parties to determine whose candidate and whose adherents shall exercise power during the next four years. [They are wars] of ideas, [contests] of principles. It is a question of National unity or of dissolution…If the people realize their danger, as we have reason to believe they do, victory will again perch upon the banners of the Union.1 The Baltimore American published this plea for voters to exercise their electoral responsibilities on October 6, 1864.
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys

    History of the U.S. Attorneys

    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of The

    The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of The

    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts CITIES AT WAR: UNION ARMY MOBILIZATION IN THE URBAN NORTHEAST, 1861-1865 A Dissertation in History by Timothy Justin Orr © 2010 Timothy Justin Orr Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2010 The dissertation of Timothy Justin Orr was reviewed and approved* by the following: Carol Reardon Professor of Military History Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Director of Graduate Studies in History Mark E. Neely, Jr. McCabe-Greer Professor in the American Civil War Era Matthew J. Restall Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Colonial Latin American History, Anthropology, and Women‘s Studies Carla J. Mulford Associate Professor of English *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT During the four years of the American Civil War, the twenty-three states that comprised the Union initiated one of the most unprecedented social transformations in U.S. History, mobilizing the Union Army. Strangely, scholars have yet to explore Civil War mobilization in a comprehensive way. Mobilization was a multi-tiered process whereby local communities organized, officered, armed, equipped, and fed soldiers before sending them to the front. It was a four-year progression that required the simultaneous participation of legislative action, military administration, benevolent voluntarism, and industrial productivity to function properly. Perhaps more than any other area of the North, cities most dramatically felt the affects of this transition to war. Generally, scholars have given areas of the urban North low marks. Statistics refute pessimistic conclusions; northern cities appeared to provide a higher percentage than the North as a whole.
  • The History of the Baltimore City Solicitors

    The History of the Baltimore City Solicitors

    THE HISTORY OF THE BALTIMORE CITY SOLICITORS by ∗ Dan Friedman The history of the legal officers of the City of Baltimore should be viewed in three distinct phases: (1) an early, informal period from 1797 to 1864; (2) an intermediate period from 1864 to 1898 during which the City was represented by two separate legal officers, the City Counsellor and the City Solicitor; and (3) the modern period, from 1898 to present, during which the office of City Solicitor attained its current position as legal advisor, policy-maker, and head of the Baltimore City Department of Law. The following article describes the development of the office of the City Solicitor, as well as presents limited professional biographies of many who have served the citizens of Baltimore in this capacity. 1. The Early City Counsellors (1797 to 1864) Although Baltimore City received its first charter in 1797, the first reference that we have found to a permanent legal officer for the City is in 1822. The City’s Annual Report for that year lists John Scott, Esq. as “Counsel for the City.” By 1838, George Gordon Belt is identified as “Attorney and Counsellor for the City.” This function was gradually formalized into the position ∗ Attorney, Saul, Ewing LLP, Baltimore Maryland. From 2000-2002, Mr. Friedman served as chief of litigation for the Baltimore City Department of Law. Mr. Friedman wishes to thank the current Baltimore City Solicitor, Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr. for his support and encouragement of this project. Thanks also to Mr. Frank Bender for catching and correcting an error.
  • 2. Location K

    2. Location K

    FHR-8-300 (11-78) United States Department off the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries complete applicable sections _________________________________ 1. Name_____________________________ historic Green Mount Cemetery ____________________________________ and/or common __________________________________________________________ 2. Location k. ; ^ ^ ____________________ y North Avenue, Ensor Street, Hoffman Street, and Greenmount street & number Avenue —— not for publication city, town Baltimore vicinity of congressional district Third state Maryland code 24 county Baltimore Citv code 3. Classification C s *~V Category Ownership Status Present Use district public occupied agriculture museum . __ building(s) X private unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence _)Lsite Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process X yes: restricted government scientific being considered yes: unrestricted industrial transportation no military X othpr- CEMETERY 4. Owner of Property name The Proprietors of the Green Mount Cemetery, c/o John D. Mayhew, Manager street & number Greenmount Avenue at Oliver Street city, town Baltimore vicinity of state Maryland 21202 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Records Office, Room 601 street & number Baltimore City Courthouse city, town Baltimore state Maryland 21202 6. Representation in Existing Surveys title has this property been determined elegible? yes no date federal state county local depository for survey records city, town state 7. Description Condition Check one Check one X excellent deteriorated unaltered X original site good ruins X altered moved date fair unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance The 68-acre Green Mount Cemetery is bounded by North Avenue, Greenmount Avenue, Hoffman Street, and Ensor Street.
  • Garitee V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: a Gilded Age Debate on the Role and Limits of Local Government

    Garitee V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: a Gilded Age Debate on the Role and Limits of Local Government

    Garitee v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: A Gilded Age Debate on the Role and Limits of Local Government Kevin Attridge JD Candidate, May 2010 University of Maryland School of Law James Risk MA Candidate, History, May 2011 University of Maryland, Baltimore County Attridge & Risk - 1 I. Introduction In 1877, William L. Garitee brought suit against the city of Baltimore in what would become a pivotal case in public nuisance for the state of Maryland. Four years earlier, Daniel Constantine, a city contractor, began dumping in the Patapsco River between Colgate Creek and Sollers Point. The dredge came from the excavation of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and improvements being made to the Jones Falls Canal. Constantine’s dumping directly affected William Garitee’s ability to conduct business from his wharf because the dumping reduced the depth of the river, making it impossible to access Garitee’s dock by ship. After making several attempts to get the city to stop dumping, Garitee was forced to file suit against the city. The Superior Court for Baltimore City decided the case in favor of the city, a decision Garitee appealed. The appeal was heard in the March term of 1880 by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Under Judge Richard Henry Alvey, the Court overturned the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to allow Garitee to proceed with his public nuisance claim and award damages. Politically, Garitee v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore was part of the larger on- going debate on the role of government. During the Gilded Age, the Federal Government assumed a laissez-faire stance toward business, but the Progressive Era that immediately followed witnessed a restraint of business through the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the trust-busting administration of President Theodore Roosevelt.
  • FLOOD, CHRISTINE ROWSE, Ph.D. the Arbiters of Compromise: Sectionalism, Unionism, and Secessionism in Maryland and North Carolina

    FLOOD, CHRISTINE ROWSE, Ph.D. the Arbiters of Compromise: Sectionalism, Unionism, and Secessionism in Maryland and North Carolina

    FLOOD, CHRISTINE ROWSE, Ph.D. The Arbiters of Compromise: Sectionalism, Unionism, and Secessionism in Maryland and North Carolina. (2015) Directed by Dr. Mark Elliott, 268 pp. The upper south was a region that was in the literal and figurative middle during the secession crisis of 1860-1861. In the late antebellum period, the upper south had diverse populations, burgeoning economic growth and still-vibrant two-party politics, even after the collapse of the Whig party. As the north and the cotton states descended into more radicalized political positions, the upper south maintained a strong sectional identity that positioned the region as the only sane and rational part of the deteriorating nation. Upper south sectional identity was rooted in general distaste for extremism of any sort, a political culture that could allow negotiation on the question of slavery in the territories, a willingness to give the Lincoln administration a chance, and the belief that the upper south states would provide the political and social leadership to forestall secession and war. Though seemingly dissimilar at first glance, Maryland and North Carolina were two states which approached the matter of union of disunion with similar caution, and were the home of strong examples of upper south sectional identity. Through a study of both the unionist and secessionist leadership in each state, this dissertation reveals the development of the upper south sectional identity and the significant attempts at compromise that were being present in Maryland and North Carolina during the secession winter. These two states provide two excellent case studies of upper south sectional identity, as each state had populations and political leadership that was not tied to perpetual and unrestricted slavery, as well as leadership drawn from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding population.
  • Maryland Politics and Government: Democratic Dominance / Herbert C

    Maryland Politics and Government: Democratic Dominance / Herbert C

    maryland politics and government Politics and Governments of the American States Founding Editor Daniel J. Elazar Published by the University of Nebraska Press in association with the Center for the Study of Federalism at the Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center for the Study of State and Local Government, Lafayette College herbert c. smith and john t. willis Maryland Politics and Government democratic dominance university of nebraska press lincoln and london © 2012 by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America f Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Smith, Herbert C. (Herbert Charles), 1946– Maryland politics and government: democratic dominance / Herbert C. Smith and John T. Willis. p. cm.— (Politics and governments of the American states) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-8032-3790-2 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Maryland—Politics and government. I. Willis, John T., 1946– II. Title. jk3816.s65 2012 320.9752—dc23 2011024769 contents List of Tables, vii List of Maps, ix List of Figures, ix Preface, xi one The Maryland Identity, 1 two A Maryland Political History, 18 three Contemporary Political Patterns, 50 four Maryland Public Opinion, 89 five Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Corruption, 108 six The Maryland Constitution, 134 seven The Maryland General Assembly, 152 eight The Maryland Governor and the Executive Branch, 176 nine The Maryland Judiciary, 207 ten The Politics of Taxation and Spending, 225 eleven “Pleasant Living” Policies and Politics, 253 twelve Maryland in the Federal System, 268 thirteen Local Governments in Maryland, 282 fourteen Maryland’s Future, 301 fifteen Further Reference for Maryland Study, 314 Notes, 321 Index, 363 tables 1-1.
  • PARENT CHAPTER, New York, NY

    PARENT CHAPTER, New York, NY

    PARENT CHAPTER, New York, NY Aiken Mrs. Robert K. Aiken (Sara Jennings Ledes) Ancestor: Thomas Jennings Aitken Mrs. Irene R. Aitken (Irene Elder Boyd) Ancestor: Thomas Dixon Allen Mrs. Christine Allen (Anne Christine Allen) Ancestor: Anthony Walke Allport Miss Tara Margaret Allport (Tara Margaret Allport) Ancestor: Caspar Steynmets (Stymets Altschul Mrs. Arthur Altschul (Patricia Fleming) Ancestor: Daniel Dod Anderson Mrs. Kathleen Anderson (Kathleen Mae McConnell) Ancestor: Tristram Coffin Armstrong Mrs. John Armstrong (Mary Helen Post) Ancestor: John Berrien Bahrenburg Mrs. William S. Bahrenburg (Alice Stevenson Braislin) Ancestor: John Shinn Barbey Miss Florence Flower Barbey (Florence Flower Barbey) Ancestor: Joseph Neville Barnes Mrs. John A. Barnes (Mary Reiner) Ancestor: William Wells Barzun Mrs. Jacques Barzun (Thelma Marguerite Lee) Ancestor: Samuel Jordan Bass Mrs. Jane Liddell Bass (Jane Boyer Liddell) Ancestor: Joseph Hawley Bastedo Mrs. Walter A. Bastedo (Julia Gilbert Post) Ancestor: Thomas Tracy Beckler Mrs. Richard W. Beckler (Allison White) Ancestor: William Brewster Benedict Mrs. Peter B. Benedict (Nancy Thomas Huffman) Ancestor: Wilhelmus Beekman Benington Mrs. George A. Benington (Patricia Minniece) Ancestor: Walter Chiles Bereday Mrs. Sigmund Bereday (Marilyn Patricia Pettibone) Ancestor: Samuel Pettibone Bergmayer- Mrs. Nicolas Bergmayer-Deteindre (Sinikka Nadine Deteindre) Ancestor: Edward Winslow Bergstrom Mrs. Victoria Bergstrom (Victoria Allison Weld) Ancestor: William Brewster Bird Mrs. Thomas Edward Bird (Mary Lynne Miller) Ancestor: John Webster Bishopric Mrs. Suzanne Bishopric (Suzanne Powell Bishopric) Ancestor: Jeremiah Fitch Bispham Miss Barbara Harlin Bispham (Barbara Harlin Bispham) Ancestor: John George Bispham Mrs. Thomas P. Bispham (Barbara Cecelia Shea) Ancestor: John George Boss Mrs. Grace H. Boss (Grace Palmer Hammond) Ancestor: Thomas Dudley Boulud Mrs.