control or abolish it, and within these powers is embraced the right to change the mode of appointment.’ Davis v. State, 7 Md. at 161.’ Hi * * In Scholle v. State, 90 Md. 729, 46 A. 326 (1900), the Court interpreted Art. II, § 10 of the present Maryland Constitution in accordance with the holding in the Davis, Baltimore, and Baker cases. It is thus clear that when the legislature creates an office by statute, as it did in § 130(a), the separation of powers provision of Article 8 does not of itself prevent the legislature from placing the power of appointment in the hands of someone other than the Governor. As stated in Scholle, when the legislature has created an office by statute, it ‘can designate by whom, and in what manner the person who is to fill the office shal 7, 38-40 (1915) (<HOLDING>); Purnell v. State Board of Education, 125 Md.
holding that the requirement that the county seek recommendations for appointments to a civil office from a private corporation was not constitutionally repugnant because where the office was created by the legislature the legislature retains the control over that offices method of appointment holding that the colorado constitution reserves no authority in the state legislature to change add to or diminish the qualifications for constitutionally created offices recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that the governor had no power to make the appointment of officer of the school commissioner for cecil county without the consent of the senate when the office was not vacant because the legislature which had created and therefore controlled the office had not delegated that power to the governor holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature