¶1filed the following concurring opinion.
¶2If the facts alleged in the petitions are supported by the records (which are not before us), petitioners’ rights under the Constitution of the United States of freedom of worship, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been wantonly violated and completely flouted by the municipality of Havre de Grace and by the Circuit Court. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666, 82 L. Ed. 949; Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 59 S. Ct. 954, 83 L. Ed. 1423; Schneider v. New Jersey (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146, 84 L. Ed. 155, and many subsequent cases. Rectification of such outrages would be the most compelling “special circumstances rendering it desirable and in the public interest that the cases should be reviewed.”
¶3However, so long as this court adheres to its position that Maryland criminal procedure — or lack of procedure —is supreme over the Constitution of the United States, (Winkler v. State, 194 Md. 1, 69 A. 2d 674) review of these cases by this court would result not in rectification *254of outrages, but in frustration. Petitioners would still be forced to go to the Supreme Court for enforcement of their constitutional rights which this court refuses to enforce when the facts have been covered by a false label in manner sanctified by Maryland practice. As> petitioners have no right of appeal to this Court in these cases, denial of discretionary' review by certiorari will leave them free to go direct from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court by appeal or application for certiorari, thus saving them the delay and expense of futile review in this Court. Solely to expedite petitioners’ quest for justice and vindication of their constitutional rights I concur in the denial of certiorari in these cases.