Calvert County Com'rs v. Heelen
| Decision Date | 01 July 1890 |
| Citation | 20 A. 130,72 Md. 603 |
| Parties | COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CALVERT COUNTY v. HEELEN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Calvert county.
Application for mandamus.
Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, IRVING, BRYAN, MCSHERRY and FOWLER, JJ.
R H. Hagner and D. R. Magruder, for appellants.
James T. Briscoe and John B. Gray, for appellee.
The only question presented by this appeal is the validity of the act of 1890, c. 183, entitled "An act to create a treasurer for Calvert county, and to provide for the collection of taxes therein." It was earnestly contended on behalf of the appellants that this act is in conflict with section 29, art. 3, of the constitution of Maryland, which provides that "every law * * * shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title." Secondly, that the appellee, who was not nominated to the senate and appointed by the governor within 50 days from the beginning of the session of the legislature, was not nominated and appointed as required by section 13, art. 2, of said constitution, which provides that all "civil officers appointed by the governor and senate shall be nominated to the senate within fifty days from the commencement of each regular session of the legislature."
The title of this act is brief, but comprehensive, and the one general subject described therein is the collection of taxes in Calvert county. The act creates a treasurer, provides for his appointment, and the mode of collecting taxes by him. It is obvious that such a law necessarily involves provisions setting forth the tenure of office of the treasurer, his duties, compensation, and powers; and among those powers is one authorizing him to appoint a deputy. This is clearly within the proviso and scope of the act, and germane to the general subject embraced in its body and described in its title. It would be absurd to require the title to set forth all the details of the act. Such a construction would "embarrass legislation, and incumber laws with long and prolix titles." Mayor, etc., v. State, 30 Md 119.
It was urged, however, that the act of 1890, c. 183, is void in so far as it provides that the deputy treasurer shall be the clerk of the county commissioners. But in Meekins Case, 50 Md. 28, the act of 1878, c. 160, which creates a system for levying, collecting, and disbursing the public money of Dorchester county was held valid, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial