Maryland Coal & Realty Co. v. Bureau of Mines of State
| Decision Date | 11 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | 24. |
| Citation | 69 A.2d 471,193 Md. 627 |
| Parties | MARYLAND COAL & REALTY CO. et al. v. BUREAU OF MINES OF STATE et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
The Maryland Coal & Realty Company, a Maryland corporation, and the Tri-State Construction Company, a Maryland corporation brought action against the Bureau of Mines of the State of Maryland and others, for a declaratory decree and an injunction challenging the validity of the Strip Mining Act Code Supp. 1947, art. 89, §§ 178-192.
The Circuit Court for Allegheny County, Joseph D. Mish, C.J., and Oliver H. Bruce, Jr., J., rendered a decree dismissing the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Delaplaine, J., reversed the decree holding that the act was unconstitutional as violating the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions because it is not applicable to Garrett County.
Walter C. Capper and William S. Jenkins, Cumberland (Capper & Jenkins, Cumberland, on the brief), for appellants.
Ward B. Coe, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and Paul M. Fletcher, Asst. State's Atty. Allegany Co., Cumberland, on the brief), for appellees.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This suit for a declaratory decree and an injunction challenges the validity of the Maryland Strip Mining Act. Laws of 1947, Sp.Sess., ch. 16, Code Supp.1947, art. 89, secs. 178-192.
Complanants are Maryland Coal and Realty Company, owner of bituminous coal land in Allegany County, and Tri-State Construction Company, lessee with the right to strip mine the coal from the land. Defendants are the Bureau of Mines of Maryland, J. J. Rutledge, Chief Mine Engineer and Director of the Bureau, and Morgan C. Harris, State's Attorney for Allegany County. Complainants are seeking a decree declaring the Strip Mining Act unconstitutional and restraining enforcement of the Act. They are now appealing from a decree dismissing their bill of complaint.
The tremendous increase in open pit mining or 'strip mining' during the depression in 1929 and thereafter and during the Second World War brought remedial legislation in the soft coal States. In 1943 the Legislature of Illinois enacted a Strip Mining Act, but in 1947 the Illinois Supreme Court held the Act unconstitutional. Northern Illinois Coal Corporation v. Medill, 397 Ill. 98, 72 N.E.2d 844. That Court held there was arbitrary discrimination and it was not convincing that the Act either promoted the public health or conserved natural resources. The testimony of two witnesses that the pools in the open cuts, like any other stagnant water, would breed bacteria and mosquitoes, was held insufficient evidence to show that the public health was endangered.
In Pennsylvania the effects of strip mining were more widespread and more glaring. Over large areas in Western and Central Pennsylvania strip mining operations left the land scarred and subject to soil erosion and stream pollution. In 1945 the Legislature of Pennsylvania, to meet the urgent need for remedial legislation, enacted the Bituminous Coal Open Pit Mining Conservation Act, which imposed regulations designed to eliminate the undesirable effects of strip mining. 52 P.S. § 1396.1 et seq. The statute was assailed because it was a special law applicable to strip mining of bituminous coal but not applicable to strip mining of anthracite coal. In 1948 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held the Act constitutional. Dufour v. Maize, 358 Pa. 309, 56 A.2d 675, 1 A.L.R.2d 563. It has been questioned in some reviews whether the discrimination in the Act can be justified on the theory that bituminous spoil banks are more extensive and more conspicuous than the anthracite spoil banks. These critics have suggested that the strip mining of anthracite causes the same evils as the strip mining of bituminous coal. 96 Univ. of Pa.L.Rev. 703, 704; 1948 Annual Survey of American Law, 109. In Maryland, however, that objection does not arise, because the only coal mined in this State is bituminous.
For a short time strip mining operations were carried on in Allegany County about 1920, but they were discontinued until about 1943. According to the record, more than a million tons of coal were strip mined in Allegany County from 1943 to 1948, inclusive. Tri-State Construction Company began to strip mine on the land of Maryland Coal and Realty Company in April, 1946, under a sub-lease, and on July 1, 1947, obtained a six-year lease from the owner. The lessee invested about $140,000 in equipment. It strip mined approximately 200,000 tons of coal in 1946 and 1947. Most of its operations have been conducted in the vicinity of Vale Summit near Clarysville.
Our Strip Mining Act, which was declared by the Legislature at its extra session in November, 1947, to be an emergency law necessary for the immediate preservation of public health and safety, and took effect on its approval by the Governor November 10, 1947, provides that before any operator shall engage in open pit mining of bituminous coal or fire clay in this State, he shall pay a filing fee of $100 and register with the Bureau of the Mines by filing a certificate giving an estimate of the number of acres of land he will affect by open pit mining during one year following the date of filing. He is also required to file a bond conditioned that he shall faithfully perform all of the requirements of the Act. The bond shall be in an amount to be specified by the Director of the Bureau, but in no event shall be less than $5,000 nor more than $20,000.
The main requirement of the Act to which appellants make most strenuous objection appears in Section 186, which provides: 'Within one year after the operation is completed, the operator shall place sufficient overburden in the open cut to cover the exposed faces of coal or fire clay seams and shall place such additional overburden in the open cut and level the peaks and ridges of spoilbanks to such degree as the Director may prescribe necessary to restore the surface to a condition favorable to the growth of trees, grasses or shrubs.'
The Act provides that its provisions shall not apply to Garrett County or to any person, partnership or corporation that does not mine in excess of 250 tons of coal in any period of twelve successive calendar months.
Appellants claim that the Act is an arbitrary and unreasonable invasion of their property rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. It is universally conceded that the police power of the State includes everything essential to the public health, morals and safety. Beyond this the State may interfere whenever the public welfare demands it, and a large discretion is necessarily vested in the Legislature to determine what the welfare of the public requires and what measures are necessary for the promotion of the public welfare. However, the decision of the Legislature as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive but is subject to review by the courts. It has been stated that the Legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions upon lawful occupations. Spann v. Gaither, 152 Md. 1, 12, 136 A. 41, 50 A.L.R. 620; Jack Lewis, Inc., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 164 Md. 146, 152, 164 A. 220; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 14 S.Ct. 499, 38 L.Ed. 385; Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504, 44 S.Ct. 412, 68 L.Ed. 813, 32 A.L.R. 661. In other words, to justify the State in interposing its authority for the public welfare, it must appear (1) that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from the members of a particular class, require such interposition, and (2) that the means adopted are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individual citizens.
Tested by these principles, the design and purposes of the Maryland Strip Mining Act of 1947 have a real and substantial relation to the police power. The Legislature declared that the Act shall be deemed to be an exercise of the police powers of the State, and specifically stated that the purposes of the Act are: (1) to provide for the conservation and improvement of areas of land affected in the mining of bituminous coal and fire clay by the open pit or stripping method, (2) to aid in the protection of birds and wild life, (3) to enhance the value of such land for taxation, (4) to decrease soil erosion, (5) to aid in the prevention of the pollution of rivers and streams, (6) to prevent combustion of unmined coal, and (7) generally to improve the use and enjoyment of said lands.
At the trial of this case Dr. Joseph T. Singewald, Director of the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources of the State of Maryland, explained that strip mining without backfilling results in denudation of vegetation, which in turn causes a decrease in the water supply. He also stated that strip mining lowers the water table under the land affected. Joseph F. Kaylor, Director of the Department of State Forests and Parks, testified that the spoil banks in Allegany County are not fit for plant growth, but will have to be converted into soil before they can be used again. He stated that generally the slope on these banks is too steep to produce vegetation. He further stated that the Department of State Forests and Parks had planted trees on some of the leveled spoil banks on Meadow Mountain in Garrett County with good results, and that he was of the opinion that the leveling of the spoil banks in Allegany County would considerably increase...
To continue reading
Request your trial