Dahler v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Briscoe, L, delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from a decree of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County dismissing a bill in equity filed by the appellant for an injunction to restrain the appellee corporation from carrying out the provisions of Chapter 122 of the Acts of 1918, creating a suburban sanitary district within the counties of Montgomery and Prince George’s, in the State of Maryland, and contiguous to the District of Columbia. ⁶⁴⁶ The validity of the Act is assailed upon five stated grounds alleged in the bill, but only two of these were urged in the argument and appear only to be relied upon by the appellant in his brief. The defendant answered the bill, and the case was heard upon bill, answer and exhibits, and from a decree of the Court holding the Act to be valid and constitutional, refusing the relief by injunction and dismissing the bill the plaintiff has appealed. The appellant is a citizen of the State of Maryland, a resident of the town of Bladensburg, in Prince George’s County, and a taxpayer in the suburban sanitary district created by the Act.

As such taxpayer, he is liable for the assessments and .taxation for the general purposes of the Act, and it is no longer an open question in this- State that if the statute is invalid and injurious to him he has a clear right, as a taxpayer, to maintain this suit. Baltimore v. Keyser, 72 Md. 106 ; Painter v. Mattfeldt, 119 Md. 466 . The title of the Act is: “An Act to create a sanitary district within Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties contiguous to the District of Columbia; to incorporate the same and to provide for the government thereof; to provide for the construction, maintenance, operation, purchase, or condemnation of water supply, sewerage and refuse disposal systems; to provide for the issuance of bonds for the purpose of such construction; and the levy of taxes, assessments and benefits, water charges and rates for the payment of said bonds; and the operation, maintenance, regulation and control of said systems, and for other purposes.” The Act contains eighteen sections and covers over seventeen pages of the printed Laws of Maryland of 1918, and incorporates certain sections or parts of the two counties within the bounds and area specifically named therein as ⁶⁴⁷ “The Washington Suburban Sanitary District,” for the purposes named in the statute. The object and purpose of the Act is to bring within the jurisdiction of a commission, acting for these counties within the territory incorporated, an elaborate and complete system of water supply, sewerage and drainage in this district, by which the sections and communities would he served with water from some adopted source and the sewerage carried to some common point for treatment or discharge.

The sanitary district will cover an area of about ninety square miles of territory, and will practically include all of the territory contiguous to the District of Columbia in the State of Maryland. The present population of this district, including the incorporated towns, is about 40,000 and the assessed valuation of its property about twenty-five millions. The legislation adopted and the plan for the creation of the sanitary district and the method, ways and means for the construction and operation of the system proposed were recommended to the Legislature of 1918 in a detailed report by a commission which had been appointed by Chapter 313 of the Acts of 1916 for the purpose of considering the subject. The objections raised to the constitutionality of the Act, as stated in the bill, are, (1) that it violates and is in conflict with Section 1, Article 13, in that it creates an administrative and taxing district of parts of two counties, without the consent of the residents of those parts of the county included in the district; (2) that the classification of the property for taxation is arbitrary and unreasonable and without regard to equality and uniformity; (3) that its provisions relating to assessments are unjust and arbitrary, and that the Act fails to provide for a proper hearing or review of the action of the commission as to taxation and assessment; (4) that it discriminates between productive and non-productive agricultural land, and (5) that the Act embraces more than one subject not described in its title, and therefore violates Section 29 of Article 3 of the Constitution. ⁶⁴⁸ The first objection, that the Act is in contravention of Section 1, Article 13 of the Constitution, is clearly not tenable.

It is obvious that the Act has no relation whatever to Section 1, Article 13 of the Constitution, which has to‘ do with new counties. It does not in any way change the lines of any county, nor interfere with the general jurisdiction of either of the counties mentioned in the Act, but creates a sanitary district or a special -taxing district within the lines of two counties for local improvements which are essential to