Dean v. Slacum

⁵⁷⁹ Ubxek, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The General Assembly, by chapter 495 of the Acts of 3924, added section 3 850C to article 10 of the Gbde of Public Local Laws, title “Dorchester County,” providing as follows: “Any owner of riparian rights on any waters in Pisln'ng Bay in Dorchester County, lying north of a line drawn from Boasting Ear Point to Fishing Point, shall by virtue of such ownership be first entitled to make a choice of the set or position in front of the property of which he or she is the owner of the riparian rights therein, for fish net or nets he or she may desire to there set or place, provided that if said owners of said riparian rights do not avail themselves of the privilege of locating the position or positions where they desire to place or set nets or weirs, each year within twenty days after receiving notice from any other person or persons who may desire to locate their nets or weirs in front of said riparian owner’s property, then it shall be lawful for said person to locate or place their nets or weirs in front of said property.” Section 185C, as amended by chapter 316 of the Acts of 1914, provides, in part, that it shall be “unlawful in the waters of Fishing Bay, south of a. line drawn from Black Water Point to Irish Creek, and north of a line drawn from Boasting Ear Point to Duck Island Point, to set any weir more than four hundred yards from shore', or to set any line of gill nets or weirs closer to each other than four hundred yards * * The appellee is the owner of a tract of land fronting on Fishing Bay within the limits defined by the statutes from which we have quoted. With a view to the exercise of his riparian rights under Section 185CO, he prepared for the erection of several weirs in the bay along the shore line of his property, and had purchased a large quantity of materials to be used for that purpose, when the appellant, without giving the notice required by the law, constructed a weir, and was proceeding to erect another, in Fishing Bay, opposite the appellee’s land and within four hundred yards of ⁵⁸⁰ the shore. In this suit for a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of the appellant’s weirs, the question, raised by the demurrer to the bill of complaint, is whether the statute conferring the riparian fishing right asserted in the bill is constitutional.

The appeal is from an order overruling the demurrer. The first contention is that' the title of the act does not conform to the provision of section 29 of article 3 of the State Constitution, that “every law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject and that shall be described' in its title.” The statute is entitled as follows: “An Act to add a new section to article 10 of the Code of Public Laws of Maryland, title ‘Dorchester County,’ said section to be known as section 18500, to follow immediately after section 1850 of said article, and to be under sub-title ‘Eish.’ ” There is no difficulty in holding this title to be sufficient; It has been repeatedly decided that a correct title description of an act by Code article and section designations is a compliance with the constitutional requirement. Todd v. Frostburg, 141 Md. 693 ; Key v. Key, 134 Md. 418 ; Rugles v. State, 120 Md. 564 ; Worcester County v. School Commissioners, 113 Md. 307 ; Kingan Packing Asso. v. Lloyd, 110 Md. 619 ; Anne Arundel County v. United Railway Co., 109 Md. 377 ; Barron v. Smith, 108 Md. 317 ; Himmel v. Eichengreen, 107 Md. 610 ; Garrison v. Hill, 81 Md. 551 ; Lankford v. Somerset County, 73 Md. 118 ; German Building Assoc. v. Newman, 50 Md. 62 . The title here in question describes the act as incorporating a new section, with a specified number, in the Code article relating to.

Dorchester County, and under a sub-title indicating accurately the general subject of the legislation. It was not necessary that the title should be more explicit in its description of the statute. The omission of the word “Local” from the reference to the Code in the title could not have caused any doubt that the Code of Public Local Laws was meant, in view of the other descriptive terms employed. It is further contended that the act violates the constitu ⁵⁸¹ tional right, of citizens to the equal protection of the laws.

There is said to he an invalid discrimination against the general public, and in favor of riparian land owners, with respect to the privilege of constructing weirs in the waters