Mayor of Baltimore v. Reitz

Brent., J, delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented hy this appeal is the constitutionality of the Act of 1878, ch. 143. The appellant contends that it violates sec. 29, Article 3 of the Constitution, which directs that “ every law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject and that shall be described in its title.” This Court has so repeatedly considered the proper construction to be given to this provision, its object, and the evils against which it is intended to guard, that it is only necessary to state here some of the general principles recognized by all the cases. If several sections of the law refer to and are germane to the same subject-matter, which is described in its title, it is considered as embracing but a single subject, and as satisfying the requirements of the Constitution in this respect.

While the title must indicate the subject of the Act, it need not give an abstract of its contents, nor need it mention the means and method by which the general purpose is to be accomplished. If foreign and irrelevant, or discordant matter is introduced it will be rejected, if other sections of the law can stand without it. But if the Act is composed of a number of discordant and dissimilar subjects, so that no one could he clearly recognized as the controlling or principal one, the whole law would be void. Is the Act in question obnoxious to any of these rules of construction ?

Its title is “ an Act to repeal the Act passed at the January session of the General Assembly of Maryland eighteen hundred and seventy-six, chapter twenty, entitled ‘ An Act to empower the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to purchase, lease or condemn lands for public parks or squares within the limits of said city and to revive and amend section eight hundred and thirty-seven of the Public Local Laws, Article four, City of Baltimore ; and to make valid proceedings had for the condemnation of ground for a public square.” ⁵⁸⁰ The Act contains four sections. The first repeals the-Act of 1876, chapter 20. The second revives and amends sec. 887 of the Public Local Laws, Article 4, City of Baltimore, conferring power upon the Mayor and City Council to lay Out, &c. any street, square, &c., within the hounds of the city, which in their opinion the public welfare or convenience may require, and directing their mode of proceeding. The third makes valid all proceedings for the condemnation of land for a public square or park, under any ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, authorized by the law in force before the passage of the Act of 1876, ch. 20, and especially the proceedings for the condemnation of the ground lying between Johnson, Hughes, Covington and Warren Streets known as Federal Hill, for the purpose of a public square or park.

And the fourth directs the Mayor and City Council to proceed and acquire any land or ground for a public-square or park where “proceedings were had or begun before the passage of this present Act, and especially proceedings had and begun under the ordinance mentioned in the preceding section, and to conduct all such proceedings, to final completion.” Certainly these several sections are not irrelevant to the subject-matter indicated in the title, nor do we understand the very able counsel, who appeared for the city, as objecting to either one of them upon this ground. They refer to the powers, rights and duties of the corporation in the matter of condemnation of land for streets, public squares, &c. The third and fourth sections, which are particularly involved in this controversy, make valid and conclusive certain proceedings which had been taken to acquire land for a public square or park,, and