McGrath v. State

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, a licensed measurer of oysters in the shell, for Baltimore city, was convicted of violating the provisions of the Act of 1874, chap. 221. It is contended in the first place, that the Act of 1874 embraces matters and aims at results not described in its title, and does not therefore conform to the requirements of sec. 29, Art. 3 of the Constitution of this State, which declares that ‘ ‘ Every law enacted by the General Assembly, shall embrace hut one subject, and that shall be described in its title.” How, although the object of the title of an Act is to indicate to a certain extent the nature and character of the legislation to be found in the body of the law, yet it is well known, that formerly it constituted no part of the law itself. It is true, in some cases, it served as a guide in ascertaining the intention of the Legislature, when such intention was not expressed in clear and unambiguous terms, hut.it could not enlarge or restrain the plain provisions of the law.

And hence it was no uncommon thing to find an Act embracing distinct subjects foreign to, and independent of each other; and in regard to which the title afforded no clue whatever. In addition to this, it is well known, that measures of a different character were often embodied into one Act, for the express purpose of securing the combined' support of the friends of each, and thus members were often induced to vote for measures which if offered as independent measures, would not have received their support. It was to remedy these evils, that the constitutional provision was adopted. The Act of 1874 is not, however, liable to this objection.

The title of the Act is “ to repeal chapter 193 of the Acts ⁶³⁴ of 18⁷², and re-enact the same with amendments, so that oysters sold in the shell at Baltimore, Crisfield, and at all packing establishments, shall be measured in an iron measure.” Now there is nothing to be found in the body of the Act at variance with, or foreign to the subject-matter thus indicated by the title. It provides that oysters in the shell disposed of in the City of Baltimore or in the port of Crisfield, or at any packing establishment in this State, shall be measured by a licensed measurer, in an iron circular tub, of a certain description, and that the measure shall be even or struck measure. The entire subject of legislation to be found in the body of the Act is in strict conformity with the title. Then again, it is urged that the Act is a special Act, and in contravention of sec. 33, Art. 4 of the Constitution, which provides that “the General Assembly shall pass no special law for any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law.” The object of this provision was to prevent special legislation in special cases, but it is difficult to imagine on what principle the Act in question can he said to be liable to this objection.

Here is a law which provides