Steenken v. State

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The traversers were indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. They were charged with having violated the Act of 1898, ch. 505. By this Act it is provided that “ before any person shall transact the business of a Master Stevedore in the City of Baltimore he shall obtain a license for which he shall pay the sum of twenty-five ($25) dollars — and that in addition to taking out a license he shall file with the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas a bond to the State in the sum of $1,000,” etc., etc. The penalty prescribed is as follows: “Any Stevedore who shall violate this section by failure to file ⁷¹⁰ such bond or to obtain the license aforesaid . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction thereof be fined,” etc. The title of the Act is: “To add an additional section to the Code of Public Local Laws, etc. To provide for licenses for Stevedores.” The first count of the indictment charges that the traversers unlawfully transacted the business of Master Stevedores without having first obtained the State’s license.

By the second they are charged with unlawfully carrying on said business without first having filed a bond as required by the Act. The third and last counts also charge a violation of the Act because of failure to give bond as thereby required. To this indictment the traversers demurred on the ground of the invalidity of the Act of 1898, ch. 505. The Court below sustained the demurrer to all the counts except the first, as to which the demurrer was overruled.

The traversers pleaded guilty, and the judgment was that they pay a fine, etc. From this judgment they have appealed and the only question presented is whether there was any error in the ruling on the demurrer. The contention of the traversers is that the Act in question (Act 1898, ch. 505) is unconstitutional and void, because it violates section 29 of Article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that “ Every law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title.” It is conceded by the State that all the provisions of the Act which relate to or require a bond to be given are void, but it contends that the parts of the Act which relate to obtaining license are valid because the latter constitutes the one subject embraced by and described in the title, forming a separate, independent and additional enactment and enforceable, therefore, entirely irrespective of the former. It is familiar law that a statute may be valid in part and void in part, and that if possible the former will be upheld if disconnected with the latter. Berry v.