Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1874-06-11

ses the pro Jorma order Of the Superior
Court and dismisses the petition. The
present revenue system Of the State there
fore rensins ID b@se.
"Thc Court sets forth that the ossensi-
be purpose Of the proceedings il to COM
pei the srpellsnta, who are the Assessors
for the Third District Of Balsimore city.
to asses She property within their district.
under Act Of 1874. chapter 514. The
real object is to obtain . definition Of the
powers Of the assessors under the Act
Though the case is anomalous. still the
Court believes it cannot escape the duty
Of expressing upon the question. 1.-THE
questions" says the Court. "for rs to de-
! .ermine are what is the meaning anu ef-
feet of the Act of Assembly and whcth-
er the duties Of the assessors therein pre-
scribed are 90 defined Is that they can be
understood. and their performance BY the
appellants enforced according to the prayer
Of the petition :? The act is long one.
consisting of thirty-six sections. contain
ing many complex provisions. and requir-
ing in its preparation considerable care
and skill, OF which We are constrained to
say, we discover no evidence whatever in
its terms. = 1t is full of imperfec-
tons, some of the sections are incomplete.
some of them are unintclligible. and many
Of its provisions are contradictory with one
another" 1t is contended where chapter
514 is imperfect We may resort to Acts Of
1874. chapter 4s3. to supply lite defects
and control its meaning. The two Acts.
it is said. are to be construed together as
parts Of the same system. This Is the
main argument Of the appellee. This is .
vital question in the present case. Chap
ter 4s3 is an Act repeating article 81 Of
the Code, entitled "Revenne and Taxes, {"
and re -enacting the same with amend
ments. 1t went into effect on the date OF
its passage. The Act provides a COM
plcte system for levying and collecting
taxes, and designate what property is ex-
| empt aud what is to be assessed. The As
sessment Act now under consideration
forms no part Of that system. 1t was
quite competent for the Legislature, il
such had been their intention, to have re-
ferrcd to the existing law on the subject
Of revenue and taxes, and declared pro-
pcrty therein mentioned as exempt should
not be liable to assessment. The Legis-
laturc did not see proper TO adopt that
course. BY the Act Of 1874. chapter
514, now under consideration, they have
pr oceedcd 10 declare in positive terms
what property shall be exempt from tax
alton for the purpose Of the new assess
ment provided for by the Act.
1t is evident article 81 Of the Code,
as amended. is altogether distinct from
and independent of the Act of 1874, chap
ter 5l4. They are not in pari mate. IA.
Their provisions are dissiniilar, and in
some respects in conflict. The words OF
the latter Act. requiring all aiding Acts
to the law TO be construed as part thereof,
| accomplish nothing moro than what is al
ready law. 1t docs not apply to the two
laws. chapters 4S3 and 514. because they
do not form parts Of one system, bu, of in
dependent ones. The last named Act
must be construed to itself. without the
all of chapter 4e3 The Cour. then pro-
cccds to consider the effect Of chapter 514
1.-The words of the FIRST section are
plain. The petitioner alleges it is the
duty Of the assessors to proceed to their
duties. and that which BY the words OF
the Act is declared to be exempt FROM as
sessmcut and taxation was intended to be
made liable. The Court is called on so to
declare. in plain opposition to the words
Of the Act Of Assembly.
1t is true. the Court says. it is not
confined to the first section to find the
meaning Of the law. but the whole Act
must be construed together. Applying
this rule the difficulty is not removed
We have looked in vain at the other Sec
tons Of this Act to fluid any justification
for departing from the provisions Of the
| FIRST section"
i" The oath ofthe assessors require them
to execute the law according to the direc-
tons Of this Act Of Assembly. No other
than the first section Of the Act attempts
to declare what shall be liable to taxation
and what shall be exempt. and though
some OF the provisions of the other sections
are not entirely consistent with the first
section, they cannot have the effect of an
nuling or destroying the operation of the
express words contained in the first Sec
ton. When We look at the proriso, there
is much ambiguity. and if this could con-
troll the rest. We should be compelled to
declare the whole imperative for unccr-
tainty. y In the enac,ing clause
the words are plain and uuambiguous. and
must be taken as the expression Of the leg
islative will.
1t is not in our power to expunge
them from the statue, nor is it possible for
Us. by any Legitimate rule of construction,
TO alter their meaning or destroy their OPP
Grafton aud effect.
1.-The Court refers to the cases of Clark
rs. the Mayor and City Council of Balti.
more. 20 Nd, p. 2s3, and Supreme Court.
in Fisher and Blight, = Cranch. PIP. 35S
and 500. as to ambiguous and plain sta
tutes. and says the words Of this act are
plsin and unambiguous. All the proper
ty in the State is exempt from taxation.
excep; VIA, is particularly mentioned. Il,
is very probable the Legislature intended
to mean otherwise. and we are asked to
corrcc, the omission or mistake. We have
no power or authority to do so. The eases
Of Jones vs.. Smart. in Butler. Justice. l
Term T. 81, and NJ. King vs.. NJ Dane-
rel T. b. aud c. So. Bayley J.. NJ King
vs.. Inhabitants Of Bashan; S B. and G.
l03: Tenterden Z. H., aud Smiths Com