The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1874-09-05
Miscellaneous.
ABATEMENT UPON COUNTY
TAXES.
OPINION OF HON. D. C. H. EMORY.


OPINION OF HON. D. C. II. EMORY.
OFFICE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BALTIC. Co.,
TowsonLown, Aug. 18th, 1874
A T the last session OF the Legislature, law
IA was passed in reference to aoatements
upvn County Taxes to those who paid prompt
ly. The law not being clear to this Board, IL
was submitted to their counsel, q. Bonn sing
huff and VIM. S. Keech, Esqs., for their opin-
ion. The counsel having examined the law,
divided in their opinion. The law was tneh
submitted to Hon. d. G. IL. Emory, for his
opinion. The same having been gwen, II is
hereby published for the Information Oh inc
citizens of Baltimore county
Nv attention being called by the County
Commissioners of Baltimore county TO The Act
of 1874, entitled An Act u add an additional
section to article three OF the Code oil Public
local Laws" title Baltimore County, sub
title COLLECTORS" belIg Chapter 81 OF the
| published Acts, and my written opinion be-
| ing requested in relation to the rignt OF tax
| payers to an abatement for prompt payment,
| [ have carefully considered the Act, and am
| of the opinion that it refers to county taTes for
roads and public schools, and that 1t does not
apply to other county taxes.
| But in examining for the reason OF sucn dis
| elimination, [ found that the bill had never
| become law; that it had not been passed by
| the Legislature as required by the Constitution.
| J. Tue Senate journal, page All, shows that
| on the Sd of March, 1874, leave Was granted by
the Senate to report bill entitled an Act to
| provide an additional section to Article III Of
the Code of Public Local Laws, title "Baltl-
more county,.
2. Page sol of the same Journal, shows the
bill reported and read the first time.
| g. Page $40 of same, that the bill was
| read second time.
4. Page 596, that the bill was read third
time, passed by yeas and nays March TO- 1914
and ordered to be sent to the House.
s. The House Journal, p $50, March 18TH,
1874. shows that the Senate Bill, entitled San
Act &C., (this bll,) was read first time and
g. Same Journal, p. 1908, the Senate Bill en-
titled Gan Act" &C., (this bill,) reported with
proposed amendments. Insert alter the word
CATER" in the 9th line the words first of Sep
TENDER, sfte-," and add to the bill the follow
ing provided the same abatement shall be
allowed for the prompt payment of all county
taxes, including tGres Tor roads and public
schools as now allowed may hereafter be
allowed by law for prompt payment of State
taxes"
The proposed amendments were adopted
and the bill read second time.
7. House Journal, D. 1866, the Senate Bill
entitled "An Act" &c, (this blll,) was read a
third time and passed by yeas ard nays.
P. 1856, April 4th, 1874, the said bill was
then ordered to be returned to the Senate.
s. Senate journal, page 973, April 4, 1874
the Senate Bill, entitled IAN Act relating tC
Collectors in Baltimore county" endorsed
PASSED by yeas and nays" was returned by
the Clerk of the House.
1t does not appear from the Journal of the
Senate that any further action was taken by
3 the Senate on the said bill.
By the 22d Section of Article III of the Con
sttution of Maryland, each House is required
to keep Journal of its proceedings, and cause
the same to be published.
D BY the 2Sth Section of Article III, it is pro
Z vided, that no bill shall become a law unles
C it be passed in each House by a majority of tn
whole number of members elected, and on it
), final passage the yeas the nays be recorded.
By the 18th Section of Article H. every bill
which shall have passed the House OF Dele
J., gates and the Senate, shall, before it become
: a law, be presented to the Governor, &c.
0 The Journals show that the bill was a Sen
ate Bill, and after it came 10 the House, that
g besides other material amendments, the who'll
e proviso relating to abatement for prompt pay
ment was added to the bill, and that the bill
r so amended was not passed in the Senate by
= majority of the whole number of member
| elected, and the yeas and nays recorded.
= NY opinion, therefore, is, that the Bill neve
. became law, and that the Act is void ant
d wholly imperative.
, D. C. II. EMORY.
e August 25th, 1874.
Authorities to Sustain the Annercd Opinion !:
d That the Journal of proceedings of eacl
: Houes. required by the Constitution to be kep
is a public record, and if it should appear from
these Journals that any Act was not passe
y according to the requirements of the Consti
tuition such act is void aud imperative.
: Spangler VS.. Jacoby, ii H., 297.
: Miller VS.. State, 3 Ohio, n. s. AIS.
People VS.. Mabaney, Is Mich, 4Sl.
Southwark Bankvs. Commonwealth, 2 Penn
st. 446.
: McCulloch VS.. State, IL Ind, 1870.
State vs. Moflitt 5 Ohio, 35S.
II Turly VS. Logan Co, II Ill, Isl.
reoPfe VS.. supervisors or'Unenango, 3 N. Y
317.
Jones VS.. Hutchinson, AZ ILL.,, 72l.
Fordyer VS.. Goodman, 20 Ohio, n. S. |.
Prescott VS.. Trustees of ILL.,, and Mich Canal
10 ILL.,, 324.
Louisiana State Lottery Co., vs. Rdoux 2
La, an. ASS, S. G. Am. Rep. 600.
" State VS.. Plat, 2 S. c., n. ST. $50.
And so where the Constitution has required til
Journal to show the action taken, as for in
: stance where it requires the yeas and nays t.
be recorded
Miller VS.. State, Ohio, H. s. AS.
Supervisors VS.. People. % H., ISL.
See also, 10 H., 1924, Prescott VS.. Board o
Trustees.
III. and Mich. Canal, IS Ill, 1911 (14O.)
; The people vs. Starne, 35 N. H., $40.
DEMO, 9, DeBow VS.. the People.
l Strange 446. Rex VS.. Jetlries.
2 Scam, 462, Busher VS.. James.
l Greeneaf on Evidence, Section 400.
Cowan, 613, Root VS. King.
Cowper, II, Jones VS.. Randall.
4 Missouri, 3O3, State VS.. Mcbride.
Doug, Mich 35l, Green VS.. Graves.
In the cases in Is Nd. Rep, 392, and 80 Nd
Rep, All, the question was one of evidence t.
prove "contents," not as to the passage of tn,
Act.
DANIEL J. McCAULEY,
EDWARD RIDER,
BENZ. +. JORDAN,
County Commissioners for BALTIC Co.
Aug. 29.-3w.