Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1889-01-18
The Sand Dredging Case.

The Court Of Appeals last week rem.
dered its decision in What i known .,
the Sand Dredging Case. The ae, wa.
passed at the las' session Of the LegisIa.
ture, AMI was intended o prevent for.
eigners part'esin Washington eity. &c
from taking sand from the bel If The
Potomac river Since SO much building
has been going on in Washington md in
tie country adjacent thereto, SIND has
been in great demand. aud as il could
no. be gotten nearer aud as good. taking
il by the means OF drcdges from the bot
tom of the Pjtom1c river has been adon,.
ed, aud t0,revenl this the citizens If Ills
county had an act passed prohibitin, it
II is not charged that The reE,oval of the
sand did any damage to the river or in
any manner affect navigation, but il was
thought that the passage Of such an act
would have the effect TO M Ike sand deal.
crs buy from the land owners along the
river shore. Instead of obtaining i free
from the bed If the river. 1t isalaw
conceived in seishucss. and likelv 10
greatly injure an important industry,
an throw out Of occupation many poor
laborers who find employment III that
business BE- that as it may. however.
the Court Of Appeals has passed apon
one Of the cons ltutional questions ingOlv-
d aad holds the law good In the
luwer court two points we're raised as to
the cnnstitutionality Of the law: One to
The effect that the tiling to the law
vas bad, in that it did not specify with
sufficient Particularly the subject matter
lesi,nted about; and the other that it was
in conflict with the constitution of the
United States TO which is granted the
sole aud absolute right to legislate our
nagigable streams Tor the benefit Of COM
merce. The Court Of Appeals reversed
the lower court on the first proposition
aul the counsel having charge Of the
case in the upper court did not present
the latter point.
TIE tide to the law is IAN ACT to
add new section to article thirty of the
Code of Public General Laws, title
'Crmes and Punishments, sub title
Rivers to come il after section one
hundred aud seventy-oue, and to decide
such a title good, is to our mind, long
stretch of judicial Judgment. 1t is very
plainly seen that from the thing
- the law no idea can be gotten as to
what is the subject matter OF legislation
The public IS informed that rivers is
the subject matter when in point of hct
che taking of sand is the act intended
10 be prohibited The tendency Of the
decisions Of our Court Of Appeals has
always been towards sustaining egida-
tive enactment when technical points of
mis- character as teen fi'ais'G''d, Gt1t egis
latiou has become so loose in This respect
that the court was forced 70 take a
halt and in the Sc Of Steifel and al
vs.. the Maryland Institute for the IN
struction of TIE blind, in 81 Maryland,
the latest case on this point, and not
near so strong as the sand case, the cour:
took a backward course and virtually /.
say it will 60 10 further This i'm
portant case is however, not to be found
upon the brief Of counsel for the Tray
ersers, and as the court mikes no ref
srence 10 it. it is to be supposed that the
court inadvertently reversed itself. Why
the other constitutional question WAS
not raised do,s not appear. As tie
-----s -tr- INV ~ -
itIing holds good, but as TO whether
t is otherwise constitutional, the
,ubllc is us much at sea as before 81
The court reversed the appeal because
If failure to assign errors by the State,
nd there ends the second chapter in the
Sand Dredging Case.