Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser., 1889-01-25
The Sand Dredging Case.

The Sand Dredging Case.
Some time ago. when Judge Stone
quashed the indictment against the
Potomac sand dredgers who had been
arrested under the act of Assembly
passed at the last session to meet the
case, .on the ground that the act had
an insult .ient title, the TINES express
ed the opinion that the ejudgment thus
rendered was not in keeping with the
tenor of the previous decisions of the
Court of Appeals upon the constitu-
tional point involved in the CASE
The Court of Appeals has just render
ed it's decision reversing the ruling of,
Judge Stone and remanding the case
for trial.
As will be remembered. the point
raised upon the demurrer to the in
dictment was that the title of the act
did not sufficiently describe its sub
ject matter, and that the act was for
that reason in conflict with that clause
of the constitution which declares
that every Act of Assembly "shall en-
brace but one subject, which shall be
described in its title' The sand dredg-
ing act, in its title, was described in
substance as "An Act to Amend the
Code of Public General Laws, Article
80, Title Crimes and Puuishments,
Subtitle Rivers" The TINES took
occasion, in commenting on the deci-
sion of the Court sustaining the de-
murrer, to point out that the Court
of Appeals in its decisions had been
inclined to construe this clause of the
constitution more in the light of re-
: straint upon the blending of different
subjects matter into one act. than as y
requirement of full and comprehen-
sive description of the subject matter
in the title. We thought that, a. the
sand dredging act embraced but one
subject, its title would be found suf-
ficiently descriptive to snswe a he con-
stitutional requirement. The Court
of Appeals has so decided, and in re-
versing Judge Stone it has but kept
in line with it's previous rulings on
the point.
There was another point raised in
the case in Court below: that the
act was defective in not expressly ex-
cepting the agents of the Federal
government engaged in dredging un-
der the navigation laws of Congress
from its operation. But taat point
was ignored by the counsel who tried
the case in the appellate court. As
the State constitution expressly recog-
Mics the supremacy of the Federal
laws and provides that the constitu-
tion itself and all laws made in pursu-
ance thereof are subject to the powers
of the General Government delegated
by the Federal constitution, such an
exception in an Act of Assembly would
have been wholly useless and uuneces-
sary, and hence the action of counsel
in not further contending for such an
untenable point.
We presume the prosecution of the
offending sand dredgers will be further
pursued now that the validity of the
law has been affirmed. At any rate
the enterprise by which the sand syn
dicate proposed to put such 9 large
amount Of money in their pockets by
taking the sand from the bottom of
the river without paying anything for
the privilege, will now be abandoned.
An abundance of sand for building
purposes can be obtained along the
river shores by paying the owners of the
adjacent lands small compensation.
Or if the syndicate is anxious to con-
tinue the dredging operation, 1t could
probably secure the passage Of law
by the next Legislature licensing the
privilege upon the payment of proper
tax. If this were done, the fund ought
to come into the treasures of the
counties bordering upon the river. 1t
would thus served to tighten the bur-
dens Of an over taxed people.