Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1910-12-28
PETITIONERS WIN
Court Decides Case OF Walton
And Others Against County
Commissioners In Favor
OF Taxpayers
TAX UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Demurrer 0verruIsd County Com.
missioners Ordered To Paw All
Costs Ia These Proceedings

In an opinion, signed by Chief
Judge Thomas and Associate Judge
Forsythe, and handed down in the
Anne Arundel Circuit Court today,
the Court upsets the Special Privilege
tax recently imposed upon the prop
erty owners at Eastport and in the
Second district, in accordance with
the provisions of the Special Privi-
lege Act passed at the last session
of the Legislature.
The, Court, after reviewing the
case at length, in the course of
which many cases, in which similar
questions were raised, overrules
the demurrer and grants the injunc-
tion restraining the County Commits
sioners from levying or collecting
the "a cents tax for Especial privi.
leges" at Eastport.
The bill for injunction was fled by
Messrs. James A. Walton and other
taxpayers of Eastport, and the bill
not only asked that the county be
enjoined from levying the tax, ,|but
the constitutionality of the Act was
attacked because of the ambiguity
of it's title and for other reasons.
The Court does not pass upon the
constitutionslity of the Act. The
opinion of the Court, in part, fol-
lows:
''If only the title of the act is read,
only partial knowledge of what is
really enacted is obtained. 1t would
appear from the title that an I'm.
provement Commission is provided
for but one district of the county, the
Fifth, while in the body of the Act,
Section 124-i, each district is to have
an Improvement Commission similar
in every respect to that provided for
the Fifth district. This is clearly
in conflict with the rule as laid
down in cases cited by the Court.
1t is also urged that the Act is
unconstitutional because it embraces
in its title two district matters not
connected, or related in any way to
each other, which is a violation
of Section 20 of Article of the
Constitution.
This presents a more difficult
question, because cases exactly in
point are hard to find, and as was
said by Chief Judge Boyd in Somer-
set County VS.. Pocomoke Bridge
Company, 109 Nd. 5, in dealing with
this section and article of the Con-
stitution, the principles applicable
to it must be applied to the particu-
lar facts and circumstances of each
statute under consideration.
In the case of County Commission.
ers VS.. Meekins, so Md, 2, it was
held that an Act which combined an
attempt to enact system for levy
ing and collecting taxes in the county,
and for disbursing the public
money, and rearranging the County
Commissioners and Tax Collectors,
was legal, because the duties of
the County Commissioners and Tax
Collectors were so closely connect
ed and depended each upon the
other. And that was the conten-
tion by the defendants here, that
the matters combined in the title
and the act itself ''were so closely
connected that each depended upon
the other.
The case of the County Commits
sioners VS.. Meekins, Supra, cannot be
! said to control this case. In that
case the statute divided the county
into five districts and provided for a
Commissioner for each district; took
the appointment of the Treasurer
from the Commissioners and gave it
| to the Governor; made the Treasurer
| Clerk to the Commissioners, and
gave to the Treasurer the appoint
ent of FAX Collectors. The Act
then provided system of levyine
and collecting the taxes, and for
aisbursing the public money.
1.-The Court held that but one sub.
| ject of legislation was contained in
the Act. which was the management
of the public affairs of Dorchester
county by the Commissioners and the
other public officers of that county
and the duties of the County Com
| missioners, the Treasurer and the
| Tax Collectors are so closely connect
ed and made so to depend upon this
other, that the execution of the sys
tenn thus framed depends upon tht
faithful performance of their dutie.
by the Commissioners, Treasurer ant
Tax Collectors
In the present case it would bi
perfectly possible for a system o
taxation for special privileges t,
be provided. and the Commissioner,
au thorized and empowered to lev,
and collect such a tax, and appl,
the funds thereby raised, withou
the necessity of having an Improve
ment Commission for any one, o
all Of the districts.
And it would be equally as eas
to provide an Improvement Commits
sion for any, or all of the districts O
the county, without any system O
special taxation. Therefore the tw
subjects are not dependent each upo
the other, as was held to be the cas-
sp Meekins case, supra.
The duties of an improvement
Commission in reference to the estaE
fishing of q building code, an
grades for streets and roads, couI
easily be performed without IL an
way depending upon the levying an