Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1916-08-11
Hats New Assessment,

The act of the Maryland Assembly dele
eating the power for re-assessment in
Maryland, on which the State Tax Com
mission based its action for Statewide
re-assessment, was declared unconstitu-
tlonal on Tuesday lastin an opinion handed
down by the Frederick County Circuit
Court, overruling the demurrer to the bill
OF complaint filed on July 10 by David
Lowenstein and Charles Wertheimer, Fred
erick merchants, against the State Tax
Commission, Alfred w. Gaver, supervisor
OF assessments, and the Board of County
Commissioners.
The defendants have IS days in which
to file an answer to the bill of complaint.
The Tax Commission, it is stated, will
take the case to the Court of Appeals.
The contention of the complainants that
the act was invalid because the proposed
re-assessment did not apply equally
throughout the State, was overruled. The
contention that Baltimore was not included
IN the re-assessment plan was referred to
by the court.
The court explained that there are sep
arate enactments by which property in
Baltimore city is subjected to a continuing
process of revision in order that it may be
assessed for State and municipal taxes
according to its real value
"lf the Legislature" says the court in its
opinion, was convinced that this standard
has been uniformly observed in the assess
ment of Baltimore city property, but that
lower measure of taxable value has been
applied elsewhere in the State, it was not,
in our opinion, constitutionally necessary
to subject the city to the expense of a
supertiuous reassessment merely because
the county valuation may need readjust-
ment"
The court was unanimous in its opinion,
it being signed by Chief Judge Hammond
Urner and Associate Judges Glenn H.
WOrthington and Edward c. Peter.
The litigation in Frederick county has
attracted State wide attention Officials
of several counties have held up action on
the orders of the State Tax Commission
until decision had been reached in the
Frederick county case
Former Senator Edward M. Hammond rep
resented the State Tax Commission during
the arguments on the demurrer. Leo Vein
berg represented the local merchants.
1.-THE question of most serious concern
in the case. says the Court in its opinion,
'arises from the fact that the Legislature,
by the Act of 1916 has sought to delegate
to the State Tax Commission the whole
duty of formulating a uniform plan of as
sessment. This is duty which the people
imposed upon the Legislature. The recent
amendment to the Constitution declares
that the General Assembly shall by uni
form rules provide for the separate assess
ment and classification therein directed
at is the plain purpose of the amend
ment that land and the improvements
thereon shall be separately assessed, and
that Improvements and personal property
shall be classified according to uniform
rules which the Legislature shall prescribe
The mandate of the people to that effect,
as conveyed by the Constitutional amend
unqualified Ii creates a duty which it
makes expressly legislative in its charac-
ter and which is, therefore. not capable
of being delegated. 1t affirmatively charges
the General Assembly itself to establish the
uniform rules by which assessments for
taxation purpose shall be conducted.
THE re-assessment which the bill seeks
to have restrained has been ordered by the
State Tax Commission in pursuance of a
statute which lays down no rules to guide
the assessors in making the separate as
sessments and classification contemplated
by the constitutional amendment, but COM
mits that fundamental duty to an agency
to which the amendment does not refer.
In our judgment. this attempted delega-
ton of power and duty by the Legislature
is contrary TO the purpose and limitations
of the Constitution as amended and there
fore must be held invalid aHs
"In this instance the uniform plan of
assessment which the State Tax Commits
sion has been directed to make as the
basis of the classification and separate
assessments which the amended provision
of the Constitution requires, cannot be
made cOnformably to the organic law as
adopted by the people. because that duty
can only be validity performed by the Leg
islature, to whose judgment and action it
was affirmatively and exclusively commit
ted. The question in this case is not sim
ply whether a general and unqualified
power vested in the General Assembly can
ordinarily be delegated by that body to
a governmental agency Of its own creation,
but whether a specific duty. which the
Legislature is expressly required by the
Constitution to discharge. in the process of
exercising one of the functions of the
States sovereignty, can be validity trans
ferred by legislative action to separate
and subordinate authority. We have been
unable to avoid the conclusion that this
question: inuSt NC dllbWOiVu uCBdtiNCs
THE Act of 1916 must therefore be
treated as nullity because it undertakes
to provide for general re-assessment of
property in the counties in disregard of
the constitutional requirement that the
Legislature shall prescribe uniform rules
for the separate assessment OF land and
classification of Improvements md per-
sonal assets. The attempted delegation
of power to the State Tax Commission, for
the formulation Of such rules being invalid
and nugatory. the act is devoid of any
effective provision on that subject. II is
in the same situation as if it authorized a
general re-assessment in the counties with
out any reference to the adoption Of uni
form rules for the purposes indicated in
the amendment to the Constitution. There