Opinion ID: 2196029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity Under the Maryland Constitution

Text: Judge Menchine, speaking for the Court of Special Appeals, described the background of this issue: Article III, Section 29 of the Constitution of Maryland [1867] reads as follows: `The style of all Laws of this State shall be, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland: and all Laws shall be passed by original bill; and every Law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title; and no Law, nor section of Law, shall be revived, or amended by reference to its title, or section only; nor shall any Law be construed by reason of its title, to grant powers, or confer rights which are not expressly contained in the body of the Act; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly, in amending any article, or section of the Code of Laws of this State, to enact the same, as the said article, or section would read when amended. And whenever the General Assembly shall enact any Public General Law, not amendatory of any section, or article in the said Code, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact the same, in articles and sections, in the same manner, as the Code is arranged, and to provide for the publication of all additions and alterations, which may be made to the said Code.' [The Act] came into being as Chapter 695 of the [Laws] of 1971. In the course of its passage through the Legislature, both the title and the body of the Bill ... were amended. As introduced, the title of the bill had provided, inter alia, that its purpose was to `establish certain medical conditions where the death or disability of a fire fighter is presumed to be accidental and as a result of his employment.' ... An amendment to the title of the bill struck out the above quoted language and declared that its purpose was to `provide that there is a presumption of compensable occupational disease in cases of certain fire fighters sustaining temporary or total disability or death under certain conditions.' ... The body of the bill at introduction had contained the words: ` presumed to have been accidental and to have been suffered in the course of his employment.'.. . By amendment in the course of passage the above quoted language was stricken and the following words substituted: ` presumed to be compensable under this Article and to have been suffered in the line of duty and as a result of his employment.'[2] [Emphasis in original.] 2. Other amendments to the Bill and Title have no bearing upon the issue here presented. Our decisions in Clinton Vol. Fire Dep't v. Board, 259 Md. 456, 270 A.2d 778 (1970), and Shipley v. State, 201 Md. 96, 93 A.2d 67 (1952) are dispositive of this issue. In Clinton, supra, at 472, we said: If the challenged provisions in the body of the statute are germane to the subject described in the title so that a person reading the title could be fairly advised of the subject matter, then the title will be deemed to have complied with the constitutional requirement. Earlier, in Shipley, supra, at 102, the standard to be applied in evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of a statute was set forth: ... [T]his Court has consistently held, with the great weight of authority in this country, that the purpose of Article 3, Section 29, of the Constitution is sufficiently fulfilled if the title of the legislation fairly advises the Legislature and the public, of the real nature and subject matter of the legislation sought to be enacted. In testing whether the title of a statute conforms to this constitutional requirement the courts are disposed to uphold rather than to defeat the constitutionality of a statute, and to hold that it cannot be declared unconstitutional unless it plainly contravenes the constitutional provision. A reasonable doubt in favor of its constitutionality is enough to uphold it. We adopt the conclusion reached by Judge Menchine for the Court of Special Appeals: In the subject case there is no repugnancy between title and body of the act. The body of the act provides that certain conditions may be `compensated under this Article [101].' The title of the act in no way conflicts with that purpose. The title simply makes clear that the act should be interpreted as granting such benefits in accordance with the provisions of that article as they relate to occupational diseases.