Opinion ID: 1482683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The unconstitutional exercise of the police power

Text: In more than one recent case, we have had occasion to note that a statute enacted in the exercise of the State's police power need only bear a real and substantial relation to the public health, morals, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State, Bowie Inn v. City of Bowie, 274 Md. 230, 236, 335 A.2d 679, 683 (1975) and that the exercise of the police power will not be interfered with unless it is shown to be exercised arbitrarily, oppressively or unreasonably. Compare Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board, 268 Md. 32, 48, 300 A.2d 367, 377-78 (1973) with Maryland Board of Pharmacy v. Sav-A-Lot, Inc., 270 Md. 103, 106-07, 311 A.2d 242, 244 (1973). The wisdom or expediency of the Bailey Bill and the zoning ordinance is not for us. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955), cited in Allied American Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 219 Md. 607, 616-17, 150 A.2d 421, 427 (1955). We are satisfied that both the Bailey Bill and the zoning ordinance met this test. Order and decree appealed from affirmed; costs to be paid by appellants.