16 MARYLAND MANUAL.
|
ought not to be assessed for the support of the Government;
but every person in the State, or person holding property |
Taxation ac-
cording to
actual
worth. |
therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes for
the support of the Government, according to his actual worth
in real or personal property; yet fines, duties or taxes may |
|
Fines. |
properly and justly be imposed, or laid with a political view
from the good government and benefit of the community.
Eagan vs. Charles Co., 3 H. & McH., 169. Tax Cases, 12 G. & J.,
117. Waters vs. State, 1 Gill, 302. Burgess vs. Pue, 2 Gill, 11 and 204.
State vs. Mayhew, 2 Gill, 487. Bowell vs. State, 3 Gill, 14. Mayor, &c.,
of Balto., vs. B. & 0. B. B. Co., 6 Gill, 290. Bradford vs. .Tones, 1 Md.,
368. Germania vs. State, 7 Md., 1. State vs. Norwood, 12 Md., 195.
O 'Neal vs. Va. & Md., Bridge Co., 18 Md., 1. Howard vs. First Inde-
pendent Church, 18 Md., 451. State va. Stirling, 20 Md., 516. Tyson vs.
State, 28 Md., 577. State vs. Cum. & Penn. B. B. Co., 40 Md., 22, State
vs. N. C. B. B. Co., 44 Md., 131. State vs. Phil., Wilm. & Balto., B. B.
Co., 45 Md„ 361. Appeal Tax Court vs. Bice, 50 Md., 303. Appeal Tax
Court vs. Patterson, 50 Md., 354. Co. Commr. of Prince George's Co., vs.
Oommrs. of Laurel, 51 Md., 457. Mayor, &c., vs. Canton Co., 63 Md„
237. Daly vs. Morgan, 69 Md., 460, Commrs. Prince George's Co. vs.
Commrs. Laurel, 70 Md„ 269, Alien vs. Co. Commrs. Harford Co., 74
Md., 294. Wells vs. Commrs, of Hyattsville, 77 Md„ 125, U. S. Elec-
tric Power Light Co., vs. State, 79 Md„ 63. Bohr vs. Gray, 80 Md., 274.
Short vs. The State, 80 Md„ 292. Baltimore and Eastern Shore B. B. vs.
Spring, 80 Md., 510. Simpson vs, Hopkins, 82 Md., 478. Faust vs.
Building Ass'n, 84 Md„ 186. B., C. & A. By. vs. Wicomico Co., 93 Md.,
113. Carstairs vs. Cochran, 94 Md., 500. Corry vs. Baltimore, 96 Md„
320, M. & C. C. of Balto., vs. Johnson, 96 Md„ 737. Baltimore vs. Safe
Deposit and Trust Co.. 97 Md., 662.
Art. 16. That sanguinary Laws ought to be avoided as far |
Sanguinary
laws. |
as it is consistent with the safety of the State; and no Law
to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties ought to be
made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.
Foote vs. State, 59 Md., 264. Mitchell vs. State, 82 Md„ 527.
Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts commit- |
Retrospective
laws. |
ted before the existence of such Laws, and by them only de-
clared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with
liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made;
nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed or re-
quired.
McMechen vs. Mayor, &c., of Balto., 2 H. & J„ 41. C. & O, Canal
Co., vs. B. & O. B. B. Co., 4 G. & J„ 1. State use of Washington Co., vs.
B. & O. B. B. Co., 12 G. & J„ 399. State vs. Burke, 2 Gill, 79. Baugher
vs. Nelson, 9 Gill, 302. Wilson vs. Hardesty, 1 Md., Ch., 66. Wilder-
man vs. Mayor, &c„ of Balto., 8 Md„ 551. Thistle vs. Frostburg Coal
Co., 10 Md„ 129. State vs. Norwood, 12 Md„ 195. Willis vs. Hodson,
79 Md„ 327. Lynn vs. The State, 84 Md., 67.
Art. 18. That no Law to attaint particular persons of trea- |
|
Attainder. |
son or felony, ought to be made in any case, or at any time,
hereafter. |
|
 |
