that shall be described by the title." The Act of 1854,
chapter 200, relating to inspections, &c., was passed under
this Constitution, (see the Act,) and the numerous matters in
it. The Court of Appeals on this Act say, in Davis vs. State,
7 Md., 160: The law relates to inspections and to such mat-
ters only as are inseparably connected with it, and to none
other, and therefore can be said to embrace but a single sub-
ject. The Court also say that an Act would not be rendered
void by the introduction of a single foreign or irrelavent sub-
ject into it, and when such subject was not indicated in the
title, in such case the irrelavent matter would be rejected as
void, while the principal subject of the law would be sup-
ported if properly described in the title.

In Miller vs. State, 11 Md., 525, the same provision of the
Constitution was before the Court under the Act of 1856,
chapter 353, "An Act to raise additional revenue to pay the
debts of the State by increasing the rates of licenses to ordi-
nary keepers and traders." It also required venders of lager
beer, manufactured by themselves, to take out license. It
was held this was but one subject, though the title gave no
notice of a new class, manufacturers being taxed on their
own products. They were not so taxed in the amended law.
(See opinion, page 531.) It affirms Davis vs. State.

In Parkinson vs. State, 14 Md., 184, the Act of 1858,
chapter 55, was before the Court. (See the Act.) The Court,
pages 193, 194 and 195, eaters fully into this subject. They
say the object of the Constitution was to prevent the prac-
tice of blending in the same law subjects not connected with
each other and often entirely different.

It was to prevent "omnibus bills." Legislation is full of
such bills.

The Constitution of 1867, is the same on this point as that
of 1851, and will receive the same construction. The subject
of the proposed bill to change the name of the "Mutual Coal
Company," to that of the "Maryland Goal Company," has
but one subject or object, and that a very different one, namely,
to change the name of a corporate, being separate and dis-
tinct from all others. The subject is that corporation, and
that alone, the name of the corporation limits and defines the
subject ; any legislation relating to that subject, namely, the
corporation, might be embraced in one bill under the Consti-
tution. Nobody could mistake it. No multifarious matter
could get into it. What related to that corporation would
be the subject and a very limited one.

The proposed bill relates only to a small part of that limit-
ed subject, namely, to the change of name.

It changes its name for the future, and also for the past,
since its organization last July, when the Court decreed a
change of its name, it has done business in that name since
and for the correctness and certainty of its affairs, and the