1150 HEALTH. [ART. 43

to work at the plumbing business or to do plumbing work, however
the same may be designated, or that certain appointments shall be given
to or certain duties shall be performed by one qualified to do plumbing
work, or any other reference is made to one qualified to do work which
shall be included under the term "plumbing work," however the
same shall be designated, then such general or local laws shall
be held to refer only to one qualified to work at the plumb-
ing business under his own direction; that is, one holding a cer-
tificate authorized to be called a "master plumber's certificate," and
shall not be held to refer to a journeyman plumber or to an apprentice.
Said commissioners may revoke any certificate or permit which, after
notice to the holder and hearing they may determine has been obtained
by fraud or misrepresentation, or has been issued, by mistake or inad-
vertence, and said commissioners may revoke or suspend for such time
as they may deem proper the operation of any certificate or permit
when the said commissioners, after notice to the holder and a hearing,
shall determine that the holder thereof has used such certificate or
permit contrary to the provisions of this sub-title, or to any rules or
regulations of said commissioners adopted in pursuance of the provi-
sions of this sub-title, or contrary to the limitations contained in said
certificates or permit, or has violated any of the, provisions of this sub-
title. Nothing in this sub-title shall be construed to prevent incorpo-
rated gas companies from making connections of gas appliances for
domestic purposes.

Undertakers.*

1902, ch. 160, sec. 1. 1904, ch. 389, sec. 1.

230. A board composed of eight members is hereby created and
established, to be known as the state board of undertakers of Mary-
land, and the powers and duties of the said board prescribed.*

*This book had gone to press before the decision of the court of appeals of
Maryland In State v. Rice, argued at the January term, 1911, was published—
see Dally Record, September 16, 1911. That case holds section 8 of the act of
1908, ch. 496—see section 237 of this article—unconstitutional and void, and
section 7 of the same act—see section 236 of this article—Inoperative. The Rice
case also holds the amendment to the original act of 1902, ch. 160, by the act of
1908, ch. 496, section 14 A—see section 244 of this article—extending the provi-
sions of said original act as amended, to eight counties (in addition to Baltimore
city, to which alone it was applicable under the original act of 1902), inoperative.
The alleged offense in State v. Rice, was committed prior to the passage of the
act of 1910, ch. 399 (p. 401), amending sections 7 and 14 A of the act of 1908, ch.
496—see sections 236 and 244 of this article—and of the act of 1910, ch. 444
(p. 403), amending section 8 of the act of 1908—see section 237 of this article.
Hence the acts of 1910 were not passed upon in the Rice case. Since chapter 444
(acts 1910) contains the same provision which (in State v. Rice) was held to
render section 8 of the act of 1908 unconstitutional, it is believed that the act of
1910, ch. 444, is also unconstitutional, and that the reasoning in State v. Rice
leads to the further conclusion that chapter 399 of the acts of 1910 (amending
sections 7 and 14 A of the act of 1908), is also Inoperative, thus leaving this sub-
title "Undertakers" a purely local law applicable to Baltimore city, as it was
originally. However, in view of the fact that the acts of 1910, chs. 399 and 444
have not been judicially passed upon, it is thought best to allow the codification
of the law (prior to the decision in the Rice case) to stand, appending, however
this explanatory note.