ART. XI] CITY OF BALTIMORE 109

water supply of said city, was void under this section. Baltimore V-
Bond, 104 Md. 591.

An ordinance of the city of Baltimore providing for the raising of one
million dollars by the hypothecation of certain shares of stock and for the
investment of said sum, etc., is within the scope and purvue of the portion
of this section providing that no debt shall be created, etc., unless it is
authorized by the legislature and approved by a majority of the legal voters,
of said city. Meaning of the word "debt." Intent of this section. Balti-
more v. Gill, 31 Md. 385.

An ordinance of the city of Baltimore approved June 13, 1910, and
passed in pursuance of the act of 1910, chapter 110, held not to violate
this section. Bond v. Baltimore, 116 Md. 685.

The act of 1876, chapter 220, directing Baltimore City to take possession
of Harman's bridge over Gwynn's Falls, held not to violate this section.
Pumphrey v. Baltimore, 47 Md. 153.

Cited but not construed in P., B. & W. R. R. Co. v. Baltimore, 121 Md..
506.

See notes to section 1.

Sec. 8. All Laws and Ordinances now in force applicable to1 the-
City of Baltimore, not inconsistent with this Article, shall be, and.
they are hereby continued until changed in due course of Law.

The ordinance of 1866, providing for the appointment of school commis-
sioners of Baltimore city by the city council was in force when the con-
stitution of 1867 was adopted and was not inconsistent with this article
hence it continued in force "until changed in dvie course of law." The laws-
applicable to appointments generally were also continued in force by the
constitution; in case of conflict between the above ordinance and the
statute authorizing appointments generally, the particular method would be-
held to be an exception to the general method. Meaning of the phrase-
"until changed in due course of law." Ordinance of 1866 held not to have
been "changed in due course of law;" that provision continued in force,
not merely the ordinance of 1866, but the power which that ordinance con-
tained authorizing the municipality to follow the special method of mak-
ing selections for school commissioners therein prescribed. See notes to
article 8, of the Md. constitution. Hooper v. New, 85 Md. 578.

This section referred to in construing article 15, section 3, and article 4,
section 42—see notes to the former. Smith v. Thursby, 28 Md. 270 (dis-
senting opinion).

See notes to section 1.

Sec. 9. The General Assembly may make such changes in this
Article, except in Section 7th thereof, as it may deem best; and this
Article shall not be so construed or taken as to make the political cor-
poration of Baltimore independent of, or free from the control which
the General Assembly of Maryland has over all such Corporations in
this State.

The constitution recognizes Baltimore City as a public corporation, estab-
lished for public purposes, and in this character it is in no wise distin-
guished from the several counties; except in so far as the constitution-
forbids ; the city, like the counties, is subject to legislative control—see
notes to section 1. Baltimore v. Gorter, 93 Md. 5.

While it is not claimed that the legislature has unlimited control over-
the appellant, it may require the payment by the city of a sum requisite
to pay for the maintenance and treatment of habitual drunkards in said"
city. Baltimore v. Keeley Insitute. 81 Md. 115.

This section referred to in upholding the power of the legislature to pass
the act of 1876, chapter 220, directing Baltimore City to take possession of
Harman's bridge over Gwynn's Falls. Pumphrey v. Baltimore, 47 Md 151.