ART. III] LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 49

When portion only of act void.

Where the provision of an act which is not sufficiently indicated or de-
scribed by the title of the act, is inseparably connected with the whole
scheme of the act, the whole act is void. Nutwell v. Anne Arundel County,
110 Md. 667. Cf. Somerset County v. Pocomoke Bridge Co., 109 Md. 8;
Kafka v. Wilkinson, 99 Md. 240; Steenken v. State, 88 Md. 710; Davis v.
State; 7 Md. 160.

The title of the act of 1898, chapter 505, providing for licenses to steve-
dores, conceded to be insufficient in so far as the law required a bond to
be given; but the remainder of the law dealing with the licensing of
stevedores- upheld, since it was separate and independent of the portion
of the law requiring bonds to be given. Steenken v. State. 88 Md. 710.

Section 122B of the act of 1902, chapter 338, held void because the title
of the act of 1902, while it called for a repeal and re-enactment of certain
sections of article 23 of the code and for an addition to said article to be
known as section 122A, did not mention section 122B, which embraced
affirmative legislation. The remainder of the act of 1902 upheld. Kafka
v. Wilkinson, 99 Md. 240.

The title of the act of 1880, chapter 403, merely provided for the repeal
of an act; section 2 of the act of 1880 was unconstitutional, since it en-
acted a new law. Stiefel v. Md. Institute, 61 Md. 147. Cf. Levin v. Hewes,
US Md. 633.

Generally.

The title of the act of 1904, chapter 212, purporting to add an addi-
tional section to article 81 of the code to follow section 81A and to be
designated as section 81B, held insufficient, since at the time of the pas-
sage of the act of 1904, there was no section 81A of article 81, and section
81 of article 81 did not relate to the franchise tax on deposits of savings
banks (the subject dealt with by the act of 1904). Cases distinguished.
State v. German Savings Bk., 103 Md. 200.

Section 2 of the act of 1890, chapter 513, purporting to authorize the
agents of certain counties to make examinations of the records in the
Land Office without charge, and also to remit the sum due by a certain
county for examinations previously made, held void because not suffi-
ciently described or designated in the title of the act. Scharf v. Tasker,
73 Md. 383.

The title of the act of 1896, chapter 266, purporting to repeal the act of
1894, chapter 377, both relating to licenses of insurance brokers, being
insufficient, the latter act was not repealed by the former. State v. Ben-
zinger, 83 Md. 487.

The title of the act of 1906, chapter 804. purporting to repeal and re-
enact section 2 of chapter 426 of the acts of 1904 authorizing the board of
public .works to collect the insurance upon certain state tobacco ware-
houses and to rebuild a modern warehouse, held insufficient. Cases in-
volving the portion of this section dealing with the title of an act,
reviewed and summarized. Christmas v. Warfield, 105 Md. 541.

Generally:

The title need not give an abstract of the act, but it must not be mis-
leading nor divert attention from the matters contained in the act. Only
the subject of the act need be described in the title; not the instrumentali-
ties, means or procedure by which the subject is to be carried into effect.
The title should be sufficiently comprehensive to cover, to a reasonable
extent, all its provisions. Subjects of a private or local character must
not be engrafted upon a law of a general nature; nor may two or more
dissimilar and discordant subjects be embraced in the same law. Purpose
of the portion of this section dealing with the title of an act; it'will be
liberally construed. State v. Gurry, 121 Md. 540; Eidgely v. Balto. City,
119 Md. 572; Painter v. Mattfeldt, 119 Md. 473; Levin v. Hewes, 118 Md.
631; State v. Loden, 117 Md. 383; Bond v. Baltimore, 116 Md. 688; Curtis
v. Mactier, 115 Md. 393; Mitchell v. State, 115 Md. 362; Worcester County v.
4