ART. III] LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 53

required to protect crossings by flagmen, gates, etc. A special law is one
that relates to particular persons or things of a class as distinguished
from a general law which applies to all persons or things of a class. Cases
reviewed. Prince George's County v. B. & O. R. R., 113 Md. 179.

The act of 1882, chapter 47, authorizing a street railway company to
operate passenger railways upon certain streets in Baltimore, held not to
conflict with the portion of this section prohibiting the passage of a special
law for any case for which provision has been made by an existing general
law since there was no general law covering the same subject. Hodges v.
Baltimore Union P. Ry. Co., 58 Md. 621.

The act of 1890, chapter 263, incorporating the Fidelity and Deposit Com-
pany and authorizing it to become sole surety in cases where two or more
sureties are required, etc., held not to be in conflict with the portion of
this section prohibiting the passage of a special law for any case for which
provision has been made by an existing general law, since there was no
general law authorizing said company to become surety on a trustee's
bond. The provision of the general law that any trustee for the benefit of
creditors should give a bond with sureties, had reference to individual or
personal suretyship. Gans v. Carter, 77 Md. 8.

Construing this section in connection with section 48, the legislature held
to have no right to create by special act a corporation in Washington
county to establish an electric light plant, but that the legislature was
authorized to empower the municipality of Hagerstowu to do so. Mealey
v. Hagerstown, 92 Md. 745.

Local and private acts.

The act of 1804, chapter 620, providing for the erection of a public school
building in Annapolis, for the issue of bonds and for the apportionment of
the cost of said building between the county and city, held not to violate
the portion of this section prohibiting the passage of a special law for any
case for which provision has been made by an existing general law; while
the existing general law provided that the school commissioners of Anne
Arundel county should have control and supervision of the schools in said
county with power to build, etc., houses, it did not authorize the borrow-
ing of money for such purposes nor for an apportionment of the cost of the
Luilding. Revell v. Annapolis, 81 Md. 13.

Section 19 of the act of 1870, chapter 260, incorporating the town of
Laurel provided that certain labor or money levied or taxed upon the
owners of property or residents within said town should be turned over to
the commissioners of Laurel and be spent by them for the improvement
of roads, etc.; the portion of this section providing that no special law
shall be passed for any case for which provision has been made by an
existing general law, held not to have been violated, as the law was a
local and not a special one. Prince George's County v. Commissioners of.
Laurel, 51 Md. 460.

The act of 1868, chapter 411, relating to the public roads of Baltimore
county, held not to violate the portion of this section providing that no
special law shall be passed for any case for which provision has been made
by an existing general law, since it was a local and not a special law. State
v. Baltimore County, 29 Md. 519.

The act of 1874, chapter 453, being a local option law covering certain
districts of certain counties, said to be in conflict with the portion of this
section providing that no special law shall be passed for any case for
which provision has been made by an existing general law. Fell v. State,
42 Md. 116 (dissenting opinion).

The act of 1876, chapter 220. directing Baltimore city to take possession
of Harman's bridge over Gwynn's Falls, held not to violate the portion of
this section providing that no special law shall be passed for any'case for
which provision has been made by an existing general law. Pumphrey v.
Baltimore, 47 Md. 153.

The act of 1876, chapter 101, providing for the completion of Wil kens
avenue in Baltimore City, held not to violate the portion of this section
prohibiting the passage of a special law for any case for which provision
has been made by an existing general law, since the purposes of said act