NEW COUNTIES. 155

This section does not limit the power of the legislature. The board of public
works, in the absence of legislative authority, has no power to waive or surrender
a state's lien or to make a contract for a deferred lien on the property of any of
the internal improvement companies of the state; such power rests with the
legislature alone. The act of 1878, ch. 58, and the mortgage made under it, so far
as they pledge the tolls and revenues of the company, held valid. Design of this
section. Brown v. C. & O. Canal Co., 73 Md. 579 and 603.

This section referred to in construing art. 3, sec. 34—see notes thereto. Bonsai v.
Yellott, 100 Md. 505.

ARTICLE XIII.

NEW COUNTIES.

Section 1. The General Assembly may provide, by Law, for organizing
new Counties, locating and removing county seats, and changing county
lines; but no new county shall be organized without the consent of the
majority of the legal voters residing within the limits proposed to be formed
into said new county; and whenever a new county shall be proposed to be
formed out of portions of two or more counties, the consent of a majority
of the legal voters of such part of each of said counties, respectively, shall
be required; nor shall the lines of any county be changed without the con-
sent of a majority of the legal voters residing within the district, which,
under said proposed change, would form a part of a county different from
that to which it belonged prior to said change; and no new county shall
contain less than four hundred square miles, nor less than ten thousand
white inhabitants; nor shall any change be made in the limits of any county,
whereby the population of said county would be reduced to less than ten
thousand white inhabitants, or its territory reduced to less than four
hundred square miles.

Counties and cities are but political divisions of the state, and the legislature
may itself levy needful taxes for local purposes, or it may delegate such power to
the local authorities. The act of 1888, ch. 98, extending the limits of Baltimore city,
held not to violate this section. The legislature may extend the limits of Balti-
more city by including therein parts of Baltimore county with br without the
consent of a majority of the voters residing within the districts annexed. Daly v.
Morgan, 69 Md. 464 (cf. concurring and dissenting opinions); McGraw v. Merry-
man, 133 Md. 249 (upholding the validity of the act of 1918, ch. 82, extending the
limits of Baltimore city).

Garrett county was organized under the act of 1872, ch. 212, passed in pursuance
of this section. This section referred to in construing art. 3, sec. 29—see notes
thereto. State v. Fox, 51 Md. 414.

The act of 1826, ch. 192, relating to mortgages in the city and county of Balti-
more, held not to have been repealed by the adoption of the Constitution of 1851.
Eichelberger v. Hardesty, 15 Md. 548.

This section referred to in discussing the constitutionality of the local option
law of 1874, ch. 453. Relation of the counties to the state. Fell v. State, 42 Md.
100 (dissenting opinion).

The acts of 1838, ch. 205, and 1845, ch. 176, extending the time of notice of the
filing of a mechanics lien claim, and the act of 1845, ch. 346, extending the first
mentioned acts to Howard district, held under this section and art. 5 of the Declara-
tion of Rights (as they stood in the Constitution of 1851) to have been extended
to Howard county. Pue v. Hetzell, 16 Md. 539. And see State v. Manly, 1
Md. 139.

The act 1918, ch. 122, creating a sanitary district, or a special taxing district,
within two counties, does not violate this section. Dahler v. Wash. Sub. San.
Comn., 133 Md. 647.