DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. 55

vests, the curative act does not bar her dower; the deed is valid, however, as to the
grantor and his heirs. The legislature may, in proper cases, by retroactive legislation,
cure or confirm conveyances or other proceedings defectively acknowledged or exe-
cuted; such legislation is sustainable because it is supposed not to operate upon the
deed or contract, but upon the mode of proof only. Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 638.

The act of 1890, ch. 187, validating sales made under powers in mortgages between
1860 and 1878 as if the person making the sale had been named in the mortgage and
whether such person was a natural person or a corporation, held to operate retro-
spectively and to apply to a case pending at the date of the passage of said act.
Madigan v. Workingmen's Assn., 73 Md. 320.

The registry act of 1865, ch. 174, disfranchising Confederate soldiers and providing
a test oath, held not to be ex post facto. The term " ex post facto " defined and
limited. Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 604, 584 and 565.

Art. 18. That no law to attaint particular persons of treason or felony,
ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.

The registry act of 1865, ch. 174, disfranchising Confederate soldiers and provid-
ing a test oath, held not to be a bill of attainder—see note to art. 1, sec. 1, of the
Constitution. Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 604.

Art. 19. That every man, for any injury done to him in his person
or property ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land
and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any
denial, and speedily without delay, according to Law of the Land.

Nothing in this article prevents a court from adopting rules requiring the trial
of cases within a reasonable time. This article referred to in upholding a rule of
the circuit court for Howard county relative to the stet docket. Laurel Canning Co.
v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 115 Md. 642.

This article referred to in holding that the warden of Maryland penitentiary might
be made a defendant in an ejectment suit; the immunity of the state from suit
does not prevent an action against state official wrongfully withholding property
for state uses. Weyler v. Gibson, 110 Md. 653..

Private rights are amply secured by this article and art. 23. This article referred
to in discussing the liability of a street railway company for the erection, by
authority, of an elevated railway in the street. Garrett v. Lake Roland R. R. Co.,
79 Md. 290 (dissenting opinion).

The contention based upon this article that a judgment creditor may (in the
absence of statute) execute upon the land upon which railroad tracks are laid, over-
ruled. McColgan v. Baltimore Belt R. Co., 85 Md. 522.

See art. 23 of the Declaration of Rights and notes to art. 15, sec. 6, of the Md.
Constitution.

Art. 20. That the trial of facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest
securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the People.

Nothing in this article prevents a court from adopting rules requiring the trial
of cases within a reasonable time. This article referred to in upholding a rule of
the circuit court for Howard county relative to the stet docket. Laurel Canning Co.
v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 115 Md. 642.

The registry act of 1865, ch. 174, disfranchising those who had been in the Con-
federate army and requiring a test oath, thought to be in plain conflict with this
article. Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 573 (dissenting opinion).

See art. 5 of the Declaration of Rights and art. 4, sec. 8, and art. 15, sec. 6, of the
Md. Constitution.

Art. 21. That in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right
to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the Indict-
ment, or Charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his defense; to
be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses for and against