60 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

legislature fixes the amount of the tax, no notice is necessary, and in the absence
of clear evidence that the tax is arbitrary or oppressive, the legislative action is
conclusive upon the courts. Leser v. Wagner, 120 Md. 673 (affirmed in Wagner v.
Leser, 60 L. Ed. 230).

Since an ordinance imposing an assessment upon adjacent property for the repay-
ing of a street, is the exercise of the taxing power and not of the right of eminent
domain, this article is not violated, although such ordinance contains no provisions
for notice, for a hearing or for a jury trial on appeal. Baltimore v. Johns Hopkins
Hospital, 56 M; d. 30 (cf., dissenting opinion).

Although the court of appeals has decided that a certain ordinance and tax
assessment thereunder. were void, and in pursuance thereof, the lower court has
enjoined the collection of the assessment, an act may subsequently be passed pro-
viding for the collection of an assessment to be paid to the extent that the property
was specially benefited—not the original assessment, but a new one and not neces-
sarily the same amount. The act of 1892, ch. 284, held valid. Cases distinguished.
Baltimore v. Ulman, 79 Md. 482 (affirmed in 165 U. S. 719). And see Leser v.
Wagner, 120 Md. 678 (affirmed in Wagner v. Leser, 60 L. Ed. 230).

The act of 1843, ch. 289, requiring the president of corporations to pay certain
taxes on corporate stock, held not to violate this article; mandamus is the appro-
priate remedy. The legislature may not only impose taxes, but may provide the
means and details for their collection. Contemporaneous construction of the Con-
stitution. State v. Mayhew, 2 G. 496. And see Faust v. Twenty-third Bldg. Assn.,
84 Md. 192; Harrison v. State, 22 Md. 487.

Condemnation.

This article, taken in connection with art. 3, sec. 40, of the Md. Constitution,
means that private property can only be taken for public use; what is a public
use is a question for the judiciary. Arnsperger v. Crawford, 101 Md. 251.

The question of whether the taking of property is necessary for the public pur-
poses of a corporation is one to be determined by the court to which the inquisition
is returned and cannot properly arise in an injunction suit to restrain the condemna-
tion proceedings. Webster v. Susquehanna Pole Line Co., 112 Md. 422.

When neither an act nor an ordinance under which certain grading, paving, etc.,
are done and which directs an assessment of the cost of such work upon the abut-
ting property, same to be collected as other taxes are collected, provides for notice
to the parties to be charged of the doing of the work or of the assessment therefor,
an assessment under such ordinance is void, since it is a taking of property without
due process of law. Due process of law is not confined to judicial proceedings;
this article is a restraint on the legislative and executive powers of the government
also. Ulman v. Baltimore, 72 Md. 589.

The right to use one's lot for pasturing cows in a reasonable way, although a
stream of water which flows through said property may be polluted, is a right of
property, and a corporation doing business lower down the stream may only acquire
the adjacent owner's water right by making due compensation under art. 3, sec. 40,
of the Md. Constitution. Helfrich v. Catonsville Water Co., 74 Md. 277.

Generally.

Private rights are amply secured by this article and art. 19. This article referred
to in discussing the liability of a street railway company for the erection, by author-
ity, of an elevated railway in the street. Garrett v. Lake Roland R. R. Co., 79
Md. 290 (dissenting opinion).

The general privilege accorded telegraph and telephone companies to construct
lines on the public highways without liability for the creation of a nuisance, does
not obligate the state to permit any individual company to occupy and use state
highways without compensation.. City's right to charge for poles erected in the
streets, affirmed. This article not violated. C. & P. Tel. Co. v. State Rds. Comn.,
132 Md. 197.

Ordinance of the city of Baltimore, No. 684, approved March 3, 1922, prohibiting
the sale at public auction of gold, silver, jewelry, etc., held valid. A classification
is invalid only when it is arbitrary and unreasonable. Mogul v. Gaither, 142 Md. 382.

This article does not defeat the right of an insurer to make an autopsy upon a
dead body. Power of disposition over, and quasi property right in, such body.
Painter v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 123 Md. 308.

This article referred to in holding that the warden of the Maryland penitentiary
might be made a defendant in an ejectment suit; the immunity of the state from