86 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

Liquor laws.

" An Act to Prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in the City of Annapolis or
within Five Miles Thereof to Minors and People of Color," is a sufficient title,
although the law prohibits the giving as well as the sale of liquors. Parkinson v.
State, 14 Md. 193 (see also dissenting opinion); Franklin v. State, 12 Md. 248;
Cearfross v. State, 42 Md. 403; Mitchell y. State, 115 Md. 362.

Title of the act of 1906, ch. 218, prohibiting the sale of liquors in Garrett county
within five miles of Henry Station, held sufficient. Clark v. Tower, 104 Md. 177.

Title of act of 1898, ch. 532, enabling the registered, qualified voters of Cecil
county to decide whether liquors should be sold in said county, held sufficient. Cases
reviewed. Price v. Liquor License Commr's, 98 Md. 351.

Title of the act of 1882, ch. 92, known as the " Local Option Law for Harford
County," held sufficient. Slymer v. State, 62 Md. 243.

Act of 1916, ch. 594, provides for increasing the liquor license fees in the various
localities of the state, and the title, after stating the position of the act in the code
and its primary purpose, provided that the additional license fees were to be paid
to the state treasurer for general state purposes, whereas the body of the act
provides that such fees should be disposed of as other license fees now provided by
law, etc.; the act was held not invalid under this section. Cases construing this
section, and principles governing such construction, reviewed. Ruehl v. State, 130
Md. 189.

Act of 1916, ch. 340, providing for the creation by popular vote of anti-saloon
territory in Carroll county, etc., held not to embrace more than one subject, within
the meaning of this section. Title of said act, held sufficient. Cases under this sec-
tion reviewed. Crouse v. State, 130 Md. 366; Poisel v. Cash, 130 Md. 374.

Sec. 9F of ch. 31 of the act of 1916, regulating the sale and granting of licenses
for the sale of liquors in Baltimore county, held germane to the subject of that act,
as set forth in its title. Cases under this section reviewed. Benesch v. State, 129
Md. 508.

Title of the act of 1902, ch. 265, prohibiting the sale and giving away of
liquors in Chapel district in Talbot county, held sufficient. Parker v. State, 99
Md. 199.

Act of 1916, ch. 30, the local option law for several counties and municipalities,
does not violate the portion of this section providing that acts shall embrace but
one subject which shall be described in its title. Purpose of this provision. Kelly
v. State, 139 Md. 207.

Acts relating to roads.

Title of the act of 1910, ch. 110, providing for the construction of a public highway
in the city of Baltimore over Jones' Falls, held sufficient. Bond v. Baltimore, 116
Md. 684.

Title of the act of 1904, ch. 225, dealing with public roads, and known as " The
Shoemaker Road Law," held sufficient. Fout v. Frederick County, 105 Md. 563.

Title of the act of 1908, ch. 654, dealing with public roads in Anne Arundel county,
held sufficient. Anne Arundel County v. United Railways, 109 Md. 377.

Title of the act of 1902, ch. 300, limiting and controlling the expenditure of money
on public roads by the county commissioners of Talbot county, held sufficient.
Queen Anne's County v. Talbot County, 99 Md. 17.

Generally.

Where the title of an act states that it is an act to " Repeal and Re-enact with
Amendments " a certain article and section of the code and gives the number thereof,
such title is sufficient. Lankford v. Somerset County, 73 Md. 107; Worcester County
v. School Commissioners, 113 Md. 307'; Kingan Assn. v. Lloyd, 110 Md. 624; Barren
v. Smith, 108 Md. 326; Himmel v. Eichengreen, 107 Md. 613; Miller v. Wicomico
County, 107 Md. 444; State v. German Savings Bank, 103 Md. 201; Garrison v. Hill,
81 Md. 555; Drennen v. Banks, 80 Md. 317; Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 564; Todd v.
Frostburg, 141 Md. 694.

Where the title of an act is " To Amend Art. 95 of the Code by Adding an
Additional Section Thereto," and when the new section is strictly germane to the
subject embraced in that article, the title is sufficient. 2nd Ger. Am. Bldg. Assn. v.
Newman, 50 Md. 65. And see State v. Norris, 70 Md. 95.

Title of the act of 1898, ch. 206, repealing and re-enacting certain sections of
art. 99 of the Code, title " Wild Fowl, Birds and Game," and adding certain addi-
tional sections thereto, held sufficient. Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 675.

Where the title of an act calls for the regulation of the employment of children,
the fact that the body of the act prohibits the employment of children under a cer-