LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 93

tion of Rights. Objects of this section. There is a wide difference between a special
act within the meaning of this section, and an act for special purposes. Partial
exemption from taxation, held not unreasonable. Baltimore v. United Rys. & E.
Co., 126 Md. 45.

Act 1874, ch. 221, providing for the measurement of oysters in the shell at certain
designated places and at all packing establishments in the state; such act was not
a special law within the meaning of this section, nor was there in existence at the
time it was passed a general law on the subject. McGrath v. State, 46 Md. 634.

Act 1882, ch. 47, authorizing a street railway company to operate passenger rail-
ways upon certain streets in Baltimore—there was no general law covering the
same subject. Hodges v. Baltimore Union P. Ry. Co., 58 Md. 621.

Act 1890, ch. 263, incorporating the Fidelity and Deposit Company and authorizing
it to become sole surety in cases where two or more sureties are required—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. Cans v.
Carter, 77 Md. 8.

Act 1914, ch. 197, exempting mortgages held by domestic fire insurance companies
from taxation. See notes to art. 81, sec. 166. Baltimore v. German American Fire Ins.
Co., 132 Md. 382.

Act directing the board of police commissioners of Baltimore city to pay pensions
to a retired matron and to certain former police officials or their widows. Police
Pension Cases, 131 Md. 316.

Act 1876, ch. 220, directing Baltimore city to take possession of Harman's bridge
over Gwynn's Falls. Pumphrey v. Baltimore, 47 Md. 153.

Act 1876, ch. 101, providing for the completion of Wilkens avenue in Baltimore
city; the purposes of said act could not have been accomplished under any existing
general law. O'Brian v. Baltimore County, 51 Md. 21.

Act 1900, ch. 147, regulating the number, jurisdiction, duties and compensation of
justices of the peace and constables of Baltimore county; the act of 1900 was a local
law as distinguished from a special law. Herbert v. Baltimore County, 97 Md. 645.

Act of 1906, ch. 794, providing for the taxation of mortgages in certain counties,
since "there is no general law now existing providing for the taxation of mortgages
in Wicomico county." Miller v. Wicomico County, 107 Md. 438.

Act 1894, ch. 546, providing for the removal of the county seat of Charles county
if the voters so determine and for the erection of a court house, etc., since there was
no general law on this subject. Hamilton v. Carroll, 82 Md. 337-8.

The portion of this section forbidding the passage of a special law where there is
an existing general law, has respect to the future passage of a special law in a matter
already provided for by a general law. This provision not violated by the section of
the Code re negro apprentices. Brown v. State, 23 Md. 507 (based on the Constitution
of 1864).

Generally.

Construing this section in connection with sec. 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 Hagerstown to do so. Mealey v. Hagerstown, 92 Md. 745.

A public local law is not a special law within the meaning of this section. Dor-
chester County v. Meekins, 50 Md. 39.

The portion of this section prohibiting releasing " persons from their debts or
obligation to the state " does not interdict a public general law, but is confined to
local or special laws. The act of 1880, ch. 444, amended the law so as to relieve
estates passing to a husband from the collateral inheritance tax; sec. 2 of that act,
providing that it should apply to all ca.ses of " collateral inheritance tax heretofore
claimed of but not actually paid by the husband of any decedent," held not to be
a local or special law within the meaning of this section. Object of this section
Montague v. State, 54 Md. 489.

An act amendatory of the general laws passed to regulate the appointment of
judges of election, etc., but restricted in its application to about three-fourths of the
state, held not to be such a local special law as is prohibited by this section. Lank-
ford v. Somerset County, 73 Md. 117.

The duty of the Governor and officers of the treasury department as to recom-
mending the refund of money paid into the state treasury under this .section is a
discretionary one, and therefore mandamus will not lie. See notes to art. 72, sec. 81
of the Code. Purpose of this section. Foote v. Harrington, 129 Md. 125.