DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. 3

Ch. 497, acts of 1931, exempting W., B. & A. Elec. R. Co. not repugnant to this
article. Decision in district court (61 Fed. [2nd], 374) reversed. Williams v.
Mayor, 289 U. S. 36.

Art. 19.

This article cited in dissenting opinion in In re Rickell's Estate, 158 Md. 665.

This article referred to in construing art. 3, sec. 40A of the Constitution.
Krebs v. State Roads Commission, 160 Md. 584.

City ordinance permitting specified amusements, games, etc., and certain
retail sales on Sunday does not involve such discriminations as to be in viola-
tion of the 14th Amendment to U. S. Constitution or of articles 19 and 23 of
the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Ness v. Baltimore, 162 Md. 530.

This article referred to in sustaining validity of chs. 56 and 57 of Special
Session of 1933, modifying certain remedies of foreclosure of mortgages. Mort-
gage Co. v. Matthews, 167 Md. 389.

Art. 20.

This article cited in dissenting opinion in In re Rickell's Estate, 158 Md. 665.

Art. 21.

This article referred to in passing upon the functions of grand jury; criticism
of public officials; power exceeded. In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Md. 623.

Sec. 563 of art. 27. providing that it is not necessary to set forth manner or
means of death In indictment for murder or manslaughter, not in violation of
this article. Neusbaum v. State, 156 Md. 149.

Art. 22.

Notwithstanding this article, books and papers would have been evidence if
they had contained entries within period of limitations, or if there had been
evidence of overt acts within such period. Archer v. State, 145 Md. 142.

This article referred to in discussing whether evidence illegally secured was
admissible in criminal case. Meisinger v. State, 155 Md. 202 (dissenting opin-
ion).

Provision of this article re refusal of traverser to testify not violated by
proving what he voluntarily testified to at former trial. Henze v. State, 154
Md. 346.

To 4th note to this article, page 57, vol. 1, of Code, add Archer v. State, 145
Md. 142; Meisinger v. State, 155 Md. 202 (dissenting opinion).

Art. 23.

Bill of Rights recognizes sacredness of rights of property; right to deal with
property as owner chooses, so long as use harms no one, is natural right exist-
ing before Constitution. Portion of zoning ordinance attempting to regulate
and restrict use of property in Baltimore City, void. Police power, nature of
and limitations on. Residence zones. Meaning of "general welfare". Goldman
v. Crowther, 147 Md. 287 (cf. dissenting opinion). And see Tighe v. Osborne,
149 Md. 358 (cf. dissenting opinion). Cf. Tighe v. Osborne, 150 Md. 455 (Involv-
ing delegation of certain powers to Zoning Commissioner); Construction Co. v.
Jackson, 152 Md. 671 (ordinance restricting extent of buildings and requiring
side yard in outlying sections). See Code, art. 66B.

Right to use private property without limitation save that public safety,
health or morals must not be imperiled, is a tangible property right within
protection of this article. Construction Co. v. Jackson, 112 Md. 686 (dissenting
opinion).

This article referred to in discussing meaning of term "citizen". See notes
to art. 25, sec. 143, of Code. Fitzwater v. Hydro-Elec. Corp., 149 Md. 467.

This article referred to in holding art. 56, sec. 183, of Code, constitutional—
see notes thereto. Grossfield v. Baughman, 148 Md. 334.

See notes to art. 3. sec. 40, of Constitution, and to art. 91, sec. 28, of Code.

This article referred to in construing art. 81, sec. 15 (sec. 163 of 1924 Code).
Power Co. v. State Tax Commission, 159 Md. 361.

This article referred to in construing art. 3, sec. 40A, of the Constitution.
Krebs v. State Roads Commission, 160 Md. 584.