[Art. 23] DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 41

rights which existed at the time of its passage. Terms of ordinance criticised. The
mayor and city council of Baltimore has power by ordinance to segregate the white
and colored people. Nature and extent of the "police power. " Cases reviewed. State v.
Gurry, 121 Md. 540.

Taxation.

The imposition of additional franchise tax on domestic corporation doing business in
State Jan. 1, 1936, which is dissolved Mar. 31, 1936, before passage of statute, is not
in violation of due process provisions of this Article. Match Co. v. State Tax Comm.,
175 Md. 242.

The act of 1912, ch. 688, known as the "Special Paving Tax" act for Baltimore city,
held not to violate this article. The constitutionality of the act of 1912 is not affected
by the fact that the proceeds of the paving tax go into a fund not raised to pay for
improvements specifically benefiting the property assessed. Where the 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 emiment
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 Md. 30 (cf, dissenting opinion).

Although the court of appeals has decided that, a certain ordinance and tax assess-
ment thereunder were void, and in pursuance thereof, the lower court has enjoined the
collection of the assessment, an act may subsequently be passed providing 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 necessarily 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 appropriate
remedy. The legislature may not only impose taxes, but may provide the means and
details for their collection. Contemporaneous construction of the Constitution. 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 purposes
of a corporation is one to be determined by the court to which the inquisition is re-
turned and cannot properly arise in an injunction suit to restrain the condemnation
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 adja-
cent 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 authority,
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 obli-
gate 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. P. & G. Co., 123 Md. 308.