THEODORE R. McKELDIN, GOVERNOR                  1277

the body of any county thereof, the law is quite clear that the
offender should be tried in the county where he is arrested or into
which he may first be brought, regardless of where he is arrested.

"Existing Section 665 of Article 66C consists of thirteen sub-sec-
tions lettered from (a) to (m). Sub-section (a) (1) deals with
jurisdiction of prosecution of offenders. Sub-section (a) (2) and
the remaining sub-sections provide the penalties for most types of
violations of the conservation laws, except that sub-section (1)
provides for the collection of unpaid taxes on oysters and the seizure
of boats and other vehicles of delinquents.

"The title of Senate Bill No. 101 provides that Section 665—not a
sub-section thereof—is repealed and re-enacted. Section 1, of the
Act, likewise repeals and re-enacts, with amendments, 'Section 665
of Article 66C\ When we examine the body of the Act to see how
Section 665 is re-enacted, it is found that only a part of the Section
as it formerly stood has been re-enacted—namely, sub-section (a)
(1). This would in some cases be of small consequence but if the
section stands amended as set out in the Act, the effect thereof will
be to repeal the many penalty provisions in Section 665 covering viola-
tions of the conservation laws. If the General Assembly did not
intend to repeal the remaining sub-sections of Section 665, nonethe-
less since the title to the Act and the enacting section thereof are in
accord, there is serious question of the intent. Both state that
Section 665 is repealed and re-enacted, with amendments, to 'read as
follows'. It is the duty of the General Assembly, when amending
'any article or section' of the Code to enact the same as the article
or section would read when amended. Article 3, Section 29, Mary-
land Constitution. The title here is misleading if it was the intention
merely to amend sub-section (a) (1) of Section 665.

"The title is further misleading since it is stated that Section 675
of Article 27 shall have no application to Section 665 of Article 66C.
In other words, when the title is read, the reader is left with the
impression that the whole of Section 665 is affected.

"The worst feature of the Act is that it creates a vacuum, a place
where no court could have jurisdiction over an offender of the con-
servation statutes. We refer to this sentence—'If the said violation
occurred in any waters adjacent to and contiguous with any tidewater
county, the courts having jurisdiction in the county where the violation
occurred shall have jurisdiction'.

"If a violation should occur in waters adjacent to a tidewater
county, where would such waters be? Adjacent is synonymous with
contiguous; both mean adjoining or neighboring. In other words,
the offense might occur in the neighboring waters, not in a county,
but in the Chesapeake Bay or other body of water outside the bound-
aries of any county. Therefore, since the violation would not have
occurred in any county and since Section 675 excepts Section 665
from the application of its provisions, there would be serious question
as to whether any court has jurisdiction. The statute, as it would
be amended by Senate Bill No. 101, does not simply say that if any
violation occurs in the waters of any county, the courts having
jurisdiction of the county where the offense occurs shall have
jurisdiction.

"We feel impelled to point out one other result, if Senate Bill No.
101 should be approved and be held valid. If a violator on the Ches-
apeake Bay were charged with (a) a violation of the conservation
laws and (b) assault upon the arresting officer, presumably offense