MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                          3175

2.     As a result of the use moratorium,
persons (some of whom might not be Anne Arundel
County residents) wishing to work on the
construction of, or seeking employment in, a
facility of the nature prohibited, could be limited
or restricted in their ability to do so.

3.     The inability to commence any of the
prohibited uses in Anne Arundel County within the
next year might cause companies to seek alternative
sites outside of Anne Arundel County.

While tine kinds of facilities which are made the
subject of the moratorium are not of an inconsequential
nature, and while it may be presumed that such facilities
could have a significant impact (both environmental and
otherwise) on the surrounding area, we do not believe
that the kinds of extra—territorial effects described
above are sufficient to bring House Bill 1785 within the
Dasch doctrine, although there is no Court of Appeals
decision directly on point, those relevant cases of which
we are aware support our conclusion that this bill is not

a public general law.* In Cole v.___Secretary of State,

249 Md. 425, 434-435 (1968), the "court observed that
"some statues, local in form, have been held to be
general laws, since they affect the interest of the whole
state" (citing cases) and that the "rationale of these
cases lies in the concept that while the immediate
objective sought to be achieved was local in character,
the statutes individually affected natters of significant

interest to the entire state". (Emphasis added). The

examples cited were the regulation of elections, the
control of natural resources (oysters) and the protection
of State revenues derived from licenses. 249 Md. at 435.
The last of these three examples was indicated as the
rationale of both Dasch v. Jackson, supra, and Gaither v.
Jackson, 147 Md. 655 '(1925), and this might be regarded
as a sub silentio recognition of the limitations of the
alternative basis for the result in Dasch (the fact that
some persons residing outside of Baltimore City might be
affected by the licensing of paper—hangars working in the
City) .

The other examples of matters of substantial State
interest cited by the Court in Cole (elections and
natural resources) are distinguishable from the kinds of
factors involved in the one year moratorium embodied in
House Bill 1785.

House Bill 1785, is of course, a land use bill
directed solely at land located within a single county.
While it is true that persons or entities from outside of
the county may own land affected by the moratorium or
that non—county residents may be indirectly affected by
the moratorium,, the plain fact is that the bill is