|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor 3931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
revising the present language of implicitly repealed
Section 181, House Bill 1677 would expressly provide:
Article 27, title "Crimes and Punishments,"
subheading "Gaming," may not be construed as
prohibiting, penalizing or making unlawful the
keeping, maintenance, operation or distribution for
operation, in Calvert County, by any person, firm or
corporation, on and after July 1, 1948, of any
mechanical or electrical amusement devices which
require the insertion of a coin or token for their
operation and which offer an award to the operator
based in whole or in part upon chance of his skill
if the mechanical or electrical amusement devices or
machines are licensed by the person, firm or
corporation who owns or operates the premises upon
which the amusement devices are maintained for the
use of the public as provided in this sub-title.
As you know, Article III, §29, of the Maryland
Constitution requires that all changes in the law be
adequately described in the title of the bill which makes
such changes. Consequently, since the title of the bill
purports to be making only nonsubstantive changes, a
strong case can be made for the proposition that any
substantive change in the law conceivably occasioned by
this bill, cannot be constitutionally valid.
However, there is some authority to the effect that
a title which cites the article and section which it is
amending is constitutionally sufficient to put the
General Assembly and the public on notice of substantive
changes. See, generally, Everstine, "Titles of
Legislative Acts," IX Md.L.Rev. 197, 209-210 (Summer,
1948), citing, inter alia, Second German American
Building Association v. Newman, 50 Md. 62 (1878).
Furthermore, we note that the title of this bill
indicates, inter alia, that it generally relates to "a
contemporary approach" to the local Code. While we have
no doubt that, as a matter of fact, the contemporary
approach intended was one of style only, we are concerned
about the possibility that a court might fail to see any
need for stylistic revisions of a repealed statute and
thus construe the title to reflect a substantive
"contemporary approach," i.e., the return of slot
machines to Calvert County.
Accordingly, while we strongly suspect that House
Bill 1677 may not validly change any substantive law,2
there is a possibility to the contrary. That being the
case, it is virtually certain that the approval of this
bill would result in an attempt to reintroduce slot
machines in Calvert County, thereby involving the State
in what would certainly be lengthy litigation and
exposing the county to the possibility of the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
