HARRY HUGHES, Governor

2323

[W]hile the General Assembly has the authority to
determine what powers to be exercised by Baltimore City
or the charter counties, the General Assembly may not
enact a public local law for the City or any charter
county which modifies the powers so granted. If the
General Assembly wishes to diminish the powers granted
to Baltimore City or a charter county, it must do so by
amending the acts which granted the powers. It may not
do so by enacting a separate public local law which is
merely inconsistent with the acts granting the express
powers to the City or to the charter counties.

The question then is whether these bills attempt to enact
public local laws on a subject covered by the Express Powers
Act. The Court of Appeals has said the test of whether a
law is a public local law is whether "the law, in subject
matter and substance, [is] confined in its operation to
prescribed territorial limits and [is] equally applicable to
all persons within such limits." Steimel v. Board of
Election Supervisors of Prince George's County, 278 Md. 1, 5
(1976). It is to be distinguished from a public general
law, "which deals with the general public welfare, a subject
which is of significant interest not just to any one county,
but rather to more than one geographical subdivision, or
even the entire state." Id.. As both bills concern particular
methods of trapping in Harford County, we conclude that, in
substance, they are public local laws even though they amend
the public general law of the State. Moreover, they concern
a matter which is covered by the Express Powers Act, namely
fish and game laws. Although given the State's special
interest in fish and game and the migratory nature of most
fish and game, the State may well have residual power to
enact legislation on fish and game for particular charter
counties, we think that this power does not extend to
enacting legislation concerning particular methods of
trapping in charter counties. Accordingly, it is our view
that the General Assembly has exceeded its power in passing
House Bills 1368 and 1385. We also note that our decision
here is in accord with our bill review letter of May 8,
1978, concerning Senate Bill 838 of 1978.

Very truly yours,
Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General

1/As the intent is evidently to make special provision for
those in the rightful possession of land, the reference
to "owners and lessors" is probably intended to be
"owners and lessees," as indicated in the title.