HARRY HUGHES, Governor

3385

Appeals and has been interpreted as vesting a charter county
with plenary legislative power to pass all ordinances it
deems expedient under the police power.

A limitation on this power is that an ordinance cannot
be inconsistent with Article 25A or the laws of the State;
additionally the police power can be exercised only to the
extent not provided for by public general law.2/ Montgomery
County Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151 (1969).
See also County Council v. Investors Funding Corp., 270 Md.
403 (1973). As the Court of Appeals declared in Greenhalgh,
supra. Section 5(S) is to be construed as a "broad grant of
power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in
Article 25-A." 253 Md. at 161.

Although we have found no decision where the Court of
Appeals has held that a charter county's police power under
the general welfare clause of Art. 25A, Sec. 5(S) includes
the power to regulate pawnbrokers, in our opinion the
general welfare clause is sufficiently broad to permit the
enactment of ordinances regulating pawnbrokers. 7 McQuillan
Mun. Corp. (3rd Ed.) §24.355. Additionally, we note that
several other charter counties have enacted such ordinances.
See, e.g., 1 Anne Arundel County Code §§12-1801 and 12-1802
(1976 Ed.); Baltimore County Code §§19-1 through 19-10 (1978
Edition); Montgomery County Code §§30-7 and 30-8 (1977
Edition); 1 Prince George's County Code §§5-189 (1975
Edition). 3/

We are advised that the intention of the bill was to
solve a problem stemming from the belief that the existing
county ordinance was unenforceable in the municipalities in
the county since those municipalities, pursuant to Article
23A and their charters, have the independent power to
regulate pawnbrokers.4/ See Const. Art. XI-A, §3. The bill
was thus intended to give the county the authority to
enforce the regulations on pawnbrokers in the municipalities
located within Harford County. The bill, however, is
broader in reach because it has applicability county-wide.
To the extent the bill is aimed solely at the possible
inapplicability of the county ordinance within the
municipalities in Harford County, it could be argued that
the matter is not within the charter home rule power of the
county. Under this view, the General Assembly would be
capable of legislating as to this matter. We are
unpersuaded by this argument, for the reason that nothing in
the bill limits its coverage to municipalities. We advise
that the particular problem as to municipalities within a
charter county can certainly be remedied by the General
Assembly by the enactment of a public general law applicable
to at least two counties. Additionally, the matter could
arguably be resolved by a bill to authorize Harford County
to pass a county ordinance that would be applicable
county-wide, including within municipalities. However, the
problem cannot be remedied by a bill such as Senate Bill