MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                       3177

the chartered counties of Maryland". We do not consider
this to be a fatal defect since House Bill 1785, a more
recent enactment than Section 7.03, clearly purports to
apply to Anne Arundel County and to Anne Arundel County
alone.

For the reasons indicated above, it is our view that
House Bill 1785 is contrary to Section 4 of Article XI—A
of the Maryland Constitution.

Very truly yours,
/s/Francis B. Burch
Attorney General

* In Dineen v. Rider, 152 Md. 3 43 (1927) the Court of
Appeals held that the possibility that persons outside
of a Metropolitan District might have to pay taxes for
improvement if the assessments levied within the district
prove insufficient was too remote an effect to make a law
referable as a county-wide law. See discussion in Board
of Education v. Mayor, etc. of Frederick, 194 Md. 170,
184-185 (1949).

** Were House Bill 1785 held valid on the grounds that,
despite its appearance, it represented a public general
law, this conclusion could in turn raise doubts about
whether the County Council's January 24, 1974 action
represented proper local legislation under what Anne
Arundel County had concluded to be within its express
powers as a charter county. Any such doubts would
necessarily draw into question the extent of the many
heretofore exercised powers of charter counties (i.e.,
planning and zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to
Article 25A, Section 5(x) of the Maryland Code).