DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. 47

The legislature may not in any given determination of the court of appeals,
declare what would be the rights of the parties, since that is a judicial power.
Prout v. Berry, 2 Gill, 147.

The legislature may pass resolutions directing credits or the waiver of interest
upon judgments of the state against a county clerk and the sureties upon his bond.
Green's Estate, 4 Md. Ch. 349.

The act of 1825, ch. 190, purporting to abolish the corporation known as " The
Regents of the University of Maryland, " and to appoint trustees composed of
different persons, and to transfer to the latter all the franchises and property of the
corporation, held to be in violation of this article, since it is an exercise of judicial
power by the legislature. It is difficult to perceive how an unconstitutional act can
be made valid by a subsequent acquiescence in it. University of Maryland v.
Williams, 9 G. & J. 410.

Act of 1816, ch. 157, vacating certain deeds, decrees, etc., held to violate this
article. Berrett v. Oliver, 7 G. & J. 206; University of Md. v. Williams, 9 G. & J.
411. And see Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 476 (dissenting opinion).

The act of 1864, ch. 344, directing certain parties to pay certain assessments which
the court of appeals had decided they did not owe, held void under this article.
Baltimore v. Horn, 26 Md. 206.

The act of 1843, ch. 289, requiring the president of corporations to pay certain
taxes on corporate stock, held not to violate this article; mandamus is the appropri-
ate remedy. The legislature may not only impose taxes, but may provide the means
and details for their collection. Contemporaneous construction of the Constitution.
State v. Mayhew, 2 G. 496. And see Faust v. Twenty-third Bldg. Assn., 84 Md. 192;
Harrison v. State, 22 Md. 487.

Although the court of appeals has decided that a certain ordinance and tax assess-
ment thereunder were void, and in pursuance thereof the lower court has enjoined
the collection of the assessment, an act may subsequently be passed providing for
the collection of an assessment to be paid to the extent that the property was
specially benefited—not the original assessment but a new one and not necessarily
the same amount. The act of 1892, ch. 284, held valid. Cases distinguished. Balti-
more v. Ulman, 79 Md. 482 (affirmed in 165 U. S. 719).

The legislative department is nearest to the source of power and is manifestly
the predominant branch of the government! The act of 1823, ch. 95, divorcing a
certain woman and requiring the husband to pay a trustee for her use a certain sum
annually, held to be in violation of this article, since it was an exercise by the
legislature of judicial power. Crane v. Meginnis, 1 G. & J. 472. And see Daly v.
Morgan, 69 Md. 476 (dissenting opinion); McCrea v, Roberts, 89 Md. 251; Hooper
v. Creager, 84 Md. 256 ((dissenting opinion); Queen Anne's County v. Talbot
County, 108 Md. 197; Harris v. Allegany County, 130 Md. 491.

The purpose of this article is to parcel out and separate the powers of government,
and to confide particular classes of them to particular branches of the supreme
authority. This article referred to in upholding the power of the general assembly
to pass an act of divorce. Wright v. Wright's Lessee, 2 Md. 452 (decided prior to the
Constitution of 1867—see art. 3, sec. 33, thereof). And see McCrea v. Roberts, 89
Md. 251.

This article is not to be interpreted as enjoining a complete separation between
the departments. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are to be construed
together and in case of conflict the latter prevails. Design of this article. The power
of appointing officers may be exercised by the legislature if given to it by law.
Baltimore police bill, upheld. Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 377. And see Hooper v.
Creager, 84 Md. 256 (dissenting opinion).

The state may delegate the police power to subordinate boards and commissions,
and the reasonable and just exercise by them of the delegated power will be upheld.
State v. Loden, 117 Md. 376; Downes v. Swann, 111 Md. 61.

If the legislature could finally pass on the validity of acts of assembly, this article
would be defeated; the courts must pass on such validity. The legislature is subject
only to such restrictions and limitations as are prescribed by the Bill of Rights and
form of government and the Constitution of the United States. The act of 1801.
ch. 74, relating to the administration of justice, etc., held valid. Whittington v. Polk
1 H. & J. 242. And see Crane v. Meginnis, 1 G. & J. 472.

The Workmen's Compensation Law does not violate this article; the commission
is not a court and has not judicial power within the meaning of this article
Solvuca v. Ryan & Reilly Co., 131 Md. 282.

Where the lower court acts under a statute which violates this article, and hence
a question of jurisdiction is involved, the court of appeals may, of its own motion,