[Art. 8] DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 29

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. Balti-
more 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 appropriate
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. Baltimore v. Ulman,
79 Md. 482 (affirmed m 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 appoint-
ing 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; Mattare v. Cunningham, 148 Md. 313.

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,
review such action, though the question of jurisdiction was not raised below. See notes
to art. 27, sec. 292, of the An. Code. Close v. So. Md. Agri. Assn., 134 Md. 633.

The act of 1916, ch. 466, directing the county commissioners of Allegany county to
levy a certain sum of money and pay the same to the sureties of a county tax collec-
tor, held invalid under this article. Harris v. Allegany County, 130 Md. 491.

The judiciary.

Cited in holding that judges' salaries are not subject to State income tax (1937 Sp.
Sess., Ch. 11). Gordy v. Dennis, 176 Md. 114.

A statute requiring judges to approve certain accounts which have reference to the
fees prescribed by art. 36 of the Code, held to violate this article; hence so much of
said statute as prohibited the payment of such fees without the approval of the judges
was nugatory. The mere fact that a judge is called on by a statute to execute a cer-
tain function does not make that function a judicial one; its character is dependent
upon its qualities. Robey v. Prince George's County, 92 Md. 163. And see Board of
Supervisors v. Todd, 97 Md. 263; Close v. So. Md. Agri. Assn., 134 Md. 639.

Where a public service commission has hearings upon the rates of a public utilities
corporation and subsequently promulgates the rates which such company may charge,
such act is legislative and not judicial; the nature of the final act determines the
nature of the previous inquiry. Order of public service commission held not to violate
this article. Gregg v. Public Service Commission, 121 Md. 28.

The act of 1896, ch. 195, providing that whenever one-half of the registered voters
of Wicomico county, or of any district thereof, petition the circuit court for a vote on