Messrs. John J. Donaldson and Os- by express language or necessary implicaborne I. Yellott, for appellees: All powers of legislation are taken to exist, except where prohibited, in express terms or by necessary implication, in the Constitution of the state. Cooley, Const. Lim. 6th ed. 102-109, 200, 201; People ex rel. Wood v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co. 27 Vt. 140, 62 Am. Dec. 625; Whittington v. Polk, 1 Harr. & J. 236; Davis v. Helbig, 27 Md. 452, 92 Am. Dec. 646; Dorchester County v. Meekins, 50 Md. 28. To justify the courts in setting aside enactments of the co-ordinate legislative department of the state government there must be a plain, and not a doubtful, violation of the organic law. Drennen v. Banks, 80 Md. 310, 30 Atl. 655; Davis v. Helbig, 27 Md. 452, 92 Am. Dec. 646; Dorchester County v. Meekins, 50 Md. 28. In construing the Constitution the courts must consider the circumstances attending its adoption, and what appear to have been the understanding and purpose of those who adopted it. Bundel v. Isaac, 13 Md. 202; State v. Mace, 5 Md. 337; Manly v. State, 7 Md. 135; Buckingham v. Davis, 9 Md. 324; Jackson v. State, 87 Md. 191, 39 Atl. 504. It must be construed, also, with reference to the previous legislation of the state. Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376, 74 Am. Dec. 572; Manly v. State, 7 Md. 135. tion. State v. Rowe, 72 Md. 548, 20 Atl. 179. The general words must be restricted to subjects of the same genus as those specifically named. Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes, 55, 297; Roberts v. Gibson, 6 Harr. & J. 116. Boyd, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The appellant filed a bill in equity against the appellees, in which he sought to enjoin them from expending any of the public funds under their control for plans and specifications for the construction of any road under the provisions of Acts 1904, p. 388, chap. 225, and from making any other expenditure of such public funds under color of the provisions of that act. The appellant is a resident and taxpayer of Baltimore county, and the appellees are the county commissioners, sitting as the highways commission of said county. The act of 1904 is entitled "An Act for the Improvement of the Public Highways of the State and to Provide the Means Therefor, and to Require the Commission Created by an Act of the General Assembly of 1896, chap. 51, to Perform Certain Additional Duties." By it, it is proposed to furnish state aid for the construction of roads which may be macadamized, or of a telford or other stone, or constructed of gravel or other good material, "in such a manner that the same will be, with reasonable repairs thereto, at all seasons of the year firm, smooth, and convenient for travel." It ap In like manner, a contemporaneous and continued construction is of the greatest weight, and should not be shaken except upon the ground of manifest error and ur-propriates the sum of $200,000 annually, or, gent necessity. State v. Mayhew, 2 Gill, 487; Catholic Cathedral Church v. Manning, 72 Md. 116, 19 Atl. 599; Harrison v. State, 22 Md. 468, 85 Am. Dec. 658. so much thereof as may be necessary, out of the state treasury, and provides that the state shall pay not exceeding one half of the total cost and expenses of the roads built according to its provisions. The counties Such powers and duties as local author- are to pay the other half, and no county ities have had in Maryland, from the first is to receive a larger share of the amount settlement till to-day, in dealing with the appropriated than the proportion the pubpublic roads, including their construction|lic-road mileage of the county bears to the and maintenance, the levy and appropria- total public-road mileage of all the counties tion of taxes for the purpose, they had solely by delegation from the general assembly. Hagerstown v. Sehner, 37 Md. 180; Balti more v. State, 15 Md. 376, 74 Am. Dec. 572; Horn v. Baltimore, 30 Md. 218; Groff v. Frederick City, 44 Md. 67; Frederick v. Groshon, 30 Md. 436, 96 Am. Dec. 591; Talbot County v. Queen Anne's County, 50 Md. 245; Pumphrey v. Baltimore, 47 Md. 145, 28 Am. Rep. 446; Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 460, 1 L. R. A. 757, 16 Atl. 287; Baltimore v. Reitz, 50 Md. 574. The taxing power belongs to the legislature, and it will not be held to have been conferred on a municipal corporation except in the state applying, as determined by the commission. Any road constructed under the act is to be thereafter a county road, and the duty of keeping it in regular order devolves upon the county. The commission provided for by the act of 1896, and referred to in this act, is composed of the governor, the comptroller, the president of Johns Hopkins University, and the president of the Maryland Agricultural College, and it has various duties to perform under the provicions of the statute. The question is whether this act is in conflict with that part of § 34 of article 3 of the Constitution of the state which is as follows: "The credit of the state shall not in any manner be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual association or corporation; nor shall the general assembly have the power in any mode to involve the state in the construction of works of internal improvement, nor in granting any aid thereto, which shall involve the faith or credit of the state; nor make any appropriation therefor, except in aid of the construction of works of internal improvements in the counties of St. Mary's, Charles, and Calvert, which have had no direct advantage from such works as have been heretofore aided by the state; and provided that such aid, advances. or appropriations shall not exceed in the aggregate the sum of $500,000." The first provision of this character that was adopted in this state was in § 22 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1851. It was similar to that in the present Constitution, excepting, instead of using the expression "nor in granting any aid thereto, which shall involve the faith or credit of the state," it said, "or in any enterprise which shall involve the faith or credit of the state," and no exception was made in favor of the three counties named. The Constitution of 1864 followed the language of that of 1851. Inasmuch, then, as the provision in controversy was first introduced in the Constitution of 1851, and was continued in that of 1864, and, with such changes as we have noted, in that of 1867, it will be proper to consider the circumstances under which it was first adopted, the object of its adoption, and the construction that has been placed on it by the legislature, the framers of tne several Constitutions, and by the people. Questions of this character cannot be determined by simply ascertaining the ety mology of the terms used. Public roads may be, and unquestionably generally are, "internal improvements;" out when the general assembly has been prohibited for more than half a century from in any mode involving the state in "the construction of works of internal improvement, or grant ing any aid thereto, which will involve the faith or credit of the state, or making any appropriation therefor,"the question is not whether that term can include "public roads," but whether it was intended to and did do so, as used by the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it. As was said in Jackson v. State, 87 Md. 194, 39 Atl. 505: "The Constitution is not to be construed in a technical manner, but in ascertaining its meaning we are to consider the circumstances attending its adoption, and what appears to have been the understand ing of the people when they adopted it;" and we then only announced a rule of interpretation which had been frequently adopted. It is only by recalling what seems almost like ancient history to us of to-day-that there was a time when the state's credit was seriously affected-that we can appreciate the occasion for such a provision as the one under consideration. Yet we find the same legislature that passed this act recognizing the great public services rendered by a former governor of Maryland in preserving its credit, not long prior to the assembling of what was called "The Maryland Reform Convention to Revise the Constitution." From the debates of that convention and other history of the state, it is well known that it had expended millions of dollars in aiding "works of internal improvement," which in some instances proved to be worthless investments, and in others giving little or no promise of early returns. But they were canals, railroads, possibly turnpikes, and similar internal improvements; and, so far as the records disclose, or we are informed, not one dollar of the state's money had been lost or was in any jeopardy by reason of aid to such "public roads" as we are now concerned in. With the exception of about $20,000, in the aggregate, loaned to three counties by Acts 1774, chap. 21, we have not been cited to any instance where its credit had been involved for the benefit of "public roads," and, indeed, that was whilst Maryland was still a colony. It was said by the appellees, and does not seem to be denied by the appellant, that that act is "the only instance of direct aid from the treasury of the government, provincial or state, to public roads." But be that as it may, certain it is, as clearly shown by the debates of the convention, that the "works of internal improvement" which had been and were then giving people of this state such concern were the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, the Tidewater Canal, and similar companies in which the state's money had been so largely invested. Such enterprises were being aided not only for the purpose of developing the state, but the legis lature had doubtless been made to believe that they would be profitable investments. But the time came when the state could not meet the interest on its debt incurred by reason of these investments, and it was in danger of bankruptcy and repudiation. The legislature passed: "An Act to Sell the State's Interest in the Internal Improvement Companies, and to Pay the Debts of the State" (Acts 1842, 1843, chap. 301), but they could not be sold, for want of purchasers; and finally, after a great struggle, the obligations of the state were met by increased taxation, and its credit re-established. When, then, the constitutional convention of 1851 submitted to the people this from liability for damages for injuries sustained by reason of a road being out of repair. Baltimore County v. Wilson, 97 Md. 207, 54 Atl. 71, 56 Atl. 596. provision, it is certain that its members tent of relieving the county commissioners and the people had in mind the character of "internal improvements" which had been so disastrous to the state, and it would seem to be equally clear that they did not refer to the ordinary "public roads," which the public authorities alone con struct. Such being the case, it would seem strange if the people did mean by this provision in the Constitution to deprive the We are not called upon to attempt to legislature of the power to aid in the congive the history of highway legislation instruction of county roads. It may well be Maryland. An article of much interest is that such assistance by the state as is found in volume 3 of "Maryland Geological proposed by this act may be the means of Survey," and the briefs filed in this case can be studied, with profit. It must suffice to say that, with the exception of the National Road, built by the general government from Cumberland westward, and the turnpike and plank roads constructed by private corporations chartered by the state or by individuals, the public roads have been constructed almost, if not altogether, exclusively by the local authorities. We followed that rule of the common law, with others. But, while that is so, it is equally true that no power of taxation or other means of raising revenue for the construction and maintenance of roads is vested in the counties, excepting what the state gives them. "Cities and counties are but local divisions of the state, organized and chartered for the more efficient and economical administration of the government. As such they have no inherent power of taxation. The legislature itself may levy needful taxes to defray the general expenses of such cities or counties, or it may delegate this power to the local authorities. These expenses of a city or county-for example, expenses for the maintenance of the public highways and other like expenses —are public or governmental expenses; and the power of taxation, exercised by the local authorities, to defray such expenses, is a delegated power derived from the legislature." Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 467, 1 L. R. A. 757, 16 Atl. 287. Under our present system the county commissioners are the boards in charge of the local affairs of the counties; and, by § 1 of article 7 of the Constitution, "their compensation, powers, and duties shall be such as now or may be hereafter prescribed by law." Under the Code of Public General Laws (art. 25) they have charge of and control over county roads and bridges, have the power to open, alter, or close public roads in their respective counties, and are required to keep them in repair. But the legislature can so change their powers and duties as to the public roads as to place them under the control of another board, as was done in Baltimore county, where they were put in the hands of road commissioners; and the stat ute was upheld by this court, to the external improvements;" but is it to be sug enabling the counties to construct roads of a character that no one county could well undertake. A state commission such as that provided for may be able to introduce a system and methods that the local authorities of one county could not be expected to undertake. Yet, if the contention of the appellant is correct, there not only could not be a commission paid by the state to help the counties in this work, but even one such as this would be unlawful, for, although the act of 1896 which created the commission requires the members to serve without compensation, it provides that they shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred, and there are expenses connected with their duties, other than those personal to the members of the commission, which must be met. Indeed, can it be doubted that much of the work already done in connection with the Maryland Geological Survey is in conflict with this provision of the Constitution, if the construction contended for must be placed on it? On page 38 of volume 1 of the reports of that survey attention is called to "the special investigation of road materials." After referring to the fact that perhaps no subject is attracting more attention "of enlightened commonwealths" than the proper construction of roads, and "that, if the money now expended annually by the several states was properly applied, a system of permanently good roads could be gradually constructed in place of the temporary makeshifts now in vogue," the importance of showing to the road commissioners of each county the various rock formations within the state, the most available local materials, questions of transportation of them, etc., that page concludes: "There are few ways in which the Geological Survey can be of more direct service to the state than in giving advice regarding the proper materials for road construction, and it is the intention of the State Geologist to give the subject his careful attention as the work of the survey proceeds." One entire volume (3) of these reports is devoted to this subject, and in other ways the money of the state has been used in aid of these "in gested that the framers of our three Con- should "have such aid, advances, or approstitutions containing this provision ever priations" as had been given or made, which dreamt that they were so effectually seal- had directly benefited the other counties. ing the doors of our state treasury as to That such was the legislative construction prevent the expenditure of any of its money is shown by the significant fact that at the for such purposes? Every intelligent per- first session of the legislature it passed "An son in the state, who has given the work Act to Aid in Construction of Works of Inof this commission, and the officers and ternal Improvements in St. Mary's, Charles, others employed by them, due considera- and Calvert Counties" (Acts 1868, p. 880, tion, must know that the public money has chap. 454), in which this provision of the seldom been more advantageously spent for Constitution was referred to; and in the the development and advertisement of the preamble it was stated that "said counties state, and for the instruction of its people have heretofore received no direct benefit in matters that must be of the most practi- from works heretofore aided by the state." cal and permanent benefit. Yet it cannot The amount was then apportioned between be doubted that, if the appropriation made the three counties, and the state treasurer by the act of 1904 is in conflict with the was authorized to subscribe to the capital Constitution, the expenditure of all money stock "of any railroad company now charheretofore expended by the officers of the tered, or which may hereafter be chartered. Maryland Geological Survey for the benefit in said counties respectively;" thus conof the highways has likewise been so, for clusively showing that the members of the it would be an anomaly to say that the legislature who were elected a few months general assembly cannot aid in the actual after the Constitution was adopted conconstruction of the public roads, but can strued the provision as contended for by aid in finding, developing, and testing the the appellees. material for such roads, in instructing the county officials how to make roads, etc. Of course, we are aware that it would not justify the expenditure of the money under the act of 1904 to show that other money of the state had been used in connection with public roads, but we refer to this to show how far the contention of the appellant would require us to go, if adopted; and, as we have no doubt of the authority of the officers of the Maryland Geological Survey to give such assistance to the counties as we have referred to, it reflects upon the question now before us. One way of ascertaining the meaning of a word, term, or expression as used in a Constitution, sanctioned by this and other courts, is to see how it is used in other connections and provisions in the same in strument. The concluding part of this prohibition of the present Constitution throws considerable light on the subject: "Except in aid of the construction of works of internal improvement in the counties of St. Mary's, Charles, and Calvert, which have had no direct advantage from such works as have been heretofore aided by the state." What "works" had been heretofore aided by the state? We have seen that the state had not aided such works as "public roads," but it had aided railroads, canals, etc., such as we have said the framers of the Constitution had in mind. If it was intended to equalize those counties with the others, manifestly it was intended to do so by aiding them in "such works" as the state had aided the others. It did not intend simply to make a donation to those three counties of half a million dollars, but that they Another provision of the Constitution which reflects on the subject is § 54 of the same article (3). That provides that "no county of this state shall contract any debt, or obligation, in the construction of any railroad, canal, or other work of internal improvement, nor give or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any association or corporation, unless authorized by an act of the general assembly," which must be published for two months, and then be approved by a majority of all the members elected to each house of the next general assembly. If the construction urged by the appellant be correct, a county could not incur a debt or obligation to construct a road or build a bridge without first complying with these provi sions. It has happened in some portions of the state that a road as originally constructed has been so completely destroyed as to require building a new one for some distance over other lands; and, although bridges are included in the general term "internal improvements," it is not unusual, in some portions of the state, for them to be carried off by floods. If a county meets with such disaster by reason of high waters, such as some of them did in 1877, 1889, and other recent years, although a duty to replace rests upon it, nothing could be done for two or more years; depending upon when the disaster overtook it. Such a construction would be contrary to the practice of most, if not all, of the counties; and it would in some counties ruin many of the inhabitants if they are to be thus cut off from markets and other places they must reach for such length of time. Counties have frequently contracted large obligations The learned counsel for the appellees have quoted the titles of many acts of the general assembly passed prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1851 which strongly indicate the meaning of the term as used by the legislature during the period this state was becoming interested in "internal improvements." They are such as "An Act for the Promotion of Internal improvements," "A Supplement to the Act Entitled 'An Act for the Promotion of Internal Improvements,'" "An Act to Provide Ways and Means to Meet the Subscriptions on the Part of the State to Works of Internal Improvements," and many others. It will be seen by an examination that in most of them provision was made for subscription by the state to the stock or bonds of railroads or canals, or both, the issue of certificates of stock of the state, and other means to aid these "internal improvements." An examination of these and similar acts cannot fail to strengthen the conviction that the makers of our Constitutions, and the people who by their action made them effective, had in mind such internal improvements as those acts have reference to, and not such as public roads. in the original construction of roads and in as "stockholder" or "creditor,"—such as bridges without attempting to comply with had driven it to the very verge of bankthe provisions of this section. The legis- ruptcy and repudiation, and not such as lature has, over and over again, passed every state government must have, either laws requiring county commissioners to in its own name, or in the names of its build bridges, and directing the issue of "political agencies, created for the better bonds. Sometimes it has authorized the government of the affairs of the state," issue of bonds for the purpose of building which counties are said to be in Queen new roads, and, so far as we are aware, it Anne's County v. Talbot County, 99 Md. 13, has never been the practice in such cases 57 Atl. 1. to comply with the provisions of § 54 of article 3 of the Constitution, as it was not thought to be necessary, either by the members of the legislature, the governors and attorney generals passing on such acts, the county officials, or by the people at large. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that the framers of the Constitution, or the people who voted on it, ever intended to give such a construction to the term "works of internal improvement," and, if it was not so intended as to the counties, why was it as to the state? If "works of internal improvement" in § 34 include "public roads" of the character in question, why does not that term have a similar meaning in 54 of the same article? Yet it has never been so understood, and it would be contrary to all precedents to so construe it. Still other expressions are to be found in the Constitution of the state showing that the meaning of this term is not such as the appellant urges. In this same section the legislature is forbidden to "use or appropriate the proceeds of the internal improvement companies;" in § 42, art. 3, Const. 1851, it was made the duty of the legislature, as soon as the public debt was paid, "to cause to be transferred to the several counties and the city of Baltimore stock in the internal improvement companies;" in § 3, art. 12, Const. 1867, the board of public works was authorized to exchange the state's interest in the Balti more & Ohio Railroad Company, and "to sell the state's interest in the other works of internal improvement, whether as a stockholder or a creditor;" and now by that section, as amended in 1891, "to sell the state's interest in all works of internal improvement, whether as a stockholder or creditor." In 1867 the state owned, exclusive of the counties, the national road within its boundaries, and it was undoubt edly a "public highway;" but can it be supposed for a moment that it was a "work of internal improvement," within the meaning intended to be given that term in the Constitution, either in § 3 of article 12, or in § 34 of article 3? And do not these several provisions of the Constitution show conclusively that the "works of internal improvement" intended were such as the state had been connected with or interested It is difficult to do full justice to this subject in an opinion of anything like reasonable length, and we do not desire to unnecessarily prolong this, important as we realize the subject to be. We fully appreciate the importance, and, under some conditions, the necessity, of curbing the tendency to make too free use of the public funds or the credit of the state. This provision in the Constitution is a wise one, and perhaps has at times saved the state from becoming interested, not to say involved, in what might well be deemed questionable enterprises for a state to embark in. Nor have we any doubt that a public highway is an "internal improvement," as, indeed, in a sense, the term may include the statehouse, the court of appeals building, the penitentiary, house of correction, reformatory institutions, hospitals, and the like, including the improvements of the grounds appurtenant thereto, and the roads and ways leading to them; but we are convinced t..t the term "works of internal improvement," as used in this section of the Constitution, was not intended to, and does |