delivered the opinion of the Court.
This сase was instituted on May 18, 1949, but was heard and decided below at the same time and in the sаme manner as
Hammond v. Lancaster,
The сomplainants here sue as taxpayers in a class suit; but their chief claim is based upon the allegations that Frankfeld is Chairman of the Communist Party of Maryland and Meyers is the Labor Secretary of that party. They allege that the party is a legal politiсal party, directly affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States and that it has adopted the constitution of the latter, a copy of which is filed as an exhibit. They contend thаt Chapter 86 is a bill of attainder directed against them and the Communist Party of Maryland, that certain clauses in the Act constitute a malicious misrepresentation of the аims, purposes and nature of Communism and of the political organizations espousing the philosophy of Communism, and that these clauses represent a legislative finding оf guilt in contravention of the State and Federal Constitutions.
Insofar as the complаinants assert their claim as taxpayers, the case is governed by our decision in thе Lancaster case. The complainants do not admit that they advocate the overthrow of any government by force or •violence, but expressly disavow such an aim, on bеhalf of themselves and the organization of which they are members. They show no prеsent threat or danger of prosecution or conviction as “subversive persоns” under the criminal provisions of Chapter 86.
The appellees contend, howеver, that they have a special interest, as members of the Communist Party of Maryland, to attack the Act as a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder may be defined as a condemnation or punishment by legislative action without trial or judicial determination.
Cummings v. State of Missouri,
If the recitals in the Act constitute a misrepresentation of the aims or “philоsophy” of Communism, that fact alone would not invalidate the Act or even admit of judicial redress, although unprivileged statements of a libellous character may give risе to a civil action. If: would appear that the recitals merely express the legislative motive and its view of the public need for legislation of this character. Recitals may be referred to under some circumstances in aid of construction, but form no part of the Act itself.
Sutherland, Statutory Construction
(3rd ed.) §§ 4804, 4808;
Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes,
§ 375. It is unnecessary to decide whether the recitals of the preamble, or provisions of Section 9, could, under any circumstances, be used in aid of any prosecution, or to justify or support a conviction under the Act for “Sedition”. These and all other questions must be reserved for determination in a proper case. We conclude that the complainants do not present a
*492
justiciable.case and havé no standing here. In the language of Mr. Justice Cardozo,
(Carter v. Carter Coal Co.,
Decree reversed and bill dismissed, with costs.
Marbury, C. J., and Collins, J., concurred in the results.-
Marbury, C. J., filed a single concurring opinion, supra, p. 479, in this case and No. 107, supra, p. 462. COLLINS, J., agreed with the views expressed therein.