ALBERT C. RITCHIE, GOVERNOR.               1445

to prevent the shipment of such frozen meats from other States
into Maryland. When questions of health and sanitation are
not involved, then no State can discriminate against the food
products of other States and exclude them from its markets.
Neither the present bill nor any other bill could have that
effect. This has been decided by the courts many times.

Therefore, the only effect Senate Bill 183 could have would
be to prohibit local packers and local dealers from using the
new process, should they want to use it for the benefit of local
consumers who might desire it. If in the future frozen meats
of this kind should be shipped into Maryland (and as just
stated no law could prevent that), then it is entirely probable
that the Maryland packers and dealers would want to utilize
the same process in order to compete with the shipments from
other States. This bill, if approved, would purport to deny
them that right,

It is unfortunate that those who favor this bill are under
a misunderstanding as to what its effect would be. The situa-
tion, however, is as indicated above.

It may be added that the process, if and when perfected,
may be of great value to other lines of industry in this State,
such, for instance, as Maryland oysters, crabs and fish. It
may preserve Maryland seafood in a way which would enable
its shipment to distant points with complete safety.

DENTISTRY.

(Chapter 452, Senate Bill No. 102. )

This bill provides that, with certain exceptions, no person
shall practice dentistry except under his proper name, which
shall be the name used in his license, and that no person shall
use the name of any company, association or corporation or
any trade or business name in connection with the practice of
dentistry.

I have been asked to veto the bill by the owners or operators
of two dental parlors on the ground that, as it does not eon-
tain any saving clause in favor of existing dental parlors or
associations, it deprives them of their property and is uncon-
stitutional.

The State Board of Dental Examiners introduced a compre-
hensive bill on the subject of dentistry, some of the provisions
of which adequately regulated the practices of dental corpora-
tions and associations, but that bill (House 506) was defeated.