HERBERT R. O'CONOR, GOVERNOR. 2001

By the original terms of the Bill, the inoculation against
diphtheria of school pupils was made mandatory. However,
just before the adjournment of the Legislature, an entire new
Bill was substituted and passed which provides that novel
methods might be undertaken by health officers of the State
and its subdivisions against typhoid carriers.

The Director of the State Department of Health—Dr. R. H.
Riley—in opposing this Bill states that under the prevailing
regulations the carriers of typhoid can be controlled, as for the
most part these carriers are amenable to Health Department
instructions.

Dr. Huntington Williams, Commissioner of Health for Bal-
timore City, not only has written in opposition to this measure
but appeared personally at a public hearing which I held on
the measure and voiced his emphatic protest. He states that
"the best results in handling typhoid fever carriers is by per-
suasion and education and not by compulsory misdemeanor
penalty impositions. "

It seems apparent that if this Bill were enacted it would
appreciably affect the present methods of the health authori-
ties in the handling of typhoid carriers.

Representatives of the Christian Science Committee on Pub-
lications for the State of Maryland declare that the measure
is an infringement on religious principles. This criticism of
the enactment is supported by expressions of large numbers of
citizens in every section of the State. These protests have
come to me by telegraph, letters and personal expressions.

In view of the representations which have been made, I feel
compelled to veto the measure.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Chapter 970 (House Bill 335). This measure would exempt
certain employers of cutters of pulp wood from the Work-
men's Compensation Act.

Two formidable objections have been raised to this enact-
ment.

The State Industrial Accident Commission, through its able
Chairman, Charles E. Moylan, gives it as his opinion that
this change would be unwise and would be a backward step.
Under the present law, the salutary provisions of the Work-
men's Compensation Act cover industrial workers irrespective
of the number of such employees who are engaged by an
employer in extra hazardous work.

The second objection is raised by the Attorney-General who
describes the language of this enactment as ambiguous. In
fact, it is stated in the legal opinion that it would be difficult
to determine how the particular section would read if this
Chapter would become law.

Under the circumstances I feel compelled to veto the measure.