1756                                     VETOES

I am certain that each year many able State employees are com-
pelled to retire although they would prefer to continue working. To
make one exception is not only inequitable—it invites others until the
exceptions inexorably cripple the whole principle of compulsory retire-
ment.

For these reasons, I am compelled to veto the bill.

Sincerely yours,

(s) Spiro T. Agnew,

Governor.

House Bill No. 22.—Retirement Systems

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 11 (7)
of Article 73B of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition),
title "Pensions," subtitle "In General," and to repeal and re-enact,
with amendments, Section 113 (4A) of Article 77 of said Code (1965
Replacement Volume and 1966 Supplement), title "Public Edu-
cation," subtitle "Chapter 8. Teachers' Certificates, Salaries and
Pensions," subheading "Teachers' Retirement System," AND TO
REPEAL AND RE-ENACT, WITH AMENDMENTS, SECTION 53
(6) OF ARTICLE 88B OF THE SAID CODE (1966 SUPPLE-
MENT), TITLE "STATE POLICE," SUBTITLE "STATE POLICE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM"; amending the laws relating to the
Employees' and, Teachers' AND STATE POLICE Retirement
Systems by removing therefrom the age requirement for an accidental
disability benefit.

May 4, 1967.
Honorable Marvin Mandel
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Section 17 of Article II of the Maryland
Constitution, I have vetoed today House Bill 22 and am returning it
to you.

The State Retirement Systems now provide accidental disability
retirement benefits for an employee disabled during job-related
activities if he is under 60 years of age. If the employee is 60 years
old or older, he is not entitled to the benefits, but may retire under
standard retirement provisions. This bill would remove the age
limitation on accidental disability retirement.

Almost certainly, the original reasoning behind the age limitation
in the present law involved the view that elderly persons are generally
more accident-prone and subject to total disability. I do not subscribe
to that view and furthermore I am in complete agreement with the
principle of the bill that accidental disability retirement should not be
conditioned on an arbitrary age limitation.

My concern is broader than the subject of this bill. I have
serious reservations about the extent of the present provisions for