2162                                      Vetoes

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 575.

This bill, among other things, increases the financial penalties
which a court may impose for a willful violation of the Insurance
Code from the present maximum of one thousand dollars ($1,000)
to a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Also,
the bill gives to the Insurance Commissioner, in addition to his right
to revoke or suspend an insurer's certificate of authority, the right
to impose administratively maximum fine of fifty thousand dollars
($50,000) instead of the present maximum of twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000).

While not concluding that the bill is unconstitutional because of
the presumption of constitutionality of all bills, the Attorney Gen-
eral has informed me that the title of the Act contains two defects
and that the enactment clause contains another major defect. The
opinion of the Attorney General is attached hereto and should be
considered a part of this message. The defects in the bill reported
by the Attorney General are, in my opinion, sufficiently serious to
warrant a veto of the bill. For the reasons given in the Attorney
General's opinion, I have decided to veto House Bill 575.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.

Letter from State Law Department on House Bill 575

April 22, 1970.

The Honorable Marvin Mandel
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: House Bill No. 575
Dear Governor Mandel:

With reference to House Bill No. 575, we have reviewed the
same and note the following difficulties with the Act:

1.  The title of the Act states, in part, that it is to "provide the
penalties for violations of Article 48A". This is a somewhat ambig-
uous phrase because the existing provisions of the Insurance Code
already provide penalties for violations. The amendments to Sec-
tion 12 of the Insurance Code which this part of the title apparently
seeks to describe provides for an increase in the maximum statutory
penalty which can be imposed for a willful violation of the Insur-
ance Code.

2.  The title of the Act states that it simply repeals and re-enacts
Section 55A of the Insurance Code; whereas the Act repeals and re-
enacts that section with amendments (although the balance of the
title adequately describes the existence and effect of the resulting
amendments).