1722 VETOES.

violation to fish in designated rivers, creeks, etc., with a net
of any kind, except fyke and gill nets.

In the interest of conservation, it is considered advisable to
prevent netting in the spawning season. Officials of the Con-
servation Commission suggest that for the protection of fish
during the particular season involved, the bill should be vetoed.

FORESTRY.

Chapter 737 (House Bill 360). This measure would require
the State Forester to develop a recreational area at a specified
location in Prince George's County. It vests no discretion
in this official, but makes it mandatory that the area be pro-
vided.

The State Forester thinks it would be a waste of money
to have the recreational area located as provided in the bill.
It would seem to be contrary to public policy to have such a
State official forced to locate such areas in places where his
expert knowledge and experience force him to the conclusion
that it would be improper and unwise.

Under the circumstances, I am required to veto the bill.

FREDERICK CITY.

Chapter 339 (Senate Bill 407). This bill provides for a
City Manager form of government in Frederick City. The
Attorney General rules that this bill is "clearly unconstitu-
tional" because it contains no express charter powers and is
an improper delegation of legislative power.

GARRETT COUNTY.

Chapter 271 (Senate Bill 78). The Attorney General ad-
vises that while this bill purports to be a local measure re-
lating to Garrett County, it changes the date on which interest
is due on State as well as County taxes. Inasmuch as there
would result a situation where taxpayers in Garrett County
would be afforded a period of grace not given to taxpayers in
other counties, the Attorney General advises that the bill is
contrary to State law. The State Law Department also ad-
vises that it is inconsistent with Chapter 387, which allows
counties to fix discounts by resolution. It was suggested that
the bill be vetoed.

Chapter 590 (House Bill 782). This bill relates to classes of
delinquent taxes in Garrett County and is to be considered in
connection with the preceding measure (Senate Bill 78) and
according to the opinion given by the Attorney General also
should be vetoed for the reasons applying to the foregoing
measure.