1726 VETOES.

2. That State employees must be convinced that any pro-
posed change is made for the sole purpose of strengthening
the Merit System and not to weaken it, thus jeopardizing their
positions,

3. That any proposed change ought not to be in conflict with
other Civil Service law provisions such as the Salary Stand-
ards Board set-up but should harmonize with existing Merit
System regulations with the efficient administration of which
I am in hearty accord.

Under all the circumstances, I shall veto House Bill 240.

Chapter 506 (House Bill 494). This bill would permit an
appeal to Court from the action, of the Employment Commis-
sioner after hearings of classified employees in accordance
with the Merit System law. It is thought that this innovation
if provided for would seriously interfere with the functioning
of the Merit System and would unduly delay the execution of
orders from the Employment Commissioner. Until the need
for such a drastic step has been proven, I think it inadvisable
to make such a radical change in the present system and, ac-
cordingly, will follow the urgent suggestion of the Employ-
ment Commissioner and other Merit System proponents that
this bill be vetoed.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

Chapter 241 (House Bill 499). This bill provides for the
payment of compensation to banking institutions in Mont-
gomery County for services in the collection of taxes. While
the apparent purpose of the enactment is to have the measure
apply to County taxes, the language employed would give
wider coverage and would also apply to State taxes. Inas-
much as there is no provision for the payment by the State for
collection of its taxes, this measure will be vetoed.

MOTOR VEHICLES.

Chapter 740 (House Bill 439). In view of the circumstances
surrounding the passage of the bill, I am convinced that all of
its essential features were not thoroughly understood by the
majority of the members of the General Assembly.

Inasmuch as automobile owners of the State would be re-
quired to pay, in the aggregate, such a large amount under the
terms of the bill, I could not conscientiously give approval to
the measure when it appears to me that the provisions were not
fully discussed before the two branches of the Legislature.

It is to be recalled that such considerable opposition was
raised to that part of the Tax Revenue Bill requiring an addi-