2052 VETOES.

Chapter 593 (Senate Bill 499). This Bill is in conflict with
Chapter 888 (Senate Bill 71), according to the opinion ren-
dered by the State Law Department.

The legal opinion points out that Chapter 888, which is the
State-wide Bill, includes provision for the return of the control
of County roads in Garrett County to the County Commis-
sioners; also includes a provision limiting the purchases of
road machinery in Garrett County to not more than $10, 000
in any year. On the other hand, Senate Bill 499, limits the
expenditures for road machinery to not more than $10, 000
for both the years 1941 and 1942.

Obviously, both regulations could not be enforced and inas-
much as the State-wide measure contains other important and
necessary provisions, it is incumbent upon me to veto Senate
Bill 499.

Chapter 922 (House Bill 675). The subject matter of this
Bill is included in a Bill already signed, reducing taxes levied
upon admissions paid in places of amusement, from 1% to
V2 of 1%.

This Bill is therefore unnecessary and will be vetoed.

FISH.

Chapter 460 (House Bill 739). This measure was introduced
by the Calvert County Delegation at the request of interested
citizens residing near Hunting Creek. The Bill contains the
provision against the setting of pound and trap nets. After
the enactment of the measure, a large number of the people
who had requested the Bill to be introduced, joined in a peti-
tion asking that it be vetoed. They stressed the fact that its
provisions would work a hardship on local fishermen, which
would far out-weigh any advantages from the proposed law.
A written petition, signed by this large number, was submitted
and one of the delegates who introduced the measure reversed
his attitude and joined in the request for this veto, which
action I am now taking.

GARRETT COUNTY.

Chapter 754 (House Bill 704). If this Bill were signed,
there would be written into the statutory law of the State a
prohibition against the appointment by the County Commis-
sioners of Garrett County, under certain circumstances, of an
attorney to advise them in legal matters, unless the attorney
is a resident and voter of Garrett County and has his principal
office in Oakland.

No matter how important the litigation might be, unless the
matter fell in one of the several exceptions, the County might