2054 VETOES.

straightforwardly admitted that the proposal had been made
to them at the eleventh hour and that they decided to take
advantage of the opportunity for revenue-producing purposes
if subsequent investigation would indicate that their consti-
tuents favored it. The Delegates added that they would
request my veto in the event that general sentiment seemed
opposed to the Bill.

Since the adjournment of the Legislature, considerable
opposition has been expressed and citizens of the County have
protested vigorously against the enactment becoming law. So
definite has been this expression of disapproval that the
sponsors of the measure publicly announced their desire that
I veto it. The County Commissioners of Montgomery County
have also signified their desire that this Bill be disapproved.

I consider that I am acting in accordance with the wishes
of the great majority of the people in the County, and also in
fulfillment of the expressed wishes of the Delegates sponsoring
the Bill when I veto the measure, which action is not to be
construed as reflecting upon the motives of the Delegates in
question.

If the proposal is a meritorious one, it should be brought to
public attention in ample time, before legislative action, to
afford citizens the opportunity to voice their sentiments.
Inasmuch as circumstances combined to make careful consid-
eration impossible in the recent Legislature, I feel that the
measure should be vetoed because it represents hastily-enacted
legislation which the Constitution specifically guards against
by vesting in the Governor the power of veto.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Chapter 797 (House Bill 718). This measure undertakes to
add a new section to Article 52 of the Code of the Public
General Laws, despite the fact that it relates exclusively to
Committing Magistrates in Prince George's County. The
measure provides that certain of the Justices of the Peace
(other than Trial Magistrates) shall perform the duties of
their office at such sections of the County as the County Com-
missioners may designate.

The troublesome point is that the Bill provides that they
may function either within or without the election district for
which they were appointed. The State Law Department states
that it always has been the rule in this State that Justices
appointed for any particular district may not exercise their
powers in another district (see Volume 23 of Attorney Gen-
eral, page 296. Also Volume 22, page 366).

As the State Law Department points out, further objection
is noted in that the Bill states that the Justices may also, in
the discretion of the County Commissioners, be appointed as