1948 VETOES.

Both of these measures were based on reports and recom-
mendations of a Commission on the Conservation of Natural
Resources appointed pursuant to a resolution of the General
Assembly, and a Committee of the Seafood Industry. They
contain some of the recommendations of each, but not all of
the recommendations of either. When these measures were
presented to the General Assembly, I urged the favorable con-
sideration of both bills. While it was the opinion of many who
have a deep interest in the rehabilitation of the oyster industry
in Maryland, and to some degree I shared this opinion, that
the proposal for reorganization of the Commission of Tide-
water Fisheries and the expanded oyster-propagation program
was not the ideal solution of the problem, I do believe it
embodied an essential and constructive step toward restoring
the oyster production and industry in Maryland. I still believe
that to be so.

We are, however, confronted with a situation which would
have the effect of rendering these measures a nullity, at least
for a period of sixteen months. I am confident that organized
groups which have expressed opposition to these measures will,
as announced, obtain referenda on them. While as a matter of
principle I regard the referendum as a necessary and desirable
safeguard, I feel that no constructive purpose would be served
by presenting Senate Bills No. 429 and No. 430 for referendum,
for these reasons:

The operation of the legislation therein contained would be
suspended pending submission to the voters to within sixty
days of the meeting of the 1951 General Assembly.

The pending referendum probably would eliminate any ap-
proach in the 1950 General Assembly to the problem of expand-
ing the program for oyster propagation.

If approved by the voters in the fall of 1950, the reorganiza-
tion of the Commission and the administrative and revenue
programs embodied in Senate Bill No. 429 would become
operative in the midst of the oyster season, at which time it
would be impossible to undertake the implementation of the
legislation in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

And, finally, both those who favor and oppose the provisions
of this legislation have advised me that it is their judgment
that a referendum on the legislation, which does not present
concisely defined issues, in all probability would engender a
bitter campaign that would further split opposing forces to
the detriment of future efforts to devise a workable and con-
structive rehabilitation program.

Senate Bill No. 430, reorganizing the Board of Natural He-
sources, embodies legislation designed in the light of and as a
part of the proposals in Senate Bill No. 429, to the extent that
it is predicated, in part, on the projected reorganization of the