1958] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES 17
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR, APRIL 4,1958

House Bill No. 151—By the Carroll County Delegation:

A Bill entitled "An Act to add new Section 8A to Article 23A of the
Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition), title 'Corporations—Munici-
pal', to follow immediately after Section 8 thereof, and to be under the
new sub-title 'Facilities outside corporate limits', relating to the establish-
ment or location by a municipal corporation or Baltimore City of penal
institutions or other places outside the corporate limits thereof and
relating generally to municipal corporations in this State".

The Speaker put the question: Shall the bill pass notwithstanding the
objections of the Executive?

AFFIRMATIVE—NONE
NEGATIVE

Messrs.—

Speaker, Combs, Raley, Harris (R. B.), Joiner, Kirkland, Melvin, Ridout, Tawney,
Wade, Whitmore, Dowell, Hance, Jenkins, Parran, Boone, Brewster, Culver, Jackson,
Maguire, Staten, Harrison, Latham, Lowe, Quinn, Riggin, Simpkins, Adams, Bennett,
Brinsfield, Corkran, Burkley, Mackie, McCool, Loveless, Machen, Nichols, Sasscer,
Sickles, Wilkinson, Eaton, Risley, Hickman, Polk, Stevens, Derr, Harris (S. F.), Payne,
Smelser, Virts, Utterback, Hatem, Hess, Moore. Tydings, Blades, Hughes (H.), Dabrow-
ski, Milanicz, Mrozinski, Nowakowski, Silk, Walters, Antonelli, Bartos, Behounek, Hed-
rick, Mach, Urban, Acker, Brooks, Buffington, Kenney, McNeal, Abramson, Cole, Fried-
man, Hatchett, Pollack, Robinson, Bacharach,Cardin, Fitzgerald, Mandel, Silver, Baynes,
Corrigan, Hodges, Meyers (W. W.), Myers (W. J.), Berkson, Bloom, Brewer, Huyett,
Porter, Browning, Gude, Lee, Schweinhaut, Wheeler, Woodward, Cook, Driscoll, Hughes
(G. R.), Williams, Reed, Barnes, Hahn, Six, Smith, Brown, Murray, Hanna, Larmore,
White, Ashby, Edwards, Glotfelty. Total-—118

The Speaker announced the veto was sustained.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

ANNAPOLIS, MDV April 3,1958.

Honorable John C. Luber
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

House Bill 176 excludes employees of the Department of Maryland
State Police from Social Security coverage. The intent of the Bill was to
exclude uniformed personnel, and compensate for the exclusion by in-
creasing certain benefits under the State Police Retirement System.
Unfortunately, the word "employee" is broad enough to include civilian
employees of the Department. These civilians are members of the regular
State Employees Retirement System, and their exclusion from social
security benefits would be an uncompensated loss, discriminatory in nature.

The Attorney General and the Board of Trustees of the State Police
Retirement System have recommended veto of this Bill, which is requested
by the civilian employees.