Theodore R. McKeldin, Governor      345

funds to the counties and to Baltimore City, and although a
rough 30%-20% ratio was maintained, the City as to certain
revenues received only 20%. The many hybrid and com-
plicated distribution formulae were eliminated in 1947 and
distribution of highway user taxes and motor vehicles put
on the definite basis of 30% to Baltimore City and 20% to
the counties as recommended by the report. The Commis-
sion's recommendation was against charging of the state
police as an expense of maintaining the Department, by far
the greatest expense of which is in patrolling roads for the
benefit of motor vehicles. As suggested by the Commis-
sion's report, slight adjustment to correct possible inequity
to Baltimore City was made by the legislation already re-
ferred to. In addition, the Commission pointed out that
"studies which have been made strongly indicate that the
residents of the City use the State roads to a greater extent
than the residents of the counties use the city streets. All
the residents of the City of Baltimore who own or operate
passenger cars obtain a direct benefit from the State Police
in their patrolling of the State highways."

Despite the recommendations in the Sherbow Report as to
the State Police, the same legislature which enacted most
of its provisions, was able to effect the divorce of this part
of an integrated report, and transfer the cost of the State
Police to general funds, through the huge increase in general
fund revenues available because of the 2% sales tax, start-
ing then at 9c, and increases in income and other taxes. It
was thus only by the imposition of new taxes and the
increase of old taxes that it was possible for the first time to
place the State Police expenses as a general burden on all
the taxpayers of the state as distinguished from resident
and non resident motorists. In 1950, the sales tax revenues
were reduced some eight million dollars, primarily by ex-
empting sales under 50c and removing the tax from all foods.
In the 1951 session of the Legislature we were able to avoid
any increase in taxes, despite huge increases in vital gen-
eral fund expenditures, in part attributable to automatic
mandatory provisions of such laws, for example, as those
relating to schools, and school teachers, and in part to the
rising spiral of inflation, requiring as another example cost
of living increases for state employees. Against this back-
ground of tax reduction despite mounting costs, the Legis-
lature of 1951 approved the restoration of the expense of
the State Police where it rightfully belonged, where it had
always been—motor vehicle revenues. At this 1952 session,
despite a similar picture of increased burden on general
fund revenues both for operation of the state government
and local subdivision benefits, we have successfully accom-