346               Vetoes

plished a 15% reduction in the State income tax, without
in any manner reducing the portion payable to the local sub-
divisions.

The present bill must thus be considered in the light of the
financial position of the state and the tax reductions since
November 1950. The same reasons which historically and
logically impelled the passage of legislation in 1951 to re-
store State Police expenses to their accustomed and right-
ful place as a charge on highway use revenues, exist with
even more compelling force today. To say that the counties
and Baltimore City lose revenue by the transfer is to avoid
the facts. The two million dollar or more cost of the state
police, if charged to general fund revenues, will not come
from a magic cornucopia as some might almost wishfully
believe, but instead will come, as do all other revenues, from
the pockets of the taxpayers of this State. Retention of
the state police as a charge on motor vehicle revenues as-
sures against the necessity of imposing taxes on the resi-
dents of Baltimore City and the counties for the purpose of
raising an additional two million dollars in general funds.
By avoiding additional taxation to raise two million dollars,
the local subdivisions are theoretically deprived of about
one million dollars, since it must be borne in mind that the
local subdivisions receive only one half of motor vehicle
revenues and the balance is for the use of the State Roads
Commission. Thus, to eliminate a contribution of about one
million dollars towards the expense of the State Police from
motor vehicle revenues, otherwise payable to local subdivi-
sions, this Bill, while returning the one million dollars, would
actually take two million dollars from the taxpayers of these
same local subdivisions, or two dollars for every one they
receive in return. This is poor business for the local sub-
divisions. It is also unsound for the state when viewed in
a proper historical and logical background.

Finally, it should be noted that the present healthy status
of local road programs as a result of the increased revenues
from motor vehicle and highway use taxes will not be
impaired. Since the return of State Police expenses to
their rightful place as a charge on motor vehicle revenues,
the distribution to every local subdivision has continued to
increase, not decrease. A further increase in such revenues
will occur in the ensuing fiscal year despite my veto of this
Bill. Baltimore City, for example, is currently receiving
more than eleven million dollars as its share of highway
and motor vehicle revenues. In 1945, it received only
$3,500,000. This year, the City from its own tax levies is
spending only about one million dollars for city streets and
highway construction. In other words, the State is now