2134 VETOES

and perhaps an even larger percentage of those having occasion
to visit State departments is located in and around Baltimore
City.

As a practical matter, a great part of the State's establish-
ment must be housed in Baltimore City, and if moved to
Annapolis, these facilities would, to a considerable extent, have
to be duplicated in Baltimore.

As a resident of Annapolis, having daily contact with my
Annapolis neighbors, it is not pleasant for me to have to veto
a measure that is favored so generally by them. I share their
pride in their city, and would like to help in its growth and
development, but I cannot assent to the expenditure of $5, 000, -
000 for a building in Annapolis at this time.

My decision to veto the bill, of course, is influenced by the
fact that defense preparations and scarcity of manpower and
materials rules out any immediate construction.

The effect of this veto, therefore, is to postpone legislation at
a time when it cannot in any event become immediately effec-
tive. It will, however, give us an opportunity to review the
matter and make a wiser decision.

Respectfully,

THEODORE R. MCKELDIN,

Governor

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE

May 7, 1951

Hon. George W. Della
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. President:

Senate Bill No. 189 amends Sections 564 and 565 of Article
27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1947 Supplement), and
purports by its title to authorize the operation of bathing
beaches and the playing of games in Cecil County on Sunday.
However, the effect of the amendment of the law is to authorize
the operation of bathing beaches not only in Cecil County, but
also in Kent, Caroline and Montgomery Counties, although no
reference to these last mentioned counties is made in the title
of the Bill. In view of the aforegoing the title of the Bill is
probably defective and the Bill invalid.

I am therefore, returning the Bill herewith without my ap-
proval.

Respectfully,

THEODORE R. MCKELDIN,

Governor