1874 VETOES

the tidal waters of this State is desirable during the desig-
nated hours, it should apply equally to all of the waters,
rather than in a restricted area established with no dis-
cernible basis in fact, so far as I am informed.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that commercial
fishing of this type is not practiced on Sunday, so that the
only effect of the Bill would be to eliminate haul seining
in a limited area on Saturday of each week. The probable
effect of this limitation would be to intensify the amount
of haul seining undertaken on the days permitted under the
Bill.

So far as I know, the Bill is a completely new departure
in legislation of this kind. If it is desirable to restrict haul
seining, a non-discriminatory basis of prohibition with a
time limitation which will actually accomplish the purpose
should be explored.

In view of the aforegoing, I am vetoing the Bill in its
present form.

Respectfully,

(s) THEODORE R. MCKELDIN,
TRMcK/tk Governor

HOUSE BILL NO. 312

May 5, 1953

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

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am returning herewith House Bill No. 312 without my
approval. A major provision of this Bill is the prohibition
of the practice of chiropody in a commercial establishment,
except for those establishments which employed Chiropo-
dists prior to June 1, 1953. By the terms of the Bill, not only
are such places permitted to continue employment of Chi-
ropodists, but are also authorized to employ them in any new
branch businesses. These rights are denied all other com-
mercial establishments.

I am advised by the Attorney General that the prohibition
of the practice of chiropody in commercial establishments
is unconstitutional under the decision of the Court of Appeals
in Dvorine v. Castelberg, 170 Md. 661. Moreover, the highly
discriminatory provisions of this Bill rest on no possible