1278                                      VETOES

(a) would have to be tried in the county adjacent to the waters where
the violation occurred, whereas offense (b), being a common law
misdemeanor, would have to be tried, under the provisions of Section
675 of Article 27, in the county where the violator was arrested or
into which he was first brought. This split jurisdiction would un-
doubtedly result in delay, inconvenience and additional expense to the
State and the defendant.

"On the whole, this Act is so contradictory, ambiguous and ineptly
drawn as to leave serious doubt of the real intention of the General
Assembly. It is my opinion the Act is inoperative and of doubtful
constitutionality."

Respectfully,

(s) Theodore R. McKeldin,

Governor
TRMcK/A

Senate Bill No. 110—Dogs Engaged in fox Hunting

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 195 (c)
of Article 66C of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Edition),
title "Natural Resources", sub-title "Deer",

[See page image for strike-throug]

EXEMPTING DOGS USED
IN FOX HUNTING IN CERTAIN COUNTIES FROM THE
PROVISIONS ALLOWING THE KILLING OF DOGS PURSU-
ING DEER.

May 18, 1955

Honorable Louis L. Goldstein
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. President:

Senate Bill 110, as originally introduced, purported to exempt
Talbot County from the provisions of Section 195 (c) of Article 66C
of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Edition), making it un-
lawful to use dogs in hunting deer. The bill was amended to include
some eleven counties, including Talbot. In final form, it does not in
direct language, legalize the use of dogs to hunt deer in those counties,
but prohibits killing of dogs which are engaged in fox hunting and
have broken away therefrom.

In 1953, I vetoed (page 1867, Acts of 1953) a bill which would
have wholly exempted a number of counties from the provisions of
Section 195 (c). The widespread opposition to that change is in-
significant in comparison to the present opposition to this bill. I
have received letters from all parts of the state from owners of farms,
large and small, state game authorities, sportsmen, wild life and
hunting associations, as well as strongly worded petitions from
hundreds of people unanimously expressing disapproval of this bill.
Their arguments are obviously sincere and well intentioned, and