1280                                       VETOES

Senate Bill No. 187—Baltimore County Taxicabs

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 21 of
Article 78 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Edition),
title "Public Service Commission", relating to the

[See page image for strike-through]

REGULATION AND CONTROL BY THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION OF TAXICABS IN BALTIMORE
COUNTY AND IN BALTIMORE CITY AND TO THE OPERA-
TION OF TAXICABS THEREIN.

May 9, 1955.

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

Dear Mr. President:

Senate Bill 187 provides for Public Service Commission control of
Baltimore County taxicabs and would permit a Baltimore County cab
which transports a fare into Baltimore City, to take on passengers
there for return to Baltimore County. On May 7, 1951, I vetoed House
Bill 138 of the 1951 Session, which would have had similar effect,
except that it did not place Baltimore County taxicabs under juris-
diction of the Public Service Commission. However, I am convinced
that the basic objections to the 1951 measure remain valid. It would
be impossible to supervise operation of Baltimore County taxicabs
in Baltimore City to make sure that they were merely transporting
passengers from Baltimore City after having carried fares into the
City from the County. The practical effect would be to multiply by
indirection the number of taxicab licenses to be used in the City.

I am advised that the general duties of the transportation division of
the Public Service Commission, which include inspection, supervision
and administration of the Baltimore City taxicab industry, require
the full time of the present personnel. Any addition to this burden
would necessitate additional personnel and expense. Present local
control of the Baltimore County cab industry has proved satisfactory
and workable. No valid reason exists for change of this control to
an agency further removed from the industry. Especially is this
true since the extension of control to the adjoining territory of Bal-
timore County would be ineffective withount policing authority, which
the Public Service Commission does not have.

Finally, it should be noted that the bill omits the usual "grandfather
clause" which would recognize the rights of those in business at the
time the law would become effective and thus, presents a serious
question as to constitutionality. At the very least, it would invite
a deluge of applications for County permits—many of which might be
sought to avoid the existing limitations in Baltimore City—and would
necessitate lengthy, complicated hearings in order to ascertain those
to whom permits should be issued. for all of which reasons, I have
vetoed Senate Bill 187.

Respectfully,

(s) THEODORE R. MCKELDIN,

Governor
TRMcKrmg