1482                                      Vetoes

The Attorney General's office by letter dated May 1, 1959 advises
me that in the Attorney General's opinion, this bill will not meet the
requirements of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the
United States, as recently applied in the case of Toomer vs. Witsell
(334 U.S. 385).

The above mentioned Section reads, in part, as follows:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of Citizens in the several States."

As a result of the statement of the Attorney General referred to
above, I feel that I must veto this particular bill on the ground that
it violates the Federal Constitution.

Sincerely yours,

(s) J. MILLARD TAWES,

JMT/S/db                                                                       Governer.

Senate Bill No. 275—State Roads Commission

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 8 (a) of
Article 89B of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition),
title "State Roads", subtitle "In General", relating to the acquisi-
tion of property by the State Roads Commission to protect high-
ways, to provide in addition to the present provisions of said Sec-
tion 8(a),—that no motel, restaurant, gasoline or automobile serv-
ice station or other commercial enterprises or activities, other than
emergency services for disabled vehicles, shall be allowed, per-
mitted, authorized or conducted on property acquired by the
Commission. ON THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON EXPRESS-
WAY.

May 5, 1959.

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

Dear Mr. President:

I have this day vetoed Senate Bill 275 which although specifically
designed to prohibit the State Roads Commission or any other State
agency from engaging in the motel, restaurant or service station
business on the Baltimore-Washington Expressway, yet is consider-
ably broader in scope. I initially was in favor of this proposed legis-
lation, with the understanding that it was to be restricted in scope
to the Baltimore-Washington Expressway. However, the Bill as it
now stands after passage is all inclusive and can be construed to
encompass the prohibition of any type of commercial activity on any
land, right-of-way, property, road, parking or service area acquired,
held or maintained by the Commission.

It is this broadening of the language beyond the design and pur-
pose of the Bill which gives one cause for serious consideration and
since it definitely does go beyond the Baltimore-Washington Express-