1484                                      Vetoes

"Oysters and Clams", and to add new Sub-sections (h) to (p) to
said Section 712, to follow immediately after Sub-section (g)
thereof, providing for a license for taking or gathering clams,
relating to the method of taking hardshell clams and to the penal-
ties for an illegal taking, and relating generally to the taking and
gathering of hardshell clams in this State.

May 5, 1959.

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

Dear Mr. President:

I am returning herewith Senate Bill No. 375, vetoed by me this
morning. The Maryland Constitution, Article II, Section 17, requires
me to return all vetoed legislation to the House of its origin, which
in this case is your honorable body.

The purpose of Senate Bill No. 375 is to repeal and re-enact, with
amendments, Subsections (a), (f) and (g) of Section 712, Article
66C of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition, entitled
"Natural Resources", sub-titled "Oysters and Clams", and to add
new Subsections (h) to (p) to Section 712, to follow immediately
after Subsection (g).

In Section 712, Subsection (o) of this bill, the amendment provides
that any person who violates the provisions of the Section shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined
not less than $25 nor more than $200, or imprisoned in the House of
Correction for not more than six months, or both. There is a proviso
that in Worcester County any non-resident of the State of Maryland
who is convicted shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than
$1,000, or imprisoned in the House of Correction for not less than
three months nor more than six months, or both, and that any boat
involved in the violation may be seized and held until the fine is paid.

Under this bill, the penalty for violation by a non-resident of the
State is much greater than that imposed upon a resident of the State
who is in violation of the law.

The Attorney General has informed me by letter dated May 1,
1959 that in his opinion this bill is inconsistent with Article IV,
Section 2 of the Federal Constitution, and that he cannot approve
the same as to legal form and sufficiency.

He stated in his letter that Article IV, Section 2 of the Federal
Constitution provides in part that:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and

immunities of Citizens in the Several States."

This Section of the Constitution was recently applied by the United
States Supreme Court in considering a violation of the fisheries laws
of South Carolina where non-residents of the State were required to
pay larger license fees than residents of the State. The case in ques-
tion was Toomer vs. Witsell (334 U. S. 385). The Supreme Court
held that the South Carolina Act violated the protection provided by
the privilege and immunities clause of the Constitution and was to
that extent unconstitutional.

As a result of the opinion expressed by the Attorney General and
the recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court as referred