J. MILLARD TAWES, GOVERNOR                        1493

at the establishment of minimum retail prices of all alcoholic bev-
erages throughout the State of Maryland. It is one which will have
the necessary effect of the raising the price of certain beverages to
certain consumers within certain areas of the State. Because of this,
I have reached the conclusion that the bill would not forward its
announced purpose nearly so much as it would eliminate all price
competition with respect to certain particular brands in the areas in-
cluded within the bill.

I do not believe that I can close my eyes to the fact that certain
of the principal manufacturers of alcoholic beverages and certain
Maryland wholesalers of such beverages have recently been found
guilty by the Maryland Federal Court of violating the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act, because of a broad-based conspiracy to fix and maintain
the price of liquor within the State of Maryland by the misuse of
fair trade contracts and other means (United States V. Maryland
State Licensed Beverage Asso., et al., Criminal No. 23212). The de-
fendants in that criminal action were also enjoined by the District
Court in a companion civil case (Civil Action No. 9122) from further
conspiring or otherwise jointly acting to achieve price-fixing. House
Bill 265 followed swiftly on the heels of those decisions. It requires
retail price maintenance not as a broad-based policy of State-wide
application with respect to all alcoholic beverages, but only in certain
areas and with respect to certain alcoholic beverages. I believe that
this bill as presently drafted may well facilitate the evasion of the
spirit, if not the letter, of those decrees of the Federal Court.

Certain other aspects of the bill appear to me to be totally foreign
to our traditions here in Maryland. The bill prohibits citizens of other
counties in Maryland from importing alcoholic beverages from Mont-
gomery County. The reason for this prohibition is, of course, to pre-
vent citizens of neighboring counties from going into Montgomery
County and purchasing alcoholic beverages at the lower price in force
in that county. This clearly constitutes a trade barrier between the
counties of this State which seems to me to be a dangerous precedent
for future "Balkanizing" legislation aimed at trade protection.

In short, I do not believe that the present bill is really designed
to promote the very laudable purposes recited as the reason for its
passage. However much it may be favored by particular manu-
facturers, wholesalers, or even certain retail dealers, I do not believe
that it is fair to the consumer or to the great majority of retail liquor
dealers, especially those who operate near the exempted counties. The
temptation for consumers to by-pass private dealers whose prices
on many brands would be forced upward by this bill in favor of
county dispensaries where those brands can be obtained at a cheaper
price will be extremely great, especially since there is no prohibition
against their so doing except with respect to one of the exempted
counties. Finally, as to that county, I believe that any law which
prohibits a citizen of one county of Maryland from entering another
county to purchase goods for consumption in his home county is not
conducive to the good of the State as a whole and invites the estab-
lishment of other intrastate trade barriers.

For the reasons expressed herein, I am returning House Bill 265
to your honorable body.