1496                                      Vetoes

In view of these strong misgivings, we are unable to approve House
Bill No. 265 as to form and legal sufficiency.

Very truly yours,

(s) C. Ferdinand Sybert,
CFS:MH                                                             Attorney General.

House Bill No. 289—Talbot County; Testamentary Law

AN ACT to add new Section 47A to Article 93 of the Annotated Code
of Maryland (1957 Edition), title "Testamentary Law", sub-title
"Administration by an Executor", to follow immediately after
Section 47 thereof, relating to and prohibiting certain actions of
banks and trust companies with respect to administration of
testamentary estates in Talbot County.

April 30, 1959.

Honorable Perry O. Wilkinson
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

After serious consideration, I have concluded that I should veto
House Bill No. 289 and House Bill 690, which were enacted at the
recent session of the General Assembly. In accordance with Article
II, Section 17 of the Constitution of Maryland, I herewith return
these two bills to the House of Delegates, in which they originated,
and will set forth my objections to them herein.

These similar (but not identical) bills relate to and would prohibit
certain acts of banks and trust companies with respect to administra-
tion of testamentary estates in Talbot, Harford, Baltimore, Worcester
and Kent Counties. I am advised that were these bills to become law,
Maryland would be the first State in the nation with such legislation
on its statute books. In view of the long and honorable history of
the banks and trust companies of this State in the administration of
estates as fiduciaries, it seems to me that compelling reasons for legis-
lation of this sort ought to exist before these bills are allowed to
become law. With due deference to the General Assembly, it is my
belief that such compelling reasons do not exist. To the contrary,
I believe that there are many cogent reasons why these bills should
not become law.

Essentially, these bills have to do with the relationship between
lawyers and corporate fiduciaries. Historically, this relationship in
the State of Maryland has been harmonious. In Baltimore City, where
a number of our large banks and trust companies have their principal
offices, there has for many years been in existence an Agreement
between these corporate fiduciaries and the Bar Association of that
City with respect to the activities of the corporate fiduciaries. I am
constrained to say that in view of this history no change by way of
legislation is needed where both the Bar and the corporate fiduciaries
of this State are fully able to protect the public interest involved,
as they have in the past, by way of voluntary written or unwritten
agreements or understandings.