J. MILLARD TAWES, GOVERNOR                             1497

One could view House Bills Nos. 289 and 690 narrowly as "local
bills". But such a view would be shortsighted and unrealistic. A true
"local bill" is legislation called for by peculiar local conditions. House
Bills Nos. 289 and 690 would affect five of our counties, a substantial
portion of the State. It does not appear that there are peculiar local
conditions, different from those elsewhere in the State, which call
for this legislation in these particular counties. A single trust com-
pany may administer one estate in Worcester County and another
in, say, Dorchester County. Were these bills to become law, the
restrictions contained in them would be applicable in Worcester
County but not in Dorchester County. Indeed, it might be necessary
for the same estate to be administered both in a county which would
be covered by the Bills and in a county which would not. This con-
fusion would seem to me to be highly undesirable.

The discrimination inherent in these bills also weighs with me.
These bills would prohibit Maryland banks and trust companies from
using what are commonly called "house counsel" to act for them in
legal matters where that is proper. It is common knowledge that
many corporations in Maryland and throughout the country use
"house counsel". To require that banks and trust companies employ
outside lawyers in every instance in acting within their statutory
powers seems to me to unjustifiably discriminate against banks and
trust companies and to single them out for restrictions not imposed
upon corporations generally. It is also to be noted that these bills
do not impose similar restrictions upon non-corporate fiduciaries
acting as executors and administrators.

House Bills Nos. 289 and 690 were introduced in the General As-
sembly without the sanction of the Legislative Council, to which they
had never been presented. Therefore, so far as I know, no study,
official or otherwise, has been made of the need, desirability or legality
of these bills. This, despite the fact that the bills concern themselves
with a matter the nature of which is of substantial public interest.
One result of the manner in which these bills came to be enacted is
that, for no apparent reason, the bills themselves differ somewhat
from one another. The restriction in House Bill No. 690, involving
Harford, Baltimore, Worcester, and Kent Counties is somewhat dif-
ferent from that in House Bill No. 289 affecting Talbot County.

Finally, it would appear that the incentive for these bills came
from a recent decision of a lower Connecticut court. The decision of
this lower Connecticut court, which is in conflict with decisions in
other States, is now on appeal and thus should not be regarded as
a basis for the enactment of House Bills Nos. 289 and 690.

The foregoing objections have, therefore, motivated me in return-
ing to you House Bill No. 289 and House Bill No. 690.

Sincerely yours,

(s) J. MILLARD TAWES,

JMT/LS/db                                                                     Governor.

House Bill No. 328—Commercial Net Fishing Licenses

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 300 of
Article 66C of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition),
title "Natural Resources", sub-title "Fish and Fisheries. Part 2.
Tidal Waters", sub-heading "License to Operate Nets and Seines",